United States Begins Long Awaited Crackdown on American Jews as Massive Israeli Spy Network Suspected Of Smuggling Nuclear Weapon into Western Part of America
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers
SOURCE : http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index771.htm
Being kept hidden from the American public, and according to Russian Intelligence Analysts, is that the United States Intelligence Organization the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has begun a crackdown against Jewish peoples living in the United States, but suspected of being a part of what is being described by Russian Security Forces as “the largest spying operation ever discovered in America”, and as we can read as being confirmed by the Israeli Haaretz News Service in their article titled "Something is bothering the FBI" and which says;
"It is a mistake to think the FBI has concluded its investigations after indictments were served against Pentagon employee Lawrence Franklin for leaking classified security material to people close to Israel. Franklin, an intelligence investigator and an expert on Iran, has been linked to Naor Gilon, a diplomat at the Israeli embassy, and to two senior officials in the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Apparently the FBI investigations have widened, and are now focusing on another Pentagon official and his connections. It is clear that something is disturbing those in charge of the FBI investigation regarding Israel and those close to Israel in the United States. Many of those being interrogated are Jews.
One doesn't have to be an expert detective to understand that some of the material against Franklin was also based on wiretapping of the Israeli embassy in Washington. Why was it necessary to conduct a "sting operation" against the Jewish lobby that was designed to reveal not only how the information flows but that also included deliberate steps to trip up AIPAC? It is clear that the FBI is aiming to create conflict between Steve Rosen and the organization in which he has worked for some 23 years. Perhaps it hopes that Rosen, in his anger, will point to others, so that the FBI will be able to widen its investigations. The FBI has made an effort to talk with wealthy Jews as well, apparently in order to deter them from supporting Rosen financially."
The increasing hostilities between the United States and Israel is also not being reported to the American peoples, though to the Israeli peoples it is the cause of much alarm, and as we can see as evidenced by the Israeli National News Service in their article titled "Is the USA Really Israel's Ally?" and which says;
"With friends like them, we don't need enemies. Sorry, but facts prove the myth a lie. The United States of America is not a friend of Israel. The United States didn't aid Israel in its war for independence; arms had to be smuggled out of America by pro-Israelis. Individual Jews and non-Jewish supporters donated money to Israel. Any American "aid" was for American benefit; and the eventual military aid only succeeded in damaging Israel's own military and aircraft industry. The United States demands full control over any arms Israel develops with parts bought from the states. We would do much better without American "help".
Today, Israeli society is experiencing an internal struggle. Some of us want to be truly independent of foreign rule and others are afraid. Are we a "Western democracy" or a "Jewish State"? Do we need a foreign "patron"? And most importantly, do we owe our existence to another country? We are at a crossroads. If we don't rid ourselves of foreign control, then we will cease to exist. Israel won't be viable without Judea, Samaria and Gaza. G-d forbid the government succeeds in its plans to amputate our Land; we will find ourselves defenseless, locked in fragile ghettos. There is no foreign country we can depend on. We must look to G-d and to our own strength. And for our survival, we must send the American busybodies back to Washington. If they're such experts at making "peace", then they should invite Cuba's Castro to the White House for a festive banquet."
But to the United States greatest concern are the ever increasing concern is that their Homeland is about to become another battleground in this Secret War with Israel, especially with the reports that both the American FBI and CIA are frantically searching for a former Mossad Officer named David E. Lipman to uncover the whereabouts of a Nuclear Weapon smuggled into the United States. News reports from the Israeli Newspaper the Jerusalem Post clearly show the targeting of this Mossad Agent by the Military Leaders of the United States in their article titled "Missing Arizona rabbi faces child abuse charges" and which says;
"Rabbi David E. Lipman has disappeared without a trace from his home and Reform synagogue in Prescott, Arizona, missing since May 20 after two teenage girls from his congregation accused him of fondling them. Prescott police have no leads on the whereabouts of Lipman, who is reported to be proficient in several languages and who spent time in Israel during his studies at Hebrew Union College."
But not to abusing children is Mossad Agent Lipman’s real crime, but for a number of cross border meetings with the International Arms Dealer Arif Durrani is he wanted, and as we had previously reported on in our June 23ed report titled "Mossad Attack upon the United States ‘Imminent’ As Massive Power Struggle Erupts In Washington over Israeli Lasers Provided To Iraqi Insurgents and Israel Draws Closer To China" and wherein we had stated;
“As the United States also places further sanctions upon the Israeli Government for both their massive spying operations being uncovered at the highest levels of American Political, Economic and Media leaderships and the passing onto China of some of the most secret United States weapons technology, the Israeli Government has decided to abandon its support of American and switch its allegiance towards the Chinese, and as we can read as reported by the Jerusalem Post News Service in their article titled "China, Israel discuss expanding defense ties" and which says;
"Expansion of defense ties with Israel was on the agenda during talks with his Israeli counterparts this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said Tuesday. Li, who spoke at the start of a meeting with the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, did not go into detail about the current dispute between Israel and the US over the Israel upgrade of Chinese Harpy drones. He said that during his visit he had held talks on expanding ties in the fields of "trade, army, culture, education and tourism."
Of the greatest concern to the Americans however is what the Mossad had recently transported to the United States from Mexico under the direction of one of Israel’s most known and trusted arms dealers who has been arrested in Mexico, and as we can read as reported by the Mexidata News Service in their article titled "Intrigue behind arrest of Pakistani arms dealer in Mexico" and which says;
"Convicted Pakistani arms dealer Arif Durrani was captured in Rosarito Beach, Baja California, Mexico, by a special team of agents sent from Mexico City, on June 12. And while Mexican government officials initially gave out little information on why he was detained, once the decision was reached to deport Durrani (on immigration charges), according to the Associated Press a statement was made: “Durrani faces an arrest warrant in the U.S. for trafficking in anti-aircraft missiles.”
Durrani, who following his arrest was taken to Mexico City, was put on a June 15 flight that made a stop in Los Angeles, California. Upon landing in the U.S., Durrani was taken into custody by federal officials for illegally exporting military aircraft parts, according to a 1999 indictment unsealed the following day.
Yet there are other possible scenarios that could clarify the arrest: Durrani was still trafficking in illicit arms; he was organizing a Mexico-based terrorist plot against the U.S.; or he was about to go public with allegations regarding the Iran-Contra affair.
Durrani is definitely a shady character, an international arms dealer from Pakistan who once served prison time for selling arms to Iran in the Iran-Contra scandal. As well, his mere presence in Rosarito Beach, located just south of the U.S.-Mexico border from San Diego, is suspicious. During his residency in Rosarito Beach, Durrani could have been shipping contraband across the border, or even organizing a terrorist plot.
But if he was a national security threat, why did U.S. authorities allow him to openly live in Rosarito Beach for over one year? Following Durrani’s release from prison and deportation from the U.S., he ultimately moved to Rosarito Beach where he operated openly. And without doubt U.S. authorities knew where he was. In fact, Durrani well may have been in Mexico with the tacit agreement of the U.S. government.
Professor Alan Block at Pennsylvania State University states, “there was a deal made with the U.S. immigration authorities that permitted him to live in Baja California. I am absolutely certain that they knew he was there.” As well, Durrani was once seen in Rosarito Beach driving a Mercedes with U.S. government license plates, which he said belonged to a friend. Could the U.S. authorities have allowed a known arms trafficker to operate freely along the border for over one year? Another possibility is that U.S. officials did not consider him a threat because Durrani had worked for them. Durrani has long maintained that he worked for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and that he sold arms to Iran per instructions that came from Oliver North when the latter was with the National Security Council. Durrani’s legal defense is that he was North’s “fall guy” in the Iran-Contra affair."
The uncovering of this latest Mossad plot against the United States was due to the CIA’s granting immunity to one of the worlds most wanted terrorists named Amer Haykel, and who has long been suspected by American Intelligence Agencies of being linked to both the Israeli Mossad and numerous Muslim terrorists organizations, but who once again is now a free person, and as we can read as reported by the United States Forbes News Service in their article titled "Mexico releases UK man arrested on suspicion of Sept 11 connection" and which says;
"Mexican authorities yesterday released a UK man who was arrested after it was believed he was wanted by the US in connection with the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, immigration authorities said. Amer Haykel, who was arrested on Tuesday, in Baja California state in northwestern Mexico, 'does not represent a threat for the security' of Mexico or the US, according to the Mexican Migration Institute. 'Once it was corroborated that the Briton Amer Haykel does not represent any threat for national security, and is not wanted by authorities in any country, his detention was ended,' the institute said in a statement."
Also taking the Americans by surprise surrounding these events was the Israeli pressure upon Italy to expose the CIA Agents responsible for the uncovering of this latest plot against them by the Mossad by having International Arrest Warrants issued against them, and as we can read as reported by the United States Chicago Tribune News Service in their article titled “Italy charges CIA agents" and which says;
"In rare act by ally, officials seek arrests of U.S. agents in kidnapping of imam who allegedly was tortured in Egypt. The move was no less extraordinary for coming from a country whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, is one of the few European leaders who support the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq and which has contributed 3,000 troops to that effort.
Current and retired CIA officers, none of whom agreed to be quoted by name, said they could not remember one of their own having been charged abroad with a crime other than espionage, and certainly not in a country friendly to the U.S. Although the CIA refuses to talk about the Milan abduction or even acknowledge that it occurred, documents obtained by the Tribune clearly link the intelligence agency with the identities, addresses and cell phones used by several of the American operatives.
The existence of the CIA's supersecret abduction squads has come to light since the events of Sept. 11, 2001, although the agency's practice of snatching suspected criminals abroad goes back at least to the Reagan administration."
This latest crackdown on the Jewish peoples living in the United States also evidences the growing frustration of the American Military Leaders with the Israeli factions operating within their own government, and who have been assisting Mossad Agents operating within their country to escape, and as one such example we can read about as reported by the Liberty Post News Service in their article titled "Israeli Moving Van Mystery Deepens; 'Mover' is son of top Likud Official" and which says;
"The leader of the two Israelis arrested after leading police on a high speed chase in a moving van last Saturday in rural Tennessee is the son of the spokesman for the Likud Party of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the MadCowMorningNews has learned. The arrested Israeli 'mover,' Shmuel Dahan, 23, is himself a former spokesman, for the National Union of Israeli Students which represents the country's 150,000 university students. News that one of the two Israeli 'movers' belonged to that country's political elite might have proven useful in the criminal investigation underway in rural North Carolina and Tennessee, where the two men led authorities on a high-speed chase in a rented moving van last weekend. However, the investigation was halted Wednesday, after the men were released from Unicol County Jail to the custody of federal officials from the INS, where they face only a deportation hearing. "They’re taking it out of my jurisdiction,” stated Sheriff Kent Harris, who apprehended the men last Saturday after a high speed chase on a little-used state highway. “We may never know what they were doing.”
But to ‘what they were doing’ should really be no surprise to the America peoples as the evidence of past actions of the Mossad against them is actually well documented, and as evidenced by the reporting of the American News Organization What Really Happened in their report titled "The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11" and which says;
"A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11. Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot."
Sadly about all these events is that the whole world will be witnessing, once again, in the coming weeks, thousands of dead Americans, and also once again ‘dancing Israelis’.
Also, and as it has been said many times throughout history, ‘those not learning the lesson from history will be doomed to repeat them’ is the most tragic event of all occurring to the once great nation of the United States, and perhaps best stated by an American Minister named Chuck Baldwin in his editorial titled "Remembering the lessons of Germany's past" and which says;
"For years, I struggled to comprehend how the good people of Germany could allow someone such as Adolph Hitler to lead them into what became World War II. After all, before Hitler's rise to power, Germany had a rich Christian heritage. The Reformation out of the Dark Ages had its roots deeply imbedded in Germany and surrounding countries.
Furthermore, Germany has long produced some of the most intelligent and creative people on the planet! Many of the world's greatest engineers and scientists have come from Germany and Austria. When it comes to knowledge and education, the Germanic people take a back seat to no one. How, then, could the good, intelligent people of Germany follow and support someone such as Hitler? For years I struggled to find the answer to that puzzle. Now, I believe I understand.
The German people were convinced that their country was under attack and that Hitler was the leader who could protect them. Consider the statement of one of Hitler's most trusted cabinet members, Hermann Goering, "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Compare Goering's statement to former Attorney General John Ashcroft who, in defending the USA Patriot Act (which does much the same thing as Hitler's "Enabling Act") said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
Is it only a coincidence (or a repeat of history) that Republicans have introduced a bill in Congress to nullify the 22nd Amendment thereby opening the door for President George W. Bush to become permanent president? (Source: U.S. House of Representatives, H.J. Res. 24 "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution" introduced February 17, 2005.) Add to H.J. Res. 24 the World Net Daily report that "A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and adjacent Building No. 7." WND quotes Reynolds as stating further, "Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings." Whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via "an inside job" or not, one thing is certain: the attacks of September 11, 2001 became the catalyst that propelled Congressmen to quickly pass the USA Patriot Act even though none of them had read it.
Once again, please remember that the German people believed Hitler to be a patriotic, Christian man. As a result, Hitler had the unflinching support of Germany's conservative Christian ministers. How else would they be persuaded to follow Hitler into the nightmare of the Nazi regime? Remember, also, that to most German ministers, the Nazi Party was "God's Party." They really believed they were being faithful to God by being faithful to Hitler. Therefore, should we not be concerned today when we hear of Christian ministers excommunicating church members who do not support President Bush or the Republican Party? Should not "red flags" go up in our minds when we hear Christian ministers excuse Bush's unconstitutional conduct by proclaiming, "Bush is God's man for America, therefore, we cannot criticize him!"?
Yes, my friends, it is now obvious to me how Adolph Hitler seized power in Germany, because the same principles that Hitler used in the 1930's are being used by America's leaders today. Am I saying that I believe President Bush is another Hitler? Of course not. I am saying, however, that the same tactics and strategies being used by President Bush are eerily similar to those of the former German leader's. Certainly, we all pray for a fate far better than that of Hitler's Germany. But to obtain a better future for America, it is obligatory that we remember the lessons of Germany's past."
June 25, 2005
KASHMIR : Three Indian Army personnel killed in blast
Press Trust Of India
Posted online: Friday , June 24, 2005 at 1723 hours IST
Srinagar, June 24: At least three Army personnel were killed and 20 people injured in a massive explosion that ripped apart a civil vehicle carrying troops at the famous Nishat gardens along the banks of Dal lake near here today, official sources said
Posted online: Friday , June 24, 2005 at 1723 hours IST
Srinagar, June 24: At least three Army personnel were killed and 20 people injured in a massive explosion that ripped apart a civil vehicle carrying troops at the famous Nishat gardens along the banks of Dal lake near here today, official sources said
Nuggets from the Urdu press of Pakistan
Ice cream was better option
Reported in Khabrain, the Allama Iqbal Town explosion that destroyed three buildings and killed 29 was witness to strange behaviour among the local people. The truck unloading the gas cylinders went many feet up in the air when the cylinders exploded. All around the buildings property was destroyed including one truck loaded with ice cream. People went for the ice cream and started gorging themselves as people buried under the debris kept pleading with them to rescue them. As they ate ice cream they noted that a copy of the Quran was miraculously recovered undamaged from the debris.
Wasim Akram in ‘trubbel’
Reported in Khabrain, Wasim Akram allowed someone to put red colour on his forehead during his visit to his father’s birthplace in a village in Amritsar in India. The reaction of the ulema in Pakistan was recorded to put Wasim Akram in trouble. Jamaat Islami leader and MNA Abdul Malik said that Wasim Akram had become an apostate after accepting a Hindu tilak on his forehead. Maulana Sarfraz Naeemi said that Wasim Akram had wounded the hearts of the Muslims by letting Hindus put a tilak on his forehead. Ahle Hadith leader Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer said that Wasim Akram had given a chance of shuddi (reconversion) to the Hindus.
Al Qaeda agent caught in Karachi
Daily Pakistan reported that one Sirajul Haq was caught from a madrasa in Malir Karachi on reports from Afghanistan. Sirajul Haq was an Al Qaeda gent who had killed Afghan commander Abdul Haq on the orders Osama bin Laden.
Al Qaeda bans music in Waziristan
Reported in Jang, pamphlets issued by Al Qaeda told the shops and hotels of Miran Shah in North Waziristan that all video and audio cassettes should be destroyed and those who showed pictures and played music after five days would be dealt with.
Importing vegetables from India
Columnist Abdul Qadir Hassan wrote in Jang that the latest action by a banker prime minister to import vegetables from India was not only a bad decision undermining the agriculture of Punjab but was also a badge of dishonour. India had heavily subsidised its agriculture and was forcing Pakistan to open trade to undermine Pakistan’s farmers. It was a great dishonour to be thus surrendering to India. It was a tilak of kalank (dishonour) which was recently put on his forehead by a cricketer (Wasim Akram) when he visited his village in India.
The great ‘shutarmurgh’ fraud in Fort Abbas
Reported in Khabrain, the people of Fort Abbas complained that a company of Okara sold them small ostrich birds for 8,000 and took them back after three months for 18,000. The business caught on and the inhabitants of the city bought 60 lakhs worth of baby shutarmurgh, but after a few moths the company disappeared and the buyers were left with dead birds. The birds were said to be imported from Canada and they fell sick after being subjected to cold weather on the way. The birds were okay at the time of buying but sickened and died within three months.
‘India, get ready for nuclear war!’
According to Nawa-e-Waqt Mr Majid Nizami said at Hamdard Hall Lahore that Pakistan should tell India to either hold a plebiscite in Kashmir or get ready for nuclear war. He said that those who did not tire of talking about the ‘core issue’ were now talking about everything except Kashmir. He said basant had been accepted by them; now they were also celebrating holi and diwali.
American-Pakistani cleric’s wisdom
Reported in daily Pakistan, America-based cleric Maulana Zakiuddin Sharafi said in Lahore that the religious parties should not quarrel over democracy but tend to the spread of an Islamic system. He said if the clergy compromised with the government on some matters many problems would be solved. He said sectarianism was a fearful problem and was spread by Americans and the Jews. He said marathon and basant was also their doing. Cutting back on armament on the recommendation of a foreign power was against Islam. He said that in America some crazy groups had stepped outside the pale of Islam while accepting imamat of women. He said in America 90 percent Muslims were getting coloured by local culture but they were unhappy after 9/11. He said difference between jihad and qitaal should be maintained.
Mammoth meeting of sobs
Reported in Khabrain a mammoth meeting of Dawat Islami (Green Turbans) Islamabad ended in sobs as those who attended raised laments about their bad faith and begged for forgiveness from Allah. Half a million Barelvi Muslims gathered in the capital city and heard sermons which told them that Muslims had forsaken their true goal and had forgotten the care of the Hereafter. The sermons also told them that they should not follow Yuhud-o-Nisara (Jews and Hindus). The atmosphere was extremely spiritual, according to the newspaper.
Girl can marry at 15
Daily Pakistan reported that the Lahore High Court let off a man for marrying a girl of 15, holding that a Muslim girl could marry at less than 15 if she had attained puberty. The court said it was not happy about girls marrying after running away from home.
Reported in Khabrain, the Allama Iqbal Town explosion that destroyed three buildings and killed 29 was witness to strange behaviour among the local people. The truck unloading the gas cylinders went many feet up in the air when the cylinders exploded. All around the buildings property was destroyed including one truck loaded with ice cream. People went for the ice cream and started gorging themselves as people buried under the debris kept pleading with them to rescue them. As they ate ice cream they noted that a copy of the Quran was miraculously recovered undamaged from the debris.
Wasim Akram in ‘trubbel’
Reported in Khabrain, Wasim Akram allowed someone to put red colour on his forehead during his visit to his father’s birthplace in a village in Amritsar in India. The reaction of the ulema in Pakistan was recorded to put Wasim Akram in trouble. Jamaat Islami leader and MNA Abdul Malik said that Wasim Akram had become an apostate after accepting a Hindu tilak on his forehead. Maulana Sarfraz Naeemi said that Wasim Akram had wounded the hearts of the Muslims by letting Hindus put a tilak on his forehead. Ahle Hadith leader Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer said that Wasim Akram had given a chance of shuddi (reconversion) to the Hindus.
Al Qaeda agent caught in Karachi
Daily Pakistan reported that one Sirajul Haq was caught from a madrasa in Malir Karachi on reports from Afghanistan. Sirajul Haq was an Al Qaeda gent who had killed Afghan commander Abdul Haq on the orders Osama bin Laden.
Al Qaeda bans music in Waziristan
Reported in Jang, pamphlets issued by Al Qaeda told the shops and hotels of Miran Shah in North Waziristan that all video and audio cassettes should be destroyed and those who showed pictures and played music after five days would be dealt with.
Importing vegetables from India
Columnist Abdul Qadir Hassan wrote in Jang that the latest action by a banker prime minister to import vegetables from India was not only a bad decision undermining the agriculture of Punjab but was also a badge of dishonour. India had heavily subsidised its agriculture and was forcing Pakistan to open trade to undermine Pakistan’s farmers. It was a great dishonour to be thus surrendering to India. It was a tilak of kalank (dishonour) which was recently put on his forehead by a cricketer (Wasim Akram) when he visited his village in India.
The great ‘shutarmurgh’ fraud in Fort Abbas
Reported in Khabrain, the people of Fort Abbas complained that a company of Okara sold them small ostrich birds for 8,000 and took them back after three months for 18,000. The business caught on and the inhabitants of the city bought 60 lakhs worth of baby shutarmurgh, but after a few moths the company disappeared and the buyers were left with dead birds. The birds were said to be imported from Canada and they fell sick after being subjected to cold weather on the way. The birds were okay at the time of buying but sickened and died within three months.
‘India, get ready for nuclear war!’
According to Nawa-e-Waqt Mr Majid Nizami said at Hamdard Hall Lahore that Pakistan should tell India to either hold a plebiscite in Kashmir or get ready for nuclear war. He said that those who did not tire of talking about the ‘core issue’ were now talking about everything except Kashmir. He said basant had been accepted by them; now they were also celebrating holi and diwali.
American-Pakistani cleric’s wisdom
Reported in daily Pakistan, America-based cleric Maulana Zakiuddin Sharafi said in Lahore that the religious parties should not quarrel over democracy but tend to the spread of an Islamic system. He said if the clergy compromised with the government on some matters many problems would be solved. He said sectarianism was a fearful problem and was spread by Americans and the Jews. He said marathon and basant was also their doing. Cutting back on armament on the recommendation of a foreign power was against Islam. He said that in America some crazy groups had stepped outside the pale of Islam while accepting imamat of women. He said in America 90 percent Muslims were getting coloured by local culture but they were unhappy after 9/11. He said difference between jihad and qitaal should be maintained.
Mammoth meeting of sobs
Reported in Khabrain a mammoth meeting of Dawat Islami (Green Turbans) Islamabad ended in sobs as those who attended raised laments about their bad faith and begged for forgiveness from Allah. Half a million Barelvi Muslims gathered in the capital city and heard sermons which told them that Muslims had forsaken their true goal and had forgotten the care of the Hereafter. The sermons also told them that they should not follow Yuhud-o-Nisara (Jews and Hindus). The atmosphere was extremely spiritual, according to the newspaper.
Girl can marry at 15
Daily Pakistan reported that the Lahore High Court let off a man for marrying a girl of 15, holding that a Muslim girl could marry at less than 15 if she had attained puberty. The court said it was not happy about girls marrying after running away from home.
June 24, 2005
Terrorism Monitor , Scanning around the world
New brigade for ‘Iraqi' suicide bombers
Al-Zarqawi's group Qaedat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn issued a statement on June 20 declaring that it had formed a sub-branch of the Al-Bara bin Malek Brigade dedicated to suicide operations. The audio posting by the head of the new group Abu Dujana al-Ansari, indicated that "a unit of martyrs named al-Ansar, belonging to the Martyr Brigades of Al-Baraa bin Malek, has been formed." The Wahdat Istish-hadiyin ‘Iraqiyin (Iraqi Martyrdom Unit), as reported on the Mufakkirat al-Islam website, is made up exclusively of native volunteers. The formation of the unit, the statement outlined, came "due to strong insistence from our Iraqi brothers and their desire for Paradise," and that volunteers had applied "in their tens to sign their names to meet their Maker" [www.islammemo.cc].
The announcement comes at a time of increased violence, in which ordinary Iraqis are increasingly involved, and of waxing criticism of the methodology of the resistance. A recent statement, purported made by al-Zarqawi, defending the killing of non-combatant Muslims excited much comment on the jihadi forums, which relayed the debate on the lawfulness of his action, or deplored the attempt being made to ‘drive a wedge between the mujahideen and the Ulema' [www.alsakifah.org]. It also coincides with criticisms aired in the media as to the ethnicity of the majority of suicide bombers, illustrated by comments by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari that most of the suicide bombers behind attacks in Iraq were foreign nationals. One report aired by the New York Times on June 22 suggested that the nationalist and jihadist camps of the resistance were falling out, given increasing evidence of armed fire exchanges between them.
Al-Qaeda ideologue killed in al-Qaim
A June 23 posting to an Islamist website presented the text of an announcement from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi concerning the death of Sheikh Abdullah Mohammad Rashid al-Rashoud in the Iraqi town of al-Qaim.
In customary fashion the statement, as posted on the jihadist Al-Qal'a forum, celebrated the death as a victory: "Let the Islamic Nation rejoice in the martyrdom of one of the most outstanding standards of beneficence, jihad and knowledge." The eulogy went on to describe his ‘participating in the battles of al-Qa'im" explaining that the Sheikh met his end as a result of air strikes on mujahid positions, thus joining the ‘caravans of the martyrs ridden before by Sheikh Abu Anas [al-Shami]. The forum entries following this entry are filled with expressions of congratulations and prayers for his soul. [www.qal3ati.net]
Sheikh al-Rashoud was one of the most influential ideologues for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, famous for his January 2004 Bayan ila al-Umma al-Islamiyya (Declaration to the Islamic Nation), in which he challenged the Saudi government's legitimacy in terms of Islamic Law and was featured on the 26 most wanted list issued by the security authorities.
His disappearance from the scene in Saudi Arabia last summer was the cause of much speculation. It was thought that Al-Rashoud had been killed alongside al-Qaeda field commander of the time Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin in June 2004 following an armed confrontation with the security forces. However, this was denied by Saudi authorities at the time and the mystery was compounded by a later story, published by the Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat on March 15, which quoted ‘informed sources' stating that Al-Rashoud had actually been slain by his mujahid colleagues. This apparently had been due to differences with Al-Muqrin on the Islamic propriety of the commander's military actions, which were targeting non-combatant Muslim civilians. Al-Muqrin and Faysal al-Dakhil were said to have driven him to an isolated place to effect a cure of his ‘madness', following which the Shaykh was never seen again [www.aawsat.com].
The present announcement does little to resolve that mystery, but his claimed exit from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaim, is symptomatic of the tightening squeeze placed by the authorities on jihadist activities in the Kingdom, as demonstrated by the raid on the Sawt al-Jihad publishing house late last year, which in the pages of its Sawt al-Jihad online magazine published regular ideological treatises from the Sheikh relative to the jihad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq endorses their cohorts in Algeria
On June 15 the "Media Department of al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers," the Iraqi affiliate of al-Qaeda, issued a statement that included an endorsement of the Algerian mujahideen. Its statement "May Allah bless the work of those heroes who took upon themselves to fight the apostates in Mauritania" in particular fixes the object of the endorsement as the Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat (GSPC), which claimed responsibility for an attack upon a Mauritanian military outpost on June 3-4. This, the GSPC claimed, was an act of "revenge for our brothers who were arrested by the apostate Mauritanian regime over the recent period, and as a support for the oppressed Muslims there." That attack was later established as having been carried out by the GSPC sub-group led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, termed the Groupe salafist libre, which operates independently of the GSPC (See Focus Vol II, issue 11).
The endorsement opens up a number of issues relating to the coherence of the jihadist groups in the region. Last December an Algerian group announced on the al-Ma'sada jihadist forum how it was transferring its allegiance to Osama bin Laden, calling itself "TheOrganization of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Berbers" [www.alm2sda.net]. More recently, on May 8, the Qa'idat al-Jihad fi al-Jaza'ir (al-Qaeda [base] of the Jihad in Algeria) announced its appearance on the jihadist Kalimat al-Haqq site [www.rightword.net], citing the demoralization of the jihadist groups in Algeria, their bad name through association with massacres of civilians, and the questionable motivation and loyalty of the leaders to the cause. The statement encouraged the irredentist remnants to join ‘a new cause.'
The present endorsement may be a positive response to attempts by GSPC remnants to restore credibility. Indeed the attack on the Mauritanian outpost may be partly seen in this light. The Mauritanian attack came after pressure from the government at Nouakchott against camps training mujahideen for the Iraqi theatre. In Algeria the number of foreign Islamist militants arrested has increased in recent months, an unusual development which has worried the authorities. On the same day of the endorsement by al-Qaeda, six Yemeni students were arrested in eastern Algeria, suspected of belonging to an unnamed network linked to al-Qaeda.
This incident, and the message from al-Qaeda in Iraq, suggest that a greater degree of co-ordination is being attempted, either in the form of direct links between the groups, or at least as an attempt to re-package the activities as part of one ‘global jihad' movement. Whatever the exact explanation, the Algerian jihadi theatre, as proclaimed by the GSPC statement on the Mauritanian attack, looks set to expand. Attacks in Algeria, despite a net decline, have peaked recently, and there have been renewed clashes on June 12-13 between GSPC militants and the Mauritanian military in the desert area near the border with Mali. Soldiers are now to be deployed in greater strength along the border areas with Mali and Algeria [www.mapeci.com].
New Jihadist group emerges in Syria
The Syrian news agency (SANA) reported on June 9 that security authorities had been engaged in a three-hour armed confrontation resulting in the death of Abu Umar, the leader of a cell of the previously unknown Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid, (Organization of the Army of [Greater Syria] for Jihad and Monotheism). Alongside a stash of weaponry, documents seized at the scene of the raid, at a residential apartment in southern Damascus, indicated that the new group was engaged in preparing areas in Damascus and the surrounding region for future operations and for sending its members abroad for training [www.sana.org].
The 42-year-old shopkeeper and leader of the group killed in the June 9 assault, Abu Umar, was a radical takfiri, anathematizing not only the Syrian state and its institutions, but also the shaykhs of mosques and the institution of the Friday prayer. The raid on the apartment follows closely on an earlier raid which first established the existence of a wide-ranging takfiri Islamist organization bearing the title Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid, replete with publications, administrative structure and weaponry. Syria has been witness recently to a growing takfiri threat, as evidenced by the death of Sheikh Muhammad al-Khiznawi. Suspected of being tortured and killed in custody, a report by the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat indicates he died at the hands of takfiri members who claimed his death was due to ‘cultural differences' [www.daralhayat.com].
According to details given in the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan, the Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid group is said to have already divided up Syria into five zones, each constituting an ‘Islamic emirate' with its own emir and organizational structure. However, the scope of the group was also said to extend beyond Syria's borders to the area not only of ‘Greater Syria' (which includes Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan) but also Iraq and Egypt [www.alwatan.com.sa]. The division of Syria into operational zones suggests an Algerian model. Algeria has been similarly divided up by the mujahideen and the close connection between members of jihadist groups in the two countries was illustrated recently by the capture at Damascus on May 25 of Sakir Adil, the Algerian webmaster of the GSPC website [www.jihad-algeria.com].
Syrian security had been tracking the group for some time, according to some reports ever since November last year, when a member was killed attempting to plant a roadside bomb. One report states how a valuable lead came from the mother of the would-be bomber, who is said to have alerted the authorities after overhearing her widowed daughter-in-law discussing with Abu Umar using the granddaughter as a live bomb.
The obscurity surrounding the group provoked speculation as to whether its existence was a fabrication of the Syrian secret services, designed to curry favor abroad and improve the regime's image as a ‘victim' of terrorism. However, a Saudi analyst writing for Al-Hayat highlighted how the group's name goes back to 1999 and Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's training camp, which he set up in the western Afghan city of Herat. The name ‘Jund al-Sham' dates from this time and indicated the future theatre of action envisaged by the group. The analyst focuses on the nature of the doctrinal literature discovered in the raided apartment. In particular on the use of the Qur'anic verse: "Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you" [IX:123] as opposed to the emblematic sura used by bin Laden: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you" [II:190] [www.daralhayat.com and www.elaph.com].
The group should be distinguished from others bearing similar names, such as Tanzim Jund al-Sham that claimed responsibility for the bombing at the Doha theatre in Qatar in March, or the Jund al-Sham that operated in the Ain al-Helwa Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and which claimed the killing of a Hezbollah member.
Latest video from al-Zawahiri challenges political reforms
The latest al-Qaeda video, aired in part by al-Jazeera television on June 17, and the first to appear since last February, bore the stamp of a commentary of the political reform-related events currently occurring in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. As such it is of considerable interest in demonstrating the sensitivity of the organization to the language and the political vocabulary of the moment.
Sensing the threat of potential change being conducted without reference to al-Qaeda's vision of reform, the organization's number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was at pains to downplay the possibility of reform by peaceful means ("Reform and expelling the invaders from the countries of Islam will not happen except through fighting for God's sake"). In a clear reference to recent scenes in Lebanon and Egypt (the May 25 referendum demonstrations in Cairo are directly alluded to), al-Zawahiri insists that "expelling the marauder Crusader and Jewish forces cannot be done through demonstrations and hoarse voices". He also warned the Palestinians (here referring to Hamas and Islamic Jihad) against being "dragged into the secularists' election game under a secular constitution."
Though essentially a familiar call to maintain the culture of violent jihad' al-Zawahiri's presentation of an alternative program for reform adopts the watchwords of the reformists to make his point. ‘True reform,' according to Al-Zawahiri, has to be based on three premises:
· Hakimiyyat al-Shari'ah (The rule of Islamic law)
· Hurriyyat Diyar al-Islam min al-Muhtall (Freeing the lands of Islam from the occupier)
· Hurriyyat al-Umma al-Islamiyya fi Idarat Shu'uniha (Freeing the Islamic Nation's to run its own affairs) – specifically the freedom to set up instruments to enforce the ‘promotion of virtue and prevention of vice.'
The use of the language of ‘freedom' is not a natural constituent of al-Qaeda ideology, a point which is made in an interesting analysis in the June 18 edition of the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat. Here the commentator Mushari al-Dhayidi notes how the three premises are low in substance, but are carefully phrased to highlight terms which happen to be relevant to the present political climate [www.aawsat.com]. The point is illustrated by looking at the previous sound recordings sent to Arabic satellite channels. On February 22 al-Zawahiri focused his talk on the Guantanamo scandal as a means of pouring scorn on U.S. claims to democratic freedoms (but where no criticism was implied on the concept of freedom and democracy as such). In an earlier recording made on November 29, 2004, bin Laden delivered a text focused on the pragmatic advantages of the United States working with the Islamic world in a way that would serve their mutual interests. Conspicuously absent was the language of "permanent jihad until all sovereignty on Earth belongs to God alone" where mutual interests are irrelevant. Earlier, in June 2004, al-Zawahiri took issue with the ‘Reform Summit' at Tunis and its agreement to promote Washington's program for democracy in the Middle East, as being "of no advantage to the Arab world."
Both the timing of these transmissions, and their vocabulary, serve to underline – in strategic terms – how al-Qaeda is increasingly being forced to operate within, and as a response to, political realities, instead of re-defining them. With each transmission there appears evidence of al-Qaeda's fear of the argumentation of reform, the organization's distrust of its own ideological pull — when openly stated — and its fears of increasing marginalization from the political debate.
One footnote to the latest recording is also worthy of interest. In the course of the video communiqué, Zawahiri launched an unprecedented attack on the Sudanese government. According to the Sudan Tribune, quoting Hani al-Siba'i the director of Al-Maqrizi Research Centre in London, the cause of the invective was Khartoum's handing over of "files with photographs for most of the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Jihad" who up to 1995 were based in the Sudanese capital. Bin Laden moved to Sudan after being expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 for his anti-government activities, as a result of Riyadh's decision to admit U.S. troops on Saudi soil in order to reverse Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden worked with other exiled radical groups in Sudan until 1995, when he decamped to Afghanistan, after Khartoum expelled him under pressure from the United States. While, according to Al-Siba'i, the leadership at the time used fictitious names or forged passports for security reasons, "the Sudanese government knew their identities by virtue of a special agreement between the security bodies and the leaders of the Islamic groups" [www.sudantribune.com]. Al-Zawahiri's sensitivity to the documents may give some indication of their continuing value.
Indonesia braces for more terror attacks
Judging from the nervous reports emanating from U.S. and Australian advisories, Indonesia is bracing itself for an imminent renewed cycle of anti-Western bomb attacks. "We continue to receive a stream of credible reporting" the Australian advisory posted on June 10 suggesting that terrorists are in the very advanced stages of planning attacks in Indonesia" [www.smarttraveller.gov.au]. It followed an earlier warning from the U.S. embassy in Jakarta advising Americans to be prepared as of June 1 for an attack expected around noon on an unspecified date, as part of a strategy by extremists to "conduct bomb attacks targeting the lobbies of hotels frequented by Westerners" [www.usembassyjakarta.org].
