February 22, 2008
Narendra Modi’s Chennai speech - Offstumped Commentary
Source: OFFSTUMPED
Very interesting speech by Mr. Modi at the Tughlaq Magazine’s annual reader’s event.
Cho Ramaswamy’s introduction of Narendra Modi was an interesting twist to Sonia Gandhi’s Merchant of Death remark much to the pleasure of a cheering audience.
It was a speech that Modi delivered largely extempore without any prepared notes and interspersed with anecdotes and wisecracks at the Congress.
Few highlights that stood out worth commenting upon in Mr. Modi’s speech.
- He opened his remarks with a tribute to democracy and what makes Cho a true democrat. For someone who has been routinely bandied as a Hitler in the making it should strike even the most ardent Modi critic as important that he should have chosen to open his speech with a reference to democracy and not to Hindutva, not to BJP not to mundane politics but with a reference to that which is most paramount - a commitment to democracy.
- The next subject that Modi chose to comment on again was very interesting when he chose to highlight the importance of conviction and courage in being open to criticism not by those who despise you but especially those who are most dearest to you.
- A little known aspect of Mr. Modi’s work ethic also surfaces as well with an oblique dig at the mainstream media and its antipathy towards Modi for its praise of Manmohan Singh not taking a vacation in 3 years.
- Modi then went on to sound all the right notes on how he views the recent win in Gujarat as a burden and responsibility rather than as a trophy to be relished and enjoyed.
- More digs at the Congress on how “poor its arithmetic was” in its allegation that Modi had 250 pairs of clothes.
The most important aspect of his speech surfaces a full 15minutes into the meeting when Modi goes on to exude why the Nation must adopt a Positive Attitude towards Change. Very important given the overwhelming mindset of negativism that dominates the public discource that seeks to justify entitlements in the name of social justice. Modi makes a great example of his life story and backward origins to defy this mindset that seeks entitlements by making the point that with convictions, courage and commitment anything was possible.
- Modi then goes on to talk about his social commitment for education to the girl child to improve Gujarat’s performance in this area and how over a span of 4 years Gujarat was close to 100% enrollment from a situation of 49% dropout with a target of 0% dropout by 2010.
Point to be noted, the ease with which Modi references social performance indicators in his extempore speech and the mindset which is performance oriented and metrics driven. A stark contrast with the typical Indian Politician who is high on rhetoric and emotion and low on substance.
- Modi then goes on to talk about the poor village to gynaecologist ratio and the high rate of mortality in below poverty line pregnant women and how his public-private partnership for pregnant women, along the lines of the Milton Friedman Voucher System for education, benefitted 1.58 lakh women and how atleast 6000 maternal/infant mortalities were prevented.
- Interesting tid-bit on how the entire bureaucracy opposed his Jyotigram scheme to fix rural electricity problems and how usolicited advise from the Congress conveyed the impossibility of making the scheme work. Modi then goes on to talk about how he borrowed 10 crores from the Co-operative sector to pilot the scheme in 45 villages to then go onto make it a success across the state in 1000 days - 23 lakh electricity poles, 56,000 transformed, 75,000kms of cable Modi reels off statistics to make the point that if it wills the creaking State Machinery can deliver. A snide jab at Karunanidhi’s extended and unaccounted for family follows
- Another great example follows on how technology can be used to eliminate corruption with toll gates and cross border checkposts between Gujarat and Maharashtra with another Modiquet - “if you have the will you can win… against corruption”
- Some media bashing follows on how cliched the allegations of communalism had become and the ever changing definition of secularism.
Modi gives an interesting spin to the secualrism debate saying his model of development was inherently secular for it benefitted all making no distinction or discrimination of none.
- Another anecdote follows on how illegal immigration from Bangladesh in Assam was distorting the local labor market.
Modi makes a point of fiscal discpline on how Gujarat went from a revenue deficit to a revenue surplus and how he was not a tax and spend liberal with his track record of not introducing new taxes. Point to note for all those to the right of center on economic issues.
- Another anecdote on the profitibaility of the electricity board
Modi takes entitlements head on how Karunanidhi was doling out free color televisions in Tami Nadu and the Congress made a similar promise in Gujarat with his counter promise to crack down on tax evasion.
- Modi goes on to praise the maturity of the people of Gujarat for their rejection of entitlements and their faith in a government that stood for upholding the rule of law while taking a dig at the media for its rubbish on structural polarisation in Gujarat.
- Reference to a world bank study on recovery in Kutch after the earthquake with parallels to the Indian Ocean Tsunami
- More anecdotes on taking hard decisions in the financial sector even at the risk of taking tough action against partymen.
- Some chest thumping follows on rural broadband connectivity and a dig at the United States on denying him a visa. Modi elaborates on distant education using the broadband network.
Modi goes on to eulogise on how he intends to develop Gujarat with a scientific temper leveraging technology.
Very important point follows on role of Government in Wealth Creation. Modi articulates a clear philosophy of “Minimum Government and Maximum Governance”. Leave wealth creation to the Enterprenuer who is most capable of creating wealth, focus on Governance and make sure the opportunities to benefit from wealth are maximized.
Offstumped Bottomline: A lot of debate has ensued on this blog, INI and elsewhere on what Right of Center means and which political entity in India stands for Right of Center values and principles. This speech by Narendra Modi must rank as one of the most clear articulation of a Right of Center philosophy premised on “Minimum Government and Maximum Governance” that rejects subsidies, denies entitlements, stands up for National Security while being fiscally responsible and letting Enterprises the freedom to create wealth.
Narendra Modi’s Chennai speech - Youtube Video
Courtesy long time Offstumped reader KK, you can find the Youtube Video of the speech by BJP Leader and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on 14th Jan 2008 during the Annual meeting of Cho Ramaswamy’s Tamil magazine Thuglak in Chennai.
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vPnKFhIgbg
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPaJiFKHRkE
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktu-p4d0wS8
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOONUoTfRx4
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsmSf2n0hg4
Narendra Modi’s Speech at Chennai - Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDW4DaIZVc
The playlist of these 6 parts are also available in
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F48C269FAE491D3
The Next Slum?
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.
by Christopher B. Leinberger
trange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.
At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”
In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”
In the first half of last year, residential burglaries rose by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty. Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some suburbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses to keep up the appearance of stability. Police departments are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identify emerging criminal hot spots.
The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.
Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.
For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.
T
he suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.”
The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.
Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.
In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.
P
ent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.
It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small.
Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbalances, and they are working to accommodate demand for urban living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped up all over many big cities. Suburban towns built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street grids at their core, have seen a good deal of “in-filling” in recent years as well, with new condos and town houses, and renovated small-lot homes just outside their downtowns. And while urban construction may slow for a time because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue. Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries.
But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks.
The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston Town Center, located between Virginia’s Dulles International Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in 1990, it has become the “downtown” for western Fairfax and eastern Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the town can stroll from the movie theater to restaurants and then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institution showed that Reston’s apartments, condominiums, and office and retail space were all commanding about a 50 percent rent or price premium over the typically suburban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby.
Housing at Belmar, the new “downtown” in Lakewood, Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, commands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The development covers about 20 small blocks in all. What’s most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of a razed mall.
Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than building McMansion developments (or malls). These new, faux-urban centers have many moving parts, and they need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and retailers. As a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more experience with this sort of building, and it is proliferating. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these days—lifestyle centers are going up instead.
I
n most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.
Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.
Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.
If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.
T
he U.S. grows its total stock of housing and commercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so the imbalance between the supply of urban living options and the demand for them is not going to disappear overnight. But over the next 20 years, developers will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly renovated town houses, condos, and small-lot houses in and around both new and traditional downtowns.
As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be rare. Suburbia’s many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for “higher and better use” is politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas—roads, sewer and water lines—cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.
The experience of cities during the 1950s through the ’80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families—and in all likelihood, eventual conversion to apartments.
This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.
As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to prevent the division of neighborhood houses into rental units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And many will likely succeed, for a time. But eventually, the owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to someone, and they’re not likely to find many buyers; offers from would-be landlords will start to look better, and neighborhood restrictions will relax. Stopping a fundamental market shift by legislation or regulation is generally impossible.
Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan, for example, are likely to hold their values just fine.
On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.
But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.
D
espite this glum forecast for many swaths of suburbia, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture—the shift that’s under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit: if New York City were its own state, it would be the most energy-efficient state in the union; most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit to get around, they unintentionally share heat with their upstairs neighbors.
Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices.
By the estimate of Virginia Tech’s Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It’s exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime.
Pakistan, our paradoxical partner in the war on terror
by Raspal Khosa
Friday, 22 February 2008
Pakistan has been under unpopular military rule for the last eight years and has been marked by widespread political and religious violence in the last year. This paper, authored by Raspal Khosa, examines Pakistan’s paradoxical role in the war on terror; at once a source of extremism and a key partner of the West in fighting it, as well as the policy implications for Australia.( DOWNLOAD )
Friday, 22 February 2008
Pakistan has been under unpopular military rule for the last eight years and has been marked by widespread political and religious violence in the last year. This paper, authored by Raspal Khosa, examines Pakistan’s paradoxical role in the war on terror; at once a source of extremism and a key partner of the West in fighting it, as well as the policy implications for Australia.( DOWNLOAD )
West Magnifies Negative Points of IAEA Report on Iran
TEHRAN (FNA)- Western media launched a vast campaign to magnify the very few negative points in an almost entirely positive report by the IAEA chief on Iran to divert world attention from the outcome of the UN's four-year-long probe which revealed the peaceful nature of Tehran's nuclear drive.
"Following the Untied States' failure in Iran's nuclear standoff, the Bush administration ordered the US-dominated media and diplomats in the West to undermine the positive points in ElBaradei's report by magnifying the very few negative or two-sided parts," an informed diplomat in the IAEA told FNA Friday night a few hours after the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog agency released its decisive report on Iran's nuclear activities and ended years of negative allegations by the US and EU trio (Britain, France and Germany) about Iran's nuclear intentions.
The report said that Iran has provided convincing responses to the questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear activities, and thus annulled legal or technical justification for continued UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
In his eleven-page report to the Board of Governors, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Tehran has resolved all issues and removed all ambiguities about its nuclear activities within the framework of an action plan which was agreed by the two sides earlier.
The following is a synopsis of the main issues mentioned in ElBaradei's report.
"On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
"On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
"In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008," ElBaradei said in his report.
"The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," he added.
Regarding procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC, the report said, "The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment.
"Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," ElBaradei said in his report about IAEA's next question on Iran's nuclear activities.
The UN nuclear watchdog chief further touched on another item in question , and said, "On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
"The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period."
ElBaradei further pointed to the results of the IAEA probe into the next item in question about Iran's nuclear activities, i.e. the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, and said, " The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding…"
Regarding Iran's current enrichment-related activities, the report said, "On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance."
"The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities."
"On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating."
"During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan."
"On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP," the report said about Iran's current nuclear activities, reiterating several times that all such activities by Iran are under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Summary
"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan… .
"Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
"The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage," the IAEA report said.
With regard to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle, the IAEA report said, "It should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."
"The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, 'if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA'."
"…The Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," ElBaradei concluded.
"Following the Untied States' failure in Iran's nuclear standoff, the Bush administration ordered the US-dominated media and diplomats in the West to undermine the positive points in ElBaradei's report by magnifying the very few negative or two-sided parts," an informed diplomat in the IAEA told FNA Friday night a few hours after the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog agency released its decisive report on Iran's nuclear activities and ended years of negative allegations by the US and EU trio (Britain, France and Germany) about Iran's nuclear intentions.
The report said that Iran has provided convincing responses to the questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear activities, and thus annulled legal or technical justification for continued UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
In his eleven-page report to the Board of Governors, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Tehran has resolved all issues and removed all ambiguities about its nuclear activities within the framework of an action plan which was agreed by the two sides earlier.
The following is a synopsis of the main issues mentioned in ElBaradei's report.
"On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
"On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
"In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008," ElBaradei said in his report.
"The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," he added.
Regarding procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC, the report said, "The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment.
"Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," ElBaradei said in his report about IAEA's next question on Iran's nuclear activities.
The UN nuclear watchdog chief further touched on another item in question , and said, "On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
"The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period."
ElBaradei further pointed to the results of the IAEA probe into the next item in question about Iran's nuclear activities, i.e. the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, and said, " The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding…"
Regarding Iran's current enrichment-related activities, the report said, "On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance."
"The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities."
"On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating."
"During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan."
"On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP," the report said about Iran's current nuclear activities, reiterating several times that all such activities by Iran are under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Summary
"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan… .
"Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
"The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage," the IAEA report said.
With regard to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle, the IAEA report said, "It should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."
"The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, 'if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA'."
"…The Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," ElBaradei concluded.
Full Text of ElBaradei's Report on Iran
TEHRAN (FNA)- The following is the full text of the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear activities and cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Board of Governors
GOV/2008/4
Date: 22 February 2008
Original: English
For official use only
Item 5(c) of the provisional agenda
(GOV/2008/6)
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Report by the Director General
1. On 15 November 2007, the Director General reported to the Board of Governors on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) (GOV/2007/58). This report covers the relevant developments since that date.
2. On 11 and 12 January 2008, the Director General met in Tehran with
H.E. Ayatollah A. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran; H.E. Mr. M. Ahmadinejad, President of Iran; H.E. Mr. G. Aghazadeh, Vice President of Iran and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI); H.E. Mr. M. Mottaki, Foreign Minister; and H.E. Mr. S. Jalili, Secretary, Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The purpose of the visit was to discuss ways and means of implementing all relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council as well as accelerating implementation of the work plan agreed between Iran and the Secretariat on 21 August 2007 aimed at the clarification of outstanding safeguards implementation issues (GOV/2007/48, Attachment).
3. During the discussions, the Iranian leadership stated that the country's nuclear programme had always been exclusively for peaceful purposes and that there had never been a nuclear weapons development programme. The Iranian authorities agreed to accelerate implementation of the work plan.
A. Implementation of the Work Plan on Outstanding Issues
A.1. Source of Contamination
4. On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
5. On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
6. In a letter dated 3 January 2008, the Agency reminded Iran that Iran needed to provide additional clarifications to allow a full assessment of the issue of the source of contamination and procurement efforts.
7. In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008.
A.1.1. Use of Equipment and Source of Contamination
8. According to Iran, vacuum equipment was procured in 1990 on behalf of the technical university by the former Head of PHRC because of his expertise in procurement and PHRC's business connections. The equipment was intended to be used at the Physics Department of the technical university for the coating of items such as optical mirrors, optical lasers, laser mirrors, resistive layers
for solar cells and mirrors for use in medical operating theatres.
9. Iran stated that, upon receipt of the equipment in 1991, it was noticed that the delivery was incomplete and that some incorrect parts had been supplied. The equipment was therefore put into storage at the university. Iran further stated that a number of letters of complaint were written to the supplier company at intervals until 1994, but to no avail.
10. According to Iran, some individual pieces of equipment were used both inside and outside the university during the period 1994-2003 in research, operation and maintenance activities involving vacuum conditions, but other parts of the consignment were never used. As its explanation of how the contamination had come about, Iran said that, in 1998, an individual who was testing used centrifuge components from Pakistan at the laboratory at Vanak Square for the AEOI (GOV/2004/34, para. 31) had asked the vacuum service of the university to come and repair a pump. Iran stated that some items of the vacuum equipment mentioned above were used for this repair activity and that, when these items were eventually brought back to the university, they spread uranium particle contamination.
11. To assess the information provided by Iran, the Agency spoke with the individual from the Vanak Square laboratory and the vacuum technician from the university who had carried out the repairs. The Agency was also shown the pump that had been repaired using the equipment concerned.
The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify this issue as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.1.2. Procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC
12. According to Iran, none of the equipment purchased or enquired about by the former Head of PHRC (see para. 4 above) was intended for use in uranium enrichment or conversion related activities, whether for research and development (R&D) or for educational activities in these fields. Procurements and procurement attempts by the former Head of PHRC were said by Iran to have also been made on behalf of other entities of Iran, as described below.
13. Iran stated that the vacuum equipment purchased by the Head of PHRC had been intended for educational purposes in the Vacuum Technique Laboratory of the university, specifically for use in experiments by students on thin layer production using evaporation and vacuum techniques, coating using vacuum systems and leak detection in vacuum systems. To support its statements, Iran presented instruction manuals related to the various experiments, internal communications on the procurement of the equipment and shipping documents. Agency inspectors visited the Vacuum Technique Laboratory and confirmed the presence of the equipment there.
14. Iran stated that some magnets had also been purchased by the Head of the PHRC on behalf of the Physics Department of the university for educational purposes in "Lenz-Faraday experiments". To support this statement, Iran presented a number of documents: instruction manuals related to the experiments; requests for funding which indicated that a decision had been made to approach the Head of PHRC to order and purchase the parts; and an invoice for cash sales from the supplier. Iran stated that the magnets were discarded after being used.
15. According to Iran, the Head of PHRC attempted twice - once successfully - to buy a balancing machine for the Mechanical Engineering Department of the university for educational purposes, such as in the measurement of vibrations and forces in rotating components due to unbalancing. To support Iran's statement, the Agency was shown laboratory experiment procedures, requests about procurement and a letter confirming the completion of the purchase. Agency inspectors visited the Mechanical Engineering Department and confirmed the presence of the balancing machine there.
16. According to Iran, the Head of PHRC also attempted to purchase 45 gas cylinders, each containing 2.2 kg of fluorine, on behalf of the Office of Industrial Interrelations of the university. Iran stated that the intended purpose of the fluorine had been to enhance the chemical stability of polymeric vessels. To support its statements, Iran presented a request to buy fluorine and a communication between the Head of PHRC and the President of the university about the proposed supplier's refusal to deliver the goods.
17. Iran stated that the AEOI had encountered difficulties with procurement because of international sanctions imposed on the country, and that that was why the AEOI had requested the Dean of the university to assist in the procurement of a UF6 mass spectrometer. According to Iran, in 1988, the
Dean of the university approached the Head of the Mechanics Workshop of the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), which belonged to the Ministry of Sepah, and asked him to handle the procurement. According to Iran, the mass spectrometer was never delivered. The Head of the Mechanics Workshop, who was later appointed Head of PHRC when it was established in 1989, is the same person involved in the other procurement attempts mentioned above.
18. The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment. The role and activities of PHRC will be further addressed in connection with the alleged studies as discussed below.
A.2. Uranium Metal Document
19. On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy from Iran of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and the machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispheres, which are components of nuclear weapons. Iran reiterated that this document had been received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987 and that it had not
been requested by Iran. The Agency is still waiting for a response from Pakistan on the circumstances of the delivery of this document in order to understand the full scope and content of the offer made by the network in 1987 (GOV/2006/15, paras 20-22).
A.3. Polonium-210
20. Polonium-210 is of interest to the Agency because it can be used not only for civilian applications (such as radioisotope batteries), but also - in conjunction with beryllium - for military purposes, such as neutron initiators in some designs of nuclear weapons. On 20-21 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided
answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 regarding polonium-210 research (GOV/2007/58, para. 26). The Agency's questions included a request to see the original project documentation.
21. According to Iran, in the 1980s, scientists from the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre (TNRC) were asked to propose new research activities. A project called "Production of 210Po by the irradiation of 209Bi in the TNRC reactor" was proposed and eventually approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee of TNRC in 1988. The project consisted of fundamental research aimed at
enhancing knowledge about this process. According to Iran, it was not aimed at a specific immediate application. However, a potential use in radioisotope batteries, if the chemical extraction of polonium- 210 proved successful, was mentioned in the initial proposal.
22. Iran reiterated that the project was not part of any larger R&D project, but had been a personal initiative of the project leader. According to Iran, the chemist working on the project left the country before full chemical processing had been performed, the project was aborted and the decayed samples were discarded as waste (GOV/2004/11, para. 30).
23. To support its statements, Iran presented additional copies of papers and literature searches that had formed the basis for the request for approval of the project. Iran also provided copies of the project proposal, the meeting minutes and the approval document from the Scientific Advisory Committee of TNRC, as well as a complete copy of the reactor logbook for the entire period that the
samples were present in the reactor.
24. Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its
procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify this issue as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.4. Gchine Mine
25. On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
26. According to Iran, the exploitation of uranium at the Gchine mine, as well as the ore processing activities at the Gchine uranium ore concentration (UOC) plant, have always been and remain the responsibility of the AEOI.
27. Iran stated that, by 1989, the extent of uranium reserves at Saghand in central Iran had been established in cooperation with Chinese experts. Considering the promising output of this region, a contract for equipping the Saghand mine and designing a uranium ore processing plant was concluded
with Russian companies in 1995. Insufficient funding was allocated in the Government's 1994-1998 five-year plan for the AEOI to pursue activities at both Gchine and Saghand. Since there was more uranium (estimated 1000 tonnes) at Saghand than at Gchine (estimated 40 tonnes), it was decided to spend the available funds on Saghand.
28. According to Iran, in the period 1993-1998, tasks such as the preparation of technical reports and studies, and some chemical testing of ores, were performed at the AEOI Ore Processing Center (OPC) at TNRC. The focus of some of the documentation work had been to justify funding of Gchine in the 1999-2003 five-year plan. These efforts were successful and funding for further exploration and
exploitation at Gchine was approved in the plan. A decision to construct a UOC plant at Gchine, known as "Project 5/15", was made on 25 August 1999.
29. During the 22-23 January 2008 meetings, Iran also provided the Agency with supporting documentation regarding the budget, the five-year plans, contracts with foreign entities and the preparation of studies and reports. The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period.
30. Regarding the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, Iran stated that the OPC, in addition to its own staff, had hired consultants and experts for various projects, including for work relating to Gchine. When budget approval was given in 1999 for exploration and exploitation at Gchine, some experts and consultants had formed a company (KM) to take on a contract from the AEOI for the Gchine plant. Supporting documentation was provided to the Agency showing that KM was registered as a company on 4 May 2000. Iran stated that KM's core staff of about half a dozen people consisted of experts who had previously worked for the OPC. At the peak of activity, the company employed over 100 people. In addition to its own staff, KM made use of experts from universities and subcontractors to work on the project.
31. According to Iran, KM was given conceptual design information by the AEOI consisting of drawings and technical reports. KM's task was to do the detailed design, to procure and install equipment and to put the Gchine UOC plant into operation. The contract imposed time constraints and the time pressure led to some mistakes being made. After the detailed design was completed, changes had to be made which led to financial problems for KM.
32. Iran stated that KM had had only one project - the one with the AEOI for construction of the Gchine UOC plant on a turnkey basis. However, the company had also helped with procurement for the AEOI because of the AEOI's procurement constraints due to sanctions (GOV/2006/15, para. 39). A document listing items procured for the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) was provided by Iran. According to Iran, because of KM's financial problems, the company ceased work on the Gchine project in June 2003, when the three-year contract with the AEOI came to an end. Iran stated that KM was officially deregistered on 8 June 2003 and provided a document supporting this statement. After KM stopped work, the OPC again took over work on the Gchine UOC plant.
33. Iran stated that KM had been able to progress quickly from its creation in May 2000 and to install foundations for the UOC plant by late December 2000 because the conceptual design for the plant had been done by the OPC. This conceptual design and other "know-how" had been supplied to KM, which used the information for the detailed design of processing equipment. KM was therefore quickly able to prepare drawings and issue purchase orders. Documents supporting the conceptual work done by the AEOI were presented to the Agency by Iran.
34. Much of the supporting information provided by Iran had not been presented to the Agency during past discussions about Gchine. The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and continues to verify this issue as part of verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.5. Alleged Studies
35. The Agency has continued to urge Iran, as demanded by the Security Council, to address the alleged studies concerning the conversion of uranium dioxide (UO2) into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) (the green salt project), high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections, and in view of their possible link to nuclear material (GOV/2007/58, para. 28). As part of the work plan, Iran agreed to address these alleged studies.
36. On 27 and 28 January 2008 and from 3 to 5 February 2008, the Agency and Iran discussed the alleged studies at meetings in Tehran. During these discussions, the Agency provided detailed information about the allegations and asked for clarification concerning other issues that had arisen during the implementation of the work plan, including the roles of PHRC, KM, the Education Research Institute (ERI) and the Institute of Applied Physics (IAP) (GOV/2004/83, paras 100-101).
37. The Agency showed Iran certain documentation which the Agency had been given by other Member States, purportedly originating from Iran, including a flow sheet of bench scale conversion of UO2 to UF4. The documents show a capacity of the process of about 1 tonne per year of UF4. The flow sheet has KM markings on it and refers to "Project 5/13." The documentation includes communications between the project staff and another private company on the acquisition of process instrumentation. These communications also make reference to the leadership of the project concerning the missile re-entry vehicle. The Agency also presented a sketch of a process to produce 50 tonnes of UF4 per year.
38. Iran stated that the allegations were baseless and that the information which the Agency had shown to Iran was fabricated. However, Iran agreed to clarify its statement in detail. On 8 February and 12 February 2008, the Agency reiterated in writing its request for additional clarifications. On 14 February 2008, Iran responded, reiterating its earlier statements and declaring that this was its final
assessment on this point. Iran stated that the only organization that had been, and was, involved in fuel cycle activities was the AEOI and that the AEOI had had a contract with KM to develop a UOC plant in Gchine, which was the only project in which KM was ever involved. In Iran's view, the flow sheet was a fabrication and the accusation baseless.
39. During the meetings on 3-5 February 2008, the Agency made available documents for examination by Iran and provided additional technical information related to: the testing of high voltage detonator firing equipment; the development of an exploding bridgewire detonator (EBW); the simultaneous firing of multiple EBW detonators; and the identification of an explosive testing
arrangement that involved the use of a 400 m shaft and a firing capability remote from the shaft by a distance of 10 km, all of which the Agency believes would be relevant to nuclear weapon R&D. Iran stated that the documents were fabricated and that the information contained in those documents could
easily be found in open sources. During the meetings mentioned above, the Agency also described parameters and development work related to the Shahab 3 missile, in particular technical aspects of a re-entry vehicle, and made available to Iran for examination a computer image provided by other Member States showing a schematic layout of the contents of the inner cone of a re-entry vehicle. This layout has been assessed by the Agency as quite likely to be able to accommodate a nuclear device. Iran stated that its missile programme involved the use of conventional warheads only and was also part of the country's space programme, and that the schematic layout shown by the Agency was baseless and fabricated.
40. During the meetings of 27-28 January and 3-5 February 2008, the Agency asked Iran to clarify a number of procurement actions by the ERI, PHRC and IAP which could relate to the abovementioned alleged studies. These included training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation and ballistic missiles. Efforts to procure spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts (GOV/2006/15, para. 37) and radiation measurement equipment, including borehole gamma spectrometers, were also made. In its written response on 5 February 2008, Iran stated that 'PAM shock' software was enquired about "in order to study aircraft, collision of cars, airbags and for the design of safety belts." Iran also stated that the radiation monitors it had enquired about were meant to be used for radiation protection purposes. Iran's response regarding the efforts to procure training courses on neutron calculations, and enrichment/isotope separation, spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources and radiation
measurement equipment for borehole gamma spectrometers is still awaited.
41. During the same meetings, the Agency requested clarification of the roles of certain officials and institutes and their relation to nuclear activities. Iran was also asked to clarify projects such as the so-called "Project 4" (possibly uranium enrichment) and laser related R&D activities. Iran denied the existence of some of the organizations and project offices referred to in the documentation and denied that other organizations named were involved in nuclear related activities. Iran also denied the existence of some of the people named in the documentation and said allegations about the roles of other people named were baseless. Iran's response to the Agency's request regarding "Project 4" and
laser related R&D activities is still awaited 42. On 15 February 2008, the Agency proposed a further meeting to show additional documentation on the alleged studies to Iran, after being authorized to do so by the countries which had provided it. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency's proposal.
B. Current Enrichment Related Activities
43. On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance.
44. On 8 November 2007, Iran stated that it "agreed that exchanging of the new centrifuge generation information" would be discussed with the Agency in December 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 33). On 13 January 2008, the Director General and Deputy Director General for Safeguards visited an AEOI R&D laboratory at Kalaye Electric, where they were given information on R&D
activities being carried out there. These included work on four different centrifuge designs: two subcritical rotor designs, a rotor with bellows and a more advanced centrifuge. Iran informed the Agency that the R&D laboratory was developing centrifuge components, measuring equipment and vacuum pumps with the aim of having entirely indigenous production capabilities in Iran.
45. On 15 January 2008, Iran informed the Agency about the planned installation of the first new generation subcritical centrifuge (IR-2) at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) and provided relevant design information. On 29 January 2008, the Agency confirmed that a single IR-2 test machine and a 10-machine IR-2 test cascade had been installed at PFEP. Iran reported that about
0.8 kg of UF6 had been fed to the single machine between 22 and 27 January 2008. Iran has continued to test P-1 centrifuges in one single machine, one 10-, one 20- and one 164-machine cascade at PFEP. Between 23 October 2007 and 21 January 2008, Iran fed a total of about 8 kg of UF6 into the single P-1 and the 10-machine P-1 cascade; no nuclear material was fed into the 20- and 164-machine cascades. At the end of January 2008, the single P-1 machine and the 10- and 20-machine P-1 cascades were dismantled and the space was used for the new IR-2 machines. All activities took place under Agency containment and surveillance.
46. On 5 February 2008, the Deputy Director General for Safeguards and the Director of Safeguards Operations B visited laboratories at Lashkar Abad, where laser enrichment activities had taken place in 2003 and earlier. The laboratories are now run by a private company, which is producing and developing laser equipment for industrial purposes. All the former laser equipment has been dismantled and some of it is stored at the site. The management of the company provided detailed information on current and planned activities, including plans for extensive new construction work, and stated that they are not carrying out, and are not planning, any uranium enrichment activities.
C. Reprocessing Activities
47. The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities.
D. Heavy Water Reactor Related Projects
48. On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating. E. Other Implementation Issues
E.1. Uranium Conversion
49. During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan.
E.2. Design Information
50. On 30 March 2007, the Agency requested Iran to reconsider its decision to suspend the implementation of the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1. (GOV/2007/22, paras 12-14), but there has been no progress on this issue. However, Iran has provided updated design information for PFEP.
E.3. Other Matters
51. On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP.
F. Summary
52. The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify these issues as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. This is a matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme. The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3-5
February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in response. Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated. The Agency's overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions still not provided by Iran. The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to Iran on 15 February 2008. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency's request of that same date for Iran to view this additional documentation on the alleged studies. In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran's nuclear programme. However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard. The Director General has urged Iran to
engage actively with the Agency in a more detailed examination of the documents available about the alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to show to Iran.
55. The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, "if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA".
56. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP. In addition, Iran started the development of new generation centrifuges. Iran has also continued construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.
57. With regard to its current programme, Iran needs to continue to build confidence about its scope and nature. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally importantly, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. With the exception of the issue of the alleged studies, which remains outstanding, the Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. Although Iran has provided some additional detailed information about its current activities on an ad hoc basis, the Agency will not be in a position to make progress towards providing credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran before reaching some clarity about the nature of the alleged studies, and without implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially
important in the light of the many years of undeclared activities in Iran and the confidence deficit created as a result. The Director General therefore urges Iran to implement all necessary measures called for by the Board of Governors and the Security Council to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.
58. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.
Board of Governors
GOV/2008/4
Date: 22 February 2008
Original: English
For official use only
Item 5(c) of the provisional agenda
(GOV/2008/6)
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran
Report by the Director General
1. On 15 November 2007, the Director General reported to the Board of Governors on the implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) (GOV/2007/58). This report covers the relevant developments since that date.
2. On 11 and 12 January 2008, the Director General met in Tehran with
H.E. Ayatollah A. Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran; H.E. Mr. M. Ahmadinejad, President of Iran; H.E. Mr. G. Aghazadeh, Vice President of Iran and President of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI); H.E. Mr. M. Mottaki, Foreign Minister; and H.E. Mr. S. Jalili, Secretary, Supreme National Security Council of Iran. The purpose of the visit was to discuss ways and means of implementing all relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the United Nations Security Council as well as accelerating implementation of the work plan agreed between Iran and the Secretariat on 21 August 2007 aimed at the clarification of outstanding safeguards implementation issues (GOV/2007/48, Attachment).
3. During the discussions, the Iranian leadership stated that the country's nuclear programme had always been exclusively for peaceful purposes and that there had never been a nuclear weapons development programme. The Iranian authorities agreed to accelerate implementation of the work plan.
A. Implementation of the Work Plan on Outstanding Issues
A.1. Source of Contamination
4. On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
5. On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
6. In a letter dated 3 January 2008, the Agency reminded Iran that Iran needed to provide additional clarifications to allow a full assessment of the issue of the source of contamination and procurement efforts.
7. In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008.
A.1.1. Use of Equipment and Source of Contamination
8. According to Iran, vacuum equipment was procured in 1990 on behalf of the technical university by the former Head of PHRC because of his expertise in procurement and PHRC's business connections. The equipment was intended to be used at the Physics Department of the technical university for the coating of items such as optical mirrors, optical lasers, laser mirrors, resistive layers
for solar cells and mirrors for use in medical operating theatres.
9. Iran stated that, upon receipt of the equipment in 1991, it was noticed that the delivery was incomplete and that some incorrect parts had been supplied. The equipment was therefore put into storage at the university. Iran further stated that a number of letters of complaint were written to the supplier company at intervals until 1994, but to no avail.
10. According to Iran, some individual pieces of equipment were used both inside and outside the university during the period 1994-2003 in research, operation and maintenance activities involving vacuum conditions, but other parts of the consignment were never used. As its explanation of how the contamination had come about, Iran said that, in 1998, an individual who was testing used centrifuge components from Pakistan at the laboratory at Vanak Square for the AEOI (GOV/2004/34, para. 31) had asked the vacuum service of the university to come and repair a pump. Iran stated that some items of the vacuum equipment mentioned above were used for this repair activity and that, when these items were eventually brought back to the university, they spread uranium particle contamination.
11. To assess the information provided by Iran, the Agency spoke with the individual from the Vanak Square laboratory and the vacuum technician from the university who had carried out the repairs. The Agency was also shown the pump that had been repaired using the equipment concerned.
The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify this issue as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.1.2. Procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC
12. According to Iran, none of the equipment purchased or enquired about by the former Head of PHRC (see para. 4 above) was intended for use in uranium enrichment or conversion related activities, whether for research and development (R&D) or for educational activities in these fields. Procurements and procurement attempts by the former Head of PHRC were said by Iran to have also been made on behalf of other entities of Iran, as described below.
13. Iran stated that the vacuum equipment purchased by the Head of PHRC had been intended for educational purposes in the Vacuum Technique Laboratory of the university, specifically for use in experiments by students on thin layer production using evaporation and vacuum techniques, coating using vacuum systems and leak detection in vacuum systems. To support its statements, Iran presented instruction manuals related to the various experiments, internal communications on the procurement of the equipment and shipping documents. Agency inspectors visited the Vacuum Technique Laboratory and confirmed the presence of the equipment there.
14. Iran stated that some magnets had also been purchased by the Head of the PHRC on behalf of the Physics Department of the university for educational purposes in "Lenz-Faraday experiments". To support this statement, Iran presented a number of documents: instruction manuals related to the experiments; requests for funding which indicated that a decision had been made to approach the Head of PHRC to order and purchase the parts; and an invoice for cash sales from the supplier. Iran stated that the magnets were discarded after being used.
15. According to Iran, the Head of PHRC attempted twice - once successfully - to buy a balancing machine for the Mechanical Engineering Department of the university for educational purposes, such as in the measurement of vibrations and forces in rotating components due to unbalancing. To support Iran's statement, the Agency was shown laboratory experiment procedures, requests about procurement and a letter confirming the completion of the purchase. Agency inspectors visited the Mechanical Engineering Department and confirmed the presence of the balancing machine there.
16. According to Iran, the Head of PHRC also attempted to purchase 45 gas cylinders, each containing 2.2 kg of fluorine, on behalf of the Office of Industrial Interrelations of the university. Iran stated that the intended purpose of the fluorine had been to enhance the chemical stability of polymeric vessels. To support its statements, Iran presented a request to buy fluorine and a communication between the Head of PHRC and the President of the university about the proposed supplier's refusal to deliver the goods.
17. Iran stated that the AEOI had encountered difficulties with procurement because of international sanctions imposed on the country, and that that was why the AEOI had requested the Dean of the university to assist in the procurement of a UF6 mass spectrometer. According to Iran, in 1988, the
Dean of the university approached the Head of the Mechanics Workshop of the Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG), which belonged to the Ministry of Sepah, and asked him to handle the procurement. According to Iran, the mass spectrometer was never delivered. The Head of the Mechanics Workshop, who was later appointed Head of PHRC when it was established in 1989, is the same person involved in the other procurement attempts mentioned above.
18. The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment. The role and activities of PHRC will be further addressed in connection with the alleged studies as discussed below.
A.2. Uranium Metal Document
19. On 8 November 2007, the Agency received a copy from Iran of the 15-page document describing the procedures for the reduction of UF6 to uranium metal and the machining of enriched uranium metal into hemispheres, which are components of nuclear weapons. Iran reiterated that this document had been received along with the P-1 centrifuge documentation in 1987 and that it had not
been requested by Iran. The Agency is still waiting for a response from Pakistan on the circumstances of the delivery of this document in order to understand the full scope and content of the offer made by the network in 1987 (GOV/2006/15, paras 20-22).
A.3. Polonium-210
20. Polonium-210 is of interest to the Agency because it can be used not only for civilian applications (such as radioisotope batteries), but also - in conjunction with beryllium - for military purposes, such as neutron initiators in some designs of nuclear weapons. On 20-21 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided
answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 regarding polonium-210 research (GOV/2007/58, para. 26). The Agency's questions included a request to see the original project documentation.
21. According to Iran, in the 1980s, scientists from the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre (TNRC) were asked to propose new research activities. A project called "Production of 210Po by the irradiation of 209Bi in the TNRC reactor" was proposed and eventually approved by the Scientific Advisory Committee of TNRC in 1988. The project consisted of fundamental research aimed at
enhancing knowledge about this process. According to Iran, it was not aimed at a specific immediate application. However, a potential use in radioisotope batteries, if the chemical extraction of polonium- 210 proved successful, was mentioned in the initial proposal.
22. Iran reiterated that the project was not part of any larger R&D project, but had been a personal initiative of the project leader. According to Iran, the chemist working on the project left the country before full chemical processing had been performed, the project was aborted and the decayed samples were discarded as waste (GOV/2004/11, para. 30).
23. To support its statements, Iran presented additional copies of papers and literature searches that had formed the basis for the request for approval of the project. Iran also provided copies of the project proposal, the meeting minutes and the approval document from the Scientific Advisory Committee of TNRC, as well as a complete copy of the reactor logbook for the entire period that the
samples were present in the reactor.
24. Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its
procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify this issue as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.4. Gchine Mine
25. On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
26. According to Iran, the exploitation of uranium at the Gchine mine, as well as the ore processing activities at the Gchine uranium ore concentration (UOC) plant, have always been and remain the responsibility of the AEOI.
27. Iran stated that, by 1989, the extent of uranium reserves at Saghand in central Iran had been established in cooperation with Chinese experts. Considering the promising output of this region, a contract for equipping the Saghand mine and designing a uranium ore processing plant was concluded
with Russian companies in 1995. Insufficient funding was allocated in the Government's 1994-1998 five-year plan for the AEOI to pursue activities at both Gchine and Saghand. Since there was more uranium (estimated 1000 tonnes) at Saghand than at Gchine (estimated 40 tonnes), it was decided to spend the available funds on Saghand.
28. According to Iran, in the period 1993-1998, tasks such as the preparation of technical reports and studies, and some chemical testing of ores, were performed at the AEOI Ore Processing Center (OPC) at TNRC. The focus of some of the documentation work had been to justify funding of Gchine in the 1999-2003 five-year plan. These efforts were successful and funding for further exploration and
exploitation at Gchine was approved in the plan. A decision to construct a UOC plant at Gchine, known as "Project 5/15", was made on 25 August 1999.
29. During the 22-23 January 2008 meetings, Iran also provided the Agency with supporting documentation regarding the budget, the five-year plans, contracts with foreign entities and the preparation of studies and reports. The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period.
30. Regarding the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, Iran stated that the OPC, in addition to its own staff, had hired consultants and experts for various projects, including for work relating to Gchine. When budget approval was given in 1999 for exploration and exploitation at Gchine, some experts and consultants had formed a company (KM) to take on a contract from the AEOI for the Gchine plant. Supporting documentation was provided to the Agency showing that KM was registered as a company on 4 May 2000. Iran stated that KM's core staff of about half a dozen people consisted of experts who had previously worked for the OPC. At the peak of activity, the company employed over 100 people. In addition to its own staff, KM made use of experts from universities and subcontractors to work on the project.
31. According to Iran, KM was given conceptual design information by the AEOI consisting of drawings and technical reports. KM's task was to do the detailed design, to procure and install equipment and to put the Gchine UOC plant into operation. The contract imposed time constraints and the time pressure led to some mistakes being made. After the detailed design was completed, changes had to be made which led to financial problems for KM.
32. Iran stated that KM had had only one project - the one with the AEOI for construction of the Gchine UOC plant on a turnkey basis. However, the company had also helped with procurement for the AEOI because of the AEOI's procurement constraints due to sanctions (GOV/2006/15, para. 39). A document listing items procured for the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) was provided by Iran. According to Iran, because of KM's financial problems, the company ceased work on the Gchine project in June 2003, when the three-year contract with the AEOI came to an end. Iran stated that KM was officially deregistered on 8 June 2003 and provided a document supporting this statement. After KM stopped work, the OPC again took over work on the Gchine UOC plant.
33. Iran stated that KM had been able to progress quickly from its creation in May 2000 and to install foundations for the UOC plant by late December 2000 because the conceptual design for the plant had been done by the OPC. This conceptual design and other "know-how" had been supplied to KM, which used the information for the detailed design of processing equipment. KM was therefore quickly able to prepare drawings and issue purchase orders. Documents supporting the conceptual work done by the AEOI were presented to the Agency by Iran.
34. Much of the supporting information provided by Iran had not been presented to the Agency during past discussions about Gchine. The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and continues to verify this issue as part of verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
A.5. Alleged Studies
35. The Agency has continued to urge Iran, as demanded by the Security Council, to address the alleged studies concerning the conversion of uranium dioxide (UO2) into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) (the green salt project), high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections, and in view of their possible link to nuclear material (GOV/2007/58, para. 28). As part of the work plan, Iran agreed to address these alleged studies.
36. On 27 and 28 January 2008 and from 3 to 5 February 2008, the Agency and Iran discussed the alleged studies at meetings in Tehran. During these discussions, the Agency provided detailed information about the allegations and asked for clarification concerning other issues that had arisen during the implementation of the work plan, including the roles of PHRC, KM, the Education Research Institute (ERI) and the Institute of Applied Physics (IAP) (GOV/2004/83, paras 100-101).
37. The Agency showed Iran certain documentation which the Agency had been given by other Member States, purportedly originating from Iran, including a flow sheet of bench scale conversion of UO2 to UF4. The documents show a capacity of the process of about 1 tonne per year of UF4. The flow sheet has KM markings on it and refers to "Project 5/13." The documentation includes communications between the project staff and another private company on the acquisition of process instrumentation. These communications also make reference to the leadership of the project concerning the missile re-entry vehicle. The Agency also presented a sketch of a process to produce 50 tonnes of UF4 per year.
38. Iran stated that the allegations were baseless and that the information which the Agency had shown to Iran was fabricated. However, Iran agreed to clarify its statement in detail. On 8 February and 12 February 2008, the Agency reiterated in writing its request for additional clarifications. On 14 February 2008, Iran responded, reiterating its earlier statements and declaring that this was its final
assessment on this point. Iran stated that the only organization that had been, and was, involved in fuel cycle activities was the AEOI and that the AEOI had had a contract with KM to develop a UOC plant in Gchine, which was the only project in which KM was ever involved. In Iran's view, the flow sheet was a fabrication and the accusation baseless.
39. During the meetings on 3-5 February 2008, the Agency made available documents for examination by Iran and provided additional technical information related to: the testing of high voltage detonator firing equipment; the development of an exploding bridgewire detonator (EBW); the simultaneous firing of multiple EBW detonators; and the identification of an explosive testing
arrangement that involved the use of a 400 m shaft and a firing capability remote from the shaft by a distance of 10 km, all of which the Agency believes would be relevant to nuclear weapon R&D. Iran stated that the documents were fabricated and that the information contained in those documents could
easily be found in open sources. During the meetings mentioned above, the Agency also described parameters and development work related to the Shahab 3 missile, in particular technical aspects of a re-entry vehicle, and made available to Iran for examination a computer image provided by other Member States showing a schematic layout of the contents of the inner cone of a re-entry vehicle. This layout has been assessed by the Agency as quite likely to be able to accommodate a nuclear device. Iran stated that its missile programme involved the use of conventional warheads only and was also part of the country's space programme, and that the schematic layout shown by the Agency was baseless and fabricated.
40. During the meetings of 27-28 January and 3-5 February 2008, the Agency asked Iran to clarify a number of procurement actions by the ERI, PHRC and IAP which could relate to the abovementioned alleged studies. These included training courses on neutron calculations, the effect of shock waves on metal, enrichment/isotope separation and ballistic missiles. Efforts to procure spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources, special steel parts (GOV/2006/15, para. 37) and radiation measurement equipment, including borehole gamma spectrometers, were also made. In its written response on 5 February 2008, Iran stated that 'PAM shock' software was enquired about "in order to study aircraft, collision of cars, airbags and for the design of safety belts." Iran also stated that the radiation monitors it had enquired about were meant to be used for radiation protection purposes. Iran's response regarding the efforts to procure training courses on neutron calculations, and enrichment/isotope separation, spark gaps, shock wave software, neutron sources and radiation
measurement equipment for borehole gamma spectrometers is still awaited.
41. During the same meetings, the Agency requested clarification of the roles of certain officials and institutes and their relation to nuclear activities. Iran was also asked to clarify projects such as the so-called "Project 4" (possibly uranium enrichment) and laser related R&D activities. Iran denied the existence of some of the organizations and project offices referred to in the documentation and denied that other organizations named were involved in nuclear related activities. Iran also denied the existence of some of the people named in the documentation and said allegations about the roles of other people named were baseless. Iran's response to the Agency's request regarding "Project 4" and
laser related R&D activities is still awaited 42. On 15 February 2008, the Agency proposed a further meeting to show additional documentation on the alleged studies to Iran, after being authorized to do so by the countries which had provided it. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency's proposal.
B. Current Enrichment Related Activities
43. On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance.
44. On 8 November 2007, Iran stated that it "agreed that exchanging of the new centrifuge generation information" would be discussed with the Agency in December 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 33). On 13 January 2008, the Director General and Deputy Director General for Safeguards visited an AEOI R&D laboratory at Kalaye Electric, where they were given information on R&D
activities being carried out there. These included work on four different centrifuge designs: two subcritical rotor designs, a rotor with bellows and a more advanced centrifuge. Iran informed the Agency that the R&D laboratory was developing centrifuge components, measuring equipment and vacuum pumps with the aim of having entirely indigenous production capabilities in Iran.
45. On 15 January 2008, Iran informed the Agency about the planned installation of the first new generation subcritical centrifuge (IR-2) at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP) and provided relevant design information. On 29 January 2008, the Agency confirmed that a single IR-2 test machine and a 10-machine IR-2 test cascade had been installed at PFEP. Iran reported that about
0.8 kg of UF6 had been fed to the single machine between 22 and 27 January 2008. Iran has continued to test P-1 centrifuges in one single machine, one 10-, one 20- and one 164-machine cascade at PFEP. Between 23 October 2007 and 21 January 2008, Iran fed a total of about 8 kg of UF6 into the single P-1 and the 10-machine P-1 cascade; no nuclear material was fed into the 20- and 164-machine cascades. At the end of January 2008, the single P-1 machine and the 10- and 20-machine P-1 cascades were dismantled and the space was used for the new IR-2 machines. All activities took place under Agency containment and surveillance.
46. On 5 February 2008, the Deputy Director General for Safeguards and the Director of Safeguards Operations B visited laboratories at Lashkar Abad, where laser enrichment activities had taken place in 2003 and earlier. The laboratories are now run by a private company, which is producing and developing laser equipment for industrial purposes. All the former laser equipment has been dismantled and some of it is stored at the site. The management of the company provided detailed information on current and planned activities, including plans for extensive new construction work, and stated that they are not carrying out, and are not planning, any uranium enrichment activities.
C. Reprocessing Activities
47. The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities.
D. Heavy Water Reactor Related Projects
48. On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating. E. Other Implementation Issues
E.1. Uranium Conversion
49. During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan.
E.2. Design Information
50. On 30 March 2007, the Agency requested Iran to reconsider its decision to suspend the implementation of the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1. (GOV/2007/22, paras 12-14), but there has been no progress on this issue. However, Iran has provided updated design information for PFEP.
E.3. Other Matters
51. On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP.
F. Summary
52. The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan, with the exception of the alleged studies. Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
53. The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify these issues as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran's declarations.
54. The one major remaining issue relevant to the nature of Iran's nuclear programme is the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle. This is a matter of serious concern and critical to an assessment of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme. The Agency was able to show some relevant documentation to Iran on 3-5
February 2008 and is still examining the allegations made and the statements provided by Iran in response. Iran has maintained that these allegations are baseless and that the data have been fabricated. The Agency's overall assessment requires, inter alia, an understanding of the role of the uranium metal document, and clarifications concerning the procurement activities of some military related institutions still not provided by Iran. The Agency only received authorization to show some further material to Iran on 15 February 2008. Iran has not yet responded to the Agency's request of that same date for Iran to view this additional documentation on the alleged studies. In light of the above, the Agency is not yet in a position to determine the full nature of Iran's nuclear programme. However, it should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard. The Director General has urged Iran to
engage actively with the Agency in a more detailed examination of the documents available about the alleged studies which the Agency has been authorized to show to Iran.
55. The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, "if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA".
56. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP. In addition, Iran started the development of new generation centrifuges. Iran has also continued construction of the IR-40 reactor and operation of the Heavy Water Production Plant.
