November 03, 2007
Arab and Western Media Perspectives
Oct 22nd, 2007
Center for Strategic & International Studies - Washington, D.C.
Arab and Western Media Perspectives featuring panelists Philip Bennett, Nadia Bilbassy-Charters, Salameh Nematt and moderated by Paul Salem speaking at the Overcoming Extremism: Protecting Civilians from Terrorist Violence conference.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a two-day conference featuring high-profile leaders, experts, and opinion-makers to develop a shared international agenda for protecting civilians from terrorist violence. In addition to examining government responses and legal structures, the conference considers how local communities and international partners can transform the enabling environment that can intimidate local actors into silence or acquiescence. Topics include the impact of new media tools, changes in international humanitarian law, the evolution of terrorist tactics, the proliferation of suicide bombings, and innovative approaches to protecting civilians - CSIS
Salameh Nematt has over 20 years experience in economic and political reporting, research and analysis of developments in the broader Middle East, Europe, and the United States, including extensive work on Arab-Israeli political, economic, security and human rights issues, and in-depth reporting on conflicts throughout the Middle East, the Gulf, and North Africa. As Washington Bureau Chief for Al Hayat International Arab daily for the past four years (2003-2007), his work focused on reporting on and analyzing U.S. foreign policy, including issues related to the war in Iraq, the global war on terrorism, the U.S. drive for democratization in the broader Middle East, and issues related to U.S. military and security strategies in the region. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their economic and political implications.
Department for the Dubai based television channel. Prior to moving to Washington, she was embedded with the 101st Marines Divison in Kuwait on the push to Baghdad in March 2003. From 1997 to 2003, Bilbassy was the Bureau Chief for MBC TV, Middle East Broadcasting Centre based in Nairobi, Kenya. She covered most of Africa’s conflicts. She has traveled extensively in southern Sudan with the SPLA, The Sudan People’s Liberation Army.
Nadia Bilbassy-Charters is the Senior Diplomatic Correspondent for Al Arabiya TV based in Washington DC. Ms. Bilbassy covers the White House and the State Department for the Dubai based television channel. Prior to moving to Washington, she was embedded with the 101st Marines Divison in Kuwait on the push to Baghdad in March 2003. From 1997 to 2003, Bilbassy was the Bureau Chief for MBC TV, Middle East Broadcasting Centre based in Nairobi, Kenya. She covered most of Africa’s conflicts. She has traveled extensively in southern Sudan with the SPLA, The Sudan People’s Liberation Army.
Philip Bennett is managing editor of The Washington Post. From 1999 through 2004 he was assistant managing editor for foreign news at The Post. During his tenure, The Post's international coverage was recognized with numerous awards, including two Pulitzer prizes for international reporting, most recently for coverage of the war in Iraq.
Bennett joined The Post in 1997 as a deputy national editor for coverage of national security, defense and foreign policy. He came to the paper from the Boston Globe, where he was a foreign correspondent covering Latin America and later the Globe’s foreign editor. He has written about Latin America for a variety of magazines. He started in journalism as a reporter for The Lima Times in Peru. Bennett grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and has a degree in history from Harvard College.
PAKISTAN : Reversal in Swat and the residual state
Editorial
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\11\04\story_4-11-2007_pg3_1
The militia of Fazlullah, the warlord of Swat, has defeated the paramilitary forces sent in to “bring peace to the people of the valley”. Official spokesmen denied the defeat and the capture of paramilitaries by the militia, but the truth could not be hidden when this time, instead of beheading them, Fazlullah decided to free the 48 captives in Charbagh with Rs 500 notes of “baksheesh” stuck in their hands. The freed men declared they were not willing to fight their fellow-Muslims; some said they would leave their jobs and join the Taliban and fight for Islam instead.
The government troops retreated from Khwazakhela and have camped in Madian. The police stations of Charbagh — which was set on fire by the militia — and Matta were abandoned, effectively passing on the control of the area to the Taliban-Al Qaeda pax of the warlord given as a gift to the people of Swat by the erstwhile government of MMA in the NWFP. The army troops are in waiting. They were supposed to come in to help the paramilitaries, but it now seems too late for a number of reasons, some of them already presaged in the capture of troops in Waziristan earlier in the year. Instead of putting Fazlullah under pressure before talking to him, now the government is under pressure and Fazlullah wants to talk.
To the frog-chorus of politicians and intellectuals recommending “negotiations” with the Al Qaeda-led elements, one can only offer a glimpse into what the warlord in Swat wants. As a topic for discussion, he has put forward three demands: 1) evacuation of Swat so that he can legitimise his occupation of it; 2) enforcement of sharia in the area — which of course means the kind of sharia enforced under Talibanisation; and 3) scrapping of all criminal cases registered against his men. This is what the militant elements in the Tribal Areas would want too. Last time Islamabad negotiated with the Taliban in Waziristan, it agreed to remove its checkposts and virtually leave the territory to those patronised by Al Qaeda.
What Al Qaeda wants is territory from where it can operate freely at the global level. (Already most of the bombers in Europe are trained in Waziristan.) Defeats suffered by Pakistani security forces have created a fait accompli of what in old parlance was called loss of territory. The instrument of control over this territory is sought through the enforcement of a sharia that differs a great deal from the “inclusive” sharia in force in the country. Constitutional amendments have set up a Federal Shariat Court with powers of “reverse legislation” by striking down any law found repugnant to Islam. The MMA government had tried to part company with the constitutional sharia of the rest of the country through what it called the Hasba Bill. This is now the norm that Lal Masjid, backed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, wants to impose in the capital itself.
That Al Qaeda is in search of a state of its own is known to the world. The last time it tried to gain a foothold inside a state was in Somalia in 2006. The sharia there was of the Arab variety and very close to what the Taliban want. The Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), dispensing a wide variety of adjudication based on differing but legitimate sources of jurisprudence, set up its own legally fractured government, only to arouse alarm in the neighbourhood. The United States got “Christian” Ethiopia to invade Somalia and put the Islamic warriors — some of them hailing from Pakistan — to flight. The case of Pakistan will greatly differ in detail but the general drift is the same. An invasion will target the “lost territories” as the Pakistan army watches.
A number of “failing” states in the Horn of Africa are now allowing international law to develop in favour of invited and uninvited intervention, some of it illegal and some — that organised by the Organisation of African Union — legal. In the case of Pakistan, while the patriotic Pakistanis defiantly oppose the label of “failed state”, there are signs of intervention that we can hardly ignore. Drones flown from the US have been attacking suspected Al Qaeda hideouts inside Pakistani territory. Even at the time of writing North Waziristan reports drones overflying territory that is virtually lost to Pakistan. The little-discussed legal ground is “hot pursuit” because Pakistan is in no position to stop Al Qaeda and its Pakistani warriors from attacking as far inland in Afghanistan as Helmand and Herat.
The latest development in this direction of invited or uninvited “intervention-in-failed-state” development has come in the shape of the “offer” of US forces “to fight the Taliban elements in the Tribal Areas and Swat” by the US Central Command (Centcom) chief, Admiral William J Fallon, to President Musharraf. It is quite clear what direction the national crisis is taking. The central concern is not democracy and civil-military relations but the survival of the state and, ironically, within the consensus that wishes to ignore the state are also those who actually want the federation to come to an end. *
A Call from the Pulpit
Source: http://valleyswat.net/
Like all the rural areas of Pakistan, District Swat which is famous not only in Pakistan but all over the globe for its scenic beauty, has been ignored regarding development and provision of modern infrastructure by the provincial or central government. However, the never yielding inhabitants of this beautiful terrain have carried on in life through their unending struggle and hard work. The basic and most important communication sources of modern era, the road networks either have been ignored or turned a deaf ear to by the provincial and federal government alike since the merger of Swat State to Pakistan. The deteriorating condition of the hospitals and the wheel and deal between the doctors and pharmaceutical companies representatives have enraged and left the impoverished people in desperation and utter desolation. The overwhelming nepotism, alarming fee hike in educational and other governmental institutions has left the justice-starved citizens of Swat in an eternal abyss of corruption and inequity. The despicable and the never-ending court trials have made the public restless and paranoid. The skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and immense inflation has vaporized the trust and belief of the people in the government. The rampant abductions, daylight murders and robberies and the indolent nature of the local police and other law enforcing agencies have backfired so severely that the people has to answer the call of a person who himself is meagerly educated and does not know the true sense and significance of justice and equality.
Maulana Fazlullah who is also the son-in-law of the former Shariat Movement chairperson, Sufi Muhammad, is born in Swat and educated in a Madrassa (Religious Seminary) in Dir District, came to lime light when he started his personal FM Radio station from Imam Derai (a small village in the fertile plains of upper Swat). The radio regularly broadcasted the religious preaching and elucidation of the Holy Quran by the Maulana. The novice cleric received staggering response from the mostly uneducated housewives and peasants who sacredly listened to every sermon and lecture of the Mullah with innocence and naïve sensibility. Every word and line the cleric uttered was considered as the true appreciation and elucidation of the Word of God. When the cleric said that listening to music was an immoral and irreligious act, the people shunned tape recorders. When the cleric said that watching and keeping television in the house will incur God’s wrath, the simple people burned their television sets in the daylight to express their love and trust on every word the Mullah spoke. When the Mullah asked for charity to build a religious seminary, everyone magnanimously aided and to such an extent that the women who are considered extremely fond of jewelry and gold, gave all their jewels in charity to the cleric to earn the love and favour of God.
This mounting fame and eminence intoxicated massively, he started intervention in the disputes and problems of the public, and people started coming to his seminary in processions to seek justice and resolve their disputes and controversies. Due to the social insecurity, corruption, plunder, looting, opportunism and rampant disorder in the society, the people welcomed the Mullah as a Messiah who will absolve them of all their problems and tribulations. Slowly and gradually, the cleric concentrated a huge crowd of cutthroat followers and raised his own security and law-enforcing body to deal wit public problems. Anonymous letters were dispatched to all the music, Cds, cinemas and video shop owners in Swat to stop their despicable and unethical business. The barbers were ordered to stop shaving off the beards of their customers and those who refused to comply were threatened of grave consequences. The threats were not mere shallow threats and some mulish and aggressive owners fell pray to the vagary of the cleric and his subordinates when their shops and business centers were blown to smithereens.
The cleric has enacted his private court of law and even has punished some criminals involved in car jackin in front of a thousand spectators in a ground.Some alleged murderers have received death sentences, fortunately not acted upon yet. Several other are on the death row waiting for their gruesome fates. Co-education has become a taboo in Swat and school going girls have received strict orders to wear veils and comply with the Islamic values of segregation and morality. Ladies cannot go for shopping and cannot visit the marketplaces. The volunteer security forces of the cleric visit the markets and marts and inspect the shops, its items and their prices in a gross violation of the prevailing writ of law. Several government and law enforcing personnel have received decapitation sentences in the public. The life and property of the people is no more secure due to the recurring suicide attacks and ambushes on government personnel. A state has been enacted within a sovereign and independent state; and the government and its law enforcement agencies are silent spectators and bystanders without taking any result-oriented and prompt step to curb and contain the worsening situation and atmosphere.
Due to the laxity and sloppy reaction of the government, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the government has no other choice except a military operation, which will certainly plunge the picturesque valley of Swat into a blood bath and chaos. The innocent and impoverished residents of Swat have now to endure the repercussions of the irresponsible and inconsiderate policies and strategies of the contemporary government. The blindfolded reaction of the government has provided innumerable opportunities to foreign secret intelligentsia to interfere and aggravate the deteriorating situation further.
Due to a handful of miscreants, who could have been apprehended in a wink of an eye, the whole population of Swat particularly and Pakistan generally have started suffering. Many an innocent lives have been lost and wasted for nothing. Many a children have been orphaned and many wives widows. The businesses in the locale have plummeted due to the hovering clouds of civil war and military operation. If the government now take the much-anticipated action, starts the operation and handle the aggravating situation, then who will compensate and sustain those who have lost their near and dear ones? Who will adopt the orphans; and who will shoulder the unfortunate and hapless families? Who will recover the sole bread earners of the impoverished families? These are some daunting questions, which will haunt the minds and spirits of thoughtful and thinking people of Pakistan forever.
Shameful retreat of the UPA
Media Watch
http://www.organiser.org/
The precipitous retreat of the Government of India after all the talk and aggressive behaviour of both Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh over the 123 Agreement has shocked the media. That was almost the last thing it expected. “Is the Prime Minister eating his words?” asked The Indian Express (October 13), “No comment” was its own answer. The paper said: “It appears from the suggestive and politically cohabitative noises now emanating from the capital that a strange tentativeness has entered the thinking on the nuclear deal. There is an uncertainty wavering that can be discerned from the utterances of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as well as the Congress president Sonia Gandhi so far as the much tom-tommed nuclear deal is concerned” the paper said. Quoting freely from past utterances of both the Congress President and the Prime Minister in the past the paper seemed to be taken by surprise by their latest utterances. “What more can we say?” the paper wondered.
Deccan Herald (October 15) thought that “the two top UPA leaders would have avoided the embarrassment of publicly announcing a go-slow approach of the deal if only they had a realistic assessment of the political pulse of their Left partners’ opposition to the deal.” “Was all this just a political brinkmanship intended to force the Left to accept the deal? What prompted the Congress to talk of midterm polls”, the paper asked. The paper noted the Congress change in stance that showed that the party was “rather keen to opt for the certainty of another 20 months’ tenure in office than an election” and added: “For this, the party is also willing to put the nuclear deal on the back-burner even though aware that it would have to tackle a Left that would be more aggressive and assertive after having forced the Congress to blink.”
The paper said the change in policy of the Congress was “certainly a blow to India’s global aspirations and a diminution of its international stature when New Delhi makes commitments to foreign governments that it can’t deliver on because of internal opposition, even when it strikes deals that are transparently in its own interest”. It added: “By backing down after having raised the bar so high, the government has signaled, in effect, that it is weak and open to blackmail, on any issue by any pressure group in Parliament.”
A columnist, Gautam Adhikari, writing in The times of India (October 15) gave a lot of credit to Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the CPM. “The way this man—a neophyte in national affairs till just a few years ago—had developed his power based while sticking to his beliefs and an expired ideology is truly awe-inspiring” gushed Shri Adhikari. The columnist said that Karat “may not have the power, at least not yet, to implement public policy in line with his belief system, but he can stop India in its tracks when he wants (and) actually he has done so.”
As for the Prime Minister the columnist wrote: “Oh, and the Prime Minister, yes, he is a nice man. Very nice. In fact, nothing but nive”.
Not many newspapers are happy with Sonia Gandhi’s choice of her son Rahul Gandhi as General Secretary of the Congress in charge of the youth and student wing of the party. Wrote The Hindu (September 25): “The moment Sonia Gandhi—who had kept clear of any formal role after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi—overcame her reluctance and agreed to become president of the Indian National Congress sin 1998, it became clear that the attempt to find leadership outside India’s best-known political family had collapsed.” The paper noted that “the pre-eminent leadership of the party has been out of (Nehru-Gandhi) family’s hands for just nine of the 60 years of Independence”, but then “the future has not been in much doubt from the time Rahul Gandhi decided in 2004 to stake his claim to it from the family stronghold of Amethi…From then, it has been a quick climb to the general secretaryship of the party”. The editorial was headed: “From heir apparent to heir manifest”—and that tells its own story.
The Tribune (September 27) said that Rahul’s father, Rajiv was inducted into the top leadership of the Congress in almost the same manner as the son is now being inducted. The paper said, somewhat cynically, that Rahul’s “record as a parliamentarian and party campaigner is well known”—implying that neither is much to write home about. What is surprising about Rahul’s appointment now, the paper noted “is that it took her (Sonia Gandhi) so long to take it”. What is significant is the scepticism that is prevalent in the media about Rahul Gandhi’s talents as a possible leader of the party.
http://www.organiser.org/
The precipitous retreat of the Government of India after all the talk and aggressive behaviour of both Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh over the 123 Agreement has shocked the media. That was almost the last thing it expected. “Is the Prime Minister eating his words?” asked The Indian Express (October 13), “No comment” was its own answer. The paper said: “It appears from the suggestive and politically cohabitative noises now emanating from the capital that a strange tentativeness has entered the thinking on the nuclear deal. There is an uncertainty wavering that can be discerned from the utterances of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as well as the Congress president Sonia Gandhi so far as the much tom-tommed nuclear deal is concerned” the paper said. Quoting freely from past utterances of both the Congress President and the Prime Minister in the past the paper seemed to be taken by surprise by their latest utterances. “What more can we say?” the paper wondered.
Deccan Herald (October 15) thought that “the two top UPA leaders would have avoided the embarrassment of publicly announcing a go-slow approach of the deal if only they had a realistic assessment of the political pulse of their Left partners’ opposition to the deal.” “Was all this just a political brinkmanship intended to force the Left to accept the deal? What prompted the Congress to talk of midterm polls”, the paper asked. The paper noted the Congress change in stance that showed that the party was “rather keen to opt for the certainty of another 20 months’ tenure in office than an election” and added: “For this, the party is also willing to put the nuclear deal on the back-burner even though aware that it would have to tackle a Left that would be more aggressive and assertive after having forced the Congress to blink.”
The paper said the change in policy of the Congress was “certainly a blow to India’s global aspirations and a diminution of its international stature when New Delhi makes commitments to foreign governments that it can’t deliver on because of internal opposition, even when it strikes deals that are transparently in its own interest”. It added: “By backing down after having raised the bar so high, the government has signaled, in effect, that it is weak and open to blackmail, on any issue by any pressure group in Parliament.”
A columnist, Gautam Adhikari, writing in The times of India (October 15) gave a lot of credit to Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the CPM. “The way this man—a neophyte in national affairs till just a few years ago—had developed his power based while sticking to his beliefs and an expired ideology is truly awe-inspiring” gushed Shri Adhikari. The columnist said that Karat “may not have the power, at least not yet, to implement public policy in line with his belief system, but he can stop India in its tracks when he wants (and) actually he has done so.”
As for the Prime Minister the columnist wrote: “Oh, and the Prime Minister, yes, he is a nice man. Very nice. In fact, nothing but nive”.
Not many newspapers are happy with Sonia Gandhi’s choice of her son Rahul Gandhi as General Secretary of the Congress in charge of the youth and student wing of the party. Wrote The Hindu (September 25): “The moment Sonia Gandhi—who had kept clear of any formal role after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi—overcame her reluctance and agreed to become president of the Indian National Congress sin 1998, it became clear that the attempt to find leadership outside India’s best-known political family had collapsed.” The paper noted that “the pre-eminent leadership of the party has been out of (Nehru-Gandhi) family’s hands for just nine of the 60 years of Independence”, but then “the future has not been in much doubt from the time Rahul Gandhi decided in 2004 to stake his claim to it from the family stronghold of Amethi…From then, it has been a quick climb to the general secretaryship of the party”. The editorial was headed: “From heir apparent to heir manifest”—and that tells its own story.
The Tribune (September 27) said that Rahul’s father, Rajiv was inducted into the top leadership of the Congress in almost the same manner as the son is now being inducted. The paper said, somewhat cynically, that Rahul’s “record as a parliamentarian and party campaigner is well known”—implying that neither is much to write home about. What is surprising about Rahul’s appointment now, the paper noted “is that it took her (Sonia Gandhi) so long to take it”. What is significant is the scepticism that is prevalent in the media about Rahul Gandhi’s talents as a possible leader of the party.
Iraq Shuts Down PKK-Allied Party
Agencies
ISTANBUL, 4 November 2007 — Iraq said yesterday it was ready to hunt down and arrest Kurdish guerrilla leaders responsible for cross-border raids into Turkey and closed down the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Solution party, an organization with close ties to PKK guerrillas. Separately, a news agency close to the guerrillas said eight Turkish soldiers captured by them on Oct. 21 will be released today.
Major powers and countries in the region, meeting in Istanbul to discuss Iraqi security, sought to ease tension on the Turkish-Iraqi border that could escalate into a bigger regional crisis.
Turkey wants leaders of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) arrested and seeks the closure of camps in northern Iraq which they use as bases for cross-border attacks in their 23-year-old campaign for a homeland in southeast Turkey.
Amid intensified diplomacy between Turkey, Iraq and the United States, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki met Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul.
“The prime minister renewed the willingness of the Iraqi government to take steps to isolate the terrorist PKK, prevent any help reaching its members, chase and arrest them, and put them in front of the Iraqi judiciary because of their terrorist activities,” Maliki’s office said in a statement.
Maliki’s spokesman added that Baghdad did not rule out joint military action with Ankara, although Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said: “I think there is a whole number of measures to be taken before getting to that.”
A senior Turkish diplomat, who declined to be named, said a meeting between Turkey, Iraq and the United States “wasn’t satisfactory for Turkey” because old promises rather than new concrete proposals were presented.
Turkey is impatient at what it sees as US and Iraqi foot-dragging over the threat from the PKK and has massed 100,000 troops on the border for a possible offensive against about 3,000 rebels using Iraq as a base. But the government in Baghdad has little influence over the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions in the north and the success of any measures against PKK militants would depend on the cooperation of Kurdish authorities. Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani has so far refused to arrest PKK members.
But there were signs of the autonomous Kurdish government taking small steps to stave off a full-fledged Turkish invasion. It shut down the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Solution party.
Turkey has sought the party’s closure, accusing it of being a front organization for the PKK.
Security officials first shut the party’s office in Irbil, a northern Iraqi city that serves as capital to the government of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Later yesterday, forces surrounded the party’s headquarters in Sulaimaniyah and closed down that office as well, security and party officials said.
The Brussels-based Firat news agency, generally considered a mouthpiece of the PKK, said the captured Turkish soldiers would be handed over to pro-Kurdish MPs at an undisclosed location.
The soldiers were captured when their unit was ambushed near the border with Iraq. The attack also left 12 other soldiers dead.
At the Istanbul meeting, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal reiterated the Kingdom’s condemnation of terrorist attacks against Turkey and expressed his condolences to the families of victims. “There is no justifications for those attacks and every efforts should be made to stop these encroaches,” he added.
He said the Kingdom had always called for strengthening the unity of Iraq and protecting its independence and sovereignty. “We are against any interference in Iraq’s internal affairs... and we maintain equal distance from all ethnic groups in the country,” he said.
ISTANBUL, 4 November 2007 — Iraq said yesterday it was ready to hunt down and arrest Kurdish guerrilla leaders responsible for cross-border raids into Turkey and closed down the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Solution party, an organization with close ties to PKK guerrillas. Separately, a news agency close to the guerrillas said eight Turkish soldiers captured by them on Oct. 21 will be released today.
Major powers and countries in the region, meeting in Istanbul to discuss Iraqi security, sought to ease tension on the Turkish-Iraqi border that could escalate into a bigger regional crisis.
Turkey wants leaders of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) arrested and seeks the closure of camps in northern Iraq which they use as bases for cross-border attacks in their 23-year-old campaign for a homeland in southeast Turkey.
Amid intensified diplomacy between Turkey, Iraq and the United States, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki met Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul.
“The prime minister renewed the willingness of the Iraqi government to take steps to isolate the terrorist PKK, prevent any help reaching its members, chase and arrest them, and put them in front of the Iraqi judiciary because of their terrorist activities,” Maliki’s office said in a statement.
Maliki’s spokesman added that Baghdad did not rule out joint military action with Ankara, although Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said: “I think there is a whole number of measures to be taken before getting to that.”
A senior Turkish diplomat, who declined to be named, said a meeting between Turkey, Iraq and the United States “wasn’t satisfactory for Turkey” because old promises rather than new concrete proposals were presented.
Turkey is impatient at what it sees as US and Iraqi foot-dragging over the threat from the PKK and has massed 100,000 troops on the border for a possible offensive against about 3,000 rebels using Iraq as a base. But the government in Baghdad has little influence over the semi-autonomous Kurdish regions in the north and the success of any measures against PKK militants would depend on the cooperation of Kurdish authorities. Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani has so far refused to arrest PKK members.
But there were signs of the autonomous Kurdish government taking small steps to stave off a full-fledged Turkish invasion. It shut down the headquarters of the Kurdistan Democratic Solution party.
Turkey has sought the party’s closure, accusing it of being a front organization for the PKK.
Security officials first shut the party’s office in Irbil, a northern Iraqi city that serves as capital to the government of Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region. Later yesterday, forces surrounded the party’s headquarters in Sulaimaniyah and closed down that office as well, security and party officials said.
The Brussels-based Firat news agency, generally considered a mouthpiece of the PKK, said the captured Turkish soldiers would be handed over to pro-Kurdish MPs at an undisclosed location.
The soldiers were captured when their unit was ambushed near the border with Iraq. The attack also left 12 other soldiers dead.
At the Istanbul meeting, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal reiterated the Kingdom’s condemnation of terrorist attacks against Turkey and expressed his condolences to the families of victims. “There is no justifications for those attacks and every efforts should be made to stop these encroaches,” he added.
He said the Kingdom had always called for strengthening the unity of Iraq and protecting its independence and sovereignty. “We are against any interference in Iraq’s internal affairs... and we maintain equal distance from all ethnic groups in the country,” he said.
Blind spots of Pakistani politics
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=78707
By Ghazi Salahuddin
11/4/2007
This is what I heard Mahmood Khan Achakzai saying in a conversation in Quetta on Thursday last week: "Balochistan is the blind spot of every Pakistani". We know what a blind spot is, technically as well as metaphorically. What he meant was, and I quote from my dictionary: "if someone has a blind spot about something, they ignore it or they are unwilling or unable to understand it".
Let us not go into why he included "every Pakistani" in a certain category. It could be a Freudian slip. But I am not reporting the views expressed by the erudite and affable leader of the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party because the encounter was off the record. And it was part of the visit to Quetta by the Citizens Group on Electoral Process, facilitated by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat). In addition to our regular monthly meeting, held this time in Quetta, we had an instructive exposure to a variety of opinions about the state of affairs in a troubled province of Pakistan.
Though an interactive seminar on 'national integration and free and fair elections' was the highlight of the visit, we also had a separate session with the Baloch leaders of the National Party. And if views expressed in the off-the-record sessions and the open seminar were extremely disquieting, projecting deep anger and alarm over the federal rulers' attitude towards Balochistan, we were served with large helpings of confidence and tranquillity at the dinner-meeting with Governor Owais Ghani on Friday.
This visit, lasting for less than three days, was very hectic -- and that explains my absence from this space last week. But I should not refer to it in any detail because of the breathless pace of events during this week. In fact, it is hard to focus on any one issue since so much is happening across the national spectrum. Every flaming headline would deserve a separate column. Every day, there is something that provides a mirror to reflect the deepening crisis of Pakistan. In short, we are under siege.
On Tuesday, there was a suicide bombing in the highly sensitive area of Rawalpindi, killing at least eight people. This explosion took place almost half-a-kilometre from the Army House, the official residence of the president. On Thursday, a suicide bomber rammed his motorcycle into a PAF bus on the Sargodha-Faisalabad road, killing five PAF officers and three civilians.
But even these major incidents seem to have faded into the larger conflagration in Swat, a beautiful valley lodged in the fond memories of innumerable domestic tourists. After Waziristan, it is in Swat that the militants have challenged the writ of the government. Was Swat, then, the blind spot of our rulers in Islamabad? As I write this column, I have Saturday's newspaper on my table and one headline is truly frightening: "Militants release 48 FC troops, claim capture of another 100".
At another level, confusion that has been created about the prospect of promulgation of a state of emergency in the country or even martial law is a source of great anxiety and apprehension. There have been potent hints that the government was considering extraordinary measures to deal with the grave situation that prevails in the country. So-called reliable sources have asserted that the rulers are weighing their options that include supra-constitutional measures.
These reports have gained some credibility with Condoleezza Rice's statement on Friday that the United States was opposed to any move by President Pervez Musharraf to impose martial law. She said that Pakistan must go ahead with elections early next year. "We are in constant contact with the leadership and the political leaders in Pakistan but I am not going to speculate on what might happen", she added. You may recall that telephone call she made to Musharraf at two in the morning a few weeks ago in the same context. Obviously, something can still happen.
On the face of it, the situation in the northern areas and suicide bombings in the heart of the country could be an excuse for taking these extreme measures. However, the government seems more worried about the Supreme Court proceedings on petitions that have challenged Musharraf's eligibility as a presidential candidate. Earlier, a ruling was expected this week but now it has been delayed.
Reports about the possibility of imposition of emergency or martial law have also echoed in the Supreme Court. On Thursday, Justice Javed Iqbal, the head of the 11-member larger bench, said the Supreme Court could neither be tamed by any threat of martial law nor taken hostage by any one. He reiterated on Friday that the court would not yield to any threat of imposition of martial law, emergency or extra-constitutional measures and would give its verdict according to the Constitution and law.
Come to think of it, if the situation has become so dire as to justify extraordinary measures, who should be held responsible? The irony here is these measures are being contemplated merely to protect the person who is at the helm for more than eight years. And credible opinion polls have confirmed that he has totally lost popular support. Is it that Musharraf is America's blind spot?
We can also see how our rulers turn a blind eye to reality that exists on the ground. For instance, there was that unbearably horrifying report about the beheading of four security personnel in Swat last week. It was published on Saturday, October 27, with some details of how the militants kidnapped three men of the Frontier Constabulary and two policemen and later they paraded beheaded bodies of three FC men and a constable in the bazaar. On the same day -- Saturday -- Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was in Karachi and he called on Pir Pagara with Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, and we had a graphic account of the jokes that they had traded. We were informed that the prime minister was confident of PML-Q's victory in the elections.
But can elections be held in these circumstances and can they be free and fair? With things falling apart -- yes, Yeats again -- and the centre not being able to hold, apprehensions about the promised transition to democracy are hard to dispel. To return to the meeting of the Citizens' Group in Quetta, a review of the overall political conditions in the country had prompted serious concern about the declining prospects for the holding of free and fair elections. And this assessment was founded on an objective analysis of concrete moves that have been made by the government.
In this gloom that surrounds us, the only note of cheer is provided by promotional television commercials that figure Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. Or do you look at them as an unintended spoof of our ruling politicians?
The writer is a staff member.
Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com
By Ghazi Salahuddin
11/4/2007
This is what I heard Mahmood Khan Achakzai saying in a conversation in Quetta on Thursday last week: "Balochistan is the blind spot of every Pakistani". We know what a blind spot is, technically as well as metaphorically. What he meant was, and I quote from my dictionary: "if someone has a blind spot about something, they ignore it or they are unwilling or unable to understand it".
Let us not go into why he included "every Pakistani" in a certain category. It could be a Freudian slip. But I am not reporting the views expressed by the erudite and affable leader of the Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party because the encounter was off the record. And it was part of the visit to Quetta by the Citizens Group on Electoral Process, facilitated by the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat). In addition to our regular monthly meeting, held this time in Quetta, we had an instructive exposure to a variety of opinions about the state of affairs in a troubled province of Pakistan.
Though an interactive seminar on 'national integration and free and fair elections' was the highlight of the visit, we also had a separate session with the Baloch leaders of the National Party. And if views expressed in the off-the-record sessions and the open seminar were extremely disquieting, projecting deep anger and alarm over the federal rulers' attitude towards Balochistan, we were served with large helpings of confidence and tranquillity at the dinner-meeting with Governor Owais Ghani on Friday.
This visit, lasting for less than three days, was very hectic -- and that explains my absence from this space last week. But I should not refer to it in any detail because of the breathless pace of events during this week. In fact, it is hard to focus on any one issue since so much is happening across the national spectrum. Every flaming headline would deserve a separate column. Every day, there is something that provides a mirror to reflect the deepening crisis of Pakistan. In short, we are under siege.
On Tuesday, there was a suicide bombing in the highly sensitive area of Rawalpindi, killing at least eight people. This explosion took place almost half-a-kilometre from the Army House, the official residence of the president. On Thursday, a suicide bomber rammed his motorcycle into a PAF bus on the Sargodha-Faisalabad road, killing five PAF officers and three civilians.
But even these major incidents seem to have faded into the larger conflagration in Swat, a beautiful valley lodged in the fond memories of innumerable domestic tourists. After Waziristan, it is in Swat that the militants have challenged the writ of the government. Was Swat, then, the blind spot of our rulers in Islamabad? As I write this column, I have Saturday's newspaper on my table and one headline is truly frightening: "Militants release 48 FC troops, claim capture of another 100".
At another level, confusion that has been created about the prospect of promulgation of a state of emergency in the country or even martial law is a source of great anxiety and apprehension. There have been potent hints that the government was considering extraordinary measures to deal with the grave situation that prevails in the country. So-called reliable sources have asserted that the rulers are weighing their options that include supra-constitutional measures.
These reports have gained some credibility with Condoleezza Rice's statement on Friday that the United States was opposed to any move by President Pervez Musharraf to impose martial law. She said that Pakistan must go ahead with elections early next year. "We are in constant contact with the leadership and the political leaders in Pakistan but I am not going to speculate on what might happen", she added. You may recall that telephone call she made to Musharraf at two in the morning a few weeks ago in the same context. Obviously, something can still happen.
On the face of it, the situation in the northern areas and suicide bombings in the heart of the country could be an excuse for taking these extreme measures. However, the government seems more worried about the Supreme Court proceedings on petitions that have challenged Musharraf's eligibility as a presidential candidate. Earlier, a ruling was expected this week but now it has been delayed.
Reports about the possibility of imposition of emergency or martial law have also echoed in the Supreme Court. On Thursday, Justice Javed Iqbal, the head of the 11-member larger bench, said the Supreme Court could neither be tamed by any threat of martial law nor taken hostage by any one. He reiterated on Friday that the court would not yield to any threat of imposition of martial law, emergency or extra-constitutional measures and would give its verdict according to the Constitution and law.
Come to think of it, if the situation has become so dire as to justify extraordinary measures, who should be held responsible? The irony here is these measures are being contemplated merely to protect the person who is at the helm for more than eight years. And credible opinion polls have confirmed that he has totally lost popular support. Is it that Musharraf is America's blind spot?
We can also see how our rulers turn a blind eye to reality that exists on the ground. For instance, there was that unbearably horrifying report about the beheading of four security personnel in Swat last week. It was published on Saturday, October 27, with some details of how the militants kidnapped three men of the Frontier Constabulary and two policemen and later they paraded beheaded bodies of three FC men and a constable in the bazaar. On the same day -- Saturday -- Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was in Karachi and he called on Pir Pagara with Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, and we had a graphic account of the jokes that they had traded. We were informed that the prime minister was confident of PML-Q's victory in the elections.
But can elections be held in these circumstances and can they be free and fair? With things falling apart -- yes, Yeats again -- and the centre not being able to hold, apprehensions about the promised transition to democracy are hard to dispel. To return to the meeting of the Citizens' Group in Quetta, a review of the overall political conditions in the country had prompted serious concern about the declining prospects for the holding of free and fair elections. And this assessment was founded on an objective analysis of concrete moves that have been made by the government.
In this gloom that surrounds us, the only note of cheer is provided by promotional television commercials that figure Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. Or do you look at them as an unintended spoof of our ruling politicians?
The writer is a staff member.
Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com
Why Not Dissolve Pakistan, Too?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/ali_eeefagh//2007/11/wgt_not_dussolve_pakistan_too.html.
Pakistan is not a country. It is a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state. It has other failed and failing peers in the Middle East, all fabricated during the 20th century. It is time to seriously review all of these structures and redraw the borderlines.
Pakistan was a phrase coined for an idealistic confederation of five Muslim provinces within the old British-controlled India (Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province or Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan). However, these are tribal lands with distinct traditions and have very little in common. These provinces were all knocked together, on presumption of a common religion, and a “dominion” was fabricated within the Commonwealth with self-governance authority akin to independence after World War II. It was all part of the post-war fire sale of territorial control of Britain. The ill-conceived plan even set up a separate territory of East Bengal as East Pakistan, a subcontinent away, with the rough-and-ready argument of common religious beliefs and a majority Muslim population. East Pakistan eventually became independent and renamed itself Bangladesh.
Pakistan’s short 60-year history is full of coups and raw, violent tribal rivalry, peppered by jailing or executing the previous rulers. Most recently, we saw a stark and bold example of such rivalry: a returning Pakistani politician, a former prime minister, was deported from his own country.
There is no commonly accepted language among these tribes and thus the official language of Pakistan is English.
For as long as I remember, Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan has always been a hub of instability, smuggling and violent crime. Pakistan is the main transit route for opium and heroin from Afghanistan, where more than 90% of the world’s opium supply is produced. In turn, that cash flow encourages money laundering, armed banditry, murder, violence and corruption. Therefore, several conflicting layers of official structure naturally form, each operating as lawless gangs or states within a state. Drug-infested territories have a poor record of development. Power and corruption leads to uneven, Byzantine relations between groups and to opaque alliances. Meanwhile, the masses remain in poverty: according to the World Bank, that’s about a third of all Pakistanis.
In this kind of political greenhouse of a country, no new politicians or doctrines surface. I wonder why news about Pakistani politics seems to be a game of musical chairs, with familiar names and faces periodically recycled.
There are other issues to ponder, namely a nuclear arsenal, missiles, a brisk small-arms export business (about $250 million a year) and the schizophrenic dual-tracked “friendship” with the U.S., al-Qaeda and Wahhabi extremists. Pakistan’s aimless Kashmir policies are perfect examples of circular political indecision. U.N. peacekeepers have remained stationed in Kashmir for more than three decades.
Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Pakistan is not a country. It is a failed British fantasy about the fabrication of a nation-state. It has other failed and failing peers in the Middle East, all fabricated during the 20th century. It is time to seriously review all of these structures and redraw the borderlines.
Pakistan was a phrase coined for an idealistic confederation of five Muslim provinces within the old British-controlled India (Punjab, Northwest Frontier Province or Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan). However, these are tribal lands with distinct traditions and have very little in common. These provinces were all knocked together, on presumption of a common religion, and a “dominion” was fabricated within the Commonwealth with self-governance authority akin to independence after World War II. It was all part of the post-war fire sale of territorial control of Britain. The ill-conceived plan even set up a separate territory of East Bengal as East Pakistan, a subcontinent away, with the rough-and-ready argument of common religious beliefs and a majority Muslim population. East Pakistan eventually became independent and renamed itself Bangladesh.
Pakistan’s short 60-year history is full of coups and raw, violent tribal rivalry, peppered by jailing or executing the previous rulers. Most recently, we saw a stark and bold example of such rivalry: a returning Pakistani politician, a former prime minister, was deported from his own country.
There is no commonly accepted language among these tribes and thus the official language of Pakistan is English.
For as long as I remember, Iran’s eastern border with Pakistan has always been a hub of instability, smuggling and violent crime. Pakistan is the main transit route for opium and heroin from Afghanistan, where more than 90% of the world’s opium supply is produced. In turn, that cash flow encourages money laundering, armed banditry, murder, violence and corruption. Therefore, several conflicting layers of official structure naturally form, each operating as lawless gangs or states within a state. Drug-infested territories have a poor record of development. Power and corruption leads to uneven, Byzantine relations between groups and to opaque alliances. Meanwhile, the masses remain in poverty: according to the World Bank, that’s about a third of all Pakistanis.
In this kind of political greenhouse of a country, no new politicians or doctrines surface. I wonder why news about Pakistani politics seems to be a game of musical chairs, with familiar names and faces periodically recycled.
There are other issues to ponder, namely a nuclear arsenal, missiles, a brisk small-arms export business (about $250 million a year) and the schizophrenic dual-tracked “friendship” with the U.S., al-Qaeda and Wahhabi extremists. Pakistan’s aimless Kashmir policies are perfect examples of circular political indecision. U.N. peacekeepers have remained stationed in Kashmir for more than three decades.
Pakistan is a relic set up as a counterweight to India -- and its tendency to tilt towards the Eastern Block. I think it is high time to revisit the old composite structure of five provinces combined into one artificial country. A redrawing of borders might serve useful and to cut through the farce. Let each province mature and declare independence. Some will eventually join their long-time tribal allies, leaving two or three independent lands and a more transparent political agenda.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Mr. V. Pirapaharan's message released by the LTTE
The Sinhala nation has taken the life of a political leader "deeply loved by the Tamil speaking world" and "greatly respected by the international community," said Velupillai Pirapaharan, the leader of Liberation Tigers, in a message to the Tamil people on Saturday, following the demise of LTTE's Political Head and Chief Negotiator, Brigadier S. P. Thamilchelvan. "I raised him as a great commander, an unparalleled political head, a diplomat who communicated with the entire world, and a skilled negotiator," Mr. Pirapaharan said. "Buried within his beautiful smile, I recognized, right from the beginning, a thousand profound meanings, his abilities, and his leadership qualities."
Full text of Mr. V. Pirapaharan's message released by the LTTE follows:
Head Quarters
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Tamil Eelam
3 November 2007
My beloved people
Despite the repeated and continuous calls from the international community to find a peaceful resolution to Tamil national question, we have not seen any goodwill from the Sinhala nation. We do not see the Buddhist universal love. Sinhala nation did not open its heart and send a peace message. On the contrary, it is sending war-vultures that are dropping giant bombs. It has cruelly killed our peace dove.
Sinhala nation has taken the life of a political leader deeply loved by the Tamil speaking world and greatly respected by the international community. It has taken away an unrivalled leader who has won the hearts of the people of Tamil Eelam. Tamil Eelam nation is confronting an unparalleled loss after losing the head of our political wing, Brig. S P Tamilselvan and five other LTTE members. Our people are in profound shock and sorrow.
S. P. Thamilchelvan
(1967 - 2007)
Tamilselvan was close to me ever since he joined our freedom movement. I loved him deeply. I taught him as my own beloved younger brother. Buried within his beautiful smile, I recognized, right from the beginning, a thousand profound meanings, his abilities, and his leadership qualities. I raised him as a great commander, an unparalleled political head, a diplomat who communicated with the entire world, and a skilled negotiator.
His thoughts were always about the liberation of the land and the people he so dearly loved. He longed for a free, honourable and safe life for our people. He was a fire that laboured selflessly and with determination towards the goal.
In a new form, he joins our liberation struggle which is moving on like a lengthy river of blaze. In this new form, he has set alight in our heavy hearts a deep yearning for the goal. He has nourished that yearning. Strengthened by his nourishment we will continue to travel on our path towards the goal with renewed determination.
Signed:
V. Pirapaharan
Leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Full text of Mr. V. Pirapaharan's message released by the LTTE follows:
Head Quarters
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Tamil Eelam
3 November 2007
My beloved people
Despite the repeated and continuous calls from the international community to find a peaceful resolution to Tamil national question, we have not seen any goodwill from the Sinhala nation. We do not see the Buddhist universal love. Sinhala nation did not open its heart and send a peace message. On the contrary, it is sending war-vultures that are dropping giant bombs. It has cruelly killed our peace dove.
Sinhala nation has taken the life of a political leader deeply loved by the Tamil speaking world and greatly respected by the international community. It has taken away an unrivalled leader who has won the hearts of the people of Tamil Eelam. Tamil Eelam nation is confronting an unparalleled loss after losing the head of our political wing, Brig. S P Tamilselvan and five other LTTE members. Our people are in profound shock and sorrow.
S. P. Thamilchelvan
(1967 - 2007)
Tamilselvan was close to me ever since he joined our freedom movement. I loved him deeply. I taught him as my own beloved younger brother. Buried within his beautiful smile, I recognized, right from the beginning, a thousand profound meanings, his abilities, and his leadership qualities. I raised him as a great commander, an unparalleled political head, a diplomat who communicated with the entire world, and a skilled negotiator.
His thoughts were always about the liberation of the land and the people he so dearly loved. He longed for a free, honourable and safe life for our people. He was a fire that laboured selflessly and with determination towards the goal.
In a new form, he joins our liberation struggle which is moving on like a lengthy river of blaze. In this new form, he has set alight in our heavy hearts a deep yearning for the goal. He has nourished that yearning. Strengthened by his nourishment we will continue to travel on our path towards the goal with renewed determination.
Signed:
V. Pirapaharan
Leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
In quotes: Pakistan emergency reaction
Source: BBC
Leaders in Pakistan and around the world have been reacting to the imposition of emergency rule by President Pervez Musharraf. He suspended the constitution, blaming judges for interfering and Islamist extremists for unprecedented levels of violence.
US SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE
"The US has made clear that it does not support extra-constitutional measures because those measures would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule.
"Whatever happens we will be urging for a quick return to a constitutional order, we will be urging that the commitment to hold free and fair elections be kept and we would be urging calm among the parties.
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN GORDON JOHNDROE
"This action is very disappointing. President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January and step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office,"
REHMAN CHISHTI, ADVISER TO EX-PRIME MINISTER BENAZIR BHUTTO
"I think these are desperate measures by a desperate man trying to cling to power. And I would certainly say this now puts an end to elections taking place in January.
"And on that basis, there is no other option than to go on the streets. And one has to look at what happened in Ukraine with the orange revolution. The people power can now prevent President Musharraf from being a supreme dictator."
FORMER PRIME MINISTER NAWAZ SHARIF
"We have never seen or heard of a crisis like this. For the first time in the 60-year history of Pakistan I am seeing today what the president of Pakistan has done and what the chief of army staff of Pakistan has done.
"He has taken certain actions using both his offices. In my opinion, both offices, the office of the president as well as the office of the chief of army staff, are involved in treason against Pakistan."
UK FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND
"All friends of Pakistan will be concerned by the turn of events today. We recognise the threat to peace and security faced by the country, but its future rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism.
"I am gravely concerned by the measures adopted today, which will take Pakistan further from these goals. It is vital that the government acts in accordance with the constitution, and abides by the commitment to hold free and fair elections on schedule which President Musharraf reiterated to the prime minister when they spoke on 1 November.
"We will raise our concerns about these developments at the highest levels..."
MAULANA FAZLUR REHMAN, HEAD OF MMA RELIGIOUS ALLIANCE
"The verdict about [the legality of] President Musharraf's re-election was expected, and it was probably going to go against the wishes of the government.
"The government had run out of options to prevent that from happening."
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE SAEED-UZ-ZAHMAN SIDDIQUE
"This emergency can be challenged in court. The court can weigh or judge whether there was any justification. It can declare it null and void.
"Even if there was a dispute between the judiciary and the government, they should not have imposed an emergency."
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AITZAZ AHSAN
"This the end for General Musharraf. If he had been a man of honour, he would have resigned when the chief justice was restored.
"The emergency will not prevent the lawyers and people of Pakistan from protesting against this unconstitutional and illegal move.
"Now is the time for us to get rid of Pervez Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf has ordered me to be put under house arrest for 30 days but he himself will be finished within 30 days. The countdown has started."
SHAHBAZ SHARIF, BROTHER OF NAWAZ SHARIF
"This is another dark chapter in Pakistan's history. Even after eight years the constitution of the country has been trampled.
"Who is responsible for this state of affairs? General Musharraf is president. He has his own cabinet - who is he blaming?"
INDIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN NAVTEJ SARNA
"We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through.
"We trust that conditions of normalcy will soon return, permitting Pakistan's transition to stability and democracy to continue."
HUMAYUN HAMIDZADA, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI
"We are concerned about the situation, but we don't want to prejudge the outcome.
"Relations [between the two countries] have been very good lately.
"We have been working closely on follow-up to the peace jirga [in August]. Those results could now be in jeopardy."
Text of Pakistan emergency declaration
Following is the text of the "Proclamation of emergency", declared by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on 3 November.
Whereas there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED [improvised explosive device] explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan;
Whereas there has also been a spate of attacks on state infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;
Whereas some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace;
Whereas there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular;
Whereas constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government; the police force has been completely demoralised and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and intelligence agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists;
Whereas some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued;
Whereas some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;
Whereas the government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the honourable judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and not assume charge of administration;
Whereas an important constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability;
Whereas the humiliating treatment meted out to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralised the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction;
Whereas the law and order situation in the country as well as the economy have been adversely affected and trichotomy of powers eroded;
Whereas a situation has thus arisen where the government of the country cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitution and as the constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;
And whereas the situation has been reviewed in meetings with the prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, I General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, proclaim emergency throughout Pakistan.
I hereby order and proclaim that the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance.
This proclamation shall come into force at once.
Leaders in Pakistan and around the world have been reacting to the imposition of emergency rule by President Pervez Musharraf. He suspended the constitution, blaming judges for interfering and Islamist extremists for unprecedented levels of violence.
US SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE
"The US has made clear that it does not support extra-constitutional measures because those measures would take Pakistan away from the path of democracy and civilian rule.
"Whatever happens we will be urging for a quick return to a constitutional order, we will be urging that the commitment to hold free and fair elections be kept and we would be urging calm among the parties.
WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN GORDON JOHNDROE
"This action is very disappointing. President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January and step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office,"
REHMAN CHISHTI, ADVISER TO EX-PRIME MINISTER BENAZIR BHUTTO
"I think these are desperate measures by a desperate man trying to cling to power. And I would certainly say this now puts an end to elections taking place in January.
"And on that basis, there is no other option than to go on the streets. And one has to look at what happened in Ukraine with the orange revolution. The people power can now prevent President Musharraf from being a supreme dictator."
FORMER PRIME MINISTER NAWAZ SHARIF
"We have never seen or heard of a crisis like this. For the first time in the 60-year history of Pakistan I am seeing today what the president of Pakistan has done and what the chief of army staff of Pakistan has done.
"He has taken certain actions using both his offices. In my opinion, both offices, the office of the president as well as the office of the chief of army staff, are involved in treason against Pakistan."
UK FOREIGN SECRETARY DAVID MILIBAND
"All friends of Pakistan will be concerned by the turn of events today. We recognise the threat to peace and security faced by the country, but its future rests on harnessing the power of democracy and the rule of law to achieve the goals of stability, development and countering terrorism.
"I am gravely concerned by the measures adopted today, which will take Pakistan further from these goals. It is vital that the government acts in accordance with the constitution, and abides by the commitment to hold free and fair elections on schedule which President Musharraf reiterated to the prime minister when they spoke on 1 November.
"We will raise our concerns about these developments at the highest levels..."
MAULANA FAZLUR REHMAN, HEAD OF MMA RELIGIOUS ALLIANCE
"The verdict about [the legality of] President Musharraf's re-election was expected, and it was probably going to go against the wishes of the government.
"The government had run out of options to prevent that from happening."
FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE SAEED-UZ-ZAHMAN SIDDIQUE
"This emergency can be challenged in court. The court can weigh or judge whether there was any justification. It can declare it null and void.
"Even if there was a dispute between the judiciary and the government, they should not have imposed an emergency."
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AITZAZ AHSAN
"This the end for General Musharraf. If he had been a man of honour, he would have resigned when the chief justice was restored.
"The emergency will not prevent the lawyers and people of Pakistan from protesting against this unconstitutional and illegal move.
"Now is the time for us to get rid of Pervez Musharraf. Pervez Musharraf has ordered me to be put under house arrest for 30 days but he himself will be finished within 30 days. The countdown has started."
SHAHBAZ SHARIF, BROTHER OF NAWAZ SHARIF
"This is another dark chapter in Pakistan's history. Even after eight years the constitution of the country has been trampled.
"Who is responsible for this state of affairs? General Musharraf is president. He has his own cabinet - who is he blaming?"
INDIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN NAVTEJ SARNA
"We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through.
"We trust that conditions of normalcy will soon return, permitting Pakistan's transition to stability and democracy to continue."
HUMAYUN HAMIDZADA, SPOKESMAN FOR AFGHAN PRESIDENT HAMID KARZAI
"We are concerned about the situation, but we don't want to prejudge the outcome.
"Relations [between the two countries] have been very good lately.
"We have been working closely on follow-up to the peace jirga [in August]. Those results could now be in jeopardy."
Text of Pakistan emergency declaration
Following is the text of the "Proclamation of emergency", declared by Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf on 3 November.
Whereas there is visible ascendancy in the activities of extremists and incidents of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings, IED [improvised explosive device] explosions, rocket firing and bomb explosions and the banding together of some militant groups have taken such activities to an unprecedented level of violent intensity posing a grave threat to the life and property of the citizens of Pakistan;
Whereas there has also been a spate of attacks on state infrastructure and on law enforcement agencies;
Whereas some members of the judiciary are working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism thereby weakening the government and the nation's resolve diluting the efficacy of its actions to control this menace;
Whereas there has been increasing interference by some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic growth, in particular;
Whereas constant interference in executive functions, including but not limited to the control of terrorist activity, economic policy, price controls, downsizing of corporations and urban planning, has weakened the writ of the government; the police force has been completely demoralised and is fast losing its efficacy to fight terrorism and intelligence agencies have been thwarted in their activities and prevented from pursuing terrorists;
Whereas some hard core militants, extremists, terrorists and suicide bombers, who were arrested and being investigated were ordered to be released. The persons so released have subsequently been involved in heinous terrorist activities, resulting in loss of human life and property. Militants across the country have, thus, been encouraged while law enforcement agencies subdued;
Whereas some judges by overstepping the limits of judicial authority have taken over the executive and legislative functions;
Whereas the government is committed to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law and holds the superior judiciary in high esteem, it is nonetheless of paramount importance that the honourable judges confine the scope of their activity to the judicial function and not assume charge of administration;
Whereas an important constitutional institution, the Supreme Judicial Council, has been made entirely irrelevant and non est by a recent order and judges have, thus, made themselves immune from inquiry into their conduct and put themselves beyond accountability;
Whereas the humiliating treatment meted out to government officials by some members of the judiciary on a routine basis during court proceedings has demoralised the civil bureaucracy and senior government functionaries, to avoid being harassed, prefer inaction;
Whereas the law and order situation in the country as well as the economy have been adversely affected and trichotomy of powers eroded;
Whereas a situation has thus arisen where the government of the country cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitution and as the constitution provides no solution for this situation, there is no way out except through emergent and extraordinary measures;
And whereas the situation has been reviewed in meetings with the prime minister, governors of all four provinces and with the chairman joint chiefs of staff committee, chiefs of the armed forces, vice chief of army staff and corps commanders of the Pakistan army;
Now, therefore, in pursuance of the deliberations and decisions of the said meetings, I General Pervez Musharraf, Chief of Army Staff, proclaim emergency throughout Pakistan.