Indonesian police continue their warnings of the imminent strike by two key members of the al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah, the Malaysians Noordin Top and Azahari bin Husin. These were part of the group responsible for a number of attacks in Indonesia, including the October 2002 Bali bombings, the 2003 bombing of the JW Marriott hotel in Jakarta, and the 2004 bomb outside the Australian embassy. The tally of fatalities of these bombings totaled 234. "According to our intelligence feedback" Indonesian police chief Da'i Bachtiar stated, as reported in the daily Media Indonesia, "terrorists Azahari and Noordin are now in Jakarta and ready to blow up their targets after failing to do so in May" [www.mediaindo.co.id]. The two Malaysians are believed to be in the vicinity of Jakarta recruiting followers for their next operation.
The security authorities do appear to be being tested. According to the Indonesian daily Koran Tempo, quoting a military communiqué, Indonesian soldiers on June 13 were hunting in West Java for five cars believed to be carrying bombs made by recruits of Noordin Top [www.korantempo.com]. Two days later came the report that Indonesian police had found a partly assembled explosive device at a south Jakarta train station [www.alertnet.org].
That Indonesia is likely to face a threat from increasingly sophisticated terrorism comes from the results of investigations into a recent armed attack on a mobile brigade post in Indonesia's eastern province of Maluku (see Focus II, issue 10). State run news agency Antara reported that evidence from the capture and interrogation of several suspects involved indicate that the planners came from outside Maluku province (although they used "local people in carrying out their missions") and was not simply a product of local communal tensions. The attack was mounted by highly trained guerrillas, who were allegedly part of a network responsible for a series of violent incidents in the provincial capital of Ambon, and who evidenced links with al-Qaeda [www.antara.co.id]. The same diagnosis — outside agents provocateurs aiming to stir up communal violence — has been made for the serious event of May 28 when twin bomb attacks on a market in Tentena, Central Sulawesi killed 22 and injured 50, the deadliest terror attack in Indonesia since the 2002 Bali bombings. So far the finger is pointing at Jemaah Islamiya, or at least local groupings inspired by Jemaah Islamiyah's agenda. The site for igniting tension is well chosen, since Tentena lies in an area that witnessed three years of Muslim-Christian fighting which, up until a peace agreement in late 2001, accounted for 2,000 fatalities [www.thejakartapost.com].
Al-Zarqawi's group Qaedat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn issued a statement on June 20 declaring that it had formed a sub-branch of the Al-Bara bin Malek Brigade dedicated to suicide operations. The audio posting by the head of the new group Abu Dujana al-Ansari, indicated that "a unit of martyrs named al-Ansar, belonging to the Martyr Brigades of Al-Baraa bin Malek, has been formed." The Wahdat Istish-hadiyin ‘Iraqiyin (Iraqi Martyrdom Unit), as reported on the Mufakkirat al-Islam website, is made up exclusively of native volunteers. The formation of the unit, the statement outlined, came "due to strong insistence from our Iraqi brothers and their desire for Paradise," and that volunteers had applied "in their tens to sign their names to meet their Maker" [www.islammemo.cc].
The announcement comes at a time of increased violence, in which ordinary Iraqis are increasingly involved, and of waxing criticism of the methodology of the resistance. A recent statement, purported made by al-Zarqawi, defending the killing of non-combatant Muslims excited much comment on the jihadi forums, which relayed the debate on the lawfulness of his action, or deplored the attempt being made to ‘drive a wedge between the mujahideen and the Ulema' [www.alsakifah.org]. It also coincides with criticisms aired in the media as to the ethnicity of the majority of suicide bombers, illustrated by comments by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari that most of the suicide bombers behind attacks in Iraq were foreign nationals. One report aired by the New York Times on June 22 suggested that the nationalist and jihadist camps of the resistance were falling out, given increasing evidence of armed fire exchanges between them.
Al-Qaeda ideologue killed in al-Qaim
A June 23 posting to an Islamist website presented the text of an announcement from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi concerning the death of Sheikh Abdullah Mohammad Rashid al-Rashoud in the Iraqi town of al-Qaim.
In customary fashion the statement, as posted on the jihadist Al-Qal'a forum, celebrated the death as a victory: "Let the Islamic Nation rejoice in the martyrdom of one of the most outstanding standards of beneficence, jihad and knowledge." The eulogy went on to describe his ‘participating in the battles of al-Qa'im" explaining that the Sheikh met his end as a result of air strikes on mujahid positions, thus joining the ‘caravans of the martyrs ridden before by Sheikh Abu Anas [al-Shami]. The forum entries following this entry are filled with expressions of congratulations and prayers for his soul. [www.qal3ati.net]
Sheikh al-Rashoud was one of the most influential ideologues for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, famous for his January 2004 Bayan ila al-Umma al-Islamiyya (Declaration to the Islamic Nation), in which he challenged the Saudi government's legitimacy in terms of Islamic Law and was featured on the 26 most wanted list issued by the security authorities.
His disappearance from the scene in Saudi Arabia last summer was the cause of much speculation. It was thought that Al-Rashoud had been killed alongside al-Qaeda field commander of the time Abd al-Aziz al-Muqrin in June 2004 following an armed confrontation with the security forces. However, this was denied by Saudi authorities at the time and the mystery was compounded by a later story, published by the Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat on March 15, which quoted ‘informed sources' stating that Al-Rashoud had actually been slain by his mujahid colleagues. This apparently had been due to differences with Al-Muqrin on the Islamic propriety of the commander's military actions, which were targeting non-combatant Muslim civilians. Al-Muqrin and Faysal al-Dakhil were said to have driven him to an isolated place to effect a cure of his ‘madness', following which the Shaykh was never seen again [www.aawsat.com].
The present announcement does little to resolve that mystery, but his claimed exit from Saudi Arabia to al-Qaim, is symptomatic of the tightening squeeze placed by the authorities on jihadist activities in the Kingdom, as demonstrated by the raid on the Sawt al-Jihad publishing house late last year, which in the pages of its Sawt al-Jihad online magazine published regular ideological treatises from the Sheikh relative to the jihad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq endorses their cohorts in Algeria
On June 15 the "Media Department of al-Qaeda Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers," the Iraqi affiliate of al-Qaeda, issued a statement that included an endorsement of the Algerian mujahideen. Its statement "May Allah bless the work of those heroes who took upon themselves to fight the apostates in Mauritania" in particular fixes the object of the endorsement as the Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat (GSPC), which claimed responsibility for an attack upon a Mauritanian military outpost on June 3-4. This, the GSPC claimed, was an act of "revenge for our brothers who were arrested by the apostate Mauritanian regime over the recent period, and as a support for the oppressed Muslims there." That attack was later established as having been carried out by the GSPC sub-group led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, termed the Groupe salafist libre, which operates independently of the GSPC (See Focus Vol II, issue 11).
The endorsement opens up a number of issues relating to the coherence of the jihadist groups in the region. Last December an Algerian group announced on the al-Ma'sada jihadist forum how it was transferring its allegiance to Osama bin Laden, calling itself "TheOrganization of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Berbers" [www.alm2sda.net]. More recently, on May 8, the Qa'idat al-Jihad fi al-Jaza'ir (al-Qaeda [base] of the Jihad in Algeria) announced its appearance on the jihadist Kalimat al-Haqq site [www.rightword.net], citing the demoralization of the jihadist groups in Algeria, their bad name through association with massacres of civilians, and the questionable motivation and loyalty of the leaders to the cause. The statement encouraged the irredentist remnants to join ‘a new cause.'
The present endorsement may be a positive response to attempts by GSPC remnants to restore credibility. Indeed the attack on the Mauritanian outpost may be partly seen in this light. The Mauritanian attack came after pressure from the government at Nouakchott against camps training mujahideen for the Iraqi theatre. In Algeria the number of foreign Islamist militants arrested has increased in recent months, an unusual development which has worried the authorities. On the same day of the endorsement by al-Qaeda, six Yemeni students were arrested in eastern Algeria, suspected of belonging to an unnamed network linked to al-Qaeda.
This incident, and the message from al-Qaeda in Iraq, suggest that a greater degree of co-ordination is being attempted, either in the form of direct links between the groups, or at least as an attempt to re-package the activities as part of one ‘global jihad' movement. Whatever the exact explanation, the Algerian jihadi theatre, as proclaimed by the GSPC statement on the Mauritanian attack, looks set to expand. Attacks in Algeria, despite a net decline, have peaked recently, and there have been renewed clashes on June 12-13 between GSPC militants and the Mauritanian military in the desert area near the border with Mali. Soldiers are now to be deployed in greater strength along the border areas with Mali and Algeria [www.mapeci.com].
New Jihadist group emerges in Syria
The Syrian news agency (SANA) reported on June 9 that security authorities had been engaged in a three-hour armed confrontation resulting in the death of Abu Umar, the leader of a cell of the previously unknown Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid, (Organization of the Army of [Greater Syria] for Jihad and Monotheism). Alongside a stash of weaponry, documents seized at the scene of the raid, at a residential apartment in southern Damascus, indicated that the new group was engaged in preparing areas in Damascus and the surrounding region for future operations and for sending its members abroad for training [www.sana.org].
The 42-year-old shopkeeper and leader of the group killed in the June 9 assault, Abu Umar, was a radical takfiri, anathematizing not only the Syrian state and its institutions, but also the shaykhs of mosques and the institution of the Friday prayer. The raid on the apartment follows closely on an earlier raid which first established the existence of a wide-ranging takfiri Islamist organization bearing the title Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid, replete with publications, administrative structure and weaponry. Syria has been witness recently to a growing takfiri threat, as evidenced by the death of Sheikh Muhammad al-Khiznawi. Suspected of being tortured and killed in custody, a report by the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat indicates he died at the hands of takfiri members who claimed his death was due to ‘cultural differences' [www.daralhayat.com].
According to details given in the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan, the Tanzim Jund al-Sham lil-Jihad wal-Tawhid group is said to have already divided up Syria into five zones, each constituting an ‘Islamic emirate' with its own emir and organizational structure. However, the scope of the group was also said to extend beyond Syria's borders to the area not only of ‘Greater Syria' (which includes Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan) but also Iraq and Egypt [www.alwatan.com.sa]. The division of Syria into operational zones suggests an Algerian model. Algeria has been similarly divided up by the mujahideen and the close connection between members of jihadist groups in the two countries was illustrated recently by the capture at Damascus on May 25 of Sakir Adil, the Algerian webmaster of the GSPC website [www.jihad-algeria.com].
Syrian security had been tracking the group for some time, according to some reports ever since November last year, when a member was killed attempting to plant a roadside bomb. One report states how a valuable lead came from the mother of the would-be bomber, who is said to have alerted the authorities after overhearing her widowed daughter-in-law discussing with Abu Umar using the granddaughter as a live bomb.
The obscurity surrounding the group provoked speculation as to whether its existence was a fabrication of the Syrian secret services, designed to curry favor abroad and improve the regime's image as a ‘victim' of terrorism. However, a Saudi analyst writing for Al-Hayat highlighted how the group's name goes back to 1999 and Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's training camp, which he set up in the western Afghan city of Herat. The name ‘Jund al-Sham' dates from this time and indicated the future theatre of action envisaged by the group. The analyst focuses on the nature of the doctrinal literature discovered in the raided apartment. In particular on the use of the Qur'anic verse: "Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you" [IX:123] as opposed to the emblematic sura used by bin Laden: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you" [II:190] [www.daralhayat.com and www.elaph.com].
The group should be distinguished from others bearing similar names, such as Tanzim Jund al-Sham that claimed responsibility for the bombing at the Doha theatre in Qatar in March, or the Jund al-Sham that operated in the Ain al-Helwa Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and which claimed the killing of a Hezbollah member.
Latest video from al-Zawahiri challenges political reforms
The latest al-Qaeda video, aired in part by al-Jazeera television on June 17, and the first to appear since last February, bore the stamp of a commentary of the political reform-related events currently occurring in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Palestine. As such it is of considerable interest in demonstrating the sensitivity of the organization to the language and the political vocabulary of the moment.
Sensing the threat of potential change being conducted without reference to al-Qaeda's vision of reform, the organization's number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was at pains to downplay the possibility of reform by peaceful means ("Reform and expelling the invaders from the countries of Islam will not happen except through fighting for God's sake"). In a clear reference to recent scenes in Lebanon and Egypt (the May 25 referendum demonstrations in Cairo are directly alluded to), al-Zawahiri insists that "expelling the marauder Crusader and Jewish forces cannot be done through demonstrations and hoarse voices". He also warned the Palestinians (here referring to Hamas and Islamic Jihad) against being "dragged into the secularists' election game under a secular constitution."
Though essentially a familiar call to maintain the culture of violent jihad' al-Zawahiri's presentation of an alternative program for reform adopts the watchwords of the reformists to make his point. ‘True reform,' according to Al-Zawahiri, has to be based on three premises:
· Hakimiyyat al-Shari'ah (The rule of Islamic law)
· Hurriyyat Diyar al-Islam min al-Muhtall (Freeing the lands of Islam from the occupier)
· Hurriyyat al-Umma al-Islamiyya fi Idarat Shu'uniha (Freeing the Islamic Nation's to run its own affairs) – specifically the freedom to set up instruments to enforce the ‘promotion of virtue and prevention of vice.'
The use of the language of ‘freedom' is not a natural constituent of al-Qaeda ideology, a point which is made in an interesting analysis in the June 18 edition of the pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat. Here the commentator Mushari al-Dhayidi notes how the three premises are low in substance, but are carefully phrased to highlight terms which happen to be relevant to the present political climate [www.aawsat.com]. The point is illustrated by looking at the previous sound recordings sent to Arabic satellite channels. On February 22 al-Zawahiri focused his talk on the Guantanamo scandal as a means of pouring scorn on U.S. claims to democratic freedoms (but where no criticism was implied on the concept of freedom and democracy as such). In an earlier recording made on November 29, 2004, bin Laden delivered a text focused on the pragmatic advantages of the United States working with the Islamic world in a way that would serve their mutual interests. Conspicuously absent was the language of "permanent jihad until all sovereignty on Earth belongs to God alone" where mutual interests are irrelevant. Earlier, in June 2004, al-Zawahiri took issue with the ‘Reform Summit' at Tunis and its agreement to promote Washington's program for democracy in the Middle East, as being "of no advantage to the Arab world."
Both the timing of these transmissions, and their vocabulary, serve to underline – in strategic terms – how al-Qaeda is increasingly being forced to operate within, and as a response to, political realities, instead of re-defining them. With each transmission there appears evidence of al-Qaeda's fear of the argumentation of reform, the organization's distrust of its own ideological pull — when openly stated — and its fears of increasing marginalization from the political debate.
One footnote to the latest recording is also worthy of interest. In the course of the video communiqué, Zawahiri launched an unprecedented attack on the Sudanese government. According to the Sudan Tribune, quoting Hani al-Siba'i the director of Al-Maqrizi Research Centre in London, the cause of the invective was Khartoum's handing over of "files with photographs for most of the leadership of al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Jihad" who up to 1995 were based in the Sudanese capital. Bin Laden moved to Sudan after being expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 for his anti-government activities, as a result of Riyadh's decision to admit U.S. troops on Saudi soil in order to reverse Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Bin Laden worked with other exiled radical groups in Sudan until 1995, when he decamped to Afghanistan, after Khartoum expelled him under pressure from the United States. While, according to Al-Siba'i, the leadership at the time used fictitious names or forged passports for security reasons, "the Sudanese government knew their identities by virtue of a special agreement between the security bodies and the leaders of the Islamic groups" [www.sudantribune.com]. Al-Zawahiri's sensitivity to the documents may give some indication of their continuing value.
Indonesia braces for more terror attacks
Judging from the nervous reports emanating from U.S. and Australian advisories, Indonesia is bracing itself for an imminent renewed cycle of anti-Western bomb attacks. "We continue to receive a stream of credible reporting" the Australian advisory posted on June 10 suggesting that terrorists are in the very advanced stages of planning attacks in Indonesia" [www.smarttraveller.gov.au]. It followed an earlier warning from the U.S. embassy in Jakarta advising Americans to be prepared as of June 1 for an attack expected around noon on an unspecified date, as part of a strategy by extremists to "conduct bomb attacks targeting the lobbies of hotels frequented by Westerners" [www.usembassyjakarta.org].
Indonesian police continue their warnings of the imminent strike by two key members of the al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah, the Malaysians Noordin Top and Azahari bin Husin. These were part of the group responsible for a number of attacks in Indonesia, including the October 2002 Bali bombings, the 2003 bombing of the JW Marriott hotel in Jakarta, and the 2004 bomb outside the Australian embassy. The tally of fatalities of these bombings totaled 234. "According to our intelligence feedback" Indonesian police chief Da'i Bachtiar stated, as reported in the daily Media Indonesia, "terrorists Azahari and Noordin are now in Jakarta and ready to blow up their targets after failing to do so in May" [www.mediaindo.co.id]. The two Malaysians are believed to be in the vicinity of Jakarta recruiting followers for their next operation.
The security authorities do appear to be being tested. According to the Indonesian daily Koran Tempo, quoting a military communiqué, Indonesian soldiers on June 13 were hunting in West Java for five cars believed to be carrying bombs made by recruits of Noordin Top [www.korantempo.com]. Two days later came the report that Indonesian police had found a partly assembled explosive device at a south Jakarta train station [www.alertnet.org].
That Indonesia is likely to face a threat from increasingly sophisticated terrorism comes from the results of investigations into a recent armed attack on a mobile brigade post in Indonesia's eastern province of Maluku (see Focus II, issue 10). State run news agency Antara reported that evidence from the capture and interrogation of several suspects involved indicate that the planners came from outside Maluku province (although they used "local people in carrying out their missions") and was not simply a product of local communal tensions. The attack was mounted by highly trained guerrillas, who were allegedly part of a network responsible for a series of violent incidents in the provincial capital of Ambon, and who evidenced links with al-Qaeda [www.antara.co.id]. The same diagnosis — outside agents provocateurs aiming to stir up communal violence — has been made for the serious event of May 28 when twin bomb attacks on a market in Tentena, Central Sulawesi killed 22 and injured 50, the deadliest terror attack in Indonesia since the 2002 Bali bombings. So far the finger is pointing at Jemaah Islamiya, or at least local groupings inspired by Jemaah Islamiyah's agenda. The site for igniting tension is well chosen, since Tentena lies in an area that witnessed three years of Muslim-Christian fighting which, up until a peace agreement in late 2001, accounted for 2,000 fatalities [www.thejakartapost.com].
"The Pious Caliphate Will Start From Afghanistan":
Is al-Qaeda's Long-Held Afghan Strategy Now Unfolding?
By Michael Scheuer
Amid Pakistani President's Musharraf's claims that al-Qaeda's "back is broken," and those by U.S. officials that Al-Qaeda is focused on Iraq, the Arabic daily Al-Quds al-Arabi has described "a noticeable increase in the attacks on U.S. forces in various parts of Afghanistan." Explanations for the attacks range from better weather, Pakistani interference in Afghan affairs; and increased aid to the insurgents from "regional powers." This article examines these claims, assesses their validity, and suggests a fourth cause for the violence -- that al-Qaeda is simply pursuing its long-term Afghan strategy.
Rites of Spring, Pakistani Designs, and Foreign Conspiracies?
The jump in violence in Afghanistan is being been attributed to several factors. Senior Coalition officials say the spike was "predictable" after the spring thaw. U.S. General Eric Olson minimized the threat posed by the attacks, saying they "lack cohesion" and will "fade [even] in traditional Taliban strongholds." [1] Perhaps hedging their bets, Coalition military officials followed Olson's analysis by announcing that two-to-five thousand more NATO troops would deploy to Afghanistan later in 2005.
Departing U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, on the other hand, said on 18 June that the attacks in Afghanistan are directed from abroad because Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are not in Afghanistan. (4) Khalilzad did not say where the two men are, but none-too-subtly pointed to Pakistan. "If GEO [Television] can get in touch with them [Taleban leaders]," Khalilzad said, "how can the intelligence service of a country which has nuclear bombs and a lot of military and security forces, not find them?" [2] Simultaneously, senior Afghan scholar Morab Boresh and presidential spokesman Jafar Rasuli excoriated Pakistan. "The Pakistanis will never stop interfering in Afghanistan's internal affairs," Baresh told Kabul‘s Tolu Television. "We still have Pakistani elements within our own [Afghan] government… I do not know when they will stop [interfering]" On 20 June, DCI Porter Goss also hinted that bin Laden and Omar are in Pakistan. [3]
Other Afghan officials saw multiple foreign hands at work. President Karzai, for example, said the violence was caused by an external "conspiracy [that] will increase against our country" as parliamentary elections near. [4] "It looks," Defense Minister Rahim Wardak added, "like there has been a regrouping of al-Qaeda, and [that] they have changed their tactics to concentrate on Iraq, but Afghanistan too." [5] Wardak and Karzai's spokesman Jawid Luran also claimed "foreigners" and "regional powers" were promoting the attacks through increased support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Luran said the killing of pro-Karzai cleric Mullah Fayyaz and the bombing of a U.S. Reconstruction Team's base -- both in Qandahar Province -- was the work of non-Afghan "terrorists." [6] Qandahar governor Gul Agha Shurzai supported this judgment. After the bombing of the mosque conducting Fayyaz's funeral, Shurzai said police "found documents on the [bomber's] body that showed he was an Arab." Shirazi said this proved "Arab al-Qaeda teams had entered Afghanistan and had planned terrorist attacks." [7]
Al-Qaeda: Staying its Course in Afghanistan
Each of these contentions contains some truth. That said, the increased violence is mainly due to Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents having emerged relatively unscathed from the deadliest period of Coalition military activity, October 2001-March 2002. They have since regrouped, reinforced, retrained, and rearmed. They also benefited from a two-plus-year respite resulting from the Coalition keeping its conventional units in garrison and chasing the insurgents only with Special Forces and intelligence officers. The Taliban acknowledged this respite in May 2005 when it posted "night letters" condemning Karzai for giving the U.S. permanent bases and seeking a "strategic partnership" with Washington. The letters told Afghans that "the principle duty of the mujahideen [e.g., fighting infidels] has just started." [8]
The recent attacks fit bin Laden's strategic goal of ensuring "the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan." [9] In 1998, bin Laden pledged personal loyalty to Mullah Omar, describing him as "our chief" and "the legitimate ruler of the state of Afghanistan … [the] embodiment of Islamic respect." [10] These facts are downplayed by Western leaders who say bin Laden was paying lip service to Omar and that al-Qaeda is now solely focused on the jihad in Iraq. No one, however, should doubt bin Laden's resolve to help retake Afghanistan for Mullah Omar. In June 2000, Bin Laden stressed Afghanistan's central place in al-Qaeda's strategy"
"Any aggression by the United States today against Afghanistan would not be against Afghanistan itself, but against the Afghanistan that hoists the banner of Islam in the world, the true, mujahid Islam, which fights for the sake of God… Allah has blessed Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan… They were able to unify the country under the Taliban and under the leadership of Amir ul-Mu'mineen [Commander of the Faithful] Mulanna [our Mullah] Omar. So today, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that has the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is compulsory upon Muslims all over the world to help Afghanistan. And to make hijra to this land, because it is from this land that we will dispatch our armies to smash all kuffar all over the world." [11]
Time and setbacks have not dulled bin Laden's resolve. After the 9/11 attacks, for example, bin Ladin said Afghanistan would be the site of "one of Islam's immortal battles." [12] "[U]nder the leadership of our mujahid Amir … Mullah Muhammad Omar," bin Laden wrote, "we are firm on the path of jihad for the cause of God." Bin Laden said Omar knew "the United States was not against me. It was not even against the Taliban. It was against Islam." [13] In late 2004, bin Laden again stressed the Afghans' courageous hospitality and the strategic importance of restoring Taliban rule. He used poetry, which he employs for topics of great importance, to assert that Allah had made Afghanistan "a door of sustenance" for all Muslims:
"The love of Hijaz is deep in my heart.
But the rulers there are wolves.
In Afghanistan, I have a home and companions.
And from Allah comes a door for sustenance.
Like friends, horses are few.
Even if they appear many, in the eyes of the inexperienced.
And anyone who appreciates kindness is loved.
And any place where glory is home grown, is blessed." [14]
Consistent with al-Qaeda's tactical doctrine for aiding Islamist insurgencies, Taliban leaders are taking the lead in discussing and claiming credit for the increased violence. Al-Qaeda's doctrine is clear: Support the insurgents fully and offer advice, but stay in the background, do not dictate, and allow local leaders to run operations as they see fit. Thus, on 15 June 2005, senior Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Usmani told GEO Television about the state of the Afghan insurgency. Usmani said bin Laden was, "thanks be to God … absolutely fine, in good health and fit," but said no more about him. Usmani, who was charged in 2003 with reorganizing Taliban forces, then moved to Omar, calling him "our leader and chief," asserting that "no one [in the Taliban] is against him," and saying Omar instructs him regularly by telephone. Usmani also said the Taliban is reorganized and it,
"is in all areas [of Afghanistan]. In some areas, it is working more; in some areas, it is working less. However, it is present and working in all provinces… Almost 80 percent of the [Afghan] people are with us; they were not in the past, but now they are because when they consider U.S. atrocities and actions, they come to understand the United States is their enemy… Now our fighting is increasing. It may increase manifold this year... We also have weapons. We do not need anything. [15]
Conclusion
It is not yet clear that the increased insurgent attacks in Afghanistan are the start of a sustainable, al-Qaeda-backed, Taliban-led offensive. The attacks, however, fit al-Qaeda's strategic goal of returning Mullah Omar‘s to power, and its tactical policy of helping the insurgents while leaving them in charge and in the spotlight. For now, al-Qaeda's main contributions are its public fealty to Omar and provision of Arab suicide bombers which -- if used in numbers similar to Iraq -- would present an unprecedented challenge to the Coalition.
Finally, Taliban and al-Qaeda military efforts are being augmented by what Al-Quds al-Arabi described as "conditions in Afghanistan [which] are deteriorating at a terrifying speed and returning to the state of chaos similar to the one that prevailed before [the] Taleban took over power…." This, at day's end, is the insurgents' strongest ally, and one the Coalition can do little to defeat without country-wide military operations and massive infusions of economic aid.
Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.
Notes
1. Amin Tarzai and Kathleen Ridalfo, "Arab Boost for Afghan Resistance," Asia Times, 61 June 2005
2. "Interview of Zalmay Khalilzad," GEO Television [Dubai], 18 June 2005
3. Tolu Television [Kabul], 16 June 2005.
4. Sayed Salahuddin, "Afghan leader predicts violence as NATO pledges troops," Reuters, 15 June 2005.
5. Paul Haven, "Afghan minister says al-Qaeda regroups," Associated Press, 17 June 2005
6. Ibid. and "Problems in Afghanistan Emanate Abroad," Eslah [Kabul], 16 June 2005.
7. Amin Tarzai and Kathleen Ridalfo, "Arab Boost for Afghan Resistance," Asia Times, 61 June 2005.
8. Ibid.
9. Mufti Jamal Khan, "Bin Ladin: Expel Jews, Christians from Holy Places," Jang [Pakistan], 18 November 1998.
10. "Hero of Modern Times," The Nation, Lahore Edition (Internet version), 21 August 1998.
11. "Usama Speaks on Hijrah and the Islamic State," Al-Jihaad Newsletter, Issue No. 4, 22 June 2000.
12. "Letter by Usama Bin Ladin to the Pakistani People," Al-Jazeera TV, 24 September 2001.
13. Hamid Mir, "The War has not yet begun; Detailed interview with Usama bin Ladin," Ausaf [Pakistan], 16 November 2001.
14. "Osama Bin Laden's December 16,2004, Statement to the Saudi Rulers," jihadunspun.com
15. "Interview with Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Usmani," GEO Television [Dubai], 15 June 2005; Rahimullah Yusufzai, "Taliban commander Usmani in limelight after GEO interview," The News [Pakistan], 16 June 2005; and Safaqat Jan, "Taleban Chief: Bin Laden alive and well," Associated Press, 15 June 2005.
By Michael Scheuer
Amid Pakistani President's Musharraf's claims that al-Qaeda's "back is broken," and those by U.S. officials that Al-Qaeda is focused on Iraq, the Arabic daily Al-Quds al-Arabi has described "a noticeable increase in the attacks on U.S. forces in various parts of Afghanistan." Explanations for the attacks range from better weather, Pakistani interference in Afghan affairs; and increased aid to the insurgents from "regional powers." This article examines these claims, assesses their validity, and suggests a fourth cause for the violence -- that al-Qaeda is simply pursuing its long-term Afghan strategy.
Rites of Spring, Pakistani Designs, and Foreign Conspiracies?
The jump in violence in Afghanistan is being been attributed to several factors. Senior Coalition officials say the spike was "predictable" after the spring thaw. U.S. General Eric Olson minimized the threat posed by the attacks, saying they "lack cohesion" and will "fade [even] in traditional Taliban strongholds." [1] Perhaps hedging their bets, Coalition military officials followed Olson's analysis by announcing that two-to-five thousand more NATO troops would deploy to Afghanistan later in 2005.
Departing U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, on the other hand, said on 18 June that the attacks in Afghanistan are directed from abroad because Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are not in Afghanistan. (4) Khalilzad did not say where the two men are, but none-too-subtly pointed to Pakistan. "If GEO [Television] can get in touch with them [Taleban leaders]," Khalilzad said, "how can the intelligence service of a country which has nuclear bombs and a lot of military and security forces, not find them?" [2] Simultaneously, senior Afghan scholar Morab Boresh and presidential spokesman Jafar Rasuli excoriated Pakistan. "The Pakistanis will never stop interfering in Afghanistan's internal affairs," Baresh told Kabul‘s Tolu Television. "We still have Pakistani elements within our own [Afghan] government… I do not know when they will stop [interfering]" On 20 June, DCI Porter Goss also hinted that bin Laden and Omar are in Pakistan. [3]
Other Afghan officials saw multiple foreign hands at work. President Karzai, for example, said the violence was caused by an external "conspiracy [that] will increase against our country" as parliamentary elections near. [4] "It looks," Defense Minister Rahim Wardak added, "like there has been a regrouping of al-Qaeda, and [that] they have changed their tactics to concentrate on Iraq, but Afghanistan too." [5] Wardak and Karzai's spokesman Jawid Luran also claimed "foreigners" and "regional powers" were promoting the attacks through increased support for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Luran said the killing of pro-Karzai cleric Mullah Fayyaz and the bombing of a U.S. Reconstruction Team's base -- both in Qandahar Province -- was the work of non-Afghan "terrorists." [6] Qandahar governor Gul Agha Shurzai supported this judgment. After the bombing of the mosque conducting Fayyaz's funeral, Shurzai said police "found documents on the [bomber's] body that showed he was an Arab." Shirazi said this proved "Arab al-Qaeda teams had entered Afghanistan and had planned terrorist attacks." [7]
Al-Qaeda: Staying its Course in Afghanistan
Each of these contentions contains some truth. That said, the increased violence is mainly due to Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents having emerged relatively unscathed from the deadliest period of Coalition military activity, October 2001-March 2002. They have since regrouped, reinforced, retrained, and rearmed. They also benefited from a two-plus-year respite resulting from the Coalition keeping its conventional units in garrison and chasing the insurgents only with Special Forces and intelligence officers. The Taliban acknowledged this respite in May 2005 when it posted "night letters" condemning Karzai for giving the U.S. permanent bases and seeking a "strategic partnership" with Washington. The letters told Afghans that "the principle duty of the mujahideen [e.g., fighting infidels] has just started." [8]
The recent attacks fit bin Laden's strategic goal of ensuring "the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan." [9] In 1998, bin Laden pledged personal loyalty to Mullah Omar, describing him as "our chief" and "the legitimate ruler of the state of Afghanistan … [the] embodiment of Islamic respect." [10] These facts are downplayed by Western leaders who say bin Laden was paying lip service to Omar and that al-Qaeda is now solely focused on the jihad in Iraq. No one, however, should doubt bin Laden's resolve to help retake Afghanistan for Mullah Omar. In June 2000, Bin Laden stressed Afghanistan's central place in al-Qaeda's strategy"
"Any aggression by the United States today against Afghanistan would not be against Afghanistan itself, but against the Afghanistan that hoists the banner of Islam in the world, the true, mujahid Islam, which fights for the sake of God… Allah has blessed Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan… They were able to unify the country under the Taliban and under the leadership of Amir ul-Mu'mineen [Commander of the Faithful] Mulanna [our Mullah] Omar. So today, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that has the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is compulsory upon Muslims all over the world to help Afghanistan. And to make hijra to this land, because it is from this land that we will dispatch our armies to smash all kuffar all over the world." [11]
Time and setbacks have not dulled bin Laden's resolve. After the 9/11 attacks, for example, bin Ladin said Afghanistan would be the site of "one of Islam's immortal battles." [12] "[U]nder the leadership of our mujahid Amir … Mullah Muhammad Omar," bin Laden wrote, "we are firm on the path of jihad for the cause of God." Bin Laden said Omar knew "the United States was not against me. It was not even against the Taliban. It was against Islam." [13] In late 2004, bin Laden again stressed the Afghans' courageous hospitality and the strategic importance of restoring Taliban rule. He used poetry, which he employs for topics of great importance, to assert that Allah had made Afghanistan "a door of sustenance" for all Muslims:
"The love of Hijaz is deep in my heart.
But the rulers there are wolves.
In Afghanistan, I have a home and companions.
And from Allah comes a door for sustenance.
Like friends, horses are few.
Even if they appear many, in the eyes of the inexperienced.
And anyone who appreciates kindness is loved.
And any place where glory is home grown, is blessed." [14]
Consistent with al-Qaeda's tactical doctrine for aiding Islamist insurgencies, Taliban leaders are taking the lead in discussing and claiming credit for the increased violence. Al-Qaeda's doctrine is clear: Support the insurgents fully and offer advice, but stay in the background, do not dictate, and allow local leaders to run operations as they see fit. Thus, on 15 June 2005, senior Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Usmani told GEO Television about the state of the Afghan insurgency. Usmani said bin Laden was, "thanks be to God … absolutely fine, in good health and fit," but said no more about him. Usmani, who was charged in 2003 with reorganizing Taliban forces, then moved to Omar, calling him "our leader and chief," asserting that "no one [in the Taliban] is against him," and saying Omar instructs him regularly by telephone. Usmani also said the Taliban is reorganized and it,
"is in all areas [of Afghanistan]. In some areas, it is working more; in some areas, it is working less. However, it is present and working in all provinces… Almost 80 percent of the [Afghan] people are with us; they were not in the past, but now they are because when they consider U.S. atrocities and actions, they come to understand the United States is their enemy… Now our fighting is increasing. It may increase manifold this year... We also have weapons. We do not need anything. [15]
Conclusion
It is not yet clear that the increased insurgent attacks in Afghanistan are the start of a sustainable, al-Qaeda-backed, Taliban-led offensive. The attacks, however, fit al-Qaeda's strategic goal of returning Mullah Omar‘s to power, and its tactical policy of helping the insurgents while leaving them in charge and in the spotlight. For now, al-Qaeda's main contributions are its public fealty to Omar and provision of Arab suicide bombers which -- if used in numbers similar to Iraq -- would present an unprecedented challenge to the Coalition.
Finally, Taliban and al-Qaeda military efforts are being augmented by what Al-Quds al-Arabi described as "conditions in Afghanistan [which] are deteriorating at a terrifying speed and returning to the state of chaos similar to the one that prevailed before [the] Taleban took over power…." This, at day's end, is the insurgents' strongest ally, and one the Coalition can do little to defeat without country-wide military operations and massive infusions of economic aid.
Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.
Notes
1. Amin Tarzai and Kathleen Ridalfo, "Arab Boost for Afghan Resistance," Asia Times, 61 June 2005
2. "Interview of Zalmay Khalilzad," GEO Television [Dubai], 18 June 2005
3. Tolu Television [Kabul], 16 June 2005.
4. Sayed Salahuddin, "Afghan leader predicts violence as NATO pledges troops," Reuters, 15 June 2005.
5. Paul Haven, "Afghan minister says al-Qaeda regroups," Associated Press, 17 June 2005
6. Ibid. and "Problems in Afghanistan Emanate Abroad," Eslah [Kabul], 16 June 2005.
7. Amin Tarzai and Kathleen Ridalfo, "Arab Boost for Afghan Resistance," Asia Times, 61 June 2005.
8. Ibid.
9. Mufti Jamal Khan, "Bin Ladin: Expel Jews, Christians from Holy Places," Jang [Pakistan], 18 November 1998.
10. "Hero of Modern Times," The Nation, Lahore Edition (Internet version), 21 August 1998.
11. "Usama Speaks on Hijrah and the Islamic State," Al-Jihaad Newsletter, Issue No. 4, 22 June 2000.
12. "Letter by Usama Bin Ladin to the Pakistani People," Al-Jazeera TV, 24 September 2001.
13. Hamid Mir, "The War has not yet begun; Detailed interview with Usama bin Ladin," Ausaf [Pakistan], 16 November 2001.
14. "Osama Bin Laden's December 16,2004, Statement to the Saudi Rulers," jihadunspun.com
15. "Interview with Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Usmani," GEO Television [Dubai], 15 June 2005; Rahimullah Yusufzai, "Taliban commander Usmani in limelight after GEO interview," The News [Pakistan], 16 June 2005; and Safaqat Jan, "Taleban Chief: Bin Laden alive and well," Associated Press, 15 June 2005.
US war with Iran has already begun , Azerbaijan forward bases in use
-- Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of DefenceTalk.com
URL of this article:
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.
It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.
But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.
To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.
The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.
But this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.
In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.
No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.
