By Dr. Subhash Kapila
Introductory Observations
Mumbai 9/11 may never have taken place at all or could have been foreseen and anticipated by India’s policy establishment and the National Security Advisor, had both of them not grievously failed in their threat perceptions and threat assessments on Pakistan arising from the emergence of General Ashfaq Kiyani as Pakistan Army Chief and Asif Ali Zardari as President of Pakistan.
India’s Prime Minister, the policy establishment and the National Security Adviser continued to be weighed down till Mumbai 9/11 i.e. November 20, 2008 that with a civilian government in Pakistan since early 2008, Pakistan Government’s strategic formulations and policy inclinations towards India stood changed.
India’s policy establishment’s most grievious failure was not making a correct reading on the personalities of General Kiyani and President Zardari and what did their emergence at the helm of affairs in Pakistan portend for India.
Additionally, the Indian policy establishment and the National Security Adviser failed to read the contextual shady political dynamics in Pakistan under which General Kiyani and President Zardari were propelled into power in Pakistan.
Democracy was ushered in Pakistan under United States pressure, but the Pakistan Army while giving in to such pressures ensured that the Pakistan Army and its infamous ISI would continue to call the shots in Pakistan and especially on Pakistani strategies and policy formulations on India and Afghanistan.
Mumbai 9/11 was not an intelligence failure. Mumbai 9/11 was a failure of India’s policy establishment and its national security establishment at the apex level. It is the Prime Minister and the policy establishment under his control which has to provide the political component of the threat assessment on Pakistan based on which intelligence agencies need to be tasked and the Armed Forces make their operational plans.
India’s Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser, the Foreign Secretary, in fact the entire policy establishment, had they analytically viewed contemporary political developments in Pakistan, the civil-military dynamics in Pakistan and the utterances of Pak Army Chief, General Kiyani from May-June 2008 onwards and the strategies that unfolded since then in terms of anti-Indian activities, would have come to the conclusion that the façade of a civil government in Pakistan was no insurance against the continuance of the proxy war against India by the Pakistan Army.
Instead of adopting hard-line stances on Pakistan’s unleashing a continuous wave of terrorism attacks against India, especially in 2007-2008 the Indian Prime Minister and the policy establishment kept “smoking the peace pipe” on Pakistan. The National Security Adviser in a TV interview indicated that General Kiyani was a professional soldier who was unlikely to indulge in military adventurism against India. In fact the converse was true in terms of what followed.
Injecting a note of caution against such trends, this Author in one of this Papers quoted below (Paper 2828) had highlighted that:
"India’s security establishment at the apex level has been indulging in an unwarranted proliferation of statements extolling the Pakistan Army Chief, General Kayani and Zardari and that the PPP is India-friendly. Nothing can be further from the truth. Indian political leaders and its establishment must learn to be reticent when making observations on Pakistan. For in such summations there are dangers of Indian policy formulations being divorced from ground realities operating in Pakistan"
India’s policy establishment and the National Security Adviser went grievously wrong in its readings of Pakistan’s deliberate, well-planned, calculated and calibrated strategies which unfolded in 2008 with General Kiyani and later President Zardari in the driving seat in Pakistan. Pakistan’s proxy war in India in 2008 unfolded as under in a three prong strategy as follows:
Asymmetric Warfare against India intensified with an all India spread of terrorist strikes and suicide bombings.
Military Escalation by breaching the four year old ceasefire along the line of control in Jammu and Kashmir and resurgence of protracted border clashes on General Kiyani’s recasting military strategies.
Kashmir Secession activities hysterically fanned and violent turbulence in Kashmir Valley generated through Pakistan’s front line secession organizations on non-issues.
Totally oblivious to this three-pronged Pakistan campaign against India, the Indian Prime Minister his Cabinet colleagues and the policy establishment kept viewing the Pak-sponsored disruptive activities against India as a single-perspective incident rather than discerning and assessing that it was a calibrated three-prong strategy. More sadly all these dignitaries of India’s apex policy making level kept harping all along that such incidents were the handiwork of “those elements in Pakistan which wanted to disrupt/derail the Indo-Pak Peace Process”. It was forgotten that “these elements in Pakistan” were under the full control of the ISI and Pakistan Army headed by General Kiyani.
India’s electronic and print media also signally failed in highlighting the above mentioned three-pronged strategy masterminded by the Pakistan Army and its Chief. Post-Mumbai 9/11 some media periodicals have now come out with cover stories that General Kiyani and the Pakistan Army continue to call the shots in Pakistan and by inference should be held responsible for Mumbai 9/11. Why could this not have been foreseen earlier? Or were they waiting to compile inputs from other sources?
India consequently stood lulled that live dangers existed from the Pakistan Army and its intelligence establishment and that the proxy war was no longer confined to Kashmir but had spread its tentacles all over India.
Devoid of any governmental inputs or information but by a simple analysis of Pakistan’s contemporary developments and placing them in the contextual mould of Pakistan’s civil-military dynamics, this Author’s South Asia Analysis Group Papers on Pakistan for the last two years were constantly analyzing the implications for India’s national security. More particularly were analysed the developments specific to General Kiyani and President Zardari and the unfolding of strategically destabilising events targeted against India from Pakistan.
Of the innumerable Papers written by this Author on the strategic implications for India of Pakistani developments three deserve special mention and selected excerpts stand quoted from them below:
“Pakistan Army Fires Strategic Broadsides at United States and India” dated 10 June 2008 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers28/paper2733.html)
“Pakistan Army Resumes Border Clashes: Political and Military Implications” dated 05 August 2008 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers28/paper2796.html)
“Pakistan: The Pakistan Army Still Controls Governance” dated 02 September 2008 (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2828.html)
With the excerpts quoted below highlighting the main theme of this Paper, the following aspects would then be examined:
India’s Policy Establishment’s Flawed Assessments on Pakistan: The Contributory Causes
India’s National Security Advisory Board Needs a Fresh Look
Pakistan Army Fires Strategic Broadsides at United States and India (10 June 2008)
The main thrust in this Paper was to analyse the strategic implications arising for USA and India from the assertions made by Pak Army Chief General Kiyani and Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff Committee, General Tariq Majeed.
General Kiyani had made two assertions that (1) Pak Army would neither “retrain nor regroup” its troops for the US war on terrorism (2) Pakistan will deploy the bulk of its troops on Pakistan’s borders with India and prepare for possible conflicts with traditional enemy India.
Analysing the “Strategic Implications of Pak COAS Assertions” for India it was highlighted that “Implicit in General Kiyani latest assertions are (1) Pakistan Army does not view or expect or would work for any normalization of relations with India (2) Pakistan Army would continue to impede any normalization process (3) Pakistan Army is still engaged in arms race with India with 80% of the US $ 10 billion aid diverted to purchase of advanced weapon systems to be used on the Indian front”.
Highlighted here were also the changed manifestations that occurred against India under General Kiyani namely “(1) Kashmir resurrected as a confrontational issue by Kiyani (2) Four years old ceasefire in Kashmir breached by Pakistan Army in Kashmir (3) Increased Jehadi infiltration in Kashmir (4) Major terrorism incidents in rest of India with traditional frequency (5) Targeted killings of Indians by Taliban in Afghanistan”.
With such a pattern, should it not have been clear to the Indian policy establishment what the Pakistan Army and the ISI under General Kiyani’s control were upto and moreso when General Kiyani had been the Director General of ISI till recently?
Clearly incorporated in this Paper was cautionary advice for this Government and its policy establishment more in terms of a wake-up call, as the following excerpts would indicate:
“The above trend can be expected to intensify. Pakistan Army was so far quiet on the frontiers with India because of Pak Army deployments on the Afghan frontier. With redeployments back to concentrations on the Indian frontiers, the Pakistan Army can be expected to intensify its proxy war against India.”
“The present Indian Government has to revise its strategic formulations and also revise its mythical over-investment and trust in Pakistan Army’s commitment to peace with India”.
More significantly in the concluding paragraph of the Paper, this Author stressed:
“India with no coercive capabilities against Pakistan because of lack of the will to use power in the past, has to be vigilant and pro-active in dealing with Pakistan Army transgressions. Any Pakistan Army military adventurism on the LOC in Kashmir or terrorism against India needs to be met with sharp ripostes.”
Pakistan Army Resumes Border Clashes: Political and Military Implications (05 August 2008)
The main theme projected in the Paper was that the “vested interests intent on derailing the Indo-Pak Peace Process” so nauseatingly parroted by Indian political leaders and the policy establishment was the Pakistan Army itself,. Further, that the resumption of serious border clashes “generate serious political and military implications for India and the policy establishment needs to study them in depth and fashion appropriate responses.”
This Paper by this Author and its contents seems retrospectively to have been most significant in relation to Mumbai 9/11 in terms of political implications for India. The rest of the contents including military implications can be assessed on this think tanks web site.
The “Political Implications for India” of resumption of border clashes need to be reproduced in full so as to provide a sense of their import and how true they have turned out to be in the wake of 9/11.
Five paragraphs under this head read as under:
“The border clashes by Pakistan created political implications for India at two levels, namely (1) Impact on Indian public opinion and (2) Indian Government's foreign policy responses to Pakistan”.
“Needless to say that Indian public opinion already reflects the following (1) Pakistan Army and the ISI under its control is responsible for the wave of terrorist incidents and suicide bombings all over India (2) Indo-Pak Peace Process ardently desired by the peoples of both countries would always be thwarted by the Pakistan Army and ISI (3) Peace with Pakistan is not possible until the United States puts Pakistan Army in its rightful place strategically and politically under firm civilian control (5) Indian Governments need to adopt harder policies to deal with Pakistan Army military adventurism.”
“To this when are added the resumption of widespread border clashes, increase in turbulence by separatists in Kashmir Valley and unrestrained suicide bombings any Indian Government would be placed in a piquant situation where it cannot ignore vehement public opinion for strong actions against Pakistan and the Pakistan Army in particular.”
“In terms of foreign policy implications, India’s policy establishment cannot divorce itself from prevailing public opinion. India’s policy establishment would have no political excuses to continue with the Indo-Pak Peace Process, however laudable the objectives may be.”
“India’s foreign policy in relation to Pakistan may be forced to revert back to the old position of “no dialogue unless border clashes, terrorism and suicide bombings cease.”
Post-Mumbai 9/11 events have placed the Government in a piquant situation and the wheel has turned a full circle, where the Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh has now been forced to assert and repeat that there will be no dialogue with Pakistan until terrorism against India ceases.
Once again this Author is tempted to reproduce the concluding paragraph of his Papers. In this paper it read:
“India’s political leadership should not be taken in by rhetoric of Pakistan’s political leaders. In formulating India’s policy towards Pakistan the determining factor should be Pakistan Army’s attitudes and demonstrated actions”.
Pakistan: The Pakistan Army Still Controls Governance (02 September 2008)
This Paper was written about a week prior to election of Zardari as President. The aim of this Paper was to dispel the misperceptions that had abounded in India’s policy establishment and as if on cue by the Indian media that Zardari was ‘India friendly’ and things would change for the better.
It was conveniently forgotten that Zardari did not emerge as President of Pakistan on his personal strengths or political convictions or an electoral platform of better Indo-Pak relations as former PM Nawaz Sharif had achieved a landslide victory.
Zardari had emerged as President of Pakistan as an instrument of the Pakistan Army to continue Pak Army control of Pakistan’s governance.
One would like to reproduce only three excerpts from this detailed Paper to support how underserved high expectations were raised in India on Zardari.
“The certain election of Asif Ali Zardari, of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) widower of Benazir Bhutto as President of Pakistan next week is a strong pointer to the fact that the Pakistan Army while formally divested of direct control of Pakistan’s governance will however now rule by proxy through Zardari. He is their preferred choice. Through him the Pakistan Army will control Pakistan's governance.”
“Pakistan’s return to democracy after a torturous gap of nine years seems to be destined once again to be short-lived. Zardari in his eagerness to be elected as President of Pakistan to secure his personal future and fortunes has walked into a trap set by the Pakistan Army. By jettisoning his political coalition with former PM Nawaz Sharif he has emerged as a willing tool of Pakistan Army’s divisive politics to ensure their hold on Pakistan’s governance.”
“In the current end-game in Pakistan, does one see on the horizon, the emergence of General Kiyani as the next ruler of Pakistan after giving Zardari his moment of glory?”
The relationship between General Kiyani and President Zardai is a “politically collusive” relationship and the Indian policy establishment should not have expected any independent stances from President Zardari, to India’s advantage.
India’s Policy Establishment’s Flawed Assessments on Pakistan: The Contributory Causes
One incorporated lengthy excerpts from the Author's earlier Papers, only to highlight that if any ordinary Indian citizen without access to any official inputs could arrive at logical assessments on Pakistan, there is no earthly reason why India’s policy establishment with all the wide network of institutional support at their command come to similar conclusions on the Pakistani threat and the analysis of their unfolding disruptive strategies in 2008.
If India’s policy establishment had come to similar conclusions, then what actions were taken to pre-empt the series of terrorist bombings and attack at important places in India?
The claim that intelligence agencies did not provide inputs stands contested earlier in the Paper. Political component of the Pakistan threat assessment has to be provided by the Prime Minister, the National Security Advisor and the Foreign Secretary.
In the absence of any credible evidence of their having provided the necessary directives for tasking of intelligence agencies, one needs to examine the contributory causes for the flawed assessments of the Pakistan threat by India’s policy establishment.
These contributory causes can be summed up as arising from:
Indian policy establishment’s mistaken perception that a civilian government in Pakistan would usher in peace. Also an over-investment in Pakistani Army Chief’s peaceful credentials. Peace at any cost had become an over-riding fixation of the Indian establishment for reasons more political than strategic.
India’s policy establishment and the National Security Advisor were overwhelmingly committed from July 2005 to somehow get the Indo-US Nuclear Deal through This obsession left the vital issues of the emerging Pakistan threats virtually unattended.
More significantly, the Indian policy establishment and the National Security Advisor tended to view Pakistan’s ruling combine through the United States prism of American security interests rather than through the prism of cold, hard-headed Indian national security interests. Hence the landatory statements welcoming General Kiyani elevation as Chief and Zardari on President.
India’s policy establishment seemed to have blindly followed United States projected assessments on General Kiyani and President Zardari. It was over looked that they were placed at the helm in Pakistan to serve US strategic requirements in Afghanistan. On the contrary, India should have expected otherwise as with their strategic indispensability to USA, they stood released from any constraints to behave responsibly towards India.
Even if some in the policy establishment tended to advocate hard line policies towards Pakistan, they stood discouraged by the views of their political masters in terms of captive vote-bank politics, irrespective of the havoc being inflicted by the Pakistan Army/ISI sponsored terrorism on India.
The end results of such a gross misreading of the Pakistan’s Kiyani-Zardari combine were the horrific events of Mumbai 9/11.
India’s National Security Advisory Board Needs a Fresh Look
India’s National Security Advisory Board which ordinarily should provide the National Security Advisor with both institutional and non-institutional assessments on Pakistani emerging disruptive strategies against India, seems to have signally failed in its task.
The present structuring, composition and functioning of the National Security Advisory Board inspires no confidences in India’s strategic community. This body seems to have degenerated into a repository of the Governments favored former diplomats, military officers and now an over heavy representation of non-security experts on the plea that today it is comprehensive national security that matters.
This body’s constitution and composition needs a fresh look in the context of the fact that such a body today should single- mindedly focus on the external and internal threats to India generated by Pakistan and China.
Other organs can look after energy security and environmental security and other exotic national security applications.
Contextually speaking in relation to the 'war of terror' underway on India and a likely worsening of relations with China, it would be more advisable to have a National Security Advisor with an Army background.
The 'war of terror' against India is no longer a law and order challenge as pointed in my writings earlier but an externally sponsored war-like situation where an armed conflict could develop overnight. The National Security Advisor post is not an appointment requiring political- perspectives/ law and order capability but an appointment calling for national security-strategic vision capability which only an Army background can provide.
Concluding Observations
Mumbai 7/11 in a short span of 72 hours, when a handful of Pakistani terrorists held the mighty Indian Republic to ransom, brought to the fore, all that was wrong in India’s political governance and India’s national security management.
In its wake while the intelligence agencies and the police were heavily criticized, no one cared to ponder as to where the original sin lay.
In terms of national security management, like India’s political mis-governance, the onus of the original sin lay with India’s political leadership and India’s policy establishment. Both combined failed in their readings of the emerging political landscape in Pakistan which heavily suggested that the new civilian government was only a façade and that it would continue to take orders from the Pakistan Army. The Pakistan Army and the ISI continued to be in charge and this time more dangerously in the person of Pakistan Army Chief General Kiyani who combined in his person the obsessive mindset of Pakistani Army Chiefs to destabilize India combined with all the ‘dirty tricks’ trade of having been Director General of ISI, till recently.
General Kiyani may be Washington’s man, but it was wrong for India’s policy establishment to construe him by extension as New Delhi’s man too.
(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)
December 20, 2008
Russia courts the Muslim world
Islam preceded christianity on our territory, says Putin
Le Monde diplomatique.
By Jacques Lévesque
Vladimir Putin was the first head of a non-Muslim majority state to speak at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a gathering of 57 Muslim states, in October 2003. That was a political and diplomatic feat, especially since Russia was waging a long-running war in Chechnya at the time. Putin stressed that 15% of the total population of the Russian Federation are Muslim (1), and that all the inhabitants of eight of its 21 autonomous republics are Muslim (2), and he won observer member status with the organisation, thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Since then, Putin and other Russian leaders, including the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claim that Russia “is, to some extent, a part of the Muslim world”. In an interview with Al Jazeera on 16 October 2003, Putin stressed that, unlike Muslims living in western Europe, those in Russia were indigenous and that Islam had been present on Russian territory long before Christianity (3). So Russia now claims to have a privileged political relationship with the Arab and Muslim world and believes that, as a mostly European state, it has a historic vocation as a mediator between the western and Muslim worlds.
There are reasons for these claims. The first is to counter the pernicious effect of the Chechnyan war, in Russia as much as in the rest of the world. The aim is to avoid, or at least limit, polarisation between Russia’s ethnic majority and its Muslims by reinforcing Muslims’ feeling of belonging to the state. “We must prevent Islamophobia,” said Putin in the Al Jazeera interview. That will be difficult given the way anyone suspected of being a Muslim fundamentalist is pursued, and not just in Chechnya. “Terrorism should not be identified with any one religion, culture or tradition,” Putin insisted. Before 9/11 he called Chechen rebels “Muslim fundamentalist terrorists”; now he speaks of “terrorists connected to international criminal networks and drug and arms traffickers”, avoiding any reference to Islam.
The other purpose in seeking special ties with the Arab and Muslim world is related to Russia’s foreign policy aim to “reinforce multipolarity in the world” – to sustain and develop poles of resistance to US hegemony and unilateralism. This means taking advantage of the hostility to US foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world. The Soviet Union used to present itself as the natural ally of anti-imperialist Arab states “with a socialist orientation”. Now Russia is seeking strong political relations not only with Iran and Syria, but also with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, which have long been close allies of the United States.
Economic considerations are important, especially in the energy sector, the power behind Russia’s return to the international stage. The Kremlin believes there is a major future in nuclear energy and the export of nuclear power stations, which may give Russia a competitive edge in technology and make it more than just an exporter of raw energy. The same is true of high-tech weapons, which were the most successful economic sector of the former Soviet Union before serious difficulties in the 1990s.
The Kremlin is no longer seeking formal alliances. It wants strong but non-restrictive political ties in frameworks such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), which do not put it in direct opposition to the US. Significantly, Iran only has observer status in this organisation, although it would like to be a full member.
One more explanation for this new policy towards the Muslim world is the quest for a post-Soviet Russian identity at home and abroad. This is not just political opportunism. In 2005, the academic Sergei Rogov wrote in the official foreign ministry review: “The Islamic factor in Russian policy is first and foremost a question of identity. . . That is one of the reasons why Russia cannot yet be a nation state in the European sense of the term. . . Our relations with the Islamic world directly affect our security” (4).
It is important to grasp what that means. In September 2003, Igor Ivanov, then foreign minister, said the war in Iraq had increased the number of terrorist attacks on Russian territory as elsewhere in the world. That was before Beslan (5), but Russia was already fearful of terrorism as a consequence of the Iraq war. Russia had hoped that a new multipolar configuration would emerge from the concerted opposition at the UN Security Council by France, Germany and Russia, which had deprived the US of international legitimacy for the war.
A complex relationship
Russian leaders, with Putin and Medvedev at the head, were seriously concerned that a “clash of civilisations” would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and unconditional US support for Israel’s most intransigent policies, Russian leaders thought potential US attacks on Iran would be a catastrophe, with destabilising consequences in Iran, so close to Russia, as well as in several former Soviet republics and in Russia.
This is a key to understanding the complex and difficult relationship that Moscow has with Tehran. Iran is an important geopolitical partner, as well as being the third-biggest buyer of Russian arms after China and India, and a showcase for the controlled export of nuclear power plants. Iran’s leaders have refrained from expressing support for Chechen rebels. Iran and Russia cooperated in supporting armed opposition to the Taliban in Afghanistan, long before the US. (Afghanistan under the Taliban was the only state in the world to recognise the independence of Chechnya and offer assistance to Chechen fighters.) But Moscow did denounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about Israel as “shameful” and put pressure on Tehran by voting with the US for economic sanctions at the UN Security Council, although it excluded military action.
By risking a deterioration of its relations with Iran, Russia wants to show the US and other western powers that it is responsible when it comes to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It also wants to persuade Iran to find a modus vivendi with the International Atomic Energy Agency. By agreeing to limited and gradual sanctions, Russia hopes to reduce the threat of an armed attack against Iran for as long as possible. Russia does not want an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons on its frontiers, but it would prefer to live with a nuclear Iran than face the consequences of a US attack on Iran.
The ambivalence of these positions has contributed to a rapprochement with traditional US allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both concerned that Iran may have access to nuclear weapons. However, like Russia and for the same reasons, they are opposed to US military action. They fear the consequences at home as well as among their immediate neighbours.
As a result of the war in Iraq, Turkey has a de facto independent Kurdistan on its borders, a problem that would be seriously aggravated by a destabilised Iran. Russia intends to take advantage of this at a time when its economic exchanges with Turkey – and political convergence – are at their best for two centuries.
Russia also intends to keep improving its relations with Saudi Arabia, which opposed the war in Iraq despite its hostility to Saddam Hussein. (It did, however, make its bases available to the US.) In February 2007 Putin made a first visit by a Russian or Soviet head of state to Saudi Arabia and offered contracts for the construction of nuclear power plants and arms. He also pleaded for an increase in the number of Russian Muslims authorised to make the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Saudi support for the Chechen rebels, openly expressed until 2002 (without recognition of the independence they claimed), suddenly stopped.
Translated by Krystina Horko
Jacques Lévesque teaches at the faculty of political science and law at the University of Quebec, Montreal, and is author of 1989, la fin d’un empire: L’URSS et la libération de l’Europe de l’Est, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, 1995
(1) This figure does not provide a clear picture of the situation. According to both Russian and western analysts, the high birth rate in the Muslim communities, together with immigration from the independent Central Asian republics, should lead to a sharp increase in the Muslim population by 2010. See Dmitri Shlapentokh, “Islam and Orthodox Russia: From Eurasianism to Islamism”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, London, n° 41, 2008. Some experts, including Murray Feshback, a specialist in Russian demography, claim that these estimates are exaggerated and are unlikely to be realised soon.
(2) Apart from Chechnya, these include North Ossetia, Dagestan, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. The largest and most densely populated are Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, which also have the most Muslims. More than half the Tatars live outside of Tatarstan. The Moscow region alone has a larger Muslim population than Bashkortostan.
(3) Islam began to spread over present-day Russian territory from the end of the 7th century, whereas the first Russian state only adopted Christianity as its official religion at the end of the 10th century.
(4) Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, vol 51, n° 4, Moscow, 2005.
(5) More than 1,300 children and adults were taken hostage in a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, on 1 September 2004. Two days later, following an assault by Russian security forces, 344 civilians died (according to official figures), mostly children
Le Monde diplomatique.
By Jacques Lévesque
Vladimir Putin was the first head of a non-Muslim majority state to speak at the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, a gathering of 57 Muslim states, in October 2003. That was a political and diplomatic feat, especially since Russia was waging a long-running war in Chechnya at the time. Putin stressed that 15% of the total population of the Russian Federation are Muslim (1), and that all the inhabitants of eight of its 21 autonomous republics are Muslim (2), and he won observer member status with the organisation, thanks to support from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Since then, Putin and other Russian leaders, including the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, claim that Russia “is, to some extent, a part of the Muslim world”. In an interview with Al Jazeera on 16 October 2003, Putin stressed that, unlike Muslims living in western Europe, those in Russia were indigenous and that Islam had been present on Russian territory long before Christianity (3). So Russia now claims to have a privileged political relationship with the Arab and Muslim world and believes that, as a mostly European state, it has a historic vocation as a mediator between the western and Muslim worlds.
There are reasons for these claims. The first is to counter the pernicious effect of the Chechnyan war, in Russia as much as in the rest of the world. The aim is to avoid, or at least limit, polarisation between Russia’s ethnic majority and its Muslims by reinforcing Muslims’ feeling of belonging to the state. “We must prevent Islamophobia,” said Putin in the Al Jazeera interview. That will be difficult given the way anyone suspected of being a Muslim fundamentalist is pursued, and not just in Chechnya. “Terrorism should not be identified with any one religion, culture or tradition,” Putin insisted. Before 9/11 he called Chechen rebels “Muslim fundamentalist terrorists”; now he speaks of “terrorists connected to international criminal networks and drug and arms traffickers”, avoiding any reference to Islam.
The other purpose in seeking special ties with the Arab and Muslim world is related to Russia’s foreign policy aim to “reinforce multipolarity in the world” – to sustain and develop poles of resistance to US hegemony and unilateralism. This means taking advantage of the hostility to US foreign policy in the Arab and Muslim world. The Soviet Union used to present itself as the natural ally of anti-imperialist Arab states “with a socialist orientation”. Now Russia is seeking strong political relations not only with Iran and Syria, but also with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, which have long been close allies of the United States.
Economic considerations are important, especially in the energy sector, the power behind Russia’s return to the international stage. The Kremlin believes there is a major future in nuclear energy and the export of nuclear power stations, which may give Russia a competitive edge in technology and make it more than just an exporter of raw energy. The same is true of high-tech weapons, which were the most successful economic sector of the former Soviet Union before serious difficulties in the 1990s.
The Kremlin is no longer seeking formal alliances. It wants strong but non-restrictive political ties in frameworks such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), which do not put it in direct opposition to the US. Significantly, Iran only has observer status in this organisation, although it would like to be a full member.
One more explanation for this new policy towards the Muslim world is the quest for a post-Soviet Russian identity at home and abroad. This is not just political opportunism. In 2005, the academic Sergei Rogov wrote in the official foreign ministry review: “The Islamic factor in Russian policy is first and foremost a question of identity. . . That is one of the reasons why Russia cannot yet be a nation state in the European sense of the term. . . Our relations with the Islamic world directly affect our security” (4).
It is important to grasp what that means. In September 2003, Igor Ivanov, then foreign minister, said the war in Iraq had increased the number of terrorist attacks on Russian territory as elsewhere in the world. That was before Beslan (5), but Russia was already fearful of terrorism as a consequence of the Iraq war. Russia had hoped that a new multipolar configuration would emerge from the concerted opposition at the UN Security Council by France, Germany and Russia, which had deprived the US of international legitimacy for the war.
A complex relationship
Russian leaders, with Putin and Medvedev at the head, were seriously concerned that a “clash of civilisations” would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Given the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and unconditional US support for Israel’s most intransigent policies, Russian leaders thought potential US attacks on Iran would be a catastrophe, with destabilising consequences in Iran, so close to Russia, as well as in several former Soviet republics and in Russia.
This is a key to understanding the complex and difficult relationship that Moscow has with Tehran. Iran is an important geopolitical partner, as well as being the third-biggest buyer of Russian arms after China and India, and a showcase for the controlled export of nuclear power plants. Iran’s leaders have refrained from expressing support for Chechen rebels. Iran and Russia cooperated in supporting armed opposition to the Taliban in Afghanistan, long before the US. (Afghanistan under the Taliban was the only state in the world to recognise the independence of Chechnya and offer assistance to Chechen fighters.) But Moscow did denounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about Israel as “shameful” and put pressure on Tehran by voting with the US for economic sanctions at the UN Security Council, although it excluded military action.
By risking a deterioration of its relations with Iran, Russia wants to show the US and other western powers that it is responsible when it comes to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It also wants to persuade Iran to find a modus vivendi with the International Atomic Energy Agency. By agreeing to limited and gradual sanctions, Russia hopes to reduce the threat of an armed attack against Iran for as long as possible. Russia does not want an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons on its frontiers, but it would prefer to live with a nuclear Iran than face the consequences of a US attack on Iran.
The ambivalence of these positions has contributed to a rapprochement with traditional US allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, both concerned that Iran may have access to nuclear weapons. However, like Russia and for the same reasons, they are opposed to US military action. They fear the consequences at home as well as among their immediate neighbours.
As a result of the war in Iraq, Turkey has a de facto independent Kurdistan on its borders, a problem that would be seriously aggravated by a destabilised Iran. Russia intends to take advantage of this at a time when its economic exchanges with Turkey – and political convergence – are at their best for two centuries.
Russia also intends to keep improving its relations with Saudi Arabia, which opposed the war in Iraq despite its hostility to Saddam Hussein. (It did, however, make its bases available to the US.) In February 2007 Putin made a first visit by a Russian or Soviet head of state to Saudi Arabia and offered contracts for the construction of nuclear power plants and arms. He also pleaded for an increase in the number of Russian Muslims authorised to make the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Saudi support for the Chechen rebels, openly expressed until 2002 (without recognition of the independence they claimed), suddenly stopped.
Translated by Krystina Horko
Jacques Lévesque teaches at the faculty of political science and law at the University of Quebec, Montreal, and is author of 1989, la fin d’un empire: L’URSS et la libération de l’Europe de l’Est, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris, 1995
(1) This figure does not provide a clear picture of the situation. According to both Russian and western analysts, the high birth rate in the Muslim communities, together with immigration from the independent Central Asian republics, should lead to a sharp increase in the Muslim population by 2010. See Dmitri Shlapentokh, “Islam and Orthodox Russia: From Eurasianism to Islamism”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, London, n° 41, 2008. Some experts, including Murray Feshback, a specialist in Russian demography, claim that these estimates are exaggerated and are unlikely to be realised soon.
(2) Apart from Chechnya, these include North Ossetia, Dagestan, Adygea, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Bashkortostan and Tatarstan. The largest and most densely populated are Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, which also have the most Muslims. More than half the Tatars live outside of Tatarstan. The Moscow region alone has a larger Muslim population than Bashkortostan.
(3) Islam began to spread over present-day Russian territory from the end of the 7th century, whereas the first Russian state only adopted Christianity as its official religion at the end of the 10th century.
(4) Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, vol 51, n° 4, Moscow, 2005.
(5) More than 1,300 children and adults were taken hostage in a school in Beslan, North Ossetia, on 1 September 2004. Two days later, following an assault by Russian security forces, 344 civilians died (according to official figures), mostly children
December 19, 2008
Don’t smash the piggybank, we need Jersey
Source: Le Monde diplomatique
Where the rich pay less tax than the poor, or maybe none at all
President Sarkozy has threatened to do away with tax havens like Jersey. But the island’s local government isn’t worried. Market crashes may have changed their rates of return, but hedge funds and trust funds still seem happy enough with Jersey.
By Olivier Cyran
“Abolish tax havens? Oh yes, I heard something about that on the BBC. Seems like Sarkozy is getting very heated on the subject. Well, if you find a single soul here who takes him seriously, be a good chap and introduce me, won’t you?”