I hereby order and proclaim that the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan shall remain in abeyance.
This proclamation shall come into force at once.
Interview : Environmental campaigner Sunita Narain
The Interview, BBC
Jeo Jeo Sunita .... Excellent Interview... KEEP IT UP
At the start of a week of special programming about climate change on the BBC World Service, leading Indian environmental campaigner, Sunita Narain talks to George Arney on The Interview.
"You first have to get the rich world to really cut emissions"
Sunita tells us why she backs the Indian government in refusing to join international agreements to set limits on carbon emissions.
She explains why she thinks India can still steer a different course in development than the West.
And she describes the social conscience which has led her to dedicate her life to working for India's land and its people. CLICK TO LISTEN
Musharraf declares martial law. What next?
http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2007/11/03/musharraf-declares-martial-law-what-next/
Extracts from our September 2007 assessment…
The imposition of martial law will plunge Pakistan into its deepest political crisis since 1971
Scenario 2 - Musharraf ruling under martial law. Musharraf would impose martial law after running out of options to remain both president and army chief. The higher judiciary would be required to re-take their oaths of allegiance, and those refusing to do so would dropped from the Bench. The federal parliament and the provincial assemblies would be suspended and Musharraf would seek to govern through the nazims, or local government officials elected on non-party basis. The Army would be further entrenched in power, occupying key positions in Musharraf’s cabinet as well as in the bureaucracy. Neither Bhutto nor Sharif would be allowed to return to Pakistan, and a crackdown would put political and civil society leaders under arrest.
Imposition of martial law will precipitate an immediate political crisis: popular opposition to Musharraf is likely to take the shape of general strikes and street protests, causing martial law administrators to employ strong repressive measures. Criminal and violent elements – from political party activists to sectarian groups – are likely to use the breakdown of law & order to engage in acts of violence and criminality. While the Army could possibly employ even greater force against insurgents in Balochistan, there is an even chance that the BLA might be able to retaliate by carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities. The Army will find it even harder to trade off having to carry out operations in the tribal areas and retaining US support.
The imposition of martial law will plunge Pakistan into its deepest political crisis since 1971, when the civil war led to the secession of its eastern wing. The Army itself is likely to come under attack from various quarters leading to large numbers of desertions and mutinies by units sent to tribal areas. While there the chances of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into unauthorised hands is remote, it is possible that nuclear material and technology may be stolen. It is almost certain that Pakistan will witness large scale capital flight, drying of foreign investment and disruptions to the economy. Moreover, the turmoil in Pakistan is likely to spill over into the region in the form of terrorist attacks in India, strengthening of the Taleban in Afghanistan and could even extend to the China’s Xinjiang province.
Extracts from our September 2007 assessment…
The imposition of martial law will plunge Pakistan into its deepest political crisis since 1971
Scenario 2 - Musharraf ruling under martial law. Musharraf would impose martial law after running out of options to remain both president and army chief. The higher judiciary would be required to re-take their oaths of allegiance, and those refusing to do so would dropped from the Bench. The federal parliament and the provincial assemblies would be suspended and Musharraf would seek to govern through the nazims, or local government officials elected on non-party basis. The Army would be further entrenched in power, occupying key positions in Musharraf’s cabinet as well as in the bureaucracy. Neither Bhutto nor Sharif would be allowed to return to Pakistan, and a crackdown would put political and civil society leaders under arrest.
Imposition of martial law will precipitate an immediate political crisis: popular opposition to Musharraf is likely to take the shape of general strikes and street protests, causing martial law administrators to employ strong repressive measures. Criminal and violent elements – from political party activists to sectarian groups – are likely to use the breakdown of law & order to engage in acts of violence and criminality. While the Army could possibly employ even greater force against insurgents in Balochistan, there is an even chance that the BLA might be able to retaliate by carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities. The Army will find it even harder to trade off having to carry out operations in the tribal areas and retaining US support.
The imposition of martial law will plunge Pakistan into its deepest political crisis since 1971, when the civil war led to the secession of its eastern wing. The Army itself is likely to come under attack from various quarters leading to large numbers of desertions and mutinies by units sent to tribal areas. While there the chances of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons falling into unauthorised hands is remote, it is possible that nuclear material and technology may be stolen. It is almost certain that Pakistan will witness large scale capital flight, drying of foreign investment and disruptions to the economy. Moreover, the turmoil in Pakistan is likely to spill over into the region in the form of terrorist attacks in India, strengthening of the Taleban in Afghanistan and could even extend to the China’s Xinjiang province.
President Declares State Of Emergency
Pakistani President Musharraf has declared a state of emergency after rising violence and political turmoil. The cabinet is currently meeting to approve the President's dramatic move.
November 02, 2007
‘Probe panel diluted facts about anti-Sikh riots’
More than 2,700 killed in 1984 riots, and just 13 punished for murder: book
A book ‘When a Tree Shook Delhi’ claims to give an “uncensored” insight into the events
http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/31/stories/2007103153850300.htm
It details incidents which show complicity of the police in the riots after Indira’s assassination
Ignoring the aggressors, police cracked down on the Sikhs who were defending themselves
New Delhi: A new book on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the capital claims that the Ranganath Misra Commission which probed the carnage presented a “diluted” version of events and also blames the police for the mass killings.
“When a Tree Shook Delhi”, written by senior editor Manoj Mitta and advocate for many of the victims’ families, H. S. Phoolka, claims to give an “uncensored” insight into the events.
It details incidents, particularly in East Delhi, which show complicity of the police in the rioting that broke out after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984.
Beginning with the attack on the then President Giani Zail Singh’s cavalcade in front of AIIMS, the book traces the genesis of the violence through eyewitness accounts and the investigations by Mr. Phoolka as counsel for the victims. “Far from booking aggressors, the police cracked down on the victims -- the Sikhs who had been exercising the right of self defence at home,” it says.
“The essence of all the findings on the Block 11 events in Kalyanpuri is unmistakable: that the police colluded with a mob to kill members of a minority community,” says the book.
On the Ranganath Misra Commission constituted to probe the violence, it says “given the circumstances in which it was appointed, the Misra Commission faced a credibility crisis from its very birth. For almost six months, the government had blatantly stonewalled all demands for an inquiry into the carnage”.
“The Rajiv Gandhi regime made no bones about the fact that it had appointed the inquiry merely to pave the way for an accord on the long festering Punjab problem,” the book goes on to say.
Casting aspersions on the probe held by the Misra Commission, Mr. Phoolka says, “....Misra had not just shut out the public and the press. Unknown to us, we had also been excluded from crucial parts of the inquiry”.
Comparing the situation in Delhi with that in Kolkata which had also witnessed initial violence against the Sikhs, the book says “the failure of Delhi authorities to respond to the early signals of trouble contrasted with the alacrity displayed by their counterparts in Kolkata”.
“Significantly, mob violence broke out in Kolkata even before it did in Delhi. The violence, however, fizzled out in Kolkata because at the first sign of attacks on Sikhs, the local government led by Communists immediately called in the Army to restore law and order,” it reads. -- PTI
By IANS
Wednesday October 31, 09:31 AM
New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) Nearly a quarter century after horrific anti-Sikh violence in the national capital left 2,733 innocents dead, just 13 people have been punished in half a dozen murder cases, says a new book.
'In all other cases, either the police have closed the file or the courts have acquitted the accused. Symbolism assumes greater significance, given the gap between the rhetoric and reality of the rule of law in India,' said the book, 'When a Tree Shook Delhi' (Roli). The book hit the stores this week.
'In a larger perspective, this shows that for all the material progress made by India, its legal culture is still far from developed,' the book said.
'If the struggle for justice could not secure the conviction of a single political leader or police officer; if so many institutions collapsed during and after the 1984 carnage; if Delhi set a precedent for mass killings in Gujarat, the civil society cannot escape blame for lack of 'due diligence', and for neglecting the duty of 'eternal vigilance',' it added.
Authored by journalist Manoj Mitta and advocate H.S. Phoolka, the book takes an overview of the butchery that took place on the streets of New Delhi and elsewhere in the country's north following the Oct 31, 1984, assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi at the hands of two of her Sikh bodyguards.
The book is based mainly on the wealth of evidence that emerged in the course of the Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission of inquiry into the 1984 violence. The report was made public in 2005.
Besides a journalist's reconstruction of the terrible killings and destruction of Sikh property in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assassination, the book also has a first person account of the struggle for justice by victims of the violence.
The book praises Maxwell Pereira, who then was deputy head of the Delhi Police north district unit, for ably controlling the violence that erupted outside the Sis Ganj gurudwara on Chandni Chowk in the city's old quarters, despite having few men with him.
'Unlike his counterparts in other parts of Delhi, Pereira did not disarm the Sikhs and leave them at the mercy of the mobs. Instead, he persuaded them to go inside the gurudwara by promising to provide them security. He kept his word and dealt with the mobs sternly despite having a meagre force at his command.
'It took a lot of courage and ingenuity to do so. Once he got the Sikhs to go indoors, the mobs from both directions were emboldened to pelt stones with greater vigour. All that Pereira and his men could do in return was threaten to fire with their revolvers.
'In a gritty display of policing, they managed to keep the crowd at a safe distance from the gurdwara till a small reinforcement came along with tear smoke ammunition.'
When the officer saw a mob looting a watch shop owned by a Sikh at Chandni Chowk, he ordered his men to fire at the miscreants. A constable fired three rounds, killing one rioter instantly.
'Driving home the rule of law, Pereira announced then and there a reward of Rs. 200 to the constable, making sure the reward was heard by everyone as he announced it on a loud hailer. The firing and the reward had the desired - and expected - effect. Sis Ganj Gurudwara was saved as the mobs melted away.'
The book refers to the apology to the Sikh community and the nation Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tendered in parliament over the 1984 violence.
'It is no credit, however, to the Indian democracy that it took so long for the government to apologise in the parliament for a massacre of Sikhs and that it finally took a Sikh prime minister to do so.
'Whatever the circumstances, the symbolic value of Manmohan Singh's apology cannot be underestimated. It is in keeping with the spirit of 'truth and reconciliation' catching on in the world.'
Victims of 1984 riots hold demonstration, seek justice
By IANS
Wednesday October 31, 03:15 PM
New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) Victims of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 staged a demonstration in the capital Wednesday seeking the arrest of those still at large despite committing heinous acts of crime against their community.
A large number of victims and their family members, including women and children, assembled at the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat and marched towards the Supreme Court to air their grievances.
They shouted slogans against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Congress leaders Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar.
According to the protestors, around 10,000 of those accused in various cases of rioting and worse are still roaming freely in Delhi and no action has been taken against them.
The spokesperson of the All India Sikh Conference, Gurcharan Singh Babbar, said: 'We want the Supreme Court to answer for its failure in taking any action in the case of the perpetrators of the violence of 1984.
'If the Supreme Court can take cognisance of issues like the spread of dengue in Delhi, sealing of commercial enterprises being run from residential premises, the fodder scam of Bihar and pollution in the Yamuna, isn't the matter of Sikhs important enough for it to take action?'
Babbar said that 5,327 members of the Sikh community were killed in Delhi in the violence that followed the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi on Oct 31, 1984.
The protestors carried placards with slogans like 'Is sealing more important than 10,000 killers', 'How will Indian judiciary prove its credibility about 1984 carnage' and 'We have lost faith in the judicial system'.
The protestors demanded that all the accused in the 1984 riots cases who are still roaming free be booked and action taken against them. They wanted the government to be made a party in the case in order to ensure its accountability.
Babbar said: 'We want that all the affidavits filed before various commissions set up to look into the matter and the reports of these commissions be put before the Supreme Court so that it may take up the matter in a proper manner.'
When asked about the Rs.75 billion package announced by the government last year for the victims of the 1984 violence, Babbar said: 'The question today is not of relief. We are not talking of relief. We are talking of justice. We want it soon.'
He claimed that the victims are facing lots of problems in claiming the economic relief on account of bureaucratic procedures.
A delegation of the protestors submitted a petition enlisting their problems to the registrar of the Supreme Court.
A book ‘When a Tree Shook Delhi’ claims to give an “uncensored” insight into the events
http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/31/stories/2007103153850300.htm
It details incidents which show complicity of the police in the riots after Indira’s assassination
Ignoring the aggressors, police cracked down on the Sikhs who were defending themselves
New Delhi: A new book on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in the capital claims that the Ranganath Misra Commission which probed the carnage presented a “diluted” version of events and also blames the police for the mass killings.
“When a Tree Shook Delhi”, written by senior editor Manoj Mitta and advocate for many of the victims’ families, H. S. Phoolka, claims to give an “uncensored” insight into the events.
It details incidents, particularly in East Delhi, which show complicity of the police in the rioting that broke out after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination on October 31, 1984.
Beginning with the attack on the then President Giani Zail Singh’s cavalcade in front of AIIMS, the book traces the genesis of the violence through eyewitness accounts and the investigations by Mr. Phoolka as counsel for the victims. “Far from booking aggressors, the police cracked down on the victims -- the Sikhs who had been exercising the right of self defence at home,” it says.
“The essence of all the findings on the Block 11 events in Kalyanpuri is unmistakable: that the police colluded with a mob to kill members of a minority community,” says the book.
On the Ranganath Misra Commission constituted to probe the violence, it says “given the circumstances in which it was appointed, the Misra Commission faced a credibility crisis from its very birth. For almost six months, the government had blatantly stonewalled all demands for an inquiry into the carnage”.
“The Rajiv Gandhi regime made no bones about the fact that it had appointed the inquiry merely to pave the way for an accord on the long festering Punjab problem,” the book goes on to say.
Casting aspersions on the probe held by the Misra Commission, Mr. Phoolka says, “....Misra had not just shut out the public and the press. Unknown to us, we had also been excluded from crucial parts of the inquiry”.
Comparing the situation in Delhi with that in Kolkata which had also witnessed initial violence against the Sikhs, the book says “the failure of Delhi authorities to respond to the early signals of trouble contrasted with the alacrity displayed by their counterparts in Kolkata”.
“Significantly, mob violence broke out in Kolkata even before it did in Delhi. The violence, however, fizzled out in Kolkata because at the first sign of attacks on Sikhs, the local government led by Communists immediately called in the Army to restore law and order,” it reads. -- PTI
By IANS
Wednesday October 31, 09:31 AM
New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) Nearly a quarter century after horrific anti-Sikh violence in the national capital left 2,733 innocents dead, just 13 people have been punished in half a dozen murder cases, says a new book.
'In all other cases, either the police have closed the file or the courts have acquitted the accused. Symbolism assumes greater significance, given the gap between the rhetoric and reality of the rule of law in India,' said the book, 'When a Tree Shook Delhi' (Roli). The book hit the stores this week.
'In a larger perspective, this shows that for all the material progress made by India, its legal culture is still far from developed,' the book said.
'If the struggle for justice could not secure the conviction of a single political leader or police officer; if so many institutions collapsed during and after the 1984 carnage; if Delhi set a precedent for mass killings in Gujarat, the civil society cannot escape blame for lack of 'due diligence', and for neglecting the duty of 'eternal vigilance',' it added.
Authored by journalist Manoj Mitta and advocate H.S. Phoolka, the book takes an overview of the butchery that took place on the streets of New Delhi and elsewhere in the country's north following the Oct 31, 1984, assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi at the hands of two of her Sikh bodyguards.
The book is based mainly on the wealth of evidence that emerged in the course of the Justice G.T. Nanavati Commission of inquiry into the 1984 violence. The report was made public in 2005.
Besides a journalist's reconstruction of the terrible killings and destruction of Sikh property in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assassination, the book also has a first person account of the struggle for justice by victims of the violence.
The book praises Maxwell Pereira, who then was deputy head of the Delhi Police north district unit, for ably controlling the violence that erupted outside the Sis Ganj gurudwara on Chandni Chowk in the city's old quarters, despite having few men with him.
'Unlike his counterparts in other parts of Delhi, Pereira did not disarm the Sikhs and leave them at the mercy of the mobs. Instead, he persuaded them to go inside the gurudwara by promising to provide them security. He kept his word and dealt with the mobs sternly despite having a meagre force at his command.
'It took a lot of courage and ingenuity to do so. Once he got the Sikhs to go indoors, the mobs from both directions were emboldened to pelt stones with greater vigour. All that Pereira and his men could do in return was threaten to fire with their revolvers.
'In a gritty display of policing, they managed to keep the crowd at a safe distance from the gurdwara till a small reinforcement came along with tear smoke ammunition.'
When the officer saw a mob looting a watch shop owned by a Sikh at Chandni Chowk, he ordered his men to fire at the miscreants. A constable fired three rounds, killing one rioter instantly.
'Driving home the rule of law, Pereira announced then and there a reward of Rs. 200 to the constable, making sure the reward was heard by everyone as he announced it on a loud hailer. The firing and the reward had the desired - and expected - effect. Sis Ganj Gurudwara was saved as the mobs melted away.'
The book refers to the apology to the Sikh community and the nation Prime Minister Manmohan Singh tendered in parliament over the 1984 violence.
'It is no credit, however, to the Indian democracy that it took so long for the government to apologise in the parliament for a massacre of Sikhs and that it finally took a Sikh prime minister to do so.
'Whatever the circumstances, the symbolic value of Manmohan Singh's apology cannot be underestimated. It is in keeping with the spirit of 'truth and reconciliation' catching on in the world.'
Victims of 1984 riots hold demonstration, seek justice
By IANS
Wednesday October 31, 03:15 PM
New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) Victims of the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 staged a demonstration in the capital Wednesday seeking the arrest of those still at large despite committing heinous acts of crime against their community.
A large number of victims and their family members, including women and children, assembled at the memorial of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat and marched towards the Supreme Court to air their grievances.
They shouted slogans against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Congress leaders Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar.
According to the protestors, around 10,000 of those accused in various cases of rioting and worse are still roaming freely in Delhi and no action has been taken against them.
The spokesperson of the All India Sikh Conference, Gurcharan Singh Babbar, said: 'We want the Supreme Court to answer for its failure in taking any action in the case of the perpetrators of the violence of 1984.
'If the Supreme Court can take cognisance of issues like the spread of dengue in Delhi, sealing of commercial enterprises being run from residential premises, the fodder scam of Bihar and pollution in the Yamuna, isn't the matter of Sikhs important enough for it to take action?'
Babbar said that 5,327 members of the Sikh community were killed in Delhi in the violence that followed the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi on Oct 31, 1984.
The protestors carried placards with slogans like 'Is sealing more important than 10,000 killers', 'How will Indian judiciary prove its credibility about 1984 carnage' and 'We have lost faith in the judicial system'.
The protestors demanded that all the accused in the 1984 riots cases who are still roaming free be booked and action taken against them. They wanted the government to be made a party in the case in order to ensure its accountability.
Babbar said: 'We want that all the affidavits filed before various commissions set up to look into the matter and the reports of these commissions be put before the Supreme Court so that it may take up the matter in a proper manner.'
When asked about the Rs.75 billion package announced by the government last year for the victims of the 1984 violence, Babbar said: 'The question today is not of relief. We are not talking of relief. We are talking of justice. We want it soon.'
He claimed that the victims are facing lots of problems in claiming the economic relief on account of bureaucratic procedures.
A delegation of the protestors submitted a petition enlisting their problems to the registrar of the Supreme Court.
Africa Insight: How much longer will Sudan peace deal hold?
http://www.nationmedia.com/
Story by DEAN DIYAN
Publication Date: 11/2/2007
Khartoum should have seen it coming. For nearly a year now, anger has been building up in the South over the National Congress Party-led (NCP) government’s refusal to implement the peace agreement.
The NCP has rejected the recommendations of international experts assigned to draw the boundary of the oil-rich Abyei, yet the Comprehensive Peace Agreement bound the two parties to the experts’ decision. And rather than withdrawing to the north, Sudan’s armed forces have reinforced around the oil areas, yet they should have moved by July 9.
The north-south borders — which have a profound impact on the census in February and the elections and referendum afterwards — are yet to be demarcated, partly because Khartoum says some documents got burnt.
The north refused to agree to a reshuffle a Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) ministers, yet the CPA gives powers to the SPLM chairman to dismiss or appoint SPLM ministers.
A week after Southern Sudan announced that it had recalled its ministers and presidential advisers serving in the Government of National Unity, I strolled along the dirt road to the plush venue of the SPLM meeting.
Upstairs, in a meeting room, officials held discussions late into the night as they hammered out positions on the communiqué they would issue a week later. After opening the meeting, Southern Sudan President Salva Kiir went to tour the states bordering north Sudan.
The air smelled of impending doom.
“We are going back to war,” a security official remarked. “Salva Kiir has gone to mobilise.”
Word spread, even before the meeting ended, that the partnership between the SPLM and the NCP had ended.
President Kiir had, indeed, gone to tour the states bordering northern Sudan, but it was to assess the impact of floods, not mobilise for war.
Five days later, the SPLM Political Bureau recalled its ministers and presidential advisers in the national government.
“Our ministers will not report to work until these contentious issues are resolved,” SPLM Secretary-General Pagan Amum told journalists.
That day, Juba stood still. Not from a stampede nor from war rhetoric and a call on people to mobilise for war. It was a stillness borne of a feeling that something new was on the way.
People curled by battery-powered radio sets, whose broadcasts were drowned in the blare of the generators that power much of the town. Still, the town was calm. It was the sight of a nation psyched up for war, a nation that has been waiting for this war.
By some estimates, more than half the population of Southern Sudan has seen only war. Old people have never seen peace, except the lulls immediately following the signing of peace agreements. The 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement ended in 1983 after then President Jaffer Numeiri’s administration abrogated the truce. The truce in 1997 with South Sudan President Dr Riek Machar’s South Sudan Defence Forces, a breakaway rebel group from the Sudan People Liberation Army, ended in 2000 after it became clear that the mainly Arab north was only interested in it as long as it served its interests of subjugating the black and the largely animist south.
As a result, many people in Juba see the CPA, signed in Naivasha, Kenya, merely as a temporary lull in an ongoing war. They have got accustomed to waiting.
On the other side of town, President Kiir moved about much more like a statesman than a commander-in-chief faced with an impending war.
While walking out of a meeting with investors planning what is perhaps this region’s largest project — $1.5 billion in three years,— Kiir stopped briefly at a restaurant to share a joke with a journalist and other SPLM officials.
Throughout this standoff — at a church service and while addressing demonstrators — Kiir has maintained that the SPLM will not go back to war
But if there is fighting, the South Sudan President said, “We can fight, and what is wrong with that?”
The South does not need a war with the north, so why fight unless attacked? The issue that triggered the last wars — oppression — has nearly been eradicated. With the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the south not only runs nearly all its own affairs, but also has the right to determine its destiny in a referendum come 2011. Khartoum doesn’t appoint the South’s ministers, governors (except one state that is shared with the SPLM), commissioners, or president.
It’s the National Congress Party that needs a war to reverse any gains made by the south. But the signs are — and nearly everybody here agrees — that the NCP can’t afford a war front with the south.
In the west of the country, Darfuris, who fought the Arabs’ war against the black south, are fighting their own war for self-determination. The people of eastern Sudan are fighting the NCP government. The Nuba Mountains in the north is restive. And in Khartoum, the Islamists are furiously knocking at the door, hoping to rid the country of the moderate wing of the NCP government.
It’s the south that is holding the northern government together, much in the same way Darfur and Eastern Sudan held successive Khartoum regimes together against the south.
Another war would also be costly for the NCP because the south is much more united. Southern tribal quarrels still abound, but with remarkably reduced rancor, and with less likelihood they would degenerate into gun battles as often happened during the civil war, when rival tribal militias fought along each side.
When I arrived in Juba a year ago, anti-Dinka feelings were so strong that at one time, chiefs met and decided to chase the Dinka out of Equatoria.
But when one has been here long enough, one understands the venomous anti-Dinka feelings, especially in South Sudan’s capital town: The town was part of the NCP machine during the war, and it was only natural that people resisted the reversal of dining table roles that favoured the tribe that formed the bulk of the rebel outfit. Anti-Dinka feelings have since subsided.
Many agree that the unity among Southerners owes much to Salva Kiir’s pragmatism. For instance, it is widely held in Juba that Kiir’s ascendancy to power forestalled a war that was about to break out because then SPLM chairman, John Garang, was not ready to reconcile with Southern militia who fought alongside Khartoum. This included the largest group, the South Sudan Defence Forces, commanded by Lt Gen Paulino Matip.
It is said that when Garang went to Khartoum, he initially refused to meet Matip, whose militia operated in the oil-rich states where he hails from.
Kiir, on the other hand, embraced Matip, and even made him deputy commander-in-chief. Some people believe that Khartoum wanted Matip to destabilise the SPLA from within. If that is true, then the reverse has happened.
This southern unity Kiir seemingly sought to enhance when, a day to the SPLM Political Bureau meeting, he promoted the Speaker of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly, and easily the most revered figure in the three states at the lower end of the south, to SPLM deputy chairperson, alongside Vice-President Riek Machar, and Maliik Agar, governor of Blue Nile State in the north. Machar had in July lost his post as Housing minister, partly because quarrels with Dr Garang’s widow, Rebecca Nyandeng, were seen as destructive to the nascent government.
The quarrels sank to a level where Nyandeng refused to recognise Machar as vice-president. Machar has clout in the northern regions of Southern Sudan. Meanwhile, Agar’s promotion was largely seen as an attempt to woo the northerners in the Nuba Mountains who supported the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), but who have been complaining that the south dumped them immediately after it climbed up the ladder.
If the south has moved ahead — no matter how slowly — to mend historical tribal divisions, the north does not seem to have noticed.
For example, when Kiir sent the ministerial reshuffle list to Khartoum, President Omar el Bashir asked him why he wanted to move Foreign Affairs Minister Lam Akol, according to one source. Bashir sees Akol as effective, the south sees Akol as a man who has sold his soul and the region to Bashir. Bashir proposed the names of those he believed Kiir should reshuffle. When Kiir declined and Bashir didn’t reshuffle the ministers, Kiir recalled some of the SPLM ministers, one by one, and reassigned them different posts. The problem with that strategy was that he couldn’t swear in replacements.
It is surprising that al Bashir even considered asking Kiir to submit a different list. But by so doing, he has played right into the hands of a pulsating independence wave sweeping across southern Sudan. The secessionists have one more weapon to use against unity: the north, despite the constitution and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is not prepared to look at them as any more than former servants supposed to do the its bidding.
Khartoum, Southerners say, has hang-ups from the 60 through the 90s when the south was good only as long as it was divided and they could rule it.
During the current crisis, it seems the north’s strategy has been to paint the south as disjointed and divided. Two days after the south’s walk-out from the national government, a presidential adviser told the press in Khartoum that the South was divided over the resolution, yet only one state minister had cried out — not against the decision, but that he didn’t know how to survive without a job.
Bashir met Joseph Okello, the leader of the Union of Sudan African Parties, a secessionist political party that proclaimed itself mediator, but he first declined to meet Machar, whom Kiir sent with the South’s resolutions. Perhaps with the assurance of people who knew they had the upper hand, Machar’s team left the resolutions at the Republican Palace in Khartoum and headed back to Juba. Machar was stopped just as he was leaving; Apparently, Bashir had had a change of heart and would meet him. But Bashir had no choice. Even the political party that offered to mediate later supported the SPLM; it would be political suicide to oppose such a decision in the South.
In return, Bashir announced a ministerial reshuffle ahead of a meeting with Kiir.
After a four-hour meeting, Kiir and Bashir disagreed. Kiir flew back to the South. The reshuffle, Presidential Affairs minister Luka Biong told national television, “is at the bottom of our demands”.
His comments are an apparent reaction to sections of the international community and analysts who, to the surprise of many, reduced the confrontation to a disagreement over a ministerial list. In such reports, which reduce the confrontation to a petty quarrel over posts while silent on the major concerns, some Southerners sense that sections of the international community are trying to arm-twist the South into returning to government.
Arabs and Arab governments openly work against secession because it chips away at the Arab empire. And whether true or not, Southerners feel that the current US administration’s policy is for unity, so that the South can serve as a counterpoint to plots by Islamists to overrun Sudan.
Despite backing by sections of the international community, Khartoum’s failure to read the South’s reaction is its Achilles’ heel.
This is not to say that the south doesn’t have its own Achilles’ heel. The South’s is its failure to diversify its sources of income. It depends entirely on Khartoum’s goodwill to send the monthly oil money on time. Every month, the ministries wait for the fluctuating oil money — between $60m and $120m — to fund the government’s entire budget.
This could be Khartoum’s weapon against it. Bashir’s government could ignore the south and punish it by withholding the monthly budget.
That, however, would be a direct violation of the peace agreement. And with the people psyched up for secession, it a decision to withhold oil money would only lead to what the south is clamouring for: A unilateral declaration of independence.
After living in Juba for a year, I have not found a single Southerner who wants unity. The mistrust of the Arabic north won’t die tomorrow just because that is what sections of the international community want.
To keep the country together, the north must rebuild trust. One way would be by the ruling party fielding a Southerner for president in 2009. But the north is currently not winning over any Southerner by its failure to implement key aspects of the peace agreement.
Khartoum could be tempted to react to a declaration of independence with war. But wars for independence are rather difficult to defeat because they tend to galvanise the population behind the insurgents. Perhaps nothing in the South unites the people like the word “Jallaba”, as they call Arabs because of the brown skin, but voiced with deep anger.
“With a war, it’s not the weapons that count,” Nhial Bol, editor-in-chief of The Citizen, said. “It’s the people, and they decide, they can fight whether it is with sticks and stones.”
The Biafra insurgents lost largely because the Cold War politics was stacked against them, with the West interested in them only as long as they remained part of Nigeria to provide a check against the Nigerian central government. With the Cold War over, not many powers would put themselves on the line for another country embroiled in a civil war, which explains why the Yugoslavian and Eritrean wars succeeded.
A war could also disrupt the oil supplies on which Khartoum relies to fight on its other war fronts.
It’s not lost on Southerners that Khartoum can’t go the war road. Nor is it lost on them that the Arabs are stalling over the peace agreement. The Arabs, the Southerners say, want to resolve the Darfur war quickly, which would free them to fight another war with the South, rather than implement the peace agreement.
As news filtered through from Khartoum that Kiir had walked out of the meeting with Bashir without agreement, Juba seemed to erupt into a celebratory mood.
“This is the best decision they have ever made,” Luka Mariak, a deputy communications officer at the Presidency, said of the refusal by the south to rejoin government even after Kiir’s meeting with al Bashir. “This is the right time to take that decision.”
The south has given the north up to January 9, the anniversary of the signing of the CPA, to respond. That date could as well read Independence Day. A unilateral declaration of independence by the South could see the other marginalised groups in Darfur, Eastern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains unilaterally seek independence.
And with the oil supplies possibly disrupted in the south, the NCP regime would not have the resources to buy political loyalty and fend off the Islamists in Khartoum, who are possibly baying for President al Bashir’s blood, annoyed that he has sold out to the US.
Considering the wave for independence, the international community has two options: Push for Sudan’s unity and risk a messy backlash, or force Khartoum to implement the peace treaty to the letter and hope that this wins the South’s trust and reign in the pro-independence wave.
The south’s walkout of government is not a checkmate, still, it’s a check.
The chips are so stacked against the NCP — to say otherwise is spurious — this time round that, perhaps for the first time in Sudan’s history, the north has one choice: do the South’s bidding. The alternatives would be ugly.
Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group’s Africa Media Network Project.
NIGERIA: Navy kills 7 militants, loses 1 officer in gun battle
Source: Vanguard Media Limited
Written by Kingsley Omonobi, Emma Arubi
Friday, 02 November 2007
ABUJA—THE Nigerian Navy yesterday explained its version of the attack on its Warship in the Niger Delta by militants saying its personnel killed seven militants while one Naval personnel on ‘lookout duty’ was killed when the militants in four boats attempted to attack the ship, NNS Obula. According to the Naval High Command, the Naval Officer, who was performing the ‘lookout duty’ observed that some boats carrying suspicious persons were approaching the Naval ship at about 2 am Wednesday and he immediately raised an alarm resulting in his being shot at and killed immediately.
“Security men on guard immediately responded and opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
A statement signed by the Director of Naval Information, Capt. Henry Babalola reads, “The Nigerian Navy’s attention is drawn to the rather distorted version of her ship, NNS Obula’s encounter with sea robbers posing as militants, off Finnuwa oil field in the early hours of 31st October 2007”
“The ship was on routine patrol in an area where fishing trawlers largely operate due to upsurge in attacks when a lookout (Watchman) on the ship observed that a boat was approaching menacingly. He raised an alarm and he was killed instantly.
Security men on guard immediately opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
“The whole idea is to scare the fishing trawlers into believing that the Navy was incapable of protecting them. This has fallen flat on their face as NNS Obula, joined by other ships are still on task.”
Reiterating that the Nigerian Navy will continue to perform her statutory policing functions, the statement “warned of very dire consequences if sea robbers and other miscreants do not desist from attacks on their facilities.”
“The need for political solution to the Niger Delta problem and matured restraint from the Nigerian Navy should not be mistaken for lack of firepower to curtail illegalities in the Niger Delta” the statement further said.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) claimed responsibility for the attack saying it was carried out to prove to oil companies in the Niger Delta that the military presence could not prevent them from carrying out any action if they so wished.
ABUJA—THE Nigerian Navy yesterday explained its version of the attack on its Warship in the Niger Delta by militants saying its personnel killed seven militants while one Naval personnel on ‘lookout duty’ was killed when the militants in four boats attempted to attack the ship, NNS Obula. According to the Naval High Command, the Naval Officer, who was performing the ‘lookout duty’ observed that some boats carrying suspicious persons were approaching the Naval ship at about 2 am Wednesday and he immediately raised an alarm resulting in his being shot at and killed immediately.
“Security men on guard immediately responded and opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
A statement signed by the Director of Naval Information, Capt. Henry Babalola reads, “The Nigerian Navy’s attention is drawn to the rather distorted version of her ship, NNS Obula’s encounter with sea robbers posing as militants, off Finnuwa oil field in the early hours of 31st October 2007”
“The ship was on routine patrol in an area where fishing trawlers largely operate due to upsurge in attacks when a lookout (Watchman) on the ship observed that a boat was approaching menacingly. He raised an alarm and he was killed instantly.
Security men on guard immediately opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
“The whole idea is to scare the fishing trawlers into believing that the Navy was incapable of protecting them. This has fallen flat on their face as NNS Obula, joined by other ships are still on task.”
Reiterating that the Nigerian Navy will continue to perform her statutory policing functions, the statement “warned of very dire consequences if sea robbers and other miscreants do not desist from attacks on their facilities.”
“The need for political solution to the Niger Delta problem and matured restraint from the Nigerian Navy should not be mistaken for lack of firepower to curtail illegalities in the Niger Delta” the statement further said.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) claimed responsibility for the attack saying it was carried out to prove to oil companies in the Niger Delta that the military presence could not prevent them from carrying out any action if they so wished.
‘Abductors cooked for us' , INDIAN HOSTAGES TELLS MEDIA
Divyesh Singh
Friday, November 02, 2007 03:42 IST
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1131179
Dombivili hostage said six of them were served whatever they wanted to eat
MUMBAI: The sophisticated firearms of his abductors gave Pandurang Tari, 48, the feel that death was near. A chill went down the spine of the Dombivili man when a group of Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) activists surrounded him and five others working on the sea-bed oil production platform of a ship at Port Harcourt in Nigeria. But in the end, it was found that the abductors were too friendly.
The incident happened last Friday last week. Of the six abducted people, four were Indians and two Polish. Tari was working on the project as a production supervisor with UK-based organisation Sipem.
“There were 75-80 people on the ship when the gun-wielding MEND activists came aboard. Majority hid themselves in the engine room, while six of us ducked into a cabin on the platform. MEND activists broke open the cabin door and told us to surrender,” said Tari.
Asked how his abductors treated him, Tari said, “They were friendly. While taking us into custody, they assured that wouldn’t be harmed. They only wanted money from our employers for the development of the Niger Delta. They carried sophisticated arms and were dressed in army fatigue. For the first two days, we were given only biscuits to eat. But on the third day, they asked us for a list of things we wanted to eat.”
MEND activists ensured that the captives got everything mentioned on the list. For the last two days, the activists even cooked for their hostages, he added.
Tari said, “When our employers accepted the activists’ demands, they released us on Monday night and dropped us at Port Harcourt town. We returned to the platform, and informed our families that we were safe and sound.”
Tari’s employers has decided to transfer him to some other site in another country. He would return to work after a short break.
Written by Kingsley Omonobi, Emma Arubi
Friday, 02 November 2007
ABUJA—THE Nigerian Navy yesterday explained its version of the attack on its Warship in the Niger Delta by militants saying its personnel killed seven militants while one Naval personnel on ‘lookout duty’ was killed when the militants in four boats attempted to attack the ship, NNS Obula. According to the Naval High Command, the Naval Officer, who was performing the ‘lookout duty’ observed that some boats carrying suspicious persons were approaching the Naval ship at about 2 am Wednesday and he immediately raised an alarm resulting in his being shot at and killed immediately.
“Security men on guard immediately responded and opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
A statement signed by the Director of Naval Information, Capt. Henry Babalola reads, “The Nigerian Navy’s attention is drawn to the rather distorted version of her ship, NNS Obula’s encounter with sea robbers posing as militants, off Finnuwa oil field in the early hours of 31st October 2007”
“The ship was on routine patrol in an area where fishing trawlers largely operate due to upsurge in attacks when a lookout (Watchman) on the ship observed that a boat was approaching menacingly. He raised an alarm and he was killed instantly.
Security men on guard immediately opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
“The whole idea is to scare the fishing trawlers into believing that the Navy was incapable of protecting them. This has fallen flat on their face as NNS Obula, joined by other ships are still on task.”
Reiterating that the Nigerian Navy will continue to perform her statutory policing functions, the statement “warned of very dire consequences if sea robbers and other miscreants do not desist from attacks on their facilities.”
“The need for political solution to the Niger Delta problem and matured restraint from the Nigerian Navy should not be mistaken for lack of firepower to curtail illegalities in the Niger Delta” the statement further said.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) claimed responsibility for the attack saying it was carried out to prove to oil companies in the Niger Delta that the military presence could not prevent them from carrying out any action if they so wished.
ABUJA—THE Nigerian Navy yesterday explained its version of the attack on its Warship in the Niger Delta by militants saying its personnel killed seven militants while one Naval personnel on ‘lookout duty’ was killed when the militants in four boats attempted to attack the ship, NNS Obula. According to the Naval High Command, the Naval Officer, who was performing the ‘lookout duty’ observed that some boats carrying suspicious persons were approaching the Naval ship at about 2 am Wednesday and he immediately raised an alarm resulting in his being shot at and killed immediately.
“Security men on guard immediately responded and opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
A statement signed by the Director of Naval Information, Capt. Henry Babalola reads, “The Nigerian Navy’s attention is drawn to the rather distorted version of her ship, NNS Obula’s encounter with sea robbers posing as militants, off Finnuwa oil field in the early hours of 31st October 2007”
“The ship was on routine patrol in an area where fishing trawlers largely operate due to upsurge in attacks when a lookout (Watchman) on the ship observed that a boat was approaching menacingly. He raised an alarm and he was killed instantly.
Security men on guard immediately opened fire resulting in the death of seven sea robbers while the remaining boats fled.”
“The whole idea is to scare the fishing trawlers into believing that the Navy was incapable of protecting them. This has fallen flat on their face as NNS Obula, joined by other ships are still on task.”
Reiterating that the Nigerian Navy will continue to perform her statutory policing functions, the statement “warned of very dire consequences if sea robbers and other miscreants do not desist from attacks on their facilities.”
“The need for political solution to the Niger Delta problem and matured restraint from the Nigerian Navy should not be mistaken for lack of firepower to curtail illegalities in the Niger Delta” the statement further said.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) claimed responsibility for the attack saying it was carried out to prove to oil companies in the Niger Delta that the military presence could not prevent them from carrying out any action if they so wished.
‘Abductors cooked for us' , INDIAN HOSTAGES TELLS MEDIA
Divyesh Singh
Friday, November 02, 2007 03:42 IST
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1131179
Dombivili hostage said six of them were served whatever they wanted to eat
MUMBAI: The sophisticated firearms of his abductors gave Pandurang Tari, 48, the feel that death was near. A chill went down the spine of the Dombivili man when a group of Movement for Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND) activists surrounded him and five others working on the sea-bed oil production platform of a ship at Port Harcourt in Nigeria. But in the end, it was found that the abductors were too friendly.
The incident happened last Friday last week. Of the six abducted people, four were Indians and two Polish. Tari was working on the project as a production supervisor with UK-based organisation Sipem.
“There were 75-80 people on the ship when the gun-wielding MEND activists came aboard. Majority hid themselves in the engine room, while six of us ducked into a cabin on the platform. MEND activists broke open the cabin door and told us to surrender,” said Tari.
Asked how his abductors treated him, Tari said, “They were friendly. While taking us into custody, they assured that wouldn’t be harmed. They only wanted money from our employers for the development of the Niger Delta. They carried sophisticated arms and were dressed in army fatigue. For the first two days, we were given only biscuits to eat. But on the third day, they asked us for a list of things we wanted to eat.”
MEND activists ensured that the captives got everything mentioned on the list. For the last two days, the activists even cooked for their hostages, he added.
Tari said, “When our employers accepted the activists’ demands, they released us on Monday night and dropped us at Port Harcourt town. We returned to the platform, and informed our families that we were safe and sound.”
Tari’s employers has decided to transfer him to some other site in another country. He would return to work after a short break.
Mukasey's Letter: Not Good Enough
JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says that Judge Michael Mukasey's written response to Senate Judiciary Committee follow-up inquiries concerning his views on the legality of waterboarding and torture demonstrate views of America's obligations under international law so limited and problematic that he should not be confirmed...
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/11/mukaseys-letter-not-good-enough.php
Judge Mukasey has responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s written inquiry with regard to waterboarding and torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. His four-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supplemented by 172 pages of related responses prompts several thoughts.
First, Judge Mukasey notes that "some Members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees", have been briefed on the specifics of "a program run by the Central Intelligence Agency". In the context of the confirmation process, it is essential that we now ask who were those members of Congress, whether they were briefed on waterboarding and other techniques as part of that briefing, and what were the members' views on those techniques. It is far too convenient to hold Judge Mukasey’s feet to the fire on waterboarding without also holding accountable the members of Congress who have been briefed on this subject. This information is important in the context of Judge Mukasey’s confirmation because his phrase can be easily read as a veiled warning to those Congresspersons that they will be “outed” for what they allowed to go forward. That veiled warning has the effect of chilling further inquiry by other members of Congress for fear of alienating colleagues. We need to cut through this gamesmanship and get the truth out. Americans can handle the truth.
Second, Judge Mukasey, in addressing the legality of "coercive interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, provides an instance of the kind of legal analysis he would make as Attorney General as a way of assisting the committee in understanding his work method if he were to be confirmed. He essentially limits his analysis to federal statutes that are enabling legislation of the Convention Against Torture and Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (“Convention Against Torture”) and the Constitutional standard of “shocks the conscience” that is said to apply pursuant to a United States reservation to that treaty. He makes passing reference to the Geneva Conventions and to the Convention Against Torture itself.
That is not enough. Let me be specific:
Judge Mukasey's analysis does not take into account the prohibition against torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). His analysis does not take into account the non-derogability of those prohibitions even in times of public emergency as expressed in Article 4 of the ICCPR.
His analysis does not take into account the question of whether the US reservation to the Convention Against Torture is inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty and, as a matter of international law, of no effect. His analysis also does not express clearly whether he subscribes to the position that said reservation is only substantive (as was stated by Abram Sofaer, the negotiator of that treaty for the United States, in his January 2005 testimony to the committee) or whether he subscribes to the view that it is both substantive and geographic in limitation (i.e. only within the United States) as was stated by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. This point is important since detainees are essentially held abroad.
His analysis does not take into account the fact that foreigners held by the United States are subject to the protection of the state of their nationality. Said state, as Australia did for David Hicks, will insist that their citizens be treated in accordance with the requirements of international law applicable. He does not seem aware that internal statutes of the United States are of no moment to such foreign states. What is important to those states is whether the United States is in compliance with the language of the relevant international law obligation (such as the Convention Against Torture) – not United States domestic law. He does not see that the internal law (which he might have used in his court) cannot be used in this non-court context on the international plane to extract the United States from its international obligations.
His analysis refers to Geneva Common Article 3 War Crimes but does not address the question of liability for Non-Common Article 3 War Crimes. In Hamdan the Supreme Court only said that Common Article 3 applied without reaching the broader question of whether other articles of the Geneva Conventions apply in the current armed conflicts. A careful analysis would therefore have looked at the non-Common Article 3 articles in the Geneva Convention III on Prisoners of War as well as the non-Common Article 3 articles in the Geneva Convention IV on Civilians including protected persons and security detainees. His analysis does none of that and therefore is unacceptably cursory. He presents a cramped vision of Geneva Conventions applicability that seems even narrower than that which Jack Goldsmith took but closer to that of David Addington, which I find extremely problematic. His vision limits the analysis to the detriment of evaluating waterboarding as a per se war crime under these other provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
He appears to be applying domestic U.S. standards for treaty interpretation and not international standards such as the Vienna Convention Law of Treaties which has been seen as authoritative by the United States in the past. With regard to the Convention Against Torture, it is of great concern that in his analysis he makes no mention of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties with regard to interpretation of our obligations. Rather than only referencing a couple of internal cases to describe the court’s “shocks the conscience” standard, I hoped that Judge Mukasey would have taken into greater account the evaluation to be done is in the context of compliance with treaty obligations of the United States – not just compliance with a Constitutional standard. In a setting where he will be under enormous pressure to use internal law interpretations of the treaty that are the President’s and by definition self-serving, his inability to even bring forward the idea of the more traditional international standard is deeply troubling. Thus, the evaluation of the “shocks the conscience” standard would need to take into account concerns such as compliance with the object and purpose of the treaty, the traditional methods in international law of interpretation of treaties, and issues of whether the “shocks the conscience” reservation is an improper derogation from peremptory norms. None of that appears in the four-page letter, nor is it intimated that he would consider such matters. This type of analysis is well-known by those steeped in international law but possibly less familiar to persons who work essentially in U.S. foreign relations law We are all aware of the separation of powers, but neither the President, the Congress, nor the Supreme Court are above the United States. The treaty obligations (as well as customary international law obligations) fall squarely on the United States and his analysis in domestic law of “shocks the conscience” should be tempered by this international background. This type of analysis is all the more important in a context where the techniques are being applied to foreigners who are subject to the protection of the state of their nationality. On the state to state level, the internal law modifications of the United States to treaty and customary international law obligations are of no moment.
In addition to not making any reference to the ICCPR in his analysis, he makes no reference to customary international humanitarian law, human rights law, law of diplomatic protection, or international criminal law. These additional areas of international law and the jurisprudence of international tribunals from the Nuremberg trials or the Tokyo trials onward are not referenced or analyzed in any meaningful manner. In the context of an armed conflict of global proportions, that lack of familiarity and absence in his legal analysis are of concern.
There is no evidence that Judge Mukasey looked at the relevant state practice of other states under treaty or customary international law with regard to evaluating waterboarding or at the American jurisprudence on the subject in domestic or in international tribunals we helped to create over the past 100 years. That is not good enough these days.
Third, Judge Mukasey's analysis purports to present great concern for the impact of his comments on the personal jeopardy of those in the field or those charged with reviewing conduct of those in the field. His loyalty – upwards or downwards – is misplaced. It pains me greatly that his solicitude for those persons seems far greater than what I would hope is the central concern – defending and protecting the United States. In his role as Attorney General, an important part of the task ahead will be to cleanse the state itself of its criminality: whether at the level of those who wrote the shameless memos (that are more than mistakes), those who ordered the memos, or those down below to the lowest level implementer of the policy. It would seem that a truly independent person would show now a willingness to follow the facts where they lead both up and down and not personal loyalty concerns. If someone was induced in error as part of the common plan by someone above in the hierarchy, Judge Mukasey may determine to be solicitous towards such a person in his investigation and discretion as to prosecute. But, as the Attorney General nominee, these type of personal, almost managerial, concerns are beneath the office of the Attorney General.
Fourth, because of what is not said in Judge Mukasey's analysis above, I am worried about his commitment to transparency in his approach to the Attorney General position. Maybe one way he could show that openness would be if he committed to release or examine releasing the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the detention and interrogation techniques in the CIA Black Sites referenced in a recent New Yorker article. That report no doubt has the truth on what we have been doing. Rather than playing internal law semantic games, the discussion of the ICRC would point out whether in our practice we have complied with the international obligations that fall upon the United States as a whole and for which we would expect the Attorney General to have great concern. Those who have read the report in Congress seem to suggest that we have failed miserably. Let the American people know what our leaders and the detainees know. Have we been leveled with by our leaders? We can handle the truth.
Fifth, it pains me greatly that Judge Mukasey has not simply said that “waterboarding is torture and illegal.” It pains me greatly that the international component of his analysis is not as extensive as I think it should be of the Attorney General who would serve at this crucial time.
For these reasons, as a citizen I remain extremely troubled by Judge Mukasey’s nomination and suggest that the Senate not confirm him. If he asks why, someone might respond as Churchill responded to an employee he had fired: “Not up to the job.”
Benjamin Davis is a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law
Project Karat - Chapter 3
Source:
http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2007/11/02/project-karat-chapter-3/
The PTI reports:
Questioning the CPI(M)’s nationalist credentials, the BJP on Friday said its General Secretary Prakash Karat’s comments on China shows that the interests of the Communist nation are supreme for it. The BJP also asked whether the “US capital which is coming to Kolkata loses its imperial colour after investment in the Left-ruled state.”
The BJP’s reaction comes in response to this story in the Indian Express. So what did Karat have to say:
We shall not rest in our fight till strategic ties with the US are snapped
the sole strategy of the US was to capture the Indian market. And why does US wish to “capture” the Indian market? “Because China will be equal to the US in terms of economy and growth by the middle of this century,
the US was trying to make India its strategic ally to counter China, “the most powerful socialist country capable of challenging the might of the USA
This is a game the US is trying to play which has to be foiled
West Bengal is the advanced post for the fight against imperialism and in the coming days, it will continue to put up its resistance
Karat’s remarks may not come as a surprise to many for his party the CPI-M and his colleagues like Jyoti Basu have been holding brief for the Chinese regime from the 1960s. But more than Karat’s remarks, what has struck Offstumped was the occassion where Karat delivered his remarks. Karat was speaking at a CPM function here in Kolkota to mark the 90th anniversary of the Soviet Revolution. On the face of it appears that Karat’s CPI-M is merely stuck in its anachronistic ways but then the parallels with a cold war era plot are striking leading one to speculate if there was a next chapter to Project Karat.
In Beijing, a memorandum is drafted for the Chinese President hypothesising if a hung Lok Sabha were to result in a Third Front Government after the next general election in India (likely sometime in the next 24 months), how a “hard left” faction of the CPI-M could elbow the moderate, populist factions of the Third Front in favour of a radical Prime Minister who will adopt an agenda in favor of the most poweful socialist country. Consider how this could happen.
In the next 18 months left of center democratic administration assumes office in the United States. This is followed by an accidental detonation of an Indian Nuclear weapon leading the newly elected Democrat President to impose sanctions on India to please left of center non-proliferation lobbyists. The sanctions result in a wave of anti-american sentiment in India that puts the Congress, that pushed the Nuclear Deal and the BJP, that swore by U.S. relations, on the backfoot. A fragmented electorate returns a hung parliament with the Third front and the Communists in the driver’s seat. The Congress to keep the BJP out of power supports a third front government. Once a third front Prime Minister is sworn in, the hard left Communists take over.
That was an adaptation of Frederick Forsyth’s Fourth Protocol. The Fourth Protocol was unique in its departure from the main plot to carry a 12 page thesis by a character based on British spy Philby who defected to the Soviet Union. The thesis analyses how the hard left could take over the Labor Party in UK following a labor win in the general election to stage a communist coup by default. The similarities of the plot with current events arise from how Nuclear geo-poliitcs, anti-american and pro-communist sentiments are being exploited to influence domestic political outcomes.