A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.
US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.
Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.
Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.
America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.
Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.
Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.
We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.
The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of DefenceTalk.com
URL of this article:
US : "Silent preparation for war" against IRAN and N Korea
According to Jeffrey Steinberg , of EIR , " A number of well-informed sources in Israel, the U.S.A., and the Arab world have warned this news service of growing evidence that a "silent preparation for war" is now under way in Washington and Tel Aviv, which could blow up Southwest Asia in the immediate weeks ahead. Among the leading elements of the picture assembled from discussions with these sources, between June 7-9, are these:
* Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to an Israeli source, is intent on instigating a crisis with Lebanon and Syria. On June 8, Israeli fighter jets and reconnaissance planes spent two hours conducting flights over Lebanese territory, as far north as Batroun, north of Beirut, and into the Bekaa Valley near the Syrian border, drawing anti-aircraft fire. The Israeli incursions came just days after Hezbollah candidates scored dramatic election victories in southern Lebanon.
In a May 29 interview with Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post, Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and a leading candidate to be named Prime Minister after the ongoing Lebanese parliamentary elections, declared that he would seek to bring the Shi'ite party Hezbollah into any coalition government he formed. Hariri told Weymouth that he would oppose any immediate disarmament of the Hezbollah militias, because they are the key force preventing an Israeli seizure of the disputed Sheba Farms border area. He warned that if Hezbollah were to be disarmed, and the Sheba Farms conflict continued, it could lead to a full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon. "
The Israeli source emphasized that Prime Minister Sharon is increasingly concerned that U.S. President George Bush is becoming a lame duck, and is coming under pressure to pull American troops out of Iraq, as casualties mount and the situation on the ground becomes more chaotic. Sharon is convinced that the conditions must be set for decisive military actions against both Syria and Iran, before an American military withdrawal from Iraq.
* The same Israeli source claimed that, in recent days, after the reported Syrian test-firing of new Scud missiles, some Sharon aides had pressed for a direct military attack on Damascus, but French and German pressure on Israel forestalled that for the time being.
* At the same time that Israeli provocations have escalated against Syria and Lebanon, some members of Sharon's war cabinet have been pressing for Israeli "breakaway ally" strikes against some nuclear targets inside Iran. The recent Iranian testing of a new medium-range missile using solid fuel was propagandistically seized upon by some Israeli hawks as a "red line," a development which accelerates the need to knock out, or seriously degrade, Iran's purported nuclear weapons program.
David Ivry, the former Israeli Ambassador in Washington, and the architect of the 1981 Israeli Air Force bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, told Reuters on May 30 that he favored Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. "You cannot eliminate an idea, a national will. But you can delay progress on a nuclear program with the appropriate military action. That is a valuable objective in itself," Ivry admitted.
The United States and Israel have different assessments of the Iranian nuclear program. Some Israeli military analysts claim Iran is just months away from obtaining all the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon, and Ivry told Reuters that Israel must act when "the threat has become insufferable. You set a deadline beyond which you believe you will lose the option of acting."
U.S. intelligence agencies reject the Israeli claim of an imminent Iranian nuclear arms breakout, making the assessment that Iran is several years away from obtaining the capacity to build and deliver a nuclear bomb. And factions in the Bush Administration are pressing for a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue. The uniformed military is dead set against any kind of American military action against Iran, arguing that the 150,000 American troops presently in Iraq would be, in effect, hostages to a potential Iranian or other Shi'ite retaliation. And the Bush Administration recently dropped its opposition to Iran's joining the World Trade Organization, and to building the pipeline through Pakistan to India. Just a month ago, in a visit to New Delhi, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had warned India not to go ahead with the oil pipeline deal with Tehran.
* A U.S. intelligence source warned that Israeli provocations against Syria could impel hardliners in Damascus to increase their assistance to the most violent factions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Any acceleration of attacks on Israeli targets from within the Palestinian territories would be seized upon by Sharon to stall the Gaza withdrawal, scheduled to begin in August. Or he could insist on a "Gaza only" policy, meaning no Israeli pullout from the West Bank, after a Gaza withdrawal. The source also cited the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections, where a strong showing by Hamas could give the Israeli right wing the excuse to walk away from any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority
" .. the people who use Cheney are also desperate, and are accelerating crises around the globe, from Southwest Asia to the Korean peninsula.
One senior American military historian pointed to the escalated rhetoric of Cheney and Rumsfeld recently against North Korea as one indicator that the Cheney crowd might be contemplating simultaneous provocations against North Korea and Iran. The historian pointed to the parallels to 1956, when Britain, France, and Israel invaded and seized the Suez Canal, at the same moment that the Hungarian Revolution erupted against the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.
The Israeli source also noted that Cheney is well aware that if the United States launches a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, using mini-nuclear weapons, the international outcry will be so great that no near-term opportunity will exist to take on Iran. So, an American attack on North Korea, coinciding with an Israeli limited strike on Iran cannot, the two sources insisted, be ruled out "
"X Committee"
The term "X Committee" refers to senior Reagan-era Pentagon officials suspected of deploying Israeli spy Jonathan Jay Pollard, but never caught. Among those still playing pivotal roles today in Washington are Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, and Douglas Feith.
A number of these X Committee figures wrote the July 1996 report titled "A Clean Break" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spelling out a regional war scheme to knock out the governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. It is that plan, passed from the X Committee gang in Washington into Israel, that is still playing out today, and is behind the "Israeli" provocations against Syria and Iran.
One possible pathway to halting these "silent preparations for war" will be open soon in the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria, Va. On June 13, former Pentagon Iran analyst Lawrence Franklin will appear in court for the unsealing of grand jury indictments, which are expected also to name two "former" AIPAC (American Israel Political Affairs Committee) senior employees, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The three, possibly along with several Israelis, are expected to be charged with espionage-related crimes, involving the passing of classified information to an Israeli embassy official, Naor Gilon, whom former U.S. intelligence officials have identified as the Mossad station chief in Washington.
Larry Franklin was the Iran desk officer at the Pentagon's Near East South Asia policy unit headed by William Luti, now a White House Special Assistant to the President. Luti came out of Cheney's VP office and was part of an X Committee cell at the Pentagon that reported directly to Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to eyewitness accounts. Other members of the cell, who apparently used Franklin as their patsy, included outgoing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, one of the co-authors of "A Clean Break."
* Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to an Israeli source, is intent on instigating a crisis with Lebanon and Syria. On June 8, Israeli fighter jets and reconnaissance planes spent two hours conducting flights over Lebanese territory, as far north as Batroun, north of Beirut, and into the Bekaa Valley near the Syrian border, drawing anti-aircraft fire. The Israeli incursions came just days after Hezbollah candidates scored dramatic election victories in southern Lebanon.
In a May 29 interview with Lally Weymouth of the Washington Post, Saad Hariri, the son of the slain former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and a leading candidate to be named Prime Minister after the ongoing Lebanese parliamentary elections, declared that he would seek to bring the Shi'ite party Hezbollah into any coalition government he formed. Hariri told Weymouth that he would oppose any immediate disarmament of the Hezbollah militias, because they are the key force preventing an Israeli seizure of the disputed Sheba Farms border area. He warned that if Hezbollah were to be disarmed, and the Sheba Farms conflict continued, it could lead to a full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon. "
The Israeli source emphasized that Prime Minister Sharon is increasingly concerned that U.S. President George Bush is becoming a lame duck, and is coming under pressure to pull American troops out of Iraq, as casualties mount and the situation on the ground becomes more chaotic. Sharon is convinced that the conditions must be set for decisive military actions against both Syria and Iran, before an American military withdrawal from Iraq.
* The same Israeli source claimed that, in recent days, after the reported Syrian test-firing of new Scud missiles, some Sharon aides had pressed for a direct military attack on Damascus, but French and German pressure on Israel forestalled that for the time being.
* At the same time that Israeli provocations have escalated against Syria and Lebanon, some members of Sharon's war cabinet have been pressing for Israeli "breakaway ally" strikes against some nuclear targets inside Iran. The recent Iranian testing of a new medium-range missile using solid fuel was propagandistically seized upon by some Israeli hawks as a "red line," a development which accelerates the need to knock out, or seriously degrade, Iran's purported nuclear weapons program.
David Ivry, the former Israeli Ambassador in Washington, and the architect of the 1981 Israeli Air Force bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, told Reuters on May 30 that he favored Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. "You cannot eliminate an idea, a national will. But you can delay progress on a nuclear program with the appropriate military action. That is a valuable objective in itself," Ivry admitted.
The United States and Israel have different assessments of the Iranian nuclear program. Some Israeli military analysts claim Iran is just months away from obtaining all the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon, and Ivry told Reuters that Israel must act when "the threat has become insufferable. You set a deadline beyond which you believe you will lose the option of acting."
U.S. intelligence agencies reject the Israeli claim of an imminent Iranian nuclear arms breakout, making the assessment that Iran is several years away from obtaining the capacity to build and deliver a nuclear bomb. And factions in the Bush Administration are pressing for a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue. The uniformed military is dead set against any kind of American military action against Iran, arguing that the 150,000 American troops presently in Iraq would be, in effect, hostages to a potential Iranian or other Shi'ite retaliation. And the Bush Administration recently dropped its opposition to Iran's joining the World Trade Organization, and to building the pipeline through Pakistan to India. Just a month ago, in a visit to New Delhi, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had warned India not to go ahead with the oil pipeline deal with Tehran.
* A U.S. intelligence source warned that Israeli provocations against Syria could impel hardliners in Damascus to increase their assistance to the most violent factions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Any acceleration of attacks on Israeli targets from within the Palestinian territories would be seized upon by Sharon to stall the Gaza withdrawal, scheduled to begin in August. Or he could insist on a "Gaza only" policy, meaning no Israeli pullout from the West Bank, after a Gaza withdrawal. The source also cited the upcoming Palestinian parliamentary elections, where a strong showing by Hamas could give the Israeli right wing the excuse to walk away from any peace deal with the Palestinian Authority
" .. the people who use Cheney are also desperate, and are accelerating crises around the globe, from Southwest Asia to the Korean peninsula.
One senior American military historian pointed to the escalated rhetoric of Cheney and Rumsfeld recently against North Korea as one indicator that the Cheney crowd might be contemplating simultaneous provocations against North Korea and Iran. The historian pointed to the parallels to 1956, when Britain, France, and Israel invaded and seized the Suez Canal, at the same moment that the Hungarian Revolution erupted against the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.
The Israeli source also noted that Cheney is well aware that if the United States launches a pre-emptive attack on North Korea, using mini-nuclear weapons, the international outcry will be so great that no near-term opportunity will exist to take on Iran. So, an American attack on North Korea, coinciding with an Israeli limited strike on Iran cannot, the two sources insisted, be ruled out "
"X Committee"
The term "X Committee" refers to senior Reagan-era Pentagon officials suspected of deploying Israeli spy Jonathan Jay Pollard, but never caught. Among those still playing pivotal roles today in Washington are Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, and Douglas Feith.
A number of these X Committee figures wrote the July 1996 report titled "A Clean Break" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, spelling out a regional war scheme to knock out the governments of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. It is that plan, passed from the X Committee gang in Washington into Israel, that is still playing out today, and is behind the "Israeli" provocations against Syria and Iran.
One possible pathway to halting these "silent preparations for war" will be open soon in the Federal Courthouse in Alexandria, Va. On June 13, former Pentagon Iran analyst Lawrence Franklin will appear in court for the unsealing of grand jury indictments, which are expected also to name two "former" AIPAC (American Israel Political Affairs Committee) senior employees, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The three, possibly along with several Israelis, are expected to be charged with espionage-related crimes, involving the passing of classified information to an Israeli embassy official, Naor Gilon, whom former U.S. intelligence officials have identified as the Mossad station chief in Washington.
Larry Franklin was the Iran desk officer at the Pentagon's Near East South Asia policy unit headed by William Luti, now a White House Special Assistant to the President. Luti came out of Cheney's VP office and was part of an X Committee cell at the Pentagon that reported directly to Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to eyewitness accounts. Other members of the cell, who apparently used Franklin as their patsy, included outgoing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, one of the co-authors of "A Clean Break."
''The Coming World Realignment''
Since the U.S. intervention in Iraq revealed the limits of Washington's ability to implement its security strategy of becoming the unquestioned political and military arbiter of the globalizing world economy, the underlying tendencies towards a multipolar configuration of world politics have crystallized into hard and obvious fact.
The scenario of U.S. power dominating in every region of the world for generations to come was always an ideological construction that was bound to be contradicted by the rise of regional power centers with interests at variance with Washington's aims; the difficulties encountered in the occupation of Iraq simply hastened the awareness of competing power centers that Washington could be opposed effectively without incurring unacceptable costs.
In the summer of 2004, the drift towards multipolarity was evident, but the balance of power in which it would eventuate was still uncertain. A year later, the configuration of multipolar world power is coming into focus and shows signs of settling into a stable alignment in the short term that promises a period in which no great power has an interest in taking major military initiatives -- an era of relative peace in which some powers attempt to regroup and retrench to make up for their loss of momentum, and others try to accelerate their ascent by continuing their economic growth and enhancing their military capabilities.
The short term likelihood of global stability does not prefigure a similar result in the medium and long terms; it is a consequence of a specific conjuncture in which all the major regional power centers are constrained to turn inwards in order to cope with domestic political strains and to fit themselves for achieving their more ambitious strategic aims in the future. The present moment of stasis is just as likely to be a prelude to a period of intensified conflict as it is to presage long term peace.
Assessment of the geopolitical future is broken down into short (up to five years), medium (five to ten years) and long term (10-20 years) scenarios, with any projection longer than 20 years sheer guess work. It is obvious that confidence in projections diminishes rapidly when they move beyond the short term because possible contingencies multiply at a geometrical progression. Even the short term prediction of relative stability could be disturbed by current and possible developments, including nuclear proliferation and intimidation, actions by Islamic revolutionaries, local wars in Africa and perhaps the Middle East, a more drastic turn towards the left in South America, increased tensions between India and Pakistan or mainland China and Taiwan, and a more militaristic policy in Russia, to name just a few.
The Current Power Centers
The short term interest in stability that is apparently shared by all of the major power centers is based on particular circumstances in each case and is actuated either by a perceived need to retrench or by the goal of protecting processes of economic and military development. The restorationist power centers include the United States, the European Union and Russia; the rising power centers are China, India and Brazil.
With the limits of its former military-based geostrategy revealed, Washington has emerged from an ensuing policy void and has begun to craft -- under the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- a classic balancing strategy dependent upon partnering with regional allies against perceived or potential adversaries. The U.S. remains a genuine world power with global reach, but Washington no longer nurses the illusion that it can act alone, which accounts for its turn towards multilateral diplomacy in dealing with nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Japan, and its reluctance to exert decisive pressure against Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
Major aims of Washington's current policy include partnering with Tokyo to contain Beijing, restoring its influence in South America in the face of resistance from Brasilia, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, encouraging further pro-Western movements in Russia's near abroad, and leaguing with the peripheral states in the E.U. to balance the Franco-German combine. None of those goals depends for its realization on further military interventions.
Having based its geostrategy on economic and cultural power, rather than military might, the E.U. has at least temporarily reached its limits of integration and, perhaps, expansion towards the east with the failure of referenda on the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands, and the cancellation of a referendum in Great Britain. The complex issues behind the constitution's rejection that primarily concern the future of the Western European welfare state demand that the European political class rethink its geostrategy of making the E.U. a power bloc balancing the U.S. and gaining greater leverage in negotiating with China. Adjustment to the E.U.'s loss of momentum towards consolidation and expansion does not spell its decline as a power center, but it does inhibit any bold and potentially destabilizing initiatives, handing an advantage to Washington and taking some pressure off Moscow.
Faced with successful pro-Western reform movements in its "near abroad" in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, Moscow is occupied with cutting its losses, growing its economy and rebuilding its military. Lacking the resources for a proactive foreign policy, Russia is the most compromised of the regional power centers and, therefore, in the short term, the one that threatens global stability the most if its political class takes a more defiant stance as its geopolitical losses mount.
Following its 20-year geostrategic plan of export-driven economic development and military renovation, Beijing sees itself as a rising power that needs time to realize its potential as the dominant factor in East Asia. It is unlikely to take precipitous military action that would threaten its export markets or invite U.S. intervention that it is not yet prepared to handle successfully, particularly over the issue of incorporating Taiwan. Both Washington and Beijing are aware that they are on a collision course in the long term, but Beijing has no interest at present in a confrontation.
Similarly to Beijing, New Delhi is pursuing a policy of economic development and militarization that is not yet complete. India is not ready to force the issue of Kashmir with a nuclear-armed Pakistan that is receiving military aid from Washington and has chosen to implement a dual-track strategy that contains elements of détente and military advantage. Again, like Beijing, New Delhi believes that time is on its side and it will probably remain patient and exercise restraint.
The most dynamic of the regional power centers is Brasilia, which has been emboldened by the rise of left-center governments in the southern cone of South America that do not acquiesce in Washington's neoliberal economic model, and by the stabilization of the Chavez administration in Caracas that has opted for a more socialist approach to globalization, to bid for dominant influence in its region against Washington. Leading the movement for south-south cooperation, advancing a trade agenda adverse to Washington's, offering Mercosur as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas and experimenting with industrial policies that undercut Western pharmaceutical and software multinationals, Brasilia need simply follow the course that it is taking to achieve its geostrategy aims.
Based on the way in which each of the major regional power centers perceives its interests, assesses its relative power and calculates its future power, a period of short term stability is likely in global politics. After that, the long term strategic aims of the players have the potential of coming into more intense conflict.
The Second Wave
This conflict will no doubt be stoked by actors that are "below the radar" of prevailing geopolitical thinking. Major intelligence and sociological studies are predicting a drastic rise in populations of several states that are currently either regional powers, or are themselves under strong influence or domination by the world's major states. These new geopolitical players will be affected as much by the conditions that may potentially limit the growth and development of the main players, as well as by the unique blend of circumstances indigenous to a specific region.
The formula that supports the emergent geopolitical prominence of several countries in the coming decades incorporates solid governance, strong state institutions (not necessarily run along democratic-capitalist lines), government control over military and internal affairs, as well as strong economies capable of competing in global terms. The absence of one or more of such conditions may render the state incapable of providing safety and security for its population, leaving the door open to possible subversion or influence by outside forces.
One other important factor that will ensure the power of states will be access to natural resources such as oil, gas and various metals and minerals. Additionally, given the strong population growth projections for China, India and a number of other states, access to and management of the agricultural products inside the states or on the international market will likewise be a determinant of states' abilities to secure their populations and to fully participate in world trade.
While the U.S. government, in its intelligence projections, gives due attention to the rise of the E.U., China, India, Brazil and possibly Russia to world power status, other states will soon be in a position to either emerge as the "second power wave" or become problematic obstacles to global stability and security.
One such state is Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and currently the fourth most populous state on the planet. The C.I.A.'s projections for 20 plus years into the future place Indonesia at such crossroad. Its current population of over 200 million people is expected to rise in the coming decades. Its growing market economy and international presence is a reflection of its government's pragmatic policies. While currently it is presently a U.S. partner in the global war on terrorism, Indonesia's overall stability can be elusive, as a combination of secessionist movements, internal dissent and natural disasters remain powerful impediments to the country's continuing development. Increasing population in the coming decades will put a strain on the country's limited natural resources, potentially forcing it to look to other countries to supplement its diminishing supplies.
Given Jakarta's powerful military establishment and continuing investment in military hardware and development, Indonesia will emerge as an even more powerful player in Southeast Asia. If the state is able to hold together in the face of the mounting social, economic and natural challenges, it will potentially emerge as an even more powerful regional player. If Indonesia is unable to maintain stability and cohesion, it will generate instability in the entire region that will affect its neighbors to the north and the south, especially Australia.
Other potential powers whose status will begin to crystallize by the year 2015-2020 are Egypt and Iran, each with populations approaching the 100 million mark, and each with its own set of geopolitical ambitions. Egypt is already one of the most important players in the Middle East, and is a current U.S. partner on Arab-Israeli issues and the war on terrorism. Iran is an emerging powerbroker in the region, with well-established political, religious and social connections to states such as Syria, Lebanon and beyond. Both countries face a similar dilemma -- their rapidly increasing populations will generate demand for jobs and economic growth, a demand that the government may not be able to satisfy.
Most importantly, both countries have powerful and growing militaries, with the Egyptian military fielding American-made high-tech hardware. The U.S. is already concerned about Iranian geopolitical moves, and it is still uncertain about what steps Iran will take as it attempts to respond to the growing political and social-ethnic pressure of its population. It will be difficult for any other Middle Eastern state to match Egypt and Iran in either military strength, the size of their populations, or their possible economic potential. If the current American efforts to spread democracy in the region do not take root (possibly mitigating the coming pressures on both states), it is likely that these two states will attempt to forge their distinct geostrategies that will not necessarily mesh with those currently deployed by the United States or Europe.
Africa is the clearest case where the emergence of more powerful players will generate frictions along economic and social fault lines. Nigeria, the current powerbroker in Western and Central Africa, will be joined by several states with increasing populations and growing ambitions backed by robust military establishments. The Democratic Republic of Congo (D.R.C.), Ethiopia and Uganda are expected to more than double their populations by 2025. All three were, until recently, involved in military conflicts either on their territory or through participation in civil wars involving other states. Uganda, together with Rwanda (itself expecting a vast population increase in the coming decades), is still involved in low-level fighting over vast natural resources in the D.R.C.
Rising populations in these states have a strong potential to trigger a new round of devastating wars over access to diminishing land and natural resources. Since the international community has been unable to put a stop to weapons trafficking and illicit trade in the vast Central African region, there is a powerful impetus for the powerbrokers in the region to resort to armed struggle to achieve necessary economic and social gains. Nigeria itself is expected to nearly double in population by 2025, and given its military strength, finite resources and the potential for internecine and interreligious violence may generate an implosion that will be difficult, if not impossible, to manage through the current international mechanisms.
Other potential powers that will seek to redress their own grievances will be Vietnam and the Philippines, with populations passing the 100 million mark by 2020. They will face similar problems as the other countries already mentioned -- diminishing resources, limited natural space, and the coming difficulties of satisfying the economic desires of their growing populations. Both states have robust militaries that have already confronted growing Chinese ambitions over access to natural resources in the South China Sea.
Vietnam, in particular, has been living "in the shadow" of China and even fought a brief war with Beijing in 1979. Both countries may not shy away from a confrontation in order to safeguard access to much-needed natural resources, and both will attempt to maintain their own spheres of influence for that purpose. Vietnam already acts as a regional powerbroker when it comes to the domestic and foreign affairs of Cambodia and Laos, which are states with much less geopolitical clout. It is not at all unlikely that Vietnam will attempt to rebuff growing Chinese ambitions across East Asia in order to ensure that its own population can survive the coming economic and social pressures.
Managing Geopolitical Uncertainties
The United States has made public its possible plans for dealing with the stronger and more ambitious India, China, and possibly the European Union. Preparations for dealing with the internal and international demands of these states are being made by the current presidential administration, and will continue to be developed by successive ones as well.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently hinted that Washington will help India to become a global power, possibly to counter a much stronger China by the year 2020. Yet, the emerging geopolitical trends hint at another pattern of development, one that will not just involve major and upcoming powers in international competition for power and influence, but the large, populous states of the current third world that may become increasingly more ambitious, or reckless, in pressing their demands.
In particular, some of these states may eschew their current political connections and strategies if they are unable to satisfy their growing needs and concerns. Additionally, a more complex geopolitical picture may invite players other than the U.S., Western Europe, Russia or Japan to compete for influence over these "second wave" powers. Great potential exists for China, India, Brazil and a handful of other states to establish strong links with these countries undergoing similar "growing pains" that the new powers themselves went through in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, U.S. and European influence may be undermined in the regions that will be hard pressed to deal with the dangers of diminishing natural resources, slow economic development and rising ethnic and social pressures.
If the "second wave" powers consider that the current international mechanisms and laws are unsuitable to dealing with unique pressures prevalent in each country in question, then a new set of political paradigms may emerge that will be better suited to solving problems unique to each country. This possible development demands that Washington and other power centers around the world prepare themselves not just for the more obvious geopolitical challenges stemming from rapidly emerging new powers, but also for the upcoming difficulties and uncertainties in dealing with a dozen new regional players. This new "multifaceted multipolarity" will generate new sets of both setbacks and opportunities, and today's preparation, far-reaching policy implementation and planning will encourage more peaceful problem solving in the increasingly complex world of the coming decades.
Report Drafted By:
Dr. Michael A. Weinstein, Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.
The scenario of U.S. power dominating in every region of the world for generations to come was always an ideological construction that was bound to be contradicted by the rise of regional power centers with interests at variance with Washington's aims; the difficulties encountered in the occupation of Iraq simply hastened the awareness of competing power centers that Washington could be opposed effectively without incurring unacceptable costs.
In the summer of 2004, the drift towards multipolarity was evident, but the balance of power in which it would eventuate was still uncertain. A year later, the configuration of multipolar world power is coming into focus and shows signs of settling into a stable alignment in the short term that promises a period in which no great power has an interest in taking major military initiatives -- an era of relative peace in which some powers attempt to regroup and retrench to make up for their loss of momentum, and others try to accelerate their ascent by continuing their economic growth and enhancing their military capabilities.
The short term likelihood of global stability does not prefigure a similar result in the medium and long terms; it is a consequence of a specific conjuncture in which all the major regional power centers are constrained to turn inwards in order to cope with domestic political strains and to fit themselves for achieving their more ambitious strategic aims in the future. The present moment of stasis is just as likely to be a prelude to a period of intensified conflict as it is to presage long term peace.
Assessment of the geopolitical future is broken down into short (up to five years), medium (five to ten years) and long term (10-20 years) scenarios, with any projection longer than 20 years sheer guess work. It is obvious that confidence in projections diminishes rapidly when they move beyond the short term because possible contingencies multiply at a geometrical progression. Even the short term prediction of relative stability could be disturbed by current and possible developments, including nuclear proliferation and intimidation, actions by Islamic revolutionaries, local wars in Africa and perhaps the Middle East, a more drastic turn towards the left in South America, increased tensions between India and Pakistan or mainland China and Taiwan, and a more militaristic policy in Russia, to name just a few.
The Current Power Centers
The short term interest in stability that is apparently shared by all of the major power centers is based on particular circumstances in each case and is actuated either by a perceived need to retrench or by the goal of protecting processes of economic and military development. The restorationist power centers include the United States, the European Union and Russia; the rising power centers are China, India and Brazil.
With the limits of its former military-based geostrategy revealed, Washington has emerged from an ensuing policy void and has begun to craft -- under the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- a classic balancing strategy dependent upon partnering with regional allies against perceived or potential adversaries. The U.S. remains a genuine world power with global reach, but Washington no longer nurses the illusion that it can act alone, which accounts for its turn towards multilateral diplomacy in dealing with nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Japan, and its reluctance to exert decisive pressure against Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
Major aims of Washington's current policy include partnering with Tokyo to contain Beijing, restoring its influence in South America in the face of resistance from Brasilia, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, encouraging further pro-Western movements in Russia's near abroad, and leaguing with the peripheral states in the E.U. to balance the Franco-German combine. None of those goals depends for its realization on further military interventions.
Having based its geostrategy on economic and cultural power, rather than military might, the E.U. has at least temporarily reached its limits of integration and, perhaps, expansion towards the east with the failure of referenda on the European Constitution in France and the Netherlands, and the cancellation of a referendum in Great Britain. The complex issues behind the constitution's rejection that primarily concern the future of the Western European welfare state demand that the European political class rethink its geostrategy of making the E.U. a power bloc balancing the U.S. and gaining greater leverage in negotiating with China. Adjustment to the E.U.'s loss of momentum towards consolidation and expansion does not spell its decline as a power center, but it does inhibit any bold and potentially destabilizing initiatives, handing an advantage to Washington and taking some pressure off Moscow.
Faced with successful pro-Western reform movements in its "near abroad" in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, Moscow is occupied with cutting its losses, growing its economy and rebuilding its military. Lacking the resources for a proactive foreign policy, Russia is the most compromised of the regional power centers and, therefore, in the short term, the one that threatens global stability the most if its political class takes a more defiant stance as its geopolitical losses mount.
Following its 20-year geostrategic plan of export-driven economic development and military renovation, Beijing sees itself as a rising power that needs time to realize its potential as the dominant factor in East Asia. It is unlikely to take precipitous military action that would threaten its export markets or invite U.S. intervention that it is not yet prepared to handle successfully, particularly over the issue of incorporating Taiwan. Both Washington and Beijing are aware that they are on a collision course in the long term, but Beijing has no interest at present in a confrontation.
Similarly to Beijing, New Delhi is pursuing a policy of economic development and militarization that is not yet complete. India is not ready to force the issue of Kashmir with a nuclear-armed Pakistan that is receiving military aid from Washington and has chosen to implement a dual-track strategy that contains elements of détente and military advantage. Again, like Beijing, New Delhi believes that time is on its side and it will probably remain patient and exercise restraint.
The most dynamic of the regional power centers is Brasilia, which has been emboldened by the rise of left-center governments in the southern cone of South America that do not acquiesce in Washington's neoliberal economic model, and by the stabilization of the Chavez administration in Caracas that has opted for a more socialist approach to globalization, to bid for dominant influence in its region against Washington. Leading the movement for south-south cooperation, advancing a trade agenda adverse to Washington's, offering Mercosur as an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas and experimenting with industrial policies that undercut Western pharmaceutical and software multinationals, Brasilia need simply follow the course that it is taking to achieve its geostrategy aims.
Based on the way in which each of the major regional power centers perceives its interests, assesses its relative power and calculates its future power, a period of short term stability is likely in global politics. After that, the long term strategic aims of the players have the potential of coming into more intense conflict.
The Second Wave
This conflict will no doubt be stoked by actors that are "below the radar" of prevailing geopolitical thinking. Major intelligence and sociological studies are predicting a drastic rise in populations of several states that are currently either regional powers, or are themselves under strong influence or domination by the world's major states. These new geopolitical players will be affected as much by the conditions that may potentially limit the growth and development of the main players, as well as by the unique blend of circumstances indigenous to a specific region.
The formula that supports the emergent geopolitical prominence of several countries in the coming decades incorporates solid governance, strong state institutions (not necessarily run along democratic-capitalist lines), government control over military and internal affairs, as well as strong economies capable of competing in global terms. The absence of one or more of such conditions may render the state incapable of providing safety and security for its population, leaving the door open to possible subversion or influence by outside forces.
One other important factor that will ensure the power of states will be access to natural resources such as oil, gas and various metals and minerals. Additionally, given the strong population growth projections for China, India and a number of other states, access to and management of the agricultural products inside the states or on the international market will likewise be a determinant of states' abilities to secure their populations and to fully participate in world trade.
While the U.S. government, in its intelligence projections, gives due attention to the rise of the E.U., China, India, Brazil and possibly Russia to world power status, other states will soon be in a position to either emerge as the "second power wave" or become problematic obstacles to global stability and security.
One such state is Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, and currently the fourth most populous state on the planet. The C.I.A.'s projections for 20 plus years into the future place Indonesia at such crossroad. Its current population of over 200 million people is expected to rise in the coming decades. Its growing market economy and international presence is a reflection of its government's pragmatic policies. While currently it is presently a U.S. partner in the global war on terrorism, Indonesia's overall stability can be elusive, as a combination of secessionist movements, internal dissent and natural disasters remain powerful impediments to the country's continuing development. Increasing population in the coming decades will put a strain on the country's limited natural resources, potentially forcing it to look to other countries to supplement its diminishing supplies.
Given Jakarta's powerful military establishment and continuing investment in military hardware and development, Indonesia will emerge as an even more powerful player in Southeast Asia. If the state is able to hold together in the face of the mounting social, economic and natural challenges, it will potentially emerge as an even more powerful regional player. If Indonesia is unable to maintain stability and cohesion, it will generate instability in the entire region that will affect its neighbors to the north and the south, especially Australia.
Other potential powers whose status will begin to crystallize by the year 2015-2020 are Egypt and Iran, each with populations approaching the 100 million mark, and each with its own set of geopolitical ambitions. Egypt is already one of the most important players in the Middle East, and is a current U.S. partner on Arab-Israeli issues and the war on terrorism. Iran is an emerging powerbroker in the region, with well-established political, religious and social connections to states such as Syria, Lebanon and beyond. Both countries face a similar dilemma -- their rapidly increasing populations will generate demand for jobs and economic growth, a demand that the government may not be able to satisfy.
Most importantly, both countries have powerful and growing militaries, with the Egyptian military fielding American-made high-tech hardware. The U.S. is already concerned about Iranian geopolitical moves, and it is still uncertain about what steps Iran will take as it attempts to respond to the growing political and social-ethnic pressure of its population. It will be difficult for any other Middle Eastern state to match Egypt and Iran in either military strength, the size of their populations, or their possible economic potential. If the current American efforts to spread democracy in the region do not take root (possibly mitigating the coming pressures on both states), it is likely that these two states will attempt to forge their distinct geostrategies that will not necessarily mesh with those currently deployed by the United States or Europe.
Africa is the clearest case where the emergence of more powerful players will generate frictions along economic and social fault lines. Nigeria, the current powerbroker in Western and Central Africa, will be joined by several states with increasing populations and growing ambitions backed by robust military establishments. The Democratic Republic of Congo (D.R.C.), Ethiopia and Uganda are expected to more than double their populations by 2025. All three were, until recently, involved in military conflicts either on their territory or through participation in civil wars involving other states. Uganda, together with Rwanda (itself expecting a vast population increase in the coming decades), is still involved in low-level fighting over vast natural resources in the D.R.C.
Rising populations in these states have a strong potential to trigger a new round of devastating wars over access to diminishing land and natural resources. Since the international community has been unable to put a stop to weapons trafficking and illicit trade in the vast Central African region, there is a powerful impetus for the powerbrokers in the region to resort to armed struggle to achieve necessary economic and social gains. Nigeria itself is expected to nearly double in population by 2025, and given its military strength, finite resources and the potential for internecine and interreligious violence may generate an implosion that will be difficult, if not impossible, to manage through the current international mechanisms.
Other potential powers that will seek to redress their own grievances will be Vietnam and the Philippines, with populations passing the 100 million mark by 2020. They will face similar problems as the other countries already mentioned -- diminishing resources, limited natural space, and the coming difficulties of satisfying the economic desires of their growing populations. Both states have robust militaries that have already confronted growing Chinese ambitions over access to natural resources in the South China Sea.
Vietnam, in particular, has been living "in the shadow" of China and even fought a brief war with Beijing in 1979. Both countries may not shy away from a confrontation in order to safeguard access to much-needed natural resources, and both will attempt to maintain their own spheres of influence for that purpose. Vietnam already acts as a regional powerbroker when it comes to the domestic and foreign affairs of Cambodia and Laos, which are states with much less geopolitical clout. It is not at all unlikely that Vietnam will attempt to rebuff growing Chinese ambitions across East Asia in order to ensure that its own population can survive the coming economic and social pressures.
Managing Geopolitical Uncertainties
The United States has made public its possible plans for dealing with the stronger and more ambitious India, China, and possibly the European Union. Preparations for dealing with the internal and international demands of these states are being made by the current presidential administration, and will continue to be developed by successive ones as well.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently hinted that Washington will help India to become a global power, possibly to counter a much stronger China by the year 2020. Yet, the emerging geopolitical trends hint at another pattern of development, one that will not just involve major and upcoming powers in international competition for power and influence, but the large, populous states of the current third world that may become increasingly more ambitious, or reckless, in pressing their demands.
In particular, some of these states may eschew their current political connections and strategies if they are unable to satisfy their growing needs and concerns. Additionally, a more complex geopolitical picture may invite players other than the U.S., Western Europe, Russia or Japan to compete for influence over these "second wave" powers. Great potential exists for China, India, Brazil and a handful of other states to establish strong links with these countries undergoing similar "growing pains" that the new powers themselves went through in the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, U.S. and European influence may be undermined in the regions that will be hard pressed to deal with the dangers of diminishing natural resources, slow economic development and rising ethnic and social pressures.
If the "second wave" powers consider that the current international mechanisms and laws are unsuitable to dealing with unique pressures prevalent in each country in question, then a new set of political paradigms may emerge that will be better suited to solving problems unique to each country. This possible development demands that Washington and other power centers around the world prepare themselves not just for the more obvious geopolitical challenges stemming from rapidly emerging new powers, but also for the upcoming difficulties and uncertainties in dealing with a dozen new regional players. This new "multifaceted multipolarity" will generate new sets of both setbacks and opportunities, and today's preparation, far-reaching policy implementation and planning will encourage more peaceful problem solving in the increasingly complex world of the coming decades.
Report Drafted By:
Dr. Michael A. Weinstein, Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.
Shahabuddin unfazed by Siwan DM's arrest warrant
DARBHANGA, JUNE 23 (PTI)
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=306173
Unfazed by the arrest warrant issued against him, RJD MP Mohammad Shahabuddin today attended a public function here to felicitate him saying he had the independence to move anywhere.
''If a warrant of arrest has been issued against me, does it mean that I should hide myself ... There are 2-4 warrants always against me. I have the independence to move anywhere,'' Shahabuddin told reporters in reply to a question relating to Siwan DM Santosh Kumar Mal issuing the arrest warrant against him yesterday.