The finance worker stubbed out his cigarette with a laugh and dived back into an office warren whose marbled foyer has 50 or so sparkling brass plates advertising accountancy firms, currency exchange specialists, business lawyers, shell company operators. The superstructure of tax avoidance has taken over the seafront of St Helier, Jersey’s capital, a swathe of concrete flanked by cliffs slipping into the mist. Of the 90,000 inhabitants of this small Channel Island, more than 12,000 – a quarter of the workforce – have jobs in the financial services sector.
Those who believe that the French government’s diatribe against tax havens strikes fear into the hearts of interested parties are in for a surprise. On 15 October President Sarkozy launched an “uncompromising shock debate” from Brussels, according to Le Monde (1), calling for international finance to “end twilight zones”. But the local media ignored the pronouncement. The following day the Jersey Evening Post, the island’s only daily, led on the poor form of Jersey athletes in the Commonwealth Youth Games in India. Not a word about Sarkozy’s thunderous threats, taken as a cosmic event by the French press.
Were they turning their backs on danger or coolly assessing where real power lies? Perched just 20km off the Normandy coast, the States of Jersey – to give this confetti territory, officially independent although under the protection of the British Crown, its full title – enjoys a gross domestic product which, head-for-head, makes it the third richest country in the world after Luxembourg and the Bahamas. According to the American analyst Martin Sullivan, funds placed in Jersey amounted in 2006 to £500bn (2). Small potatoes compared with the $11,500bn (£7,700bn) stashed away in offshore havens by the world’s richest people (3). But Jersey’s share is expected to grow.
Local speciality
In the context of savage competition between the 70 or so registered tax havens around the world, Jersey fully intends to consolidate its position. Until last year it levied a 10% tax on foreign companies. Then the Isle of Man, one of its fiercest rivals, trumped it by abolishing all investment tax. Stung to the quick, Jersey did the same: not a penny is now taken from multinational investors.Only local financial services providers still have to pay 10%.
To distinguish itself from the crowd and to lure in hedge funds, Jersey has created new financial mechanisms. Since 1 January anyone with at least $1m to spare can play the markets via a made-to-measure shell company not subject to any authorisation or control. This innovation “comes in response to a demand from speculative funds and other alternative sources looking for an unregulated product,” explained a spokesman for Jersey Finance Ltd, the semi-public body charged with promoting the island’s attractions to investors. The “millionaires’ tourism office”, as it’s called locally, claims to have registered 80 new shell companies between February and October. Market crashes may have tarnished their reputation and changed their rates of return, but hedge funds seem happy with Jersey.
However, the local speciality remains the trust fund industry. The “trust” is a legal curiosity with infinite flexibility which allows you to shelter your personal fortune from the tax authorities – or from your partner or your beneficiaries – by registering it under a false name. Officially the money no longer belongs to you; in fact it is all yours, offering the advantages of wealth without the inconveniences. You have to be very unlucky to get the law on your heels. That was the case in July 2004 when the contested divorce of an Arsenal footballer led British justice to track suspect payments into a Jersey trust, which appeared to stash away sums of money paid to the club’s trainer and his players, including the French star Thierry Henry, outside the normal tax brackets.
“It’s rare for the client to get fingered,” explains a local dealer under promise of anonymity. “The island authorities love this sort of business. The advantage of trusts is that they are protected not just from almost all control but also from market uncertainties: crisis or not there are always plenty of rich people who need a haven to cosset their cash.”
All the same, is this system robust enough to survive capitalism on the rocks? Isn’t it worried about being battered by the likes of the French prime minister François Fillon who, on 14 October in the Assemblée Nationale, thundered: “Black holes like these offshore centres should be filled in”? Jersey’s chief minister, Frank Walker, did not wish to reply to this question. A former board director of Barclays and one-time owner of the Jersey Evening Post, sold on in 2005 to a British associate, Walker leads a government six of whose ten members are multimillionaires. For an answer, we must rely on Walker’s higher-profile colleague, Philip Ozouf, senator, minister of economic development, businessman and graduate of the European Business School in London.
Ozouf’s main claim to fame is as the inventor of the Goods and Sales Tax (GST) a 3% tithe deployed since the start of 2008 on all goods and services outside the financial sector. This tax is intended to compensate for the loss of revenue from foreign companies, filling a $147m hole in the annual state budget. Notoriously, GST applies to necessities of life like medicines and school furniture but not to yacht fuel. This makes sense when one realises that the extremely rich are sticklers for their buying power.
All the same, you’re unlikely to find a single Jersey islander not part of the offshore industry or the political machine who keeps his cool at the mention of the cursed acronym. “GST? A dirty business, typical of this island where the man in the street pays for the richest,” comments a shopkeeper in King Street, the principal hub in the historic centre of St Helier; then quickly adds “but don’t quote my name, I’m not looking for trouble.”
Fear of going public with protest paralyses most of Jersey’s malcontents. Jersey has no organised opposition party and no independent media. There is no trade union movement outside hospital and transport workers, where the body protecting salaries – affiliated to the British trades union Unite – operates under threat of reprisals from this banana republic. There’s no official cap on the working week, no protection against getting fired, no unemployment benefit, and draconian limits on the right to strike.
“We don’t live in a democracy,” said Nick Le Cornu, founder of Time4Change, one of the island’s rare opposition groups. Himself a lawyer in a financial services company, he continued: “The absence of social guarantees and of a political context benefits a financial system which has taken the country hostage and diminishes the rule of law. People are afraid. Here, even if you’re not well off you are never far away from one member or another of the ruling clan. There’s also a cultural factor: Jersey islanders are rural people; they don’t have the working class attitudes or the trades union know-how found in Britain.”
Population is unconvinced
In spite of the paradise tag given to the island, the government has failed to convince the general population of the case for tax reform. Many shops carry angry signs on their windows declaring “No GST”, meaning that the shopkeeper prefers to pay the 3% from his own margins. A petition launched against Ozouf’s tax gathered 19,000 signatures, a historic event in this socially repressed part of the world. Yet the island media – limited to the Jersey Evening Post, the local BBC station and a private television company – has shown no interest in such protest. “In the current financial turmoil the most valuable services Jersey can offer are security, solidarity and stability,” wrote the Jersey Evening Post’s political correspondent, Christine Hebert, at the start of an article on 21 October headlined “Strong values in a changing world”. The government has not seen fit to go back on GST.
You’ll always find a few madcaps to challenge the law. Neil McMurray is a former fisherman who lost a hand working. When not looking after his children he produces lively video reportage which he blogs online; recently he pursued Ozouf camera-in-hand in an attempt to obtain a statement about the tax. An irresistibly comic sequence catches the senator fleeing through crowded rooms following a meeting, pretending not to notice his pursuer who calls after him, again and again: “Mr Ozouf, a word about GST please, Mr Ozouf, please…” (4).
“When I was a fisherman” explained this do-it-yourself journalist, “I went to sea nine months each year and couldn’t care less what happened on dry land. My eyes were opened only when I stopped. Our rulers are accountable to nobody. The poor are too demoralised to vote. Only the rich go to the polls, to keep their own in power. Here, everything is about the lure of money. Young people leave the island because there’s nothing for them beyond working in a bank. The financial sector has seen off agriculture, fishing and even tourism. People are angry but they are also scared to death, which poses a real problem. The cameraman who used to help me felt himself under threat and decided to withdraw his services.”
Did he know that France’s top brass have sworn to do away with tax havens? “My own hope is that this crisis brings the whole financial structure down, even if that means making a large part of the population jobless, including my wife.”
I tried to make contact with Ozouf. He declined, but offered instead his spokesman Geoff Cook, a former financial director at HSBC. As McMurray says, “in Jersey finance and politics go hand in hand”. Cook saw me in a fourth-floor office of Jersey Finance Ltd, where he is chief executive. Though almost alarmingly bland, the man is well-known for speaking his mind. In the Jersey Evening Post of 16 October, when stock markets round the world were reacting in horror to the event, he welcomed the failure of the US bank Lehman Brothers. “In many ways it is a good thing”, he was quoted as saying. “This will take the weaker players out, which is what is needed to free up the system.”
Free up the financial system? That’s not what the French president recommends, is it? “There’s a misunderstanding,” replied the super-sales rep. “First, Jersey is no tax haven but a fiscally neutral territory, a very different matter. We have signed information-exchange agreements with the US, Germany and Holland, and are in the process of doing the same with the Nordic countries and France. If one of our partner-countries suspects a citizen of putting his money in Jersey to avoid paying tax he can ask for information on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the request must be justified. Everyone has a right to privacy, our clients like any other. But if they believe it’s a serious problem we cooperate willingly.”
The international community is not wrong. In 2002 the OECD deleted Jersey, along with some 26 other virtuous regimes like the Bahamas, the Cook Islands, Gibraltar and Panama, from its list of tax havens – which is now only three countries strong (5). The same year the International Monetary Fund published a report congratulating Jersey on its all-but-irreproachable respect for “international norms in matters of financial regulation and the fight against money laundering and financing terrorism”.
Independent regulation board
“Despite that,” Cook complained, “certain people persist in stating that our financial system is not regulated. Nothing could be more untrue. We have our own regulation board, the Jersey Financial Services Commission, which is completely independent of government.” That’s a fact. The commission’s boss, Colin Powell, has made money out of offshore finance over three decades. He’s also one of chief minister Frank Walker’s closest collaborators: Walker has made him his special counsellor on international affairs.
But Cook raised a good point: why would France seek to fill a “black hole” with which it is preparing to conclude a very friendly cooperation accord? The agreement looks like being signed in the coming months but impatience grows. On 5 November a Jersey delegation led by Walker was in Paris hoping to speed up the preparatory stages. The get-together was brokered by a faithful advocate of Jersey’s interests, Jean-François Le Grand, the UMP (French ruling party) senator and president of the Conseil général de la Manche (an umbrella body representing the west coast of Normandy). The visit concluded with an invitation to the Luxembourg Palace and a discreet meeting with Gérard Larcher, president of the French Senate. Larcher “agreed to send out a briefing note from his office to all French senators and deputies that will explain that ‘Jersey is a well-regulated finance centre that conforms to international standards’” (6).
“Let me be absolutely clear: Jersey does not and never has condoned or encouraged the illegal activities of tax evasion and money laundering,” stated chief minister Walker in the Jersey government’s online record of the visit. Versed in the best sales techniques, Jersey’s strong man couldn’t resist taunting France’s elected representatives by dangling the island’s pot of gold in front of them.
“Jersey’s banks… benefit from some of the highest capital ratios anywhere in the world and are in the strong position of acting as a source of liquidity in the form of deposits that are passed upstream to the parent banks which need them,” stressed Walker. “Jersey is complementary to leading banks throughout Europe through the contribution they make to the liquidity of the parent banks when such liquidity is desperately needed.” With the finesse of a pastry cook unwrapping cream puffs in front of a starving customer, he concluded that one fine day countries like France would thank Jersey for its “valuable contribution to overall European economic wealth”.
The piggybank argument is of particular relevance because France has several top-flight operators on the island, where Société Générale is better known as SG Private Banking. BNP-Paribas, Cook observed, “carries out perfectly honest” transactions from its office in Rue Lamotte, right in the heart of St Helier. True, the bank isn’t there to offer loans for new kitchens. If you believe one staff member speaking quietly in a chic bar nearby, BNP Jersey concentrates on financing oil projects in Southeast Asia – a fact not confirmed by the bank’s PR machine.
Even when the service providers aren’t French they often enjoy fruitful relations with Paris. For instance, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte, two audit and accountancy multinationals, are omnipresent on the island thanks to their tax avoidance skills. One or the other also counts the French state as a client. They have been commissioned to start the audit process for the General Revision of Public Policies (GRPP) whose mission is to evaluate the nature and number of posts which can be lost in each French ministry (7).
A picturesque fiscal system
One shouldn’t be too hasty to judge a fiscal system which, even if picturesque, encourages voluntary contributions. Cook concedes that “the rich pay less tax than the poor. But it’s a cultural difference. You French believe that the rich are only useful for the taxes they contribute. Here there are other ways of helping the community, for example by donating to charitable work.” The boss of Jersey marketing proudly recited the simple mantra of native taxation practices: 20% for everyone except for the richest who benefit from a proportionate reduction. “The big earners pay 20% on their first half million then less and less by progressive steps,” Cook explained. They might pay nothing at all.
To attract even more billionaires to its overpopulated shores the Jersey government has effectively created a fiscal category all on its own, the “1(k)1”, which allows each favoured resident to negotiate his individual tax rate. The deal usually ends up at exactly 0%, in exchange for an annual fixed tax of £100,000 ($149,000) which, according to Nick le Cornu “hardly matches the fees they pay each of their lawyers”. Apart from the tax, the other stipulation, to the evident delight of Cook, is that they “undertake to serve their adopted country by offering donations to associations”.
Given this, it’s not surprising that the word “regulation” makes insiders snigger. “It doesn’t matter what the legislation is, accountants and lawyers will always circumvent it,” a tax specialist with Moore Stephens, a major firm of accountants, let slip in 2004. “Rules are rules, but rules are meant to be broken” (8).
Or again: “Anyone who has ever worked in the tax avoidance industry knows how teams of lawyers and accountants are employed to instantly scrutinise new government measures to identify tax loopholes to exploit,” says John Christensen, a former Jersey trust and company administrator who currently heads the International Secretariat of the Tax Justice Network. “To further guarantee client security most of the trust deeds include ‘flee clauses’ that trigger an instruction to their trustees at the first sign of investigation. Needless to say, these services do not come cheap. But the client’s potential earnings and tax savings are far, far larger” (9).
Is there really a desire to “eliminate” Jersey? Terry Le Main, Jersey’s housing minister, doesn’t think so. His own fortune is not huge but he owes it to a real-world business – dealing in used cars. Even if its scope is tiny compared with the offshore monster, he doesn’t do all that badly on an island measuring 14km by 7km stuffed full of garish sports cars. A man in his seventies who has seen a lot, he has confidence in the future of Franco-Jersey relations: “What worries the French is not tax havens, it’s their own inability to start a business without being wiped out by taxes. French enterprise is suppressed by the unions. Sarkozy wants to change all that which is why, as a government, we fully support his reforms.”
Translated by Robert Waterhouse
Olivier Cyran is a journalist
(1) 17 October 2008.
(2) “Steer clear of those Channel Island ‘havens’”, The Guardian, 11 October 2008.
(3) An estimate from the ONG Tax Justice Network in its report “The price of offshore”, London, March 2005. The authors calculated that a 30% tax on the interest alone would provide $225bn annually, or three times the amount the rich world gives to developing countries in aid.
(4) "Camera shy?, Voice for children blogspot, 8 October.
(5) In 2008 this list shrunk to just Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.
(6) “French friendship ‘led to Paris’”, Jersey Evening Post, 6 November 2008.
(7) See “Au congrès des coupeurs de tête”, Le Plan B, no 15, October-November 2008.
(8) Quoted by John Christensen, A game as old as empire, ed Stephen Hiatt, Bertt-Koehler, San Francisco, 2007.
(9) Op cit.
Where the rich pay less tax than the poor, or maybe none at all
President Sarkozy has threatened to do away with tax havens like Jersey. But the island’s local government isn’t worried. Market crashes may have changed their rates of return, but hedge funds and trust funds still seem happy enough with Jersey.
By Olivier Cyran
“Abolish tax havens? Oh yes, I heard something about that on the BBC. Seems like Sarkozy is getting very heated on the subject. Well, if you find a single soul here who takes him seriously, be a good chap and introduce me, won’t you?”
The finance worker stubbed out his cigarette with a laugh and dived back into an office warren whose marbled foyer has 50 or so sparkling brass plates advertising accountancy firms, currency exchange specialists, business lawyers, shell company operators. The superstructure of tax avoidance has taken over the seafront of St Helier, Jersey’s capital, a swathe of concrete flanked by cliffs slipping into the mist. Of the 90,000 inhabitants of this small Channel Island, more than 12,000 – a quarter of the workforce – have jobs in the financial services sector.
Those who believe that the French government’s diatribe against tax havens strikes fear into the hearts of interested parties are in for a surprise. On 15 October President Sarkozy launched an “uncompromising shock debate” from Brussels, according to Le Monde (1), calling for international finance to “end twilight zones”. But the local media ignored the pronouncement. The following day the Jersey Evening Post, the island’s only daily, led on the poor form of Jersey athletes in the Commonwealth Youth Games in India. Not a word about Sarkozy’s thunderous threats, taken as a cosmic event by the French press.
Were they turning their backs on danger or coolly assessing where real power lies? Perched just 20km off the Normandy coast, the States of Jersey – to give this confetti territory, officially independent although under the protection of the British Crown, its full title – enjoys a gross domestic product which, head-for-head, makes it the third richest country in the world after Luxembourg and the Bahamas. According to the American analyst Martin Sullivan, funds placed in Jersey amounted in 2006 to £500bn (2). Small potatoes compared with the $11,500bn (£7,700bn) stashed away in offshore havens by the world’s richest people (3). But Jersey’s share is expected to grow.
Local speciality
In the context of savage competition between the 70 or so registered tax havens around the world, Jersey fully intends to consolidate its position. Until last year it levied a 10% tax on foreign companies. Then the Isle of Man, one of its fiercest rivals, trumped it by abolishing all investment tax. Stung to the quick, Jersey did the same: not a penny is now taken from multinational investors.Only local financial services providers still have to pay 10%.
To distinguish itself from the crowd and to lure in hedge funds, Jersey has created new financial mechanisms. Since 1 January anyone with at least $1m to spare can play the markets via a made-to-measure shell company not subject to any authorisation or control. This innovation “comes in response to a demand from speculative funds and other alternative sources looking for an unregulated product,” explained a spokesman for Jersey Finance Ltd, the semi-public body charged with promoting the island’s attractions to investors. The “millionaires’ tourism office”, as it’s called locally, claims to have registered 80 new shell companies between February and October. Market crashes may have tarnished their reputation and changed their rates of return, but hedge funds seem happy with Jersey.
However, the local speciality remains the trust fund industry. The “trust” is a legal curiosity with infinite flexibility which allows you to shelter your personal fortune from the tax authorities – or from your partner or your beneficiaries – by registering it under a false name. Officially the money no longer belongs to you; in fact it is all yours, offering the advantages of wealth without the inconveniences. You have to be very unlucky to get the law on your heels. That was the case in July 2004 when the contested divorce of an Arsenal footballer led British justice to track suspect payments into a Jersey trust, which appeared to stash away sums of money paid to the club’s trainer and his players, including the French star Thierry Henry, outside the normal tax brackets.
“It’s rare for the client to get fingered,” explains a local dealer under promise of anonymity. “The island authorities love this sort of business. The advantage of trusts is that they are protected not just from almost all control but also from market uncertainties: crisis or not there are always plenty of rich people who need a haven to cosset their cash.”
All the same, is this system robust enough to survive capitalism on the rocks? Isn’t it worried about being battered by the likes of the French prime minister François Fillon who, on 14 October in the Assemblée Nationale, thundered: “Black holes like these offshore centres should be filled in”? Jersey’s chief minister, Frank Walker, did not wish to reply to this question. A former board director of Barclays and one-time owner of the Jersey Evening Post, sold on in 2005 to a British associate, Walker leads a government six of whose ten members are multimillionaires. For an answer, we must rely on Walker’s higher-profile colleague, Philip Ozouf, senator, minister of economic development, businessman and graduate of the European Business School in London.
Ozouf’s main claim to fame is as the inventor of the Goods and Sales Tax (GST) a 3% tithe deployed since the start of 2008 on all goods and services outside the financial sector. This tax is intended to compensate for the loss of revenue from foreign companies, filling a $147m hole in the annual state budget. Notoriously, GST applies to necessities of life like medicines and school furniture but not to yacht fuel. This makes sense when one realises that the extremely rich are sticklers for their buying power.
All the same, you’re unlikely to find a single Jersey islander not part of the offshore industry or the political machine who keeps his cool at the mention of the cursed acronym. “GST? A dirty business, typical of this island where the man in the street pays for the richest,” comments a shopkeeper in King Street, the principal hub in the historic centre of St Helier; then quickly adds “but don’t quote my name, I’m not looking for trouble.”
Fear of going public with protest paralyses most of Jersey’s malcontents. Jersey has no organised opposition party and no independent media. There is no trade union movement outside hospital and transport workers, where the body protecting salaries – affiliated to the British trades union Unite – operates under threat of reprisals from this banana republic. There’s no official cap on the working week, no protection against getting fired, no unemployment benefit, and draconian limits on the right to strike.
“We don’t live in a democracy,” said Nick Le Cornu, founder of Time4Change, one of the island’s rare opposition groups. Himself a lawyer in a financial services company, he continued: “The absence of social guarantees and of a political context benefits a financial system which has taken the country hostage and diminishes the rule of law. People are afraid. Here, even if you’re not well off you are never far away from one member or another of the ruling clan. There’s also a cultural factor: Jersey islanders are rural people; they don’t have the working class attitudes or the trades union know-how found in Britain.”
Population is unconvinced
In spite of the paradise tag given to the island, the government has failed to convince the general population of the case for tax reform. Many shops carry angry signs on their windows declaring “No GST”, meaning that the shopkeeper prefers to pay the 3% from his own margins. A petition launched against Ozouf’s tax gathered 19,000 signatures, a historic event in this socially repressed part of the world. Yet the island media – limited to the Jersey Evening Post, the local BBC station and a private television company – has shown no interest in such protest. “In the current financial turmoil the most valuable services Jersey can offer are security, solidarity and stability,” wrote the Jersey Evening Post’s political correspondent, Christine Hebert, at the start of an article on 21 October headlined “Strong values in a changing world”. The government has not seen fit to go back on GST.
You’ll always find a few madcaps to challenge the law. Neil McMurray is a former fisherman who lost a hand working. When not looking after his children he produces lively video reportage which he blogs online; recently he pursued Ozouf camera-in-hand in an attempt to obtain a statement about the tax. An irresistibly comic sequence catches the senator fleeing through crowded rooms following a meeting, pretending not to notice his pursuer who calls after him, again and again: “Mr Ozouf, a word about GST please, Mr Ozouf, please…” (4).
“When I was a fisherman” explained this do-it-yourself journalist, “I went to sea nine months each year and couldn’t care less what happened on dry land. My eyes were opened only when I stopped. Our rulers are accountable to nobody. The poor are too demoralised to vote. Only the rich go to the polls, to keep their own in power. Here, everything is about the lure of money. Young people leave the island because there’s nothing for them beyond working in a bank. The financial sector has seen off agriculture, fishing and even tourism. People are angry but they are also scared to death, which poses a real problem. The cameraman who used to help me felt himself under threat and decided to withdraw his services.”
Did he know that France’s top brass have sworn to do away with tax havens? “My own hope is that this crisis brings the whole financial structure down, even if that means making a large part of the population jobless, including my wife.”
I tried to make contact with Ozouf. He declined, but offered instead his spokesman Geoff Cook, a former financial director at HSBC. As McMurray says, “in Jersey finance and politics go hand in hand”. Cook saw me in a fourth-floor office of Jersey Finance Ltd, where he is chief executive. Though almost alarmingly bland, the man is well-known for speaking his mind. In the Jersey Evening Post of 16 October, when stock markets round the world were reacting in horror to the event, he welcomed the failure of the US bank Lehman Brothers. “In many ways it is a good thing”, he was quoted as saying. “This will take the weaker players out, which is what is needed to free up the system.”
Free up the financial system? That’s not what the French president recommends, is it? “There’s a misunderstanding,” replied the super-sales rep. “First, Jersey is no tax haven but a fiscally neutral territory, a very different matter. We have signed information-exchange agreements with the US, Germany and Holland, and are in the process of doing the same with the Nordic countries and France. If one of our partner-countries suspects a citizen of putting his money in Jersey to avoid paying tax he can ask for information on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the request must be justified. Everyone has a right to privacy, our clients like any other. But if they believe it’s a serious problem we cooperate willingly.”
The international community is not wrong. In 2002 the OECD deleted Jersey, along with some 26 other virtuous regimes like the Bahamas, the Cook Islands, Gibraltar and Panama, from its list of tax havens – which is now only three countries strong (5). The same year the International Monetary Fund published a report congratulating Jersey on its all-but-irreproachable respect for “international norms in matters of financial regulation and the fight against money laundering and financing terrorism”.
Independent regulation board
“Despite that,” Cook complained, “certain people persist in stating that our financial system is not regulated. Nothing could be more untrue. We have our own regulation board, the Jersey Financial Services Commission, which is completely independent of government.” That’s a fact. The commission’s boss, Colin Powell, has made money out of offshore finance over three decades. He’s also one of chief minister Frank Walker’s closest collaborators: Walker has made him his special counsellor on international affairs.
But Cook raised a good point: why would France seek to fill a “black hole” with which it is preparing to conclude a very friendly cooperation accord? The agreement looks like being signed in the coming months but impatience grows. On 5 November a Jersey delegation led by Walker was in Paris hoping to speed up the preparatory stages. The get-together was brokered by a faithful advocate of Jersey’s interests, Jean-François Le Grand, the UMP (French ruling party) senator and president of the Conseil général de la Manche (an umbrella body representing the west coast of Normandy). The visit concluded with an invitation to the Luxembourg Palace and a discreet meeting with Gérard Larcher, president of the French Senate. Larcher “agreed to send out a briefing note from his office to all French senators and deputies that will explain that ‘Jersey is a well-regulated finance centre that conforms to international standards’” (6).
“Let me be absolutely clear: Jersey does not and never has condoned or encouraged the illegal activities of tax evasion and money laundering,” stated chief minister Walker in the Jersey government’s online record of the visit. Versed in the best sales techniques, Jersey’s strong man couldn’t resist taunting France’s elected representatives by dangling the island’s pot of gold in front of them.
“Jersey’s banks… benefit from some of the highest capital ratios anywhere in the world and are in the strong position of acting as a source of liquidity in the form of deposits that are passed upstream to the parent banks which need them,” stressed Walker. “Jersey is complementary to leading banks throughout Europe through the contribution they make to the liquidity of the parent banks when such liquidity is desperately needed.” With the finesse of a pastry cook unwrapping cream puffs in front of a starving customer, he concluded that one fine day countries like France would thank Jersey for its “valuable contribution to overall European economic wealth”.
The piggybank argument is of particular relevance because France has several top-flight operators on the island, where Société Générale is better known as SG Private Banking. BNP-Paribas, Cook observed, “carries out perfectly honest” transactions from its office in Rue Lamotte, right in the heart of St Helier. True, the bank isn’t there to offer loans for new kitchens. If you believe one staff member speaking quietly in a chic bar nearby, BNP Jersey concentrates on financing oil projects in Southeast Asia – a fact not confirmed by the bank’s PR machine.
Even when the service providers aren’t French they often enjoy fruitful relations with Paris. For instance, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte, two audit and accountancy multinationals, are omnipresent on the island thanks to their tax avoidance skills. One or the other also counts the French state as a client. They have been commissioned to start the audit process for the General Revision of Public Policies (GRPP) whose mission is to evaluate the nature and number of posts which can be lost in each French ministry (7).
A picturesque fiscal system
One shouldn’t be too hasty to judge a fiscal system which, even if picturesque, encourages voluntary contributions. Cook concedes that “the rich pay less tax than the poor. But it’s a cultural difference. You French believe that the rich are only useful for the taxes they contribute. Here there are other ways of helping the community, for example by donating to charitable work.” The boss of Jersey marketing proudly recited the simple mantra of native taxation practices: 20% for everyone except for the richest who benefit from a proportionate reduction. “The big earners pay 20% on their first half million then less and less by progressive steps,” Cook explained. They might pay nothing at all.
To attract even more billionaires to its overpopulated shores the Jersey government has effectively created a fiscal category all on its own, the “1(k)1”, which allows each favoured resident to negotiate his individual tax rate. The deal usually ends up at exactly 0%, in exchange for an annual fixed tax of £100,000 ($149,000) which, according to Nick le Cornu “hardly matches the fees they pay each of their lawyers”. Apart from the tax, the other stipulation, to the evident delight of Cook, is that they “undertake to serve their adopted country by offering donations to associations”.
Given this, it’s not surprising that the word “regulation” makes insiders snigger. “It doesn’t matter what the legislation is, accountants and lawyers will always circumvent it,” a tax specialist with Moore Stephens, a major firm of accountants, let slip in 2004. “Rules are rules, but rules are meant to be broken” (8).
Or again: “Anyone who has ever worked in the tax avoidance industry knows how teams of lawyers and accountants are employed to instantly scrutinise new government measures to identify tax loopholes to exploit,” says John Christensen, a former Jersey trust and company administrator who currently heads the International Secretariat of the Tax Justice Network. “To further guarantee client security most of the trust deeds include ‘flee clauses’ that trigger an instruction to their trustees at the first sign of investigation. Needless to say, these services do not come cheap. But the client’s potential earnings and tax savings are far, far larger” (9).
Is there really a desire to “eliminate” Jersey? Terry Le Main, Jersey’s housing minister, doesn’t think so. His own fortune is not huge but he owes it to a real-world business – dealing in used cars. Even if its scope is tiny compared with the offshore monster, he doesn’t do all that badly on an island measuring 14km by 7km stuffed full of garish sports cars. A man in his seventies who has seen a lot, he has confidence in the future of Franco-Jersey relations: “What worries the French is not tax havens, it’s their own inability to start a business without being wiped out by taxes. French enterprise is suppressed by the unions. Sarkozy wants to change all that which is why, as a government, we fully support his reforms.”
Translated by Robert Waterhouse
Olivier Cyran is a journalist
(1) 17 October 2008.
(2) “Steer clear of those Channel Island ‘havens’”, The Guardian, 11 October 2008.
(3) An estimate from the ONG Tax Justice Network in its report “The price of offshore”, London, March 2005. The authors calculated that a 30% tax on the interest alone would provide $225bn annually, or three times the amount the rich world gives to developing countries in aid.
(4) "Camera shy?, Voice for children blogspot, 8 October.
(5) In 2008 this list shrunk to just Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.
(6) “French friendship ‘led to Paris’”, Jersey Evening Post, 6 November 2008.
(7) See “Au congrès des coupeurs de tête”, Le Plan B, no 15, October-November 2008.
(8) Quoted by John Christensen, A game as old as empire, ed Stephen Hiatt, Bertt-Koehler, San Francisco, 2007.
(9) Op cit.
INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY FAILURES GALORE
B.RAMAN
( An article written for “Mail Today”, a daily published from New Delhi, by the “India Today” group)
1991: Seven terrorists of the LTTE landed by boat clandestinely on the southern coast and proceeded to Chennai. They studied the gaps in the security arrangements made by the Tamil Nadu police at a public meeting addressed by the late V.P.Singh, former Prime Minister. They used their knowledge to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. The Navy had no inkling of the clandestine landing. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) failed to detect their presence. The Tamil Nadu Police failed to provide even the basic security to Rajiv Gandhi. The Jain Commission, which enquired into the conspiracy, found that the IB had intercepted a coded message of the LTTE, which gave some inkling of the conspiracy, but was able to break the code only after the assassination. The R&AW, which had the code-breaking capability, had not intercepted the message. Lack of integration of available intelligence and capabilities by the two agencies made the assassination possible.
1993: Dawood Ibrahim, the mafia leader, recruited some Muslims of Mumbai, had them trained by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and sent them back by air. He sent the arms and ammunition and explosives given by the ISI by boat. They were clandestinely landed on the Maharashtra coast and used in the March,1993, explosions, which killed 257 civilians. The IB and the R&AW were caught napping. The Narasimha Rao Government wanted to order an enquiry into their failure. The IB argued that it was a case of failure of integrity and not intelligence since some Customs officers, who were aware of the landing, failed to alert the IB and the Police after allegedly accepting a bribe. The proposal was dropped.
1995: An unidentified organization tried to recruit an ex-pilot of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) for a clandestine air drop of arms and ammunition in Purulia. He immediately alerted the British intelligence, which advised him to accept the assignment and keep it informed. He gave them the route of the flight and the co-ordinates of the place where the consignment was to be air-dropped and the date of the air-dropping. These details were passed on by the British Intelligence to the R&AW, which in turn passed them on to the IB, which alerted the West Bengal Police. Neither the IB nor the Police could trap the persons for whom the airdrop was made. They bungled the follow-up action. After air-dropping, the pilot took the plane to Pattaya in Thailand. The plane then flew to Chennai for refueling. Neither the airport security nor the IB could detect that this was the same plane, which had done the air-drop. They realised it only after the plane had taken off. The Indian Air Force (IAF) was alerted. It forced the plane to land in Mumbai. The crew was arrested. The man, who had hired the plane for the airdrop, was also on board. He gave a slip to the airport security and managed to flee the country.