57. With regard to its current programme, Iran needs to continue to build confidence about its scope and nature. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally importantly, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. With the exception of the issue of the alleged studies, which remains outstanding, the Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. Although Iran has provided some additional detailed information about its current activities on an ad hoc basis, the Agency will not be in a position to make progress towards providing credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran before reaching some clarity about the nature of the alleged studies, and without implementation of the Additional Protocol. This is especially
important in the light of the many years of undeclared activities in Iran and the confidence deficit created as a result. The Director General therefore urges Iran to implement all necessary measures called for by the Board of Governors and the Security Council to build confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.
58. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.
ElBaradei Dismisses US Claims about Iran's N. Drive
TEHRAN (FNA)- Results of a four-year-long probe into Iran's nuclear activities presented in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency chief in Vienna on Friday rejected West's allegations about Iran's nuclear drive, and completed Washington's failure in the nuclear standoff with Tehran.
The report said that Iran has provided convincing responses to the questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear activities, and thus annulled legal or technical justification for continued UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
In his eleven-page report to the Board of Governors, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Tehran has removed ambiguities about its nuclear activities within the framework of an action plan agreed by the two sides earlier.
A summary of the IAEA report follows - while interested readers could find the detailed text of the same report on FNA's main story page.
The following is a synopsis of the main issues mentioned in ElBaradei's report.
"On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
"On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
"In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008," ElBaradei said in his report.
"The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," he added.
Regarding procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC, the report said, "The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment.
"Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," ElBaradei said in his report about IAEA's next question on Iran's nuclear activities.
The UN nuclear watchdog chief further touched on another item in question , and said, "On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
"The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period."
ElBaradei further pointed to the results of the IAEA probe into the next item in question about Iran's nuclear activities, i.e. the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, and said, " The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding…"
Regarding Iran's current enrichment-related activities, the report said, "On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance."
"The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities."
"On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating."
"During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan."
"On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP," the report said about Iran's current nuclear activities, reiterating several times that all such activities by Iran are under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Summary
"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan… .
"Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
"The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage," the IAEA report said.
With regard to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle, the IAEA report said, "It should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."
"The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, 'if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA'."
"…The Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," ElBaradei concluded.
Western Media Ignore ElBaradei's Report
TEHRAN (FNA)- Western media ignored a decisive report issued in Vienna on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear activities, which ended a four-year-long probe into the Islamic Republic's nuclear drive and activities.
Western, specially US, media made extensive maneuvers on ElBaradei's report in previous cases, but this time they refrained from informing the public opinion in the West about the positive report by the UN nuclear watchdog chief on Iran's nuclear activities and cooperation with the IAEA.
Western media started a vast coverage of a draft UN Security Council resolution on Iran officially presented to the UNSC on Friday, instead.
The United Nations Security Council has already slapped Iran with two sets of sanctions under US pressures and on the pretext of Washington's unfounded claims about non-peaceful drives of Iran's nuclear programs.
The Friday report by the IAEA chief demolished rationale of the US-led West for the imposition of fresh sanctions on Iran.
Washington laid much pressure on ElBaradei to include some negative or, at least, two-sided points in his Friday report in order for the US to be able to continue pressures, including fresh UN Security Council sanctions, on Iran.
The US is at loggerheads with Iran over Tehran's independent and home-grown nuclear technology. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.
Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicted the recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs. Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and a similar report by the IAEA head in November which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, Russia and China increased resistance to any further punitive measures by the Security Council.
Tehran says it never worked on atomic weapons and wants to enrich uranium merely for civilian purposes, including generation of electricity, a claim substantiated by the NIE and IAEA reports.
Iran has insisted it would continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhovin.
Not only many Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but also many other world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports saying Iran had increased cooperation with the agency.
US President George W. Bush, who finished a tour of the Middle East earlier this month has called on his Arab allies to unite against Iran.
But hosting officials of the regional nations dismissed Bush's allegations, describing Tehran as a good friend of their countries.
Bush's attempt to rally international pressure against Iran has lost steam due to the growing international vigilance, specially following the latest IAEA and US intelligence reports.
The report said that Iran has provided convincing responses to the questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on its nuclear activities, and thus annulled legal or technical justification for continued UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.
In his eleven-page report to the Board of Governors, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announced that Tehran has removed ambiguities about its nuclear activities within the framework of an action plan agreed by the two sides earlier.
A summary of the IAEA report follows - while interested readers could find the detailed text of the same report on FNA's main story page.
The following is a synopsis of the main issues mentioned in ElBaradei's report.
"On 15 September 2007, the Agency provided Iran with questions relating to the source of the uranium particle contamination found on some equipment at a technical university, the nature of the equipment, the envisioned use of the equipment and the names and roles of individuals and entities involved, including the Physics Research Centre (PHRC) (GOV/2007/58, para. 24). This equipment was procured by the former head of PHRC, who had also been a professor at the university. He had also procured, or attempted to procure, other equipment, such as balancing machines, mass spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment, which could be useful in uranium enrichment activities (GOV/2006/27, para. 25).
"On 10-12 December 2007 and on 15-16 December 2007, meetings took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions and the Agency requested additional clarifications regarding the intended purpose of the equipment, the persons and entities who had requested the items, the recipients, and the use and locations, both past and present, of the equipment. In a follow-up letter dated 18 December 2007, the Agency provided Iran with further details regarding the equipment.
"In a letter dated 8 January 2008, Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter of 3 January 2008," ElBaradei said in his report.
"The Agency made a detailed analysis of the signatures of the contamination of the equipment and compared them with those of the swipe samples taken from the centrifuge components in Iran which had originated in Pakistan. The Agency concluded that the explanation and supporting documentation provided by Iran regarding the possible source of contamination by uranium particles at the university were not inconsistent with the data currently available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," he added.
Regarding procurement activities by the former Head of PHRC, the report said, "The Agency took note of the information and supporting documents provided by Iran as well as the statements made by the former Head of PHRC to the Agency and concluded that the replies were not inconsistent with the stated use of the equipment.
"Based on an examination of all information provided by Iran, the Agency concluded that the explanations concerning the content and magnitude of the polonium-210 experiments were consistent with the Agency's findings and with other information available to it. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage," ElBaradei said in his report about IAEA's next question on Iran's nuclear activities.
The UN nuclear watchdog chief further touched on another item in question , and said, "On 22 and 23 January 2008, a meeting took place in Tehran between the Agency and Iranian officials during which Iran provided answers to the questions raised by the Agency in its letter dated 15 September 2007 (GOV/2007/58, para. 27) with a view to achieving a better understanding of the
complex arrangements governing the past and current administration of the Gchine uranium mine and mill (GOV/2005/67, paras 26-31).
"The Agency concluded that the documentation was sufficient to confirm the AEOI's continuing interest in and activity at Gchine in the 1993-1999 period."
ElBaradei further pointed to the results of the IAEA probe into the next item in question about Iran's nuclear activities, i.e. the origin and role of the Kimia Maadan (KM) Company, and said, " The Agency concluded that the information and explanations provided by Iran were supported by the documentation, the content of which is consistent with the information already available to the Agency. The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding…"
Regarding Iran's current enrichment-related activities, the report said, "On 12 December 2007, the first physical inventory taking was carried out at the Fuel
Enrichment Plant (FEP) in Natanz and verified by the Agency. Since the beginning of operations in February 2007, a total of 1670 kg of UF6 had been fed into the cascades. The operator presented, inter alia, about 75 kg of UF6 as the product, with a stated enrichment of 3.8% U-235. The throughput of the facility has been well below its declared design capacity. There has been no installation of centrifuges outside the original 18-cascade area. Installation work, including equipment and sub-header pipes, is continuing for other cascade areas. Since March 2007, a total of nine unannounced inspections have been carried out at FEP. All nuclear material at FEP remains under Agency containment and
surveillance."
"The Agency has continued monitoring the use and construction of hot cells at the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), the Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility (the MIX Facility) and the Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) through inspections and design information verification. There have been no indications of ongoing reprocessing related activities at those facilities. In addition, Iran has stated that there have been no reprocessing related R&D activities in Iran, which the Agency can confirm only with respect to these facilities."
"On 5 February 2008, the Agency carried out design information verification at the IR-40 and noted that construction of the facility was ongoing. The Agency has continued to monitor the construction of the Heavy Water Production Plant using satellite imagery. The imagery appears to indicate that the plant is operating."
"During the current conversion campaign at UCF, which began on 31 March 2007, approximately 120 tonnes of uranium in the form of UF6 had been produced as of 2 February 2008. This brings the total amount of UF6 produced at UCF since March 2004 to 309 tonnes, all of which remains under Agency containment and surveillance. Iran has stated that it is carrying out no uranium
conversion related R&D activities other than those at Esfahan."
"On 26 November 2007, the Agency verified and sealed in the Russian Federation the fresh fuel foreseen for the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP), before its shipment to Iran. As of February 2008, all fuel assemblies had been received, verified and re-sealed at BNPP," the report said about Iran's current nuclear activities, reiterating several times that all such activities by Iran are under supervision of the UN nuclear watchdog agency.
Summary
"The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has provided the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with declared nuclear material and activities. Iran has also responded to questions and provided clarifications and amplifications on the issues raised in the context of the work plan… .
"Iran has provided access to individuals in response to the Agency's requests. Although direct access has not been provided to individuals said to be associated with the alleged studies, responses have been provided in writing to some of the Agency's questions.
"The Agency has been able to conclude that answers provided by Iran, in accordance with the work plan, are consistent with its findings - in the case of the polonium-210 experiments and the Gchine mine - or are not inconsistent with its findings - in the case of the contamination at the technical university and the procurement activities of the former Head of PHRC. Therefore, the
Agency considers those questions no longer outstanding at this stage," the IAEA report said.
With regard to the alleged studies on the green salt project, high explosives testing and the missile re-entry vehicle, the IAEA report said, "It should be noted that the Agency has not detected the use of nuclear material in connection with the alleged studies, nor does it have credible information in this regard."
"The Agency has recently received from Iran additional information similar to that which Iran had previously provided pursuant to the Additional Protocol, as well as updated design information. As a result, the Agency's knowledge about Iran's current declared nuclear programme has become clearer. However, this information has been provided on an ad hoc basis and not in a consistent and
complete manner. The Director General has continued to urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol at the earliest possible date and as an important confidence building measure requested by the Board of Governors and affirmed by the Security Council. The Director General has also urged Iran to implement the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1 on the early provision of design information. Iran has expressed its readiness to implement the provisions of the Additional Protocol and the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, 'if the nuclear file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA'."
"…The Agency has no concrete information about possible current undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran," ElBaradei concluded.
Western Media Ignore ElBaradei's Report
TEHRAN (FNA)- Western media ignored a decisive report issued in Vienna on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei on Iran's nuclear activities, which ended a four-year-long probe into the Islamic Republic's nuclear drive and activities.
Western, specially US, media made extensive maneuvers on ElBaradei's report in previous cases, but this time they refrained from informing the public opinion in the West about the positive report by the UN nuclear watchdog chief on Iran's nuclear activities and cooperation with the IAEA.
Western media started a vast coverage of a draft UN Security Council resolution on Iran officially presented to the UNSC on Friday, instead.
The United Nations Security Council has already slapped Iran with two sets of sanctions under US pressures and on the pretext of Washington's unfounded claims about non-peaceful drives of Iran's nuclear programs.
The Friday report by the IAEA chief demolished rationale of the US-led West for the imposition of fresh sanctions on Iran.
Washington laid much pressure on ElBaradei to include some negative or, at least, two-sided points in his Friday report in order for the US to be able to continue pressures, including fresh UN Security Council sanctions, on Iran.
The US is at loggerheads with Iran over Tehran's independent and home-grown nuclear technology. Washington has laid much pressure on Iran to make it give up the most sensitive and advanced part of the technology, which is uranium enrichment, a process used for producing nuclear fuel for power plants.
Washington's push for additional UN penalties contradicted the recent report by 16 US intelligence bodies that endorsed the civilian nature of Iran's programs. Following the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and a similar report by the IAEA head in November which praised Iran's truthfulness about key aspects of its past nuclear activities, Russia and China increased resistance to any further punitive measures by the Security Council.
Tehran says it never worked on atomic weapons and wants to enrich uranium merely for civilian purposes, including generation of electricity, a claim substantiated by the NIE and IAEA reports.
Iran has insisted it would continue enriching uranium because it needs to provide fuel to a 300-megawatt light-water reactor it is building in the southwestern town of Darkhovin.
Not only many Iranian officials, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but also many other world nations have called the UN Security Council pressure unjustified, especially in the wake of recent IAEA reports saying Iran had increased cooperation with the agency.
US President George W. Bush, who finished a tour of the Middle East earlier this month has called on his Arab allies to unite against Iran.
But hosting officials of the regional nations dismissed Bush's allegations, describing Tehran as a good friend of their countries.
Bush's attempt to rally international pressure against Iran has lost steam due to the growing international vigilance, specially following the latest IAEA and US intelligence reports.
INDIA :Exploring p'ship in African diamond industry
22 Feb, 2008, 2015 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: With an aim to enhance collaboration with key diamond-producing regions in Africa in the field of polishing and training, Minister for State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh will visit the continent next month with a high-level trade delegation.
"We will visit diamond producing countries of Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Angola from March 21 to 28 and explore possibilities for partnership for the Indian diamond industry," Ramesh said on the sidelines of Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council function on Friday.
The four African countries are emerging as the key diamond producing regions, with several global firms planning to set up polishing units in the region.
India has been a traditional cutting and polishing hub for diamonds and in return for the rough diamonds that it would import from the African countries, it would provide training in cutting and polishing as well as technical assistance to set up local units there, he said.
The Indian diamond industry is facing competition from countries like Dubai, China, Thailand and Israel that are offering tax holidays to firms wanting to expand their businesses. Ramesh said there is need to focus on creativity, design and technology to enable the domestic diamond industry face the growing competition.
Ramesh further said states such as Jammu and Kashmir and Orissa have approached the Centre to set up gemological institutes. He said there is a need to organise training programmes in North-Eastern states as well.
India's diamond exports to the US declined by over 50 per cent last fiscal, impacted by a costlier rupee and a 6.5 per cent duty on import of diamond. Several polishing units in the country have also been forced to shut shop in recent months, a GJEPC official said.
NEW DELHI: With an aim to enhance collaboration with key diamond-producing regions in Africa in the field of polishing and training, Minister for State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh will visit the continent next month with a high-level trade delegation.
"We will visit diamond producing countries of Namibia, South Africa, Botswana and Angola from March 21 to 28 and explore possibilities for partnership for the Indian diamond industry," Ramesh said on the sidelines of Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council function on Friday.
The four African countries are emerging as the key diamond producing regions, with several global firms planning to set up polishing units in the region.
India has been a traditional cutting and polishing hub for diamonds and in return for the rough diamonds that it would import from the African countries, it would provide training in cutting and polishing as well as technical assistance to set up local units there, he said.
The Indian diamond industry is facing competition from countries like Dubai, China, Thailand and Israel that are offering tax holidays to firms wanting to expand their businesses. Ramesh said there is need to focus on creativity, design and technology to enable the domestic diamond industry face the growing competition.
Ramesh further said states such as Jammu and Kashmir and Orissa have approached the Centre to set up gemological institutes. He said there is a need to organise training programmes in North-Eastern states as well.
India's diamond exports to the US declined by over 50 per cent last fiscal, impacted by a costlier rupee and a 6.5 per cent duty on import of diamond. Several polishing units in the country have also been forced to shut shop in recent months, a GJEPC official said.
How to create a confrontation between two nations: Tying the loose ends
February 21st 2008, by Eduardo Dimas Progreso Weekly
The news that Exxon-Mobil, one of the world's largest oil companies, had sued Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) in a New York court before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has been closely covered by the international media.
Exxon-Mobil "arranged" for the New York court to order the freezing of about $300 million of PDVSA's funds in the United States. According to other information, there is a possibility that it will order the seizure of about $12 billion in PDVSA assets.
For its part, PDVSA announced the suspension of the delivery of 40,000 barrels of oil a day to Exxon-Mobil. The ICSID has not ruled on the matter, but we should remember that only in a very few occasions has it issued a ruling that favors a Third World government.
The ICSID is an instrument of the big transnationals and the visible portion of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a monstrosity that the centers of world economic power tried to create in secret to render sacred and untouchable the investments of the big corporations in underdeveloped countries.
As is known, Exxon-Mobil's lawsuit claims as its "justification" the Venezuelan government's decision to nationalize some of the concessions held by oil transnationals in the Orinoco Basin, so the Venezuelan state may hold a majority of the shares. That is the right of any independent state. The United States government itself has exercised it on several occasions recently.
Exxon-Mobil refused to accept indemnification on the basis of value in its accounting books and demanded a larger sum of money. At the end, there was no agreement. Other oil transnationals accepted and are being paid by the Venezuelan state.
As expected, the U.S. State Department announced its support for the Exxon-Mobil lawsuit. We should remember that one of the large oil tankers owned by the company was named after Condoleezza Rice. A gesture of recognition? A community of interests?
But that's a secondary issue. In reality, support from the State Department is part of the White House's plans to destabilize and destroy the Bolivarian Revolution headed by President Hugo Chávez. To prove this, I will ask you to tie some not-so-loose ends.
In his last "Hello, President" for January, Chávez said: "I alert the world about the following. The U.S. empire is creating the conditions to generate an armed conflict between Colombia and Venezuela." The Venezuelan leader was not talking just to talk. The preparations for a conflict between the two countries are very evident.
First, the chief of the U.S. armed forces' Southern Command, visited Colombia. That same week, on Jan. 19, 2008 in Bogotá, Drug Enforcement Administration chief John P. Walters accused Chávez of having become "a great facilitator of cocaine trafficking to Europe and other parts of the hemisphere."
In other words, according to Mr. Walters, the Venezuelan government is part of the traffic in drugs, even though the United Nations and other international organizations say exactly the opposite.
On Jan. 24, 2008, Colombia's Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, declared that at least three chiefs of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) live in Venezuela. He gave no details.
At the same time, Colombia's Vice President, Francisco Santos, accused the mayor of Maracaibo, Gian Carlo Di Martino, of furnishing weapons to the Colombian guerrillas, specifically the National Liberation Army (ELN), on the basis of a video that appears to be false.
For his part, Di Martino denounced "the plot that reveals a plan by the United States and the Colombian government to unleash a process of destabilization on the Venezuelan border."
Almost simultaneously, the Colombian intelligence services accused the Venezuelan government of delivering weapons and munitions to the FARC and the ELN. The U.S. State Department had formulated similar accusations in the past. The message is obvious: the Venezuelan government protects the drug traffickers and the "terrorists."
What's most interesting in all those accusations is that they are made without presenting any proof. As it happened with Iraq and now with Iran, it is a way to prepare national and international public opinion, to discredit Hugo Chávez and to create a suitable environment to start a war between two Latin American nations.
These accusations are echoed by the main U.S. and European media and the press throughout Latin America. They grandly forget the proven links between the Central Intelligence Agency and drug trafficking. If this is not a conspiracy by the highest levels of world and regional oligarchy, it's the closest thing to one, in my opinion.
Something that has drawn the attention of observers is the fact that the famous march of Feb. 4 against the FARC became, in some Colombian public squares, an act of repudiation against Hugo Chávez and Venezuela. The objective is obvious: to create an anti-Venezuelan, anti-Chávez sentiment among Colombians that could justify any action.
To the above, add the internal campaign to destabilize the Bolivarian Revolution. More than 150,000 tons of food were removed from Venezuela through the border with Colombia. Meanwhile, the opposition media promoted hoarding of foodstuffs to create an artificial shortage and stir the population into anger. If that reminds you of Salvador Allende's Chile, you're not far off the truth.
The rumors about internal problems within the ranks of the Bolivarian Revolution are numerous. One states that President Chávez is a drug addict and needs to cure himself. Those rumors come regularly from abroad, from the Empire's think tanks, and are spread by its allies in Venezuela and the rest of the world.
Apparently, it's a new version of Operation Pincers, intended to keep the Constitutional referendum of Dec. 2 from succeeding. On one hand, an internal crisis is created; on the other, an aggression inside Venezuelan territory is prepared.
In this sense, it is opportune to note the presence on the Venezuela-Colombia border (2,200 kilometers long) of Colombian paramilitary groups, linked to the Colombian military high command, that act in coordination with Venezuelan land-holders. An unspecified number of revolutionary, peasant and labor leaders have been murdered in that region.
Those groups could provoke an incident that might "justify" a confrontation between the two countries. Needless to say, Colombia would receive total support from the White House, which is interested in quashing the Bolivarian Revolution, which today is the principal force of the process of Latin American integration, the struggle against neoliberalism and the true independence of Latin America.
In recent days, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega declared that he hoped that the Colombian people would prevent a confrontation between the two countries and defined Colombia as a country occupied by the United States. The Venezuelan side should also do all it can to prevent a confrontation.
That's because a war between the two countries would be a harsh blow for the process of integration of Latin America. You don't have to be a fortune teller to realize that a chasm would split the regional governments, because some would support Colombia and the United States, others would back Venezuela.
In the end, the big losers would be the Latin American people. I believe that today, more than ever, common sense must prevail. Our people must not play the game of the imperial and oligarchic interests. They must not be tricked by provocations and must make it very clear that the cost of a military adventure against Venezuela would be unpayable from every standpoint.
Empires are usually more dangerous in decadence than while in full power. In the case of Venezuela, there is a dual situation that is not at all convenient for the imperial interests. On one hand, Venezuela is a great producer of crude oil. On the other, it heads the process of integration, independence and social justice in Latin America.
Venezuela is an obstacle to the Empire's desire to control Latin America's wealth and markets. Therefore, the Empire will do everything possible to eliminate that obstacle, no matter how much blood is spilled. Only if the progressive peoples and governments of Latin America (which so far have not taken a stand) join in common cause, can that awful intent be prevented. I invite you to meditate.
Source:Progreso Weekly
The news that Exxon-Mobil, one of the world's largest oil companies, had sued Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA) in a New York court before the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has been closely covered by the international media.
Exxon-Mobil "arranged" for the New York court to order the freezing of about $300 million of PDVSA's funds in the United States. According to other information, there is a possibility that it will order the seizure of about $12 billion in PDVSA assets.
For its part, PDVSA announced the suspension of the delivery of 40,000 barrels of oil a day to Exxon-Mobil. The ICSID has not ruled on the matter, but we should remember that only in a very few occasions has it issued a ruling that favors a Third World government.
The ICSID is an instrument of the big transnationals and the visible portion of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), a monstrosity that the centers of world economic power tried to create in secret to render sacred and untouchable the investments of the big corporations in underdeveloped countries.
As is known, Exxon-Mobil's lawsuit claims as its "justification" the Venezuelan government's decision to nationalize some of the concessions held by oil transnationals in the Orinoco Basin, so the Venezuelan state may hold a majority of the shares. That is the right of any independent state. The United States government itself has exercised it on several occasions recently.
Exxon-Mobil refused to accept indemnification on the basis of value in its accounting books and demanded a larger sum of money. At the end, there was no agreement. Other oil transnationals accepted and are being paid by the Venezuelan state.
As expected, the U.S. State Department announced its support for the Exxon-Mobil lawsuit. We should remember that one of the large oil tankers owned by the company was named after Condoleezza Rice. A gesture of recognition? A community of interests?
But that's a secondary issue. In reality, support from the State Department is part of the White House's plans to destabilize and destroy the Bolivarian Revolution headed by President Hugo Chávez. To prove this, I will ask you to tie some not-so-loose ends.
In his last "Hello, President" for January, Chávez said: "I alert the world about the following. The U.S. empire is creating the conditions to generate an armed conflict between Colombia and Venezuela." The Venezuelan leader was not talking just to talk. The preparations for a conflict between the two countries are very evident.
First, the chief of the U.S. armed forces' Southern Command, visited Colombia. That same week, on Jan. 19, 2008 in Bogotá, Drug Enforcement Administration chief John P. Walters accused Chávez of having become "a great facilitator of cocaine trafficking to Europe and other parts of the hemisphere."
In other words, according to Mr. Walters, the Venezuelan government is part of the traffic in drugs, even though the United Nations and other international organizations say exactly the opposite.
On Jan. 24, 2008, Colombia's Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, declared that at least three chiefs of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) live in Venezuela. He gave no details.
At the same time, Colombia's Vice President, Francisco Santos, accused the mayor of Maracaibo, Gian Carlo Di Martino, of furnishing weapons to the Colombian guerrillas, specifically the National Liberation Army (ELN), on the basis of a video that appears to be false.
For his part, Di Martino denounced "the plot that reveals a plan by the United States and the Colombian government to unleash a process of destabilization on the Venezuelan border."
Almost simultaneously, the Colombian intelligence services accused the Venezuelan government of delivering weapons and munitions to the FARC and the ELN. The U.S. State Department had formulated similar accusations in the past. The message is obvious: the Venezuelan government protects the drug traffickers and the "terrorists."
What's most interesting in all those accusations is that they are made without presenting any proof. As it happened with Iraq and now with Iran, it is a way to prepare national and international public opinion, to discredit Hugo Chávez and to create a suitable environment to start a war between two Latin American nations.
These accusations are echoed by the main U.S. and European media and the press throughout Latin America. They grandly forget the proven links between the Central Intelligence Agency and drug trafficking. If this is not a conspiracy by the highest levels of world and regional oligarchy, it's the closest thing to one, in my opinion.
Something that has drawn the attention of observers is the fact that the famous march of Feb. 4 against the FARC became, in some Colombian public squares, an act of repudiation against Hugo Chávez and Venezuela. The objective is obvious: to create an anti-Venezuelan, anti-Chávez sentiment among Colombians that could justify any action.
To the above, add the internal campaign to destabilize the Bolivarian Revolution. More than 150,000 tons of food were removed from Venezuela through the border with Colombia. Meanwhile, the opposition media promoted hoarding of foodstuffs to create an artificial shortage and stir the population into anger. If that reminds you of Salvador Allende's Chile, you're not far off the truth.
The rumors about internal problems within the ranks of the Bolivarian Revolution are numerous. One states that President Chávez is a drug addict and needs to cure himself. Those rumors come regularly from abroad, from the Empire's think tanks, and are spread by its allies in Venezuela and the rest of the world.
Apparently, it's a new version of Operation Pincers, intended to keep the Constitutional referendum of Dec. 2 from succeeding. On one hand, an internal crisis is created; on the other, an aggression inside Venezuelan territory is prepared.
In this sense, it is opportune to note the presence on the Venezuela-Colombia border (2,200 kilometers long) of Colombian paramilitary groups, linked to the Colombian military high command, that act in coordination with Venezuelan land-holders. An unspecified number of revolutionary, peasant and labor leaders have been murdered in that region.
Those groups could provoke an incident that might "justify" a confrontation between the two countries. Needless to say, Colombia would receive total support from the White House, which is interested in quashing the Bolivarian Revolution, which today is the principal force of the process of Latin American integration, the struggle against neoliberalism and the true independence of Latin America.
In recent days, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega declared that he hoped that the Colombian people would prevent a confrontation between the two countries and defined Colombia as a country occupied by the United States. The Venezuelan side should also do all it can to prevent a confrontation.
That's because a war between the two countries would be a harsh blow for the process of integration of Latin America. You don't have to be a fortune teller to realize that a chasm would split the regional governments, because some would support Colombia and the United States, others would back Venezuela.
In the end, the big losers would be the Latin American people. I believe that today, more than ever, common sense must prevail. Our people must not play the game of the imperial and oligarchic interests. They must not be tricked by provocations and must make it very clear that the cost of a military adventure against Venezuela would be unpayable from every standpoint.
Empires are usually more dangerous in decadence than while in full power. In the case of Venezuela, there is a dual situation that is not at all convenient for the imperial interests. On one hand, Venezuela is a great producer of crude oil. On the other, it heads the process of integration, independence and social justice in Latin America.
Venezuela is an obstacle to the Empire's desire to control Latin America's wealth and markets. Therefore, the Empire will do everything possible to eliminate that obstacle, no matter how much blood is spilled. Only if the progressive peoples and governments of Latin America (which so far have not taken a stand) join in common cause, can that awful intent be prevented. I invite you to meditate.
Source:Progreso Weekly
Returning fighters, Algerian style
21:49 19/ 02/ 2008
MOSCOW. (Nikita Petrov exclusively for RIA Novosti) - Algeria will return 15 MiG-29SMT (Fulcrum) fighters purchased from the MiG corporation in 2006-2007 to Russia.
The deal on the return was signed shortly before Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika visited Moscow.
The ensuing scandal was picked up by the press.
This is an unpleasant incident not only because Algeria has thereby expressed its dissatisfaction over the quality of Russian exports. This brings into doubt the entire military-technical cooperation between the two countries with a price tag of $7 billion. This is the sum of the contracts signed by Russian representatives during Vladimir Putin's visit to Algeria.
This is the first demonstrative return during Russia's entire military-technical cooperation with foreign countries. What is the reason behind it?
Although military-technical cooperation is a sensitive subject, and not everything is known for sure, experts see many reasons behind this decision. One of them is the struggle between different political groups and clans in Algeria. Arms supplies always involve middlemen who receive impressive shares for their services. Those who get nothing are naturally displeased about this. Intrigues are always part of these deals, but when those who sign the contracts possess real power, scandals never acquire global dimensions.
Competition is another reason. Paris was going to sell its own Rafale fighters to Algeria, but the Algerians opted for the MiGs. The terms of the contract were very good. First, the price of the Russian fighters was much lower and the characteristics were very much the same. Second, by buying the fighters Algeria was paying off its debt to the former Soviet Union and its successor Russia. Moreover, as part of the payment, Russia offered to take back 36 old MiGs that had been bought by Algeria from Ukraine and Belarus, and flown by the Algerian Air Force. Who would refuse such incentives?
It is hard to believe that the MiG-29SMTs (one-seat and two-seat combat and training versions) were of poor quality. Off the record, Russian arms exporters maintain that before being sent to the south Mediterranean coast, the fighters were approved by Algerian experts. They also checked them up upon arrival in the country, and even started flying them. How can they now complain of defects, used spare parts or rusted units? Why didn't they see them before? But the time for rhetorical questions has gone. Russia has signed the deal on the return of 15 fighters and is obliged to take them back.
However, the Algerian experts are right when they talk about a drop in quality of Russian arms exports. This is openly admitted by top-ranking officials in charge of the Russian military-industrial sector, such as First Deputy Prime Minister and head of the military and industrial commission Sergei Ivanov and his first deputy Vladislav Putilin.
At a recent Academy of Military Sciences conference, Putilin said that "although the enterprises of the military-industrial sector have increased their turnout by more than 14% (military production went up by 19.1%, and civilian by 7.6%), some of them are simply unable to fulfill state-awarded contracts. Moreover, they cannot even use the allocated funds. The federal budget has long been generous. Thus, 800 billion rubles ($28 billion) were earmarked for defense purposes for 2008, 900 billion rubles ($33 billion) for 2009, and 1.1 trillion rubles (40 billion) for 2010."
The reasons for this situation are well known. Highly qualified personnel have come close to retirement age. Machines and technologies are becoming obsolescent - capital equipment in the defense industry is more than 30 years old. Major technologies have been lost, usual contacts severed, and the required raw materials and equipment are in short supply. The price of energy has skyrocketed. It is leaving the inflation rate far behind and greatly exceeds the deflators fixed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade.
It is already clear that the 2006-2015 state defense order endorsed just two years ago will not be fulfilled either in the range or number of products. This is the third order that the defense industry will not be able cope with.
Graduates of technical colleges are reluctant to work in the defense industry. Salaries are rather low, and career opportunities cannot compete with those in the oil and gas industry. In order to become a leading expert, a graduate has to work in the defense sector for at least 10 years. This is a slow process.
And there is another reason. Before, young people were not drafted if they worked at a military plant called a mailbox. Now this benefit does not exist. After graduating from a technical vocational school or college, young people take any job rather than going to a place where getting a foreign passport may become a hassle.
One more problem is that technical vocational schools no longer exist. Nobody is training future workers. Good turners, assembly fitters and welders are worth their weight in gold. Without them, it is impossible to build high-quality aircraft, ships, or missiles.
Putilin said that the "reasons for this situation in the defense industry are known. Talk about these problems in different formats and by all branches of power has become a ritual, but it is not always possible to coordinate the efforts by federal executive bodies, organizations, and enterprises aimed at removing these obstacles."
Apparently, the MiG fighters to be returned by Algeria are a major example of these problems that are discussed at length but not resolved. This scandal may not only affect bilateral relations between Russia and Algeria. It has also dealt a heavy blow to Russia's image as arms exporter. This is fraught with big problems for the future. Mistakes on the world's arms market spell enormous losses.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Standard" downing of spy satellite
19:51 | 21/ 02/ 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - On February 21, the modified Standard Missile SM3 shot down US 193, a dying, bus-sized U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with Earth.
There are more pro than con arguments concerning this decision, because few people would have liked to die because of the collision.
The spy satellite, known as US 193, was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
The operation answered a crucial question. Experts had wondered if the United States had not only area defense systems, but also ship-based theater missile defense ones. Now we know: the satellite was downed with a single missile fired from a navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean. It means that the United States has anti-satellite capability.
It was a good chance for the Americans to test the new missile without searching for a pretext and arousing unnecessary suspicion. SM3, a product of the Star Wars (SDI) program of the 1980s, did its job very well.
Even though it was partly chance, the rest was hard work to create a navy with an air and missile defense capability stationed in all potentially dangerous parts of the world.
President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, initiated to protect the West from the Soviet viper, produced quite a few highly effective air defense systems and ideas. For example, the Americans tried using the Aegis as part of the theater missile defense system.
The first Aegis cruiser, USS Ticonderoga, was used in fighting in Lebanon in 1983, where it provided artillery support and air defense to U.S. task groups against aviation and missile strikes.
The Aegis combat system has a Spy-1A radar with two stationary phased array antennas and two Standard SM-2-ER solid-fuel two-stage missiles. It is highly effective against aircraft interacting with high- and low-flying anti-ship missiles in conditions of electronic warfare.
These characteristics were an ideal basis for creating a kill vehicle against ballistic missiles and low-orbit satellites.
In the mid-1980s, Americans started researching the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), which a group of companies led by Boeing later created under a contract with the navy.
The first successful test of the missile, called Standard Missile SM3, was held on September 24, 1999, when the missile followed the designated trajectory. In 2001, the navy decided to use it for intercepting a ballistic target. On November 21, 2002, the interceptor missile launched from the USS Lake Erie guided-missile cruiser hit an Aries target missile flying at an altitude of 152 km (94 miles) 170 km (106 miles) away from the ship.
Today the U.S. Navy has three ships armed with the Standard/Aegis combat system, one of which, the USS Lake Erie, launched the missile that downed the dying spy satellite.
Americans spent nearly three weeks adjusting the SM3 missile for the task, because the characteristics of a ballistic target differ from the parameters of a satellite, such as speed and temperature. They had to reprogram the guidance system of the kinetic warhead. Their success has confirmed the modernization potential of the system.
Unfortunately, the Russian armed forces are not doing anything similar to strengthen their air defense element. President Vladimir Putin formulated the task in 2001, at the beginning of his first term. So far, there has been no more than talk about consolidating all aerospace defense elements under one command, for example, the Air Force.
I have no questions about the idea, but what about its implementation?
The S-400 Triumf (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler), which was put on combat duty near Moscow last year, has been said to have space capabilities. However, we will be able to do what SM3 has done only when we implement the project, launched in early 2007, to create a fifth-generation aerospace/missile defense system.
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) - On February 21, the modified Standard Missile SM3 shot down US 193, a dying, bus-sized U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with Earth.
There are more pro than con arguments concerning this decision, because few people would have liked to die because of the collision.
The spy satellite, known as US 193, was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
The operation answered a crucial question. Experts had wondered if the United States had not only area defense systems, but also ship-based theater missile defense ones. Now we know: the satellite was downed with a single missile fired from a navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean. It means that the United States has anti-satellite capability.
It was a good chance for the Americans to test the new missile without searching for a pretext and arousing unnecessary suspicion. SM3, a product of the Star Wars (SDI) program of the 1980s, did its job very well.
Even though it was partly chance, the rest was hard work to create a navy with an air and missile defense capability stationed in all potentially dangerous parts of the world.
President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, initiated to protect the West from the Soviet viper, produced quite a few highly effective air defense systems and ideas. For example, the Americans tried using the Aegis as part of the theater missile defense system.
The first Aegis cruiser, USS Ticonderoga, was used in fighting in Lebanon in 1983, where it provided artillery support and air defense to U.S. task groups against aviation and missile strikes.
The Aegis combat system has a Spy-1A radar with two stationary phased array antennas and two Standard SM-2-ER solid-fuel two-stage missiles. It is highly effective against aircraft interacting with high- and low-flying anti-ship missiles in conditions of electronic warfare.
These characteristics were an ideal basis for creating a kill vehicle against ballistic missiles and low-orbit satellites.
In the mid-1980s, Americans started researching the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP), which a group of companies led by Boeing later created under a contract with the navy.
The first successful test of the missile, called Standard Missile SM3, was held on September 24, 1999, when the missile followed the designated trajectory. In 2001, the navy decided to use it for intercepting a ballistic target. On November 21, 2002, the interceptor missile launched from the USS Lake Erie guided-missile cruiser hit an Aries target missile flying at an altitude of 152 km (94 miles) 170 km (106 miles) away from the ship.
Today the U.S. Navy has three ships armed with the Standard/Aegis combat system, one of which, the USS Lake Erie, launched the missile that downed the dying spy satellite.
Americans spent nearly three weeks adjusting the SM3 missile for the task, because the characteristics of a ballistic target differ from the parameters of a satellite, such as speed and temperature. They had to reprogram the guidance system of the kinetic warhead. Their success has confirmed the modernization potential of the system.
Unfortunately, the Russian armed forces are not doing anything similar to strengthen their air defense element. President Vladimir Putin formulated the task in 2001, at the beginning of his first term. So far, there has been no more than talk about consolidating all aerospace defense elements under one command, for example, the Air Force.
I have no questions about the idea, but what about its implementation?
The S-400 Triumf (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler), which was put on combat duty near Moscow last year, has been said to have space capabilities. However, we will be able to do what SM3 has done only when we implement the project, launched in early 2007, to create a fifth-generation aerospace/missile defense system.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
The unique case of U.S. Embassy on fire
21:25 | 22/ 02/ 2008
Dmitry Gornostayev, head of RIA Novosti office in New York - When television showed the burning American Embassy in Belgrade and crawling APCs (carrying Serbian policemen who had no desire to disperse Serbs with Molotov's cocktails), I wondered how soon will the Americans recall international law and the Vienna Convention, which safeguards the immunity of diplomats and embassies? They were very quick.
But an appeal by Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to the Serbs to respect international law sounded somewhat ridiculous. What is he talking about? He and his colleagues violated it themselves last Monday by recognizing Kosovo's independence.
It is strange to hear words of indignation when the situation developed exactly the way he wanted it to. OK, let's agree that Kosovo is a unique case. The burning of the embassy is a unique reply to Kosovo's unique independence. There is no need to draw any parallels or get worried. This exception will not spread to other parts of the world - other embassies cannot be burned, and this case is truly unique.
Let's repeat this idea once again. Having taken part in the annexation of part of a sovereign state, the United States is angry that someone wanted to occupy or even burn down part of its own territory - the embassy. The Department of State has justifiably appealed to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. But what about the UN Charter, which guarantees territorial integrity of sovereign states? Having recognized Kosovo's independence, Washington has openly violated Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, why is it angry at a Serbian student who did a similar thing to the U.S. Embassy? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
It was unpleasant and humiliating for the Americans to watch on TV how Serbs were setting fire to their stars and stripes, and raising a red, blue and white tricolor instead. But few of them saw how Orthodox churches were burning in Kosovo, cupolas with crosses detonated, and clergymen exposed to derision. CNN does not often remind its audience of Albanian atrocities.
It was interesting to watch journalists changing the tune in their coverage of events in Belgrade. First, they mentioned a thousands-strong crowd that somehow turned into a few nationalists, although it was the same crowd. The Americans hate to admit that they were wrong - nobody does, for that matter. But few have taken so many undemocratic and illegal actions in world policy as they have. In the United States, those guilty of such actions may face life imprisonment, if not a lethal injection, electrocution or gas chamber (how can democracy be preached by a country where 35 states allow capital punishment by such revolting methods?). Erosion of international law started with Serbia - the bombing of Belgrade in 1999. Iraq followed.
In terms of criminal law, these global actions qualify as robbery and murder. In Arkansas and Texas, these crimes are punishable by death penalty. These are home states of the last two presidents that started wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq in violation of international law. But at home, U.S. presidents do not behave like this - they are decent gentlemen playing the sax and riding a bike. But once they go outside, everyone had better scatter.
The last two presidents liked to talk about the U.S. mission before the start of a war: "The United States is called upon to guarantee...". Depending on the situation, they would continue with such phrases as "Kosovo's freedom," "peace and prosperity," or "democracy all over the world." None of them has specified who imbued the United States with this mission and what rights they had for that.
But these are details that ordinary Americans should not go into until someone in their family is killed in action. For the time being, Americans are not dying in Kosovo like they do in Iraq; and for this reason they don't ask who has urged America to help the Kosovars and whether the Kosovars had the right to do so.
Have the Kosovars appealed to the Americans? What if the Basques, Catalans, or Corsicans appeal to them? Quebec has a hard life as part of Canada, and is closer to the United States. Does the United States want to help the Turkish Kurds? Probably not, separatism is a bad word in Turkey.
Receiving reports from Belgrade, U.S. diplomat Burns appealed for help to the Serbian authorities but they could do nothing. They failed to protect the territorial integrity of both their country and the U.S. Embassy.
But the Serbian government is not guilty of unrest in Belgrade. It has lost legitimacy, having failed to preserve its territory. In this situation, it is disgraceful to scatter indignant compatriots, but they had to for fear of being brought to The Hague. This is not a good prospect for President Boris Tadic, who talked about European prospects for Serbia, or for Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, a graduate of Cambridge and Harvard. They are not ready for any responsibility.
Responsibility for the humiliated stars and stripes rests with American diplomats and officials - Burns, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Zalmay Khalilzad, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Madeleine Albright - all those who have created this unique case and have not yet realized how unique it really is.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Dmitry Gornostayev, head of RIA Novosti office in New York - When television showed the burning American Embassy in Belgrade and crawling APCs (carrying Serbian policemen who had no desire to disperse Serbs with Molotov's cocktails), I wondered how soon will the Americans recall international law and the Vienna Convention, which safeguards the immunity of diplomats and embassies? They were very quick.
But an appeal by Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to the Serbs to respect international law sounded somewhat ridiculous. What is he talking about? He and his colleagues violated it themselves last Monday by recognizing Kosovo's independence.
It is strange to hear words of indignation when the situation developed exactly the way he wanted it to. OK, let's agree that Kosovo is a unique case. The burning of the embassy is a unique reply to Kosovo's unique independence. There is no need to draw any parallels or get worried. This exception will not spread to other parts of the world - other embassies cannot be burned, and this case is truly unique.
Let's repeat this idea once again. Having taken part in the annexation of part of a sovereign state, the United States is angry that someone wanted to occupy or even burn down part of its own territory - the embassy. The Department of State has justifiably appealed to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. But what about the UN Charter, which guarantees territorial integrity of sovereign states? Having recognized Kosovo's independence, Washington has openly violated Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. So, why is it angry at a Serbian student who did a similar thing to the U.S. Embassy? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
It was unpleasant and humiliating for the Americans to watch on TV how Serbs were setting fire to their stars and stripes, and raising a red, blue and white tricolor instead. But few of them saw how Orthodox churches were burning in Kosovo, cupolas with crosses detonated, and clergymen exposed to derision. CNN does not often remind its audience of Albanian atrocities.
It was interesting to watch journalists changing the tune in their coverage of events in Belgrade. First, they mentioned a thousands-strong crowd that somehow turned into a few nationalists, although it was the same crowd. The Americans hate to admit that they were wrong - nobody does, for that matter. But few have taken so many undemocratic and illegal actions in world policy as they have. In the United States, those guilty of such actions may face life imprisonment, if not a lethal injection, electrocution or gas chamber (how can democracy be preached by a country where 35 states allow capital punishment by such revolting methods?). Erosion of international law started with Serbia - the bombing of Belgrade in 1999. Iraq followed.
In terms of criminal law, these global actions qualify as robbery and murder. In Arkansas and Texas, these crimes are punishable by death penalty. These are home states of the last two presidents that started wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq in violation of international law. But at home, U.S. presidents do not behave like this - they are decent gentlemen playing the sax and riding a bike. But once they go outside, everyone had better scatter.
The last two presidents liked to talk about the U.S. mission before the start of a war: "The United States is called upon to guarantee...". Depending on the situation, they would continue with such phrases as "Kosovo's freedom," "peace and prosperity," or "democracy all over the world." None of them has specified who imbued the United States with this mission and what rights they had for that.
But these are details that ordinary Americans should not go into until someone in their family is killed in action. For the time being, Americans are not dying in Kosovo like they do in Iraq; and for this reason they don't ask who has urged America to help the Kosovars and whether the Kosovars had the right to do so.
Have the Kosovars appealed to the Americans? What if the Basques, Catalans, or Corsicans appeal to them? Quebec has a hard life as part of Canada, and is closer to the United States. Does the United States want to help the Turkish Kurds? Probably not, separatism is a bad word in Turkey.
Receiving reports from Belgrade, U.S. diplomat Burns appealed for help to the Serbian authorities but they could do nothing. They failed to protect the territorial integrity of both their country and the U.S. Embassy.
But the Serbian government is not guilty of unrest in Belgrade. It has lost legitimacy, having failed to preserve its territory. In this situation, it is disgraceful to scatter indignant compatriots, but they had to for fear of being brought to The Hague. This is not a good prospect for President Boris Tadic, who talked about European prospects for Serbia, or for Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, a graduate of Cambridge and Harvard. They are not ready for any responsibility.
Responsibility for the humiliated stars and stripes rests with American diplomats and officials - Burns, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Holbrooke, Zalmay Khalilzad, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Madeleine Albright - all those who have created this unique case and have not yet realized how unique it really is.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Independent Kosovo: Islamist Slip Knot on Europe’s Neck
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation
21.02.2008
Pyotr ISKENDEROV
The declaration of Kosovo’s independence adopted February 17, 2008 by Albanian separatists has broken the world in two, plunging it into an abyss of total lawlessness. The United States and European nations are making haste recognising the formation they have made with their own hands. UN General Secretary Pan Kee Moon failed to make an elementary step: to recognise the bluntest violation of Resolution 1244 adopted by the UN Security Council June 10, 1999. This document still has legal force confirming “commitment of all UN member-states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Union Republic of Yugoslavia and other states in the region, as proclaimed by the Helsinki Final Act”, demanding that the problem be solved on the basis of “substantial autonomy and real self-determination for Kosovo.” Other self-proclaimed states, first and foremost, the Basques and the leadership of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus have already stated their resolve to invigorate their struggle directing it along the lines of the Kosovo scenario. And in the north of this Serbian province there have already been first clashes that forebode a new wind of inter-ethnic violence.
All these consequences of the unilateral steps Kosovo’s Albanian separatists and their Western patrons made were as it were, lying on the surface. However, within days another dangerous dimension of the Kosovo problem, the Islamist aspect will expose itself, because no matter how resolved they are, Pristina politicians realise that the only way for Kosovo’s independence to become real it should be recognised by the leading international organisations rather than by separate countries. And while neither the UN nor the EU are prepared to do that, the top priority issue for Kosovo is to become integrated into the Organisation Islamist Conference (OIC).
Diplomats in the UN mission for the affairs of interim administration in Kosovo told the author of this article in privacy that the main “reserve” of international recognition of independent Kosovo would be exactly member-states of OIC, an umbrella organisation for 57 countries.
“According to our information all the OIC members could recognise the act of independence within a week after its adoption, except, possibly, for Indonesia that is facing the problem of separatism itself, said one of the people I have spoken to. OIC General Secretary Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has said: ”No doubt Kosovo’s independence would be a precious contribution for the Islamic world, further strengthening the common Muslim cause.” Afghanistan, occupied by NATO troops has become the first OIC member-state to recognise Kosovo’s independence. True, Indonesia, the world’s biggest Muslim state spoke against Albanian unilateral steps during discussions at the UN Security Council, arguing that a compromise should be reached by continuing negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina. Djakarta politicians realize who is mainly responsible for the failure of previous negotiations. In August of 2005, just three months before November that same year Marti Ahtisaari, a UN General Secretary’s special envoy responsible for the organisation of the negotiating process, completed his intermediary mission aimed to solve the problems of the oil-rich Muslim Indonesian province of Acheh. There he succeeded using totally different principles from those he later tried to impose on Serbia. An agreement signed on August 15, 2005 envisaged granting to Acheh the status of a special autonomy, withdrawal of government troops from that rebel province and disarmament of the units of the separatist “Movement for a Free Acheh.” The Acheh conflict was one of the bloodiest in modern history. It was raging for 30 years taking the toll of about 20,000 lives, mainly peaceful people. So all that Ahtisaari says about the inability of Serbs and Albanians to come to an agreement is nothing but brazen lie and an attempt to avoid responsibility. As for the Kosovo settlement Marti Ahtisaari became a handy tool of Washington and Brussels in unrolling their scenario of fractioning Serbia and the entire Slav Orthodox world.
But if Indonesia has some experience of handling issues of separatism, and is capable of making wise decisions, this is something other OIC states have yet to learn. Take for example Algeria and Morocco where Islamist militants became more active over the past several months, directly linked with Al Qaeda; their explosions killed dozens of people. “Organisation of Al Qaeda in Islamist Magrib” took the responsibility for the explosions. Its goal is establishment in North Africa of an extremely radical Islamist Caliphate. It is known that Kosovo and Albania in particular offer their territories to Al Qaeda’s main bases in southern Europe. If Kosovo becomes independent the territory of the projected Chaliphate will expand with a consequent growth of the scale of terrorist activities. Aside from European nations Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt will be threatened…
Egypt is a special case. Acts of terror in that country, which also intends to recognize Kosovo’s independence, are frighteningly regularly organized by Al Qaeda and organizations linked to it, “Egyptian Jihad” or “Muslim Brothers.” The case of “Albanian Veterans” comes to mind. Several years ago it drew attention of all Egyptians. Muhammad az-Zawahiri, the brother of Aiman az-Zawahiri, the second-biggest man in the structure of Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network, who doubled as the chief of “Egyptian Jihad”, an organization that planned an overthrow of the ruling regime to make Egypt a radical Islamist state. Muhammad az-Zawahiri and 107 members of the group of the so-called “Albanian veterans” were taken to the dock. The Egyptian court made a documented conclusion that a ramified network of terrorist cells and groups existed in Albania in the late 1990s. It was not accidental that a list of international terrorist organizations prepared in the USA refers to “Egyptian Jihad” as an organization with Albanian roots. Instructors in Jihaddist training camps were the same people who had trained units of the “Kosovo Liberation Army”, whose links with Al Qaeda have long stopped being secret. And the political of KLA was Kosovo’s current premier Hasim Taci.