Mal had asked Siwan superintendent of police Ratan Sanjay to arrest Shahabuddin and produce him in his court on or before July 1 for examinations in a matter related to book him under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act (CCA) for his criminal activities post February 18, the day he was externed by the then Siwan DM C K Anil from Siwan for six months.
Shahabuddin, the RJD MP from Siwan was here to attend a function organised by the 'District Moharram Committee' in his honour. Union Minister and local MP M A A Fatmi accompanied Shahabuddin to the function.
In an apparent reference to Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) President Ram Vilas Paswan making all-out efforts to woo Muslims in his party's favour in the coming assembly polls, Shahabuddin said ''Nobody can lure Muslims for their political gains. The efforts to woo Muslims for personal gains will not yield any result, the Muslim community is wholeheartedly behind RJD, which has always stood with them.
CIS COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY ORGANIZATION HOLDS SUMMIT
On June 22-23, Moscow hosted a meeting of the heads of state of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and concurrent meetings of the CSTO countries' ministers of foreign affairs, defense ministers, and secretaries of the national security councils.
The meetings approved a framework plan on CSTO development in two stages -- through 2010 and beyond -- as well as plans to upgrade the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia and to create an inter-state commission for handling deliveries and servicing of military equipment at preferential prices. These measures have been on the agenda for several years but hardly showed any results.
Far more significantly, this summit decided to separate the CIS Joint Air Defense System (nominally of ten countries) from that of the CSTO's planned United Air Defense System (six member countries). The Joint System consists of forces under national command, exercising periodically under coordination from a center in Russia, and regards each country's airspace as distinct and sovereign. The planned United System consists of forces under a single -- that is, Russian -- planning system and command, and it only recognizes a single CSTO airspace. Russian officials explained the need for separating the two systems by noting that certain CIS countries are not CSTO members and aspire to join NATO.
Russian officials moved unobtrusively but unmistakably to exploit American discomfiture over Uzbekistan. Thus, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov, and CSTO Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha all characterized the recent "events" in Andijan unambiguously as an assault by international terrorism and radical Islam against Uzbekistan. Citing international obligations to assist states under terrorist attack, they announced Russia's support for the Uzbek leadership's efforts to stabilize the situation in Andijan and throughout the country. These statements form part of an intensifying exchange of political overtures between Moscow and Tashkent in the wake of the Andijan rebellion, which by the same token has deepened the misunderstandings between Tashkent and Washington.
With President Vladimir Putin joining in, those same Russian officials criticized the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan for failing to suppress "terrorist training bases, including those supported by certain intelligence services" (Putin) and for tolerating the booming export of Afghan heroin to Russia and Europe. Rating the coalition's efforts as "very ineffective thus far," Putin and other Russian officials hinted that the CSTO is prepared to consider stepping in. The meeting discussed possible measures to increase and coordinate assistance to Afghanistan, as well as setting up "a working group to coordinate with Afghan structures" and a joint anti-drug authority.
Kyrgyzstan's post-revolution defense minister, Ismail Isakov, was authorized by the defense ministers' session to tell the press that the creation of a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan is intended. It will, apparently, carry a CSTO label. The CSTO's Russian-led military staff has been tasked to determine the possible missions, troop level, and armament of such a base, and whether it should be designated as temporary or permanent. Another post-revolution leader, Felix Kulov, had publicly called last month for the deployment of a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan, to be located in Osh.
By contrast, Kazakhstan opposed a Russian initiative -- presumably supported by others -- to create a joint standing conventional military force for Central Asia within the CSTO's framework. Kazakh Defense Minister General Mukhtar Altynbayev told the press, "Creating a cumbersome force for permanent stationing would be worthless." Due to Kazakhstan's position, further discussion of this issue was deferred until the next meeting some months from now (Interfax, June 23).
In the session of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, certain countries that were not publicly identified successfully resisted proposals on financing the CSTO. One defeated proposal would have collected long-overdue contributions from Central Asian member countries to the CSTO's budget from the years 1996-2003. Another, more topical measure that was defeated would have required member countries to co-finance the development of command-and-control systems for the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia. The only financial issues that appeared to be resolved would increase salaries of CSTO Secretariat personnel by 20% -- provided that the extra funding is taken out of other items of the CSTO budget, so as to avoid a net increase.
Loyalists had their day, however. Armenian President Robert Kocharian professed to find comfort "in the CSTO's lineup, one in which we do not disagree among ourselves, but strive for practical results" (Interfax, June 23). Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka praised the CSTO as one of the centers of power that provide counterweights to the "unipolar dictatorship of a single super-power" [the United States]. Igor Ivanov rewarded his ally by denouncing "the external forces' threats of interference in Belarus, where they are trying to impose political decisions. We reject this kind of actions" (RIA, June 22).
For the first time in the CSTO's history, the Russian military now plans to hold joint ground-force exercises in the organization's "western region" and "southern region" -- that is, in Belarus and in Armenia. These exercises are scheduled to be held on the command-and-staff level in 2006. Thus far, the CSTO has only held joint ground-force and combined exercises in its Central Asian region.
At this summit, Putin took over the chairmanship of the Collective Security Council (the top political authority of the CSTO) from Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. That and other CSTO posts are supposed to rotate annually in the Russian alphabetical order of the member countries' names. In this case, Kyrgyzstan was unceremoniously skipped. Next year, moreover, the CSTO summit will be held in Belarus, and the honor of chairing the organization will devolve to Lukashenka.
(Interfax, RIA, June 22, 23).
--Vladimir Socor
The meetings approved a framework plan on CSTO development in two stages -- through 2010 and beyond -- as well as plans to upgrade the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia and to create an inter-state commission for handling deliveries and servicing of military equipment at preferential prices. These measures have been on the agenda for several years but hardly showed any results.
Far more significantly, this summit decided to separate the CIS Joint Air Defense System (nominally of ten countries) from that of the CSTO's planned United Air Defense System (six member countries). The Joint System consists of forces under national command, exercising periodically under coordination from a center in Russia, and regards each country's airspace as distinct and sovereign. The planned United System consists of forces under a single -- that is, Russian -- planning system and command, and it only recognizes a single CSTO airspace. Russian officials explained the need for separating the two systems by noting that certain CIS countries are not CSTO members and aspire to join NATO.
Russian officials moved unobtrusively but unmistakably to exploit American discomfiture over Uzbekistan. Thus, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov, and CSTO Secretary-General Nikolai Bordyuzha all characterized the recent "events" in Andijan unambiguously as an assault by international terrorism and radical Islam against Uzbekistan. Citing international obligations to assist states under terrorist attack, they announced Russia's support for the Uzbek leadership's efforts to stabilize the situation in Andijan and throughout the country. These statements form part of an intensifying exchange of political overtures between Moscow and Tashkent in the wake of the Andijan rebellion, which by the same token has deepened the misunderstandings between Tashkent and Washington.
With President Vladimir Putin joining in, those same Russian officials criticized the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan for failing to suppress "terrorist training bases, including those supported by certain intelligence services" (Putin) and for tolerating the booming export of Afghan heroin to Russia and Europe. Rating the coalition's efforts as "very ineffective thus far," Putin and other Russian officials hinted that the CSTO is prepared to consider stepping in. The meeting discussed possible measures to increase and coordinate assistance to Afghanistan, as well as setting up "a working group to coordinate with Afghan structures" and a joint anti-drug authority.
Kyrgyzstan's post-revolution defense minister, Ismail Isakov, was authorized by the defense ministers' session to tell the press that the creation of a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan is intended. It will, apparently, carry a CSTO label. The CSTO's Russian-led military staff has been tasked to determine the possible missions, troop level, and armament of such a base, and whether it should be designated as temporary or permanent. Another post-revolution leader, Felix Kulov, had publicly called last month for the deployment of a second Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan, to be located in Osh.
By contrast, Kazakhstan opposed a Russian initiative -- presumably supported by others -- to create a joint standing conventional military force for Central Asia within the CSTO's framework. Kazakh Defense Minister General Mukhtar Altynbayev told the press, "Creating a cumbersome force for permanent stationing would be worthless." Due to Kazakhstan's position, further discussion of this issue was deferred until the next meeting some months from now (Interfax, June 23).
In the session of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, certain countries that were not publicly identified successfully resisted proposals on financing the CSTO. One defeated proposal would have collected long-overdue contributions from Central Asian member countries to the CSTO's budget from the years 1996-2003. Another, more topical measure that was defeated would have required member countries to co-finance the development of command-and-control systems for the Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia. The only financial issues that appeared to be resolved would increase salaries of CSTO Secretariat personnel by 20% -- provided that the extra funding is taken out of other items of the CSTO budget, so as to avoid a net increase.
Loyalists had their day, however. Armenian President Robert Kocharian professed to find comfort "in the CSTO's lineup, one in which we do not disagree among ourselves, but strive for practical results" (Interfax, June 23). Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenka praised the CSTO as one of the centers of power that provide counterweights to the "unipolar dictatorship of a single super-power" [the United States]. Igor Ivanov rewarded his ally by denouncing "the external forces' threats of interference in Belarus, where they are trying to impose political decisions. We reject this kind of actions" (RIA, June 22).
For the first time in the CSTO's history, the Russian military now plans to hold joint ground-force exercises in the organization's "western region" and "southern region" -- that is, in Belarus and in Armenia. These exercises are scheduled to be held on the command-and-staff level in 2006. Thus far, the CSTO has only held joint ground-force and combined exercises in its Central Asian region.
At this summit, Putin took over the chairmanship of the Collective Security Council (the top political authority of the CSTO) from Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. That and other CSTO posts are supposed to rotate annually in the Russian alphabetical order of the member countries' names. In this case, Kyrgyzstan was unceremoniously skipped. Next year, moreover, the CSTO summit will be held in Belarus, and the honor of chairing the organization will devolve to Lukashenka.
(Interfax, RIA, June 22, 23).
--Vladimir Socor
POST-PUTIN RUSSIA: POLITICAL RUMBLINGS, POTENTIAL PRESIDENTS
Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Confounding skeptics who saw him as weak and isolated, President Vladimir Putin has succeeded in eliminating all serious, organized political challenges to his "vertical power structure." But new political forces are now surfacing and jostling to fill the political vacuum that he has created. The opportunity that is the source of inspiration for these maneuverings is the Y-2008 problem – the question of Putin's political succession once his constitutionally mandated two terms expire.
At first glance the two obvious candidates to replace Putin are Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Both men are close to Putin, are Kremlin insiders, and have high public visibility. The trouble is that they are deeply unpopular, not only with the public at large but also with the very elite groups that form their natural constituencies. Complicating the situation, according to many observers, is the fragmentation of political factions within the Kremlin. Rather than a simple split between liberals and siloviki, Stanislav Belkovsky argues there are 10 to 12 distinct clans (Komsomolskaya pravda, June 3).
In recent weeks there have been relentless media attacks on Fradkov, who is blamed for the sluggish economic growth (trending 5% this year); persistently high inflation (above 10%); and bungled social reform. When he was appointed in March 2004 he was regarded as a transitional placeholder; he is now seen as having overstayed his welcome (Profil, June 13).
Ivanov, the former intelligence officer Putin brought in as the first civilian defense minister, faced hostility from the military establishment from the very beginning. Senior military officials have publicly criticized the social benefits reform, which saw servicemen lose some crucial in-kind benefits, and they complain about the number and quality of new conscripts. According to a VTsIOM poll of servicemen, only 11% expressed trust in Ivanov; and 48% did not approve of his performance as minister (Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 15).
Then in late May Colonel-General Alexander Savenkov, the Military Procurator General, spoke out about the rising crime rate in the armed forces, including the persistent hazing problem that leads to murders and suicides. After criticism from Ivanov, Savenkov released more data on June 14, revealing that there had been 46 non-combat serviceman deaths in the previous week. Ivanov has also been damaged by a scandal surrounding his son, who was involved in a fatal traffic accident (Novye izvestiya, June 16).
Fradkov and Ivanov aside, there are no insider candidates with sufficient experience and stature to be credible. A possible successor would need to be promoted to a more responsible position ahead of 2008 – which would leave him open to the sort of media denigration, presumably instigated by their political rivals, that is being unleashed on Fradkov and Ivanov. Names raised as possible successors include Finance Minister Alexander Kudrin, State Duma Speaker and United Russia leader Boris Gryzlov, Krasnoyarsk Governor Alexander Khloponin, and Vladimir Yakunin, a "friend of Putin" recently appointed head of Russian Railroads.
Looking outside the Kremlin walls, the opposition is also marshalling its forces, in part inspired by the wave of populist revolutions that have swept from Tbilisi to Andijan. The "color revolutions" toppled unpopular regimes that had tried to stay in power through rigged elections, only to find that they could not rely on the security forces to quell dissent through mass repression. All of these characteristics apply to the Kremlin, though there are some important differences – most notably the personal popularity of Putin. Still, in a survey of 162 by Vox Populi, the proportion believing that a "color revolution" is possible in Russia doubled from 25 to 58% between December and April (Nezavisimaya gazeta, May 27).
On the liberal wing, chess master Garry Kasparov has created a new movement, the United Civic Front. He says, "The regime is scared, and does not have an exit strategy" for a peaceful transfer of power in 2008. He explains that efforts to unite the two main liberal parties, Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, foundered because of differences between their leaders on the question of relations with the Kremlin -- even though both parties' supporters in the provinces wanted to unite. The Union of Right Forces leadership, especially Anatoly Chubais, is determined to have the party play the role of a "loyal opposition." According to Kasparov, "The dividing line in Russia today is not between the right and the left, but between those who are prepared to resist the Putin regime, which is turning into a dictatorship, and those who continue to service the regime" (Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 20).
The favored standard-bearer for the oligarchs-in-exile is former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, who is being cultivated as a would-be Russian equivalent of Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko – another ousted prime minister who staged a comeback, with Western support. But Russia is not Ukraine, and Kasyanov is not Yushchenko (Izvestiya, June 17).
Given the absence of liberal parties from the Duma and their low level of public support, the liberals represent more of an annoyance than a threat to the Kremlin. A more substantial challenge may come from the left, in the form of Dmitry Rogozin's Rodina (Motherland) party. Rodina was created by the Kremlin as a "disposable" party that would draw support away from the Communists in the December 2003 election. It did better than expected, and under Rogozin's energetic leadership it has taken on a life of its own. Contrary to the initial intentions of the Kremlin's political technologists, Rogozin adopted a nationalist rather than leftist rhetoric. He has also skillfully seized on social unrest, staging an 11-day hunger strike with four other deputies in January to protest the social benefits reform.
Rogozin says, "Everyone knows that the present regime is corrupt -- and therefore vulnerable." Yevgeny Zherebenkov writes that with the Communist Party and Rodina cooperating, "The idea of United Russia losing control over the next Duma also seems a realistic possibility" (Itogi, June 14). Such a leftist victory in the 2007 parliamentary election would set up Rogozin as a viable candidate for the presidential election the next year. And if the Kremlin lost control over the State Duma, that would eliminate the possibility of constitutional tinkering (such as a shift to a prime ministerial government) that would be one way to keep Putin in power.
Putin found "managed democracy" difficult to manage; but the system of centralized power that he replaced it with has brought its own set of problems: fragmentation at the center and the breakdown of ties between the regime and the masses.
--Peter Rutland
At first glance the two obvious candidates to replace Putin are Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov. Both men are close to Putin, are Kremlin insiders, and have high public visibility. The trouble is that they are deeply unpopular, not only with the public at large but also with the very elite groups that form their natural constituencies. Complicating the situation, according to many observers, is the fragmentation of political factions within the Kremlin. Rather than a simple split between liberals and siloviki, Stanislav Belkovsky argues there are 10 to 12 distinct clans (Komsomolskaya pravda, June 3).
In recent weeks there have been relentless media attacks on Fradkov, who is blamed for the sluggish economic growth (trending 5% this year); persistently high inflation (above 10%); and bungled social reform. When he was appointed in March 2004 he was regarded as a transitional placeholder; he is now seen as having overstayed his welcome (Profil, June 13).
Ivanov, the former intelligence officer Putin brought in as the first civilian defense minister, faced hostility from the military establishment from the very beginning. Senior military officials have publicly criticized the social benefits reform, which saw servicemen lose some crucial in-kind benefits, and they complain about the number and quality of new conscripts. According to a VTsIOM poll of servicemen, only 11% expressed trust in Ivanov; and 48% did not approve of his performance as minister (Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 15).
Then in late May Colonel-General Alexander Savenkov, the Military Procurator General, spoke out about the rising crime rate in the armed forces, including the persistent hazing problem that leads to murders and suicides. After criticism from Ivanov, Savenkov released more data on June 14, revealing that there had been 46 non-combat serviceman deaths in the previous week. Ivanov has also been damaged by a scandal surrounding his son, who was involved in a fatal traffic accident (Novye izvestiya, June 16).
Fradkov and Ivanov aside, there are no insider candidates with sufficient experience and stature to be credible. A possible successor would need to be promoted to a more responsible position ahead of 2008 – which would leave him open to the sort of media denigration, presumably instigated by their political rivals, that is being unleashed on Fradkov and Ivanov. Names raised as possible successors include Finance Minister Alexander Kudrin, State Duma Speaker and United Russia leader Boris Gryzlov, Krasnoyarsk Governor Alexander Khloponin, and Vladimir Yakunin, a "friend of Putin" recently appointed head of Russian Railroads.
Looking outside the Kremlin walls, the opposition is also marshalling its forces, in part inspired by the wave of populist revolutions that have swept from Tbilisi to Andijan. The "color revolutions" toppled unpopular regimes that had tried to stay in power through rigged elections, only to find that they could not rely on the security forces to quell dissent through mass repression. All of these characteristics apply to the Kremlin, though there are some important differences – most notably the personal popularity of Putin. Still, in a survey of 162 by Vox Populi, the proportion believing that a "color revolution" is possible in Russia doubled from 25 to 58% between December and April (Nezavisimaya gazeta, May 27).
On the liberal wing, chess master Garry Kasparov has created a new movement, the United Civic Front. He says, "The regime is scared, and does not have an exit strategy" for a peaceful transfer of power in 2008. He explains that efforts to unite the two main liberal parties, Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, foundered because of differences between their leaders on the question of relations with the Kremlin -- even though both parties' supporters in the provinces wanted to unite. The Union of Right Forces leadership, especially Anatoly Chubais, is determined to have the party play the role of a "loyal opposition." According to Kasparov, "The dividing line in Russia today is not between the right and the left, but between those who are prepared to resist the Putin regime, which is turning into a dictatorship, and those who continue to service the regime" (Nezavisimaya gazeta, June 20).
The favored standard-bearer for the oligarchs-in-exile is former prime minister Mikhail Kasyanov, who is being cultivated as a would-be Russian equivalent of Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko – another ousted prime minister who staged a comeback, with Western support. But Russia is not Ukraine, and Kasyanov is not Yushchenko (Izvestiya, June 17).
Given the absence of liberal parties from the Duma and their low level of public support, the liberals represent more of an annoyance than a threat to the Kremlin. A more substantial challenge may come from the left, in the form of Dmitry Rogozin's Rodina (Motherland) party. Rodina was created by the Kremlin as a "disposable" party that would draw support away from the Communists in the December 2003 election. It did better than expected, and under Rogozin's energetic leadership it has taken on a life of its own. Contrary to the initial intentions of the Kremlin's political technologists, Rogozin adopted a nationalist rather than leftist rhetoric. He has also skillfully seized on social unrest, staging an 11-day hunger strike with four other deputies in January to protest the social benefits reform.
Rogozin says, "Everyone knows that the present regime is corrupt -- and therefore vulnerable." Yevgeny Zherebenkov writes that with the Communist Party and Rodina cooperating, "The idea of United Russia losing control over the next Duma also seems a realistic possibility" (Itogi, June 14). Such a leftist victory in the 2007 parliamentary election would set up Rogozin as a viable candidate for the presidential election the next year. And if the Kremlin lost control over the State Duma, that would eliminate the possibility of constitutional tinkering (such as a shift to a prime ministerial government) that would be one way to keep Putin in power.
Putin found "managed democracy" difficult to manage; but the system of centralized power that he replaced it with has brought its own set of problems: fragmentation at the center and the breakdown of ties between the regime and the masses.
--Peter Rutland
MOOD OF THE NATION !
Letter in OUTLOOK--27 Jun 205
You actually have the temerity to label serious crimes such as dishonesty and disobedience as "trivial"? The media seems to be hellbent on discrediting the armed forces, first with Tehelka, then with Phukan episode, the Denel scoop and even believing a Pakistani's accusation of a traitor in its midst. I suggest you ask the deity of renunciation at 10, Janpath to take over as C-in-C of the Defence Forces. Then she can save the country from its defence personnel just as she is saving it from the forces of communalism and disintegration
Maj Gen S.C.N Dattar
Pune
THE PIONEER--24 Jun 2005
Dynasties galore
Sir—According to Mr Sanjay Dutt, son of late Sunil Dutt, his family will soon take a decision as to who among the actor-politician’s children would inherit the political legacy of their father. Further she/he will have to be nominated by the Congress to run for the by-election. The unfolding of events in the Dutt family resembles what has been happening in the Nehru-Gandhi family since the death of Indira Gandhi. Her son Rajiv Gandhi was declared the successor. Today Rajiv Gandhi’s son, Rahul Gandhi, is being gradually elevated to higher and higher positions in the Congress so that he may eventually inherit his father’s legacy. The abolition of the zamindari system notwithstanding, the feudal practice of a progeny turning into political heirs is in vogue and thriving. Such nepotism in politics will spell the ruin of democracy. It is not the Nehru-Gandhi “dynasty” alone that has made inheritance of public office a family affair; the example is emulated by other politicians, too.
M Nagender Gaud
Moosapet,Hyderabad
Regressive verdicts-Pioneer- 24 Jun
Sir—Apropos the editorial, “Lawless panchayats” (June 17), village and caste panchayats have become omniscient with a proclivity for giving regressive judgements. The latest in the series of such verdicts is the decision of the Ansari panchayat to issue a firmaan that Imrana of Charthwal village in western Uttar Pradesh, who was raped by her father in-law, would have to treat her husband as her “son”. The judgement is obnoxious, to say the least. Such panchayats have taken recourse to similar verdicts in the past, too. The Gudiya episode, where a young woman was forced to leave her husband and disown her unborn child on the return of her “first husband” is a case in point. In another case, a caste panchayat ordered a rapist to marry the victim which seemingly absolved the former of all blame. The question is: Who gave these village elders the right to decide the fate of hapless women? Such verdicts are regressive and arbitrary. After reading of such ludicrous cases, one cannot help wondering if such panchayats are replacing the police and the judiciary. To avoid a repeat of such outrageous verdicts, the country is in dire need of a Uniform Civil Code.
SM Hussain
Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi
You actually have the temerity to label serious crimes such as dishonesty and disobedience as "trivial"? The media seems to be hellbent on discrediting the armed forces, first with Tehelka, then with Phukan episode, the Denel scoop and even believing a Pakistani's accusation of a traitor in its midst. I suggest you ask the deity of renunciation at 10, Janpath to take over as C-in-C of the Defence Forces. Then she can save the country from its defence personnel just as she is saving it from the forces of communalism and disintegration
Maj Gen S.C.N Dattar
Pune
THE PIONEER--24 Jun 2005
Dynasties galore
Sir—According to Mr Sanjay Dutt, son of late Sunil Dutt, his family will soon take a decision as to who among the actor-politician’s children would inherit the political legacy of their father. Further she/he will have to be nominated by the Congress to run for the by-election. The unfolding of events in the Dutt family resembles what has been happening in the Nehru-Gandhi family since the death of Indira Gandhi. Her son Rajiv Gandhi was declared the successor. Today Rajiv Gandhi’s son, Rahul Gandhi, is being gradually elevated to higher and higher positions in the Congress so that he may eventually inherit his father’s legacy. The abolition of the zamindari system notwithstanding, the feudal practice of a progeny turning into political heirs is in vogue and thriving. Such nepotism in politics will spell the ruin of democracy. It is not the Nehru-Gandhi “dynasty” alone that has made inheritance of public office a family affair; the example is emulated by other politicians, too.
M Nagender Gaud
Moosapet,Hyderabad
Regressive verdicts-Pioneer- 24 Jun
Sir—Apropos the editorial, “Lawless panchayats” (June 17), village and caste panchayats have become omniscient with a proclivity for giving regressive judgements. The latest in the series of such verdicts is the decision of the Ansari panchayat to issue a firmaan that Imrana of Charthwal village in western Uttar Pradesh, who was raped by her father in-law, would have to treat her husband as her “son”. The judgement is obnoxious, to say the least. Such panchayats have taken recourse to similar verdicts in the past, too. The Gudiya episode, where a young woman was forced to leave her husband and disown her unborn child on the return of her “first husband” is a case in point. In another case, a caste panchayat ordered a rapist to marry the victim which seemingly absolved the former of all blame. The question is: Who gave these village elders the right to decide the fate of hapless women? Such verdicts are regressive and arbitrary. After reading of such ludicrous cases, one cannot help wondering if such panchayats are replacing the police and the judiciary. To avoid a repeat of such outrageous verdicts, the country is in dire need of a Uniform Civil Code.
SM Hussain
Lajpat Nagar,New Delhi
Electronic Panini
Electronic Panini
http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf You will get the text
in devanagari here.
Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji of Sri Taralabalu Jagadguru Brihanmath,
Sirigere - 577 541 Karnataka, India, has developed a software
Ganakastadhyayi for PC-Win95/98/XP (not for NT) use for broader study
of Panini's Ashtadhyayi. It includes pada-paaTha, Vrittis, and
explanation. The newer version will have the option of selecting Roman
script or Devangari script. The Vrittis in Siddhanta Kaumudi and Laghu
Kaumudi will also be given seperately. The data is being revised and
updated.
Panini's Ashtadhyayi or suutrapATha is also available in Sanskrit in
different formats among major works.
A selected word index to the nighaNTu and the nirukta studied and
presented by Charles Wikner. The file (postscript and PDF) provides
cross-index between some of the chapters, relating to synonyms, list
of grammarians, technical terms, dhaatu and word index. The text is in
Devanagari and Roman+diacritics. (April 2001).
http://sanskrit.gde.to/learning_tools/learning_tools.html
http://www.taralabalu.org/panini/greetings.htm
Sirsa Chandra Vasu's translation in 2 vols. is published by Motilal
Banarsidas ISBN: 8120804090 Ashtadhyayi of Panini
http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf You will get the text
in devanagari here.
Dr Shivamurthy Swamiji of Sri Taralabalu Jagadguru Brihanmath,
Sirigere - 577 541 Karnataka, India, has developed a software
Ganakastadhyayi for PC-Win95/98/XP (not for NT) use for broader study
of Panini's Ashtadhyayi. It includes pada-paaTha, Vrittis, and
explanation. The newer version will have the option of selecting Roman
script or Devangari script. The Vrittis in Siddhanta Kaumudi and Laghu
Kaumudi will also be given seperately. The data is being revised and
updated.
Panini's Ashtadhyayi or suutrapATha is also available in Sanskrit in
different formats among major works.
A selected word index to the nighaNTu and the nirukta studied and
presented by Charles Wikner. The file (postscript and PDF) provides
cross-index between some of the chapters, relating to synonyms, list
of grammarians, technical terms, dhaatu and word index. The text is in
Devanagari and Roman+diacritics. (April 2001).
http://sanskrit.gde.to/learning_tools/learning_tools.html
http://www.taralabalu.org/panini/greetings.htm
Sirsa Chandra Vasu's translation in 2 vols. is published by Motilal
Banarsidas ISBN: 8120804090 Ashtadhyayi of Panini
CRASH OF US U-2 SPY PLANE ---IRAN RELATED?
Report : CLICK TO LISTEN Airforce Radio
THE PILOT OF A U-2 DRAGON LADY DIED WHEN HIS SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT CRASHED WEDNESDAY IN SOUTHWEST ASIA. THE PILOT WAS RETURNING FROM A MISSION SUPPORTING OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM WHEN THE CRASH OCCURED. THE CAUSE OF THE CRASH IS UNKNOWN BUT IS UNDER INVESTIGATION. OFFICIALS FROM U-S CENTRAL COMMAND SAY THE SITE OF THE CRASH HAS BEEN SECURED TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE FOR INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBERS.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010842
Pilot dies after U-2 Dragon Lady crashes in Southwest Asia6/22/2005 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- The pilot of an Air Force U-2 Dragon Lady died when his plane crashed at a forward-deployed location here in the early hours of June 22.The pilot completed flying a mission supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and was returning to base when the crash occurred. His name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. He was assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing.The cause of the crash is not known. “The Airmen of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing mourn the loss of a true American hero in the service of his country,” said Col. Darryl Burke, 380th AEW commander.Colonel Burke appointed an interim investigation board, and a full investigation board will convene to continue the investigation.The site of the crash has been secured to ensure the safety of local citizens and the integrity of the site for investigation team members.
--------------------------------------
The pilot completed flying a spying mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the early hours of Wednesday and was returning to base in the United Arab Emirates when the crash occurred. His name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. He was assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing.
Source : Afghanistan Sun
-----------------------------------------
by B.Raman
According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Associated Press of the US has disseminated the following news item:
"A US Air Force U-2 spy plane has crashed in south-west Asia, the US military has said. The crash occurred at 2330 GMT on Tuesday, according to a short written statement from US Central Command. A military spokesman told the Associated Press that the location of the crash would not be released because of "host nation sensitivity". The U-2 is a high-altitude surveillance aircraft first developed in the Cold War and manned by a single pilot. Central Command gave no details of the plane's mission, and said the cause of the crash and the condition of the pilot were currently unknown. "The specific location is not releasable due to host nation sensitivities," US Air Force Capt David W Small, a Central Command spokesman, told the news agency. South-west Asia is a phrase often used by the US military to refer to the Middle East.
The long, thin plane, with a wing-span of 100 feet (30.5m) is able to cruise at 90,000ft (27,430m) - more than 17 miles (27km) up - so high that the pilot has to wear a spacesuit. "
2. The _expression "host nation" should normally refer to the country which had agreed to host the plane and from where the spy flight had originated and not to the country in whose territory the plane crashed. Of all the countries in the region, only Pakistan and Turkey had hosted the US Air Force's U-2 spy planes at the height of the cold war in the 1950s. Their clandestine flights over the erstwhile USSR and China used to originate from Peshawar in Pakistan or Adana in Turkey - later renamed the Incirlik airbase.. Following the shooting-down of one of these planes piloted by Francis Gary Powers, which had taken off from Peshawar for flying over Soviet territory to the US Air Force base at Helsinki, the summit talks of the Western Powers at Paris collapsed in 1960.
3. Initially, Dwight Eisenhower, the then US President, denied Soviet claims about the flight thinking that the pilot, as per the standing instructions, would have committed suicide. When the USSR subsequently announced that he was alive and in its custody, Eisenhower admitted the flight and announced the discontinuance of all spy flights over Soviet territory.
4. During the cold war, the US Air Force preferred Pakistan for hosting its U-2 planes because of its strategic location with regard to the USSR as well as China and its confidence that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) would ensure that there was no leakage of the information about these flights. In fact, there never was any leakage from the Pakistan side.
5. Since last year, there have been indications that President Pervez Musharraf has agreed to let US spy planes fly over the Iranian nuclear sites in order to collect intelligence for a possible strike at the sites either by the US or by Israel. Musharraf has also allowed the US to operate clandestine relaying stations from Pakistani territory to relay anti-Teheran broadcasts and telecasts emanating from a station run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Prague.
6. Since the start of the so-called war against terrorism in Afghanistan in October,2001, (Operation Enduring Freedom), there have been reports that the United Arab Emirates has also agreed to host US U-2 planes in one of its Air Force bases and it has been sensitive to the leakage of any information on this.
7. A subsequent report by the Associated Press says that the pilot is dead and that a US search party has reached the site of the crash. This would indicate that the plane probably crashed in friendly and not hostile territory. A US spokesman has been quoted as saying that the plane crashed while returning to its base after completing a mission in connection with Op Enduring Freedom. A United Arab Emirates news agency has been quoted by the BBC as saying that the aircraft crashed while trying to land at an Air Force base in the country. This has been corroborated by the CNN, which has quoted local US officials as claiming that they did not believe hostile fire was involved.
8. Normally, the high-altitude U-2 flights are used only for aerial reconnaissance over hostile or unfriendly territory for very sensitive operations. Afghanistan, where 16,000 US troops are based, cannot be described as an unfriendly or hostile territory for the US. There was no need for such a high-flying aircraft over Afghanistan. High-flying aircraft are deployed to escape enemy radar detection or ground fire. Neither conditions apply in Afghanistan.
9. Even though Pakistan is seemingly a friendly country, there is considerable public opposition in Pakistan to any US operations against bin Laden in Pakistani territory or air space. As of now, on the basis of the information available so far, there are two possibilities: either the plane was returning after a flight over the tribal areas of Pakistan in connection with the hunt for bin Laden or it was returning after a flight over Iran's nuclear establishments. The US must be projecting the aim of the mission as connected with Op Enduring Freedom and not Iran's nuclear sites in order not to alert Iran to its likely plans.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-mail: itschen36@gmail.com )
THE PILOT OF A U-2 DRAGON LADY DIED WHEN HIS SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT CRASHED WEDNESDAY IN SOUTHWEST ASIA. THE PILOT WAS RETURNING FROM A MISSION SUPPORTING OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM WHEN THE CRASH OCCURED. THE CAUSE OF THE CRASH IS UNKNOWN BUT IS UNDER INVESTIGATION. OFFICIALS FROM U-S CENTRAL COMMAND SAY THE SITE OF THE CRASH HAS BEEN SECURED TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF LOCAL CITIZENS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE FOR INVESTIGATION TEAM MEMBERS.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123010842
Pilot dies after U-2 Dragon Lady crashes in Southwest Asia6/22/2005 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- The pilot of an Air Force U-2 Dragon Lady died when his plane crashed at a forward-deployed location here in the early hours of June 22.The pilot completed flying a mission supporting Operation Enduring Freedom and was returning to base when the crash occurred. His name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. He was assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing.The cause of the crash is not known. “The Airmen of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing mourn the loss of a true American hero in the service of his country,” said Col. Darryl Burke, 380th AEW commander.Colonel Burke appointed an interim investigation board, and a full investigation board will convene to continue the investigation.The site of the crash has been secured to ensure the safety of local citizens and the integrity of the site for investigation team members.
--------------------------------------
The pilot completed flying a spying mission in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in the early hours of Wednesday and was returning to base in the United Arab Emirates when the crash occurred. His name is being withheld pending notification of next of kin. He was assigned to the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing.
Source : Afghanistan Sun
-----------------------------------------
by B.Raman
According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the Associated Press of the US has disseminated the following news item:
"A US Air Force U-2 spy plane has crashed in south-west Asia, the US military has said. The crash occurred at 2330 GMT on Tuesday, according to a short written statement from US Central Command. A military spokesman told the Associated Press that the location of the crash would not be released because of "host nation sensitivity". The U-2 is a high-altitude surveillance aircraft first developed in the Cold War and manned by a single pilot. Central Command gave no details of the plane's mission, and said the cause of the crash and the condition of the pilot were currently unknown. "The specific location is not releasable due to host nation sensitivities," US Air Force Capt David W Small, a Central Command spokesman, told the news agency. South-west Asia is a phrase often used by the US military to refer to the Middle East.
The long, thin plane, with a wing-span of 100 feet (30.5m) is able to cruise at 90,000ft (27,430m) - more than 17 miles (27km) up - so high that the pilot has to wear a spacesuit. "
2. The _expression "host nation" should normally refer to the country which had agreed to host the plane and from where the spy flight had originated and not to the country in whose territory the plane crashed. Of all the countries in the region, only Pakistan and Turkey had hosted the US Air Force's U-2 spy planes at the height of the cold war in the 1950s. Their clandestine flights over the erstwhile USSR and China used to originate from Peshawar in Pakistan or Adana in Turkey - later renamed the Incirlik airbase.. Following the shooting-down of one of these planes piloted by Francis Gary Powers, which had taken off from Peshawar for flying over Soviet territory to the US Air Force base at Helsinki, the summit talks of the Western Powers at Paris collapsed in 1960.
3. Initially, Dwight Eisenhower, the then US President, denied Soviet claims about the flight thinking that the pilot, as per the standing instructions, would have committed suicide. When the USSR subsequently announced that he was alive and in its custody, Eisenhower admitted the flight and announced the discontinuance of all spy flights over Soviet territory.
4. During the cold war, the US Air Force preferred Pakistan for hosting its U-2 planes because of its strategic location with regard to the USSR as well as China and its confidence that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) would ensure that there was no leakage of the information about these flights. In fact, there never was any leakage from the Pakistan side.
5. Since last year, there have been indications that President Pervez Musharraf has agreed to let US spy planes fly over the Iranian nuclear sites in order to collect intelligence for a possible strike at the sites either by the US or by Israel. Musharraf has also allowed the US to operate clandestine relaying stations from Pakistani territory to relay anti-Teheran broadcasts and telecasts emanating from a station run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Prague.
6. Since the start of the so-called war against terrorism in Afghanistan in October,2001, (Operation Enduring Freedom), there have been reports that the United Arab Emirates has also agreed to host US U-2 planes in one of its Air Force bases and it has been sensitive to the leakage of any information on this.