2008: In February, the Madhya Pradesh Police arrested some leaders of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in Indore. Their interrogation revealed that the SIMI had been holding secret camps for training selected cadres in the use of weapons and explosives. Some of those, who had attended these camps, were found to have been involved in the Ahmedabad explosions of July 26. The Ahmedabad Police was not aware of what they had stated during the interrogation. Their interrogation reports had not been widely shared by the security agencies.
Again in February, the UP Police arrested some Muslims during an investigation. Their interrogation revealed that one of them, with links to the Lashkar-e-Toiba, had visited Mumbai to collect topographical information for a possible terrorist strike. He was not thoroughly interrogated by the Mumbai Police.
In September, the US intelligence alerted the R&AW twice that the LET was planning a sea-borne terrorist attack on some sea-front hotels in Mumbai, including the Taj Mahal hotel. The R&AW disseminated the alerts. Security was tightened. The LET, which was planning to strike on September 26, postponed its operation. There was no fresh information in October. The high alert was reduced. On November 19, the Indian intelligence intercepted a message that an LET vessel had left Karachi. They alerted the Navy and the Coast Guard. They did not act on it on the ground that the co-ordinates of the ship’s position placed it in Pakistani territorial waters. The coastal security in the Indian territorial waters adjoining the Mumbai sea-front was not put back to the high alert mode. Twenty terrorists of the LET clandestinely landed and struck Mumbai on the night of November 26.
Seven acts of mass casualty terrorism since November,2007. One every month since July except in August.
What do they indicate? A shocking state of affairs in our counter-terrorism community.
What we need:
An integrated counter-terrorism staff similar to the Integrated Defence Staff to integrate available intelligence and technical capabilities and follow up. A culture of joint action to ensure that everybody in the community will be individually and jointly responsible for prevention.
Upgrade the priority for terrorism-related intelligence in the charters of the agencies.
An acknowledged expert in counter-terrorism should either head the IB & the R&AW or at least be the No.2.
Induct acknowledged counter-terrorism experts into the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS)
(19-12-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. He headed the Counter-Terrorism Division of the R&AW for six years )
( An article written for “Mail Today”, a daily published from New Delhi, by the “India Today” group)
1991: Seven terrorists of the LTTE landed by boat clandestinely on the southern coast and proceeded to Chennai. They studied the gaps in the security arrangements made by the Tamil Nadu police at a public meeting addressed by the late V.P.Singh, former Prime Minister. They used their knowledge to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi. The Navy had no inkling of the clandestine landing. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) failed to detect their presence. The Tamil Nadu Police failed to provide even the basic security to Rajiv Gandhi. The Jain Commission, which enquired into the conspiracy, found that the IB had intercepted a coded message of the LTTE, which gave some inkling of the conspiracy, but was able to break the code only after the assassination. The R&AW, which had the code-breaking capability, had not intercepted the message. Lack of integration of available intelligence and capabilities by the two agencies made the assassination possible.
1993: Dawood Ibrahim, the mafia leader, recruited some Muslims of Mumbai, had them trained by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and sent them back by air. He sent the arms and ammunition and explosives given by the ISI by boat. They were clandestinely landed on the Maharashtra coast and used in the March,1993, explosions, which killed 257 civilians. The IB and the R&AW were caught napping. The Narasimha Rao Government wanted to order an enquiry into their failure. The IB argued that it was a case of failure of integrity and not intelligence since some Customs officers, who were aware of the landing, failed to alert the IB and the Police after allegedly accepting a bribe. The proposal was dropped.
1995: An unidentified organization tried to recruit an ex-pilot of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) for a clandestine air drop of arms and ammunition in Purulia. He immediately alerted the British intelligence, which advised him to accept the assignment and keep it informed. He gave them the route of the flight and the co-ordinates of the place where the consignment was to be air-dropped and the date of the air-dropping. These details were passed on by the British Intelligence to the R&AW, which in turn passed them on to the IB, which alerted the West Bengal Police. Neither the IB nor the Police could trap the persons for whom the airdrop was made. They bungled the follow-up action. After air-dropping, the pilot took the plane to Pattaya in Thailand. The plane then flew to Chennai for refueling. Neither the airport security nor the IB could detect that this was the same plane, which had done the air-drop. They realised it only after the plane had taken off. The Indian Air Force (IAF) was alerted. It forced the plane to land in Mumbai. The crew was arrested. The man, who had hired the plane for the airdrop, was also on board. He gave a slip to the airport security and managed to flee the country.
2008: In February, the Madhya Pradesh Police arrested some leaders of the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) in Indore. Their interrogation revealed that the SIMI had been holding secret camps for training selected cadres in the use of weapons and explosives. Some of those, who had attended these camps, were found to have been involved in the Ahmedabad explosions of July 26. The Ahmedabad Police was not aware of what they had stated during the interrogation. Their interrogation reports had not been widely shared by the security agencies.
Again in February, the UP Police arrested some Muslims during an investigation. Their interrogation revealed that one of them, with links to the Lashkar-e-Toiba, had visited Mumbai to collect topographical information for a possible terrorist strike. He was not thoroughly interrogated by the Mumbai Police.
In September, the US intelligence alerted the R&AW twice that the LET was planning a sea-borne terrorist attack on some sea-front hotels in Mumbai, including the Taj Mahal hotel. The R&AW disseminated the alerts. Security was tightened. The LET, which was planning to strike on September 26, postponed its operation. There was no fresh information in October. The high alert was reduced. On November 19, the Indian intelligence intercepted a message that an LET vessel had left Karachi. They alerted the Navy and the Coast Guard. They did not act on it on the ground that the co-ordinates of the ship’s position placed it in Pakistani territorial waters. The coastal security in the Indian territorial waters adjoining the Mumbai sea-front was not put back to the high alert mode. Twenty terrorists of the LET clandestinely landed and struck Mumbai on the night of November 26.
Seven acts of mass casualty terrorism since November,2007. One every month since July except in August.
What do they indicate? A shocking state of affairs in our counter-terrorism community.
What we need:
An integrated counter-terrorism staff similar to the Integrated Defence Staff to integrate available intelligence and technical capabilities and follow up. A culture of joint action to ensure that everybody in the community will be individually and jointly responsible for prevention.
Upgrade the priority for terrorism-related intelligence in the charters of the agencies.
An acknowledged expert in counter-terrorism should either head the IB & the R&AW or at least be the No.2.
Induct acknowledged counter-terrorism experts into the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS)
(19-12-08)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. He headed the Counter-Terrorism Division of the R&AW for six years )
QUOTE OF THE DAY
if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will impact on India’s Muslims and Christians, but on what India’s national interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or linguistic group identifies as it’s interest.
Out of the box - By Subramanian Swamy
Organiser Weekly, Dec. 21
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.
In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate.
What does the despicable terror and mayhem in Mumbai on November 26 signify for India? Shorn of the human tragedy, wanton destruction, and obnoxious audacity of the terrorists, it signifies a challenge to the identity of India from radical Islam.
Cinema actor Shahrukh Khan may wax eloquent about the “true Islam” on TV, but it is clear that he and other such Muslims have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, Sira and Hadith which three together constitute Islam as a theology, and which is a complete menu of intolerance of peoples of other faiths derisively labeled as kafirs. Hence, instead of talking about the “correct interpretation” of Islam they ought instead be urging for a new Islamic theology consistent with democratic principles.
In 2003, two years after the 9/11 murderous and perfidious Islamic assault on USA, resulting in killing of more than 3000 persons within two hours, and which was perpetrated by leveraging the democratic freedoms in USA, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the website of its Islamic Affairs Department [www.iad.org] laid down what a “good” Muslim is expected to do.
Dr. Steven Stalinsky of the Middle East Media Research Institute[MEMRI] based in Washington DC accessed it and published it in issue No.23, of the Institute newsletter, dated November 26[what irony!] 2003. I have to thank a NRI in US, Dr. Muthuswamy for this reference. In that site it is stated:
“The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and helpless”
Now who is more authoritative—Sharukh Khan or Saudi Arabia ? Obviously the latter. The above quote is what in substance is being taught in every madrassa in India, and can be traced back to the sayings of Prophet Mohammed.
I can quote a plethora of verses from a Saudi Arabian translated Koran [e.g., verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26] which verses justify brutal violence against non-believers. If I delved into Sira and Hadith for more quotes, then I could risk generating much hatred, so it will suffice to say that Islam is not only a theology, but it spans a brutal political ideology which we have to combat sooner or later in realm of ideas.
Some may quote back at me verses from Manusmriti about brutality to women and scheduled castes. But as a Hindu I have the liberty to disown these verses [since it is a Smriti] and even to seek to re-write a new Smriti as many, for example, Yajnavalkya have done to date. Reform and renaissance is thus inbuilt into Hinduism.
But in Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. Sharukh Khan and other gloss artists cannot disown these verses, or say that they would re-write the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives as Rushdie and Taslima have had to do.
Leave alone re-writing, if anyone draws a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed, there will follow world-wide violent rioting. But if Hussein draws Durga in the most pornographic posture, the Hindus will only groan but not violently rampage.
We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country.
Moreover, despite a 1000 years of most savage brutalisation of Hindus by Islamic invaders and self-demeaning brain washing by the Christians, even then, Hindus as a majority have adopted secularism as a creed. We have not asked for an apology and compensation for these atrocities.
But the position of Hindus in this land of Bharatmata, where Muslims and Christians locally are in majority, in pockets—such as in Kashmir and Nagaland, or in small enclaves such as town panchayats of Tamil Nadu, is terrible and despicable. Even in Kerala where Hindus are 52 per cent of the population, they have only 25 per cent of all the prime jobs in the state, and are silently suffering their plight at the hands of 48 per cent who vote as a vote bank.
The 26/11 Mumbai slaughter therefore should teach us Hindus that the time has come to wake up and stand up—it is now or never. If we do not stand up now to Islamic terrorism, then India will end up like Beirut, a permanent battlefield of international terrorists, buccaneers, pirates and missionaries.
What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up ? I mean by that a mental clarity of the Hindus to defend themselves by effective deterrent retaliation, and also an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum.
Mental clarity can only come if we are clear about the identity of the nation. What is India? An ancient but continuing civilisation or is it a geographical entity incorporated in 1947 by the Indian Independence Act of the British Parliament ?
What then does it mean to say “I am an Indian”? A mere passport holder of the Republic of India or a descendent of the great seers and visionaries of more than 10,000 years ? Obviously our identity should be of a nation of an ancient and continuing Hindu civilisation, legatees of great rishis and munis, and a highly sophisticated sanatana philosophy.
If Hindu culture is our defining identity then how can we co-opt non-Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians ? By persuading them by saam, dhaam, bheda and dand that they acknowledge with pride the truth that their ancestors are Hindus. If they do, it means that they accept Hindu culture and enlightened mores. That is, change of religion does not mean change of culture. Then we should treat such Muslims and Christians as part of our Brihad Hindu family.
Noted author and editor M.J. Akbar calls this identity as of “Blood Brothers”. It is an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in India are descendents of Hindus. In a recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, an analysis of genetic samples [DNA] show that Muslims in north India are overwhelmingly of the same DNA as Hindus proving that Muslims here are descendents of Hindus who had been converted to Islam, rather repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.
Akbar thus asks rhetorically: “When have the Muslims of India gone wrong?” and answers: “When they have forgotten their Indian roots”. How apt !
Enlightened Muslims like Akbar therefore must rise to the occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. That is India is not Darul Harab to be trifled with.
In a conciliatory atmosphere the minorities would willingly accept this. It is also in their interest to accept this reality. Hindus must persuade by the time honoured methods Muslims and Christians to accept this and its logical consequences.
This identity was not understood by us earlier because of the distorted outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the Prime Minister’s chair for seventeen formative years after 1947 and for narrow political ends, had fanned a separatist outlook in Muslims and Christians.
The failure to date, to resolve this Nehru created crisis, has not only confused the majority but confounded the minorities as well in India. This confusion has deepened with winter migratory birds such as Amartya Sen descending on the campus of the India International Centre to preach inane taxonomies such as “multiple identities”.
There has to be an over-riding identity called national identity, and hence we should not be derailed by pedestrian concepts of multiple or sub-identities.
“Without a resolution of the identity crisis today, which requires an explicit clear answer to this question of who we are, the majority will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation and in turn to the minorities.
Minorities would not understand how to adjust with the majority if this identity crisis is not resolved.
In other words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch in understanding who we are as a people, is behind most of the communal tension and inter-community distrust in the country.
“In India, the majority is the conglomerate or Brihad Hindu community which represents about 81 per cent of the total Indian population, while minorities are constituted by Muslims [13 per cent] and Christians [3 per cent]. Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and some other microscopic religious groups, represent the remaining three per cent.
Though also considered minorities, but really are so close to the majority community in culture that they are considered as a part of Hindu society. Unlike Islam and Christianity, these minority religions were founded as dissenting theologies of Hinduism. Even Zoroaster can be traced to leader of Vahikas in Mahabharata who migrated to Persia. Kaikeyi in Ramayana was from Persia when that country was hundred per cent Hindu. Thus these religions share the core concepts with Hindus such as re-incarnation, equality of all religions, and ability to meet God in this life.
That they feel increasingly alienated from Hindu society nowadays is also the consequence of India’s identity crisis caused by British historians and their Indian tutees in JNU.
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.
In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate. But shrewdly understanding the conspiracy to divide India, Mahatma Gandhi by his fast unto death and Dr. Ambedkar by his visionary rejection of separate electorate, foiled the attempt by signing the Poona Pact.
But the possibility that such attempts at dividing India socially may be made again in the future, a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Indian patriots will have to watch such attempts very carefully.
Segmentation, fragmentation, and finally balkanisation have been part of the historical process in many countries to destroy national identity and thereby cause the political division of the nation itself. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this, which has now been divided into four countries, largely due to Islamic separatism and Serbian over-reaction.
Virat Hindutva can be achieved in the first stage by Hindu consolidation, that is achieved by Hindus holding that they are Hindus first and last, by disowning primacy to their caste and regional loyalties.
This would require a renaissance in thinking and outlook, that can be fostered only by patient advocacy and intellectual ferment.
For this we need a new History text, and a proper understanding of the distinction between the four varnas [not birth based but by codes of behavior for devolution of power in society] and jati [which is birth based and mostly for marriages].
Just as Valmiki and Vyasa are regarded as Maharshis despite being of different jati from Parasuram, hence Dr. Ambedkar should be called a Maharishi for his sheer depth of knowledge of Indian history.
That he had become bitter because of Nehru systematically sidelining him is no reason not to do so.
India thus needs a Hindu renaissance today that incorporates modern principles, e.g., of the irrelevance of birth antecedents, fostering gender equality, ensuring equality before law, and accountability for all. It is also essential to integrate the entire Indian society on those principles, irrespective of religion.
Uniform Civil Code for example, is something that the vast majority of Muslim women want, but because this demand has been usurped by those who deny the equality of nationality to the Muslims, hence comes the resistance to a eminently reasonable value.
The Muslims think that this is the first step in several to subjugate them or wipe out their identity. But Muslims have quietly accepted Uniform Criminal Code [the IPC] despite that it contradicts the Sharia.
In other words, Hindutva has two components—one that Hindus can accept [such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other religion’s interests to consider. The other is the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots.
This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept of an inclusive[Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India’s continuing civilisation.
Thus, if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will impact on India’s Muslims and Christians, but on what India’s national interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or linguistic group identifies as it’s interest.
Thus such an Hindutva is positive in outlook, while raw Hindu xenophobia is negative and based on Hindu hegemony which will frighten all. Such a Hindutva will resolve our current energy-sapping identity crisis, which otherwise will completely emasculate India in the long run.
The choice for the patriotic Indian is thus clear: We need a clear and positive view of our national identity based on our Hindu past and a Hindu renaissance to unite the Hindus with constructive mind-set as well as persuade the minorities to be co-opted culturally with Hindu society.
Once being Indian means Virat Brihad Hindutva, we can tackle terrorism by an effective strategy of defence. What are the components of that strategy is the subject matter of my next column here. (To be concluded)
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.
In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate.
What does the despicable terror and mayhem in Mumbai on November 26 signify for India? Shorn of the human tragedy, wanton destruction, and obnoxious audacity of the terrorists, it signifies a challenge to the identity of India from radical Islam.
Cinema actor Shahrukh Khan may wax eloquent about the “true Islam” on TV, but it is clear that he and other such Muslims have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, Sira and Hadith which three together constitute Islam as a theology, and which is a complete menu of intolerance of peoples of other faiths derisively labeled as kafirs. Hence, instead of talking about the “correct interpretation” of Islam they ought instead be urging for a new Islamic theology consistent with democratic principles.
In 2003, two years after the 9/11 murderous and perfidious Islamic assault on USA, resulting in killing of more than 3000 persons within two hours, and which was perpetrated by leveraging the democratic freedoms in USA, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the website of its Islamic Affairs Department [www.iad.org] laid down what a “good” Muslim is expected to do.
Dr. Steven Stalinsky of the Middle East Media Research Institute[MEMRI] based in Washington DC accessed it and published it in issue No.23, of the Institute newsletter, dated November 26[what irony!] 2003. I have to thank a NRI in US, Dr. Muthuswamy for this reference. In that site it is stated:
“The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and helpless”
Now who is more authoritative—Sharukh Khan or Saudi Arabia ? Obviously the latter. The above quote is what in substance is being taught in every madrassa in India, and can be traced back to the sayings of Prophet Mohammed.
I can quote a plethora of verses from a Saudi Arabian translated Koran [e.g., verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26] which verses justify brutal violence against non-believers. If I delved into Sira and Hadith for more quotes, then I could risk generating much hatred, so it will suffice to say that Islam is not only a theology, but it spans a brutal political ideology which we have to combat sooner or later in realm of ideas.
Some may quote back at me verses from Manusmriti about brutality to women and scheduled castes. But as a Hindu I have the liberty to disown these verses [since it is a Smriti] and even to seek to re-write a new Smriti as many, for example, Yajnavalkya have done to date. Reform and renaissance is thus inbuilt into Hinduism.
But in Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. Sharukh Khan and other gloss artists cannot disown these verses, or say that they would re-write the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives as Rushdie and Taslima have had to do.
Leave alone re-writing, if anyone draws a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed, there will follow world-wide violent rioting. But if Hussein draws Durga in the most pornographic posture, the Hindus will only groan but not violently rampage.
We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country.
Moreover, despite a 1000 years of most savage brutalisation of Hindus by Islamic invaders and self-demeaning brain washing by the Christians, even then, Hindus as a majority have adopted secularism as a creed. We have not asked for an apology and compensation for these atrocities.
But the position of Hindus in this land of Bharatmata, where Muslims and Christians locally are in majority, in pockets—such as in Kashmir and Nagaland, or in small enclaves such as town panchayats of Tamil Nadu, is terrible and despicable. Even in Kerala where Hindus are 52 per cent of the population, they have only 25 per cent of all the prime jobs in the state, and are silently suffering their plight at the hands of 48 per cent who vote as a vote bank.
The 26/11 Mumbai slaughter therefore should teach us Hindus that the time has come to wake up and stand up—it is now or never. If we do not stand up now to Islamic terrorism, then India will end up like Beirut, a permanent battlefield of international terrorists, buccaneers, pirates and missionaries.
What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up ? I mean by that a mental clarity of the Hindus to defend themselves by effective deterrent retaliation, and also an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum.
Mental clarity can only come if we are clear about the identity of the nation. What is India? An ancient but continuing civilisation or is it a geographical entity incorporated in 1947 by the Indian Independence Act of the British Parliament ?
What then does it mean to say “I am an Indian”? A mere passport holder of the Republic of India or a descendent of the great seers and visionaries of more than 10,000 years ? Obviously our identity should be of a nation of an ancient and continuing Hindu civilisation, legatees of great rishis and munis, and a highly sophisticated sanatana philosophy.
If Hindu culture is our defining identity then how can we co-opt non-Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians ? By persuading them by saam, dhaam, bheda and dand that they acknowledge with pride the truth that their ancestors are Hindus. If they do, it means that they accept Hindu culture and enlightened mores. That is, change of religion does not mean change of culture. Then we should treat such Muslims and Christians as part of our Brihad Hindu family.
Noted author and editor M.J. Akbar calls this identity as of “Blood Brothers”. It is an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in India are descendents of Hindus. In a recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, an analysis of genetic samples [DNA] show that Muslims in north India are overwhelmingly of the same DNA as Hindus proving that Muslims here are descendents of Hindus who had been converted to Islam, rather repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.
Akbar thus asks rhetorically: “When have the Muslims of India gone wrong?” and answers: “When they have forgotten their Indian roots”. How apt !
Enlightened Muslims like Akbar therefore must rise to the occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. That is India is not Darul Harab to be trifled with.
In a conciliatory atmosphere the minorities would willingly accept this. It is also in their interest to accept this reality. Hindus must persuade by the time honoured methods Muslims and Christians to accept this and its logical consequences.
This identity was not understood by us earlier because of the distorted outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the Prime Minister’s chair for seventeen formative years after 1947 and for narrow political ends, had fanned a separatist outlook in Muslims and Christians.
The failure to date, to resolve this Nehru created crisis, has not only confused the majority but confounded the minorities as well in India. This confusion has deepened with winter migratory birds such as Amartya Sen descending on the campus of the India International Centre to preach inane taxonomies such as “multiple identities”.
There has to be an over-riding identity called national identity, and hence we should not be derailed by pedestrian concepts of multiple or sub-identities.
“Without a resolution of the identity crisis today, which requires an explicit clear answer to this question of who we are, the majority will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation and in turn to the minorities.
Minorities would not understand how to adjust with the majority if this identity crisis is not resolved.
In other words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch in understanding who we are as a people, is behind most of the communal tension and inter-community distrust in the country.
“In India, the majority is the conglomerate or Brihad Hindu community which represents about 81 per cent of the total Indian population, while minorities are constituted by Muslims [13 per cent] and Christians [3 per cent]. Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and some other microscopic religious groups, represent the remaining three per cent.
Though also considered minorities, but really are so close to the majority community in culture that they are considered as a part of Hindu society. Unlike Islam and Christianity, these minority religions were founded as dissenting theologies of Hinduism. Even Zoroaster can be traced to leader of Vahikas in Mahabharata who migrated to Persia. Kaikeyi in Ramayana was from Persia when that country was hundred per cent Hindu. Thus these religions share the core concepts with Hindus such as re-incarnation, equality of all religions, and ability to meet God in this life.
That they feel increasingly alienated from Hindu society nowadays is also the consequence of India’s identity crisis caused by British historians and their Indian tutees in JNU.
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.
In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate. But shrewdly understanding the conspiracy to divide India, Mahatma Gandhi by his fast unto death and Dr. Ambedkar by his visionary rejection of separate electorate, foiled the attempt by signing the Poona Pact.
But the possibility that such attempts at dividing India socially may be made again in the future, a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Indian patriots will have to watch such attempts very carefully.
Segmentation, fragmentation, and finally balkanisation have been part of the historical process in many countries to destroy national identity and thereby cause the political division of the nation itself. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this, which has now been divided into four countries, largely due to Islamic separatism and Serbian over-reaction.
Virat Hindutva can be achieved in the first stage by Hindu consolidation, that is achieved by Hindus holding that they are Hindus first and last, by disowning primacy to their caste and regional loyalties.
This would require a renaissance in thinking and outlook, that can be fostered only by patient advocacy and intellectual ferment.
For this we need a new History text, and a proper understanding of the distinction between the four varnas [not birth based but by codes of behavior for devolution of power in society] and jati [which is birth based and mostly for marriages].
Just as Valmiki and Vyasa are regarded as Maharshis despite being of different jati from Parasuram, hence Dr. Ambedkar should be called a Maharishi for his sheer depth of knowledge of Indian history.
That he had become bitter because of Nehru systematically sidelining him is no reason not to do so.
India thus needs a Hindu renaissance today that incorporates modern principles, e.g., of the irrelevance of birth antecedents, fostering gender equality, ensuring equality before law, and accountability for all. It is also essential to integrate the entire Indian society on those principles, irrespective of religion.
Uniform Civil Code for example, is something that the vast majority of Muslim women want, but because this demand has been usurped by those who deny the equality of nationality to the Muslims, hence comes the resistance to a eminently reasonable value.
The Muslims think that this is the first step in several to subjugate them or wipe out their identity. But Muslims have quietly accepted Uniform Criminal Code [the IPC] despite that it contradicts the Sharia.
In other words, Hindutva has two components—one that Hindus can accept [such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other religion’s interests to consider. The other is the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots.
This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept of an inclusive[Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India’s continuing civilisation.
Thus, if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will impact on India’s Muslims and Christians, but on what India’s national interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or linguistic group identifies as it’s interest.
Thus such an Hindutva is positive in outlook, while raw Hindu xenophobia is negative and based on Hindu hegemony which will frighten all. Such a Hindutva will resolve our current energy-sapping identity crisis, which otherwise will completely emasculate India in the long run.
The choice for the patriotic Indian is thus clear: We need a clear and positive view of our national identity based on our Hindu past and a Hindu renaissance to unite the Hindus with constructive mind-set as well as persuade the minorities to be co-opted culturally with Hindu society.
Once being Indian means Virat Brihad Hindutva, we can tackle terrorism by an effective strategy of defence. What are the components of that strategy is the subject matter of my next column here. (To be concluded)
December 18, 2008
Ideology of a state: Governance and Non-State actors
Guest Column-By Ravi Sundaralingam
(The views expressed are author's own)
Abstract: As India gears up one more level on security, we detect Statism seeping into many arguments. We ask, (1) can India as a country compatible with such notions, (2) whether such position can lead to the security of the state and safety of its people? We also have questions about (3) India’s decisions that may have serious repercussions for the regions and (4) such decisions in connection to its historical past. We are convinced (5) Project-India can’t be confined to its borders, and (6) of its responsibilities beyond the colonial boundaries. We also suggest that (7) some of these duties and responsibilities can be delegated trough its regional institutions, depending on the nature and sensitive of the tasks.
As Pakistan’s civilian government took a dangerous step forward to reign in the militants its state helped to create, US continued its bombardment inside its territory, and India announced a complete overhaul of its system, ‘terrorists watch’ and warned its citizens that they may have to give up some of their 'freedom' if they want the terrorists defeated. The UN Ambassador for Pakistan explained it would have been declared a ‘terrorist state’ and the sanctions would have crippled its economy, if Pakistan didn’t agree to ban the organisations accused of the recent ‘barbaric attack’, as Dr. Manmohan Singh put it, on India. Unfortunately, Pakistan has been a cripple inside long before the Islamists started to vie for power than being just partners to military dictatorships or the occasional civilian governments, and the butchering started in earnest in Afghanistan. India’s Foreign Minister pledged for a resolute campaign for an international agreement on ‘terrorism’ and the Prime Minister gave it credence by promising, "India would not show double standard on the issue". These are of course serious statements of intent on top of the policy shift India has made in recent times about its region.
After the LeT lead raid on Mumbai, “the rape of India” described with his paintings MF.Husain one of India's greatest painters, who lives in exile for ‘artistic-transgression’, Indians unlike any other times have been discussing about Project-India with an earnest and critical eye. Questions hitherto too sensitive are asked openly, and people of all walks of life give their uncompromising responses without fear. In some cases they wore ugly masks; when equating the Muslims with Pakistan, and the Pakistanis with terrorism, whipped up by some sections of the media and political parties. Indians in general remained restrained and composed, and discussed about India, not Pakistan, analytical in their assessment of their long march, and their responsibilities as one of the leading Global players; “hatred and anger into productiveness” as Ho Chi Minh had suggested.
Their questions fall into two categories. One, immediate in nature and about the systematic approach to protect India and those who serve it, and the consequences of the steps they could take. Two, how India can avoid such events, organised within or externally, and are really about “how inclusive India is” not 'just for itself' but for the entire region. Inevitably they lead to the questions about the 'Nehru-Ambedker' political and 'Gandhi-Tagore' spiritual visions as reference axes, mapping the recent historical events as correlation points. One can understand the range of emotions and anxieties, and their extremities: they are angry at the lack of spontaneous outpouring of emotions when outrages are committed in less fashionable poorer neighbourhoods or Imphal or Guhawati compared to the noise made after Mumbai; they are confused and suspicious about their media, quick to extol the virtues of their braves, the soldiers, but only a few months ago cast them in less appealing light when they demanded some financial recompense in exchange; they were full of praise of the bravery of their guardians yet, were enraged to see them walking into the terrorist dens with five-inch pistols where well-kitted out 'modern-terrorist' waited; etc.
Indians seem are sincerely beginning to think about the Other-India, and seek a relationship with it. If this is true, then as outsiders with many expectations, and were to answer the questions India is asking itself, how would we fair? Where would our answers lead us?
Q: Does India have the right to defend itself?
A: Yes it does, without any preconditions.
Q: Does it have to worry about taking action because both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers?
A: This is a specious question.
The knowledge that India is a Nuclear power doesn’t deter Pakistan from taking actions like in Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. Why should it bother India?
The rules of engagements are different here; both don't want to use nuclear weapons even as a threat, but want to probe each other without any other conditions, or with conditions the other doesn't accept.
The whole point of Pakistan’s outward exercises are not about India, but about Pakistan itself. Just as it implodes, it explodes outwardly as a means of rightful expression of anger and injustice, but in reality searching for its own self, a sense of purpose.
It is about its survival as a state, its territorial integrity, its status as an aspiring middle ranking power with Iran challenging, and immediately, prevention of an economic meltdown.
As for India, it is about its position in the region as the superpower, not as a regional power in the region, and about its unity.
Q: Doesn’t India ripping itself apart in some of its regions?
A: Yes, true. However, the questions within India are towards unity, about inclusiveness, and empowerment.
But, the questions over its Western-border are about the nature of the state and the meaning of Pakistan itself.
We may add, it is also a process in Afghanistan, and on India's Southern flank, Sri Lanka; India is surrounded by failing or failed states. But, India cannot allow them to be completely unaccountable.
Q: Can India make much of the non-state actors, while it has swathe of territories conceded to non-state actors?
A: Yes it can. Firstly, it means many things, different type of actors. Secondly, some of the non-state actors in Pakistan and Afghanistan are involved in cross-border terrorism, and India cannot be accused of the same, the easy answer. Complicating any process towards a solution is the involvement of some elements of the Pakistani state apparatuses that either encouraged or lost control over these groups; no one is in a position to accept responsibility for such actions. In this respect, accountability may also mean several things.
Q: Aren't these superfluous arguments? Justifying India’s present positions and to mask its past involvement in the region? For example, didn’t Tamil militant groups receive India's help a while ago?
A: Yes, they did.
No, masking or justifying India’s present or past policies or involvements is not our job.
Our objective is to see whether there are any real shifts in the Indian foreign policy, particularly after the demise of the bi-polar world? And to search these changes are real and tangible or temporary and dishonest?
India has sharply changed its policy towards all its neighbours. Security and development seem to be the main planks of this drive. Which comes first depends on the quality of involvement and, more importantly, all these policies are implemented through the existing and recognised institutions. In this context, it is aggressively pursuing a friendly Statist policy towards every country in the region.
As for practical evidences of these changes, one can see that in the recent history of the civil war in Sri Lanka and the tilting of the military balance in favour of the state away from the LTTE. Indian policy changes are so fundamental and drastic the Sri Lankan military chief could not resist making derogative comments about Tamil politicians in India and taunt them to change the course directed by Delhi. Even after facing serious protests from Tamil Nadu at the provocations, and ignoring the ploy to test the unity of India, the Indian state's unflinching support for the Sri Lankan state clearly illustrates our point. Its refusal to get involved in the events to dislodge the military dictatorship in Myanmar, despite push from the West and pressure from inside shows consistency of its application. Even the Maoist takeover in Nepal didn't make its knees tremble and act as though was, "here, we may need to think differently".