It is symptomatic that influential U.S. media are concerned over the threat of further “Islamization” of the Balkans by way of involving Kosovo. Commenting on the prospects of Kosovo becoming a member of the OIC ”The Wall Street Journal” wrote the other day that this step would enable Pristina to count on OIC financial support, but the West would be concerned as the support would signify also political influence. And there is something else to draw attention of those who take a light-minded view of the danger of growing radical Islamism in the Balkans in connection with the escalation of Albanian separatism. In the early 2008 Albanians held behind-the-scene talks with top-level officials from the leading Persian Gulf nations on strengthening military and technical cooperation. Sheik Halifa ben-Salman al-Halifa, Bahrain’s prime-minister assured Albanian president Bamir Topi in Tirana that his country would both render full support to Kosovo and try to persuade its neighbours to recognise its independence. Negotiations in Tirana between speaker of Albanian parliament Josephine Topalli with Kuwait’s premier Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Jaber as-Sabah were an example of political trading. Topalli invited leading Kuwaiti companies to take part in tenders announced by the Albanian government. In return, Kuwait was asked to recognise Kosovo’s independence as soon as possible. To all appearances, this trade-in was a success. Albanian media said that Kuwait is going to be the first Persian Gulf state to recognize Pristina’s Independence Act. Albanian Defence Minister Fatmir Mediu visited the OAE, signing a special memorandum on mutual understanding in the area of Albanian-OAE military cooperation. His partner, OAE Chief of Joint Staffs Hamad Mohammad ar-Rumeisi referred to the military area as the chief area of development of bilateral relations. The Muslim military and political ring continues to tighten its grip on the Slav Orthodox Balkans, posing a direct threat to Europe.
U.S. Recognition Of An Al-Qaeda Infiltrated Kosovo Is Indefensible
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=kosovo2.19.08.htm
February, 19, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As we predicted in a 2005 piece, 10 Years And Counting - Still No Exit Plan From Clinton Created, European Al-Qaeda Base the radical Muslim game plan in the former Yugoslavia, which was evident from the mid 1990s has now been realized by what is perhaps George Bush’s most serious foreign policy error, the recognition of an illegal and radical Muslim state in East Central Europe - Kosovo.
As has been the case in most of America’s blunders regarding radical Islam, the United States embarked upon this disastrous path under the Clinton administration:
Throughout the region radical Muslims, originally led by Alija Izetbegovic began consolidating their power in the 1990s. During this period and leading into the Balkan civil wars tens of thousands of foreign mujahideen fighters entered coming from places as disparate as Northern Africa, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
So out in the open was this operation that in the mid 1990s bin-Laden had an office in Sarajevo, on page 58 of the 911 report we read, “Bin Ladin’s impressive array of offices covertly provided financial and other support for terrorist activities. The network included a major business enterprise in Cyprus; a “services" branch in Zagreb; an office of the Benevolencen International Foundation in Sarajevo, which supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia and Croatia."
A study by the London Institute for International Strategic Studies revealed that, "the total number of Islamic terrorists who served in the "Bosnian Army" since the beginning of the civil war is about 40,000" [see, http://www.pipelinenews.org/images/Bosnia.pdf].
A number of the 911 hijackers had cycled through Bosnia including 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed along with Nawaw al Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. The latter two being among the first selected by bin-Laden to execute the plot.
As Dr. Shaul Shay, a colonel in the Israeli Army and a recognized expert on Islamic radicalism, states, "In the beginning the main purpose was to help the local Muslims in the war against the Serbians. When the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended, terrorist infrastructures remained there and served as a basis for the Islamic terror activities in Kosovo. Today, the Balkans serve as a forefront on European soil for Islamic terror organizations, which exploit this area to promote their activities in Western Europe, and other focal points worldwide."
Given this track record, why has the West recognized Kosovo diplomatically, when by all accounts it will serve as a launching pad for terrorist operations against Western Europe?
In many ways the decision to welcome what is a renegade - nearly 100% Muslim - province of Serbia into the community of nations is inexplicable. Perhaps inertia is the best explanation, with the policy already having been set over ten years ago along with the tremendous investment of resources by NATO and the United States, the momentum to continue even a failed policy seems irresistible. Regardless the victory for the Islamists which this development represents will reverberate throughout the continent for decades, as Dr. Shay reminds us, “In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century." [Dr. Shaul Shay, Islamic Terror and the Balkans]
©1999-2008 PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved.
February, 19, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As we predicted in a 2005 piece, 10 Years And Counting - Still No Exit Plan From Clinton Created, European Al-Qaeda Base the radical Muslim game plan in the former Yugoslavia, which was evident from the mid 1990s has now been realized by what is perhaps George Bush’s most serious foreign policy error, the recognition of an illegal and radical Muslim state in East Central Europe - Kosovo.
As has been the case in most of America’s blunders regarding radical Islam, the United States embarked upon this disastrous path under the Clinton administration:
"Ignored by the leftist participants in rage-filled street demonstrations is the fact that the Clinton team's Balkan policies were viewed by establishment politicians as so outside the normal confines of American diplomacy that the actions of the US Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith and then NSC Director Anthony Lake were referred to the Justice Department by the House of Representative for possible criminal action.
"...The Iranian presence and influence [in Bosnia] jumped radically in the months following the [Clinton] green light. Iranian elements infiltrated the Bosnian government and established close ties with the current leadership in Bosnia and the next generation of leaders. Iranian Revolutionary Guards accompanied Iranian weapons into Bosnia and soon were integrated in the Bosnian military structure from top to bottom as well as operating in independent units throughout Bosnia. The Iranian intelligence service [VEVAK] ran wild through the area developing intelligence networks, setting up terrorist support systems, recruiting terrorist 'sleeper' agents and agents of influence, and insinuating itself with the Bosnian political leadership to a remarkable degree. The Iranians effectively annexed large portions of the Bosnian security apparatus [known as the Agency for Information and Documentation (AID)] to act as their intelligence and terrorist surrogates. This extended to the point of jointly planning terrorist activities. The Iranian embassy became the largest in Bosnia and its officers were given unparalleled privileges and access at every level of the Bosnian government." - Final Report, House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia, page 201 [source, ]
The Islamist penetration into the Balkans especially Kosovo should be alarming to anyone concerned over the growing threat of Islamic jihad.
Throughout the region radical Muslims, originally led by Alija Izetbegovic began consolidating their power in the 1990s. During this period and leading into the Balkan civil wars tens of thousands of foreign mujahideen fighters entered coming from places as disparate as Northern Africa, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
So out in the open was this operation that in the mid 1990s bin-Laden had an office in Sarajevo, on page 58 of the 911 report we read, “Bin Ladin’s impressive array of offices covertly provided financial and other support for terrorist activities. The network included a major business enterprise in Cyprus; a “services" branch in Zagreb; an office of the Benevolencen International Foundation in Sarajevo, which supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia and Croatia."
A study by the London Institute for International Strategic Studies revealed that, "the total number of Islamic terrorists who served in the "Bosnian Army" since the beginning of the civil war is about 40,000" [see, http://www.pipelinenews.org/images/Bosnia.pdf].
A number of the 911 hijackers had cycled through Bosnia including 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed along with Nawaw al Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. The latter two being among the first selected by bin-Laden to execute the plot.
As Dr. Shaul Shay, a colonel in the Israeli Army and a recognized expert on Islamic radicalism, states, "In the beginning the main purpose was to help the local Muslims in the war against the Serbians. When the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended, terrorist infrastructures remained there and served as a basis for the Islamic terror activities in Kosovo. Today, the Balkans serve as a forefront on European soil for Islamic terror organizations, which exploit this area to promote their activities in Western Europe, and other focal points worldwide."
Given this track record, why has the West recognized Kosovo diplomatically, when by all accounts it will serve as a launching pad for terrorist operations against Western Europe?
In many ways the decision to welcome what is a renegade - nearly 100% Muslim - province of Serbia into the community of nations is inexplicable. Perhaps inertia is the best explanation, with the policy already having been set over ten years ago along with the tremendous investment of resources by NATO and the United States, the momentum to continue even a failed policy seems irresistible. Regardless the victory for the Islamists which this development represents will reverberate throughout the continent for decades, as Dr. Shay reminds us, “In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century." [Dr. Shaul Shay, Islamic Terror and the Balkans]
©1999-2008 PipeLineNews.org, all rights reserved.
Whether Kosovo will create a precedent for other territories ?
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Maria Appakova) - More and more countries are getting ready to recognize Kosovo's independence, but many are hesitant, including some Arab and Muslim countries despite Washington's appeals to display solidarity with Kosovo Muslims.
During a briefing on Kosovo after its declaration of independence, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns welcomed the recognition of this step by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and hence, by the governments of its member countries. He said: "And we think it is a very positive step that this Muslim state, Muslim majority state, has been created today."
It's up to the Europeans to decide whether Burns is right or not, but the U.S. and European media have many apprehensions over the emergence of a Muslim enclave in the heart of Europe that is still predominantly Christian. European self-identification is one of the most sensitive issues. It is being raised over and over again - during debates on the European Constitution, the prospects of Turkey's admission into the European Union (EU), migration, or the protests after the publication of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. These debates are a European affair, but Washington is using the Islamic factor to pursue its own ends.
Today, the most urgent issue is whether Kosovo will create a precedent for other territories. This is why many Muslim and other countries do not rush to accept Kosovo's independence. The United States hoped for Islamic solidarity, but in vain.
Only three OIC members - Turkey, Afghanistan and Senegal - have recognized Kosovo's independence out of almost 60 members of the organization. Others have adopted a wait-and-see attitude because of the potential threat of a domestic split, or destabilization in neighboring countries.
Let's name some of the potentially dangerous zones - Iran with Kurdish and Azerbaijani enclaves; Morocco and the Western Sahara problem with the periodic Berber unrest; and Algeria with the same Berber problem. There are sizeable Shiite communities in the Persian Gulf monarchies. Shiites account for 75% of Bahrain's population; the relevant figure for Saudi Arabia is about 15%, Qatar 11%, and the United Arab Emirates 17%.
Relations between these communities and the government are quite complicated. The situation in Syria is also potentially explosive. The situation only appears stable, but if the central government shows weakness, inter-communal conflicts will instantly flare up. However, events in Lebanon and Iraq are much more dangerous than that.
For the time being, no politician in these conflict-prone zones has loudly expressed readiness to follow Kosovo's example. This is not because it would not be entirely correct to compare them with Kosovo from the legal and political points of view. Kosovo's independence is threatening primarily because a decision on it was made without a UN Security Council resolution. It is solely based on the support of the United States and some European countries. In other words, political circumstances have prevailed over international law. Hence, others may follow Kosovo's example. Success will depend on what Washington wants to achieve. This gives food for thought to those who may follow this example and those who are afraid of separatist attitudes in their own countries.
It is no accident that the Kurds did not follow this path in the first days after Kosovo declared independence, although many analysts and journalists, including those from America and Turkey, have been discussing the Kurdish problem in this context. They are asking why the Kurds are denied what the Kosovars have been given.
The Kurdish problem is very similar to the Kosovo case, but the political situation does not favor the Kurds. For the most part, they live in four countries - Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. No matter how much Washington would like to get at Damascus and Tehran, it will not undermine the interests of Ankara, its long-standing ally and partner. Moreover, the Americans do not even interfere with Turkey's military operations against the "Kurdish separatists." As for the Iraqi Kurds, they themselves need U.S. support that guarantees security and brings tangible political and economic benefits. This is why the Kurds are not rushing to follow Kosovo's scenario, and Ankara has boldly recognized Kosovo's independence.
Unlike the Kurds, the Palestinians were not silent. Yasser Abd Rabbo, an advisor to head of the Palestinian National Administration Mahmoud Abbas, declared that the Palestinians may follow Kosovo's example and declare unilateral independence if dialogue with Israel does not produce the desired effect. His statement was instantly refuted by other high-ranking Palestinian politicians, including Abbas himself who favors continuing the talks.
But once again, it does not matter whether the situation in Kosovo is similar to that in the Middle East, although Washington is doing all it can to prove that the Kosovo case is truly unique. Everything is much simpler. Currently, the United States stands for the continuation of Palestinian-Israeli talks and insists on an early declaration of Palestine's independence. Under different circumstances, the Palestinians will recall the Kosovo case, and will be backed by other Arab and Muslim politicians.
For the time being, most governments are pondering over what will cost them more - recognition of Kosovo's independence or neutrality.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
During a briefing on Kosovo after its declaration of independence, Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns welcomed the recognition of this step by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and hence, by the governments of its member countries. He said: "And we think it is a very positive step that this Muslim state, Muslim majority state, has been created today."
It's up to the Europeans to decide whether Burns is right or not, but the U.S. and European media have many apprehensions over the emergence of a Muslim enclave in the heart of Europe that is still predominantly Christian. European self-identification is one of the most sensitive issues. It is being raised over and over again - during debates on the European Constitution, the prospects of Turkey's admission into the European Union (EU), migration, or the protests after the publication of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad. These debates are a European affair, but Washington is using the Islamic factor to pursue its own ends.
Today, the most urgent issue is whether Kosovo will create a precedent for other territories. This is why many Muslim and other countries do not rush to accept Kosovo's independence. The United States hoped for Islamic solidarity, but in vain.
Only three OIC members - Turkey, Afghanistan and Senegal - have recognized Kosovo's independence out of almost 60 members of the organization. Others have adopted a wait-and-see attitude because of the potential threat of a domestic split, or destabilization in neighboring countries.
Let's name some of the potentially dangerous zones - Iran with Kurdish and Azerbaijani enclaves; Morocco and the Western Sahara problem with the periodic Berber unrest; and Algeria with the same Berber problem. There are sizeable Shiite communities in the Persian Gulf monarchies. Shiites account for 75% of Bahrain's population; the relevant figure for Saudi Arabia is about 15%, Qatar 11%, and the United Arab Emirates 17%.
Relations between these communities and the government are quite complicated. The situation in Syria is also potentially explosive. The situation only appears stable, but if the central government shows weakness, inter-communal conflicts will instantly flare up. However, events in Lebanon and Iraq are much more dangerous than that.
For the time being, no politician in these conflict-prone zones has loudly expressed readiness to follow Kosovo's example. This is not because it would not be entirely correct to compare them with Kosovo from the legal and political points of view. Kosovo's independence is threatening primarily because a decision on it was made without a UN Security Council resolution. It is solely based on the support of the United States and some European countries. In other words, political circumstances have prevailed over international law. Hence, others may follow Kosovo's example. Success will depend on what Washington wants to achieve. This gives food for thought to those who may follow this example and those who are afraid of separatist attitudes in their own countries.
It is no accident that the Kurds did not follow this path in the first days after Kosovo declared independence, although many analysts and journalists, including those from America and Turkey, have been discussing the Kurdish problem in this context. They are asking why the Kurds are denied what the Kosovars have been given.
The Kurdish problem is very similar to the Kosovo case, but the political situation does not favor the Kurds. For the most part, they live in four countries - Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. No matter how much Washington would like to get at Damascus and Tehran, it will not undermine the interests of Ankara, its long-standing ally and partner. Moreover, the Americans do not even interfere with Turkey's military operations against the "Kurdish separatists." As for the Iraqi Kurds, they themselves need U.S. support that guarantees security and brings tangible political and economic benefits. This is why the Kurds are not rushing to follow Kosovo's scenario, and Ankara has boldly recognized Kosovo's independence.
Unlike the Kurds, the Palestinians were not silent. Yasser Abd Rabbo, an advisor to head of the Palestinian National Administration Mahmoud Abbas, declared that the Palestinians may follow Kosovo's example and declare unilateral independence if dialogue with Israel does not produce the desired effect. His statement was instantly refuted by other high-ranking Palestinian politicians, including Abbas himself who favors continuing the talks.
But once again, it does not matter whether the situation in Kosovo is similar to that in the Middle East, although Washington is doing all it can to prove that the Kosovo case is truly unique. Everything is much simpler. Currently, the United States stands for the continuation of Palestinian-Israeli talks and insists on an early declaration of Palestine's independence. Under different circumstances, the Palestinians will recall the Kosovo case, and will be backed by other Arab and Muslim politicians.
For the time being, most governments are pondering over what will cost them more - recognition of Kosovo's independence or neutrality.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
US Airforce 'Above All' : New ad campaign
Air Force officials have launched a new ad campaign to accurately portray Airmen and how they're executing the Air Force mission to ensure the security and safety of America now and in the future. (U.S. Air Force graphic)
Air Force is 'Above All'
by Staff Sgt. J.G. Buzanowski
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
2/20/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force has a new advertising campaign to recruit the next generation of Airmen as well as better inform people about the Air Force mission:
"Above All."
"The new slogan is admittedly a bold one," said Col. Michael Caldwell, deputy director of Air Force public affairs, "but so are Airmen." This campaign accurately portrays Airmen and how they're executing the Air Force mission to ensure the security and safety of America now and in the future.
"'Above All' is about what we do and how we do it," Colonel Caldwell said. "The job of the Air Force is to defend America and we do that by dominating air, space and cyberspace. The new campaign and slogan captures our roots, but also illustrates where we're going as a service as the Air Force prepares to contend with future threats."
The purpose of the campaign is to create a dialogue with potential recruits, their parents and those most likely to influence young people to join the military about the critical role the Air Force plays in defending America's future, said Colonel Caldwell.
The "Above All" campaign kicks off this month and will be prominent on television, in print and, of course, in cyberspace. In addition to being shown at several sporting events, "Above All" ads will be seen in magazines and during commercial breaks on many top-rated commercial and television news and entertainment programs, Colonel Caldwell said.
The campaign will feature real Airmen performing their missions, like Staff Sgt. Lee Jones from Barksdale Air Force Base, La. He's featured prominently in the campaign as a warrior on the front lines of the Air Force's newest warfighting domain, cyberspace.
"I'm excited to be a part of this and to represent the Air Force this way," said Sergeant Jones, a computer systems operator and cyberwarrior. "'Above All' is a great slogan because it says how we shine in what we do to defend our nation and accomplish our mission."
The Above All slogan was chosen over several other phrases as the best description of the Air Force mission, Colonel Caldwell said.
"From all the research we did about how people feel about the Air Force - including civilians, Airmen and representatives from other services - this was the phrase that stood out the most," said Colonel Caldwell. "This campaign captures the professionalism of our Airmen, our technological edge and our ability to meet today's threats while at the same time prepare for future challenges.
"When anyone in our Air Force family sees an 'Above All' ad, we hope it reminds them that their role is important to America," Colonel Caldwell said. "This campaign makes it clear the Air Force's mission 'Above All' is national defense and protecting the American people."
by Amanda Creel
78th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
2/22/2008 - ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFPN) -- Air Force officials held a groundbreaking ceremony here Feb. 19 for a 70,000 square-foot software support facility targeted for occupation by January 2010.
The new, $21 million facility will be a two-story building designed to help Robins Air Force Base maintain its place as the Electronic Warfare Center of Excellence for the Air Force and position it to become the Electronic Warfare Center of Excellence for the Department of Defense.
Construction of the facility will join together three existing software facilities -- buildings 226, 227 and 330 -- to form a software support complex. It will also allow the 850 software employees to be located under one roof, rather than being located in different buildings throughout the base. Additionally, base officials said the project should bring approximately 360 high-tech jobs by 2012.
The addition of the facility would allow base software maintainers to continue their present mission while increasing the 402nd Software Maintenance Group's core capabilities, said Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Owen, the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center commander. The facility would allow Robins AFB to continue to distinguish itself as an instrumental part of the vital defense mission for years to come.
Existing software support facilities presently support Air Force Special Operations Command forces as well as Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command weapon systems. Base officials said they anticipate future workloads for newer systems including the F-22 Raptor, F-35 Lightning II, the Global Hawk and Predator.
Some of the group's many specialties include tactical communications, radar airborne avionics, Global Positioning Systems and electronic warfare.
The Army Corp of Engineers, in partnership with base civil engineers and the 402nd SMXG, will manage construction of the facility. McKnight Construction will be responsible for building the structure.
Comment on this story (comments may be published on Air Force Link)
India to talk to British officials in $10bn Eurofighter deal
By IANS
London : The Indian government wants to talk to British rather than German negotiators in discussions on a possible $10 billion deal for the purchase of Eurofighter Tyhoons, a newspaper reported Friday.
The Times said the Indian government wanted officials from British Aerospace (BAE) Systems and the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to take over the negotiations from the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and the German government.
The Indian Air Force is reported to be considering the Eurofighter as part of a programme to replace 126 Soviet-made jets.
The multi role combat aircraft, which is competing with the US-built F-16, F-18 and the Russian MIG-29 for the IAF order, is manufactured by a consortium of BAE systems (Britain), EADS (Germany and Spain) and Alenia FinMeccanica (Italy).
The Indian government is set to announce a shortlist of candidate aircraft next month and if Eurofighter makes the cut, BAE and the MoD will be asked to step in to continue the talks, replacing the Germans.
Normally, the three companies take turns to negotiate export orders and, at present, EADS Germany is dealing with the Indian government.
The newspaper said if BAE takes over the Eurofighter talks it would confirm India as an important new market for the company.
Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE, said he expected India to be added to the company's existing six "home" markets of Britain, the United States, Sweden, Australia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
"We are determined to go forward in India and eventually we see it becoming another of our home markets," Turner added.
The move toward India comes amid reported concern over defence cuts in Britain.
Turner said BAE's domestic market would see defence projects being delayed as the government imposed budget cuts.
London : The Indian government wants to talk to British rather than German negotiators in discussions on a possible $10 billion deal for the purchase of Eurofighter Tyhoons, a newspaper reported Friday.
The Times said the Indian government wanted officials from British Aerospace (BAE) Systems and the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) to take over the negotiations from the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and the German government.
The Indian Air Force is reported to be considering the Eurofighter as part of a programme to replace 126 Soviet-made jets.
The multi role combat aircraft, which is competing with the US-built F-16, F-18 and the Russian MIG-29 for the IAF order, is manufactured by a consortium of BAE systems (Britain), EADS (Germany and Spain) and Alenia FinMeccanica (Italy).
The Indian government is set to announce a shortlist of candidate aircraft next month and if Eurofighter makes the cut, BAE and the MoD will be asked to step in to continue the talks, replacing the Germans.
Normally, the three companies take turns to negotiate export orders and, at present, EADS Germany is dealing with the Indian government.
The newspaper said if BAE takes over the Eurofighter talks it would confirm India as an important new market for the company.
Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE, said he expected India to be added to the company's existing six "home" markets of Britain, the United States, Sweden, Australia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
"We are determined to go forward in India and eventually we see it becoming another of our home markets," Turner added.
The move toward India comes amid reported concern over defence cuts in Britain.
Turner said BAE's domestic market would see defence projects being delayed as the government imposed budget cuts.
India orders over one hundred SIGMA 95 navigation systems from Sagem Defense
Securite
(2008-02-22)
By: SAFRAN GROUP
New Deli, DEFEXPO, February 19, 2008 The aircraft manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) of India has just ordered from Sagem Défense Sécurité (SAFRAN Group) more than 100 SIGMA 95N navigation systems. These systems will be used on the Indian Air Force Sukhoi fighters and the Tejas fighters from the Indian LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) program.
They will round out the SIGMA 95N systems already in use on the Sukhoi 30s, MiG-27, MiG-27s, Jaguars and Indian Hawks.
Developed and produced by Sagem Défense Sécurité, SIGMA 95N is a standalone inertial laser gyro navigation system with integrated GPS/Glonass*. It brings high-precision navigation and a high degree of operating flexibility to combat aircraft.
Since the beginning of the 1980s Sagem Défense Sécurité has been a preferred supplier of inertial navigation systems to combat aircraft, battleships, and artillery. Today, systems and equipment by Sagem Défense Sécurité are used on more than 300 combat aircraft in service with the Indian armed forces.
This order is a step further in the discussions between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Sagem Défense Sécurité following the agreement signed in June 2007, which sets the stage for a long-term partnership. It opens the way for a joint venture in India for production and maintenance of inertial navigation systems and automatic flight control systems. This project is subject to final approval of both government authorities.
* GPS (Global Positioning System) and Glonass (GLObalnaya NAvigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema): American and Russian satellite positioning systems.
***
Sagem Défense Sécurité is a high-technology company in the SAFRAN Group. Organized in two divisions, Sagem Avionics and Sagem Optronics and Defense, Sagem Défense Sécurité is a world leader in its core businesses.
The Sagem Avionics Division covers two main sectors: inertial navigation, where it is No. 1 in Europe and No. 3 worldwide; and aircraft systems, including world leadership in helicopter flight controls.
The Sagem Optronics and Defense Division designs and develops thermal vision equipment and air-land systems, and is the European leader in surveillance and fire control optronics.
(2008-02-22)
By: SAFRAN GROUP
New Deli, DEFEXPO, February 19, 2008 The aircraft manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) of India has just ordered from Sagem Défense Sécurité (SAFRAN Group) more than 100 SIGMA 95N navigation systems. These systems will be used on the Indian Air Force Sukhoi fighters and the Tejas fighters from the Indian LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) program.
They will round out the SIGMA 95N systems already in use on the Sukhoi 30s, MiG-27, MiG-27s, Jaguars and Indian Hawks.
Developed and produced by Sagem Défense Sécurité, SIGMA 95N is a standalone inertial laser gyro navigation system with integrated GPS/Glonass*. It brings high-precision navigation and a high degree of operating flexibility to combat aircraft.
Since the beginning of the 1980s Sagem Défense Sécurité has been a preferred supplier of inertial navigation systems to combat aircraft, battleships, and artillery. Today, systems and equipment by Sagem Défense Sécurité are used on more than 300 combat aircraft in service with the Indian armed forces.
This order is a step further in the discussions between Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and Sagem Défense Sécurité following the agreement signed in June 2007, which sets the stage for a long-term partnership. It opens the way for a joint venture in India for production and maintenance of inertial navigation systems and automatic flight control systems. This project is subject to final approval of both government authorities.
* GPS (Global Positioning System) and Glonass (GLObalnaya NAvigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema): American and Russian satellite positioning systems.
***
Sagem Défense Sécurité is a high-technology company in the SAFRAN Group. Organized in two divisions, Sagem Avionics and Sagem Optronics and Defense, Sagem Défense Sécurité is a world leader in its core businesses.
The Sagem Avionics Division covers two main sectors: inertial navigation, where it is No. 1 in Europe and No. 3 worldwide; and aircraft systems, including world leadership in helicopter flight controls.
The Sagem Optronics and Defense Division designs and develops thermal vision equipment and air-land systems, and is the European leader in surveillance and fire control optronics.
The United States Has Ushered in the 'Missile Defense Age'
Alan W. Dowd | 22 Feb 2008
World Politics Review Exclusive
A U.S. warship prowling the Pacific Ocean has officially ushered in the Missile Defense Age, firing an SM-3 missile-killing rocket to destroy a satellite tumbling toward Earth. "The intercept occurred, and we're very confident we hit the satellite," Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calmly reported.
Like the Rocket Age, which terrified Americans when Sputnik orbited the globe and then transfixed the world when Armstrong took his giant leap on the lunar surface; like the Jet Age, which turned the skies over Korea into a killing field and then opened the way to inexpensive, high-speed global travel; like the Nuclear Age, which ended a war by erasing two cities, put Armageddon within man's grasp and then provided boundless supplies of energy; this new epoch promises to bring both highs and lows, worry and wonder.
To be sure, countries like the United States, China and the now-defunct U.S.S.R. have tested anti-satellite weapons (or ASATs) before, but this is different because of what the U.S. used to intercept this satellite -- and how the military did it.
It is no small feat to hit a target traveling 17,000 mph 150 miles above the Earth with a rocket, especially when the interceptor platform is on the open seas, where waves wreak havoc with guidance and targeting. And it's no small feat to recalibrate and retarget a system that is still technically in development. Yet that's what the U.S. military did.
There were many reasons for the intercept of the crippled spy satellite known as US193:
• It carried a thousand pounds of the toxic fuel hydrazine, which probably would not have burned up upon reentry, something NASA and the Pentagon learned during the Columbia disaster.
• John Pike of Globalsecurity.org notes, "The Chinese and the Russians spend an enormous amount of time trying to steal American technology. To have our most sophisticated radar intelligence satellite -- have big pieces of it fall into their hands -- would not be our preferred outcome."
• As the International Herald Tribune has reported, Washington announced its decision to destroy the satellite "just days after China and Russia renewed their call for a global ban on space weapons." To accede to such a proposal would hamstring and endanger the U.S. No country relies on space assets like the U.S. -- and much of the world relies on the U.S. to ensure freedom of movement in and through space. "We know from history that every medium -- air, land and sea -- has seen conflict," a U.S. commission on space defense concluded in 2000. "Reality indicates that space will be no different." Indeed, history reminds us that if man can possess something or travel through it, he will fight over it -- and in it.
And that leads us to one of the reasons for the intercept that remains unspoken by Washington. The mission signaled America's ability and readiness to defend itself from missile attack -- and to respond in kind should its satellites be targeted. As the Washington Post observes, "The operation made it clear that the missile defense system can be modified very quickly to accomplish such a task," adding that software and equipment modifications were performed over just 30 days.
Make no mistake: By swinging its sites onto the crippled satellite and knocking it down -- and for good measure, telling the world it intended to do just that -- the U.S. was sending a message. The target audience: China, North Korea and Iran.
But the USS Lake Erie and her crew did more than send a wordless message to China, which recently used its own ground-based ASAT to knock out a satellite deeper in orbit, recklessly creating a debris field in space; and the North Koreans and Iranians, who have assisted each other in developing missiles and nukes. The Navy also put an exclamation point on a dramatic year of progress for the U.S.-led international missile defense system (IMD).
As the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (USMDA) recently reported, the last 12 months have seen the U.S. deploy nine new ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and one at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., bringing the total to 21 in Alaska and three in California.
USMDA delivered an additional 13 Aegis SM-3 interceptors -- the same weapons system that knocked down the stricken satellite -- for a total of 21 SM-3s. Along the way, USMDA delivered upgrades to four other Aegis missile defense-capable destroyers, bringing the total to seven Aegis destroyers and three Aegis cruisers. In other words, that's 10 warships that are ready to defend America from missile attack.
New IMD sensors and systems were deployed in Alaska, Britain and Greenland. New IMD support facilities were completed in Japan. Denmark and Italy signed agreements on IMD cooperation and development. USMDA has "28 active agreements with 11 nations." In fact, USMDA reports "ongoing collaboration activities with Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Taiwan, India, and NATO."
Poland, for example, recently agreed to deployment of IMD missile-interceptors on its soil. For daring to behave like a sovereign nation and fielding a wholly defensive weapons system, Poland has been treated to threats from Moscow, which warns that Russian missiles will be retargeted onto Poland. (So maybe China, North Korea and Iran aren't the only reason IMD's time has come.)
In the field, nine successful "hit-to-kill" tests were performed, at various ranges. The Airborne Laser -- a missile-killing laser mounted on a 747 that can loiter outside enemy territory and destroy a missile long before it threatens friendly soil -- carried out a number of successful tests. And a specially-armed F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to knock a rocket out of the sky in its boost phase, "marking the first intercept of a ballistic missile from an air platform and the first boost-phased intercept of a ballistic missile," according to USMDA.
In short, the Missile Defense Age has begun on a high note.
Alan W. Dowd is a senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute.
Image: A video still of the exploding U.S. spy satellite.
World Politics Review Exclusive
A U.S. warship prowling the Pacific Ocean has officially ushered in the Missile Defense Age, firing an SM-3 missile-killing rocket to destroy a satellite tumbling toward Earth. "The intercept occurred, and we're very confident we hit the satellite," Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, calmly reported.
Like the Rocket Age, which terrified Americans when Sputnik orbited the globe and then transfixed the world when Armstrong took his giant leap on the lunar surface; like the Jet Age, which turned the skies over Korea into a killing field and then opened the way to inexpensive, high-speed global travel; like the Nuclear Age, which ended a war by erasing two cities, put Armageddon within man's grasp and then provided boundless supplies of energy; this new epoch promises to bring both highs and lows, worry and wonder.
To be sure, countries like the United States, China and the now-defunct U.S.S.R. have tested anti-satellite weapons (or ASATs) before, but this is different because of what the U.S. used to intercept this satellite -- and how the military did it.
It is no small feat to hit a target traveling 17,000 mph 150 miles above the Earth with a rocket, especially when the interceptor platform is on the open seas, where waves wreak havoc with guidance and targeting. And it's no small feat to recalibrate and retarget a system that is still technically in development. Yet that's what the U.S. military did.
There were many reasons for the intercept of the crippled spy satellite known as US193:
• It carried a thousand pounds of the toxic fuel hydrazine, which probably would not have burned up upon reentry, something NASA and the Pentagon learned during the Columbia disaster.
• John Pike of Globalsecurity.org notes, "The Chinese and the Russians spend an enormous amount of time trying to steal American technology. To have our most sophisticated radar intelligence satellite -- have big pieces of it fall into their hands -- would not be our preferred outcome."
• As the International Herald Tribune has reported, Washington announced its decision to destroy the satellite "just days after China and Russia renewed their call for a global ban on space weapons." To accede to such a proposal would hamstring and endanger the U.S. No country relies on space assets like the U.S. -- and much of the world relies on the U.S. to ensure freedom of movement in and through space. "We know from history that every medium -- air, land and sea -- has seen conflict," a U.S. commission on space defense concluded in 2000. "Reality indicates that space will be no different." Indeed, history reminds us that if man can possess something or travel through it, he will fight over it -- and in it.
And that leads us to one of the reasons for the intercept that remains unspoken by Washington. The mission signaled America's ability and readiness to defend itself from missile attack -- and to respond in kind should its satellites be targeted. As the Washington Post observes, "The operation made it clear that the missile defense system can be modified very quickly to accomplish such a task," adding that software and equipment modifications were performed over just 30 days.
Make no mistake: By swinging its sites onto the crippled satellite and knocking it down -- and for good measure, telling the world it intended to do just that -- the U.S. was sending a message. The target audience: China, North Korea and Iran.
But the USS Lake Erie and her crew did more than send a wordless message to China, which recently used its own ground-based ASAT to knock out a satellite deeper in orbit, recklessly creating a debris field in space; and the North Koreans and Iranians, who have assisted each other in developing missiles and nukes. The Navy also put an exclamation point on a dramatic year of progress for the U.S.-led international missile defense system (IMD).
As the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (USMDA) recently reported, the last 12 months have seen the U.S. deploy nine new ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and one at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., bringing the total to 21 in Alaska and three in California.
USMDA delivered an additional 13 Aegis SM-3 interceptors -- the same weapons system that knocked down the stricken satellite -- for a total of 21 SM-3s. Along the way, USMDA delivered upgrades to four other Aegis missile defense-capable destroyers, bringing the total to seven Aegis destroyers and three Aegis cruisers. In other words, that's 10 warships that are ready to defend America from missile attack.
New IMD sensors and systems were deployed in Alaska, Britain and Greenland. New IMD support facilities were completed in Japan. Denmark and Italy signed agreements on IMD cooperation and development. USMDA has "28 active agreements with 11 nations." In fact, USMDA reports "ongoing collaboration activities with Japan, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, Taiwan, India, and NATO."
Poland, for example, recently agreed to deployment of IMD missile-interceptors on its soil. For daring to behave like a sovereign nation and fielding a wholly defensive weapons system, Poland has been treated to threats from Moscow, which warns that Russian missiles will be retargeted onto Poland. (So maybe China, North Korea and Iran aren't the only reason IMD's time has come.)
In the field, nine successful "hit-to-kill" tests were performed, at various ranges. The Airborne Laser -- a missile-killing laser mounted on a 747 that can loiter outside enemy territory and destroy a missile long before it threatens friendly soil -- carried out a number of successful tests. And a specially-armed F-16 fighter used an air-to-air missile to knock a rocket out of the sky in its boost phase, "marking the first intercept of a ballistic missile from an air platform and the first boost-phased intercept of a ballistic missile," according to USMDA.
In short, the Missile Defense Age has begun on a high note.
Alan W. Dowd is a senior fellow with the Sagamore Institute.
Image: A video still of the exploding U.S. spy satellite.
Indian Airforce to induct Hawk AJTs tomorrow
New Delhi, Feb 11 (ANI): The Hawk-132 advanced jet trainers (AJTs) will be inducted into the Indian Air Force on Saturday in the presence of Defence Minister A. K. Antony.
The induction of the five advanced jet trainers marks the operationalisation of the aircraft. It will be an important milestone in the training of future fighter pilots. Training for young pilots will start from July 2008, said an IAF source.
The AJTs will replace the more demanding MiG-21 for providing advanced training to the next generation of fighter pilots. The first two Hawk aircraft arrived at Bidar on November 12, 2007.
The induction of Hawk AJTs will fulfil a long-standing demand of the IAF that will effectively bridge the gap between the slow jet trainer such as Kiran and the advanced fighter aircrafts in the Air Force.
The IAF first felt the need for an AJT in 1982. To fill the quantum difference in the skill and judgement levels required by a young fighter pilot as he transits to state of the art fighters such as the Su-30 MKI, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29, the Hawk-132 would adequately serve as lead trainer for these advanced aircraft.
The Hawk-132 is a variant of the highly successful BAE Systems Hawk AJTs. It incorporates an open architecture mission computer, glass cockpit and a state of the art avionics suite including a new generation Inertial Navigation System with GPS (INGPS).
Hawk-132 is also equipped with several Indian components such as the communication sets, identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system and the radio altimeter.
In addition to being an AJT, the Hawk-132 is fully combat capable and can carry air-to-air missile and air-to-ground strikes. It can also be used as a lightweight fighter.
The contract for the supply of the Hawk AJT was signed between the IAF and BAE Systems in 2004. The deal envisaged a supply of 66 aircraft.
The first batch of 24 aircraft will be built at the BAE Systems’ facilities in Brough in East Yorkshire (UK), with flight-testing taking place at Warton. The remaining 42 aircraft will be manufactured under licence in India through a partnership with the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in Bangalore.
The Bidar airfield, which is located in northwest Karnataka, will serve as the main operating base for the Hawk. This base has been a training establishment for trainee IAF pilots since 1963.
India would be the third biggest customer for Hawks, closely following in the footsteps of the British Royal Air Force and the South African Air Force.
The Hawk is in worldwide operation with 800 plus aircraft in use by 17 customers and 22 armed forces. The trainers have generated over 1.5 million flight hours in experience. (ANI)
The induction of the five advanced jet trainers marks the operationalisation of the aircraft. It will be an important milestone in the training of future fighter pilots. Training for young pilots will start from July 2008, said an IAF source.
The AJTs will replace the more demanding MiG-21 for providing advanced training to the next generation of fighter pilots. The first two Hawk aircraft arrived at Bidar on November 12, 2007.
The induction of Hawk AJTs will fulfil a long-standing demand of the IAF that will effectively bridge the gap between the slow jet trainer such as Kiran and the advanced fighter aircrafts in the Air Force.
The IAF first felt the need for an AJT in 1982. To fill the quantum difference in the skill and judgement levels required by a young fighter pilot as he transits to state of the art fighters such as the Su-30 MKI, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29, the Hawk-132 would adequately serve as lead trainer for these advanced aircraft.
The Hawk-132 is a variant of the highly successful BAE Systems Hawk AJTs. It incorporates an open architecture mission computer, glass cockpit and a state of the art avionics suite including a new generation Inertial Navigation System with GPS (INGPS).
Hawk-132 is also equipped with several Indian components such as the communication sets, identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system and the radio altimeter.
In addition to being an AJT, the Hawk-132 is fully combat capable and can carry air-to-air missile and air-to-ground strikes. It can also be used as a lightweight fighter.
The contract for the supply of the Hawk AJT was signed between the IAF and BAE Systems in 2004. The deal envisaged a supply of 66 aircraft.
The first batch of 24 aircraft will be built at the BAE Systems’ facilities in Brough in East Yorkshire (UK), with flight-testing taking place at Warton. The remaining 42 aircraft will be manufactured under licence in India through a partnership with the public sector Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in Bangalore.
The Bidar airfield, which is located in northwest Karnataka, will serve as the main operating base for the Hawk. This base has been a training establishment for trainee IAF pilots since 1963.
India would be the third biggest customer for Hawks, closely following in the footsteps of the British Royal Air Force and the South African Air Force.
The Hawk is in worldwide operation with 800 plus aircraft in use by 17 customers and 22 armed forces. The trainers have generated over 1.5 million flight hours in experience. (ANI)
The Challenge of Iran : Conference Call with Vali R. Nasr
Myanmar: Wishing away Suu Kyi
Source: South Asia Analysis Group
Col R Hariharan (retd.)
For India and China, who were patting themselves on the back for achieving some results through their 'benevolent' intervention in Myanmar to make the military regime to reintroduce democracy, the moment of truth appears to have arrived. .
Myanmar's decision to bar Aung San Suu Kyi from taking part in the elections to be held under the proposed new constitution in 2010 has laid bare the true nature of Than Shwe led military dictatorship's concept of democracy. A guided democracy with the military junta vetoing participation of the leading light of country's politics is not what the people aspire for in Myanmar. They want a government of their own, elected by free will.
Even those Myanmar politicians who have some differences with Daw Suu Kyi, will not dispute the iconic role this frail woman, with no history of political leadership, has played in bringing the struggle for democracy to national and global focus. This is what has hurt the military regime. She came as a breath of fresh air to lead the struggle for democracy in a country which had only unpleasant memories of democratic life. Myanmar had three decades of democratic politics soon after independence which did no credit to the concept of democracy. Corrupt politicians and squabbling political opportunists had sullied democratic rule and paved the way for perpetuating a military regime.
Daw Suu Kyi brought three ingredients absent in the 'guided' politics of Myanmar. These were: leading a focussed political struggle with people's participation for a regime change, reassertion of inalienable democratic rights of the people to lead a free life, and ability to draw international attention to the struggle and leverage it to the advantage of the people's movement. These enabled her to gain global sympathy, paving the way for the United Nations to intercede, though in a limited fashion.
After the country became independent in 1948, no other political or military leader in Myanmar had been able to lead the whole nation to wage such a single-minded struggle as Daw Suu Kyi. Of course, she had the advantage of brand image inherited from her father Major General Aung San, the architect of Burma's freedom struggle against the British and the Japanese colonialists. But more important is how she has used the brand image to the larger good of the people rather than her own benefit or comfort.
A referendum is scheduled to be held in May (of course, under the 'supervision' of the same dictatorial regime) to approve a new constitution for the country. The ruling junta approved the draft constitution on February 19.The constitution drafting came as a sequel to the consideration of a "road map for democracy" by a national convention of members handpicked by the military regime. The deliberations of the omnibus national convention of 1000 members dragged on for 14 years with the military regime arm twisting the participating members to toe its line. The major political and ethnic minority parties boycotted the convention denouncing its undemocratic ways of functioning. On the whole, the national convention lacking transparency and representative character was clearly used by the military junta to buy time to delay the process of democratisation mainly to satisfy international community.
The new constitution is supposed to provide for a 'democratic set up' for the country's change over from military control of government to peoples rule. The constitution has been drafted by the Commission for Drafting the State Constitution, and chaired by the Chief Justice U Aung Toe. The 54 members of the commission were picked by the military regime. According to U Aung Toe the new constitution has been drafted in accordance with the six objectives of the National Convention. These included national unity, multi-party democracy, and values such as justice, liberty and equality.
The draft also provides for military participation in political leadership. This has kindled the fears of political parties fear that the new constitution would be used as an instrument to legitimise the role of military within a 'guided democracy' for perpetuity. This fear is legitimate as the 104 basic principles of the constitution are said to provide for reservation of at least 25 percent of the seats in all government bodies for the military. Ethnic minorities who form sizeable part of the population also feel uneasy with the way the military regime has road rolled the whole process. They have seen how the regime had used dubious means to dissipate the struggle of minorities for space in national power structure.
Naturally the major national political and ethnic parties have condemned the move to hold a referendum on the draft constitution which has not been made public. The National League for Democracy (NLD), which was not allowed to rule in spite of winning a thumping majority in the last democratic elections held in 1990, has asked for throwing open the draft constitution for public review. It has also asked the military regime to explain the essence of the constitution to the people before the referendum in May. These are very reasonable demands considering that the NLD did not have a say in the process of constitution making despite representing the support of the people as demonstrated in the last democratic election.
The Myanmar Foreign Minister Nyan Win announced the decision not to permit Daw Suu Kyi to contest the 2010 elections, because she had married a foreigner, at a meeting of foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Singapore. At present there is no law that could prevent Daw Suu Kyi from contesting the election. However, it is learnt that the proposed constitution bars a citizen who has a foreign husband and children, who are not Myanmar citizens from contesting the election. It is evident this clause is specially tailored to prevent Daw Suu Kyi from contesting the elections. Daw Suu Kyi had married British Professor Michael Aris and their two children are British citizens.
A group of seven Nobel laureates including Desmond Tutu of South Africa and the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet in a quick reaction to the announcement of elections has called for an arms embargo against Myanmar. Dismissing it as flawed plan if Daw Suu Kyi was barred, the laureates demanded the inclusion of representatives from the NLD and ethnic nationalities in the constitutional drafting committee. Already a sanctions regime including arms embargo imposed by the United States, Canada, European Union and Australia, among others, is in force.
However, the international sanctions regime has clearly failed to curb the style of the military regime because many nations have only been paying lip service to them for reasons of real politicks and perceived national interest. The November 2007 report of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has identified 27 companies in 13 countries as having investment interests in Myanmar's flourishing oil and gas industry. Thirteen of these companies are owned at least partially by foreign countries through state-owned entities. These companies have invested in 20 of the 30 projects underway at present. According to another HRW report of 2006 the ruling military regime received the bulk of its income from off shore gas fields at Yadana and Yetagun. While the Yadana consortium consists of Total of France, Chevron of the United States and the Thai public enterprise PTT Exploration Co Ltd. The Yetagun consortium has Malaysia's state owned Petronas and Japan's Nippon Oil apart from the Thai PTT Exploration.
Myanmar earned $ 1 billion in gas revenue in 2006. This is likely to register a phenomenal increase in the coming years as more discoveries of gas are likely to be made in the coming years. The potential of gas resources in the newly discovered Shwe off shore gas fields alone has been estimated at $ 37 to 52 billion. This would benefit the country with an estimated profit of $ 12 to 17 billion. With the ever-increasing global appetite for energy resources the value income from gas resources would only go up. And in this race for gas resources in Myanmar, China and India are the front runners as their rapid development has boosted up their energy requirements phenomenally.
Apart from interest in Myanmar's energy potential, both China and India have strategic interests due its geographic location on their borders. For China it is a key neighbour with potential to open a direct access to the Indian Ocean by-passing the more crowded and vulnerable route through the South China Sea and Strait of Malacca. China would like to develop a deep sea port in Kyauk Phru in Arakan state for shipping oil from West Asia to landlocked Chinese provinces through a shorter and more secure route. Myanmar also provides China yet another overland access to India and South Asia.
For India to articulate its 'Look East' policy aimed at opening up the markets in Southeast Asia, the cooperation and support of Myanmar is an important factor. Moreover, with a reluctant Bangladesh not allowing access across the country for India to its own landlocked states in the northeast, Myanmar can provide vital sea and land access. The absence of such an alternate route has stunted development of this region resulting in social unrest and insurgency. A friendly Myanmar would also provide a strategic space for India to its northeastern borders to cushion a potential Chinese threat.
However, without the participation of China, India and ASEAN in the sanction regime, the sanctions have failed to have the desired effect on the military regime. Their reactions to the question of imposing sanctions have varied from strong objection from China to studied indifference to the issue by India. Of course, ASEAN simply does not believe in such a move against one of its own member countries. So the military regime in Myanmar is sitting pretty, sourcing its requirements from these countries and buying time to find a permanent space in any democratic set up that would come in the near future.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with her unique national and international appeal represents the single factor that could upset the strategy of the military regime. This is the main reason for the military junta's single-minded focus in physically controlling access to Daw Suu Kyi. This also the reason why it is preventing her active participation even in the limited political space it is prepared to allow for others. But the writing on the wall is clear. The regime cannot simply wish away Daw Suu Kyi and what she represents.
Most of the western nations have come out strongly against the Myanmar's constitution making process and the charade of a referendum. They have also condemned the move to bar Daw Suu Kyi from participating in the elections. However, others have been lukewarm at best in their comments. Even the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon could only call upon Myanmar regime to make the constitution making process "inclusive, participatory, and transparent" three qualities markedly absent in the military regime's approach. He again stressed the need for substantive and time-bound dialogue with Daw Suu Kyi and political parties, just as his predecessor had done many times.
China, the main pillar of support of the military junta, will jettison its support when it feels the regime can no longer survive. China is well ensconced in the larger economy of Myanmar. It will continue to have strategic linkages with Myanmar regardless of the nature of the regime. So it cannot be expected to underwrite any change in the regime.
The military regime has outlived its relevance as there is a restive population in the country whose voice can only get stronger and louder. This was seen during the saffron revolution of the monks last year. Given this setting, it is for India and its democratic polity and conscience keepers to re-examine their national priorities. Should they put all their cards on a military regime that is trampling upon the very qualities that Indian Constitution cherishes? Definitely not. Time has come for India to take a re-look at its Myanmar policy to make it more people- relevant.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence officer, serve as a specialist on Myanmar. He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail colhari@yahoo.com)
Col R Hariharan (retd.)
For India and China, who were patting themselves on the back for achieving some results through their 'benevolent' intervention in Myanmar to make the military regime to reintroduce democracy, the moment of truth appears to have arrived. .