7. A subsequent report by the Associated Press says that the pilot is dead and that a US search party has reached the site of the crash. This would indicate that the plane probably crashed in friendly and not hostile territory. A US spokesman has been quoted as saying that the plane crashed while returning to its base after completing a mission in connection with Op Enduring Freedom. A United Arab Emirates news agency has been quoted by the BBC as saying that the aircraft crashed while trying to land at an Air Force base in the country. This has been corroborated by the CNN, which has quoted local US officials as claiming that they did not believe hostile fire was involved.
8. Normally, the high-altitude U-2 flights are used only for aerial reconnaissance over hostile or unfriendly territory for very sensitive operations. Afghanistan, where 16,000 US troops are based, cannot be described as an unfriendly or hostile territory for the US. There was no need for such a high-flying aircraft over Afghanistan. High-flying aircraft are deployed to escape enemy radar detection or ground fire. Neither conditions apply in Afghanistan.
9. Even though Pakistan is seemingly a friendly country, there is considerable public opposition in Pakistan to any US operations against bin Laden in Pakistani territory or air space. As of now, on the basis of the information available so far, there are two possibilities: either the plane was returning after a flight over the tribal areas of Pakistan in connection with the hunt for bin Laden or it was returning after a flight over Iran's nuclear establishments. The US must be projecting the aim of the mission as connected with Op Enduring Freedom and not Iran's nuclear sites in order not to alert Iran to its likely plans.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-mail: itschen36@gmail.com )
June 23, 2005
America's alliances in East Asia
The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London is a "Partner of Worldsecuritynetwork" and periodically contributes its analyses to the WSN Newsletter.
Purposes and prospects
After decades of relative quiescence bordering on inertia, American defence strategy in East Asia and the bilateral security alliances that have long underpinned this strategy are on the cusp of far-reaching change. For the first time since the early 1990s, major American military units were withdrawn from the Korean Peninsula in 2004, with an additional third of the remaining forces scheduled to depart between now and the end of 2008. In Japan, increased integration of American and Japanese forces is in the offing, with Tokyo contributing much more fully to US strategy in the West Pacific, including an increased emphasis on counter-proliferation, missile defence and prospective facilitation of US defence support for Taiwan. Concurrently, the United States Pacific Command is appreciably augmenting US air and naval capabilities in Guam and potentially in Hawaii. In addition, American military planners are seeking increased access in Southeast Asia to guard against a range of prospective threats to maritime security. A US-led activity designed to interdict transfers of materials for WMD programmes (the Proliferation Security Initiative) has also been initiated, with Japan, Australia and Singapore members of this arrangement.
US planners are endeavouring to reinforce America’s maritime dominance across Asia and the Pacific. These efforts will encompass missions well beyond the traditional areas of emphasis in US regional strategy, and with far less dependence on past alliance arrangements. America’s evolving regional strategy is neither bilateral nor multilateral, except in so far as regional actors are prepared to support US policy goals. With a few exceptions (most conspicuously, Japan) it is designed primarily to enlist security partners when and where needed, not to develop an integrated strategy based on a more continuous mutuality of interest. In so doing, American strategic goals will be advanced, but whether this provides a sustainable basis for longer-term security cooperation, as distinct from episodic or contingency-driven requirements, remains to be seen.
Sources of change
The looming changes in US policy derive primarily from the Bush administration’s efforts to realign its global military deployments and to move toward a ‘transformed’ military strategy, and from a parallel conviction that the Asia-Pacific region is likely to feature major challenges to US security interests in the coming decade. US strategists argue that American capabilities must focus on the presumed requirements of the post-11 September world, especially operations against terrorist groups and countering the potential threat of WMD proliferation. A new defence policy, to be enshrined in the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), scheduled for completion in February 2006, will postulate the need for far more flexible, rapidly deployable forces capable of surging in response to diverse threats, with a pronounced emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. Administration officials have asserted a simultaneous need to augment US regional capabilities to counter potential challenges posed by an ascendant China, directed against Taiwan or elsewhere. Though the end-point of this process of strategic change is far from certain, the broad directions are clear. Some of America’s long-standing bilateral security partnerships, most notably that with South Korea, will matter much less, and at least one, the relationship with Japan, will matter far more.
B2 Spirit bombers deployed to Guam. 'Bomber aircraft have had an ongoing presence on the island since February 2004'
By disentangling US policy from some of the lingering vestiges of the Cold War, American policymakers seem determined to move toward a very different but as yet unlabelled regional strategic concept. This future approach will entail markedly different roles for US forces, and parallel changes in Washington’s expectations of various regional actors. US defence planners believe that the United States (especially in the face of severe manpower challenges posed by protracted instability in Iraq) cannot allow major American forces to ‘sit’ in locales in the service of military strategies that the administration believes have long outlived their utility. At the same time, there is an explicit expectation that US allies will assent to a reconfigured American security strategy, potentially encompassing US ‘out of area’ operations as well as military contingencies within the Asia-Pacific region. But much remains unspoken about American policy, leaving some US security partners uneasy about the underlying priorities in US regional strategy, and the precise role of long-standing allies in this emergent strategy.
Can less be more?
From the outset of George W. Bush’s presidency, senior officials have argued that US global military strategy was a remnant of the Cold War, ill suited to a very different era. In the administration’s view, future security requirements necessitated a major revamping of US policy, both to exploit the prospective advantages of new technologies in warfare and to limit the vulnerabilities of American forces either to ballistic missile or terrorist attacks. These goals have been greatly reinforced since 11 September 2001. The Asia-Pacific region was near the forefront of this process of major change, with the presumed threat to regional security no longer deriving from large-scale conventional aggression across national borders. However, there was a parallel belief that China posed an emerging major-power threat, warranting upgraded US relations with Taiwan and a reinforced US regional military presence. American officials also argued that US security commitments could no longer be predicated on specific force levels. In the West Pacific, the forward deployment of approximately 100,000 US military personnel had become a virtual shibboleth in the 1990s, repeatedly identified in US strategic reviews as a presumed guarantor of regional stability. Bush administration officials challenged this supposition, arguing that the viability of US policy was whether specific capabilities could be brought to bear in a major crisis, not the precise end-strength of US forces.
In August 2004, the Pentagon leadership, preoccupied by the Iraqi insurgency and growing shortfalls in US forces, completed the transfer of the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division from South Korea to Iraq. During the same month, the Pentagon announced the results of the Global Posture Review, with more than 70,000 US forces to be withdrawn from their Cold War locations. Though the brunt of these withdrawals were to fall on US forces in Germany, US forces in South Korea were also directly affected, with US end-strength to drop to approximately 25,000 over the ensuing four years, a reduction of approximately 12,500 from the onset of the Bush administration. Senior US officials continued to insist that these shifts would not erode the credibility of the security commitment to South Korea or the US capability to intervene in a major crisis. This claim was underscored further by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s public reference in May 2005 to US nuclear deterrent capabilities, as US–North Korea tensions continued to mount.
Recruitment - a growing problem.
Despite these assurances, South Korean officials see reduced US force levels and American preoccupations in Iraq presaging diminished US attention and priority to their security. Increased North Korean claims of a nuclear-weapon capability, and heightened concerns expressed by some US officials about the possibility of a nuclear-weapon test, have led to consternation in South Korea about US withdrawals and redeployments. American officials have yet to convince this long-standing ally about how and why a diminished US presence, in the context of heightened North Korean WMD capabilities, has enhanced Seoul’s security. Despite US assurances, competing demands on US forces in other regions have reduced the US regional presence. The capability for intervention in a major crisis remains an important indicator of US commitment, but allies such as South Korea do not regard this capability as offering sufficient assurance about longer-term US policy goals.
Revisiting alliance bargains
The reduction in US force levels on the peninsula is symptomatic of a larger shift in US regional priorities, with American policymakers seeking the concurrence of US allies with longer-term shifts in US defence strategy. In South Korea, the Pentagon has conveyed its intention to create air and sea hubs designed for deployments to unspecified regional contingencies beyond the peninsula. This has left South Korean defence planners doubly uneasy: firstly, because American forces would be increasingly geared toward non-peninsular missions; and secondly, because many in South Korea believe that the US is seeking to envelop Seoul in contingency planning against China, which is deemed contrary to South Korea’s strategic interests. In the eyes of South Korean policymakers, this growing divergence in alliance goals is eroding the strategic underpinnings of the alliance.
Seoul is also discomfited by more coercive approaches to curtail the North’s nuclear-weapon activities, and comparably wary of any presumptive containment strategy directed at China. President Roh Moo-hyun’s declared pursuit of a ‘balancer’ role for South Korea in Northeast Asian security highlights the major erosion of shared purpose that has long animated the US–South Korean alliance. With Seoul demurring from both the Proliferation Security Initiative and from collaboration in missile defence, the prospects for longer-term security ties between Seoul and Washington seem increasingly problematic.
US–Japan security relations appear headed in an entirely different direction. Tokyo has exhibited no comparable equivocation in aligning with US regional strategy; it is ever more intent on reinforcing its status as America’s avowed partner of choice in Asia-Pacific security. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, arguably the Japanese political leader most closely identified with the United States since Yasuhiro Nakasone in the mid-1980s, has availed himself of every opportunity to strengthen alliance ties with Washington. In the post-11 September environment, Koizumi appreciably broadened the scope of Japanese security involvement, including deployment of supply ships to the Indian Ocean in support of operations in Afghanistan, the assigning of Japanese peacekeepers to Iraq in early 2004, the involvement of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in tsunami relief operations in Indonesia in late 2004 and early 2005, and Tokyo’s first-ever participation in the annual Cobra Gold military exercises in Thailand in May 2005. Though all such activities were justified as part of Japan’s multilateral obligations (and hence distinct from the stipulations of the US–Japan alliance), the practical implications of these measures were incontestable, and vigorously endorsed by US policymakers.
US Navy rules the waves
From a US perspective, the biggest and most welcome changes in Japanese policy concern Tokyo’s increased readiness to contribute to regional contingencies. Japan’s more elastic definition of security policy (though still not extending explicitly to collective security obligations, in view of ongoing internal debate on constitutional revision or reinterpretation) point increasingly in the direction of a more activist Japan. At the February 2005 meeting of the US–Japan Security Consultative Committee, the four senior foreign affairs and defence officials of the two countries voiced agreement on common security objectives, without spelling out the particulars. This was very likely designed to avoid triggering even more intense reactions from China on any prospective Japanese involvement in support of a Taiwan contingency.
However, Japan and the United States have reportedly reached agreement on the enhanced use of Japanese harbours and airfields by US forces in unspecified ‘military emergencies’, which would presumably include a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The agreement could be ratified in a formal agreement as early as June 2005. In reaching agreement on such measures, Tokyo hopes to see a more accommodating US stance toward reducing US military activities (notably on Okinawa) that have long vexed local populations. Even more importantly, Japan believes that a further integrated security relationship with Washington will bring an added measure of security to Tokyo in relation to North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile activities and (over the longer run) the enhanced military power of China.
But Japan is venturing into uncharted waters with the US. Reaffirming and enhancing its security ties with Washington will draw Tokyo into progressively greater obligation to the US, quite possibly extending to major military operations, even if Japan would not be a direct participant in combat. In contrast to the major withdrawals of US forces from South Korea, Washington does not envision any significant reductions of its forces in Japan. If anything, the centrality of Japan in US strategy will be reinforced, especially in the anticipated transfer of the command functions of the US Army I Corps from Washington State to Japan and a parallel proposal to integrate the command activities of the 13th Air Force based in Guam with those of the 5th Air Force at Yokota Air Force Base. Should these steps materialise, Japan would be ever more tethered to future US defence strategy throughout the region. This would presumably entail enhanced US obligations to Japan as well, but the Bush administration would achieve an augmented regional presence that it has long sought. Japan would constitute an American ally like no other in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the singularity of such a prospective relationship, all the more so in light of Japan’s highly problematic, emotionally charged relations with China, both Koreas, and still festering differences with Russia, ought to give both Washington and Tokyo pause.
Other long-time partners such as Australia and Singapore have a profound and enduring stake in close relations with the United States, ones that Washington has neither incentive nor reason to diminish. But such interdependence does not imply automatic assent to US strategy, particularly in relation to the vexing possibilities of armed conflict related to Taiwan. America’s world may look different after 11 September, but geography and national interest dictate an abiding regional stake in non-adversarial relations with China, a path that the United States also claims to seek. Seen in this light, America’s regional alliances should still matter profoundly, but so should US relations with an emergent China.
This article is taken from the latest issue of Strategic Comments and appears by permission of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which retains the copyright. Strategic Comments, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, provides fact-based analysis on issues of strategic significance. It responds to breaking developments in international affairs and anticipates policy questions that are likely to loom large in the calculations of governments, analysts and businesses. Ten issues, each containing five 1,700-word illustrated articles, are published each year. If you would like to subscribe to Strategic Comments, please email James Hackett at hackett@iiss.org or click here
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, founded in 1958, is a London-based independent think-tank providing information and analysis relevant to the prospects, course, and consequences of conflict. It publishes The Military Balance, the annual reckoning of each country's military resources, Strategic Survey, an annual review of world affairs, the Adelphi Papers, scholarly essays relevant to policy-makers, and Survival, a quarterly on international affairs. If you are interested in learning more about the institute and its publications, or in joining the IISS, visit the website at www.iiss.org
Purposes and prospects
After decades of relative quiescence bordering on inertia, American defence strategy in East Asia and the bilateral security alliances that have long underpinned this strategy are on the cusp of far-reaching change. For the first time since the early 1990s, major American military units were withdrawn from the Korean Peninsula in 2004, with an additional third of the remaining forces scheduled to depart between now and the end of 2008. In Japan, increased integration of American and Japanese forces is in the offing, with Tokyo contributing much more fully to US strategy in the West Pacific, including an increased emphasis on counter-proliferation, missile defence and prospective facilitation of US defence support for Taiwan. Concurrently, the United States Pacific Command is appreciably augmenting US air and naval capabilities in Guam and potentially in Hawaii. In addition, American military planners are seeking increased access in Southeast Asia to guard against a range of prospective threats to maritime security. A US-led activity designed to interdict transfers of materials for WMD programmes (the Proliferation Security Initiative) has also been initiated, with Japan, Australia and Singapore members of this arrangement.
US planners are endeavouring to reinforce America’s maritime dominance across Asia and the Pacific. These efforts will encompass missions well beyond the traditional areas of emphasis in US regional strategy, and with far less dependence on past alliance arrangements. America’s evolving regional strategy is neither bilateral nor multilateral, except in so far as regional actors are prepared to support US policy goals. With a few exceptions (most conspicuously, Japan) it is designed primarily to enlist security partners when and where needed, not to develop an integrated strategy based on a more continuous mutuality of interest. In so doing, American strategic goals will be advanced, but whether this provides a sustainable basis for longer-term security cooperation, as distinct from episodic or contingency-driven requirements, remains to be seen.
Sources of change
The looming changes in US policy derive primarily from the Bush administration’s efforts to realign its global military deployments and to move toward a ‘transformed’ military strategy, and from a parallel conviction that the Asia-Pacific region is likely to feature major challenges to US security interests in the coming decade. US strategists argue that American capabilities must focus on the presumed requirements of the post-11 September world, especially operations against terrorist groups and countering the potential threat of WMD proliferation. A new defence policy, to be enshrined in the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), scheduled for completion in February 2006, will postulate the need for far more flexible, rapidly deployable forces capable of surging in response to diverse threats, with a pronounced emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region. Administration officials have asserted a simultaneous need to augment US regional capabilities to counter potential challenges posed by an ascendant China, directed against Taiwan or elsewhere. Though the end-point of this process of strategic change is far from certain, the broad directions are clear. Some of America’s long-standing bilateral security partnerships, most notably that with South Korea, will matter much less, and at least one, the relationship with Japan, will matter far more.
B2 Spirit bombers deployed to Guam. 'Bomber aircraft have had an ongoing presence on the island since February 2004'
By disentangling US policy from some of the lingering vestiges of the Cold War, American policymakers seem determined to move toward a very different but as yet unlabelled regional strategic concept. This future approach will entail markedly different roles for US forces, and parallel changes in Washington’s expectations of various regional actors. US defence planners believe that the United States (especially in the face of severe manpower challenges posed by protracted instability in Iraq) cannot allow major American forces to ‘sit’ in locales in the service of military strategies that the administration believes have long outlived their utility. At the same time, there is an explicit expectation that US allies will assent to a reconfigured American security strategy, potentially encompassing US ‘out of area’ operations as well as military contingencies within the Asia-Pacific region. But much remains unspoken about American policy, leaving some US security partners uneasy about the underlying priorities in US regional strategy, and the precise role of long-standing allies in this emergent strategy.
Can less be more?
From the outset of George W. Bush’s presidency, senior officials have argued that US global military strategy was a remnant of the Cold War, ill suited to a very different era. In the administration’s view, future security requirements necessitated a major revamping of US policy, both to exploit the prospective advantages of new technologies in warfare and to limit the vulnerabilities of American forces either to ballistic missile or terrorist attacks. These goals have been greatly reinforced since 11 September 2001. The Asia-Pacific region was near the forefront of this process of major change, with the presumed threat to regional security no longer deriving from large-scale conventional aggression across national borders. However, there was a parallel belief that China posed an emerging major-power threat, warranting upgraded US relations with Taiwan and a reinforced US regional military presence. American officials also argued that US security commitments could no longer be predicated on specific force levels. In the West Pacific, the forward deployment of approximately 100,000 US military personnel had become a virtual shibboleth in the 1990s, repeatedly identified in US strategic reviews as a presumed guarantor of regional stability. Bush administration officials challenged this supposition, arguing that the viability of US policy was whether specific capabilities could be brought to bear in a major crisis, not the precise end-strength of US forces.
In August 2004, the Pentagon leadership, preoccupied by the Iraqi insurgency and growing shortfalls in US forces, completed the transfer of the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division from South Korea to Iraq. During the same month, the Pentagon announced the results of the Global Posture Review, with more than 70,000 US forces to be withdrawn from their Cold War locations. Though the brunt of these withdrawals were to fall on US forces in Germany, US forces in South Korea were also directly affected, with US end-strength to drop to approximately 25,000 over the ensuing four years, a reduction of approximately 12,500 from the onset of the Bush administration. Senior US officials continued to insist that these shifts would not erode the credibility of the security commitment to South Korea or the US capability to intervene in a major crisis. This claim was underscored further by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s public reference in May 2005 to US nuclear deterrent capabilities, as US–North Korea tensions continued to mount.
Recruitment - a growing problem.
Despite these assurances, South Korean officials see reduced US force levels and American preoccupations in Iraq presaging diminished US attention and priority to their security. Increased North Korean claims of a nuclear-weapon capability, and heightened concerns expressed by some US officials about the possibility of a nuclear-weapon test, have led to consternation in South Korea about US withdrawals and redeployments. American officials have yet to convince this long-standing ally about how and why a diminished US presence, in the context of heightened North Korean WMD capabilities, has enhanced Seoul’s security. Despite US assurances, competing demands on US forces in other regions have reduced the US regional presence. The capability for intervention in a major crisis remains an important indicator of US commitment, but allies such as South Korea do not regard this capability as offering sufficient assurance about longer-term US policy goals.
Revisiting alliance bargains
The reduction in US force levels on the peninsula is symptomatic of a larger shift in US regional priorities, with American policymakers seeking the concurrence of US allies with longer-term shifts in US defence strategy. In South Korea, the Pentagon has conveyed its intention to create air and sea hubs designed for deployments to unspecified regional contingencies beyond the peninsula. This has left South Korean defence planners doubly uneasy: firstly, because American forces would be increasingly geared toward non-peninsular missions; and secondly, because many in South Korea believe that the US is seeking to envelop Seoul in contingency planning against China, which is deemed contrary to South Korea’s strategic interests. In the eyes of South Korean policymakers, this growing divergence in alliance goals is eroding the strategic underpinnings of the alliance.
Seoul is also discomfited by more coercive approaches to curtail the North’s nuclear-weapon activities, and comparably wary of any presumptive containment strategy directed at China. President Roh Moo-hyun’s declared pursuit of a ‘balancer’ role for South Korea in Northeast Asian security highlights the major erosion of shared purpose that has long animated the US–South Korean alliance. With Seoul demurring from both the Proliferation Security Initiative and from collaboration in missile defence, the prospects for longer-term security ties between Seoul and Washington seem increasingly problematic.
US–Japan security relations appear headed in an entirely different direction. Tokyo has exhibited no comparable equivocation in aligning with US regional strategy; it is ever more intent on reinforcing its status as America’s avowed partner of choice in Asia-Pacific security. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, arguably the Japanese political leader most closely identified with the United States since Yasuhiro Nakasone in the mid-1980s, has availed himself of every opportunity to strengthen alliance ties with Washington. In the post-11 September environment, Koizumi appreciably broadened the scope of Japanese security involvement, including deployment of supply ships to the Indian Ocean in support of operations in Afghanistan, the assigning of Japanese peacekeepers to Iraq in early 2004, the involvement of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in tsunami relief operations in Indonesia in late 2004 and early 2005, and Tokyo’s first-ever participation in the annual Cobra Gold military exercises in Thailand in May 2005. Though all such activities were justified as part of Japan’s multilateral obligations (and hence distinct from the stipulations of the US–Japan alliance), the practical implications of these measures were incontestable, and vigorously endorsed by US policymakers.
US Navy rules the waves
From a US perspective, the biggest and most welcome changes in Japanese policy concern Tokyo’s increased readiness to contribute to regional contingencies. Japan’s more elastic definition of security policy (though still not extending explicitly to collective security obligations, in view of ongoing internal debate on constitutional revision or reinterpretation) point increasingly in the direction of a more activist Japan. At the February 2005 meeting of the US–Japan Security Consultative Committee, the four senior foreign affairs and defence officials of the two countries voiced agreement on common security objectives, without spelling out the particulars. This was very likely designed to avoid triggering even more intense reactions from China on any prospective Japanese involvement in support of a Taiwan contingency.
However, Japan and the United States have reportedly reached agreement on the enhanced use of Japanese harbours and airfields by US forces in unspecified ‘military emergencies’, which would presumably include a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The agreement could be ratified in a formal agreement as early as June 2005. In reaching agreement on such measures, Tokyo hopes to see a more accommodating US stance toward reducing US military activities (notably on Okinawa) that have long vexed local populations. Even more importantly, Japan believes that a further integrated security relationship with Washington will bring an added measure of security to Tokyo in relation to North Korea’s nuclear weapon and missile activities and (over the longer run) the enhanced military power of China.
But Japan is venturing into uncharted waters with the US. Reaffirming and enhancing its security ties with Washington will draw Tokyo into progressively greater obligation to the US, quite possibly extending to major military operations, even if Japan would not be a direct participant in combat. In contrast to the major withdrawals of US forces from South Korea, Washington does not envision any significant reductions of its forces in Japan. If anything, the centrality of Japan in US strategy will be reinforced, especially in the anticipated transfer of the command functions of the US Army I Corps from Washington State to Japan and a parallel proposal to integrate the command activities of the 13th Air Force based in Guam with those of the 5th Air Force at Yokota Air Force Base. Should these steps materialise, Japan would be ever more tethered to future US defence strategy throughout the region. This would presumably entail enhanced US obligations to Japan as well, but the Bush administration would achieve an augmented regional presence that it has long sought. Japan would constitute an American ally like no other in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the singularity of such a prospective relationship, all the more so in light of Japan’s highly problematic, emotionally charged relations with China, both Koreas, and still festering differences with Russia, ought to give both Washington and Tokyo pause.
Other long-time partners such as Australia and Singapore have a profound and enduring stake in close relations with the United States, ones that Washington has neither incentive nor reason to diminish. But such interdependence does not imply automatic assent to US strategy, particularly in relation to the vexing possibilities of armed conflict related to Taiwan. America’s world may look different after 11 September, but geography and national interest dictate an abiding regional stake in non-adversarial relations with China, a path that the United States also claims to seek. Seen in this light, America’s regional alliances should still matter profoundly, but so should US relations with an emergent China.
This article is taken from the latest issue of Strategic Comments and appears by permission of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which retains the copyright. Strategic Comments, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, provides fact-based analysis on issues of strategic significance. It responds to breaking developments in international affairs and anticipates policy questions that are likely to loom large in the calculations of governments, analysts and businesses. Ten issues, each containing five 1,700-word illustrated articles, are published each year. If you would like to subscribe to Strategic Comments, please email James Hackett at hackett@iiss.org or click here
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, founded in 1958, is a London-based independent think-tank providing information and analysis relevant to the prospects, course, and consequences of conflict. It publishes The Military Balance, the annual reckoning of each country's military resources, Strategic Survey, an annual review of world affairs, the Adelphi Papers, scholarly essays relevant to policy-makers, and Survival, a quarterly on international affairs. If you are interested in learning more about the institute and its publications, or in joining the IISS, visit the website at www.iiss.org
Orissa HC glare on alleged `forced conversions
Statesman News Service
CUTTACK, June 21. — The issue of conversions involving alleged
coercion in Orissa has taken a new turn with the High Court issuing
directions to register cases by treating a petition received by it as
an FIR and file charge-sheets immediately.
"Despite provisions in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
allegations of forced conversion are coming forth regularly," the
High Court observed, while taking a serious note of the petition
alleging forcible conversion.
The Division Bench of the Chief Justice, Mr SB Roy, and Mr Justice MM
Das, issued the direction to the District Magistrate, Gajapati while
taking cognizance of a petition filed by people of 19 villages in the
Mohana PS area yesterday.
One Ananta Kumar Shatrusalya and 268 others had filed the public
interest petition alleging conversions in the garb of missionary
activities in their area.
This is the second instance within 70 days in which judicial
intervention was sought against alleged conversion involving
coercion.
Earlier, on 11 April, the Orissa High Court had viewed seriously the
alleged plight of 22 families of a community of cobblers at
Mallabhandaja village under Digapahandi police station area in Ganjam
district after refusing to be subjected to conversion.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr SB Roy and Mr Justice
LK Mohapatra had directed the state government to clarify on the
steps taken to take care of the alleged victim families.
The outcome of the notices is not known.
But the High Court order issued yesterday is a step further as it
asked the state government to direct all the District Magistrates "to
take appropriate actions" in cases of alleged conversions by coercion
by invoking the provisions of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.
The court suggested that actions in such cases could be taken under
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
The people of the 19 villages under Mohana police station in Gajapati
district had alleged conversion in the area by using both force and
allurements.
The petitioners had named two persons who are key players in the
conversions.Counsel for the petitioners, advocate Prasanna Kumar
Mishra, had sought specific instructions in the case.
The court issued notices returnable with action taken reports within
two weeks.
HC directs Orissa to check forcible conversions
By Bibhuti Mishra in Bhubaneswar
Wednesday, 22 June , 2005, 11:04
The High Court has stepped in to end forcible conversions in Orissa.
The court has issued directions to register cases, with reference to
a petition as an FIR, and file charge-sheets immediately.
"Despite provisions in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
allegations of forced conversion are coming forth regularly," the
High Court observed.
A Division Bench of the Chief Justice S B Roy and Justice M M Das
issued the direction to the District Magistrate, while taking
cognizance of a petition filed by people of 19 villages in the Mohana
PS area on Tuesday.
Ananta Kumar Shatrusalya and 268 others had filed the public interest
petition, alleging that conversions were happening in the garb of
missionary activities in their area.
This is the second instance within 70 days in which judicial
intervention was sought against conversion involving coercion.
Earlier, on April 11, the Orissa High Court had taken serious note of
the plight of 22 families of cobbler community at Mallabhandaja
village in Ganjam district, who were isloated after refusing to
convert.
The Division Bench had directed the state government to clarify the
steps taken to take care of the alleged victims' families
But, the HC order issued on Wednesday goes a step further as it asks
the state government to direct all the District Magistrates "to take
appropriate actions" in such cases.
The court suggested that actions in such cases could be taken under
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
http://sify.com/news/othernews/fullstory.php?id=13878443
CUTTACK, June 21. — The issue of conversions involving alleged
coercion in Orissa has taken a new turn with the High Court issuing
directions to register cases by treating a petition received by it as
an FIR and file charge-sheets immediately.
"Despite provisions in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
allegations of forced conversion are coming forth regularly," the
High Court observed, while taking a serious note of the petition
alleging forcible conversion.
The Division Bench of the Chief Justice, Mr SB Roy, and Mr Justice MM
Das, issued the direction to the District Magistrate, Gajapati while
taking cognizance of a petition filed by people of 19 villages in the
Mohana PS area yesterday.
One Ananta Kumar Shatrusalya and 268 others had filed the public
interest petition alleging conversions in the garb of missionary
activities in their area.
This is the second instance within 70 days in which judicial
intervention was sought against alleged conversion involving
coercion.
Earlier, on 11 April, the Orissa High Court had viewed seriously the
alleged plight of 22 families of a community of cobblers at
Mallabhandaja village under Digapahandi police station area in Ganjam
district after refusing to be subjected to conversion.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr SB Roy and Mr Justice
LK Mohapatra had directed the state government to clarify on the
steps taken to take care of the alleged victim families.
The outcome of the notices is not known.
But the High Court order issued yesterday is a step further as it
asked the state government to direct all the District Magistrates "to
take appropriate actions" in cases of alleged conversions by coercion
by invoking the provisions of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.
The court suggested that actions in such cases could be taken under
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
The people of the 19 villages under Mohana police station in Gajapati
district had alleged conversion in the area by using both force and
allurements.
The petitioners had named two persons who are key players in the
conversions.Counsel for the petitioners, advocate Prasanna Kumar
Mishra, had sought specific instructions in the case.
The court issued notices returnable with action taken reports within
two weeks.
HC directs Orissa to check forcible conversions
By Bibhuti Mishra in Bhubaneswar
Wednesday, 22 June , 2005, 11:04
The High Court has stepped in to end forcible conversions in Orissa.
The court has issued directions to register cases, with reference to
a petition as an FIR, and file charge-sheets immediately.
"Despite provisions in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
allegations of forced conversion are coming forth regularly," the
High Court observed.
A Division Bench of the Chief Justice S B Roy and Justice M M Das
issued the direction to the District Magistrate, while taking
cognizance of a petition filed by people of 19 villages in the Mohana
PS area on Tuesday.
Ananta Kumar Shatrusalya and 268 others had filed the public interest
petition, alleging that conversions were happening in the garb of
missionary activities in their area.
This is the second instance within 70 days in which judicial
intervention was sought against conversion involving coercion.
Earlier, on April 11, the Orissa High Court had taken serious note of
the plight of 22 families of cobbler community at Mallabhandaja
village in Ganjam district, who were isloated after refusing to
convert.
The Division Bench had directed the state government to clarify the
steps taken to take care of the alleged victims' families
But, the HC order issued on Wednesday goes a step further as it asks
the state government to direct all the District Magistrates "to take
appropriate actions" in such cases.
The court suggested that actions in such cases could be taken under
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act.
http://sify.com/news/othernews/fullstory.php?id=13878443
National Water Grid is the long-term solution to the water crisis in Rajasthan
National Water Grid is the long-term solution to the water crisis in Rajasthan
Chennai, June 23, 2005
Kalyanaraman, Director of Sarasvati Research Centre, advocating the National Watere Grid and National Coastal Commission projects said in Chennai today, "Water management in the semi-arid zones and drought-prone areas of the nation should be resolved as a technical problem and the long-term answer is the setting up of a National Water Grid, analogous to the National Power Grid."
This is in reference to a PTI report of June 23 from Tonk, Rajasthan where Congress President Sonia Gandhi is reported to have offered relief to families of five farmers killed in police firing in the 'BJP-ruled state'.
The problem should be viewed from a national perspective and a developmental imperative.
The National Water Development Agency of Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India has drawn up a perspective plan for moving Sharada river waters into Rajasthan Nahar as part of the Perspective Plan for Himalayan and Peninsular River Links as part of a National Water Grid. This would take the waters of the Nahar upto River Sabarmati making it the reborn Vedic River Sarasvati quenching the thirst of over 20 crore people in northwestern India -- in droughtprone areas of Rajasthan and Rann of Kutch, and Saurashtra in particular. NWDA has been submitting annual reports to the Parliament every year since this Agency is chaired by the Prime Minister with CMs of all states as members. The Common Minimum Programme of UPA also includes the starting of the Peninsular Water Grid, in pursuance of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court to get the interlinking of rivers implemented in 16 years' time.
Setting up National Water Grid Authority and National Coastal Commission to purify seawater into drinking water for coastal towns/cities will resolve the watershed management problems and make possible the realisation of India Vision 2020.
Desalination can be achieved not only for seawater resources but also to the brackish waters of rivers like the Luni River in Rajasthan and Gujarat in the salty and marshy terrains of Northwest India. Similar desalination projects are in operation in many parts of the world to
desalinate entire river systems.
We hope and trust that the leaders and policy-makers of the nation would give priority to these projects as a positive step in optimal use of water as a national asset. The people of the country will bless the politicians and remember them for this act of dharma in the true traditions of the nation which holds waters as sacred trust.
The Sarasvati Research Centre hopes that national interest demands that the National Water Grid Authority and National Coastal Commission be appointed immediately to help manage the water resources of the nation in an optimal and sustainable manner. What we have today is not
a water resource crisis, it is only a management problem, given the Great Water Reservoir of the Himalayan glaciers which are accumulating water in the form of ice and snow more than the release by molten river flows. NWDA has also proved after 20 years of study by over 200
engineers that the Water Grid can be a reality, making the peninsular rivers also perennial rivers with the flood waters of Brahmaputra, Ganga and Mahanadi, by reviving River Sarasvati and taking Brahmaputra flood waters to Kanyakumari resolving the twin management concerns of recurrent, annual drought relief and flood relief palliative measures..
Dr. S. Kalyanaraman
Former Sr. Exec., Asian Development Bank,
Sarasvati Research Centre,
3 Temple Avenue, Chennai 600015
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati
kalyan97@gmail.com
Tel. 044 22350557
Tonk, June 23. (PTI): On a visit to commiserate with the families of five farmers killed in police firing in the BJP-ruled state, Congress President Sonia Gandhi today expressed "shock" over the police action and offered Centre's help to Rajasthan to tide over the water crisis.
Chennai, June 23, 2005
Kalyanaraman, Director of Sarasvati Research Centre, advocating the National Watere Grid and National Coastal Commission projects said in Chennai today, "Water management in the semi-arid zones and drought-prone areas of the nation should be resolved as a technical problem and the long-term answer is the setting up of a National Water Grid, analogous to the National Power Grid."
This is in reference to a PTI report of June 23 from Tonk, Rajasthan where Congress President Sonia Gandhi is reported to have offered relief to families of five farmers killed in police firing in the 'BJP-ruled state'.
The problem should be viewed from a national perspective and a developmental imperative.
The National Water Development Agency of Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India has drawn up a perspective plan for moving Sharada river waters into Rajasthan Nahar as part of the Perspective Plan for Himalayan and Peninsular River Links as part of a National Water Grid. This would take the waters of the Nahar upto River Sabarmati making it the reborn Vedic River Sarasvati quenching the thirst of over 20 crore people in northwestern India -- in droughtprone areas of Rajasthan and Rann of Kutch, and Saurashtra in particular. NWDA has been submitting annual reports to the Parliament every year since this Agency is chaired by the Prime Minister with CMs of all states as members. The Common Minimum Programme of UPA also includes the starting of the Peninsular Water Grid, in pursuance of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court to get the interlinking of rivers implemented in 16 years' time.
Setting up National Water Grid Authority and National Coastal Commission to purify seawater into drinking water for coastal towns/cities will resolve the watershed management problems and make possible the realisation of India Vision 2020.
Desalination can be achieved not only for seawater resources but also to the brackish waters of rivers like the Luni River in Rajasthan and Gujarat in the salty and marshy terrains of Northwest India. Similar desalination projects are in operation in many parts of the world to
desalinate entire river systems.
We hope and trust that the leaders and policy-makers of the nation would give priority to these projects as a positive step in optimal use of water as a national asset. The people of the country will bless the politicians and remember them for this act of dharma in the true traditions of the nation which holds waters as sacred trust.
The Sarasvati Research Centre hopes that national interest demands that the National Water Grid Authority and National Coastal Commission be appointed immediately to help manage the water resources of the nation in an optimal and sustainable manner. What we have today is not
a water resource crisis, it is only a management problem, given the Great Water Reservoir of the Himalayan glaciers which are accumulating water in the form of ice and snow more than the release by molten river flows. NWDA has also proved after 20 years of study by over 200
engineers that the Water Grid can be a reality, making the peninsular rivers also perennial rivers with the flood waters of Brahmaputra, Ganga and Mahanadi, by reviving River Sarasvati and taking Brahmaputra flood waters to Kanyakumari resolving the twin management concerns of recurrent, annual drought relief and flood relief palliative measures..
Dr. S. Kalyanaraman
Former Sr. Exec., Asian Development Bank,
Sarasvati Research Centre,
3 Temple Avenue, Chennai 600015
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati
kalyan97@gmail.com
Tel. 044 22350557
Tonk, June 23. (PTI): On a visit to commiserate with the families of five farmers killed in police firing in the BJP-ruled state, Congress President Sonia Gandhi today expressed "shock" over the police action and offered Centre's help to Rajasthan to tide over the water crisis.
Fighting terror: the US and the Indian models
But will the US and India work together against radical Islam. ‘No’ say some thinkers in the US. Why? The US Christian establishment, which drives the Bush administration is keener to convert Hindu India to Christianity than fight terror partnering India! How then do we fight terror? Not by leaning on the US. This much seems clear. QED: ‘Engage’ the US, not rely on it. Thank the US if it does not side with or aid the terror merchant, Pakistan, its valued ally against terror, against us. That is all!