Q: What has been achieved by these policy changes?
A: Evidently, nothing.
Pakistan continues its attack on India though non-state actors or directly, whenever it feels the need to. To deflect the tension it has on its Pashtuns borders, with tribal loyalties to its majority in Afghanistan, which has claim on the territory, and the pressure from the US and the West on terrorism, it would want to open its Eastern frontier time to time, a well documented ploy.
In Sri Lanka, the state now assured of itself, go on in its way to disregard what are decent and principled for India in exchange for what is needed by India; and Tamils and other minorities are at its mercy. Though much was expected from India’s Foreign Minister expected visit, now we learn that is also being cancelled, to the disappointment of Tamils.
Hardly anything worth mentioning has happened on India’s Eastern or North-eastern borders, except for the maintenance of status quo.
However, beneath this docile looking expression, India is stirring and marking a few reference points, which cannot be easily itemised, only in time will of their benefits of them. For example, what has been a thorny issue of ownership about its North Western territories has now reduced to an issue of security and terrorism.
Q: Can India be secure by investing the entire sovereignty of the people in a state?
A: No. India's sovereignty comes from its people and instituted in a very complex way. Firstly, as a country it derives its sovereignty through its regional 'nation' states, and directly though elected representatives to the centre. Secondly, at the centre these arrangements are reorganised according to the coalition put together as the government of the day. In theory and practice, whatever people think or however much it is corrupt, the present system is a guarantee that at least the nominal sovereignty of the individuals remains with the people locally.
It may be a case in point if India were going through a civil war such as that US endured, or an invasion such as Nippon devastation China encountered. However, the greatest trauma, the vast majority of the great Indian people experience, is the condition they are living in and watching their pain and sacrifice exchanged for the benefits of those already in power and economic control of their lives, other than the colonised era and the partition that followed in the North and East sixty years ago.
Policy makers, distracted by the turmoil on its western borders are increasingly becoming Statists in their arguments. Strangely, they have assigned the job of preserving the state, which they never invented or made into being, and turned their duty of 'maintaining' a state functions into an ownership and therefore, making the whole project into a state orientated regressive task. They have stopped realising their own private experiences that tells them, "when we loose sight of the pleasures the simple natures greatest assets freely give, we become attached to tasks and stop living, and everything thereafter become work".
India's assets are its multitude of people, their imagination and their perceptions of the world in all its aspects, their ability to absorb anything thrown at them and make something of it, crudely speaking in modern palaver, the human-resources. If Statism is to be the mere response to their real anxieties, and it is to be superimposed on all discussions to satisfy the urgency of today, then the danger is the true India sliding into an argument of a state rather than of its peoples.
Q: Isn't the state responsible for peoples' safety and security?
A: Yes, but it can't be everywhere.
Furthermore, it is the peoples' safety and security and not that of the state. This is semantics for the stakeholders, who have a sense of ownership and control over the state, and their lives. But, for those alienated from power, not really reaping the development dividends, those feel that they can have no effect in the society, it makes full sense.
No one is suggesting that the people themselves can run their affairs without a centrally organised regulatory body, except 'free marketers' and anarchists. Every country profess to have a democratic system are beginning to ask these same set of questions at some point; "How do we defeat the terrorists?"
What is never seems to be a question is, "What does winning or defeating means?"
When the poor, semi-illiterate and highly indoctrinated jihadi young men left Pakistan, they knew they would not return, as there is nothing worth returning to. Their lives meant nothing more than their handlers would have told them and that is in their deaths those values are found: a place in paradise, and financial compensation for their relatives. Their mission was to reduce their 'enemies' to the value of their lives, not by killing every person, which is impossible, but by making the rest broken inside and lose confidence in themselves, and perhaps making them as violent Nihilists as they were.
When a community feels it cannot function without protection, it is not a community at all. If a community feels it can trade its freedom for security or it cannot fully exercise its freedom collectively or as individuals then it has already begun to lose the sight of freedom. We are not talking about abstract or absolute freedom here, but those values any given community feel it has.
If terrorism by any means worth its salt, it would be to achieve precisely these objectives to make us loose what we hold valuable as principles and beliefs about humanity and ourselves as a first step. Perhaps if they had a second step, they may want to negotiate a political settlement, whatever that is.
Pakistan's rulers have been true Statists, and have been telling their 'citizens' why the repressive political and military conditions and why they have to sacrifice their freedom: for the safety and security it wanted for them from its enemies, especially India.
Have the Pakistanis got any form of security and safety promised for so long? How long before they are likely to enjoy the freedom Indian take for granted? Is Pakistan in a position to stop US bombing its ‘people’?
Many think India is a weak state, but how many would be prepared to live in China, which undoubtedly exhibits overt strength and resolve in order to have safety and security for its state, and very little of people or freedom?
The questions and arguments may be the same in the West, but the conditions are drastically different. Most in Europe are nation-states with homogenised population, except for 3-6% immigrants. They are economically advanced, and have some form of welfare system, that ensures dispossessed young don't end up in Madarassa equivalents. Their concepts of freedom evolved as small nation-states and are constructed through institutions during the last three centuries, largely influenced by the interactions between neighbours and therefore, administrated by the states. For the majority obedience to the centralised authority is as normal as speaking about freedom.
The people in US however, are vastly different. In their own convoluted way they are looking to be free as the Indians. Unfortunately, largely due to being European descendants they have no other knowledge, but to construct their way towards it.
Q: Then, where does India fit in, when it has so expansive an understanding on the subject of freedom?
A: India’s suffering from foreign orchestrated terror and destruction, which are fronted by non-state actors, naturally leads to the Statist logic. Its demand for institutional accountability of the non-state actors through states or other recognised forums, UN, regional bodies is reasonable and emotionally sound.
Yet there is no denying, that this all encompassing new terminologies and arguments give the state wider powers. It can now deal with any in the same manner, if they were terrorist fronts or liberation groups or other NGOs, or provide assistance to other states, which has civil conflicts. However, even this Statist perspective can offer some hope for ordinary people if as Dr. Manmohan Singh suggested, we can underpin real and practical values of human-rights, as a program of empowerment along with the issues of security. This thought, not a promises, alone give us confidence that India wouldn’t conclude that state alone can be the way with it all. We are sure India would insists human-rights as one of its basic principles to define the terminologies ‘security’ and ‘non-state actors’, as any state's dealings with its 'citizens', including its own.
Q: If the political classes in all the leading countries become Statists, what happen to the basic rights of people?
A: Disaster.
Everyone agrees, in the failing states the governments at the centre cannot and don't represent all the communities, and in fact, would be in conflict with many of them. Therefore, the non-state actors by choice or force become part of peoples’ daily live. While we accept all non-state actors must be accountable, our question is about how it should be done? How is it possible for a state to account for something, which it disregarded, campaigned against the people and causes it represented be the only institution to account for it without destroying?
What about the ‘Fund Mangers’ of the ‘money market’, who have brought the world economic system to a stand still? The world has suffered greater disaster from the terrorists than these grey, invisible men? These wo/men who manage other people’s money are more powerful non-state actors as any, but can they ever be accounted through a single state?
Q: What happens to the agreements the non-state actors may have had or precedents established with existing institutions?
A: In Sri Lanka, the Tamils are in conflict with the island’s Sinhala state for a long time, long before the rise and fall of many terminologies that describe them. Though, the present phase is presented, as a conflict between a group, the LTTE, and the state, one cannot undo all the history just by evoking a terminology. It is not just a history written in blood, sweat, and sacrifice, but murder mayhem and genocide.
Ignoring all this, for the purpose of argument, we recall it is also a history of peace talks and agreements, whether implemented or not, between a people and various groups and parties represented them over the past sixty years, thereby making the entire people as non-state actors during this period of time. Can this fact, the history, be also wiped out by this terminology and the people forced to return to the fold of the very state, which says, they do not have any demand as it belonged to the majority people, the Sinhalese?
Q: Do the non-state actors have a role to play in the future?
A: The role of the non-state actors is as vital as the centralised power India, for the people of India as much as for all other in the developing world. It is this element, as enterprisers, social-consciousness raisers, developers and empowering merchants who have brought the development India has witnessed. And it is these elements with the support of the centralised authority, which can take the development and empowerment deep inside the hinterlands, guaranteeing peace and security everyone wants.
In this sense, it is not the total loyalty what is required by any centralised authority from these non-state actors, but agreements towards peaceful co-existence and development and accountability to those effects.
The development India sees is largely induced by private enterprise and private capitalism, in which the state has a vested interest, and acts mainly as a regulator. It social policies fail to fully materialise as the politicians and the establishment ensure the allocations and provisions trickled nowhere below. The disparity and polarity in development is vast, and the predictions between the North and Southern parts of India are not promising. Even within the states, between the urban and rural developments, the disparity is growing wider in the North than in the South, where the politicians for all their corruptions and villainous behaviour seem socially more aware and accountable.
Yet, development has brought greater stability within India and considerable political unity, and has raised the quest for psychological unity, thereby more security. It can therefore argue and assert from its own experience, "What is true and worked for many of its people can also be true for others who haven't been touch by development whether they are in or outside its borders".
Q: Does it mean India helping Pakistan to become economically viable?
A: Yes, a healthy and developed Pakistan and Afghanistan is the best guarantee to prevent cross-border jihadi terrorism, not just in India, even in Europe. And a healthy caring India is absolutely vital as an immune system to prevent any infections from such interactions.
He same attitude and actions are also needed on its Southern region, where the long suffering masses in the island of Sri Lanka are waiting for their turn to develop and prosper. Having lost two or more generations to state-terrorism and counter-terrorism, and civil war, the communities are at a loss with third grade politicians and fifth grade bureaucrats managing the affairs, where the military leaders on both sides determines the real say. This is a matter that can be easily taken care of by India's Southern states, if so delegated, for the benefit of all the communities big or small, Sinhala or Tamil speaking.
Conclusion:
Project -India isn't limited within its colonial borders, and terrorism for one cannot be allowed to set the framework for Indian policies for itself or for its region.
India has seen off many devastative phases throughout is mythical existence, but this is the generation that feels it has "more to loose" than others in the past, which faced much harsher conditions than a failing state can throw at them. With this new mood, will India be prepared to be in connection with its past, and suffer more for the sake of humanity? Or could this be one of many foolish notions of India, from those looking in but not experiencing it? These questions may seem philosophical or idealistic, but we believe the answers India will arrive have serious implications for those sincerely concerned about the human-condition.
India's complexity and diversity as a people are gigantic compared to Africa, which has almost the same population. Africa has only two major religions, Christianity and Islam, and three main languages, English, Arabic and French, except for a few who spoke Spanish on its west coast. Because of these two-pronged successful cultural subversions, the African social-transformation has staggered, and is very much tribalistic than nationalistic. Imagine Africa as whole trying or forced or feel the need to live as 'one country'? It isn't strange that JBS Haldane described India “as the closest approximation to the Free world” and verified the meaning of his citizenship, “proud of being a citizen of India, which is a lot more diverse than Europe, let alone the USA, USSR, or China, and thus a better model for a possible world organization. It may of course break up, but it is a wonderful experiment. So I want to be labelled as a citizen of India (not as citizen of the world as suggested).” In these moments of fury, the tendency would be to dismiss a scientist or historian like Haldane and EP Thompson, as eccentrics incredulous to the rigours of the real world, mere idealists living in their own imagined space.
The grey clouds during Mrs. Gandhi’s emergency time, and India’s darkest hour in its modern history, the military assault on one its spiritual home, and the continuing endemic corruption in the socio-political system are all too much to account for all of us, and some started to have doubts about the ideals of the Indian-project altogether. Are we then reappraising something that is already dead? Are we simple peddlers of yesterday’s ideals when, death to all ideologies is the prediction? We wonder, can the past be so clinically cut off; to trace them and to make any deductions from them can be accused of being unscientific, unrealistic, bordering naivety?
Many historians and pundits have done India’s burial many times over. Only a few years ago we watched a documentary in which a well-spoken West Bengali Marxist expert welcomed its disintegration within a decade or two, with his own merry way to analysis. We now watch their followers violently fight their own peasants to bring in the ultimate Indian institution, the Tatas, to make economic progress to the state. Beyond all the venom of these contemporary punditry, India has survived the most turbulent of its period, the cataclysmic colonial era, and absorbed all its worth to reassess and, today reassert itself as a world economic power, a position it held prior to that time. Yet it was they, the colonialists, who had brought in the political union it never had, but its unity still to be achieved. Those of us who feel raped, helpless, and angry, can we imagine how our forefathers felt when they watched their resources being plundered, some times for no use than pure fun, animals the generations of Indian civilisation helped to preserve wiped in the name of 'sport', and beyond all these injuries, the men and women of one of the oldest civilisation treated like children, not citizens or slaves.
Today as One India demanded respect and dignity for its people from outsiders, without flexing the extra muzzles the modern India has acquired, while many in the Other-India and around its borders are left wanting, expecting India will also address them with the same favour.
Not single Indian or a government can claim to have created the Indian state. What the Northern or Southern-Tamil Emperors could not do, British achieved it; what was always there, the basic universality of an Indian, Gandhi among many others rekindled it, and the economy, the new sense of purpose for the middle India, happened not because of the state, but of globalisation. Any evolutionary process has its own course; one cannot make too much work out it. India that is imagined was there before the Brits arrived, it survived and continued its journey after they had left, and it will still be there on its way when we are also dead and gone. Even the Intelligence Report 2025 says so; they should know a thing or two better than some of us, the US for while was hell-bent on testing the Indian concept of unity and its peoples' resolve with a few test of its own.
We are convinced the ultimate destination of project-India, therefore, we don't worry about its survival or India’s unity as the self-doubts of some of those who have taken charge of its state. India is not an accident, but an evolution of a continent of people, far ahead in many aspects in perception of human condition, and their social relationships than economically advanced nations and continents. It is a people who know their beginning and end, but continually suffer as impediments are placed on their way to confuse and complicate their journey. If invasions and raids and barbaric attacks on its people are the impediments, some form of tests, then the reactions in the same vein would be an attack on India's universal-self, its soul; no outsider, but themselves can undermine that fundamental notion of Indianess.
It is logical and practical to propose its systemised security can only be implemented through regional hubs. It is a fact and an evolving historical perspective that Indian concept of democracy, freedom and empowerment are all intertwined are developed and instituted through its local and regional socio-economic structures. The so called external events that affect the Indians as a whole originate, felt more seriously and suffer the consequences more within its regions than those living on the other end. Isn’t it therefore, logical and practical that the so called external policies are done through its regional institutions under the centralised bodies?
It is with this confidence we ask India, what are its future decisions going to be? Not the immediate policy directives on cross-border terrorism, TADA, its proposals to ‘deter’ terrorism and the like, but about itself in connection to the region around it? Can modern India build high iron-fences around its shiny new citadels to keep its own 'unwanted' and the poor away? In the manner, can it build a security-wall around its seas and land borders to keep the people out, who are in every sense connected to it, in the name of terrorism?
We wait with confidence than mere hope.
(Ravi Sundaralingam can be reached by E-mail: academic. secretary@gmail.com)
(The views expressed are author's own)
Abstract: As India gears up one more level on security, we detect Statism seeping into many arguments. We ask, (1) can India as a country compatible with such notions, (2) whether such position can lead to the security of the state and safety of its people? We also have questions about (3) India’s decisions that may have serious repercussions for the regions and (4) such decisions in connection to its historical past. We are convinced (5) Project-India can’t be confined to its borders, and (6) of its responsibilities beyond the colonial boundaries. We also suggest that (7) some of these duties and responsibilities can be delegated trough its regional institutions, depending on the nature and sensitive of the tasks.
As Pakistan’s civilian government took a dangerous step forward to reign in the militants its state helped to create, US continued its bombardment inside its territory, and India announced a complete overhaul of its system, ‘terrorists watch’ and warned its citizens that they may have to give up some of their 'freedom' if they want the terrorists defeated. The UN Ambassador for Pakistan explained it would have been declared a ‘terrorist state’ and the sanctions would have crippled its economy, if Pakistan didn’t agree to ban the organisations accused of the recent ‘barbaric attack’, as Dr. Manmohan Singh put it, on India. Unfortunately, Pakistan has been a cripple inside long before the Islamists started to vie for power than being just partners to military dictatorships or the occasional civilian governments, and the butchering started in earnest in Afghanistan. India’s Foreign Minister pledged for a resolute campaign for an international agreement on ‘terrorism’ and the Prime Minister gave it credence by promising, "India would not show double standard on the issue". These are of course serious statements of intent on top of the policy shift India has made in recent times about its region.
After the LeT lead raid on Mumbai, “the rape of India” described with his paintings MF.Husain one of India's greatest painters, who lives in exile for ‘artistic-transgression’, Indians unlike any other times have been discussing about Project-India with an earnest and critical eye. Questions hitherto too sensitive are asked openly, and people of all walks of life give their uncompromising responses without fear. In some cases they wore ugly masks; when equating the Muslims with Pakistan, and the Pakistanis with terrorism, whipped up by some sections of the media and political parties. Indians in general remained restrained and composed, and discussed about India, not Pakistan, analytical in their assessment of their long march, and their responsibilities as one of the leading Global players; “hatred and anger into productiveness” as Ho Chi Minh had suggested.
Their questions fall into two categories. One, immediate in nature and about the systematic approach to protect India and those who serve it, and the consequences of the steps they could take. Two, how India can avoid such events, organised within or externally, and are really about “how inclusive India is” not 'just for itself' but for the entire region. Inevitably they lead to the questions about the 'Nehru-Ambedker' political and 'Gandhi-Tagore' spiritual visions as reference axes, mapping the recent historical events as correlation points. One can understand the range of emotions and anxieties, and their extremities: they are angry at the lack of spontaneous outpouring of emotions when outrages are committed in less fashionable poorer neighbourhoods or Imphal or Guhawati compared to the noise made after Mumbai; they are confused and suspicious about their media, quick to extol the virtues of their braves, the soldiers, but only a few months ago cast them in less appealing light when they demanded some financial recompense in exchange; they were full of praise of the bravery of their guardians yet, were enraged to see them walking into the terrorist dens with five-inch pistols where well-kitted out 'modern-terrorist' waited; etc.
Indians seem are sincerely beginning to think about the Other-India, and seek a relationship with it. If this is true, then as outsiders with many expectations, and were to answer the questions India is asking itself, how would we fair? Where would our answers lead us?
Q: Does India have the right to defend itself?
A: Yes it does, without any preconditions.
Q: Does it have to worry about taking action because both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers?
A: This is a specious question.
The knowledge that India is a Nuclear power doesn’t deter Pakistan from taking actions like in Mumbai, Bangalore, etc. Why should it bother India?
The rules of engagements are different here; both don't want to use nuclear weapons even as a threat, but want to probe each other without any other conditions, or with conditions the other doesn't accept.
The whole point of Pakistan’s outward exercises are not about India, but about Pakistan itself. Just as it implodes, it explodes outwardly as a means of rightful expression of anger and injustice, but in reality searching for its own self, a sense of purpose.
It is about its survival as a state, its territorial integrity, its status as an aspiring middle ranking power with Iran challenging, and immediately, prevention of an economic meltdown.
As for India, it is about its position in the region as the superpower, not as a regional power in the region, and about its unity.
Q: Doesn’t India ripping itself apart in some of its regions?
A: Yes, true. However, the questions within India are towards unity, about inclusiveness, and empowerment.
But, the questions over its Western-border are about the nature of the state and the meaning of Pakistan itself.
We may add, it is also a process in Afghanistan, and on India's Southern flank, Sri Lanka; India is surrounded by failing or failed states. But, India cannot allow them to be completely unaccountable.
Q: Can India make much of the non-state actors, while it has swathe of territories conceded to non-state actors?
A: Yes it can. Firstly, it means many things, different type of actors. Secondly, some of the non-state actors in Pakistan and Afghanistan are involved in cross-border terrorism, and India cannot be accused of the same, the easy answer. Complicating any process towards a solution is the involvement of some elements of the Pakistani state apparatuses that either encouraged or lost control over these groups; no one is in a position to accept responsibility for such actions. In this respect, accountability may also mean several things.
Q: Aren't these superfluous arguments? Justifying India’s present positions and to mask its past involvement in the region? For example, didn’t Tamil militant groups receive India's help a while ago?
A: Yes, they did.
No, masking or justifying India’s present or past policies or involvements is not our job.
Our objective is to see whether there are any real shifts in the Indian foreign policy, particularly after the demise of the bi-polar world? And to search these changes are real and tangible or temporary and dishonest?
India has sharply changed its policy towards all its neighbours. Security and development seem to be the main planks of this drive. Which comes first depends on the quality of involvement and, more importantly, all these policies are implemented through the existing and recognised institutions. In this context, it is aggressively pursuing a friendly Statist policy towards every country in the region.
As for practical evidences of these changes, one can see that in the recent history of the civil war in Sri Lanka and the tilting of the military balance in favour of the state away from the LTTE. Indian policy changes are so fundamental and drastic the Sri Lankan military chief could not resist making derogative comments about Tamil politicians in India and taunt them to change the course directed by Delhi. Even after facing serious protests from Tamil Nadu at the provocations, and ignoring the ploy to test the unity of India, the Indian state's unflinching support for the Sri Lankan state clearly illustrates our point. Its refusal to get involved in the events to dislodge the military dictatorship in Myanmar, despite push from the West and pressure from inside shows consistency of its application. Even the Maoist takeover in Nepal didn't make its knees tremble and act as though was, "here, we may need to think differently".
Q: What has been achieved by these policy changes?
A: Evidently, nothing.
Pakistan continues its attack on India though non-state actors or directly, whenever it feels the need to. To deflect the tension it has on its Pashtuns borders, with tribal loyalties to its majority in Afghanistan, which has claim on the territory, and the pressure from the US and the West on terrorism, it would want to open its Eastern frontier time to time, a well documented ploy.
In Sri Lanka, the state now assured of itself, go on in its way to disregard what are decent and principled for India in exchange for what is needed by India; and Tamils and other minorities are at its mercy. Though much was expected from India’s Foreign Minister expected visit, now we learn that is also being cancelled, to the disappointment of Tamils.
Hardly anything worth mentioning has happened on India’s Eastern or North-eastern borders, except for the maintenance of status quo.
However, beneath this docile looking expression, India is stirring and marking a few reference points, which cannot be easily itemised, only in time will of their benefits of them. For example, what has been a thorny issue of ownership about its North Western territories has now reduced to an issue of security and terrorism.
Q: Can India be secure by investing the entire sovereignty of the people in a state?
A: No. India's sovereignty comes from its people and instituted in a very complex way. Firstly, as a country it derives its sovereignty through its regional 'nation' states, and directly though elected representatives to the centre. Secondly, at the centre these arrangements are reorganised according to the coalition put together as the government of the day. In theory and practice, whatever people think or however much it is corrupt, the present system is a guarantee that at least the nominal sovereignty of the individuals remains with the people locally.
It may be a case in point if India were going through a civil war such as that US endured, or an invasion such as Nippon devastation China encountered. However, the greatest trauma, the vast majority of the great Indian people experience, is the condition they are living in and watching their pain and sacrifice exchanged for the benefits of those already in power and economic control of their lives, other than the colonised era and the partition that followed in the North and East sixty years ago.
Policy makers, distracted by the turmoil on its western borders are increasingly becoming Statists in their arguments. Strangely, they have assigned the job of preserving the state, which they never invented or made into being, and turned their duty of 'maintaining' a state functions into an ownership and therefore, making the whole project into a state orientated regressive task. They have stopped realising their own private experiences that tells them, "when we loose sight of the pleasures the simple natures greatest assets freely give, we become attached to tasks and stop living, and everything thereafter become work".
India's assets are its multitude of people, their imagination and their perceptions of the world in all its aspects, their ability to absorb anything thrown at them and make something of it, crudely speaking in modern palaver, the human-resources. If Statism is to be the mere response to their real anxieties, and it is to be superimposed on all discussions to satisfy the urgency of today, then the danger is the true India sliding into an argument of a state rather than of its peoples.
Q: Isn't the state responsible for peoples' safety and security?
A: Yes, but it can't be everywhere.
Furthermore, it is the peoples' safety and security and not that of the state. This is semantics for the stakeholders, who have a sense of ownership and control over the state, and their lives. But, for those alienated from power, not really reaping the development dividends, those feel that they can have no effect in the society, it makes full sense.
No one is suggesting that the people themselves can run their affairs without a centrally organised regulatory body, except 'free marketers' and anarchists. Every country profess to have a democratic system are beginning to ask these same set of questions at some point; "How do we defeat the terrorists?"
What is never seems to be a question is, "What does winning or defeating means?"
When the poor, semi-illiterate and highly indoctrinated jihadi young men left Pakistan, they knew they would not return, as there is nothing worth returning to. Their lives meant nothing more than their handlers would have told them and that is in their deaths those values are found: a place in paradise, and financial compensation for their relatives. Their mission was to reduce their 'enemies' to the value of their lives, not by killing every person, which is impossible, but by making the rest broken inside and lose confidence in themselves, and perhaps making them as violent Nihilists as they were.
When a community feels it cannot function without protection, it is not a community at all. If a community feels it can trade its freedom for security or it cannot fully exercise its freedom collectively or as individuals then it has already begun to lose the sight of freedom. We are not talking about abstract or absolute freedom here, but those values any given community feel it has.
If terrorism by any means worth its salt, it would be to achieve precisely these objectives to make us loose what we hold valuable as principles and beliefs about humanity and ourselves as a first step. Perhaps if they had a second step, they may want to negotiate a political settlement, whatever that is.
Pakistan's rulers have been true Statists, and have been telling their 'citizens' why the repressive political and military conditions and why they have to sacrifice their freedom: for the safety and security it wanted for them from its enemies, especially India.
Have the Pakistanis got any form of security and safety promised for so long? How long before they are likely to enjoy the freedom Indian take for granted? Is Pakistan in a position to stop US bombing its ‘people’?
Many think India is a weak state, but how many would be prepared to live in China, which undoubtedly exhibits overt strength and resolve in order to have safety and security for its state, and very little of people or freedom?
The questions and arguments may be the same in the West, but the conditions are drastically different. Most in Europe are nation-states with homogenised population, except for 3-6% immigrants. They are economically advanced, and have some form of welfare system, that ensures dispossessed young don't end up in Madarassa equivalents. Their concepts of freedom evolved as small nation-states and are constructed through institutions during the last three centuries, largely influenced by the interactions between neighbours and therefore, administrated by the states. For the majority obedience to the centralised authority is as normal as speaking about freedom.
The people in US however, are vastly different. In their own convoluted way they are looking to be free as the Indians. Unfortunately, largely due to being European descendants they have no other knowledge, but to construct their way towards it.
Q: Then, where does India fit in, when it has so expansive an understanding on the subject of freedom?
A: India’s suffering from foreign orchestrated terror and destruction, which are fronted by non-state actors, naturally leads to the Statist logic. Its demand for institutional accountability of the non-state actors through states or other recognised forums, UN, regional bodies is reasonable and emotionally sound.
Yet there is no denying, that this all encompassing new terminologies and arguments give the state wider powers. It can now deal with any in the same manner, if they were terrorist fronts or liberation groups or other NGOs, or provide assistance to other states, which has civil conflicts. However, even this Statist perspective can offer some hope for ordinary people if as Dr. Manmohan Singh suggested, we can underpin real and practical values of human-rights, as a program of empowerment along with the issues of security. This thought, not a promises, alone give us confidence that India wouldn’t conclude that state alone can be the way with it all. We are sure India would insists human-rights as one of its basic principles to define the terminologies ‘security’ and ‘non-state actors’, as any state's dealings with its 'citizens', including its own.
Q: If the political classes in all the leading countries become Statists, what happen to the basic rights of people?
A: Disaster.
Everyone agrees, in the failing states the governments at the centre cannot and don't represent all the communities, and in fact, would be in conflict with many of them. Therefore, the non-state actors by choice or force become part of peoples’ daily live. While we accept all non-state actors must be accountable, our question is about how it should be done? How is it possible for a state to account for something, which it disregarded, campaigned against the people and causes it represented be the only institution to account for it without destroying?
What about the ‘Fund Mangers’ of the ‘money market’, who have brought the world economic system to a stand still? The world has suffered greater disaster from the terrorists than these grey, invisible men? These wo/men who manage other people’s money are more powerful non-state actors as any, but can they ever be accounted through a single state?
Q: What happens to the agreements the non-state actors may have had or precedents established with existing institutions?
A: In Sri Lanka, the Tamils are in conflict with the island’s Sinhala state for a long time, long before the rise and fall of many terminologies that describe them. Though, the present phase is presented, as a conflict between a group, the LTTE, and the state, one cannot undo all the history just by evoking a terminology. It is not just a history written in blood, sweat, and sacrifice, but murder mayhem and genocide.
Ignoring all this, for the purpose of argument, we recall it is also a history of peace talks and agreements, whether implemented or not, between a people and various groups and parties represented them over the past sixty years, thereby making the entire people as non-state actors during this period of time. Can this fact, the history, be also wiped out by this terminology and the people forced to return to the fold of the very state, which says, they do not have any demand as it belonged to the majority people, the Sinhalese?
Q: Do the non-state actors have a role to play in the future?
A: The role of the non-state actors is as vital as the centralised power India, for the people of India as much as for all other in the developing world. It is this element, as enterprisers, social-consciousness raisers, developers and empowering merchants who have brought the development India has witnessed. And it is these elements with the support of the centralised authority, which can take the development and empowerment deep inside the hinterlands, guaranteeing peace and security everyone wants.
In this sense, it is not the total loyalty what is required by any centralised authority from these non-state actors, but agreements towards peaceful co-existence and development and accountability to those effects.
The development India sees is largely induced by private enterprise and private capitalism, in which the state has a vested interest, and acts mainly as a regulator. It social policies fail to fully materialise as the politicians and the establishment ensure the allocations and provisions trickled nowhere below. The disparity and polarity in development is vast, and the predictions between the North and Southern parts of India are not promising. Even within the states, between the urban and rural developments, the disparity is growing wider in the North than in the South, where the politicians for all their corruptions and villainous behaviour seem socially more aware and accountable.
Yet, development has brought greater stability within India and considerable political unity, and has raised the quest for psychological unity, thereby more security. It can therefore argue and assert from its own experience, "What is true and worked for many of its people can also be true for others who haven't been touch by development whether they are in or outside its borders".
Q: Does it mean India helping Pakistan to become economically viable?
A: Yes, a healthy and developed Pakistan and Afghanistan is the best guarantee to prevent cross-border jihadi terrorism, not just in India, even in Europe. And a healthy caring India is absolutely vital as an immune system to prevent any infections from such interactions.
He same attitude and actions are also needed on its Southern region, where the long suffering masses in the island of Sri Lanka are waiting for their turn to develop and prosper. Having lost two or more generations to state-terrorism and counter-terrorism, and civil war, the communities are at a loss with third grade politicians and fifth grade bureaucrats managing the affairs, where the military leaders on both sides determines the real say. This is a matter that can be easily taken care of by India's Southern states, if so delegated, for the benefit of all the communities big or small, Sinhala or Tamil speaking.
Conclusion:
Project -India isn't limited within its colonial borders, and terrorism for one cannot be allowed to set the framework for Indian policies for itself or for its region.
India has seen off many devastative phases throughout is mythical existence, but this is the generation that feels it has "more to loose" than others in the past, which faced much harsher conditions than a failing state can throw at them. With this new mood, will India be prepared to be in connection with its past, and suffer more for the sake of humanity? Or could this be one of many foolish notions of India, from those looking in but not experiencing it? These questions may seem philosophical or idealistic, but we believe the answers India will arrive have serious implications for those sincerely concerned about the human-condition.