Myanmar's decision to bar Aung San Suu Kyi from taking part in the elections to be held under the proposed new constitution in 2010 has laid bare the true nature of Than Shwe led military dictatorship's concept of democracy. A guided democracy with the military junta vetoing participation of the leading light of country's politics is not what the people aspire for in Myanmar. They want a government of their own, elected by free will.
Even those Myanmar politicians who have some differences with Daw Suu Kyi, will not dispute the iconic role this frail woman, with no history of political leadership, has played in bringing the struggle for democracy to national and global focus. This is what has hurt the military regime. She came as a breath of fresh air to lead the struggle for democracy in a country which had only unpleasant memories of democratic life. Myanmar had three decades of democratic politics soon after independence which did no credit to the concept of democracy. Corrupt politicians and squabbling political opportunists had sullied democratic rule and paved the way for perpetuating a military regime.
Daw Suu Kyi brought three ingredients absent in the 'guided' politics of Myanmar. These were: leading a focussed political struggle with people's participation for a regime change, reassertion of inalienable democratic rights of the people to lead a free life, and ability to draw international attention to the struggle and leverage it to the advantage of the people's movement. These enabled her to gain global sympathy, paving the way for the United Nations to intercede, though in a limited fashion.
After the country became independent in 1948, no other political or military leader in Myanmar had been able to lead the whole nation to wage such a single-minded struggle as Daw Suu Kyi. Of course, she had the advantage of brand image inherited from her father Major General Aung San, the architect of Burma's freedom struggle against the British and the Japanese colonialists. But more important is how she has used the brand image to the larger good of the people rather than her own benefit or comfort.
A referendum is scheduled to be held in May (of course, under the 'supervision' of the same dictatorial regime) to approve a new constitution for the country. The ruling junta approved the draft constitution on February 19.The constitution drafting came as a sequel to the consideration of a "road map for democracy" by a national convention of members handpicked by the military regime. The deliberations of the omnibus national convention of 1000 members dragged on for 14 years with the military regime arm twisting the participating members to toe its line. The major political and ethnic minority parties boycotted the convention denouncing its undemocratic ways of functioning. On the whole, the national convention lacking transparency and representative character was clearly used by the military junta to buy time to delay the process of democratisation mainly to satisfy international community.
The new constitution is supposed to provide for a 'democratic set up' for the country's change over from military control of government to peoples rule. The constitution has been drafted by the Commission for Drafting the State Constitution, and chaired by the Chief Justice U Aung Toe. The 54 members of the commission were picked by the military regime. According to U Aung Toe the new constitution has been drafted in accordance with the six objectives of the National Convention. These included national unity, multi-party democracy, and values such as justice, liberty and equality.
The draft also provides for military participation in political leadership. This has kindled the fears of political parties fear that the new constitution would be used as an instrument to legitimise the role of military within a 'guided democracy' for perpetuity. This fear is legitimate as the 104 basic principles of the constitution are said to provide for reservation of at least 25 percent of the seats in all government bodies for the military. Ethnic minorities who form sizeable part of the population also feel uneasy with the way the military regime has road rolled the whole process. They have seen how the regime had used dubious means to dissipate the struggle of minorities for space in national power structure.
Naturally the major national political and ethnic parties have condemned the move to hold a referendum on the draft constitution which has not been made public. The National League for Democracy (NLD), which was not allowed to rule in spite of winning a thumping majority in the last democratic elections held in 1990, has asked for throwing open the draft constitution for public review. It has also asked the military regime to explain the essence of the constitution to the people before the referendum in May. These are very reasonable demands considering that the NLD did not have a say in the process of constitution making despite representing the support of the people as demonstrated in the last democratic election.
The Myanmar Foreign Minister Nyan Win announced the decision not to permit Daw Suu Kyi to contest the 2010 elections, because she had married a foreigner, at a meeting of foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Singapore. At present there is no law that could prevent Daw Suu Kyi from contesting the election. However, it is learnt that the proposed constitution bars a citizen who has a foreign husband and children, who are not Myanmar citizens from contesting the election. It is evident this clause is specially tailored to prevent Daw Suu Kyi from contesting the elections. Daw Suu Kyi had married British Professor Michael Aris and their two children are British citizens.
A group of seven Nobel laureates including Desmond Tutu of South Africa and the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet in a quick reaction to the announcement of elections has called for an arms embargo against Myanmar. Dismissing it as flawed plan if Daw Suu Kyi was barred, the laureates demanded the inclusion of representatives from the NLD and ethnic nationalities in the constitutional drafting committee. Already a sanctions regime including arms embargo imposed by the United States, Canada, European Union and Australia, among others, is in force.
However, the international sanctions regime has clearly failed to curb the style of the military regime because many nations have only been paying lip service to them for reasons of real politicks and perceived national interest. The November 2007 report of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has identified 27 companies in 13 countries as having investment interests in Myanmar's flourishing oil and gas industry. Thirteen of these companies are owned at least partially by foreign countries through state-owned entities. These companies have invested in 20 of the 30 projects underway at present. According to another HRW report of 2006 the ruling military regime received the bulk of its income from off shore gas fields at Yadana and Yetagun. While the Yadana consortium consists of Total of France, Chevron of the United States and the Thai public enterprise PTT Exploration Co Ltd. The Yetagun consortium has Malaysia's state owned Petronas and Japan's Nippon Oil apart from the Thai PTT Exploration.
Myanmar earned $ 1 billion in gas revenue in 2006. This is likely to register a phenomenal increase in the coming years as more discoveries of gas are likely to be made in the coming years. The potential of gas resources in the newly discovered Shwe off shore gas fields alone has been estimated at $ 37 to 52 billion. This would benefit the country with an estimated profit of $ 12 to 17 billion. With the ever-increasing global appetite for energy resources the value income from gas resources would only go up. And in this race for gas resources in Myanmar, China and India are the front runners as their rapid development has boosted up their energy requirements phenomenally.
Apart from interest in Myanmar's energy potential, both China and India have strategic interests due its geographic location on their borders. For China it is a key neighbour with potential to open a direct access to the Indian Ocean by-passing the more crowded and vulnerable route through the South China Sea and Strait of Malacca. China would like to develop a deep sea port in Kyauk Phru in Arakan state for shipping oil from West Asia to landlocked Chinese provinces through a shorter and more secure route. Myanmar also provides China yet another overland access to India and South Asia.
For India to articulate its 'Look East' policy aimed at opening up the markets in Southeast Asia, the cooperation and support of Myanmar is an important factor. Moreover, with a reluctant Bangladesh not allowing access across the country for India to its own landlocked states in the northeast, Myanmar can provide vital sea and land access. The absence of such an alternate route has stunted development of this region resulting in social unrest and insurgency. A friendly Myanmar would also provide a strategic space for India to its northeastern borders to cushion a potential Chinese threat.
However, without the participation of China, India and ASEAN in the sanction regime, the sanctions have failed to have the desired effect on the military regime. Their reactions to the question of imposing sanctions have varied from strong objection from China to studied indifference to the issue by India. Of course, ASEAN simply does not believe in such a move against one of its own member countries. So the military regime in Myanmar is sitting pretty, sourcing its requirements from these countries and buying time to find a permanent space in any democratic set up that would come in the near future.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with her unique national and international appeal represents the single factor that could upset the strategy of the military regime. This is the main reason for the military junta's single-minded focus in physically controlling access to Daw Suu Kyi. This also the reason why it is preventing her active participation even in the limited political space it is prepared to allow for others. But the writing on the wall is clear. The regime cannot simply wish away Daw Suu Kyi and what she represents.
Most of the western nations have come out strongly against the Myanmar's constitution making process and the charade of a referendum. They have also condemned the move to bar Daw Suu Kyi from participating in the elections. However, others have been lukewarm at best in their comments. Even the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon could only call upon Myanmar regime to make the constitution making process "inclusive, participatory, and transparent" three qualities markedly absent in the military regime's approach. He again stressed the need for substantive and time-bound dialogue with Daw Suu Kyi and political parties, just as his predecessor had done many times.
China, the main pillar of support of the military junta, will jettison its support when it feels the regime can no longer survive. China is well ensconced in the larger economy of Myanmar. It will continue to have strategic linkages with Myanmar regardless of the nature of the regime. So it cannot be expected to underwrite any change in the regime.
The military regime has outlived its relevance as there is a restive population in the country whose voice can only get stronger and louder. This was seen during the saffron revolution of the monks last year. Given this setting, it is for India and its democratic polity and conscience keepers to re-examine their national priorities. Should they put all their cards on a military regime that is trampling upon the very qualities that Indian Constitution cherishes? Definitely not. Time has come for India to take a re-look at its Myanmar policy to make it more people- relevant.
(Col. R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence officer, serve as a specialist on Myanmar. He is associated with the South Asia Analysis Group and the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail colhari@yahoo.com)
India should stand up to China as an equal
Source : REDIFF
Kanwal Sibal (picture)
February 22, 2008
India's China policy has been marked by friendship, sentimentalism, fear, diffidence, appeasement, brinksmanship, wishful thinking and engagement. This mixture of attitudes reflects the complexity of the relationship, our difficulties in managing China's challenge, the nature of the Chinese regime, China's strategic advantage over India and the fulgurant rise of China in recent years.
Some very far-reaching strategic mistakes were made in not comprehending the Maoist take-over of China and its implication for India. Mao Tse-Tung seized China through revolutionary violence, while India won freedom through a non-violent struggle. China's leaders were Communist, India's were nurtured in democratic thinking. Mao's China wanted to settle historical wrongs against the country, Mahatma Gandhi [Images] and Jawaharlal Nehru wanted to forget and forgive historical wrongs.
In one country the militants had wrested power, in the other pacifists assumed power through a constitutional process. The political trajectories of the two countries and the nature of their leadership were so different, that a clash of thinking and ambitions should have been more than anticipated.
India could not physically prevent China from militarily occupying Tibet in 1950, but the dangerous strategic consequences of this for India's security should have been flagrantly obvious. A political and geographical buffer was being removed for the first time in history. Given the absence of a formally demarcated border in the western sector and China's position on the MacMahon Line, China's occupation of Tibet should have warned India, that the Chinese would sooner or later assert their physical control over the entire Tibetan border as they saw it. Our so-called 'forward policy' should have been insured with adequate military preparations on the ground.
The 1962 border conflict scarred us politically, militarily and psychologically. It made India look militarily feeble; it provided China reason to support insurgencies in our north-east; it damaged our standing in the third world as well as our leadership pretensions; it made China a potent player in South Asian affairs; it gave Pakistan an additional political and military crutch for confronting India; it gave space to our neighours to play the China card against us, not only Nepal and Sri Lanka [Images], but later Bangladesh too.
China's disinclination to settle the border issue and our non-existing capacity to force it to do so in its own interest, left us no choice but to try to stabilise the situation on the border through the Agreements on Maintaining Peace and Tranquillity and on Confidence Building Measures in the 1990's. These have contained the border problem, but have also frozen it to India's disadvantage. The status quo always favours the side not anxious for change. India wants peace on the border but also wants a border settlement. It suits China also to have peace as it defuses the border issue politically and militarily and gives it a free hand to settle Tibet internally.
China, on the one hand, wishes the world to believe that it has pacified Tibet, with Tibet riding the crest of prosperity under Chinese rule. And yet China takes ground decisions which reflect a sense of insecurity about its hold over the territory. The railway line it has built, at great expense, makes less economic sense and more military/security sense as it augments China's capacity to move troops and munitions to the border and meet any future local challenge to its rule in Tibet. The impressive road infrastructure that China has built along Tibet's border with India, along with expansion of airfields in Tibet in recent years, is surely intended not for border trade but for border domination, behind which Tibet will be held secure.
The importance of the Dalai Lama [Images] factor should not be underestimated, no matter China's posturing about his growing irrelevance to the reality on the ground in Tibet. India, as the most concerned party, has always had a timorous policy towards him. The Dalai Lama has himself said publicly that India is over-cautious in dealing with China.
There is no international pressure on China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama. China can revile him as a 'splittist', even when he has publicly reaffirmed on various occasions his acceptance of Chinese sovereignty and has limited his demand to real autonomy. China realises that once, on the back of an agreement with him, the Dalai Lama were to return to Tibet, their position in Tibet would become complicated as would their policy towards India. Reconciliation with the Dalai Lama means in effect reconciliation with India.
China's claims on Indian territory, and indeed, China's military pressure on India is on account of its direct military occupation of Tibet. The extent of Chinese cynicism towards India is reflected in its claim on Tawang because of its Tibetan links and the fact that one of the earlier Dalai Lamas, an institution that they have tried to destroy politically, was born there.
The Chinese unabashedly play the Tibetan card to the hilt against India. Yet we are reluctant to play the Tibetan card against China. A reasonable settlement between the Dalai Lama, the recognised spiritual head of Tibet, and the Chinese is good for China, good for the Tibetans and good for India.
It will resolve a festering issue of denial of political and cultural rights of a distinctive people and the suppression of their separate identity. Equally importantly, the example of Dalai Lama leading a peaceful, non-violent struggle to redress grievances and injustice, is deeply relevant in the context of the rise of extremism and terrorism to fight real or imagined grievances and injustice by people and communities elsewhere in the world.
The world needs to press China to deal with the Dalai Lama with transparency and sincerity.
There are two possible approaches to the border issue. One is to envisage a settlement which will involve fairly substantial give and take, in favour of India in the western sector and China in the eastern sector. The border would be settled not on the basis of actual ground control but based of complex agreed principles. China could easily make concessions in the western sector as they are occupying territory much beyond their own historical claims. For India making equal concessions in the eastern sector would be impossible for political and security reasons. India cannot but seek to move back China in Aksai Chin in view of their very advanced positions, which gives the Chinese a handle to raise the ante in the east.
The other approach would be that to have a realistic solution, it would be necessary to work on the basis of the hard realities on the ground. What China is actually holding, it will not cede in negotiations, and so would it be in India's case. This implies a very limited give and take, only to make the border more rational and remove anomalies here and there. If one is to proceed on the basis of what each country is holding, then the delineation of the Actual Line of Control (LAC) on the maps becomes necessary.
In some areas, the two sides have conflicting views of where the LAC is and in these pockets both sides do patrolling to assert their claim. Periodic reports about Chinese incursions relate to their patrolling in the areas we claim are under our control, bearing in mind that the entire length of the border is not permanently manned on both sides.
The understanding between the two sides to exchange maps of their respective perceptions of the LAC in order to identify the physical extent of the disputed areas, was important. On completion of this exercise in the middle, western and eastern sectors (in this order) the process of actual negotiations of give and take in these areas was to have begun. After exchanging maps in the middle sector, and after India presented its map of the western sector in 2002, the Chinese halted the exercise without any cogent explanation.
During Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to China in 2003, we decided to abandon the earlier agreed approach and proposed a 'political solution' to the issue. To this end, Special Representatives of the two countries were nominated and given a mandate to establish a set of guidelines (which they have done) for proceeding towards resolution. The Chinese, having rejected the approach of first delineating the LAC as an attempt to maintain the status quo, are making the subsequent approach unworkable by demanding significant territorial adjustments in the east, laying claim to Tawang, China's Tawang claim shows absence of any real desire for a border settlement and the tactic is to contrive an issue so as to transfer the responsibility for an impasse on to the Indian side.
In 1962, China had captured Tawang and yet it withdrew from it and the rest of Arunachal Pradesh largely to what is the MacMahon line, thereby de facto accepting its validity. In the western sector, it did not go back to the pre-1962 line and retained the fruits of its aggression. If they needed to hold Tawang for religious or security reasons or felt that their legal claim was rock solid, they would not have withdrawn. 45 years later to demand Tawang is sheer political effrontery.
The phenomenal growth of India-China trade (almost $40 billion or Rs 160,000 crore) is a welcome development as it contributes to increasing mutual prosperity. It is important to note that on the Indian side the decision to boost economic exchanges is a political one based on the logic that the border issue should not stand in the way of normalisation of relations in other fields. Its political character is underlined by the completely opposite attitude of Pakistan, i.e., no normalisation of relations with India, including in trade, unless the core issue of Kashmir is settled. For the Chinese the decision is not political. China controls what it wants on the border and claims more as a pressure point.
China has strategically neutralised India by supplying Pakistan with nuclear and missile technologies. It is the biggest defence supplier of Pakistan. While it is extremely sensitive on the issue of 'One China', on which it has extracted support from us, its position on Jammu and Kashmir [Images], veering from support of Pakistan's position to a quasi-neutral position, and notable for the absence of any endorsement of our legal position, stands out as a contrast. Its claim on vast swathes of Indian territory, in any case, makes mockery of "one India". Its export dependent growth needs all markets, and certainly a large one like India's.
Given China's size, its view of itself in historical terms, its claims on India, on Taiwan, in the South China sea etc, its rise has implications for the region and beyond. As China grows muscles, it will flex them. China's opaque political system adds to outside concerns as it makes its conduct unpredictable. Countries hope that prosperity and integration with the global system will make China more responsible and more transparent internally, increasing confidence levels abroad.
While a policy of containing China would be imprudent, yet it cannot be given a free hand in Asia. Other players in the region have to caution China about political and other costs of seeking domination.
Any initiative to that end serves our interests even as engagement with China continues. However, engagement does not mean acquiescence to Chinese hegemony in Asia.
China's calculatedly ambiguous position on India's permanent membership of the Security Council as well as on opening doors of international cooperation in India's civilian nuclear sector indicates a serious adversarial posture towards our rising aspirations.
If Russia [Images], Britain and France [Images] can support India's candidature and these countries, with US in the lead, can support us on the nuclear issue, why shouldn't China, if it wishes to build a strong, forward-looking, cooperative relationship with India as the second biggest Asian power.
The satisfaction we seem to derive from semantic play by the Chinese on these two issues reflects our mental acceptance of an inferior status vis-a-vis China and our readiness to be patronised by that country.
We should not demand equality from China, we should behave as equals. We should protect our interests more forcefully. Our border infrastructure should be developed rapidly. Our strategic programmes must be accelerated. The prime minister's visit to Arunachal Pradesh in January was a very welcome development. With announced plans to integrate the state more closely with the rest of the country, it signalled to the Chinese that our land of the rising sun will not be relinquished.
Kanwal Sibal is a former foreign secretary of India
February 21, 2008
Jargon Buster : 'Low information voters'
Source: OXFORD ANALYTICA
The two candidates for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will on Tuesday stage a high-profile debate in Cleveland, Ohio. The clash will be heavily trailed in the media, as it comes just a week before the crucial Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. Yet despite the hoopla, perhaps the most important segment of the electorate will not be tuning in: ‘low information voters’ (LIVs).
Pollsters use the term to describe those voters who are the least ‘information aware’, and who are therefore the least susceptible to ‘momentum politics’ -- or recent media trends in favour of a particular candidate:
These individuals tend to be relatively uneducated, rarely subscribe to newspapers (particularly major national dailies), and are seldom internet-savvy. The snatches of news they receive tend to come via local television news, or word-of-mouth.
They are also disproportionately elderly, or reside in rural areas.
LIVs do not follow polling or opinion trends, and tend to be less aware of, and susceptible to, the changes in how candidates are perceived by the media over the course of a race. This makes them especially amenable to candidate ‘brand identification’, such as Clinton’s association with her husband, the former president.
These demographic characteristics make white LIVs a crucial element of Clinton’s voting base -- and her most loyal supporters. Where they turn out in large numbers -- as they did in the Oklahoma primary -- she usually does well. Indeed, the large numbers of LIVs in Ohio and Texas mean that she will depend on their support to secure victory.
However, Obama has one crucial advantage in the battle to win over LIVs: cash. Perhaps the best way to reach these voters is through television advertisements -- although in an era of fragmented media outlets and innumerable cable and satellite channels, this takes a considerable bankroll. Fortunately for the Illinois senator, he has built a significant fundraising advantage over his New York rival:
Obama beat Clinton in the January fundraising sweepstakes by nearly 2-1, and she was forced to lend her campaign 5 million dollars of her own money.
Therefore, he could afford to outspend his opponent by almost 4-1 in Wisconsin, which may have played a crucial role in his solid victory there.
Obama will continue to dominate the airwaves in Texas and Ohio. With more than 10 days to go before the primaries there, this will give him ample opportunity to cut into her lead among LIVs.
The two candidates for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will on Tuesday stage a high-profile debate in Cleveland, Ohio. The clash will be heavily trailed in the media, as it comes just a week before the crucial Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. Yet despite the hoopla, perhaps the most important segment of the electorate will not be tuning in: ‘low information voters’ (LIVs).
Pollsters use the term to describe those voters who are the least ‘information aware’, and who are therefore the least susceptible to ‘momentum politics’ -- or recent media trends in favour of a particular candidate:
These individuals tend to be relatively uneducated, rarely subscribe to newspapers (particularly major national dailies), and are seldom internet-savvy. The snatches of news they receive tend to come via local television news, or word-of-mouth.
They are also disproportionately elderly, or reside in rural areas.
LIVs do not follow polling or opinion trends, and tend to be less aware of, and susceptible to, the changes in how candidates are perceived by the media over the course of a race. This makes them especially amenable to candidate ‘brand identification’, such as Clinton’s association with her husband, the former president.
These demographic characteristics make white LIVs a crucial element of Clinton’s voting base -- and her most loyal supporters. Where they turn out in large numbers -- as they did in the Oklahoma primary -- she usually does well. Indeed, the large numbers of LIVs in Ohio and Texas mean that she will depend on their support to secure victory.
However, Obama has one crucial advantage in the battle to win over LIVs: cash. Perhaps the best way to reach these voters is through television advertisements -- although in an era of fragmented media outlets and innumerable cable and satellite channels, this takes a considerable bankroll. Fortunately for the Illinois senator, he has built a significant fundraising advantage over his New York rival:
Obama beat Clinton in the January fundraising sweepstakes by nearly 2-1, and she was forced to lend her campaign 5 million dollars of her own money.
Therefore, he could afford to outspend his opponent by almost 4-1 in Wisconsin, which may have played a crucial role in his solid victory there.
Obama will continue to dominate the airwaves in Texas and Ohio. With more than 10 days to go before the primaries there, this will give him ample opportunity to cut into her lead among LIVs.
IRAQ: Sadr calls the shots
Source: Oxford Analytica
Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's announcement on August 29 to freeze the activities of the Mahdi Army militia for six months has been vital to a 60% drop in attacks since the middle of last year. Yet the truce expires this week, and a return to hostilities could jeopardise those security gains.
Sadr, who has cited concerns over the continued detention of Sadrists and attacks on them by rival Shia militias, is said to be undecided as to whether to extend the truce. He is expected to issue a statement on Saturday if he has agreed to extend the ceasefire. Radio silence will mean it is over.
Declining influence?
Even if Sadr does not want the ceasefire to remain, there are questions over the cleric's political influence, and he faces challenges if he is to check the gradual disintegration of his movement:
- Sadr, the son of Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, a revered Shia cleric killed under Saddam Hussein, has always been a totemic figure with limited authority over Iraq's headstrong Shia leaders. By following Sadr, Shias could continue following the preaching of his dead father, who they could no longer formally identify as their beau ideal following his death.
- The Sadrist movement has suffered decreasing unity since 2004, when many elements rejected Sadr's efforts to quell the Sadrist uprisings, and his partial entry into the political system.
- Since the intensive targeting of rogue Mahdi Army elements began in December 2006, the Sadr movement has become even more dispersed and disrupted, with the cleric himself frequently disappearing for weeks or months.
The decision to stand down the Mahdi Army further loosened its structure.
It would be wise not to underestimate the cleric, who according to Vali Nasr, author of The Shi'a Revival, still commands the "largest social and political movement in southern Iraq". Nasr believes the Mahdi Army's leader is playing for time, developing stronger religious credentials and consolidating his control over a militia. "The game in Iraq is not over", says Nasr. "He has been beefing up his strength."
Sadr: potential ally?
Washington may also be bluffing. US officials have placed blame for some recent attacks on Iranian-backed 'special groups' that include Shia fighters not abiding by the ceasefire or expelled by the Mahdi Army. Washington increasingly recognises Sadr -- or at least pretends to -- as a potential ally against these rogue Sadrists, referring to the cleric with the polite honorific 'sayyid'. Senior commanders have characterised him as a legitimate Shia politician and defender of the poor, although it is unclear whether such US endorsements and related actions will help or hurt Sadr, or have no practical effect.
Sadr will most likely renew the truce to continue rebuilding the Mahdi Army into a Hizbollah-style movement primarily engaged in social services and political protests. However, if current trends continue, Sadr and his political movement will experience continued waning of their ability to influence Iraqi Shia.
Sadr's 32-seat bloc in parliament currently votes with cohesion, but a weakened movement could be less powerful in the assembly. Sadr's entry into politics has pushed many diehard Shia militiamen towards Iran, where they have received backing to continue anti-coalition and anti-Sunni attacks. This trend will continue.
At any rate, an even more fractured Mahdi Army will undertake operations based on local conditions, resulting in regular violations of future truces and perhaps even major uprisings where local conditions shift through elections or aggressive government operations to curtail Sadrist power. Sadr may speak up on Saturday, but it is unclear how many will listen.
INDIA : When windbags obscured strategic thinking !
Source: OFFSTUMPED
The PTI today reported that former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh resigned from the Congress and the Rajya Sabha.
A week after attending a BJP rally, K Natwar Singh formally quit the Congress, but the party hit back, branding the former External Affairs Minister as an “opportunist without any principles”. The suspended leader said he has resigned from the primary membership of the party by communicating the decision in a letter yesterday to party chief Sonia Gandhi and that he might also resign from the Rajya Sabha.
The Congress also did not lose an opportunity to take a dig at the BJP for rumors that he might be welcomed into its fold.
The departure is not graceful…..It is disgraceful. Singh got all power and positions because of the Congress…. Those who were talking about secularism against BJP has landed in their net,” AICC Media Department chairman M Veerappa Moily said. Moily said it was for the BJP to decide whether to take on board such “opportunist people without principles”.
Whether there is truth to that rumor it is an undeniable fact that elements within the BJP have hobnobbed with him in the past during parliamentary debates to score debating points against the Manmohan Singh dispensation.
Offstumped had then carried a post on how windbags like Natwar Singh with their fossilized world view had obscured strategic thinking in the nation. Some extracts from that post.
Its 26 days since the 7/11 serial commuter train blasts in Mumbai killed over 200 Indian Citizens. We are now convinced that the Indian response to 7/11 is status quo ante. If the political wind passing by one foreign minister was not enough now we have the Natwar Singh Manmohan Singh tu-tu main-main dominating public debate. All of this in the Indian Parliament which has all but forgotten the 200 deaths in Mumbai and the changing security environment across the globe. In a classic display of Manmohan Singh ko gussa kyon aata hai, now we know that it is not over 200 Indian deaths but Manmohan Singh really gets riled when an irrelevant issue becomes a personal affront him. If the Prime Minister had even applied a fraction of this emotion in his reaction to 7/11 the country at large would have taken his government with far more credibility.
To refresh memory this was in August 2006 when Natwar Singh ridiculed Manmohan Singh for never having won an election and being a weak Prime Minister following his suspension from the Congress Party over the Oil for Food scam. The BJP had then created the impression of backing Natwar in the backdrop of leakage of RS Pathak Committee report. The RSS’ MG Vaidya had then taken the BJP to task on this immoral hobnobbing to score a few political points.
Offstumped Bottomline: It is one thing to tactically use windbags like Natwar to score a political point. But to seriously consider admitting someone with questionable morals and an anachronistic world view defies both logic and common political sense. Natwar Singh symbolizes an era gone by and has more in common with the dinosaurs in the Congress Working Committee than with a forward looking BJP. He is best left to fade and be forgotten while his legacy remains fossilized for political historians of another generation to examine and understand all that went wrong with the Congress.
The PTI today reported that former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh resigned from the Congress and the Rajya Sabha.
A week after attending a BJP rally, K Natwar Singh formally quit the Congress, but the party hit back, branding the former External Affairs Minister as an “opportunist without any principles”. The suspended leader said he has resigned from the primary membership of the party by communicating the decision in a letter yesterday to party chief Sonia Gandhi and that he might also resign from the Rajya Sabha.
The Congress also did not lose an opportunity to take a dig at the BJP for rumors that he might be welcomed into its fold.
The departure is not graceful…..It is disgraceful. Singh got all power and positions because of the Congress…. Those who were talking about secularism against BJP has landed in their net,” AICC Media Department chairman M Veerappa Moily said. Moily said it was for the BJP to decide whether to take on board such “opportunist people without principles”.
Whether there is truth to that rumor it is an undeniable fact that elements within the BJP have hobnobbed with him in the past during parliamentary debates to score debating points against the Manmohan Singh dispensation.
Offstumped had then carried a post on how windbags like Natwar Singh with their fossilized world view had obscured strategic thinking in the nation. Some extracts from that post.
Its 26 days since the 7/11 serial commuter train blasts in Mumbai killed over 200 Indian Citizens. We are now convinced that the Indian response to 7/11 is status quo ante. If the political wind passing by one foreign minister was not enough now we have the Natwar Singh Manmohan Singh tu-tu main-main dominating public debate. All of this in the Indian Parliament which has all but forgotten the 200 deaths in Mumbai and the changing security environment across the globe. In a classic display of Manmohan Singh ko gussa kyon aata hai, now we know that it is not over 200 Indian deaths but Manmohan Singh really gets riled when an irrelevant issue becomes a personal affront him. If the Prime Minister had even applied a fraction of this emotion in his reaction to 7/11 the country at large would have taken his government with far more credibility.
To refresh memory this was in August 2006 when Natwar Singh ridiculed Manmohan Singh for never having won an election and being a weak Prime Minister following his suspension from the Congress Party over the Oil for Food scam. The BJP had then created the impression of backing Natwar in the backdrop of leakage of RS Pathak Committee report. The RSS’ MG Vaidya had then taken the BJP to task on this immoral hobnobbing to score a few political points.
Offstumped Bottomline: It is one thing to tactically use windbags like Natwar to score a political point. But to seriously consider admitting someone with questionable morals and an anachronistic world view defies both logic and common political sense. Natwar Singh symbolizes an era gone by and has more in common with the dinosaurs in the Congress Working Committee than with a forward looking BJP. He is best left to fade and be forgotten while his legacy remains fossilized for political historians of another generation to examine and understand all that went wrong with the Congress.
Iranian Missile Silos
Courtesy : http://geimint.blogspot.com/
There has been a great deal of recent open-source reporting dealing with a purported missile site near Tabriz in northwestern Iran. While these reports may or may not be true, they have all failed to note the presence of another missile facility in the region. The difference is that this facility can be identified with much greater certainty: this facility houses Iran's first missile silos.
READ MORE
There has been a great deal of recent open-source reporting dealing with a purported missile site near Tabriz in northwestern Iran. While these reports may or may not be true, they have all failed to note the presence of another missile facility in the region. The difference is that this facility can be identified with much greater certainty: this facility houses Iran's first missile silos.
READ MORE
Ancient city discovered in India
Eighteen stone pillars have been excavated (Pics: Sanjib Mukherjee)
_______
Remnants point to an urban centre
- Excavation continues, relics unearthed at Sishupalgarh
OUR CORRESPONDENT
http://www.archaeologynews.org/story.asp?ID=263698&Title=Ancient%20city%20discovered%20in%20India
Monica L. Smith of Cotsen Institute of Archeology in University of California. Pictures
Ancient city discovered in India
By Sandeep Sahu
Bhubaneswar
BBC
Indian archaeologists say they have found remains which point to the existence of a city which flourished 2,500 years ago in eastern India. The remains have been discovered at Sisupalgarh near Bhubaneswar, capital of the eastern state of Orissa.
Researchers say the items found during the excavation point to a highly developed urban settlement.
The population of the city could have been in the region of 20,000 to 25,000, the archaeologists claim.
The excavations include 18 stone pillars, pottery, terracotta ornaments and bangles, finger rings, ear spools and pendants made of clay.
But some historians and archaeologists in Orissa have expressed reservations about the claim of the researchers - they say it is too early to say anything about the population or periodicity of the area.
'Significance'
RK Mohanty of the department of archaeology, Deccan College, Pune, who is one of the two researchers involved in the excavations.
"The significance of this ancient city becomes clear when one bears in mind the fact that the population of classical Athens was barely 10,000," he said.
Mr Mohanty, along with Monica Smith of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, has been carrying out limited excavations at the site every year since 2005 with the permission of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
Archaeologists say it was a planned urban settlement
The latest round of excavations ended last Monday and the new discoveries have been covered with special plastic material and earth to preserve them before further digging is taken up in subsequent years.
The first excavations at the site were carried out by Prof BB Lal as far back as in 1948.
On the basis of the architectural pattern and artefacts discovered during the early excavations, Prof Lal concluded that this fort city flourished between 3rd century BC and 4th century AD.
On the basis of the new findings, Ms Smith and Mr Mohanty claim that the fortified city flourished from around 5th century BC and probably lasted well after the 4th century.
"We have employed geophysical survey, systematic surface collections and selected excavations in the 4.8km perimeter of the fortified area and studied individual houses and civic as well as domestic architecture to arrive at the figure of 25,000," said Ms Smith.
"If anything, it is a conservative estimate."
'Guesswork'
But some historians and archaeologists in Orissa have expressed reservations about the claim of the two researchers.
"At best, it is a guesswork. Without excavating the entire area of the fortified city, it is not possible to determine its population or periodicity," said BK Rath, former director of the state archaeology department.
"The actual area excavated so far is only a minuscule part of the city. How does one determine the size of the average family in a period about which very little historical literature or evidence is available?
Some historians say it's too early to say anything conclusive about the place
"Besides, the comparison with Athens is odious since it was not a fortified city like Sisupalgarh," he said.
Mr Rath, however, gives credit to Ms Smith and Mr Mohanty for having focussed attention on the problem of encroachment that is threatening to engulf a large part of the fortified city.
The major portion of the land that constitutes the ancient city is in private possession making an archaeological study difficult.
Besides, several urban settlements have sprung up in the vicinity of the area in the last few years owing to its proximity to the city of Bhubaneswar.
With a view to preserving this important archaeological site for future research, the ASI is now contemplating asking the state government for control over the land.
Lost
"This way, we can prevent further encroachment and develop the site as a tourist attraction," said BR Mani, a senior ASI official.
There is also some concern about the preservation of the material which has been found during the excavation.
Well-known historian Karuna Sagar Behera voiced serious concern over the preservation of material unearthed from the site.
"Its is a shame that some gold coins and terracotta pottery found at the place during the first excavation in the late 1940s were subsequently lost," he said.
"Measures should be taken to ensure that all the material excavated are properly preserved for future research."
The project is being supported by the National Science Foundation of India, the National Geographic Society and the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, California.
________________
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080212/jsp/nation/story_8889995.jsp
Bhubaneswar, Feb. 11: If one asks what does Bhubaneswar have in common with archaeological sites such as Giza, Tikal and Lepcis Magna, the answer would be Sishupalgarh, located 12km from the capital, the remains of an ancient city containing evidence of a life both urban and economically strong.
Located 45km inland from the Bay of Bengal, the city existed approximately between the 3rd century BC to the 4th century AD.
Professor B.B. Lal, who found the western gateways, first excavated the site in 1948 and 1950. Work again began in 2000 with R.K. Mohanty of the department of archaeology of Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute (Pune) and Monica L. Smith of Cotsen Institute of Archeology in University of California.
Excavations began oce more in 2005 and continue to be carried out in phases.
The project is being conducted under a research permit from the Archaeological Survey of India. So far, excavations have unearthed an urban core zone graced with an earthen rampart, stone columns and stone-lined water reservoirs. The present team has also exposed 18 pillars and associated structures on a mound within the fortification wall.
“This 2,500-year-old city was huge and is one of the best preserved public places in India,” said principle investigator Mohanty. The project goal is to comprehend how ancient cities grew and developed from the perspective of the ordinary inhabitants.
That the city was an important site is comprehended from its location - its within a walking distance to a Buddhist monument (Ashokan edict at Dhauli - the site of the Kalinga war) and a series of elaborate carved caves of the Jain religious tradition (Khandagiri and Udayagiri hills).
“We were confused when the pillars were first exposed as to why they were there as they were placed so haphazardly. Now we feel it was probably a large hall or a meeting place. The pillars must be part of a gigantic structure, used for public gatherings Sockets in the top of the pillar indicate they might have some wooden rod running into it,” said Smith.
Every year the researchers work for a month or two according to the time available.
One of the rewarding aspects of the project has been the inclusion of students and research scholars from all over. Nearly 50 graduate students and professionals from US, India, Mauritius, Bangladesh and Cambodia work on the project. The excavations are scheduled to continue for the next two years.
The team that arrived here in the first week of January 2008 found remains of ordinary houses made of brick and stone footings that would have supported buildings of compacted mud.
Excavations also revealed a variety of objects, not just pottery, but bangles, beads, pendants and earrings.
“Although we tend to think of excessive consumption as a modern trait, investigations of ancient cities show that people enthusiastically produce and discard goods in mass quantities whenever they can. At Shishupalgarh a large number of bowls and jar fragments were found which were used once or twice and then thrown away, much like today’s disposable cups,” said Smith.
____________
— Photo: Ashoke Chakrabarty
Source: http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/12/stories/2008021252100300.htm
Staff Reporter
Archaeological Survey of India seeks transfer of land in its favour
Prof. B. B. Lal first excavated the ancient city of Sisupalgarh in 1948
Several artefacts and urban structure of pre-historic period came to the light
Excavation work in progress at the ancient city of Sishupalgarh in Orissa.
BHUBANESWAR: Close on the heels of researchers coming across more remains indicating existence of a bustling ancient city of Sisupalgarh on the outskirts of capital city, Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is contemplating seeking transfer of land in its favour.
Illegal construction
Speaking to media persons at the excavation site, which was believed to be central location of the ancient city, Joint Director General of ASI Buddha Rashmi Mani on Monday said, “whatever has been found in Sishupalgarh is archeologically very significant. This is high time that the site should be taken over by the department, particularly, wherever the wall of fort city existed.”
Renowned archaeologist Prof. B. B. Lal had first excavated the ancient city of Sisupalgarh in 1948 and then he had referred Sisupalgarh to be a 2000-year-old fortified township.
Nearly 50 years after, two researchers R. K. Mohanty of Pune-based Deccan College and Monica L. Smith of University of California started excavating a portion where they claim to have exposed 18 previously unknown pillars and several associated structures on a mound within the fortification wall. During current excavation several artefacts and urban structure of pre-historic period also came to the light.
“At present we must at least acquire important portions of the area. The State Government must get the land transferred in the name of ASI. Then only, we will have the full control to stop any illegal construction,” Mr. Mani said.
About 15 years back, there was no house within the fortification site, now new habitations started coming up and it happened because the entire land did not belong to ASI, he said.
“People can do farming or agriculture but they cannot construct new structure within 200 metre of ASI declared monument.
These are liable to be demolished,” the Joint Director general said.
Though archaeologists and anthropologists continue to emphasise on the fact that Sishupalgarh is unique, there has been no attempt on part of the State Government to protect and preserve the site. New constructions are coming up within 20 metre to 30 metre distance of monuments. “Entire Sishupalgarh is said to be a fort area. However, land patches have been systematically transferred in the name of private individuals.
The State Government seems to have no interests in it,” former minister Seikh Matlub Ali, who visited the site on Monday, said.
The entire Sishupalgarh, whose area according to archaeologists would be four square km, should be made free from encroachments, he said.
Reliance acquires mobile service firm in Uganda
RCom acquires mobile service firm in Uganda
New Delhi (PTI): Anil Ambani-led Reliance Communications on Thursday acquired a Uganda-based Anupam Global Soft, a company holding service provider license, and announced an investment of about Rs 2,000 crore over the next five years to set up telecom network in the African nation.
RCom is planning to offer mobile, fixed line, internet, national and international long distance services, in addition to Wi-Max and Wi-Fi services in Uganda, a company statement said.
"Uganda telecom market is similar to what India was eight years back. Our expertise in managing among world's largest integrated telecom network and deep understanding of diverse consumer segments makes us confident to achieve position to add further value to our two million shareholders," it said.
The company has already received spectrum and plans to launch mobile services by the end of 2008. "RCom is targeting to invest up to 500 million dollar (Rs 2,000 crore) in establishing a high quality integrated telecom network in Uganda to capture the significant growth potential in the emerging African market."
This is the third global acquisition for the company after FLAG in 2003 and Yipes in 2007, and first international acquisition as far as services are concerned.
RCom had acquired FLAG for 211 million dollars and Yipes for 300 million dollars.
Reliance has recently been allowed to offer GSM-based mobile services in India along with its existing CDMA operations throughout the country.
The move comes a day after the announcement of formation of Reliance Globalcom, the umbrella brand for all its international businesses.
New Delhi (PTI): Anil Ambani-led Reliance Communications on Thursday acquired a Uganda-based Anupam Global Soft, a company holding service provider license, and announced an investment of about Rs 2,000 crore over the next five years to set up telecom network in the African nation.
RCom is planning to offer mobile, fixed line, internet, national and international long distance services, in addition to Wi-Max and Wi-Fi services in Uganda, a company statement said.
"Uganda telecom market is similar to what India was eight years back. Our expertise in managing among world's largest integrated telecom network and deep understanding of diverse consumer segments makes us confident to achieve position to add further value to our two million shareholders," it said.
The company has already received spectrum and plans to launch mobile services by the end of 2008. "RCom is targeting to invest up to 500 million dollar (Rs 2,000 crore) in establishing a high quality integrated telecom network in Uganda to capture the significant growth potential in the emerging African market."
This is the third global acquisition for the company after FLAG in 2003 and Yipes in 2007, and first international acquisition as far as services are concerned.
RCom had acquired FLAG for 211 million dollars and Yipes for 300 million dollars.
Reliance has recently been allowed to offer GSM-based mobile services in India along with its existing CDMA operations throughout the country.
The move comes a day after the announcement of formation of Reliance Globalcom, the umbrella brand for all its international businesses.
Technology and the fog of war
Can technology lift the fog of war? The US Army seems to believe as so, pushing more funding for Future Combat Systems to the chagrin of critics.
By Peter Buxbaum in Washington, DC for ISN Security Watch (21/02/08)
Within days of each other earlier this month the US Army released its fiscal year 2009 budget request and its new field operations manual.
The ops manual was remarkable for its new thinking about the how the nature of conflict would unfold in the next 10 to 15 years. The manual describes the US as facing an era of "persistent conflict" in which the American military will often operate among reluctant civilians in unstable environments.
The budget request reflected these priorities, to a certain extent, by calling for increases in US ground forces over the next five years.
But at a Pentagon press briefing, it was the Future Combat Systems (FCS) that was foremost on the minds of army budgeters, who are concerned about prospective congressional action on FCS funding. The army is requesting US$3.6 billion for FCS in 2009, a US$100 million increase over 2008.
FCS, as envisioned by the US Army, promotes a new way of warfighting that depends on networking people, platforms, weapons and sensors seamlessly in a so-called system of systems.
Another important and related aspect of FCS is the development of lighter and more maneuverable ground vehicles. The enhanced data links provided by the FCS information network, so the theory goes, would promote better situational awareness, allowing the deployment of lighter and faster vehicles that could better evade an enemy and keep him on the defensive.
However, the army's emphasis on FCS does raise some questions, in view of its new operating principles and its experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We cannot afford to cut any more out of FCS this year," Lieutenant-General David Melcher, the army's deputy budget director, said at a press conference.
Congress cut the administration's request for FCS by US$229 million for fiscal year 2008 and by US$250 million the year before. The program may be in for even a bigger hit this year, as FCS critics will likely push for an US$875 million funding slash.
"Congress has RDT&E fatigue," Melcher said, referring to the research, development, testing and evaluation processes.
Congressional criticism of FCS in recent years has centered on scheduling delays, often due to the lack of technological readiness, as well as its mammoth US$160 billion price tag. FCS systems were slated to enter production by 2006 and to start initial fielding in 2008, but the schedule has been extended by over six years.
FCS usefulness up for debate
But now the issue is being joined on a much more basic level: whether the program is necessary at all; whether it is even possible to provide the benefits and capabilities touted by its advocates.
Proponents of FCS point to the "unprecedented success" with which US forces "smashed the Iraqi Army and toppled Saddam Hussein," as a paper from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, put it.
Although FCS has yet to be deployed, US forces in Iraq were equipped with forerunners of the planned vehicles and systems.
On the technology side, the army installed an FCS-like network in some combat vehicles, allowing for the tracking of enemy and friendly forces. On the vehicle side, US soldiers and marines were often provided with unarmored vehicles, light enough to move quickly across contested terrain but vulnerable to attacks from improvised explosive devices once troops were bogged down in static urban situations.
The Heritage paper argues that during the 1990s the army skipped a generation of modernization and entered Iraq underfunded and underequipped. This operational shortfall will continue, Heritage concludes, if Congress terminates or underfunds FCS.
Detractors like Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional investigator, do not agree that the new systems contributed to the early success in Iraq. In his new book Military Reform (co-authored with Lawrence Korb), Wheeler argues it was the inferiority of the Iraqi fighting forces and not the superiority of the American technology that made the key difference.
Clearly, the Heritage paper left out the crucial epilogue to the Iraq war story: that the same light, networked battalions that swept through the desert toward Baghdad were ill-equipped to handle the slow slog of counterinsurgency on the streets of the Iraqi capital.
It is therefore curious that FCS should be the army's chief concern, when its new operations manual elevates the mission of stabilizing war-torn nations to the equal of defeating adversaries on the battlefield.
"Army doctrine now equally weights tasks dealing with the population - stability or civil support - with those related to offensive and defensive operations," the manual states. "Winning battles and engagements is important but alone is not sufficient. Shaping the civil situation is just as important to success."
This inconsistency is explained by US Army Colonel HR McMaster in a recent article in Survival magazine, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
McMaster posits that US military thinking continues to this day in a mode that dates back to the early 1990s and is characterized by "a fantastical theory about the character of future war rather than by clear visions of emerging threats to national security."
An outgrowth of this wrongheaded thinking involves a "capabilities-based analysis," which, McMaster says, "focused narrowly on how the United States would like to fight and then assumed that the preference was relevant."
FCS's networking concept has become a centerpiece for what McMaster calls a widely accepted yet fundamentally flawed conception of future war: the belief that surveillance, communications and information technologies would deliver "dominant battlespace knowledge" and permit US forces to achieve "full spectrum dominance" against any opponent mainly through the employment of precision-strike capabilities.
"The language was hubristic," McMaster concludes.
The continued reliance on these technologies to achieve success on the battlefield, McMaster argues, ignores the lessons that should have been learned from US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those operations, he says, "revealed more continuities than breaks with previous conflicts. In both campaigns, surveillance and information technologies failed to deliver the promised 'dominant battlespace knowledge.'"
In Tora Bora, Afghanistan, McMaster relates, surveillance of the terrain did not compensate for the lack of ground forces to cover escape routes. After a 16-day battle, many al-Qaida forces, including perhaps Osama bin Laden himself, fled across the Pakistan border. In Iraq, the US often encountered enemy forces about which they had received no advanced warning.
"Much of what coalition forces needed to know about the enemy, such as the degree of competence and motivation among them, could be learned only after engaging in close combat," McMaster writes.
The continued emphasis on FCS, for McMaster, shows how "theory continues to triumph over practice even as practice points in the opposite direction."
Ground forces want air, sea success
US military doctrine continues to insist, for example, that the military needs to acquire "dominant knowledge" in order to prevail in future wars. This doctrine, "despite being continually exposed as unrealistic by recent and ongoing combat experience, continues to provide the primary conceptual justification for large acquisition programs such as the army's Future Combat System," McMaster writes.
McMaster's article and the Heritage Foundation paper both hit on an essential point often missed in discussions about military information technology: that ground forces are seeking to duplicate the capabilities prevalent in the air and maritime domains.
"Through Future Combat Systems, the Army aims to dominate the ground by the same means the Navy and Air Force have achieved maritime and air superiority," the Heritage paper notes. "FCS seeks to harness information and precision technologies with the service's already unrivalled firepower to kill the enemy faster than it can react."
McMaster discredits this comparison, however. "Recent combat experiences confirm that war on land is fundamentally different from war in the air or at sea; military leaders ought to recognize that technologies that permit naval and air forces to dominate the fluid media of sea and air do not have a similar effect on land," he writes.
War on land will remain fundamentally uncertain due to the human, psychological, political and cultural dimensions of conflict, according to McMaster. Technology will not be able to unravel the uncertainty of a situation characterized by "immanent interaction with adversaries able to use terrain, intermingle with the population, and adopt countermeasures to technological capabilities."
McMaster urges militaries to "abandon the dangerous and seductive illusion" that technology can solve the problem of future conflict. "Even a cursory examination of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq," he concludes, "should debunk the myth that technology is capable of 'lifting the fog of war' and delivering a high degree of certainty in combat."
Peter Buxbaum, a Washington-based independent journalist, has been writing about defense, security, business and technology for 15 years. His work has appeared in publications such as Fortune, Forbes, Chief Executive, Information Week, Defense Technology International, Homeland Security and Computerworld. His website is www.buxbaum1.com.
By Peter Buxbaum in Washington, DC for ISN Security Watch (21/02/08)
Within days of each other earlier this month the US Army released its fiscal year 2009 budget request and its new field operations manual.
The ops manual was remarkable for its new thinking about the how the nature of conflict would unfold in the next 10 to 15 years. The manual describes the US as facing an era of "persistent conflict" in which the American military will often operate among reluctant civilians in unstable environments.
The budget request reflected these priorities, to a certain extent, by calling for increases in US ground forces over the next five years.
But at a Pentagon press briefing, it was the Future Combat Systems (FCS) that was foremost on the minds of army budgeters, who are concerned about prospective congressional action on FCS funding. The army is requesting US$3.6 billion for FCS in 2009, a US$100 million increase over 2008.
FCS, as envisioned by the US Army, promotes a new way of warfighting that depends on networking people, platforms, weapons and sensors seamlessly in a so-called system of systems.
Another important and related aspect of FCS is the development of lighter and more maneuverable ground vehicles. The enhanced data links provided by the FCS information network, so the theory goes, would promote better situational awareness, allowing the deployment of lighter and faster vehicles that could better evade an enemy and keep him on the defensive.
However, the army's emphasis on FCS does raise some questions, in view of its new operating principles and its experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We cannot afford to cut any more out of FCS this year," Lieutenant-General David Melcher, the army's deputy budget director, said at a press conference.
