BHUTAN: Maoists Getting More Active- Update No. 75
Dr. S.Chandrasekharan.
In a major ambush of a vehicle carrying forest guards, in Sarpang, four were killed and two injured. The forest guards were returning to their camp at Phibsoo when an IED device blew up the tractor on which they were travelling. The occupants were also fired at. The militants also took away two SLR rifles with 40 rounds and a Motorola hand set. Spent bullets of AK 47 were recovered from the scene of the incident.
The United Revolutionary Front of Bhutan has claimed responsibility for the attack. According to the Bhutanese authorities, this front is one of the two militant arms of the Bhutan Communist Party ( Maoist) with the other being the Cobra Force.
With the third country settlement in place, those radical elements who wish to be repatriated to Bhutan appear to be joining the ranks of the recently formed Bhutan Communist Party (Maoist) now based in Nepal.
In a recent border meeting between the Police Officials of Bhutan and the officials of West Bengal, the Indian counter part has warned that the Bhutan Maoists have already established a nexus with the militant groups like ULFA in India.
As a consequence of these developments, the Royal Bhutan Police are setting up an elite special force unit to tackle terrorism. This unit will also support local police during a serious breakdown of law and order and "shore" up security duties.
There is also a move for creating volunteer groups to guard communities at night. Voluntary vigilance groups at the village levels are also being planned.
This major incident comes in the wake of Bhutan opening nine more schools in southern Bhutan after they were closed for than a decade for security reasons earlier.
Refugees:
Though exact figures are not available, so far over 10,000 refugees have been sent for third country settlement. By the end of this year it is believed that another 16,000 refugees will be taken by other countries. One welcome move is the decision of the Canadian Government to take 5000 refugees for resettlement.
The refugees who have moved are said to be happy and getting adjusted to the new surroundings. Though not confirmed, there appears to have been a case of suicide by one of the refugees who was suffering from depression. With the global meltdown, the refugees who have moved to USA are having problems in getting jobs when competing with other skilled labour.
Mercifully, there is no talk of further ministerial talks between the governments of Bhutan and Nepal. Those who want nothing else other than repatriation back to Bhutan continue to be vociferous and actively appealing to the Nepalese authorities for justice.
Transition to Democracy.
With the opposition having very little representation in the national assembly, it is the National Council that is taking its role seriously and acting as th opposition. In the normal circumstances one would have thought that the upper House would act like a "rubber stamp," but it is not the case in Bhutan.
There was a minor constitutional crisis with both the Home Ministry and the Election Commission going for an interim election for Gups for a very short period of a few months. It would have resulted in unnecessary expenditure when election according to the Local Government Act will still have to be conducted in a few months. The King had to intervene to give a directive not to conduct the elections now. To some observers, the King’s directive was misconstrued as "interference" which in fact was not.
Bhutan brings out surprises always. In the latest Police bill that is being finalised, the "orderly system" for the Police Officers is being abolished. The army is also taking the cue and from the February, 99 lieutenants will not be having orderlies. The orderlies in the Police are recruited with lower educational standards and they become a liability as they go up in service.
The controversial pay hike has been resolved with all civil servants except the Prime Minister and his ministers, wi getting a uniform pay hike of 35 percent. The Prime Minister has also appealed to the land owners and shop keepers not to raise the rent or the price of commodities that would nullify the increase.
Global Warming, Global Meltdown and Economy:
It was surprising to see that even a small country like Bhutan is being affected by the current global meltdown. The World Bank report on the impact of Global financial crisis has warned that Bhutan will be vulnerable as the sources of funding will contract. Its advice to Bhutan is to focus on creating additional fiscal space to prop up domestic economy while preserving the macro economic stability. Bhutan’s currency ngultrum has depreciated by 15 to 18 percent against the dollar in the last two months, and this has increased the cost of import bills, production costs and the balance of payments. Imports against the dollar have become expensive and this may even affect the country’s budget.
In line with global warming, Bhutan’s glaciers are retreating at 30 to 35 metres each year. Bhutan has also 3000 glacial fed lakes of which 24 are identified as potentially dangerous that could burst in the not too distant future. With improved technology and sophisticated tools, the danger could be averted, but constant vigilance will be necessary. One particular glacial lake - Lake Thorthorni is now on the brink of breaching its walls and emergency measures are being taken to prevent downstream damage.
A high-powered Indian delegation led by the power minister Sushil Kumar Shinde visited Bhutan in the first week of December, to finalise project reports and agreements of the planned 10,000 MW of power A joint intergovernmental empowered group is being set up to decide on the projects, remove hurdles and push for speedy implementation.
Border Talks with China:
The issue of border talks was raised by the Haa MP, Ugyen Tenzin, who expressed the deep concern of the people of Haa over increasing activities carried out by the Chinese along the border.
The foreign minister briefed the Assembly frankly on the progress of the talks. He said as follows
.
The first four rounds had focused on discussions regarding the guidelines for boundary negotiations, based on the five principles of peaceful coexistence: mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non aggression, non interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co existence.
In the fifth round of May 1988, the Chinese side made known their perception of the Bhutan-China border line, while the Bhutanese side noted their presentation. The 68th session of the National Assembly was presented, showing the Bhutanese claim based on Martham Chem, patrolling limit and traditional usage and Chinese claims in the fifth round. It was thoroughly discussed in the house, which eventually endorsed the Bhutanese claim line.
In the sixth round, there were more discussions with maps of Bhutan on 1:500,000 scale, depicting the claim lines of both sides being exchanged. There were maps exchanged and discussion on the Western Bhutan and China's borders.
In the seventh round in 1990, the Chinese side made some additional offers on the Luling valley sector, the acceptance of which would forego their claim in the middle sector.
In the eighth round, the Bhutanese delegation proposed further territorial adjustments in the Western Sector, however there was not much progress in the next four rounds of talks.
In the twelfth round, the Chinese side brought the draft of a proposed interim agreement on the maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the Sino-Bhutan border areas, which was later signed by the two foreign ministers after discussions.
In the thirteenth round in September 1999 in Thimphu, the Chinese side came up with a policy on Bhutan, with proposals for settlements of boundary, establishment of diplomatic relations and trade. The Chinese side proposed that the two sides might concentrate on preparation of descriptions and confirmation of border alignment, adding a new dimension to talks.
In the fourteenth round in 2000, as China was a larger country, the Chinese side was asked to show greater consideration on the Bhutanese perception of the traditional boundary in Doklam, Sinchulumpa, Dramana and Shakhatoe areas. The Bhutanese side also proposed cartographic discussions.
In the fifteenth round, the two sides agreed to continue discussions at the expert level groups, to focus mainly on maps and other areas to enhance official talks.
In the sixteenth round, maps made by the expert group showing claims of both sides were exchanged. In the seventeenth round in April 2004, it was decided to first narrow down the differences at the expert group level.
However in 2005, the maps were examined but could not be exchanged due to the vast differences between the two claim lines. The Chinese side had differences in areas amounting to 1300 sq km, of which they were ready to consider giving 900 sq km.
In the eighteenth round in Beijing in 2006, the Bhutanese side stressed that the package solution offered by the Chinese in 1990 during the 7th round was not favourable to Bhutan, since the offered Pasamlug already belonged to Bhutan.
The importance of pasture lands in the western sector to the livelihood of yak herders in northern Bhutan was explained. The Chinese side maintained that the basis of further negotiations must be acceptance of the package deal and that China was ready to make minor adjustments within it.
The Chinese side during this round submitted three draft proposals for Bhutan's consideration.
It is clear from the statement that the Chinese are in no mood to settle the issue in the near term. They are also seen to be shifting the goal posts and is now insisting on a "package deal." The Indians understand them well!
April 04, 2009
BAITULLAH UNDER PRESSURE TO DO SOMETHING BIG AGAINST THE US
B.RAMAN
Thirteen persons at an immigration facilitation centre at Binghamton, about 230 kms from New York, were killed on April 3,2009, when a gunman wielding hand-held weapons entered the premises and opened fire indiscriminately before killing himself.