India's complexity and diversity as a people are gigantic compared to Africa, which has almost the same population. Africa has only two major religions, Christianity and Islam, and three main languages, English, Arabic and French, except for a few who spoke Spanish on its west coast. Because of these two-pronged successful cultural subversions, the African social-transformation has staggered, and is very much tribalistic than nationalistic. Imagine Africa as whole trying or forced or feel the need to live as 'one country'? It isn't strange that JBS Haldane described India “as the closest approximation to the Free world” and verified the meaning of his citizenship, “proud of being a citizen of India, which is a lot more diverse than Europe, let alone the USA, USSR, or China, and thus a better model for a possible world organization. It may of course break up, but it is a wonderful experiment. So I want to be labelled as a citizen of India (not as citizen of the world as suggested).” In these moments of fury, the tendency would be to dismiss a scientist or historian like Haldane and EP Thompson, as eccentrics incredulous to the rigours of the real world, mere idealists living in their own imagined space.
The grey clouds during Mrs. Gandhi’s emergency time, and India’s darkest hour in its modern history, the military assault on one its spiritual home, and the continuing endemic corruption in the socio-political system are all too much to account for all of us, and some started to have doubts about the ideals of the Indian-project altogether. Are we then reappraising something that is already dead? Are we simple peddlers of yesterday’s ideals when, death to all ideologies is the prediction? We wonder, can the past be so clinically cut off; to trace them and to make any deductions from them can be accused of being unscientific, unrealistic, bordering naivety?
Many historians and pundits have done India’s burial many times over. Only a few years ago we watched a documentary in which a well-spoken West Bengali Marxist expert welcomed its disintegration within a decade or two, with his own merry way to analysis. We now watch their followers violently fight their own peasants to bring in the ultimate Indian institution, the Tatas, to make economic progress to the state. Beyond all the venom of these contemporary punditry, India has survived the most turbulent of its period, the cataclysmic colonial era, and absorbed all its worth to reassess and, today reassert itself as a world economic power, a position it held prior to that time. Yet it was they, the colonialists, who had brought in the political union it never had, but its unity still to be achieved. Those of us who feel raped, helpless, and angry, can we imagine how our forefathers felt when they watched their resources being plundered, some times for no use than pure fun, animals the generations of Indian civilisation helped to preserve wiped in the name of 'sport', and beyond all these injuries, the men and women of one of the oldest civilisation treated like children, not citizens or slaves.
Today as One India demanded respect and dignity for its people from outsiders, without flexing the extra muzzles the modern India has acquired, while many in the Other-India and around its borders are left wanting, expecting India will also address them with the same favour.
Not single Indian or a government can claim to have created the Indian state. What the Northern or Southern-Tamil Emperors could not do, British achieved it; what was always there, the basic universality of an Indian, Gandhi among many others rekindled it, and the economy, the new sense of purpose for the middle India, happened not because of the state, but of globalisation. Any evolutionary process has its own course; one cannot make too much work out it. India that is imagined was there before the Brits arrived, it survived and continued its journey after they had left, and it will still be there on its way when we are also dead and gone. Even the Intelligence Report 2025 says so; they should know a thing or two better than some of us, the US for while was hell-bent on testing the Indian concept of unity and its peoples' resolve with a few test of its own.
We are convinced the ultimate destination of project-India, therefore, we don't worry about its survival or India’s unity as the self-doubts of some of those who have taken charge of its state. India is not an accident, but an evolution of a continent of people, far ahead in many aspects in perception of human condition, and their social relationships than economically advanced nations and continents. It is a people who know their beginning and end, but continually suffer as impediments are placed on their way to confuse and complicate their journey. If invasions and raids and barbaric attacks on its people are the impediments, some form of tests, then the reactions in the same vein would be an attack on India's universal-self, its soul; no outsider, but themselves can undermine that fundamental notion of Indianess.
It is logical and practical to propose its systemised security can only be implemented through regional hubs. It is a fact and an evolving historical perspective that Indian concept of democracy, freedom and empowerment are all intertwined are developed and instituted through its local and regional socio-economic structures. The so called external events that affect the Indians as a whole originate, felt more seriously and suffer the consequences more within its regions than those living on the other end. Isn’t it therefore, logical and practical that the so called external policies are done through its regional institutions under the centralised bodies?
It is with this confidence we ask India, what are its future decisions going to be? Not the immediate policy directives on cross-border terrorism, TADA, its proposals to ‘deter’ terrorism and the like, but about itself in connection to the region around it? Can modern India build high iron-fences around its shiny new citadels to keep its own 'unwanted' and the poor away? In the manner, can it build a security-wall around its seas and land borders to keep the people out, who are in every sense connected to it, in the name of terrorism?
We wait with confidence than mere hope.
(Ravi Sundaralingam can be reached by E-mail: academic. secretary@gmail.com)
Venezuelan Government Invests $900 Million in Largest Steel Plant
December 16th 2008, by Erik Sperling - Venezuelanalysis.com
Carora, December 16, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- The Venezuelan government will invest US$ 900 million in Sidor, the largest steel plant in Latin America, said Rodolfo Sanz, Minister of Basic Industries and Mines, in a television interview.
President Hugo Chavez authorized the investment with the goal of expanding production at the recently nationalized steelmaker Sidor, according to Sanz, who also acts as the head of the company.
He detailed that the government aims to increase Sidor’s annual production from four million tons of liquid steel to seven million over the next four years.
Venezuela’s Chavez announced the nationalization of Sidor in May, and the government assumed control of the business a month later, after the company refused to negotiate with workers over a new collective contract.
Venezuela has enough iron to last for 500 years, he added, with about 14 billion tons of the material in reserves.
Sanz also highlighted Venezuela’s large reserves of gold, diamonds, bauxite, and uranium.
Thanks to Cuban and Iranian specialists, he said, “we now have a complete map of the location of all of our reserves, from gold to uranium.”
Sanz said that Venezuela is open to investments of private capital in the sector, but with the government as majority shareholder, as is the case with the Russian company Rusoro which is currently working in the country.
Sanz mentioned President Chavez reiterated to him in a phone conversation that the extraction and development of uranium would be “for peaceful purposes only.”
Carora, December 16, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- The Venezuelan government will invest US$ 900 million in Sidor, the largest steel plant in Latin America, said Rodolfo Sanz, Minister of Basic Industries and Mines, in a television interview.
President Hugo Chavez authorized the investment with the goal of expanding production at the recently nationalized steelmaker Sidor, according to Sanz, who also acts as the head of the company.
He detailed that the government aims to increase Sidor’s annual production from four million tons of liquid steel to seven million over the next four years.
Venezuela’s Chavez announced the nationalization of Sidor in May, and the government assumed control of the business a month later, after the company refused to negotiate with workers over a new collective contract.
Venezuela has enough iron to last for 500 years, he added, with about 14 billion tons of the material in reserves.
Sanz also highlighted Venezuela’s large reserves of gold, diamonds, bauxite, and uranium.
Thanks to Cuban and Iranian specialists, he said, “we now have a complete map of the location of all of our reserves, from gold to uranium.”
Sanz said that Venezuela is open to investments of private capital in the sector, but with the government as majority shareholder, as is the case with the Russian company Rusoro which is currently working in the country.
Sanz mentioned President Chavez reiterated to him in a phone conversation that the extraction and development of uranium would be “for peaceful purposes only.”
Moscow eyes pan-European security
Russia's Dmitry Medvedev at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2007
Russia advocates new security arrangements for Europe, and pledges to deal with new challenges despite possible European objections for 2009, Sergei Blagov writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Sergei Blagov in Moscow for ISN Security Watch
As Moscow's assertiveness is anticipated to continue in 2009, the Russian authorities have come up with an ambitious foreign policy initiative: The Kremlin insists that a new pan-European security treaty, suggested by President Dmitry Medvedev, will help to avoid conflicts like its August war with Georgia, as well as disagreements on issues like US missile defense plans.
While the West has responded coolly to the initiative, Russia argues that Europe lacks a coherent security system and that Russia will be forced to deal with new threats on its own.
Europe is yet to create a system of collective security, open to all and guaranteeing equal security for all, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in remarks published on 15 December, adding that NATO's eastward expansion continued to create problems for Russia and for Euro-Atlantic policies.
Other officials were less diplomatic, indicating that Russia's traditional fears of western encirclement remained on the agenda.
Oleg Morozov, first deputy speaker of the State Duma (Russia's lower house of parliament), said on 15 December that Russia should modernize its armed forces in order to face the threat of NATO's eastward expansion.
Russia would be prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend itself, according to the Russian military doctrine approved in 2000. In January 2008, Russia's then-Chief of General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky pledged to use nuclear weapons and pre-emptive strikes to protect the country. Earlier this month, Baluyevsky, now deputy Security Council secretary, announced he had been ordered to work out a new draft of the Russian national security doctrine, to be approved in February.
Russia also has pledged to develop its nuclear deterrent next year, and will do its best to evolve its strategic nuclear forces, General Nikolai Makarov, chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said on 16 December. He also said that the Russian Strategic Missile Forces would include five mobile divisions and four silo-based divisions.
Earlier this month, Makarov argued that the General Staff viewed Russia's tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent against what he described as "huge amounts of weapons in Europe." He also disclosed plans to create an Aerial-Space Defense Command – an apparent reference to perceived US plans to deploy weapons in space.
Russian military officials insist the country's nuclear deterrent will be further developed to counter the US missile defense plans. The development plans include the deployment of new inter-continental missiles capable of overcoming the US missile shield, Russian Strategic Missile Forces Commander General Nikolai Solovtsov said on 1 December. He also said the Strategic Missile Forces aimed to hold 13 missile tests in 2009.
Russian officials also criticized Europeans for their support of the US missile defense and space-related plans. On 10 December, while on a visit to China, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov accused the US and the EU of blocking the joint Russo-Chinese initiative to ban weapon deployments in space.
While the global financial crisis inevitably dominates the economic risk outlook for next year, the economic situation in Russia and the prospects for 2009 remain negative. And weakening economic fundamentals have the potential to undermine Moscow's political and economic confidence, including an ambitious weapons modernization program for 2007-2015, which is estimated to cost up to US$200 billion.
Nonetheless, Russian authorities insist that its military modernization programs remain on track despite the ongoing financial turmoil. In early December, Russia announced plans to spend an extra 60 billion rubles (US$2.2 billion) in 2009 on weapons, including modernizing short-range Iskander missiles that could counter the planned US missile defense facilities.
As such, the Kremlin is not expected to ease its opposition against US missile defense plans in Europe for 2009. Expect Moscow to continue pursuing an informal grouping of Russia, China and India, with the latest addition of Brazil (BRIC), in an apparent bid to challenge the West. In early December, Russia announced plans to hold a first full-scale BRIC summit meeting in Russia in June 2009.
Moscow is expected to continue flexing its muscles internationally well into 2009, despite some initial signs of economic problems. Yet it remains to be seen whether the Kremlin's strong rhetoric, notably talk of nuclear deterrence, as well as continued focus on non-western groupings, could prove instrumental in achieving its stated goals of revising the security arrangement in Europe.
Sergei Blagov is a Moscow-based correspondent for ISN Security Watch
Russia advocates new security arrangements for Europe, and pledges to deal with new challenges despite possible European objections for 2009, Sergei Blagov writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Sergei Blagov in Moscow for ISN Security Watch
As Moscow's assertiveness is anticipated to continue in 2009, the Russian authorities have come up with an ambitious foreign policy initiative: The Kremlin insists that a new pan-European security treaty, suggested by President Dmitry Medvedev, will help to avoid conflicts like its August war with Georgia, as well as disagreements on issues like US missile defense plans.
While the West has responded coolly to the initiative, Russia argues that Europe lacks a coherent security system and that Russia will be forced to deal with new threats on its own.
Europe is yet to create a system of collective security, open to all and guaranteeing equal security for all, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in remarks published on 15 December, adding that NATO's eastward expansion continued to create problems for Russia and for Euro-Atlantic policies.
Other officials were less diplomatic, indicating that Russia's traditional fears of western encirclement remained on the agenda.
Oleg Morozov, first deputy speaker of the State Duma (Russia's lower house of parliament), said on 15 December that Russia should modernize its armed forces in order to face the threat of NATO's eastward expansion.
Russia would be prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend itself, according to the Russian military doctrine approved in 2000. In January 2008, Russia's then-Chief of General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky pledged to use nuclear weapons and pre-emptive strikes to protect the country. Earlier this month, Baluyevsky, now deputy Security Council secretary, announced he had been ordered to work out a new draft of the Russian national security doctrine, to be approved in February.
Russia also has pledged to develop its nuclear deterrent next year, and will do its best to evolve its strategic nuclear forces, General Nikolai Makarov, chief of General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said on 16 December. He also said that the Russian Strategic Missile Forces would include five mobile divisions and four silo-based divisions.
Earlier this month, Makarov argued that the General Staff viewed Russia's tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent against what he described as "huge amounts of weapons in Europe." He also disclosed plans to create an Aerial-Space Defense Command – an apparent reference to perceived US plans to deploy weapons in space.
Russian military officials insist the country's nuclear deterrent will be further developed to counter the US missile defense plans. The development plans include the deployment of new inter-continental missiles capable of overcoming the US missile shield, Russian Strategic Missile Forces Commander General Nikolai Solovtsov said on 1 December. He also said the Strategic Missile Forces aimed to hold 13 missile tests in 2009.
Russian officials also criticized Europeans for their support of the US missile defense and space-related plans. On 10 December, while on a visit to China, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov accused the US and the EU of blocking the joint Russo-Chinese initiative to ban weapon deployments in space.
While the global financial crisis inevitably dominates the economic risk outlook for next year, the economic situation in Russia and the prospects for 2009 remain negative. And weakening economic fundamentals have the potential to undermine Moscow's political and economic confidence, including an ambitious weapons modernization program for 2007-2015, which is estimated to cost up to US$200 billion.
Nonetheless, Russian authorities insist that its military modernization programs remain on track despite the ongoing financial turmoil. In early December, Russia announced plans to spend an extra 60 billion rubles (US$2.2 billion) in 2009 on weapons, including modernizing short-range Iskander missiles that could counter the planned US missile defense facilities.
As such, the Kremlin is not expected to ease its opposition against US missile defense plans in Europe for 2009. Expect Moscow to continue pursuing an informal grouping of Russia, China and India, with the latest addition of Brazil (BRIC), in an apparent bid to challenge the West. In early December, Russia announced plans to hold a first full-scale BRIC summit meeting in Russia in June 2009.
Moscow is expected to continue flexing its muscles internationally well into 2009, despite some initial signs of economic problems. Yet it remains to be seen whether the Kremlin's strong rhetoric, notably talk of nuclear deterrence, as well as continued focus on non-western groupings, could prove instrumental in achieving its stated goals of revising the security arrangement in Europe.
Sergei Blagov is a Moscow-based correspondent for ISN Security Watch
Obama's plans for Latin America
ISN Security Watch's Sam Logan talks with leading experts to find out how Obama's policy toward Latin America will change relations with the US' southern neighbors.
By Sam Logan for ISN Security Watch
When Barack Obama takes office in 2009, Latin America may see a renewed effort from the White House and State Department to reconnect with the region.
Among the numerous concerns for the incoming administration, Latin America will remain a mid- to low-level agenda item, but the Obama team will most certainly engage with Cuba, Mexico and Brazil, significantly changing policy in some cases, according to a number of experts.
The quickest way to display a new approach to Latin America will be through improving relations with Cuba, many argue. There is broad consensus that sees a quick shift on US policy for the country, one that may go as far as removing restrictions on travel for tourism.
Many also agree that Obama will make a decidedly strong effort to engage with Brazil, a country many in the new administration likely see as the best partner for the US in the region.
A focused approach on Brazil may leave less room for other partners from the past, like Colombia, where a reduced amount of foreign aid and the possible renegotiation of a free trade agreement are two very real possibilities that do not favor the Uribe administration.
Another question hovers over Hugo Chavez and a chance to improve relations with Venezuela, despite the South American leader's heavily negative rhetoric. Obama, however, is not likely to seek to engage Chavez, but rather to keep a distance and allow Chavez's own troubles at home and with the energy markets carry him out of office.
While a certain broad consensus seems to be in place on some issues pertaining to Cuba and the idea that Washington will engage Brazil, few are confident of the specifics. What Washington will do with the drug trade and how the US will support Mexico in its fight against organized crime also remain considerations, but the specifics are vague.
"From the center-right to the left, there's a pretty clear consensus. There are significant differences over how the next administration should handle trade issues, but there is clear agreement across the board: one, Latin America needs to be a higher priority; two, there needs to be a new tone and approach; and, three, one of the easy first steps […] would be to change the Cuba policy," Geoff Thale, program director with the Washington Office on Latin America, told ISN Security Watch.
On Cuba
"Obama has a real opportunity to redirect US relations with [Cuba]," Shannon O'Neil, Douglas Dillon Fellow for Latin America Studies with the Council on Foreign Relations, told ISN Security Watch.
"[He] won Florida - supported by the majority of Hispanics in that state, though he lost the Cuban-American vote. Since Cuban-Americans were not decisive in his victory, Obama now doesn't owe them anything. In addition, polls show that younger Cuban-Americans were more likely to vote Democratic, suggesting a longer-term shift away from the core support for the current US-Cuba policy."
Obama has said that he would relax Cuban-American family travel to Cuba as well as restrictions on remittances. Another easy policy shift could involve reinstating the biannual migration talks.
In early 1995, Cuba and the US sealed a migration agreement. Cuba would try to prevent rafters from leaving the country, and the US would allow up to 20,000 visas for Cubans. Both sides agreed to meet every six months to discuss the ongoing nature of the migration agreement.
The Bush administration suspended these talks in 2003.
"They were seen as an opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues, not just migration," Thale said. He added that it would take very little for the Obama administration to reinstate the biannual meetings.
O'Neil also pointed out that "a change on Cuba would also make much of Chavez's anti-American rhetoric ring less true across the region, limiting its effectiveness and perhaps leading to a different bilateral dynamic down the road."
On Venezuela
"Obama is going to be very cool and distant towards Chavez," Michael Shifter, vice-president for policy with the Inter-American Dialogue, told ISN Security Watch.
"He's going to avoid both the aggressiveness during various moments of the Bush years, and he's going to avoid seeking a real rapprochement with Chavez."
Shifter suggested that ambassadors would be returned, and that there would be some sort of lower level consultation and cooperation on drugs and other issues. But he doubts if there will be a dramatic opening up with Chavez.
"Chavez is already thinking very worriedly about the price of oil, feeling a little cornered," Javier Corrales, associate professor of Political Science at Amherst College, told ISN Security Watch.
"He is going to probably try to provoke the United States. The naval exercises with the Russians is just an open declaration. Chavez wants the hard-line response from the United States, and he's pressing all the right buttons," Corrales added.
Yet, it will be harder for Chavez to criticize Obama.
"Obama's personal profile and life story makes it much more difficult to dismiss him as a 'yankee imperialist,'" O'Neil said.
Shifter agrees, suggesting that Chavez will struggle to portray Obama as the enemy.
"Bush was such a great gift," he said.
The likely outcome between the US and Venezuela will be for Obama to allow Chavez to run his course. There are a number of domestic issues, from the economy to the perceived failure of many of Chavez's initiatives.
"[Chavez] needs to administer his revolution," Larry Burns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Relations, told ISN Security Watch in an interview earlier this year.
Now, the results of his lack of attention on Venezuela will be felt in the outcome of Chavez's current plans to hold a new referendum on limitless presidential terms, as well as the presidential elections.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has also stated his interest in running for a third term. He and Chavez couldn't be farther apart politically, but both seek to remain in power.
On Colombia
"If Uribe decides to run for a third term, all bets are off," Adam Isacson, program director with the Center for International Policy, told ISN Security Watch.
"Colombia is a big question," Shifter said. "It was an issue during the presidential campaign and there's a lot at stake for the United States. The US has a lot invested in Colombia, and it's been the most controversial situation."
Yet Colombia, the region's top ally during the Bush years, may diminish in stature and relevance under an Obama administration.
"Aid to Colombia is going to shrink, perhaps even economic aid, because there's no money, and the urgency is lower than it used to be," Isacson said.
Apart from the future of Plan Colombia, a free trade agreement with the US currently sits on the president's desk, waiting for Obama to make a decision.
"Obama will want to figure out a way to get it approved," Shifter said. "The financial crisis, on balance, will encourage the Obama administration to send a signal that it will continue to be committed to trade relationships and commercial ties. People will look at how he deals with the Colombia agreement as an indicator of that."
"Presumably [Obama] doesn't object to the [FTA] model and will not push for renegotiation, like he talked about in the primaries about NAFTA. His main objection has been the situation of labor unionists [in Colombia]," Isacson said.
But the political will is still not in place in the US Congress, with about half of the Senate democrats and the majority of democrats in the House of Representatives not in a place to vote for Colombia's FTA.
"Human rights, labor rights and environmental standards will receive much more attention under an Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the Bush presidency," Bruce Bagley, professor of International Studies at the School of International Studies at the University of Miami, told ISN Security Watch.
Bagley thinks that trade deals such as the FTA with Colombia will eventually pass through US Congress, but "will be approved but with much higher levels of US conditionality."
If he wants Obama to support the FTA, Uribe will have to push hard to shore up human rights concerns within the new administration, as well as show at least a "pretext for the flip-flop, and he can't do that until Colombia generates some numbers on impunity for labor killings - we've thrown this number of people in jail for these exemplary cases, for example," Isacson said, pointing out that both the reduction of aid vis-à-vis Plan Colombia and the possible rejection of Colombia's FTA with the US are two policies that will not go Uribe's way.
"Colombia doesn't matter if policy is to put Colombia on the back burner and place more center of gravity on Brazil and other countries."
On Brazil
"Bush discovered that it was vital to get Brazil and the United States to grow closer, and he started going in that direction," Corrales said. "Obama should consolidate that gain. There should be some institutional mechanism where it is officially acknowledged that Brazil is going to be collaborating with the US in insuring hemispheric security and prosperity."
The most logical connection between the US and Brazil has been via a discussion over energy, specifically the ethanol trade. But trade issues have been problematic in the past. Brazilian orange juice exporters have been found guilty of dumping their products on the US, and Brazil has taken issue at the World Trade Organization with US cotton subsidies.
Yet "the [US-Brazil] relationship has matured," Paulo Soutero, director of the Brazil Institute Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, said in an interview with Vision Americas.
In the realm of security, Brazil is certainly willing to take a leadership role, as evidenced thought the UNASUR initiative. However, it remains unclear if Brazil is willing to take on a leadership role whereby it is willing to do the US' dirty policing work in the region in exchange for the US disengagement with various countries - especially the Andean nations that continue to struggle with the ongoing violence and geopolitical challenges caused by the drug trade.
On Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador
The Obama administration has a decision to make about Bolivia.
"The issue is whether the incoming Obama administration chooses to lump [Bolivian President Evo Morales] with Hugo Chavez and make him a Latin American bad boy, or sees in the country's first indigenous president something historic, like Obama," Jim Shultz, executive director of The Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia, told ISN Security Watch.
"President Morales' [recent] visit to Washington turned out to be a leap of faith that Morales took to establish some sort of rapport, and show interest, and to highlight that there are some very real concerns "[…]," Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network, told ISN Security Watch.
She also indicated that while Morales was not able to meet with Obama, he did make some headway with members of Congress, interested in hearing him out. Some, like Republican Senator Richard Lugar, made their own leap of faith in support of Morales. Yet Ledebur remains somewhat skeptical.
"If [the new administration] is not able to seek out the information they need to see how badly things have gone for a very long time, then there will not be change," she said.
"The first test for Obama will be how he deals with Bush's move to dump Bolivia out of the Andean Trade Preference Act," Shultz said, adding, "Obama could, and should, side with the bipartisan position in Congress that extends Bolivia's participation until mid-2009 and allows for a new round of US-Bolivia dialogue on its actions to fight coca destined for the drug market."
In Peru, few see much of a change in policy and posture from the Bush to the Obama administration, yet Ecuador could be another interesting case where the US may find opportunity to bring President Rafael Correa closer to Washington and father from Caracas.
"Correa is an example of where I think there will be a greater opportunity [for Obama] because there will be a growing rift in Ecuador with Chavez," Shifter said.
"Correa will look for opportunities to work with the Obama administration. He's got some real issues in terms of the new constitution and the role of the state in the economy, and the way it's dealt with foreign investment. And those issues will not disappear."
Shifter also mentioned that Correa will also face elections in April, arguing that while he was likely to win, the Ecuadorian economy would swiftly become a serious issue.
Across the region
"If the US can take some regional views of Latin America but then look at what's going on in each country as distinctive political entities, and the challenges taking place in those countries, both political and economic, they'll have a much more productive time," Joy Olson, director of the Washington Office on Latin America, told ISN Security Watch.
There are limitations, however. Many agree it is difficult to see how the incoming administration can significantly increase time spent on policy toward Latin America when so many other, more important issues, remain on the horizon.
"The White House as a whole is not going to pay much attention to Latin America, which means that the State Department will continue to be the leading force in US diplomacy to the region," Corrales argued.
It's not yet certain who will replace Tom Shannon as the State Department's top diplomat in the region, but there is a sense that from the State Department, the Obama administration will support a base level of continuity, adding higher levels of accountability for human rights and, perhaps, a less confrontational approach.
"Obama will change the tone and style of US diplomacy towards Latin America," Bagley said. "Indeed, President-elect Obama has already begun to alter perceptions of the United States throughout the region. Obama will be more consultative and multilateral in his approach - a welcome change - but there will be frictions nonetheless."
Sam Logan is an investigative journalist who has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism and black markets in Latin America since 1999. He is a senior writer for ISN Security Watch and has a book on organized crime and immigration forthcoming from Hyperion in spring 2009.
By Sam Logan for ISN Security Watch
When Barack Obama takes office in 2009, Latin America may see a renewed effort from the White House and State Department to reconnect with the region.
Among the numerous concerns for the incoming administration, Latin America will remain a mid- to low-level agenda item, but the Obama team will most certainly engage with Cuba, Mexico and Brazil, significantly changing policy in some cases, according to a number of experts.
The quickest way to display a new approach to Latin America will be through improving relations with Cuba, many argue. There is broad consensus that sees a quick shift on US policy for the country, one that may go as far as removing restrictions on travel for tourism.
Many also agree that Obama will make a decidedly strong effort to engage with Brazil, a country many in the new administration likely see as the best partner for the US in the region.
A focused approach on Brazil may leave less room for other partners from the past, like Colombia, where a reduced amount of foreign aid and the possible renegotiation of a free trade agreement are two very real possibilities that do not favor the Uribe administration.
Another question hovers over Hugo Chavez and a chance to improve relations with Venezuela, despite the South American leader's heavily negative rhetoric. Obama, however, is not likely to seek to engage Chavez, but rather to keep a distance and allow Chavez's own troubles at home and with the energy markets carry him out of office.
While a certain broad consensus seems to be in place on some issues pertaining to Cuba and the idea that Washington will engage Brazil, few are confident of the specifics. What Washington will do with the drug trade and how the US will support Mexico in its fight against organized crime also remain considerations, but the specifics are vague.
"From the center-right to the left, there's a pretty clear consensus. There are significant differences over how the next administration should handle trade issues, but there is clear agreement across the board: one, Latin America needs to be a higher priority; two, there needs to be a new tone and approach; and, three, one of the easy first steps […] would be to change the Cuba policy," Geoff Thale, program director with the Washington Office on Latin America, told ISN Security Watch.
On Cuba
"Obama has a real opportunity to redirect US relations with [Cuba]," Shannon O'Neil, Douglas Dillon Fellow for Latin America Studies with the Council on Foreign Relations, told ISN Security Watch.
"[He] won Florida - supported by the majority of Hispanics in that state, though he lost the Cuban-American vote. Since Cuban-Americans were not decisive in his victory, Obama now doesn't owe them anything. In addition, polls show that younger Cuban-Americans were more likely to vote Democratic, suggesting a longer-term shift away from the core support for the current US-Cuba policy."
Obama has said that he would relax Cuban-American family travel to Cuba as well as restrictions on remittances. Another easy policy shift could involve reinstating the biannual migration talks.
In early 1995, Cuba and the US sealed a migration agreement. Cuba would try to prevent rafters from leaving the country, and the US would allow up to 20,000 visas for Cubans. Both sides agreed to meet every six months to discuss the ongoing nature of the migration agreement.
The Bush administration suspended these talks in 2003.
"They were seen as an opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues, not just migration," Thale said. He added that it would take very little for the Obama administration to reinstate the biannual meetings.
O'Neil also pointed out that "a change on Cuba would also make much of Chavez's anti-American rhetoric ring less true across the region, limiting its effectiveness and perhaps leading to a different bilateral dynamic down the road."
On Venezuela
"Obama is going to be very cool and distant towards Chavez," Michael Shifter, vice-president for policy with the Inter-American Dialogue, told ISN Security Watch.
"He's going to avoid both the aggressiveness during various moments of the Bush years, and he's going to avoid seeking a real rapprochement with Chavez."
Shifter suggested that ambassadors would be returned, and that there would be some sort of lower level consultation and cooperation on drugs and other issues. But he doubts if there will be a dramatic opening up with Chavez.
"Chavez is already thinking very worriedly about the price of oil, feeling a little cornered," Javier Corrales, associate professor of Political Science at Amherst College, told ISN Security Watch.
"He is going to probably try to provoke the United States. The naval exercises with the Russians is just an open declaration. Chavez wants the hard-line response from the United States, and he's pressing all the right buttons," Corrales added.
Yet, it will be harder for Chavez to criticize Obama.
"Obama's personal profile and life story makes it much more difficult to dismiss him as a 'yankee imperialist,'" O'Neil said.
Shifter agrees, suggesting that Chavez will struggle to portray Obama as the enemy.
"Bush was such a great gift," he said.
The likely outcome between the US and Venezuela will be for Obama to allow Chavez to run his course. There are a number of domestic issues, from the economy to the perceived failure of many of Chavez's initiatives.
"[Chavez] needs to administer his revolution," Larry Burns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Relations, told ISN Security Watch in an interview earlier this year.
Now, the results of his lack of attention on Venezuela will be felt in the outcome of Chavez's current plans to hold a new referendum on limitless presidential terms, as well as the presidential elections.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has also stated his interest in running for a third term. He and Chavez couldn't be farther apart politically, but both seek to remain in power.
On Colombia
"If Uribe decides to run for a third term, all bets are off," Adam Isacson, program director with the Center for International Policy, told ISN Security Watch.
"Colombia is a big question," Shifter said. "It was an issue during the presidential campaign and there's a lot at stake for the United States. The US has a lot invested in Colombia, and it's been the most controversial situation."
Yet Colombia, the region's top ally during the Bush years, may diminish in stature and relevance under an Obama administration.
"Aid to Colombia is going to shrink, perhaps even economic aid, because there's no money, and the urgency is lower than it used to be," Isacson said.
Apart from the future of Plan Colombia, a free trade agreement with the US currently sits on the president's desk, waiting for Obama to make a decision.
"Obama will want to figure out a way to get it approved," Shifter said. "The financial crisis, on balance, will encourage the Obama administration to send a signal that it will continue to be committed to trade relationships and commercial ties. People will look at how he deals with the Colombia agreement as an indicator of that."
"Presumably [Obama] doesn't object to the [FTA] model and will not push for renegotiation, like he talked about in the primaries about NAFTA. His main objection has been the situation of labor unionists [in Colombia]," Isacson said.
But the political will is still not in place in the US Congress, with about half of the Senate democrats and the majority of democrats in the House of Representatives not in a place to vote for Colombia's FTA.
"Human rights, labor rights and environmental standards will receive much more attention under an Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the Bush presidency," Bruce Bagley, professor of International Studies at the School of International Studies at the University of Miami, told ISN Security Watch.
Bagley thinks that trade deals such as the FTA with Colombia will eventually pass through US Congress, but "will be approved but with much higher levels of US conditionality."
If he wants Obama to support the FTA, Uribe will have to push hard to shore up human rights concerns within the new administration, as well as show at least a "pretext for the flip-flop, and he can't do that until Colombia generates some numbers on impunity for labor killings - we've thrown this number of people in jail for these exemplary cases, for example," Isacson said, pointing out that both the reduction of aid vis-à-vis Plan Colombia and the possible rejection of Colombia's FTA with the US are two policies that will not go Uribe's way.