Congress cut the administration's request for FCS by US$229 million for fiscal year 2008 and by US$250 million the year before. The program may be in for even a bigger hit this year, as FCS critics will likely push for an US$875 million funding slash.
"Congress has RDT&E fatigue," Melcher said, referring to the research, development, testing and evaluation processes.
Congressional criticism of FCS in recent years has centered on scheduling delays, often due to the lack of technological readiness, as well as its mammoth US$160 billion price tag. FCS systems were slated to enter production by 2006 and to start initial fielding in 2008, but the schedule has been extended by over six years.
FCS usefulness up for debate
But now the issue is being joined on a much more basic level: whether the program is necessary at all; whether it is even possible to provide the benefits and capabilities touted by its advocates.
Proponents of FCS point to the "unprecedented success" with which US forces "smashed the Iraqi Army and toppled Saddam Hussein," as a paper from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, put it.
Although FCS has yet to be deployed, US forces in Iraq were equipped with forerunners of the planned vehicles and systems.
On the technology side, the army installed an FCS-like network in some combat vehicles, allowing for the tracking of enemy and friendly forces. On the vehicle side, US soldiers and marines were often provided with unarmored vehicles, light enough to move quickly across contested terrain but vulnerable to attacks from improvised explosive devices once troops were bogged down in static urban situations.
The Heritage paper argues that during the 1990s the army skipped a generation of modernization and entered Iraq underfunded and underequipped. This operational shortfall will continue, Heritage concludes, if Congress terminates or underfunds FCS.
Detractors like Winslow Wheeler, a former congressional investigator, do not agree that the new systems contributed to the early success in Iraq. In his new book Military Reform (co-authored with Lawrence Korb), Wheeler argues it was the inferiority of the Iraqi fighting forces and not the superiority of the American technology that made the key difference.
Clearly, the Heritage paper left out the crucial epilogue to the Iraq war story: that the same light, networked battalions that swept through the desert toward Baghdad were ill-equipped to handle the slow slog of counterinsurgency on the streets of the Iraqi capital.
It is therefore curious that FCS should be the army's chief concern, when its new operations manual elevates the mission of stabilizing war-torn nations to the equal of defeating adversaries on the battlefield.
"Army doctrine now equally weights tasks dealing with the population - stability or civil support - with those related to offensive and defensive operations," the manual states. "Winning battles and engagements is important but alone is not sufficient. Shaping the civil situation is just as important to success."
This inconsistency is explained by US Army Colonel HR McMaster in a recent article in Survival magazine, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
McMaster posits that US military thinking continues to this day in a mode that dates back to the early 1990s and is characterized by "a fantastical theory about the character of future war rather than by clear visions of emerging threats to national security."
An outgrowth of this wrongheaded thinking involves a "capabilities-based analysis," which, McMaster says, "focused narrowly on how the United States would like to fight and then assumed that the preference was relevant."
FCS's networking concept has become a centerpiece for what McMaster calls a widely accepted yet fundamentally flawed conception of future war: the belief that surveillance, communications and information technologies would deliver "dominant battlespace knowledge" and permit US forces to achieve "full spectrum dominance" against any opponent mainly through the employment of precision-strike capabilities.
"The language was hubristic," McMaster concludes.
The continued reliance on these technologies to achieve success on the battlefield, McMaster argues, ignores the lessons that should have been learned from US military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those operations, he says, "revealed more continuities than breaks with previous conflicts. In both campaigns, surveillance and information technologies failed to deliver the promised 'dominant battlespace knowledge.'"
In Tora Bora, Afghanistan, McMaster relates, surveillance of the terrain did not compensate for the lack of ground forces to cover escape routes. After a 16-day battle, many al-Qaida forces, including perhaps Osama bin Laden himself, fled across the Pakistan border. In Iraq, the US often encountered enemy forces about which they had received no advanced warning.
"Much of what coalition forces needed to know about the enemy, such as the degree of competence and motivation among them, could be learned only after engaging in close combat," McMaster writes.
The continued emphasis on FCS, for McMaster, shows how "theory continues to triumph over practice even as practice points in the opposite direction."
Ground forces want air, sea success
US military doctrine continues to insist, for example, that the military needs to acquire "dominant knowledge" in order to prevail in future wars. This doctrine, "despite being continually exposed as unrealistic by recent and ongoing combat experience, continues to provide the primary conceptual justification for large acquisition programs such as the army's Future Combat System," McMaster writes.
McMaster's article and the Heritage Foundation paper both hit on an essential point often missed in discussions about military information technology: that ground forces are seeking to duplicate the capabilities prevalent in the air and maritime domains.
"Through Future Combat Systems, the Army aims to dominate the ground by the same means the Navy and Air Force have achieved maritime and air superiority," the Heritage paper notes. "FCS seeks to harness information and precision technologies with the service's already unrivalled firepower to kill the enemy faster than it can react."
McMaster discredits this comparison, however. "Recent combat experiences confirm that war on land is fundamentally different from war in the air or at sea; military leaders ought to recognize that technologies that permit naval and air forces to dominate the fluid media of sea and air do not have a similar effect on land," he writes.
War on land will remain fundamentally uncertain due to the human, psychological, political and cultural dimensions of conflict, according to McMaster. Technology will not be able to unravel the uncertainty of a situation characterized by "immanent interaction with adversaries able to use terrain, intermingle with the population, and adopt countermeasures to technological capabilities."
McMaster urges militaries to "abandon the dangerous and seductive illusion" that technology can solve the problem of future conflict. "Even a cursory examination of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq," he concludes, "should debunk the myth that technology is capable of 'lifting the fog of war' and delivering a high degree of certainty in combat."
Peter Buxbaum, a Washington-based independent journalist, has been writing about defense, security, business and technology for 15 years. His work has appeared in publications such as Fortune, Forbes, Chief Executive, Information Week, Defense Technology International, Homeland Security and Computerworld. His website is www.buxbaum1.com.
The internet's vulnerability
The recent outage of telecommunications service in the Middle East shows that while the internet is famously resilient, it remains remarkably easy to cut millions off of the network.
By Adam Wolfe for ISN Security Watch (19/02/08)
A recent series of outages cut large portions of the Middle East and Indian subcontinent off from the internet and launched numerous conspiracy theories, with speculators blaming everyone from al-Qaida to the US Navy, but most experts quickly agreed that it was simply a coincidental series of remarkably common events that knocked millions off the global network.
The incidents were a reminder that the internet, famously designed to be able to withstand a nuclear attack, remains vulnerable to severe outages at its physical layer - especially at numerous choke points in the undersea cable network that carries most international communications.
On 29 January, two undersea cables were damaged in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Alexandria, cutting the telecom capacity between Egypt and Europe by about 75 percent. Two days later, an abandoned anchor damaged another cable in the Persian Gulf causing further outages. Then on 3 February, another undersea cable was taken offline in the Gulf because of a power failure.
This left 1.7 million users in the United Arab Emirates without service, in addition to the 60 million in India, 12 million in Pakistan, six million in Egypt and 4.7 million Saudi Arabia already experiencing outages, according the Khaleej Times.
The first outage was caused by cuts in the FLAG Europe-Asia cable, operated by FLAG Telecom, and the SeaMeWe-4 a cable jointly owned by 15 telecommunications companies. These two cables carry the majority of the international communications between Europe and the Middle East. The damage caused severe outages across Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan and India, as operators struggled to reroute traffic. Israel, Lebanon and Iraq were relatively unaffected by the outage because they rely on different cables for the majority of their service.
An early explanation that the cut was caused by a ship's anchor proved lacking, and it remains unknown what caused the damage to the two cables, which are buried about a meter below the sea floor in an area of restricted access controlled by Egypt.
While the cause of the damage is still being investigated, experts agree that it is not unusual for undersea cables to fail. "Cables are damaged all the time. The ocean is a very dynamic and corrosive place," Eric Schoonover, a senior analyst with TeleGeography Research told ISN Security Watch. He cited a statistic from Global Marine, a cable repair company, that there were more than 50 faults in the North Atlantic last year alone.
When a third cable in the region was damaged on 1 February, it put further strains on the region's telecommunication systems. The FALCON cable, also operated by FLAG Telecom, was damaged by an abandoned ship's anchor in the Persian Gulf, an explanation that seems to have been accurate in this case. Two days later, another cable in the region, the Qatar-UAE line, had to be taken down because of a power issue at one of its landing stations.
The vulnerable e-economy
While rerouting traffic has largely restored service, and the cables are being repaired, the series of incidents is a reminder that the network on which the global economy increasingly depends remains vulnerable to severe outages. About 95 percent of international telecommunications traffic is carried by undersea cables, according to the International Cable Protection Committee, which means that breaks in this network can affect large regions.
In December 2006, an earthquake off the coast of Taiwan cut six of the main lines serving East Asia, causing service interruptions across the region that persisted for months. Pakistan's sole fiber-optic cable link to the outside world failed for 11 days in June 2005, virtually isolating the country from the global network. Many island nations, as well countries in Africa and Asia, are connected by only one loop of fiber optic cable to the global network, making their service particularly at risk.
One reason that the undersea network is vulnerable to such large outages is that there are many areas that lack the necessary routes of redundancy around points of failure in the system. In many cases where there are numerous lines serving a region and the cables often follow the same route. This means that a single incident can cause outages on several lines, like what may have happened off the coast of Egypt on 30 January.
Geographical and commercial pressures drive cable operators to lay their lines along similar routes. "There are some choke-points in terms of physical routing that are driven by terrain, politics, convenience and cost. And once those are established, and you have a competitive market, others will tend to follow the path of (literally) least resistance," Art Hutchinson, a resiliency expert with the Cartegic Group, told ISN Security Watch in an e-mail interview. For example, nine different cables ran through the Luzon Strait near Taiwan and an earthquake damaged six of them in 2006.
Defending the network
While commercial pressure may eventually lead providers to create a more resilient network through new technologies such as "mesh" cables and laying future lines along unique routes, it remains likely that choke points will persist. Protecting against failures at these choke points is a difficult task for governments, as private operators own the cables and there is no international organization that is charged with overseeing the network's protection.
Even internet service providers are not always sure over which routes their traffic is being carried. "Owners of physical networks are not obliged to disclose (much less in a consistent or up-to-date fashion) the physical routes of their cables, or even that they may have 'groomed' (leased) some of their capacity to the provider down the street, making their network 'virtual'," according to Hutchinson. "By the same token, capacity-purchasing companies are not required to disclose to any central authority where all of their physical network traffic is going."
One solution might be the creation of a centralized organization to track the system and coordinate the creation of more resilient additions. However, this would slow down the free-market forces that push cable providers to lay new routes. The other fear in this scenario would be that the information could fall into the wrong hands.
There is reason for concern that the persistent choke points in the network could become the target of a terrorist organization, however such attacks on similar infrastructure systems have been surprisingly infrequent in the past. Still, undersea cables buried hundreds of meters below the ocean surface would make for a difficult target for a terrorist group. Also, because terrorist groups rely on the internet to a great extent to organize their activities, they may shy away from such an attack. That might not be the case though in a future conflict between nations where submarines could be used against the network. Knowing where choke points exist in a country's telecommunications network may become an important line of defense in future conflicts.
As far as those cables damaged off the coast of Egypt, there are already a number of new cables being planned or built that will increase the resiliency of the Middle East's connection. Still, Schoonover warns, "since they are all headed through Egypt, that creates a concentrated point of failure.
However, the Egyptian government has stated that they are going to make sure the cables land in separate manholes and run on different terrestrial routes. This will help the physical redundancy of the resulting network, but we will see how it is implemented and if it is enough."
Adam Wolfe is a senior analyst with The Power and Interest News Report.
By Adam Wolfe for ISN Security Watch (19/02/08)
A recent series of outages cut large portions of the Middle East and Indian subcontinent off from the internet and launched numerous conspiracy theories, with speculators blaming everyone from al-Qaida to the US Navy, but most experts quickly agreed that it was simply a coincidental series of remarkably common events that knocked millions off the global network.
The incidents were a reminder that the internet, famously designed to be able to withstand a nuclear attack, remains vulnerable to severe outages at its physical layer - especially at numerous choke points in the undersea cable network that carries most international communications.
On 29 January, two undersea cables were damaged in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Alexandria, cutting the telecom capacity between Egypt and Europe by about 75 percent. Two days later, an abandoned anchor damaged another cable in the Persian Gulf causing further outages. Then on 3 February, another undersea cable was taken offline in the Gulf because of a power failure.
This left 1.7 million users in the United Arab Emirates without service, in addition to the 60 million in India, 12 million in Pakistan, six million in Egypt and 4.7 million Saudi Arabia already experiencing outages, according the Khaleej Times.
The first outage was caused by cuts in the FLAG Europe-Asia cable, operated by FLAG Telecom, and the SeaMeWe-4 a cable jointly owned by 15 telecommunications companies. These two cables carry the majority of the international communications between Europe and the Middle East. The damage caused severe outages across Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan and India, as operators struggled to reroute traffic. Israel, Lebanon and Iraq were relatively unaffected by the outage because they rely on different cables for the majority of their service.
An early explanation that the cut was caused by a ship's anchor proved lacking, and it remains unknown what caused the damage to the two cables, which are buried about a meter below the sea floor in an area of restricted access controlled by Egypt.
While the cause of the damage is still being investigated, experts agree that it is not unusual for undersea cables to fail. "Cables are damaged all the time. The ocean is a very dynamic and corrosive place," Eric Schoonover, a senior analyst with TeleGeography Research told ISN Security Watch. He cited a statistic from Global Marine, a cable repair company, that there were more than 50 faults in the North Atlantic last year alone.
When a third cable in the region was damaged on 1 February, it put further strains on the region's telecommunication systems. The FALCON cable, also operated by FLAG Telecom, was damaged by an abandoned ship's anchor in the Persian Gulf, an explanation that seems to have been accurate in this case. Two days later, another cable in the region, the Qatar-UAE line, had to be taken down because of a power issue at one of its landing stations.
The vulnerable e-economy
While rerouting traffic has largely restored service, and the cables are being repaired, the series of incidents is a reminder that the network on which the global economy increasingly depends remains vulnerable to severe outages. About 95 percent of international telecommunications traffic is carried by undersea cables, according to the International Cable Protection Committee, which means that breaks in this network can affect large regions.
In December 2006, an earthquake off the coast of Taiwan cut six of the main lines serving East Asia, causing service interruptions across the region that persisted for months. Pakistan's sole fiber-optic cable link to the outside world failed for 11 days in June 2005, virtually isolating the country from the global network. Many island nations, as well countries in Africa and Asia, are connected by only one loop of fiber optic cable to the global network, making their service particularly at risk.
One reason that the undersea network is vulnerable to such large outages is that there are many areas that lack the necessary routes of redundancy around points of failure in the system. In many cases where there are numerous lines serving a region and the cables often follow the same route. This means that a single incident can cause outages on several lines, like what may have happened off the coast of Egypt on 30 January.
Geographical and commercial pressures drive cable operators to lay their lines along similar routes. "There are some choke-points in terms of physical routing that are driven by terrain, politics, convenience and cost. And once those are established, and you have a competitive market, others will tend to follow the path of (literally) least resistance," Art Hutchinson, a resiliency expert with the Cartegic Group, told ISN Security Watch in an e-mail interview. For example, nine different cables ran through the Luzon Strait near Taiwan and an earthquake damaged six of them in 2006.
Defending the network
While commercial pressure may eventually lead providers to create a more resilient network through new technologies such as "mesh" cables and laying future lines along unique routes, it remains likely that choke points will persist. Protecting against failures at these choke points is a difficult task for governments, as private operators own the cables and there is no international organization that is charged with overseeing the network's protection.
Even internet service providers are not always sure over which routes their traffic is being carried. "Owners of physical networks are not obliged to disclose (much less in a consistent or up-to-date fashion) the physical routes of their cables, or even that they may have 'groomed' (leased) some of their capacity to the provider down the street, making their network 'virtual'," according to Hutchinson. "By the same token, capacity-purchasing companies are not required to disclose to any central authority where all of their physical network traffic is going."
One solution might be the creation of a centralized organization to track the system and coordinate the creation of more resilient additions. However, this would slow down the free-market forces that push cable providers to lay new routes. The other fear in this scenario would be that the information could fall into the wrong hands.
There is reason for concern that the persistent choke points in the network could become the target of a terrorist organization, however such attacks on similar infrastructure systems have been surprisingly infrequent in the past. Still, undersea cables buried hundreds of meters below the ocean surface would make for a difficult target for a terrorist group. Also, because terrorist groups rely on the internet to a great extent to organize their activities, they may shy away from such an attack. That might not be the case though in a future conflict between nations where submarines could be used against the network. Knowing where choke points exist in a country's telecommunications network may become an important line of defense in future conflicts.
As far as those cables damaged off the coast of Egypt, there are already a number of new cables being planned or built that will increase the resiliency of the Middle East's connection. Still, Schoonover warns, "since they are all headed through Egypt, that creates a concentrated point of failure.
However, the Egyptian government has stated that they are going to make sure the cables land in separate manholes and run on different terrestrial routes. This will help the physical redundancy of the resulting network, but we will see how it is implemented and if it is enough."
Adam Wolfe is a senior analyst with The Power and Interest News Report.
Russian Air Force to receive new Su-35 fighters by 2011
14:43 | 20/ 02/ 2008
ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), February 20 (RIA Novosti) - The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said on Wednesday.
The Su-35 is an advanced air superiority fighter powered by two AL-37F engines. It combines high maneuverability and the capacity to intercept air targets with ground and sea attack capability using both unguided and guided, including high precision, weapons.
"I think we will start deliveries of the Su-35 to the Russian Air Force in 2010-2011. We are also planning to promote this fighter on our traditional markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America," Mikhail Pogosyan said.
The Sukhoi said the price for the new fighter "will be quite competitive."
"I am certain that we will be able to keep the competitive edge while reducing the price [of the aircraft]," he said.
Pogosyan said the first prototype Su-35 successfully completed flight tests on February 18, and two more aircraft were being prepared for similar tests at an aircraft manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East.
"The tests met our expectations; all systems performed in line with specifications," he said.
According to Pogosyan, the Su-35 is the first step toward the development of the fifth-generation fighter and its electronics allow testing of equipment to be installed on future aircraft.
"The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years. We have walked a third of the road," Pogosyan said, adding that the first prototype of the fifth-generation fighter would be built in the next few years.
Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is planning to export over 40 combat aircraft in 2008, the company head said.
In 2007, Sukhoi exported about 50 Su-30MK2, Su-30MKM and Su-30MKI aircraft in addition to spare parts for aircraft sold earlier to Algeria, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela.
The company said on January 30 that its overall sales in 2007 exceeded 50 billion rubles (over $2 billion).
ZHUKOVSKY (Moscow Region), February 20 (RIA Novosti) - The new Su-35 Flanker-E multi-role fighter will be put into service with the Russian Air Force in two-three years, the head of the Sukhoi aircraft manufacturer said on Wednesday.
The Su-35 is an advanced air superiority fighter powered by two AL-37F engines. It combines high maneuverability and the capacity to intercept air targets with ground and sea attack capability using both unguided and guided, including high precision, weapons.
"I think we will start deliveries of the Su-35 to the Russian Air Force in 2010-2011. We are also planning to promote this fighter on our traditional markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America," Mikhail Pogosyan said.
The Sukhoi said the price for the new fighter "will be quite competitive."
"I am certain that we will be able to keep the competitive edge while reducing the price [of the aircraft]," he said.
Pogosyan said the first prototype Su-35 successfully completed flight tests on February 18, and two more aircraft were being prepared for similar tests at an aircraft manufacturing plant in Russia's Far East.
"The tests met our expectations; all systems performed in line with specifications," he said.
According to Pogosyan, the Su-35 is the first step toward the development of the fifth-generation fighter and its electronics allow testing of equipment to be installed on future aircraft.
"The full development cycle for the [fifth-generation] aircraft takes 7-10 years. We have walked a third of the road," Pogosyan said, adding that the first prototype of the fifth-generation fighter would be built in the next few years.
Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is planning to export over 40 combat aircraft in 2008, the company head said.
In 2007, Sukhoi exported about 50 Su-30MK2, Su-30MKM and Su-30MKI aircraft in addition to spare parts for aircraft sold earlier to Algeria, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela.
The company said on January 30 that its overall sales in 2007 exceeded 50 billion rubles (over $2 billion).
Kosovo's self-proclaimed independence - what next?
19:22 | 18/ 02/ 2008
MOSCOW. (Fyodor Lukyanov for RIA Novosti) - The autonomous province of Kosovo has proclaimed political independence.
This event was expected a long time ago, but its consequences are still unclear. What international complications may be caused by this decision and its recognition by a part of the world community?
First, this creates a legal predicament. The absence of UN Security Council approval is taking this process outside the international legal field.
Formally, the province is governed by the UN mission set up in line with 1999 Security Council Resolution 1244. De facto, the UN is not performing this function, and real power will go to the Mission of the European Union (EU). The EU insists on its right to institute such a body, referring to this resolution, but its legitimacy is highly doubtful.
In any event, Kosovo's independence is relevant. In practical terms, it will be a new type of international protectorate, and the local authorities will be quite limited in their actions. Potentially, Kosovo may enter into a conflict with its Western partners, but that is unlikely. Pristina knows full well that independence will not resolve any of its urgent problems, such as its economic crisis, high unemployment rate, and the ensuing criminalization of society. If Belgrade exerts economic pressure on Pristina, the situation in Kosovo may become even worse.
In the long term, Kosovo's economy will fully depend on the EU, and international financial institutions will hardly be able to render assistance to a province with such a vague status.
Second, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of armed clashes. Neither Belgrade nor Pristina are interested in them, but there are enough radicals capable of provocations among both the Kosovars and the Serbs. Those Serbs that remain on Kosovo's territory will be in an extremely difficult situation. The authorities of Kosovo and their Western partners are vitally interested in the well-being of the Serbian minority. Any incident may have disastrous moral consequences for the self-proclaimed province. It is not clear for how long the EU and NATO will bear the full responsibility for security in the province.
The event will have unpleasant repercussions in Bosnia and Macedonia.
In the mid 1990s, when the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was set up in line with the Dayton Accords, its ethnic communities - Serbs, Croats, and Muslims - were denied self-determination. The international patrons of Bosnian sovereignty compelled these three communities to unite into a single state. The new state was built on the non-ethnic principle.
Kosovo's independence rests on the ethnic principle that allows the Bosnian Serbs to demand self-determination and accession to Serbia. Bosnia's redivision is fraught with gigantic problems for all of Europe.
Macedonia is a country with a tangible Albanian minority that is rapidly growing. The Albanians have a higher birth rate than the Slavs. Although the idea of the Greater Albania is more in the nature of a political venture, the Albanians may view themselves as a divided ethnic community.
Third, the Kosovo case will create a precedent that will influence developments in other parts of Europe.
Its influence is unlikely to be decisive in stable and prosperous EU countries with a separatist potential such as France, Belgium, Spain, and Britain. The Kosovo case may provide a catalyst, though not by itself (it is ridiculous to compare Flemish and Kosovar separatism), but by again bringing up the problem of self-determination.
Unstable countries like Bosnia, Macedonia, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan will feel the impact of the Kosovo scenario. Their minorities will interpret it as a direct precedent.
Fourth, there is a general problem that is linked not only with Kosovo. International institutions are growing weaker, and stepping back from resolving urgent issues. The inability of the great powers to come to terms on the rules of conduct results in the degradation of almost all global organizations. International law is increasingly turning from the foundation of decision-making into an instrument for legalizing what has already been decided.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Fyodor Lukyanov for RIA Novosti) - The autonomous province of Kosovo has proclaimed political independence.
This event was expected a long time ago, but its consequences are still unclear. What international complications may be caused by this decision and its recognition by a part of the world community?
First, this creates a legal predicament. The absence of UN Security Council approval is taking this process outside the international legal field.
Formally, the province is governed by the UN mission set up in line with 1999 Security Council Resolution 1244. De facto, the UN is not performing this function, and real power will go to the Mission of the European Union (EU). The EU insists on its right to institute such a body, referring to this resolution, but its legitimacy is highly doubtful.
In any event, Kosovo's independence is relevant. In practical terms, it will be a new type of international protectorate, and the local authorities will be quite limited in their actions. Potentially, Kosovo may enter into a conflict with its Western partners, but that is unlikely. Pristina knows full well that independence will not resolve any of its urgent problems, such as its economic crisis, high unemployment rate, and the ensuing criminalization of society. If Belgrade exerts economic pressure on Pristina, the situation in Kosovo may become even worse.
In the long term, Kosovo's economy will fully depend on the EU, and international financial institutions will hardly be able to render assistance to a province with such a vague status.
Second, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of armed clashes. Neither Belgrade nor Pristina are interested in them, but there are enough radicals capable of provocations among both the Kosovars and the Serbs. Those Serbs that remain on Kosovo's territory will be in an extremely difficult situation. The authorities of Kosovo and their Western partners are vitally interested in the well-being of the Serbian minority. Any incident may have disastrous moral consequences for the self-proclaimed province. It is not clear for how long the EU and NATO will bear the full responsibility for security in the province.
The event will have unpleasant repercussions in Bosnia and Macedonia.
In the mid 1990s, when the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina was set up in line with the Dayton Accords, its ethnic communities - Serbs, Croats, and Muslims - were denied self-determination. The international patrons of Bosnian sovereignty compelled these three communities to unite into a single state. The new state was built on the non-ethnic principle.
Kosovo's independence rests on the ethnic principle that allows the Bosnian Serbs to demand self-determination and accession to Serbia. Bosnia's redivision is fraught with gigantic problems for all of Europe.
Macedonia is a country with a tangible Albanian minority that is rapidly growing. The Albanians have a higher birth rate than the Slavs. Although the idea of the Greater Albania is more in the nature of a political venture, the Albanians may view themselves as a divided ethnic community.
Third, the Kosovo case will create a precedent that will influence developments in other parts of Europe.
Its influence is unlikely to be decisive in stable and prosperous EU countries with a separatist potential such as France, Belgium, Spain, and Britain. The Kosovo case may provide a catalyst, though not by itself (it is ridiculous to compare Flemish and Kosovar separatism), but by again bringing up the problem of self-determination.
Unstable countries like Bosnia, Macedonia, Georgia, Moldova, and Azerbaijan will feel the impact of the Kosovo scenario. Their minorities will interpret it as a direct precedent.
Fourth, there is a general problem that is linked not only with Kosovo. International institutions are growing weaker, and stepping back from resolving urgent issues. The inability of the great powers to come to terms on the rules of conduct results in the degradation of almost all global organizations. International law is increasingly turning from the foundation of decision-making into an instrument for legalizing what has already been decided.
Fyodor Lukyanov is the editor of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
US missile hits rogue spy satellite
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0756D2FD-B066-4009-822F-7C42A18E2BDE.htm
The US say they will know in 48 hours if a potentially
toxic fuel tank had been destroyed [Reuters]
A missile fired from a US navy warship in the Pacific has hit a spy satellite in an effort to prevent its toxic fuel tank from crashing to Earth, a Pentagon source has said.
Thursday's mission to disable the out-of-control satellite has been criticised by both the Chinese and Russian governments who argue the move could harm space security.
The Pentagon said that after delays due to bad weather: "The missile's been launched and [it was] a successful intercept."
The US president had ordered the satellite shot down because, if it entered Earth's atmosphere, the 450kg of toxic hydrazine fuel aboard could have posed a health hazard.
James Cartwright, the vice president of the joint chiefs of staff, said at a press briefing at the Pentagon: "We have a high degree of confidence that we got the tank.
"[However], it will probably take us another 24 to 48 hours to get to a point where we are very comfortable with our analysis that we indeed breached the tank.
"We have a debris field - we are seeing re-entry in the Atlantic and the Pacific right now."
Space warfare
However, the mission has not gone without criticism, or speculation that the real purpose is to test missile capabilities.
The Chinese Communist party newspaper wrote: "The United States, the world's top space power, has often accused other countries of vigorously developing military space technology.
"But faced with the Chinese-Russian proposal to restrict space armaments, it runs in fear from what it claimed to love."
Last year, China was also criticised by the US and several of its allies which accused Beijing of risking a space arms race after it used a ballistic missile to destroy one of its own obsolete weather satellites.
Russia's defence ministry also said it feared the US plan was a veiled test of US anti-satellite capabilities and represented an "attempt to move the arms race into space".
The ministry said: "The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space."
Toxic target
Rogue satellite
Satellite code name USA-193 launched in December 2006 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California
Top secret military reconnaissance mission - a 'spy satellite'
Satellite contact was lost hours after it entered orbit
Satellite itself weighs about two tonnes and is about the size of a bus
The SM-3 missile was fired from the USS Lake Erie in the Pacific Ocean at about 10:26 EST (0326 GMT Thursday), the Pentagon said.
"Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry [of the Earth's atmosphere] within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days," it said.
Left alone, about half of the spacecraft was expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
Cartwright said that the mass of the satellite had been reduced substantially by the hit.
The US military said that they have seen no pieces of debris larger than the size of a football fall back to earth so far.
Highly classified
Critics have said the justification of health fears may be a cover for preventing highly classified spy satellite technology from falling into foreign hands.
Jing-Dong Yuan, from the non-proliferation programme at the James Martin Centre, told Al Jazeera that the toxic-spread argument is "not very credible according to scientists and other analysts".
"The chances of a spy satellite hitting a populated area are only very small. We know that only 30 per cent of the earth is populated, so the vast majority would be the ocean," he said.
Robert Massey, a scientist in London, told Al Jazeera that the US may want to shoot down the spy satellite because "if it landed in the wrong place ... some of their less favourable allies might decide to examine the contents".
Jing-Dong said: "Another reason is that the US has used this opportunity to test its own missile defence capabilities or anti-satellite capabilities."
The missile carries a non-explosive "kinetic kill vehicle" – designed essentially to destroy the satellite by smashing into it.
The technique is similar to the system employed in US anti-missile shields.
The US military spokesman said that the technical expertise of the US missile defence agency was central to the hit. The missile used crucial sensors used in defence systems to target the satellite.
Initial delay
The project was initially delayed after weather forecasts on Wednesday in the Pacific, where the US warship was stationed for the mission, indicated that seas would not be calm enough for the ship to fire a missile.
But the Pentagon had to act before February 29, when the dead satellite, about 247km above the Pacific Ocean, was projected to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.
On Wednesday, the space shuttle Atlantis landed in Florida, clearing the way for the military operation to proceed.
The Pentagon had been waiting for the shuttle to land to avoid contact with flying debris as the satellite returned to Earth.
Atlantis returned after completing a mission to deliver Europe's first permanent space laboratory to the International Space Station.
Zardari meets ANP chief to discuss govt formation
Islamabad (PTI): PPP co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari on Thursday held talks with Awami National Party chief Asfandyar Wali Khan on the possibility of forming a national consensus government in Pakistan but the two leaders kept mum on whether they had reached an agreement.
Emerging out of a two-hour meeting here, Zardari and Khan restricted their comments to say that they had agreed to move together to ensure the supremacy of Parliament.
Their meeting came hours ahead of the talks between Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif to discuss cobbling a coalition at the centre as well as the fate of President Pervez Musharraf.
Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) emerged as the single largest party in the February 18 general elections by getting 87 seats while PML-N received 65. The Awami National Party (ANP) bagged 10 National Assembly seats in the polls.
Zardari went to the Parliament Lodges, the residential complex for members of the Senate, to meet Khan, whose party is expected to play a key part in efforts to form the new government in the centre as well as in North West Frontier Province (NWFP).
Khan said he and Zardari had reached agreement on key issues like the war on terror, judicial reforms, supremacy of Parliament and provincial autonomy. He did not give details.
There was commonality of views between the ANP and PPP on various issued and the leaders would go back to their parties for discussions to decide their future course of action, Khan said.
Sources said Zardari discussed with Khan his efforts to form a national consensus government to strengthen democracy.
Khan, on behalf of his party, laid claim for the post of Chief Minister in NWFP as ANP had bagged 31 of the 96 provincial assembly seats for which the polls were held, they said.
The ANP, which draws its support from the minority Pashtun community, rode to success on the back of a strong anti-incumbency wave against Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the coalition of religious parties that ruled NWFP for the past five years and was perceived as being soft towards extremism and militancy.
Khan is also scheduled to meet Sharif for talks on the formation of the government at the centre.
Emerging out of a two-hour meeting here, Zardari and Khan restricted their comments to say that they had agreed to move together to ensure the supremacy of Parliament.
Their meeting came hours ahead of the talks between Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif to discuss cobbling a coalition at the centre as well as the fate of President Pervez Musharraf.
Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) emerged as the single largest party in the February 18 general elections by getting 87 seats while PML-N received 65. The Awami National Party (ANP) bagged 10 National Assembly seats in the polls.
Zardari went to the Parliament Lodges, the residential complex for members of the Senate, to meet Khan, whose party is expected to play a key part in efforts to form the new government in the centre as well as in North West Frontier Province (NWFP).
Khan said he and Zardari had reached agreement on key issues like the war on terror, judicial reforms, supremacy of Parliament and provincial autonomy. He did not give details.
There was commonality of views between the ANP and PPP on various issued and the leaders would go back to their parties for discussions to decide their future course of action, Khan said.
Sources said Zardari discussed with Khan his efforts to form a national consensus government to strengthen democracy.
Khan, on behalf of his party, laid claim for the post of Chief Minister in NWFP as ANP had bagged 31 of the 96 provincial assembly seats for which the polls were held, they said.
The ANP, which draws its support from the minority Pashtun community, rode to success on the back of a strong anti-incumbency wave against Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the coalition of religious parties that ruled NWFP for the past five years and was perceived as being soft towards extremism and militancy.
Khan is also scheduled to meet Sharif for talks on the formation of the government at the centre.
Pakistani people have gifted a historic opportunity to their political leaders
The Pakistani people have gifted a historic opportunity to their political leaders to move Pakistan towards emergence as a democratic, stable and progressive nation. At such a juncture both Asif Zardari and former PM Nawaz Sharif have to sink any political differences or issues that may divide them and jointly lead Pakistan towards a better democratic and progressive future.
General Musharraf is a disruptive element who would attempt to divide the Pakistani political parties to ensure his continuance in power. The United States should pre-empt any such moves and gain political mileage with the people of Pakistan.
Pakistan as a stable democracy is an economic and social imperative for the people of Pakistan and a strategic imperative for the United States and Pakistan’s regional neighbours. With such stakes it becomes important that all stakeholders nudge and facilitate the move of Pakistan towards a democratic future.
READ MORE
(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)
General Musharraf is a disruptive element who would attempt to divide the Pakistani political parties to ensure his continuance in power. The United States should pre-empt any such moves and gain political mileage with the people of Pakistan.
Pakistan as a stable democracy is an economic and social imperative for the people of Pakistan and a strategic imperative for the United States and Pakistan’s regional neighbours. With such stakes it becomes important that all stakeholders nudge and facilitate the move of Pakistan towards a democratic future.
READ MORE
(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)
Pak Polls: Impact on "War" Against Terrorism
Source: South Asia Analysis Group
International Terrorism Monitor---Paper No. 371
By B. Raman
Who are the main beneficiaries of the elections held in Pakistan on February 18, 2008?
The Pakistan Muslim League of Mr. Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister, hereafter to be referred to as the PML (N) and the Awami National Party (ANP), which is an ethnic party of the Pashtuns of Pakistan. The PML (N) and the ANP bore the brunt of the disinformation, PSYWAR and denigration campaign carried on by the Army and the intelligence agencies since 2002. President Pervez Musharraf missed no opportunity to belittle and humiliate Nawaz. The ANP was looked down upon not only by the Pakistan Army and the ISI, but also by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US State Department as the stooges of India and the former USSR as well as the present Russia of President Vladimir Putin. Additional causes for the US dislike for the ANP was its leftist ideology, which was seen by the US as nothing but Marxism, and its closeness to the former Afghan Government of Najibullah. The ISI and the CIA, in the past, made every effort to undermine its influence in the Pashtun belt. It is the only political party in Pakistan, whose leaders were never invited to the US. In the elections of February 18, the PML (N) increased its tally in the National Assembly almost four-fold from 18 in 2002 to 66 now. It has swept the polls in most of the urban towns of Punjab, which were the targets of jihadi terrorist strikes. It has swept the polls even in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad area where Mrs. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, 2007, and where there have been six other terrorist strikes since July last.It won eight out of nine seats in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad area with one going to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). In Lahore, which saw a major terrorist strike in January, 2008, outside the High Court. the PML (N) bagged 11 out of the 13 National Assembly seats. The ANP's tally in the National Assembly went up ten-fold from zero in 2002 to 10 now. In the provincial Assembly of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), its tally went up from 10 in 2002 to 30 now. It has emerged as the largest single party in the provincial Assembly.
What are the reasons for the successes of the PML (N) and the ANP?
These were the only two parties, which took a strong line against the so-called war on terrorism as being waged by the US in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region and the manner in which Musharraf has been co-operating with the US. During the campaign, Nawaz clearly said that the impact of the war on Pakistan has been more negative than positive. He assured that if the PML (N) came to power, it would help the US by acting against the alleged cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan from Pakistan. At the same time, he made it clear that so far as action against terrorism in Pakistani territory is concerned, it is for Pakistan to decide what action to take and it is not for the US to tell Pakistan what to do. The ANP was strongly critical of the over-militarised counter-terrorism policies of the US and said that if it came to power the emphasis would be more on the hearts and minds approach. The PML (N) also called for a review of the implications of the US declaration of Pakistan as a non-NATO ally. There were strong anti-US feelings in Pakistan---particularly in the tribal belt--- before and during the elections of 2002, which took place within a year of the launching of US counter-terrorism strikes in Afghanistan. There are equally strong anti-US feelings now---particularly since suicide terrorism shot up after the commando action in the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July last. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of six fundamentalist parties, was the beneficiary of the anti-US feelings of 2002. The MMA has now practically broken up. Of the two principal components of the MMA, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) boycotted the elections in protest against the unconstitutional and illegal actions of Musharraf. Its cadres supported the PML (N).The Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the other principal component, contested the elections, but fared badly in the NWFP as well as at the national level. Fazlur Rahman has always been suspected to be openly critical of the US and the ISI, but secretly collaborating with them. As a result of the practical break-up of the MMA, the PML (N) and the ANP were the beneficiaries of the anti-US vote this time.
What could be the implications of the successes of the PML (N) and the ANP?
Both are against allowing the US to dictate the reforms of the madrasas. Both are against allowing the US troops to operate in Pakistani territory or against allowing US planes to bomb suspected terrorist camps in Pakistani territory. By calling for an examination of the implications of the US declaring Pakistan as a non-NATO ally, the PML (N) is seeking a review of the present policy of the supplies for the NATO troops in Afghanistan being allowed to be unloaded at the Karachi port and moved to Afghanistan by road through Pakistani territory. Both want the economic and social development of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), but want that this should be according to a plan to be drawn up by Pakistan and not by the US State Department or the Pentagon. The ANP has stated that its co-operation with the PPP, the largest single party in the National Assembly, in government formation would be dependent on the PPP-led Government agreeing to change the name of the North-West Frontier Province as Pakhtoonkwa or Pashtunistan or Afghania and accepting its demand for provincial autonomy for the Pashtun homeland. The Punjabi-dominated army will be strongly opposed to this. This could encourage similar demands from the Baloch and Sindhi nationalists.
How has been the performance of the PPP? Did it really benefit from the expected sympathy wave after the assassination of Benazir?
The so-called sympathy wave had very little impact. The PPP, which won 80 seats in the 2002 elections despite the split engineered in the party by the ISI and despite Benazir and Mr. Asif Zardari being out of the country in political exile, has managed to increase its tally in the National Assembly only to 87--- an increase of just seven seats. The leadership of Zardari has not made much of an impact on the elections. While the Party did as well as expected in rural Sindh and increased its tally by one seat in Karachi, it did not do as well as expected in Punjab. Some Pakistani analysts attribute this to the unpopularity of Zardari among the Punjabis and their distrust of him. Benazir's open support for the commando action in the Lal Masjid and her proclaimed readiness to allow the US troops to operate in Pakistani territory if need be and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to interrogate Dr.A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, and the general perception that the PPP is as much amenable to US influence as Musharraf neutralised the sympathy wave and came in the way of the PPP improving its tally substantially.
How to explain the rout of the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaide Azam), which was seen as Musharraf's party?
Its tally dropped steeply from 118 in 2002 to 38 now. Its close identification with Musharraf and its responsibility for the steep deterioration in the economic situation marked by shortages of electricity, gas, wheat and wheat flour contributed to its rout in the urban areas, which bore the brunt of the economic hardships. It has not done too badly in the rural areas. A wave of Punjabi sympathy for Nawaz and his family for the way they were sought to be humiliated by Musharraf since 1999 also created sympathy for Nawaz and his party.
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Mr.Altaf Hussain is also closely associated with Musharraf? How come Musharraf's unpopularity has not affected it?
Yes. It was not much affected. In fact, it improved its National Assembly tally from 17 to 19 seats. Its following is confined to the Mohajirs (refugees from India) in Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur. They want that Musharraf, a fellow-Mohajir, should continue to be the President of Pakistan. Musharraf discontinued the policy of the suppression of the Mohajirs and the MQM previously followed by the Governments of Benazir and Nawaz.
What are the prospects for political stability?
Low to medium. The PPP will not remain as united behind Zardari as it did behind Benazir. Many old guards of the party look down upon him. The chances of a split between Zardari loyalists and Bhutto loyalists are high. Its opportunistic policies of the past make others look upon it with suspicion. Its support for the present policy of close co-operation with the US will have a negative impact on its relations with the PML (N) and the ANP. It will find it difficult to accept the PML (N)'s demand for the reinstatement of the members of the judiciary sacked by Musharraf and the ANP's demand for re-naming the NWFP and provincial autonomy. Any coalition, whether led by the PPP or the PML (N), will be in a permanent state of disequilibrium
What will be the impact on jihadi terrorism in Pakistani territory?
Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan will go after the ANP with a vengeance. They look upon it as apostate because of its secular and leftist policies and its pass co-operation with the Najibullah Government. There will be a further increase in Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism in the Pashtun belt. If the ANP succeeds in getting the name of the NWFP changed and in getting provincial autonomy, its popularity among large sections of the Pashtuns will go up and this could enable it to wean the people away from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the Punjabi-dominated Army will oppose the demands of the ANP strongly.
(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)
International Terrorism Monitor---Paper No. 371
By B. Raman
Who are the main beneficiaries of the elections held in Pakistan on February 18, 2008?
The Pakistan Muslim League of Mr. Nawaz Sharif, former Prime Minister, hereafter to be referred to as the PML (N) and the Awami National Party (ANP), which is an ethnic party of the Pashtuns of Pakistan. The PML (N) and the ANP bore the brunt of the disinformation, PSYWAR and denigration campaign carried on by the Army and the intelligence agencies since 2002. President Pervez Musharraf missed no opportunity to belittle and humiliate Nawaz. The ANP was looked down upon not only by the Pakistan Army and the ISI, but also by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US State Department as the stooges of India and the former USSR as well as the present Russia of President Vladimir Putin. Additional causes for the US dislike for the ANP was its leftist ideology, which was seen by the US as nothing but Marxism, and its closeness to the former Afghan Government of Najibullah. The ISI and the CIA, in the past, made every effort to undermine its influence in the Pashtun belt. It is the only political party in Pakistan, whose leaders were never invited to the US. In the elections of February 18, the PML (N) increased its tally in the National Assembly almost four-fold from 18 in 2002 to 66 now. It has swept the polls in most of the urban towns of Punjab, which were the targets of jihadi terrorist strikes. It has swept the polls even in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad area where Mrs. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, 2007, and where there have been six other terrorist strikes since July last.It won eight out of nine seats in the Rawalpindi-Islamabad area with one going to the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). In Lahore, which saw a major terrorist strike in January, 2008, outside the High Court. the PML (N) bagged 11 out of the 13 National Assembly seats. The ANP's tally in the National Assembly went up ten-fold from zero in 2002 to 10 now. In the provincial Assembly of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), its tally went up from 10 in 2002 to 30 now. It has emerged as the largest single party in the provincial Assembly.
What are the reasons for the successes of the PML (N) and the ANP?
These were the only two parties, which took a strong line against the so-called war on terrorism as being waged by the US in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region and the manner in which Musharraf has been co-operating with the US. During the campaign, Nawaz clearly said that the impact of the war on Pakistan has been more negative than positive. He assured that if the PML (N) came to power, it would help the US by acting against the alleged cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan from Pakistan. At the same time, he made it clear that so far as action against terrorism in Pakistani territory is concerned, it is for Pakistan to decide what action to take and it is not for the US to tell Pakistan what to do. The ANP was strongly critical of the over-militarised counter-terrorism policies of the US and said that if it came to power the emphasis would be more on the hearts and minds approach. The PML (N) also called for a review of the implications of the US declaration of Pakistan as a non-NATO ally. There were strong anti-US feelings in Pakistan---particularly in the tribal belt--- before and during the elections of 2002, which took place within a year of the launching of US counter-terrorism strikes in Afghanistan. There are equally strong anti-US feelings now---particularly since suicide terrorism shot up after the commando action in the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July last. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a coalition of six fundamentalist parties, was the beneficiary of the anti-US feelings of 2002. The MMA has now practically broken up. Of the two principal components of the MMA, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) boycotted the elections in protest against the unconstitutional and illegal actions of Musharraf. Its cadres supported the PML (N).The Jamiat-ul-Ulema Islam (JUI) of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the other principal component, contested the elections, but fared badly in the NWFP as well as at the national level. Fazlur Rahman has always been suspected to be openly critical of the US and the ISI, but secretly collaborating with them. As a result of the practical break-up of the MMA, the PML (N) and the ANP were the beneficiaries of the anti-US vote this time.
What could be the implications of the successes of the PML (N) and the ANP?
Both are against allowing the US to dictate the reforms of the madrasas. Both are against allowing the US troops to operate in Pakistani territory or against allowing US planes to bomb suspected terrorist camps in Pakistani territory. By calling for an examination of the implications of the US declaring Pakistan as a non-NATO ally, the PML (N) is seeking a review of the present policy of the supplies for the NATO troops in Afghanistan being allowed to be unloaded at the Karachi port and moved to Afghanistan by road through Pakistani territory. Both want the economic and social development of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), but want that this should be according to a plan to be drawn up by Pakistan and not by the US State Department or the Pentagon. The ANP has stated that its co-operation with the PPP, the largest single party in the National Assembly, in government formation would be dependent on the PPP-led Government agreeing to change the name of the North-West Frontier Province as Pakhtoonkwa or Pashtunistan or Afghania and accepting its demand for provincial autonomy for the Pashtun homeland. The Punjabi-dominated army will be strongly opposed to this. This could encourage similar demands from the Baloch and Sindhi nationalists.
How has been the performance of the PPP? Did it really benefit from the expected sympathy wave after the assassination of Benazir?
The so-called sympathy wave had very little impact. The PPP, which won 80 seats in the 2002 elections despite the split engineered in the party by the ISI and despite Benazir and Mr. Asif Zardari being out of the country in political exile, has managed to increase its tally in the National Assembly only to 87--- an increase of just seven seats. The leadership of Zardari has not made much of an impact on the elections. While the Party did as well as expected in rural Sindh and increased its tally by one seat in Karachi, it did not do as well as expected in Punjab. Some Pakistani analysts attribute this to the unpopularity of Zardari among the Punjabis and their distrust of him. Benazir's open support for the commando action in the Lal Masjid and her proclaimed readiness to allow the US troops to operate in Pakistani territory if need be and to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to interrogate Dr.A.Q.Khan, the nuclear scientist, and the general perception that the PPP is as much amenable to US influence as Musharraf neutralised the sympathy wave and came in the way of the PPP improving its tally substantially.
How to explain the rout of the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaide Azam), which was seen as Musharraf's party?
Its tally dropped steeply from 118 in 2002 to 38 now. Its close identification with Musharraf and its responsibility for the steep deterioration in the economic situation marked by shortages of electricity, gas, wheat and wheat flour contributed to its rout in the urban areas, which bore the brunt of the economic hardships. It has not done too badly in the rural areas. A wave of Punjabi sympathy for Nawaz and his family for the way they were sought to be humiliated by Musharraf since 1999 also created sympathy for Nawaz and his party.
The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Mr.Altaf Hussain is also closely associated with Musharraf? How come Musharraf's unpopularity has not affected it?
Yes. It was not much affected. In fact, it improved its National Assembly tally from 17 to 19 seats. Its following is confined to the Mohajirs (refugees from India) in Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkur. They want that Musharraf, a fellow-Mohajir, should continue to be the President of Pakistan. Musharraf discontinued the policy of the suppression of the Mohajirs and the MQM previously followed by the Governments of Benazir and Nawaz.
What are the prospects for political stability?
Low to medium. The PPP will not remain as united behind Zardari as it did behind Benazir. Many old guards of the party look down upon him. The chances of a split between Zardari loyalists and Bhutto loyalists are high. Its opportunistic policies of the past make others look upon it with suspicion. Its support for the present policy of close co-operation with the US will have a negative impact on its relations with the PML (N) and the ANP. It will find it difficult to accept the PML (N)'s demand for the reinstatement of the members of the judiciary sacked by Musharraf and the ANP's demand for re-naming the NWFP and provincial autonomy. Any coalition, whether led by the PPP or the PML (N), will be in a permanent state of disequilibrium
What will be the impact on jihadi terrorism in Pakistani territory?
Al Qaeda, the Neo Taliban and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan will go after the ANP with a vengeance. They look upon it as apostate because of its secular and leftist policies and its pass co-operation with the Najibullah Government. There will be a further increase in Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism in the Pashtun belt. If the ANP succeeds in getting the name of the NWFP changed and in getting provincial autonomy, its popularity among large sections of the Pashtuns will go up and this could enable it to wean the people away from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but the Punjabi-dominated Army will oppose the demands of the ANP strongly.
(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)
February 20, 2008
How Obama’s beedi ban affected India ?
Source: OFFSTUMPEDAs Obama-mania spreads beyond the atlantic over to India it is worth recounting democratic hopeful Barack Obama’s tryst with Ganesh Beedis, a Mangalore based premier beedi maker back in 1999-2000.