2.The CNN reported as follows in its website: "A senior law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the investigation identified the suspect as Jiverly Wong, who is believed to be in his early 40s.Authorities executed a search warrant at Wong's home in Johnson City, near Binghamton, and spoke to the suspect's mother, the source said. Earlier in the day, Binghamton police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman entered the American Civic Association building. At 10:31 a.m., authorities received a 911 call from the receptionist, who said she'd been shot in the stomach, Zikuski said. She told police that a man with a handgun also shot and killed another receptionist before proceeding to a nearby classroom, where he gunned down more victims, Zikuski said. Authorities also said a car was used to block the back door of the building. Two semi-automatic handguns -- a .45-caliber and a 9-millimeter -- were found at the center, where immigrants were believed to be taking citizenship and language classes. The shooter, who was carrying a satchel of ammunition, was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot to the head, Zikuski said. The American Civic Association helps immigrants and refugees with a number of issues, including personal counseling, resettlement, citizenship and reunification, and provides interpreters and translators, according to the Web site for United Way of Broome County, which is affiliated with the association. Zikuski said Wong, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was unemployed at the time of the shooting. He told CNN's Susan Candiotti that Wong had recently worked in a vacuum repair shop. Wong attended classes at the American Civic Association and had a connection there. "
3. It was clear from the CNN report that a recently unemployed American of Vietnamese origin, who had visited the centre in the past, had carried out the killings. One of the receptionists, who was shot, had spoken of "a man with a handgun"----thus indicating that only one person was involved.
4. On April 4,2009, a person claiming to be Baitullah Mehsud, the Amir of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), was reported to have claimed in a telephonic talk with a correspondent of the Reuters news agency that his men had carried out the attack in retaliation for the Drone strikes by the US on Al Qaeda and Taliban hide-outs in Pakistani territory. The Reuters despatch quoted the person who claimed to be Baitullah as saying as follows: "I accept responsibility. They are my men who attacked New York." He claimed that the attack was launched by a Pakistani man and another unidentified man.
5. A number of questions arise from this suspicious phone call. Who initiated the telephonic conversation---- the correspondent or the person who claimed to be Baitullah? If it was the correspondent, how did he know the telephone number of Baitullah? Why did it occur to the correspondent to ask Baitullah whether he had anything to do with the Binghamton incident? If it was Baitullah who initiated the call, does the correspondent recognise his voice?
6. Unless one has answers to all these questions, one has to treat the so-called claim with skepticism. While sections of the Indian media gave more than the deserved importance to the claim, foreign media such as the BBC and the CNN treated it with tremendous caution. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the US itself is reported to have discounted the claim.While the BBC reported it in its web site in a low-key manner, the CNN chose not to disseminate the claim without verification.
7. The questions still without an answer are: Was it an impersonator, who posed as Baitullah and took the correspondent for a ride or was it Baitullah himself making a false claim? If it was an impersonator, Baitullah would have by now come out with a denial. He has not. If it was Baitullah himself who made the false claim, why did he do so? Is he facing criticism from his followers for not being able to retaliate against the Americans for their Drone (unmanned planes) attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban hide-outs?
8. There was an interesting development after the terrorist attack on the Manawan police school in the Lahore area on March 30. Immediately after the attack, a self-styled Taliban operative who identified himself as Omar Farooq was reported to have telephoned a correspondent of the Associated Press to claim that a group called Fedayeen al-Islam had carried out the attack and that he was speaking on their behalf. He reportedly said: “As long as the Pakistani troops do not leave tribal areas, these attacks will continue.”
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and some Western news agencies reported on March 31 that they were in receipt of a phone call from Baitullah Mehsud claiming responsibility for the attack. He was quoted as saying that the attack was "in retaliation for the continued drone strikes by the US in collaboration with Pakistan on our people". According to the BBC, Baitullah said the attacks would continue "until the Pakistan Government stops supporting the Americans". He also reportedly warned of future retaliatory attacks on American soil. According to some journalistic contacts who also received the call from Omar Farooq, he projected his organisation as different from the TTP. Baitullah himself is reported to have pooh-poohed the claim of Omar Farooq.
9. There are good reasons to suspect that Baitullah is under pressure from his followers to do something big against the Americans in retaliation for the Drone strikes. Till now, he has been hitting back against the Pakistani security forces to give vent to his anger against the Americans.(4-4-09)
( 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 )
Thirteen persons at an immigration facilitation centre at Binghamton, about 230 kms from New York, were killed on April 3,2009, when a gunman wielding hand-held weapons entered the premises and opened fire indiscriminately before killing himself.
2.The CNN reported as follows in its website: "A senior law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the investigation identified the suspect as Jiverly Wong, who is believed to be in his early 40s.Authorities executed a search warrant at Wong's home in Johnson City, near Binghamton, and spoke to the suspect's mother, the source said. Earlier in the day, Binghamton police Chief Joseph Zikuski said the gunman entered the American Civic Association building. At 10:31 a.m., authorities received a 911 call from the receptionist, who said she'd been shot in the stomach, Zikuski said. She told police that a man with a handgun also shot and killed another receptionist before proceeding to a nearby classroom, where he gunned down more victims, Zikuski said. Authorities also said a car was used to block the back door of the building. Two semi-automatic handguns -- a .45-caliber and a 9-millimeter -- were found at the center, where immigrants were believed to be taking citizenship and language classes. The shooter, who was carrying a satchel of ammunition, was found dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot to the head, Zikuski said. The American Civic Association helps immigrants and refugees with a number of issues, including personal counseling, resettlement, citizenship and reunification, and provides interpreters and translators, according to the Web site for United Way of Broome County, which is affiliated with the association. Zikuski said Wong, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was unemployed at the time of the shooting. He told CNN's Susan Candiotti that Wong had recently worked in a vacuum repair shop. Wong attended classes at the American Civic Association and had a connection there. "
3. It was clear from the CNN report that a recently unemployed American of Vietnamese origin, who had visited the centre in the past, had carried out the killings. One of the receptionists, who was shot, had spoken of "a man with a handgun"----thus indicating that only one person was involved.
4. On April 4,2009, a person claiming to be Baitullah Mehsud, the Amir of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), was reported to have claimed in a telephonic talk with a correspondent of the Reuters news agency that his men had carried out the attack in retaliation for the Drone strikes by the US on Al Qaeda and Taliban hide-outs in Pakistani territory. The Reuters despatch quoted the person who claimed to be Baitullah as saying as follows: "I accept responsibility. They are my men who attacked New York." He claimed that the attack was launched by a Pakistani man and another unidentified man.
5. A number of questions arise from this suspicious phone call. Who initiated the telephonic conversation---- the correspondent or the person who claimed to be Baitullah? If it was the correspondent, how did he know the telephone number of Baitullah? Why did it occur to the correspondent to ask Baitullah whether he had anything to do with the Binghamton incident? If it was Baitullah who initiated the call, does the correspondent recognise his voice?
6. Unless one has answers to all these questions, one has to treat the so-called claim with skepticism. While sections of the Indian media gave more than the deserved importance to the claim, foreign media such as the BBC and the CNN treated it with tremendous caution. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the US itself is reported to have discounted the claim.While the BBC reported it in its web site in a low-key manner, the CNN chose not to disseminate the claim without verification.
7. The questions still without an answer are: Was it an impersonator, who posed as Baitullah and took the correspondent for a ride or was it Baitullah himself making a false claim? If it was an impersonator, Baitullah would have by now come out with a denial. He has not. If it was Baitullah himself who made the false claim, why did he do so? Is he facing criticism from his followers for not being able to retaliate against the Americans for their Drone (unmanned planes) attacks on Al Qaeda and Taliban hide-outs?
8. There was an interesting development after the terrorist attack on the Manawan police school in the Lahore area on March 30. Immediately after the attack, a self-styled Taliban operative who identified himself as Omar Farooq was reported to have telephoned a correspondent of the Associated Press to claim that a group called Fedayeen al-Islam had carried out the attack and that he was speaking on their behalf. He reportedly said: “As long as the Pakistani troops do not leave tribal areas, these attacks will continue.”
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and some Western news agencies reported on March 31 that they were in receipt of a phone call from Baitullah Mehsud claiming responsibility for the attack. He was quoted as saying that the attack was "in retaliation for the continued drone strikes by the US in collaboration with Pakistan on our people". According to the BBC, Baitullah said the attacks would continue "until the Pakistan Government stops supporting the Americans". He also reportedly warned of future retaliatory attacks on American soil. According to some journalistic contacts who also received the call from Omar Farooq, he projected his organisation as different from the TTP. Baitullah himself is reported to have pooh-poohed the claim of Omar Farooq.
9. There are good reasons to suspect that Baitullah is under pressure from his followers to do something big against the Americans in retaliation for the Drone strikes. Till now, he has been hitting back against the Pakistani security forces to give vent to his anger against the Americans.(4-4-09)
( 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 )
Can Pakistan Be Governed?