Friday June 24 2005
S Gurumurthy
In my two-week visit to the US, I keenly observed how the US and its people responded to Islamic terror post 9/11. The moment I landed I saw a different US. An America stressed, even insecure. The emigration officials were straining to ensure that those who they allow in were not Mohammed Attas who would bring down their World Trade Centres. Their tension was visible. Today it is no more the free US that I saw four years earlier. The queues for security in US airports are longer than in any of our airports. In the days that followed even as I observed how the US government fights terror, I recalled how the Indian people fight terror back at home.
In the US, fight against terror is almost entirely the government’s responsibility. Back here we see a contrast. The people, more than the Indian state, dare the terror in remote India. Terrorists warn of attacks on pilgrims to Amarnath or Vaishnodevi temples. But people dare them, go in greater numbers, year after year. The government restricts pilgrims to Amarnath, cuts the duration of the pilgrimage! More people go, for more number of days than the government thinks safe for them!
Officials tell the pilgrims that they are ‘at their own risk’. Still, daring the terrorists, thousands go. If they stop going to Amarnath or Vaishnodevi, or go less, the terrorists win. But when they go as they do, increasingly, they dare the terror and the terrorists lose. The terrorists cannot easily handle the masses who dare them. They can fight army and police. Not the people but.
See more. Recently, an Indian TV channel, I understand, telecast the hilarious incident of dozens of villagers from UP, including scores of women, ‘quietly’ making their way to terror-hit areas of Kashmir. What for? Believe it, to sight-see -- yes, sight-see -- how the terrorists shoot! They said that they have been hearing news that the terrorists shoot and scoot and so they thought of an excursion to see how the terrorists managed to do that! This incident came to light when they were caught by the Indian Railway officials for travelling without tickets! Had they bought tickets the incident might not have come to light at all!
So the ordinary Indian even turns terror into a tourist attraction! Thousands travelling ticketless for terror tourism, that is, to sight-see terror in action, will unnerve the terrorists and undo terrorism far more effectively than hundreds of thousands of armed men shooting at them. The government should encourage ticketless travel of this kind than ticketless travel of hordes of people herded to attend rallies of political parties. Not just braving, the people of India even trivialise terror.
This is the hidden element in the Indian Government’s fight against terror. This is not widely recognised even in India, much less projected abroad. For any country to fight terror, its ordinary people must dare the terrorists. There is of course nothing sacred for Americans like Amarnath or Vaishnodevi is for Indians. Yes, US government frontally takes on the terror. But should terrorists threaten ordinary Americans will they dare them like the people of India do? This is indeed doubtful. Unless ordinary Americans dare the terror like ordinary Indians do the US war on terror will be only Bush’s war, not the American people’s war. The US thinktanks will do well to study the ordinary Indians’ response to terror and inform the Americans. The US has to prepare its people to fight terror, something which it has not done as yet.
But, can the US be trusted to fight terror to the finish? The past record does not encourage such trust. We do not know when the US will fatigue and call for ‘engaging’ the terror rather than ‘confronting’ it! In diplomatic language ‘engaging’ means dialoguing with the terrorists, ‘confronting’ means daring them. Already the Americans are tired of Iraq misadventure. The terrorists, in contrast, never fatigue. They await their target to fatigue, to strike! Again, is the US-led global alliance against terror solid? Doubtful! Europe is conscious that it is not blessed with geographic isolation from Islam which the US enjoys. So they would want a deal, not war, with Islam. The US too knows about it. So Europe is not a happy partner in the anti-terror alliance.
More importantly, in philosophic and real terms, terrorism is a war by those who do not care to die. Those who terrified of death cannot face it. Only a philosophy that positions death in life and life after death can promote the psychology to face terror. This is what makes the Amarnath pilgrim to dare terror. A US-based psychiatrist tells that even ageing Americans are terrified of death. So America will have to be re-engineered on more counts than one to battle terror. But will the US and India work together against radical Islam. ‘No’ say some thinkers in the US. Why? The US Christian establishment, which drives the Bush administration is keener to convert Hindu India to Christianity than fight terror partnering India! How then do we fight terror? Not by leaning on the US. This much seems clear. QED: ‘Engage’ the US, not rely on it. Thank the US if it does not side with or aid the terror merchant, Pakistan, its valued ally against terror, against us. That is all!
Writer’s email: comment@gurumurthy.net
Friday June 24 2005
S Gurumurthy
In my two-week visit to the US, I keenly observed how the US and its people responded to Islamic terror post 9/11. The moment I landed I saw a different US. An America stressed, even insecure. The emigration officials were straining to ensure that those who they allow in were not Mohammed Attas who would bring down their World Trade Centres. Their tension was visible. Today it is no more the free US that I saw four years earlier. The queues for security in US airports are longer than in any of our airports. In the days that followed even as I observed how the US government fights terror, I recalled how the Indian people fight terror back at home.
In the US, fight against terror is almost entirely the government’s responsibility. Back here we see a contrast. The people, more than the Indian state, dare the terror in remote India. Terrorists warn of attacks on pilgrims to Amarnath or Vaishnodevi temples. But people dare them, go in greater numbers, year after year. The government restricts pilgrims to Amarnath, cuts the duration of the pilgrimage! More people go, for more number of days than the government thinks safe for them!
Officials tell the pilgrims that they are ‘at their own risk’. Still, daring the terrorists, thousands go. If they stop going to Amarnath or Vaishnodevi, or go less, the terrorists win. But when they go as they do, increasingly, they dare the terror and the terrorists lose. The terrorists cannot easily handle the masses who dare them. They can fight army and police. Not the people but.
See more. Recently, an Indian TV channel, I understand, telecast the hilarious incident of dozens of villagers from UP, including scores of women, ‘quietly’ making their way to terror-hit areas of Kashmir. What for? Believe it, to sight-see -- yes, sight-see -- how the terrorists shoot! They said that they have been hearing news that the terrorists shoot and scoot and so they thought of an excursion to see how the terrorists managed to do that! This incident came to light when they were caught by the Indian Railway officials for travelling without tickets! Had they bought tickets the incident might not have come to light at all!
So the ordinary Indian even turns terror into a tourist attraction! Thousands travelling ticketless for terror tourism, that is, to sight-see terror in action, will unnerve the terrorists and undo terrorism far more effectively than hundreds of thousands of armed men shooting at them. The government should encourage ticketless travel of this kind than ticketless travel of hordes of people herded to attend rallies of political parties. Not just braving, the people of India even trivialise terror.
This is the hidden element in the Indian Government’s fight against terror. This is not widely recognised even in India, much less projected abroad. For any country to fight terror, its ordinary people must dare the terrorists. There is of course nothing sacred for Americans like Amarnath or Vaishnodevi is for Indians. Yes, US government frontally takes on the terror. But should terrorists threaten ordinary Americans will they dare them like the people of India do? This is indeed doubtful. Unless ordinary Americans dare the terror like ordinary Indians do the US war on terror will be only Bush’s war, not the American people’s war. The US thinktanks will do well to study the ordinary Indians’ response to terror and inform the Americans. The US has to prepare its people to fight terror, something which it has not done as yet.
But, can the US be trusted to fight terror to the finish? The past record does not encourage such trust. We do not know when the US will fatigue and call for ‘engaging’ the terror rather than ‘confronting’ it! In diplomatic language ‘engaging’ means dialoguing with the terrorists, ‘confronting’ means daring them. Already the Americans are tired of Iraq misadventure. The terrorists, in contrast, never fatigue. They await their target to fatigue, to strike! Again, is the US-led global alliance against terror solid? Doubtful! Europe is conscious that it is not blessed with geographic isolation from Islam which the US enjoys. So they would want a deal, not war, with Islam. The US too knows about it. So Europe is not a happy partner in the anti-terror alliance.
More importantly, in philosophic and real terms, terrorism is a war by those who do not care to die. Those who terrified of death cannot face it. Only a philosophy that positions death in life and life after death can promote the psychology to face terror. This is what makes the Amarnath pilgrim to dare terror. A US-based psychiatrist tells that even ageing Americans are terrified of death. So America will have to be re-engineered on more counts than one to battle terror. But will the US and India work together against radical Islam. ‘No’ say some thinkers in the US. Why? The US Christian establishment, which drives the Bush administration is keener to convert Hindu India to Christianity than fight terror partnering India! How then do we fight terror? Not by leaning on the US. This much seems clear. QED: ‘Engage’ the US, not rely on it. Thank the US if it does not side with or aid the terror merchant, Pakistan, its valued ally against terror, against us. That is all!
Writer’s email: comment@gurumurthy.net
President Bush remarks on energy and economic security:
The following are remarks by President Bush on energy and economic security:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Lusby, Maryland
10:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for letting me
interrupt your workday. (Laughter.) I hope it's okay. (Laughter.) I really
appreciate you having me. It's a good -- I like to get out of Washington, and
I like to pay a visit to our neighbors outside the Beltway. So I appreciate
you letting me come by.
Thanks for the tour of this important facility. I want to thank those
back at the control room for being so gracious and kind and taking time to
explain all the dials and gauges. (Laughter.) I can play like I understand
what I saw. (Laughter.)
But one thing is for certain, that when the people of Maryland flip a
switch and see their lights come on, they need to thank the people working
here at this plant. This plant is providing a lot of important power for
people all over the state of Maryland. I've come to talk about economic
security. I've come to talk about the need to get a good energy policy out of
the Congress. And there's no better place to do it than right here in Calvert
Cliffs. Thanks for letting me come. (Applause.)
Laura didn't come with me. She's out west with our daughter, Jenna, in
the Grand Canyon. How about that? (Laughter.) She's doing a great job as
the First Lady. She is a fabulous wife and a great mom, and she sends her
best to all the good folks who work here at Calvert Cliffs. I appreciate the
Secretary of Energy joining me today. He's a good man, he knows a lot about
the subject, you'll be pleased to hear. I was teasing him -- he taught at
MIT, and -- do you have a PhD?
SECRETARY BODMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, a PhD. (Laughter.) Now I want you to pay careful
attention to this -- he's the PhD, and I'm the C student, but notice who is
the advisor and who is the President. (Laughter and applause.) He's a good
man, and I really appreciate working with Sam to achieve a great national
goal, which is become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
I appreciate Nils Diaz, who is the Chairman of the NRC, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Thanks for coming. I want to thank Governor Bob
Ehrlich from the great state of Maryland. I appreciate you coming, Governor.
Thanks for being here. He's a pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-small business
governor. And I enjoy working with him to help create an environment that
helps people realize their dreams.
I want to thank George Vanderheyden, who is the Site Vice President of the
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. He represents -- at least on the tour --
represented a lot of the good folks who work here. I want to say something
about the folks who work here. I want to thank you for your hard work and I
want to thank you for your patriotism and your love of your country. I
understand that six of your fellow employees are now in Iraq. And for the
families and the co-workers here, I say, thank you, on behalf of a grateful
nation, for supporting these good folks. These folks are there defeating
terrorists who cannot stand the thought of democracy and freedom, defeating
them there so we do not have to face them here at home. These folks are there
spreading democracy and freedom, understanding that a democratic world is more
likely to leave a foundation for peace for our children. So I want to thank
you for your sacrifices and thank you for supporting those good folks.
(Applause.)
I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo
Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. (Laughter.) Pass
the Mayo. (Laughter and applause.) His wife, Molly, appreciated that.
(Laughter.) I want to thank Mike Wallace, Skip Bowman. Thank you all.
Thanks for letting me come by.
As you know, I'm an optimistic person, and I hope you are, as well. These
are incredibly hopeful times for our country, and the state of our economy is
strong. And Americans from all walks of life have got good reason to be
confident about the future of this country. Let me just give you some of the
facts. Over the past year, America's economy has grown faster than any major
industrialized economy in the world. In other words, we're leading growth
when it comes to major industrialized economies.
Over the past two years, America has added more than 3.5 million new jobs.
The unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent. That's lower than the average
rate in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.
In Maryland, the unemployment is 4.2 percent. People are working. I'm
proud to report that more Americans are working today than ever before in our
nation's history. Our economy is sustaining low inflation rates, low interest
rates, and low mortgage rates. Small businesses are flourishing. Families
are taking home more of what they earn. Your after-tax income -- incomes are
up. More Americans are going to college than at any other time in our
nation's history. More Americans own their own businesses than ever before.
And home ownership in America is at an all-time high.
This strong and growing economy is lifting our standard of living, and
that's important because that means opportunity is being spread throughout the
country. Now listen, I understand parts of our country are still struggling
from the effects of the recession and the attacks. I know some workers are
concerned about jobs going overseas. I know some are concerned about gaining
the skills necessary to compete in the global market that we live in. I know
that families are worried about health care and retirement. And I know moms
and dads are worried about their children finding good jobs.
See, even though the numbers are still good, there are still worries out
there in the country. And these are the challenges of a rapidly changing
economy. And we've got the responsibility in government to take the side of
our working families. So we're moving aggressively -- we're not taking the
good numbers for granted; we're moving aggressively with a pro-growth, pro-
worker set of economic policies that'll enhance economic security in the
country.
Economic security happens for our workers and families when we keep your
taxes low. It happens when we open up new markets for American products. It
happens when we stop the spread of junk lawsuits. We're going to create
economic security for moms and dads by making health care more affordable, by
guaranteeing a quality education for every child, and ensuring dignity in
retirement. And that's what I've come to talk to you about today.
The United States Congress has now an opportunity to create more economic
security by passing an energy bill that will make energy more affordable and
reliable for generations to come. Energy is vital to the future of this
country. Everybody who works here knows that. Everybody who turns on their
light switch should know that. It's obvious that we can't expand our economy
if businesses don't have energy. You've got to have energy if you're going to
be a farmer. You got to have energy if you're just trying to raise a family.
If you're a baseball fan, you need energy. I mean, try going to a night ball
game -- (laughter) -- without any lights. How about the Nats and the Orioles,
by the way, speaking about baseball? (Applause.)
Our nation needs to confront a basic problem -- we're using energy faster
than we're producing it. And the problem has been building for a long period
of time, because we really haven't confronted this problem. That's why I
submitted this strategy to Congress when we first got up to Washington. Over
the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times
faster than our energy production. Think about that. Four years ago, I said
to Congress, let's deal with this problem now.
The problem is, there's been a lot of debate and a lot of politics, but no
results. So now is the time, for the sake of our consumers and business folks
and people who are trying to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in
the summer and find reasonable gas prices at the -- gasoline prices at the
pump, it's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction, and pass
an energy bill. (Applause.)
And I appreciate Chairman Barton in the House, that moved a good -- where
he'd been able to move a good bill to the floor and it got voted on. I
appreciate Senator Domenici of New Mexico for moving a bill out of committee;
it's on the Senate floor. They need to get it passed out of the Senate. They
need to reconcile their differences. They need to get me a bill before they
go home in August. And I'm looking forward to signing that bill, and it's
going to be an important part of developing a national energy strategy.
Look, I recognize, and I hope you recognize, that when I sign that bill,
your gasoline prices aren't going to drop. This problem has been long in the
making. But by addressing it now, we're going to be able to say, life's going
to be better for our children and grandchildren.
To make this country less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we need the
following things: One, we need to encourage our citizens to be better
conservers of energy, and technology will help a lot. There's some incentives
in the bill to encourage conservation. We need to make more efficient use of
existing energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. We've got a lot of
coal in this country, about 250 years' worth of coal. I'm convinced that with
proper use of technology that we will be able to develop coal-fired
electricity plants that have got zero emissions. We're spending a fair amount
of your money to make sure that we can achieve that objective. I think it's a
good use of your money. It's a way to help make sure we use an abundant
resource that we have here in America without polluting the air.
We need to diversify our energy supply by increasing the use of
alternative and renewable sources, like ethanol, which is made from corn, or
biodiesel made from soy beans. I went to a soy bean refinery the other day in
Virginia where they're making diesel fuel from soy beans. With the right, you
know, proper use of your dollars to encourage research, it's very conceivable
that source of energy will become economic. And that makes sense, doesn't it?
Can you imagine walking -- walking down the road here in the farmlands of
Maryland, you see a guy growing soy beans, you say, thanks, buddy, for making
us less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
So there's some smart things that this energy bill will encourage the
country to do, including solar power and hydrogen. I don't know if you
remember I laid out I thought -- I know an interesting initiative: it said,
why don't we explore how we use hydrogen power -- hydrogen to power our cars,
to help us diversify away from dependency upon hydro carbons. And I believe
we can develop a hydrogen-power automobile over the next decade or two. I
think it will be cool if your young son is able to take a driver's test in a
hydrogen-powered automobile that has got zero emissions, and at the same time
will make us less dependent on hydrocarbons which we have to import from
foreign countries.
We need to modernize the electricity grid, and make reliability standards
mandatory. We also need to make -- get rid of some of these laws that
prohibit the capacity for those people who are building transmission lines and
powering our cities and states to be able to raise money in an effective way.
We need to help large energy users like India and China become more
efficient. And by helping them develop efficiency standards, it'll take
pressure off of global demand for hydro carbons. One of the reasons why your
price of gasoline is going up is, one, we're dependent on foreign sources of
oil; and, two, economies like China and India are demanding more oil in a
limited supply -- in a market that's of limited supply, which causes the price
of oil to go up, which causes the price of gasoline to go up. So it makes
sense to help those who are demanding more energy to be more efficient users
of energy.
And I'll take that message to the G8 in Scotland here, right after the
Fourth of July celebrations, to say, look, let's work together on a
comprehensive energy plan to help these new consumers of energy be better
users of energy.
The energy bill will also help us expand our use of the one energy source
that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly,
and able to generate massive amounts of electricity, and that's nuclear power.
(Applause.)
Today, there are 103 nuclear plants in America. They produce about 20
percent of the nation's electricity without producing a single pound of air
pollution or greenhouse gases. I think you told me that 20 percent of all
Maryland's electricity is produced here at this plant. Without these nuclear
plants, America would released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon
dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon
dioxide that now comes from all our cars and trucks.
Across this state, Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their
lights on and to keep their land, air and water clean. In other words, you're
generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time. That's
an important combination of talents and -- it's an important combination of --
that the American people have got to understand it's possible when we expand
nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. People out
here practice a lot of safety, they're good at it. You've got nuclear
engineers and experts that spend a lot of time maintaining a safe environment.
Just ask the people that work here. You wouldn't be coming here if it wasn't
safe, I suspect. (Laughter.)
Some Americans remember the problems of the nuclear plants -- that the
nuclear plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days. That
frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in
sciences and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer,
far safer than ever before. Workers and managers are trained and committed
and spend hours working on nuclear safety, and that's good. And they do such
a good job here at Calvert Cliffs that this was the first nuclear plant in
America to gets its operating license renewed. And I congratulate you.
(Applause.)
There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a
cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look at the
facts. One of the reasons I've come to this plant is to help people
understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet, even though there
has been a growing consensus over time, America has not ordered a nuclear
plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the
same period of time. By contrast, China now has eight nuclear plants in the
works and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.
In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe,
clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to start building
nuclear power plants again. (Applause.)
We're taking practical steps to encourage new construction of power
plants. Three years ago, we launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which
is a $1.1 billion partnership between government and industry to coordinate
the ordering of new plants. The Department of Energy is working with Congress
to reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process. Look, you don't
want to go out and build a plant, spend all the money, and have the license
jerked at the last minute. (Laughter.) Nobody's going to spend money if
that's the case.
And so we want to have a rational way to move forward, and one rational
way to move forward is to provide incentives for new construction such as
federal risk insurance, to help the builders of the first four plants --
that's what's now embedded in the energy bill -- first four plants against
lawsuits and bureaucratic obstacles and other delays beyond their control. In
other words, there's a rational approach for the federal government -- on the
one hand, to convince the American people nuclear power is safe, that it makes
sense for our consumers, it makes sense for the long-term economic security of
our country to expand nuclear power; and on the other hand, say to those who
are risking capital, here's some help, here's some ways we can provide
incentive for you to move forward with the construction of plants.
Delivering a good energy bill is part of a comprehensive agenda, but
there's some other things we need to do. One of the last things that we need
to do to this economy is to take money out of your pocket and fuel government.
I firmly believe that one of the reasons we recovered the way we did after the
recession and September the 11th is because of the tax cuts we passed. I
believe that if you've got more money in your pocket, you can spend it wiser
than the federal government can spend it. (Applause.) And therefore, I think
Congress ought to send a strong signal to families and small businesses and
risk-takers about taxes, and that is, we're going to keep your taxes low; they
need to make the tax relief we passed permanent.
Secondly, we need to do something about the tax code itself. It's
complicated, it's really thick, it makes -- it does not reward
entrepreneurship, it's unfair. So I called some Republicans and Democrats who
care about this issue together. I said, come up with a plan to simplify the
tax code so people can understand it, and so it helps achieve some objectives,
which is fairness, simplicity, easy to understand. I mean, you shouldn't have
to -- have to hire all kinds of folks to figure out what's in the tax code.
And so once we get those recommendations, I look forward to working with
Congress to not only keep your taxes low, but to make the code simple and easy
to understand.
Families understand you've got to live within a budget. That's something
that Congress needs to understand, as well. So I submitted the most
disciplined proposal for non-security discretionary spending since Ronald
Reagan was in the White House. I say non-security, my attitude is, when we
got anybody in harm's way, we're going to spend whatever it takes to make sure
they've got the very best equipment and training so they can do their mission.
We owe that to the families and we owe that to their loved ones. (Applause.)
But I'm talking about non-security discretionary spending. And it's
important for Congress to adhere to the budgets they passed. And by doing so,
we will reduce the deficit in half by 2009. In other words, we can meet
priorities. We can keep your taxes low. And if Congress is fiscally wise and
sound with your money, we can reduce that deficit in half by 2009. I'm
looking forward to working with them to be wise about how we spend your money.
Sometimes it's interesting in Washington, you hear, well, we're spending the
government's money. That's -- when you hear somebody say "the government's
money," get a little nervous, because they have seemed -- they seem to have
forgotten where that money comes from. It's not the government's money; it's
your money that we're spending in Washington; and we got to be wise about we
spend in order to keep this economy growing.
Another threat to economic security is junk lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits
help drive up the total costs of America's tort system to more than $240
billion a year. That's a burden far greater than any other major
industrialized nation, by the way. In order to remain competitive, in order
to keep jobs here in America, in order to make sure that people can make a
decent living, we got to do something about these junk lawsuits.
It's one thing to have a legal system where people can -- you know have
got a legitimate claim can go take care of it, it's the junk lawsuits that run
up the cost of doing business; junk lawsuits that make it a -- America less
competitive. These junk lawsuits cost people jobs and they raise your prices.
And so I've been working with Congress and calling upon Congress, if we're
interested in economic security for the future, let's do something about
frivolous lawsuits.
And we're making progress. We got a good bill to curb abusive class
action lawsuits. There's more to do. I think we need to get something done
on the asbestos issue, have a fair bill that says we'll treat the workers
who've been harmed well. They deserve to be treated. They deserve to be
focused on -- not the trial lawyers. And at the same time, make -- provide
certainty in the system. Legal reform is a necessary part of keeping this --
keeping this economy going.
And so, by the way, is opening up new markets for America's producers and
farmers. We got a chance to break down some trade barriers. I told the
people when I was campaigning, I said, look, I'm for free trade. I'm also for
fair trade. I just want to be treated fairly. If we treat you one way, you
treat us the same way. There's a debate raging in Congress now about the
Central American- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. It's called CAFTA.
Let me tell you the facts about this trade agreement -- I don't know if you
realize this, but now 80 percent of the goods from Central America come into
our country duty-free. Yet, we're not treated the same way down there. Now,
that doesn't make sense to me. It seems like to me that it would make sense
if we say, okay, your goods are already coming in here, treat us the same way.
Just level the playing field. You've got 44 million consumers; open up your
markets to our goods just like we've done to you. That's what CAFTA is all
about.
See, I have a different approach than some of the economic isolationists
who oppose this agreement. I believe they're pessimistic about America. I
believe American workers can compete with anybody, anywhere, any time if the
rules are fair. And so they need to pass CAFTA to be fair to our farmers and
ranchers and workers and small business owners. (Applause.)
Millions of Americans lack economic security because of the rising cost of
health care. You know this, that more than half of the uninsured work for
small businesses? Isn't that interesting? One way to address health care is
to say, small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk so they can buy
insurance at the same discount that big companies are able to do. Congress
needs to pass what's called association health plans to let small businesses
be able to enter market in a way that is -- they're able to spread risk across
a lot of employees.
We need to offer incentives for small businesses and low-income workers to
open tax-free health savings accounts. If you're running a small business,
look into what's called HSA's, health savings accounts -- they're a really
interest product that'll let your worker manage his or her own money, and at
the same time make health care more affordable for the small business -- or
large business for that matter. HSA's are an interesting, innovative way for
people to get good health care insurance that puts you in charge of the
decision-making process, that lets you make the decisions, and at the same
time, save money for your health care concerns tax-free.
We need to encourage a national marketplace for health insurance. In
other words, workers ought to be allowed to go on the Internet and purchase
health care across state lines. We've got to create more demand within the
health care place. Right now, for example, if you live in Maryland, you only
buy health insurance out of Maryland, the health insurance that is certified
out of Maryland. I think you ought to be allowed to go on the Internet and if
you can find a better product for you in Colorado, you ought to be allowed to
do that. In other words, we ought to have a consumer-friendly system, where
people are encouraged to go out and make choices that meet their needs.
We need to expand health information technology. If you've really looked
at your own industry here or industries across America, they're using
information technology to modernize and become more efficient. Health care
hasn't done that yet. You got to -- if you look at your file, your medical
file, they're generally hand-written. And knowing how doctors write, it's
hard to read what they've written. (Laughter.) But it's an inefficient
system. And so to bring health care into the 21st century, we're working on
an information technology initiative.
To reduce the cost of medicine for every doctor, every patient and every
business, it's time for Congress to pass medical liability reform. One of the
biggest problems we got here in America is junk lawsuits running good doctors
out of practice. We've got OB/GYNs leaving the practice of medicine all
across this country because they can't afford to stay in business. And that's
not right.
When I first came to Washington, I said, well, maybe medical liability
reform was a state issue. I was the governor of a state, so I was kind of --
felt like we could do a better job in our respective states of dealing with
medical liability until I looked at the cost of what these junk lawsuits were
doing to the federal budget.
See, if you think you're going to get sued, oftentimes you practice more
medicine than necessary. It's called the defensive practice of medicine. Ask
your local doctor and he'll tell you what I mean by that. If you are getting
sued a lot, your premiums go up. And in that the federal government pays a
lot of health care costs through Medicaid, Medicare, veterans' health
benefits, we're spending a lot of money at the federal level as a result of
these lawsuits.
And so I decided that this was a national problem that required a national
solution. And for the sake of affordable and available health care, Congress
needs to pass medical liability reform. And I urge them, I urge the members
of the United States Senate, where the bill is stuck, not to listen to the
trial lawyers but listen to the patients and doctors all across America.
(Applause.)
To make sure that we have economic security for generations to come, we've
got to make sure we have quality education for every child. You can't compete
unless your children can read and write and add and subtract. The No Child
Left Behind Act we passed is challenging what I've called the soft bigotry of
low expectations. That means you have your expectations so low you just move
the children through the system without measuring whether or not they can read
and write. In other words, if you don't think certain children can read and
write, the easy path is just move them through. I have a -- I had a different
view when I came to Washington. I said, I believe every child can read and
write, and I expect every child to read and write, and in return for federal
money, we want schools to show us whether or not children are learning to read
and write. That's how you -- that's how you achieve results, you measure.
And so we've asked schools, we said, look, we're giving you a lot of money
at the federal level, so in return for that money, just show us, that's all
you got to do. Show us whether the curriculum you're using is working, show
us whether or not children are learning to read and write.
And it's working here in Maryland. You're doing a good job, Governor, so
are your education people -- the teachers all across the state. And here's
why I can say that: Since the No Child Left Behind Act took effect, reading
and math scores have increased in all 24 of Maryland's public school systems.
How do you know? Because we measure; we're not guessing. We used to guess,
now we measure, so we know.
In 2003, 39 percent of Hispanic third graders in Maryland met the
standards in reading -- 39 percent. We have an achievement gap in America.
Two years later, more than 63 percent are meeting the standards. In other
words, when you measure, you can determine whether or not what you're using in
the classroom is working. And if not, it gives you reason to change. The gap
-- in that the gap is closing all across the country is really good news for
the future. We've got to make sure every child from every background, every
part of America, gains the basic skills necessary to become employable in the
21st century, which means I think we need to expand the high standards and
accountability of No Child Left Behind to our public high schools so that the
high school diploma means something. When you graduate, it means you can --
means you're employable, or it means you can go to a community college, or it
means you go to higher education. That's what we ought to be doing.
This country ought to maintain high standards and strong accountability to
make sure we have economic security in the future. And finally, Americans
need to know that if they work hard all their lives, they can retire with
dignity.
You might have heard, I've decided to address the Social Security issue.
(Laughter.) Let me tell you why I've addressed the issue. One, we have a
problem. And secondly, I believe that the job description of a President
ought to be, this person ought to confront problems, not pass them on to
future Presidents and future generations. I believe that's my job.
(Applause.)
If you're getting a check, or you've got a mother or a grandmother getting
a check, tell them that person has no problem when it comes to Social
Security. You're going to get your check. I don't care what the politicians
say, or what the rhetoric -- how heated the rhetoric becomes, seems like every
time I've run for office, they said, if he gets in, he's going to take away
your check. Well, people are still getting their checks, and I got in.
(Laughter.) But here's the problem -- (Applause.)
Here is the problem: About 73 million of us are getting ready to retire.
I'm kind of looking around trying to figure out who the baby boomers are.
(Laughter.) Generally, people without hair, or gray hair. (Laughter.) My
retirement date, for example, my age when I'm eligible for retirement benefits
happens to fall on 2008, which is a convenient year for me to be -- (laughter)
-- be in a position to retire. (Applause.)
But a lot of us are getting ready to retire. As a matter of fact, I told
you 73 million baby boomers are getting ready to retire. That contrasts with
the 40 million folks who have retired today. So you got a lot more of us
getting ready to enter the system. And we're going to live longer. And
interestingly enough, I'm sure you're aware of this, but Congress over the
past years has said, vote for me, I'm going to promise you better benefits.
And so my generation, our generation, is going to get greater benefits than
the previous generation. You've got a lot of people living longer, being
promised greater benefits, with fewer people paying in the system.
In 1950, there was about 16 workers to one paying into the system. Today,
there's 3.3 workers to one. Soon there will be two workers to one. You've
got a lot of youngsters coming up carrying a hefty burden for old guys like
me.
And so -- and what that means is, is in 2017, which I guess seems like a
long time to people in Washington, D.C., if you've got a two-year horizon,
2017 seems like ages. But 2017 is right around the corner, it's 12 years from
now. If you've got a child four years -- four years old and you can get your
driver's license at 16, they'll be driving before you know it. By the way,
it's a little nerve-racking.
And so I think it's time to act, and if we don't, we're going to start
running some serious cash deficits, because in 2017, the system goes in the
red; 2027, it's about $200 billion a year in the red; 2030, it's about $300
billion a year in the red. I know this is a tough issue for some of them in
Washington. And the tendency is, let's just don't worry about it. Mr.
President, why did you bring it up? Let's just pass it on.
The reason I brought it up is I cannot travel our country, looking at
young workers who are paying payroll taxes into a system that I know is going
broke. And so now is the time to come together, both Republicans and
Democrats, forget all that party business, and come together and solve this
problem permanently, forever.
And I put some ideas on the table. And I expect people from both parties
to put ideas on the table, and so do the American people. They're tired of
this partisan bickering. When they see a problem, they want the American
people to come and solve it. They tell me, well, you're not making much
progress on Social Security. Well, I'll tell you one thing I am making
progress on -- the overwhelming number of Americans that understand we have a
problem. And I suspect the overwhelming number of Americans say if there's a
problem in Washington, how come you're not doing anything about it?
And I'm going to continue talking about this issue. And I put a plan out
that says you can't retire -- if you've worked all your life, a hardworking
person, you shouldn't retire in poverty. And it's a plan, by the way, that
says benefits will grow at the rate of wage increases for lower income
Americans and the rate of inflation for the top one percent. And that solves
about a significant portion of the problem.
And I also believe something else. I believe younger workers ought to be
able to take some of their own money, if that's what they choose, and set it
aside in a personal savings account. (Applause.) In other words, you're
paying payroll taxes in a system that's going broke. By the way, they call it
pay-as-you-go. A lot of people in Washington -- in the country probably think
the payroll -- the Social Security system is, I'm paying my payroll taxes and
the government's holding my money for me and giving it back to me when I
retire. I hate to tell you, that's not the way it works, and it hasn't worked
that way for a long time. We take your money and we pay out to the retirees,
and if we have money left over, like we have now, we're spending it on
government programs. And all that's left is a file cabinet full of IOUs in
West Virginia and I went and saw the file. You'll be happy to hear the
paper's there -- (laughter) -- but not your money. In other words, all you're
left with is an IOU.
What I think you ought to be left with, if you so choose, is some assets.
And so I believe younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own
money, if they want to, as a part of a Social Security system, and set it up
in a conservative mix of bonds and stocks or only bonds or whatever you choose
to use. It's kind of like a 401(k). I suspect you've got a 401(k) plan here.
I went to an automobile plant in Mississippi. I said, anybody here have a
-- manage their own money as part of their retirement? These were line
workers. These weren't the office workers, there were the people out there
making the automobiles, people from all walks of life, all income levels, all
education levels. And I'll bet you 90 percent of the folks raised their
hands. In other words, they say, we're used to that, Mr. President, we're
managing our own money. We're opening up our statement on a regular basis
watching our money grow.
Right now, if you -- your money in Social Security is growing at about 1.8
percent. That doesn't seem like a very good deal to me. We ought to -- if
you so choose, we ought to let you earn a reasonable rate of money, a
reasonable rate of return on your own money. And that money grows over time
and it compounds. And if you're a young worker at age 20 and you start
setting aside some of your own payroll taxes in a reasonable rate of return,
you're going to watch that money grow. And it's your assets and the
government can't spend it on what they want and they can't take it away and
you can pass it on to whomever you choose.
And let me tell you something about personal accounts. It was such an
attractive idea that the United States Congress said it's part of their
retirement plan. They're going to let members of the United States Senate or
House of Representatives take some of their own money and set it aside in a
personal account. And my attitude is this: If personal -- voluntary personal
savings accounts are good enough for the members of the United States
Congress, they're good enough for workers all across America. (Applause.)
And so here's the way forward, a way to encourage economic security and
smart ways to make sure this economy continues to grow so people can realize
dreams. That's really what government ought to do, it ought to create that
environment in which people are able to realize dreams and own a home and own
your own business, own and manage your own retirement account. I love the
idea of an ownership society. The more people own something in America, the
better off America is, as far as I'm concerned. The more people own -- the
more assets people own, the more independent Americans are. They feel
confident about the future. And I'm confident about our future. I don't
think there's any problem we can't solve when we put our minds to it.
Things are going fine right now. But my job is to keep looking down the
road. My job is to figure out how to keep this economy growing. My job is to
get Congress to do -- make wise policy so the entrepreneurial spirit is
strong, so people can realize dreams, so this country remains the great beacon
of hope that it has been in the past.
I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come by and visit with you.
May God bless you and your families and may God continue to bless our country.
(Applause.)
END 10:44 A.M. EDT
Senate Energy Bill Would Create Jobs in All Sectors of Economy, Says Alliance for Energy & Economic Growth
The following is a statement from
Bruce Josten, spokesperson for the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth and
executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, calling for a comprehensive energy plan:
"Developing new energy sources, encouraging new technology that will
conserve more energy, and modernizing the country's energy infrastructure
should be a top priority of the Congress. A comprehensive energy bill will
not only accelerate the economic rebound and create jobs, but it will also
help reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
"Thanks to the work of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the
Senate's energy bill will create jobs in all sectors of the economy, for
example:
* 234,000 jobs will be created with an 8 billion gallon RFS
* 40,000 new jobs in every state over the next 10 years in the solar
energy industry -- every megawatt of solar energy supports approx. 33
jobs -- 24 in high-tech manufacturing and 9 jobs in local design,
installation and service
* The U.S. Fuel Cell Council estimates that this energy bill will help
them create an estimated 169,000 to 189,000 jobs over the next 15 years.
"Over the past few years, high and unpredictable energy prices have placed
a severe burden on America's businesses and the U.S. economy has suffered.
The result has been soaring and unpredictable prices that hurt American
businesses. Passage of comprehensive energy legislation is more urgent than
ever."
The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth is a broad-based coalition
whose members develop, deliver or consume energy from all sources. With
members in every state, the Alliance represents consumers; energy companies
involved in all phases of energy exploration, production and transmission;
agricultural groups; and business and labor organizations -- all united in
support of a comprehensive national energy plan. With more than 1,250
members, the Alliance seeks to help build a national consensus for a
comprehensive U.S. energy strategy that balances supply and demand without
compromising environmental safeguards, so that we may fuel America's economy
and support our quality of life. For more information, visit
http://www.yourenergyfuture.org
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Lusby, Maryland
10:00 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for the warm welcome. Thanks for letting me
interrupt your workday. (Laughter.) I hope it's okay. (Laughter.) I really
appreciate you having me. It's a good -- I like to get out of Washington, and
I like to pay a visit to our neighbors outside the Beltway. So I appreciate
you letting me come by.