An incisive expose on the use of child labour in India’s beedi industry on CBS‘ celebrated 60 Minutes program has resulted in the Clinton administration banning imports from Ganesh Beedis
Reacting to the ban Ganesh Beedis had this to say:
Rejecting the US government’s charge, he said there was a 15 per cent fall in demand for beedis. And without a workload, where is the need to employ children, he asked. Presently, the company’s beedi exports stand at $ 60,000 per year, he claimed
But the real story of the effect of these sanctions comes from a field study by CUTS Centre For International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE) in the Beedi making areas of South India.
It is almost one year after imposition of sanctions that CITEE conducted a field survey in order to find out whether the sanctions in any way have helped in eradicating child labour from the Indian Beedi industry. The survey indicates that after the sanctions the Beedi workers are getting less work from Ganesh and have been forced to take work from other Beedi companies, which pay far less than Ganesh.
In the wake of reduced earnings, parents have been forced to pull their children out of school and put them into Beedi making or other works. The boys have chosen to polish boots, domestic home service, or agarbatti manufacturing over Beedi rolling as they get higher wages there. But the girls cannot do anything other then Beedi rolling, as they aren’t able to go out of their homes (More than 80 percent of the Beedi workers are from the highly conservative Muslim community). The survey further indicates that around 60 percent of the poor children who used to help their parents also went to schools before the sanctions. However after one year of the sanctions this number is not even one fourth of the earlier. In case of girls, 90 percent of them have dropped out of schools and helping their parents to earn enough for meeting the basic needs or in some cases to arrange school fees for their younger siblings.
The highlight of this sordid saga is the role played by Senator Barack Obama in getting the Beedi ban. This story in the Rediff in 2000 recounts the role played by then State Senator of Illinois Barack Obama on legislation that would ban the sale of bidis across Illinois. In fact Illinois was the first U.S. State to take action on Bidis.
Offstumped Bottomline: For all those in India getting carried away with Obama-mania and those Indian Americans rooting for change they can believe in, you may well take your cue on what a Barack Obama Presidency will likely mean for India. With a history of standing for bans and sanctions, that hope for change may end up just being a mirage for those who survive on cottage industries that are next on the hit list of the Obama type of liberal-progressive activism.
An incisive expose on the use of child labour in India’s beedi industry on CBS‘ celebrated 60 Minutes program has resulted in the Clinton administration banning imports from Ganesh Beedis
Reacting to the ban Ganesh Beedis had this to say:
Rejecting the US government’s charge, he said there was a 15 per cent fall in demand for beedis. And without a workload, where is the need to employ children, he asked. Presently, the company’s beedi exports stand at $ 60,000 per year, he claimed
But the real story of the effect of these sanctions comes from a field study by CUTS Centre For International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE) in the Beedi making areas of South India.
It is almost one year after imposition of sanctions that CITEE conducted a field survey in order to find out whether the sanctions in any way have helped in eradicating child labour from the Indian Beedi industry. The survey indicates that after the sanctions the Beedi workers are getting less work from Ganesh and have been forced to take work from other Beedi companies, which pay far less than Ganesh.
In the wake of reduced earnings, parents have been forced to pull their children out of school and put them into Beedi making or other works. The boys have chosen to polish boots, domestic home service, or agarbatti manufacturing over Beedi rolling as they get higher wages there. But the girls cannot do anything other then Beedi rolling, as they aren’t able to go out of their homes (More than 80 percent of the Beedi workers are from the highly conservative Muslim community). The survey further indicates that around 60 percent of the poor children who used to help their parents also went to schools before the sanctions. However after one year of the sanctions this number is not even one fourth of the earlier. In case of girls, 90 percent of them have dropped out of schools and helping their parents to earn enough for meeting the basic needs or in some cases to arrange school fees for their younger siblings.
The highlight of this sordid saga is the role played by Senator Barack Obama in getting the Beedi ban. This story in the Rediff in 2000 recounts the role played by then State Senator of Illinois Barack Obama on legislation that would ban the sale of bidis across Illinois. In fact Illinois was the first U.S. State to take action on Bidis.
Offstumped Bottomline: For all those in India getting carried away with Obama-mania and those Indian Americans rooting for change they can believe in, you may well take your cue on what a Barack Obama Presidency will likely mean for India. With a history of standing for bans and sanctions, that hope for change may end up just being a mirage for those who survive on cottage industries that are next on the hit list of the Obama type of liberal-progressive activism.
Indian Premier League players’ auction | Pakistan big guns fail
Dhoni, Symonds top million dollar bids
The Hindu
Special Correspondent
IPL auction: disappointment for Ponting, Warne and Hayden; Sachin, Sourav also in million club
CHENNAI: Indian one-day captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds crossed the million-dollar mark as the world’s top cricketers were auctioned for the DHL Indian Premier League (IPL) in Mumbai.
Dhoni attracted the highest price of $1.5 million per season from The India Cements Limited group, which owns the Chennai franchise.
The wicketkeeper-batsman was part of the group of “marquee” players which began the bidding for the lucrative and singular Twenty20 league on Wednesday. The group included Adam Gilchrist, bought by Hyderabad for $700,000, and Muttiah Muralitharan, purchased by Chennai for $600,000.
Symonds was the second-most expensive buy on Wednesday — he went for $1.35 million to Hyderabad. Multi-skilled players were in demand as was evident in the winning bids for Sanath Jayasuriya ($975,000 from Mumbai), Irfan Pathan ($925,000 from Mohali) and Jacques Kallis ($900,000 from Bangalore).
Ishant Sharma’s stirring performance with the ball in Australia was rewarded with a bid of $950,000 – the fourth highest on Wednesday – from Kolkata. Australia’s Brett Lee was bought for $900,000 by Mohali, while his rival in pace, Shoaib Akhtar, fetched $425,000 from Kolkata.
The amounts fetched by Jayasuriya, Ishant, Kallis, and Lee ensured that Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, Rahul Dravid, and Yuvraj Singh, who as “icons” are guaranteed 15 per cent more than the highest-paid player of their cities, crossed the million-dollar mark.
The members of India’s victorious Twenty20 campaign in South Africa attracted bids in excess of their base prices. Robin Uthappa was acquired by Mumbai for $800,000 (base price $200,000). Rohit Sharma went to Hyderabad for $750,000 (base price $150,000), while Gautam Gambhir was purchased by home team Delhi for $725,000 (base price $200,000). Delhi also paid $675,000 (base price $100,000) for Manoj Tiwary.
Anomalies
The auction had its share of anomalies. Yusuf Pathan, with a sole international appearance to his credit, drew a bid of $25,000 more than Australian leg-spinning great Shane Warne ($450,000) for Jaipur.
The comparatively modest prices for Ricky Ponting ($400,000) and Matthew Hayden ($375,000) are probably explained by Australia’s scheduled tour of Pakistan overlapping a part of the IPL. But the fact that Glenn McGrath, an all-time great, was relegated to the reserve pool before he was bought for his base price was surprising, even accounting for his retirement last year.
The IPL, which begins on April 18, features eight teams in home and away encounters leading to the grand final on June 1
Indian Premier League players’ auction Pakistan big guns fail to attract franchises
The Post , Pakistan
Raheel Hanif
LAHORE: Money all set to imperialised cricket world in India on Wednesday when Indian Premier League (IPL) launches with a big bang through spending millions of dollars in players’ auction.
Spending on players nearly touched US$42 million, following the US$1.026 billion paid for the initial television rights and $723.6 million for franchise ownership.
It is indeed a money boost for world cricketers, but much of disappointment for Pakistani players who could not make their pie visible enough to put any impact in auction window. Indian franchises seemed least interested in Pakistani cricketers and only Boom Boom factor helped Shahid Afridi to get a place in Top20 list at 17th position. Hyderabad splashed US$675,000 for getting services of big-hitting Afridi who was also the best player of inaugural Twenty20 World Cup.
Second to him is Pakistan’s injured pacer Muhammad Asif who is in Delhi squad with a bid of US$ 650,000. Delhi also spent another US$ 500000 for hiring the services of Pakistan’s young skipper Shoaib Malik. The most disappointed outcome proved for controversial speedster Shoaib Akhtar, who is in middle of a career-threatening controversy with Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), as he failed to attract the franchisers and proved a less-worthy player as Kolkata team wins his services only for US$425,000. He is personally present in India and had already met Shah Rukh Khan who is the owner of Kolkata team. But his presence in India proved a failure as he could not match the other top players like Brett Lee, Symonds etc of the game in the auction.Younis Khan with US$ 250,000 and Kamran Akmal with US$ 150,0000 are at the bottom of the list and both are bracketed in Jaipur’s team.
Mohammad Yousuf has been withdrawn from the bid at the eleventh hour he is fighting a legal battle against the rebel Indian Cricket League, which already secured his signing.Chennai trumped Mumbai in the race for India’s limited-overs captain Dhoni, who is also the captain of the inaugural Twenty20 World Championship winners, with all team owners cheering the breaking of the US$1 million mark as the southern Indian team landed him on a three-year contract worth US$1.5 million.
Andrew Symonds is the second most expensive player, the Deccan Chronicle Hyderabad team picking the Australian all-rounder for $1.35 million. Sri Lankan dasher Sanath Jayasuriya narrowly missed touching the million-dollar-mark as he got Mukesh Ambani’s nod to play for Mumbai at $975,000.There were two other players in the $900,000-plus bracket - India’s Irfan Pathan and South African Jacques Kallis. Pathan, a clean hitter with bat besides being a potent swing bowler, was snatched by Mohali for $925,000. Proteas all-rounder Kallis was bought by Bangalore for $900,000.Two other players fancied by the bidders were Harbhajan Singh, the India off-spinner who was snared by Mumbai for $850,000, apparently for his all-round capabilities, and left-handed West Indian opener Chris Gayle who went to Shah Rukh Khan’s Kolkata team for $800,000.
India pace bowlers Ishant Sharma and Rudra Pratap Singh were the target of aggressive bids that saw Sharma fetch US$950,000 (euro644,417) from Kolkata.
Mohali’s owners were jubilant at landing Australia fast bowler Brett Lee for US$900,000.
Australia captain Ricky Ponting went to Kolkata, only modestly over his starting price. His arrival will make for a collection of strong leaders at Kolkata, which is to be coached by former Australia coach John Buchanan, and has India’s most successful Test captain Sourav Ganguly.
The structure of the bidding saw players auctioned off in groups - “marquee players”, batsmen, bowlers, wicketkeepers, all-rounders - and produced some unusual results. Ponting, captain of the world’s best national team, will be paid some $US275,000 per year less than Kolkata teammate David Hussey, who is only on the fringe of the Australia setup.
There was the possibility of leadership friction at Jaipur, where former Australia legspin great Shane Warne will join South Africa captain Graeme Smith, with the pair having a history of strong verbal exchanges, on and off the field.
Australia’s retiring wicketkeeper-batsman Adam Gilchrist (Hyderabad) and Sri Lanka’s Muttiah Muralitharan (Chennai) were among the six marquee players, of which Dhoni was the only one to finish in the top ten of bidding. The others marquee players were Warne, Sri Lanka’s Mahela Jayawardene (Mohali) and Pakistan paceman Shoaib Akhtar (Kolkata).
The 15 percent premium meant Tendulkar would fetch US$1,121,250 per season - still short of Dhoni’s salary.
Australia batsman Mike Hussey and retired strike bowler Glenn McGrath were among the players who did not attract their reserve price and were relegated to a reserve pool for subsequent bidding, along with West Indies players Ramnaresh Sarwan and Shivnarine Chanderpaul. They were all bought in the second round.
South African Ashwell Prince was the other player other than Pakistan’s Mohammad Yousuf who was withdrawn from bidding.There were no England players available at auction, with its players committing to national team and county duty in an increasingly crowded cricket calendar.
There are five icon players - Sachin Tendulkar (Mumbai), Rahul Dravid (Bangalore), Sourav Ganguly (Kolkata), Yuvraj Singh (Mohali) and Virender Sehwag (Delhi) - who will automatically play for their teams and will not be put up for auction. They will get 15 percent more money than the highest paid player of their teams.Each franchisee has been allowed to spend a minimum of $3.3 million and a maximum of $5 million for buying players.
While each team will be allowed to register a maximum of eight foreign players, only four will be able to play in the XI during any match. The XII, including the 12th man to be named for each match, will comprise four of the BCCI-contracted players, four Ranji Trophy players and four under-22 players besides the four overseas players.
All eight franchises including Mukesh Ambani (Mumbai), Vijay Mallya (Bangalore), Shah Rukh Khan (Kolkata), Preity Zinta (Mohali), Emerging Media (Jaipur), Deccan Chronicle (Hyderabad), India Cements (Chennai) and GMR Group (Delhi) were at the auction. It will be a 44-day tournament this year. The first game will be played under the floodlights at Bangalore’s M. Chinnaswamy Stadium April 18 with Bangalore taking on Kolkata.
Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns : Global Challenges and Opportunities in U.S. Foreign Policy
International Institute for Strategic Studies - London
Global Challenges and Opportunities in U.S. Foreign Policy with Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns's.
Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns's remarks will have a special focus on the Middle East and South Asia and also describe how the US and Europe need to transform their relationship to tackle these issues together. This meeting is chaired by Mark Fitzpatrick - International Institute for Strategic Studies
Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns is the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the Department of State's third ranking official.
Appointed by President Bush, he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 17, 2005 and was sworn into office by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. As Under Secretary, he oversees U.S. policy in each region of the world and serves in the senior career Foreign Service position at the Department.
Prior to his current assignment, Ambassador Burns was the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As Ambassador to NATO, he headed the combined State-Defense Department U.S. Mission to NATO at a time when the Alliance committed to new missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war against terrorism, and accepted seven new members.
From 1997 to 2001, Ambassador Burns was U.S. Ambassador to Greece. During his tenure as Ambassador, the U.S. expanded its military and law enforcement cooperation with Greece, strengthened our partnership in the Balkans, increased trade and investment and people-to-people programs.
Global Challenges and Opportunities in U.S. Foreign Policy with Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns's.
Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns's remarks will have a special focus on the Middle East and South Asia and also describe how the US and Europe need to transform their relationship to tackle these issues together. This meeting is chaired by Mark Fitzpatrick - International Institute for Strategic Studies
Ambassador R. Nicholas Burns is the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the Department of State's third ranking official.
Appointed by President Bush, he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 17, 2005 and was sworn into office by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. As Under Secretary, he oversees U.S. policy in each region of the world and serves in the senior career Foreign Service position at the Department.
Prior to his current assignment, Ambassador Burns was the United States Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As Ambassador to NATO, he headed the combined State-Defense Department U.S. Mission to NATO at a time when the Alliance committed to new missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war against terrorism, and accepted seven new members.
From 1997 to 2001, Ambassador Burns was U.S. Ambassador to Greece. During his tenure as Ambassador, the U.S. expanded its military and law enforcement cooperation with Greece, strengthened our partnership in the Balkans, increased trade and investment and people-to-people programs.
Who is Medvedev?
February 20, 2008
By Ben Aris
bne
Source: Russia Profile
When Vladimir Putin took over for Boris Yeltsin in 2000, few had any idea what the bureaucrat from St Petersburg would do. Boris Yeltsin brought Putin down from the northern capital in 1996 to work in his administration, but he had kept a low profile and was largely unknown outside of Kremlin circles. His elevation to the presidency prompted an avalanche of articles with the title, "Who is Putin?"
It took more than six months for any sort of clarity emerged. Putin played his cards close to his chest like the former KGB colonel that he is.
Former finance minister Boris Fedorov met Putin shortly after he became president. "I spent an hour with him talking about the problems Russia faced. After I got out of the meeting, I suddenly realised that I had told him everything - my ideas, my opinions, everything I was thinking - but he had told me absolutely nothing about what he was thinking," Fedorov told bne.
At first, the press corps wrote Putin off as puppet of the oligarchs that ruled the Kremlin at the time. When Putin started throwing the supposed puppet masters into jail or driving them into exile, the press corps didn't bat an eyelid: the puppet had become a Stalinist monster, who was building a police state, crushing democracy underfoot as he went.
The radical tax reform that Putin introduced about the same time as oligarchs Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky came under attack – which centred on slashing income taxes to a flat rate of 13 percent - went largely unnoticed, but marked the start of a complete revamp of Russia's economy that was dubbed "the Gref Plan." It was hugely successful - Russia is now the third-richest country in the world in terms of bank reserves.
Fittingly, Putin himself brought up the "who" question again in his final press conference. "I think that I have answered this question in deeds, if not in words, for the last eight years, by conscientiously fulfilling my duties as head of state."
Still, commentators read what they like into these deeds: Putin highlights his considerable economic achievements; critics focus instead on his over-weening power, the crushing of political opposition and the control the state has over the media. Both points of view are valid.
Putin's putative successor
As Dmitry Medvedev prepares to take up the reins of power after the March presidential election, which he is almost certain to win, he held a press conference and laid out his main ideas for the continuing efforts to reform Russia. Who is Medvedev? With this speech, he has largely answered the question.
First and foremost, he is Putin's man. He peppered his speech with phrases like, "as the president has correctly said…" In an unprecedented move for an industrialised nation, Putin intends to leave the post of president and take up the lesser job of prime minister, something that no other leader has done, says Chris Weafer, head of strategy at UralSib. Medvedev's presidency will be a double act that some have called the "dream team" for investment sentiment.
Medvedev comes to the job with a team of liberal-ish lawyers and academics currently waiting in the wings, mostly friends and associates from his St Petersburg days. The distinguishing feature of this group is that they do not belong to the so-called Siloviki hard-line Kremlin fraction that tightened its grip on the Kremlin in the latter part of Putin's rule.
4i x 7
On February 17, Medvedev travelled to an economic forum in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk and laid out the main goals for his presidency. There were no big surprises and the business community at least will be reassured to hear that the program Medvedev is promising will tackle some long overdue reforms.
The program can be summed up as the "four I's," Renaissance Capital says: institutions, infrastructure, innovation and investment. To this, Medvedev added seven specific tasks:
• Develop an independent judicial system
• Radically reduce red tape
• Decrease taxation
• Transform the ruble into the local reserve currency
• Modernize transport and energy infrastructure
• Form the basis of a national innovation system
• Realize a social development programme
"Given the format in which they were delivered, these priorities are not idle talk, but rather a declaration of the policy to be seriously approached for years to come. Even partially attained, they would significantly improve the sustainability of Russia's long-term growth," says UralSib's Weafer. "The Kremlin is now shifting its focus to a post-election strategy, one designed to diversify the Russian economy beyond the mere extraction and export of raw materials. This speech directly addressed that broad goal and, with the seriousness and detail in which it was presented, easily exceeded our expectations."
This program represents an extension of Putin's policies, the logical next step for the reforms that are already well in hand. The economy has flourished under Putin, whose task was made much easier by the rapid rise in oil prices shortly after he took over. But the scope of Putin's reforms was limited to a few big-ticket items and tinkering with the rest.
For much of his time in office, Putin concentrated on two goals: getting the wheels of commerce turning again, largely by concentrating on pushing financial sector reform, and returning to state control the strategic assets "stolen" by the oligarchs in the 1990s so that the revenues go into the public purse rather than the individuals' pockets.
But Putin never addressed the broader issues of administrative and social sector reforms, without which Russia will never be able to mature into a "normal" country.
Minister of Economic Development and Trade German Gref did manage to push through some limited reforms to simplify the licensing of businesses, but registering and regulating business activity remains a stinking feeding trough for most local officials. Likewise, the deputy head of the presidential administration, Dmitry Kozak, authored and implemented limited reforms to the judicial system that, for example, ended judges employment for life but stopped short of the wholesale revamp the system badly needs.
Both these changes were the political equivalent of wrapping some duct tape around a leaking pipe; they stemmed the flow of water but didn't stop the leak. Putin had so much on his plate that he was ordering quick fixes before moving on to bigger problems. Gref went on to tackle banking reform and Kozak was sent to the Caucasus to deal with the Chechen mess.
Medvedev's presidency promises to turn the Kremlin's full attention to overdue judicial and administrative reforms. In his speech, he called for establishment of the supremacy of law, including a judiciary completely independent of the executive and legislative branches. Policies reflected in laws should be based on freedom "in all its manifestations – personal freedom, economic freedom, and finally freedom of expression." The first part clearly harks back to Putin's "dictatorship of the law," but the second sounds a note not heard out of the Kremlin before.
Judicial reform is only one side of the coin and Medvedev is promising to radically reduce administrative barriers to business, which strikes at the heart of endemic corruption as "the most serious disease" in Russian society. Medvedev stated that respect for private property needs to become a key part of government policy, the violation of which has often been carried out by corrupt officials. Private property should be "seen as a value that has been created and earned by honest work."
Maybe the biggest departure from Putin's program was Medvedev's call for an end to the practice of placing state officials on the boards of major corporations. Medvedev himself sat on the board of Gazprom, and Russia is almost unique in Europe in that senior government officials double up as board members of nearly every significant business in the country. "I think there is no reason for the majority of state officials to sit on the boards of those firms," Medvedev said. "They should be replaced by truly independent directors, which the state would hire to implement its plans."
Maybe the most contentious reform that Medvedev is proposing is to lower taxes to stimulate innovation and investment – a proposal that Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin almost immediately condemned. "If the current taxes remain in force, then within the next five years we would be able to achieve a doubling or tripling in the construction of infrastructure. If we reduce taxes, this will not be possible," Kudrin said, Interfax reported. "Yes to tax reduction in the long term, but this must be done very carefully and step by step."
Medvedev argues that the state must collect only enough tax to cover its basic services to society. But, ironically, this reform will bring him into conflict with the liberals in the government for going too far, too fast.
But this program is not going to be easy to implement. Nationalizing oil companies is easy - you only need to throw one uppity oligarch in jail and it's all over. Closing the loopholes that allow the 1.2 million-strong state bureaucracy to help itself to bribes will be met with massive resistance and only a complete overhaul of the system will make these changes stick.
Medvedev has laid out an extremely ambitious program, in many ways much more ambitious than Putin's goals. The question that should be asked of Medvedev if he takes up the office of president is not who he is, but what are his chances of pulling all these reforms off?
By Ben Aris
bne
Source: Russia Profile
When Vladimir Putin took over for Boris Yeltsin in 2000, few had any idea what the bureaucrat from St Petersburg would do. Boris Yeltsin brought Putin down from the northern capital in 1996 to work in his administration, but he had kept a low profile and was largely unknown outside of Kremlin circles. His elevation to the presidency prompted an avalanche of articles with the title, "Who is Putin?"
It took more than six months for any sort of clarity emerged. Putin played his cards close to his chest like the former KGB colonel that he is.
Former finance minister Boris Fedorov met Putin shortly after he became president. "I spent an hour with him talking about the problems Russia faced. After I got out of the meeting, I suddenly realised that I had told him everything - my ideas, my opinions, everything I was thinking - but he had told me absolutely nothing about what he was thinking," Fedorov told bne.
At first, the press corps wrote Putin off as puppet of the oligarchs that ruled the Kremlin at the time. When Putin started throwing the supposed puppet masters into jail or driving them into exile, the press corps didn't bat an eyelid: the puppet had become a Stalinist monster, who was building a police state, crushing democracy underfoot as he went.
The radical tax reform that Putin introduced about the same time as oligarchs Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky came under attack – which centred on slashing income taxes to a flat rate of 13 percent - went largely unnoticed, but marked the start of a complete revamp of Russia's economy that was dubbed "the Gref Plan." It was hugely successful - Russia is now the third-richest country in the world in terms of bank reserves.
Fittingly, Putin himself brought up the "who" question again in his final press conference. "I think that I have answered this question in deeds, if not in words, for the last eight years, by conscientiously fulfilling my duties as head of state."
Still, commentators read what they like into these deeds: Putin highlights his considerable economic achievements; critics focus instead on his over-weening power, the crushing of political opposition and the control the state has over the media. Both points of view are valid.
Putin's putative successor
As Dmitry Medvedev prepares to take up the reins of power after the March presidential election, which he is almost certain to win, he held a press conference and laid out his main ideas for the continuing efforts to reform Russia. Who is Medvedev? With this speech, he has largely answered the question.
First and foremost, he is Putin's man. He peppered his speech with phrases like, "as the president has correctly said…" In an unprecedented move for an industrialised nation, Putin intends to leave the post of president and take up the lesser job of prime minister, something that no other leader has done, says Chris Weafer, head of strategy at UralSib. Medvedev's presidency will be a double act that some have called the "dream team" for investment sentiment.
Medvedev comes to the job with a team of liberal-ish lawyers and academics currently waiting in the wings, mostly friends and associates from his St Petersburg days. The distinguishing feature of this group is that they do not belong to the so-called Siloviki hard-line Kremlin fraction that tightened its grip on the Kremlin in the latter part of Putin's rule.
4i x 7
On February 17, Medvedev travelled to an economic forum in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk and laid out the main goals for his presidency. There were no big surprises and the business community at least will be reassured to hear that the program Medvedev is promising will tackle some long overdue reforms.
The program can be summed up as the "four I's," Renaissance Capital says: institutions, infrastructure, innovation and investment. To this, Medvedev added seven specific tasks:
• Develop an independent judicial system
• Radically reduce red tape
• Decrease taxation
• Transform the ruble into the local reserve currency
• Modernize transport and energy infrastructure
• Form the basis of a national innovation system
• Realize a social development programme
"Given the format in which they were delivered, these priorities are not idle talk, but rather a declaration of the policy to be seriously approached for years to come. Even partially attained, they would significantly improve the sustainability of Russia's long-term growth," says UralSib's Weafer. "The Kremlin is now shifting its focus to a post-election strategy, one designed to diversify the Russian economy beyond the mere extraction and export of raw materials. This speech directly addressed that broad goal and, with the seriousness and detail in which it was presented, easily exceeded our expectations."
This program represents an extension of Putin's policies, the logical next step for the reforms that are already well in hand. The economy has flourished under Putin, whose task was made much easier by the rapid rise in oil prices shortly after he took over. But the scope of Putin's reforms was limited to a few big-ticket items and tinkering with the rest.
For much of his time in office, Putin concentrated on two goals: getting the wheels of commerce turning again, largely by concentrating on pushing financial sector reform, and returning to state control the strategic assets "stolen" by the oligarchs in the 1990s so that the revenues go into the public purse rather than the individuals' pockets.
But Putin never addressed the broader issues of administrative and social sector reforms, without which Russia will never be able to mature into a "normal" country.
Minister of Economic Development and Trade German Gref did manage to push through some limited reforms to simplify the licensing of businesses, but registering and regulating business activity remains a stinking feeding trough for most local officials. Likewise, the deputy head of the presidential administration, Dmitry Kozak, authored and implemented limited reforms to the judicial system that, for example, ended judges employment for life but stopped short of the wholesale revamp the system badly needs.
Both these changes were the political equivalent of wrapping some duct tape around a leaking pipe; they stemmed the flow of water but didn't stop the leak. Putin had so much on his plate that he was ordering quick fixes before moving on to bigger problems. Gref went on to tackle banking reform and Kozak was sent to the Caucasus to deal with the Chechen mess.
Medvedev's presidency promises to turn the Kremlin's full attention to overdue judicial and administrative reforms. In his speech, he called for establishment of the supremacy of law, including a judiciary completely independent of the executive and legislative branches. Policies reflected in laws should be based on freedom "in all its manifestations – personal freedom, economic freedom, and finally freedom of expression." The first part clearly harks back to Putin's "dictatorship of the law," but the second sounds a note not heard out of the Kremlin before.
Judicial reform is only one side of the coin and Medvedev is promising to radically reduce administrative barriers to business, which strikes at the heart of endemic corruption as "the most serious disease" in Russian society. Medvedev stated that respect for private property needs to become a key part of government policy, the violation of which has often been carried out by corrupt officials. Private property should be "seen as a value that has been created and earned by honest work."
Maybe the biggest departure from Putin's program was Medvedev's call for an end to the practice of placing state officials on the boards of major corporations. Medvedev himself sat on the board of Gazprom, and Russia is almost unique in Europe in that senior government officials double up as board members of nearly every significant business in the country. "I think there is no reason for the majority of state officials to sit on the boards of those firms," Medvedev said. "They should be replaced by truly independent directors, which the state would hire to implement its plans."
Maybe the most contentious reform that Medvedev is proposing is to lower taxes to stimulate innovation and investment – a proposal that Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin almost immediately condemned. "If the current taxes remain in force, then within the next five years we would be able to achieve a doubling or tripling in the construction of infrastructure. If we reduce taxes, this will not be possible," Kudrin said, Interfax reported. "Yes to tax reduction in the long term, but this must be done very carefully and step by step."
Medvedev argues that the state must collect only enough tax to cover its basic services to society. But, ironically, this reform will bring him into conflict with the liberals in the government for going too far, too fast.
But this program is not going to be easy to implement. Nationalizing oil companies is easy - you only need to throw one uppity oligarch in jail and it's all over. Closing the loopholes that allow the 1.2 million-strong state bureaucracy to help itself to bribes will be met with massive resistance and only a complete overhaul of the system will make these changes stick.
Medvedev has laid out an extremely ambitious program, in many ways much more ambitious than Putin's goals. The question that should be asked of Medvedev if he takes up the office of president is not who he is, but what are his chances of pulling all these reforms off?
The Economics of Information : Joseph Stiglitz .....Nobel Prize-winning economist
Feb 5th, 2008
Asia Society - New York, NY
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz ("Globalization and Its Discontents") talks about his new concept of economics, "The Economics of Information," and his latest book, "Making Globalization Work" - Asia Society
Joseph Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank until January 2000. Before that he was the chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001. He is currently a finance and economics professor at Columbia University. He is the author of Globalization and Its Discontents and The Roaring Nineties.
Vishakha N. Desai is the sixth president of the Asia Society, assuming the position in July 2004. As chief executive officer, she is responsible for managing an international organization with offices throughout the U.S. and Asia. She sets the direction for the Society's programs in the diverse fields of arts, culture, policy, business and education, overseeing a budget of $22 million.
Bush and ExxonMobil v. Chavez
Source: sjlendman.blogspot.com
February 19th 2008, by Stephen Lendman
Since the Bush administration took office in January 2001, it's targeted Hugo Chavez relentlessly. From the aborted two-day April 2002 coup attempt, to the 2002-03 oil management lockout, to the failed 2004 recall referendum, to stoking opposition rallies against the constitutional reform referendum, to constant pillorying in the media to funding opposition candidates in elections, to the present when headlines like the Reuters February 7 one announced: "Courts freeze $12 billion Venezuela assets in Exxon row." Call it the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez with ExxonMobil (EM) its lead aggressor and the long arm of the CIA and Pentagon always in the wings.
EM temporarily won a series of court orders in Britain, New York, the Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles to freeze up to $12 billion of state-owned PDVSA assets around the world. Hugo Chavez called it Bush administration "economic war" against his government. Energy Minister and PDVSA president, Rafael Ramirez, said it was "judicial terrorism" and that "PDVSA has paralyzed oil sales to Exxon (and) suspend(ed) commercial relations" in response to actions it "consider(s) an outrage....intimidating and hostile."
PDVSA's web site went further. It explained that the company will "fully honor existing contractual commitments relating to investments in common with ExxonMobil on the outside, reserving the right to terminate those contracts" under terms that permit. This likely refers to a Chalmette, Louisiana joint venture between the two companies that refines 185,000 barrels of oil daily into gasoline. It also reflects a commitment to supply 90,000 barrels of oil daily to Exxon that continues unaltered.
EM sought the injunctions ahead of an expected International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration ruling. It's over a compensation claim owed Exxon after Venezuela nationalized its last privately-owned oil fields last May in the Orinoco River region. PDVSA now has a majority interest, Big Oil investors have minority stakes, but the government offered fair compensation for the buyouts. Chevron, UK's BP PLC, France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA agreed to terms and will continue operating in the country.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips balked, and it led to the current action. In Exxon's case, it refused a generous settlement offer for its 41.7% stake, but that's the typical way this bully operates. The company is the world's largest, had 2007 sales topping $404 billion, it's more than double Venezuela's GDP, and it places EM 25th among world nations based on World Bank GDP figures.
It's too early to predict what's ahead, but one thing is sure. As long as George Bush is president, he'll go after Chavez every way possible with one aim in mind - to destabilize the country and remove the Venezuelan leader from office. Once again, battle lines are drawn as the latest confrontation plays out judicially, economically and geopolitically. The stakes are huge - the most successful democracy in the Americas and the "threat" of its good example v. the world's most powerful nation and biggest bully.
The next judicial hearing is on February 22, but it's unclear where things now stand with Exxon and the Chavez government having different views. The oil giant claims PDVSA's assets are frozen, but on February 9 Minister Ramirez denied it saying: "They don't have any asset frozen. They only have frozen $300 million" in cash through a New York court. On February 13, it heard the case, and to no one's surprise affirmed the freeze until a final arbitration settlement is reached. PDVSA has no "assets in that jurisdiction (or in Britain) that even come close to those" billions that are about 16 times the value of Exxon's Venezuelan $750 million investment.
Ramirez also added that EM's action is a "transitory measure" while PDVSA pressed its case in New York and will do it again in London. The current status has no "affect on our cash flow (or) operational situation at all." Exxon wants to undermine the government and "create a situation of anxiety in the country, a situation of nervousness."
Ramirez expressed confidence that his government will prevail. It's arbitrating fairly, offered just compensation, and that in the end may defeat the latest Bush administration assault against the right of a sovereign state to its own resources. He also explained that Exxon violated ICSID arbitration proceedings by seeking separate court orders, and that PDVSA is considering a response. It may sue the oil giant for damages that caused Venezuela's dollar-denominated bonds to record their biggest drop in six months on the prospect of a long legal battle.
On February 8, PDVSA declared its position on its web site to put the facts in context, clarify the situation, and dispel how the dominant media portrays it ExxonMobil's way. Below is a summary.
The company states it's been "in arduous level agreements and negotiations with" its joint venture partners - "Total, Statoil, (Italy's) ENI, ConocoPhillips, Petrocanada, (China's) CNPC, Petrochina, (Venezuela's) Ineparia, British Petroleum (and) Exxon Mobil." The US giant is the "only case in which we have a clear situation of conflict" so it was "envisioned that these strategic issues....could be settled in international (arbitration) tribunals." It appears that agreement has been reached or "in the process of agreeing" with every company (including ConocoPhillips) except ExxonMobil, and the situation with them is this: "this company has not complied with the terms of arbitration....and introduced an arbitration against the Republic (in) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)."
PDVSA awaits its ruling "which, we are confident, will promote the interests of the Republic." In addition, Exxon sued PDVSA. As a result, "we see a clear position (of this company) to go against the sovereign interest of an oil-producing country such as Venezuela," deny its legal right to its own resources, and get overt US backing for it from State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack saying: "We fully support the efforts of ExxonMobil to get a just and fair compensation package for their assets according to the standards of international law" that Washington defiantly trashes.
PDVSA's statement explained that the national media have "such ignorance of the situation (by reporting that) our company has (assets of) 12 billion dollars (frozen and) that is completely untrue....we do not have any court decision that is final with respect to all of our assets. We have an interim measure in a court in New York, we have the right - and so we are going to....respond. This is a transitional measure while (PDVSA) presents its case; defend(s) ourselves....defend(s) the interests of the Republic and we are confident we will remove this measure."
Exxon also got injunctions in London and the Netherlands. "I must report we have no assets in those jurisdictions...."The same status is true for the Netherlands Antilles" where another injunction was gotten.
"We are no longer surprised (about) the attitude of ExxonMobil, as it is the typical American transnational company which....historically has tried to attack the oil-producing countries and impose their views on the management of (their) national resources....On behalf of workers and our oil industry, we are not going to (be) frightened, intimidated, or retreat in the sovereign aspirations of our people to manage their natural resources."
We must "warn our country because they could continue this type of action....the position of our people and our Government is firm in defence of our decisions." We will defend our interests. We won't "yield to this (action), we will defeat them (on the) ground(s) that (are) raised...."
In a February 12 interview, Ramirez repeated Hugo Chavez's message two days earlier on his weekly Sunday television program, Alo, Presidente: "If you end up freezing (our assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you. Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger....I speak to the US empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't send one drop of oil to the empire of the United States....The outlaws of ExxonMobil will never again rob us....If the economic war continues against Venezuela, the price of oil is going to reach $200 (a barrel) and Venezuela will join the economic war....And more than one country is willing to accompany us in the economic war."
PDVSA spokesperson, Eleazar Diaz Rangel, then said on Latest News on February 12 that "we are ready" to stop supplying oil to the US if their hostile actions continue. He explained that Washington is waging economic war, and Venezuela is seeking to develop new customers like China. He added that the cash flow of the company is sound because it's based on daily crude oil sales.
On February 12, Venezuela's deputy oil minister, Bernard Mommer, said on state-owned Venezolana de Television that Exxon knows it will lose in arbitration and its "maneuver represents a way to intimidate" other countries against standing up to its will. It's trying to "create panic and anxiety with the banking and the oil sector."
Venezuela is America's third or fourth largest oil supplier after Canada, Saudi Arabia and at times Mexico. It accounts for between 10 to 12% of US imports and averages around 1.2 million barrels a day, sometimes as much as 1.5 million. PDVSA's assets total around $109 billion, according to its web site. It calls itself "the most creditworthy company in Latin America" which is likely considering its enormous oil reserves and at their current elevated prices.
Views from the US Media
It's no surprise how the US media portray Chavez and the Exxon dispute. Bloomberg.com called it his way to use the "Exxon Battle to Stoke Anti-US Sentiment" as though he's the aggressor and poor USA and giant Exxon his victims.
Then, there's the Washington Post's editorial view on February 15. It's astonished that "Mr. Chavez himself threatened to cut off exports of crude oil to America" over Exxon's having "moved to freeze" its assets. It lamentes how "regrettable" the US "voracious consumption of oil" is because it "underwrites Venezuela's Chavez regime....If the Bush administration were really as committed to overthrowing Mr. Chavez as Mr. Chavez claims (it ought to boycott) Venezuelan oil (to) devastate" its economy. "Two cheers for ExxonMobil. In standing up to Mr. Chavez through 'peaceful, legal means,' it has once again exposed the hollowness of the anti-imperialism with which he justifies his rule."
The Chicago Tribune was just as hostile by asking "Where is the king of Spain when we need him?" Chavez "says the 'bandits' at Exxon are trying to rob Venezuela. From where we sit, it looks like the other way around."
Then there's the Houston Chronicle in Exxon's home city. It blasted Chavez for "making a fool of himself on the floor of the UN General Assembly last year," called him a "clown," and said "his buffoonery is neither amusing nor benign." Ignoring Exxon's shenanigans in cahoots with Washington, it stated that Chavez "was in full bluster (and that he) and his henchmen (were launch(ing) a war of words in response (that is) little more than political theater, sound bites for the loyalists back home, and You Tube fodder abroad."
This type bluster gets supplemented with outrageous comments about how Chavez "seized power," shuts down his opposition, control's Venezuela's media, took over American oil fields, is a "destructive menace" to the region, and even worse a communist and a dictator with a terrible human rights record. Is it any wonder that Americans know almost nothing about Venezuelan democracy and the man who shaped it for the past nine years. Under his leadership, it's the real thing, is impressive and improving. Compare it to America where "The People" have no say, democracy is nowhere in sight, and under the Bush administration it's pretense, lawless, and corrupted.
What's Going On and What's At Stake
Throughout most of the last century, and especially post-WW II, America's international relations have been appalling and destructive. It's the world's leading bully, it practices state terrorism, disdains democracy, defiles the rule of law, tramples on human and civil rights, demands unquestioned obedience, and rules by what Noam Chomsky calls "the Fifth Freedom" that shreds the other four: to "rob, to exploit and to dominate society, to undertake any course of action to insure that existing privilege is protected and advanced." Outliers aren't tolerated, national sovereignty is sinful, independence is a crime, and dare disobey the imperial master guarantees certain punishment.
William Blum documented the history in three editions of his book, "Rogue State." He wrote: "Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US has caused....several million (deaths), and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." Washington won't tolerate nations that won't:
"lie down and happily become an American client,"
accept free market capitalism and today's steroid-enhanced neoliberal version that's even more predatory,
sacrifice its peoples' welfare for ours,
"produce primarily for export,"
allow dangerous environmental dumping on its soil,
surrender to IMF, World Bank, WTO and international banking rules; accept exploitive structural adjustments and debt slavery as a way of life;
relinquish control of its natural resources, especially if they're large oil and gas deposits,
surrender all freedoms and call it democracy,
permit US military bases on its soil, and
agree unquestionably to all other imperial demands.
Countries unwilling to oblige are called "bad examples (and) reduced to basket cases." In addition, their leaders are replaced by "friendlier" ones. It's an ugly story of the rich against the poor, the moneyed interests against all humanity, and if outliers are tolerated, they'll be "bad examples" for others to follow.
Chavez became one of them after his 1998 election. Ever since, he's been a thorn in America's craw and its greatest threat - a "good example" that's a model for other nations. He also inspires social movements throughout the Americas, even though none so far are dominant or even close, and he shows signs of wavering on some of his earlier commitments. More on that below.
Imperialism is safe in the Americas, and James Petras explained it in his new article: "Movements in Flux and Center-Left Governments in Power." He states: "The singular fact about Latin America is that, despite a number of massive popular upheavals, several regime changes and (some ascendant) mass social movements, the continuity of property relations remains intact." In fact, they're more concentrated, "giant agro-mineral export enterprises" are prospering, and "class structure (and) socio-economic inequalities" persist, even though Hugo Chavez stands out, in part, as an exception. Petras calls him "pragmatic."
He "reversed (some of) the corrupt privatizations of previous rightest neo-liberal regimes," but still supports business. Nonetheless, Washington sees him as a threat because he embraces participatory democracy, practices redistributive social policies, and envisions a "new socialism of the 21st century....based in solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality." Those ideas and his expressive language are anathema to America and its hard line neoliberal model.
As a result, he tops George Bush's target list outside the Middle East, and that status won't change under a new administration in 2009, especially if a Republican heads it. But even Democrats are hostile. When candidates discuss Latin America, Chavez is Topic One and their comments aren't friendly.
Earlier (but no longer), John McCain's web site was outrageous. It featured a petition to "stop the dictators of Latin America" and supported ousting Chavez "in the name of democracy and freedom throughout the hemisphere." He lashed out at a news conference in Miami's Little Havana stating that "everyone should understand the connections" between (Bolivia's) Evo Morales, Castro and Chavez. "They inspire each other. They assist each other. They get ideas from each other. It's very disturbing." He also calls Chavez a "wacko" and a "two-bit dictator."
These comments aren't surprising from a man who headed the hard right International Republican Institute (IRI). Along with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, these organizations front for imperialism, support rightest dictators, and plot the overthrow of independent democrats like Chavez who dare confront America.
Think hard about this man from what his fellow Republicans say about him. Some call him psychologically unhinged and unqualified to be president. Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran said: "The thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine." Others from the far right, like Alabama's Dick Shelby, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe, mention times McCain screamed four-letter obscenities at them in the Senate cloak room. Another senator said: "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."
Along with these unsettling comments, there are disturbing allegations about McCain's POW years and reported special treatment he got after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam theater forces. An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" is actively addressing his record on things people have a right to know about public officials, if they're true, and McCain has an obligation to explain them.
Democrats aren't much better, and consider their views about Chavez. They're hardly friendly with Hillary Clinton saying "we have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America" with no confusion about who she means. Barack Obama is also suspect despite saying if elected he'll meet with Iranian, Cuban, Syrian and Venezuelan leaders. It sounds good until he qualifies it and spoils everything. He labels these countries "rogue states," reveals his real feelings, and signals his hostility and unwillingness to establish good relations with them.
Forget Obama's friendly smile, comforting demeanor and reassuring rhetoric. Bottom line - he's no different from the rest. There's not a dime's worth of difference among them that matters. Next January, they'll be a new face in charge with the same agenda: wars without end; subservience to the monied interests; disdain for the common good; and deference to the dominant media view that Chavez is: an authoritarian, a strongman, a dictator and what Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady calls him: anti-democratic, dictatorial, vengeful, bullying, crude, unpopular, and having "an insatiable thirst for power that should give Venezuelans reason to be fearful."
Forget that under Chavez Venezuelan business is booming or how gracious he was in defeat last December after voters rejected his constitutional reforms. Petras assessed what followed. Centrist and other influential Chavez advisors jumped on the setback and "pressed their advantage to secure programmatic, tactical-strategic and organizational changes." They got him to replace over a dozen cabinet ministers and others in government with new faces sharing their views. They also, to a degree, shifted Chavez to the center, influenced him to "slow down....the move to socialisma, (establish) economic ties with the big bourgeoisie, (halt) immediate moves to nationalize strategic economic enterprises, and (move slowly) in reforming land tenure."
In addition, they got him to ally "with the middle class center-right parties, and (won) them over (by eliminating) price controls to let "basic food prices.... soar, while salaries remain stagnant." The result: a fundamental contradiction in trying to advance socialism by "liberalizing economic policy." Petras is worried that Chavez's base (the urban poor) "will lose interest, abstain or resist the centrists and withdraw their loyalties." Indignation is surfacing, loyal Chavez support may be jeopardized, and it "raises fundamental questions about the long-term future of state-class movement relations under" his leadership.
In addition, rightest forces see an opening, are pressing their advantage, Exxon's move is a warning shot, and so are reports about Colombian paramilitaries entering the country in greater numbers. More destabilization will follow, and continued efforts will be made to weaken Chavez, then try to oust him. More than ever, he needs strong support at a time it's jeopardized, and that's a worrisome situation to consider. Venezuela's Bolivarianism is glorious, provided it flourishes, grows and achieves its long-term goals. It's been extraordinary so far, still has miles to go, and it's unthinkable to waiver now and pull back.
Petras alarmingly notes that when "social movements (adopt common) electoral strategies, (work) within the framework of institutional politics, and (ally) with center-left regimes....few positive reforms and numerous regressive" ones result. Will this be Venezuelans' fate? The prospect is frightening because if not Chavez, who'll lead their struggle for social equity and justice - for the nation, the region and beyond. Bolivarianism is glorious and vibrant. But to flourish, grow and prosper, it needs care and nurturing from a resolute leader backed by mass popular support.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on RepublicBroadcasting.org from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions of world and national issues with distinguished guests.
February 19th 2008, by Stephen Lendman
Since the Bush administration took office in January 2001, it's targeted Hugo Chavez relentlessly. From the aborted two-day April 2002 coup attempt, to the 2002-03 oil management lockout, to the failed 2004 recall referendum, to stoking opposition rallies against the constitutional reform referendum, to constant pillorying in the media to funding opposition candidates in elections, to the present when headlines like the Reuters February 7 one announced: "Courts freeze $12 billion Venezuela assets in Exxon row." Call it the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez with ExxonMobil (EM) its lead aggressor and the long arm of the CIA and Pentagon always in the wings.
EM temporarily won a series of court orders in Britain, New York, the Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles to freeze up to $12 billion of state-owned PDVSA assets around the world. Hugo Chavez called it Bush administration "economic war" against his government. Energy Minister and PDVSA president, Rafael Ramirez, said it was "judicial terrorism" and that "PDVSA has paralyzed oil sales to Exxon (and) suspend(ed) commercial relations" in response to actions it "consider(s) an outrage....intimidating and hostile."
PDVSA's web site went further. It explained that the company will "fully honor existing contractual commitments relating to investments in common with ExxonMobil on the outside, reserving the right to terminate those contracts" under terms that permit. This likely refers to a Chalmette, Louisiana joint venture between the two companies that refines 185,000 barrels of oil daily into gasoline. It also reflects a commitment to supply 90,000 barrels of oil daily to Exxon that continues unaltered.
EM sought the injunctions ahead of an expected International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration ruling. It's over a compensation claim owed Exxon after Venezuela nationalized its last privately-owned oil fields last May in the Orinoco River region. PDVSA now has a majority interest, Big Oil investors have minority stakes, but the government offered fair compensation for the buyouts. Chevron, UK's BP PLC, France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA agreed to terms and will continue operating in the country.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips balked, and it led to the current action. In Exxon's case, it refused a generous settlement offer for its 41.7% stake, but that's the typical way this bully operates. The company is the world's largest, had 2007 sales topping $404 billion, it's more than double Venezuela's GDP, and it places EM 25th among world nations based on World Bank GDP figures.
It's too early to predict what's ahead, but one thing is sure. As long as George Bush is president, he'll go after Chavez every way possible with one aim in mind - to destabilize the country and remove the Venezuelan leader from office. Once again, battle lines are drawn as the latest confrontation plays out judicially, economically and geopolitically. The stakes are huge - the most successful democracy in the Americas and the "threat" of its good example v. the world's most powerful nation and biggest bully.
The next judicial hearing is on February 22, but it's unclear where things now stand with Exxon and the Chavez government having different views. The oil giant claims PDVSA's assets are frozen, but on February 9 Minister Ramirez denied it saying: "They don't have any asset frozen. They only have frozen $300 million" in cash through a New York court. On February 13, it heard the case, and to no one's surprise affirmed the freeze until a final arbitration settlement is reached. PDVSA has no "assets in that jurisdiction (or in Britain) that even come close to those" billions that are about 16 times the value of Exxon's Venezuelan $750 million investment.
Ramirez also added that EM's action is a "transitory measure" while PDVSA pressed its case in New York and will do it again in London. The current status has no "affect on our cash flow (or) operational situation at all." Exxon wants to undermine the government and "create a situation of anxiety in the country, a situation of nervousness."
Ramirez expressed confidence that his government will prevail. It's arbitrating fairly, offered just compensation, and that in the end may defeat the latest Bush administration assault against the right of a sovereign state to its own resources. He also explained that Exxon violated ICSID arbitration proceedings by seeking separate court orders, and that PDVSA is considering a response. It may sue the oil giant for damages that caused Venezuela's dollar-denominated bonds to record their biggest drop in six months on the prospect of a long legal battle.
On February 8, PDVSA declared its position on its web site to put the facts in context, clarify the situation, and dispel how the dominant media portrays it ExxonMobil's way. Below is a summary.
The company states it's been "in arduous level agreements and negotiations with" its joint venture partners - "Total, Statoil, (Italy's) ENI, ConocoPhillips, Petrocanada, (China's) CNPC, Petrochina, (Venezuela's) Ineparia, British Petroleum (and) Exxon Mobil." The US giant is the "only case in which we have a clear situation of conflict" so it was "envisioned that these strategic issues....could be settled in international (arbitration) tribunals." It appears that agreement has been reached or "in the process of agreeing" with every company (including ConocoPhillips) except ExxonMobil, and the situation with them is this: "this company has not complied with the terms of arbitration....and introduced an arbitration against the Republic (in) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)."