The NewYork Times
April 5, 2009
By JAMES TRAUB
TO ENTER the office where Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, conducts his business, you head down a long corridor toward two wax statues of exceptionally tall soldiers, each in a long, white tunic with a glittering column of buttons. On closer inspection, these turn out to be actual humans who have been trained in the arts of immobility. The office they guard, though large, is not especially opulent or stupefying by the standards of such places. President Zardari met me just inside the doorway, then seated himself facing a widescreen TV displaying an image of fish swimming in a deep blue sea. His party spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, and his presidential spokesman, Farahnaz Ispahani, sat facing him, almost as rigid as the soldiers. Zardari is famous for straying off message and saying odd things or jumbling facts and figures. He is also famous for blaming his aides when things go wrong — and things have been going wrong quite a lot lately. Zardari’s aides didn’t want him to talk to me. Now they were tensely waiting for a mishap.
The president himself, natty in a navy suit, his black hair brilliantined to a sheen, was the very picture of ease. Zardari beamed when we talked about New York, where he often lived between 2004, when he was released from prison after eight years, and late 2007, when he returned to Pakistan not long after his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by terrorists. For all that painful recent history, Zardari is a suave and charming man with a sly grin, and he gives the impression of thoroughly enjoying what must be among the world’s least desirable jobs. Zardari had just been through the most dangerous weeks of his six months in office. He dissolved the government in Punjab, Pakistan’s dominant state, and called out the police to stop the country’s lawyers and leading opposition party from holding a “long march” to demand the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who had been sacked, along with most of the high judiciary, by Zardari’s predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Zardari defused the situation only by allowing Chaudhry’s return to office and giving in to other demands that he had previously and repeatedly rejected.
Yet, despite this spectacular reversal, the president was not in a remotely penitent state of mind over his handling of the protests against him. “Whoever killed my wife was seeking the Balkanization of Pakistan,” he told me. “There is a view that I saved Pakistan then” — by calling for calm at a perilous moment — “and there is a view that by making this decision I saved Pakistan again.” There had been, he said, a very real threat of a terrorist attack on the marchers on their way to Islamabad. That is why his government invoked a statute dating back to the British raj in order to authorize the police to arrest protesters and prevent the march from forming. I pointed out that Benazir Bhutto faced a far more specific threat and was outraged when General Musharraf kept her from speaking on the pretext of protecting her. The president didn’t miss a beat. “And therefore,” he rejoined, “we moved to the other side”: that is, he reversed his order to the police, and permitted the protesters’ march, just before giving in to their demands altogether.
Zardari has a special talent for maneuvering himself out of the tight spots he gets himself into. But the Pakistani people have grown weary of his artful dodging. Zardari’s poll numbers are dreadful. More important, he has given little sustained attention to the country’s overwhelming problems — including, of course, the Islamist extremism that, for the Obama administration, has made Pakistan quite possibly the most important, and worrisome, country in the world. Zardari has bought himself more time, but for Pakistan itself, the clock is ticking louder and louder.
When I arrived in Islamabad on March 10, the long march was set to begin in two days and had come to feel like a storm gathering force at sea — one that might peter out before it hit land or turn into a Category 4 hurricane. In a country where democracy feels as flimsy as a wooden shack, the foreboding was very real. “Our condition is much more fragile than it was in the 1990s,” Samina Ahmed, the International Crisis Group’s longtime Pakistan analyst, told me. (The I.C.G. is a sponsor of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, where I am the policy director.) The Taliban and other extremists had, she estimated, placed half the country beyond the control of security forces. The government had recently ceded control over the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the nation’s capital, to the extremists.
Pakistan feels as if it’s falling apart. Last fall the country barely avoided bankruptcy. The tribal areas, which border on Afghanistan, remain a vast Taliban sanctuary and redoubt. The giant province of Baluchistan, though far more accessible, is racked by a Baluchi separatist rebellion, while American officials view Quetta, Baluchistan’s capital, as Taliban HQ. American policy has arguably made the situation even worse, for the Predator-drone attacks along the border, though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis.
Pakistan has made itself the supreme conundrum of American foreign policy. During the campaign, Obama often said that the heart of the terrorist threat was not Iraq but Afghanistan and Pakistan, and once in office he had senior policy makers undertake an array of reviews designed to coordinate policy in the region. They seem to have narrowed the target area even further, to the Pakistani frontier. “For the American people,” Obama announced on March 27, “this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.” Some officials see Pakistan as a volcano that, should it blow, would send an inconceivable amount of poisonous ash raining down on the world around it. David Kilcullen, a key adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, the Centcom commander, recently asserted that “within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state,” a calamity that, given the country’s size, strategic location and nuclear stockpile, would “dwarf” all other current crises.
And amid all that, Pakistan’s president appeared to be playing with fire. Zardari was setting his security forces on peaceful demonstrators, just as his authoritarian predecessor, General Musharraf, did — against members of Zardari’s own political party — several years earlier. The government crackdown, designed to prevent the marchers from reaching the capital, began on March 11. The police swept through the homes of opposition-party leaders, lawmakers, activists, “miscreants” and ordinary party workers. Many leading officials were already underground, but hundreds of arrests were made. By the 12th, the first day of the march, much of the country was glued to the television, where swarms of heavily armed policemen could be seen knocking down protesters and dragging them off to the paddy wagons. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the main opposition party, saw the protests as the “prelude to a revolution,” while Rehman Malik, a key Zardari adviser, accused Sharif of “sedition.”
The posturing and hyperbole would have been comical if the stakes weren’t so high. Although in Pakistan, it’s true, the stakes always feel high.
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, Pakistan has been living through a dangerous and thrilling era of popular agitation and spasmodic crackdown. In March 2007, General Musharraf made the colossal miscalculation of insisting that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whose activism on the bench had threatened the military’s invulnerability to legal prosecution, step down. In decades past, judges quietly acceded under such duress, and Musharraf may be excused for calculating that Chaudhry, an unassuming figure, would do likewise. Instead, the chief justice stood up to the president, who then fired him, creating a national hero of resistance. Tens of thousands of people lined the roads and cheered as Chaudhry barnstormed across the country — an astonishing sign of Pakistanis’ craving, after years of repression, for democracy and the liberal principles established in Pakistan’s Constitution.
That October, under intense domestic and American pressure, Musharraf agreed to permit Benazir Bhutto, who had been living in Dubai, to return. Bhutto and her chief rival, Nawaz Sharif, had been exiled from Pakistan since their respective terms as prime minister. But their political parties — Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) — continued to operate under Musharraf, and their partisans waited for the return of their leaders to revive the nation’s democratic politics.
TWO MONTHS AFTER HER ARRIVAL, Bhutto was killed in an attack in Rawalpindi. Her death was experienced as a national calamity — both a terrifying proof of the growing reach of terrorism inside Pakistan and a grave blow to the country’s democratic hopes. Three days later, the PPP — an arm of the Bhutto family since its founding by her father 40 years earlier — chose her widower, Zardari, and their 19-year-old son as co-chairmen, the elder acting in effect as regent for the younger. In elections seven weeks later, the PPP, buoyed by sympathy over Bhutto’s death and vowing to take up the cause of the deposed judges, won. It formed a coalition government that included regional allies and Sharif’s PML-N. Here, at last, was a chance for a new beginning.
In May 2006, Bhutto and Sharif met in London to sign a document known as the Charter of Democracy. The two vowed to rescind a raft of amendments that military rulers had added to the Constitution, including several that empowered the president at the expense of the prime minister, and to establish a merit-based system for picking judges (a practice neither Bhutto nor Sharif even remotely favored while in office). But Zardari seemed much less interested in these constitutional questions than Sharif, who made the restitution of judges a centerpiece of his campaign. (He compelled all of his party’s parliamentary candidates to swear an oath before him demanding that the judges be restored.)
In May 2008, less than three months after the government was formed, Sharif pulled his ministers from the cabinet. But he continued pressing Zardari to abide by the spirit of the Charter of Democracy. On Aug. 7, Zardari signed a document pledging that a “nonpartisan” figure would assume the presidency and that this person would restore the judges shortly after taking office. When it became clear, in late August, that Zardari himself would become president, an irate Sharif withdrew from the coalition altogether.