A hard left coup maybe a stretch of the imagination. But the reality today is that a radical hard left leader is holding the Indian National Interest hostage to a Communist Maximalist Program, CMP, without having to resort to an overt coup.
While we await the outcome of the cat and mouse game likely to play out in Parliament when the winter session is convened, there should be no doubts on the next chapter to Project Karat.
Changing Income Distribution in Venezuela: Sorting Out Data and Bias
All statistics, including economic statistics, can be manipulated, or only partially revealed, so that they demonstrate a foregone ideological conclusion rather than reality. For instance, from 2004 until the beginning of 2006, the United States State Department and the Venezuelan political opposition claimed that the Venezuelan economy was being destroyed by President Chavez and his policies. As evidence, they kept showing the disastrous results for 2003, a year when economic production plunged and the number of people in poverty climbed.
The enemies of Chavez chose not to reveal that the Venezuelan economy was growing by leaps and bounds in 2004 and 2005, and that more people were employed and enjoying significantly higher incomes. And, of course, they did not mention their part in causing the economic disaster of 2003, which was not a result of government policies, but of the opposition's effort to sabotage and shut down the oil industry and other business enterprises while the U.S. government cheered from the sidelines.
READ MORE
The enemies of Chavez chose not to reveal that the Venezuelan economy was growing by leaps and bounds in 2004 and 2005, and that more people were employed and enjoying significantly higher incomes. And, of course, they did not mention their part in causing the economic disaster of 2003, which was not a result of government policies, but of the opposition's effort to sabotage and shut down the oil industry and other business enterprises while the U.S. government cheered from the sidelines.
READ MORE
Kurdish PM's statement on Istanbul meetings
Erbil, 2 November 2007
Statement by KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani
The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (KRG) welcomes the Istanbul meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the G8, the Permanent 5, the neighbouring countries, the Arab League, and the UN Secretary General. We hope that this distinguished group of diplomats and interested parties will help to find a resolution to the current tensions which exist along the Iraqi-Turkish border.
The KRG condemns in the strongest terms the recent acts of violence committed by the PKK inside Turkey. There can be no excuse whatsoever for these actions which undermine peace and stability in the entire region and which are not in the interest of anyone involved. There is no place in the modern civilised world for this type of violence.
The KRG wants peaceful and cooperative relations with Turkey. We have many strong ties to Turkey, both economic and cultural, and we hope to see these ties grow in the future. People on both sides of the border have come to benefit from our trade relations and many Turkish firms are welcome participants in the economic life of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. We want to extend the hand of friendship to the people of Turkey and cooperate toward a more stable and prosperous future for all our peoples.
We understand Turkey’s frustration with the actions of the PKK and we share the grief and sadness over the loss of life that has taken place. We believe that the only solution to this long-running problem is to be found in negotiations and compromise, not further violence.
We insist that the PKK cease all violence against the Turkish military and make clear their willingness to lay down their arms and meet at the negotiating table. We are doing all we can to secure the release of all hostages and to defuse tensions in the area.
The KRG will in no way allow its soil to be used for violence or interference in the affairs of our neighbours and we are taking steps to guarantee that this does not happen.
Our commitment to peace and good relations with our neighbors is unshakeable – we have already seen too much violence and too much suffering in our history. This problem has existed in various forms for over 20 years – we are fearful that it will gain more life and more energy if violence is allowed to prevail.
We would like our friends in the region and elsewhere to know that we are ready – at any time, in any place, and with any group – to sit down and find a negotiated solution to the current impasse. For us, there is no alternative to dialogue and discussion. We believe there is an opportunity for a political solution and we urge the distinguished group of Foreign Ministers to work with us to find that solution.
The people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq want only peace and stability so that we can continue our progress toward greater economic and political development. We are willingly a part of Iraq, and we intend to remain so. The people of Turkey should not fear our progress along the road toward freedom and prosperity. We want to be a safe and responsible neighbour to Turkey. We threaten no one, not today, or in the future
Statement by KRG Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani
The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq (KRG) welcomes the Istanbul meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the G8, the Permanent 5, the neighbouring countries, the Arab League, and the UN Secretary General. We hope that this distinguished group of diplomats and interested parties will help to find a resolution to the current tensions which exist along the Iraqi-Turkish border.
The KRG condemns in the strongest terms the recent acts of violence committed by the PKK inside Turkey. There can be no excuse whatsoever for these actions which undermine peace and stability in the entire region and which are not in the interest of anyone involved. There is no place in the modern civilised world for this type of violence.
The KRG wants peaceful and cooperative relations with Turkey. We have many strong ties to Turkey, both economic and cultural, and we hope to see these ties grow in the future. People on both sides of the border have come to benefit from our trade relations and many Turkish firms are welcome participants in the economic life of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. We want to extend the hand of friendship to the people of Turkey and cooperate toward a more stable and prosperous future for all our peoples.
We understand Turkey’s frustration with the actions of the PKK and we share the grief and sadness over the loss of life that has taken place. We believe that the only solution to this long-running problem is to be found in negotiations and compromise, not further violence.
We insist that the PKK cease all violence against the Turkish military and make clear their willingness to lay down their arms and meet at the negotiating table. We are doing all we can to secure the release of all hostages and to defuse tensions in the area.
The KRG will in no way allow its soil to be used for violence or interference in the affairs of our neighbours and we are taking steps to guarantee that this does not happen.
Our commitment to peace and good relations with our neighbors is unshakeable – we have already seen too much violence and too much suffering in our history. This problem has existed in various forms for over 20 years – we are fearful that it will gain more life and more energy if violence is allowed to prevail.
We would like our friends in the region and elsewhere to know that we are ready – at any time, in any place, and with any group – to sit down and find a negotiated solution to the current impasse. For us, there is no alternative to dialogue and discussion. We believe there is an opportunity for a political solution and we urge the distinguished group of Foreign Ministers to work with us to find that solution.
The people of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq want only peace and stability so that we can continue our progress toward greater economic and political development. We are willingly a part of Iraq, and we intend to remain so. The people of Turkey should not fear our progress along the road toward freedom and prosperity. We want to be a safe and responsible neighbour to Turkey. We threaten no one, not today, or in the future
Stasi Files Could be Opened up for Research : Chief of Finland's Security Police
Salmi: Stasi Files Could be Opened up for Research
Published 02.11.2007, 11.02 (updated 02.11.2007, 15.08)
Source: http://www.yle.fi/news/id73995.html
Ilkka Salmi, the incoming Chief of Finland's Security Police (Supo), thinks the so-called Stasi files could be opened up for historical research. Salmi made the statement on Friday during an interview on YLE's morning discussion programme, Aamu-TV.
However the incoming Director said the files could not be widely publicised in order to protect Finnish intelligence sources.
The files are believed to include information on Finns who maintained close contacts with the former East German security police, the Stasi, during the Cold War years.
Salmi said that the main intent would be to use the files for historical research, rather than merely finding out the names that it might possibly contain.
"The actions of the persons named on the list have been fully examined and it's been proven that there is no cause to begin investigations. So the question arises, why should such a list be made public," he added.
According to Salmi, in the future it will be necessary to find out what kind of expertise can be found in the research community,
"Issues of historical interest should be researched. I believe that at some point distinguished researchers will be able to judge how significant this has been in Finnish history," said Salmi.
Salmi, who was appointed to the post on Thursday, takes office in December.
An American spy plane and a Russian telecom aircraft
17:28 | 02/ 11/ 2007
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - It is not surprising that military developments in one country make its opponents take similar steps.
Many examples of this exist, but instances of the West's civilian industry placing orders in the Russian defense sector and helping it back to its feet are hard to remember.
Yet this is what is currently taking place: Russian aircraft builders are negotiating with an unnamed Western firm about the possible resumption of manufacturing the Myasishchev-55 high-altitude plane.
This aircraft was designed in the U.S.S.R. during the late 1960s as a reply to the American Lockheed U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance plane. The current mission of Russia's M-55 will be entirely peaceful - relaying telecommunications signals. But the fact remains: Western firms could help renew the production of Russian high-altitude reconnaissance planes.
Ever since the late 1950s, American U-2 aircraft exasperated Russian leaders by making reconnaissance flights deep into U.S.S.R. territory at an altitude beyond the reach of interceptor planes.
Developed by Lockheed, the Lockheed U-2/TR-1 aircraft was nicknamed the Black Lady of Espionage in the United States for fulfilling mainly CIA assignments.
In May 1960, its flights over the U.S.S.R. came to an end when an American aircraft piloted by Francis Gary Powers approached the Ural Mountains and a new Russian anti-aircraft missile made a direct hit. But the urgency of developing the M-55 did not go away.
Aside from direct reconnaissance duties these planes were given the task of fighting high-altitude balloons that drifted over Soviet territory and conducted aerial photography and filming.
The need to install weapons aboard the aircraft made the designers seek an acceptable weight-to-payload ratio. The final product was a light-weight and rugged two-fuselage design, which, incidentally, is not typical of serially-produced planes.
Balloon operations soon petered out, however, dispensing with the need to arm the M-55. That increased its carrying capacity and added to its payload, but the plane never reached a serial production stage.
To cater to the needs of the Defense Ministry, the Smolensk aircraft plant manufactured four prototypes, two of which were lost in accidents. One of the remaining planes was converted to a flying environmental monitoring laboratory that came to be known as the M-55 Geophizika, a peaceful-sounding name.
The Western plans to transform a reconnaissance plane into a telecom aircraft are logical; in some cases using aircraft for civilian communications purposes proves more advantageous than satellite relaying. Incidentally, the military widely employs airborne relay facilities. In Russia, these are the An-12 RT and An-26-RT aircraft and Mi-9 helicopters.
Sometimes aviation is the only possible option.
In the world there are quite a few spots where satellite channels are inadvisable or impossible. For example, in areas hit by natural disasters, when the ground communication infrastructure is destroyed and the delivery of mobile stations is rendered difficult. In such cases, the optimum solution is a special aircraft.
It is also desirable that for economic reasons it should be as high-flying as possible. At an altitude of 20 km such an aircraft can send signals over an area one order of magnitude wider than the one served by five planes flying at an altitude of 5 km.
An additional requirement is a large payload because communication equipment weighs a lot.
It appears the M-55 is simply a must for sustained communication in non-standard situations. Here is a brief summary of its specifications.
The plane is equipped with two unsupercharged engines with a nominal thrust of 4,500 kg each; it is 650 kg at a ceiling of 21.5 km. It has a cruise speed of 740 km/h and a maximum range of 5,000 km at an altitude of 17,000 m.
In their day the Americans built 35 U-2/TR-1 planes. No other aircraft matches the M-55 in the world today, but there have been a number of reports recently that the Black Lady is resuming serial production.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - It is not surprising that military developments in one country make its opponents take similar steps.
Many examples of this exist, but instances of the West's civilian industry placing orders in the Russian defense sector and helping it back to its feet are hard to remember.
Yet this is what is currently taking place: Russian aircraft builders are negotiating with an unnamed Western firm about the possible resumption of manufacturing the Myasishchev-55 high-altitude plane.
This aircraft was designed in the U.S.S.R. during the late 1960s as a reply to the American Lockheed U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance plane. The current mission of Russia's M-55 will be entirely peaceful - relaying telecommunications signals. But the fact remains: Western firms could help renew the production of Russian high-altitude reconnaissance planes.
Ever since the late 1950s, American U-2 aircraft exasperated Russian leaders by making reconnaissance flights deep into U.S.S.R. territory at an altitude beyond the reach of interceptor planes.
Developed by Lockheed, the Lockheed U-2/TR-1 aircraft was nicknamed the Black Lady of Espionage in the United States for fulfilling mainly CIA assignments.
In May 1960, its flights over the U.S.S.R. came to an end when an American aircraft piloted by Francis Gary Powers approached the Ural Mountains and a new Russian anti-aircraft missile made a direct hit. But the urgency of developing the M-55 did not go away.
Aside from direct reconnaissance duties these planes were given the task of fighting high-altitude balloons that drifted over Soviet territory and conducted aerial photography and filming.
The need to install weapons aboard the aircraft made the designers seek an acceptable weight-to-payload ratio. The final product was a light-weight and rugged two-fuselage design, which, incidentally, is not typical of serially-produced planes.
Balloon operations soon petered out, however, dispensing with the need to arm the M-55. That increased its carrying capacity and added to its payload, but the plane never reached a serial production stage.
To cater to the needs of the Defense Ministry, the Smolensk aircraft plant manufactured four prototypes, two of which were lost in accidents. One of the remaining planes was converted to a flying environmental monitoring laboratory that came to be known as the M-55 Geophizika, a peaceful-sounding name.
The Western plans to transform a reconnaissance plane into a telecom aircraft are logical; in some cases using aircraft for civilian communications purposes proves more advantageous than satellite relaying. Incidentally, the military widely employs airborne relay facilities. In Russia, these are the An-12 RT and An-26-RT aircraft and Mi-9 helicopters.
Sometimes aviation is the only possible option.
In the world there are quite a few spots where satellite channels are inadvisable or impossible. For example, in areas hit by natural disasters, when the ground communication infrastructure is destroyed and the delivery of mobile stations is rendered difficult. In such cases, the optimum solution is a special aircraft.
It is also desirable that for economic reasons it should be as high-flying as possible. At an altitude of 20 km such an aircraft can send signals over an area one order of magnitude wider than the one served by five planes flying at an altitude of 5 km.
An additional requirement is a large payload because communication equipment weighs a lot.
It appears the M-55 is simply a must for sustained communication in non-standard situations. Here is a brief summary of its specifications.
The plane is equipped with two unsupercharged engines with a nominal thrust of 4,500 kg each; it is 650 kg at a ceiling of 21.5 km. It has a cruise speed of 740 km/h and a maximum range of 5,000 km at an altitude of 17,000 m.
In their day the Americans built 35 U-2/TR-1 planes. No other aircraft matches the M-55 in the world today, but there have been a number of reports recently that the Black Lady is resuming serial production.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Russian tankers heading for the Arctic
12:09 | 02/ 11/ 2007
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Maxim Krans) - Sovcomflot and Novoship, Russia's largest shipping companies, have estimated their total worth at $3.37 billion.
Experts think that after the companies' merger happening by the end of this year, the new mega-company may become the world's third largest shipping company according to its assets and the second largest in terms of gross tonnage.
The decision to create a powerful shipping holding was made in June, when the president signed a decree allowing the two companies to merge. This ended the lengthy dispute between the advocates and opponents of the idea. The Russian Transport Ministry, primarily its former head Sergei Frank, was its chief lobbyist. Three years ago as Deputy Prime Minister he said that this step would help the Russian shipping business maintain its position in a climate of globalization."
Later, when Frank was elected Sovcomflot's director general, at a government recommendation, the project reached the final stages. Novoship's managers who opposed the merger were dismissed and the new leadership immediately agreed to the merger. The plan was approved by the Economic Development and Trade Ministry and the Transport Ministry. To complete the deal, it was only necessary to coordinate some minor "technical details."
Under the presidential decree, a 50.34% state-owned stake in Novoship will be transferred to Sovcomflot, which is a fully state-controlled company. While maintaining their juridical independence, the two shipping companies will operate jointly dividing their spheres of influence and working on joint projects. One of these projects, building Arctic shuttle tankers, was presented in June 2007. The Admiralteiskiye Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg has already started building the first tanker of this kind.
The new company's fleet will consist of 113 vessels. The company has plans for another 32 consisting mostly of tankers and several modern ice-class liquefied gas carriers to be added in the next three years. There is no doubt that the fleet's main task in the next few decades will be to transport hydrocarbons from the Arctic shelf.
Oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean are a major energy hope of Russia and the world, especially since the peak of yet another energy crisis is approaching, perhaps the most serious in history. UN experts estimated the shelf reserves at 140-180 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons. A group of international researchers named the much smaller figure of 30 billion metric tons in their report on the future of the Arctic. However, they referred only to proven reserves and even these will last for a long time.
According to the data of the Houston World Oil Conference, 69% of gas deposits are in the Russian Arctic zone. Russia will have to defend its rights to a considerable part of this territory but, judging by all signs, it is gathering strength for its Arctic campaign without waiting for the UN commission's verdict on the limits of the continental shelf.
Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom has already agreed with its foreign partners, French oil major Total and Norway's StatoilHidro, to develop the Shtokman gas condensate deposit in the Barents Sea. They must set up a joint venture by the end of the year. Sevmash, in Severodvinsk, is already building offshore drilling rigs for Gazprom. The Murmansk Shipping Company, which has a unique icebreaker fleet given to it by the state, is expanding the network of its oil-loading terminals in Arctic ports. Transneft is laying a pipeline from East Siberia to the Pacific and is planning another one that will run along the Barents Sea coast.
The new shipping company will play a special role in this campaign because it has Russia's largest and most modern tanker fleet at its disposal. Recently two more vessels for LNG transportation have been added to its fleet. In the next 20 years, these tankers will export hydrocarbons from the Sakhalin-2 deposit, which has been under Gazprom's control since last year. A joint venture, which is being set up now by Sovcomflot and the project's operator Sakhalin Energy, will manage the Prigorodnoye port, which is to be used for gas transportation. The Baltic LNG company established by Sovcomflot jointly with Gazprom in 2005 will build an LNG plant in Primorsk (Leningrad Region).
There are other promising Russian plans for the Arctic. Sovcomflot has signed an agreement with Sovmorneftegaz on oil transportation from the Prirazlomnoye field, with Naryanmarneftegaz on its delivery from the Varandei terminal, and with Rosneft on the joint servicing of shelf projects.
Moreover, a representative of the holding will have a seat on the board of directors of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which is currently being established for the placement of orders with the Russian shipyards. This is an obligatory condition for the merger. According to experts, Russia will need 100 new specialized vessels to transport hydrocarbons from Russian shelf deposits.
The merger of the two shipping companies, which is one of the largest transactions of the year, is in line with the policy of the country's present leadership aimed at the revision and consolidation of state assets. However, as experience shows, the state has not always been an efficient and successful owner of its assets.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Maxim Krans) - Sovcomflot and Novoship, Russia's largest shipping companies, have estimated their total worth at $3.37 billion.
Experts think that after the companies' merger happening by the end of this year, the new mega-company may become the world's third largest shipping company according to its assets and the second largest in terms of gross tonnage.
The decision to create a powerful shipping holding was made in June, when the president signed a decree allowing the two companies to merge. This ended the lengthy dispute between the advocates and opponents of the idea. The Russian Transport Ministry, primarily its former head Sergei Frank, was its chief lobbyist. Three years ago as Deputy Prime Minister he said that this step would help the Russian shipping business maintain its position in a climate of globalization."
Later, when Frank was elected Sovcomflot's director general, at a government recommendation, the project reached the final stages. Novoship's managers who opposed the merger were dismissed and the new leadership immediately agreed to the merger. The plan was approved by the Economic Development and Trade Ministry and the Transport Ministry. To complete the deal, it was only necessary to coordinate some minor "technical details."
Under the presidential decree, a 50.34% state-owned stake in Novoship will be transferred to Sovcomflot, which is a fully state-controlled company. While maintaining their juridical independence, the two shipping companies will operate jointly dividing their spheres of influence and working on joint projects. One of these projects, building Arctic shuttle tankers, was presented in June 2007. The Admiralteiskiye Verfi shipyard in St. Petersburg has already started building the first tanker of this kind.
The new company's fleet will consist of 113 vessels. The company has plans for another 32 consisting mostly of tankers and several modern ice-class liquefied gas carriers to be added in the next three years. There is no doubt that the fleet's main task in the next few decades will be to transport hydrocarbons from the Arctic shelf.
Oil and gas deposits in the Arctic Ocean are a major energy hope of Russia and the world, especially since the peak of yet another energy crisis is approaching, perhaps the most serious in history. UN experts estimated the shelf reserves at 140-180 billion metric tons of hydrocarbons. A group of international researchers named the much smaller figure of 30 billion metric tons in their report on the future of the Arctic. However, they referred only to proven reserves and even these will last for a long time.
According to the data of the Houston World Oil Conference, 69% of gas deposits are in the Russian Arctic zone. Russia will have to defend its rights to a considerable part of this territory but, judging by all signs, it is gathering strength for its Arctic campaign without waiting for the UN commission's verdict on the limits of the continental shelf.
Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom has already agreed with its foreign partners, French oil major Total and Norway's StatoilHidro, to develop the Shtokman gas condensate deposit in the Barents Sea. They must set up a joint venture by the end of the year. Sevmash, in Severodvinsk, is already building offshore drilling rigs for Gazprom. The Murmansk Shipping Company, which has a unique icebreaker fleet given to it by the state, is expanding the network of its oil-loading terminals in Arctic ports. Transneft is laying a pipeline from East Siberia to the Pacific and is planning another one that will run along the Barents Sea coast.
The new shipping company will play a special role in this campaign because it has Russia's largest and most modern tanker fleet at its disposal. Recently two more vessels for LNG transportation have been added to its fleet. In the next 20 years, these tankers will export hydrocarbons from the Sakhalin-2 deposit, which has been under Gazprom's control since last year. A joint venture, which is being set up now by Sovcomflot and the project's operator Sakhalin Energy, will manage the Prigorodnoye port, which is to be used for gas transportation. The Baltic LNG company established by Sovcomflot jointly with Gazprom in 2005 will build an LNG plant in Primorsk (Leningrad Region).
There are other promising Russian plans for the Arctic. Sovcomflot has signed an agreement with Sovmorneftegaz on oil transportation from the Prirazlomnoye field, with Naryanmarneftegaz on its delivery from the Varandei terminal, and with Rosneft on the joint servicing of shelf projects.
Moreover, a representative of the holding will have a seat on the board of directors of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which is currently being established for the placement of orders with the Russian shipyards. This is an obligatory condition for the merger. According to experts, Russia will need 100 new specialized vessels to transport hydrocarbons from Russian shelf deposits.
The merger of the two shipping companies, which is one of the largest transactions of the year, is in line with the policy of the country's present leadership aimed at the revision and consolidation of state assets. However, as experience shows, the state has not always been an efficient and successful owner of its assets.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Most states are source of security, but Iran is source of threat to Baloch
M.Sarjov Baloch
Baloch are settled in the land and have formed themselves into separate territory based on political communities.
Baloch face the problem of coexisting with neighbouring groups whom Baloch could not ignored, because they were next door, as well as groups that are further away. Natural boundary has divided Baloch from Persian, and that natural boundary has protected them before the industrial revolution. Time to time group contact occurred it involved dispute, threat, invasion, and conquest.The state of Iran was not formed in heaven it is a process of conquers and imposed will of conqueror on conquered.
In an acceptable State at least five basic social values are expected of the state to uphold; security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. These fundamental values are important to well-being and so they must be protected.
There are other organization in Iranian Balochistan apart from those of the state; Baloch are a cultural group, religious, linguistic, clan, group that live within a distinct geographic area called Balochistan(land of Baloch). In the modern era the state has been involved as the leading institution to insure these basic values are maintained. State of Iran has failed to protect non Persian citizen from internal threat. Their way of life and religion is under threat from the state, their property is not safe. Security should be of fundamental interest of the state, but Baloch are not included in the Iranian provided security.
Iranian regime is aggressive and hostile to its neighbours. The Iranian structure poses a threat to the region.
Other state in the world uphold freedom of their citizen seriously. State of Iran puts burdens on Baloch such as military service, taxation and other obligation, what Baloch gain from state is humiliation, strict religion practice, no cultural right, no equal right, there is no freedom to cultivate and preserve their language, because Baloch are not Shiite they can not be trusted by the state to hold executive post.
Most Persians may feel they are not free individually, but under these circumstances Baloch will never feel free individually, and collectively, because they were threatened under monarchy regime, today Persian exile opposition groups have no such agenda to address Baloch grievances in future.
The state of Iran never felt obliged to uphold equal rights to each cultural group, establishing and maintaining coexistence and interact on basis of certainty and predictability. State are expected to uphold order and justice, but justice in Iran is not a universal law, it is based on local shirya law and interpreted differently from one mullah to another.
System of government in Iran is the revolutionary that includes one segment and rejects another segment, and pinpoint one segment in order to demonize that segment of the society. Baloch are accused anti- revolutionary, British and American collaborators, therefore they are excluded from Persian national wealth.
Baloch believe that state of Iran failed to provide minimal standards for Baloch. The faith of millions men and woman, and children in Iran put into question the legitimacy of state of Iran. Iran is a territorial state it is not one nation one state as Persian assume. Iran failed to meet minimal standards, consequence of that failure should raise question, because these failure are based on discrimination against Baloch and other non Persian.
The state system is an institution that is not ordained by God or determined by nature, it is consequence of empire conquest, or colonial territory it is social organization, some state constituted from many cultural groups, when majority group is threat to minority international community have responsibility, not to condemn victim, but to determine who is aggressor.
Some states majority group occupy united nation seat and lobby the greater powers in order to legitimise their group rule in given state. Persian control internal and external state power, they appoint judges to reside in highest court in Iran or diplomat that represent Iran in the united nation these state justify their unjust through institution like united nation on basis of state sovereignty.If the united nation is satisfied with Iran rule to maintain only order in geographical space, but the question is for how long?
Iran is complex society it is multi-cultural territorial state constitute of Turk Arab, Baloch, Kurd, Tuekoman, and other religion minorities and every one of these nations inside Iran territory are sovereign by virtue of will, and have right to self-determination that is guaranteed by united nation. Persian are largest group within Iran, but Persians dwell within Persian territory. Iranian cultural group has maintained their cultural and internal boundary. For the peace and prosperity to prevail these cultural group must maintain their internal sovereignty, and govern state through legitimise mean, institution, social contract. People join state or in some cases separate themselves from state in order to protect their dignity, if state of Iran violate Baloch dignity they will defend themselves from the powerful neighbour that insists on discriminating them on basis of religion, language, culture, colour, and is occupying their land and denying them their God given rights to live.
Iranian institutions are eroded and not capable, of generating any hope for future, Iranian mindset is corrupted, there are 50000 suicide bomber trained and waiting for Mahdi to assume command and attack the world in order to impose gods will on non believer. This is a serious dilemma the world has to face. (“if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences, Thomas and Thomas“). Centralistic Mullah-cratic Iran is the source of disability in the region now, eventually the world, to contain it now is much easier than to leave it for later, some of us at least within Iran realize that. The only ray of hope is to decentralise every Iranian institution, once destabilised replace them with institutions that support a nations self-determination in order to create stability and predictability.
Baloch have vision for the future that is a safer world democratic region, because democratic states resolves their differences through negotiation, rather than blood. Democratic regions trade with each other and reduce border restrictions. Baloch are suffering from border restriction imposed on them. And this will create an interstate-dependency between masses and reduced tension. People see interstate dependence as a source of income, creating real wealth, and support liberal society.
The contemporary state of Iran has been a war like state, it is the international communities role to search for permanent peace, the state of Iran senses that it is losing control on parts of its territory to its own non Persian nations. Persian are persistent to hold them by use of force , the threat may not be real, but consequences are real in term of lost of life and property.
It is time for the international community to convey strongest messages that Iran is not Persia, but a territorial sovereign state, with many nationalities with equal right to Persian, in failing to do so, it wont be too long before the world will be witness to another genocide.
Baloch are settled in the land and have formed themselves into separate territory based on political communities.
Baloch face the problem of coexisting with neighbouring groups whom Baloch could not ignored, because they were next door, as well as groups that are further away. Natural boundary has divided Baloch from Persian, and that natural boundary has protected them before the industrial revolution. Time to time group contact occurred it involved dispute, threat, invasion, and conquest.The state of Iran was not formed in heaven it is a process of conquers and imposed will of conqueror on conquered.
In an acceptable State at least five basic social values are expected of the state to uphold; security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. These fundamental values are important to well-being and so they must be protected.
There are other organization in Iranian Balochistan apart from those of the state; Baloch are a cultural group, religious, linguistic, clan, group that live within a distinct geographic area called Balochistan(land of Baloch). In the modern era the state has been involved as the leading institution to insure these basic values are maintained. State of Iran has failed to protect non Persian citizen from internal threat. Their way of life and religion is under threat from the state, their property is not safe. Security should be of fundamental interest of the state, but Baloch are not included in the Iranian provided security.
Iranian regime is aggressive and hostile to its neighbours. The Iranian structure poses a threat to the region.
Other state in the world uphold freedom of their citizen seriously. State of Iran puts burdens on Baloch such as military service, taxation and other obligation, what Baloch gain from state is humiliation, strict religion practice, no cultural right, no equal right, there is no freedom to cultivate and preserve their language, because Baloch are not Shiite they can not be trusted by the state to hold executive post.
Most Persians may feel they are not free individually, but under these circumstances Baloch will never feel free individually, and collectively, because they were threatened under monarchy regime, today Persian exile opposition groups have no such agenda to address Baloch grievances in future.
The state of Iran never felt obliged to uphold equal rights to each cultural group, establishing and maintaining coexistence and interact on basis of certainty and predictability. State are expected to uphold order and justice, but justice in Iran is not a universal law, it is based on local shirya law and interpreted differently from one mullah to another.
System of government in Iran is the revolutionary that includes one segment and rejects another segment, and pinpoint one segment in order to demonize that segment of the society. Baloch are accused anti- revolutionary, British and American collaborators, therefore they are excluded from Persian national wealth.
Baloch believe that state of Iran failed to provide minimal standards for Baloch. The faith of millions men and woman, and children in Iran put into question the legitimacy of state of Iran. Iran is a territorial state it is not one nation one state as Persian assume. Iran failed to meet minimal standards, consequence of that failure should raise question, because these failure are based on discrimination against Baloch and other non Persian.
The state system is an institution that is not ordained by God or determined by nature, it is consequence of empire conquest, or colonial territory it is social organization, some state constituted from many cultural groups, when majority group is threat to minority international community have responsibility, not to condemn victim, but to determine who is aggressor.
Some states majority group occupy united nation seat and lobby the greater powers in order to legitimise their group rule in given state. Persian control internal and external state power, they appoint judges to reside in highest court in Iran or diplomat that represent Iran in the united nation these state justify their unjust through institution like united nation on basis of state sovereignty.If the united nation is satisfied with Iran rule to maintain only order in geographical space, but the question is for how long?
Iran is complex society it is multi-cultural territorial state constitute of Turk Arab, Baloch, Kurd, Tuekoman, and other religion minorities and every one of these nations inside Iran territory are sovereign by virtue of will, and have right to self-determination that is guaranteed by united nation. Persian are largest group within Iran, but Persians dwell within Persian territory. Iranian cultural group has maintained their cultural and internal boundary. For the peace and prosperity to prevail these cultural group must maintain their internal sovereignty, and govern state through legitimise mean, institution, social contract. People join state or in some cases separate themselves from state in order to protect their dignity, if state of Iran violate Baloch dignity they will defend themselves from the powerful neighbour that insists on discriminating them on basis of religion, language, culture, colour, and is occupying their land and denying them their God given rights to live.
Iranian institutions are eroded and not capable, of generating any hope for future, Iranian mindset is corrupted, there are 50000 suicide bomber trained and waiting for Mahdi to assume command and attack the world in order to impose gods will on non believer. This is a serious dilemma the world has to face. (“if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences, Thomas and Thomas“). Centralistic Mullah-cratic Iran is the source of disability in the region now, eventually the world, to contain it now is much easier than to leave it for later, some of us at least within Iran realize that. The only ray of hope is to decentralise every Iranian institution, once destabilised replace them with institutions that support a nations self-determination in order to create stability and predictability.
Baloch have vision for the future that is a safer world democratic region, because democratic states resolves their differences through negotiation, rather than blood. Democratic regions trade with each other and reduce border restrictions. Baloch are suffering from border restriction imposed on them. And this will create an interstate-dependency between masses and reduced tension. People see interstate dependence as a source of income, creating real wealth, and support liberal society.
The contemporary state of Iran has been a war like state, it is the international communities role to search for permanent peace, the state of Iran senses that it is losing control on parts of its territory to its own non Persian nations. Persian are persistent to hold them by use of force , the threat may not be real, but consequences are real in term of lost of life and property.
It is time for the international community to convey strongest messages that Iran is not Persia, but a territorial sovereign state, with many nationalities with equal right to Persian, in failing to do so, it wont be too long before the world will be witness to another genocide.
BALOCHISTAN : Office of Khan of Kalat, London Presentation to the House of Lords
Office of Khan of Kalat, London
Presentation to the House of Lords
24.10.2007
Democracy, election, selection, freedom of press, and rule of law
A nation is constituted by a shared sense of bonding and a heritage of common traditions. There is no such sense of bonding in Pakistan. That is the reason that the Pakistan's army kills its people without feeling regret. Pakistan constitutes of six different and unrelated nations: Baluch, Pashtun, Sendhis, Punjabis, Sirakis, and Kashmiris. These are the sons of the soil.
Mohajirs are the seventh group who migrated from India when Pakistan was created. They constitute only 6% of population but they never tried to integrate in the new society. They are the main administrators of Pakistan.
The state's official language is Urdu; an alien language to most sons of the soil. It has been developed at the cost of native languages of the land.
It is very sad that I have to say these things today as this is what has happened in Pakistan. This is the country that has been made not for the people of Pakistan but for the army, bureaucracy and judiciary which have been partners in ruling and destroying it.
The first thing is that, it is the country in which its founding father died in a mysterious way in an ambulance without petrol on Drig road in Karachi. This is a country which has for 60 years have not made us feel Pakistanis. Instead of attracting us, it has alienated us. Instead of empowering us, it has made us poor, helpless and desperate.
This is the country that killed its first selected prime minister, Liaqat Alikhan. This is the country which hanged its first elected prime minister, Z.A Bhutto. This is the country that did not have a constitution for 26 years from 47 to 73. This is the country that had a constitution for only four years from 73 to 77. This is the country that dismissed its second selected prime minister, Jenajo. This is the country that dismissed its two elected prime ministers on charges of corruption and sent them in exile.
It is the country which planned to murder the leader of the biggest political party, Miss Benazir Bhutto , as the whole world saw it on television.
This is the country that imported two prime ministers who even didn't have ID card to rule Pakistan.
What can I say about Freedom of press and rule of law?
The press is more pressed than free. The press have never been free and they will never be free.
Rule of the law in Pakistan is martial law or no law. Pakistan had 34 years of martial law and 10 years of bureaucracy law in its beginning. As far as the judiciary is concerned, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was terminated with a stroke of a pen. Wherever the Chief Justice went he said the army chief cannot have two offices under the constitution. The same judiciary threw the petitions against two offices away to legitimise it later. This is the two faces of our judiciary.
The army is not accountable to the Parliament and people. It controls 85 percent of the country's budget. Only 13 to 15 percent of the national income is allocated for the government to run the country.
Pakistan is ruled by the law of force and not by the force of law. The military rulers have been terrorising the people and our neighbours. They have become a source of terrorism through the fundamentalist shield of Mullahs. The military has made terrorism a growing business.
War on terror has become war on people.
There were 8000 Madrasas in the country before the military took over. There are 21000 Madrasas now; and they are growing. They have grown nearly 300 per cent because there is a huge market for their services.
Pakistan has been listed as a failed state for several years. It is among the most corrupt countries. Its leaders are among the most incompetent rulers. This is the country that has lost every opportunity to provide welfare and prosperity for its people.
Tody the Pakistan 's army is bombarding its own territories in Baluchistan to control the Baluch nation's mineral resources. Pakistan's state murdered Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti who was a great statesman and Parliamentarian.
At the same time it commits atrocities against women and children. Several thousand political workers have disappeared. Thousands have been displaced. Saradar Akhtar Mengal is in jail.
In such circumstances, the people of Baluchistan have become victims of incompetence and failure of Pakistani civil and military rulers.
The government of Pakistan intimidated Baluch leaders and forced my grandfather to sign an agreement of union. The purpose of the union was to bring two independent sovereign states together as the model of European Union today. But the Pakistani governments started violating the agreements and colonised the independent sovereign state of Baluchistan.
Since then, the Baluch people have campaigned consistently against this unlawful annexation.
Pakistan had 60 years to prove its capability for establishing fair and just relations with the state of Baluchistan. The Baluch people gave every opportunity to Pakistan to go for the policy of inclusion and not exclusion, for the policy of equality of opportunity and not discrimination, for fair distribution of national and regional income; but Pakistan used every opportunity to peruse a policy of discrimination, oppression, suppression and corruption.
Pakistan is only 60 years old. Baluchistan is 10,000 years old. It has an old civilisation. It has a great nation with its specific characteristics of decency, honour, integrity, truthfulness, nobility, graciousness, commitment to promises and fair play. These values are against the Pakistani traditions of deception, discrimination and oppression. Pakistan as a country is a failed country that has turned against its people and itself. Sixty years is enough to know that the present setup in Pakistan just doesn't work regardless of who is the ruler.
They have campaigned regularly years after years to restore their sovereignty and they will continue this campaign to the end.
‘Pakistan’s nukes not about to fall under jihadi control’
Daily Times Monitor
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\11\02\story_2-11-2007_pg7_29
LAHORE: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not about to fall into the hands of jihadists or rogue elements in the military, according to a private US intelligence firm.
Kamran Bokhari, who is director of Middle East analysis at Strategic Forecasting Inc, said in an online discussion on Pakistan sponsored by the Washington Post that Pakistan’s army has developed a decent command and control infrastructure to protect its nuclear assets. A three-star general heads the Strategic Plans Division which is the body responsible for managing the country’s nuclear arsenal. “Recently, Islamabad further institutionalised the issue by widening the circle of people with decision-making power regarding the nukes,” he said.
Mr Bokhari said the Pakistan Army is not designed to fight insurgencies, and the ongoing political transition and the pending retirement of President Pervez Musharraf as army chief has further complicated matters.
“Another major issue is that the Pakistani intelligence/security establishment is to a significant degree compromised (mostly in the junior ranks) to where the jihadists are always one step ahead of the authorities. Well placed sources have described the situation as agencies within agencies, which are dominated by people who bat for both sides. It will be sometime before the Pakistanis can successfully engage in a cleansing process and for that political stability is a pre-requisite,” he said.
He said it was wrong to lump Pakistan with states such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, because the government’s writ on its territory “has been quite solid”, except in the tribal areas.
Mr Bokhari said there was a huge poverty of thought, not just in Pakistan but globally, on how to fight the scourge of jihadism. There was a massive saturation of “experts” contributing to the intellectual confusion. “There is a dire need to bring together the real experts who understand the phenomenon we are dealing with and are familiar with the needs of policy-making. We are talking about a very small group of people from the epistemic community who at their individual level have some decent ideas,” he said.
He said the extremism and militancy in Pakistan was to a great degree the outcome of the unsettled debate over Pakistan’s ideology, on whether it should be a secular state or an Islamic state.
Mr Bokhari said Benazir Bhutto is unlikely to be able to make any significant dent in the jihadis because she would need major political capital and the full support of the military establishment to do so, neither of which was likely.
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\11\02\story_2-11-2007_pg7_29
LAHORE: Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not about to fall into the hands of jihadists or rogue elements in the military, according to a private US intelligence firm.
Kamran Bokhari, who is director of Middle East analysis at Strategic Forecasting Inc, said in an online discussion on Pakistan sponsored by the Washington Post that Pakistan’s army has developed a decent command and control infrastructure to protect its nuclear assets. A three-star general heads the Strategic Plans Division which is the body responsible for managing the country’s nuclear arsenal. “Recently, Islamabad further institutionalised the issue by widening the circle of people with decision-making power regarding the nukes,” he said.
Mr Bokhari said the Pakistan Army is not designed to fight insurgencies, and the ongoing political transition and the pending retirement of President Pervez Musharraf as army chief has further complicated matters.
“Another major issue is that the Pakistani intelligence/security establishment is to a significant degree compromised (mostly in the junior ranks) to where the jihadists are always one step ahead of the authorities. Well placed sources have described the situation as agencies within agencies, which are dominated by people who bat for both sides. It will be sometime before the Pakistanis can successfully engage in a cleansing process and for that political stability is a pre-requisite,” he said.
He said it was wrong to lump Pakistan with states such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, because the government’s writ on its territory “has been quite solid”, except in the tribal areas.
Mr Bokhari said there was a huge poverty of thought, not just in Pakistan but globally, on how to fight the scourge of jihadism. There was a massive saturation of “experts” contributing to the intellectual confusion. “There is a dire need to bring together the real experts who understand the phenomenon we are dealing with and are familiar with the needs of policy-making. We are talking about a very small group of people from the epistemic community who at their individual level have some decent ideas,” he said.
He said the extremism and militancy in Pakistan was to a great degree the outcome of the unsettled debate over Pakistan’s ideology, on whether it should be a secular state or an Islamic state.
Mr Bokhari said Benazir Bhutto is unlikely to be able to make any significant dent in the jihadis because she would need major political capital and the full support of the military establishment to do so, neither of which was likely.
Iraqi guns: Smugglers and bunglers
With Iraq sliding into civil war amid repeated reports detailing the large-scale loss of US-provided weaponry, questions arise regarding the Pentagon's alleged relationship with international gun runners.
By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (02/11/07)
Post-invasion Iraq has been blighted by a massive proliferation in small arms, conducted with the active involvement of both state and non-state actors, including major criminal entities.
This proliferation profoundly undermines efforts to stabilize the security situation and future moves to reconstitute Iraq as a viable state.
Unprotected stockpiles
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was marked by the large-scale misappropriation of Iraqi munitions and weapons.
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) Policy Officer Dr Alun Howard told ISN Security Watch, "One of the reasons there are so many guns in Iraq is that in the US seizure of Baghdad they did not secure Iraq's stockpiles and the guns moved from the stockpiles into the civilian community."
"Probably because of the expected level of insecurity: people felt they needed guns so they looted Saddam's old stockpiles," he said.
A 2004 Small Arms Survey report found that between seven to eight million weapons were looted from Iraqi stockpiles in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.
According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the looted weaponry included several thousand shoulder-fired SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 missiles, subsequently used by militants in attacks on US aircraft.
An October 2006 Lancet morbidity study found that gunshots accounted for 56 percent of violent deaths during the study period and that "the number of deaths from gunshots increased consistently over the post-invasion period."
The report concluded that a staggering 655,000 Iraqis "above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation" had died since 2003.
Iranian involvement
The extent of Iranian involvement in Iraqi weapons smuggling is impossible to ascertain given the secrecy of the trade and the limited nature of US seizures.
US forces in Iraq allege in repeated press conferences that Iran has provided Shia militants with shaped charges, RPGs, mortars and shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles, exhibiting weapons with Iranian markings.
It is hard to gauge whether the Iranian government is directly involved in the smuggling given the convoluted domestic political structure and possibility that these activities may be conducted without the knowledge of other power centers and institutions.
US-led forces have made efforts recently to bolster security against weapons smuggling along the Iraq-Iran border; however, effective policing of illicit border traffic is impossible given the lack of manpower.
It appears that the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Force is playing some role in Iraq. US and Iraqi officials claimed that prominent al-Quds Force leaders were among those detained in December and January raids in Baghdad and Irbil.
The al-Quds Force has allegedly played a key role in the military development of Hizbollah and may be poised to take a similar role in Iraq. However, the complex patchwork of competing Shia militant movements in the south of the country tends to militate against the clear extrapolation of Iran-militant relations as in Lebanon. However, the Badr Corps is believed to be particularly close to Iran.
Journalist and analyst Douglas Farrah, who co-authored a recent book on prominent weapons smuggler Victor Bout, told ISN Security Watch, "I have spent a lot of time talking to non-US intelligence services who believe that Iran is certainly a significant factor" in weapons smuggling.
"Clearly Iran has interests in destabilizing the US project and its own clear regional interest in setting up a government that is not hostile to them," he said. "So I think they play a rather significant role both in arming and backing the Shia militias."
Director of Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation, Dr Michael Kraig, interprets Iranian involvement in Iran as motivated by "desperation to have future influence and not be isolated again."
"If you have the adjective Shia in front of [your name] Iran is talking to you and trying to help you and that is not focused, that is scattershot," he told ISN Security Watch, adding, "My impression is that they are actually giving money and training to anyone and everyone who asks for it because they don't want to be left out of the game."
Massive misappropriation
Alleged Iranian involvement in the illicit Iraqi arms trade appears to pale in comparison to the largely inadvertent US role in feeding the black market.
A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in August found that US forces in Iraq "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22 2005."
The GAO findings followed an October 2006 report by Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen, which found that only 10,000 of around 400,000 small arms provided to Iraqi forces had had their serial numbers properly recorded. Bowen said in his report that US logistics efforts were "severely undermanned."
An independent panel established by Secretary of the Army Pete Green, confirmed on Thursday that major logistical problems continued to blight US operations in Iraq and elsewhere, with the US military fundamentally failing to train contracting officers required for the proper oversight or procurements. The panel recommended a 25 percent boost in their numbers.
With reports speaking of mass desertions and police involvement in a wave of extrajudicial sectarian murders, it appears likely that the lost weapons have played a major role in fueling the weapons black market and, by extension, insurgent, sectarian and intra-sectarian strife.
Asked if steps had been taken to address loopholes, Farrah said, "Amazingly enough, things are probably more in chaos than they have been for a while."
"There is a constant urgency to everything that happens there [in Iraq] to tread water, to keep the plan moderately afloat, and there is very little time or attention given to closing these types of loopholes that are not viewed as vital. I just don't think they have the time, the wherewithal or the interest frankly in tracking down things."
Arming militants
Importantly, US forces in al-Anbar province, Diyala and other areas are continuing to bypass the recalcitrant, Shia-controlled Interior Ministry in creating and arming local Sunni tribal and neighborhood defense groups and police precincts.
Kraig believes that US planners have come to the realization, in the past six months to a year, that the Nouri al-Maliki administration is not a neutral player. He believes that the decision to arm Sunni groups is a response to this perception shift.
The US is now seeking to "put pressure on the Shia, who are dominant in the government, by giving the Sunni tribes the means to defend themselves," he said. "That is such a horrible strategic point to be at and ideally we souldn't have done things that got us to this kind of decision in the first place."
"I think it is a very delicate balance," Farrah said. "You have to do something to move forward, and this program has obviously had some success in arming these groups. But the blowback remains to be seen."
"I don't get the sense talking with people that a great deal of thought has been put into it. I think there is a great desire to do something and they'll deal with the consequences later," he said.
The extent to which the US is struggling to cope with the logistics of Iraqi force reconstruction was underlined by a recent US$100 million small-arms deal signed between the Iraqi government and China.
Relating to the deal in an interview with the Washington Post, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that Baghdad demanded that the US accelerate the arming of Iraqi forces, complaining that only one in five police had a weapon.
Criminal ties
As in any major conflict zone, the collapse of security in Iraq has created a fertile environment for major international arms smugglers. A disturbing pattern has emerged whereby their services have been utilized by the Pentagon in direct contravention of stated US government policy.
Adrian Wilkinson, who led a Southeastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC) team probing illicit arms deliveries, explained that "all the arms trafficking was legal but it was covert."
"Basically the American government needed a supply of weapons to re-equip the armed forces of Iraq and Afghanistan so they came to a deal with the Bosnian government whereby a substantial amount of weapons - somewhere in the region of 300,000 - would leave Bosnia between 2004-2005, going to Iraq."
"The problem is that the people who moved those weapons used airlines with links to well-known arms traffickers such as Victor Bout," he explained.
According to Wilkinson, the SEESAC probe found that when the shipments "left Bosnia the weapons weren't shipped by serial number. The organizations that shipped the weapons had leaks in the past and therefore there was a significant risk of diversion, but we don't know whether the diversions took place or not, that is still under investigation."
"When the weapons got to Iraq they weren't accounted for by serial numbers, they just arrived in boxes and were dished out willy-nilly," Wilkinson said.
Farah alleges that Bout probably flew "around 1,000 flights for the US military through contractors and sub-contractors."
"We found that, astonishingly enough, Victor was flying with official US government permission a series of flights from Bosnia into Iraq," he said. "Those weapons - as far as we could determine […] weren't confirmed as arriving in Iraq."
These flights allegedly took place despite a 2004 executive order from US President George W Bush proscribing any US involvement with Bout, and a subsequent Treasury Department order seizing his, and his associates' and companies' assets and banning any US citizen from having any contacts.
Asked if the clear violation of presidential and Treasury directives had led to censures or investigations in the US, Farrah said, "There has been no interest in pursuing those allegations here at all, which I find truly stunning."
SEESAC has reportedly sent a limited-release report to customs and other agencies on the activities of a second major arms trader, Serb Tomislav Damjanovic, who was described in a recent International Herald Tribune report as "the biggest air shipper of weapons from the Balkans to Iraq on behalf the United States."
"Damjanovic is well known for being an illegal arms trafficker in the past. Therefore, is it morally and ethically right that the American government should reward a well-known international arms trafficker, named in sanctions committee reports, with the contract?" Wilkinson said.
"More importantly, without any form of effective oversight, how do they [Pentagon officials] know that the number of weapons that were loaded on Damjanovic's aircraft at point A were actually delivered to point B, or did only nine of every 10 cases get through," he asked.
"They can never prove it, they just don't know."
Dr Dominic Moran, based in Tel Aviv, is ISN Security Watch's senior correspondent in the Middle East and the Director of Operations of ISA Consulting.
By Dominic Moran in Tel Aviv for ISN Security Watch (02/11/07)
Post-invasion Iraq has been blighted by a massive proliferation in small arms, conducted with the active involvement of both state and non-state actors, including major criminal entities.
This proliferation profoundly undermines efforts to stabilize the security situation and future moves to reconstitute Iraq as a viable state.
Unprotected stockpiles
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was marked by the large-scale misappropriation of Iraqi munitions and weapons.
International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) Policy Officer Dr Alun Howard told ISN Security Watch, "One of the reasons there are so many guns in Iraq is that in the US seizure of Baghdad they did not secure Iraq's stockpiles and the guns moved from the stockpiles into the civilian community."
"Probably because of the expected level of insecurity: people felt they needed guns so they looted Saddam's old stockpiles," he said.
A 2004 Small Arms Survey report found that between seven to eight million weapons were looted from Iraqi stockpiles in the immediate aftermath of the invasion.
According to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the looted weaponry included several thousand shoulder-fired SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16 missiles, subsequently used by militants in attacks on US aircraft.
An October 2006 Lancet morbidity study found that gunshots accounted for 56 percent of violent deaths during the study period and that "the number of deaths from gunshots increased consistently over the post-invasion period."
The report concluded that a staggering 655,000 Iraqis "above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation" had died since 2003.
Iranian involvement
The extent of Iranian involvement in Iraqi weapons smuggling is impossible to ascertain given the secrecy of the trade and the limited nature of US seizures.
US forces in Iraq allege in repeated press conferences that Iran has provided Shia militants with shaped charges, RPGs, mortars and shoulder-fired surface-to-air-missiles, exhibiting weapons with Iranian markings.
It is hard to gauge whether the Iranian government is directly involved in the smuggling given the convoluted domestic political structure and possibility that these activities may be conducted without the knowledge of other power centers and institutions.
US-led forces have made efforts recently to bolster security against weapons smuggling along the Iraq-Iran border; however, effective policing of illicit border traffic is impossible given the lack of manpower.
It appears that the Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Force is playing some role in Iraq. US and Iraqi officials claimed that prominent al-Quds Force leaders were among those detained in December and January raids in Baghdad and Irbil.
The al-Quds Force has allegedly played a key role in the military development of Hizbollah and may be poised to take a similar role in Iraq. However, the complex patchwork of competing Shia militant movements in the south of the country tends to militate against the clear extrapolation of Iran-militant relations as in Lebanon. However, the Badr Corps is believed to be particularly close to Iran.
Journalist and analyst Douglas Farrah, who co-authored a recent book on prominent weapons smuggler Victor Bout, told ISN Security Watch, "I have spent a lot of time talking to non-US intelligence services who believe that Iran is certainly a significant factor" in weapons smuggling.
"Clearly Iran has interests in destabilizing the US project and its own clear regional interest in setting up a government that is not hostile to them," he said. "So I think they play a rather significant role both in arming and backing the Shia militias."
Director of Policy Analysis and Dialogue at the Stanley Foundation, Dr Michael Kraig, interprets Iranian involvement in Iran as motivated by "desperation to have future influence and not be isolated again."
"If you have the adjective Shia in front of [your name] Iran is talking to you and trying to help you and that is not focused, that is scattershot," he told ISN Security Watch, adding, "My impression is that they are actually giving money and training to anyone and everyone who asks for it because they don't want to be left out of the game."
Massive misappropriation
Alleged Iranian involvement in the illicit Iraqi arms trade appears to pale in comparison to the largely inadvertent US role in feeding the black market.
A US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in August found that US forces in Iraq "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22 2005."
The GAO findings followed an October 2006 report by Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen, which found that only 10,000 of around 400,000 small arms provided to Iraqi forces had had their serial numbers properly recorded. Bowen said in his report that US logistics efforts were "severely undermanned."
An independent panel established by Secretary of the Army Pete Green, confirmed on Thursday that major logistical problems continued to blight US operations in Iraq and elsewhere, with the US military fundamentally failing to train contracting officers required for the proper oversight or procurements. The panel recommended a 25 percent boost in their numbers.