PDVSA awaits its ruling "which, we are confident, will promote the interests of the Republic." In addition, Exxon sued PDVSA. As a result, "we see a clear position (of this company) to go against the sovereign interest of an oil-producing country such as Venezuela," deny its legal right to its own resources, and get overt US backing for it from State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack saying: "We fully support the efforts of ExxonMobil to get a just and fair compensation package for their assets according to the standards of international law" that Washington defiantly trashes.
PDVSA's statement explained that the national media have "such ignorance of the situation (by reporting that) our company has (assets of) 12 billion dollars (frozen and) that is completely untrue....we do not have any court decision that is final with respect to all of our assets. We have an interim measure in a court in New York, we have the right - and so we are going to....respond. This is a transitional measure while (PDVSA) presents its case; defend(s) ourselves....defend(s) the interests of the Republic and we are confident we will remove this measure."
Exxon also got injunctions in London and the Netherlands. "I must report we have no assets in those jurisdictions...."The same status is true for the Netherlands Antilles" where another injunction was gotten.
"We are no longer surprised (about) the attitude of ExxonMobil, as it is the typical American transnational company which....historically has tried to attack the oil-producing countries and impose their views on the management of (their) national resources....On behalf of workers and our oil industry, we are not going to (be) frightened, intimidated, or retreat in the sovereign aspirations of our people to manage their natural resources."
We must "warn our country because they could continue this type of action....the position of our people and our Government is firm in defence of our decisions." We will defend our interests. We won't "yield to this (action), we will defeat them (on the) ground(s) that (are) raised...."
In a February 12 interview, Ramirez repeated Hugo Chavez's message two days earlier on his weekly Sunday television program, Alo, Presidente: "If you end up freezing (our assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you. Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger....I speak to the US empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't send one drop of oil to the empire of the United States....The outlaws of ExxonMobil will never again rob us....If the economic war continues against Venezuela, the price of oil is going to reach $200 (a barrel) and Venezuela will join the economic war....And more than one country is willing to accompany us in the economic war."
PDVSA spokesperson, Eleazar Diaz Rangel, then said on Latest News on February 12 that "we are ready" to stop supplying oil to the US if their hostile actions continue. He explained that Washington is waging economic war, and Venezuela is seeking to develop new customers like China. He added that the cash flow of the company is sound because it's based on daily crude oil sales.
On February 12, Venezuela's deputy oil minister, Bernard Mommer, said on state-owned Venezolana de Television that Exxon knows it will lose in arbitration and its "maneuver represents a way to intimidate" other countries against standing up to its will. It's trying to "create panic and anxiety with the banking and the oil sector."
Venezuela is America's third or fourth largest oil supplier after Canada, Saudi Arabia and at times Mexico. It accounts for between 10 to 12% of US imports and averages around 1.2 million barrels a day, sometimes as much as 1.5 million. PDVSA's assets total around $109 billion, according to its web site. It calls itself "the most creditworthy company in Latin America" which is likely considering its enormous oil reserves and at their current elevated prices.
Views from the US Media
It's no surprise how the US media portray Chavez and the Exxon dispute. Bloomberg.com called it his way to use the "Exxon Battle to Stoke Anti-US Sentiment" as though he's the aggressor and poor USA and giant Exxon his victims.
Then, there's the Washington Post's editorial view on February 15. It's astonished that "Mr. Chavez himself threatened to cut off exports of crude oil to America" over Exxon's having "moved to freeze" its assets. It lamentes how "regrettable" the US "voracious consumption of oil" is because it "underwrites Venezuela's Chavez regime....If the Bush administration were really as committed to overthrowing Mr. Chavez as Mr. Chavez claims (it ought to boycott) Venezuelan oil (to) devastate" its economy. "Two cheers for ExxonMobil. In standing up to Mr. Chavez through 'peaceful, legal means,' it has once again exposed the hollowness of the anti-imperialism with which he justifies his rule."
The Chicago Tribune was just as hostile by asking "Where is the king of Spain when we need him?" Chavez "says the 'bandits' at Exxon are trying to rob Venezuela. From where we sit, it looks like the other way around."
Then there's the Houston Chronicle in Exxon's home city. It blasted Chavez for "making a fool of himself on the floor of the UN General Assembly last year," called him a "clown," and said "his buffoonery is neither amusing nor benign." Ignoring Exxon's shenanigans in cahoots with Washington, it stated that Chavez "was in full bluster (and that he) and his henchmen (were launch(ing) a war of words in response (that is) little more than political theater, sound bites for the loyalists back home, and You Tube fodder abroad."
This type bluster gets supplemented with outrageous comments about how Chavez "seized power," shuts down his opposition, control's Venezuela's media, took over American oil fields, is a "destructive menace" to the region, and even worse a communist and a dictator with a terrible human rights record. Is it any wonder that Americans know almost nothing about Venezuelan democracy and the man who shaped it for the past nine years. Under his leadership, it's the real thing, is impressive and improving. Compare it to America where "The People" have no say, democracy is nowhere in sight, and under the Bush administration it's pretense, lawless, and corrupted.
What's Going On and What's At Stake
Throughout most of the last century, and especially post-WW II, America's international relations have been appalling and destructive. It's the world's leading bully, it practices state terrorism, disdains democracy, defiles the rule of law, tramples on human and civil rights, demands unquestioned obedience, and rules by what Noam Chomsky calls "the Fifth Freedom" that shreds the other four: to "rob, to exploit and to dominate society, to undertake any course of action to insure that existing privilege is protected and advanced." Outliers aren't tolerated, national sovereignty is sinful, independence is a crime, and dare disobey the imperial master guarantees certain punishment.
William Blum documented the history in three editions of his book, "Rogue State." He wrote: "Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US has caused....several million (deaths), and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." Washington won't tolerate nations that won't:
"lie down and happily become an American client,"
accept free market capitalism and today's steroid-enhanced neoliberal version that's even more predatory,
sacrifice its peoples' welfare for ours,
"produce primarily for export,"
allow dangerous environmental dumping on its soil,
surrender to IMF, World Bank, WTO and international banking rules; accept exploitive structural adjustments and debt slavery as a way of life;
relinquish control of its natural resources, especially if they're large oil and gas deposits,
surrender all freedoms and call it democracy,
permit US military bases on its soil, and
agree unquestionably to all other imperial demands.
Countries unwilling to oblige are called "bad examples (and) reduced to basket cases." In addition, their leaders are replaced by "friendlier" ones. It's an ugly story of the rich against the poor, the moneyed interests against all humanity, and if outliers are tolerated, they'll be "bad examples" for others to follow.
Chavez became one of them after his 1998 election. Ever since, he's been a thorn in America's craw and its greatest threat - a "good example" that's a model for other nations. He also inspires social movements throughout the Americas, even though none so far are dominant or even close, and he shows signs of wavering on some of his earlier commitments. More on that below.
Imperialism is safe in the Americas, and James Petras explained it in his new article: "Movements in Flux and Center-Left Governments in Power." He states: "The singular fact about Latin America is that, despite a number of massive popular upheavals, several regime changes and (some ascendant) mass social movements, the continuity of property relations remains intact." In fact, they're more concentrated, "giant agro-mineral export enterprises" are prospering, and "class structure (and) socio-economic inequalities" persist, even though Hugo Chavez stands out, in part, as an exception. Petras calls him "pragmatic."
He "reversed (some of) the corrupt privatizations of previous rightest neo-liberal regimes," but still supports business. Nonetheless, Washington sees him as a threat because he embraces participatory democracy, practices redistributive social policies, and envisions a "new socialism of the 21st century....based in solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality." Those ideas and his expressive language are anathema to America and its hard line neoliberal model.
As a result, he tops George Bush's target list outside the Middle East, and that status won't change under a new administration in 2009, especially if a Republican heads it. But even Democrats are hostile. When candidates discuss Latin America, Chavez is Topic One and their comments aren't friendly.
Earlier (but no longer), John McCain's web site was outrageous. It featured a petition to "stop the dictators of Latin America" and supported ousting Chavez "in the name of democracy and freedom throughout the hemisphere." He lashed out at a news conference in Miami's Little Havana stating that "everyone should understand the connections" between (Bolivia's) Evo Morales, Castro and Chavez. "They inspire each other. They assist each other. They get ideas from each other. It's very disturbing." He also calls Chavez a "wacko" and a "two-bit dictator."
These comments aren't surprising from a man who headed the hard right International Republican Institute (IRI). Along with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, these organizations front for imperialism, support rightest dictators, and plot the overthrow of independent democrats like Chavez who dare confront America.
Think hard about this man from what his fellow Republicans say about him. Some call him psychologically unhinged and unqualified to be president. Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran said: "The thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine." Others from the far right, like Alabama's Dick Shelby, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe, mention times McCain screamed four-letter obscenities at them in the Senate cloak room. Another senator said: "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."
Along with these unsettling comments, there are disturbing allegations about McCain's POW years and reported special treatment he got after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam theater forces. An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" is actively addressing his record on things people have a right to know about public officials, if they're true, and McCain has an obligation to explain them.
Democrats aren't much better, and consider their views about Chavez. They're hardly friendly with Hillary Clinton saying "we have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America" with no confusion about who she means. Barack Obama is also suspect despite saying if elected he'll meet with Iranian, Cuban, Syrian and Venezuelan leaders. It sounds good until he qualifies it and spoils everything. He labels these countries "rogue states," reveals his real feelings, and signals his hostility and unwillingness to establish good relations with them.
Forget Obama's friendly smile, comforting demeanor and reassuring rhetoric. Bottom line - he's no different from the rest. There's not a dime's worth of difference among them that matters. Next January, they'll be a new face in charge with the same agenda: wars without end; subservience to the monied interests; disdain for the common good; and deference to the dominant media view that Chavez is: an authoritarian, a strongman, a dictator and what Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady calls him: anti-democratic, dictatorial, vengeful, bullying, crude, unpopular, and having "an insatiable thirst for power that should give Venezuelans reason to be fearful."
Forget that under Chavez Venezuelan business is booming or how gracious he was in defeat last December after voters rejected his constitutional reforms. Petras assessed what followed. Centrist and other influential Chavez advisors jumped on the setback and "pressed their advantage to secure programmatic, tactical-strategic and organizational changes." They got him to replace over a dozen cabinet ministers and others in government with new faces sharing their views. They also, to a degree, shifted Chavez to the center, influenced him to "slow down....the move to socialisma, (establish) economic ties with the big bourgeoisie, (halt) immediate moves to nationalize strategic economic enterprises, and (move slowly) in reforming land tenure."
In addition, they got him to ally "with the middle class center-right parties, and (won) them over (by eliminating) price controls to let "basic food prices.... soar, while salaries remain stagnant." The result: a fundamental contradiction in trying to advance socialism by "liberalizing economic policy." Petras is worried that Chavez's base (the urban poor) "will lose interest, abstain or resist the centrists and withdraw their loyalties." Indignation is surfacing, loyal Chavez support may be jeopardized, and it "raises fundamental questions about the long-term future of state-class movement relations under" his leadership.
In addition, rightest forces see an opening, are pressing their advantage, Exxon's move is a warning shot, and so are reports about Colombian paramilitaries entering the country in greater numbers. More destabilization will follow, and continued efforts will be made to weaken Chavez, then try to oust him. More than ever, he needs strong support at a time it's jeopardized, and that's a worrisome situation to consider. Venezuela's Bolivarianism is glorious, provided it flourishes, grows and achieves its long-term goals. It's been extraordinary so far, still has miles to go, and it's unthinkable to waiver now and pull back.
Petras alarmingly notes that when "social movements (adopt common) electoral strategies, (work) within the framework of institutional politics, and (ally) with center-left regimes....few positive reforms and numerous regressive" ones result. Will this be Venezuelans' fate? The prospect is frightening because if not Chavez, who'll lead their struggle for social equity and justice - for the nation, the region and beyond. Bolivarianism is glorious and vibrant. But to flourish, grow and prosper, it needs care and nurturing from a resolute leader backed by mass popular support.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on RepublicBroadcasting.org from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions of world and national issues with distinguished guests.
It's raining satellites
18:44 | 20/ 02/ 2008
MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - H-hour - the time American spy satellite USA-193/NROL-21 must fall - is not far off. American scientists calculate that it will occur on March 6. Where the crash takes place will be unknown until the last moment. A more or less accurate site can be established only an hour or two before the satellite enters the denser atmosphere.
In an attempt to control the process, the U.S. has decided to destroy the satellite with sea-based interceptor missiles.
Instances of uncontrolled deorbiting of satellites, including ones weighing a good deal, are not rare. In January 2002, the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), weighing some 3.5 tons, fell to earth. Most of its fragments burned up in the air, while some smaller parts fell into the ocean. America's Skylab and Russia's Salyut-7/Cosmos-1686 - each weighing ten times as much as USA 193 - also went rogue.
In 50 years of space exploration hundreds of satellites have crashed down, but no incidents involving loss of human life, or material damage, have been reported.
Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian Space Agency Roskosmos, was thus ignoring history when he endorsed the American decision. His arguments that satellite remnants "could kill a person, damage a house or hit an oil storage tank, producing a chain of further disasters," are not credible.
So what is behind the decision to shoot the crippled satellite down with a missile?
The reason given - to destroy a fuel tank containing half a ton of frozen hydrazine - does not hold water. Hydrazine is a fuel used by launch vehicles, including Russia's Protons. In crash landings, it usually burns up in the lower atmosphere, with the rest reaching the earth with missile debris. That is not very comfortable, but not deadly. In the case of USA-193, the probability of a thin-walled tank one meter in diameter reaching the ground is practically zero.
When Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov made a crash landing, his descent capsule, weighing three tons, measuring over two meters across and protected with a massive heat shield was completely melted. Only the titanium frame survived. And what was left of Columbia as it burned when deorbiting?
The American administration is anxious to destroy the satellite for a different reason, or rather two reasons.
The first is to keep what the satellite contains secret. The only thing known about it is that it belongs to the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. The spacecraft was designed to test new technologies for the development of spy satellites of a new generation.
Photometric measurements failed to identify any solar panels on USA-193. It may well be that they did not unfold as the craft separated from its launch vehicle. Some experts, however, believe that they were not provided in principle because the satellite was powered by a nuclear reactor. In which case matters could take a nasty turn.
The Soviet Union once used sea reconnaissance and targeting satellites with nuclear power packs aboard. Upon completion of their duty, they would be elevated to a so-called "burial orbit," to circle the earth for hundreds of years. But one of the satellites, while still active, got out of control, descended from orbit and, partly collapsed, fell in the north of Canada. Radioactive pollution was insignificant, but the Soviet Union still had to compensate Canada for damage.
Perhaps the U.S., fearing similar developments, made up its mind to destroy the spacecraft before it enters the denser layers of the atmosphere.
The other - and most likely - reason for destruction is to test anti-satellite weapons on the quiet. The tests will be conducted under conditions as close to real warfare as possible. To destroy the satellite, three destroyers with Standard Missile-3 rockets and a floating radar similar to the American missile defense radar will be used.
If one destroyer misses, the other two will take turns in firing their missiles. At the same time, the Pentagon has kept suspiciously silent on the consequences of interception. There has been no analysis of the potential effect on space activities, including manned flights. The interception, if successful, could leave thousands of fragments, some quite large, that could rain down on a much wider area.
Some of the debris could rise to higher orbits and stay there for a long time, posing a threat to low-orbit spacecraft, including manned ones. Recall the uproar in the American press when a Chinese weather satellite was destroyed by a missile launched from the earth. One of the satellite's fragments was reported to be on a collision course with the International Space Station (ISS), requiring an urgent adjustment of the station's orbit. That time the alarm proved false, but the situation could change if a larger and heavier American craft is blasted.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the decision to destroy USA-193 was taken only a few days after the U.S. turned down a draft of a treaty banning weapons in space, submitted to the world community by Russia and China.
The Americans have long stopped worrying about Russia's "asymmetrical" responses to U.S. military power. Not so China. Last October, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in one of his remarks that the importance of unrestricted access to space gained urgency when China successfully tested an anti-satellite missile. He said that American low-orbiting spacecraft were vulnerable and called for protection and an appropriate response.
This seems to be why George W. Bush decided to destroy USA-193: to test a new type of strategic weapon and check the feasibility of a national anti-missile shield in an anti-satellite role.
Russian experts are not alone in this analysis. Michael Krepton, director of the space safety project at the Henry Stimson Center, also believes that the actual motive for destroying the rogue satellite is to test anti-satellite weapons in space. He also warned that the administration's official reasons were not to be trusted.
Yury Zaitsev is an analyst at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Space Research.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Yury Zaitsev for RIA Novosti) - H-hour - the time American spy satellite USA-193/NROL-21 must fall - is not far off. American scientists calculate that it will occur on March 6. Where the crash takes place will be unknown until the last moment. A more or less accurate site can be established only an hour or two before the satellite enters the denser atmosphere.
In an attempt to control the process, the U.S. has decided to destroy the satellite with sea-based interceptor missiles.
Instances of uncontrolled deorbiting of satellites, including ones weighing a good deal, are not rare. In January 2002, the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE), weighing some 3.5 tons, fell to earth. Most of its fragments burned up in the air, while some smaller parts fell into the ocean. America's Skylab and Russia's Salyut-7/Cosmos-1686 - each weighing ten times as much as USA 193 - also went rogue.
In 50 years of space exploration hundreds of satellites have crashed down, but no incidents involving loss of human life, or material damage, have been reported.
Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian Space Agency Roskosmos, was thus ignoring history when he endorsed the American decision. His arguments that satellite remnants "could kill a person, damage a house or hit an oil storage tank, producing a chain of further disasters," are not credible.
So what is behind the decision to shoot the crippled satellite down with a missile?
The reason given - to destroy a fuel tank containing half a ton of frozen hydrazine - does not hold water. Hydrazine is a fuel used by launch vehicles, including Russia's Protons. In crash landings, it usually burns up in the lower atmosphere, with the rest reaching the earth with missile debris. That is not very comfortable, but not deadly. In the case of USA-193, the probability of a thin-walled tank one meter in diameter reaching the ground is practically zero.
When Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov made a crash landing, his descent capsule, weighing three tons, measuring over two meters across and protected with a massive heat shield was completely melted. Only the titanium frame survived. And what was left of Columbia as it burned when deorbiting?
The American administration is anxious to destroy the satellite for a different reason, or rather two reasons.
The first is to keep what the satellite contains secret. The only thing known about it is that it belongs to the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. The spacecraft was designed to test new technologies for the development of spy satellites of a new generation.
Photometric measurements failed to identify any solar panels on USA-193. It may well be that they did not unfold as the craft separated from its launch vehicle. Some experts, however, believe that they were not provided in principle because the satellite was powered by a nuclear reactor. In which case matters could take a nasty turn.
The Soviet Union once used sea reconnaissance and targeting satellites with nuclear power packs aboard. Upon completion of their duty, they would be elevated to a so-called "burial orbit," to circle the earth for hundreds of years. But one of the satellites, while still active, got out of control, descended from orbit and, partly collapsed, fell in the north of Canada. Radioactive pollution was insignificant, but the Soviet Union still had to compensate Canada for damage.
Perhaps the U.S., fearing similar developments, made up its mind to destroy the spacecraft before it enters the denser layers of the atmosphere.
The other - and most likely - reason for destruction is to test anti-satellite weapons on the quiet. The tests will be conducted under conditions as close to real warfare as possible. To destroy the satellite, three destroyers with Standard Missile-3 rockets and a floating radar similar to the American missile defense radar will be used.
If one destroyer misses, the other two will take turns in firing their missiles. At the same time, the Pentagon has kept suspiciously silent on the consequences of interception. There has been no analysis of the potential effect on space activities, including manned flights. The interception, if successful, could leave thousands of fragments, some quite large, that could rain down on a much wider area.
Some of the debris could rise to higher orbits and stay there for a long time, posing a threat to low-orbit spacecraft, including manned ones. Recall the uproar in the American press when a Chinese weather satellite was destroyed by a missile launched from the earth. One of the satellite's fragments was reported to be on a collision course with the International Space Station (ISS), requiring an urgent adjustment of the station's orbit. That time the alarm proved false, but the situation could change if a larger and heavier American craft is blasted.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the decision to destroy USA-193 was taken only a few days after the U.S. turned down a draft of a treaty banning weapons in space, submitted to the world community by Russia and China.
The Americans have long stopped worrying about Russia's "asymmetrical" responses to U.S. military power. Not so China. Last October, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in one of his remarks that the importance of unrestricted access to space gained urgency when China successfully tested an anti-satellite missile. He said that American low-orbiting spacecraft were vulnerable and called for protection and an appropriate response.
This seems to be why George W. Bush decided to destroy USA-193: to test a new type of strategic weapon and check the feasibility of a national anti-missile shield in an anti-satellite role.
Russian experts are not alone in this analysis. Michael Krepton, director of the space safety project at the Henry Stimson Center, also believes that the actual motive for destroying the rogue satellite is to test anti-satellite weapons in space. He also warned that the administration's official reasons were not to be trusted.
Yury Zaitsev is an analyst at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Space Research.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
A Zone Free of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
20.02.2008
Mohamed SHAKER (Egypt)
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation
When I received the invitation to attend this international conference on "Countries of Caucasus and the Middle East-possible partners in the process of formation of regional system of security", I looked at the map and immediately saw that the South and the South West of Armenia there will a zone free of weapons of mass destruction or free of nuclear weapons, at least, in the Middle East including Iran immediately South of Armenia. I also realized that to the East of Armenia and beyond the Caspian Sea, an agreement has been reached on a text of a treaty for the establishment of a Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, which was signed in Semapalatinsk, Kazakhstan, on 8 September 2006. Parties to the agreement are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan .
Armenia is a neighbouring country to both zones and therefore its views and ideas will be greatly appreciated. The views of neighbouring countries to the two zones will have to be taken in its consideration. They will be expected to support and coexist with such zones that would create a huge area free of nuclear weapons, at least contributing to security and stability.
Let me concentrate briefly on the iddle East zone. First, the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, an Egyptian-Iranian initiative was forward in 1974. A consensus resolution was adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1980. (1) The initiative now led by Egypt receives a yearly endorsement by the UN General Assembly. (2) Apart from continued Israeli support for the yearly UN General Assembly resolution, Israel seems as far as ever from joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear-weapon State (NNWS).
After NPT ratification, Egypt, for years, found in its initiative on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East a yearly reminder of the importance to engender a sense of security in its region along with other initiatives within the UN or the IAEA calling upon Israel to adhere to the NPT and to IAEA full-scope safeguards as well as calling for a study on verification of such a zone. The thrust forward of the other initiatives is relentless and is not hindered by occasional set backs or resentments from certain quarters, including Israel and the United States.
Egypt fully supported the formation of a UN expert group on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. The report produced in 1990 by the group remains to this date the only solid attempt to deal with the different aspects of the establishment of such a zone. (3)
On 8 April 1990, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak put forward another proposal for the establishment of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, thus adding to nuclear weapons other weapons of mass destruction. The new initiative coincided that year with several worrying reports and actions indicating that Iraq was trying to acquire equipment and materials relating to weapons of mass destruction. Egypt seemed keen to draw indirectly the attention of the world community to the importance of averting an escalation in the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction in the region. Israeli nuclear-weapon capability was also foremost in the mind of President Mubarak when he put forward this new proposal as Egypt did in 1974 for the first time. President Mubarak emphasized the following:
1. All weapons of mass destruction, without exception, should be prohibited in the Middle East, i.e. nuclear, chemical, biological, etc.
2. All states of the region, without exception, should make equal and reciprocal commitment in this regard.
3. Verification measures and modalities should be established to ascertain full compliance by all states of the region with the full scope of the prohibitions without exception. (4)
The initial reaction to President Mubarak's new initiative was surprisingly lukewarm. For example, the Foreign Office in London, issued a statement just taking note of the initiative. A delayed reaction to Mubarak's vision was forthcoming. A few months later, and in the aftermath of Desert Storm to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, revelations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction attracted in a dramatic way the attention of the world and led to the adoption of Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991 ordering the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a process that took us well into March 2003 when war on Iraq was launched by the United States, the United Kingdom and the coalition forces.
Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 687, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, Amre Moussa(now Secretary General of the League of Arab States), forwarded another letter to the UN Security Council whereby he pointed out that recent events in the Middle East induced many states to endorse Egypt's latest initiative, which was also endorsed by the Security Council in the context of its resolution 687 (1991). (5) The resolution indicated that the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could lead to the beginning of the establishment of a WMD free zone in the Middle East.
The Minister spoke of according priority to ridding the region of weapons of mass destruction. In order to accelerate the establishment of the Middle East as a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, a number of proposals were put forward by Mr Moussa as follows:
а) "Egypt calls on the major arms-producing States – and particularly the permanent members of the Security Council – as well as Israel, Iran and the Arab states to deposit undertakings with the Security Council in which they clearly and unconditionally endorse the declarations of the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction and commit themselves not to take any steps or measures which would run counter to or impede the attainment of that objective.
b) Egypt calls on the arms-producing States and the parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to step up their efforts to ensure that all Middle East nations which have not yet done so to adhere to the Treaty, in recognition of the fact that this is a step of the utmost importance and urgency.
c) Egypt calls on the nations of the Middle East region which have not yet done so to declare their commitment:
I. Not to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons,
II. Not to produce or acquire any nuclear weapons,
III. Not to produce or acquire any nuclear materials susceptible to military use and to dispose of any existing stock of such materials,
IV. To accept the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime whereby all their nuclear facilities become subject to international inspection.
d) Egypt calls on those nations of the region which have not yet done so to declare their commitment to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as to the Convention concerning the prohibition of biological weapons of 1972, no later than the conclusion of the negotiations on the prohibition of chemical weapons being conducted by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
e) Egypt calls on Middle East States to declare their commitment actively and fairly to address measures relating to all forms of delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction.
f) Egypt calls on nations of the region to approve the assignment to an organ of the United Nations or another international organization of a role, to be agreed upon at a future date, in the verification of these nations' compliance with such agreements on arms reduction and disarmament as may be concluded between them.” (6)
Egypt pursued the 1974 and 1990 initiatives simultaneously. The latter initiative has not affected the yearly submission by Egypt of a resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free zone to the UN General Assembly. It should be deduced from the above-mentioned proposals that Egypt's priority and real worry are nuclear weapons and more particularly Israeli nuclear-weapon capabilities. However, Egypt's thrust forward on weapons of mass destruction led to another study this time in 1996 by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. (7)
Between the 1990 initiative and the 1996 study the Madrid Conference on the Middle East convened in 1991. Under its umbrella, bilateral Arab-Israeli negotiations took place and multilateral tracks were initiated among which was the establishment of a working group on Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS). (8) The work of ACRS came to a dead end in 1994 as a result of sharp divergence of views between the Arabs and the Israelis. While the former wanted to pursue the nuclear issue and to impress upon the Israelis to open up on it, the latter wanted to solely concentrate on confidence building measures on which some progress was made in the group. Israel's objections to dealing with the nuclear issue have been based on its refusal to forgo the element of ambiguity in its policy, arguing that a discussion of this matter would lead Israel down a slippery slope. (9)
During the same period, 1990-1996, the Chemical Weapon Convention was opened for signature on 13 January 1993 and entered into force on 29 April 1997. Egypt and a few Arab countries abstained from adhering to the Convention in the absence of Israel's adherence to the NPT, which raised speculations about Middle Eastern countries capabilities in waging chemical warfare, or using chemical weapons as a deterrent or an equalizer vis-à-vis Israeli nuclear-weapon capability. (10)
In 1995, when the NPT was extended indefinitely, a key resolution on the Middle East closely linked with the three Decisions adopted by the NPT Review and Extension Conference called for the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. (11) There would have been no consensus on any of the three Decisions including the Decision on the indefinite extension of the Treaty without the Middle East Resolution. However, the implementation of the resolution is lagging and facing difficulties. It is worth mentioning that the resolution was sponsored by the Depository Governments designated by the NPT, i.e., Russia, the UK and the United States.
The League of Arab States whose headquarters are in Cairo has actively contributed to the efforts towards the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. A special committee within the League opted for the establishment of such a zone instead of a nuclear-weapons-free zone. It was entrusted to negotiate a draft treaty on the establishment of a WMD zone. The committee has achieved some progress but many issues had yet to be agreed upon and settled, such as verification mechanisms within the zone along with IAEA and possibly the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) verifications, as well as the geographic delimitations of the zone, etc. In principle, the tendency is to support a zone which would include the Arab States, Israel and Iran. The Committee , however , was suspended by the League of Arab States' Summit in Riyadh , Saudi Arabia in March 2007, a clear indication of frustration and displeasure of its members for the lack of support and action by the sponsors (Depositary governments) of the resolution on the Middle East of the NPT Review Extension Conference of 1995.
At an earlier Arab Summit in Tunisia in May 2004 a statement was issued calling for the convening of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations for the establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East . The idea of such a conference is not a completely new idea. President Mubarak soon after his proposal of 1990 hinted to the possibility of convening an international conference for the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction worldwide. This was long before the conclusion of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 and the recent attempts to improve the verification procedures of the Biological Weapon Convention of 1972.
Going back to the Riyadh Summit , one of the decisions made on the development of a joint Arab program for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the Council of the League of Arab States at the Summit level was to undertake joint Arab cooperation activities for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and related technology and to carry out a practical program including, inter alia , joint ventures for the development of nuclear technology applications in various developmental fields especially energy, water, medicine, agriculture and industry. It requested the Secretary General of the League of Arab States to form groups of experts and specialists with the participation of the Arab Atomic Energy Agency (in Tunisia), to consider ways and means for such cooperation to take place within an integrated Arab framework.
In Riyadh, the Summit has previously adopted a previous decision inviting Arab countries to use or expand the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes for all fields of sustainable development with due consideration to the diversity of their needs and to the fact that they are strictly observing provisions of all international treaties, conventions and regulations that they have signed. Among the executive steps to be taken, the Summit provided support to the Arab Atomic Energy Agency being the organ for joint Arab action in this field and called upon Arab countries that did not join the Agency yet to do so without delay for their own benefit as well as that of joint Arab action in this field. The Summit requested the Agency to develop an Arab strategy for the mastering of nuclear sciences and technology for peaceful purposes till the year 2020.
The Riyadh Declaration and Decisions struck a balance between its peaceful nuclear ambitions for the Arab world with the reaffirmation of the importance of clearing the region from all weapons of mass destruction, away from double standards and selectiveness and warned against launching a dangerous and devastating nuclear arms race in the area. It decided to convene an extraordinary session of the Ministerial Council of the League of Arab States to be preceded by a meeting of senior officials from Arab countries to consider and assess Arab efforts to free the Middle East from nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
The clear message of the Riyadh Summit is that the Arab States would rather develop their peaceful nuclear activities in a Middle East completely free of weapons of mass destruction and in conformity with all the relevant international instruments they have adhered to. There would be no stability or security in the region in the presence of any nuclear-weapon capability, whether Israeli or an Iranian potential capability.
Finally, it must be said that the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free or a WMD-free-zone ought not wait until a comprehensive peace in the Middle East is established. The two processes, the zone and peace, should proceed simultaneously.
__________________
Dr. Mohamed I Shaker, Ambassador
Vice Chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs (ECFA)
The paper was delivered on the International Conference «Countries of Caucasus and the Middle East-possible partners in the process of formation of regional system of security» (Yerevan, February 7-8, 2008).
Endnotes
(1) Arab Republic of Egypt, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Cairo: State Information Services, 1981), pp. 74-75
(2) See for example, UN Doc. A/Res./59/63, 16 Dec. 2004.
(3) UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, Report of the Secretary-General, Effective and Verifiable Measures Which Would Facilitate the Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East (New York: United Nations, 1991).
(4) UN Docs. A/45/219/and S/21252, 18 Apr. 1990.
(5) UN Docs. A/46/329 and S/22855, 30 July 1991.
(6) Ibid.
(7) Jan Prawitz and James F. Leonard, A Zone Free of Weapons of mass Destruction in the Middle East (UN pub. Sales No. GV.E. 96).
(8) For an analysis of the work of ACRS by an Israeli analyst, see Shai Feldman, Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control in the Middle East (Cambridge, Mass. And London, England: The MIT Press, 1997).
(9) For an Egyptian point of view see, Nabil Fahmy, "Reflections on the Arms Control and Regional Security in the Middle East" in James Brown (ed.), New Horizons and New Strategies in Arms Control (Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, 1999), chapter 12, pp. 173-189. The author was the political advisor to the Egyptian Foreign Ministry until September 1997. He represented Egypt at ACRS. At present he is the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington.
(10) See for example, the elaborate study of Anthony H. Cordesman and Arleigh A. Burke, The Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East (Washington, DC Center for Strategic and International Studies, march 15, 2004).
(11) For the text of the M.E. resolution and the three decisions of the Conference see 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Final Document Part I Organization and work of the Conference (New York, 1995) (NPT/Conf.1995/32(Part I)
MUSHARRAF: Co-Habitation Or Exit?
Source: South Asia Analysis Group
By B. Raman
The expression co-habitation came into vogue in France when the late Francois Mitterrand, the leader of the French Socialist Party, was the President in the 1980s. In the elections to the French National Assembly held when he was the President, his party was badly defeated and the Gaullists under Jacques Chirac won a majority.
2. Mitterrand chose to interpret the results as not reflecting on his presidency and he, as the President, and Chirac, as the Prime Minister, decided to co-habit. Under the French Constitution, the President is not just a figure-head. He has more powers than the British Prime Minister, but less than the US President. All powers relating to decision-making in respect of foreign policy and national security are exercised by the President who chairs the Cabinet meetings. The Prime Minister exercises all powers relating to domestic policy. The co-habitation arrangement between Mitterrand and Chirac worked with some periodic tensions, though.
3. The 1973 Pakistani Constitution, which the late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto gave to Pakistan, resembled the Indian Constitution with all powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and with the President reduced to a figurehead. Before appointing Mohammad Khan Junejo as the Prime Minister, Gen.Zia-ul-Haq changed this to give the President all the powers relating to foreign policy and national security and the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. He used this power to dismiss Junejo in 1988 when differences developed between the two over the handling of the Afghan proximity attacks in Geneva and over the enquiry into a serious explosion in an arms and ammunition storage depot of the Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence at Ojehri near Islamabad.
4. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan use this power against Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and Nawaz Sharif in 1993. President Farooq Leghari of the Pakistan People's Party, who developed differences with Benazir, used this power to dismiss her in 1996 following allegations of corruption against Asif Zardari and his interference in the administration. The mystery surrounding the death of Murtaza Ali Bhutto, her younger brother, in police firing in Karachi in September, 1996, after he returned to Karachi from Islamabad where he had allegedly a fierce quarrel with Zardari and Benazir over dinner regarding his right to be nominated as the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party, also contributed to Leghari's dismissal of Benazir. The cases filed against Asif Zardari at the instance of Leghari are sub-judice.
5. Nawaz Sharif, whose party won a two-thirds majority in the 1996 elections, used this majority to abolish the power of the President to dismiss the elected Prime Minister. After seizing power in October, 1999, Pervez Musharraf had this power restored in the Constitution. He also instituted the National Security Council chaired by the President, and transferred to the President all powers relating to decision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. The Constitution, as repeatedly re-cast by Musharraf, resembles more the French than the Indian Constitution. Musharraf, therefore, need not necessarily resign because his opponents or critics have secured a majority in the elections.
6. Unless and until the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of Nawaz Sharif are able to have the Constitutional amendments removed, Musharraf will continue to exercise the power of dismissal of the Prime Minister and handle all important decision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. That is why when Benazir was negotiating with Musharraf she was demanding the abolition of the power of the President to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and of the NSC. Musharraf rejected both these demands.
7. A major point of difference between the PPP and the PML (N) related to Nawaz's demand for the reinstatement of Chief Justic Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhury, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, removed by Musharraf. Benazir found it difficult to support this demand because, in her view, the dismissed Chief Justice was taking undue interest in the expeditious disposal of the case relating to the alleged murder of Murtaza Bhutto, which has been going on for 12 years with frequent adjournments like the case relating to the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist by pro-Al Qaeda elements in the beginning of 2002.
8. The national reconciliation orders which Musharraf issued last year under an understanding reached with Benazir at the instance of the US related to all corruption-related cases, but not to the case under the Anti-Terrorism Act under which Nawaz stands convicted and the trial relating to the death of Murtaza Bhutto. Nawaz is keen to have the dismissed Chief Justice reinstated because firstly, he thinks he will have the re-election of Musharraf as the President set aside, which Nawaz cannot achieve without a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, and, secondly, he hopes that the reinstated Chief Justice will have his own conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act set aside, thereby enabling him to be the Prime Minister. Till his conviction is set aside, he cannot be the Prime Minister.
9. The two most liked leaders in the eyes of the Army and the US are Maqdoom Amin Fahim, the Vice-Chairman of the PPP, who used to be the Minister For Petroleum under Benazir Bhutto during her second tenure as the Prime Minister, and Shahbaz Sharif, the younger brother of Nawaz Sharif. Amin Fahim was immensely liked by the US oil companies, particularly UNOCAL. When the UNOCAL hosted a dinner to the then President of Turkmenistan in New York, Benazir deputed him to attend the dinner. After the elections of 2002, Amin Fahim, who is close to Musharraf, was Musharraf's first choice as the Prime Minister. Fahim declined the offer and refused to betray Benazir. Shahbaz Sharif was very close the US State Department. Amin Fahim and Shahbaz Sharif are both liked by the Punjabi Generals and the US, who strongly dislike Asiz Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. One of the reasons for the PPP not doing as well in Southern Punjab as it was expected is the unpopularity of Zardari among the Punjabis.
10. The election results, which are still coming in, have highlighted an interesting outcome. No party has acquired a majority on its own. The PPP has emerged as the largest single party and will, therefore, have the right to be called first to attempt to form a Government. It will have two options--- either form the government in co-operation with the PML (N) or in co-operation with PML (Qaide Azam) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Altaf Hussain---both supporters of Musharraf. If Nawaz Sharif strikes a hard bargain by demanding the re-instatement of the sacked Chief Justice, Zardari might be reluctant to agree to it. On the contrary, the PML (QA) is unlikely to impose any conditions to co-operate with the PPP. The only conditions which the MQM might impose are the recognition of its importance in any Government formed in Sindh. A major difficulty for the PPP in co-operating with the PML (QA) would be the presence of some remnants of the Zia ul-Haq regime in it. It strongly suspects that these remnants must have played a role in the assassination of Benazir.
11. The US and other Western countries are interested in Musharraf continuing as the President. They don't trust Nawaz Sharif because of his links with the Jamaat-e-Islami of Qazi Hussain Ahmed. The Jamaat-e-Islami boycotted the elections, but its cadres campaigned for Nawaz's Party in Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. They would like to work for a co-habitation arrangement with Musharraf as the President and Amin Fahim or Shahbaz Sharif as the Prime Minister. Will they succeed or will Musharraf have to quit? The answer to this question lies as much in Washington DC as in Islamabad. Musharraf still has some wriggle room, if he wants to exercise it. Will he wriggle or call it quits?
(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
The expression co-habitation came into vogue in France when the late Francois Mitterrand, the leader of the French Socialist Party, was the President in the 1980s. In the elections to the French National Assembly held when he was the President, his party was badly defeated and the Gaullists under Jacques Chirac won a majority.
2. Mitterrand chose to interpret the results as not reflecting on his presidency and he, as the President, and Chirac, as the Prime Minister, decided to co-habit. Under the French Constitution, the President is not just a figure-head. He has more powers than the British Prime Minister, but less than the US President. All powers relating to decision-making in respect of foreign policy and national security are exercised by the President who chairs the Cabinet meetings. The Prime Minister exercises all powers relating to domestic policy. The co-habitation arrangement between Mitterrand and Chirac worked with some periodic tensions, though.
3. The 1973 Pakistani Constitution, which the late Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto gave to Pakistan, resembled the Indian Constitution with all powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and with the President reduced to a figurehead. Before appointing Mohammad Khan Junejo as the Prime Minister, Gen.Zia-ul-Haq changed this to give the President all the powers relating to foreign policy and national security and the power to dismiss the Prime Minister. He used this power to dismiss Junejo in 1988 when differences developed between the two over the handling of the Afghan proximity attacks in Geneva and over the enquiry into a serious explosion in an arms and ammunition storage depot of the Army and the Inter-Services Intelligence at Ojehri near Islamabad.
4. President Ghulam Ishaq Khan use this power against Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and Nawaz Sharif in 1993. President Farooq Leghari of the Pakistan People's Party, who developed differences with Benazir, used this power to dismiss her in 1996 following allegations of corruption against Asif Zardari and his interference in the administration. The mystery surrounding the death of Murtaza Ali Bhutto, her younger brother, in police firing in Karachi in September, 1996, after he returned to Karachi from Islamabad where he had allegedly a fierce quarrel with Zardari and Benazir over dinner regarding his right to be nominated as the Vice-Chairman of the Pakistan People's Party, also contributed to Leghari's dismissal of Benazir. The cases filed against Asif Zardari at the instance of Leghari are sub-judice.
5. Nawaz Sharif, whose party won a two-thirds majority in the 1996 elections, used this majority to abolish the power of the President to dismiss the elected Prime Minister. After seizing power in October, 1999, Pervez Musharraf had this power restored in the Constitution. He also instituted the National Security Council chaired by the President, and transferred to the President all powers relating to decision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. The Constitution, as repeatedly re-cast by Musharraf, resembles more the French than the Indian Constitution. Musharraf, therefore, need not necessarily resign because his opponents or critics have secured a majority in the elections.
6. Unless and until the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) of Nawaz Sharif are able to have the Constitutional amendments removed, Musharraf will continue to exercise the power of dismissal of the Prime Minister and handle all important decision-making in foreign policy and national security matters. That is why when Benazir was negotiating with Musharraf she was demanding the abolition of the power of the President to dismiss the elected Prime Minister and of the NSC. Musharraf rejected both these demands.
7. A major point of difference between the PPP and the PML (N) related to Nawaz's demand for the reinstatement of Chief Justic Iftikhar Ahmed Chaudhury, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, removed by Musharraf. Benazir found it difficult to support this demand because, in her view, the dismissed Chief Justice was taking undue interest in the expeditious disposal of the case relating to the alleged murder of Murtaza Bhutto, which has been going on for 12 years with frequent adjournments like the case relating to the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist by pro-Al Qaeda elements in the beginning of 2002.
8. The national reconciliation orders which Musharraf issued last year under an understanding reached with Benazir at the instance of the US related to all corruption-related cases, but not to the case under the Anti-Terrorism Act under which Nawaz stands convicted and the trial relating to the death of Murtaza Bhutto. Nawaz is keen to have the dismissed Chief Justice reinstated because firstly, he thinks he will have the re-election of Musharraf as the President set aside, which Nawaz cannot achieve without a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, and, secondly, he hopes that the reinstated Chief Justice will have his own conviction under the Anti-Terrorism Act set aside, thereby enabling him to be the Prime Minister. Till his conviction is set aside, he cannot be the Prime Minister.
9. The two most liked leaders in the eyes of the Army and the US are Maqdoom Amin Fahim, the Vice-Chairman of the PPP, who used to be the Minister For Petroleum under Benazir Bhutto during her second tenure as the Prime Minister, and Shahbaz Sharif, the younger brother of Nawaz Sharif. Amin Fahim was immensely liked by the US oil companies, particularly UNOCAL. When the UNOCAL hosted a dinner to the then President of Turkmenistan in New York, Benazir deputed him to attend the dinner. After the elections of 2002, Amin Fahim, who is close to Musharraf, was Musharraf's first choice as the Prime Minister. Fahim declined the offer and refused to betray Benazir. Shahbaz Sharif was very close the US State Department. Amin Fahim and Shahbaz Sharif are both liked by the Punjabi Generals and the US, who strongly dislike Asiz Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. One of the reasons for the PPP not doing as well in Southern Punjab as it was expected is the unpopularity of Zardari among the Punjabis.
10. The election results, which are still coming in, have highlighted an interesting outcome. No party has acquired a majority on its own. The PPP has emerged as the largest single party and will, therefore, have the right to be called first to attempt to form a Government. It will have two options--- either form the government in co-operation with the PML (N) or in co-operation with PML (Qaide Azam) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Altaf Hussain---both supporters of Musharraf. If Nawaz Sharif strikes a hard bargain by demanding the re-instatement of the sacked Chief Justice, Zardari might be reluctant to agree to it. On the contrary, the PML (QA) is unlikely to impose any conditions to co-operate with the PPP. The only conditions which the MQM might impose are the recognition of its importance in any Government formed in Sindh. A major difficulty for the PPP in co-operating with the PML (QA) would be the presence of some remnants of the Zia ul-Haq regime in it. It strongly suspects that these remnants must have played a role in the assassination of Benazir.
11. The US and other Western countries are interested in Musharraf continuing as the President. They don't trust Nawaz Sharif because of his links with the Jamaat-e-Islami of Qazi Hussain Ahmed. The Jamaat-e-Islami boycotted the elections, but its cadres campaigned for Nawaz's Party in Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province. They would like to work for a co-habitation arrangement with Musharraf as the President and Amin Fahim or Shahbaz Sharif as the Prime Minister. Will they succeed or will Musharraf have to quit? The answer to this question lies as much in Washington DC as in Islamabad. Musharraf still has some wriggle room, if he wants to exercise it. Will he wriggle or call it quits?
(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)
PAKISTAN: WHERE THEY STAND ON ISSUES OF INTEREST TO INDIA
Source: South Asia Anaalysis Group
By B. Raman
The final results of the Pakistani elections are yet to emerge. However, the unofficial indications till now are that the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Mr. Asif Zardari, the Pakistan Muslim League of Mr. Nawaz Sharif (PML(N) ), the Muittahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Mr. Altaf Hussain and the Awami National Party (ANP) of Mr. Afsandyar Wali Khan have been doing well. They are likely to play an important role in the Government formation and in policy-making---the PPP and the PML (N) at the national level and the other two at the provincial levels---the MQM in Sindh and the ANP in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Of these, the MQM is closely identified with President Pervez Musharraf, while the other three are strong critics of him.
2. What was the stand of these four parties on various national security issues of interest to India during the election campaign? Their views as expressed by them are given below. This is based on a collation by Mr. Qudssia Akhlaque carried by the "News", the daily of Pakistan, in two parts on February 17 and 18, 2008. He posed the questions on various national security and foreign policy issues, among others, to Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, MQM Deputy Convener Dr. Farooq Sattar and Afsandyar Wali Khan.
3. Nawaz Sharif's replies are particularly interesting. He has been guarded and his views on issues such as the command and control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the security of the arsenal, action against Dr. A.Q.Khan, the role of the army in national security policy-making, control over the Inter-Services Intelligence, and the perceived inadequate progress in the dialogue with India on the Kashmir issue have been framed in such a manner as not to make the Punjabi Generals of the Army uncomfortable. Nawaz Sharif and particularly his brother Shahbaz Sharif have been in touch with many of the serving and retired Punjabi officers and he has kept in view their sensitivities. Of all the four leaders, he is the only leader who has given equal priority to Pakistan's relations with India and China. On the question of relations with the US, there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm in his replies.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
ANP: There is no need for a National Security Council or any other supra constitutional bodies. Matters of National Security should be debated in the Parliament and a parliamentary body formed for it.
MQM: The Parliament of Pakistan is the supreme body and in its presence the concept and existence of the National Security Council is rather redundant; most certainly the very presence of the NSC looks upon the democratic institutions with distrust and questioning their validity. However, the NSC was a bitter pill that had to be swallowed but with conditionality through an amendment introduced by the MQM, that all decisions taken by the NSC have to be ratified by the Parliament and this was accepted by the coalition. The NSC cannot be looked in isolation, independent of certain hardcore facts namely: (1) The history of covert and overt actions and State oppression, such as against the MQM; (2) The post 9/11 scenario and (3) To avoid situations like the imposition of the emergency. The positive political involvement of the MQM with the coalition de-clawed the NSC and brought it under the political umbrella of parliamentary democracy.
PPP: The PPP does not support the National Security Council. The NSC would be abolished and replaced with a Defense Committee of the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister.
PML-N: It has expressed two contradictory views. In his reply to the questions, Nawaz Sharif said that the NSC should always be headed by the Chief Executive which is the Prime Minister and not the President, but in its manifesto, the party had said: “The National Security Council will be abolished. The Defense Committee of the Cabinet will be reconstituted as the Cabinet Committee on Defense and National Security and will be chaired by the Prime Minister.”
SHOULD THERE BE A MILITARY REPRESENTATION IN THE NSC IF IT CONTINUES?
ANP: The question does not arise as it wants the NSC to be abolished.
MQM: Security no more consists of only traditional concepts of external threat or aggression. It also addresses internal threats and aggression as well. Similarly, the much neglected and rapidly emerging economic, trade and natural threats need serious attention. Military has an important role to play, but under the official subservience of elected government.
PPP: As it does not support the NSC, the question of military representation in it does not arise. However, the Defense Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) under the Prime Minister should continue to have the military’s representation.
PML-N: If the NSC continues, the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, and the chiefs of the three Services can be represented at the NSC, but it should also include the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister, the Interior Minister and the Finance Minister, but not the four Chief Ministers as at present, if the Council is to perform genuine security functions and is not meant to oversee the political system of the country.
SHOULD THE INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI) BE HEADED BY A CIVILIAN?
ANP: There are a number of concerns and questions about the role, structures and accountability of the ISI which need a critical review and reform to make it an effective, accountable and useful body working for the national interest. The body needs to be made accountable to an elected government with a professional civilian setup.
MQM: Absolutely not. The ISI historically speaking was created to collect, research, analyze and manage intelligence from the services that come under the Armed Forces. Unfortunately it was a civilian Prime Minister who created the political wing that was subsequently used to spy on politicians for blackmailing and buying their loyalties and has since then become a norm. The MQM condemns and abhors all such activities that ISI’s political wing practises. We would like the ISI to revert back to its original role and focus its eyes, ears and energies onto the military instead of civilians.
PPP: It is not very important who heads the security agencies. The important thing is that all security agencies, including the ISI, should be answerable to the elected Prime Minister and the Parliament. It is also important that the functioning of agencies like the ISI is regulated by legislation.