On Sept. 9, Zardari became president of Pakistan and proceeded to ignore his promise to restore the judges. I asked Zardari how he could have done so. He explained that since General Musharraf had agreed to resign rather than face impeachment proceedings, “everybody goes back to start fresh.” Apparently this was, in Zardari’s mind, a special kind of pact that ceased to be binding when one party concluded that the circumstances under which it had been accepted had changed. Zardari kept nibbling away at this perplexing concept. The document he had signed was “an agreement by consent,” not “an agreement by law.” It was like a marriage. It was like a merger. I said that I wondered if Sharif would agree; he may well have thought that Zardari had, in fact, bound himself to act with dispatch. “Maybe that might be the interpretation assumed by him,” the president conceded.
Zardari did win a partial victory: he persuaded 57 of the remaining 63 High Court judges to take a new oath in order to be restored to office. But the other six, including Chaudhry, refused to do so, on the grounds that, as they had been unconstitutionally deprived of office, the oaths they swore earlier remained in force. Early this year, the lawyers began planning their march, which was to terminate with a sit-in in Islamabad. The government would be able to dismiss a sit-in among lawyers as a nuisance; only with the active involvement of the PML-N, with its vast rank and file and its control over the Punjab state apparatus, would the protest truly pose a threat to Zardari. In mid-February, the PML-N agreed to join the lawyers not only for the planned march but also for the sit-in, which held far greater potential for confrontation.
Ten days later, on Feb. 25, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar — whom Musharraf had elevated to replace Chaudhry, and whom Zardari had consistently supported (rumors abound of late-night conversations between them in the president’s house) — abruptly issued a decision on a case that had been pending for eight months, finding that Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz, the chief minister of Punjab, could not hold elective office because they had previously been convicted of crimes. It was widely assumed that Zardari engineered this outcome to end PML-N control over Punjab. That very evening he gave substance to these suspicions by suspending Punjab’s elected government in favor of rule by the governor, a federal appointee. This combination of moves had the appearance of a coup. It caused outrage in the Punjab, in the ranks of the PML-N and throughout the country.
When I asked Zardari why he had imposed governor’s rule, he embarked on another adventure in logic. “No democratic party would like to do governor’s rule,” he said. “It’s in the Constitution; it’s part of necessity. The government advised me to put governor’s rule, and I took their advice, as I am bound by the Constitution to accept the advice from the government.” The official line is that, with the local government dissolved and no single party in the majority and thus able to form a new government, Islamabad had to step in. In fact, in such situations the Constitution requires the governor to ask the largest party to seek to form a majority — as the PML-N surely would have done — although the president does have the right to impose governor’s rule if he judges the province to be unstable.
Zardari is, as all acknowledge, a very shrewd operator, but he seems to have little feel for public opinion: by overturning the Punjab government, he had sown a whirlwind. One leader of the planned march pointed out to me that the government could have completely taken the breeze out of the lawyers’ sails by pushing the Supreme Court to decide in favor of the Sharifs rather than against them; such an act might well have made Chaudhry’s restoration seem unnecessary. But Zardari, who traffics heavily in metaphors of combat, seems to prefer either guile or trials of strength.
Zardari’s critics were divided over the wisdom of the planned march and sit-in. “Zardari is not the issue,” Samina Ahmed told me. “It’s the institutions and processes that matter a lot. If the government is to be replaced, it has to be replaced by the people, who vote for a new government.” No democratic government in the history of Pakistan has been replaced by an orderly transition through a regularly scheduled election; Ahmed said she believed that democracy would never truly take hold until such transitions became the norm.
But others said that Zardari was very much the problem — that he was himself the chief obstacle to democratic change. Nasim Zehra, a journalist who runs the current-affairs bureau of Dunya News, a new, private Urdu-language TV station, viewed Zardari as every bit as willing to manipulate the Constitution as Musharraf had been. The real problem, she said, “is the culture of the exercise of power.” The only way to change this culture was from the outside. In her view, a new “Pakistani narrative” arose with the lawyers movement of 2007 — the narrative of “movement politics” rather than party politics, a grass-roots movement of the street, buoyed by the growth of new media, which demands systemic change rather than yet another partisan shift.
THE QUESTION, AT BOTTOM, is not, Why is Pakistan such a mess? but, Why is Pakistan still such a mess? After all, in the 1960s, Ayub Khan, the country’s generalissimo-philosopher, was celebrated, along with Park Chung-hee of South Korea and Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan, as the very type of the market-oriented autocrat third-world nations were said to need if they were to pull themselves out of poverty. Pakistan was favorably contrasted with India: a socialist democracy with a carnivalesque political scene, an asphyxiating bureaucracy and a “Hindu rate of growth” apparently fixed at 3 percent of G.D.P. Of course, that was then. Only more recently has it become clear that India’s democracy allowed the country’s innumerable religious, ethnic, caste and language groups to find places for themselves through the ballot and to build an economy as freewheeling as its politics. Pakistan, meanwhile, has stagnated.
Histories of Pakistan often point to the original sin of its founding in 1947. The very word “Pakistan” was an artifice, coined mainly from the first letters of the provinces that Muslim leaders in India had dreamed of forging into a separate Muslim state. “India’s Muslims demanded Pakistan without really knowing the results of that demand,” wrote Husain Haqqani in “Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military.” (Haqqani is now Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.) And when Pakistan’s hero-founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, died one year after independence, and his chief lieutenant, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated three years later, Pakistan’s leadership fell to bureaucrats and soldiers. Neither held democracy in high regard. This new establishment did have a clear idea of Pakistan’s identity: it was a refuge for South Asian Muslims from an India bent on subsuming the new country back into the “Hindu raj.” Pakistan understood itself, and organized itself, as a national-security state with strong cold-war ties to the United States. Ayub Khan put an end to civilian government with a military coup in 1958. Pakistan’s identity and ideology were to be dictated from the top down, without the bother of elections.
The army remained firmly in control of Pakistan’s destinies for 30 years, with an interval for the turbulent era of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who inherited power from an army discredited by its inept handling of the 1971 war with the breakaway province of East Pakistan (which then became Bangladesh). Several years earlier, Bhutto founded the PPP, whose slogan was simplicity itself — “Roti, Kapra aur Makan” — “Bread, Clothing and Shelter.” The mere act of speaking directly to the aspirations of ordinary citizens constituted a radical challenge to Pakistan’s model of “guided development.” The fact that this worldly, witty scion of an old, wealthy Sindhi landowning family was himself a charter member of Pakistan’s establishment made his challenge to the system all the more electrifying, and dangerous. The military, and indeed much of official Washington, viewed Bhutto as a dangerous rabble-rouser; he was overthrown in 1977.
Bhutto’s army chief of staff, Zia ul-Haq, not only deposed the prime minister but had him tried and executed two years later on a trumped-up charge. Zia crushed all opposition and introduced into the country’s public life, especially into the military, a quite new element of austere and evangelical piety. Previous rulers, themselves religiously moderate, found Islam convenient, in much the same way that they found India convenient. Zia, a true believer, empowered religious societies and political parties in a bid to foster a new national ideology. His tenure coincided with the C.I.A.’s war on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; Zia’s military and intelligence officials were the ones who controlled the Afghan mujahedeen, doled out their American funds and sometimes came to share their worldview.
By the time of Zia’s death in a plane crash in 1988, his harsh reign was coming unglued in the face of a democratic challenge led by Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir. A new era began in which all the forces born over the previous four decades contended for supremacy: the military sense of right and obligation to rule; populist and democratic politics; Islamic mobilization; and, increasingly, blatant, rampant corruption. Bhutto was twice elected prime minister, and she was twice removed by the country’s president, acting at the behest of the military, “for corruption and incompetence.” The chief source of corruption, according to many analysts, was her husband. Zardari was jailed on a series of charges — none of which he was ultimately convicted of — from 1990 until Bhutto returned to power in 1993.
Each time Bhutto fell, a new election was held, and she was replaced by Nawaz Sharif, a protégé of General Zia and a voice for the citizens of Punjab, as well as for those uncomfortable with the “liberalism” — or secularism — of the PPP. Like Benazir Bhutto, Sharif ruled with the sufferance of the military and the intelligence apparatus. And like her, he ultimately fell afoul of his overseers. The era of democratic rule came to a crashing end in 1999, when General Musharraf led yet another coup.
THE GENERALS HAD CREATED a self-fulfilling prophecy: by infantilizing Pakistan’s democracy, they proved that civilians were unfit to rule. Indeed, as Zardari sagely observed in our conversation: “If you look at your own history, American history, and then you see, How does democracy become the best formula of the world to govern? Democracy becomes the best formula of the world because it learns from its mistakes.” The generals had never given civilian rule the chance. Of course, that was precisely the precious opportunity that Zardari’s critics said he was so recklessly putting at risk.