"Colombia doesn't matter if policy is to put Colombia on the back burner and place more center of gravity on Brazil and other countries."
On Brazil
"Bush discovered that it was vital to get Brazil and the United States to grow closer, and he started going in that direction," Corrales said. "Obama should consolidate that gain. There should be some institutional mechanism where it is officially acknowledged that Brazil is going to be collaborating with the US in insuring hemispheric security and prosperity."
The most logical connection between the US and Brazil has been via a discussion over energy, specifically the ethanol trade. But trade issues have been problematic in the past. Brazilian orange juice exporters have been found guilty of dumping their products on the US, and Brazil has taken issue at the World Trade Organization with US cotton subsidies.
Yet "the [US-Brazil] relationship has matured," Paulo Soutero, director of the Brazil Institute Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, said in an interview with Vision Americas.
In the realm of security, Brazil is certainly willing to take a leadership role, as evidenced thought the UNASUR initiative. However, it remains unclear if Brazil is willing to take on a leadership role whereby it is willing to do the US' dirty policing work in the region in exchange for the US disengagement with various countries - especially the Andean nations that continue to struggle with the ongoing violence and geopolitical challenges caused by the drug trade.
On Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador
The Obama administration has a decision to make about Bolivia.
"The issue is whether the incoming Obama administration chooses to lump [Bolivian President Evo Morales] with Hugo Chavez and make him a Latin American bad boy, or sees in the country's first indigenous president something historic, like Obama," Jim Shultz, executive director of The Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia, told ISN Security Watch.
"President Morales' [recent] visit to Washington turned out to be a leap of faith that Morales took to establish some sort of rapport, and show interest, and to highlight that there are some very real concerns "[…]," Kathryn Ledebur, director of the Andean Information Network, told ISN Security Watch.
She also indicated that while Morales was not able to meet with Obama, he did make some headway with members of Congress, interested in hearing him out. Some, like Republican Senator Richard Lugar, made their own leap of faith in support of Morales. Yet Ledebur remains somewhat skeptical.
"If [the new administration] is not able to seek out the information they need to see how badly things have gone for a very long time, then there will not be change," she said.
"The first test for Obama will be how he deals with Bush's move to dump Bolivia out of the Andean Trade Preference Act," Shultz said, adding, "Obama could, and should, side with the bipartisan position in Congress that extends Bolivia's participation until mid-2009 and allows for a new round of US-Bolivia dialogue on its actions to fight coca destined for the drug market."
In Peru, few see much of a change in policy and posture from the Bush to the Obama administration, yet Ecuador could be another interesting case where the US may find opportunity to bring President Rafael Correa closer to Washington and father from Caracas.
"Correa is an example of where I think there will be a greater opportunity [for Obama] because there will be a growing rift in Ecuador with Chavez," Shifter said.
"Correa will look for opportunities to work with the Obama administration. He's got some real issues in terms of the new constitution and the role of the state in the economy, and the way it's dealt with foreign investment. And those issues will not disappear."
Shifter also mentioned that Correa will also face elections in April, arguing that while he was likely to win, the Ecuadorian economy would swiftly become a serious issue.
Across the region
"If the US can take some regional views of Latin America but then look at what's going on in each country as distinctive political entities, and the challenges taking place in those countries, both political and economic, they'll have a much more productive time," Joy Olson, director of the Washington Office on Latin America, told ISN Security Watch.
There are limitations, however. Many agree it is difficult to see how the incoming administration can significantly increase time spent on policy toward Latin America when so many other, more important issues, remain on the horizon.
"The White House as a whole is not going to pay much attention to Latin America, which means that the State Department will continue to be the leading force in US diplomacy to the region," Corrales argued.
It's not yet certain who will replace Tom Shannon as the State Department's top diplomat in the region, but there is a sense that from the State Department, the Obama administration will support a base level of continuity, adding higher levels of accountability for human rights and, perhaps, a less confrontational approach.
"Obama will change the tone and style of US diplomacy towards Latin America," Bagley said. "Indeed, President-elect Obama has already begun to alter perceptions of the United States throughout the region. Obama will be more consultative and multilateral in his approach - a welcome change - but there will be frictions nonetheless."
Sam Logan is an investigative journalist who has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism and black markets in Latin America since 1999. He is a senior writer for ISN Security Watch and has a book on organized crime and immigration forthcoming from Hyperion in spring 2009.
KILINOCHCHI: THE KISS OF DEATH
B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of my earlier article of Oct. 21, 2008, titled "Kilinochchi: The Spectre of Stalingrad " at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2886.html )
"Kilinochchi within kissing distance".
So said the disinformation warriors of Lt.Gen.Sarath Fonseka, the Sri Lankan Army Commander, more than a week ago..
It has been a long and fatal kiss----more for the Army than for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It has been a long kiss of death for the young hastily-trained Sinhalese recruits to the Sri Lankan Army who were rushed to the battle front by the General in his keenness to keep his promise of "In Kilinochchi before the New Year".
Similar to the promise which Gen.Douglas McArthur, commanding the allied troops in South Korea during the Korean war, repeatedly made to the US troops fighting against the North Korean and Chinese Armies.
" To home before Christmas", he used to promise.
Christmas came and Christmas went, but the North Koreans and the Chinese fought fiercely. McArthur's promises were repeatedly belied.'Which Christmas?" people started asking sarcastically.
Ultimately, there were neither victors nor losers in the war. It ended in a stalemate after the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.
In bitter fighting on the outskirts of Kilinochchi since the beginning of this week, the SL Army and the LTTE have sustained heavy casualties. As normally happens in military conflicts, both sides are playing down their own casualties and exaggerating those of the adversary. However, the claims of the LTTE seem to be nearer the truth than those of the Army.
The LTTE claims to have killed 170 soldiers of the SL Army, but the Army insists that only 25 of its soldiers have been killed. However, the LTTE has been able to release the photographs of at least 36 soldiers killed, thereby proving that the fatalities sustained by the Army are many more than the 25 admitted by it.
Reliable accounts show that both sides have been fighting fiercely and losing many young people. The Army has lost many more arms and ammunition and other equipment than the LTTE. The fighting has been a bonanza for the LTTE, which has been able to replenish its dwindling stocks of arms and ammunition.
The odds are still against the LTTE. It has well-trained and well-motivated cadres, who have been fighting with great determination, but it is running short of arms and ammunition despite the seizures from the Army. It has no air cover against the repeated air strikes by the Sri Lankan Air Force.
The SL Army has the advantage of numbers and arms and ammunition procured with funds from China and Iran, but its soldiers are not as well-motivated and as well-trained as those of the LTTE.
The LTTE had shifted its offices from Kilinochchi many weeks ago in anticipation of the battle. Kilinochchi has now nothing but the death traps for the SL Army laid by the LTTE. The LTTE knows where those death-traps are, but not the Army. This gives an advantage to the LTTE.
The battle being fought for Kilinochchi is a combined miniature version of the battles of Stalingrad in the erstwhile USSR and El Alamein in North Africa. At Stalingrad, the Soviet Army beat back the Nazis after inflicting repeated heavy casualties on them. At El Alamein, the allied troops commanded by Gen. Bernard Montgomery (later a Field Marshal) beat back the advancing Nazi Army commanded by Gen.Rommel with heavy casualties. These two battles marked the turning points in the Second World War.
Making a statement on the defeat of Rommel's army at El Alamein, Sir Winston Churchill, the then British Prime Minister, told the House of Commons: " There was no victory before Al Alamein. There will be no defeat after El Alamein." He was proved right.
Will Kilinochchi prove a similar turning point in the battle being fought between the SL Army and the LTTE? If the LTTE loses the battle, it could mark the beginning of its end as an insurgent force, but not as a terrorist organisation. If the SL Army wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. (18-12-08)
(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 )
( To be read in continuation of my earlier article of Oct. 21, 2008, titled "Kilinochchi: The Spectre of Stalingrad " at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers29/paper2886.html )
"Kilinochchi within kissing distance".
So said the disinformation warriors of Lt.Gen.Sarath Fonseka, the Sri Lankan Army Commander, more than a week ago..
It has been a long and fatal kiss----more for the Army than for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It has been a long kiss of death for the young hastily-trained Sinhalese recruits to the Sri Lankan Army who were rushed to the battle front by the General in his keenness to keep his promise of "In Kilinochchi before the New Year".
Similar to the promise which Gen.Douglas McArthur, commanding the allied troops in South Korea during the Korean war, repeatedly made to the US troops fighting against the North Korean and Chinese Armies.
" To home before Christmas", he used to promise.
Christmas came and Christmas went, but the North Koreans and the Chinese fought fiercely. McArthur's promises were repeatedly belied.'Which Christmas?" people started asking sarcastically.
Ultimately, there were neither victors nor losers in the war. It ended in a stalemate after the loss of thousands of lives on both sides.
In bitter fighting on the outskirts of Kilinochchi since the beginning of this week, the SL Army and the LTTE have sustained heavy casualties. As normally happens in military conflicts, both sides are playing down their own casualties and exaggerating those of the adversary. However, the claims of the LTTE seem to be nearer the truth than those of the Army.
The LTTE claims to have killed 170 soldiers of the SL Army, but the Army insists that only 25 of its soldiers have been killed. However, the LTTE has been able to release the photographs of at least 36 soldiers killed, thereby proving that the fatalities sustained by the Army are many more than the 25 admitted by it.
Reliable accounts show that both sides have been fighting fiercely and losing many young people. The Army has lost many more arms and ammunition and other equipment than the LTTE. The fighting has been a bonanza for the LTTE, which has been able to replenish its dwindling stocks of arms and ammunition.
The odds are still against the LTTE. It has well-trained and well-motivated cadres, who have been fighting with great determination, but it is running short of arms and ammunition despite the seizures from the Army. It has no air cover against the repeated air strikes by the Sri Lankan Air Force.
The SL Army has the advantage of numbers and arms and ammunition procured with funds from China and Iran, but its soldiers are not as well-motivated and as well-trained as those of the LTTE.
The LTTE had shifted its offices from Kilinochchi many weeks ago in anticipation of the battle. Kilinochchi has now nothing but the death traps for the SL Army laid by the LTTE. The LTTE knows where those death-traps are, but not the Army. This gives an advantage to the LTTE.
The battle being fought for Kilinochchi is a combined miniature version of the battles of Stalingrad in the erstwhile USSR and El Alamein in North Africa. At Stalingrad, the Soviet Army beat back the Nazis after inflicting repeated heavy casualties on them. At El Alamein, the allied troops commanded by Gen. Bernard Montgomery (later a Field Marshal) beat back the advancing Nazi Army commanded by Gen.Rommel with heavy casualties. These two battles marked the turning points in the Second World War.
Making a statement on the defeat of Rommel's army at El Alamein, Sir Winston Churchill, the then British Prime Minister, told the House of Commons: " There was no victory before Al Alamein. There will be no defeat after El Alamein." He was proved right.
Will Kilinochchi prove a similar turning point in the battle being fought between the SL Army and the LTTE? If the LTTE loses the battle, it could mark the beginning of its end as an insurgent force, but not as a terrorist organisation. If the SL Army wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. (18-12-08)
(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 )
December 17, 2008
The Russian Navy's main HQ 'sets sail' for St. Petersburg
The
11:42 | 16/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW. (Nikita Petrov for RIA Novosti) - The headquarters of the Leningrad naval base is being transferred from the famous Admiralty building in St. Petersburg to Kronshtadt outside the city. Many assume the Russian military is preparing to transfer the Russian Navy's main headquarters, stationed in Moscow, to St. Petersburg.
Although this move hasn't been confirmed or denied by the main headquarters, an anonymous source there admitted that its admirals are preparing to move to a new station. The transfer should be final in the second quarter of 2009.
The idea to transfer the Moscow-based main headquarters to St. Petersburg was voiced by State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov last year. The initiative gained extensive support from St. Petersburg Mayor Valentina Matviyenko. The two politicians say Moscow is overloaded with administrative functions. The transfer would align naval practice with naval history, as St. Petersburg was the station of the Russian Navy's main HQ before the 1917 Revolution.
Moreover, the city and its suburbs host many naval training schools, including the Naval Academy, as well as a number of major naval research institutions and design bureaus. A series of shipbuilding plants are situated along the river Neva, including the Rubin Central Design Bureau, which engineers ballistic missile submarines.
Feedback on the initiative has not all been positive. The transfer of the main headquarters to St. Petersburg would hamper the current close cooperation between the Navy's command and the General Staff of the Defense Ministry, parliament and government.
In the U.S., the general staffs of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are all stationed at the Pentagon, and no one has ever tried to station the top admirals somewhere closer to an ocean, for example, at Norfolk. Additionally, St. Petersburg lacks the infrastructure needed for sustained and secure functioning of the main headquarters, including alternate underground command centers, a major communications center and many other facilities which are necessary in times of threat.
It should also be noted that the Leningrad naval base headquarters will have to leave the Admiralty building together with the Naval Engineering Institute, which provides training of officers for nuclear-powered submarines. It is impossible to transfer all of the institute's hardware, including operating models of nuclear reactors, submarine compartments fitted with strategic training equipment and weapons systems, and rescue chambers, a fact which will damage the school's performance for many years.
Navy veterans, among them several former chiefs of the main headquarters, are also alarmed, saying the absolutely unnecessary transfer will require enormous funding of as much as tens of billions of rubles, which instead could be spent on housing construction to accommodate officers and their families, as well as to build warships, too few of which were manufactured in the recent 15 years.
At a press conference with Russian journalists this April, Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky dismissed the idea of the main headquarters transfer, saying: "I have seen no written directives or other formal documents on the transfer of the main headquarters to St. Petersburg."
Now, he appears to have been dodging the truth. The transfer is being performed quietly, in strict secrecy, as if the Russian Navy's top brass are not absolutely sure they are doing the right thing.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
11:42 | 16/ 12/ 2008
11:42 | 16/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW. (Nikita Petrov for RIA Novosti) - The headquarters of the Leningrad naval base is being transferred from the famous Admiralty building in St. Petersburg to Kronshtadt outside the city. Many assume the Russian military is preparing to transfer the Russian Navy's main headquarters, stationed in Moscow, to St. Petersburg.
Although this move hasn't been confirmed or denied by the main headquarters, an anonymous source there admitted that its admirals are preparing to move to a new station. The transfer should be final in the second quarter of 2009.
The idea to transfer the Moscow-based main headquarters to St. Petersburg was voiced by State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov last year. The initiative gained extensive support from St. Petersburg Mayor Valentina Matviyenko. The two politicians say Moscow is overloaded with administrative functions. The transfer would align naval practice with naval history, as St. Petersburg was the station of the Russian Navy's main HQ before the 1917 Revolution.
Moreover, the city and its suburbs host many naval training schools, including the Naval Academy, as well as a number of major naval research institutions and design bureaus. A series of shipbuilding plants are situated along the river Neva, including the Rubin Central Design Bureau, which engineers ballistic missile submarines.
Feedback on the initiative has not all been positive. The transfer of the main headquarters to St. Petersburg would hamper the current close cooperation between the Navy's command and the General Staff of the Defense Ministry, parliament and government.
In the U.S., the general staffs of the Army, Navy and Air Force and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are all stationed at the Pentagon, and no one has ever tried to station the top admirals somewhere closer to an ocean, for example, at Norfolk. Additionally, St. Petersburg lacks the infrastructure needed for sustained and secure functioning of the main headquarters, including alternate underground command centers, a major communications center and many other facilities which are necessary in times of threat.
It should also be noted that the Leningrad naval base headquarters will have to leave the Admiralty building together with the Naval Engineering Institute, which provides training of officers for nuclear-powered submarines. It is impossible to transfer all of the institute's hardware, including operating models of nuclear reactors, submarine compartments fitted with strategic training equipment and weapons systems, and rescue chambers, a fact which will damage the school's performance for many years.
Navy veterans, among them several former chiefs of the main headquarters, are also alarmed, saying the absolutely unnecessary transfer will require enormous funding of as much as tens of billions of rubles, which instead could be spent on housing construction to accommodate officers and their families, as well as to build warships, too few of which were manufactured in the recent 15 years.
At a press conference with Russian journalists this April, Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky dismissed the idea of the main headquarters transfer, saying: "I have seen no written directives or other formal documents on the transfer of the main headquarters to St. Petersburg."
Now, he appears to have been dodging the truth. The transfer is being performed quietly, in strict secrecy, as if the Russian Navy's top brass are not absolutely sure they are doing the right thing.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
11:42 | 16/ 12/ 2008
A military doctrine for every occasion
13:03 | 17/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - In 2009, Russia's armed forces will get a new military doctrine meeting present-day realities as defined by national security and foreign policy interests.
A military doctrine is a set of principles defining the objectives of military planning, preparations for war, and the ways and means of warfare. These principles depend on the political system, form of government, economic and technological development, and the perception of its authors on what to anticipate from an expected war.
The last Soviet doctrine was adopted in 1987 and was defensive in nature. It dropped the term "potential enemy" and confirmed its earlier commitment not to be the first to launch hostilities or use nuclear weapons.
Soon after the adoption of this doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia, which succeeded it, faced the need to redefine its place in the world and produce a new military doctrine.
In its 1993 doctrine, Russia repeated that it had no potential enemies and undertook not to use military force save for self-defense. Nuclear weapons came to be seen not as a fighting tool but as a political deterrent. Reasonable sufficiency became the principle underlying military potential: it was to be maintained at a level that would meet an existing threat.
Further developments, however, forced the military to change some provisions of the doctrine. It was declared, for example, that along with ordinary weapons, nuclear weapons could be used to repulse an act of aggression.
According to the doctrine, regional and local wars are today most likely, while a large-scale global war, including a nuclear war, is less probable.
The experience of the past years and the expected course of events, however, suggest that although local and regional wars are indeed most probable, new destabilizing factors, such as destruction of nuclear missile parity, have appeared, making the option of a large-scale war more likely. For example, a U.S. missile defense shield, which, with military arsenals being cut, could deliver an unpunished first strike with little or no damage from a retaliatory attack.
It is to be hoped that Russia's new military doctrine, while emphasizing local and regional conflicts, will not loose focus on a large-scale nuclear conflict as probable in the current destabilized setting and include the missile defense system among external threats.
In view of these factors, maintaining Russia's nuclear potential and its retaliation capability will be one of the main goals in guaranteeing its military security. To do so, it is necessary to have top-class armed forces able to fight in every environment and engage targets at any distance.
Russia should also have a capability for taking part in peacekeeping operations and in local and regional conflicts, whose likelihood is only growing as events of the last few years have shown.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - In 2009, Russia's armed forces will get a new military doctrine meeting present-day realities as defined by national security and foreign policy interests.
A military doctrine is a set of principles defining the objectives of military planning, preparations for war, and the ways and means of warfare. These principles depend on the political system, form of government, economic and technological development, and the perception of its authors on what to anticipate from an expected war.
The last Soviet doctrine was adopted in 1987 and was defensive in nature. It dropped the term "potential enemy" and confirmed its earlier commitment not to be the first to launch hostilities or use nuclear weapons.
Soon after the adoption of this doctrine, the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia, which succeeded it, faced the need to redefine its place in the world and produce a new military doctrine.
In its 1993 doctrine, Russia repeated that it had no potential enemies and undertook not to use military force save for self-defense. Nuclear weapons came to be seen not as a fighting tool but as a political deterrent. Reasonable sufficiency became the principle underlying military potential: it was to be maintained at a level that would meet an existing threat.
Further developments, however, forced the military to change some provisions of the doctrine. It was declared, for example, that along with ordinary weapons, nuclear weapons could be used to repulse an act of aggression.
According to the doctrine, regional and local wars are today most likely, while a large-scale global war, including a nuclear war, is less probable.
The experience of the past years and the expected course of events, however, suggest that although local and regional wars are indeed most probable, new destabilizing factors, such as destruction of nuclear missile parity, have appeared, making the option of a large-scale war more likely. For example, a U.S. missile defense shield, which, with military arsenals being cut, could deliver an unpunished first strike with little or no damage from a retaliatory attack.
It is to be hoped that Russia's new military doctrine, while emphasizing local and regional conflicts, will not loose focus on a large-scale nuclear conflict as probable in the current destabilized setting and include the missile defense system among external threats.
In view of these factors, maintaining Russia's nuclear potential and its retaliation capability will be one of the main goals in guaranteeing its military security. To do so, it is necessary to have top-class armed forces able to fight in every environment and engage targets at any distance.
Russia should also have a capability for taking part in peacekeeping operations and in local and regional conflicts, whose likelihood is only growing as events of the last few years have shown.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Attacks - Perspectives in Intelligence Counterbalance
Guest Column by Dr Sheo Nandan Pandey
(The views expressed by the author are his own)
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack transcends all terror enterprises. The planning, the training and the execution have been literally perfect. It surpasses the 1993 New York Landmarks Plot.
The design of the plot smacks a planning aimed at penetrating the very “protective shield” of the Indian state, where the operating watch and ward mechanism of the targeted individual institutions, targeted by such did not have much needed “ward off” mechanism in working state fall apart and outside support system made to gasp in utter desperation. Last but not the least, it sought to put the fabric of national resilience to test.
The incidence and impact of the event portend quite pervasive bearing far beyond India. It is pertinent that the blue print has since undergone successful laboratory tests.. The miscreants in the field at large can easily recreate it elsewhere with here and there modifications and change. The way the miscreants could recreate 1993 New York Landmarks Plot from one hemisphere to another in the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Attack, it was but a matter of time that the module finds currency elsewhere. It has thus a dimension beyond time and space.
The paper is aimed at addressing the conceptual and applied framework of the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Attack and examine where and how intelligence network of the country could turn out to be a counterbalance to the macabre design of perpetrators of this multifaceted proxy war. The methodology includes a revisit of the event and draws a parallel in historical perspective. Schematically, the paper is organized in analytical format and goes to focus: the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Strategy; Tactical Moves and the Weapons of Carnage; Approach and Pattern of Terror Strike; and, the Lessons and Future Actions. In its perspective, the paper looks up for plausible intelligence coverage modules, some thing of which exists and some thing that the country would need to evolve.
Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Strategy
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack, seen as it happened, smacks professional statecraft, involving thorough reconnaissance of all the terror attack sites: the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel; Oberoi Trident Hotel; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal (CST); Leopold Café; Cama Hospital; Nariman House; and, Metro Cinema. Mazagaon docks and Ville Parle taxi stand were possibly as well the targets. This is evident from the fact that they were able to take position, much less move about in the interiors of the hotels with as much ease as very few with years long acquaintance could otherwise do.
The terrorists group worked in concert and seemed highly organized. With their hands on trigger, and eyes glued to indiscriminate killing, the terrorist group in action displayed a measure of depressive and narcissist characteristics. In over all conduct, in words and deeds, the group has had a singular value system. They reject diversity, diverse values, and see the world in black-white terms. It must not be an outcome of just personal human attribute. Corroborated subsequently in the interrogation of the captured assailant, the group have had training in several phases, which included training in handling weapons, bomb-making, survival strategies, survival in marine environment and even dietary habits.
Notwithstanding, they were thorough with the routes right from source to fan out locations in the city of carnage. Enroute, the group of 10 travelled in two watercrafts, the MV Alpha, a Vietnamese Cargo Ship and the Kuber, an Indian fishing boat. The Kuber was hijacked on Nov. 13, 2008 and its captain was found murdered. Aboard the Ship, the group used a satellite phone to make calls to Karachi. The group simultaneously made use of GPS map to cruise through. Six of the 10 terrorists disembarked from at Macchimar Nagar in the neighbourhood of Cuffe Parade area and the rest sailed beyond along the shore. There was absolute confidence lest they should have given cause of suspicion locals who had made queries about their profession and whereabouts. The same thing happened when the rest others of the group of ten miscreants disembarked from inflatable speed boat in Colaba. Hardly it could ever happen without organized institutional support.
The moves of the miscreants have been quite precise and measured. They broke up into smaller groups once arrived in Mumbai in the watercraft. As part of the action plan, a member of the group had already infiltrated into the ranks of the serving employee of the target institution. Choice for the position of intern chef and work place as Kitchen was again part of well thought of decision. It made person and his movement innocuous. It provided free and unquestioned access to attack and escape routes to the assailants. Again, as part of the plan, the miscreants must have created an aura of trust among the workers. The tactics paid great dividend as it enabled the group to stockpile firearms, ammunitions, grenades and food without raising eye brow of the watch and ward in a VVIP frequented hotel.
Tactical Moves and the Weapons of Carnage
After landing in Colaba, the terrorists moved north and attacked the Colaba police station, possibly as a single unit. The attack on the police command and control node was perhaps a calculated move to disrupt the police response and pin down police units. Early in the fight, the attackers killed the chief of Mumbai's Anti-terrorism Squad and two other senior officials. At least 14 police were reported to have been killed during fighting throughout the city.
From the Colaba police station, the terrorists broke up into smaller teams and fanned out to hit secondary targets throughout Mumbai. At least one police van was hijacked and the terrorists drove around the city, firing automatic weapons from the truck at random targets. In all, 10 locations, including the police station, were attacked. The assault teams struck at vital centres where foreigners were likely to congregate: the five-star Taj Mahal and Trident hotels, the Nariman House (an orthodox Jewish centre), the Cama hospital, the CST railway station, a cinema, and a cafe were all struck almost simultaneously. Two Taxis were also blown up near the airport in the north and the docks in the southern part of the city.
Approach and Pattern of Terror Strike
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack and 1993 New York Landmarks Plot carry some striking similarities in historical perspectives, which leaves ground for testing a hypothesis whether it was off the shelf plan. That be so, whether the masterminds in the Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack and 1993 New York Land Marks plot were the same and/ or carried linkage of some definite description.
Both New York and Mumbai happened to be the financial capitals of their countries and home to their nations’ major stock exchanges. In both cities, the perpetrators of terror picked out and ravaged high-profile soft targets. Both plans also involved infiltrating hotel staff and booking rooms in the hotels to gain inside information and store supplies. In both cases, there have peripheral targets, meant for causing confusions and chaos. It was perhaps a tactical move to create a diversion from the main target.
A revisit of the event in Mumbai bears out a planning with sufficient home work at hand. The perpetrators of terror targeted first, transportation infrastructure such as the CST railway station. They fired indiscriminately and gave rise to panic. The terror outfit simultaneously detonated explosive devices in taxis and next to gasoline pumps. Meanwhile, part of the terror group attacked other sites around the city. It was predictably aimed at distracting the attention of the security forces from prized target: the Taj Mahal and Trident hotels and Nariman House. Attacking Cama Hospital also sowed chaos, as the injured from one scene of attack became the targets of another while being rescued. It was also aimed at playing up with psyche of the people at large.
Similarity did as well exist in the geography of the two cities. In both plots, the use of watercraft is a distinctive tactical similarity. Watercraft gave militants access at unconventional locations where security would be more lax. Both Mumbai (a peninsula) and Manhattan (an island) offer plenty of points where militants can mount assaults from watercraft. Such an attack would not have worked in New Delhi or Bangalore; these are landlocked cities where militants would have had to enter by road, a route much more likely to encounter police patrols. Being centers of trade and surrounded by water, both Mumbai and New York have high levels of maritime traffic. This means infiltrating the area from the water would raise minimal suspicions, especially if the craft were registered locally (as was the case in the Mumbai attack). Such out-of-the box tactics take advantage of security services, which often tend to focus on established threats.
Similarity did as well exist in the choice for transportation. In addition to using watercraft, both plots involved the use of deceptive vehicles to maneuver around the city undetected. The Landmark plotters used taxis to conduct surveillance and planned on using a delivery van to approach the hotels. In Mumbai, the attackers planted bombs in taxis, and at least one group of militants hijacked a police van and used it to carry out attacks across the city. Using familiar vehicles like taxis, delivery vans or police vans to carry out surveillance or attacks reduces suspicion and increases the element of surprise, allowing militants to stay under cover until the moment of attack.
It leads to an inference that the 1993 New York Landmarks authored the Mumbai plan. Considering that the group of 10 terrorists embarked to undertake Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack from Karachi, Pakistan, and the previous involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is a fact beyond any dispute, it is but quite likely that the Lashkar-e- Taiba took leaf from al-Qaeda who had worked out 1993 New York Landmarks plot.
Lessons and Future Actions
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack has open lessons. It is again not just for India. The perpetrators of terror have exemplified their dogged will by recreating failed 1993 New York Landmarks on Indian soils even as it related to continental shift in locale after 15 long years. The module could be extended to other such places in the world for the ghastly act of encroaching upon the right to live in brazen defiance to civil order of peaceful coexistence. Quite a few of American and European cities are literally prone to suffer Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack trauma in similar way. A Yacht could possibly slip into Miami from the Caribbean as it happened from Karachi to Mumbai unless active radar cover kept vigil on each and every watercraft. Houston, Boston, Los Angeles, California and several other cities in US are perhaps as vulnerable as Mumbai from various Karachi like locations.
Nonetheless, it is a case where so to say non-state actor is overtly working for ideological and political space under covert dispensation of state actor. As a result, it has seeds of sowing extra-state pan terror regime to the utter disquiet of centuries old human efforts to set orderly life.
The hypothesis tests positive without an iota of null proposition. 1993 New York Landmarks plot was perceived to be executed with a coordinated master act of several Tactical teams such as the Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. The high profile soft target included Waldorf-Astoria, St. Regis and UN Plaza hotels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and midtown Manhattan waterfront heliport servicing business executives and VIP traveling from lower Manhattan to various areas in New York. The terror outfit had prepared the blue print of the attack after extensive surveillance using human probes, hand drawn maps and video surveillance. Detailed information about the lay out was gathered beforehand as in the case of Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. This was rendered possible due to unhindered access of people at large. It was averted solely as the plotter team was infiltrated by the FBI on the basis of tip off and in Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack the casual approach of the designated state outfits such as the coast guard and the non-state personage such the locals let the strangers get off with pleasantries.
Threat to Indian state and civil society against type Nov 26 Mumbai Terror attack shall perhaps remain real until substantial metamorphic changes in the immediate and remote socio-cultural and political environments behind the growth and development of such macabre acts take place. This has to be fought b the Indian state and non-state systems in a formal way. Reorganization of state organs such the proposed federal agency may perhaps yield little dividend unless half a dozen existing agencies of different denomination in the field come to operate like five fingers with a built-in-system to draw on information, knowledge and perception of others. Gaps are to be bridged and a compatible proactive system response to all possible dimensions created.
India can draw on the British counter terror strategy against the onslaughts of Irish Republican Army (IRA) and new home grown terror outfits, which is based on four pillars: pursue, protect, prepare and prevent. There is Chinese module as well in the field. We shall have to depend yet on our own home grown system.
Counter terror infrastructure including the proposed coastal command, setting up of 20 counter insurgency and counter terrorism schools and the like hold prospect to act both as deterrence and on-time response to the eventualities. They suffer limitations to proactive recourse like the military options in more than one way. A committed intelligence counterbalance stood chance to safeguard both soft and hard terror targets.
The existing intelligence infrastructure could possibly deliver results with a change in approach. For little reckonable rationale, one and all old and new outfits in the field tend to operate in isolation both in inter and intra organization perspectives. Notwithstanding, there is one-up against each others in presenting the inputs with twists of unimaginable proportion.
The domain of terror intelligence is relatively less challenging. A public private partnership (PPP) module with multilevel indication and warning (I&W) windows could possibly help evade slips as it happened in Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. The system could incorporate modern techniques, such as “information visualization” to zero down broad and specific terror plots of different denominations.
(Dr. Sheonandan Pandey is a China watcher with a long stint in the Government of India and finally retied from National Technical Research Organization. He can be contacted at sheonandan@hotmail.com)
(The views expressed by the author are his own)
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack transcends all terror enterprises. The planning, the training and the execution have been literally perfect. It surpasses the 1993 New York Landmarks Plot.
The design of the plot smacks a planning aimed at penetrating the very “protective shield” of the Indian state, where the operating watch and ward mechanism of the targeted individual institutions, targeted by such did not have much needed “ward off” mechanism in working state fall apart and outside support system made to gasp in utter desperation. Last but not the least, it sought to put the fabric of national resilience to test.