With reports speaking of mass desertions and police involvement in a wave of extrajudicial sectarian murders, it appears likely that the lost weapons have played a major role in fueling the weapons black market and, by extension, insurgent, sectarian and intra-sectarian strife.
Asked if steps had been taken to address loopholes, Farrah said, "Amazingly enough, things are probably more in chaos than they have been for a while."
"There is a constant urgency to everything that happens there [in Iraq] to tread water, to keep the plan moderately afloat, and there is very little time or attention given to closing these types of loopholes that are not viewed as vital. I just don't think they have the time, the wherewithal or the interest frankly in tracking down things."
Arming militants
Importantly, US forces in al-Anbar province, Diyala and other areas are continuing to bypass the recalcitrant, Shia-controlled Interior Ministry in creating and arming local Sunni tribal and neighborhood defense groups and police precincts.
Kraig believes that US planners have come to the realization, in the past six months to a year, that the Nouri al-Maliki administration is not a neutral player. He believes that the decision to arm Sunni groups is a response to this perception shift.
The US is now seeking to "put pressure on the Shia, who are dominant in the government, by giving the Sunni tribes the means to defend themselves," he said. "That is such a horrible strategic point to be at and ideally we souldn't have done things that got us to this kind of decision in the first place."
"I think it is a very delicate balance," Farrah said. "You have to do something to move forward, and this program has obviously had some success in arming these groups. But the blowback remains to be seen."
"I don't get the sense talking with people that a great deal of thought has been put into it. I think there is a great desire to do something and they'll deal with the consequences later," he said.
The extent to which the US is struggling to cope with the logistics of Iraqi force reconstruction was underlined by a recent US$100 million small-arms deal signed between the Iraqi government and China.
Relating to the deal in an interview with the Washington Post, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that Baghdad demanded that the US accelerate the arming of Iraqi forces, complaining that only one in five police had a weapon.
Criminal ties
As in any major conflict zone, the collapse of security in Iraq has created a fertile environment for major international arms smugglers. A disturbing pattern has emerged whereby their services have been utilized by the Pentagon in direct contravention of stated US government policy.
Adrian Wilkinson, who led a Southeastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC) team probing illicit arms deliveries, explained that "all the arms trafficking was legal but it was covert."
"Basically the American government needed a supply of weapons to re-equip the armed forces of Iraq and Afghanistan so they came to a deal with the Bosnian government whereby a substantial amount of weapons - somewhere in the region of 300,000 - would leave Bosnia between 2004-2005, going to Iraq."
"The problem is that the people who moved those weapons used airlines with links to well-known arms traffickers such as Victor Bout," he explained.
According to Wilkinson, the SEESAC probe found that when the shipments "left Bosnia the weapons weren't shipped by serial number. The organizations that shipped the weapons had leaks in the past and therefore there was a significant risk of diversion, but we don't know whether the diversions took place or not, that is still under investigation."
"When the weapons got to Iraq they weren't accounted for by serial numbers, they just arrived in boxes and were dished out willy-nilly," Wilkinson said.
Farah alleges that Bout probably flew "around 1,000 flights for the US military through contractors and sub-contractors."
"We found that, astonishingly enough, Victor was flying with official US government permission a series of flights from Bosnia into Iraq," he said. "Those weapons - as far as we could determine […] weren't confirmed as arriving in Iraq."
These flights allegedly took place despite a 2004 executive order from US President George W Bush proscribing any US involvement with Bout, and a subsequent Treasury Department order seizing his, and his associates' and companies' assets and banning any US citizen from having any contacts.
Asked if the clear violation of presidential and Treasury directives had led to censures or investigations in the US, Farrah said, "There has been no interest in pursuing those allegations here at all, which I find truly stunning."
SEESAC has reportedly sent a limited-release report to customs and other agencies on the activities of a second major arms trader, Serb Tomislav Damjanovic, who was described in a recent International Herald Tribune report as "the biggest air shipper of weapons from the Balkans to Iraq on behalf the United States."
"Damjanovic is well known for being an illegal arms trafficker in the past. Therefore, is it morally and ethically right that the American government should reward a well-known international arms trafficker, named in sanctions committee reports, with the contract?" Wilkinson said.
"More importantly, without any form of effective oversight, how do they [Pentagon officials] know that the number of weapons that were loaded on Damjanovic's aircraft at point A were actually delivered to point B, or did only nine of every 10 cases get through," he asked.
"They can never prove it, they just don't know."
Dr Dominic Moran, based in Tel Aviv, is ISN Security Watch's senior correspondent in the Middle East and the Director of Operations of ISA Consulting.
Benazir’s exit hints at emergency
http://thepost.com.pk/MainNewsT.aspx?bdtl_id=7965&fb_id=2&catid=14
Jalilur Rehman
LAHORE: The prevalent political and law and order situation suggests imposition of emergency initially for two months in the country which later on can be extended for a period of another six months.
Almost all the opposition religious and political parties have opposed promulgation of emergency in the country. The departure of the PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto from Karachi to Dubai also suggests a green signal for the imposition of emergency in Pakistan. emergency means the existence of conditions whereby the security of Pakistan or any part thereof is threatened by war, external aggression or internal disturbance and if any of these exist the President of Pakistan can issue a proclamation of emergency. It must be kept in mind that actual breakout of war or occurrence of any internal violence is not necessary to justify a proclamation of emergency by the President. The President may make such a proclamation if he is satisfied that there is an imminent danger of such external or internal aggression. The satisfaction of the President as envisaged in Article 232 of the Constitution for promulgating an order of emergency is his subjective satisfaction and the grounds whether such a situation exists or not cannot be gone into by a court of law.
Therefore President General Pervez Musharraf in terms of Article 232 of the Constitution is fully empowered to impose emergency in the country. It has been provided in the constitution that 'if the President was satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan or any part thereof was threatened by war or external aggression or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.'
Notwithstanding the prevalent political situation and the constitutional void already existing in the country the grave situation in Balochistan, Waziristan, Swat and other tribal parts of the country also hints at imposition of emergency to save the country from further worsening of law and order and alarming situation in the tribal areas. While the federal government is believed to have prepared a draft for the promulgation of emergency in Pakistan, political analysts and pundits are of the view that imposing emergency in the country was not the proper or the only solution or resolution of the current upsurge of suicide attacks and bombings, adding that the holding of fair, free and transparent general elections was the best solution of all the problems the country was confronting nowadays.
The imposition of an emergency in the given circumstances will be of far reaching consequences at a time when a provincial assembly of the NWFP has already been dissolved on the advice of the then Chief Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani and the MMA provincial and federal lawmakers have already resigned from parliament and the provincial assemblies.
The PPP circles and the top leadership are of the view that some strong elements in the PML and power corridors are not willing and do not want any kind of settlement and reconciliation between the PPP and the present regime. That is why the process and the progress achieved so far and arrived at for future working relations through the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has also been ridiculed and assailed in certain circles of the country.
During emergency the federal government may also, if it is so advised, suspend the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed in the Constitution. The federation can also suspend a provincial government during emergency and impose Governor's Rule in a province. It was the ruling coalition, the Pakistan Muslim League and its allies, who first floated the idea of the imposition of emergency in Pakistan. At the same time the PML also opined that the tenure of the present parliament and the provincial assemblies should be extended for at least one year. It must be remembered that this opinion was voiced about two and a half years back and soon after the adoption of the 17th Amendment when the combined opposition began demanding that General Pervez Musharraf should doff his military uniform.
In case the emergency is disapproved by a joint session of both the Houses, the proclamation of emergency shall cease to have effect. Therefore the outgoing parliament is empowered to nullify the proclamation of emergency by passing a resolution disapproving it. However, since the ruling party itself has been supporting the imposition of Emergency, as such at least in the given circumstances when the MMA federal legislators are no longer members of the National Assembly and the PPP is not coming out clearly in opposition to an emergency the chances of the adoption of a resolution for disapproving the Emergency are bleak.
Jalilur Rehman
LAHORE: The prevalent political and law and order situation suggests imposition of emergency initially for two months in the country which later on can be extended for a period of another six months.
Almost all the opposition religious and political parties have opposed promulgation of emergency in the country. The departure of the PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto from Karachi to Dubai also suggests a green signal for the imposition of emergency in Pakistan. emergency means the existence of conditions whereby the security of Pakistan or any part thereof is threatened by war, external aggression or internal disturbance and if any of these exist the President of Pakistan can issue a proclamation of emergency. It must be kept in mind that actual breakout of war or occurrence of any internal violence is not necessary to justify a proclamation of emergency by the President. The President may make such a proclamation if he is satisfied that there is an imminent danger of such external or internal aggression. The satisfaction of the President as envisaged in Article 232 of the Constitution for promulgating an order of emergency is his subjective satisfaction and the grounds whether such a situation exists or not cannot be gone into by a court of law.
Therefore President General Pervez Musharraf in terms of Article 232 of the Constitution is fully empowered to impose emergency in the country. It has been provided in the constitution that 'if the President was satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security of Pakistan or any part thereof was threatened by war or external aggression or by internal disturbance beyond the power of a provincial Government to control, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency.'
Notwithstanding the prevalent political situation and the constitutional void already existing in the country the grave situation in Balochistan, Waziristan, Swat and other tribal parts of the country also hints at imposition of emergency to save the country from further worsening of law and order and alarming situation in the tribal areas. While the federal government is believed to have prepared a draft for the promulgation of emergency in Pakistan, political analysts and pundits are of the view that imposing emergency in the country was not the proper or the only solution or resolution of the current upsurge of suicide attacks and bombings, adding that the holding of fair, free and transparent general elections was the best solution of all the problems the country was confronting nowadays.
The imposition of an emergency in the given circumstances will be of far reaching consequences at a time when a provincial assembly of the NWFP has already been dissolved on the advice of the then Chief Minister Muhammad Ali Durrani and the MMA provincial and federal lawmakers have already resigned from parliament and the provincial assemblies.
The PPP circles and the top leadership are of the view that some strong elements in the PML and power corridors are not willing and do not want any kind of settlement and reconciliation between the PPP and the present regime. That is why the process and the progress achieved so far and arrived at for future working relations through the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) has also been ridiculed and assailed in certain circles of the country.
During emergency the federal government may also, if it is so advised, suspend the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed in the Constitution. The federation can also suspend a provincial government during emergency and impose Governor's Rule in a province. It was the ruling coalition, the Pakistan Muslim League and its allies, who first floated the idea of the imposition of emergency in Pakistan. At the same time the PML also opined that the tenure of the present parliament and the provincial assemblies should be extended for at least one year. It must be remembered that this opinion was voiced about two and a half years back and soon after the adoption of the 17th Amendment when the combined opposition began demanding that General Pervez Musharraf should doff his military uniform.
In case the emergency is disapproved by a joint session of both the Houses, the proclamation of emergency shall cease to have effect. Therefore the outgoing parliament is empowered to nullify the proclamation of emergency by passing a resolution disapproving it. However, since the ruling party itself has been supporting the imposition of Emergency, as such at least in the given circumstances when the MMA federal legislators are no longer members of the National Assembly and the PPP is not coming out clearly in opposition to an emergency the chances of the adoption of a resolution for disapproving the Emergency are bleak.
No solutions in Swat
Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=78349
11/2/2007
After a brief two-day lull, fighting in Swat has resumed. A further 20 people have died, and bodies have been exchanged between warring militants and paramilitary forces. The grotesque mutilations inflicted on some of the bodies underscore, in their own words, the intention of the extremists to send out a ‘clear-cut’ message. No immediate solution to the crisis is Swat appears to be in sight. Terrorised people, including women and children, have been seen fleeing the worst affected areas on foot. Others report being trapped in their homes for hours or even days. Whereas the much heard talk of dialogue and negotiation is probably well intentioned, it is worth noting that, in the past, similar talks have resulted only in clumsy efforts to appease the militants. This has happened both in Waziristan and at the Lal Masjid. Indeed, concessions made to Lal Masjid clerics early on in the sordid affair, granting them permission to reconstruct mosques, acted only to encourage them, accelerating the crisis and contributing to the bloody outcome which came several months later.
Of course, it goes without saying that the the situation in Swat should have been tackled much earlier. The antics of Maulana Fazlullah, who astride his white steed, was known for setting out on missions to collect ‘donations’ in cash and jewellery from people, and preaching a fiery brand of extremist Islam which included opposition to education for girls, should never have been tolerated. Yet, instead of addressing the issue head-on, the former MMA government, with administrative control over the Provincially Administered Tribal Area (PATA) opted for a flawed policy of accord. In exchange for permitting the polio vaccination drive in the areas of Malakand that he effectively controlled, Fazlullah was allowed to continue to operate the illegal FM radio station that he used to propagate his retrogressive, and indeed unlawful, message. In addition, as authorities turned a blind eye, he was also able to amass a considerable arsenal of arms, as the present fighting has shown, and raise an organised private militia of some four or five thousand men.
Under these circumstances, for all the criticism of the government’s use of force, it is hard to say what options were open to it other than an armed operation aimed at reasserting the shattered writ of state. Permitting the coercive hold of Fazlullah to continue much longer could only have aggravated the situation, and worsened the plight of Swat’s people — who over the last decade have helplessly seen a major source of income — tourism — stolen away from them by the extremists. But armed action alone cannot, on a long-term basis, solve the problems of Swat. This can happen only when people everywhere in the country, especially in large urban centres that form the hub of decision-making and influence, take up the battle against militancy as their own. Till now, there has been a silent indifference to events in various parts of the country — and while this persists, there can be little hope of winning a battle that so far has pitched extremists against the state, with citizens remaining largely detached and somewhat disinterested. For the violence in places like Swat to be resolved, this indifference must end before it is too late to win the ongoing war.
Press under siege | Protect media persons
http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=126481&catid=11
Sadaf Arshad
The Northern Areas of Pakistan, known for their spellbinding beauty and an ideal holiday spot, have achieved this status due to the scenic treat they offer to the eyes. Swat, one of the most beautiful regions in this exotic belt, has been the primary tourist attraction for its Buddhist heritage and archaeological sites. During the last few years the area became a stronghold of Maulana Fazlullah’s Islamist group, Tehreek Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM). The recent clashes that broke out a few days ago have not erupted out of nowhere. The latest operation comes in the wake of the clashes in July this year. In July, the government’s operation against Lal Masjid clerics and students in Islamabad fanned the emotions of pro-Taliban militants in Swat. They mounted revenge attacks on the army.
After ‘Operation Silence’ against the Lal Masjid, the next possible target of operation by the government was Swat. The circumstances have proved it. Challenging the writ of the government is certainly a crime committed by Fazlullah. As a result, innocent people have suffered besides the soldiers and media people. As the law and order situation is deteriorating, one needs to know more about what has actually happened and what may be in store. This makes the role of the media tough and challenging. In a conflict zone, a media person is exposed to many dangers. Still, he or she has to show readiness to accept the challenges. No wonder then that the journalists are losing their lives while covering conflicts or sustaining severe injuries. One recent example is the death of a journalist in a suicide bomb blast at the arrival of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
In the Swat unrest, two media-persons sustained severe injures on October 28 when a rocket landed close to where they were filming the clashes between Pakistan’s security forces and militants near the town of Mingora. A producer of a private television channel Aaj TV, Raza Mehmood Agha and reporter Khalid Jameel sustained injuries. Mr Raza had to undergo surgery for shrapnel injuries to his hand and leg. After a temporary ceasefire between the security forces and the militants, new fighting has started. The intervention of a jirga, a traditional mediator, seemed successful in bringing the fight to a temporary end. The truce was announced by the leadership of the militants by a loudspeaker of a mosque and on the FM radio station illegally used by Maulana Fazlullah for spreading his propaganda.
The illegal airing of transmission through FM radio stations has become quite a fad these days. These illegal radio stations seem to have legitimated all the crackdowns by the government on FM radio stations in NWFP and Balochistan in the last few years. Setting up of an FM radio station does not require huge investment and sophisticated machinery like a television set-up. This has made the task of the religious clerics easy. They are able to send their messages to a larger audience in this way. These illegal FM stations had been shut down in the last two or three years, but no measures were taken to ensure that they do not start operating again. The FM station used by Fazlullah is the recent example of the loopholes in policy-making and implementation.
If we spare a moment to think why things have come to this pass, we come to realise that there was no real effort from the government to nip the problem in the bud. Many would think that it is easy to blame the government. I am not supporting the clerics in any way. No one would deny that a military operation is undertaken as a last resoit after all other political options have been exhausted. Have we used the other options? Our government has always waited for the situation to reach a point where a military operation seems justified.
My argument is that the situation should have been wisely tackled from the very beginning. If the threat of Swat unrest was so evident even in July, why no measures had been taken to counter it? Today, the US media is labelling Pakistan as “the most dangerous place” on earth. This will definitely damage the public perception about Pakistan in the world. If the situation persists, it will directly affect Pakistan in political and economic terms. I am unable to understand why Pakistan is singled out in the US media as a place where suicide bombing is the order of the day. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Iraq and Afghanistan are also places where the law and order situation is unstable. A civil war is going on in Sri Lanka and the number of casualties is increasing with every passing day.
In Afghanistan the Nato forces are conducting an unending operation to hunt down the al Qaeda leadership. Such titles were never awarded to this war-torn country. But Pakistan, a key ally of the US in the war against terrorism, is privileged enough to receive it from the US media. This world enjoys a majority of those countries that are tackling one issue or another frequently. If the US media generously considers them as well, Pakistan would definitely not mind sharing this privilege with many other deserving countries.
To me, countering terrorism is a vague term where terrorism and how to counter it both need to be defined. The government has to make some policies and plans to root out terrorism rather than carrying out military operations as the last resort. FM radio stations have been used as a perfect medium to instigate violence and convince people for jihad. Now the government should seriously think about banning these illegal FM radio stations. The concept of check and balance should not remain as a concept alone, it should be seriously implemented. The media organisations have to accept the fact that the lives of media-persons are precious and their business is highly dependant on those who are neither secure nor insured. The recent loss of life and limb should be a clear signal for the media owners that their employees need to be trained to avoid such mishaps. Besides proper training, they should be insured before they go to cover conflict. I hope this process will now start.
The writer is the Coordinating Editor of Media Monitor, South Asia Press Commission
Pakistan: A failed state, not possible to govern
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14554475&vsv=SHGTslot7
M V Kamath Friday, 02 November , 2007, 10:25
What can one possibly say of a State which was born in hatred, fed on hatred, kept going on hatred and now slowly dying also in uncontrollable hatred? What a pathetic welcome did Benazir Bhutto receive when she returned `home’ after eight years of exile, self-imposed! In the suspected suicide attack on the welcome procession arranged by her supporters late at night in Karachi, her own home town, over 140 innocent people were killed and over thrice that number were grievously injured, but what does the United States, Pakistan’s patron, do?
President Bush advises China and India to take remedial measures in riot-torn Myanmar against the military dictators there! One does not know whether to laugh or cry. Should India take action against Pakistan, which has become the classic terrorist state, directly involved in attacks against civilians in Jammu & Kashmir? And who, pray, were the terrorists who attacked Benazir’s supporters? One guess is that they are followers of Al Quaeda and the Taliban. And who created these organisations? The United States did.
Special: Power game in Pakistan
Another guess, this one vocalised by Benazir Bhutto herself, is that the suicide attacks against her were carried out by followers of General Zia Ul Haq, who, in the first place, was responsible for the imprisonment and subsequent hanging of Benazir’s father Zulfiqar Ali. And who kept Gen Zia going? Again, the United States. It was this infamous General who helped former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to travel unrecognised to Beijing to make peace with Mao Tse-Tung.
Never mind if Gen. Zia got killed in a plane accident. Many believe that there was no accident but a deliberate and diabolical plan, supported by the US to get rid of an unwanted `friend’ who, in his time, had served Washington’s purpose but had later become expendable. As the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost. Meanwhile, consider how the entire Karachi bomb episode developed. Benazir Bhutto’s bullet proof vehicle had two cordons of security around it. The outer cordon comprised of not only Sindh police officers but also security officers of Pakistan’s Intelligence Service in plain clothes. The inner cordon consisted of security guards engaged by Benazir’s own Pakistan Peoples Party.
No better security could have been provided to the home-comer. But, according to reports, the suicide Bombers managed to get through the outer cordon without being frisked. A shocking discovery. Worse, the street lights went off even as the terrorists first threw an incendiary bomb and later the suicide bombers went into action blowing themselves and many others into pieces.
What does that say of Musharraf who must have known what was likely to happen? Or else, why should he have told Benazir not to return home? That is only one aspect of the suicide bombing. The truth is that Pakistan has become a failed State, no longer possible to govern. It has been literally taken over by Islamic terrorists organisations like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islam, the Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and a host of other groups brought up to hate and kill and who had once been happily sponsored by the US and had been nurtured by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which has now obviously become a law unto itself.
Instead of lecturing to India and China over Myanmar why doesn’t Bush handle Pakistan? The Truth is, he can’t. He neither has the courage nor the Will to do so. Already the US is, in Pakistan and especially among terrorist groups, the most hated country. The US record is pathetic. In the fifties it succeeded in dividing Korea. In the eighties it literally reduced Vietnam into dust, killing millions and finally losing the war. Vietnam has now managed to rise on its own from its ashes. Afghanistan became Washington’s third prey. That was followed by Iraq.
The US now plans to destroy Iran and Myanmar is set to become the next target. And not a single dog is barking. The United Nations has become a dead duck. It seldom had any voice in the past. Now, it has become totally deaf and dumb. Is there any way out? The Bible with which Bush must be familiar says that as one sows, so one reaps. It was the US which created the Taliban and financed Al Qaeda. And now Pakistan is paying for its folly. But it is not Pakistan, alone which is in trouble.
If no action is taken to curb the terrorists, India will have to be even more careful in the months ahead. It is not just Pakistan, but neighbouring India, too, is going to get wounded for no fault of its own. And if the terrorists capture Pakistan’s nuclear armoury, which is substantial, then not even God can save us. Pakistan is full to the brim with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) unlike Iraq, which was falsely charged to meet Bush’s hatred of Saddam Hussain.
Myanmar can wait; it has no nuclear weapons. But South Asia cannot. If the US means business, Pakistan must be immediately stripped of its nuclear weaponry and there must be immediate stoppage of further military aid to Pakistan. The Pakistan Army must be re-organised and all the pro-jehadi elements in it must be eliminated.
Saudi Financiers must be warned to stay away. It will take a lot of daring, but Pakistan is asking for it. How dare Bush blame India for what is happening in Myanmar? The US has been supporting military dictatorships almost in every continent when they suit its purpose. Why doesn’t the US take steps against Bangladesh, home of many ISI-sponsored terrorist organisations? Is there Democracy in that land? For that matter, what sort of democracy is Musharraf practising? And in what way is Bush helping the liberals in Pakistan to keep the Armed Forces in their barracks?
The entire economy, for all practical purposes, is being run by the Armed Forces in Pakistan. It is a sick joke. India has no eyes on Pak territory as Pakistan has on India’s. Musharraf wants India not to interfere in Balochistan far away from India while Jammu & Kashmir is next door to Islamabad and the ISI is playing havoc there.
If Bush wants democracy in Myanmar, let him first help establish democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh. That will set the democratic ball rolling. There has to be an end to American hypocrisy. And our dear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must speak up. One gets sick of Bush’s moralising and Singh’s calculated silence. Pakistan is America’s favourite poodle. India is not and will never be, a point that needs to be stressed time and again. India has never patronised terrorists. The United States has, a point that it will do well to remember.
M V Kamath Friday, 02 November , 2007, 10:25
What can one possibly say of a State which was born in hatred, fed on hatred, kept going on hatred and now slowly dying also in uncontrollable hatred? What a pathetic welcome did Benazir Bhutto receive when she returned `home’ after eight years of exile, self-imposed! In the suspected suicide attack on the welcome procession arranged by her supporters late at night in Karachi, her own home town, over 140 innocent people were killed and over thrice that number were grievously injured, but what does the United States, Pakistan’s patron, do?
President Bush advises China and India to take remedial measures in riot-torn Myanmar against the military dictators there! One does not know whether to laugh or cry. Should India take action against Pakistan, which has become the classic terrorist state, directly involved in attacks against civilians in Jammu & Kashmir? And who, pray, were the terrorists who attacked Benazir’s supporters? One guess is that they are followers of Al Quaeda and the Taliban. And who created these organisations? The United States did.
Special: Power game in Pakistan
Another guess, this one vocalised by Benazir Bhutto herself, is that the suicide attacks against her were carried out by followers of General Zia Ul Haq, who, in the first place, was responsible for the imprisonment and subsequent hanging of Benazir’s father Zulfiqar Ali. And who kept Gen Zia going? Again, the United States. It was this infamous General who helped former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to travel unrecognised to Beijing to make peace with Mao Tse-Tung.
Never mind if Gen. Zia got killed in a plane accident. Many believe that there was no accident but a deliberate and diabolical plan, supported by the US to get rid of an unwanted `friend’ who, in his time, had served Washington’s purpose but had later become expendable. As the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost. Meanwhile, consider how the entire Karachi bomb episode developed. Benazir Bhutto’s bullet proof vehicle had two cordons of security around it. The outer cordon comprised of not only Sindh police officers but also security officers of Pakistan’s Intelligence Service in plain clothes. The inner cordon consisted of security guards engaged by Benazir’s own Pakistan Peoples Party.
No better security could have been provided to the home-comer. But, according to reports, the suicide Bombers managed to get through the outer cordon without being frisked. A shocking discovery. Worse, the street lights went off even as the terrorists first threw an incendiary bomb and later the suicide bombers went into action blowing themselves and many others into pieces.
What does that say of Musharraf who must have known what was likely to happen? Or else, why should he have told Benazir not to return home? That is only one aspect of the suicide bombing. The truth is that Pakistan has become a failed State, no longer possible to govern. It has been literally taken over by Islamic terrorists organisations like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islam, the Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and a host of other groups brought up to hate and kill and who had once been happily sponsored by the US and had been nurtured by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which has now obviously become a law unto itself.
Instead of lecturing to India and China over Myanmar why doesn’t Bush handle Pakistan? The Truth is, he can’t. He neither has the courage nor the Will to do so. Already the US is, in Pakistan and especially among terrorist groups, the most hated country. The US record is pathetic. In the fifties it succeeded in dividing Korea. In the eighties it literally reduced Vietnam into dust, killing millions and finally losing the war. Vietnam has now managed to rise on its own from its ashes. Afghanistan became Washington’s third prey. That was followed by Iraq.
The US now plans to destroy Iran and Myanmar is set to become the next target. And not a single dog is barking. The United Nations has become a dead duck. It seldom had any voice in the past. Now, it has become totally deaf and dumb. Is there any way out? The Bible with which Bush must be familiar says that as one sows, so one reaps. It was the US which created the Taliban and financed Al Qaeda. And now Pakistan is paying for its folly. But it is not Pakistan, alone which is in trouble.
If no action is taken to curb the terrorists, India will have to be even more careful in the months ahead. It is not just Pakistan, but neighbouring India, too, is going to get wounded for no fault of its own. And if the terrorists capture Pakistan’s nuclear armoury, which is substantial, then not even God can save us. Pakistan is full to the brim with Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) unlike Iraq, which was falsely charged to meet Bush’s hatred of Saddam Hussain.
Myanmar can wait; it has no nuclear weapons. But South Asia cannot. If the US means business, Pakistan must be immediately stripped of its nuclear weaponry and there must be immediate stoppage of further military aid to Pakistan. The Pakistan Army must be re-organised and all the pro-jehadi elements in it must be eliminated.
Saudi Financiers must be warned to stay away. It will take a lot of daring, but Pakistan is asking for it. How dare Bush blame India for what is happening in Myanmar? The US has been supporting military dictatorships almost in every continent when they suit its purpose. Why doesn’t the US take steps against Bangladesh, home of many ISI-sponsored terrorist organisations? Is there Democracy in that land? For that matter, what sort of democracy is Musharraf practising? And in what way is Bush helping the liberals in Pakistan to keep the Armed Forces in their barracks?
The entire economy, for all practical purposes, is being run by the Armed Forces in Pakistan. It is a sick joke. India has no eyes on Pak territory as Pakistan has on India’s. Musharraf wants India not to interfere in Balochistan far away from India while Jammu & Kashmir is next door to Islamabad and the ISI is playing havoc there.
If Bush wants democracy in Myanmar, let him first help establish democracy in Pakistan and Bangladesh. That will set the democratic ball rolling. There has to be an end to American hypocrisy. And our dear Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must speak up. One gets sick of Bush’s moralising and Singh’s calculated silence. Pakistan is America’s favourite poodle. India is not and will never be, a point that needs to be stressed time and again. India has never patronised terrorists. The United States has, a point that it will do well to remember.
CACI closes Athena acquisition
By David Hubler
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31720-1.html
Mergers / acquisitions
CACI International Inc. has completed the purchase of Athena Innovative Solutions Inc., a provider of specialized services to the intelligence community and other national security clients. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
CACI purchased the business from parent company Veritas Capital, a New York-based private equity firm focused on the defense and federal sectors. The companies first announced the deal in September.
The acquisition complements CACI’s core competencies and increases the professional services and solutions the company can offer government clients to help counter global terrorism, said Bill Fairl, president of CACI’s U.S. operations.
Athena has expertise in five core areas: human intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, all-source analysis and strategic policy development, CACI said. More than 90 percent of its services are provided at customer locations throughout the United States and abroad.
Athena of Arlington, Va., has about 600 full-time employees, the majority of whom possess top secret security clearances or higher. The company also has offices in Charlottesville, Va., and Tampa, Fla. Athena’s revenue is expected to be about $110 million for calendar year 2007.
CACI, also based in Arlington, Va., ranks No. 22 on Washington Technology’s 2007 Top 100 list of the largest federal government prime contractors.
http://www.washingtontechnology.com/online/1_1/31720-1.html
Mergers / acquisitions
CACI International Inc. has completed the purchase of Athena Innovative Solutions Inc., a provider of specialized services to the intelligence community and other national security clients. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.
CACI purchased the business from parent company Veritas Capital, a New York-based private equity firm focused on the defense and federal sectors. The companies first announced the deal in September.
The acquisition complements CACI’s core competencies and increases the professional services and solutions the company can offer government clients to help counter global terrorism, said Bill Fairl, president of CACI’s U.S. operations.
Athena has expertise in five core areas: human intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, all-source analysis and strategic policy development, CACI said. More than 90 percent of its services are provided at customer locations throughout the United States and abroad.
Athena of Arlington, Va., has about 600 full-time employees, the majority of whom possess top secret security clearances or higher. The company also has offices in Charlottesville, Va., and Tampa, Fla. Athena’s revenue is expected to be about $110 million for calendar year 2007.
CACI, also based in Arlington, Va., ranks No. 22 on Washington Technology’s 2007 Top 100 list of the largest federal government prime contractors.
Gartner: India is Fastest Growing BI Platforms Market in Asia
IT News Online Staff
2007-10-30
According to Gartner Inc., India is the fastest growing Business Intelligence (BI) Platforms market in Asia (including Japan), posting a growth of 35.6% in 2005-06. BI Platforms revenues in India grew from $12.1 million in 2005 to reach $16.4 million in 2006, with all leading vendors posting double-digit growth.
In APAC (including Japan), the BI platforms market grew at 16% in 2005 to reach $491.8 million in 2006, with Japan accounting for more than half the overall market.
Bhavish Sood, principal research analyst, Gartner, said, "Enterprise agility is a high-priority goal for enterprises in 2007, but BI's overall impact on business is poorly understood and BI is still considered as 'nice to have' in India. Many enterprises still rely on gut feelings and past experiences while making decisions and are not comfortable with the democratization of information and the transparency that BI initiatives bring about."
Gartner said the overall BI market in India is at a nascent stage, with a huge up-tapped opportunity for vendors to capture. Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are increasingly required to invest in technologies that drive business transformation and strategic change.
"BI can deliver on this promise if deployed successfully because it can improve decision making and operational efficiency, which in turn drives the top line and the bottom line. Also, information generated from enterprise applications is at an all-time high and will continue to increase. BI platforms can turn that information into an asset on which better business decisions can be made," added Sood.
Gartner believes that as India is currently in the implementation wave of business applications platforms like enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM) and supply chain management (SCM), the demand for business intelligence platforms will continue to rise. Indian enterprises show a strong preference for products like database management systems or application servers with BI capabilities embedded into the application.
Vendors also see embedded products as the ideal platform for catering to the burgeoning small and medium sized organizations. Several vendors in 2006 have been modifying or extending their product, pricing and partner strategies to reach this key group. Hosted BI through software as a service is one new approach that is being pioneered by a cluster of vendors.
BI priorities in India vary both by the vertical and size of the enterprise. Selection of BI platforms is a key activity carried out by enterprises as part of their BI initiatives with a granular focus on the technical platform capabilities. While dashboards and score cards are the common requirements for a range of industries, the telecom and banking verticals are moving towards implementing sophisticated analytics for understanding customer churn and making credit risk assessments.
Gartner said the growth of BI in India is also being driven by standardization, regulatory compliance and new laws like the Right to Information Act.
The top four vendors accounted for a majority of the Indian BI platforms market contributing to more than 72% of the overall revenues. SAP grew at an impressive 70.3% replacing Microsoft as the largest BI vendor in India, and relegating Business Objects to the 3rd position.
Despite the growing economy, and the apparent need for BI, the Indian BI market is less than 4% of the total APAC (including Japan) market.
Sood said, "Qualitative benefits, such as better insights and better decisions can be difficult to measure and place in a return-on-investment model. This makes further expansion of investments harder to justify in numerical terms, posing problems for both business users as well as the CIO approaching the CFO and/or management. Secondly, building BI infrastructure is only one part of the overall problem. Getting employees and executives to use that infrastructure is a cumbersome exercise and often leads to under utilization of the BI infrastructure and slower growth opportunities."
"Therefore, while the market poses a huge opportunity, the lack of a definition or agreement of what and how to measure/analyze the business will continue to inhibit successful deployments, discouraging organizations from further investing in BI," added Sood.
2007-10-30
According to Gartner Inc., India is the fastest growing Business Intelligence (BI) Platforms market in Asia (including Japan), posting a growth of 35.6% in 2005-06. BI Platforms revenues in India grew from $12.1 million in 2005 to reach $16.4 million in 2006, with all leading vendors posting double-digit growth.
In APAC (including Japan), the BI platforms market grew at 16% in 2005 to reach $491.8 million in 2006, with Japan accounting for more than half the overall market.
Bhavish Sood, principal research analyst, Gartner, said, "Enterprise agility is a high-priority goal for enterprises in 2007, but BI's overall impact on business is poorly understood and BI is still considered as 'nice to have' in India. Many enterprises still rely on gut feelings and past experiences while making decisions and are not comfortable with the democratization of information and the transparency that BI initiatives bring about."
Gartner said the overall BI market in India is at a nascent stage, with a huge up-tapped opportunity for vendors to capture. Chief Information Officers (CIOs) are increasingly required to invest in technologies that drive business transformation and strategic change.
"BI can deliver on this promise if deployed successfully because it can improve decision making and operational efficiency, which in turn drives the top line and the bottom line. Also, information generated from enterprise applications is at an all-time high and will continue to increase. BI platforms can turn that information into an asset on which better business decisions can be made," added Sood.
Gartner believes that as India is currently in the implementation wave of business applications platforms like enterprise resource planning (ERP), customer relationship management (CRM) and supply chain management (SCM), the demand for business intelligence platforms will continue to rise. Indian enterprises show a strong preference for products like database management systems or application servers with BI capabilities embedded into the application.
Vendors also see embedded products as the ideal platform for catering to the burgeoning small and medium sized organizations. Several vendors in 2006 have been modifying or extending their product, pricing and partner strategies to reach this key group. Hosted BI through software as a service is one new approach that is being pioneered by a cluster of vendors.
BI priorities in India vary both by the vertical and size of the enterprise. Selection of BI platforms is a key activity carried out by enterprises as part of their BI initiatives with a granular focus on the technical platform capabilities. While dashboards and score cards are the common requirements for a range of industries, the telecom and banking verticals are moving towards implementing sophisticated analytics for understanding customer churn and making credit risk assessments.
Gartner said the growth of BI in India is also being driven by standardization, regulatory compliance and new laws like the Right to Information Act.
The top four vendors accounted for a majority of the Indian BI platforms market contributing to more than 72% of the overall revenues. SAP grew at an impressive 70.3% replacing Microsoft as the largest BI vendor in India, and relegating Business Objects to the 3rd position.
Despite the growing economy, and the apparent need for BI, the Indian BI market is less than 4% of the total APAC (including Japan) market.
Sood said, "Qualitative benefits, such as better insights and better decisions can be difficult to measure and place in a return-on-investment model. This makes further expansion of investments harder to justify in numerical terms, posing problems for both business users as well as the CIO approaching the CFO and/or management. Secondly, building BI infrastructure is only one part of the overall problem. Getting employees and executives to use that infrastructure is a cumbersome exercise and often leads to under utilization of the BI infrastructure and slower growth opportunities."
"Therefore, while the market poses a huge opportunity, the lack of a definition or agreement of what and how to measure/analyze the business will continue to inhibit successful deployments, discouraging organizations from further investing in BI," added Sood.
Bush issued the first National Strategy for Information Sharing
Fact Sheet: National Strategy for Information Sharing
New Strategy Builds On Progress To Establish Integrated National Capability For Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Among Federal, State, Local, And Tribal Officials, Private Sector, And Foreign Partners
National Strategy for Information Sharing
"Today's release of the National Strategy for Information Sharing is a demonstration of the extensive efforts of this Administration to enhance our ability to work with State and local partners to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. Everyday, we work to improve the sharing of terrorism-related information with our foreign allies and the private sector, as well as law enforcement officials throughout our country. This Strategy will help us all continue to work together to detect, prevent, disrupt, and preempt terror attacks."
Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend, 10/31/07
Today, President Bush issued the first National Strategy for Information Sharing to prioritize and unify our Nation's efforts to advance the sharing of terrorism-related information. The Strategy sets forth our plan to build upon the progress we have made in improving information sharing since the September 11 attacks and establish an integrated National information sharing capability. It was developed using a collaborative process and based on significant input provided by members of the Federal Information Sharing Council, as well as State, local, tribal, and private sector officials from across the Nation.
The Strategy will help ensure those responsible for combating terrorism and protecting our local communities have access to the timely and accurate information they need by:
Providing a framework for enhanced information sharing among Federal, State, local, and tribal officials, the private sector, and foreign partners to aid their individual missions and to help secure the homeland.
Describing the Federal Government's approach to support State and major urban area fusion centers, as well as National efforts to fight crime and make our local communities safer.
Recognizing that as information sharing capabilities are enhanced, it is imperative that the legal rights of Americans continue to be protected, especially in the area of privacy and civil liberties.
The Strategy Sets Forth Our Plan To Improve Information Sharing Capabilities At All Levels Of Government And With The Private Sector
1. Improving information sharing among Federal agencies. Before September 11, we depended on the capabilities of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate intelligence regarding our adversaries and enemies. Today, we are not only enhancing those intelligence capabilities, but also ensuring collaboration among the other relevant Federal communities: law enforcement, defense, homeland security, and foreign affairs. This unified approach among Federal agencies will support improved sharing with non-Federal partners as well.
2. Improving information sharing with State, local, and tribal entities. As our Nation's first preventers and responders, State, local, and tribal officials must have access to actionable information, as well as mechanisms to support the identification and reporting of potential threats within their jurisdictions.
The Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group within the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) will facilitate the production of Federally-coordinated terrorism information products intended for dissemination to State, local, tribal, and private sector partners.
The Strategy calls for a National information sharing capability through the establishment of an integrated network of fusion centers. Since 2001, the Federal Government has provided significant grant funding to support the establishment of fusion centers owned and operated by States and major urban areas; 58 such centers have either been established or are being established. The Strategy builds on these efforts and provides a Federal Government-wide approach to interfacing and collaborating with these centers.
3. Improving information sharing with the private sector. The private sector owns and operates over 85 percent of the Nation's critical infrastructure and is, therefore, a primary source of information crucial for understanding the current threat environment. The private sector has improved its information sharing capabilities. This Strategy will build upon the progress already made and describes further efforts that will be taken to improve communications.
4. Improving information sharing with foreign partners. After the September 11 attacks, many foreign governments joined us in declaring war on terrorism and have since contributed in important ways. Intelligence provided by foreign partners often provides the first indications of terrorist plans and intentions. Accordingly, we will enhance standards and provide more capabilities for improved sharing with our foreign partners and allies.
The Strategy recognizes partners must be assured their information will be protected from unauthorized disclosure; likewise, the American people must also be assured that their information privacy is being protected. It is essential to continue protecting the information privacy and other legal rights of Americans as we fight the Global War on Terrorism. Accordingly, our efforts will remain relentless on two fronts protecting our people, our communities, and our infrastructure from attack and zealously protecting the information privacy and other legal rights of Americans.
Building On Progress Made In Information Sharing
Since the September 11 attacks, we have made extraordinary improvements in our capabilities to gather, analyze, and share the information needed to paint a more complete picture of the threat, and to provide a greater capacity for coordinated and integrated efforts to detect, prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist actions.
NCTC was established to serve as a multi-agency center analyzing and integrating all intelligence pertaining to terrorism, including threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad.
We established the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) to consolidate terrorist watch lists and provide around-the-clock operational support for Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel across the country.
The Federal Government provided significant grant funding to support the establishment of fusion centers.
The growth and maturation of the 101 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) in major cities throughout the United States has substantially contributed to improved information sharing and operational capabilities at the State and municipal levels.
The Administration worked with the Congress to adopt, implement, and renew key reforms like the USA PATRIOT Act to remove barriers that once restricted sharing between the law enforcement and intelligence communities while also protecting our fundamental liberties.
New Strategy Builds On Progress To Establish Integrated National Capability For Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Among Federal, State, Local, And Tribal Officials, Private Sector, And Foreign Partners
National Strategy for Information Sharing
"Today's release of the National Strategy for Information Sharing is a demonstration of the extensive efforts of this Administration to enhance our ability to work with State and local partners to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. Everyday, we work to improve the sharing of terrorism-related information with our foreign allies and the private sector, as well as law enforcement officials throughout our country. This Strategy will help us all continue to work together to detect, prevent, disrupt, and preempt terror attacks."
Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend, 10/31/07
Today, President Bush issued the first National Strategy for Information Sharing to prioritize and unify our Nation's efforts to advance the sharing of terrorism-related information. The Strategy sets forth our plan to build upon the progress we have made in improving information sharing since the September 11 attacks and establish an integrated National information sharing capability. It was developed using a collaborative process and based on significant input provided by members of the Federal Information Sharing Council, as well as State, local, tribal, and private sector officials from across the Nation.
The Strategy will help ensure those responsible for combating terrorism and protecting our local communities have access to the timely and accurate information they need by:
Providing a framework for enhanced information sharing among Federal, State, local, and tribal officials, the private sector, and foreign partners to aid their individual missions and to help secure the homeland.
Describing the Federal Government's approach to support State and major urban area fusion centers, as well as National efforts to fight crime and make our local communities safer.
Recognizing that as information sharing capabilities are enhanced, it is imperative that the legal rights of Americans continue to be protected, especially in the area of privacy and civil liberties.
The Strategy Sets Forth Our Plan To Improve Information Sharing Capabilities At All Levels Of Government And With The Private Sector
1. Improving information sharing among Federal agencies. Before September 11, we depended on the capabilities of the Intelligence Community to collect, process, analyze, and disseminate intelligence regarding our adversaries and enemies. Today, we are not only enhancing those intelligence capabilities, but also ensuring collaboration among the other relevant Federal communities: law enforcement, defense, homeland security, and foreign affairs. This unified approach among Federal agencies will support improved sharing with non-Federal partners as well.
2. Improving information sharing with State, local, and tribal entities. As our Nation's first preventers and responders, State, local, and tribal officials must have access to actionable information, as well as mechanisms to support the identification and reporting of potential threats within their jurisdictions.
The Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group within the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) will facilitate the production of Federally-coordinated terrorism information products intended for dissemination to State, local, tribal, and private sector partners.
The Strategy calls for a National information sharing capability through the establishment of an integrated network of fusion centers. Since 2001, the Federal Government has provided significant grant funding to support the establishment of fusion centers owned and operated by States and major urban areas; 58 such centers have either been established or are being established. The Strategy builds on these efforts and provides a Federal Government-wide approach to interfacing and collaborating with these centers.
3. Improving information sharing with the private sector. The private sector owns and operates over 85 percent of the Nation's critical infrastructure and is, therefore, a primary source of information crucial for understanding the current threat environment. The private sector has improved its information sharing capabilities. This Strategy will build upon the progress already made and describes further efforts that will be taken to improve communications.
4. Improving information sharing with foreign partners. After the September 11 attacks, many foreign governments joined us in declaring war on terrorism and have since contributed in important ways. Intelligence provided by foreign partners often provides the first indications of terrorist plans and intentions. Accordingly, we will enhance standards and provide more capabilities for improved sharing with our foreign partners and allies.
The Strategy recognizes partners must be assured their information will be protected from unauthorized disclosure; likewise, the American people must also be assured that their information privacy is being protected. It is essential to continue protecting the information privacy and other legal rights of Americans as we fight the Global War on Terrorism. Accordingly, our efforts will remain relentless on two fronts protecting our people, our communities, and our infrastructure from attack and zealously protecting the information privacy and other legal rights of Americans.
Building On Progress Made In Information Sharing
Since the September 11 attacks, we have made extraordinary improvements in our capabilities to gather, analyze, and share the information needed to paint a more complete picture of the threat, and to provide a greater capacity for coordinated and integrated efforts to detect, prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist actions.
NCTC was established to serve as a multi-agency center analyzing and integrating all intelligence pertaining to terrorism, including threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad.
We established the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) to consolidate terrorist watch lists and provide around-the-clock operational support for Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel across the country.
The Federal Government provided significant grant funding to support the establishment of fusion centers.
The growth and maturation of the 101 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) in major cities throughout the United States has substantially contributed to improved information sharing and operational capabilities at the State and municipal levels.
The Administration worked with the Congress to adopt, implement, and renew key reforms like the USA PATRIOT Act to remove barriers that once restricted sharing between the law enforcement and intelligence communities while also protecting our fundamental liberties.
Indo-US ties anti-China, so we will oppose: Karat
Press Trust of India
Posted online: Thursday , November 01, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Thursday , November 01, 2007 at 07:49:13
Kolkata, November 1: The CPM vowed to oppose a strategic alliance between India and the United States saying such a move is aimed at countering China.
''We shall not rest in our fight till the strategic ties with the US is snapped out,'' Karat said speaking at a CPM-sponsored programme to celebrate October Revolution day in Kolkata.
He said the US was trying to make India its strategic ally in countering China, "the most powerful socialist country capable of challenging the might of the USA".
''USA has also changed its tactics of making Pakistan its strategic ally as it has now realised that if it can get India as a strategic ally, the balance will be tilted in favour of imperialism and neo-colonialism'', he said.
Karat said that people of India would fight against imperialism ‘'and cannot accept the design to convert us as a subordinate ally of the US’.
The strategic document of the US administration recognised China as a major threat to the US hegemony, Karat said.
India, with its potential for development, ‘is preferred as an ideal ally of the US. If it can get India as its ally, it can be a big game for the imperialists’, the CPM leader said.
''India is a prize for the US and not Pakistan because of its market. Developed India can be useful for counter-balancing China. This is a game the US is trying to play which has to be foiled'', he said.
The CPM general secretary said Latin American and socialist countries were looking to India for the fight against imperialism as India had a past record to fight colonialism during the Independence movement.
''When Bush administration is threatening that the Third World war will be waged against Iran for its challenge against the US might, the Indian government remained silent and that is surprising'', he said.
There was continuous threat and intimidation to Iran by Washington. ''It is regrettable that there was no word of protest against the USA''.
The ruling class in India, he said, believed that there would be development if India be on the right side of the USA.
''West Bengal is the advanced post for the fight against imperialism and in the coming days, it will continue to put up its resistance", he said.
Throughout his speech, Karat made no reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal issue.
Posted online: Thursday , November 01, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Thursday , November 01, 2007 at 07:49:13
Kolkata, November 1: The CPM vowed to oppose a strategic alliance between India and the United States saying such a move is aimed at countering China.
''We shall not rest in our fight till the strategic ties with the US is snapped out,'' Karat said speaking at a CPM-sponsored programme to celebrate October Revolution day in Kolkata.
He said the US was trying to make India its strategic ally in countering China, "the most powerful socialist country capable of challenging the might of the USA".
''USA has also changed its tactics of making Pakistan its strategic ally as it has now realised that if it can get India as a strategic ally, the balance will be tilted in favour of imperialism and neo-colonialism'', he said.
Karat said that people of India would fight against imperialism ‘'and cannot accept the design to convert us as a subordinate ally of the US’.
The strategic document of the US administration recognised China as a major threat to the US hegemony, Karat said.
India, with its potential for development, ‘is preferred as an ideal ally of the US. If it can get India as its ally, it can be a big game for the imperialists’, the CPM leader said.
''India is a prize for the US and not Pakistan because of its market. Developed India can be useful for counter-balancing China. This is a game the US is trying to play which has to be foiled'', he said.
The CPM general secretary said Latin American and socialist countries were looking to India for the fight against imperialism as India had a past record to fight colonialism during the Independence movement.
''When Bush administration is threatening that the Third World war will be waged against Iran for its challenge against the US might, the Indian government remained silent and that is surprising'', he said.
There was continuous threat and intimidation to Iran by Washington. ''It is regrettable that there was no word of protest against the USA''.
The ruling class in India, he said, believed that there would be development if India be on the right side of the USA.
''West Bengal is the advanced post for the fight against imperialism and in the coming days, it will continue to put up its resistance", he said.
Throughout his speech, Karat made no reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal issue.
SLAF Zeroing in on Prabhakaran
SLAF Zeroing in on Prabhakaran International Terrorism Monitor -- Paper No. 298
by B. Raman
S. Cheeran, Secretary-General at the headquarters of the LTTE, has announced the death of S. P. Thamilchelvan, the head of the Political Wing of the LTTE and five others in a decapitation air strike by the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) on the residential complex of the members of the political wing at Kilinochi at 6 AM on the morning of November 2, 2007. The news of their death in an air strike was uploaded in the web site of the LTTE (www.tamilnet.com) at 1 PM Indian time. One does not know at what time Cheeran made the announcement. Presuming the web announcement must have been shortly after the official announcement, the LTTE has taken roughly six hours to admit the successful execution of a decapitation strike by the SLAF.
2. For the last one year, the SLAF has been repeatedly trying for decapitation strikes on Prabhakaran and other leaders of the LTTE. However, these strikes were not successful. The killing of Thamilchelvan and his associates is the first success in the decapitation drive of the SLAF.
3. Thamilchelvan was the public face of the LTTE and used to interact openly with media personalities and foreign visitors to his office. His location and the place of his residence were well known. keeping in view the decapitation operation launched by the SLAF last year, it is surprising he and his associates did not take the normal precautions such as changing the places of their residence frequently. Since the LTTE does not have a radar and anti-aircraft equipment at Kilinochi, the only way of protecting them was through precautions such as frequent changes of place of residence. Possible negligence in taking these precautions has cost their lives.
4. Since this was a targeted attack on senior leaders of the LTTE, the SLAF had every right to mount this strike, which did not target civilians. Till now, the LTTE itself has not alleged any civilian casualties.
5. The successful decapitation strike would be a morale booster for the SLAF after the set-back suffered by it recently at Anuradhapura where a squad of 21 Black Tiger commandoes, in coordination with two planes of the LTTE's air wing, raided the SLAF base and destroyed at least eight aircraft/helicopters, including a well-equipped spy plane. No combat aircraft were damaged or destroyed in that raid. The SLAF's combat capability is thus intact and it has used it effectively.
6. The successful air strike at Kilinochi will encourage the SLAF to re-double its efforts for a decapitation strike on Prabhakaran himself. He becomes more vulnerable to an air strike than in the past.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. e-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
by B. Raman
S. Cheeran, Secretary-General at the headquarters of the LTTE, has announced the death of S. P. Thamilchelvan, the head of the Political Wing of the LTTE and five others in a decapitation air strike by the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) on the residential complex of the members of the political wing at Kilinochi at 6 AM on the morning of November 2, 2007. The news of their death in an air strike was uploaded in the web site of the LTTE (www.tamilnet.com) at 1 PM Indian time. One does not know at what time Cheeran made the announcement. Presuming the web announcement must have been shortly after the official announcement, the LTTE has taken roughly six hours to admit the successful execution of a decapitation strike by the SLAF.
2. For the last one year, the SLAF has been repeatedly trying for decapitation strikes on Prabhakaran and other leaders of the LTTE. However, these strikes were not successful. The killing of Thamilchelvan and his associates is the first success in the decapitation drive of the SLAF.
3. Thamilchelvan was the public face of the LTTE and used to interact openly with media personalities and foreign visitors to his office. His location and the place of his residence were well known. keeping in view the decapitation operation launched by the SLAF last year, it is surprising he and his associates did not take the normal precautions such as changing the places of their residence frequently. Since the LTTE does not have a radar and anti-aircraft equipment at Kilinochi, the only way of protecting them was through precautions such as frequent changes of place of residence. Possible negligence in taking these precautions has cost their lives.