As a young man in Karachi, Asif Ali Zardari had a distinctly raffish reputation. A contemporary of Zardari’s from those days told me that his family had warned him away from Zardari, who was said to run in a bad crowd. His father had been a middling landowner — a feudal, in Pakistani terms — who had urbanized and owned the Bambino Cinema, which showed American movies. As a kid, Zardari hung around the theater and got into scrapes. He went to London, where, according to his wife — in her autobiography, “Daughter of the East” — he attended the “London Centre of Economic and Political Studies.” Zardari now says he studied at something called the London School of Business Studies. Young Zardari seemed much more interested in spending money than in making it. He had a disco in his house — very much the rage in Karachi at the time — and he drank and chased women. He was an ardent polo player with his own squad, known as the Zardari Four. He was handsome, trim in his polo outfit, with a flourishing mustache.
Zardari pretends — but just barely — to be stumped by accounts of his former exploits. When I asked about the fabulous jewelry he bought and the great wine he drank once he came into real money, he waggled his eyebrows, Groucho-wise, in mute acknowledgment of past delights. “I will not comment on those things,” he said gravely, “because Islam forbids drinking.” What’s more, he added, with a show of indignation, “this description you give — who is fun-loving, who is easygoing, who is consumption of Scotching and wining and dining and dancing — why would that kind of man opt for a life that he knows for sure that he will have to go through a lot of trouble and tribulation?” Why, in short, would he marry Benazir Bhutto — besides the fact that she was the most dazzling woman in Pakistan, beautiful, rich and famous? Zardari says that he wooed Bhutto because “she was the ultimate hope for Pakistan.” O.K. He also said, rather mysteriously, “Benazir and myself are related.” This, if true, was news to even very knowledgeable observers. Whatever the case, Zardari pursued Bhutto tirelessly, while his stepmother worked on Bhutto’s female relatives, in the time-honored fashion. Bhutto writes that she found him gallant, gracious and charming. In December 1987, they married. One year later, she won a resounding electoral victory and became prime minister.
Over the course of the next seven years, while his wife was in and out of power, he appears to have spent his time making himself immensely wealthy. He bought a 355-acre estate south of London and an apartment in London, among other properties. Investigators once found an account at Citibank with more than $40 million in it. The revenue for all this is widely believed to have come from bribes; Zardari became known as “Mr. 10 Percent.” He came to be seen as well as something of a thug: among the notorious tales from that time that Pakistanis love repeating to one another was one from 1990, when Zardari supposedly strapped a bomb to a man’s leg and forced him to withdraw millions of rupees from his bank account. Saeed Minhas, the Islamabad editor of Daily Aajkal, first met Zardari at this time and was shocked to discover, upon being hugged by him, that Zardari had a pistol tucked into his salwar kameez.
Among the many court cases mounted against Zardari and his wife were one in Switzerland claiming that he had received illegal commissions in exchange for awarding contracts to two Swiss companies and another for supposedly taking bribes from a Dubai-based gold-bullion dealership. Pakistani investigative officials claimed that the Bhutto family and associates took in more than $1.5 billion through various questionable schemes during this period. Nevertheless, Zardari can rightly assert that he has never been convicted, though in large part because Musharraf passed an ordinance wiping out pending cases against senior officials (himself included).
Zardari was imprisoned once again after Bhutto’s second tenure ended in 1996, and he remained in jail until 2004. He was an “A Class” prisoner, enjoying fine meals delivered from the Bhutto mansion, but he also says he was tortured, including having his tongue ripped open. The injustice and the suffering he endured — and endured with excellent humor and composure — provided him with a moral currency, which he otherwise altogether lacked, in the culture of the PPP. Indeed, when I asked Farhatullah Babar, the party spokesman, why the PPP chose Zardari to lead it, he said, “One factor was this” — and pulled down from the wall a framed copy of a letter Bhutto wrote out by hand. Babar read aloud the crucial passage: “I would like my husband Asif Ali Zardari to lead you in the interim period until you and he decide what is best. I say this because he is a man of courage and honor. He spent more than 11 1/2 years in prison without bending despite torture.” This document is dismissed as a transparent forgery by the many people who loathe Zardari. As with practically everything else about him, the truth is very difficult to determine.
Zardari does seem to have exhausted much of the deep well of loyalty from which Benazir Bhutto and her father drew. I met any number of people who told me that they had been party members practically since birth, that the Bhuttos had stayed at their parents’ homes — and that while they would never, ever abandon the party, they had given up on Zardari. Safdar Abbasi, who had worked with Benazir since 1983 and was with her when she died, said to me: “Mr. Zardari had the opportunity of continuing with the legacy of both the Bhuttos and going on with the populist line. Instead, he opted for power politics.”
The issue that comes up again and again is Zardari’s supplanting of competent figures in favor of a tight, and isolating, circle of loyalists, friends from prison days and family members. Rehmat Shah Afridi, the publisher of The Frontier Post, a former boon companion of Zardari and still, he says, a confidant, speaks much more fondly of Pakistan’s president than do many others. “He is a very good friend,” Afridi says. “He never thinks, You are a small man, or a poor man, and I am a big man.” But even Afridi says that Zardari’s fatal weakness is his habit of trusting his friends — or the wrong friends. He recalls visiting Zardari last spring and saying: “Please, Asif, who is on your left and right? If they did some good for you when you were in prison, give them some portfolio, but don’t put them in your kitchen cabinet.” Zardari, he says, “is surrounded by the most corrupt people, from Karachi and Khyber.” I asked Afridi why Zardari consorts with these characters. “Because,” he said, “they know how to butter him.”
Government-by-crony is scarcely unheard-of in Pakistan — or elsewhere. But the urgency of Pakistan’s problems make clubhouse rule seem like a dangerous anachronism. One morning I met with Ahmad Mukhtar, the minister of defense. I asked an aide why we were meeting in the office of Pakistan International Airlines. “Oh,” he said, “Mr. Mukhtar is also chairman of P.I.A.” — another government post. Mukhtar offered a series of extremely stilted explanations for his party’s behavior in the current political crisis as well as for the president’s accumulation of wealth — “Anyone who has land will become very rich in this country” — and spoke of military matters with surprising vagueness. I asked if he had a background in either the military or aviation. “No,” he said, “I’m a businessman. We’re into shoes.” His family had 400 shoe stores. More important, he was a PPP veteran and a Zardari loyalist who spent time with him in jail.
BY MARCH 12, THE FIRST DAY of the long march, Pakistanis were watching the narrative of “movement politics” unfold — live, on television — as policemen in riot gear lobbed tear-gas canisters at lawyers in black suits, ladies in high heels, PML-N workers and the more battle-hardened rank and file of the Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami. By the following day, the “AA,” as the Pakistanis say — the army and the Americans, the twin bogeys of civilian government — had swung into action. The army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, had met several times with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and with Zardari. He was said to be urging compromise with the marchers, though the meetings themselves awakened fears from Pakistan’s not-very-distant past. Anne Patterson, the American ambassador, met with both Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy for the region, spoke with Zardari; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a 25-minute conversation with Zardari and spoke with Sharif as well.
For perhaps the first time in the history of Pakistan, these feared forces, the AA, were trying to protect democracy rather than curtail it — though you could argue that all this meddling only confirmed, and perpetuated, the country’s political immaturity. In any case, neither side was prepared to buckle under outside pressure: Zardari offered to reopen the Supreme Court case against the Sharifs, but not to restore the judges; Sharif refused to call off the march. The confrontation moved toward its climax.
It was very easy to forget, amid all the hullabaloo, exactly why it was that Pakistan, the world’s sixth most populous nation, with 170 million people, so desperately needs effective governance. It’s the threat of extremism, of course, that accounts for all those phone calls from high-ranking American officials. But the exigencies of daily life come first for most Pakistani citizens. I received a sobering account of economic failure from Shaukat Tarin, the minister of finance. A former Citibank executive with an old-fashioned banker’s girth, Tarin is one of the very few technocrats in a cabinet consisting largely of loyalists. It was Tarin who steered Pakistan away from the shoals of bankruptcy last fall by negotiating a $7.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Now he is trying to make long-term plans — which, he added, the president had given him a free hand to do. Tarin ticked off Pakistan’s dismal current indicators: the growth rate of agricultural production has dropped every decade, and the country is now importing wheat; real income growth has been concentrated among the urban middle class, while rural poverty has increased; manufacturing is in decline; the information-technology sector booming in India barely exists. Only remittances from Pakistanis working abroad have staved off disaster.