The incidence and impact of the event portend quite pervasive bearing far beyond India. It is pertinent that the blue print has since undergone successful laboratory tests.. The miscreants in the field at large can easily recreate it elsewhere with here and there modifications and change. The way the miscreants could recreate 1993 New York Landmarks Plot from one hemisphere to another in the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Attack, it was but a matter of time that the module finds currency elsewhere. It has thus a dimension beyond time and space.
The paper is aimed at addressing the conceptual and applied framework of the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Attack and examine where and how intelligence network of the country could turn out to be a counterbalance to the macabre design of perpetrators of this multifaceted proxy war. The methodology includes a revisit of the event and draws a parallel in historical perspective. Schematically, the paper is organized in analytical format and goes to focus: the Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Strategy; Tactical Moves and the Weapons of Carnage; Approach and Pattern of Terror Strike; and, the Lessons and Future Actions. In its perspective, the paper looks up for plausible intelligence coverage modules, some thing of which exists and some thing that the country would need to evolve.
Nov 26 Mumbai Terror Strategy
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack, seen as it happened, smacks professional statecraft, involving thorough reconnaissance of all the terror attack sites: the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel; Oberoi Trident Hotel; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal (CST); Leopold Café; Cama Hospital; Nariman House; and, Metro Cinema. Mazagaon docks and Ville Parle taxi stand were possibly as well the targets. This is evident from the fact that they were able to take position, much less move about in the interiors of the hotels with as much ease as very few with years long acquaintance could otherwise do.
The terrorists group worked in concert and seemed highly organized. With their hands on trigger, and eyes glued to indiscriminate killing, the terrorist group in action displayed a measure of depressive and narcissist characteristics. In over all conduct, in words and deeds, the group has had a singular value system. They reject diversity, diverse values, and see the world in black-white terms. It must not be an outcome of just personal human attribute. Corroborated subsequently in the interrogation of the captured assailant, the group have had training in several phases, which included training in handling weapons, bomb-making, survival strategies, survival in marine environment and even dietary habits.
Notwithstanding, they were thorough with the routes right from source to fan out locations in the city of carnage. Enroute, the group of 10 travelled in two watercrafts, the MV Alpha, a Vietnamese Cargo Ship and the Kuber, an Indian fishing boat. The Kuber was hijacked on Nov. 13, 2008 and its captain was found murdered. Aboard the Ship, the group used a satellite phone to make calls to Karachi. The group simultaneously made use of GPS map to cruise through. Six of the 10 terrorists disembarked from at Macchimar Nagar in the neighbourhood of Cuffe Parade area and the rest sailed beyond along the shore. There was absolute confidence lest they should have given cause of suspicion locals who had made queries about their profession and whereabouts. The same thing happened when the rest others of the group of ten miscreants disembarked from inflatable speed boat in Colaba. Hardly it could ever happen without organized institutional support.
The moves of the miscreants have been quite precise and measured. They broke up into smaller groups once arrived in Mumbai in the watercraft. As part of the action plan, a member of the group had already infiltrated into the ranks of the serving employee of the target institution. Choice for the position of intern chef and work place as Kitchen was again part of well thought of decision. It made person and his movement innocuous. It provided free and unquestioned access to attack and escape routes to the assailants. Again, as part of the plan, the miscreants must have created an aura of trust among the workers. The tactics paid great dividend as it enabled the group to stockpile firearms, ammunitions, grenades and food without raising eye brow of the watch and ward in a VVIP frequented hotel.
Tactical Moves and the Weapons of Carnage
After landing in Colaba, the terrorists moved north and attacked the Colaba police station, possibly as a single unit. The attack on the police command and control node was perhaps a calculated move to disrupt the police response and pin down police units. Early in the fight, the attackers killed the chief of Mumbai's Anti-terrorism Squad and two other senior officials. At least 14 police were reported to have been killed during fighting throughout the city.
From the Colaba police station, the terrorists broke up into smaller teams and fanned out to hit secondary targets throughout Mumbai. At least one police van was hijacked and the terrorists drove around the city, firing automatic weapons from the truck at random targets. In all, 10 locations, including the police station, were attacked. The assault teams struck at vital centres where foreigners were likely to congregate: the five-star Taj Mahal and Trident hotels, the Nariman House (an orthodox Jewish centre), the Cama hospital, the CST railway station, a cinema, and a cafe were all struck almost simultaneously. Two Taxis were also blown up near the airport in the north and the docks in the southern part of the city.
Approach and Pattern of Terror Strike
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack and 1993 New York Landmarks Plot carry some striking similarities in historical perspectives, which leaves ground for testing a hypothesis whether it was off the shelf plan. That be so, whether the masterminds in the Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack and 1993 New York Land Marks plot were the same and/ or carried linkage of some definite description.
Both New York and Mumbai happened to be the financial capitals of their countries and home to their nations’ major stock exchanges. In both cities, the perpetrators of terror picked out and ravaged high-profile soft targets. Both plans also involved infiltrating hotel staff and booking rooms in the hotels to gain inside information and store supplies. In both cases, there have peripheral targets, meant for causing confusions and chaos. It was perhaps a tactical move to create a diversion from the main target.
A revisit of the event in Mumbai bears out a planning with sufficient home work at hand. The perpetrators of terror targeted first, transportation infrastructure such as the CST railway station. They fired indiscriminately and gave rise to panic. The terror outfit simultaneously detonated explosive devices in taxis and next to gasoline pumps. Meanwhile, part of the terror group attacked other sites around the city. It was predictably aimed at distracting the attention of the security forces from prized target: the Taj Mahal and Trident hotels and Nariman House. Attacking Cama Hospital also sowed chaos, as the injured from one scene of attack became the targets of another while being rescued. It was also aimed at playing up with psyche of the people at large.
Similarity did as well exist in the geography of the two cities. In both plots, the use of watercraft is a distinctive tactical similarity. Watercraft gave militants access at unconventional locations where security would be more lax. Both Mumbai (a peninsula) and Manhattan (an island) offer plenty of points where militants can mount assaults from watercraft. Such an attack would not have worked in New Delhi or Bangalore; these are landlocked cities where militants would have had to enter by road, a route much more likely to encounter police patrols. Being centers of trade and surrounded by water, both Mumbai and New York have high levels of maritime traffic. This means infiltrating the area from the water would raise minimal suspicions, especially if the craft were registered locally (as was the case in the Mumbai attack). Such out-of-the box tactics take advantage of security services, which often tend to focus on established threats.
Similarity did as well exist in the choice for transportation. In addition to using watercraft, both plots involved the use of deceptive vehicles to maneuver around the city undetected. The Landmark plotters used taxis to conduct surveillance and planned on using a delivery van to approach the hotels. In Mumbai, the attackers planted bombs in taxis, and at least one group of militants hijacked a police van and used it to carry out attacks across the city. Using familiar vehicles like taxis, delivery vans or police vans to carry out surveillance or attacks reduces suspicion and increases the element of surprise, allowing militants to stay under cover until the moment of attack.
It leads to an inference that the 1993 New York Landmarks authored the Mumbai plan. Considering that the group of 10 terrorists embarked to undertake Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack from Karachi, Pakistan, and the previous involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is a fact beyond any dispute, it is but quite likely that the Lashkar-e- Taiba took leaf from al-Qaeda who had worked out 1993 New York Landmarks plot.
Lessons and Future Actions
Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack has open lessons. It is again not just for India. The perpetrators of terror have exemplified their dogged will by recreating failed 1993 New York Landmarks on Indian soils even as it related to continental shift in locale after 15 long years. The module could be extended to other such places in the world for the ghastly act of encroaching upon the right to live in brazen defiance to civil order of peaceful coexistence. Quite a few of American and European cities are literally prone to suffer Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack trauma in similar way. A Yacht could possibly slip into Miami from the Caribbean as it happened from Karachi to Mumbai unless active radar cover kept vigil on each and every watercraft. Houston, Boston, Los Angeles, California and several other cities in US are perhaps as vulnerable as Mumbai from various Karachi like locations.
Nonetheless, it is a case where so to say non-state actor is overtly working for ideological and political space under covert dispensation of state actor. As a result, it has seeds of sowing extra-state pan terror regime to the utter disquiet of centuries old human efforts to set orderly life.
The hypothesis tests positive without an iota of null proposition. 1993 New York Landmarks plot was perceived to be executed with a coordinated master act of several Tactical teams such as the Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. The high profile soft target included Waldorf-Astoria, St. Regis and UN Plaza hotels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and midtown Manhattan waterfront heliport servicing business executives and VIP traveling from lower Manhattan to various areas in New York. The terror outfit had prepared the blue print of the attack after extensive surveillance using human probes, hand drawn maps and video surveillance. Detailed information about the lay out was gathered beforehand as in the case of Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. This was rendered possible due to unhindered access of people at large. It was averted solely as the plotter team was infiltrated by the FBI on the basis of tip off and in Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack the casual approach of the designated state outfits such as the coast guard and the non-state personage such the locals let the strangers get off with pleasantries.
Threat to Indian state and civil society against type Nov 26 Mumbai Terror attack shall perhaps remain real until substantial metamorphic changes in the immediate and remote socio-cultural and political environments behind the growth and development of such macabre acts take place. This has to be fought b the Indian state and non-state systems in a formal way. Reorganization of state organs such the proposed federal agency may perhaps yield little dividend unless half a dozen existing agencies of different denomination in the field come to operate like five fingers with a built-in-system to draw on information, knowledge and perception of others. Gaps are to be bridged and a compatible proactive system response to all possible dimensions created.
India can draw on the British counter terror strategy against the onslaughts of Irish Republican Army (IRA) and new home grown terror outfits, which is based on four pillars: pursue, protect, prepare and prevent. There is Chinese module as well in the field. We shall have to depend yet on our own home grown system.
Counter terror infrastructure including the proposed coastal command, setting up of 20 counter insurgency and counter terrorism schools and the like hold prospect to act both as deterrence and on-time response to the eventualities. They suffer limitations to proactive recourse like the military options in more than one way. A committed intelligence counterbalance stood chance to safeguard both soft and hard terror targets.
The existing intelligence infrastructure could possibly deliver results with a change in approach. For little reckonable rationale, one and all old and new outfits in the field tend to operate in isolation both in inter and intra organization perspectives. Notwithstanding, there is one-up against each others in presenting the inputs with twists of unimaginable proportion.
The domain of terror intelligence is relatively less challenging. A public private partnership (PPP) module with multilevel indication and warning (I&W) windows could possibly help evade slips as it happened in Nov 26 Mumbai terror attack. The system could incorporate modern techniques, such as “information visualization” to zero down broad and specific terror plots of different denominations.
(Dr. Sheonandan Pandey is a China watcher with a long stint in the Government of India and finally retied from National Technical Research Organization. He can be contacted at sheonandan@hotmail.com)
December 16, 2008
Letter to President-elect Obama : Sonal Shah target of smear campaign
Letter to President-elect Obama and the Presidential Transition Team
December 15, 2008.
Washington, DC.
Dear President-elect Obama and the Presidential Transition Team:
As you by now are aware, a highly accomplished member of your team, Sonal Shah, has been targeted in a smear campaign in which she is falsely accused of supporting groups that condone violence against Christians and Muslims. In fact, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) even accused you, President-elect Obama as "condoning an
organization that supports terrorism aimed at Muslims and Christians."
The organization these radical groups speak of is the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which organized many fundraisers and charity drives in Hindu temples across the United States following the tragic 2001 earthquakes in Gujarat, India. Ms. Shah, in an effort to give back to her community, participated in these drives.
But Ms. Shah, in her actions even more than her words, has proven that she is a dedicated, civil servant, not a radical extremist. After observing the 2001 earthquake tragedy, Shah co-founded Indicorps, a non-religious, non-political organization that sends young Indian-Americans to volunteer in poor, remote villages in India.
During her work at Google Inc., she supported small and medium sized enterprise development in the developing world. While some members of the Indian-American community may have objected to her appointment, I want to assure you that the majority of Indian-Americans- of different religious background support her and
what she represents for America. We believe she is highly deserving of the position she has been given in the Presidential Transition Team and look forward to watching her continued success.
Organizations like USINPAC work to increase the presence of Indian-Americans like Sonal in the public sector, because we believe that they can bring the same work ethic, innovation, and success to our government as they have to the fields of medicine, technology, and engineering.
We hope that you will continue to support Sonal Shah for and her
commitment to public service and to her country.
Sincerely,
Sanjay Puri, Chairman, USINPAC
& the members of USINPAC
About USINPAC: The U.S.-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) is
the political voice of 2.5 million Indian-Americans. USINPAC provides
bipartisan support to candidates for federal, state and local office
who support the issues that are important to the Indian-American
community. For more information, go to http://www.usinpac.com/
1010 Vermont Avenue Northwest, Suite 816 | Washington, DC 20005
Financial Law of Negative Political Return
Are there any underlying trends that suggest a pattern. Governments of any type, from religious to democratic to fundamentalist may not say it, but they each know there is a Financial Law of Negative Political Return.
The more prosperous individuals become the less they want to be governed.
The Financial Law of Negative Political Return works like this:
- When the average income is below ten thousand dollars per year, governments can easily control their population using propaganda, censorship and imprisonment.
- Between ten and twenty thousand dollars per year governments and religion
become objects of cynicism. - Between twenty and forty thousand individuals seek the best products on a
global scale and a real open environment is created.
These three stages loosely represent the moves from agrarian to industrial to global technology.
In the third stage, as it has recently been shown with French nuclear testing in the Pacific,
government information control fails. Government short termism will become shorter as CNN
and a wealth of other media- influence foreign policy.
ALFRED ROLINGTON. FORMER GROUP MANAGING DIRECTOR. JANE'S INFORMATION GROUP (Source)
Next biggest security threat , Cyber-Terrorism- Ankit Fadia
Next biggest security threat will not be bomb blast or indiscriminate shootings, but, Cyber-Terrorism says Ankit Fadia
Internationally renowned Cyber Security expert
Cyber Terrorism is the biggest security threat all most all the major countries across the globe as they are heavily dependant on computers for daily activities.
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, IND, 2008-12-16 15:45:04 (IndiaPRwire.com)
The recent terrorist attacks on Indian commercial city Mumbai are any indication, the next biggest security threat could not be AK 47s, Bomb Blasts, Serial Bomb Blasts but Cyber Terrorism. Terrorists can attack their enemy without stepping out of their home or country. They need not come to our soil. Hence, Cyber Terrorism is more dangerous than any other form of terrorism, said Ankit Fadia whom the Mumbai police have contacted recently to trace emails of the Mumbai attackers which was sent through proxy servers in Saudi Arabia, Russia and finally traced to Pakistan.
Fadia is also a widely recognized computer security guru and Cyber terrorism expert. He has also led several investigations pertaining to national security and cyber terrorism. In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden’s men.
Since then Fadia has been involved in numerous classified projects pertaining to cyber terrorism and crime. In August 2008, Fadia was consulted by the Navi Mumbai Police Department to trace the terror email sent just a few minutes before the Gujarat serial blasts.
Cyberterrorism may have been a thing only imaginable in the past, but today it seems a reality and a worrying possibility for the world at large. So many countries these days rely heavily on their computers and related technology to carry out daily activities. Imagine your computer being inaccessible for a week. Now imagine that your bank's computer is also down, as is your local new company's, and your place of work. You turn to the government for answers and all government machinery computers are down. Everything is down. How would you live? This sort of wide scale disturbance is possible with cyberterrorism, and now there is an example of just how disturbing cyberterrorism can be informed 22 years old Ankit Fadia, an internationally renowned Cyber Security expert addressing a press conference in city today afternoon.
He was in Hyderabad on three day visit visiting Engineering Colleges speaking seminars and creating awareness about Cyber Security.
One country heavily dependent on modern technology is Estonia, a country in Eastern Europe who recently implored NATO to take a position against cyberterrorism after accusing Russia of cyberterrorism against their country. For the third time in one week Estonia experienced attacks on their government, banking, and media websites. These attacks used a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack which flooded Estonian websites with false information shutting down a number of
government (including military) and banking (Blomfield, 2007) sites rendering the country extremely vulnerable.
Estonia is a smally country, but, imagine if it India. The situation is unimaginable he said. India though is a super power as far as information technology is concerned, but our police and security agencies are ill equipped he lamented. Cyber cops of Cyber Cells of various state Police Departments are not aware of even basics of Cyber Security. Citing an example of a Delhi police, a constable said to have enquired where the Internet Building is located. Such is the pathetic situation of our security personnel. They need to gear up to the impending challenge. They need to take these warnings very seriously he added.
Unfortunately even the prestigious institutions like IIT, REC and others do not offer full time course in Cyber Security. It is offered either as part time or optional programe. Why Cyber Security subject is not taken seriously. Why do we not protect ourseleves and educate ourselves? he questioned. Even sometime ago NASSCOM estimated in the year 2003 that we are short of 40% computer security professionals. This number must have gone up by now. But, still date no adequate steps are not taken by the Government.
To create awareness I have been touring colleges across India. Be brand ambassadors for cyber security i tell students in these seminars he said. There is a need for more people to get trained in Cyber Security. With the vision of creating a more secure Internet, Fadia started a unique computer security training and certification course known as the Ankit Fadia Certified Ethical Hacker program. Today it has become Asia’s largest cyber security training and certification program with thousands trained across centers in 100+ cities in India and 40+ cities in China. To educate the average Internet user about the dangers of the Internet, Fadia also regularly writes
Basic Security Tips which are displayed on OOH Media’s 4500 screens in offices, shopping outlets and entertainment areas in over 22 cities in India. Fadia is also a consultant to many universities in India, Singapore, China and USA on the design and structure of their computer security courses. For example, Fadia has partnered with IMT Ghaziabad to start India’s first government recognized postgraduate diploma course on Cyber Security.
I in association with Reliance Webworld have trained about 12000 people in Cyber Security across 100 cities in the last four years, he stated. He is also offering One Year Diploma Course in Cyber Security in Distance Education mode with IMT, Ghaziabad. And they have trained about 150 students in this program. He also informed that from April he is going to launch India's first English magazine on Cyber Security, Computer Hacking etc. This magazine will be in print, online as well as on mobile phones he informed.
Ankit Fadia has been regularly consulted by security agencies across the globe for breaking encrypted messages sent by unsocial elements. He is involved in numerous classified projects pertaining to International Security and Computer Networks. Some of the security agencies who consult him include Singapore Police, Inland Revenue Authority (Singapore), Inland Revenue Board (Malaysia), Ministry of Defense (Singapore), NISER (Malaysia), Ministry of National Development (Singapore), Ministry of Home Affairs (Singapore), Monetary Authority of Singapore, Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia), Indian Police, Central Forensics Laboratory (Delhi), Kerala Police, Goa Police, Andhra Pradesh Police Department, Andhra Pradesh Forensics Laboratory (Delhi), Pune Police.
Ankit is currently busy training CEO’s COO’s worldwide on Computer Security concerns and solutions.
He’s been nominated as "MTV Youth Icon 2008 Award". The award is a platform created expressly for the youth to identify their new-age role-models. The award celebrates the heroes of the young India. The past winners of the MTV Youth Icon awards include Anil Ambani Rahul Dravid, Shah Rukh Khan, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Orkut.com etc.
Ankit is an author of 14 publications which include The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking, Network Security: A Hacker’s Perspective, "The Ethical Hacking Guide to Corporate Security", "Hacking Mobile Phones", "Email Hacking, Windows Hacking", "Google Hacking", "Intrusion Alert, Encryption", "Tips and Tricks on Linux", "Computer Forensics", "Software Hacking", "Little Genius: The Ankit Fadia Way" , "Cracking Admissions in Colleges Abroad".
He was gifted a computer by his parents at the age of 10 years. By the age of 12, he developed interest in Computer Hacking. By fourteen years he published his first book titled The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking which became an instant bestseller worldwide, sold 3 million copies and was translated into 11 languages. At the age of 16 years after the Sept. 11th attacks, cracked an encrypted email sent by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network for a classified intelligence agency.
By 23 years he is widely recognized as an Ethical Hacker, Computer Security Expert and Cyber Terrorism guru. Written 14 bestselling books, delivered more than 1000 talks in 25 countries, received 45 awards, provides certification courses on Computer Security in India & China, is writing a script for a movie, runs his own consulting company and is a senior at Stanford University. His work has touched & influenced the cyber lives of millions of individuals and organizations worldwide.
Widely traveled, Fadia has provided customized cyber security training and consulting solutions to clients all across Asia, Australia and North America including Google, Citibank, Shell, Volvo, Thai Airways, UOB Bank, PT Cisco Systems, Bank of Thailand, Bangkok Public Bank, Amari Hotels, BlueScope Steel, Jumeirah International, Wipro, Singapore Health Promotion Board, Infosys, Satyam, Schering Ltd and many other organizations in the government, police and corporate sectors. He has also conducted more than a 1000 different training sessions across 25 countries on various topics related to cyber security to an audience comprising of CEOs, CIOs, top level management, entrepreneurs, technical specialists, defense personnel and students.
Widely celebrated in international media publications, Fadia is also regularly invited by BBC Radio World News, London to share the latest updates on virus outbreaks, loopholes and cyber crime trends. For his outstanding contributions in the field of computer security globally, Fadia has been honored with numerous awards namely: Indo-American Society Young Achiever Award 2005, IT Leader Award 2005, Person of The Year 2002, Limca Book of Records, Hall of Fame Award, Outstanding Young Achiever’s Award, Silicon India Person of the Week, Embassy State Award, Best Speaker Award (4 occasions) and many more
- End -
Milestones in Ankit Fadia’s Life
AGE 10 - Gifted a computer at home by his parents.
AGE 12 - Developed an interest in Computer Hacking.
AGE 14 – Published his first book titled The Unofficial Guide to Ethical Hacking which became an instant bestseller worldwide, sold 3 million copies and was translated into 11 languages.
AGE 16 – After the Sept. 11th attacks, cracked an encrypted email sent by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network for a classified intelligence agency.
AGE 23 - Widely recognized as an Ethical Hacker, Computer Security Expert and Cyber Terrorism guru. Written 14 bestselling books, delivered more than 1000 talks in 25 countries, received 45 awards, provides certification courses on Computer Security in India & China, is writing a script for a movie, runs his own consulting company and is a senior at Stanford University. His work has touched & influenced the cyber lives of millions of individuals and organizations worldwide.
Who is Ankit Fadia?
Ankit Fadia, 23 years old, is an independent computer security and digital intelligence consultant with definitive experience in the field of Internet security based out of the Silicon Valley in California, USA. He has authored 14 internationally best-selling books on numerous topics related to Computer Security that have been widely appreciated by both professionals and industry leaders the world over. His books have sold a record 10 million copies across the globe, have been translated into Japanese, Korean, Portuguese and Polish and are also being used as reference textbooks in some of the most prestigious academic institutions around the world.
Fadia is also a widely recognized computer security guru and Cyber terrorism expert. He has also led several investigations pertaining to national security and cyber terrorism. In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden’s men. Since then Fadia has been involved in numerous classified projects pertaining to cyber terrorism and crime. In August 2008, Fadia was consulted by the Navi Mumbai Police Department to trace the terror email sent just a few minutes before the Gujarat serial blasts.
Widely traveled, Fadia has provided customized cyber security training and consulting solutions to clients all across Asia, Australia and North America including Google, Citibank, Shell, Volvo, Thai Airways, UOB Bank, PT Cisco Systems, Bank of Thailand, Bangkok Public Bank, Amari Hotels, BlueScope Steel, Jumeirah International, Wipro, Singapore Health Promotion Board, Infosys, Satyam, Schering Ltd and many other organizations in the government, police and corporate sectors. He has also conducted more than a 1000 different training sessions across 25 countries on various topics related to cyber security to an audience comprising of CEOs, CIOs, top level management, entrepreneurs, technical specialists, defense personnel and students.
With the vision of creating a more secure Internet, Fadia started a unique computer security training and certification course known as the Ankit Fadia Certified Ethical Hacker program. Today it has become Asia’s largest cyber security training and certification program with thousands trained across centers in 100+ cities in India and 40+ cities in China. To educate the average Internet user about the dangers of the Internet, Fadia also regularly writes Basic Security Tips which are displayed on OOH Media’s 4500 screens in offices, shopping outlets and entertainment areas in over 22 cities in India. Fadia is also a consultant to many universities in India, Singapore, China and USA on the design and structure of their computer security courses. For example, Fadia has partnered with IMT Ghaziabad to start India’s first government recognized postgraduate diploma course on Cyber Security.
Widely celebrated in international media publications, Fadia is also regularly invited by BBC Radio World News, London to share the latest updates on virus outbreaks, loopholes and cyber crime trends. For his outstanding contributions in the field of computer security globally, Fadia has been honored with numerous awards namely: Indo-American Society Young Achiever Award 2005, IT Leader Award 2005, Person of The Year 2002, Limca Book of Records, Hall of Fame Award, Outstanding Young Achiever’s Award, Silicon India Person of the Week, Embassy State Award, Best Speaker Award (4 occasions) and many more.
Born in India, Fadia is currently pursuing his Bachelors in Computer Science with specialization in Information Security at Stanford University, USA. Recently Fadia started his own computer security consulting and training company in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. For more information about Fadia and his work visit http://www.hackingmobilephones.com.
December 15, 2008
Putin names Caucasus mountain peak in honor of Russian spies
18:25 | 11/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin named on Thursday a mountain peak in the Caucasus in honor of Russian spies.
The former president's office has said that the one-time KGB agent signed a resolution to name the Sugan Ridge mountain peak the Peak of Russian Counterintelligence Agents.
It said the proposal was made by the republic of North Ossetia's parliament on December 5.
The previously nameless 3269-meter high mountain is located in the westernmost area of North Ossetia, close to the border with Georgia.
Putin served for 16 years with the KGB and later as chief of its successor, the FSB.
MOSCOW, December 11 (RIA Novosti) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin named on Thursday a mountain peak in the Caucasus in honor of Russian spies.
The former president's office has said that the one-time KGB agent signed a resolution to name the Sugan Ridge mountain peak the Peak of Russian Counterintelligence Agents.
It said the proposal was made by the republic of North Ossetia's parliament on December 5.
The previously nameless 3269-meter high mountain is located in the westernmost area of North Ossetia, close to the border with Georgia.
Putin served for 16 years with the KGB and later as chief of its successor, the FSB.
Russian navy on long-distance tours of duty
Restoring the tradition: Russian navy on long-distance tours of duty
17:06 | 15/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - A battle group from the Russian Pacific Fleet set out on a tour of duty. The Admiral Vinogradov large ASW ship, the Pechenga and Boris Butoma tankers, as well as the Foty Krylov tugboat will participate in the joint Russian-Indian INDRA-2009 naval exercise.
Following the exercise, the Russian warships will head for the Gulf of Aden, where the Admiral Vinogradov is to replace the Baltic Fleet's Neustrashimy frigate. The exercise will also see participation of such ships in service with Russia's Northern Fleet as the Pyotr Veliky large nuclear-powered missile cruiser, the Admiral Chabanenko large ASW ship and auxiliary vessels, which headed for the Indian Ocean after completing the joint Russian-Venezuelan VENRUS-2008 exercise.
Currently, ships representing three Russian fleets (the Northern, Baltic and Pacific) are simultaneously on long-distance tours of duty. A task force from the Russian Black Sea Fleet will soon head for the Mediterranean. This is a concentration of Russian navy tours not seen since the break-up of the Soviet Union.
The increased activity of the Russian navy beyond Russia's territorial waters raises questions concerning rationale, objectives and further developments. The reason is actually quite simple: the Russian navy has come back to world oceans now that it has the fuel and the money to keep its ships combat ready. Objectives have been announced repeatedly. Among other things they include flying the Russian naval flag and restoring Russia's military presence in key areas.
"The tour of duty performed by the Pacific Fleet's battle group will demonstrate Russia's ability to duly fly its naval flag and ensure protection of its national interests in the world theater, as well as to guarantee stability in the Asia-Pacific Region," Captain 1st Rank Roman Martov, the head of the Pacific Fleet press center, said.
Besides, another goal of no small significance is combat training of ship crews. Unfortunately the long hiatus without any tours has resulted in a considerable decrease in the efficiency levels of commanding officers. The situation has come to a point where ships and submarines have never taken the sea without a senior officer present (usually a divisional (squadron) chief of staff, commanding officer or his deputy).
However many divisional commanding officers, who made their careers in the 1990s, do not have the necessary experience themselves. This will be full of serious consequences if the Russian navy has to conduct combat operations against a more or less formidable opponent. History shows that a lack of experience cannot be compensated for with firepower or the number of ships. The Russian navy suffers from the latter and will face problems with the former as its warships grow obsolete.
At the same time, one tour of duty or a series of such tours cannot solve the problem. What is necessary today is constant long-term training, which will gradually allow raising a generation of naval officers - from an admiral to a lieutenant - for whom long-distance tours and exercises with live fire will be routine and who will spend most of the time at sea while receiving adequate compensation.
"It takes three years to build a ship, but 300 years to build a tradition," these words of British Admiral Cunningham are true for any navy. This officer in the world's greatest naval power knew what he was talking about - the name of Cunningham is well known to any admirer of history of naval battles of World War II.
The much discussed production of new ships for the Russian navy does not mean anything by itself, if efficient crews, feeling at home at sea, have not been trained. That is what the Russian navy is engaged in now. And the task does need the assets allocated to this end.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
17:06 | 15/ 12/ 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - A battle group from the Russian Pacific Fleet set out on a tour of duty. The Admiral Vinogradov large ASW ship, the Pechenga and Boris Butoma tankers, as well as the Foty Krylov tugboat will participate in the joint Russian-Indian INDRA-2009 naval exercise.
Following the exercise, the Russian warships will head for the Gulf of Aden, where the Admiral Vinogradov is to replace the Baltic Fleet's Neustrashimy frigate. The exercise will also see participation of such ships in service with Russia's Northern Fleet as the Pyotr Veliky large nuclear-powered missile cruiser, the Admiral Chabanenko large ASW ship and auxiliary vessels, which headed for the Indian Ocean after completing the joint Russian-Venezuelan VENRUS-2008 exercise.
Currently, ships representing three Russian fleets (the Northern, Baltic and Pacific) are simultaneously on long-distance tours of duty. A task force from the Russian Black Sea Fleet will soon head for the Mediterranean. This is a concentration of Russian navy tours not seen since the break-up of the Soviet Union.
The increased activity of the Russian navy beyond Russia's territorial waters raises questions concerning rationale, objectives and further developments. The reason is actually quite simple: the Russian navy has come back to world oceans now that it has the fuel and the money to keep its ships combat ready. Objectives have been announced repeatedly. Among other things they include flying the Russian naval flag and restoring Russia's military presence in key areas.
"The tour of duty performed by the Pacific Fleet's battle group will demonstrate Russia's ability to duly fly its naval flag and ensure protection of its national interests in the world theater, as well as to guarantee stability in the Asia-Pacific Region," Captain 1st Rank Roman Martov, the head of the Pacific Fleet press center, said.
Besides, another goal of no small significance is combat training of ship crews. Unfortunately the long hiatus without any tours has resulted in a considerable decrease in the efficiency levels of commanding officers. The situation has come to a point where ships and submarines have never taken the sea without a senior officer present (usually a divisional (squadron) chief of staff, commanding officer or his deputy).
However many divisional commanding officers, who made their careers in the 1990s, do not have the necessary experience themselves. This will be full of serious consequences if the Russian navy has to conduct combat operations against a more or less formidable opponent. History shows that a lack of experience cannot be compensated for with firepower or the number of ships. The Russian navy suffers from the latter and will face problems with the former as its warships grow obsolete.
At the same time, one tour of duty or a series of such tours cannot solve the problem. What is necessary today is constant long-term training, which will gradually allow raising a generation of naval officers - from an admiral to a lieutenant - for whom long-distance tours and exercises with live fire will be routine and who will spend most of the time at sea while receiving adequate compensation.