4. Since this was a targeted attack on senior leaders of the LTTE, the SLAF had every right to mount this strike, which did not target civilians. Till now, the LTTE itself has not alleged any civilian casualties.
5. The successful decapitation strike would be a morale booster for the SLAF after the set-back suffered by it recently at Anuradhapura where a squad of 21 Black Tiger commandoes, in coordination with two planes of the LTTE's air wing, raided the SLAF base and destroyed at least eight aircraft/helicopters, including a well-equipped spy plane. No combat aircraft were damaged or destroyed in that raid. The SLAF's combat capability is thus intact and it has used it effectively.
6. The successful air strike at Kilinochi will encourage the SLAF to re-double its efforts for a decapitation strike on Prabhakaran himself. He becomes more vulnerable to an air strike than in the past.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. e-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
THE GULF REGION: TUSSLE FOR REGIONAL STRATEGIC PREDOMINANCE
Source: SAAG
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
The Gulf Region comprising of the littoral countries of The Gulf is the most important strategic component of the entire Middle East. The term “The Gulf” is a recent coinage to detract the connotation of its original historic appellation “The Persian Gulf”. Persia or Iran as it is now known straddles the entire eastern littoral of this strategic expanse of water as opposed to the western littoral which comprises a number of monarchial kingdoms owing political and military allegiance to the United States, predominant of which is Saudi Arabia.
The strategic significance of The Gulf region lies in the vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas that are located in both the littorals which cater for the entire global energy needs. Despite the existence of a number of pipelines from the region to the Eastern Mediterranean the bulk of this oil and gas is carried by shipping tankers which traverse. The Gulf and then head for the Arabian Sea after passing the strategic chokepoint of the straits of Hormuz astride which sits Iran as the major predominant country.
The tussle for regional strategic supremacy or predominance in The Gulf region has been a consistent feature in both the 19th and 20th Centuries, despite the change in external and regional actors.
In the United States strategic calculus The Gulf Region has acquired a central focus and the United States has been extremely sensitive to the emergence of any regional power inimical to American strategic interests. It is in this vein that the United States was prompted to launch its new strategy of pre-emptive military interventions against Iraq in Gulf War I in the early 1990s and Gulf War II in the first years of the 21st century.
Strategically ironical is the fact that Iran which was built up by the United States as the regional policemen in the 1970s and as a twin pillar of US security edifice in the region along with Saudi Arabia should now figure as a potent threat in United States perceptions and possibly the next target of American military intervention.
So as things stand today the strategic dynamics in The Gulf Region suggest that a new tussle for regional strategic predominance has set-in in the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran both due to external stimuli and regional dynamics.
To understand the factors and impulses which drive the unfolding power struggle, this paper attempts to examine the following aspects:
The contextual Strategic Setting in The Gulf
Iran and Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Strategic Analysis in Terms of Regional Power
The Gulf Region: The External Intrusive Powers and Their Strategic Interests
The Imponderables of The Gulf Region
The contextual Strategic Setting in The Gulf
The contextual strategic setting in The Gulf which provides a back-drop for the power struggle for regional strategic summary can be outlined as follows: (1) The United States has got bogged down militarily in Iraq following its military intervention (2) The United States military presence in Iraq may have to continue for a number of years and thereby seriously distracting America strategically (3) The American image in the Moslem World and The Gulf Region has taken a beating because of Iraq (4) As a result of United States strategic distractions, Iran has acquired a strikingly higher strategic profile (5) Iran as the largest Shia Moslem nation in the world also commands loyalties of Shia Moslem majority in Iraq and in the Gulf Sheikhdoms (6) Saudi Arabia’s relations with the United States have been uneasy ever since 9/11 and with the United States facilitating the emergence of a Shia Moslem majority government in Iraq (7) President Putin of Russia has made three strategic forays in the region in a span of two years and engaging staunch US military allies in the region (8) China has substantial relationship with both Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Over-arching and over-riding this contextual strategic setting is the intense brinkmanship between the United States and Iran on the issue of the American insistence that Iran should roll back its nuclear program. While the United States can claim that it has Iran in a strategic cleft-stick hemmed in between the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it enjoys the support of all monarchial kingdoms in The Gulf Region, Iran stands regionally all above strategically in the region but with the tacit support of Russia and China.
While the odds may be stacked against Iran but on the other hand the United States too cannot be doubly sure of the support of Gulf Sheikh done with their restive Shia majorities.
Iran and Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Strategic Analysis in Terms of Regional Power
Since the regional tussle for strategic predominance in The Gulf is centered on Iran and Saudi Arabia, it would be in order, to carry out a comparative strategic analysis of both these countries.
Analyzing strictly from the natural attributes of power as postulated by Morgenthan it appears that Iran is comparatively more well-placed in The Gulf Region strategically in terms of geo-strategic location, population, resources and conventional military power. Its long coastline along the eastern littoral of The Gulf and in the South along the Arabian Sea endows it with a significant maritime dimension in these strategic waters.
Saudi Arabia, though large in size and equally if not richer than Iran in terms of oil resources, has a serious limitation in terms of manpower resources to provide her with manpower for sizeable military forces. Its security depends on the strategic munificence of the United States.
Iran enjoys a significant military edge over Saudi Arabia in terms of combat potential. The Iranian Armed Forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps along with Baseej militia were battle hardened during the eight year long Iran-Iraq War. Hardening them further is the martyrdom psyche which is spiritually exalted by the Shia faith and the ‘siege mentality’ of Iran under United States and Western sanctions and isolation.
Saudi Arabia’s armed forces are a fraction of the Iranian military might and have had no significant combat experience which limits their fighting capabilities.
Though Saudi Arabia was the first Gulf nation to deploy long range missiles (Chinese CSS.3 IRBMS) it is Iran that has a large missiles arsenal of varying ranges. Iran has battle experience in missile warfare arising from the “War of Cities” with Iraq during the eight year old war.
Iran has considerable military superiority over Saudi Arabia in the naval and air force fields.
In the overall analysis in terms of strategic predominance as a regional power in The Gulf, it is Iran that emerges as the natural choice in terms of attributes of power in its comprehensive sense.
Iraq was a powerful contender for regional power status in The Gulf and as a counter-foil to checkmate Iran. But Iraq today stands destroyed and incapacitated by the United States Military interventions.
The Gulf Region: The External Intrusive Powers and Their Strategic Interests
As on today the three significant external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region are the United States, Russia and China. Of the three the intrusive presence in terms of political influence and military alliance linkages with Gulf nations is that of the United States.
Russia and China had substantial military linkages and political influence with Iraq under President Saddam. Both Russia and China have now substantial linkages with Iran in all fields. Both Russia and China have opposed United States war rhetoric, sanctions and isolation of Iran over the nuclear program confrontation.
Post 9/11, the United States image in the Muslim world and the Arab world in particular has taken a severe beating and this greatly dilutes America’s standing and political influence in The Gulf. It makes America’s hands that much weaker when competing with Russia and China for influence in the region.
President Putin’s strategic forays in this region in the last two years to traditional and strong American allies in the Region is indicative of US Arab allies widening their options in terms of their external engagements.
Coming to the interests of the external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region it should be evident that the United States prime strategic interest in this region centers as control of global oil resources concentrated in this region and in pursuance of this has been sensitive and intolerant of any regimes inimical to it.
Russia is rich in energy resources and its strategic interests in the region are different from those of the United States. In a manner of speaking events and developments in this Region affect Russia’s security especially the hosting of US military bases by the Gulf countries. Russia’s strategic interest in The Gulf is therefore focused on limiting United States influence in the region to offset this threat perception and also to create strategic pressure points against the United States in the region.
China has significant strategic interests in The Gulf Region in terms of garnering oil and gas supplies from this region for her long term energy security needs. What has emerged of late is that Iran has emerged as the most significant long term partner in this region.
Of the external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region, Russia and China have a strategic convergence on Iran for both their individual and joint strategic interests. To that extent both these major powers within certain parameters are likely to encourage and facilitate the emergence of Iran as the Predominant regional power in The Gulf.
The Imponderables of The Gulf Region
In a highly volatile region like The Gulf Region where the strategic interests of major global powers intersect and conflict with each other, and local emotions run high on religious grounds and perceived wrongs against them a fair number of imponderables are likely to hover over the horizon.
Some of the imponderables worth considering are: (1) United States forced exit from Iraq and its implications for Gulf security and on Saudi Arabia in particular (2) Domestic turbulence in the Gulf monarchial kingdoms closely allied to United States (3) Russia’s strategic resurgence acquiring more strident contours (4) United States military intervention in Iran or selective military strikes against Iran and its spillover effects in the Gulf region and against the United States itself (5)Overthrow of present regime in Iran.
The last needs to be commented on as it is relevant to the theme of this discussion. Iran under any new regime whatsoever will not divest itself of its national ambitions to emerge as the pre-eminent regional power in The Gulf Region.
Concluding Observations
Historically, nations of The Gulf Region which were being built up as regional powers by external powers did not survive for long. Their inherent domestic conflicts so caused brought the external props down. Iran under the Shah regime is the major example on this score and so was Iraq under the monarchial rule.
There is a natural order of things in strategic affairs and so also there is a natural balance of power in a region. Ultimately this alone prevails despite any efforts to impede it. Outside The Gulf Region, India is one such example in South Asia.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)
By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
The Gulf Region comprising of the littoral countries of The Gulf is the most important strategic component of the entire Middle East. The term “The Gulf” is a recent coinage to detract the connotation of its original historic appellation “The Persian Gulf”. Persia or Iran as it is now known straddles the entire eastern littoral of this strategic expanse of water as opposed to the western littoral which comprises a number of monarchial kingdoms owing political and military allegiance to the United States, predominant of which is Saudi Arabia.
The strategic significance of The Gulf region lies in the vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas that are located in both the littorals which cater for the entire global energy needs. Despite the existence of a number of pipelines from the region to the Eastern Mediterranean the bulk of this oil and gas is carried by shipping tankers which traverse. The Gulf and then head for the Arabian Sea after passing the strategic chokepoint of the straits of Hormuz astride which sits Iran as the major predominant country.
The tussle for regional strategic supremacy or predominance in The Gulf region has been a consistent feature in both the 19th and 20th Centuries, despite the change in external and regional actors.
In the United States strategic calculus The Gulf Region has acquired a central focus and the United States has been extremely sensitive to the emergence of any regional power inimical to American strategic interests. It is in this vein that the United States was prompted to launch its new strategy of pre-emptive military interventions against Iraq in Gulf War I in the early 1990s and Gulf War II in the first years of the 21st century.
Strategically ironical is the fact that Iran which was built up by the United States as the regional policemen in the 1970s and as a twin pillar of US security edifice in the region along with Saudi Arabia should now figure as a potent threat in United States perceptions and possibly the next target of American military intervention.
So as things stand today the strategic dynamics in The Gulf Region suggest that a new tussle for regional strategic predominance has set-in in the region between Saudi Arabia and Iran both due to external stimuli and regional dynamics.
To understand the factors and impulses which drive the unfolding power struggle, this paper attempts to examine the following aspects:
The contextual Strategic Setting in The Gulf
Iran and Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Strategic Analysis in Terms of Regional Power
The Gulf Region: The External Intrusive Powers and Their Strategic Interests
The Imponderables of The Gulf Region
The contextual Strategic Setting in The Gulf
The contextual strategic setting in The Gulf which provides a back-drop for the power struggle for regional strategic summary can be outlined as follows: (1) The United States has got bogged down militarily in Iraq following its military intervention (2) The United States military presence in Iraq may have to continue for a number of years and thereby seriously distracting America strategically (3) The American image in the Moslem World and The Gulf Region has taken a beating because of Iraq (4) As a result of United States strategic distractions, Iran has acquired a strikingly higher strategic profile (5) Iran as the largest Shia Moslem nation in the world also commands loyalties of Shia Moslem majority in Iraq and in the Gulf Sheikhdoms (6) Saudi Arabia’s relations with the United States have been uneasy ever since 9/11 and with the United States facilitating the emergence of a Shia Moslem majority government in Iraq (7) President Putin of Russia has made three strategic forays in the region in a span of two years and engaging staunch US military allies in the region (8) China has substantial relationship with both Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Over-arching and over-riding this contextual strategic setting is the intense brinkmanship between the United States and Iran on the issue of the American insistence that Iran should roll back its nuclear program. While the United States can claim that it has Iran in a strategic cleft-stick hemmed in between the American military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and that it enjoys the support of all monarchial kingdoms in The Gulf Region, Iran stands regionally all above strategically in the region but with the tacit support of Russia and China.
While the odds may be stacked against Iran but on the other hand the United States too cannot be doubly sure of the support of Gulf Sheikh done with their restive Shia majorities.
Iran and Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Strategic Analysis in Terms of Regional Power
Since the regional tussle for strategic predominance in The Gulf is centered on Iran and Saudi Arabia, it would be in order, to carry out a comparative strategic analysis of both these countries.
Analyzing strictly from the natural attributes of power as postulated by Morgenthan it appears that Iran is comparatively more well-placed in The Gulf Region strategically in terms of geo-strategic location, population, resources and conventional military power. Its long coastline along the eastern littoral of The Gulf and in the South along the Arabian Sea endows it with a significant maritime dimension in these strategic waters.
Saudi Arabia, though large in size and equally if not richer than Iran in terms of oil resources, has a serious limitation in terms of manpower resources to provide her with manpower for sizeable military forces. Its security depends on the strategic munificence of the United States.
Iran enjoys a significant military edge over Saudi Arabia in terms of combat potential. The Iranian Armed Forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps along with Baseej militia were battle hardened during the eight year long Iran-Iraq War. Hardening them further is the martyrdom psyche which is spiritually exalted by the Shia faith and the ‘siege mentality’ of Iran under United States and Western sanctions and isolation.
Saudi Arabia’s armed forces are a fraction of the Iranian military might and have had no significant combat experience which limits their fighting capabilities.
Though Saudi Arabia was the first Gulf nation to deploy long range missiles (Chinese CSS.3 IRBMS) it is Iran that has a large missiles arsenal of varying ranges. Iran has battle experience in missile warfare arising from the “War of Cities” with Iraq during the eight year old war.
Iran has considerable military superiority over Saudi Arabia in the naval and air force fields.
In the overall analysis in terms of strategic predominance as a regional power in The Gulf, it is Iran that emerges as the natural choice in terms of attributes of power in its comprehensive sense.
Iraq was a powerful contender for regional power status in The Gulf and as a counter-foil to checkmate Iran. But Iraq today stands destroyed and incapacitated by the United States Military interventions.
The Gulf Region: The External Intrusive Powers and Their Strategic Interests
As on today the three significant external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region are the United States, Russia and China. Of the three the intrusive presence in terms of political influence and military alliance linkages with Gulf nations is that of the United States.
Russia and China had substantial military linkages and political influence with Iraq under President Saddam. Both Russia and China have now substantial linkages with Iran in all fields. Both Russia and China have opposed United States war rhetoric, sanctions and isolation of Iran over the nuclear program confrontation.
Post 9/11, the United States image in the Muslim world and the Arab world in particular has taken a severe beating and this greatly dilutes America’s standing and political influence in The Gulf. It makes America’s hands that much weaker when competing with Russia and China for influence in the region.
President Putin’s strategic forays in this region in the last two years to traditional and strong American allies in the Region is indicative of US Arab allies widening their options in terms of their external engagements.
Coming to the interests of the external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region it should be evident that the United States prime strategic interest in this region centers as control of global oil resources concentrated in this region and in pursuance of this has been sensitive and intolerant of any regimes inimical to it.
Russia is rich in energy resources and its strategic interests in the region are different from those of the United States. In a manner of speaking events and developments in this Region affect Russia’s security especially the hosting of US military bases by the Gulf countries. Russia’s strategic interest in The Gulf is therefore focused on limiting United States influence in the region to offset this threat perception and also to create strategic pressure points against the United States in the region.
China has significant strategic interests in The Gulf Region in terms of garnering oil and gas supplies from this region for her long term energy security needs. What has emerged of late is that Iran has emerged as the most significant long term partner in this region.
Of the external intrusive powers in The Gulf Region, Russia and China have a strategic convergence on Iran for both their individual and joint strategic interests. To that extent both these major powers within certain parameters are likely to encourage and facilitate the emergence of Iran as the Predominant regional power in The Gulf.
The Imponderables of The Gulf Region
In a highly volatile region like The Gulf Region where the strategic interests of major global powers intersect and conflict with each other, and local emotions run high on religious grounds and perceived wrongs against them a fair number of imponderables are likely to hover over the horizon.
Some of the imponderables worth considering are: (1) United States forced exit from Iraq and its implications for Gulf security and on Saudi Arabia in particular (2) Domestic turbulence in the Gulf monarchial kingdoms closely allied to United States (3) Russia’s strategic resurgence acquiring more strident contours (4) United States military intervention in Iran or selective military strikes against Iran and its spillover effects in the Gulf region and against the United States itself (5)Overthrow of present regime in Iran.
The last needs to be commented on as it is relevant to the theme of this discussion. Iran under any new regime whatsoever will not divest itself of its national ambitions to emerge as the pre-eminent regional power in The Gulf Region.
Concluding Observations
Historically, nations of The Gulf Region which were being built up as regional powers by external powers did not survive for long. Their inherent domestic conflicts so caused brought the external props down. Iran under the Shah regime is the major example on this score and so was Iraq under the monarchial rule.
There is a natural order of things in strategic affairs and so also there is a natural balance of power in a region. Ultimately this alone prevails despite any efforts to impede it. Outside The Gulf Region, India is one such example in South Asia.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email:drsubhashkapila@yahoo.com)
Jihadis Avenge Mir Ali Air Strike
Jihadis Avenge Mir Ali Air Strike - International Terrorism Monitor---Paper No. 297
By B. Raman
Source: SAAG
(To be read in continuation of my earlier article titled "Tribal Anger Mounts against Musharraf& Benazir", available at http://www.saag.org/papers25/paper2428.html)
In reprisal for the air strikes made by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan between October 6 and 9, 2007, in which a large number of tribals were allegedly killed, angry tribals from the area have targeted the PAF. In a daring suicide attack near the PAF base in the Sargodha District of Punjab from which the aircraft, which made the air strikes in the Mir Ali area had taken off, an unidentified suicide bomber rammed an explosive-laden motorbike into a bus carrying PAF officials, including pilot trainees, to the Air Force base on November 1, 2007, killing eight PAF officers and trainees and injuring 40 others, 21 of them critically. One of the officers killed was of the rank of Squadron-Leader.
2. The commando raid into the Lal Masjid of Islamabad between July 10 and 13, 2007, in which at least 300 tribal girls allegedly perished, the air strikes in the Mir Ali area in which many tribal women and children attending an open-air market were killed, and the current fighting between the para-military forces and members of the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi(TNSM) in the Swat Valley in which helicopter gun-ships are being used by the para-military forces have created an explosive situation over which Gen. Pervez Musharraf seems to be losing control.
3. The suicide bombers, who have been carrying out daring strikes in non-tribal areas, do not necessarily come from the tribal areas. There are many tribal youth studying or working in different cities of Pakistan and well-informed Police sources say that some of them have been volunteering themselves for the suicide missions.
4. Three tribal groups have taken to arms against Musharraf and the Armed forces---- the followers of Baitullah Mehsud from South Waziristan, those of Sadiq Noor from North Waziristan and of Mulla Fazlullah, the Amir of the TNSM from the Swat Valley. These sources suspect that these tribals have been joined by a group of the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) led by Maitur Rehman and a group of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), which has a presence in the Swat Valley. Last year, there were reports of Maitur Rehman having been arrested by the Police at the headquarters of the JEM in Bhawalpur, but these reports were not confirmed.
5. There has been an impressive co-ordination of the activities of these groups, but it is not clear who exercises the co-ordination---- Al Qaeda or the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or the Islamic Jihad Group, which is also an Uzbek group.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
By B. Raman
Source: SAAG
(To be read in continuation of my earlier article titled "Tribal Anger Mounts against Musharraf& Benazir", available at http://www.saag.org/papers25/paper2428.html)
In reprisal for the air strikes made by the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) in the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan between October 6 and 9, 2007, in which a large number of tribals were allegedly killed, angry tribals from the area have targeted the PAF. In a daring suicide attack near the PAF base in the Sargodha District of Punjab from which the aircraft, which made the air strikes in the Mir Ali area had taken off, an unidentified suicide bomber rammed an explosive-laden motorbike into a bus carrying PAF officials, including pilot trainees, to the Air Force base on November 1, 2007, killing eight PAF officers and trainees and injuring 40 others, 21 of them critically. One of the officers killed was of the rank of Squadron-Leader.
2. The commando raid into the Lal Masjid of Islamabad between July 10 and 13, 2007, in which at least 300 tribal girls allegedly perished, the air strikes in the Mir Ali area in which many tribal women and children attending an open-air market were killed, and the current fighting between the para-military forces and members of the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi(TNSM) in the Swat Valley in which helicopter gun-ships are being used by the para-military forces have created an explosive situation over which Gen. Pervez Musharraf seems to be losing control.
3. The suicide bombers, who have been carrying out daring strikes in non-tribal areas, do not necessarily come from the tribal areas. There are many tribal youth studying or working in different cities of Pakistan and well-informed Police sources say that some of them have been volunteering themselves for the suicide missions.
4. Three tribal groups have taken to arms against Musharraf and the Armed forces---- the followers of Baitullah Mehsud from South Waziristan, those of Sadiq Noor from North Waziristan and of Mulla Fazlullah, the Amir of the TNSM from the Swat Valley. These sources suspect that these tribals have been joined by a group of the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) led by Maitur Rehman and a group of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM), which has a presence in the Swat Valley. Last year, there were reports of Maitur Rehman having been arrested by the Police at the headquarters of the JEM in Bhawalpur, but these reports were not confirmed.
5. There has been an impressive co-ordination of the activities of these groups, but it is not clear who exercises the co-ordination---- Al Qaeda or the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or the Islamic Jihad Group, which is also an Uzbek group.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
HC dismisses plea against Modi
Press Trust of India
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Gujarat High Court on Friday dismissed a petition of an NGO and wife of a former MP killed in post-Godhra riots seeking registration of FIR against Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others for their role in the violence.
High Court Justice M R Shah quashed the petition of 'Citizen for Justice and Peace' and Zakia Jafri, wife of former MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the city's Gulbarg Society in the 2002 riots.
The court observed that an alternative is available to the petitioners for filing a complaint against all the persons named in the petition before a magistrate.
The court further said that it cannot direct the police to register a complaint.
The NGO had approached the high court today after submitting the tapes of Tehelka expose as evidence against the Chief Minister and others.
However, the court said it cannot accept the tapes on the day of judgement.
Jafri in her petition had asked the court to direct the police to register FIR against Modi, his ministers, VHP leaders and senior police officials on ground of mass murder and criminal conspiracy.
The petitioners have decided to approach the Supreme Court against the decision of the high court, their advocate Sohail Tirmizi said.
Eral case verdict has Modi worried
ABHISHEK KAPOOR
Posted online: Friday , November 02, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Friday , November 02, 2007
Gandhinagar, November 1 With the Monday verdict in Eral case convicting 11 more, the total persons convicted or under trial in connection with the post-Godhra riot cases has edged up to 800, giving jitters to the Modi establishment ahead of the polls.
The reason: A feeling among the kin of the accused of being ditched by the people who used them for coming to power in 2002.
As an example, the Eral case itself had 582 hearings, each entailing an expense of anything between Rs 100 to Rs 300 to the families of the accused, excluding the legal expenses.
“With most convicts or under-trials coming from poor families of central and north Gujarat districts, the ruling party is edgy. The Chief Minister too betrays signs of concern as the figures rise, and has asked for an update,” said a top police source involved in monitoring of the riot cases.
And the numbers: of the 4,271 FIRs that were lodged in the post-Godhra riot cases, 2,271 were closed after filing A-summaries indicating lack of evidence. Of these, the Supreme Court ordered 2,071 to be reopened following which a cell was set up in the DGP’s office to monitor the cases. The reopening saw over 700 getting arrested.
Sources inform that till date, 34 cases have seen convictions putting over 400 persons behind bars. The courts have handed acquittals in 789 cases, with the State government going in for appeal in 141 of them.
Modi’s worries are echoed on the ground as well. Rajgadh BJP MLA Fatehsinh Chauhan, faced music on Monday, when two from his constituency were handed life terms in the Eral case. As the families blamed him for failing to save their kin, Chauhan only managed to show his helplessness before law. “I told them to go in for appeal. If there is evidence there is little I could have done,” said Chauhan, when contacted, agreeing that if the punishments translates into a message that those who helped in 2002 are left to fend for themselves, it might have a negative impact on the core constituency of Hindutva loyalists.
Meanwhile, Congress is watching the developments carefully. Says former Godhra MLA and a likely candidate this time, Rajendrasinh Patel: “As I see it they were innocent people who got emotional, thus playing into the hands of BJP. Most live in straw huts plastered with cow dung. They have paid a heavy price, with most families going under debt to defend their kin. Understandably, there is a wave against those who used these innocent boys.”
Friday, November 2, 2007
The Gujarat High Court on Friday dismissed a petition of an NGO and wife of a former MP killed in post-Godhra riots seeking registration of FIR against Chief Minister Narendra Modi and 62 others for their role in the violence.
High Court Justice M R Shah quashed the petition of 'Citizen for Justice and Peace' and Zakia Jafri, wife of former MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the city's Gulbarg Society in the 2002 riots.
The court observed that an alternative is available to the petitioners for filing a complaint against all the persons named in the petition before a magistrate.
The court further said that it cannot direct the police to register a complaint.
The NGO had approached the high court today after submitting the tapes of Tehelka expose as evidence against the Chief Minister and others.
However, the court said it cannot accept the tapes on the day of judgement.
Jafri in her petition had asked the court to direct the police to register FIR against Modi, his ministers, VHP leaders and senior police officials on ground of mass murder and criminal conspiracy.
The petitioners have decided to approach the Supreme Court against the decision of the high court, their advocate Sohail Tirmizi said.
Eral case verdict has Modi worried
ABHISHEK KAPOOR
Posted online: Friday , November 02, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Friday , November 02, 2007
Gandhinagar, November 1 With the Monday verdict in Eral case convicting 11 more, the total persons convicted or under trial in connection with the post-Godhra riot cases has edged up to 800, giving jitters to the Modi establishment ahead of the polls.
The reason: A feeling among the kin of the accused of being ditched by the people who used them for coming to power in 2002.
As an example, the Eral case itself had 582 hearings, each entailing an expense of anything between Rs 100 to Rs 300 to the families of the accused, excluding the legal expenses.
“With most convicts or under-trials coming from poor families of central and north Gujarat districts, the ruling party is edgy. The Chief Minister too betrays signs of concern as the figures rise, and has asked for an update,” said a top police source involved in monitoring of the riot cases.
And the numbers: of the 4,271 FIRs that were lodged in the post-Godhra riot cases, 2,271 were closed after filing A-summaries indicating lack of evidence. Of these, the Supreme Court ordered 2,071 to be reopened following which a cell was set up in the DGP’s office to monitor the cases. The reopening saw over 700 getting arrested.
Sources inform that till date, 34 cases have seen convictions putting over 400 persons behind bars. The courts have handed acquittals in 789 cases, with the State government going in for appeal in 141 of them.
Modi’s worries are echoed on the ground as well. Rajgadh BJP MLA Fatehsinh Chauhan, faced music on Monday, when two from his constituency were handed life terms in the Eral case. As the families blamed him for failing to save their kin, Chauhan only managed to show his helplessness before law. “I told them to go in for appeal. If there is evidence there is little I could have done,” said Chauhan, when contacted, agreeing that if the punishments translates into a message that those who helped in 2002 are left to fend for themselves, it might have a negative impact on the core constituency of Hindutva loyalists.
Meanwhile, Congress is watching the developments carefully. Says former Godhra MLA and a likely candidate this time, Rajendrasinh Patel: “As I see it they were innocent people who got emotional, thus playing into the hands of BJP. Most live in straw huts plastered with cow dung. They have paid a heavy price, with most families going under debt to defend their kin. Understandably, there is a wave against those who used these innocent boys.”
November 01, 2007
Latin America's New Petro-Politics
October 31st 2007, by Nadia Martinez - Multinational Monitor
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush famously stated that “America is addicted to oil.” He soon followed that proclamation with an announcement that his solution to the addiction is to diversify U.S. sources of oil — not to diversify away from oil with clean, renewable sources of energy.
That is sure to mean increased U.S. political attention to Latin America. Oil multinationals are already looking to intensify drilling operations in Latin America, because that’s where the oil is. The U.S. government and oil and gas companies are likely to pressure Latin American countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador — already major suppliers of oil to U.S. markets — to ramp up production and to exploit new oil and gas fields. And Big Oil is likely to propose new exploration and development projects in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia and Peru as the industry struggles to maintain a steady flow of energy resources to the North.
But the political landscape is rapidly evolving in Latin America, with traditional docility to U.S. economic and political demands giving way. As Latin American citizens express their discontent with conservative economic policies by electing more left-leaning leaders, countries are increasingly turning away from multinational energy companies and shifting their energy policies inward, nationally and regionally.
That approach is not likely to sit well with policymakers in Washington, or industry executives in Houston.
The Failure of Corporatization
Although Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has become the Bush administration’s least favorite pundit, he is one of several new leaders in Latin America who are vowing to run their countries differently than their predecessors, and becoming very popular because of it. Behind Chavez’s blunt style and provocative speeches, such as the one at the United Nations when he referred to President Bush as the devil, is a discourse that is resonating with voters from Mexico to Argentina. Particularly the poorest Latin Americans see in leaders like Chavez a sign of hope for improving their deteriorating conditions.
In the early 1990s, under the influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, Latin American countries embarked on a series of free-market economic reforms. Central to the economic reform package was the privatization of a range of formerly state-owned industries, from phone companies to electric utilities to oil and gas companies.
The “Washington Consensus” policies of privatization, deregulation, reduced labor rights, opening to foreign trade and investment, and orienting economies to exports were a failure for Latin America’s people. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic Policy Research’s “The Scorecard on Development” found that for low- and middle-income countries in the region, the last 25 years have seen sharply reduced economic growth as well as setbacks in health and education, when compared with the two decades before 1980.
But the Washington Consensus policies did benefit a narrow elite and foreign investors. Multinational companies, especially those in major industries like oil and gas, were able to acquire privatized government-owned enterprises on the cheap and secure outrageous profits.
Latin American energy markets really opened to multinationals with the privatization of Argentina’s national oil company, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (YPF), in 1993. Similarly, in 1995, Venezuela began opening up parts of its petroleum sector to foreign investment, including the Orinoco Belt’s heavy-oil deposits — the world’s largest petroleum reserve. Brazil swiftly liberalized its oil industry through a constitutional amendment — the Brazilian constitution had prohibited foreign involvement in oil and gas — and in 1998 began offering several lease agreements to private oil companies to tap into Brazil’s offshore oil reserves.
The case of Bolivia illustrates how large corporations, often foreign companies, reaped huge benefits from privatization at the expense of Latin American governments and people. Bolivia has the second largest gas reserves in South America, after Venezuela. The Bolivian Constitution declares that all hydrocarbons are property of the state, but in the mid-1990s, the IMF demanded the government permit the sale of oil and gas concessions to foreign companies. Bolivia complied. All of the country’s gas transportation networks were sold to a consortium owned by Royal Dutch Shell and the now-defunct Enron. Other corporate winners included BP-Amoco, British Gas, Australia’s BHP, Spain’s Repsol and Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company. The deal allowed foreign corporations in the oil and gas business, gave them a majority share in previously state-owned companies and, at the same time, lowered the government’s share of profits from the operation to a mere 18 percent, a steep drop from the previous 50 percent.
In October 2003, then-President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada fled the country amidst massive popular protests. Already disenchanted by his earlier privatization policies, Bolivians rose up to block yet another gas export deal, known as Pacific LNG. (That the project was meant to transport gas to Mexico and the United States via Bolivia’s archrival, Chile, didn’t help. The enmity dates back to 1884, when Chile swiped Bolivia’s only coast following the War of the Pacific, leaving the nation landlocked.) The project was halted and the episode became known as the “gas war.” Subsequently, calls for the government to retake control of Bolivia’s resources expanded and gained strength. By the 2005 election, eventually won by Evo Morales, every single major candidate for president was offering significant reforms in the oil and gas sector.
Resource Sovereignty
After decades of dictatorship and civil war, it is no small feat that democratic elections have been held throughout Latin America in the last two decades. New, non-traditional leaders — like a coca farmer in Bolivia, a former metal worker in Brazil, a torture survivor in Chile, and socialists in Uruguay and Venezuela — have been elected president in countries throughout the region. In Bolivia, Evo Morales won the presidential election in December 2005 with a stunning 54 percent of the popular vote. No president in Bolivia’s fractured electoral history had achieved even close to that support. In Venezuela, Chavez won another term in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote in an election where an impressive number of voters — nearly 75 percent — went to the polls.
These votes offered an explicit mandate for the new leaders to bring about significant change. In Bolivia, reasserting control of the oil and gas industry was one of the main issues of the election campaign. Shortly after taking office, Morales announced a decree nationalizing Bolivia’s hydrocarbons. Government negotiators met an established six-month deadline to rewrite existing contracts with oil and gas companies. The new contracts will direct between 50 and 80 percent of oil profits to the government, according to Gretchen Gordon of the Democracy Center in Bolivia. The government’s oil revenues will rise an estimated $1.3 billion in 2007, increasing to roughly $4 billion by 2011. “The challenge will be ensuring that those resources are used effectively to improve people’s lives,” Gordon concludes.
In Venezuela, the government has significantly increased royalties and cracked down on oil companies for underpayment of income taxes. During his re-election campaign, Chavez promised to expand his “socialism for the 21st century” program, which requires the government to take a dominant role in the economy and in the provision of social welfare programs, funded largely with oil revenues. Immediately after Chavez started his new term last year, the Venezuelan government resumed attempts to re-negotiate several oil contracts signed with a number of oil majors in the 1990s — including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips — and to replace them with more favorable joint-venture agreements dominated by the state-owned oil company, known by its Spanish acronym PDVSA.
In July 2007, all the international companies doing business in Venezuela’s Orinoco oil belt agreed to negotiate new contracts with the Venezuelan government. ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, however, announced that they would cease their Venezuelan operations. Both have reserved the right to seek compensation through international arbitration.
In Ecuador, calls for redistributing oil revenues are high on the agenda of newly elected President Rafael Correa. Oil revenues account for approximately one-third of Ecuador’s national budget and over 40 percent of its export earnings. However, “the largest portion of the revenue from oil exports goes to servicing the country’s massive debt,” explains Debayani Kar of the Jubilee USA network. “This leaves few funds that can be allocated for social infrastructure and development, while creating an incentive for the country to pump more oil,” she says. Correa has vowed to renegotiate contracts with foreign oil companies to ensure that a greater share of the oil wealth goes into the national treasury. He has also offered to leave some oil in the ground — to lessen global warming and protect endangered areas — if Ecuador’s debt is cancelled.
Efforts like those of Chavez, Correa and Morales to garner greater control over their countries’ profitable oil businesses and to spread the industry’s economic benefits have been extremely popular in resource-rich but economically poor countries throughout Latin America. High global oil prices mean that governments obtaining a sizeable chunk of oil profits will be able to fund a variety of social programs to assist the poor. The power flowing from exerting greater control of oil at a time of high prices has also emboldened leaders to openly distance themselves from Washington, and to seek to diminish the traditional U.S. dominance in the region by reaching out to other allies in the international community, and by increasing regional ties.
Regional Petro-Politics
Given the likely prospects for continued unrest in the Middle East, analysts expect Latin America to be the fastest-growing oil producing region in the world in the coming years. However, domestic demand is also likely to increase significantly. Large and rapidly growing countries like Brazil, Chile and Argentina are already experiencing energy shortages and thus looking for ways to ensure steady supplies of resources to meet their demand. At the same time, as energy producers and exporters like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador look to diversify their markets, they are increasingly looking to regional buyers.
Governments have been moving to forge stronger regional ties. Venezuela has signed agreements with Central American and Caribbean countries to supply discounted oil and other petroleum products, often in exchange for something else. Cuba, for example, provides Venezuela with thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers and doctors, who work in the poorest areas of the country. After long and difficult negotiations, Bolivia and Brazil reached an agreement for Brazil to purchase Bolivian gas at rates many times higher than the discounted rates it had been paying. “Brazil’s President Lula was criticized by his opponents for being too soft on Bolivia and allegedly playing ideological politics,” explains Lucia Ortiz of Friends of the Earth in Brazil. “In the end, agreeing to pay the global market price for gas is only fair, but it does show that there is a level of solidarity among Latin American countries that wasn’t there before.”
The 12 South American countries have come together to create the South American Union (known as Unisur), in a process similar to the one that launched the European Union. Although the Unisur agenda includes myriad issues upon which its members are attempting to find common ground, energy integration is at the top of the list. One such proposal is to merge the region’s oil and gas companies into one.
Led by Venezuela, the region’s energy ministers in 2005 officially endorsed the concept of a strategic alliance of state-owned oil companies to manage and operate all aspects of the energy sector. According to its founding declaration, PetroAmerica, as it is called, “will integrate Latin America and the Caribbean on principles of self-sufficiency, and re-invest profits into development and social programs.” This ambitious undertaking is already taking shape, particularly through its Caribbean subsidiary, PetroCaribe, which has established a formal structure that includes a board comprised of the members’ energy ministers, as well as a secretariat, and is already carrying out several joint projects.
The Democracy Alternative
Although Latin Americans have generally welcomed these initiatives — and the wider regional strategy — to become less dependent on the United States and strengthen regional ties, some plans have been criticized as too reminiscent of business-as-usual.
For example, environmental and indigenous rights advocates are already sounding alarm bells about plans to build a 10,000-mile pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina through the Brazilian Amazon. “It is really worrisome that this project is being talked about as a done deal, without a comprehensive process of public debate and consultation,” warns Maria Eugenia Bustamante, director of Amigransa, a citizens group for the protection of the Gran Sabana national park in Venezuela. “This project will directly impact some of the most vital ecological areas in this part of the world, including the Guyana Shield and the Amazon Rainforest.”
Brazil has recently expressed reservations about going forward with the project. Venezuela’s Chavez has declared that the project is currently “frozen,” but that he remains committed to finding ways to make it happen.
As governments attempt to find ways to free themselves from the shackles of past economic failures and to chart a new path for the betterment of their peoples, their greatest challenge will be achieving a true transformation that also makes social and environmental concerns a central pillar. While they need revenue to carry out social welfare programs and to create jobs that will revive the economy, advocates are calling on Latin American leaders to be keenly aware of the negative impacts that often accompany an oil-based economy.
Other challenges will emerge as regional integration moves forward, threatening the oil multinationals of the United States. The Bush administration, for example, is scrambling to ensure that the United States isn’t fully left out. In what some see as a move to counter Venezuela’s collaboration with its neighbors, President Bush offered Brazil an energy deal for the production and trade of biofuels — a controversial alternative energy source — during a visit to Latin America in March 2007. The United States and Brazil are already the world’s largest ethanol producers, and it is estimated that demand for the fuel\ will face a significant increase worldwide.
Throughout the developing world, oil has correlated with imperial subjugation, local authoritarianism and human rights abuses.
As Latin America’s new wave of democracy consolidates, Latin Americans are seeking to disrupt this equation. If they can achieve positive change without excluding dissenting opinions from public debate, the region’s countries could even become the world’s most authentic democracies.
Nadia Martinez is co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush famously stated that “America is addicted to oil.” He soon followed that proclamation with an announcement that his solution to the addiction is to diversify U.S. sources of oil — not to diversify away from oil with clean, renewable sources of energy.
That is sure to mean increased U.S. political attention to Latin America. Oil multinationals are already looking to intensify drilling operations in Latin America, because that’s where the oil is. The U.S. government and oil and gas companies are likely to pressure Latin American countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador — already major suppliers of oil to U.S. markets — to ramp up production and to exploit new oil and gas fields. And Big Oil is likely to propose new exploration and development projects in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia and Peru as the industry struggles to maintain a steady flow of energy resources to the North.
But the political landscape is rapidly evolving in Latin America, with traditional docility to U.S. economic and political demands giving way. As Latin American citizens express their discontent with conservative economic policies by electing more left-leaning leaders, countries are increasingly turning away from multinational energy companies and shifting their energy policies inward, nationally and regionally.
That approach is not likely to sit well with policymakers in Washington, or industry executives in Houston.
The Failure of Corporatization
Although Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has become the Bush administration’s least favorite pundit, he is one of several new leaders in Latin America who are vowing to run their countries differently than their predecessors, and becoming very popular because of it. Behind Chavez’s blunt style and provocative speeches, such as the one at the United Nations when he referred to President Bush as the devil, is a discourse that is resonating with voters from Mexico to Argentina. Particularly the poorest Latin Americans see in leaders like Chavez a sign of hope for improving their deteriorating conditions.
In the early 1990s, under the influence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, Latin American countries embarked on a series of free-market economic reforms. Central to the economic reform package was the privatization of a range of formerly state-owned industries, from phone companies to electric utilities to oil and gas companies.
The “Washington Consensus” policies of privatization, deregulation, reduced labor rights, opening to foreign trade and investment, and orienting economies to exports were a failure for Latin America’s people. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Economic Policy Research’s “The Scorecard on Development” found that for low- and middle-income countries in the region, the last 25 years have seen sharply reduced economic growth as well as setbacks in health and education, when compared with the two decades before 1980.
But the Washington Consensus policies did benefit a narrow elite and foreign investors. Multinational companies, especially those in major industries like oil and gas, were able to acquire privatized government-owned enterprises on the cheap and secure outrageous profits.
Latin American energy markets really opened to multinationals with the privatization of Argentina’s national oil company, Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales (YPF), in 1993. Similarly, in 1995, Venezuela began opening up parts of its petroleum sector to foreign investment, including the Orinoco Belt’s heavy-oil deposits — the world’s largest petroleum reserve. Brazil swiftly liberalized its oil industry through a constitutional amendment — the Brazilian constitution had prohibited foreign involvement in oil and gas — and in 1998 began offering several lease agreements to private oil companies to tap into Brazil’s offshore oil reserves.
The case of Bolivia illustrates how large corporations, often foreign companies, reaped huge benefits from privatization at the expense of Latin American governments and people. Bolivia has the second largest gas reserves in South America, after Venezuela. The Bolivian Constitution declares that all hydrocarbons are property of the state, but in the mid-1990s, the IMF demanded the government permit the sale of oil and gas concessions to foreign companies. Bolivia complied. All of the country’s gas transportation networks were sold to a consortium owned by Royal Dutch Shell and the now-defunct Enron. Other corporate winners included BP-Amoco, British Gas, Australia’s BHP, Spain’s Repsol and Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company. The deal allowed foreign corporations in the oil and gas business, gave them a majority share in previously state-owned companies and, at the same time, lowered the government’s share of profits from the operation to a mere 18 percent, a steep drop from the previous 50 percent.
In October 2003, then-President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada fled the country amidst massive popular protests. Already disenchanted by his earlier privatization policies, Bolivians rose up to block yet another gas export deal, known as Pacific LNG. (That the project was meant to transport gas to Mexico and the United States via Bolivia’s archrival, Chile, didn’t help. The enmity dates back to 1884, when Chile swiped Bolivia’s only coast following the War of the Pacific, leaving the nation landlocked.) The project was halted and the episode became known as the “gas war.” Subsequently, calls for the government to retake control of Bolivia’s resources expanded and gained strength. By the 2005 election, eventually won by Evo Morales, every single major candidate for president was offering significant reforms in the oil and gas sector.
Resource Sovereignty
After decades of dictatorship and civil war, it is no small feat that democratic elections have been held throughout Latin America in the last two decades. New, non-traditional leaders — like a coca farmer in Bolivia, a former metal worker in Brazil, a torture survivor in Chile, and socialists in Uruguay and Venezuela — have been elected president in countries throughout the region. In Bolivia, Evo Morales won the presidential election in December 2005 with a stunning 54 percent of the popular vote. No president in Bolivia’s fractured electoral history had achieved even close to that support. In Venezuela, Chavez won another term in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote in an election where an impressive number of voters — nearly 75 percent — went to the polls.
These votes offered an explicit mandate for the new leaders to bring about significant change. In Bolivia, reasserting control of the oil and gas industry was one of the main issues of the election campaign. Shortly after taking office, Morales announced a decree nationalizing Bolivia’s hydrocarbons. Government negotiators met an established six-month deadline to rewrite existing contracts with oil and gas companies. The new contracts will direct between 50 and 80 percent of oil profits to the government, according to Gretchen Gordon of the Democracy Center in Bolivia. The government’s oil revenues will rise an estimated $1.3 billion in 2007, increasing to roughly $4 billion by 2011. “The challenge will be ensuring that those resources are used effectively to improve people’s lives,” Gordon concludes.
In Venezuela, the government has significantly increased royalties and cracked down on oil companies for underpayment of income taxes. During his re-election campaign, Chavez promised to expand his “socialism for the 21st century” program, which requires the government to take a dominant role in the economy and in the provision of social welfare programs, funded largely with oil revenues. Immediately after Chavez started his new term last year, the Venezuelan government resumed attempts to re-negotiate several oil contracts signed with a number of oil majors in the 1990s — including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips — and to replace them with more favorable joint-venture agreements dominated by the state-owned oil company, known by its Spanish acronym PDVSA.
In July 2007, all the international companies doing business in Venezuela’s Orinoco oil belt agreed to negotiate new contracts with the Venezuelan government. ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil, however, announced that they would cease their Venezuelan operations. Both have reserved the right to seek compensation through international arbitration.
In Ecuador, calls for redistributing oil revenues are high on the agenda of newly elected President Rafael Correa. Oil revenues account for approximately one-third of Ecuador’s national budget and over 40 percent of its export earnings. However, “the largest portion of the revenue from oil exports goes to servicing the country’s massive debt,” explains Debayani Kar of the Jubilee USA network. “This leaves few funds that can be allocated for social infrastructure and development, while creating an incentive for the country to pump more oil,” she says. Correa has vowed to renegotiate contracts with foreign oil companies to ensure that a greater share of the oil wealth goes into the national treasury. He has also offered to leave some oil in the ground — to lessen global warming and protect endangered areas — if Ecuador’s debt is cancelled.
Efforts like those of Chavez, Correa and Morales to garner greater control over their countries’ profitable oil businesses and to spread the industry’s economic benefits have been extremely popular in resource-rich but economically poor countries throughout Latin America. High global oil prices mean that governments obtaining a sizeable chunk of oil profits will be able to fund a variety of social programs to assist the poor. The power flowing from exerting greater control of oil at a time of high prices has also emboldened leaders to openly distance themselves from Washington, and to seek to diminish the traditional U.S. dominance in the region by reaching out to other allies in the international community, and by increasing regional ties.
Regional Petro-Politics
Given the likely prospects for continued unrest in the Middle East, analysts expect Latin America to be the fastest-growing oil producing region in the world in the coming years. However, domestic demand is also likely to increase significantly. Large and rapidly growing countries like Brazil, Chile and Argentina are already experiencing energy shortages and thus looking for ways to ensure steady supplies of resources to meet their demand. At the same time, as energy producers and exporters like Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador look to diversify their markets, they are increasingly looking to regional buyers.
Governments have been moving to forge stronger regional ties. Venezuela has signed agreements with Central American and Caribbean countries to supply discounted oil and other petroleum products, often in exchange for something else. Cuba, for example, provides Venezuela with thousands of highly skilled professionals, teachers and doctors, who work in the poorest areas of the country. After long and difficult negotiations, Bolivia and Brazil reached an agreement for Brazil to purchase Bolivian gas at rates many times higher than the discounted rates it had been paying. “Brazil’s President Lula was criticized by his opponents for being too soft on Bolivia and allegedly playing ideological politics,” explains Lucia Ortiz of Friends of the Earth in Brazil. “In the end, agreeing to pay the global market price for gas is only fair, but it does show that there is a level of solidarity among Latin American countries that wasn’t there before.”
The 12 South American countries have come together to create the South American Union (known as Unisur), in a process similar to the one that launched the European Union. Although the Unisur agenda includes myriad issues upon which its members are attempting to find common ground, energy integration is at the top of the list. One such proposal is to merge the region’s oil and gas companies into one.
Led by Venezuela, the region’s energy ministers in 2005 officially endorsed the concept of a strategic alliance of state-owned oil companies to manage and operate all aspects of the energy sector. According to its founding declaration, PetroAmerica, as it is called, “will integrate Latin America and the Caribbean on principles of self-sufficiency, and re-invest profits into development and social programs.” This ambitious undertaking is already taking shape, particularly through its Caribbean subsidiary, PetroCaribe, which has established a formal structure that includes a board comprised of the members’ energy ministers, as well as a secretariat, and is already carrying out several joint projects.
The Democracy Alternative
Although Latin Americans have generally welcomed these initiatives — and the wider regional strategy — to become less dependent on the United States and strengthen regional ties, some plans have been criticized as too reminiscent of business-as-usual.
For example, environmental and indigenous rights advocates are already sounding alarm bells about plans to build a 10,000-mile pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina through the Brazilian Amazon. “It is really worrisome that this project is being talked about as a done deal, without a comprehensive process of public debate and consultation,” warns Maria Eugenia Bustamante, director of Amigransa, a citizens group for the protection of the Gran Sabana national park in Venezuela. “This project will directly impact some of the most vital ecological areas in this part of the world, including the Guyana Shield and the Amazon Rainforest.”
Brazil has recently expressed reservations about going forward with the project. Venezuela’s Chavez has declared that the project is currently “frozen,” but that he remains committed to finding ways to make it happen.
As governments attempt to find ways to free themselves from the shackles of past economic failures and to chart a new path for the betterment of their peoples, their greatest challenge will be achieving a true transformation that also makes social and environmental concerns a central pillar. While they need revenue to carry out social welfare programs and to create jobs that will revive the economy, advocates are calling on Latin American leaders to be keenly aware of the negative impacts that often accompany an oil-based economy.
Other challenges will emerge as regional integration moves forward, threatening the oil multinationals of the United States. The Bush administration, for example, is scrambling to ensure that the United States isn’t fully left out. In what some see as a move to counter Venezuela’s collaboration with its neighbors, President Bush offered Brazil an energy deal for the production and trade of biofuels — a controversial alternative energy source — during a visit to Latin America in March 2007. The United States and Brazil are already the world’s largest ethanol producers, and it is estimated that demand for the fuel\ will face a significant increase worldwide.
Throughout the developing world, oil has correlated with imperial subjugation, local authoritarianism and human rights abuses.
As Latin America’s new wave of democracy consolidates, Latin Americans are seeking to disrupt this equation. If they can achieve positive change without excluding dissenting opinions from public debate, the region’s countries could even become the world’s most authentic democracies.
Nadia Martinez is co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network (SEEN), a project of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C.
Drilling for oil in Russia
Source: Oxford Analytica
International energy majors face a host of problems in Russia: prohibitively high oil taxes, a strengthening rouble, project costs that double from their first estimates, hard-to-access deposits and flagging output at mature fields. And that is before you get to politics.
Yet a plethora of joint ventures between IOCs and Russia's 'national champions' -- Gazprom and Rosneft -- shows that the former are still keen to get their hands on a chunk of the Russian energy market, and that they are undeterred by the huge pressures the Kremlin has brought to bear on some of them.
And with good cause. The case of Shtokman, a gigantic field in the Barents Sea containing enough gas to supply the entire world for a year, suggests that the Kremlin has no 'blanket policy' of excluding IOCs.
In July, Gazprom and French giant Total inked a framework agreement to set up a special company to organise the construction and operation of the Shtokman phase-one infrastructure. Gazprom owns 51% of the shares, Total took 25%, and Norway's StatoilHydro was given the remaining 24%. Chevron was excluded on the back of deteriorating relations with the United States and President Vladimir Putin's promise to send Shtokman gas to Europe rather than North America, as originally envisaged.
Spirits have certainly not been dampened at TNK-BP, which earlier this year sold its stake in the Kovykta gas field in Eastern Siberia to Russian state-controlled firm Gazprom, having been muscled out of the deal. It is now planning to spend millions of dollars on expanding control over its retail business across the country.
Foreign investors console themselves with arguments that Russia is not the first country to nationalise its resources and demand higher profits for the state. After all, Russia did not technically confiscate assets from either TNK-BP in Kovykta or Shell in the Sakhalin-2 project: it paid what appears to be the market price (perhaps less a few million dollars).
Moscow has also postponed passing the widely anticipated subsoil law, which would formally prohibit foreigners from owning controlling stakes in its strategic oil and gas deposits. This, however, is something of a mixed blessing, since it means that informal rules rather than strict codes still prevail in the energy game. But many companies have accepted that that is the price of dealing with an energy superpower. There is nowhere else for them to go.