Everybody’s favorite front-line state, Pakistan has suffered the “foreign-aid curse” as other nations suffer “the resource curse.” As Tarin put it, “We have avoided the tough decisions, and we just keep hoping that something will happen, and we will get this infusion of foreign aid.” Tax-collection rates are dismal, and the country spends paltry sums on education and health. Little serious planning has been done on either agriculture or manufacturing. Infrastructure remains primitive. And the bureaucratic culture sedates the entrepreneurial spirit. “There’s no performance management,” Tarin said, “no merit, a lot of nepotism.”
I asked Tarin if he worried that Pakistan’s political melodrama would diffuse the intense focus the country’s problems require. He laughed uneasily. The country’s chaotic politics “could have wrecked the very democracy we were talking about,” he said. “You cannot achieve economic stability without political stability.” But when I asked Tarin if any of his cabinet colleagues shared his sense of urgency and of the need for systemic change, he maintained a prudent silence. “This is the long-term history of Pakistan,” he said. “This is not one government.”
Zardari maintains that while Pakistan imported grain last year — when he wasn’t in office — it had a bumper crop this year. He seemed to share Tarin’s view of the dangers of aid dependence. “The world philosophers,” he asserted, “have come to the conclusion that aid has never been one of the best ways of developing countries.” But then he scrambled his talking points and said that when he first spoke with Bush administration officials, he called for a “Marshall Plan” for Pakistan.
The civilian government does at least exercise control over the economy, but national security and defense remain the domain of the military. Early in his tenure, Zardari made several bold efforts to assert civilian authority over the military. He sought to transfer control over the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the feared military-intelligence service, from the army to the Ministry of the Interior; the military simply refused. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, carried out by Pakistanis apparently operating from a Pakistani base, Prime Minister Gilani said that Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, would go to India to coordinate the investigation; instead, a lower-level official was dispatched. After these episodes, Zardari backed off.
The relationship between the military and the civilian government is thoroughly opaque, and you can hear wildly different views about the ambitions of the military from Pakistani analysts. Rifaat Hussain, a military analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, says flatly, “I can assure you that General Kayani has absolutely no political ambitions.” I heard the same view from retired military officials and diplomats. Others are not nearly so persuaded. Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group worries that American military officials are far too inclined to accept Kayani’s insistence that he wishes to return the military to the barracks. She points out that he previously served as director-general of the ISI, which is notorious for playing by its own rules — and elements of which, according to American officials cited in a recent New York Times account, continue to work with terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which appears to have planned the November attack in Mumbai. During the crisis of the long march, Ahmed said, the military “would have been given a pretext to intervene,” if only by forcing the antagonists to settle on terms of its own devising. No one I spoke with said he believed that the military wanted to seize power, but many argued that it seeks to expand its own space at the expense of civilian government.
There is, of course, a reciprocal relationship between weak civilian governance and military supremacy. Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a retired officer and a leading military analyst, pointed out that so long as party hacks serve in the most sensitive positions, the military will feel justified in preserving its position. Another example of weak governance, according to Masood, was Zardari’s statement in a speech that Pakistan would not be the first to use nuclear weapons against India — a break with Pakistani doctrine hailed by many as a significant breakthrough. Not Masood: “I would have been very happy if he had seriously said, ‘No first use.’ But the way he did it was irrelevant. It wasn’t part of a larger strategic rethinking. He didn’t discuss it with the military” — which controls nuclear policy. “He doesn’t even understand the vocabulary.”
Zardari actually seems less encumbered by the obsession with India, and less equivocal about the need to take on terrorists, than most of his predecessors, including his wife. Precisely because he is an outsider, he was not immersed in the culture of Pakistan’s security services. And yet the widespread perception that he has tacitly approved the Americans’ drone strikes, as well as occasional hot-pursuit violation of Pakistan’s border, has damaged him politically. And in any case, his failure to formulate a coherent security policy, much less to articulate it in public, has reduced his views almost to a curiosity. Masood, an avowed foe of military supremacy, is biting on the subject. “The only way to counter the rising force of extremism in Pakistan today is through the strengthening of civil society,” he told me. “Zardari is doing just the opposite.”
Underneath all of Pakistan’s problems is the failure to provide decent governance. Extremism flourishes in the absence of legitimate state authority. This is patent in the self-governing tribal areas along the Afghan border, but the most striking current example is the Swat Valley, once a honeymooners’ paradise and now a militant statelet within Pakistan’s formal jurisdiction. The army actually succeeded in pushing militants out of the area in 2006 and 2007. But the government of the North-West Frontier Province, which Musharraf had given as a sort of prize to his more moderate Islamist allies, made little attempt to field a police presence, or to provide the services, above all functioning courts, that residents of the area demanded. These are the same demands Pakistanis elsewhere have made; the difference was that in Swat the extremists offered themselves as an alternative.
The new provincial government elected in 2008 promised to negotiate with the extremists rather than fight them. And that is precisely what has happened. The forces of Sufi Muhammad, the militant leader, have laid down their arms in exchange for a pledge to create Shariah courts. But other militants have an agenda of their own, including closing down girls’ schools. Most analysts were appalled by the deal. “It was an act of capitulation,” says Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. “And there’s no assurance that this will be the final domino.” Zardari, to his credit, has so far refused to sign off on the deal. But there’s little he can do to affect the outcome.
Meanwhile, American policy is coming down the road like a monster truck. With the strategic reviews now complete, the Obama administration is planning an enormous increase in development aid to Pakistan, reaching $1.5 billion a year over five years, as well as an increase in military aid, to be directed to counterinsurgency warfare. The administration’s increasing receptivity to negotiating with some elements of the Taliban and fighting others puts it far more in line with Pakistani thinking than the Bush administration ever was. But as President Obama said on March 27, “after years of mixed results” from military aid to Pakistan, “we will not provide a blank check.” Obama emphasized that extremists “are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan.” Someone in Pakistan must make that case, and it can’t be the army chief of staff. As Ambassador Lodhi told me: “Pakistan needs strong leaders who can stand up and say, ‘Here is the extremist threat that Pakistan faces, and this is what we must do.’ We have a democratic government, but they haven’t used that status to go to the people and articulate a policy.”
SUNDAY, MARCH 15, turned out to be one of the most extraordinary, and exciting, days in the recent history of Pakistan. That morning, a spokesman for the PML-N reported that more than 3,000 party workers had been arrested. Hundreds of police officers surrounded the home of Nawaz Sharif, and officials announced that he would be detained there for the next 72 hours. The lawyers’ leader, Aitzaz Ahsan, was detained and then escaped. In Lahore, cadres of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party threw rocks at advancing officers; the officers flung the rocks back and fired hundreds of rounds of tear gas and rubber bullets. The roads to Islamabad were sealed off with trucks, containers and steel barriers. The Zardari government appeared to have successfully squelched the long march, even if at real cost to its standing.
And then it hadn’t. Around 4:30 that afternoon, the Lahore police district coordinating officer announced his resignation from the force — live, on television. Other officers followed. Sharif left his home in a caravan of cars — and as the caravan inched forward, the police fell back and then melted away. The government continued to take a hard line, but plainly, something had happened. Around midnight, reports began to circulate that Prime Minister Gilani would speak. The cabinet was meeting; General Kayani was once again on the scene. Pakistanis, a late-night people in any case, waited hour by hour in front of the television. Finally, at 5 in the morning, Gilani delivered a brief address in which he announced that the government had agreed to reinstate Chief Justice Chaudhry the following Saturday, when Chief Justice Dogar was scheduled to retire from the bench. Sharif and the lawyers agreed to call off the long march.
THE NEXT DAY, EVERYONE was jubilant, save PPP officials. The whole nail-biting drama had provided a tremendous boon to Sharif, to the lawyers and to the judiciary, to General Kayani and perhaps to the prime minister — to everyone, in short, save Asif Ali Zardari. Sheik Mansour Ahmed, a PPP loyalist who earlier solemnly explained to me that the march was a ploy by Islamists to pressure President Zardari into easing up on the militants, now said Gilani was “not playing a positive role.” The official line, implausible though it sounded, was that Zardari had orchestrated the whole affair. Waqar Khan, a recently minted Zardari insider now serving as minister of investments, told me: “I think the president has done a phenomenal job by returning the chief justice, and they’ve done it at the right time. They’ve accepted the wishes of the people.”