"It takes three years to build a ship, but 300 years to build a tradition," these words of British Admiral Cunningham are true for any navy. This officer in the world's greatest naval power knew what he was talking about - the name of Cunningham is well known to any admirer of history of naval battles of World War II.
The much discussed production of new ships for the Russian navy does not mean anything by itself, if efficient crews, feeling at home at sea, have not been trained. That is what the Russian navy is engaged in now. And the task does need the assets allocated to this end.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM AND MUMBAI CARNAGE
Guest column by Kazi Anwarul Masud
(The views expressed by the author are his own)
Pakistan is counted among those developing countries of the world where most of the people have insufficient income to provide for minimum standard of living further compounded by appreciable increase in the number of people living in extreme poverty that Manuel Castells would call misery. In Marxian analysis poverty stricken great majority of people have nothing to sell but themselves as opposed to the wealth of the few that increases constantly. Inevitably the process of accumulation of wealth is corruption-ridden.
Yves Menay (La corruption de la Republique) has ascribed four invariant characteristics of corruption;-
(a) violation of social rules and norms;
(b) secret exchange among political, social and economic markets;
(c) illegal access given to individuals and groups to the process of political and administrative decision making; and
(d) resultant tangible benefits to the parties involved in the transaction.
By any definition corruption is illegal and in the first instance results from collusion between political and money elitesthe first party abuses public position of trust for private gains of both parties. Corruption inevitably leads to loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a loss that should be seen in the context of global interpersonal inequality in which the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer.
Mumbai carnage and the global meltdown have brought forth the question of morality in judging both the national and international behavior of states and the evaluation of the code of conduct, more or less uniform in character, prescribed to be followed by the civilized nations.
The Brookings Institution has been developing the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility”. In other words sovereignty imposed abiding obligations towards one’s own people as well as certain privileges internationally. In 1992 Butros Butros Ghali had said that “the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed; its theory was never matched with reality”. Even Michael Walzer’s legalist paradigm would sanction war of self-defense by the victim or war of law enforcement by the victim and the international community and the punishment of the aggressor. This notion assumes that developing countries cannot hide under the cloak of underdevelopment as an excuse of their aberrant behavior.
Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of decolonization has been the imperceptible regression of presumptions relating to “racial superiority and civilized mode of behavior” of the metropolitan people vis-à-vis those living in the periphery and the gradual metropolitan recognition that the subalterns, and many among them, are no less qualified than they are. Though the world is divided into First, Second and the Third( or even Fourth) worlds due in part to social stratification or societal division based on wealth, power and status that has been a defining characteristic of civilizations taking global shape with the advent of colonization, embedded with bizarre aspect of colonization being the self-assumed patriarchal attitude of the colonizers towards the colonized. In effect both in their own lands and in the conquered territories the colonizers were subscribing to the FIRST PRINCIPLES of Scottish socialist philosopher Robert Owen that it was necessary for a large part of mankind to exist in ignorance and poverty to secure for the remaining part such degree of happiness as they now enjoyed.
During and after the process of decolonization the newly and aspirant independent countries began to question the hypothesis inherent in the modernization theory which explained underdevelopment in terms of lack of certain qualities in the “underdeveloped” societies such as drive, entrepreneurial skill, creativity and problem solving ability. The decolonized people rebelling against intellectual dystrophy and sanitized academic orthodoxy by and large put their faith in the dependency theory which explained that the continued impoverishment of the Third World was not internally generated but was a structural condition of global domination in which the dominant forced the dominated to be producers of raw materials and food stuff for the industrialized metropolitan center.
The question that can be asked of the Pakistani authorities is whether they would advance dependency theory of development as an excuse for their inability to further socio-economic development of the country and ethno-centric fracture of society providing space to terrorists. Even the Americans who consider Pakistan as a front line state in its “war on terror” and have given the country the status of a Major Non-NATO country providing facilities for purchase of weapons at concessional rate insist these days that all countries practice good governance, multi-party democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law, government with the consent of the governed, accountability, equity and poverty eradication. The point in question is the limit put on sovereignty if a country is unable to function as a responsible member of the international community. Should we seriously consider Kindelberger’s theory of hegemonic stability despite global apprehension over doctrine of preemption? Or should the West heed Professor Nial Ferguson’s exhortation that the US should take up the call of history and behave like an empire because otherwise the power vacuum would be filled with “anarchic new Dark Age, an era of waning empire and religious fanaticism... and civilization’s retreat to a few fortified enclaves”?
The relentless erosion of Westphalian sovereignty continues to frighten, particularly Gunnar Myardal’s “soft states” which should include Pakistan. On December 9th President Bush on his last visit to the West Point warned the cadets that “one of the most important challenges that we will face, in the years ahead, is helping our partners assert control over ungoverned spaces. This problem is most pronounced in Pakistan, where areas along the Afghanistan border are home to Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters”. He added that it has been made clear to Pakistan that “we will do what is necessary to protect American troops and American lives... We have made clear that governments that sponsor terror are as guilty as the terrorists and will be held to account”.
But then one cannot dismiss totally President Asif Ali Zardari’s unequivocal statement that “Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not want change in Pakistan to take root. … Not only are the terrorists not linked with the government of Pakistan in any way, we are their targets and we continue to be their victims”.
The question as to how the Indian government should respond that would satisfy the grief and anger of the people, however, remains to be answered. In the foreseeable future various terrorist groups, described by Ashley Tellis( of Carnegie Endowment) as sectarian ( Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba & Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria), anti-Indian( ISI, LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harkatul Mujahedeen etc), Afghan Taliban, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, Pakistani Taliban( Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) are expected to continue their terrorist activities in India and in other countries. Steve Coll, President of New America Foundation finds the Pakistani Taliban of younger generation as of more violent and radical disposition who have no patience with compromise with the state. Coll had warned in a piece in the New Yorker that there was evidence to suggest that “some current and former Pakistani military and intelligence officers sympathize with the Islamist insurgents with whom they are notionally at war”. Christine Fair of Rand Corporation echoed similar views to the US House of Representatives early this year. These terrorists have to be faced with multi-pronged strategy annihilation militarily of the hard core and cooption of the groups that are in the margins and draw them in the mainstream politics and create opportunities for them. Meanwhile the Muslim world has to consider whether madrasa education that breeds terrorists in large number in this age of globalization demanding technical and scientific education should not be radically revised to meet the demands of time.
(The Writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh. He can be reached at kamasud@dhaka.net)
(The views expressed by the author are his own)
Pakistan is counted among those developing countries of the world where most of the people have insufficient income to provide for minimum standard of living further compounded by appreciable increase in the number of people living in extreme poverty that Manuel Castells would call misery. In Marxian analysis poverty stricken great majority of people have nothing to sell but themselves as opposed to the wealth of the few that increases constantly. Inevitably the process of accumulation of wealth is corruption-ridden.
Yves Menay (La corruption de la Republique) has ascribed four invariant characteristics of corruption;-
(a) violation of social rules and norms;
(b) secret exchange among political, social and economic markets;
(c) illegal access given to individuals and groups to the process of political and administrative decision making; and
(d) resultant tangible benefits to the parties involved in the transaction.
By any definition corruption is illegal and in the first instance results from collusion between political and money elitesthe first party abuses public position of trust for private gains of both parties. Corruption inevitably leads to loss in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a loss that should be seen in the context of global interpersonal inequality in which the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer.
Mumbai carnage and the global meltdown have brought forth the question of morality in judging both the national and international behavior of states and the evaluation of the code of conduct, more or less uniform in character, prescribed to be followed by the civilized nations.
The Brookings Institution has been developing the concept of “sovereignty as responsibility”. In other words sovereignty imposed abiding obligations towards one’s own people as well as certain privileges internationally. In 1992 Butros Butros Ghali had said that “the time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty has passed; its theory was never matched with reality”. Even Michael Walzer’s legalist paradigm would sanction war of self-defense by the victim or war of law enforcement by the victim and the international community and the punishment of the aggressor. This notion assumes that developing countries cannot hide under the cloak of underdevelopment as an excuse of their aberrant behavior.
Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of decolonization has been the imperceptible regression of presumptions relating to “racial superiority and civilized mode of behavior” of the metropolitan people vis-à-vis those living in the periphery and the gradual metropolitan recognition that the subalterns, and many among them, are no less qualified than they are. Though the world is divided into First, Second and the Third( or even Fourth) worlds due in part to social stratification or societal division based on wealth, power and status that has been a defining characteristic of civilizations taking global shape with the advent of colonization, embedded with bizarre aspect of colonization being the self-assumed patriarchal attitude of the colonizers towards the colonized. In effect both in their own lands and in the conquered territories the colonizers were subscribing to the FIRST PRINCIPLES of Scottish socialist philosopher Robert Owen that it was necessary for a large part of mankind to exist in ignorance and poverty to secure for the remaining part such degree of happiness as they now enjoyed.
During and after the process of decolonization the newly and aspirant independent countries began to question the hypothesis inherent in the modernization theory which explained underdevelopment in terms of lack of certain qualities in the “underdeveloped” societies such as drive, entrepreneurial skill, creativity and problem solving ability. The decolonized people rebelling against intellectual dystrophy and sanitized academic orthodoxy by and large put their faith in the dependency theory which explained that the continued impoverishment of the Third World was not internally generated but was a structural condition of global domination in which the dominant forced the dominated to be producers of raw materials and food stuff for the industrialized metropolitan center.
The question that can be asked of the Pakistani authorities is whether they would advance dependency theory of development as an excuse for their inability to further socio-economic development of the country and ethno-centric fracture of society providing space to terrorists. Even the Americans who consider Pakistan as a front line state in its “war on terror” and have given the country the status of a Major Non-NATO country providing facilities for purchase of weapons at concessional rate insist these days that all countries practice good governance, multi-party democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law, government with the consent of the governed, accountability, equity and poverty eradication. The point in question is the limit put on sovereignty if a country is unable to function as a responsible member of the international community. Should we seriously consider Kindelberger’s theory of hegemonic stability despite global apprehension over doctrine of preemption? Or should the West heed Professor Nial Ferguson’s exhortation that the US should take up the call of history and behave like an empire because otherwise the power vacuum would be filled with “anarchic new Dark Age, an era of waning empire and religious fanaticism... and civilization’s retreat to a few fortified enclaves”?
The relentless erosion of Westphalian sovereignty continues to frighten, particularly Gunnar Myardal’s “soft states” which should include Pakistan. On December 9th President Bush on his last visit to the West Point warned the cadets that “one of the most important challenges that we will face, in the years ahead, is helping our partners assert control over ungoverned spaces. This problem is most pronounced in Pakistan, where areas along the Afghanistan border are home to Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters”. He added that it has been made clear to Pakistan that “we will do what is necessary to protect American troops and American lives... We have made clear that governments that sponsor terror are as guilty as the terrorists and will be held to account”.
But then one cannot dismiss totally President Asif Ali Zardari’s unequivocal statement that “Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not want change in Pakistan to take root. … Not only are the terrorists not linked with the government of Pakistan in any way, we are their targets and we continue to be their victims”.
The question as to how the Indian government should respond that would satisfy the grief and anger of the people, however, remains to be answered. In the foreseeable future various terrorist groups, described by Ashley Tellis( of Carnegie Endowment) as sectarian ( Sunni Sipah-e-Sahaba & Shia Tehrik-e-Jafria), anti-Indian( ISI, LeT, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Harkatul Mujahedeen etc), Afghan Taliban, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, Pakistani Taliban( Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) are expected to continue their terrorist activities in India and in other countries. Steve Coll, President of New America Foundation finds the Pakistani Taliban of younger generation as of more violent and radical disposition who have no patience with compromise with the state. Coll had warned in a piece in the New Yorker that there was evidence to suggest that “some current and former Pakistani military and intelligence officers sympathize with the Islamist insurgents with whom they are notionally at war”. Christine Fair of Rand Corporation echoed similar views to the US House of Representatives early this year. These terrorists have to be faced with multi-pronged strategy annihilation militarily of the hard core and cooption of the groups that are in the margins and draw them in the mainstream politics and create opportunities for them. Meanwhile the Muslim world has to consider whether madrasa education that breeds terrorists in large number in this age of globalization demanding technical and scientific education should not be radically revised to meet the demands of time.
(The Writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh. He can be reached at kamasud@dhaka.net)
Trepidation in Tehran
Iran translates signals from the incoming US administration as hawkish, prompting the Islamic Republic to hope for the best but prepare for the worst, Kamal Nazer Yasin writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Kamal Nazer Yasin in Tehran for ISN Security Watch
Unlike most world capitals which are greeting the end of the Bush era with an undisguised sense of relief, even euphoria, Tehran's political establishment is approaching the inauguration of a new US president with a good deal of trepidation.
At the dawn of President George W Bush's tenure eight years ago, the mood in Tehran was surprisingly calm. Bush's early disparagement of "unnecessary involvements abroad" must have been soothing words to Iranian leaders' ears. Similarly, in the months before former US president Bill Clinton came to office, there were no outward signs that Iranian government leaders were overly concerned with future developments. Even in months prior to the inauguration of George HW Bush, the mood in Tehran was relatively unperturbed. Tehran was still in war footing and at the time, anybody seemed better than then-president Ronald Reagan. Not so with Barack Obama.
On 5 December, several thousand highly trained anti-riot special force units in military fatigues were deployed at major intersections in the greater Tehran region, ostensibly to direct traffic, but actually to prepare the public for possible permanent security police presence in the capital. Observers noted that it was the first time this had happened since the end of Iran-Iraq war nearly two decades years ago.
During Basij Week in November, when huge exercises are held by the 3-million-large paramilitary force, politicians of every stripe took turns extolling the virtues of the civil defense militia. In recent days, Iranian TV has run a number of highly critical programs on Obama, pointing to his alleged ties with the Israeli lobby and the military-industrial complex. Bystanders near the University of Tehran were greeted to a new slogan chanted by the Basij students during National Student Day on 6 December: "Students are vigilant, they hate Obama."
But perhaps, the earliest sign that all will not be well between Iran and Obama came in two separate speeches by individuals critical of the policies of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The first was by former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, who stated that Obama "talked like Bush" and warned him not to continue on the outgoing president's path. The other was by Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, whose differences with Ahmadinejad over the nuclear policy led to his forced resignation more than a year ago.
Larjani stated: "Do not delude yourself into thinking that with the departure of Bush, the situation has changed much. The new American president has said that he would be tough on Iran because they are developing nuclear arms and support Hizbollah and Hamas." Larjani added, "There are many indications that Israelis and the Americans are set on starting a new adventure in the area except this time with a soft mien."
Three issues encapsulate the apprehensions of Iranian leaders: their nuclear program, geopolitical changes, and the worldviews of Obama and his team.
Two recent IAEA reports plus the general consensus of the experts' community point with a moderately high degree of certainty to an unavoidable conclusion: Tehran is fast approaching several important thresholds in its nuclear program. It is producing enough low-enriched uranium to allow it to make its first crude atomic bomb soon; and it is overcoming hurdles in warhead and delivery designs.
The first may be achieved in as early as a few months although the more likely scenario given is in a year to two years and a half. As for the warhead design, no one knows how developed the technology is since Tehran understandably does not allow unlimited access to its military R&D sites.
The public view in Iran of the nuclear program is obviously a pivotal issue both for the government and its adversaries. It is clearly not easy to gauge this factor with a high degree of accuracy but a general canvass shows a surprisingly high degree of support for the nuclear program and its military component even among the anti-government secular forces.
As for adverse geopolitical changes, the factors most often cited are: the sharp drop in oil prices, the stabilization of Iraq, the worldwide popularity of the new US leadership and the entry into the White House of a unified top team led by a highly intelligent and unideological individual.
When it comes to the makeup and general orientation of the next US administration, Tehran has much to worry about. Secretary of State nominee, and former Democratic presidential primary candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton hawkish on Iran. The senator was one of the main supporters of a controversial Senate bill two years ago that branded Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.
During her presidential primary campaign she stated: "In the next 10 years, during which they [Iranians] might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Later, she refused to backtrack on that comment even after she was criticized by the press.
Obama himself, after initially calling for unconditional talks with Iran, has slowly distanced himself from that position. Recently, he has recalibrated that view to allowing lower-level contacts and personally meeting Iranian leaders "if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States." He has called Iran's nuclear program a "grave threat" and has said: "I would do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The views of other principals, such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Adviser nominee General James Logan Jones, on Iran's nuclear program are also well-documented.
Tehran's reception of the early warning signs from Washington are focused on calls for increases in military spending, NATO expansion, boosting intelligence agencies, strengthening of the "nation-building, democracy-promoting" National Endowment for Democracy, as well as Obama's efforts at reconstituting the old bipartisan Cold War consensus - not to mention what some people have taken to calling his "muscular multilateralism."
At the same time, most people in Tehran and Washington expect, in the early days of the new administration at least, an initial period of diplomatic flurries which might raise hopes of reconciliation between the two sides to unprecedented high levels as neither side can afford to be seen as harboring bad faith. In Obama's case, it is imperative to convince the world, and the Iranian public, that he genuinely means to break the decades-long impasse: In Iran's case, to divide the 5+1 group and to gain the support of the world public opinion.
Kamal Nazer Yasin is the pseudonym of an Iranian journalist reporting for ISN Security Watch from Tehran.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
The failed Muslim states to come
By Spengler
Financial crises, like epidemics, kill the unhealthy first. The present crisis is painful for most of the world but deadly for many Muslim countries, and especially so for the most populous ones. Policy makers have not begun to assess the damage.
The diplomatic strategy of the industrial nations now resembles a James Clavell potboiler, in which an earthquake interrupts a hopelessly immured plot. Moderate Islam was the El Dorado of the diplomatic consensus. It might have been the case that Pakistan could be tethered to Western interests, or that Iran could be engaged peacefully, or that Turkey would incubate a moderate form of Islam. I considered all of this delusional, but the
truth is that we shall never know. The financial crisis will sort them out first.
As I commented in the late autumn, the world is not flat, but flattened (see Asia Times Online, October 28, 2008), leaving the economies of the largest Muslim countries in ruins. It is hard to forecast the political fallout, for when each available choice leads to a failed state, it is a matter of indifference which one you adopt. As state finances crumble, states will become less important, and freebooters will seize the stage. Think of the Mumbai terrorists as a political cognate of the Somali pirates, and the character of a Middle East made up of failed states comes into focus.
Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad controls Iran through a kleptocracy of Central African proportions, dissipating the country's oil windfall into payoffs to an "entire class of hangers-on of the Islamic revolution", as I wrote in June (see Worst of times for Iran, Asia Times Online, June 24, 2008), when oil still sold at US$135 a barrel. What will Ahmadinejad do now that the oil price has collapsed? According to my Iranian sources, the answer is: Exactly the same thing, but without the money. [1]
The point of the joke is that Iran's regime cannot reduce subsidies or raise taxes without losing control of the constituencies that brought it to power. They are the peasants and the urban poor who barely afford shelter and food as matters stand. Despite the oil-price collapse, the government has not reduced energy subsidies that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts at more than a fifth of gross domestic product (GDP). A proposed value-added tax was withdrawn last October after strikes in the bazaars, starting in Isfahan and other provincial towns and spreading to the capital Tehran. Iran is eating through its $60 billion of foreign exchange reserves, unable to adjust to a collapse of its only significant revenue source.
Iran must break down, I argued last June, or break out, through a military adventure. The sand is slipping out of the hour glass, and the regime must decide what to do within a few months. If it does nothing, the default position, as it were, is Pakistan.
Iran's Ahmadinejad rules through massive subsidies. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari does the same thing, but without the money. Pakistan ran out of foreign exchange reserves in November and obtained emergency financing from the IMF. Its current account deficit was running at an alarming 14% of GDP, or about $20 billion a year, a small sum, but an important one for a country two-thirds of whose 175 million people subsist on less than $2 a day.
Pakistan received just $7.6 billion from the IMF, covering a third of its current account deficit, which means that imports must be reduced drastically (although lower oil prices may help a bit). Inflation is running at 25% a year.
Pakistan has one of the world's youngest populations and an enormous capital requirement. Young people borrow from old people, and countries with young populations should import capital from countries with aging populations. That is out of the question, for the world markets have turned Pakistan into a pariah. The cost of credit protection on Pakistani sovereign debt is now more than 3,000 points (or 30%) above the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), reflecting a complete shutout from capital markets.
Cost of credit protection for Pakistan government debt (5-year term, in basis points of spread to the London Interbank Rate).
Shown on the right-hand scale is the most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, where investors pay 1,000 basis points (10 percentage points) above LIBOR for five-year credit protection.
Pakistan was at least able to raise a modicum of official support. What will Iran do if its reserves run out? The same thing as Pakistan, but without the money, for Iran is a geopolitical pariah without access to official aid.
The Muslim risk premium has become so pervasive that investors are looking cross-eyed at Saudi Arabia. The cost of credit protection on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has jumped since August, and now is considerably higher than Israel's.
Cost of 5-year credit protection on Saudi Arabia and Israel
Israel credit protection trades at 185 basis points above LIBOR, about the same as Italy, while Saudi Arabia is at 236 basis points. Considering the kingdom's resources, that must be interpreted as a political risk premium.
Turkey has been able to keep afloat through the crisis, but barely so. The Turkish currency has fallen by a third, its stock market has fallen by nearly 80% in dollar terms, and the central bank must keep interest rates at a punishing 20% to prevent money from fleeing the country. Turkey has a real economy with a few first-rate manufacturing companies, unlike Iran and Pakistan, so the comparison is not quite fair. Nonetheless, Turkey relied heavily on short-term interbank borrowings to finance its balance of trade deficit, and the crisis has pulled the carpet out from under its economy. In August, before the crisis erupted in force, Turkey had 10% unemployment. It will get much worse.
Turkish lira and Turkish 1-year interest rate
Turkey was the poster-child for the so-called carry trade, in which hedge funds and other investors borrowed in low-interest currencies, for example the Japanese yen, and lent the money in high-interest currencies, of which Turkey's lira was the highest. The carry trade was the main source of money for Turkish business. What will Turkey do now that the credit crisis has made the "carry trade" a painful memory? The same thing, but without the money.
Pakistan is about to become a failed state, and Iran and Turkey will be close behind. As I commented to Chan Akya's report of December 2 on this site (see The hottest place in the world), Pakistan's military-age population is far greater than those of other Muslim military powers in the region. With about 20 million men of military age, Pakistan today has as much manpower as Turkey and Iran combined, and by 2035 it will have half again as many.
Half the country is illiterate and three-quarters of it subsists on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank. That is to say that Pakistan's young men are more abundant as well as cheaper than in any other country in the region. Very poor and ignorant young men, especially if their only education has been in Salafi madrassas, are very easy to enlist in military adventures.
The West at present is unable to cope with a failed state like Somalia, with less than a tenth as many military age men as Pakistan, but which nonetheless constitutes a threat to world shipping and a likely source of funding for terrorism. How can the West cope with the humiliation of Pakistan's pro-American president and the inability of its duly-constituted government to suppress Islamist elements in its army and intelligence services? For the moment, Washington will do its best to prop up its creature, Zardari, but to no avail. The alternatives will require the West to add several zeros to whatever the prevailing ceiling might be for acceptable collateral damage.
A final note: several readers have asked me to comment on the terror attack on Mumbai in November. I will do so with great caution, given the absence of accurate information. I have good reason to believe that the Indian authorities lied about the attack. India claimed that 10 shooters were involved, because nine were killed and one captured. The actual number is closer to 30, I am reliably informed, not counting support personnel in Mumbai who arranged safe houses with extra ammunition and explosives months in advance of the attack. It was not a suicide attack at all, but a new kind of urban terror assault, in which the participants had a reasonable expectation of survival, and the majority did in fact survive. That is an important wrinkle, for a better class of combatant can be recruited for missions in which survival is at least possible.
No analyst I know has answered with confidence the question, cui bono? To whose benefit was the attack? It has been suggested that al-Qaeda diverted a Pakistani military intelligence team from Kashmir to Mumbai, in a demonstration of power against India. But there may be another dimension. The Mumbai attack has been a test of a different kind of warfare, the kind that emanates from failed states: the tactics of the Somali pirates applied to random destruction of civilian lives.
The lights are going out across the Middle East; states are failing, and it is not in the power of the West to make them whole again. All the strategic calculations that busied policy analysts and diplomats are changing, and the West has a very short time to learn the rules of a new and terrible game.
Note
1. This appears to be a variant of a joke told in many countries. One peasant asks another, "How does a telephone work?" The second replies, "It is like a big dog, with the tail in Isfahan and the head in Mashdad. You pull the tail in Isfahan and it barks in Mashdad." The first replies, "But how does a cell phone work?" The second replies, "The same way, but without the dog."
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Financial crises, like epidemics, kill the unhealthy first. The present crisis is painful for most of the world but deadly for many Muslim countries, and especially so for the most populous ones. Policy makers have not begun to assess the damage.
The diplomatic strategy of the industrial nations now resembles a James Clavell potboiler, in which an earthquake interrupts a hopelessly immured plot. Moderate Islam was the El Dorado of the diplomatic consensus. It might have been the case that Pakistan could be tethered to Western interests, or that Iran could be engaged peacefully, or that Turkey would incubate a moderate form of Islam. I considered all of this delusional, but the
truth is that we shall never know. The financial crisis will sort them out first.
As I commented in the late autumn, the world is not flat, but flattened (see Asia Times Online, October 28, 2008), leaving the economies of the largest Muslim countries in ruins. It is hard to forecast the political fallout, for when each available choice leads to a failed state, it is a matter of indifference which one you adopt. As state finances crumble, states will become less important, and freebooters will seize the stage. Think of the Mumbai terrorists as a political cognate of the Somali pirates, and the character of a Middle East made up of failed states comes into focus.
Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad controls Iran through a kleptocracy of Central African proportions, dissipating the country's oil windfall into payoffs to an "entire class of hangers-on of the Islamic revolution", as I wrote in June (see Worst of times for Iran, Asia Times Online, June 24, 2008), when oil still sold at US$135 a barrel. What will Ahmadinejad do now that the oil price has collapsed? According to my Iranian sources, the answer is: Exactly the same thing, but without the money. [1]
The point of the joke is that Iran's regime cannot reduce subsidies or raise taxes without losing control of the constituencies that brought it to power. They are the peasants and the urban poor who barely afford shelter and food as matters stand. Despite the oil-price collapse, the government has not reduced energy subsidies that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts at more than a fifth of gross domestic product (GDP). A proposed value-added tax was withdrawn last October after strikes in the bazaars, starting in Isfahan and other provincial towns and spreading to the capital Tehran. Iran is eating through its $60 billion of foreign exchange reserves, unable to adjust to a collapse of its only significant revenue source.
Iran must break down, I argued last June, or break out, through a military adventure. The sand is slipping out of the hour glass, and the regime must decide what to do within a few months. If it does nothing, the default position, as it were, is Pakistan.
Iran's Ahmadinejad rules through massive subsidies. Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari does the same thing, but without the money. Pakistan ran out of foreign exchange reserves in November and obtained emergency financing from the IMF. Its current account deficit was running at an alarming 14% of GDP, or about $20 billion a year, a small sum, but an important one for a country two-thirds of whose 175 million people subsist on less than $2 a day.
Pakistan received just $7.6 billion from the IMF, covering a third of its current account deficit, which means that imports must be reduced drastically (although lower oil prices may help a bit). Inflation is running at 25% a year.
Pakistan has one of the world's youngest populations and an enormous capital requirement. Young people borrow from old people, and countries with young populations should import capital from countries with aging populations. That is out of the question, for the world markets have turned Pakistan into a pariah. The cost of credit protection on Pakistani sovereign debt is now more than 3,000 points (or 30%) above the benchmark London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), reflecting a complete shutout from capital markets.
Cost of credit protection for Pakistan government debt (5-year term, in basis points of spread to the London Interbank Rate).
Shown on the right-hand scale is the most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, where investors pay 1,000 basis points (10 percentage points) above LIBOR for five-year credit protection.
Pakistan was at least able to raise a modicum of official support. What will Iran do if its reserves run out? The same thing as Pakistan, but without the money, for Iran is a geopolitical pariah without access to official aid.
The Muslim risk premium has become so pervasive that investors are looking cross-eyed at Saudi Arabia. The cost of credit protection on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has jumped since August, and now is considerably higher than Israel's.
Cost of 5-year credit protection on Saudi Arabia and Israel
Israel credit protection trades at 185 basis points above LIBOR, about the same as Italy, while Saudi Arabia is at 236 basis points. Considering the kingdom's resources, that must be interpreted as a political risk premium.
Turkey has been able to keep afloat through the crisis, but barely so. The Turkish currency has fallen by a third, its stock market has fallen by nearly 80% in dollar terms, and the central bank must keep interest rates at a punishing 20% to prevent money from fleeing the country. Turkey has a real economy with a few first-rate manufacturing companies, unlike Iran and Pakistan, so the comparison is not quite fair. Nonetheless, Turkey relied heavily on short-term interbank borrowings to finance its balance of trade deficit, and the crisis has pulled the carpet out from under its economy. In August, before the crisis erupted in force, Turkey had 10% unemployment. It will get much worse.
Turkish lira and Turkish 1-year interest rate
Turkey was the poster-child for the so-called carry trade, in which hedge funds and other investors borrowed in low-interest currencies, for example the Japanese yen, and lent the money in high-interest currencies, of which Turkey's lira was the highest. The carry trade was the main source of money for Turkish business. What will Turkey do now that the credit crisis has made the "carry trade" a painful memory? The same thing, but without the money.
Pakistan is about to become a failed state, and Iran and Turkey will be close behind. As I commented to Chan Akya's report of December 2 on this site (see The hottest place in the world), Pakistan's military-age population is far greater than those of other Muslim military powers in the region. With about 20 million men of military age, Pakistan today has as much manpower as Turkey and Iran combined, and by 2035 it will have half again as many.
Half the country is illiterate and three-quarters of it subsists on less than $2 a day, according to the World Bank. That is to say that Pakistan's young men are more abundant as well as cheaper than in any other country in the region. Very poor and ignorant young men, especially if their only education has been in Salafi madrassas, are very easy to enlist in military adventures.
The West at present is unable to cope with a failed state like Somalia, with less than a tenth as many military age men as Pakistan, but which nonetheless constitutes a threat to world shipping and a likely source of funding for terrorism. How can the West cope with the humiliation of Pakistan's pro-American president and the inability of its duly-constituted government to suppress Islamist elements in its army and intelligence services? For the moment, Washington will do its best to prop up its creature, Zardari, but to no avail. The alternatives will require the West to add several zeros to whatever the prevailing ceiling might be for acceptable collateral damage.
A final note: several readers have asked me to comment on the terror attack on Mumbai in November. I will do so with great caution, given the absence of accurate information. I have good reason to believe that the Indian authorities lied about the attack. India claimed that 10 shooters were involved, because nine were killed and one captured. The actual number is closer to 30, I am reliably informed, not counting support personnel in Mumbai who arranged safe houses with extra ammunition and explosives months in advance of the attack. It was not a suicide attack at all, but a new kind of urban terror assault, in which the participants had a reasonable expectation of survival, and the majority did in fact survive. That is an important wrinkle, for a better class of combatant can be recruited for missions in which survival is at least possible.
No analyst I know has answered with confidence the question, cui bono? To whose benefit was the attack? It has been suggested that al-Qaeda diverted a Pakistani military intelligence team from Kashmir to Mumbai, in a demonstration of power against India. But there may be another dimension. The Mumbai attack has been a test of a different kind of warfare, the kind that emanates from failed states: the tactics of the Somali pirates applied to random destruction of civilian lives.
The lights are going out across the Middle East; states are failing, and it is not in the power of the West to make them whole again. All the strategic calculations that busied policy analysts and diplomats are changing, and the West has a very short time to learn the rules of a new and terrible game.
Note
1. This appears to be a variant of a joke told in many countries. One peasant asks another, "How does a telephone work?" The second replies, "It is like a big dog, with the tail in Isfahan and the head in Mashdad. You pull the tail in Isfahan and it barks in Mashdad." The first replies, "But how does a cell phone work?" The second replies, "The same way, but without the dog."
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