International energy majors face a host of problems in Russia: prohibitively high oil taxes, a strengthening rouble, project costs that double from their first estimates, hard-to-access deposits and flagging output at mature fields. And that is before you get to politics.
Yet a plethora of joint ventures between IOCs and Russia's 'national champions' -- Gazprom and Rosneft -- shows that the former are still keen to get their hands on a chunk of the Russian energy market, and that they are undeterred by the huge pressures the Kremlin has brought to bear on some of them.
And with good cause. The case of Shtokman, a gigantic field in the Barents Sea containing enough gas to supply the entire world for a year, suggests that the Kremlin has no 'blanket policy' of excluding IOCs.
In July, Gazprom and French giant Total inked a framework agreement to set up a special company to organise the construction and operation of the Shtokman phase-one infrastructure. Gazprom owns 51% of the shares, Total took 25%, and Norway's StatoilHydro was given the remaining 24%. Chevron was excluded on the back of deteriorating relations with the United States and President Vladimir Putin's promise to send Shtokman gas to Europe rather than North America, as originally envisaged.
Spirits have certainly not been dampened at TNK-BP, which earlier this year sold its stake in the Kovykta gas field in Eastern Siberia to Russian state-controlled firm Gazprom, having been muscled out of the deal. It is now planning to spend millions of dollars on expanding control over its retail business across the country.
Foreign investors console themselves with arguments that Russia is not the first country to nationalise its resources and demand higher profits for the state. After all, Russia did not technically confiscate assets from either TNK-BP in Kovykta or Shell in the Sakhalin-2 project: it paid what appears to be the market price (perhaps less a few million dollars).
Moscow has also postponed passing the widely anticipated subsoil law, which would formally prohibit foreigners from owning controlling stakes in its strategic oil and gas deposits. This, however, is something of a mixed blessing, since it means that informal rules rather than strict codes still prevail in the energy game. But many companies have accepted that that is the price of dealing with an energy superpower. There is nowhere else for them to go.
Jargon : 'Shiptar'
Source: Oxford Analytica
'Shiptar'
Serbs and Macedonians have a highly insulting term for Albanians: 'shiptars'. It appears as graffiti on back streets in Belgrade and howls in 72-point print from the front page of tabloids. General tolerance of the term shows that bad blood still boils between Serbs and Albanians.
The word is a bastardised homonym, based on the Albanians' name for themselves, 'Shqiptaret', but the omission of the 'q' is a deliberate mispronunciation.
Serb official media, particularly the Tanjug news agency and Radio Belgrade, used the term liberally under the Milosevic regime. In 1999, an official document discovered in a government office in Mitrovica in Kosovo contained a list of 'shiptars' due for liquidation. These days, 'shiptar' is a favourite slogan of graffiti artists, along with anti-Semitic abuse and slurs on other racial minorities.
Some recent uses of the word are noteworthy:
Serbian Orthodox Bishop Artemije Radosavijevic of Raska and Prizren was quoted in a tabloid newspaper, Glas javnosti, on October 24, but he is a hardliner anti-Kosovar nationalist.
'Shiptar' also crept into the tabloid's own headlines, on October 18.
The more respectable Politika magazine used it on September 11, but it issued from the mouth of the secretary-general of the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party, Aleksandar Vucic.
The word is emblematic of deep-seated ethnic hatred in the region. In former Yugoslavia, the linguistic divide was underlined by racial differences -- young men drafted into the former Yugoslav People's Army could mostly understand each other, but the Albanians did not mix much because they were non-Slav.
Slobodan Milosevic arguably exploited nationalism to hold onto power as socialist ideology had lost its influence, delivering his notorious speech in Pristina on the anniversary of the 'Field of Blackbirds' battle against the Ottomans in 1989.
It all stems from the Serbs' casual disrespect for the Albanians. Serb contempt for their neighbours explains their routine mistreatment of Albanians in Kosovo in the years up to 1999. The Albanians fought back, not just because of the atrocities, but also out of pride, to prove on the battlefield that they were worthy of respect.
'Shiptar'
Serbs and Macedonians have a highly insulting term for Albanians: 'shiptars'. It appears as graffiti on back streets in Belgrade and howls in 72-point print from the front page of tabloids. General tolerance of the term shows that bad blood still boils between Serbs and Albanians.
The word is a bastardised homonym, based on the Albanians' name for themselves, 'Shqiptaret', but the omission of the 'q' is a deliberate mispronunciation.
Serb official media, particularly the Tanjug news agency and Radio Belgrade, used the term liberally under the Milosevic regime. In 1999, an official document discovered in a government office in Mitrovica in Kosovo contained a list of 'shiptars' due for liquidation. These days, 'shiptar' is a favourite slogan of graffiti artists, along with anti-Semitic abuse and slurs on other racial minorities.
Some recent uses of the word are noteworthy:
Serbian Orthodox Bishop Artemije Radosavijevic of Raska and Prizren was quoted in a tabloid newspaper, Glas javnosti, on October 24, but he is a hardliner anti-Kosovar nationalist.
'Shiptar' also crept into the tabloid's own headlines, on October 18.
The more respectable Politika magazine used it on September 11, but it issued from the mouth of the secretary-general of the ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party, Aleksandar Vucic.
The word is emblematic of deep-seated ethnic hatred in the region. In former Yugoslavia, the linguistic divide was underlined by racial differences -- young men drafted into the former Yugoslav People's Army could mostly understand each other, but the Albanians did not mix much because they were non-Slav.
Slobodan Milosevic arguably exploited nationalism to hold onto power as socialist ideology had lost its influence, delivering his notorious speech in Pristina on the anniversary of the 'Field of Blackbirds' battle against the Ottomans in 1989.
It all stems from the Serbs' casual disrespect for the Albanians. Serb contempt for their neighbours explains their routine mistreatment of Albanians in Kosovo in the years up to 1999. The Albanians fought back, not just because of the atrocities, but also out of pride, to prove on the battlefield that they were worthy of respect.
TURKEY-PKK : Last chance saloon
Source: http://www.oxan.com/worldnextweek/2007-11-01/Lastchancesaloon.aspx
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, under huge pressure at home to launch a military crackdown on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, will petition the West one final time on Monday.
Erdogan's tête-à-tête with US President George Bush in Washington probably represents Turkey's last chance to secure Western help in its struggle to neutralise the threat from Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) guerrillas and avert military action.
Erdogan wants Bush to promise concrete help -- such as twisting the arms of Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) leaders to take effective action to stop PKK guerrillas coming down from their mountain bases or mount joint patrols to shore up the border. This would help him off the horns of his current dilemma and reduce US-Turkish tensions.
Erdogan knows that Turkey's Kurdish problem needs to be solved by political means, but the armed forces and the public are demanding instant action -- and that has to be military. Lethal PKK attacks in recent weeks have increased pressure for a decisive response. On the other hand, previous full-scale military incursions have been relatively unsuccessful, while key allies Washington and the EU are firmly opposed. Only the KRG can take effective action against the PKK, but Ankara traditionally insists on dealing with Baghdad -- for what it is worth -- to avoid empowering the KRG and setting an autonomous precedent for its own Kurds.
Bush also needs to find a way to square this circle. As one Kurd recently put it, the United States is like a man with two wives, trying to keep both happy. Northern Iraq is the only bright spot in post-Saddam Iraq, the only sanctuary for Americans and the most likely site for future US bases in the country. The last thing Bush needs is for his closest Iraqi partner to be destabilised. On the other hand, Turkey is not only a key NATO ally, but also the transit area for most of the air cargo supporting US operations in Iraq, and this could be at risk from retaliation if tensions rise further.
The Kurds themselves faces some quandaries, too. KRG leaders are claiming that the Turkish troop buildup points to a wider attack on KRG autonomy masquerading as action against the PKK. The KRG could deal with the PKK threat if it so chose; it has taken the PKK on before when it suited its interests. But the PKK card is one of the few the KRG has to play when bargaining with its infinitely more powerful neighbour, and it does not want to play it too soon.
It is a game of brinkmanship. If the KRG holds out too long for a quid pro quo, such as Turkish acquiescence in its attempts to incorporate Kirkuk and its oilfields into the KRG, it risks retaliatory action by Turkey, on which it depends heavily for investment, trade routes, power, water and many food supplies. For their part, the PKK leaders seem to be engaged in a last ditch attempt to revive their flagging cause by internationalising the Kurdish issue and reversing the modest Kurdish political and cultural gains Erdogan has presided over in Turkey.
Erdogan is likely to authorise military action, but try and limit its scope. The best hope of success lies in Bush's hands on Monday -- or the onset of wintry weather in the mountains, making most military operations impossible until the spring.
Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, under huge pressure at home to launch a military crackdown on Kurdish rebels based in northern Iraq, will petition the West one final time on Monday.
Erdogan's tête-à-tête with US President George Bush in Washington probably represents Turkey's last chance to secure Western help in its struggle to neutralise the threat from Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) guerrillas and avert military action.
Erdogan wants Bush to promise concrete help -- such as twisting the arms of Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) leaders to take effective action to stop PKK guerrillas coming down from their mountain bases or mount joint patrols to shore up the border. This would help him off the horns of his current dilemma and reduce US-Turkish tensions.
Erdogan knows that Turkey's Kurdish problem needs to be solved by political means, but the armed forces and the public are demanding instant action -- and that has to be military. Lethal PKK attacks in recent weeks have increased pressure for a decisive response. On the other hand, previous full-scale military incursions have been relatively unsuccessful, while key allies Washington and the EU are firmly opposed. Only the KRG can take effective action against the PKK, but Ankara traditionally insists on dealing with Baghdad -- for what it is worth -- to avoid empowering the KRG and setting an autonomous precedent for its own Kurds.
Bush also needs to find a way to square this circle. As one Kurd recently put it, the United States is like a man with two wives, trying to keep both happy. Northern Iraq is the only bright spot in post-Saddam Iraq, the only sanctuary for Americans and the most likely site for future US bases in the country. The last thing Bush needs is for his closest Iraqi partner to be destabilised. On the other hand, Turkey is not only a key NATO ally, but also the transit area for most of the air cargo supporting US operations in Iraq, and this could be at risk from retaliation if tensions rise further.
The Kurds themselves faces some quandaries, too. KRG leaders are claiming that the Turkish troop buildup points to a wider attack on KRG autonomy masquerading as action against the PKK. The KRG could deal with the PKK threat if it so chose; it has taken the PKK on before when it suited its interests. But the PKK card is one of the few the KRG has to play when bargaining with its infinitely more powerful neighbour, and it does not want to play it too soon.
It is a game of brinkmanship. If the KRG holds out too long for a quid pro quo, such as Turkish acquiescence in its attempts to incorporate Kirkuk and its oilfields into the KRG, it risks retaliatory action by Turkey, on which it depends heavily for investment, trade routes, power, water and many food supplies. For their part, the PKK leaders seem to be engaged in a last ditch attempt to revive their flagging cause by internationalising the Kurdish issue and reversing the modest Kurdish political and cultural gains Erdogan has presided over in Turkey.
Erdogan is likely to authorise military action, but try and limit its scope. The best hope of success lies in Bush's hands on Monday -- or the onset of wintry weather in the mountains, making most military operations impossible until the spring.
Are 'Petroeuros' the future?
Strong demand and tense geopolitics mean that oil prices may hit $100 per barrel before the end of the year. But its impact in Europe will be cushioned by the dollar's simultaneous fall against the euro.The graphs show that a high euro-dollar exchange rate can be a useful bulwark against rising dollar-denominated commodity prices.
In dollar terms, there has been a 74% rise in the cost of oil since the beginning of the year -– almost 20 percentage points more than the increase in euro terms.
A new euro 'Petrobourse'?
The currency in which oil is sold is obviously of little consequence to the seller, as euros are converted into dollars at the point of sale. And since the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and nearly all commodities are priced in and paid for in dollars, most central banks keep most of their reserves in the US numeraire. A weak dollar will only lead to a change in the proportion of currencies stockpiled by countries if members of OPEC -- such as Iran and Venezuela -- successfully push for a euro-based pricing mechanism for oil trading, and persuade other producers to follow suit.
Source: Oxford Analytica
Iran has had some success in asking its petroleum customers to pay in non-dollar currencies, though prices are still expressed in dollars. The country currently receives non-dollar currencies for 85% of its oil exports, with euros composing 65% and yen 20%. Iran is currently planning on moving the remaining 15% of dollar denominated oil exports to other currencies such as the United Arab Emirates dirham.
But the 'Petroeuro' remains unborn -- at least officially. Questions persist over the overall value and stability of the euro, and whether other countries within the union adopt the European single currency. If the UK adopts the single currency, the key Brent benchmark could be redenominated in euros, offering impetus to political agitators within OPEC who want to show that the euro can be a substitute for the dollar in denominating oil prices. The problem here is that Brent may not matter much longer because the field has long passed its peak and UK adoption of the euro is a distant prospect at best.
In the meantime, the European Central Bank would not like to see the dollar drop much further -- even if did make oil cheaper. EU exports are at risk of being priced out of their markets, a worry for Germany in particular. Volatility in the euro-dollar exchange rate is also problematic. Current levels are actually beneficial for ECB efforts at maintaining price stability. Future volatility could bring that benefit into doubt.
The Economist: The World’s Sleaziest Magazine
By Mark Ames
Browse column Here's a real-life superhero dilemma: What do you do when you're the world's most powerful news and opinion magazine, carrying the English-language torch of freedom on behalf of your million-plus high-net-worth readers across the globe, and suddenly you spot injustice on the Eurasian horizon: Sham elections in an oil-rich Eurasian country, resulting in a one-party parliament; its autocratic leader just pushed through constitutional amendments allowing him to remain in power for life; and it's waging a campaign to bully Western oil companies out of their lucrative oil fields, in spite of contracts and investments made.
If the country in question is Kazakhstan, and you're The Economist, then you know exactly what to do: Put Vladimir Putin on the cover and scare the shit out of your readers by sounding the "Hitler Alarm!" threat he poses to mankind. It doesn't matter that you run a version of this story almost every week. Or that the story you decide to run in the wake of Kazakhstan's sham elections happens to have been run in almost the exact same form by all of your colleagues FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO
READ MORE
October 1917: Lenin versus Marxism, the Bolsheviks and the Soviets
(Part Two)
16:30 | 01/ 11/ 2007
Part One
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - The controversy around Lenin's April Theses provoked a fierce struggle within the Bolshevik Party between the advocates and opponents of an immediate uprising. It took Lenin a great deal of time and effort to win this struggle and to establish control over the Party.
In September 1917, the All-Russian Democratic Conference, convened on the initiative of Soviets (Councils) of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants Deputies, started its work. The Bolshevik faction, which comprised more than 100 delegates, held an improvised party congress during the conference.
At that time, Lenin, who had gone into hiding after the unsuccessful July 1917 uprising, tried to persuade his Party to stage another coup. In his letter to conference delegates, the Bolshevik leader said the entire faction must conduct a propaganda campaign at local factories and in the barracks, that an insurgent headquarters must be established, forces distributed and loyal regiments sent to capture the most important sectors.
According to Lenin, the insurgents must surround the Alexandrinsky Theater, where the conference was being held, arrest the General Staff and the Provisional Government, and send other units to fight the Cadets and the Savage Division composed of North Caucasian horsemen.
He said such units must be ready to die but prevent the enemy from reaching vital sectors in St. Petersburg, that armed workers must be mobilized and persuaded to make a desperate final battle, to immediately seize the telegraph office and the telephone station, that the insurgents must set up their headquarters near the central telephone station and communicate with all plants, regiments and centers of armed struggle.
The majority of the Bolshevik faction (congress) rejected Lenin's idea. Nikolai Bukharin later recalled that everybody was shocked, and that this was perhaps the only episode in the Party's history when its Central Committee unanimously issued an order to burn Lenin's letter.
Fortunately, a surviving copy of that letter proves that Lenin was ready to stage a coup against all Russian democratic forces in September 1917.
Lev Trotsky later wrote that Lenin, who had encountered open resistance, reached an agreement with Ivar Smilga, a Lithuanian revolutionary and one of his staunchest supporters. At that time, Smilga headed the Regional Committee of the Soviets in Finland, where Lenin was hiding.
Together with the Latvian Bolshevik, Martin Lacis, Smilga insisted during the abortive July 1917 coup that Petrograd railway stations, arsenals, banks, the telegraph office, etc. be seized without delay.
Lenin knew that he could rely on both of them.
Lenin and Smilga tried to establish armed revolutionary units north of Petrograd in circumvention of the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee and to attack the Russian capital at the earliest opportunity.
Trotsky wrote that this was, in fact, a new plan of the uprising aiming to establish a secret military committee in Gelsingfors (Helsinki) and to use the Russian forces stationed in Finland.
Although this attempt also failed due to several factors, one can say that Lenin had conspired against his own comrades. The Bolshevik leader, who had missed the January 1905 and February 1917 revolutions, who did not work in Switzerland and who thought he would not live to see another revolution, was now seething with activity.
Unlike everybody else, Lenin was ready to stage a coup, no matter what. And, if need be, he was ready to directly rely on the masses, who seemed more radical than the Bolshevik Party and its Central Committee.
Trotsky's account is quite believable because Lenin was usually several steps ahead of his own Party and established undercover groups for putting various plans into action. The Bolshevik Party and its Central Committee knew nothing about a secret triumvirate comprising Lenin, Leonid Krasin and Alexander Bogdanov, which was established during the 1905 revolution and organized terrorist attacks and bank robberies for the revolutionary cause. The triumvirate also obtained money in order to support the Bolshevik elite living in Paris and Zurich, and conducted other financial swindles.
However, the Russian police knew all about these schemes. Police General Alexander Spiridovich wrote that Lenin had inspired and managed all of his Party's paramilitary operations.
Lenin, who was not directly involved in any bank robbery, terrorist attack or fraud, knew absolutely everything about them and even helped mastermind such plans. Every operation usually involved Krasin, the Party's technical genius, who had established covert bomb laboratories all over Russia, Joseph "Koba" Stalin and a brave Armenian named Simon "Kamo" Ter-Petrosyan. As a rule, it was "Koba" and "Kamo" who robbed the banks.
By addressing rank-and-file Bolsheviks and through clever intrigue, Lenin eventually managed to persuade most Central Committee members, who, nonetheless, tended to deviate from the new line at every opportunity. For instance, the 120-strong Bolshevik faction was in no mood to boycott the so-called Provisional Council of the Republic (Predparlament). In fact, 70 Bolsheviks voted against the boycott, which was supported by the remaining 50. However, Lenin and Trotsky pressured the faction to walk out in protest.
That was Lenin's major strategic victory because the Bolsheviks then started preparing for an armed uprising. From then on, Lenin became a real leader, rather than a leader of the opposition, and demanded partisan discipline and the fulfilment of adopted decisions.
On October 10, only 12 members of the 21-strong Central Committee officially decided to overthrow the Provisional Government. A bespectacled and clean-shaven Lenin wearing a wig also attended the meeting. Under the Party's regulations, the Committee did not discuss the quorum because it was hard to gather all its members who had gone into hiding.
Few self-respecting parties would have made this crucial decision in such a narrow circle. Moreover, only 10 out of the 12 Central Committee members voted for the uprising and thus decided the country's future.
The Central Committee concluded that the international and the military situation around the Russian revolution was favorable for an armed uprising. On the one hand, there was a mutiny in the German Navy as an extreme manifestation of the approaching world socialist revolution in Europe and the threat of the imperialist world to stifle the revolution in Russia, and on the other, the obvious decision of the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky & Co. to surrender Petrograd to the Germans, the peasant uprising, the party's growing popularity (elections in Moscow) and obvious preparations for another Kornilov-style coup.
Lenin used a pencil stub to write this text on a piece of graph paper. Trotsky later said Lenin invariably believed that an impending world revolution was the most important pre-condition of a national armed uprising, which, in turn, was just part of the entire sequence. According to Trotsky, Lenin invariably stuck to this concept.
In short, Russian national interests were not the main argument in favor of an uprising.
However, all of the arguments set out in the resolution are absolutely unconvincing. The so-called imperialist world had no intention of stifling the Russian revolution and restoring the monarchy. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy wanted Russia to fight, while Germany, Austria and Turkey were dreaming of a separate peace with Petrograd.
Lenin was bluffing when he claimed that the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky obviously wanted to surrender Petrograd to the Germans. The same can be said of allegations that the Bolshevik leader was a German spy. Russian politicians of that period frequently accused each other of kowtowing to the Kaiser. Rebel General Lavr Kornilov even said that the Provisional Government was being pressured by the Soviets and acted in line with the German General Staff's plans.
A second Kornilov-style coup was not in the making because Russian generals and officers were still disorganized after the first rebellion. And Lenin himself was conspiring to overthrow the Provisional Government. Trotsky remarked cynically that the attacker always wants to prove that he is defending himself.
German sailors had rebelled because they did not like their food, because they were bored and because they resented harsh discipline. The warship where the mutiny started had been moored for almost a year. Only a raving madman could think that this event heralded the approaching world socialist revolution in Europe.
In fact, German sailors wanted frankfurters, sauerkraut, beer, official leaves, and women, and were in no mood to carry out a world revolution. Their mutiny was suppressed after October 1917.
Although the Central Committee resolution mentions peasant unrest as a pretext for an immediate coup d'etat, this is a bit strange because only a few months had passed since the February Revolution and the war was going on at the time. Unlike the peasant-oriented Social Revolutionaries, the pro-worker Bolsheviks were more concerned about the plight of British dockers and German metal-workers.
The resolution contained the only truth: the Party had won elections in Moscow, and underprivileged urban residents were beginning to sympathize with the Bolsheviks. Lenin realized this, and wanted to grab power while the pendulum was still swinging in his direction.
The Bolshevik leader wanted to stage a coup under any pretext that would seem ridiculous to future historians.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
16:30 | 01/ 11/ 2007
Part One
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - The controversy around Lenin's April Theses provoked a fierce struggle within the Bolshevik Party between the advocates and opponents of an immediate uprising. It took Lenin a great deal of time and effort to win this struggle and to establish control over the Party.
In September 1917, the All-Russian Democratic Conference, convened on the initiative of Soviets (Councils) of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants Deputies, started its work. The Bolshevik faction, which comprised more than 100 delegates, held an improvised party congress during the conference.
At that time, Lenin, who had gone into hiding after the unsuccessful July 1917 uprising, tried to persuade his Party to stage another coup. In his letter to conference delegates, the Bolshevik leader said the entire faction must conduct a propaganda campaign at local factories and in the barracks, that an insurgent headquarters must be established, forces distributed and loyal regiments sent to capture the most important sectors.
According to Lenin, the insurgents must surround the Alexandrinsky Theater, where the conference was being held, arrest the General Staff and the Provisional Government, and send other units to fight the Cadets and the Savage Division composed of North Caucasian horsemen.
He said such units must be ready to die but prevent the enemy from reaching vital sectors in St. Petersburg, that armed workers must be mobilized and persuaded to make a desperate final battle, to immediately seize the telegraph office and the telephone station, that the insurgents must set up their headquarters near the central telephone station and communicate with all plants, regiments and centers of armed struggle.
The majority of the Bolshevik faction (congress) rejected Lenin's idea. Nikolai Bukharin later recalled that everybody was shocked, and that this was perhaps the only episode in the Party's history when its Central Committee unanimously issued an order to burn Lenin's letter.
Fortunately, a surviving copy of that letter proves that Lenin was ready to stage a coup against all Russian democratic forces in September 1917.
Lev Trotsky later wrote that Lenin, who had encountered open resistance, reached an agreement with Ivar Smilga, a Lithuanian revolutionary and one of his staunchest supporters. At that time, Smilga headed the Regional Committee of the Soviets in Finland, where Lenin was hiding.
Together with the Latvian Bolshevik, Martin Lacis, Smilga insisted during the abortive July 1917 coup that Petrograd railway stations, arsenals, banks, the telegraph office, etc. be seized without delay.
Lenin knew that he could rely on both of them.
Lenin and Smilga tried to establish armed revolutionary units north of Petrograd in circumvention of the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee and to attack the Russian capital at the earliest opportunity.
Trotsky wrote that this was, in fact, a new plan of the uprising aiming to establish a secret military committee in Gelsingfors (Helsinki) and to use the Russian forces stationed in Finland.
Although this attempt also failed due to several factors, one can say that Lenin had conspired against his own comrades. The Bolshevik leader, who had missed the January 1905 and February 1917 revolutions, who did not work in Switzerland and who thought he would not live to see another revolution, was now seething with activity.
Unlike everybody else, Lenin was ready to stage a coup, no matter what. And, if need be, he was ready to directly rely on the masses, who seemed more radical than the Bolshevik Party and its Central Committee.
Trotsky's account is quite believable because Lenin was usually several steps ahead of his own Party and established undercover groups for putting various plans into action. The Bolshevik Party and its Central Committee knew nothing about a secret triumvirate comprising Lenin, Leonid Krasin and Alexander Bogdanov, which was established during the 1905 revolution and organized terrorist attacks and bank robberies for the revolutionary cause. The triumvirate also obtained money in order to support the Bolshevik elite living in Paris and Zurich, and conducted other financial swindles.
However, the Russian police knew all about these schemes. Police General Alexander Spiridovich wrote that Lenin had inspired and managed all of his Party's paramilitary operations.
Lenin, who was not directly involved in any bank robbery, terrorist attack or fraud, knew absolutely everything about them and even helped mastermind such plans. Every operation usually involved Krasin, the Party's technical genius, who had established covert bomb laboratories all over Russia, Joseph "Koba" Stalin and a brave Armenian named Simon "Kamo" Ter-Petrosyan. As a rule, it was "Koba" and "Kamo" who robbed the banks.
By addressing rank-and-file Bolsheviks and through clever intrigue, Lenin eventually managed to persuade most Central Committee members, who, nonetheless, tended to deviate from the new line at every opportunity. For instance, the 120-strong Bolshevik faction was in no mood to boycott the so-called Provisional Council of the Republic (Predparlament). In fact, 70 Bolsheviks voted against the boycott, which was supported by the remaining 50. However, Lenin and Trotsky pressured the faction to walk out in protest.
That was Lenin's major strategic victory because the Bolsheviks then started preparing for an armed uprising. From then on, Lenin became a real leader, rather than a leader of the opposition, and demanded partisan discipline and the fulfilment of adopted decisions.
On October 10, only 12 members of the 21-strong Central Committee officially decided to overthrow the Provisional Government. A bespectacled and clean-shaven Lenin wearing a wig also attended the meeting. Under the Party's regulations, the Committee did not discuss the quorum because it was hard to gather all its members who had gone into hiding.
Few self-respecting parties would have made this crucial decision in such a narrow circle. Moreover, only 10 out of the 12 Central Committee members voted for the uprising and thus decided the country's future.
The Central Committee concluded that the international and the military situation around the Russian revolution was favorable for an armed uprising. On the one hand, there was a mutiny in the German Navy as an extreme manifestation of the approaching world socialist revolution in Europe and the threat of the imperialist world to stifle the revolution in Russia, and on the other, the obvious decision of the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky & Co. to surrender Petrograd to the Germans, the peasant uprising, the party's growing popularity (elections in Moscow) and obvious preparations for another Kornilov-style coup.
Lenin used a pencil stub to write this text on a piece of graph paper. Trotsky later said Lenin invariably believed that an impending world revolution was the most important pre-condition of a national armed uprising, which, in turn, was just part of the entire sequence. According to Trotsky, Lenin invariably stuck to this concept.
In short, Russian national interests were not the main argument in favor of an uprising.
However, all of the arguments set out in the resolution are absolutely unconvincing. The so-called imperialist world had no intention of stifling the Russian revolution and restoring the monarchy. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Italy wanted Russia to fight, while Germany, Austria and Turkey were dreaming of a separate peace with Petrograd.
Lenin was bluffing when he claimed that the Russian bourgeoisie and Kerensky obviously wanted to surrender Petrograd to the Germans. The same can be said of allegations that the Bolshevik leader was a German spy. Russian politicians of that period frequently accused each other of kowtowing to the Kaiser. Rebel General Lavr Kornilov even said that the Provisional Government was being pressured by the Soviets and acted in line with the German General Staff's plans.
A second Kornilov-style coup was not in the making because Russian generals and officers were still disorganized after the first rebellion. And Lenin himself was conspiring to overthrow the Provisional Government. Trotsky remarked cynically that the attacker always wants to prove that he is defending himself.
German sailors had rebelled because they did not like their food, because they were bored and because they resented harsh discipline. The warship where the mutiny started had been moored for almost a year. Only a raving madman could think that this event heralded the approaching world socialist revolution in Europe.
In fact, German sailors wanted frankfurters, sauerkraut, beer, official leaves, and women, and were in no mood to carry out a world revolution. Their mutiny was suppressed after October 1917.
Although the Central Committee resolution mentions peasant unrest as a pretext for an immediate coup d'etat, this is a bit strange because only a few months had passed since the February Revolution and the war was going on at the time. Unlike the peasant-oriented Social Revolutionaries, the pro-worker Bolsheviks were more concerned about the plight of British dockers and German metal-workers.
The resolution contained the only truth: the Party had won elections in Moscow, and underprivileged urban residents were beginning to sympathize with the Bolsheviks. Lenin realized this, and wanted to grab power while the pendulum was still swinging in his direction.
The Bolshevik leader wanted to stage a coup under any pretext that would seem ridiculous to future historians.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Why did Lavrov visit Ahmadinejad?
20:38 31/ 10/ 2007
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) - Obviously, Moscow is trying to persuade Iran to adjust its nuclear policy in line with the demands of Iran's two main opponents, the U.S. and the EU: renounce uranium enrichment or face sanctions.
Russia opposes unilateral sanctions against Teheran and is still advocating a collective solution to the problem, said the Russian Foreign Minister after meeting the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The otherwise standard sentence has one important detail. Moscow, unlike Teheran, does not deny the existence of the Iranian nuclear problem and urges the need to solve it. True, it makes no difference whatsoever to the collectively developed scenario. The scenario, to which Russia has signed on, would toughen UN Security Council's sanctions against Iran if it refuses to stop uranium enrichment.
The most likely aim of Sergei Lavrov's flying visit to Teheran was to bring home to Ahmadinejad the simple truth that if Iran fails to comply with the Security Council demand to stop uranium enrichment by the end of November, Moscow will have no grounds for protecting it. That sanctions (in the event of non-compliance with the UN demand) would become inevitable was recently stressed by the European Union's Foreign Policy and Security Chief Xavier Solana. Solana, along with IAEA head Muhammed el-Baradei, are to prepare a report on the Iranian nuclear program by November 15. Judging from his remarks, Solana is in a very resolute mood.
Lavrov's visit to Iran was a departure from standard practice. It had not been planned. A force majeure move had to have weighty reasons. Perhaps it was prompted by another round of unilateral U.S. actions against Iran. The specific targets were elite units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and its special Qods Force as well as three Iranian state banks and their foreign branches. One of these was the Moscow branch of Bank Melli which handles the payments for Russian military hardware supplied to Iran (29 Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missiles worth a total of $700 million).
There may be some more intriguing motives.
The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried recently said that the U.S. would certainly come to certain conclusions regarding the deployment of the missile defense elements in Europe if Iran stopped all uranium enrichment work and began cooperating with the international community. Needless to say, it was a deal the White House proposed to the Kremlin. The tempting proposal was made almost simultaneously with Putin's visit to Teheran.
It is believed in the White House that Moscow - especially after that visit - is in a position to influence some aspects of Iran's foreign policy. So, why not ask it to persuade the Ayatollahs to renounce uranium enrichment and change their tone in dealing with the West?
Lastly, The International Herald Tribune has reported, citing American diplomatic sources, that the U.S. was ready to offer Moscow concessions on the CFE Treaty in exchange for a softening of its stance on Kosovo and a toughening of its stance on Iran.
Most likely the prospect of multiple concessions (on missile defense and CFE) prompted Moscow to try to persuade Teheran to announce a moratorium on all uranium enrichment. But what can Russia offer in exchange? Teheran is unlikely to be moved by the mere readiness of Washington to sit down at the negotiating table or even resume direct bilateral contacts.
The more likely explanation lies elsewhere. Teheran has long wanted to position itself as Russia's "strategic ally". So, there is no reason why Moscow should not make use of partnership relations. It could well act as a guarantor of the peaceful character of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. renunciation of military actions. Russia, of course, has something to offer Iran. And judging from the reception accorded in the Iranian capital to Sergei Lavrov, Teheran finds these proposals interesting.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Goncharov) - Obviously, Moscow is trying to persuade Iran to adjust its nuclear policy in line with the demands of Iran's two main opponents, the U.S. and the EU: renounce uranium enrichment or face sanctions.
Russia opposes unilateral sanctions against Teheran and is still advocating a collective solution to the problem, said the Russian Foreign Minister after meeting the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The otherwise standard sentence has one important detail. Moscow, unlike Teheran, does not deny the existence of the Iranian nuclear problem and urges the need to solve it. True, it makes no difference whatsoever to the collectively developed scenario. The scenario, to which Russia has signed on, would toughen UN Security Council's sanctions against Iran if it refuses to stop uranium enrichment.
The most likely aim of Sergei Lavrov's flying visit to Teheran was to bring home to Ahmadinejad the simple truth that if Iran fails to comply with the Security Council demand to stop uranium enrichment by the end of November, Moscow will have no grounds for protecting it. That sanctions (in the event of non-compliance with the UN demand) would become inevitable was recently stressed by the European Union's Foreign Policy and Security Chief Xavier Solana. Solana, along with IAEA head Muhammed el-Baradei, are to prepare a report on the Iranian nuclear program by November 15. Judging from his remarks, Solana is in a very resolute mood.
Lavrov's visit to Iran was a departure from standard practice. It had not been planned. A force majeure move had to have weighty reasons. Perhaps it was prompted by another round of unilateral U.S. actions against Iran. The specific targets were elite units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and its special Qods Force as well as three Iranian state banks and their foreign branches. One of these was the Moscow branch of Bank Melli which handles the payments for Russian military hardware supplied to Iran (29 Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missiles worth a total of $700 million).
There may be some more intriguing motives.
The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried recently said that the U.S. would certainly come to certain conclusions regarding the deployment of the missile defense elements in Europe if Iran stopped all uranium enrichment work and began cooperating with the international community. Needless to say, it was a deal the White House proposed to the Kremlin. The tempting proposal was made almost simultaneously with Putin's visit to Teheran.
It is believed in the White House that Moscow - especially after that visit - is in a position to influence some aspects of Iran's foreign policy. So, why not ask it to persuade the Ayatollahs to renounce uranium enrichment and change their tone in dealing with the West?
Lastly, The International Herald Tribune has reported, citing American diplomatic sources, that the U.S. was ready to offer Moscow concessions on the CFE Treaty in exchange for a softening of its stance on Kosovo and a toughening of its stance on Iran.
Most likely the prospect of multiple concessions (on missile defense and CFE) prompted Moscow to try to persuade Teheran to announce a moratorium on all uranium enrichment. But what can Russia offer in exchange? Teheran is unlikely to be moved by the mere readiness of Washington to sit down at the negotiating table or even resume direct bilateral contacts.
The more likely explanation lies elsewhere. Teheran has long wanted to position itself as Russia's "strategic ally". So, there is no reason why Moscow should not make use of partnership relations. It could well act as a guarantor of the peaceful character of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. renunciation of military actions. Russia, of course, has something to offer Iran. And judging from the reception accorded in the Iranian capital to Sergei Lavrov, Teheran finds these proposals interesting.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit
Dialog for Investment & Security of Supply for a Sustainable Energy Future
This conference addresses the issues of rising demands for energy and supply challenges. It examines the technological challenges to enhanced oil recovery, the prospects for gas trade, investments in petrochemicals as well as tanker shortages, storage solutions and transport safety. The conference also assesses the energy production in several Middle East countries.
From: 28 Nov 2007 To: 29 Nov 2007
Venue: Singapore Marriott Hotel, Singapore, Singapore
Participation conditions:Open, attendance fee
Registration: registration required
Organizers
Gulf Research Center (GRC)
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
Singaporian Ministry for Trade and Industry (MTI)
Singaporian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
IBC Gulf Conferences
Short Program (en)
Contact Details
Sarita Singh
IBC Gulf Conferences, Zabeel Road, Umm Hurair Building, Office 507
Dubai United Arab Emirates
Tel: +971 4 336 2992
Fax: +971 4 336 0116
Contact event organizer
Event website
Gulf Research Center (GRC)
will organize:
"The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit"
Supported by:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Trade & Industry, Government of Singapore
The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
Co-organized by:
IBC Gulf Conferences
28 - 29 November 2007,
Singapore Marriott Hotel, Singapore
The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit will address one of the most pressing issues of our time. Continuously rising demand, especially from emerging market countries like China, faces increasing supply challenges. Oil and gas extraction in a maturing industry requires more sophisticated technological solutions and huge investments, while the increasing cross border transport of energy calls for international cooperation. Geopolitical tensions have to be eased while innovative transport and strategic storage solutions have to be found.
The Middle East has 60 percent of worldwide oil reserves and 40 percent of worldwide gas reserves, about two thirds of its energy exports go to Asia, a dynamic industrious region that has developed into the “workbench of the world” and faces a striking lack of endowment with energy resources. Thus the dependence is mutual and the chances for cooperation manifold. The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit offers the opportunity to get first hand knowledge from senior speakers and industry insiders about issues such as:
• Asia’s growing oil thirst: Will the Middle East be able to quench it? The challenges of enhanced oil recovery
• Prospects of trade in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
• Country assessments: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Iraq
• Petrochemicals and refining: The necessity of cross border
• Tanker shortages, pipeline projects and transport of refined products
• Strategic storage solutions
• Choke points and the management of geopolitical risk: The straits of Hormuz and Malacca
This 2 day summit will address the above concerns and will place them within the context of the international marketplace and its future development. Delegates will be part of a high level interactive summit which will allow them the opportunity to discuss the issues with industry insiders and peers.
MORE DETAILS
This conference addresses the issues of rising demands for energy and supply challenges. It examines the technological challenges to enhanced oil recovery, the prospects for gas trade, investments in petrochemicals as well as tanker shortages, storage solutions and transport safety. The conference also assesses the energy production in several Middle East countries.
From: 28 Nov 2007 To: 29 Nov 2007
Venue: Singapore Marriott Hotel, Singapore, Singapore
Participation conditions:Open, attendance fee
Registration: registration required
Organizers
Gulf Research Center (GRC)
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
Singaporian Ministry for Trade and Industry (MTI)
Singaporian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)
IBC Gulf Conferences
Short Program (en)
Contact Details
Sarita Singh
IBC Gulf Conferences, Zabeel Road, Umm Hurair Building, Office 507
Dubai United Arab Emirates
Tel: +971 4 336 2992
Fax: +971 4 336 0116
Contact event organizer
Event website
Gulf Research Center (GRC)
will organize:
"The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit"
Supported by:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Trade & Industry, Government of Singapore
The S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS)
Co-organized by:
IBC Gulf Conferences
28 - 29 November 2007,
Singapore Marriott Hotel, Singapore
The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit will address one of the most pressing issues of our time. Continuously rising demand, especially from emerging market countries like China, faces increasing supply challenges. Oil and gas extraction in a maturing industry requires more sophisticated technological solutions and huge investments, while the increasing cross border transport of energy calls for international cooperation. Geopolitical tensions have to be eased while innovative transport and strategic storage solutions have to be found.
The Middle East has 60 percent of worldwide oil reserves and 40 percent of worldwide gas reserves, about two thirds of its energy exports go to Asia, a dynamic industrious region that has developed into the “workbench of the world” and faces a striking lack of endowment with energy resources. Thus the dependence is mutual and the chances for cooperation manifold. The Middle East & Asia Energy Summit offers the opportunity to get first hand knowledge from senior speakers and industry insiders about issues such as:
• Asia’s growing oil thirst: Will the Middle East be able to quench it? The challenges of enhanced oil recovery
• Prospects of trade in Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
• Country assessments: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Iraq
• Petrochemicals and refining: The necessity of cross border
• Tanker shortages, pipeline projects and transport of refined products
• Strategic storage solutions
• Choke points and the management of geopolitical risk: The straits of Hormuz and Malacca
This 2 day summit will address the above concerns and will place them within the context of the international marketplace and its future development. Delegates will be part of a high level interactive summit which will allow them the opportunity to discuss the issues with industry insiders and peers.
MORE DETAILS
Georgia ends Russia-Abkhazia mandate
As tensions escalate with Georgia's withdrawal of its agreement for Russian peacekeepers in breakaway Abkhazia, the international community carefully considers its response. From EurasiaNet.
By Nina Akhmeteli for EurasiaNet (01/11/07)
Georgia has withdrawn its agreement for the presence of Commonwealth of Independent States peacekeepers in breakaway Abkhazia after a 30 October conflict between Georgian police and Russian peacekeepers in a Georgian village bordering the disputed territory.
"A decision to end the Russian peacekeepers' mandate and to delegitimize their presence has been made," Parliamentary Speaker Nino Burjanadze told reporters on 31 October after a meeting between government ministers and members of the ruling National Movement Party. Discussions are being held with Georgia's "international partners" about a precise date for the withdrawal, Burjanadze added.
Removing the roughly 2,000 peacekeepers from Abkhazia has been a longtime ambition for Tbilisi, which has repeatedly called for replacing the peacekeepers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - primarily represented by Russia - with a more international group.
Under the 1994 ceasefire agreement, the peacekeepers were deployed at the request of both Abkhazia and Georgia. Within Georgia, the operative understanding is that they may remain in the conflict zone until either Tbilisi or the separatist Abkhaz government demands their removal.
Burjanadze and other senior government officials maintain that the 30 October clash, in which several Georgian policemen were allegedly beaten and detained by Russian peacekeepers, has made imperative the demand for a new peacekeeping format.
"We announced several times that the peacekeepers are not objective and neutral, but very often they are the main destabilizing factor [in the conflict zone]," she said.
In a 31 October statement, the Georgian Foreign Ministry alleges that Russian peacekeepers with armored vehicles besieged a youth camp in Ganmukhuri, a village in the Georgian region of Samegrelo, and physically abused and detained Georgian officers who were guarding the camp. Georgian Interior Ministry special unit officers stopped the Russian peacekeepers, the Foreign Ministry claims, alleging that the confrontation ended only when Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili arrived on the scene.
Television footage shot by the pro-government Rustavi 2 television station on 30 October showed an abusive verbal exchange in a field between Georgian police officers and several Russian peacekeepers, followed by a brief brawl. The officers were finally forced to lie down on the field, with their hands behind their backs.
Georgian television repeatedly broadcast shots of Saakashvili, flanked by Tbilisi Mayor Givi Ugulava, striding purposefully to the site of the clash to examine the wounded police officers and to lash out at a somewhat bemused senior Russian peacekeeper for the group's "provocation" and violation of the peacekeeping mandate. With the cameras filming, Saakashvili told the peacekeepers that their head, Sergei Chaban, is a persona non grata on Georgian territory, and demanded an official apology for the treatment of the police officers.
"I want you to know that Sokhumi is a part of Georgia, like Ganmukhuri, Zugdidi and Tbilisi," he told the peacekeepers. "You should immediately put everything in order here."
In a later emergency session of the National Security Council on 30 October, Saakashvili declared that the incident was a "criminal attack" and "absolutely unacceptable." The president said that he decided to travel to Ganmukhuri after getting word that "100-150 soldiers" with "military hardware" had attacked a Georgian police post near the camp. Rustavi 2's television footage, however, shows a band of about six to eight Russian peacekeepers, some armed with automatic rifles.
The president told the cabinet that his "personal dignity" required him "to defend this camp and to stand with the people who were defending it." The camp, one of a series of facilities designed to instill patriotism in Georgian youth, has long been a bone of contention between Georgia and Russia.
Saakashvili lauded the "heroic behavior" of the Rustavi 2 journalist, Ema Gogokhia, who filmed the incident, claiming that she managed to fend off two Russian peacekeepers who attempted to seize her tape.
Russia's version of events, however, differs sharply from that of Tbilisi. Sergei Chaban, the commander of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, told the Russian news agency RIA Novosti that a Georgian police officer had verbally provoked the Russian peacekeepers, threatening to shoot them and to use grenade launchers. The peacekeepers, he claimed, were patrolling to the north of the mouth of the Inguri River when they were approached by the officer, a Major Khurtsia.
In comments to reporters after being summoned to the Georgian Foreign Ministry, Russian Ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko echoed Chaban's assertions.
"[T]he incident was provoked by the Georgian patrol; in particular, a major who behaved aggressively and threatened the lives of those peacekeepers who were in the region," he said.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry claims that Chaban's mandate expired in February 2006 and that Tbilisi did not approve an extension of his time in Abkhazia, given at an October CIS summit. Russian officials have asserted that Chaban will remain at his post.
For now, the international community appears to be carefully considering its options for a response. The United Nations Security Council renewed a six-month mandate for the UN's Observer Mission in Abkhazia on 15 October.
One Georgian expert, however, contends that the incentive does not yet appear to exist outside of Georgia for seeing a change in the peacekeeping format in Abkhazia. Tbilisi, however, could use the Ganmukhuri incident, argued Archil Gegeshidze, a senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, to draw attention to the problem and spark that motivation.
"The Georgian side has the right to unilaterally break off the peacekeeping operation," said Gegeshidze. "The other way is to leave the CIS. But in this case, there will be a vacuum and the ending of the peacekeepers’ mandate will be postponed."
The broader message, added Temuri Yakobashvili, executive vice president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, is that, despite years of peace talks, Georgia's frozen conflicts with separatist Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still far from frozen. Both conflicts, he said, "can explode at any time."
Editor's Note: Nina Akhmeteli is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.
EurasiaNet provides information and analysis about political, economic, environmental, and social developments in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia. The website presents a variety of perspectives on contemporary developments, utilizing a network of correspondents based both in the West and in the region. The aim of EurasiaNet is to promote informed decision making among policy makers, as well as broadening interest in the region among the general public. EurasiaNet is operated by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Institute.
By Nina Akhmeteli for EurasiaNet (01/11/07)
Georgia has withdrawn its agreement for the presence of Commonwealth of Independent States peacekeepers in breakaway Abkhazia after a 30 October conflict between Georgian police and Russian peacekeepers in a Georgian village bordering the disputed territory.
"A decision to end the Russian peacekeepers' mandate and to delegitimize their presence has been made," Parliamentary Speaker Nino Burjanadze told reporters on 31 October after a meeting between government ministers and members of the ruling National Movement Party. Discussions are being held with Georgia's "international partners" about a precise date for the withdrawal, Burjanadze added.
Removing the roughly 2,000 peacekeepers from Abkhazia has been a longtime ambition for Tbilisi, which has repeatedly called for replacing the peacekeepers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - primarily represented by Russia - with a more international group.
Under the 1994 ceasefire agreement, the peacekeepers were deployed at the request of both Abkhazia and Georgia. Within Georgia, the operative understanding is that they may remain in the conflict zone until either Tbilisi or the separatist Abkhaz government demands their removal.
Burjanadze and other senior government officials maintain that the 30 October clash, in which several Georgian policemen were allegedly beaten and detained by Russian peacekeepers, has made imperative the demand for a new peacekeeping format.
"We announced several times that the peacekeepers are not objective and neutral, but very often they are the main destabilizing factor [in the conflict zone]," she said.
In a 31 October statement, the Georgian Foreign Ministry alleges that Russian peacekeepers with armored vehicles besieged a youth camp in Ganmukhuri, a village in the Georgian region of Samegrelo, and physically abused and detained Georgian officers who were guarding the camp. Georgian Interior Ministry special unit officers stopped the Russian peacekeepers, the Foreign Ministry claims, alleging that the confrontation ended only when Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili arrived on the scene.
Television footage shot by the pro-government Rustavi 2 television station on 30 October showed an abusive verbal exchange in a field between Georgian police officers and several Russian peacekeepers, followed by a brief brawl. The officers were finally forced to lie down on the field, with their hands behind their backs.
Georgian television repeatedly broadcast shots of Saakashvili, flanked by Tbilisi Mayor Givi Ugulava, striding purposefully to the site of the clash to examine the wounded police officers and to lash out at a somewhat bemused senior Russian peacekeeper for the group's "provocation" and violation of the peacekeeping mandate. With the cameras filming, Saakashvili told the peacekeepers that their head, Sergei Chaban, is a persona non grata on Georgian territory, and demanded an official apology for the treatment of the police officers.
"I want you to know that Sokhumi is a part of Georgia, like Ganmukhuri, Zugdidi and Tbilisi," he told the peacekeepers. "You should immediately put everything in order here."
In a later emergency session of the National Security Council on 30 October, Saakashvili declared that the incident was a "criminal attack" and "absolutely unacceptable." The president said that he decided to travel to Ganmukhuri after getting word that "100-150 soldiers" with "military hardware" had attacked a Georgian police post near the camp. Rustavi 2's television footage, however, shows a band of about six to eight Russian peacekeepers, some armed with automatic rifles.
The president told the cabinet that his "personal dignity" required him "to defend this camp and to stand with the people who were defending it." The camp, one of a series of facilities designed to instill patriotism in Georgian youth, has long been a bone of contention between Georgia and Russia.
Saakashvili lauded the "heroic behavior" of the Rustavi 2 journalist, Ema Gogokhia, who filmed the incident, claiming that she managed to fend off two Russian peacekeepers who attempted to seize her tape.
Russia's version of events, however, differs sharply from that of Tbilisi. Sergei Chaban, the commander of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, told the Russian news agency RIA Novosti that a Georgian police officer had verbally provoked the Russian peacekeepers, threatening to shoot them and to use grenade launchers. The peacekeepers, he claimed, were patrolling to the north of the mouth of the Inguri River when they were approached by the officer, a Major Khurtsia.
In comments to reporters after being summoned to the Georgian Foreign Ministry, Russian Ambassador Vyacheslav Kovalenko echoed Chaban's assertions.
"[T]he incident was provoked by the Georgian patrol; in particular, a major who behaved aggressively and threatened the lives of those peacekeepers who were in the region," he said.
The Georgian Foreign Ministry claims that Chaban's mandate expired in February 2006 and that Tbilisi did not approve an extension of his time in Abkhazia, given at an October CIS summit. Russian officials have asserted that Chaban will remain at his post.
For now, the international community appears to be carefully considering its options for a response. The United Nations Security Council renewed a six-month mandate for the UN's Observer Mission in Abkhazia on 15 October.
One Georgian expert, however, contends that the incentive does not yet appear to exist outside of Georgia for seeing a change in the peacekeeping format in Abkhazia. Tbilisi, however, could use the Ganmukhuri incident, argued Archil Gegeshidze, a senior fellow at the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, to draw attention to the problem and spark that motivation.
"The Georgian side has the right to unilaterally break off the peacekeeping operation," said Gegeshidze. "The other way is to leave the CIS. But in this case, there will be a vacuum and the ending of the peacekeepers’ mandate will be postponed."
The broader message, added Temuri Yakobashvili, executive vice president of the Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, is that, despite years of peace talks, Georgia's frozen conflicts with separatist Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still far from frozen. Both conflicts, he said, "can explode at any time."
Editor's Note: Nina Akhmeteli is a freelance reporter based in Tbilisi.
EurasiaNet provides information and analysis about political, economic, environmental, and social developments in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as in Russia, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia. The website presents a variety of perspectives on contemporary developments, utilizing a network of correspondents based both in the West and in the region. The aim of EurasiaNet is to promote informed decision making among policy makers, as well as broadening interest in the region among the general public. EurasiaNet is operated by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Institute.
Israel: Ready for harder military tactics
As Israel seems to perceive a rising 'threat factor' on its borders, military leaders seem prepared to go for harder and more overt tactics regardless of international opprobrium.
By Brooks Tigner in Brussels for ISN Security Watch (01/11/07)
Attitudes among Israeli government and military leaders are hardening over the use of military power to guarantee the country's security, as evidenced by the numerous reports of Israel's strike in early September against a nascent nuclear facility in adjacent Syria.
Yet while Israel makes no bones about not tolerating any nuclear weapons capability in its region (other than its own), the 6 September operation was highly covert and continues to be shrouded with "no comments," with officials neither confirming nor denying the strike.
The wider policy question is: Does Israel perceive a rising "threat factor" around its borders and, if so, will it go for harder and more overt military tactics in general than in the recent past?
Recent discussions with government, industry and policy experts here suggest the likely answer is "yes" - and nevermind the attendant international opprobrium such a course might entail. They spoke with ISN Security Watch on the condition of anonymity.
The government's three most immediate security concerns are:
Its ever-simmering tensions with the densely populated Palestinian Gaza Strip and the Hamas political leadership at the country's southwestern flank border with Egypt
Its top-of-the-map frontier with southern Lebanon, where the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) fought a short and sharp but less-than-satisfactory war in summer 2006 with Iran-supplied Hizbollah militants
The Golan Heights frontline between Israeli and Syrian forces
"We see relentless terrorist attacks from Gaza against our citizens in southern Israel and a restocked Hizbollah [with Iranian-supplied Katyusha rockets] in southern Lebanon. Yes, you could argue the threats are rising," an Israeli government official in Jerusalem told ISN Security Watch in Brussels on 22 October.