Thanks for the tour of this important facility. I want to thank those
back at the control room for being so gracious and kind and taking time to
explain all the dials and gauges. (Laughter.) I can play like I understand
what I saw. (Laughter.)
But one thing is for certain, that when the people of Maryland flip a
switch and see their lights come on, they need to thank the people working
here at this plant. This plant is providing a lot of important power for
people all over the state of Maryland. I've come to talk about economic
security. I've come to talk about the need to get a good energy policy out of
the Congress. And there's no better place to do it than right here in Calvert
Cliffs. Thanks for letting me come. (Applause.)
Laura didn't come with me. She's out west with our daughter, Jenna, in
the Grand Canyon. How about that? (Laughter.) She's doing a great job as
the First Lady. She is a fabulous wife and a great mom, and she sends her
best to all the good folks who work here at Calvert Cliffs. I appreciate the
Secretary of Energy joining me today. He's a good man, he knows a lot about
the subject, you'll be pleased to hear. I was teasing him -- he taught at
MIT, and -- do you have a PhD?
SECRETARY BODMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, a PhD. (Laughter.) Now I want you to pay careful
attention to this -- he's the PhD, and I'm the C student, but notice who is
the advisor and who is the President. (Laughter and applause.) He's a good
man, and I really appreciate working with Sam to achieve a great national
goal, which is become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
I appreciate Nils Diaz, who is the Chairman of the NRC, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Thanks for coming. I want to thank Governor Bob
Ehrlich from the great state of Maryland. I appreciate you coming, Governor.
Thanks for being here. He's a pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-small business
governor. And I enjoy working with him to help create an environment that
helps people realize their dreams.
I want to thank George Vanderheyden, who is the Site Vice President of the
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. He represents -- at least on the tour --
represented a lot of the good folks who work here. I want to say something
about the folks who work here. I want to thank you for your hard work and I
want to thank you for your patriotism and your love of your country. I
understand that six of your fellow employees are now in Iraq. And for the
families and the co-workers here, I say, thank you, on behalf of a grateful
nation, for supporting these good folks. These folks are there defeating
terrorists who cannot stand the thought of democracy and freedom, defeating
them there so we do not have to face them here at home. These folks are there
spreading democracy and freedom, understanding that a democratic world is more
likely to leave a foundation for peace for our children. So I want to thank
you for your sacrifices and thank you for supporting those good folks.
(Applause.)
I want to thank the President and the CEO of Constellation Energy, Mayo
Shattuck. That's a pretty cool first name, isn't it, Mayo. (Laughter.) Pass
the Mayo. (Laughter and applause.) His wife, Molly, appreciated that.
(Laughter.) I want to thank Mike Wallace, Skip Bowman. Thank you all.
Thanks for letting me come by.
As you know, I'm an optimistic person, and I hope you are, as well. These
are incredibly hopeful times for our country, and the state of our economy is
strong. And Americans from all walks of life have got good reason to be
confident about the future of this country. Let me just give you some of the
facts. Over the past year, America's economy has grown faster than any major
industrialized economy in the world. In other words, we're leading growth
when it comes to major industrialized economies.
Over the past two years, America has added more than 3.5 million new jobs.
The unemployment rate is down to 5.1 percent. That's lower than the average
rate in the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s.
In Maryland, the unemployment is 4.2 percent. People are working. I'm
proud to report that more Americans are working today than ever before in our
nation's history. Our economy is sustaining low inflation rates, low interest
rates, and low mortgage rates. Small businesses are flourishing. Families
are taking home more of what they earn. Your after-tax income -- incomes are
up. More Americans are going to college than at any other time in our
nation's history. More Americans own their own businesses than ever before.
And home ownership in America is at an all-time high.
This strong and growing economy is lifting our standard of living, and
that's important because that means opportunity is being spread throughout the
country. Now listen, I understand parts of our country are still struggling
from the effects of the recession and the attacks. I know some workers are
concerned about jobs going overseas. I know some are concerned about gaining
the skills necessary to compete in the global market that we live in. I know
that families are worried about health care and retirement. And I know moms
and dads are worried about their children finding good jobs.
See, even though the numbers are still good, there are still worries out
there in the country. And these are the challenges of a rapidly changing
economy. And we've got the responsibility in government to take the side of
our working families. So we're moving aggressively -- we're not taking the
good numbers for granted; we're moving aggressively with a pro-growth, pro-
worker set of economic policies that'll enhance economic security in the
country.
Economic security happens for our workers and families when we keep your
taxes low. It happens when we open up new markets for American products. It
happens when we stop the spread of junk lawsuits. We're going to create
economic security for moms and dads by making health care more affordable, by
guaranteeing a quality education for every child, and ensuring dignity in
retirement. And that's what I've come to talk to you about today.
The United States Congress has now an opportunity to create more economic
security by passing an energy bill that will make energy more affordable and
reliable for generations to come. Energy is vital to the future of this
country. Everybody who works here knows that. Everybody who turns on their
light switch should know that. It's obvious that we can't expand our economy
if businesses don't have energy. You've got to have energy if you're going to
be a farmer. You got to have energy if you're just trying to raise a family.
If you're a baseball fan, you need energy. I mean, try going to a night ball
game -- (laughter) -- without any lights. How about the Nats and the Orioles,
by the way, speaking about baseball? (Applause.)
Our nation needs to confront a basic problem -- we're using energy faster
than we're producing it. And the problem has been building for a long period
of time, because we really haven't confronted this problem. That's why I
submitted this strategy to Congress when we first got up to Washington. Over
the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times
faster than our energy production. Think about that. Four years ago, I said
to Congress, let's deal with this problem now.
The problem is, there's been a lot of debate and a lot of politics, but no
results. So now is the time, for the sake of our consumers and business folks
and people who are trying to heat their homes in the winter and cool them in
the summer and find reasonable gas prices at the -- gasoline prices at the
pump, it's time for Congress to stop the debate, stop the inaction, and pass
an energy bill. (Applause.)
And I appreciate Chairman Barton in the House, that moved a good -- where
he'd been able to move a good bill to the floor and it got voted on. I
appreciate Senator Domenici of New Mexico for moving a bill out of committee;
it's on the Senate floor. They need to get it passed out of the Senate. They
need to reconcile their differences. They need to get me a bill before they
go home in August. And I'm looking forward to signing that bill, and it's
going to be an important part of developing a national energy strategy.
Look, I recognize, and I hope you recognize, that when I sign that bill,
your gasoline prices aren't going to drop. This problem has been long in the
making. But by addressing it now, we're going to be able to say, life's going
to be better for our children and grandchildren.
To make this country less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we need the
following things: One, we need to encourage our citizens to be better
conservers of energy, and technology will help a lot. There's some incentives
in the bill to encourage conservation. We need to make more efficient use of
existing energy sources like oil, coal and natural gas. We've got a lot of
coal in this country, about 250 years' worth of coal. I'm convinced that with
proper use of technology that we will be able to develop coal-fired
electricity plants that have got zero emissions. We're spending a fair amount
of your money to make sure that we can achieve that objective. I think it's a
good use of your money. It's a way to help make sure we use an abundant
resource that we have here in America without polluting the air.
We need to diversify our energy supply by increasing the use of
alternative and renewable sources, like ethanol, which is made from corn, or
biodiesel made from soy beans. I went to a soy bean refinery the other day in
Virginia where they're making diesel fuel from soy beans. With the right, you
know, proper use of your dollars to encourage research, it's very conceivable
that source of energy will become economic. And that makes sense, doesn't it?
Can you imagine walking -- walking down the road here in the farmlands of
Maryland, you see a guy growing soy beans, you say, thanks, buddy, for making
us less dependent on foreign sources of oil.
So there's some smart things that this energy bill will encourage the
country to do, including solar power and hydrogen. I don't know if you
remember I laid out I thought -- I know an interesting initiative: it said,
why don't we explore how we use hydrogen power -- hydrogen to power our cars,
to help us diversify away from dependency upon hydro carbons. And I believe
we can develop a hydrogen-power automobile over the next decade or two. I
think it will be cool if your young son is able to take a driver's test in a
hydrogen-powered automobile that has got zero emissions, and at the same time
will make us less dependent on hydrocarbons which we have to import from
foreign countries.
We need to modernize the electricity grid, and make reliability standards
mandatory. We also need to make -- get rid of some of these laws that
prohibit the capacity for those people who are building transmission lines and
powering our cities and states to be able to raise money in an effective way.
We need to help large energy users like India and China become more
efficient. And by helping them develop efficiency standards, it'll take
pressure off of global demand for hydro carbons. One of the reasons why your
price of gasoline is going up is, one, we're dependent on foreign sources of
oil; and, two, economies like China and India are demanding more oil in a
limited supply -- in a market that's of limited supply, which causes the price
of oil to go up, which causes the price of gasoline to go up. So it makes
sense to help those who are demanding more energy to be more efficient users
of energy.
And I'll take that message to the G8 in Scotland here, right after the
Fourth of July celebrations, to say, look, let's work together on a
comprehensive energy plan to help these new consumers of energy be better
users of energy.
The energy bill will also help us expand our use of the one energy source
that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly,
and able to generate massive amounts of electricity, and that's nuclear power.
(Applause.)
Today, there are 103 nuclear plants in America. They produce about 20
percent of the nation's electricity without producing a single pound of air
pollution or greenhouse gases. I think you told me that 20 percent of all
Maryland's electricity is produced here at this plant. Without these nuclear
plants, America would released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon
dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon
dioxide that now comes from all our cars and trucks.
Across this state, Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their
lights on and to keep their land, air and water clean. In other words, you're
generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time. That's
an important combination of talents and -- it's an important combination of --
that the American people have got to understand it's possible when we expand
nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. People out
here practice a lot of safety, they're good at it. You've got nuclear
engineers and experts that spend a lot of time maintaining a safe environment.
Just ask the people that work here. You wouldn't be coming here if it wasn't
safe, I suspect. (Laughter.)
Some Americans remember the problems of the nuclear plants -- that the
nuclear plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days. That
frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in
sciences and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer,
far safer than ever before. Workers and managers are trained and committed
and spend hours working on nuclear safety, and that's good. And they do such
a good job here at Calvert Cliffs that this was the first nuclear plant in
America to gets its operating license renewed. And I congratulate you.
(Applause.)
There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a
cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look at the
facts. One of the reasons I've come to this plant is to help people
understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet, even though there
has been a growing consensus over time, America has not ordered a nuclear
plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the
same period of time. By contrast, China now has eight nuclear plants in the
works and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.
In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe,
clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to start building
nuclear power plants again. (Applause.)
We're taking practical steps to encourage new construction of power
plants. Three years ago, we launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which
is a $1.1 billion partnership between government and industry to coordinate
the ordering of new plants. The Department of Energy is working with Congress
to reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process. Look, you don't
want to go out and build a plant, spend all the money, and have the license
jerked at the last minute. (Laughter.) Nobody's going to spend money if
that's the case.
And so we want to have a rational way to move forward, and one rational
way to move forward is to provide incentives for new construction such as
federal risk insurance, to help the builders of the first four plants --
that's what's now embedded in the energy bill -- first four plants against
lawsuits and bureaucratic obstacles and other delays beyond their control. In
other words, there's a rational approach for the federal government -- on the
one hand, to convince the American people nuclear power is safe, that it makes
sense for our consumers, it makes sense for the long-term economic security of
our country to expand nuclear power; and on the other hand, say to those who
are risking capital, here's some help, here's some ways we can provide
incentive for you to move forward with the construction of plants.
Delivering a good energy bill is part of a comprehensive agenda, but
there's some other things we need to do. One of the last things that we need
to do to this economy is to take money out of your pocket and fuel government.
I firmly believe that one of the reasons we recovered the way we did after the
recession and September the 11th is because of the tax cuts we passed. I
believe that if you've got more money in your pocket, you can spend it wiser
than the federal government can spend it. (Applause.) And therefore, I think
Congress ought to send a strong signal to families and small businesses and
risk-takers about taxes, and that is, we're going to keep your taxes low; they
need to make the tax relief we passed permanent.
Secondly, we need to do something about the tax code itself. It's
complicated, it's really thick, it makes -- it does not reward
entrepreneurship, it's unfair. So I called some Republicans and Democrats who
care about this issue together. I said, come up with a plan to simplify the
tax code so people can understand it, and so it helps achieve some objectives,
which is fairness, simplicity, easy to understand. I mean, you shouldn't have
to -- have to hire all kinds of folks to figure out what's in the tax code.
And so once we get those recommendations, I look forward to working with
Congress to not only keep your taxes low, but to make the code simple and easy
to understand.
Families understand you've got to live within a budget. That's something
that Congress needs to understand, as well. So I submitted the most
disciplined proposal for non-security discretionary spending since Ronald
Reagan was in the White House. I say non-security, my attitude is, when we
got anybody in harm's way, we're going to spend whatever it takes to make sure
they've got the very best equipment and training so they can do their mission.
We owe that to the families and we owe that to their loved ones. (Applause.)
But I'm talking about non-security discretionary spending. And it's
important for Congress to adhere to the budgets they passed. And by doing so,
we will reduce the deficit in half by 2009. In other words, we can meet
priorities. We can keep your taxes low. And if Congress is fiscally wise and
sound with your money, we can reduce that deficit in half by 2009. I'm
looking forward to working with them to be wise about how we spend your money.
Sometimes it's interesting in Washington, you hear, well, we're spending the
government's money. That's -- when you hear somebody say "the government's
money," get a little nervous, because they have seemed -- they seem to have
forgotten where that money comes from. It's not the government's money; it's
your money that we're spending in Washington; and we got to be wise about we
spend in order to keep this economy growing.
Another threat to economic security is junk lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits
help drive up the total costs of America's tort system to more than $240
billion a year. That's a burden far greater than any other major
industrialized nation, by the way. In order to remain competitive, in order
to keep jobs here in America, in order to make sure that people can make a
decent living, we got to do something about these junk lawsuits.
It's one thing to have a legal system where people can -- you know have
got a legitimate claim can go take care of it, it's the junk lawsuits that run
up the cost of doing business; junk lawsuits that make it a -- America less
competitive. These junk lawsuits cost people jobs and they raise your prices.
And so I've been working with Congress and calling upon Congress, if we're
interested in economic security for the future, let's do something about
frivolous lawsuits.
And we're making progress. We got a good bill to curb abusive class
action lawsuits. There's more to do. I think we need to get something done
on the asbestos issue, have a fair bill that says we'll treat the workers
who've been harmed well. They deserve to be treated. They deserve to be
focused on -- not the trial lawyers. And at the same time, make -- provide
certainty in the system. Legal reform is a necessary part of keeping this --
keeping this economy going.
And so, by the way, is opening up new markets for America's producers and
farmers. We got a chance to break down some trade barriers. I told the
people when I was campaigning, I said, look, I'm for free trade. I'm also for
fair trade. I just want to be treated fairly. If we treat you one way, you
treat us the same way. There's a debate raging in Congress now about the
Central American- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. It's called CAFTA.
Let me tell you the facts about this trade agreement -- I don't know if you
realize this, but now 80 percent of the goods from Central America come into
our country duty-free. Yet, we're not treated the same way down there. Now,
that doesn't make sense to me. It seems like to me that it would make sense
if we say, okay, your goods are already coming in here, treat us the same way.
Just level the playing field. You've got 44 million consumers; open up your
markets to our goods just like we've done to you. That's what CAFTA is all
about.
See, I have a different approach than some of the economic isolationists
who oppose this agreement. I believe they're pessimistic about America. I
believe American workers can compete with anybody, anywhere, any time if the
rules are fair. And so they need to pass CAFTA to be fair to our farmers and
ranchers and workers and small business owners. (Applause.)
Millions of Americans lack economic security because of the rising cost of
health care. You know this, that more than half of the uninsured work for
small businesses? Isn't that interesting? One way to address health care is
to say, small businesses ought to be allowed to pool risk so they can buy
insurance at the same discount that big companies are able to do. Congress
needs to pass what's called association health plans to let small businesses
be able to enter market in a way that is -- they're able to spread risk across
a lot of employees.
We need to offer incentives for small businesses and low-income workers to
open tax-free health savings accounts. If you're running a small business,
look into what's called HSA's, health savings accounts -- they're a really
interest product that'll let your worker manage his or her own money, and at
the same time make health care more affordable for the small business -- or
large business for that matter. HSA's are an interesting, innovative way for
people to get good health care insurance that puts you in charge of the
decision-making process, that lets you make the decisions, and at the same
time, save money for your health care concerns tax-free.
We need to encourage a national marketplace for health insurance. In
other words, workers ought to be allowed to go on the Internet and purchase
health care across state lines. We've got to create more demand within the
health care place. Right now, for example, if you live in Maryland, you only
buy health insurance out of Maryland, the health insurance that is certified
out of Maryland. I think you ought to be allowed to go on the Internet and if
you can find a better product for you in Colorado, you ought to be allowed to
do that. In other words, we ought to have a consumer-friendly system, where
people are encouraged to go out and make choices that meet their needs.
We need to expand health information technology. If you've really looked
at your own industry here or industries across America, they're using
information technology to modernize and become more efficient. Health care
hasn't done that yet. You got to -- if you look at your file, your medical
file, they're generally hand-written. And knowing how doctors write, it's
hard to read what they've written. (Laughter.) But it's an inefficient
system. And so to bring health care into the 21st century, we're working on
an information technology initiative.
To reduce the cost of medicine for every doctor, every patient and every
business, it's time for Congress to pass medical liability reform. One of the
biggest problems we got here in America is junk lawsuits running good doctors
out of practice. We've got OB/GYNs leaving the practice of medicine all
across this country because they can't afford to stay in business. And that's
not right.
When I first came to Washington, I said, well, maybe medical liability
reform was a state issue. I was the governor of a state, so I was kind of --
felt like we could do a better job in our respective states of dealing with
medical liability until I looked at the cost of what these junk lawsuits were
doing to the federal budget.
See, if you think you're going to get sued, oftentimes you practice more
medicine than necessary. It's called the defensive practice of medicine. Ask
your local doctor and he'll tell you what I mean by that. If you are getting
sued a lot, your premiums go up. And in that the federal government pays a
lot of health care costs through Medicaid, Medicare, veterans' health
benefits, we're spending a lot of money at the federal level as a result of
these lawsuits.
And so I decided that this was a national problem that required a national
solution. And for the sake of affordable and available health care, Congress
needs to pass medical liability reform. And I urge them, I urge the members
of the United States Senate, where the bill is stuck, not to listen to the
trial lawyers but listen to the patients and doctors all across America.
(Applause.)
To make sure that we have economic security for generations to come, we've
got to make sure we have quality education for every child. You can't compete
unless your children can read and write and add and subtract. The No Child
Left Behind Act we passed is challenging what I've called the soft bigotry of
low expectations. That means you have your expectations so low you just move
the children through the system without measuring whether or not they can read
and write. In other words, if you don't think certain children can read and
write, the easy path is just move them through. I have a -- I had a different
view when I came to Washington. I said, I believe every child can read and
write, and I expect every child to read and write, and in return for federal
money, we want schools to show us whether or not children are learning to read
and write. That's how you -- that's how you achieve results, you measure.
And so we've asked schools, we said, look, we're giving you a lot of money
at the federal level, so in return for that money, just show us, that's all
you got to do. Show us whether the curriculum you're using is working, show
us whether or not children are learning to read and write.
And it's working here in Maryland. You're doing a good job, Governor, so
are your education people -- the teachers all across the state. And here's
why I can say that: Since the No Child Left Behind Act took effect, reading
and math scores have increased in all 24 of Maryland's public school systems.
How do you know? Because we measure; we're not guessing. We used to guess,
now we measure, so we know.
In 2003, 39 percent of Hispanic third graders in Maryland met the
standards in reading -- 39 percent. We have an achievement gap in America.
Two years later, more than 63 percent are meeting the standards. In other
words, when you measure, you can determine whether or not what you're using in
the classroom is working. And if not, it gives you reason to change. The gap
-- in that the gap is closing all across the country is really good news for
the future. We've got to make sure every child from every background, every
part of America, gains the basic skills necessary to become employable in the
21st century, which means I think we need to expand the high standards and
accountability of No Child Left Behind to our public high schools so that the
high school diploma means something. When you graduate, it means you can --
means you're employable, or it means you can go to a community college, or it
means you go to higher education. That's what we ought to be doing.
This country ought to maintain high standards and strong accountability to
make sure we have economic security in the future. And finally, Americans
need to know that if they work hard all their lives, they can retire with
dignity.
You might have heard, I've decided to address the Social Security issue.
(Laughter.) Let me tell you why I've addressed the issue. One, we have a
problem. And secondly, I believe that the job description of a President
ought to be, this person ought to confront problems, not pass them on to
future Presidents and future generations. I believe that's my job.
(Applause.)
If you're getting a check, or you've got a mother or a grandmother getting
a check, tell them that person has no problem when it comes to Social
Security. You're going to get your check. I don't care what the politicians
say, or what the rhetoric -- how heated the rhetoric becomes, seems like every
time I've run for office, they said, if he gets in, he's going to take away
your check. Well, people are still getting their checks, and I got in.
(Laughter.) But here's the problem -- (Applause.)
Here is the problem: About 73 million of us are getting ready to retire.
I'm kind of looking around trying to figure out who the baby boomers are.
(Laughter.) Generally, people without hair, or gray hair. (Laughter.) My
retirement date, for example, my age when I'm eligible for retirement benefits
happens to fall on 2008, which is a convenient year for me to be -- (laughter)
-- be in a position to retire. (Applause.)
But a lot of us are getting ready to retire. As a matter of fact, I told
you 73 million baby boomers are getting ready to retire. That contrasts with
the 40 million folks who have retired today. So you got a lot more of us
getting ready to enter the system. And we're going to live longer. And
interestingly enough, I'm sure you're aware of this, but Congress over the
past years has said, vote for me, I'm going to promise you better benefits.
And so my generation, our generation, is going to get greater benefits than
the previous generation. You've got a lot of people living longer, being
promised greater benefits, with fewer people paying in the system.
In 1950, there was about 16 workers to one paying into the system. Today,
there's 3.3 workers to one. Soon there will be two workers to one. You've
got a lot of youngsters coming up carrying a hefty burden for old guys like
me.
And so -- and what that means is, is in 2017, which I guess seems like a
long time to people in Washington, D.C., if you've got a two-year horizon,
2017 seems like ages. But 2017 is right around the corner, it's 12 years from
now. If you've got a child four years -- four years old and you can get your
driver's license at 16, they'll be driving before you know it. By the way,
it's a little nerve-racking.
And so I think it's time to act, and if we don't, we're going to start
running some serious cash deficits, because in 2017, the system goes in the
red; 2027, it's about $200 billion a year in the red; 2030, it's about $300
billion a year in the red. I know this is a tough issue for some of them in
Washington. And the tendency is, let's just don't worry about it. Mr.
President, why did you bring it up? Let's just pass it on.
The reason I brought it up is I cannot travel our country, looking at
young workers who are paying payroll taxes into a system that I know is going
broke. And so now is the time to come together, both Republicans and
Democrats, forget all that party business, and come together and solve this
problem permanently, forever.
And I put some ideas on the table. And I expect people from both parties
to put ideas on the table, and so do the American people. They're tired of
this partisan bickering. When they see a problem, they want the American
people to come and solve it. They tell me, well, you're not making much
progress on Social Security. Well, I'll tell you one thing I am making
progress on -- the overwhelming number of Americans that understand we have a
problem. And I suspect the overwhelming number of Americans say if there's a
problem in Washington, how come you're not doing anything about it?
And I'm going to continue talking about this issue. And I put a plan out
that says you can't retire -- if you've worked all your life, a hardworking
person, you shouldn't retire in poverty. And it's a plan, by the way, that
says benefits will grow at the rate of wage increases for lower income
Americans and the rate of inflation for the top one percent. And that solves
about a significant portion of the problem.
And I also believe something else. I believe younger workers ought to be
able to take some of their own money, if that's what they choose, and set it
aside in a personal savings account. (Applause.) In other words, you're
paying payroll taxes in a system that's going broke. By the way, they call it
pay-as-you-go. A lot of people in Washington -- in the country probably think
the payroll -- the Social Security system is, I'm paying my payroll taxes and
the government's holding my money for me and giving it back to me when I
retire. I hate to tell you, that's not the way it works, and it hasn't worked
that way for a long time. We take your money and we pay out to the retirees,
and if we have money left over, like we have now, we're spending it on
government programs. And all that's left is a file cabinet full of IOUs in
West Virginia and I went and saw the file. You'll be happy to hear the
paper's there -- (laughter) -- but not your money. In other words, all you're
left with is an IOU.
What I think you ought to be left with, if you so choose, is some assets.
And so I believe younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own
money, if they want to, as a part of a Social Security system, and set it up
in a conservative mix of bonds and stocks or only bonds or whatever you choose
to use. It's kind of like a 401(k). I suspect you've got a 401(k) plan here.
I went to an automobile plant in Mississippi. I said, anybody here have a
-- manage their own money as part of their retirement? These were line
workers. These weren't the office workers, there were the people out there
making the automobiles, people from all walks of life, all income levels, all
education levels. And I'll bet you 90 percent of the folks raised their
hands. In other words, they say, we're used to that, Mr. President, we're
managing our own money. We're opening up our statement on a regular basis
watching our money grow.
Right now, if you -- your money in Social Security is growing at about 1.8
percent. That doesn't seem like a very good deal to me. We ought to -- if
you so choose, we ought to let you earn a reasonable rate of money, a
reasonable rate of return on your own money. And that money grows over time
and it compounds. And if you're a young worker at age 20 and you start
setting aside some of your own payroll taxes in a reasonable rate of return,
you're going to watch that money grow. And it's your assets and the
government can't spend it on what they want and they can't take it away and
you can pass it on to whomever you choose.
And let me tell you something about personal accounts. It was such an
attractive idea that the United States Congress said it's part of their
retirement plan. They're going to let members of the United States Senate or
House of Representatives take some of their own money and set it aside in a
personal account. And my attitude is this: If personal -- voluntary personal
savings accounts are good enough for the members of the United States
Congress, they're good enough for workers all across America. (Applause.)
And so here's the way forward, a way to encourage economic security and
smart ways to make sure this economy continues to grow so people can realize
dreams. That's really what government ought to do, it ought to create that
environment in which people are able to realize dreams and own a home and own
your own business, own and manage your own retirement account. I love the
idea of an ownership society. The more people own something in America, the
better off America is, as far as I'm concerned. The more people own -- the
more assets people own, the more independent Americans are. They feel
confident about the future. And I'm confident about our future. I don't
think there's any problem we can't solve when we put our minds to it.
Things are going fine right now. But my job is to keep looking down the
road. My job is to figure out how to keep this economy growing. My job is to
get Congress to do -- make wise policy so the entrepreneurial spirit is
strong, so people can realize dreams, so this country remains the great beacon
of hope that it has been in the past.
I want to thank you for giving me a chance to come by and visit with you.
May God bless you and your families and may God continue to bless our country.
(Applause.)
END 10:44 A.M. EDT
Senate Energy Bill Would Create Jobs in All Sectors of Economy, Says Alliance for Energy & Economic Growth
The following is a statement from
Bruce Josten, spokesperson for the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth and
executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, calling for a comprehensive energy plan:
"Developing new energy sources, encouraging new technology that will
conserve more energy, and modernizing the country's energy infrastructure
should be a top priority of the Congress. A comprehensive energy bill will
not only accelerate the economic rebound and create jobs, but it will also
help reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
"Thanks to the work of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Ranking Member Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the
Senate's energy bill will create jobs in all sectors of the economy, for
example:
* 234,000 jobs will be created with an 8 billion gallon RFS
* 40,000 new jobs in every state over the next 10 years in the solar
energy industry -- every megawatt of solar energy supports approx. 33
jobs -- 24 in high-tech manufacturing and 9 jobs in local design,
installation and service
* The U.S. Fuel Cell Council estimates that this energy bill will help
them create an estimated 169,000 to 189,000 jobs over the next 15 years.
"Over the past few years, high and unpredictable energy prices have placed
a severe burden on America's businesses and the U.S. economy has suffered.
The result has been soaring and unpredictable prices that hurt American
businesses. Passage of comprehensive energy legislation is more urgent than
ever."
The Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth is a broad-based coalition
whose members develop, deliver or consume energy from all sources. With
members in every state, the Alliance represents consumers; energy companies
involved in all phases of energy exploration, production and transmission;
agricultural groups; and business and labor organizations -- all united in
support of a comprehensive national energy plan. With more than 1,250
members, the Alliance seeks to help build a national consensus for a
comprehensive U.S. energy strategy that balances supply and demand without
compromising environmental safeguards, so that we may fuel America's economy
and support our quality of life. For more information, visit
http://www.yourenergyfuture.org
Tokyo and Osaka are world’s most expensive cities
2005 worldwide cost of living survey results released
Eastern European cities rise sharply in the rankings
United Kingdom
London, 20 June 2005
Tokyo and Osaka are world’s most expensive cities; Asuncion in Paraguay is cheapest
Many Eastern European cities have risen sharply in the rankings
Ottawa in Canada is the cheapest North American city
Find out more about Mercer's Cost of Living Reports
Tokyo remains the world’s most expensive city, followed by Osaka, according to the latest Cost of Living Survey from Mercer Human Resource Consulting. London moves down one position in the rankings to take third place, followed by Moscow which also drops a place this year. Asuncion in Paraguay is the least expensive city in the survey.
With New York as the base city scoring 100 points, Tokyo scores 134.7 and is more than three times costlier than Asuncion, which has an index of 40.3.
Mercer’s survey covers 144 cities across six continents and measures the comparative cost of over 200 items in each location, including housing, transport, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment. It is the world’s most comprehensive cost of living survey and is used to help multinational companies and governments determine compensation allowances for their expatriate employees.
“Currency fluctuations and exchange rates can have a huge impact on how much expatriates receive and what they can buy with that money,” commented Yvonne Sonsino, Partner at Mercer. “The challenge for multinational companies is to ensure their expatriate compensation packages remain fair and attractive enough to retain key employees, while making sure they do not pay over the odds and find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
“While there has been significant investment by multinationals in traditionally ‘low-cost’ countries, the gap appears to be closing and local salaries are shooting up as a result of higher living expenses and an increased demand for skills,” she said. “Companies need to keep pace with the changes, and we find that many are now seeking guidance as they make regular review of their expatriate compensation packages a standard procedure.”
There have been some significant changes in the rankings this year which are primarily due to exchange rate fluctuations, particularly of the US dollar and Euro.
Europe
London remains the most expensive city in Europe, with a score of 120.3. “Steep accommodation and transport costs together with the appreciation of the pound against the US dollar have contributed to the city’s high ranking,” said Marie-Laurence Sepede, Research Manager at Mercer. Scores are based on the cost of living for expatriates who are likely to stay in Central London, where accommodation is more expensive. Other UK cities are less costly, with Glasgow in 40th position and Birmingham in 47th place (scores 87.5 and 85.8).
Moscow is the second most expensive city in Europe ranked in 4th position (119), followed by Geneva in 6th place (113.5) and Zurich in 7th place (112.1). Other high-scoring cities include Copenhagen ranked 8th (110), Oslo, which has moved up from 15th to 10th place due mainly to the appreciation of the Norwegian Krone against the US dollar, and Milan ranked 11th (104.9).
Budapest in Hungary ranks in 24th position (score 93.3) and is the costliest city of the countries that joined the EU last year. “Many cities in the new EU accession countries have risen sharply in the rankings this year, as they make strides to bring their economic infrastructure up to EU standards. Central and Eastern Europe are becoming increasingly attractive for investment by multinationals,” commented Ms Sepede. Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava have all risen by more than ten places.
Bucharest in Romania is the least expensive European city in 103rd place (71.4), followed by Limassol in Cyprus ranked 100th (71.9).
The Americas
New York remains the most expensive city in North America, at 13th position in the rankings (score 100). Other costly cities include Los Angeles ranked 44 (86.7), San Francisco in 50th place (84.9) and Chicago in 52nd position (84.6). Washington DC takes 78th place (77.4). Winston Salem is the cheapest US city surveyed, ranked 119th (66.6). “Many of the US cities surveyed have fallen in the rankings due to the weakening of the dollar against the Euro, Canadian dollar and Asian Pacific currencies,” commented Ms Sepede.
Though still relatively inexpensive, Canadian cities continue to move up in the rankings due to the strength of the Canadian dollar. Toronto is the most expensive city and takes 82nd place (76.2) in the rankings, while Ottawa is the least expensive Canadian city and takes 122nd position (66.4).
Following the devaluation of the Argentinean currency in 2002 and the subsequent financial crisis, cities in South America remain among the cheapest in the survey. Asuncion in Paraguay is the least expensive city globally, at 144th position with a score of 40.3. Other cheap cities include Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Caracas in places 142 (score 50.3.), 140 (53.5) and 138 (54.4) respectively. Lima in Peru is still the most expensive city in South America at position 118 with a score of 66.9.
San Juan in Puerto Rico is the costliest city in Central America and the Caribbean, ranked 74th (score 77.7). San Jose is the least expensive in 135th place (58), replacing Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic which has moved up to 99th place (72.3) due to the appreciation of the Dominican Peso against the US dollar and low inflation last year.
Asia
Four of the world’s ten costliest cities are in Asia, with Tokyo being the most expensive city globally. Osaka takes 2nd position due to the strengthening of the Japanese Yen relative to the US dollar, (121.8) followed by Seoul in 5th place (115.4) and Hong Kong ranked 9th (109.5). “Chinese cities have dropped significantly in the rankings as the currency is pegged to the US dollar and has therefore been affected by its depreciation,” said Ms Sepede. Beijing is at position 19 (score 95.6) followed by Shanghai in 30th place (90.4).
Australasia
Auckland and Wellington move up in the rankings this year to positions 69 and 76 respectively (scores 79.6 and 77.5) due to the significant appreciation of the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar. Sydney is still the most expensive city in the region at 20th place with a score of 95.2. Other high-scoring cities in Australia include Melbourne in 68th position (80) and Brisbane in 84th place (74.9).
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Individual reports are produced for each city surveyed.
Eastern European cities rise sharply in the rankings
United Kingdom
London, 20 June 2005
Tokyo and Osaka are world’s most expensive cities; Asuncion in Paraguay is cheapest
Many Eastern European cities have risen sharply in the rankings
Ottawa in Canada is the cheapest North American city
Find out more about Mercer's Cost of Living Reports
Tokyo remains the world’s most expensive city, followed by Osaka, according to the latest Cost of Living Survey from Mercer Human Resource Consulting. London moves down one position in the rankings to take third place, followed by Moscow which also drops a place this year. Asuncion in Paraguay is the least expensive city in the survey.
With New York as the base city scoring 100 points, Tokyo scores 134.7 and is more than three times costlier than Asuncion, which has an index of 40.3.
Mercer’s survey covers 144 cities across six continents and measures the comparative cost of over 200 items in each location, including housing, transport, food, clothing, household goods and entertainment. It is the world’s most comprehensive cost of living survey and is used to help multinational companies and governments determine compensation allowances for their expatriate employees.
“Currency fluctuations and exchange rates can have a huge impact on how much expatriates receive and what they can buy with that money,” commented Yvonne Sonsino, Partner at Mercer. “The challenge for multinational companies is to ensure their expatriate compensation packages remain fair and attractive enough to retain key employees, while making sure they do not pay over the odds and find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
“While there has been significant investment by multinationals in traditionally ‘low-cost’ countries, the gap appears to be closing and local salaries are shooting up as a result of higher living expenses and an increased demand for skills,” she said. “Companies need to keep pace with the changes, and we find that many are now seeking guidance as they make regular review of their expatriate compensation packages a standard procedure.”
There have been some significant changes in the rankings this year which are primarily due to exchange rate fluctuations, particularly of the US dollar and Euro.
Europe
London remains the most expensive city in Europe, with a score of 120.3. “Steep accommodation and transport costs together with the appreciation of the pound against the US dollar have contributed to the city’s high ranking,” said Marie-Laurence Sepede, Research Manager at Mercer. Scores are based on the cost of living for expatriates who are likely to stay in Central London, where accommodation is more expensive. Other UK cities are less costly, with Glasgow in 40th position and Birmingham in 47th place (scores 87.5 and 85.8).
Moscow is the second most expensive city in Europe ranked in 4th position (119), followed by Geneva in 6th place (113.5) and Zurich in 7th place (112.1). Other high-scoring cities include Copenhagen ranked 8th (110), Oslo, which has moved up from 15th to 10th place due mainly to the appreciation of the Norwegian Krone against the US dollar, and Milan ranked 11th (104.9).
Budapest in Hungary ranks in 24th position (score 93.3) and is the costliest city of the countries that joined the EU last year. “Many cities in the new EU accession countries have risen sharply in the rankings this year, as they make strides to bring their economic infrastructure up to EU standards. Central and Eastern Europe are becoming increasingly attractive for investment by multinationals,” commented Ms Sepede. Warsaw, Prague and Bratislava have all risen by more than ten places.
Bucharest in Romania is the least expensive European city in 103rd place (71.4), followed by Limassol in Cyprus ranked 100th (71.9).