It’s not clear what in fact happened that afternoon. Najam Sethi, editor of The Daily Times and one of Pakistan’s leading political analysts, says he believes that General Kayani played the decisive role behind the scenes, and that the army thus not only “re-established its credibility in the eyes of the people” but also managed to “cut the president down to size.” That is not, of course, the way Zardari recounts the events of that day. He says that his government ordered the police to fall back out of concern that “aggressive parties” associated with the Sharif brothers might use a confrontation to commit acts of violence. In any case, he said, his law minister had advised him that he could not have two sitting chief justices and so would have to wait for Dogar’s retirement to restore Chaudhry. I asked him, frankly incredulous, if he was saying that he had always intended to reinstate Chaudhry but had held off saying so until that moment.
“No,” Zardari said. “I’m not saying that. I’m saying that different positions existed given by the law.” And he apparently had to wait for a clear ruling among his advisers.
But there’s no getting around the damage the president did to his own standing. He tried to strike a blow at Nawaz Sharif, his chief adversary, and it was Sharif who emerged the stronger. American officials, increasingly convinced both that Zardari is not the interlocutor they had hoped for and that his days in power may be numbered, have begun to pay more attention to Sharif, long considered dangerously close to Islamist forces. Leading PML-N officials say they have learned from past mistakes. They have learned, for example, to accept an independent media and an independent judiciary. It’s not clear if Sharif himself has profited from experience. In the course of a phone conversation last week, he passed up all opportunities for self-scrutiny and advocated a response to terrorism that combined dialogue with tribal elders and economic and social development; military force was apparently not part of the equation.
And what about President Zardari? I asked him if he had learned any lessons from the previous week. He pondered. “Every day,” he said, “man is growing and learning. What you were yesterday, you are probably not today, because today’s you is yesterday’s experience. One is always learning.” Indeed, one is.
James Traub, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author most recently of “The Freedom Agenda.”
April 5, 2009
By JAMES TRAUB
TO ENTER the office where Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, conducts his business, you head down a long corridor toward two wax statues of exceptionally tall soldiers, each in a long, white tunic with a glittering column of buttons. On closer inspection, these turn out to be actual humans who have been trained in the arts of immobility. The office they guard, though large, is not especially opulent or stupefying by the standards of such places. President Zardari met me just inside the doorway, then seated himself facing a widescreen TV displaying an image of fish swimming in a deep blue sea. His party spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, and his presidential spokesman, Farahnaz Ispahani, sat facing him, almost as rigid as the soldiers. Zardari is famous for straying off message and saying odd things or jumbling facts and figures. He is also famous for blaming his aides when things go wrong — and things have been going wrong quite a lot lately. Zardari’s aides didn’t want him to talk to me. Now they were tensely waiting for a mishap.
The president himself, natty in a navy suit, his black hair brilliantined to a sheen, was the very picture of ease. Zardari beamed when we talked about New York, where he often lived between 2004, when he was released from prison after eight years, and late 2007, when he returned to Pakistan not long after his wife, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by terrorists. For all that painful recent history, Zardari is a suave and charming man with a sly grin, and he gives the impression of thoroughly enjoying what must be among the world’s least desirable jobs. Zardari had just been through the most dangerous weeks of his six months in office. He dissolved the government in Punjab, Pakistan’s dominant state, and called out the police to stop the country’s lawyers and leading opposition party from holding a “long march” to demand the reinstatement of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who had been sacked, along with most of the high judiciary, by Zardari’s predecessor, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Zardari defused the situation only by allowing Chaudhry’s return to office and giving in to other demands that he had previously and repeatedly rejected.
Yet, despite this spectacular reversal, the president was not in a remotely penitent state of mind over his handling of the protests against him. “Whoever killed my wife was seeking the Balkanization of Pakistan,” he told me. “There is a view that I saved Pakistan then” — by calling for calm at a perilous moment — “and there is a view that by making this decision I saved Pakistan again.” There had been, he said, a very real threat of a terrorist attack on the marchers on their way to Islamabad. That is why his government invoked a statute dating back to the British raj in order to authorize the police to arrest protesters and prevent the march from forming. I pointed out that Benazir Bhutto faced a far more specific threat and was outraged when General Musharraf kept her from speaking on the pretext of protecting her. The president didn’t miss a beat. “And therefore,” he rejoined, “we moved to the other side”: that is, he reversed his order to the police, and permitted the protesters’ march, just before giving in to their demands altogether.
Zardari has a special talent for maneuvering himself out of the tight spots he gets himself into. But the Pakistani people have grown weary of his artful dodging. Zardari’s poll numbers are dreadful. More important, he has given little sustained attention to the country’s overwhelming problems — including, of course, the Islamist extremism that, for the Obama administration, has made Pakistan quite possibly the most important, and worrisome, country in the world. Zardari has bought himself more time, but for Pakistan itself, the clock is ticking louder and louder.
When I arrived in Islamabad on March 10, the long march was set to begin in two days and had come to feel like a storm gathering force at sea — one that might peter out before it hit land or turn into a Category 4 hurricane. In a country where democracy feels as flimsy as a wooden shack, the foreboding was very real. “Our condition is much more fragile than it was in the 1990s,” Samina Ahmed, the International Crisis Group’s longtime Pakistan analyst, told me. (The I.C.G. is a sponsor of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, where I am the policy director.) The Taliban and other extremists had, she estimated, placed half the country beyond the control of security forces. The government had recently ceded control over the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the nation’s capital, to the extremists.
Pakistan feels as if it’s falling apart. Last fall the country barely avoided bankruptcy. The tribal areas, which border on Afghanistan, remain a vast Taliban sanctuary and redoubt. The giant province of Baluchistan, though far more accessible, is racked by a Baluchi separatist rebellion, while American officials view Quetta, Baluchistan’s capital, as Taliban HQ. American policy has arguably made the situation even worse, for the Predator-drone attacks along the border, though effective, drive the Taliban eastward, deeper into Pakistan. And the strategy has been only reinforcing hostility to the United States among ordinary Pakistanis.
Pakistan has made itself the supreme conundrum of American foreign policy. During the campaign, Obama often said that the heart of the terrorist threat was not Iraq but Afghanistan and Pakistan, and once in office he had senior policy makers undertake an array of reviews designed to coordinate policy in the region. They seem to have narrowed the target area even further, to the Pakistani frontier. “For the American people,” Obama announced on March 27, “this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.” Some officials see Pakistan as a volcano that, should it blow, would send an inconceivable amount of poisonous ash raining down on the world around it. David Kilcullen, a key adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, the Centcom commander, recently asserted that “within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state,” a calamity that, given the country’s size, strategic location and nuclear stockpile, would “dwarf” all other current crises.
And amid all that, Pakistan’s president appeared to be playing with fire. Zardari was setting his security forces on peaceful demonstrators, just as his authoritarian predecessor, General Musharraf, did — against members of Zardari’s own political party — several years earlier. The government crackdown, designed to prevent the marchers from reaching the capital, began on March 11. The police swept through the homes of opposition-party leaders, lawmakers, activists, “miscreants” and ordinary party workers. Many leading officials were already underground, but hundreds of arrests were made. By the 12th, the first day of the march, much of the country was glued to the television, where swarms of heavily armed policemen could be seen knocking down protesters and dragging them off to the paddy wagons. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the main opposition party, saw the protests as the “prelude to a revolution,” while Rehman Malik, a key Zardari adviser, accused Sharif of “sedition.”
The posturing and hyperbole would have been comical if the stakes weren’t so high. Although in Pakistan, it’s true, the stakes always feel high.
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, Pakistan has been living through a dangerous and thrilling era of popular agitation and spasmodic crackdown. In March 2007, General Musharraf made the colossal miscalculation of insisting that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whose activism on the bench had threatened the military’s invulnerability to legal prosecution, step down. In decades past, judges quietly acceded under such duress, and Musharraf may be excused for calculating that Chaudhry, an unassuming figure, would do likewise. Instead, the chief justice stood up to the president, who then fired him, creating a national hero of resistance. Tens of thousands of people lined the roads and cheered as Chaudhry barnstormed across the country — an astonishing sign of Pakistanis’ craving, after years of repression, for democracy and the liberal principles established in Pakistan’s Constitution.