While opinion is divided within Israel about the IDF's substandard performance during the so-called Second Lebanon War - bad doctrine, inexperienced officers and slashed budgets for reserve-unit training are three explanations proffered - IDF military commanders on the ground have no doubt about what needs doing the next time.
"Equipment and capability were not the issues [during the war with Hizbollah]," a local IDR infantry commander told ISN Security Watch in Brussels on 23 October, pointing a finger toward villages visible across the border into southern Lebanon.
"We knew exactly where the [enemy's] missiles were: we had the ability to identify, target and respond to them quickly, but we didn't do this like we should have," he said, referring to Hizbollah missiles fired from special bunkers under private homes or from mobile launchers that immediately redeployed after firing on public buildings such as schools or mosques.
"No, we took the softer 'more correct' approach: issuing advance warnings to villagers, or forcing them away from target areas by using smoke or other techniques to minimize civilian deaths. Well, we saw the results of that policy. [Civilian casualties in Israel and a public relations victory for Hizbollah]. That won't be the same the next time. The gloves come off if there's another conflict with Hizbollah."
Further east, Israeli security experts refer to quiet but increasing tension behind the Golan Heights, the Israeli-controlled territory seized from Syria 40 years ago.
"Syria is buying sophisticated weapons and equipping large units of soldiers with anti-tank missiles and the means to carry out guerrilla warfare," a government security analyst in Tel Aviv told ISN Security Watch.
"They've purchased thousands of anti-tank missiles from Russia in the last year, for example, and they're looking to acquire the ability to build long-range missiles in Syria. The overall combat goal is asymmetric, with Syria using Hizbollah [in southern Lebanon] as a first line to divert Israeli soldiers prior to a move against the Golan Heights. They are not ready yet, as we think it will take another year or so."
"Meanwhile," the analyst said, "we are hearing strange rhetoric coming from Damascus about the Golan. There have been troop movements on their part, and they see our training maneuvers [on the Heights]. We think they've put short-range rockets near their border with Israel and are building farms in the area, [under the assumption that] it would make it more difficult for us to take action against them."
Further south at Gaza tensions are also rising among Israeli security and military circles due to the near-daily attacks by Hamas and other militant groups inside the enclave against Israel's adjacent territory.
These come mainly in the form of handcrafted Qassam rockets, simple weapons fashioned from metal pipes and a homemade explosive mixture. The latest version, however, has a range of up to 20 kilometers. Though their wobbly trajectory is unguided, each one means that Israeli populations within range have less than 30 seconds to seek shelter. Ten were launched on 23 October, for example, though the daily average has been three since the IDF withdrew from the Gaza in 2005.
While the Qassams are a minor weapon and deaths have been few, their mental impact on local populations has been great, according to officials.
"Imagine growing up under those conditions," an Israeli diplomat in Jerusalem told ISN Security Watch. "There's a whole generation of young school children down there with serious psychological problems. The rocket attacks are in the news nearly every day and when one is coming down on their village they have to run for their lives."
Due to the higher-than-usual number of Qassam attacks in late October, the government clamped down on Gaza by selectively cutting electricity and fuel supplies, though hospitals and other urgent services were not targeted. Such commercial pressure is not enough, argued one expert.
"The time is growing near where we'll have to have a ground operation against Gaza," said one former high-ranking Israeli defense official. "In my view, this should have been done a year ago as soon as it was apparent that the territory was being used as a regular launching pad. IDF armed forces should have gone in and cleared the area. They did this in the West Bank and the terrorism [from there] has stopped."
Better defense
Some officials still in government tacitly agree. "We know where the launch areas are in Gaza - just beyond the no-man's land that separates their territory from ours," an Israeli security policy official told ISN Security Watch in Tel Aviv. "There is a strong rationale for moving the tanks and troops back into the strip to clear out those areas and keep it clean."
Israel's other military option is to rely on better defenses, which it is also trying to do. The Defence Ministry's co-called Iron Dome project calls for deployment of mobile air defense systems within two years capable of instantly detecting and countering short and medium-range rockets by launching an interceptor.
Israel's state-owned defense company, Rafael Ltd, is developing the system, though some experts are doubtful whether such spot-on capability can be fully achieved by then.
Rafael is under heavy pressure to deliver a foolproof system, however, due to fears that Hamas and other groups within Gaza will get their hands on weapons more powerful and deadly than handmade rockets such as advanced-design Katyushas with their 50-70 km range.
Hizbollah has carried out repeated attempts to smuggle the rockets into Gaza via underground tunnels along the Strip's border with Egypt, according to Israeli officials - a reality that swings the threat-factor compass around to the main danger they see on the distant horizon: Iran.
"Those [in the international community] who say Iran is a responsible actor are wrong," an Israeli diplomat told ISN Security Watch. "Iran has not been a responsible player in the past, so why should it be now?"
Referring to Tehran's nuclear ambitions and its effort to master the so-called cascaded centrifuge enrichment process for producing bomb-grade U-235, the diplomat said "the worst-case scenario would be for Iran to master this technique by mid-2008 to produce low-level enriched uranium and then another two to three years of keeping its centrifuges running to produce highly enriched uranium. At that point it's a problem of stability for everyone, and not just Israel. Having Iran go nuclear will change the whole international scene."
Based in Brussels, Brooks Tigner has reported on European and trans-Atlantic security and defense issues since 1992, with particular emphasis on NATO and the EU's rapidly evolving military and homeland security policies. He is a regular contributor to the US weekly, Defense News, and editor of SECURITY EUROPE, a new monthly newsletter focused on European homeland security policy, technology and business
By Brooks Tigner in Brussels for ISN Security Watch (01/11/07)
Attitudes among Israeli government and military leaders are hardening over the use of military power to guarantee the country's security, as evidenced by the numerous reports of Israel's strike in early September against a nascent nuclear facility in adjacent Syria.
Yet while Israel makes no bones about not tolerating any nuclear weapons capability in its region (other than its own), the 6 September operation was highly covert and continues to be shrouded with "no comments," with officials neither confirming nor denying the strike.
The wider policy question is: Does Israel perceive a rising "threat factor" around its borders and, if so, will it go for harder and more overt military tactics in general than in the recent past?
Recent discussions with government, industry and policy experts here suggest the likely answer is "yes" - and nevermind the attendant international opprobrium such a course might entail. They spoke with ISN Security Watch on the condition of anonymity.
The government's three most immediate security concerns are:
Its ever-simmering tensions with the densely populated Palestinian Gaza Strip and the Hamas political leadership at the country's southwestern flank border with Egypt
Its top-of-the-map frontier with southern Lebanon, where the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) fought a short and sharp but less-than-satisfactory war in summer 2006 with Iran-supplied Hizbollah militants
The Golan Heights frontline between Israeli and Syrian forces
"We see relentless terrorist attacks from Gaza against our citizens in southern Israel and a restocked Hizbollah [with Iranian-supplied Katyusha rockets] in southern Lebanon. Yes, you could argue the threats are rising," an Israeli government official in Jerusalem told ISN Security Watch in Brussels on 22 October.
While opinion is divided within Israel about the IDF's substandard performance during the so-called Second Lebanon War - bad doctrine, inexperienced officers and slashed budgets for reserve-unit training are three explanations proffered - IDF military commanders on the ground have no doubt about what needs doing the next time.
"Equipment and capability were not the issues [during the war with Hizbollah]," a local IDR infantry commander told ISN Security Watch in Brussels on 23 October, pointing a finger toward villages visible across the border into southern Lebanon.
"We knew exactly where the [enemy's] missiles were: we had the ability to identify, target and respond to them quickly, but we didn't do this like we should have," he said, referring to Hizbollah missiles fired from special bunkers under private homes or from mobile launchers that immediately redeployed after firing on public buildings such as schools or mosques.
"No, we took the softer 'more correct' approach: issuing advance warnings to villagers, or forcing them away from target areas by using smoke or other techniques to minimize civilian deaths. Well, we saw the results of that policy. [Civilian casualties in Israel and a public relations victory for Hizbollah]. That won't be the same the next time. The gloves come off if there's another conflict with Hizbollah."
Further east, Israeli security experts refer to quiet but increasing tension behind the Golan Heights, the Israeli-controlled territory seized from Syria 40 years ago.
"Syria is buying sophisticated weapons and equipping large units of soldiers with anti-tank missiles and the means to carry out guerrilla warfare," a government security analyst in Tel Aviv told ISN Security Watch.
"They've purchased thousands of anti-tank missiles from Russia in the last year, for example, and they're looking to acquire the ability to build long-range missiles in Syria. The overall combat goal is asymmetric, with Syria using Hizbollah [in southern Lebanon] as a first line to divert Israeli soldiers prior to a move against the Golan Heights. They are not ready yet, as we think it will take another year or so."
"Meanwhile," the analyst said, "we are hearing strange rhetoric coming from Damascus about the Golan. There have been troop movements on their part, and they see our training maneuvers [on the Heights]. We think they've put short-range rockets near their border with Israel and are building farms in the area, [under the assumption that] it would make it more difficult for us to take action against them."
Further south at Gaza tensions are also rising among Israeli security and military circles due to the near-daily attacks by Hamas and other militant groups inside the enclave against Israel's adjacent territory.
These come mainly in the form of handcrafted Qassam rockets, simple weapons fashioned from metal pipes and a homemade explosive mixture. The latest version, however, has a range of up to 20 kilometers. Though their wobbly trajectory is unguided, each one means that Israeli populations within range have less than 30 seconds to seek shelter. Ten were launched on 23 October, for example, though the daily average has been three since the IDF withdrew from the Gaza in 2005.
While the Qassams are a minor weapon and deaths have been few, their mental impact on local populations has been great, according to officials.
"Imagine growing up under those conditions," an Israeli diplomat in Jerusalem told ISN Security Watch. "There's a whole generation of young school children down there with serious psychological problems. The rocket attacks are in the news nearly every day and when one is coming down on their village they have to run for their lives."
Due to the higher-than-usual number of Qassam attacks in late October, the government clamped down on Gaza by selectively cutting electricity and fuel supplies, though hospitals and other urgent services were not targeted. Such commercial pressure is not enough, argued one expert.
"The time is growing near where we'll have to have a ground operation against Gaza," said one former high-ranking Israeli defense official. "In my view, this should have been done a year ago as soon as it was apparent that the territory was being used as a regular launching pad. IDF armed forces should have gone in and cleared the area. They did this in the West Bank and the terrorism [from there] has stopped."
Better defense
Some officials still in government tacitly agree. "We know where the launch areas are in Gaza - just beyond the no-man's land that separates their territory from ours," an Israeli security policy official told ISN Security Watch in Tel Aviv. "There is a strong rationale for moving the tanks and troops back into the strip to clear out those areas and keep it clean."
Israel's other military option is to rely on better defenses, which it is also trying to do. The Defence Ministry's co-called Iron Dome project calls for deployment of mobile air defense systems within two years capable of instantly detecting and countering short and medium-range rockets by launching an interceptor.
Israel's state-owned defense company, Rafael Ltd, is developing the system, though some experts are doubtful whether such spot-on capability can be fully achieved by then.
Rafael is under heavy pressure to deliver a foolproof system, however, due to fears that Hamas and other groups within Gaza will get their hands on weapons more powerful and deadly than handmade rockets such as advanced-design Katyushas with their 50-70 km range.
Hizbollah has carried out repeated attempts to smuggle the rockets into Gaza via underground tunnels along the Strip's border with Egypt, according to Israeli officials - a reality that swings the threat-factor compass around to the main danger they see on the distant horizon: Iran.
"Those [in the international community] who say Iran is a responsible actor are wrong," an Israeli diplomat told ISN Security Watch. "Iran has not been a responsible player in the past, so why should it be now?"
Referring to Tehran's nuclear ambitions and its effort to master the so-called cascaded centrifuge enrichment process for producing bomb-grade U-235, the diplomat said "the worst-case scenario would be for Iran to master this technique by mid-2008 to produce low-level enriched uranium and then another two to three years of keeping its centrifuges running to produce highly enriched uranium. At that point it's a problem of stability for everyone, and not just Israel. Having Iran go nuclear will change the whole international scene."
Based in Brussels, Brooks Tigner has reported on European and trans-Atlantic security and defense issues since 1992, with particular emphasis on NATO and the EU's rapidly evolving military and homeland security policies. He is a regular contributor to the US weekly, Defense News, and editor of SECURITY EUROPE, a new monthly newsletter focused on European homeland security policy, technology and business
Travel Advisory: War Criminals Beware, Justice Ahead
JURIST Guest Columnists Amy Ross of the University of Georgia Department of Geography and Chandra Lekha Sriram, Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK), say that former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's quick exit from a Paris speaking event last week in the face of a torture lawsuit brought by human rights organizations in a French court shows that univeral jurisdiction laws are making an impact by limiting "zones of impunity," even if the most powerful often remain beyond the reach of actual prosecution...
Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/travel-advisory-war-criminals-beware.php
Donald Rumsfeld should be more careful about where he travels.
In Paris last week, Rumsfeld left a prestigious speaking event in haste, slipping out a side door to avoid the human rights lawyers and journalists waiting to confront him with criminal charges of torture. He reportedly avoided the confrontation by sneaking out a door that attached the conference venue to, of all places, the United States Embassy.
The charges have been filed in a French court by international human rights organizations. The claim is that France is under a legal obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld's accountability for alleged crimes.
The legal pursuits against Rumsfeld are the latest in a trend toward invoking universal jurisdiction.
The essence of the principle is that some crimes are so serious as to be of "international concern.” Hence torture in Guantanamo and Iraq is the business of all humanity, existing everywhere, and should be heard in the French courts. Indeed, any court in the world could host such a trial.
Rumsfeld’s presence on French territory last week sparked the demand that a judge investigate the charges. France must refuse to provide safe haven for torturers, the lawyers insist.
Universal jurisdiction received little attention until it ensnared Chile’s General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in October 1998. While he was in London receiving medical treatment, British officials, acting on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge, placed Mr. Pinochet under arrest, triggering a decade-long, multi-national drama.
For populations subject to the threat of torture, "disappearance" and other human rights abuses, the struggle to hold the most powerful perpetrators accountable has spawned a creative cartography. Faced with impunity at home, human rights activists have sought out sympathetic jurisdictions abroad.
Today, there are dozens of cases before courts involving the principle of universal jurisdiction. Many high-level state figures, traditionally protected at home, are facing increasing pressure in foreign courts.
Henry Kissinger reportedly fled Paris in 2001 after being tipped off to an imminent summons by a French judge; he later cancelled a trip to Brazil after being warned by the government there that he might face an international arrest warrant. Suits in Madrid against Guatemala’s Efrain Rios Montt, charging him with genocide of Mayan Guatemalans during his government’s scorched earth policy in the 1980s, have restricted his travel options.
Shortly after a suit was filed against Ariel Sharon in Brussels, the government of Israel put out a travel-advisory to its high-ranking officials, alerting them to foreign countries that might be keen to entertain universal jurisdiction. The list includes many of the western social-democracies.
Efforts to prosecute Israeli Major-General (reserve) Doron Almog for war crimes in Gaza were derailed when the accused managed to dodge an indictment in the United Kingdom. In 2005 Almog got as far as the jetway at Heathrow; when tipped off to his imminent arrest he was allowed to remain on board and return with the plane to Israel.
Even the president of the United States of America has to be careful where he travels. In November 2004, during a visit by Bush, the Chilean government announced that the US president would have immunity during his visit. The unusual declaration was made after lawyers filed a criminal complaint against Bush in court, claiming that he and other U.S. officials were guilty of war crimes in Iraq. On a subsequent trip by Bush to Canada, lawsuits were filed against him in Vancouver under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
George W. Bush currently enjoys official immunity from prosecution, as a serving government official. Come January 2009, he might very well forego visits to Germany, where suits have been filed on behalf of four Iraqi victims of torture.
Cases filed against Rumsfeld in Germany and other countries were barred while he was Secretary of Defense. But Rumsfeld resigned. He no longer enjoys the shield of official immunity.
Nonetheless, he still has access to exclusive zones of impunity. While it may appear that universal jurisdiction is forcing even the powerful to confront their crimes, Rumsfeld’s escape-route illustrates that certain global figures remain beyond the aspirations of international human rights law.
It is a paradox of power. The most powerful are in a position to prosecute others for abuses, even as they commit crimes themselves, and avoid prosecution.
Amy Ross is a professor in the University of Georgia Department of Geography specializing in human rights, international justice, geographies of justice, genocide, and the spatiality of violence. Chandra Lekha Sriram is Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK).
October 29, 2007
Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/travel-advisory-war-criminals-beware.php
Donald Rumsfeld should be more careful about where he travels.
In Paris last week, Rumsfeld left a prestigious speaking event in haste, slipping out a side door to avoid the human rights lawyers and journalists waiting to confront him with criminal charges of torture. He reportedly avoided the confrontation by sneaking out a door that attached the conference venue to, of all places, the United States Embassy.
The charges have been filed in a French court by international human rights organizations. The claim is that France is under a legal obligation to investigate and prosecute Rumsfeld's accountability for alleged crimes.
The legal pursuits against Rumsfeld are the latest in a trend toward invoking universal jurisdiction.
The essence of the principle is that some crimes are so serious as to be of "international concern.” Hence torture in Guantanamo and Iraq is the business of all humanity, existing everywhere, and should be heard in the French courts. Indeed, any court in the world could host such a trial.
Rumsfeld’s presence on French territory last week sparked the demand that a judge investigate the charges. France must refuse to provide safe haven for torturers, the lawyers insist.
Universal jurisdiction received little attention until it ensnared Chile’s General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte in October 1998. While he was in London receiving medical treatment, British officials, acting on a warrant issued by a Spanish judge, placed Mr. Pinochet under arrest, triggering a decade-long, multi-national drama.
For populations subject to the threat of torture, "disappearance" and other human rights abuses, the struggle to hold the most powerful perpetrators accountable has spawned a creative cartography. Faced with impunity at home, human rights activists have sought out sympathetic jurisdictions abroad.
Today, there are dozens of cases before courts involving the principle of universal jurisdiction. Many high-level state figures, traditionally protected at home, are facing increasing pressure in foreign courts.
Henry Kissinger reportedly fled Paris in 2001 after being tipped off to an imminent summons by a French judge; he later cancelled a trip to Brazil after being warned by the government there that he might face an international arrest warrant. Suits in Madrid against Guatemala’s Efrain Rios Montt, charging him with genocide of Mayan Guatemalans during his government’s scorched earth policy in the 1980s, have restricted his travel options.
Shortly after a suit was filed against Ariel Sharon in Brussels, the government of Israel put out a travel-advisory to its high-ranking officials, alerting them to foreign countries that might be keen to entertain universal jurisdiction. The list includes many of the western social-democracies.
Efforts to prosecute Israeli Major-General (reserve) Doron Almog for war crimes in Gaza were derailed when the accused managed to dodge an indictment in the United Kingdom. In 2005 Almog got as far as the jetway at Heathrow; when tipped off to his imminent arrest he was allowed to remain on board and return with the plane to Israel.
Even the president of the United States of America has to be careful where he travels. In November 2004, during a visit by Bush, the Chilean government announced that the US president would have immunity during his visit. The unusual declaration was made after lawyers filed a criminal complaint against Bush in court, claiming that he and other U.S. officials were guilty of war crimes in Iraq. On a subsequent trip by Bush to Canada, lawsuits were filed against him in Vancouver under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
George W. Bush currently enjoys official immunity from prosecution, as a serving government official. Come January 2009, he might very well forego visits to Germany, where suits have been filed on behalf of four Iraqi victims of torture.
Cases filed against Rumsfeld in Germany and other countries were barred while he was Secretary of Defense. But Rumsfeld resigned. He no longer enjoys the shield of official immunity.
Nonetheless, he still has access to exclusive zones of impunity. While it may appear that universal jurisdiction is forcing even the powerful to confront their crimes, Rumsfeld’s escape-route illustrates that certain global figures remain beyond the aspirations of international human rights law.
It is a paradox of power. The most powerful are in a position to prosecute others for abuses, even as they commit crimes themselves, and avoid prosecution.
Amy Ross is a professor in the University of Georgia Department of Geography specializing in human rights, international justice, geographies of justice, genocide, and the spatiality of violence. Chandra Lekha Sriram is Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK).
October 29, 2007
Domestic Surveillance and the Decline of Legal Oversight
Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/domestic-surveillance-and-decline-of.php
JURIST Guest Columnist Fred Kate of the Indiana University School of Law Bloomington says that a series of dramatic moves over the past five years - most recently the passage of the Protect America Act - has weakened statutory and judicial oversight of domestic surveillance to the point that one wonders whether, by the time the Bush Administration and Congress are finished, there is going to be any legal oversight of domestic surveillance at all...
The political wrangling in Congress and coverage in the press about revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have tended to obscure the most critical issue at stake in the regulation of electronic surveillance: the declining role of law and legal oversight.
The government conducts surveillance outside of the United States without statutory (or apparently constitutional) constraint, but within the nation’s borders, surveillance is regulated by two statutes. FISA permits the Attorney General to authorize domestic electronic surveillance (and physical searches) of foreign powers, but requires recourse to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court where U.S. persons who are acting as the agents of foreign powers are involved and a “significant purpose” of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act applies to all other domestic surveillance.
Or so we thought until December 16, 2005, when the New York Times revealed that the National Security Agency was intercepting communications within the United States and without complying with either FISA or ECPA. In the face of the ensuing controversy, the Bush Administration acknowledged the existence of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” which it described as involving communications into and out of the United States where there is a “reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communications is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.” Rather than seeking review by a court, as required by statute, the Administration was operating pursuant to an order by the Attorney General that was renewed “approximately every 45 days.”
In an effort to blunt the controversy over the TSP, the Administration agreed in January 2007 to subject it to the oversight of the FISC, the eleven-judge court responsible for authorizing surveillance under, and ensuring compliance with, FISA. But in May 2007, a FISC judge refused to renew a “basket warrant” (under which the Court would authorize surveillance on a programmatic, rather than a case-by-case basis). The Administration responded by withdrawing its commitment to comply with FISA and seek review by the FISC of surveillance conducted under the TSP, and demanding that Congress enact statutory authorization that would not require future recourse to the FISC.
Congress responded in August with the Protect America Act of 2007, which permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to authorize surveillance “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States,” whether or not the person is an agent of a foreign power. The role of the FISC is reduced to reviewing the Attorney General’s procedures for implementing the Act to determine whether they are “clearly erroneous.” The Attorney General is also required to inform four congressional committees on a semi-annual basis of “acquisitions” made under the statute, including incidents of noncompliance.
The Protect America Act sunsets in six months, which has set the stage for the current debate in Congress and press over its reauthorization and the future role of FISA. Much of that debate has focused on whether telecommunications carriers that aided the Administration in its warrantless surveillance should receive retroactive as well as prospective immunity. But there are bigger issues at stake, especially with regard to the protection of individual privacy from government intrusion.
The most important by far is whether by the time the Bush Administration and Congress are finished with the law, there is going to be any legal oversight of domestic surveillance at all. In the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress already changed the requirement that to qualify for the lower standard of review under FISA, the collection of foreign intelligence must be only “a significant purpose,” rather than the “primary purpose,” of the surveillance. The Act also permitted greater sharing of information obtained from FISA warrants with criminal investigators, which was then further expanded by a decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Even before the Protect America Act, commentators worried whether the FISA process was in danger of becoming an end run around the requirements of ECPA and the Constitution for protecting U.S. persons from surveillance by their government.
But FISA itself increasingly appears in danger of being undermined, and even its minimal requirements avoided in the pursuit of unsupervised surveillance. The Administration initially ignored FISA in its operation of the TSP. Then, after initially pledging to comply with the law, the Administration backed away from that commitment, and then collaborated with Congress in enacting legislation that undermines its most basic principle—the focus on foreign powers.
Simultaneously, the government has been moving away from FISA orders, which require judicial authorization, to other tools, such as National Security Letters, which do not. In 2005, the government reported seeking and obtaining 2,072 FISA orders, but issuing 9,254 NSLs. Then in March 2007, the Justice Department Inspector General reported that the FBI had underreported and in fact had issued at least 47,221 NSLs in 2005—22 times the number of FISA orders the government sought.
Recall that while domestic surveillance has been subject to statutory protection and judicial oversight, surveillance abroad has not. The NSA reports receiving more than 650 million foreign intelligence intercepts every day, all without any judicial or legislative oversight. The Protect America Act is focused solely on domestic surveillance; no additional legal authority is needed for foreign intelligence gathering conducted outside of the United States. Similarly, surveillance of foreign powers even within the United States is generally exempted from FISC authorization.
The only thing left for the Protect America Act to exempt is domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, which is precisely what it does. It permits domestic surveillance without recourse to a court, so long as the target of the surveillance is “reasonably believed to be” abroad. It eliminates the fundamental requirement of prior U.S. surveillance law that eavesdropping on U.S. persons requires compliances with ECPA (and obtaining an appropriate warrant issued by a court) unless the targets were agents of a foreign power, in which case compliance with FISA was required.
The Protect America Act is only the most recent in a series of dramatic moves over the past five years to weaken statutory and judicial oversight of domestic surveillance from the requirements of ECPA to those of FISA, and from FISA to the virtually unregulated regime of NSLs and foreign intelligence gathering outside of the United States. The challenge for Congress, and ultimately for the courts, is whether this trend will be allowed to continue and our privacy to be the next victim of the war on terror.
Fred H. Cate is a Distinguished Professor and director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University, and a senior policy advisor to the Center for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals, and reporter for the American Law Institute’s project on Principles of the Law on Government Access to and Use of Personal Digital Information.
October 30, 2007
German intelligence satelite launched into space
MOSCOW, November 1 (Itar-Tass) - Russian carrier rocket Kosmos-3M that lifted off from the Plesetsk Space Center in the north of European Russia at 03:52 Moscow Standard Time /00:52 GMT/ has taken into a target orbit the German spy satellite SAR-Lupe-3.
Its delivery into outer space makes partially functional the Gemran satellite intelligence system SAR-Lupe, which has three orbital vehicles now.
“The carrier rocket delivered the satellite into the target orbit 28 minutes after the liftoff,” Lieutenant-Colonel Alexei Zolotukhin, the chief press officer of Russian Space Troops told Itar-Tass.
At the moment of detaching from the carrier, the vehicle was outside the zone of radio visibility from ground stations on Russian territory.
“Control over the probe was then handed over to the customer,” Lt-Col Zolotukhin said.
He indicated that this was the third launch of a SAR-Lupe satellite, which the Space Troops carried out at the Plesetsk Space Center.
“The previous satellite was launched successfully July 2, 2007, and the first satellite went into space December 19, 2006,” Lt-Col Zolotukhin said.
Russian weaponry trading company Rosoboronexport and Germany’s COSMOS International Satellitenstart Gmbh, a subsidiary of OHB Systems AG, signed an agreement on five purpose-oriented launches of satellites when they took part at the Moscow International Aerospace Show in 2003.
The document says that Russia will launch five satellites into orbit before 2009.
These vehicles will make up a segment of the space intelligence system that will be controlled by a ground facility near Bonn.
The entire system is due to stay in operation over a period of ten year.
Information from unclassified German sources indicates that the satellites contain equipment making it possible to get pictures of the Earth’s surface regardless of the degree of illumination and weather conditions with resolution ability of up to a meter of terrain.
These satellites can identify moving cars and jets and also “any specific objects.”
Its delivery into outer space makes partially functional the Gemran satellite intelligence system SAR-Lupe, which has three orbital vehicles now.
“The carrier rocket delivered the satellite into the target orbit 28 minutes after the liftoff,” Lieutenant-Colonel Alexei Zolotukhin, the chief press officer of Russian Space Troops told Itar-Tass.
At the moment of detaching from the carrier, the vehicle was outside the zone of radio visibility from ground stations on Russian territory.
“Control over the probe was then handed over to the customer,” Lt-Col Zolotukhin said.
He indicated that this was the third launch of a SAR-Lupe satellite, which the Space Troops carried out at the Plesetsk Space Center.
“The previous satellite was launched successfully July 2, 2007, and the first satellite went into space December 19, 2006,” Lt-Col Zolotukhin said.
Russian weaponry trading company Rosoboronexport and Germany’s COSMOS International Satellitenstart Gmbh, a subsidiary of OHB Systems AG, signed an agreement on five purpose-oriented launches of satellites when they took part at the Moscow International Aerospace Show in 2003.
The document says that Russia will launch five satellites into orbit before 2009.
These vehicles will make up a segment of the space intelligence system that will be controlled by a ground facility near Bonn.
The entire system is due to stay in operation over a period of ten year.
Information from unclassified German sources indicates that the satellites contain equipment making it possible to get pictures of the Earth’s surface regardless of the degree of illumination and weather conditions with resolution ability of up to a meter of terrain.
These satellites can identify moving cars and jets and also “any specific objects.”
Multiple conflicts bleed Pak army
31 Oct 2007, 0031 hrs IST,Rajat Pandit,TNN
NEW DELHI: The Pakistani Army is "bleeding", and quite profusely at that, in its ongoing bloody skirmishes with extremists in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, with a "high" casualty rate as well as "unprecedented" levels of desertions, suicides and discharge applications.
This is the "assessment" of the Indian security establishment closely tracking developments in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas (FATA), especially the Waziristan region, as also the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan.
The embattled Pakistani Army may have managed an uneasy ceasefire with pro-Taliban extremists in Swat Valley in NWFP on Monday, after days of fierce fighting, but things would only get worse for it in the coming days, officials here said.
The loud and clear indicator for this came on Tuesday, with a suicide attack near the heavily-fortified Pakistani Army HQ in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, killing at least seven people. The secure compound, incidentally, also houses President Pervez Musharraf's office.
In recent days, Pakistan has been rocked by several suicide attacks and bombings, most of which are being traced back to Islamic extremists under attack from security forces near the Afghan border.
Under mounting pressure from the US, Pakistan has deployed well over 100,000 soldiers in the volatile tribal areas - inhabited by fiercely independent tribes who resist outside interference in their matters - to take on the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist outfits who have created safe havens there.
"These outfits were once nurtured by ISI, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Our estimates show around 1,000 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the fighting. Casualties in 'Operation Al Mizan' in north Waziristan have been particularly high," said an official.
"As per our intelligence inputs, Pakistani officers are jostling with low morale among their troops. The abductions and killings of soldiers by militants have only added to the disenchantment among troops, which is being reflected in a large number of desertions, suicides and AWOL (absent without leave) cases," he added.
With the heavy operational commitment adversely affecting Pakistani Army's rotation schedule, the majority of such cases are being reported from FATA and NWFP. Between just October 11 and 16, for instance, 160 desertion cases were reported from these areas.
In fact, reports of soldiers even refusing to obey orders have begun to emerge from Waziristan now, in what is being seen as a blow to the otherwise well-disciplined Pakistani Army.
While the tribal areas have always been restive, there has certainly been an upsurge in violence ever since Musharraf ordered troops to flush out extremists holed up inside Lal Masjid in Islamabad in July, which led to over 100 militants being killed in the week-long face-off.
With the US virtually ordering the Musharraf regime to effectively tackle the problem of Taliban militants crossing over from Afghanistan into the tribal areas to recoup and re-arm, the Pakistani Army is now promising an "all-out military effort" to sort out North and South Waziristan "once and for all".
Pakistan, of course, has made such promises in the past too, in keeping with its "duplicitous" policy to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. But this time, big brother US is watching closely.
Below assessment by Dr.N.S.Rajaram , a historian, Mathemetician multidisciplinarian scholar, was widely circulated in India soon after Robert Kiplan's article in 2000 ("The Lawless Frontier", The Atlantic Monthly, September 2000) was published . This has come to reality after 6 years . The Pakistani elite -- Punjabis, should think about their future , "A state with less than a tenth the resources of India, Pakistan is forced to fight insurgencies on its frontiers perhaps ten times as great as in Kashmir . " . A state "overwhelmed by forces of history and geography" .
The choice for the Punjabis of Pakistan is clear. Forces of history and geography are against them. They can return to their natural home in India as the proud citizens of a great power or continue their sordid existence as a client state that can be hired by a patron whenever a dirty job needs to be done
MELTDOWN IN PAKISTAN
Dr.N S Rajaram
Reports from Pakistan indicate that institutions of the state are heading for collapse. There are powerful forces at work that may soon redraw boundaries in the region.
N.S. Rajaram
The "Lawless Frontier" takes over
The Indian establishment, obsessed with the insurgency in Kashmir, appears to have totally missed the cataclysmic changes taking place across the border that may soon render the Kashmir issue all but irrelevant. Here is the reality: Pakistan is now a state on the verge of collapse. While world attention is focused on the so-called ?nuclear flashpoint? of Kashmir, the State of Pakistan is being overwhelmed by forces of history and geography. A state with less than a tenth the resources of India, Pakistan is forced to fight insurgencies on its frontiers perhaps ten times as great as in Kashmir. It is only a matter of time before the institutions of the state totally breakdown. And this is because of the fundamental irrationality of Pakistan, which is less a state than a turbulent frontier that a small Punjabi elite is attempting to hold together. This is the picture that emerges from a masterly study of the state of Pakistan written by Robert Kaplan, probably the world's leading reporter on the region ("The Lawless Frontier", The Atlantic Monthly, September 2000).
Here is what it means in simple terms: while world attention is focused on the proxy war in Kashmir, conflicts far more fierce and fundamental in nature are taking place in the borderlands of Pakistan ? in the Northwest Frontier, Baluchistan and even Sind. This has set the state of Pakistan on a course of irreversible dissolution. Here is the crux of the problem in Kaplan?s words: "Osama bin Laden, and the fighting in Kashmir obscure the core issue of South Asia: the institutional meltdown of Pakistan?" And this is due to the "accumulation of disorder and irrationality" that is yet to be understood. And the jihad in Kashmir is a consequence of this fear of a crumbling state ? in the hope of providing a unifying theme to unite forces of the frontier that are implacably hostile to the Punjabi ruling establishment.
Of course border problems are nothing new, but in the case of Pakistan it is of an altogether different dimension. The reason is simple: Pakistan is made up mostly of border regions with a small Punjabi core. As Kaplan puts it: "PAKISTAN covers the desert frontier of the Subcontinent. British civil administration extended only to Lahore, in the fertile Punjab, near Pakistan's eastern border with India; its Mogul architecture, gardens, and rich bazaars give Lahore a closer resemblance to the Indian cities of New Delhi and Calcutta than to any other place in Pakistan. But the rest of Pakistan? the rugged Afghan-border regions of Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, the alkaline wasteland of Sind, and the Hindu Kush and Karakoram Mountains embracing Kashmir ? has never been subdued by the British or anyone else." It is a small chunk of India latched on to a huge and hostile border region. It is a total mismatch.
Disorder and irrationality
This might be an oversimplification but his basic insight is valid: Pakistan is made up of a vast desert frontier with a small Punjabi core. This unruly desert frontier is what a Punjabi elite and a sprinkling of Mujahirs like Genral Musharaf are trying to rule, while holding up Islam as the unifying force. But this has not made the people on the frontier hate them any less, for Islam always has led to divisions with each side claiming the other to be less pure. Pakistan?s answer to this encirclement was to create the Taliban through which to control Afghanistan itself. This was facilitated by the war in Afghanistan, which the CIA financed and Pakistani ISI managed. This obscured for a while the fundamental irrationality and the chaos that is inherent in the makeup of Pakistan. The flow of foreign money, especially during the Afghan War, obscured also its economic fragility? of the small productive Punjab trying to support the vast unruly and unproductive frontier. The Cold War and the Afghan War gave Pakistan an exaggerated sense of importance. Pakistani leaders and the elite failed to recognize that they were needed only to do a dirty job that Americans didn?t want to do themselves.
To compound this folly, Pakistan has now embarked on a course of destabilization of India itself. It is difficult to see how an unstable India helps Pakistan any more than an unstable Afghanistan does. But today Pakistan is a state that is distinguished not by reason but dogma, beginning with its geography. Its belief in Islam as the solution to all its problems has led it to define itself as the Jihad state par excellence in the world today. It has made it also the most despised country in the world. It sees spreading terror as its salvation. This bespeaks a mind stupefied by religious dogma to a point beyond reason and logic. This is Talibanism pure and simple.
This has now come back to haunt it in the form of Afghan refugees and lawlessness on a scale that has overwhelmed the Pakistani establishment. The problem is rooted in history and geography of the region. Foreign aid and rescheduled payments can only prolong the agony; they cannot alter the geo-strategic reality or the inherent irrationality of Pakistan?s composition. It is also independent of who is in power? the military or a civilian government. The frontier tribes recognize neither. Nor do they care to be ruled by plainsmen from the Punjab? be they Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or the British. This is the basic force of history that the Punjabi ruling elite calling itself Pakistan is fighting against. The outcome of the struggle is a foregone conclusion. It follows a historic pattern: a weak state in the Punjab has always succumbed to forces from the northwest. A strong state of which Punjab is a part has always turned back the invader. So the only hope for its Punjabi heartland to survive is to be part of the strong state of India.
With such mighty forces at play, it is clear that a Punjabi-Mohajir elite in a slender sliver of land cannot hope to control a vast and ?lawless frontier?? as Kaplan puts it. The only natural boundary between this frontier-land and the plains is the Indus River, which leaves Pakistan with no strategic depth. The question then becomes one of survival? not exercise of authority. It also shows the futility of India placing trust in any Pakistani leader, in the hope of achieving peace in the region. No leader can control either geography or the forces of sectarian hate and violence that dominate the region. It is only a matter of time before the state crumbles under the weight. When that happens, all of Pakistan will become a ?lawless frontier?. The only institutions left in Pakistan will be the madrasas ? or Islamic schools ? that turn out something like half a million ?students? a year fit for nothing except jihad. Their first targets will the elite at home. They are already running the state in Afghanistan and much of Pakistan. Left unchecked, they will soon control all of Pakistan. The consequences for the region can be cataclysmic, and India should prepare for the inevitable outcome.
Jihad vs. appeasement
So here is what India will be faced with in the not too distant future. The state we now call Pakistan will be whittled down to Punjab and the regions east of the Indus River, struggling to protect itself from the forces of unruly frontiers controlled by warlords great and small in search of loot. This is what institutional meltdown will amount to. By one of those coincidences of history, this institutional meltdown in Pakistan is paralleled by a meltdown in the Indian intellectual establishment. It is a sobering reminder of the bankruptcy of the Indian (Leftist) intellectual establishment that this fundamental analysis of the problem of Pakistan and its consequences comes from a Western reporter in far off America and not anyone in India.
The behavior of the Indian intelligentsia may be compared to Nero fiddling when Rome was burning; they would rather carry candles to the Wagah border and ask for appeasing the Pakistani establishment than inform the public with a realistic appraisal of the primal nature of the forces of fear and hatred that are burning across the border. It is an unhappy fact that the Indian intelligentsia has offered little more than appeasement of hostile forces in one guise or another. It is worth recalling that Gandhiji himself failed with his appeasement policy, not once but repeatedly, beginning with the Khilafat Movement and ending with the Partition. Kuldip Nayar, for example, who has become the leading spokesman for appeasement, is unlikely to succeed where Gandhiji failed. The breakdown of reason in Pakistan is paralleled by a similar breakdown in India. The dogma of Jihad has its counterpart in the dogma of appeasement. Fortunately their days are numbered. The meltdown in Pakistan will consume its advocates in India also. What is needed therefore is a new way of looking at the problem? one rooted in ground realities rather than fantasy.
Geo-strategic reality
The first point to note is that Pakistan will not crumble quietly. It is too steeped in hate and violence to disappear like the Soviet Empire. More likely, it will be like former Yugoslavia. Eventually the land beyond the Indus will return to being the frontier that it has always been, and the Punjabi-Mohajir colony calling itself Pakistan will be struggling for survival. Its enemy will not be India but the Talibanized network of ?schools? and its hate-filled ?students? trying to undermine and even destroy the Punjabi elite. To see what will be like, one has only to look at what happened to the Afghan elite after the Taliban took over. And in Punjab the hostilities are infinitely greater. They are rooted in the historic hostility of the frontier nomads towards the settled people of the plains. Appeal to Islam will not save them, for what the Punjabis are up against is the geo-strategic reality of the region. And this is what has shaped their history. And they have made the situation worse by creating and sponsoring the Taliban.
Here is the historic pattern previously alluded to. Whenever there was a weak state in the Punjab region, it has fallen before invaders from the northwest. This was the case when it was invaded by Darius, Muhammad of Ghazni, Timur, Babar and Nadir Shah. On the other hand, whenever the Punjab was part of a powerful state, it has turned back the invader. This is what happened when the Greeks, the Huns and Afghans in the time of Ranjit Singh tried to invade the planes. (Incidentally, history books are wrong in claiming that Alexander was victorious. It was as much a disaster as Napoleon?s march on Moscow. This is clear from early accounts. But British controlled textbooks presented it otherwise, to emphasize European superiority. The correct perspective was provided by the great Russian general Marshal Zukhov. Alexander?s troops mutinied, and he himself died a year later broken in health and spirit.)
To save Punjab
Saving Punjab is as much India?s responsibility as it is Pakistan?s. India cannot let these invading forces cross the Indus and turn West Punjab into a wasteland. The only way for Punjab to survive is to let the frontier be frontier and rejoin India? its natural home. But is the Punjabi ruling elite capable of such vision? As one Pakistani (Punjabi) journalist told Kaplan, "We have never defined ourselves in our own right ? only in relation to India. That is our tragedy." This attitude represents a historic truth: Punjab is India or it is happy hunting ground for the frontier tribes. If the Punjabis do not cure themselves of their hatred, it may soon lead to an even greater tragedy? of Afghanistan consuming Pakistan itself. Punjabis should see for themselves that Pakistan is a fantasy that died the day Bangladesh broke away. They should also recognize that the Punjabis never asked for Pakistan; the people who planted that poison seed remained in India. And the same people ? of the Deoband School of Lucknow ? planted also the poison seed that grew to be Taliban.
The choice for the Punjabis of Pakistan is clear. Forces of history and geography are against them. They can return to their natural home in India as the proud citizens of a great power or continue their sordid existence as a client state that can be hired by a patron whenever a dirty job needs to be done. But even this is precarious and short-lived existence. For all its bombast, Pakistan ? its Punjabi core at least ? is today little more than a buffer state between India and the violent frontier. Once they become part of India, they will have a great power to defend them against the hordes. One hopes they recognize the inexorability of the logic: it is India or oblivion, there is no middle ground.
For India the option is clear. Pakistan as it exists today is facing a meltdown. Changes of government and leaders will not turn back the elemental forces now in play. And negotiations and treaties with a melting state are meaningless. As India becomes a great power, the Pakistani Punjab and the land east of the Indus River will inexorably be drawn into India. And the Indus River will again be its natural boundary. There will be many challenges, but the goal is clear: to minimize the damage and destruction during this historic reunion, which I now feel is inevitable. In summary, India can no longer afford the luxury of being a soft state, continuing to avoid hard decisions and actions. A soft state at this critical juncture in history may also face a meltdown like Pakistan.
______________
N.S. Rajaram is a historian of science who has written extensively about Islam.
NEW DELHI: The Pakistani Army is "bleeding", and quite profusely at that, in its ongoing bloody skirmishes with extremists in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, with a "high" casualty rate as well as "unprecedented" levels of desertions, suicides and discharge applications.
This is the "assessment" of the Indian security establishment closely tracking developments in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas (FATA), especially the Waziristan region, as also the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan.
The embattled Pakistani Army may have managed an uneasy ceasefire with pro-Taliban extremists in Swat Valley in NWFP on Monday, after days of fierce fighting, but things would only get worse for it in the coming days, officials here said.
The loud and clear indicator for this came on Tuesday, with a suicide attack near the heavily-fortified Pakistani Army HQ in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, killing at least seven people. The secure compound, incidentally, also houses President Pervez Musharraf's office.
In recent days, Pakistan has been rocked by several suicide attacks and bombings, most of which are being traced back to Islamic extremists under attack from security forces near the Afghan border.
Under mounting pressure from the US, Pakistan has deployed well over 100,000 soldiers in the volatile tribal areas - inhabited by fiercely independent tribes who resist outside interference in their matters - to take on the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist outfits who have created safe havens there.
"These outfits were once nurtured by ISI, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Our estimates show around 1,000 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the fighting. Casualties in 'Operation Al Mizan' in north Waziristan have been particularly high," said an official.
"As per our intelligence inputs, Pakistani officers are jostling with low morale among their troops. The abductions and killings of soldiers by militants have only added to the disenchantment among troops, which is being reflected in a large number of desertions, suicides and AWOL (absent without leave) cases," he added.
With the heavy operational commitment adversely affecting Pakistani Army's rotation schedule, the majority of such cases are being reported from FATA and NWFP. Between just October 11 and 16, for instance, 160 desertion cases were reported from these areas.
In fact, reports of soldiers even refusing to obey orders have begun to emerge from Waziristan now, in what is being seen as a blow to the otherwise well-disciplined Pakistani Army.
While the tribal areas have always been restive, there has certainly been an upsurge in violence ever since Musharraf ordered troops to flush out extremists holed up inside Lal Masjid in Islamabad in July, which led to over 100 militants being killed in the week-long face-off.
With the US virtually ordering the Musharraf regime to effectively tackle the problem of Taliban militants crossing over from Afghanistan into the tribal areas to recoup and re-arm, the Pakistani Army is now promising an "all-out military effort" to sort out North and South Waziristan "once and for all".
Pakistan, of course, has made such promises in the past too, in keeping with its "duplicitous" policy to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. But this time, big brother US is watching closely.
Below assessment by Dr.N.S.Rajaram , a historian, Mathemetician multidisciplinarian scholar, was widely circulated in India soon after Robert Kiplan's article in 2000 ("The Lawless Frontier", The Atlantic Monthly, September 2000) was published . This has come to reality after 6 years . The Pakistani elite -- Punjabis, should think about their future , "A state with less than a tenth the resources of India, Pakistan is forced to fight insurgencies on its frontiers perhaps ten times as great as in Kashmir . " . A state "overwhelmed by forces of history and geography" .
The choice for the Punjabis of Pakistan is clear. Forces of history and geography are against them. They can return to their natural home in India as the proud citizens of a great power or continue their sordid existence as a client state that can be hired by a patron whenever a dirty job needs to be done
MELTDOWN IN PAKISTAN
Dr.N S Rajaram
Reports from Pakistan indicate that institutions of the state are heading for collapse. There are powerful forces at work that may soon redraw boundaries in the region.
N.S. Rajaram
The "Lawless Frontier" takes over
The Indian establishment, obsessed with the insurgency in Kashmir, appears to have totally missed the cataclysmic changes taking place across the border that may soon render the Kashmir issue all but irrelevant. Here is the reality: Pakistan is now a state on the verge of collapse. While world attention is focused on the so-called ?nuclear flashpoint? of Kashmir, the State of Pakistan is being overwhelmed by forces of history and geography. A state with less than a tenth the resources of India, Pakistan is forced to fight insurgencies on its frontiers perhaps ten times as great as in Kashmir. It is only a matter of time before the institutions of the state totally breakdown. And this is because of the fundamental irrationality of Pakistan, which is less a state than a turbulent frontier that a small Punjabi elite is attempting to hold together. This is the picture that emerges from a masterly study of the state of Pakistan written by Robert Kaplan, probably the world's leading reporter on the region ("The Lawless Frontier", The Atlantic Monthly, September 2000).
Here is what it means in simple terms: while world attention is focused on the proxy war in Kashmir, conflicts far more fierce and fundamental in nature are taking place in the borderlands of Pakistan ? in the Northwest Frontier, Baluchistan and even Sind. This has set the state of Pakistan on a course of irreversible dissolution. Here is the crux of the problem in Kaplan?s words: "Osama bin Laden, and the fighting in Kashmir obscure the core issue of South Asia: the institutional meltdown of Pakistan?" And this is due to the "accumulation of disorder and irrationality" that is yet to be understood. And the jihad in Kashmir is a consequence of this fear of a crumbling state ? in the hope of providing a unifying theme to unite forces of the frontier that are implacably hostile to the Punjabi ruling establishment.
Of course border problems are nothing new, but in the case of Pakistan it is of an altogether different dimension. The reason is simple: Pakistan is made up mostly of border regions with a small Punjabi core. As Kaplan puts it: "PAKISTAN covers the desert frontier of the Subcontinent. British civil administration extended only to Lahore, in the fertile Punjab, near Pakistan's eastern border with India; its Mogul architecture, gardens, and rich bazaars give Lahore a closer resemblance to the Indian cities of New Delhi and Calcutta than to any other place in Pakistan. But the rest of Pakistan? the rugged Afghan-border regions of Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province, the alkaline wasteland of Sind, and the Hindu Kush and Karakoram Mountains embracing Kashmir ? has never been subdued by the British or anyone else." It is a small chunk of India latched on to a huge and hostile border region. It is a total mismatch.
Disorder and irrationality
This might be an oversimplification but his basic insight is valid: Pakistan is made up of a vast desert frontier with a small Punjabi core. This unruly desert frontier is what a Punjabi elite and a sprinkling of Mujahirs like Genral Musharaf are trying to rule, while holding up Islam as the unifying force. But this has not made the people on the frontier hate them any less, for Islam always has led to divisions with each side claiming the other to be less pure. Pakistan?s answer to this encirclement was to create the Taliban through which to control Afghanistan itself. This was facilitated by the war in Afghanistan, which the CIA financed and Pakistani ISI managed. This obscured for a while the fundamental irrationality and the chaos that is inherent in the makeup of Pakistan. The flow of foreign money, especially during the Afghan War, obscured also its economic fragility? of the small productive Punjab trying to support the vast unruly and unproductive frontier. The Cold War and the Afghan War gave Pakistan an exaggerated sense of importance. Pakistani leaders and the elite failed to recognize that they were needed only to do a dirty job that Americans didn?t want to do themselves.
To compound this folly, Pakistan has now embarked on a course of destabilization of India itself. It is difficult to see how an unstable India helps Pakistan any more than an unstable Afghanistan does. But today Pakistan is a state that is distinguished not by reason but dogma, beginning with its geography. Its belief in Islam as the solution to all its problems has led it to define itself as the Jihad state par excellence in the world today. It has made it also the most despised country in the world. It sees spreading terror as its salvation. This bespeaks a mind stupefied by religious dogma to a point beyond reason and logic. This is Talibanism pure and simple.
This has now come back to haunt it in the form of Afghan refugees and lawlessness on a scale that has overwhelmed the Pakistani establishment. The problem is rooted in history and geography of the region. Foreign aid and rescheduled payments can only prolong the agony; they cannot alter the geo-strategic reality or the inherent irrationality of Pakistan?s composition. It is also independent of who is in power? the military or a civilian government. The frontier tribes recognize neither. Nor do they care to be ruled by plainsmen from the Punjab? be they Muslim, Hindu, Sikh or the British. This is the basic force of history that the Punjabi ruling elite calling itself Pakistan is fighting against. The outcome of the struggle is a foregone conclusion. It follows a historic pattern: a weak state in the Punjab has always succumbed to forces from the northwest. A strong state of which Punjab is a part has always turned back the invader. So the only hope for its Punjabi heartland to survive is to be part of the strong state of India.
With such mighty forces at play, it is clear that a Punjabi-Mohajir elite in a slender sliver of land cannot hope to control a vast and ?lawless frontier?? as Kaplan puts it. The only natural boundary between this frontier-land and the plains is the Indus River, which leaves Pakistan with no strategic depth. The question then becomes one of survival? not exercise of authority. It also shows the futility of India placing trust in any Pakistani leader, in the hope of achieving peace in the region. No leader can control either geography or the forces of sectarian hate and violence that dominate the region. It is only a matter of time before the state crumbles under the weight. When that happens, all of Pakistan will become a ?lawless frontier?. The only institutions left in Pakistan will be the madrasas ? or Islamic schools ? that turn out something like half a million ?students? a year fit for nothing except jihad. Their first targets will the elite at home. They are already running the state in Afghanistan and much of Pakistan. Left unchecked, they will soon control all of Pakistan. The consequences for the region can be cataclysmic, and India should prepare for the inevitable outcome.
Jihad vs. appeasement
So here is what India will be faced with in the not too distant future. The state we now call Pakistan will be whittled down to Punjab and the regions east of the Indus River, struggling to protect itself from the forces of unruly frontiers controlled by warlords great and small in search of loot. This is what institutional meltdown will amount to. By one of those coincidences of history, this institutional meltdown in Pakistan is paralleled by a meltdown in the Indian intellectual establishment. It is a sobering reminder of the bankruptcy of the Indian (Leftist) intellectual establishment that this fundamental analysis of the problem of Pakistan and its consequences comes from a Western reporter in far off America and not anyone in India.