The Americas
New York remains the most expensive city in North America, at 13th position in the rankings (score 100). Other costly cities include Los Angeles ranked 44 (86.7), San Francisco in 50th place (84.9) and Chicago in 52nd position (84.6). Washington DC takes 78th place (77.4). Winston Salem is the cheapest US city surveyed, ranked 119th (66.6). “Many of the US cities surveyed have fallen in the rankings due to the weakening of the dollar against the Euro, Canadian dollar and Asian Pacific currencies,” commented Ms Sepede.
Though still relatively inexpensive, Canadian cities continue to move up in the rankings due to the strength of the Canadian dollar. Toronto is the most expensive city and takes 82nd place (76.2) in the rankings, while Ottawa is the least expensive Canadian city and takes 122nd position (66.4).
Following the devaluation of the Argentinean currency in 2002 and the subsequent financial crisis, cities in South America remain among the cheapest in the survey. Asuncion in Paraguay is the least expensive city globally, at 144th position with a score of 40.3. Other cheap cities include Buenos Aires, Montevideo and Caracas in places 142 (score 50.3.), 140 (53.5) and 138 (54.4) respectively. Lima in Peru is still the most expensive city in South America at position 118 with a score of 66.9.
San Juan in Puerto Rico is the costliest city in Central America and the Caribbean, ranked 74th (score 77.7). San Jose is the least expensive in 135th place (58), replacing Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic which has moved up to 99th place (72.3) due to the appreciation of the Dominican Peso against the US dollar and low inflation last year.
Asia
Four of the world’s ten costliest cities are in Asia, with Tokyo being the most expensive city globally. Osaka takes 2nd position due to the strengthening of the Japanese Yen relative to the US dollar, (121.8) followed by Seoul in 5th place (115.4) and Hong Kong ranked 9th (109.5). “Chinese cities have dropped significantly in the rankings as the currency is pegged to the US dollar and has therefore been affected by its depreciation,” said Ms Sepede. Beijing is at position 19 (score 95.6) followed by Shanghai in 30th place (90.4).
Australasia
Auckland and Wellington move up in the rankings this year to positions 69 and 76 respectively (scores 79.6 and 77.5) due to the significant appreciation of the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar. Sydney is still the most expensive city in the region at 20th place with a score of 95.2. Other high-scoring cities in Australia include Melbourne in 68th position (80) and Brisbane in 84th place (74.9).
DOWNLOAD THE REPORT
Individual reports are produced for each city surveyed.
Tsunami : Where was Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity ?
Mother Teresa's millions
N.S. Rajaram
June 22, 2005
To the title of this article I would append another rhetorical question. Where is the Missionaries of Charity today-- and its head Sister Nirmala?
When I pointed out in my article "The Real Mother Teresa" (which is reprinted in my book A Hindu View of the World, New Delhi: Voice of India) that Mother Teresa was mainly a fund-raiser for the Vatican and her charities were all but defunct if not outright fabrications, people attacked me with a fury. All you have to do is go to Kolkotta and see for yourself what her wonders are really like.
A question: why was Missionaries of Charity missing in action when the tsunami struck? But the same entity under Mother Teresa descended on Bhopal soon after the Union Carbide disaster-- not to help the victims, but appeal to everyone to "forgive." Forgive whom? Surely not the victims of the tragedy? They needed help not forgiveness from any sins. But to forgive Union Carbide and its chief Anderson, for they were the ones with the money to donate. This also gives the clue to their absence during the tsunami tragedy: there was little money to be made.
This brings us to my other point : why is the Missionaries of Charity under Mother Teresa's successor Sister Nirmala moribund and virtually anonymous? Is it because she is a dark-skinned Nepali while Teresa was a white-skinned European? When we see Sonia Gandhi — barely literate herself — terrorizing the Indian intelligentsia it is hard to avoid the suspicion that it was not Mother Teresa's charity work so much as her skin color that made her a celebrity and a fund-raising success.
Neither Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Mother Teresa) nor Antonia Maino (aka Sonia Gandhi) would have escaped the sordid surroundings of their birth but for the hospitality of Indians steeped in their sense of racial inferiority.
In his famous Civil Rights speech the late Dr. Martin Luther King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
That day is yet to dawn in India, though it apparently has in the supposedly racist America. Can one imagine someone like Dr. Condoleeza Rice or General Colin Powell rising to the highest office in the Congress Party as long as the "dynasty" with even a trace of European blood is about? See what happened to Narasimha Rao even after his death.
Is this the future that our youth has to face?
N.S. Rajaram
June 22, 2005
To the title of this article I would append another rhetorical question. Where is the Missionaries of Charity today-- and its head Sister Nirmala?
When I pointed out in my article "The Real Mother Teresa" (which is reprinted in my book A Hindu View of the World, New Delhi: Voice of India) that Mother Teresa was mainly a fund-raiser for the Vatican and her charities were all but defunct if not outright fabrications, people attacked me with a fury. All you have to do is go to Kolkotta and see for yourself what her wonders are really like.
A question: why was Missionaries of Charity missing in action when the tsunami struck? But the same entity under Mother Teresa descended on Bhopal soon after the Union Carbide disaster-- not to help the victims, but appeal to everyone to "forgive." Forgive whom? Surely not the victims of the tragedy? They needed help not forgiveness from any sins. But to forgive Union Carbide and its chief Anderson, for they were the ones with the money to donate. This also gives the clue to their absence during the tsunami tragedy: there was little money to be made.
This brings us to my other point : why is the Missionaries of Charity under Mother Teresa's successor Sister Nirmala moribund and virtually anonymous? Is it because she is a dark-skinned Nepali while Teresa was a white-skinned European? When we see Sonia Gandhi — barely literate herself — terrorizing the Indian intelligentsia it is hard to avoid the suspicion that it was not Mother Teresa's charity work so much as her skin color that made her a celebrity and a fund-raising success.
Neither Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Mother Teresa) nor Antonia Maino (aka Sonia Gandhi) would have escaped the sordid surroundings of their birth but for the hospitality of Indians steeped in their sense of racial inferiority.
In his famous Civil Rights speech the late Dr. Martin Luther King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
That day is yet to dawn in India, though it apparently has in the supposedly racist America. Can one imagine someone like Dr. Condoleeza Rice or General Colin Powell rising to the highest office in the Congress Party as long as the "dynasty" with even a trace of European blood is about? See what happened to Narasimha Rao even after his death.
Is this the future that our youth has to face?
June 22, 2005
CHINESE ENERGY STRATEGY IN LATIN AMERICA
By Chietigj Bajpaee
Latin America is fast emerging as the major stage of competition for oil and gas resources among the global powers. The region, which has traditionally come under the U.S. “sphere of influence,” caught the attention of China following the significant growth potential of its energy resources. Latin America is estimated to hold 13.5 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves but accounts for only 6 percent of total output. Although China has tapped energy resources in Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, and has begun to tap Argentina and Bolivia, there still exists significant room for expansion, especially given that China still depends on the Middle East for 60 percent of its oil imports and wishes to further diversify.
China’s domestic energy needs and regional developments in the Asia Pacific region are likely to fuel Beijing’s desire to access Latin American energy resources. China, which has been a net oil importer since 1993, is the world's number two oil consumer after the U.S., importing one third of its crude oil consumption. In the presence of sporadic power shortages, growing car ownership, cross-country air travel, and the importance of energy to maintain China’s burgeoning growth rates, pressure is mounting on China to access energy resources on the world stage. Furthermore, China’s limited progress in accessing local energy resources due to poor relations with neighboring states (witness the Sino-Japanese dispute over the energy-rich East China Sea, the disputed status of the Spratly and Paracel islands and growing political instabilities in Central Asia) have forced China to search for energy further afield. However, China's growing presence on the international energy stage could ultimately bring it into confrontation with the world's largest energy consumer, the U.S. Nowhere is the Sino-U.S. energy competition more evident than in the United States’ backyard.
The competition for energy resources in Latin America is unlikely to be confined to the economic sphere as seen by developments in other regions where China is attempting to access energy resources. For example, China’s military cooperation with Myanmar, Sudan and the Central Asian republics cannot be separated from its attempts to access energy resources in these states. While not a zero-sum game, growing interlinkages and interdependence between China and Latin America is likely to come at the cost of the United States’ relations with its neighbors, which will only undermine U.S. ability to access the region’s energy resources. This will force the U.S. to rely on energy resources from more remote and less stable regions, such as West Africa, the Caspian and the Middle East.
Entering the U.S. “Sphere of Influence”
As the world’s number five crude exporter with the largest proven oil reserves in the Western hemisphere, Venezuela is emerging as a major prize in the competition for energy resources in Latin America. While Venezuela sells 60 percent of its crude oil exports to the U.S. and is the United States’ fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is attempting to reduce his country’s dependence on the U.S. market. President Chavez has stated that "We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years but they have been years of dependence on the United States. Now we are free and we make our resources available to the great country of China." [1] Easier said than done, as China’s refineries will have to be refitted to process Venezuela’s heavy crude oil. Furthermore, transporting energy resources from Venezuela and Argentina is particularly difficult given that both states are on South America’s Atlantic coast although there have been discussions to overcome this by constructing a pipeline from the Atlantic to the Pacific through Panama. [2]
Nevertheless, China has made significant inroads in accessing Venezuela’s energy resources. During Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to Beijing in December and Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong's visit to Venezuela in January 2005, China committed to develop Venezuela’s energy infrastructure by investing $350 million in 15 oil fields, $60 million in a gas project as well as upgrading the country’s railway and refinery infrastructure. In exchange, China will get 100,000 barrels of oil a day, 3 million tones of fuel oil a year and 1.8 million tones of Orimulsion, an alternative boiler fuel from Venezuela. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has also been given significant oil and gas development opportunities in Venezuela including the fields at Zumano in eastern Venezuela, which has an estimated 400 million barrels of oil.
Apart from Venezuela, China has made significant progress in tapping the energy resources of numerous other Latin American states. While attending the annual meeting of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Chile in November 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a $10 billion energy deal with Brazil for investments in energy and transport infrastructure over two years. This supplements plans for a $1.3 billion deal between China’s Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation) and Brazil’s Petrobras for a 2,000 kilometer natural gas pipeline. China is also acquiring oil assets in Ecuador as well as investing $5 billion in offshore petroleum projects in Argentina over the next five years. During Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong's visit to Latin America in January, he also signed an oil exploration agreement with Peru.
Latin America’s increasingly symbiotic relationship with China is not limited to energy. Progress in trade, investment, and political and military cooperation reinforce cooperation in the energy sphere. China has increasingly purchased raw materials from Latin America to meet its consumption and growth needs in exchange for Chinese investment in Latin America’s infrastructure. While the United States has traditionally looked to Latin America as its source of numerous raw materials and a market for its finished products, China is fast replacing the United States in these roles. China buys vast quantities of iron ore, bauxite, soybeans, timber, zinc and manganese from Brazil while looking to Bolivia for tin and Chile for copper. In 2004, China displaced the U.S. as the leading market for Chilean exports while becoming Brazil's second-largest trading partner in 2003. China is the world’s largest consumer of copper, with Chile accounting for more than 40 percent of its copper imports.
During Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Latin America in November 2004, he also secured “market economy” status from Brazil, Argentina and Chile in exchange for pledging to invest $100 billion in Latin America over the next decade as well as reducing restrictions on the access of Latin American products to the Chinese market. In January, Chilean and Chinese trade officials also began discussions on a free trade agreement in Beijing, while Brazil is also pushing for the creation of a free trade area with China. Chinese investment into Argentina has been especially welcome as it comes in the wake of Argentina's devastating economic crisis three years ago.
These growing linkages have also resulted in a strengthening of political relations. It is no secret that a growing number of Latin American states with left-leaning regimes hold hostile views of the U.S. Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Fidel Castro’s Cuba have been open in condemning U.S. foreign policy. Venezuela has raised taxes on foreign oil and gas companies operating in Venezuela, such as ExxonMobil. Argentinean President Néstor Kirchner called for a boycott of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's Argentine affiliate to protest a gasoline price increase, which forced Shell to back away from its price increases. Even Mexico appears to be distancing itself from the U.S., with Mexico City's popular left-wing mayor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, gaining popularity ahead of Mexico's July 2006 presidential election. Many Latin American states also opposed Washington’s candidate for the head of the Organization of American States and elected José Miguel Insulza, a leftist from Chile.
Bolivia’s Congress recently approved a new energy law that increases taxes on foreign companies accessing its oil and gas reserves while street protesters have called for a nationalization of Bolvia’s hydrocarbon reserves, which culminated in the resignation of U.S.-backed pro-free market President Carlos Mesa. Elections will be held within the next six months and Evo Morales; an anti-US leader of the Movement Towards Socialism party has emerged as a strong contender for the presidency.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has also tried to distance himself from U.S. influence to emerge as a leader of the developing World, as seen with the G33 bloc at the World Trade Organization, and Brazil’s bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. President da Silva has also backtracked on the U.S.-backed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) while favoring a “strategic alliance” with China, India and other developing countries in order to enhance south-south cooperation. Finally, Peru and China also have strong relations with diplomatic ties going back 150 years and Peru having the largest Chinese immigrant population in South America.
China's growing energy interests in the Americas have been accompanied by a growing involvement in the region's security. In October, in its first military deployment to Latin America, China sent a UN peacekeeping contingent to Haiti comprising 140 Chinese policemen with plans to deploy an additional 125 personnel. Ironically, Haiti is one of only 25 states that recognize Taiwan rather than China. Recently, the issue of extending the mandate of the 6,000-strong UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which is due to expire in June, has come under pressure from Sino-Taiwanese frictions. While UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the interim government of Haiti have asked that the mandate be extended by one year in order to oversee the municipal, legislative and Presidential elections to be held later this year, China is pushing for only a six month extension due to a scheduled visit by interim Haitian President Alexendre Boniface to Taiwan in July. While having to accept the humiliation of aiding a state that engages in relations with Taiwan’s “secessionist” forces, China has garnered the goodwill of Latin American states, which will come in handy when negotiating energy and other deals.
The U.S. is looking on with caution as China encroaches upon a region that has traditionally been a major supplier of energy resources. Venezuela and Canada together provide the U.S. with a third of its energy imports. For every barrel of oil that China purchases from Latin America there is potentially one less barrel available for the U.S. Furthermore, as the American states reduce their reliance on the U.S. oil market, they will have greater political leverage over the U.S. on contentious issues such as Canadian trade disputes with the U.S. over lumber and beef, and tensions over human rights abuses in Venezuela.
Finally, the competition for energy resources in Latin America is not limited to the U.S. and China. In October 2004, several oil companies including China’s PetroChina and India’s ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) were looking into acquiring oil assets valued at $1.5 billion in Ecuador. Japan and South Korea are also stepping up efforts to secure raw materials in Latin America. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Brazil in September 2004 and South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun also made trips to Argentina, Brazil and Chile in 2004.
Setting the Stage for an Energy “Cold War”
Friction between China and the U.S. has so far focused on the question of China's undervalued exchange rate, its human rights record, relations with “rogue” states and the issue of Taiwan. However, the competition over energy resources is now becoming an additional area of contention. While China and the U.S. have launched the U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue, both states are also engaged in a competition for energy resources in Russia, the Caspian, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. This competition could foreseeably combine with other areas of friction. For example, if the U.S. were to side with Japan on its territorial dispute in the potentially oil and gas rich East China Sea or support India over China in meeting its growing energy needs, strategic blocs or alliances could form in the international energy arena. Latin America is likely to emerge as a major stage of this energy competition or confrontation.
Notes:
1. Luft, Gal, “In search of crude China goes to the Americas,” Institute for the Analysis of Global Security: Energy Security, January 18, 2005, http://www.iags.org/n0118041.htm.
2. Cheung, Ray, “Barriers in the way of tapping S American oil and gas,” South China Morning Post, November 21, 2004.
Latin America is fast emerging as the major stage of competition for oil and gas resources among the global powers. The region, which has traditionally come under the U.S. “sphere of influence,” caught the attention of China following the significant growth potential of its energy resources. Latin America is estimated to hold 13.5 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves but accounts for only 6 percent of total output. Although China has tapped energy resources in Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, and has begun to tap Argentina and Bolivia, there still exists significant room for expansion, especially given that China still depends on the Middle East for 60 percent of its oil imports and wishes to further diversify.
China’s domestic energy needs and regional developments in the Asia Pacific region are likely to fuel Beijing’s desire to access Latin American energy resources. China, which has been a net oil importer since 1993, is the world's number two oil consumer after the U.S., importing one third of its crude oil consumption. In the presence of sporadic power shortages, growing car ownership, cross-country air travel, and the importance of energy to maintain China’s burgeoning growth rates, pressure is mounting on China to access energy resources on the world stage. Furthermore, China’s limited progress in accessing local energy resources due to poor relations with neighboring states (witness the Sino-Japanese dispute over the energy-rich East China Sea, the disputed status of the Spratly and Paracel islands and growing political instabilities in Central Asia) have forced China to search for energy further afield. However, China's growing presence on the international energy stage could ultimately bring it into confrontation with the world's largest energy consumer, the U.S. Nowhere is the Sino-U.S. energy competition more evident than in the United States’ backyard.
The competition for energy resources in Latin America is unlikely to be confined to the economic sphere as seen by developments in other regions where China is attempting to access energy resources. For example, China’s military cooperation with Myanmar, Sudan and the Central Asian republics cannot be separated from its attempts to access energy resources in these states. While not a zero-sum game, growing interlinkages and interdependence between China and Latin America is likely to come at the cost of the United States’ relations with its neighbors, which will only undermine U.S. ability to access the region’s energy resources. This will force the U.S. to rely on energy resources from more remote and less stable regions, such as West Africa, the Caspian and the Middle East.
Entering the U.S. “Sphere of Influence”
As the world’s number five crude exporter with the largest proven oil reserves in the Western hemisphere, Venezuela is emerging as a major prize in the competition for energy resources in Latin America. While Venezuela sells 60 percent of its crude oil exports to the U.S. and is the United States’ fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is attempting to reduce his country’s dependence on the U.S. market. President Chavez has stated that "We have been producing and exporting oil for more than 100 years but they have been years of dependence on the United States. Now we are free and we make our resources available to the great country of China." [1] Easier said than done, as China’s refineries will have to be refitted to process Venezuela’s heavy crude oil. Furthermore, transporting energy resources from Venezuela and Argentina is particularly difficult given that both states are on South America’s Atlantic coast although there have been discussions to overcome this by constructing a pipeline from the Atlantic to the Pacific through Panama. [2]
Nevertheless, China has made significant inroads in accessing Venezuela’s energy resources. During Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's visit to Beijing in December and Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong's visit to Venezuela in January 2005, China committed to develop Venezuela’s energy infrastructure by investing $350 million in 15 oil fields, $60 million in a gas project as well as upgrading the country’s railway and refinery infrastructure. In exchange, China will get 100,000 barrels of oil a day, 3 million tones of fuel oil a year and 1.8 million tones of Orimulsion, an alternative boiler fuel from Venezuela. China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has also been given significant oil and gas development opportunities in Venezuela including the fields at Zumano in eastern Venezuela, which has an estimated 400 million barrels of oil.
Apart from Venezuela, China has made significant progress in tapping the energy resources of numerous other Latin American states. While attending the annual meeting of the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Chile in November 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a $10 billion energy deal with Brazil for investments in energy and transport infrastructure over two years. This supplements plans for a $1.3 billion deal between China’s Sinopec (China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation) and Brazil’s Petrobras for a 2,000 kilometer natural gas pipeline. China is also acquiring oil assets in Ecuador as well as investing $5 billion in offshore petroleum projects in Argentina over the next five years. During Chinese Vice President Zeng Qinghong's visit to Latin America in January, he also signed an oil exploration agreement with Peru.
Latin America’s increasingly symbiotic relationship with China is not limited to energy. Progress in trade, investment, and political and military cooperation reinforce cooperation in the energy sphere. China has increasingly purchased raw materials from Latin America to meet its consumption and growth needs in exchange for Chinese investment in Latin America’s infrastructure. While the United States has traditionally looked to Latin America as its source of numerous raw materials and a market for its finished products, China is fast replacing the United States in these roles. China buys vast quantities of iron ore, bauxite, soybeans, timber, zinc and manganese from Brazil while looking to Bolivia for tin and Chile for copper. In 2004, China displaced the U.S. as the leading market for Chilean exports while becoming Brazil's second-largest trading partner in 2003. China is the world’s largest consumer of copper, with Chile accounting for more than 40 percent of its copper imports.
During Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Latin America in November 2004, he also secured “market economy” status from Brazil, Argentina and Chile in exchange for pledging to invest $100 billion in Latin America over the next decade as well as reducing restrictions on the access of Latin American products to the Chinese market. In January, Chilean and Chinese trade officials also began discussions on a free trade agreement in Beijing, while Brazil is also pushing for the creation of a free trade area with China. Chinese investment into Argentina has been especially welcome as it comes in the wake of Argentina's devastating economic crisis three years ago.
These growing linkages have also resulted in a strengthening of political relations. It is no secret that a growing number of Latin American states with left-leaning regimes hold hostile views of the U.S. Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and Fidel Castro’s Cuba have been open in condemning U.S. foreign policy. Venezuela has raised taxes on foreign oil and gas companies operating in Venezuela, such as ExxonMobil. Argentinean President Néstor Kirchner called for a boycott of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group's Argentine affiliate to protest a gasoline price increase, which forced Shell to back away from its price increases. Even Mexico appears to be distancing itself from the U.S., with Mexico City's popular left-wing mayor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, gaining popularity ahead of Mexico's July 2006 presidential election. Many Latin American states also opposed Washington’s candidate for the head of the Organization of American States and elected José Miguel Insulza, a leftist from Chile.
Bolivia’s Congress recently approved a new energy law that increases taxes on foreign companies accessing its oil and gas reserves while street protesters have called for a nationalization of Bolvia’s hydrocarbon reserves, which culminated in the resignation of U.S.-backed pro-free market President Carlos Mesa. Elections will be held within the next six months and Evo Morales; an anti-US leader of the Movement Towards Socialism party has emerged as a strong contender for the presidency.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has also tried to distance himself from U.S. influence to emerge as a leader of the developing World, as seen with the G33 bloc at the World Trade Organization, and Brazil’s bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. President da Silva has also backtracked on the U.S.-backed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) while favoring a “strategic alliance” with China, India and other developing countries in order to enhance south-south cooperation. Finally, Peru and China also have strong relations with diplomatic ties going back 150 years and Peru having the largest Chinese immigrant population in South America.
China's growing energy interests in the Americas have been accompanied by a growing involvement in the region's security. In October, in its first military deployment to Latin America, China sent a UN peacekeeping contingent to Haiti comprising 140 Chinese policemen with plans to deploy an additional 125 personnel. Ironically, Haiti is one of only 25 states that recognize Taiwan rather than China. Recently, the issue of extending the mandate of the 6,000-strong UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which is due to expire in June, has come under pressure from Sino-Taiwanese frictions. While UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the interim government of Haiti have asked that the mandate be extended by one year in order to oversee the municipal, legislative and Presidential elections to be held later this year, China is pushing for only a six month extension due to a scheduled visit by interim Haitian President Alexendre Boniface to Taiwan in July. While having to accept the humiliation of aiding a state that engages in relations with Taiwan’s “secessionist” forces, China has garnered the goodwill of Latin American states, which will come in handy when negotiating energy and other deals.
The U.S. is looking on with caution as China encroaches upon a region that has traditionally been a major supplier of energy resources. Venezuela and Canada together provide the U.S. with a third of its energy imports. For every barrel of oil that China purchases from Latin America there is potentially one less barrel available for the U.S. Furthermore, as the American states reduce their reliance on the U.S. oil market, they will have greater political leverage over the U.S. on contentious issues such as Canadian trade disputes with the U.S. over lumber and beef, and tensions over human rights abuses in Venezuela.
Finally, the competition for energy resources in Latin America is not limited to the U.S. and China. In October 2004, several oil companies including China’s PetroChina and India’s ONGC (Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) were looking into acquiring oil assets valued at $1.5 billion in Ecuador. Japan and South Korea are also stepping up efforts to secure raw materials in Latin America. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited Brazil in September 2004 and South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun also made trips to Argentina, Brazil and Chile in 2004.
Setting the Stage for an Energy “Cold War”
Friction between China and the U.S. has so far focused on the question of China's undervalued exchange rate, its human rights record, relations with “rogue” states and the issue of Taiwan. However, the competition over energy resources is now becoming an additional area of contention. While China and the U.S. have launched the U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue, both states are also engaged in a competition for energy resources in Russia, the Caspian, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. This competition could foreseeably combine with other areas of friction. For example, if the U.S. were to side with Japan on its territorial dispute in the potentially oil and gas rich East China Sea or support India over China in meeting its growing energy needs, strategic blocs or alliances could form in the international energy arena. Latin America is likely to emerge as a major stage of this energy competition or confrontation.
Notes:
1. Luft, Gal, “In search of crude China goes to the Americas,” Institute for the Analysis of Global Security: Energy Security, January 18, 2005, http://www.iags.org/n0118041.htm.
2. Cheung, Ray, “Barriers in the way of tapping S American oil and gas,” South China Morning Post, November 21, 2004.
June 21, 2005
Secularism In India
Sandhya Jain
Secularism today ranks foremost among India’s burden of bad ideas, a term coined by Prof. Shiva Bajpai to debunk the ill-founded Aryan Invasion Theory, which held academics in thrall for a century before being flung into the dustbin of history. The term secular entered India’s political vocabulary as a device to disarm the Hindu majority and inhibit _expression of resentment against minority-appeasing policies of successive Governments.
Given the shoddy motives of its promoters, it is surprising that the term secular has come to acquire such a powerful hold over the elite. Secularism is not a lofty ideal, like liberty or equality. It owes its birth to Christianity’s inability to maintain peace between warring Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored pogroms against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious warfare, France invented secularism to ensure State neutrality in matters of faith, and separation of Church and State. Secularism was thus born as an extra-religious answer to the intolerance of both Church and State.
Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. Hence, unlike western concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance in Indian hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has traditionally vested spiritual authority in the guru and political power in the king, and given the latter the duty to protect dharma.
Dharma is not religion in the sense that monotheistic creeds are. Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual experience and includes the specific dharmas of specific groups (desachara, lokachara), which the king is duty bound to uphold and protect. Since dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-communal), because dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination. The duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought is best exemplified by the concept of Rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harish Chandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his responsibilities and fulfill commitments.
Dharma is thus not co-terminus with religion; the closest Indian word for religion is pantha. Secularism in India, as noted jurist Dr. L.M. Singhvi insisted when translating the modified Preamble of the Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination towards individual faiths). So, while ‘secular’ is the opposite of ‘religion’ and ‘communal,’ dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favouring a particular sect.
This brings us to the peculiar practice of secularism in modern India. While the proper definition of secularism should be pantha-nirpeksha, as noted previously, the media and politicians speak of dharma nirpeksha or neutral in the matter of religion. This is antithetical to Hindu civilizational experience which demands that the State respect and uphold dharma; but this is only part of the problem.
The real difficulty is that even dharma nirpeksha is not implemented honestly. Dharma nirpeksha means the State should be aloof from all religions or treat all equally. The Indian Government however, has not been religiously neutral since independence itself. Despite the terrible sufferings of Hindus before and during Partition, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru created the false bogey of “majority communalism” to create and consolidate a Muslim votebank for Congress. The first blow was struck with the refusal to implement a uniform civil code, even though this was both desirable and possible at the time of framing the constitution.
Despite grandiose commitments to equality before law, non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and equality of opportunity in public employment and public office, the Indian Constitution was manipulated to give weightage to minorities. Cumulative Hindu disquiet over the politics of appeasement gave Mr. L.K. Advani the ovation he received from Somnath-to-Ayodhya, when he promised “Justice for all, appeasement of none.”
Sadly, little has been done in the nearly fifteen years since the problem was raised in the public arena. Article 28(1) says no religious instruction should be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of the State funds, but this was undone by Article 28(3) which permits a state-recognized or state-aided school to give religious instruction or offer religious worship to those desiring it. Thus, religious schools (madrasas) receive generous state funds and the religious training imparted therein is considered at par with normal secular education. Recently, the Aligarh Muslim University was permitted fifty percent reservation for Muslim students. Interestingly, the controversy revealed that the previous NDA regime had permitted fifty percent communal reservations to Jamia Hamdard University in the capital! The Indian state, therefore, does not practice religious neutrality, and uses secularism as a tool to discriminate against Hindus. It was a silent spectator to the brutal expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir and Buddhists from Nagaland and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. It remains mute while Andhra Pradesh moots five percent reservation for Muslims in State employment and educational institutions. It has failed to end terrorist infiltration in Kashmir, and despite warnings from the Assam Governor, appears determined to inhibit action against illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, a new danger beckons in the form of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind’s demand for communal reservations in Parliament and State legislatures.
Secularism today ranks foremost among India’s burden of bad ideas, a term coined by Prof. Shiva Bajpai to debunk the ill-founded Aryan Invasion Theory, which held academics in thrall for a century before being flung into the dustbin of history. The term secular entered India’s political vocabulary as a device to disarm the Hindu majority and inhibit _expression of resentment against minority-appeasing policies of successive Governments.
Given the shoddy motives of its promoters, it is surprising that the term secular has come to acquire such a powerful hold over the elite. Secularism is not a lofty ideal, like liberty or equality. It owes its birth to Christianity’s inability to maintain peace between warring Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored pogroms against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious warfare, France invented secularism to ensure State neutrality in matters of faith, and separation of Church and State. Secularism was thus born as an extra-religious answer to the intolerance of both Church and State.
Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. Hence, unlike western concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance in Indian hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has traditionally vested spiritual authority in the guru and political power in the king, and given the latter the duty to protect dharma.
Dharma is not religion in the sense that monotheistic creeds are. Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual experience and includes the specific dharmas of specific groups (desachara, lokachara), which the king is duty bound to uphold and protect. Since dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-communal), because dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination. The duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought is best exemplified by the concept of Rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harish Chandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his responsibilities and fulfill commitments.
Dharma is thus not co-terminus with religion; the closest Indian word for religion is pantha. Secularism in India, as noted jurist Dr. L.M. Singhvi insisted when translating the modified Preamble of the Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination towards individual faiths). So, while ‘secular’ is the opposite of ‘religion’ and ‘communal,’ dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favouring a particular sect.
This brings us to the peculiar practice of secularism in modern India. While the proper definition of secularism should be pantha-nirpeksha, as noted previously, the media and politicians speak of dharma nirpeksha or neutral in the matter of religion. This is antithetical to Hindu civilizational experience which demands that the State respect and uphold dharma; but this is only part of the problem.
The real difficulty is that even dharma nirpeksha is not implemented honestly. Dharma nirpeksha means the State should be aloof from all religions or treat all equally. The Indian Government however, has not been religiously neutral since independence itself. Despite the terrible sufferings of Hindus before and during Partition, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru created the false bogey of “majority communalism” to create and consolidate a Muslim votebank for Congress. The first blow was struck with the refusal to implement a uniform civil code, even though this was both desirable and possible at the time of framing the constitution.
Despite grandiose commitments to equality before law, non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and equality of opportunity in public employment and public office, the Indian Constitution was manipulated to give weightage to minorities. Cumulative Hindu disquiet over the politics of appeasement gave Mr. L.K. Advani the ovation he received from Somnath-to-Ayodhya, when he promised “Justice for all, appeasement of none.”
Sadly, little has been done in the nearly fifteen years since the problem was raised in the public arena. Article 28(1) says no religious instruction should be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of the State funds, but this was undone by Article 28(3) which permits a state-recognized or state-aided school to give religious instruction or offer religious worship to those desiring it. Thus, religious schools (madrasas) receive generous state funds and the religious training imparted therein is considered at par with normal secular education. Recently, the Aligarh Muslim University was permitted fifty percent reservation for Muslim students. Interestingly, the controversy revealed that the previous NDA regime had permitted fifty percent communal reservations to Jamia Hamdard University in the capital! The Indian state, therefore, does not practice religious neutrality, and uses secularism as a tool to discriminate against Hindus. It was a silent spectator to the brutal expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir and Buddhists from Nagaland and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. It remains mute while Andhra Pradesh moots five percent reservation for Muslims in State employment and educational institutions. It has failed to end terrorist infiltration in Kashmir, and despite warnings from the Assam Governor, appears determined to inhibit action against illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, a new danger beckons in the form of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind’s demand for communal reservations in Parliament and State legislatures.
June 20, 2005
Indian Intelligence RAW's covert activities in the United States of America.
A raw deal
S Raghunath
Provoked by heightened CIA involvement in the subcontinent, our very own Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) is stepping up its covert activities in the United States of America.
A senior State Department official in Washington was addressing a group of select newsmen and providing a "deep" and "structured" backgrounder regarding RAW activities on American soil. "An organised pattern is emerging," he said cautiously, so as not to offend the Indian Government, "but we still don't have anything definite to go by."
"Since 1968, an Indian Sanskrit scholar and occult tantrik has been operating out of Houston, Texas. And, presumably, his job is to chant strange mumbo jumbo from the Vedas and the Upanishads, perform yajnas and havans on the banks of the Houston river and materialise out of the thin air consecrated ash and lucky talisman for those oilmen whose last well has turned out to be a dud.
"But we've reasons to believe that this man who claims to be a rishi of ancient lineage and a god realised soul, having performed severe penance and meditation in the Himalayas for 12 years standing on one leg, could be, in reality, an undercover RAW agent."
"Has Washington taken up with the Indian Government the question of increased RAW activity in this country?" a newsman asked.
"There has been contact at the highest diplomatic level," was the prompt reply from the State Department official, "and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in a personal letter to President George W Bush, has underlined his country's commitment to a strong, stable and democratic United States."
"But the US Administration continues to be gravely perturbed," he added.
"Is there any possibility that India's Rohini satellite could be a covert RAW operation?" another newsman asked.
"All evidence points in that direction," the official said. "Our tracking stations report that the Indian satellite is making two passes a day right over President Bush's outdoor sauna. And we assume that it is taking highly sensitive photographs of the President clad only in a turkey towel."
Continuing his "backgrounder", the State Department official said, "Earlier this year, an Indian astrologer and palmist entered the US on a H1B visa claiming he wanted to help improve Indo-US ties. This, he claims, can be done only if he is allowed to see the President's horoscope and then prescribe remedies. And the President has to answer any three of his questions. But the US Embassy in New Delhi has reported that this man, who claims to be adept in Hatha Yoga and able to walk on water, could be RAW's station chief for north and central America."
"Just last week, the White House security staff intercepted a box of cigars laced with Indian "bhang" and "charas" addressed to the President. We assume this to be the handiwork of RAW's dirty tricks department."
"There's also evidence that RAW has infiltrated the Red Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico and is instigating them to demand Manhattan back from the pale faces."
Has the information gathered against the foreign intelligence agency been processed? yet another newsmen asked. "No," said the official, "it's all raw data!"
S Raghunath
Provoked by heightened CIA involvement in the subcontinent, our very own Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) is stepping up its covert activities in the United States of America.
A senior State Department official in Washington was addressing a group of select newsmen and providing a "deep" and "structured" backgrounder regarding RAW activities on American soil. "An organised pattern is emerging," he said cautiously, so as not to offend the Indian Government, "but we still don't have anything definite to go by."
"Since 1968, an Indian Sanskrit scholar and occult tantrik has been operating out of Houston, Texas. And, presumably, his job is to chant strange mumbo jumbo from the Vedas and the Upanishads, perform yajnas and havans on the banks of the Houston river and materialise out of the thin air consecrated ash and lucky talisman for those oilmen whose last well has turned out to be a dud.
"But we've reasons to believe that this man who claims to be a rishi of ancient lineage and a god realised soul, having performed severe penance and meditation in the Himalayas for 12 years standing on one leg, could be, in reality, an undercover RAW agent."
"Has Washington taken up with the Indian Government the question of increased RAW activity in this country?" a newsman asked.
"There has been contact at the highest diplomatic level," was the prompt reply from the State Department official, "and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in a personal letter to President George W Bush, has underlined his country's commitment to a strong, stable and democratic United States."
"But the US Administration continues to be gravely perturbed," he added.
"Is there any possibility that India's Rohini satellite could be a covert RAW operation?" another newsman asked.
"All evidence points in that direction," the official said. "Our tracking stations report that the Indian satellite is making two passes a day right over President Bush's outdoor sauna. And we assume that it is taking highly sensitive photographs of the President clad only in a turkey towel."
Continuing his "backgrounder", the State Department official said, "Earlier this year, an Indian astrologer and palmist entered the US on a H1B visa claiming he wanted to help improve Indo-US ties. This, he claims, can be done only if he is allowed to see the President's horoscope and then prescribe remedies. And the President has to answer any three of his questions. But the US Embassy in New Delhi has reported that this man, who claims to be adept in Hatha Yoga and able to walk on water, could be RAW's station chief for north and central America."
"Just last week, the White House security staff intercepted a box of cigars laced with Indian "bhang" and "charas" addressed to the President. We assume this to be the handiwork of RAW's dirty tricks department."
"There's also evidence that RAW has infiltrated the Red Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico and is instigating them to demand Manhattan back from the pale faces."
Has the information gathered against the foreign intelligence agency been processed? yet another newsmen asked. "No," said the official, "it's all raw data!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