PML-N: No. The ISI, as an inter-service organization, has to be headed by a military Director-General.
THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL
ANP: The past perpetual military dictatorships have weakened every institution in the country and placed the entire nation at a serious risk. Thus it is difficult for anyone to have confidence in a command and control structure managed under such dictatorial regimes. Also, the Party strongly believes that Pakistan should support international moves for arms reduction and abolition of nuclear weapons on an universal and non-discriminatory basis.
MQM: We have faith in Pakistan’s command and control structure to safeguard our nuclear assets but we are concerned by all this unwanted attention it is getting in the foreign press. No system is 100 per cent fool-proof and we need to be vigilant 24/7, 365 days a year and to effectively weed out elements and threats who pose a threat to our nuclear assets. This is the price one pays to have these very expensive and deadly toys that supposedly bring strategic balance and peace. Pakistan more than anything needs peace of mind, social and economic development. No nuclear arsenal is strong enough to protect us if the supreme will of the people is not there.
PPP: The present command and control structure of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under the President. The PPP has demanded that the Nuclear Command and Control be placed under the Defense Committee of the Cabinet under the Prime Minister.
PML-N: Yes. Satisfied with the existing command and control
ARE PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS VULNERABLE?
ANP: Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Islamic world. Given the present tensions in the world, this nuclear capability can present a grave threat to the country’s security rather than guarantee it, which was the reason for going nuclear in the first place. The country’s foreign policy has, therefore, to be finely adjusted to guard against these dangers while at the same time, it must serve to further the national interest in terms of economic and commercial progress.
MQM: This is a technical question and since being no security expert or having no access to privileged information I may not be able to answer this question. But in this age and all things considered, nothing is invincible or inviolable. If nuclear faux pas and serious security breaches like 9/11 can happen in the West, how can we be so confident in this over-crowded country of 160 million people?
PPP: Musharraf has in his biography accused some Pakistani scientists of setting up a clandestine international market of nuclear weapons. If one were to believe his claim that the nuclear weapons were being sold in the black market by some individuals it would appear that our nuclear arms are vulnerable. However, we have received international assistance for putting in place a nuclear command and control structure. Therefore our nuclear assets ought to be safe. But God forbid, if the country begins to fall apart and armed militants march on to Islamabad supported by another Red Mosque type mutiny, the situation would be extremely dangerous. This is why, as the democratic alternative, we believe it is essential to restore democracy, mobilize the strength of the people and create political stability to secure the integrity of the country.
PML-N: No.
SHOULD THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IN VIENNA BE GIVEN DIRECT ACCESS TO DR.A.Q.KHAN?
ANP: No.
MQM: Dr. A.Q. Khan affair was handled unprofessionally and was humiliating for Pakistan as well as the person who was instrumental in Pakistan’s nuclear program. But no person should be above the law and there are procedures to handle such situations. There was no need to have public circuses. The establishment created this hero culture for its own ulterior objectives. Pakistan can do better without this lame culture; what this country needs more than anything else is men and women of substance.
PPP: The regime has already allowed IAEA access to A. Q. Khan by transmitting written replies of Dr. Khan to the Agency. Parliament is the best forum for considering direct access to Dr Khan if ever such a demand was made.
PML-N: No.
SHOULD A.Q.KHAN BE RELEASED FROM HOUSE ARREST?
ANP: Yes. However, if Dr. Khan is guilty of a criminal offense, he should have been charged and allowed a fair trial.
MQM: Dr Khan is under protective custody. But again the Government should be clear, straightforward and take people into confidence but not procrastinate. If Dr AQ Khan is guilty then do the necessary under the law and if he is innocent then do the necessary as well. Individual & State can both make mistakes. We need to move on.
PPP: Yes.
PML-N: Yes.
WOULD YOU ACTIVELY ADVOCATE HIS RELEASE?
ANP: Yes. He or any other citizen should not be held without a charge.
MQM: If he is innocent why not.
PPP: We advocate a parliamentary probe into the nuclear proliferation and due process of law. The PPP has called for a parliamentary inquiry because Pakistan cannot afford to endanger its own nuclear system by smuggling and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
PML-N: Yes.
TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN
ANP: There are different forms of terrorism and militancy in the country which can be traced mainly to the state policies and patronage.
MQM: Terrorism is not merely a problem any more. The dark reality is that it will soon be touching epidemic proportions if radical measures are not taken immediately and with the utmost sincerity. Everyone talks of democracy and how it will eradicate the evil of terrorism without bothering to take into consideration the root causes that have prevailed and need equal attention and importance as terrorism as well. The fact is that with over160 million people, decadent feudal practices, over centralization of power, limited resources, high illiteracy, shifting rural-urban dynamics and widening gaps between haves and have-nots, the increasing sense of deprivation will only breed fanaticism, sectarianism and extremism. These terrorists are cashing in on the poverty struck people and exploiting their sentiments and handicaps. Every underprivileged and socio-economically disadvantaged person is a potential Al Qaeda recruit in this world today and by default West with all its success and its allies becomes the hateful target. A lot needs to be acknowledged, understood and corrected besides radical measures and this means political changes and reforms in Pakistan and the Muslim world as well. With specific reference to Pakistan we have to place special emphasis on fundamental reforms in FATA (Federally-Administered Tribal Areas) and bringing them in the national and political mainstream.
PPP: Yes, terrorism is a serious problem facing the country. In her last political testament, Shaheed Mohtarma Bhutto said that she feared for the future of Pakistan at the hands of militancy and exhorted the Party to ‘continue the fight against extremism’.
PML-N: Yes. ( It is a serious problem)
WHAT HAVE BEEN THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF PAKISTAN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR ON TERROR?
ANP: We cannot see any positive impact of such an illegal war which has directly targeted the Pukhtuns and caused severe threat to peace and security in the region.
MQM: We have been on the receiving end. We received aid worth 12 billion US dollars and we received the wrath of Al Qaeda and Taliban and the hate of the masses for the rulers’ for siding with the US in spite of being the target of bomb attacks as well. We certainly won’t call it the best bargain especially so since this war is bringing terror now to GHQ doorsteps and cantonments across the country. As if this is not enough, we are now earning the suspicion of Americans regarding the sincerity of our intentions. It is rather unfortunate that it had to take a 9/11 like incident to wake us up. What we are doing today is sorting our house that should have been done long ago; if we had done so, we could have very well prevented the shame and unnecessary attention that Pakistan had to face because of the myopic and visionless policies in the past. It’s not a question of negative and positive impacts here; at that time (after 9/11) it was a matter of choice between the devil and the deep blue sea and the best possible decision under the circumstances was taken in Pakistan’s interest. These Johnnies who are critical of Pakistan’s decision are still living in a fool’s paradise and need to get a reality check. Every dark cloud has a silver lining and we need to find ours; as long as we take home a lesson and apply it for an egalitarian, democratic Pakistan then we have hope. If nothing, 9/11 has opened our eyes to the reality we had been avoiding for so long. 9/11 is a wake up call for us as much as it is for rest of the world.
PPP: It is in our interest to participate in the war on terror and root out the scourge of terrorism from Pakistan. On the negative side, however, the dictatorship has manipulated the war on terror to perpetuate itself and deny the people their democratic rights. The regime seems to be running with the hare and hunting with the hound and thus invited incalculable damage.
PML-N: The negative consequences of Pakistan’s participation in the war against terror far exceed any positive (economic) impact it may have yielded.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POLICY TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN?
ANP: We firmly believe in finding peaceful and non violent ways of addressing external and internal threats. The party will seek political solutions to such problems rather than use of force. Much of the problems of extremism have exacerbated in the country because of extended periods of military dictatorships and total breakdown of state institutions. The situation can only be reversed by a legitimate and democratically elected government with a focus on needs, interests and aspirations of the people. Uphold democracy, rule of law and independence of the main pillars of the state, protect rights and freedoms.
MQM: Terrorism today is the culmination of the political processes and strategic seedlings planted jointly by one man and a superpower namely, Zia-ul-Haq and the US in their passion to bleed the heathen Russians in Afghanistan. Thus it is a joint moral responsibility of Pakistan and the US to bring sustainable political solutions to redress the mess we are in today. Pakistan’s counterterrorism measures have to be carefully balanced against long term domestic and foreign policy goals in order to get maximum advantage. For Pakistan to be a strong self sufficient nation, it will need to rethink its current spending of Western aid, shifting resources to improving the country’s socio-economic strata while defending itself against potential threats and a new class of radical groups. Any effective policy will have to be based on a multi-pronged approach with critical appreciation, acceptance and analysis of historical facts, mistakes made and the ground reality today before we embark on any new policy making adventure. Essentially, the political leadership will have to be taken into confidence. The Civil, Military and Feudal troika (Establishment) can no longer be trusted with what is national interest and defining our future. It has to be a participatory exercise for it to be effective and of consequence. The MQM is aware of as well as deeply concerned over the lack of any reforms in FATA and how these critical political gaps are being used by extremist elements as launch pads to strike deep into Pakistan and to spread terror, fear and hate. The political parties should be given free access to the FATA and allowed to practise as well. The black FCR (Frontier Crime Regulations) law in FATA needs to be abolished and a solid socio-economic reform package introduced encompassing wide scale and meaningful madrassah reforms to bring them into the national mainstream with proper audit and regulations. Healthy and educated people are less likely to become the cannon fodder for terrorists. We have neglected education & health for far too long and it needs urgent attention with an increase of 10 % each of GDP within the next ten years. Of equal importance is population control which is a demographic termite that will erode us from within if not snipped in the bud.
PPP: The Party is committed to vigorously confront militancy and terrorism. We do not support appeasement or dialogue with the militants who have taken on the state. We will talk with those who will lay down arms and accept the state and the Constitution. The military government has relied solely on the use of force in dealing with extremism in the tribal areas. We believe that alongside the use of force, we also need to take political steps and improve the socio- economic conditions of the people in the tribal area. Poverty and social isolation also breeds militancy. We will address issues of poverty and social isolation in the tribal areas. The PPP has already filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court seeking the extension of the Political Parties Act to the tribal areas. We want to bring the people of the tribal areas into the 21st century and make them stake- holders in fighting militancy and extremism. We would interrupt the flow of drug funds that finance militancy as well as spread education and employment. We need to bring in education and development in the tribal areas, which have remained cut off from the rest of the world since the last PPP government was dismissed in 1996. But we will not compromise with the extremists. We have prepared a blue print for the socio-economic development of the tribal areas in which the elected Agency Councils will have administrative and financial powers to undertake development activities. We also plan to give them an independent judicial system with the right to appeal.
PML-N: The use of force is and will remain necessary against foreign and local terrorists who take innocent lives and also to prevent infiltration across the Pakistan border. But it is even more important to win the hearts and minds of people who support them, through a concerted process of political engagement. PML-N is committed to pursue this dual track approach and take resolute steps to eradicate the menace of extremism and terrorism. During its previous tenure from 1997 to 1999, the PML-N government took a series of measures to control terrorist groups and counter their activities. It also supported the efforts of the international community to deal with this threat. In keeping with this policy, the party will intensify these efforts by: strengthening the capacity of law enforcing agencies to detect and control terrorist groups and their supporters; influencing the groups which directly or indirectly support terrorism, through political intermediaries and civil society organizations to adhere to basic Islamic principles of peace, moderation and justice. Also, promoting the rule of law, tolerance and mutual respect in the country to overcome the sense of desperation; taking steps to mainstream the tribal areas into the political, economic and cultural activities of the country and accelerating the pace of economic and social development in these areas.
WHICH ARE THE COUNTRIES TO WHICH SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE GIVEN IN FOREIGN POLICY?
ANP: Pakistan needs to pay special attention to building its relations with all its neighbours especially Afghanistan and India. In view of the commonalities in culture, faith, language and history between the people of Pukhtunkhwa and those of Afghanistan, determined efforts should be made to promote cooperation in every field including economic, commercial, educational and cultural. Similarly, establishment of peaceful, cooperative good neighbourly relations with India should be given high priority. All issues including Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and open dialogue. Bilateral relations with any country should be conducted strictly on the basis of sovereign equality and non-interference in each others’ internal affairs.
MQM: Pakistan and India have been bitter enemies from day one since independence and spent more time in propaganda and destabilizing each other than developing their people and countries. India was better in managing open fronts as well as managing hot spots due to internal and external reasons and threats. Also, it was not burdened by the religious fervor that messed up our foreign policy and resulted in delusional and divine agendas of questionable validity and poor reflection of our global needs. There is no reason that we cannot have a South Asian Fraternity like EU in certain areas like trade and travel to be followed by a No War Pact as well as agreement to totally destroy respective nuclear arsenals by a certain date. We favor a Nuclear Free South Asia. Most importantly, if India and Pakistan can bilaterally settle all issues amicably, Pakistan will have no more issues with Afghanistan or Iran either and this will be a big victory for our foreign policy.
PPP: We need to improve relations on priority basis with the SAARC countries and more importantly with India. The PPP policy is to improve relations with India without prejudice to the Kashmir dispute. It is manifest from the signing of the Simla agreement in 1972 and December 1988 agreement not to attack each other’s nuclear installations. The PPP had been called a security risk for its farsighted vision, which was now being embraced by all its then critics.
PML-N: A peaceful settlement of all outstanding issues with India, in a spirit of fairness and equity would be accorded special priority by the Party. Also, every effort would be made to strengthen and enhance the relationship with Pakistan’s time tested friend China so as to make it truly strategic, by imparting greater substance and depth to it.
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT LEVEL OF INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS?:
ANP: Same as the answer to the previous question.
MQM: Certainly relations with India are better than ever before. But a lot more needs to be done and for it to be sustained. There is better interaction between the people of the two countries and you are seeing the emergence of a social dialogue between the intellectuals, academics, think tanks, artists, NGOs and others besides the government to government interactions as well as track II diplomacy in the sidelines. Yes, we do need to resolve issues like Kashmir and water before we can put a closure on past, but it should not deter us from seeking peace and prosperity.\
PPP: The PPP has welcomed the regime taking a leaf from its manifesto for the normalization of relations with India. However, we are not sure whether it is merely tactical in nature or it is a strategic shift in policy thinking.
PML-N: On the whole ‘Yes’ but there is still considerable mistrust between the two countries which has to be removed.
THE KASHMIR QUESTION
ANP: Same as above....
MQM: It is high time and we both need to move towards a resolution. Pakistan and India cannot afford to have this bleeding sore forever. Most importantly, the Kashmiris need to take a front seat and claim it from Islamabad and New Delhi or stay confined to headlines forever. There have been human losses on both sides and billions of dollars wasted on expensive military hardware, upkeep of forces. It is time to go beyond Shimla summit & Lahore yatra, and work towards a permanent and lasting peace and let us make it happen within the next two years. We fully endorse the joint statement between Pakistan and India at the SAARC Summit on Jan 6, 2004 for a composite framework and dialogue. The spirit has to continue and materialized for the benefit of the two countries and in the shortest possible time.
PPP: We think that without compromising our position we still can take step by step measures that will enhance confidence and create an environment for the people of Kashmir to determine their future. Some measures that can be taken immediately are facilitating meeting of divided families, Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Bus Service, +8a seminar of lawyers from both sides of the LOC at Muzaffarabad and Srinagar to discuss existing laws against basic Human Rights, organizing Intra Kashmiri dialogue and a seminar of businessmen from both sides of the LOC to discuss the possibilities of promoting business within the State.
PML-N: India has not so far responded positively to the flexibility shown by Pakistan for resolving the Kashmir issue. More intensive dialogue is needed which hopefully would be possible with the revival of a democratic government after the next elections.
RELATIONS WITH THE US
ANP: The relations with the US need to be characterized by dignity and self respect and must result in mutual benefit. The basic principle of sovereign equality and non-interference needs to be instituted. The main focus of the relationship needs to shift from military to social and economic development.
MQM: There is no shortcut to achieving Pakistan’s interests’ better with the USA. Both the US and Pakistan are deeply disillusioned with each other due to bitter experiences on our part and non satisfactory relationship complaints on their part in the past. It is very important that US-Pakistan relationship extends beyond the relationship between the Pentagon and the Pakistan Army. It has to be a people to people contact and relationship that will establish trust and bridges that will last. The Pentagon-Pakistan Army relationship is a vestige of cold war that should not come in the way of exemplary relationship between the two nations. The US needs to realize that linking aid with war on terror is not enough; it has to identify the root causes that have led us to this situation today and link aid with effective measures towards sincere steps towards implementation of provincial autonomy. True democracy and democratic reforms are a farce in a feudal setup that only thrives on clans, tribes, race, ethnicity and sectarian issues. The US needs to study these root causes and address Pakistan’s predicaments and grievances accordingly.
PPP: The foreign policy must be shaped by the Parliament and the Cabinet. The PPP would discuss and debate the foreign policy issues in the Parliament to bring them in consonance with the nation’s aspirations.
PML-N: The new government that takes over, after the next elections, will have to undertake a thorough review of its relationship with the USA keeping in view the following objectives: i) Convince the US that while Pakistan will continue to cooperate with the US to curb cross border activities into Afghanistan, dealing with the extremist threat within Pakistan will remain Pakistan’s own responsibility.ii) There is need for a deeper mutual understanding of the causes of extremism in this region and for a new strategy to deal with it, on the basis of this understanding.iii) Urgent steps have to be taken to mainstream the tribal areas in the political, cultural and economic life of Pakistan.iv) It will be necessary to spell out the rights and obligations of being a non-Nato ally for Pakistan, to put the US - Pakistan relationship on a firm and sustainable basis.
SHOULD PAKISTAN HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH ISRAEL?
ANP: The matter needs to be debated in the Parliament to build a consensus on the issue. The party doesn’t believe in the clandestine dialogue process with Israel pursued by the present and any past governments.
MQM: Holy Prophet and his wife Bibi Khatijah used to trade with Yehudis (Jews) besides the social and intellectual interactions. Pakistan’s national interest should not be subservient or linked to any other country’s national interest.
PPP: Pakistan supports the Peace Plan proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. We believe in taking whatever steps are necessary to implement that plan efficaciously.
PML-N: No.
(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
The final results of the Pakistani elections are yet to emerge. However, the unofficial indications till now are that the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of Mr. Asif Zardari, the Pakistan Muslim League of Mr. Nawaz Sharif (PML(N) ), the Muittahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) of Mr. Altaf Hussain and the Awami National Party (ANP) of Mr. Afsandyar Wali Khan have been doing well. They are likely to play an important role in the Government formation and in policy-making---the PPP and the PML (N) at the national level and the other two at the provincial levels---the MQM in Sindh and the ANP in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). Of these, the MQM is closely identified with President Pervez Musharraf, while the other three are strong critics of him.
2. What was the stand of these four parties on various national security issues of interest to India during the election campaign? Their views as expressed by them are given below. This is based on a collation by Mr. Qudssia Akhlaque carried by the "News", the daily of Pakistan, in two parts on February 17 and 18, 2008. He posed the questions on various national security and foreign policy issues, among others, to Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, MQM Deputy Convener Dr. Farooq Sattar and Afsandyar Wali Khan.
3. Nawaz Sharif's replies are particularly interesting. He has been guarded and his views on issues such as the command and control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the security of the arsenal, action against Dr. A.Q.Khan, the role of the army in national security policy-making, control over the Inter-Services Intelligence, and the perceived inadequate progress in the dialogue with India on the Kashmir issue have been framed in such a manner as not to make the Punjabi Generals of the Army uncomfortable. Nawaz Sharif and particularly his brother Shahbaz Sharif have been in touch with many of the serving and retired Punjabi officers and he has kept in view their sensitivities. Of all the four leaders, he is the only leader who has given equal priority to Pakistan's relations with India and China. On the question of relations with the US, there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm in his replies.
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
ANP: There is no need for a National Security Council or any other supra constitutional bodies. Matters of National Security should be debated in the Parliament and a parliamentary body formed for it.
MQM: The Parliament of Pakistan is the supreme body and in its presence the concept and existence of the National Security Council is rather redundant; most certainly the very presence of the NSC looks upon the democratic institutions with distrust and questioning their validity. However, the NSC was a bitter pill that had to be swallowed but with conditionality through an amendment introduced by the MQM, that all decisions taken by the NSC have to be ratified by the Parliament and this was accepted by the coalition. The NSC cannot be looked in isolation, independent of certain hardcore facts namely: (1) The history of covert and overt actions and State oppression, such as against the MQM; (2) The post 9/11 scenario and (3) To avoid situations like the imposition of the emergency. The positive political involvement of the MQM with the coalition de-clawed the NSC and brought it under the political umbrella of parliamentary democracy.
PPP: The PPP does not support the National Security Council. The NSC would be abolished and replaced with a Defense Committee of the Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister.
PML-N: It has expressed two contradictory views. In his reply to the questions, Nawaz Sharif said that the NSC should always be headed by the Chief Executive which is the Prime Minister and not the President, but in its manifesto, the party had said: “The National Security Council will be abolished. The Defense Committee of the Cabinet will be reconstituted as the Cabinet Committee on Defense and National Security and will be chaired by the Prime Minister.”
SHOULD THERE BE A MILITARY REPRESENTATION IN THE NSC IF IT CONTINUES?
ANP: The question does not arise as it wants the NSC to be abolished.
MQM: Security no more consists of only traditional concepts of external threat or aggression. It also addresses internal threats and aggression as well. Similarly, the much neglected and rapidly emerging economic, trade and natural threats need serious attention. Military has an important role to play, but under the official subservience of elected government.
PPP: As it does not support the NSC, the question of military representation in it does not arise. However, the Defense Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) under the Prime Minister should continue to have the military’s representation.
PML-N: If the NSC continues, the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, and the chiefs of the three Services can be represented at the NSC, but it should also include the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister, the Interior Minister and the Finance Minister, but not the four Chief Ministers as at present, if the Council is to perform genuine security functions and is not meant to oversee the political system of the country.
SHOULD THE INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI) BE HEADED BY A CIVILIAN?
ANP: There are a number of concerns and questions about the role, structures and accountability of the ISI which need a critical review and reform to make it an effective, accountable and useful body working for the national interest. The body needs to be made accountable to an elected government with a professional civilian setup.
MQM: Absolutely not. The ISI historically speaking was created to collect, research, analyze and manage intelligence from the services that come under the Armed Forces. Unfortunately it was a civilian Prime Minister who created the political wing that was subsequently used to spy on politicians for blackmailing and buying their loyalties and has since then become a norm. The MQM condemns and abhors all such activities that ISI’s political wing practises. We would like the ISI to revert back to its original role and focus its eyes, ears and energies onto the military instead of civilians.
PPP: It is not very important who heads the security agencies. The important thing is that all security agencies, including the ISI, should be answerable to the elected Prime Minister and the Parliament. It is also important that the functioning of agencies like the ISI is regulated by legislation.
PML-N: No. The ISI, as an inter-service organization, has to be headed by a military Director-General.
THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL
ANP: The past perpetual military dictatorships have weakened every institution in the country and placed the entire nation at a serious risk. Thus it is difficult for anyone to have confidence in a command and control structure managed under such dictatorial regimes. Also, the Party strongly believes that Pakistan should support international moves for arms reduction and abolition of nuclear weapons on an universal and non-discriminatory basis.
MQM: We have faith in Pakistan’s command and control structure to safeguard our nuclear assets but we are concerned by all this unwanted attention it is getting in the foreign press. No system is 100 per cent fool-proof and we need to be vigilant 24/7, 365 days a year and to effectively weed out elements and threats who pose a threat to our nuclear assets. This is the price one pays to have these very expensive and deadly toys that supposedly bring strategic balance and peace. Pakistan more than anything needs peace of mind, social and economic development. No nuclear arsenal is strong enough to protect us if the supreme will of the people is not there.
PPP: The present command and control structure of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under the President. The PPP has demanded that the Nuclear Command and Control be placed under the Defense Committee of the Cabinet under the Prime Minister.
PML-N: Yes. Satisfied with the existing command and control
ARE PAKISTAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS VULNERABLE?
ANP: Pakistan is the only nuclear power in the Islamic world. Given the present tensions in the world, this nuclear capability can present a grave threat to the country’s security rather than guarantee it, which was the reason for going nuclear in the first place. The country’s foreign policy has, therefore, to be finely adjusted to guard against these dangers while at the same time, it must serve to further the national interest in terms of economic and commercial progress.
MQM: This is a technical question and since being no security expert or having no access to privileged information I may not be able to answer this question. But in this age and all things considered, nothing is invincible or inviolable. If nuclear faux pas and serious security breaches like 9/11 can happen in the West, how can we be so confident in this over-crowded country of 160 million people?
PPP: Musharraf has in his biography accused some Pakistani scientists of setting up a clandestine international market of nuclear weapons. If one were to believe his claim that the nuclear weapons were being sold in the black market by some individuals it would appear that our nuclear arms are vulnerable. However, we have received international assistance for putting in place a nuclear command and control structure. Therefore our nuclear assets ought to be safe. But God forbid, if the country begins to fall apart and armed militants march on to Islamabad supported by another Red Mosque type mutiny, the situation would be extremely dangerous. This is why, as the democratic alternative, we believe it is essential to restore democracy, mobilize the strength of the people and create political stability to secure the integrity of the country.
PML-N: No.
SHOULD THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY IN VIENNA BE GIVEN DIRECT ACCESS TO DR.A.Q.KHAN?
ANP: No.
MQM: Dr. A.Q. Khan affair was handled unprofessionally and was humiliating for Pakistan as well as the person who was instrumental in Pakistan’s nuclear program. But no person should be above the law and there are procedures to handle such situations. There was no need to have public circuses. The establishment created this hero culture for its own ulterior objectives. Pakistan can do better without this lame culture; what this country needs more than anything else is men and women of substance.
PPP: The regime has already allowed IAEA access to A. Q. Khan by transmitting written replies of Dr. Khan to the Agency. Parliament is the best forum for considering direct access to Dr Khan if ever such a demand was made.
PML-N: No.
SHOULD A.Q.KHAN BE RELEASED FROM HOUSE ARREST?
ANP: Yes. However, if Dr. Khan is guilty of a criminal offense, he should have been charged and allowed a fair trial.
MQM: Dr Khan is under protective custody. But again the Government should be clear, straightforward and take people into confidence but not procrastinate. If Dr AQ Khan is guilty then do the necessary under the law and if he is innocent then do the necessary as well. Individual & State can both make mistakes. We need to move on.
PPP: Yes.
PML-N: Yes.
WOULD YOU ACTIVELY ADVOCATE HIS RELEASE?
ANP: Yes. He or any other citizen should not be held without a charge.
MQM: If he is innocent why not.
PPP: We advocate a parliamentary probe into the nuclear proliferation and due process of law. The PPP has called for a parliamentary inquiry because Pakistan cannot afford to endanger its own nuclear system by smuggling and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
PML-N: Yes.
TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN
ANP: There are different forms of terrorism and militancy in the country which can be traced mainly to the state policies and patronage.
MQM: Terrorism is not merely a problem any more. The dark reality is that it will soon be touching epidemic proportions if radical measures are not taken immediately and with the utmost sincerity. Everyone talks of democracy and how it will eradicate the evil of terrorism without bothering to take into consideration the root causes that have prevailed and need equal attention and importance as terrorism as well. The fact is that with over160 million people, decadent feudal practices, over centralization of power, limited resources, high illiteracy, shifting rural-urban dynamics and widening gaps between haves and have-nots, the increasing sense of deprivation will only breed fanaticism, sectarianism and extremism. These terrorists are cashing in on the poverty struck people and exploiting their sentiments and handicaps. Every underprivileged and socio-economically disadvantaged person is a potential Al Qaeda recruit in this world today and by default West with all its success and its allies becomes the hateful target. A lot needs to be acknowledged, understood and corrected besides radical measures and this means political changes and reforms in Pakistan and the Muslim world as well. With specific reference to Pakistan we have to place special emphasis on fundamental reforms in FATA (Federally-Administered Tribal Areas) and bringing them in the national and political mainstream.
PPP: Yes, terrorism is a serious problem facing the country. In her last political testament, Shaheed Mohtarma Bhutto said that she feared for the future of Pakistan at the hands of militancy and exhorted the Party to ‘continue the fight against extremism’.
PML-N: Yes. ( It is a serious problem)
WHAT HAVE BEEN THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF PAKISTAN'S PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR ON TERROR?
ANP: We cannot see any positive impact of such an illegal war which has directly targeted the Pukhtuns and caused severe threat to peace and security in the region.
MQM: We have been on the receiving end. We received aid worth 12 billion US dollars and we received the wrath of Al Qaeda and Taliban and the hate of the masses for the rulers’ for siding with the US in spite of being the target of bomb attacks as well. We certainly won’t call it the best bargain especially so since this war is bringing terror now to GHQ doorsteps and cantonments across the country. As if this is not enough, we are now earning the suspicion of Americans regarding the sincerity of our intentions. It is rather unfortunate that it had to take a 9/11 like incident to wake us up. What we are doing today is sorting our house that should have been done long ago; if we had done so, we could have very well prevented the shame and unnecessary attention that Pakistan had to face because of the myopic and visionless policies in the past. It’s not a question of negative and positive impacts here; at that time (after 9/11) it was a matter of choice between the devil and the deep blue sea and the best possible decision under the circumstances was taken in Pakistan’s interest. These Johnnies who are critical of Pakistan’s decision are still living in a fool’s paradise and need to get a reality check. Every dark cloud has a silver lining and we need to find ours; as long as we take home a lesson and apply it for an egalitarian, democratic Pakistan then we have hope. If nothing, 9/11 has opened our eyes to the reality we had been avoiding for so long. 9/11 is a wake up call for us as much as it is for rest of the world.
PPP: It is in our interest to participate in the war on terror and root out the scourge of terrorism from Pakistan. On the negative side, however, the dictatorship has manipulated the war on terror to perpetuate itself and deny the people their democratic rights. The regime seems to be running with the hare and hunting with the hound and thus invited incalculable damage.
PML-N: The negative consequences of Pakistan’s participation in the war against terror far exceed any positive (economic) impact it may have yielded.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR POLICY TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM IN PAKISTAN?
ANP: We firmly believe in finding peaceful and non violent ways of addressing external and internal threats. The party will seek political solutions to such problems rather than use of force. Much of the problems of extremism have exacerbated in the country because of extended periods of military dictatorships and total breakdown of state institutions. The situation can only be reversed by a legitimate and democratically elected government with a focus on needs, interests and aspirations of the people. Uphold democracy, rule of law and independence of the main pillars of the state, protect rights and freedoms.
MQM: Terrorism today is the culmination of the political processes and strategic seedlings planted jointly by one man and a superpower namely, Zia-ul-Haq and the US in their passion to bleed the heathen Russians in Afghanistan. Thus it is a joint moral responsibility of Pakistan and the US to bring sustainable political solutions to redress the mess we are in today. Pakistan’s counterterrorism measures have to be carefully balanced against long term domestic and foreign policy goals in order to get maximum advantage. For Pakistan to be a strong self sufficient nation, it will need to rethink its current spending of Western aid, shifting resources to improving the country’s socio-economic strata while defending itself against potential threats and a new class of radical groups. Any effective policy will have to be based on a multi-pronged approach with critical appreciation, acceptance and analysis of historical facts, mistakes made and the ground reality today before we embark on any new policy making adventure. Essentially, the political leadership will have to be taken into confidence. The Civil, Military and Feudal troika (Establishment) can no longer be trusted with what is national interest and defining our future. It has to be a participatory exercise for it to be effective and of consequence. The MQM is aware of as well as deeply concerned over the lack of any reforms in FATA and how these critical political gaps are being used by extremist elements as launch pads to strike deep into Pakistan and to spread terror, fear and hate. The political parties should be given free access to the FATA and allowed to practise as well. The black FCR (Frontier Crime Regulations) law in FATA needs to be abolished and a solid socio-economic reform package introduced encompassing wide scale and meaningful madrassah reforms to bring them into the national mainstream with proper audit and regulations. Healthy and educated people are less likely to become the cannon fodder for terrorists. We have neglected education & health for far too long and it needs urgent attention with an increase of 10 % each of GDP within the next ten years. Of equal importance is population control which is a demographic termite that will erode us from within if not snipped in the bud.
PPP: The Party is committed to vigorously confront militancy and terrorism. We do not support appeasement or dialogue with the militants who have taken on the state. We will talk with those who will lay down arms and accept the state and the Constitution. The military government has relied solely on the use of force in dealing with extremism in the tribal areas. We believe that alongside the use of force, we also need to take political steps and improve the socio- economic conditions of the people in the tribal area. Poverty and social isolation also breeds militancy. We will address issues of poverty and social isolation in the tribal areas. The PPP has already filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court seeking the extension of the Political Parties Act to the tribal areas. We want to bring the people of the tribal areas into the 21st century and make them stake- holders in fighting militancy and extremism. We would interrupt the flow of drug funds that finance militancy as well as spread education and employment. We need to bring in education and development in the tribal areas, which have remained cut off from the rest of the world since the last PPP government was dismissed in 1996. But we will not compromise with the extremists. We have prepared a blue print for the socio-economic development of the tribal areas in which the elected Agency Councils will have administrative and financial powers to undertake development activities. We also plan to give them an independent judicial system with the right to appeal.
PML-N: The use of force is and will remain necessary against foreign and local terrorists who take innocent lives and also to prevent infiltration across the Pakistan border. But it is even more important to win the hearts and minds of people who support them, through a concerted process of political engagement. PML-N is committed to pursue this dual track approach and take resolute steps to eradicate the menace of extremism and terrorism. During its previous tenure from 1997 to 1999, the PML-N government took a series of measures to control terrorist groups and counter their activities. It also supported the efforts of the international community to deal with this threat. In keeping with this policy, the party will intensify these efforts by: strengthening the capacity of law enforcing agencies to detect and control terrorist groups and their supporters; influencing the groups which directly or indirectly support terrorism, through political intermediaries and civil society organizations to adhere to basic Islamic principles of peace, moderation and justice. Also, promoting the rule of law, tolerance and mutual respect in the country to overcome the sense of desperation; taking steps to mainstream the tribal areas into the political, economic and cultural activities of the country and accelerating the pace of economic and social development in these areas.
WHICH ARE THE COUNTRIES TO WHICH SPECIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE GIVEN IN FOREIGN POLICY?
ANP: Pakistan needs to pay special attention to building its relations with all its neighbours especially Afghanistan and India. In view of the commonalities in culture, faith, language and history between the people of Pukhtunkhwa and those of Afghanistan, determined efforts should be made to promote cooperation in every field including economic, commercial, educational and cultural. Similarly, establishment of peaceful, cooperative good neighbourly relations with India should be given high priority. All issues including Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and open dialogue. Bilateral relations with any country should be conducted strictly on the basis of sovereign equality and non-interference in each others’ internal affairs.
MQM: Pakistan and India have been bitter enemies from day one since independence and spent more time in propaganda and destabilizing each other than developing their people and countries. India was better in managing open fronts as well as managing hot spots due to internal and external reasons and threats. Also, it was not burdened by the religious fervor that messed up our foreign policy and resulted in delusional and divine agendas of questionable validity and poor reflection of our global needs. There is no reason that we cannot have a South Asian Fraternity like EU in certain areas like trade and travel to be followed by a No War Pact as well as agreement to totally destroy respective nuclear arsenals by a certain date. We favor a Nuclear Free South Asia. Most importantly, if India and Pakistan can bilaterally settle all issues amicably, Pakistan will have no more issues with Afghanistan or Iran either and this will be a big victory for our foreign policy.
PPP: We need to improve relations on priority basis with the SAARC countries and more importantly with India. The PPP policy is to improve relations with India without prejudice to the Kashmir dispute. It is manifest from the signing of the Simla agreement in 1972 and December 1988 agreement not to attack each other’s nuclear installations. The PPP had been called a security risk for its farsighted vision, which was now being embraced by all its then critics.
PML-N: A peaceful settlement of all outstanding issues with India, in a spirit of fairness and equity would be accorded special priority by the Party. Also, every effort would be made to strengthen and enhance the relationship with Pakistan’s time tested friend China so as to make it truly strategic, by imparting greater substance and depth to it.
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE CURRENT LEVEL OF INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS?:
ANP: Same as the answer to the previous question.
MQM: Certainly relations with India are better than ever before. But a lot more needs to be done and for it to be sustained. There is better interaction between the people of the two countries and you are seeing the emergence of a social dialogue between the intellectuals, academics, think tanks, artists, NGOs and others besides the government to government interactions as well as track II diplomacy in the sidelines. Yes, we do need to resolve issues like Kashmir and water before we can put a closure on past, but it should not deter us from seeking peace and prosperity.\
PPP: The PPP has welcomed the regime taking a leaf from its manifesto for the normalization of relations with India. However, we are not sure whether it is merely tactical in nature or it is a strategic shift in policy thinking.
PML-N: On the whole ‘Yes’ but there is still considerable mistrust between the two countries which has to be removed.
THE KASHMIR QUESTION
ANP: Same as above....
MQM: It is high time and we both need to move towards a resolution. Pakistan and India cannot afford to have this bleeding sore forever. Most importantly, the Kashmiris need to take a front seat and claim it from Islamabad and New Delhi or stay confined to headlines forever. There have been human losses on both sides and billions of dollars wasted on expensive military hardware, upkeep of forces. It is time to go beyond Shimla summit & Lahore yatra, and work towards a permanent and lasting peace and let us make it happen within the next two years. We fully endorse the joint statement between Pakistan and India at the SAARC Summit on Jan 6, 2004 for a composite framework and dialogue. The spirit has to continue and materialized for the benefit of the two countries and in the shortest possible time.
PPP: We think that without compromising our position we still can take step by step measures that will enhance confidence and create an environment for the people of Kashmir to determine their future. Some measures that can be taken immediately are facilitating meeting of divided families, Srinagar-Muzaffarabad Bus Service, +8a seminar of lawyers from both sides of the LOC at Muzaffarabad and Srinagar to discuss existing laws against basic Human Rights, organizing Intra Kashmiri dialogue and a seminar of businessmen from both sides of the LOC to discuss the possibilities of promoting business within the State.
PML-N: India has not so far responded positively to the flexibility shown by Pakistan for resolving the Kashmir issue. More intensive dialogue is needed which hopefully would be possible with the revival of a democratic government after the next elections.
RELATIONS WITH THE US
ANP: The relations with the US need to be characterized by dignity and self respect and must result in mutual benefit. The basic principle of sovereign equality and non-interference needs to be instituted. The main focus of the relationship needs to shift from military to social and economic development.
MQM: There is no shortcut to achieving Pakistan’s interests’ better with the USA. Both the US and Pakistan are deeply disillusioned with each other due to bitter experiences on our part and non satisfactory relationship complaints on their part in the past. It is very important that US-Pakistan relationship extends beyond the relationship between the Pentagon and the Pakistan Army. It has to be a people to people contact and relationship that will establish trust and bridges that will last. The Pentagon-Pakistan Army relationship is a vestige of cold war that should not come in the way of exemplary relationship between the two nations. The US needs to realize that linking aid with war on terror is not enough; it has to identify the root causes that have led us to this situation today and link aid with effective measures towards sincere steps towards implementation of provincial autonomy. True democracy and democratic reforms are a farce in a feudal setup that only thrives on clans, tribes, race, ethnicity and sectarian issues. The US needs to study these root causes and address Pakistan’s predicaments and grievances accordingly.
PPP: The foreign policy must be shaped by the Parliament and the Cabinet. The PPP would discuss and debate the foreign policy issues in the Parliament to bring them in consonance with the nation’s aspirations.
PML-N: The new government that takes over, after the next elections, will have to undertake a thorough review of its relationship with the USA keeping in view the following objectives: i) Convince the US that while Pakistan will continue to cooperate with the US to curb cross border activities into Afghanistan, dealing with the extremist threat within Pakistan will remain Pakistan’s own responsibility.ii) There is need for a deeper mutual understanding of the causes of extremism in this region and for a new strategy to deal with it, on the basis of this understanding.iii) Urgent steps have to be taken to mainstream the tribal areas in the political, cultural and economic life of Pakistan.iv) It will be necessary to spell out the rights and obligations of being a non-Nato ally for Pakistan, to put the US - Pakistan relationship on a firm and sustainable basis.
SHOULD PAKISTAN HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH ISRAEL?
ANP: The matter needs to be debated in the Parliament to build a consensus on the issue. The party doesn’t believe in the clandestine dialogue process with Israel pursued by the present and any past governments.
MQM: Holy Prophet and his wife Bibi Khatijah used to trade with Yehudis (Jews) besides the social and intellectual interactions. Pakistan’s national interest should not be subservient or linked to any other country’s national interest.
PPP: Pakistan supports the Peace Plan proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. We believe in taking whatever steps are necessary to implement that plan efficaciously.
PML-N: No.
(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)
PAKISTAN : A clear verdict
Pakistani voters have demonstrated their rejection of Musharraf's high-handedness and political cronyism
Hassan Abbas
Hassan Abbas
February 19, 2008 4:30 PM
The verdict is clear. Pakistan has shown the door to the mullahs and delivered a stern warning to Musharraf. Pakistan has backed the opposition to Musharraf's despotic handling of the judiciary, his high-handedness against independent media and his political cronyism. As a result, Musharraf's future looks bleak, while Pakistan gets a fighting chance to puts its house in order.
The drift of the voters is not unexpected, but few trusted the state machinery to conduct largely fair elections. Pre-poll rigging was in full swing till the end, caretakers' partiality towards pro-Musharraf parties was obvious and the Election Commission's neutrality was in doubt. While a string of suicide bombings haunted voters, ordinary Pakistanis have shown that they still believe in democracy. Voter turnout was low but the message of the electorate is clear.
Musharraf's hopes for a hung parliament that would have given him a chance to continue to manipulate the political scene have been proved wrong. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), though far short of a simple majority, has emerged as the largest political party. A sympathy vote in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination only had a moderate impact, though her death certainly dealt a fatal blow to the prospects of the pro-Musharraf Muslim League (PML-Q) playing any role in government. Her own Sindh province, however, paid due tribute to her by giving a majority to PPP in the provincial assembly.
The Muslim League faction led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif received the second highest number of votes in the national assembly and the highest number of seats in the Punjab assembly, a reward for taking a popular and laudable stand in favour of the deposed judges and constitutionalism. Sharif will have to stick to this agenda, however, if he wants to remain relevant to Pakistan in the future. Contrary to many western fears, this faction of the Muslim League is not overly conservative or Islamist, and has moved towards the centre in recent years.
The most significant victory of all was that won by the secular and Pashtun nationalist party, the Awami National Party (ANP) in the volatile North-West Frontier Province. The religious alliance MMA stands routed in the province which emerged as its heartland in the 2002 elections. Its poor governance record, flirting with Musharraf and significant internal divisions led to its downfall. Just as significant is the ANP's rise.
This is a resounding response to the spate of suicide bombings and politics of violence. For instance, in Swat, which was in the eye of the Islamist militancy storm recently, the ANP won comprehensively, establishing that ordinary Pashtuns are not supportive of extremist forces.
One other factor worth taking into account is the success of women candidates in 12 national and provincial constituencies. There are separate women's seats allocated in all legislatures to be filled through indirect vote, but in many important urban as well as rural districts, major parties fielded women candidates. Most of them won - a healthy trend in a country where in some rural areas women were stopped from voting by their male "guardians".
Despite all these positive trends, however, Pakistan's problems are far from being over. It is going to be an uphill task to form a stable, focused and accountable government dedicated to the wellbeing of the people. Developing a consensus among coalition parties (most likely, PPP, PML-Nawaz, and ANP) in the centre and then sticking to it will be a challenge in itself. In a country where palace intrigues have historically started fermenting within months of a new administration taking office (mostly orchestrated by intelligence services), the early period will be the most challengng of all. Religious extremism can also raise its ugly head at any time, as the suicide bombers and extremists are not going to change their worldview just because liberal and progressive forces did well in the elections.
As for Musharraf, he is living in a fool's paradise if he thinks he is going to be a father figure to the next prime minister of Pakistan. The new government will be under tremendous public pressure to bring back the deposed judges, and that could sound a death knell for the Musharraf presidency. For the army, which is distancing itself from Musharraf already, institutional interests, saving prestige and influence, will be more important than rescuing a president who continues to shoot himself in the foot. The west in general - and Britain and the US in particular - must show patience while democratic forces settle; at least as much patience as they showed with military dictators. This is the very least that the people of Pakistan earned yesterday.
February 19, 2008
Mr. L K Advani’s FICCI speech - Full text
Courtesy Shri Sudheendra Kulkarni speech by Shri L.K. Advani, Leader of the Opposition (Lok Sabha), Speech at the Special Luncheon Session, 80th Annual General Meeting of the Federation of the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)
New Delhi - 15 February 2008
If someone were to ask me “What kind of GDP growth do you want?”, I would say that kind in which:
‘G’ stands for Good Governance at all levels from national to local;
‘D’ stands for Development for all regions and all Indians; and
‘P’ stands for Protection for every citizen.
Shri Habil Khorakiwala, President of FICCI, Shri Rajeev Chandrashekhar, President-Elect, Captains of Indian business and industry, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to be once again at an annual general meeting of FICCI.
I have spoken from FICCI’s platform on several occasions in the past. My colleagues from the BJP too have been interacting with you for many years. Naturally, you have also had interactions with leaders from other political parties. It is for you to judge how the BJP’s thinking and practice fares vis-à-vis others’.
I can, in all humility, claim that ours is one party that has consistently followed a policy of supporting private enterprise and voicing our opposition to the license-quota-control regime even in those years when there was hardly any debate on economic reforms. Indeed, the Soviet model of government control was the dominant political fashion and intellectual obsession at the time.
Which is why, we unhesitatingly backed the former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh when they showed the courage to reverse the Congress party’s own previous economic policies. And when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee became the Prime Minister, and ran a stable and successful government for six years, we tried to accelerate and broaden the agenda of economic reforms, with results that all of you have seen.
My party’s consistent pro-enterprise economic philosophy
I am saying this because ours is a party whose political and economic philosophy is rooted not in foreign soil but in India’s own genius and in her age-old traditions. We are not slave to any dogma, either of the left or the right variety. We are prepared to learn from the knowledge and experience of other societies, but will always be guided by our own national ideals and principles, and indeed by India’s socio-economic realities.
Therefore, it has always been our belief that the dharma (duty) of the raja — or the democratically elected government in our times — is to govern, whereas the dharma of the community engaged in business, commerce, industry and agriculture is to create wealth, generate gainful employment and fulfill the material needs of society. A proverb in Hindi says, ‘Raja Bane Vyapari, Praja Bane Bhikari’ (People become paupers when the rulers handle business.)
To be sure, the special situation after India gained independence, and the preceding centuries of de-industrialization under foreign rule, necessitated the state to establish big industries and run all the utilities. Even today, it is necessary for the state to stay engaged in select strategic industries, and ensure the provision of social and economic infrastructure.
But what we saw from the 1960s onwards is that state control became dogma, red-tapism set in, entrepreneurship was frowned upon, with this came the culture of political and bureaucratic corruption, and the Indian economy suffered badly.
Our roads remained narrow. Our ports remained small. Our airports, even in big cities, remained archaic. We did not expand or modernize our railway network adequately. We did not take steps to remove power and water scarcity to meet the needs of our growing population, as also the growing needs of our agriculture and industry. Hundreds of our irrigation projects suffered from cost and time overruns. We did not improve our colleges and universities to widen the access to quality higher education and to create opportunities for well-educated Indians within India. Our system of primary education and primary healthcare suffered badly, as a result of which India, even today, is stuck with a very unfavourable ranking in the UN Human Development Index.
The negative effect of all this was not only in the economic sphere. It was also psychological in nature. Tens of thousands of young, ambitious and talented Indians started to believe that they could realize their dreams only by going abroad. There was also a subconscious belief that anything of quality, anything state-of-the-art, has to be of foreign origin. Hence the craze for imported goods and a tendency to associate inferiority with Indian goods.
No nation can become strong with weak self-belief.
No nation can attain greatness with small ambitions and tiny achievements.
No nation can become rich by keeping the bulk of its human resources poor.
India on the path of high-achievement
It is heartening that much of this is now changing, thanks to economic reforms introduced in the early 1990s. However, it is undeniable that India’s development was considerably thwarted because of some wasted decades.
I am especially gratified that our own government, headed by Shri Vajpayeeji, made a major contribution to India’s forward march.
The highway development project, for example, not only expanded our roads. It expanded our thinking process, too. It convinced even common people that India can think big, implement projects in record time, and achieve what earlier seemed impossible.
Similarly, the nuclear tests at Pokharan in May 1998 had an effect far beyond the realm of national security. That bold step, taken in the teeth of opposition from big powers, made Indians feel proud and self-confident. And if we are opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal, it is only because we do not want to India’s achievement in 1998 neutralised. On our larger foreign policy template, I would also like to state that a future NDA government will value all of India’s strategic partnerships, and not let one undermine or influence another.
Now, Indian entrepreneurs have been blazing a trail of achievements. Making use of the new policy regime within the country as also the emerging opportunities in the global economy, they are scripting success stories that seemed unimaginable a decade ago. I heartily congratulate them for these achievements, which have changed not only the world’s perception about India but also Indians’ perception about themselves and their country.
And when I commend India’s entrepreneurs, I commend not only the owners of our business groups that everyone hears about. No doubt, they deserve to be appreciated. But I also commend the thousands of workers, managers, engineers, designers, R&D personnel and others working in these enterprises.
Hence, when I think of Nano, the world’s cheapest car from the House of Tatas, I applaud not only Shri Ratan Tata’s courage and determination, but also the entire team that took it up as a challenge and succeeded. We shall encourage many more such Indian successes in manufacturing.
I feel deeply happy when I see the ongoing work on bigger and better airports in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and elsewhere. We shall ensure that every airport in the country modernized and every part of the country well-served by air connectivity.
I feel happy that we are building a world-class metro system in Delhi. We shall empower hundreds of Sreedharans — and we do have such competent officers in our system — so that we are able to modernize our railway system in a short time, with focus on safety and comfort for ordinary passengers.
I feel delighted when I hear that India is fast emerging as the Call Centre, Business Process Outsourcing hub of the world and Knowledge Process Outsourcing of the world. Thanks to these services made possible by the telecom and IT revolution in India, it is said ‘Break a bone in New York, see the X-Ray in Chennai’. It is my personal commitment to see that millions of our talented young men and women from underprivileged classes to get good