The behavior of the Indian intelligentsia may be compared to Nero fiddling when Rome was burning; they would rather carry candles to the Wagah border and ask for appeasing the Pakistani establishment than inform the public with a realistic appraisal of the primal nature of the forces of fear and hatred that are burning across the border. It is an unhappy fact that the Indian intelligentsia has offered little more than appeasement of hostile forces in one guise or another. It is worth recalling that Gandhiji himself failed with his appeasement policy, not once but repeatedly, beginning with the Khilafat Movement and ending with the Partition. Kuldip Nayar, for example, who has become the leading spokesman for appeasement, is unlikely to succeed where Gandhiji failed. The breakdown of reason in Pakistan is paralleled by a similar breakdown in India. The dogma of Jihad has its counterpart in the dogma of appeasement. Fortunately their days are numbered. The meltdown in Pakistan will consume its advocates in India also. What is needed therefore is a new way of looking at the problem? one rooted in ground realities rather than fantasy.
Geo-strategic reality
The first point to note is that Pakistan will not crumble quietly. It is too steeped in hate and violence to disappear like the Soviet Empire. More likely, it will be like former Yugoslavia. Eventually the land beyond the Indus will return to being the frontier that it has always been, and the Punjabi-Mohajir colony calling itself Pakistan will be struggling for survival. Its enemy will not be India but the Talibanized network of ?schools? and its hate-filled ?students? trying to undermine and even destroy the Punjabi elite. To see what will be like, one has only to look at what happened to the Afghan elite after the Taliban took over. And in Punjab the hostilities are infinitely greater. They are rooted in the historic hostility of the frontier nomads towards the settled people of the plains. Appeal to Islam will not save them, for what the Punjabis are up against is the geo-strategic reality of the region. And this is what has shaped their history. And they have made the situation worse by creating and sponsoring the Taliban.
Here is the historic pattern previously alluded to. Whenever there was a weak state in the Punjab region, it has fallen before invaders from the northwest. This was the case when it was invaded by Darius, Muhammad of Ghazni, Timur, Babar and Nadir Shah. On the other hand, whenever the Punjab was part of a powerful state, it has turned back the invader. This is what happened when the Greeks, the Huns and Afghans in the time of Ranjit Singh tried to invade the planes. (Incidentally, history books are wrong in claiming that Alexander was victorious. It was as much a disaster as Napoleon?s march on Moscow. This is clear from early accounts. But British controlled textbooks presented it otherwise, to emphasize European superiority. The correct perspective was provided by the great Russian general Marshal Zukhov. Alexander?s troops mutinied, and he himself died a year later broken in health and spirit.)
To save Punjab
Saving Punjab is as much India?s responsibility as it is Pakistan?s. India cannot let these invading forces cross the Indus and turn West Punjab into a wasteland. The only way for Punjab to survive is to let the frontier be frontier and rejoin India? its natural home. But is the Punjabi ruling elite capable of such vision? As one Pakistani (Punjabi) journalist told Kaplan, "We have never defined ourselves in our own right ? only in relation to India. That is our tragedy." This attitude represents a historic truth: Punjab is India or it is happy hunting ground for the frontier tribes. If the Punjabis do not cure themselves of their hatred, it may soon lead to an even greater tragedy? of Afghanistan consuming Pakistan itself. Punjabis should see for themselves that Pakistan is a fantasy that died the day Bangladesh broke away. They should also recognize that the Punjabis never asked for Pakistan; the people who planted that poison seed remained in India. And the same people ? of the Deoband School of Lucknow ? planted also the poison seed that grew to be Taliban.
The choice for the Punjabis of Pakistan is clear. Forces of history and geography are against them. They can return to their natural home in India as the proud citizens of a great power or continue their sordid existence as a client state that can be hired by a patron whenever a dirty job needs to be done. But even this is precarious and short-lived existence. For all its bombast, Pakistan ? its Punjabi core at least ? is today little more than a buffer state between India and the violent frontier. Once they become part of India, they will have a great power to defend them against the hordes. One hopes they recognize the inexorability of the logic: it is India or oblivion, there is no middle ground.
For India the option is clear. Pakistan as it exists today is facing a meltdown. Changes of government and leaders will not turn back the elemental forces now in play. And negotiations and treaties with a melting state are meaningless. As India becomes a great power, the Pakistani Punjab and the land east of the Indus River will inexorably be drawn into India. And the Indus River will again be its natural boundary. There will be many challenges, but the goal is clear: to minimize the damage and destruction during this historic reunion, which I now feel is inevitable. In summary, India can no longer afford the luxury of being a soft state, continuing to avoid hard decisions and actions. A soft state at this critical juncture in history may also face a meltdown like Pakistan.
______________
N.S. Rajaram is a historian of science who has written extensively about Islam.
Silence of the lambs - Sanctimonious defense from Tehelka
Shoma Choudhary, editor Tehelka, writing in the Hindustan Times has let the cat out of the bag.
For those of you in Gujarat who believed the sting, the expose on Gujarat riots from last week, was about justice to the riot affected, think again.
Shoma has made it amply clear in her latest piece that this is not about justice but it is about making you the voters of Gujarat feel guilty of the choices you make.
Offstumped critiques this latest sanctimonious piece from Tehelka.
READ MORE
Democratic republic OR Mobocracy ?
For those of you in Gujarat who believed the sting, the expose on Gujarat riots from last week, was about justice to the riot affected, think again.
Shoma has made it amply clear in her latest piece that this is not about justice but it is about making you the voters of Gujarat feel guilty of the choices you make.
Offstumped critiques this latest sanctimonious piece from Tehelka.
READ MORE
Democratic republic OR Mobocracy ?
CONVEY YOUR PROTEST ON RAMA SETU DESTRUCTION PROJECT
On this phone no. +91 (044) 2495-9006
Government of India is doing a survey – please convey your protest positively before 5 PM today (1.11.2007)
Government of India is doing a survey – please convey your protest positively before 5 PM today (1.11.2007)
October 31, 2007
Balawaristan National Front rejects Musharrafs package for N. Areas
Abdul Hamid Khan
Chairman
Balawaristan National Front (BNF)
PRESS RELEASE
Musharafs package for N. Areas
Balawaristan National Front (BNF) rejects Musharrafs so-called Package
for the most deprived part of the world.
" President General Pervez Musharraf unveiled on Tuesday a political, administrative and development reforms package for the Northern Areas."General Musharraf, package neither political nor administrative , but it,s the contiuenation of the old package with a new name, ie from Copuncil to Asembly. Council had the powers to make plans for the development projects and the same has been repeated by Musharraf.
"Addressing notables of the area after inaugurating the 18 Megawatt Naltar hydel-power project, the president also announced that the Northern Areas council had been given the status of a legislative assembly with powers to debate and pass its budget. The existing council has 36 seats, 24 elected and 12 reserved (six for women and six for technocrats) and it has the power to legislate on 49 subjects."
Musharraf has tried to defuse the recent Resolution of European Union, by announcing such bogus package. His announcement itself clears his intention, that Musharraf does not want to give any powers. Otherwise Musharraf would not have mentioned STATUS for the so-called NAs Legislartive Assembly. Instead of the powers, Musharraf has announced that that Status has been given to debate and pass the budget. If such powers has been given now, then for what he and his Military administration and deplomats were briefing civilized world on international level and the EU particularly. STATUS means only salary, vehicle, guard and other personal facilities to the members of the so-called Council/ Assembly not powers. Musharaf has repeated the number of the existing council and said that it has the power to legislate on 49 subjects without mentioning any subject.
If the so-called package was demand of the people, than why General Musharraf did not dare to speech publicly, why he choose his own Punjabi and Pathan national,s gathering for his announcement,by keeping away local people & media. Its a fact that Musharraf has not gone to Balawaristan (Pakistan Occupied Gilgit Baltistan), for the announcement of the package. He had gone there for the inauguration of the Nahlter Hydel Project, which has been built by the help of Chinese engineers.
"Gen Musharraf said that the deputy chief executive would henceforth be called the chief executive with full administrative and financial authority and the existing chief executive (a federal minister) would be the chairman of the Northern Areas government."
Musharraf has given new name to the local Deputy Chief Executive as CHIEF EXECUTIVE. Was this the demand of the 2 mollion indigenous people, to merely change the name. Musharraf has himself announced that the imposed Miniser from Pakistan, who was, is like a king for Gilgit Baltistan, withe name of Chief Executive, will now call as Chairman of this disputed region of Kashmir. It means again Pakistan minister will enjoy the same powers over the local NAs Legislative Assembly, like the old NAs Legislative Council.
"He said that all administrative and financial powers of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas would be transferred to the Northern Areas government. The assembly will be able to take up no-confidence motion against the chief executive, speaker and deputy speaker. Gen Musharraf also announced that there would be an accountant generals office for Northern Areas."
Musharraf says the all the administrative and financial powers of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Affairs (KANA) would be transfered to the Northern Areas government. While he has decided to shift his KANA Minister to Gilgit Baltistan as Chairman, the head of this so-called government. Whom he wants to make fool by shifting the the existing KANA Minister to do his old job with new disignation of Chairman? The so-calle Assembly will be given the powers to de-thron the local Chief Executive and Speaker but will not be given the powers to to take
any motion against the Chairman who is non local Pakistan and head of the so-called Assembly and government of Gilgit Baltistan. Is it democratic or political, what Musharrf claims, where a non elected and non resident person will be given the whole powers to run the so-called NAs Legislative Assemble and local government. Is there any such example in the world or in the Indian part of J & K? Every where this is the procedure and practice of the democratic world as well as in Indian part of J& K, where an elected member can only run the government and head to
elected Assembly. But in Pakistan and its occupied areas any thing can be practiced, because the rulers themselves are not political or democraticly elected.
"He said a seventh district consisting of Hunza and Nagir subdivisions would be carved out of the Gilgit district and two subdivisions of Dagone and Raundo will be set up in the Baltistan region."
*The president also announced that cases registered by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against officials of the Northern Areas administration would be transferred from Islamabad to Gilgit*. What relief Musharraf wants to give the local indigenous people by shifting National Accountability Officials from Islamabad to Gilgit.Muraf has been insulting the local indigenous subordinate officials by registering false cases in the NAB by giving free hand to the Pakistan head of the departments. To shif the defame NAB officials to Gilgit Baltistan means
Musharraf wants to harrass the local employees.
"He announced remission of agricultural loans of up to Rs50,000 which would benefit about 12,000 people. Besides, mark-up on small and medium enterprise loans would also be waived, he said. The president announced the setting up of a commission under the deputy chairman of Planning Commission to resolve boundary disputes between the Northern Areas and the North-West Frontier Province." announcement to set up a commission under the deputy chairman of Planning Commission to resolve boundary disputes between the Northern Areas and the North-West Frontier Province (Chitral). First of all I want to make clear that the said boundry dispute between Chitral and Gilgit has created by Pakistan with the intention to divide the people of Chitral and Gilgit. Because Chitral was and is a part and parcel of Gilgit,
which has been annexed by Pakistan with its terrotory illegally. As fa as the Shandoor, which is the highest Pologround of the world is concern is a part of Gilgit according to the local tradition and boundry rules of British empire in 1895. Chairman of Planning Commission is Pakistani national who is not impartial. How one can expect that a Pakistani will give a place to a disputed area. He will instead give decisions in favour of his on country Pakistan and its NWFP province.
"He said the regional development budget was being increased from Rs6.5 billion to Rs7.6 billion. However, the president did not say anything about the judicial set-up in the region which is functioning as a department attached to the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas." Musharraf has announced that he want to increase the budget from 6.5 billion to 7.6 billion Pakistani rupees. Pakistan is earning more than 20 Billion Rupees from the resources of Balawaristan (its occupied Gilgit Baltistan) while Musharraf want to increase only 1.1 Billion. This
increament is not for the people of Balawaristan, but it,s for the expenditure of FC, Punjab Rangers, ISI and it,s terrorist network and camps. Pakistan Military regime was perviously been spending mostly of the development funds on its forces and terrorist networks, that is why we do not expect any positive changes in Pakistan Army its ISI and Musharraf policy. The people of Gilgit Baltistan usually and Lawyers forum (Gilgit Baltistan Bar Council) and civil society has always been demanding to establish High Court and supreme Court. Even Supreme Court of Pakistan
had given its order to government of Pakistan in 1999 to give the right of representation to the people of this disputed region of Pakistan occupied J&K and also ordered the the human rights and basic rights of the people is restored. But Military and even civil governments of Pakistan are continuously denying to given any representation to the local people. This is the only part of the world, where human rights are violated 100 percent, because the 2 million people of this region have no right to appeal in any where against the human rights violation. I beside
more than 100 people are facing sedition charges which is world record in Gilgit, Ghezr and Skardu kangaroo courts for the last 10 years. The person Mr. Jalal-Ud-Din, who has been awarded the post of the head of the Court (Chief Court) who is my political as well as religious opponents, who belongs to a fundamentalist group. How I or other expect of justice from such fundamentalist person, who always follow the guidance of ISI.
All the nationalist parties of Balawaristan (Pakistan Occupied Gilgit Baltistan), Pakistan People Party, pakistan MuslimLeague and Bar Council has rejected the so-called package of GeneralMusharraf Its fact that Musharraf is trying to defuse the resolution of European Union.I and my fellow political activists of that unfortunate area would not let Musharraf deceive with world community particularly European
Union and most particularly Baroness Emma Nicholson MEP, whose brave inititive compelled Pakistani Military regime to make new announcements with same old tactics regarding the area. We also demand to the Members of the European parliament that Occupied Gilgit Baltistan is part of unresolved Kahsmir dispute and the conditions should be meet which are discovered by the EP in its historical resolution of 24th May 2007.For this I on behalf of people of the region would slute baroness Emma Nicholson for her support for the people of Occupied Gilgit & Baltistan.
Abdul Hamid Khan
Chairman
Balawaristan National Front (BNF)
Head Off:
Majini Mahla, Gilgit, Balawaristan
(Pakistan occupied Gilgit Baltistan)
WEBSITE (Urdu & English) www.balawaristan.net
EMAIL: balawaristan@usa.com
Fans of Narendra Modi launched Website
http://www.fansofnarendramodi.org/index.htm
The website says
Narendra Modi is a cult figure in Indian politics. His passion and commitment for the development of Gujarat are par comparison and make him synonymous with Gujarat. He has been relentlessly working for the better future of Gujarat. A master communicator famous for his sharp and witty comments, no nonsense approach, and strong views on subjects make him the most popular politician across Gujarat and country.
This website provides a platform to all the fans of Narendra Modi staying anywhere in the word to share their common views. The website itself is a result of coming of fans of Narendra Modi together. Many people at individual levels do lot of interesting and very creative things to support Narendra Modi. Like a computer expert creating screen savers and wall papers, a group of folk singers from Gujarat composing, singing and recording folk songs on Narendra Modi, another group of people sending Emails in the name of fansofnarendramodi, the list is very long. We pieced them together. Come join us to support him in his wonderful dreams of turning Gujarat in to another Singapore or Tokyo. You can contribute by sending us emails of support, your feedback etc.
Power plays: Energy and Australia's security
Thursday, 11 October 2007
This report looks at the global demand for energy, its growth and the potential effects this has on Australia’s security. The report examines Australia’s need to factor energy security into its foreign and defence policies, and develop a greater awareness of its dependence on fossil fuels. It was authored by Professor Michael Wesley, Director of the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University.
DOWNLOAD
Spice Route to Europe? Prospects for an India-EU Free Trade Area
Spice Route to Europe? Prospects for an India-EU Free Trade Area Jim Rollo, October 2007 Download Paper here
- Negotiations on an EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) opened in June 2007. The EU and India are both pursing a policy of bilateral trade agreements against a background of faltering multilateral negotiations.
- India still has a relatively low share of world trade - under 1% - of both goods exports and imports, and just over 2% of world services trade. The EU is the world's largest exporter and importer of both goods and services. It has a high, though falling, share of Indian goods imports and is an important provider of services and FDI for India.
- Indian barriers to trade, in goods and services, and to inward FDI remain high despite a general liberalization and very rapid fall in applied tariffs since 2004. The EU is relatively open but India will be anxious to improve market access for manufactures, services and FDI.
- For goods there is little overlap in trade structures or comparative advantage between India and the EU. Neither party is likely to press the other on agricultural liberalization - an area of extreme sensitivity for both in the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations. On services, both sides are anxious to increase their market access across all modes of provision, and negotiability is not an obvious problem.
- Prospects for an agreement appear good but there are potential obstacles. These include general suspicion of trade liberalization in the Congress party across the country as well as other parties in the governing coalition; Indian lack of ambition for the agreement; the EU's requirement for environmental, social and human rights clauses in the agreements which might cause offence; the sheer complexity of the negotiations, which might mean they are overtaken by the next Indian general election campaign.
India seeks micro UAVs
By Vivek Raghuvanshi
October 26, 2007
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3139580
The Indian Army is on a global hunt to buy unspecified numbers of micro UAVs to fly surveillance missions in the upper reaches of Jammu and Kashmir and for anti-insurgency operations in the country’s northeast.
Bids have been sent to companies that make the Bird Eye (Israel Aerospace Industries), FanTail (Singapore Technologies Aerospace), Raven (U.S. firm AeroVironment), Skylark (Israel’s Elbit) and Tracker (Europe’s EADS).
A senior Army official said the service will need more than 200 UAVs in the next three to five years, with the requirement increasing as more urban areas are put under surveillance.
The micro UAVs are a priority procurement for the Army and could be inducted into service by mid-2008. The Army has specified no numbers in the bid, but service sources said the order could increase depending on the UAV’s performance as funds are available.
The global bids, sent early this month, stipulate that the micro UAV selected should be able to:
å Perform reconnaissance and surveillance over mountains, day and night, and immediately transmit data to operators by voice and video.
å Identify and detect targets.
å Do surveillance of rural and urban areas where insurgents operate.
å Assess post-strike damages.
The micro UAV also must weigh no more than 40 kilograms; be easy to assemble; have a low-noise engine, fixed or rotary wings and a low heat signature; and be able to avoid enemy detection and engagement.
The system’s ground control station should be a portable laptop that can display video and flight data on a digital map background and control the UAV in flight. Also, the UAV should be capable of performing a preprogrammed flight when navigation way points are fed into the computer.
A crew of two should be able to set up and operate the UAV and perform the launch mission in 15 minutes. It should resist electronic countermeasures.
The Army also wants a UAV that can operate in temperatures between minus-10 degrees and 50 degrees Celsius, fly at speeds up to 50 kilometers per hour at a range of at least 10 kilometers, and endure 90 minutes of flight.
October 26, 2007
http://www.c4isrjournal.com/story.php?F=3139580
The Indian Army is on a global hunt to buy unspecified numbers of micro UAVs to fly surveillance missions in the upper reaches of Jammu and Kashmir and for anti-insurgency operations in the country’s northeast.
Bids have been sent to companies that make the Bird Eye (Israel Aerospace Industries), FanTail (Singapore Technologies Aerospace), Raven (U.S. firm AeroVironment), Skylark (Israel’s Elbit) and Tracker (Europe’s EADS).
A senior Army official said the service will need more than 200 UAVs in the next three to five years, with the requirement increasing as more urban areas are put under surveillance.
The micro UAVs are a priority procurement for the Army and could be inducted into service by mid-2008. The Army has specified no numbers in the bid, but service sources said the order could increase depending on the UAV’s performance as funds are available.
The global bids, sent early this month, stipulate that the micro UAV selected should be able to:
å Perform reconnaissance and surveillance over mountains, day and night, and immediately transmit data to operators by voice and video.
å Identify and detect targets.
å Do surveillance of rural and urban areas where insurgents operate.
å Assess post-strike damages.
The micro UAV also must weigh no more than 40 kilograms; be easy to assemble; have a low-noise engine, fixed or rotary wings and a low heat signature; and be able to avoid enemy detection and engagement.
The system’s ground control station should be a portable laptop that can display video and flight data on a digital map background and control the UAV in flight. Also, the UAV should be capable of performing a preprogrammed flight when navigation way points are fed into the computer.
A crew of two should be able to set up and operate the UAV and perform the launch mission in 15 minutes. It should resist electronic countermeasures.
The Army also wants a UAV that can operate in temperatures between minus-10 degrees and 50 degrees Celsius, fly at speeds up to 50 kilometers per hour at a range of at least 10 kilometers, and endure 90 minutes of flight.
Pakistani Public Supports Attacking Al Qaeda, Cracking Down on Fundamentalists
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/ Less than Half of
October 31, 2007
Questionnaire/Methodology (PDF)
Pakistanis show only weak support for using force against Islamic militants and overwhelmingly oppose allowing outside forces to combat al Qaeda on Pakistani territory.
A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that just 44 percent of urban Pakistanis favor sending the Pakistani army to the Northwestern tribal areas to “pursue and capture al Qaeda fighters.” Only 48 percent would allow the Pakistan army to act against “Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan.” In both cases, about a third oppose such military action and a fifth decline to answer.
Pakistanis reject overwhelmingly the idea of permitting foreign troops to attack al Qaeda on Pakistani territory. Four out of five (80%) say their government should not allow American or other foreign troops to enter Pakistan to pursue and capture al Qaeda fighters.” Three out of four (77%) oppose allowing foreign troops to attack Taliban insurgents based in Pakistan.
These are some of the results of a poll of 907 Pakistanis conducted in urban areas Sept. 12-28, 2007. The findings also reveal that a majority of urban Pakistanis believe their government’s decision to attack militants holding the Red Mosque in Islamabad was a mistake.
Polling took place before the massive suicide bombing apparently targeting former Prime Minster Benazir Bhutto on her return from eight-years in exile. More than 130 people among the massive crowds celebrating Bhutto’s return died in the attack.
Pakistanis show little confidence in the leaders who have dominated Pakistani politics for much of the last 20 years. Less than a third express support for either current president Pervez Musharraf or former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments, “The Pakistani people are not enthusiastic about Musharraf, do not support his recent crackdown on fundamentalists, and are lukewarm at best about going after al Qaeda or the Taliban in western Pakistan. It appears that a US strategy that rests on Musharraf being a frontline in the war on terrorism has poor prospects.”
Details
Since fleeing Afghanistan following the 2001 US-led invasion, Afghan Taliban insurgents and foreign militants from al Qaeda have managed to regroup in northwestern Pakistan. The remote, mountainous region is inhabited by Pashtun tribes who have enjoyed substantial autonomy since the mid-nineteenth century, when the country that is now Pakistan was a British colony
Asked whether the Pakistan army should enter the region—known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas or FATA—to “pursue and capture al Qaeda fighters,” Pakistanis tend to say it should, but by only a narrow 44 percent to 36 percent margin. Large numbers (20%) decline to answer.
Support for allowing the Pakistan military to attack Taliban insurgents in the region also tends to be thin. When asked about “allowing the Pakistani army to pursue and capture Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan,” respondents support such action by only 48 percent to 34 percent. Another 18 percent do not answer.
There is overwhelming opposition to letting American or other foreign troops attack al Qaeda or Taliban forces in Pakistan, however. Eighty percent of those polled say American or other foreign troops should not be allowed “to enter Pakistan to pursue and capture al Qaeda fighters.” Only five percent say this should be allowed and an additional 15 percent do not answer.
An overwhelming majority (77%) also rejects allowing US or other foreign forces enter Pakistan “to pursue and capture Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan.” Only nine percent disagree and 14 percent decline to respond. Other recent surveys of Pakistan and other Muslim countries have also found strong objections to the presence of American troops in Muslim lands.
Pakistanis also show opposition to the government’s recent crackdown on Islamic fundamentalists. On July 11, Pakistan forces raided the Red Mosque in Islamabad to oust Islamic militants. More than 100 people died in the raid, including dozens of suspected militants and at least 10 Pakistani troops.
Nearly two out of three respondents (64%) say the raid was a “mistake” while only 22 percent say they support the decision.
These attitudes may also reflect Pakistani sympathy for at least some Islamist goals. A substantial 60 percent majority believes that “Shari’a should play a larger role in Pakistan law” than it does now. Only 26 percent say it should play the same role (15%) or a smaller role (11%) and 15 percent do not answer.
Opposition to attacks on militants may also be influenced by the continuing conflict and rising death toll. Tribesmen and militants launched numerous attacks on government positions, including a Sept. 13 suicide attack on an army mess hall that killed at least 15 soldiers.
The Pakistani public shows little enthusiasm for the leadership of either President Musharraf or the major candidates for prime minister in the general elections slated for January. Asked who is the “the best person to lead Pakistan” General Musharraf is cited by only 21 percent.
Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was forced out of office in 1996 amid allegations of corruption, is seen as the best to lead by only 27 percent of respondents. Bhutto plans to lead the Pakistan Peoples Party in the January legislative elections, though she is barred from a third time as Prime Minister unless she can change current law.
Nawar Sharif, the prime minister toppled by Musharraf in 1999, is seen as the best leader by 21 percent of those polled. Sharif attempted to return from exile in September but was deported within hours of his arrival.
But Pakistanis tend to favor allowing both Bhutto and Sharif to run for office. Those polled say Bhutto should be allowed to return to Pakistan and stand for election by a margin of 50 percent to 34 percent and that Sharif should be allowed to do so by a margin of 51 percent to 35 percent.
Respondents were divided (40% to 40%) about whether Bhutto should become prime minister.
Why is the US unhappy with President Musharraf?
http://thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=126282&catid=11
Zia Shahid
An overriding question is haunting this scribe these days. Whether one happens to be in a close circle of personal friends or in routine meetings at the newspaper office, whether one opens the portfolio of letters to the editor or browses through e-mails from the most exotic corners of the world, the same question pops up with varying emphases but the essentials of the matter invariably remain the same.
Let me sum it up for purposes of brevity. After 9/11, President Musharraf agreed to join the international alliance in the war against terror. He extended maximum cooperation in the task of removing the Taliban from Kabul and making a horrible example of the cities of Afghanistan a la Tora Bora. After the rout of the Taliban, the Americans installed Hamid Karzai as the president of Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai and his successive foreign ministers continued to spew venom against Pakistan. They repeatedly alleged that we have provided sanctuaries to the Taliban in the mountains of NWFP and Balochistan, from where they cross over into Afghanistan with impunity and attack the NATO and Afghan forces. President Musharraf continued to plead non-guilty and at one point, even Mr. Karzai conceded that his information was unsubstantiated. Currently, the home security situation of the US, the principal perpetrator of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of the 9/11 attacks, appears to be impeccable. No suicide attacks are taking place within US frontiers. America is not facing an insurgency in two of her provinces like we are in Pakistan. Despite repeated offers of negotiations and peace accords on the part of President Musharraf, peace has not been attained between the Pakistan government and foreign militants and their local collaborators. Our military convoys are being attacked, martyred and taken hostage day in and day out. Whether one prefers to call it an insurgency or a civil war, the loop of terrorist activities is expanding slowly but surely and has reached as far as Sindh, besides the settled areas of NWFP. The attack on Benazir Bhutto’s rally on October 18 is compelling evidence in this respect. A sense of angst is gripping Pakistan. The print and electronic media are bursting with news of ghastly incidents, punctuated with casualty figures and photographs of maimed human parts. A few days ago, a bomb hoax in the schools of Lahore sent waves of fear through the city and paranoid parents refused to send their children to school. The rumour of three suicide bombers having entered Karachi was rife just before the October 18 blasts. Now, there is news that ten suicide bombers are raring to go somewhere in Punjab. The people are feeling vulnerable and helpless. The other day, a federal minister, incidentally a friend of mine, issued a statement to the effect that no suicide bomber would be permitted to strike public gatherings in future. I rang him up and asked if the suicide bombers in Karachi had sought his permission before hitting Benazir’s rally. He laughed and lamely said that was not what he meant.
The moot point here is to analyze why the US is unhappy or at least dissatisfied with President Musharraf. Now please do not harangue me with that trite democracy lecture. Democracy is an excellent system but democracy cannot be the cause of the US’s unhappiness with President Musharraf. I can name half a dozen countries with undemocratic regimes or even monarchies and the Americans get along with them without so much as a whimper. At least in this country we have a parliament. The main discord here pertains to the president’s uniform, and even that is unlikely to last beyond November 15th. Let alone the American leadership, even their media, which daily lectures us on democracy, does not write even a single word against such countries. The Americans entered Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy. Thousands have been killed there. The inference can hardly be ignored that the reality is different from what meets the eye. The US and Britain appear dissatisfied with Pervez Musharraf’s performance and want to bring Benazir into the loop under a power-sharing arrangement. It is easy to deduce from this that the US and Britain want some things done that even Musharraf has been unable to execute. Therefore, the Anglo-American policy makers wish to bring in someone in whom they can repose a greater measure of trust. I do not possess any crystal ball, nor am I the blue-eyed boy of the Americans or even enjoy the confidence of President Pervez Musharraf. My thoughts are those of a Pakistani and journalist, who observes and tries to understand matters.
It appears pertinent to enumerate the salient issues on which Pervez Musharraf failed to come up to American expectations.
The Americans wanted him to send troops to Iraq but Pervez Musharraf refused to budge despite sustained pressure.
The Americans had a burning desire for Musharraf to capture Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omer before the elections in the US to beef up the prospects of President Bush’s Grand Old Party (GOP – the Republicans). President Musharraf failed to satisfy this ambition and a section of the American press continues to allege that the failure was due to the Musharraf government’s lack of interest.
The Americans insisted that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan should be handed over to them so that he could be interrogated outside Pakistan. A majority of the Pakistani people still revere Dr. Qadeer as their hero. Dr. Qadeer met some editors of the national press just before his house detention. Incidentally I was the last of the editors to call upon him. He appeared on television and took upon himself the entire blame, even though he had confided to me personally that all he did was in the best interest of the nation and was done in full knowledge of the then rulers. On this count, President Musharraf bore the full brunt of external pressure but did not allow anyone to even question Dr. Qadeer.
The American unhappiness over the prospects of an oil pipeline treaty with Iran was clear even to the most perfunctory analysts. However, the Musharraf regime refused to give in and continued the parleys for the treaty because of crucial Pakistani national interests being involved.
The cooperation with China for the construction of Gwadar Port was also an initiative which did not please our American friends. This project will also benefit China by furnishing her access to the Arabian Sea. On the face of it the US and China enjoy close ties but both countries have a distinct inventory of interests in the region. The increasing strength of Sino-Pakistan relations hardly pleases the Americans. Further, the growing strength of SAARC is also anathema to the Western policy-makers, while Pakistan is a strong proponent of making SAARC even more effective.
The foregoing paragraphs catalogue some of the basic points of friction between Musharraf and the US. The Bush administration still has 18 months to go, but the signs of a rise in the fortunes of the Democratic camp are too obvious. The Pentagon has traditionally had direct dealings with the Pakistan army and feels comfortable with the arrangement. On the other hand, the US State Department prefers to be known as the banner-bearer of democracy. That, too, should be counted as a prime reason for the Democrats’ unhappiness with President Musharraf.
The vibes that Benazir sent to American policy-makers just before she boarded her plane to Pakistan have sold her like a ‘hot cake’ to the US and Britain. She vowed to hand over Dr. Qadeer to the IAEA after coming to power. She promised to facilitate the NATO forces in having the right of direct intervention into Pakistani territory to curb terrorist elements. Both countries are therefore openly espousing her return to power. The Supreme Court verdict on President Musharraf’s eligibility to hold representative office is still awaited. Then the general elections will be held. If Benazir Bhutto succeeds in winning a two third majority for her party, or can cobble together an alliance with PML (N) or Fazlur Rehman’s JUI (F), the road to a third prime ministerial term will be wide open for her. However, it remains to be seen how the US or Britain hope to succeed where Pervez Musharraf failed. How will she manage direct foreign access to Dr. Qadeer or permit the NATO forces to operate in Pakistan’s two provinces of Balochistan and NWFP, either unilaterally or in cooperation with the Pakistan army? More importantly, will her orders be obeyed? Will President Musharraf still be around, albeit in civvies? The answers to these questions are, of course, hidden in the mists of time. It is safe to aver that there is still many a slip between the cup and the lip. History is full of examples when American dreams have been frustrated for one reason or another. Most of the time, local factors carry greater weight than is anticipated from a distance. It may be safer to wait rather than jump to conclusions in the current Pakistani cauldron.
Translated from ‘America Sadr Pervez Musharraf sey kyun naakhush hai?’ courtesy Daily Khabrain, October 28, 2007
The writer is the Editor-in-Chief/Publisher of The Post and the Chief Executive of the Khabrain Group
Zia Shahid
An overriding question is haunting this scribe these days. Whether one happens to be in a close circle of personal friends or in routine meetings at the newspaper office, whether one opens the portfolio of letters to the editor or browses through e-mails from the most exotic corners of the world, the same question pops up with varying emphases but the essentials of the matter invariably remain the same.
Let me sum it up for purposes of brevity. After 9/11, President Musharraf agreed to join the international alliance in the war against terror. He extended maximum cooperation in the task of removing the Taliban from Kabul and making a horrible example of the cities of Afghanistan a la Tora Bora. After the rout of the Taliban, the Americans installed Hamid Karzai as the president of Afghanistan. Mr. Karzai and his successive foreign ministers continued to spew venom against Pakistan. They repeatedly alleged that we have provided sanctuaries to the Taliban in the mountains of NWFP and Balochistan, from where they cross over into Afghanistan with impunity and attack the NATO and Afghan forces. President Musharraf continued to plead non-guilty and at one point, even Mr. Karzai conceded that his information was unsubstantiated. Currently, the home security situation of the US, the principal perpetrator of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq on the pretext of the 9/11 attacks, appears to be impeccable. No suicide attacks are taking place within US frontiers. America is not facing an insurgency in two of her provinces like we are in Pakistan. Despite repeated offers of negotiations and peace accords on the part of President Musharraf, peace has not been attained between the Pakistan government and foreign militants and their local collaborators. Our military convoys are being attacked, martyred and taken hostage day in and day out. Whether one prefers to call it an insurgency or a civil war, the loop of terrorist activities is expanding slowly but surely and has reached as far as Sindh, besides the settled areas of NWFP. The attack on Benazir Bhutto’s rally on October 18 is compelling evidence in this respect. A sense of angst is gripping Pakistan. The print and electronic media are bursting with news of ghastly incidents, punctuated with casualty figures and photographs of maimed human parts. A few days ago, a bomb hoax in the schools of Lahore sent waves of fear through the city and paranoid parents refused to send their children to school. The rumour of three suicide bombers having entered Karachi was rife just before the October 18 blasts. Now, there is news that ten suicide bombers are raring to go somewhere in Punjab. The people are feeling vulnerable and helpless. The other day, a federal minister, incidentally a friend of mine, issued a statement to the effect that no suicide bomber would be permitted to strike public gatherings in future. I rang him up and asked if the suicide bombers in Karachi had sought his permission before hitting Benazir’s rally. He laughed and lamely said that was not what he meant.
The moot point here is to analyze why the US is unhappy or at least dissatisfied with President Musharraf. Now please do not harangue me with that trite democracy lecture. Democracy is an excellent system but democracy cannot be the cause of the US’s unhappiness with President Musharraf. I can name half a dozen countries with undemocratic regimes or even monarchies and the Americans get along with them without so much as a whimper. At least in this country we have a parliament. The main discord here pertains to the president’s uniform, and even that is unlikely to last beyond November 15th. Let alone the American leadership, even their media, which daily lectures us on democracy, does not write even a single word against such countries. The Americans entered Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy. Thousands have been killed there. The inference can hardly be ignored that the reality is different from what meets the eye. The US and Britain appear dissatisfied with Pervez Musharraf’s performance and want to bring Benazir into the loop under a power-sharing arrangement. It is easy to deduce from this that the US and Britain want some things done that even Musharraf has been unable to execute. Therefore, the Anglo-American policy makers wish to bring in someone in whom they can repose a greater measure of trust. I do not possess any crystal ball, nor am I the blue-eyed boy of the Americans or even enjoy the confidence of President Pervez Musharraf. My thoughts are those of a Pakistani and journalist, who observes and tries to understand matters.
It appears pertinent to enumerate the salient issues on which Pervez Musharraf failed to come up to American expectations.
The Americans wanted him to send troops to Iraq but Pervez Musharraf refused to budge despite sustained pressure.
The Americans had a burning desire for Musharraf to capture Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omer before the elections in the US to beef up the prospects of President Bush’s Grand Old Party (GOP – the Republicans). President Musharraf failed to satisfy this ambition and a section of the American press continues to allege that the failure was due to the Musharraf government’s lack of interest.
The Americans insisted that Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan should be handed over to them so that he could be interrogated outside Pakistan. A majority of the Pakistani people still revere Dr. Qadeer as their hero. Dr. Qadeer met some editors of the national press just before his house detention. Incidentally I was the last of the editors to call upon him. He appeared on television and took upon himself the entire blame, even though he had confided to me personally that all he did was in the best interest of the nation and was done in full knowledge of the then rulers. On this count, President Musharraf bore the full brunt of external pressure but did not allow anyone to even question Dr. Qadeer.
The American unhappiness over the prospects of an oil pipeline treaty with Iran was clear even to the most perfunctory analysts. However, the Musharraf regime refused to give in and continued the parleys for the treaty because of crucial Pakistani national interests being involved.
The cooperation with China for the construction of Gwadar Port was also an initiative which did not please our American friends. This project will also benefit China by furnishing her access to the Arabian Sea. On the face of it the US and China enjoy close ties but both countries have a distinct inventory of interests in the region. The increasing strength of Sino-Pakistan relations hardly pleases the Americans. Further, the growing strength of SAARC is also anathema to the Western policy-makers, while Pakistan is a strong proponent of making SAARC even more effective.
The foregoing paragraphs catalogue some of the basic points of friction between Musharraf and the US. The Bush administration still has 18 months to go, but the signs of a rise in the fortunes of the Democratic camp are too obvious. The Pentagon has traditionally had direct dealings with the Pakistan army and feels comfortable with the arrangement. On the other hand, the US State Department prefers to be known as the banner-bearer of democracy. That, too, should be counted as a prime reason for the Democrats’ unhappiness with President Musharraf.
The vibes that Benazir sent to American policy-makers just before she boarded her plane to Pakistan have sold her like a ‘hot cake’ to the US and Britain. She vowed to hand over Dr. Qadeer to the IAEA after coming to power. She promised to facilitate the NATO forces in having the right of direct intervention into Pakistani territory to curb terrorist elements. Both countries are therefore openly espousing her return to power. The Supreme Court verdict on President Musharraf’s eligibility to hold representative office is still awaited. Then the general elections will be held. If Benazir Bhutto succeeds in winning a two third majority for her party, or can cobble together an alliance with PML (N) or Fazlur Rehman’s JUI (F), the road to a third prime ministerial term will be wide open for her. However, it remains to be seen how the US or Britain hope to succeed where Pervez Musharraf failed. How will she manage direct foreign access to Dr. Qadeer or permit the NATO forces to operate in Pakistan’s two provinces of Balochistan and NWFP, either unilaterally or in cooperation with the Pakistan army? More importantly, will her orders be obeyed? Will President Musharraf still be around, albeit in civvies? The answers to these questions are, of course, hidden in the mists of time. It is safe to aver that there is still many a slip between the cup and the lip. History is full of examples when American dreams have been frustrated for one reason or another. Most of the time, local factors carry greater weight than is anticipated from a distance. It may be safer to wait rather than jump to conclusions in the current Pakistani cauldron.
Translated from ‘America Sadr Pervez Musharraf sey kyun naakhush hai?’ courtesy Daily Khabrain, October 28, 2007
The writer is the Editor-in-Chief/Publisher of The Post and the Chief Executive of the Khabrain Group
Joint Statement on the Further Development of the Strategic and Global Partnership between India and Germany
Joint Statement on the Further Development of the Strategic and Global Partnership between India and Germany
30/10/2007
1. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chancellor Angela Merkel have reaffirmed today their commitment to the strategic partnership between India and Germany. The special partnership has already led to growing cooperation in global affairs and substantial expansion in the bilateral engagement in multiple fields. Within the framework of the Agenda for the Indo-German partnership in the 21st century adopted in 2000 and the Joint Statement issued on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India to Germany in April 2006, India and Germany will enhance the scope of their partnership with a view to strengthen it, based on shared principles, common perceptions and interests.
2. India and Germany share and promote universal values of democracy, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms including religious, which are best realized in a pluralistic environment. They share a vision of peace, security and common opportunity in global affairs. They have shared interests in overcoming and finding solutions to key global challenges – amongst others poverty, diseases such as HIV/AIDS, the environmental and climate change, energy security, UN reform, international crime including cyber crime, illegal migration and trafficking in people, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and international terrorism. Co-operation will be further enhanced on these issues, both bilaterally and in regional and international fora.
3. India and Germany share the vision of further strengthening their partnership through new initiatives in the spheres of trade and bilateral investment, energy, science and technology, education, culture, defence. They see considerable potential for growth in all these fields.
4. India and Germany are strong partners in the field of science, technology and research and are determined to further developing this central pillar of their strategic partnership. The establishment of the Indo-German Science and Technology Centre, and the launch of the Science Express, which will carry an exhibition, designed and fabricated by the Max Planck Society, to numerous Indian cities in the course of the next year, are significant contributions reflecting this cooperation. Both sides are actively pursuing cooperation in the space sector including in the Chandrayaan project. Germany's support to India's participation in ITER and India's commitment to participate in the FAIR project was welcomed and appreciated.
5. Trade, investment and education belong to the core of the Indo-German partnership and collaboration. Both sides noted with satisfaction that bilateral trade has doubled within three years and agreed to work towards an annual trade volume of 20 billion Euro for 2012. The upward trend in two-way investments between India and Germany is a welcome development that needs further acceleration. Infrastructure and energy need to be concentrated on as sectors for mutually beneficial investments. They should take into account the complementary nature of the skills, resources and opportunities available in the two economies.
6. Transport infrastructure in India and transport links between India and Germany are vital components of our economic and trade relations. Railways and power generation are two areas wherein German investment in India would be to mutual advantage and would generate spin-off benefits to Indian and German industry. The two sides agreed to look for innovative ways and means to achieve this objective. India appreciates Germany’s long-standing engagement in the area of vocational training. Both sides agreed to explore new avenues for further cooperation in this field including through public-private partnership.
7. The two sides underlined the importance of business to business links to further economic cooperation. They welcomed the meeting of a CEOs Round Table of Indian and German business leaders in Mumbai. In the light of the rapidly growing trade and economic relations and the rapidly evolving pattern of international competitive advantage, it was agreed to facilitate movement of persons and professionals between the two countries in accordance with national legislation. Both Governments acknowledge the considerable potential for cooperation in the services sector. In this context, there was agreement on the need for the early conclusion of a Social Security Agreement, both for individuals and companies in the two countries. The two sides shared the assessment that further enhancement of bilateral air traffic relations would underpin the growing trade relationship between both countries.
8. Both sides reaffirm the development cooperation between Germany and India as an example of excellent bilateral work, innovation and alignment of development priorities. The mutually agreed priority areas focus on energy, environment and sustainable economic development. Indo-German cooperation promotes social security systems, development, micro financing and rural cooperative banking. The Rural Cooperative Credit Project / Linkage Banking Project, a programme of Indo-German development cooperation, was noted as an example. A new financial commitment by Germany of 150 million Euro likely to be concluded in November 2007 to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy projects was appreciated. These projects reinforce the common goal of both sides to produce clean energy and protect the global climate.
9. India and Germany recognise the urgent need to find effective and practical solutions to address concerns regarding climate change and its implications for human kind. These would include mitigation and adaptation strategies in a manner that supports further economic and social development in particular of developing countries. Long-term convergence of per capita emission rates is one of the important principles that should underpin negotiations in the context of the United Nations. Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. India and Germany call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the negotiations on a comprehensive post-2012 agreement for which the UNFCCC Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 would be significant.
10. The activities and follow up of the Indo-German Energy Forum were noted with appreciation. The MoU between the Energy Agencies of both countries signed during the visit of the Indian Minister of Power in Germany in 2006, the Indo-German Symposium on Energy Efficiency as well as the Indo-German Environment Forum both to be held in New Delhi in 2008 will generate additional momentum for the bilateral political dialogue on energy. It will equally foster the identification of cooperation projects in this field. The early conclusion of an MoU on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects will further strengthen this process. India and Germany noted with satisfaction the growing bilateral CDM cooperation with 21 approved projects at present.
11. They emphasized the need for ensuring the supply of safe, sustainable and non-polluting sources of energy to meet the rising global demand for energy, particularly in developing countries.
12. There was agreement that the enlarged bilateral defence cooperation on the basis of the Defence Cooperation Agreement, including the bilateral dialogue on export control, marked the development of a new phase to enhance the strategic partnership. It is envisaged to include exchange of information and cooperation in the fields of defence technological research, armament procurement projects including project related development and technology as well as general defence technology.
13. India and Germany strongly support an early, fair and substantive outcome of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. They bear common responsibility for a successful conclusion of the Doha Agenda with focus on the development dimension and stress the necessity to overcome the existing differences in the Doha Round for the benefit of all WTO member states. Close cooperation between India and Germany will make a significant contribution to achieve a balanced and comprehensive agreement.
14. India and Germany noted with satisfaction the growing partnership between India and the EU. They welcomed that negotiations have begun between India and the EU to arrive at a broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement in accordance with the decision reached at the India-EU Summit in Helsinki in 2006. They look forward to the forthcoming India-EU Summit which will further the India-EU relationship.
15. India and Germany recognise that a strengthened multilateral system, including a reformed UN Security Council that would reflect the realities of the 21st century, enhances global cooperation and security. Both sides will continue their close cooperation bilaterally and in the framework of the G4 for the strengthening of the multilateral system and towards early realisation of reform of the United Nations, including the expansion of the UN Security Council, in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. India and Germany reaffirmed their firm support for each others’ candidature for permanent membership on an expanded UNSC.
16. Terrorism is a global threat requiring a global response. Both sides underline the importance of joint international efforts in countering terrorism which is not justified under any circumstances. They agree to intensify mutual exchange of views, experiences and practical cooperation in the fight against terrorism, both through bilateral channels and in multilateral forums. They shall strengthen cooperation through the Indo-German Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism and in the EU framework, as well as in pursuing as soon as possible agreement in the UN on the Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism. They will share experiences and increase co-operation, including joint operational work between police and law enforcement agencies. The conclusion of a Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters would further strengthen the bilateral efforts.
17. Both sides share the view that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its linkages with terrorism pose a great threat to international peace and security. India and Germany share the vision of a world free of weapons of mass destruction, a goal towards which they will work together.
18. India and Germany reaffirm their commitment to strengthen their comprehensive strategic partnership for the benefi
30/10/2007
1. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chancellor Angela Merkel have reaffirmed today their commitment to the strategic partnership between India and Germany. The special partnership has already led to growing cooperation in global affairs and substantial expansion in the bilateral engagement in multiple fields. Within the framework of the Agenda for the Indo-German partnership in the 21st century adopted in 2000 and the Joint Statement issued on the occasion of the visit of the Prime Minister of India to Germany in April 2006, India and Germany will enhance the scope of their partnership with a view to strengthen it, based on shared principles, common perceptions and interests.
2. India and Germany share and promote universal values of democracy, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms including religious, which are best realized in a pluralistic environment. They share a vision of peace, security and common opportunity in global affairs. They have shared interests in overcoming and finding solutions to key global challenges – amongst others poverty, diseases such as HIV/AIDS, the environmental and climate change, energy security, UN reform, international crime including cyber crime, illegal migration and trafficking in people, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and international terrorism. Co-operation will be further enhanced on these issues, both bilaterally and in regional and international fora.
3. India and Germany share the vision of further strengthening their partnership through new initiatives in the spheres of trade and bilateral investment, energy, science and technology, education, culture, defence. They see considerable potential for growth in all these fields.
4. India and Germany are strong partners in the field of science, technology and research and are determined to further developing this central pillar of their strategic partnership. The establishment of the Indo-German Science and Technology Centre, and the launch of the Science Express, which will carry an exhibition, designed and fabricated by the Max Planck Society, to numerous Indian cities in the course of the next year, are significant contributions reflecting this cooperation. Both sides are actively pursuing cooperation in the space sector including in the Chandrayaan project. Germany's support to India's participation in ITER and India's commitment to participate in the FAIR project was welcomed and appreciated.
5. Trade, investment and education belong to the core of the Indo-German partnership and collaboration. Both sides noted with satisfaction that bilateral trade has doubled within three years and agreed to work towards an annual trade volume of 20 billion Euro for 2012. The upward trend in two-way investments between India and Germany is a welcome development that needs further acceleration. Infrastructure and energy need to be concentrated on as sectors for mutually beneficial investments. They should take into account the complementary nature of the skills, resources and opportunities available in the two economies.
6. Transport infrastructure in India and transport links between India and Germany are vital components of our economic and trade relations. Railways and power generation are two areas wherein German investment in India would be to mutual advantage and would generate spin-off benefits to Indian and German industry. The two sides agreed to look for innovative ways and means to achieve this objective. India appreciates Germany’s long-standing engagement in the area of vocational training. Both sides agreed to explore new avenues for further cooperation in this field including through public-private partnership.
7. The two sides underlined the importance of business to business links to further economic cooperation. They welcomed the meeting of a CEOs Round Table of Indian and German business leaders in Mumbai. In the light of the rapidly growing trade and economic relations and the rapidly evolving pattern of international competitive advantage, it was agreed to facilitate movement of persons and professionals between the two countries in accordance with national legislation. Both Governments acknowledge the considerable potential for cooperation in the services sector. In this context, there was agreement on the need for the early conclusion of a Social Security Agreement, both for individuals and companies in the two countries. The two sides shared the assessment that further enhancement of bilateral air traffic relations would underpin the growing trade relationship between both countries.
8. Both sides reaffirm the development cooperation between Germany and India as an example of excellent bilateral work, innovation and alignment of development priorities. The mutually agreed priority areas focus on energy, environment and sustainable economic development. Indo-German cooperation promotes social security systems, development, micro financing and rural cooperative banking. The Rural Cooperative Credit Project / Linkage Banking Project, a programme of Indo-German development cooperation, was noted as an example. A new financial commitment by Germany of 150 million Euro likely to be concluded in November 2007 to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy projects was appreciated. These projects reinforce the common goal of both sides to produce clean energy and protect the global climate.
9. India and Germany recognise the urgent need to find effective and practical solutions to address concerns regarding climate change and its implications for human kind. These would include mitigation and adaptation strategies in a manner that supports further economic and social development in particular of developing countries. Long-term convergence of per capita emission rates is one of the important principles that should underpin negotiations in the context of the United Nations. Both sides reaffirmed their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. India and Germany call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the negotiations on a comprehensive post-2012 agreement for which the UNFCCC Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 would be significant.
10. The activities and follow up of the Indo-German Energy Forum were noted with appreciation. The MoU between the Energy Agencies of both countries signed during the visit of the Indian Minister of Power in Germany in 2006, the Indo-German Symposium on Energy Efficiency as well as the Indo-German Environment Forum both to be held in New Delhi in 2008 will generate additional momentum for the bilateral political dialogue on energy. It will equally foster the identification of cooperation projects in this field. The early conclusion of an MoU on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects will further strengthen this process. India and Germany noted with satisfaction the growing bilateral CDM cooperation with 21 approved projects at present.
11. They emphasized the need for ensuring the supply of safe, sustainable and non-polluting sources of energy to meet the rising global demand for energy, particularly in developing countries.
12. There was agreement that the enlarged bilateral defence cooperation on the basis of the Defence Cooperation Agreement, including the bilateral dialogue on export control, marked the development of a new phase to enhance the strategic partnership. It is envisaged to include exchange of information and cooperation in the fields of defence technological research, armament procurement projects including project related development and technology as well as general defence technology.
13. India and Germany strongly support an early, fair and substantive outcome of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. They bear common responsibility for a successful conclusion of the Doha Agenda with focus on the development dimension and stress the necessity to overcome the existing differences in the Doha Round for the benefit of all WTO member states. Close cooperation between India and Germany will make a significant contribution to achieve a balanced and comprehensive agreement.
14. India and Germany noted with satisfaction the growing partnership between India and the EU. They welcomed that negotiations have begun between India and the EU to arrive at a broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement in accordance with the decision reached at the India-EU Summit in Helsinki in 2006. They look forward to the forthcoming India-EU Summit which will further the India-EU relationship.
15. India and Germany recognise that a strengthened multilateral system, including a reformed UN Security Council that would reflect the realities of the 21st century, enhances global cooperation and security. Both sides will continue their close cooperation bilaterally and in the framework of the G4 for the strengthening of the multilateral system and towards early realisation of reform of the United Nations, including the expansion of the UN Security Council, in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. India and Germany reaffirmed their firm support for each others’ candidature for permanent membership on an expanded UNSC.
16. Terrorism is a global threat requiring a global response. Both sides underline the importance of joint international efforts in countering terrorism which is not justified under any circumstances. They agree to intensify mutual exchange of views, experiences and practical cooperation in the fight against terrorism, both through bilateral channels and in multilateral forums. They shall strengthen cooperation through the Indo-German Joint Working Group on Counter-Terrorism and in the EU framework, as well as in pursuing as soon as possible agreement in the UN on the Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism. They will share experiences and increase co-operation, including joint operational work between police and law enforcement agencies. The conclusion of a Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters would further strengthen the bilateral efforts.
17. Both sides share the view that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and its linkages with terrorism pose a great threat to international peace and security. India and Germany share the vision of a world free of weapons of mass destruction, a goal towards which they will work together.
18. India and Germany reaffirm their commitment to strengthen their comprehensive strategic partnership for the benefi