That October, under intense domestic and American pressure, Musharraf agreed to permit Benazir Bhutto, who had been living in Dubai, to return. Bhutto and her chief rival, Nawaz Sharif, had been exiled from Pakistan since their respective terms as prime minister. But their political parties — Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) — continued to operate under Musharraf, and their partisans waited for the return of their leaders to revive the nation’s democratic politics.
TWO MONTHS AFTER HER ARRIVAL, Bhutto was killed in an attack in Rawalpindi. Her death was experienced as a national calamity — both a terrifying proof of the growing reach of terrorism inside Pakistan and a grave blow to the country’s democratic hopes. Three days later, the PPP — an arm of the Bhutto family since its founding by her father 40 years earlier — chose her widower, Zardari, and their 19-year-old son as co-chairmen, the elder acting in effect as regent for the younger. In elections seven weeks later, the PPP, buoyed by sympathy over Bhutto’s death and vowing to take up the cause of the deposed judges, won. It formed a coalition government that included regional allies and Sharif’s PML-N. Here, at last, was a chance for a new beginning.
In May 2006, Bhutto and Sharif met in London to sign a document known as the Charter of Democracy. The two vowed to rescind a raft of amendments that military rulers had added to the Constitution, including several that empowered the president at the expense of the prime minister, and to establish a merit-based system for picking judges (a practice neither Bhutto nor Sharif even remotely favored while in office). But Zardari seemed much less interested in these constitutional questions than Sharif, who made the restitution of judges a centerpiece of his campaign. (He compelled all of his party’s parliamentary candidates to swear an oath before him demanding that the judges be restored.)
In May 2008, less than three months after the government was formed, Sharif pulled his ministers from the cabinet. But he continued pressing Zardari to abide by the spirit of the Charter of Democracy. On Aug. 7, Zardari signed a document pledging that a “nonpartisan” figure would assume the presidency and that this person would restore the judges shortly after taking office. When it became clear, in late August, that Zardari himself would become president, an irate Sharif withdrew from the coalition altogether.
On Sept. 9, Zardari became president of Pakistan and proceeded to ignore his promise to restore the judges. I asked Zardari how he could have done so. He explained that since General Musharraf had agreed to resign rather than face impeachment proceedings, “everybody goes back to start fresh.” Apparently this was, in Zardari’s mind, a special kind of pact that ceased to be binding when one party concluded that the circumstances under which it had been accepted had changed. Zardari kept nibbling away at this perplexing concept. The document he had signed was “an agreement by consent,” not “an agreement by law.” It was like a marriage. It was like a merger. I said that I wondered if Sharif would agree; he may well have thought that Zardari had, in fact, bound himself to act with dispatch. “Maybe that might be the interpretation assumed by him,” the president conceded.
Zardari did win a partial victory: he persuaded 57 of the remaining 63 High Court judges to take a new oath in order to be restored to office. But the other six, including Chaudhry, refused to do so, on the grounds that, as they had been unconstitutionally deprived of office, the oaths they swore earlier remained in force. Early this year, the lawyers began planning their march, which was to terminate with a sit-in in Islamabad. The government would be able to dismiss a sit-in among lawyers as a nuisance; only with the active involvement of the PML-N, with its vast rank and file and its control over the Punjab state apparatus, would the protest truly pose a threat to Zardari. In mid-February, the PML-N agreed to join the lawyers not only for the planned march but also for the sit-in, which held far greater potential for confrontation.
Ten days later, on Feb. 25, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar — whom Musharraf had elevated to replace Chaudhry, and whom Zardari had consistently supported (rumors abound of late-night conversations between them in the president’s house) — abruptly issued a decision on a case that had been pending for eight months, finding that Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz, the chief minister of Punjab, could not hold elective office because they had previously been convicted of crimes. It was widely assumed that Zardari engineered this outcome to end PML-N control over Punjab. That very evening he gave substance to these suspicions by suspending Punjab’s elected government in favor of rule by the governor, a federal appointee. This combination of moves had the appearance of a coup. It caused outrage in the Punjab, in the ranks of the PML-N and throughout the country.
When I asked Zardari why he had imposed governor’s rule, he embarked on another adventure in logic. “No democratic party would like to do governor’s rule,” he said. “It’s in the Constitution; it’s part of necessity. The government advised me to put governor’s rule, and I took their advice, as I am bound by the Constitution to accept the advice from the government.” The official line is that, with the local government dissolved and no single party in the majority and thus able to form a new government, Islamabad had to step in. In fact, in such situations the Constitution requires the governor to ask the largest party to seek to form a majority — as the PML-N surely would have done — although the president does have the right to impose governor’s rule if he judges the province to be unstable.
Zardari is, as all acknowledge, a very shrewd operator, but he seems to have little feel for public opinion: by overturning the Punjab government, he had sown a whirlwind. One leader of the planned march pointed out to me that the government could have completely taken the breeze out of the lawyers’ sails by pushing the Supreme Court to decide in favor of the Sharifs rather than against them; such an act might well have made Chaudhry’s restoration seem unnecessary. But Zardari, who traffics heavily in metaphors of combat, seems to prefer either guile or trials of strength.
Zardari’s critics were divided over the wisdom of the planned march and sit-in. “Zardari is not the issue,” Samina Ahmed told me. “It’s the institutions and processes that matter a lot. If the government is to be replaced, it has to be replaced by the people, who vote for a new government.” No democratic government in the history of Pakistan has been replaced by an orderly transition through a regularly scheduled election; Ahmed said she believed that democracy would never truly take hold until such transitions became the norm.
But others said that Zardari was very much the problem — that he was himself the chief obstacle to democratic change. Nasim Zehra, a journalist who runs the current-affairs bureau of Dunya News, a new, private Urdu-language TV station, viewed Zardari as every bit as willing to manipulate the Constitution as Musharraf had been. The real problem, she said, “is the culture of the exercise of power.” The only way to change this culture was from the outside. In her view, a new “Pakistani narrative” arose with the lawyers movement of 2007 — the narrative of “movement politics” rather than party politics, a grass-roots movement of the street, buoyed by the growth of new media, which demands systemic change rather than yet another partisan shift.
THE QUESTION, AT BOTTOM, is not, Why is Pakistan such a mess? but, Why is Pakistan still such a mess? After all, in the 1960s, Ayub Khan, the country’s generalissimo-philosopher, was celebrated, along with Park Chung-hee of South Korea and Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan, as the very type of the market-oriented autocrat third-world nations were said to need if they were to pull themselves out of poverty. Pakistan was favorably contrasted with India: a socialist democracy with a carnivalesque political scene, an asphyxiating bureaucracy and a “Hindu rate of growth” apparently fixed at 3 percent of G.D.P. Of course, that was then. Only more recently has it become clear that India’s democracy allowed the country’s innumerable religious, ethnic, caste and language groups to find places for themselves through the ballot and to build an economy as freewheeling as its politics. Pakistan, meanwhile, has stagnated.
Histories of Pakistan often point to the original sin of its founding in 1947. The very word “Pakistan” was an artifice, coined mainly from the first letters of the provinces that Muslim leaders in India had dreamed of forging into a separate Muslim state. “India’s Muslims demanded Pakistan without really knowing the results of that demand,” wrote Husain Haqqani in “Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military.” (Haqqani is now Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States.) And when Pakistan’s hero-founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, died one year after independence, and his chief lieutenant, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated three years later, Pakistan’s leadership fell to bureaucrats and soldiers. Neither held democracy in high regard. This new establishment did have a clear idea of Pakistan’s identity: it was a refuge for South Asian Muslims from an India bent on subsuming the new country back into the “Hindu raj.” Pakistan understood itself, and organized itself, as a national-security state with strong cold-war ties to the United States. Ayub Khan put an end to civilian government with a military coup in 1958. Pakistan’s identity and ideology were to be dictated from the top down, without the bother of elections.
The army remained firmly in control of Pakistan’s destinies for 30 years, with an interval for the turbulent era of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who inherited power from an army discredited by its inept handling of the 1971 war with the breakaway province of East Pakistan (which then became Bangladesh). Several years earlier, Bhutto founded the PPP, whose slogan was simplicity itself — “Roti, Kapra aur Makan” — “Bread, Clothing and Shelter.” The mere act of speaking directly to the aspirations of ordinary citizens constituted a radical challenge to Pakistan’s model of “guided development.” The fact that this worldly, witty scion of an old, wealthy Sindhi landowning family was himself a charter member of Pakistan’s establishment made his challenge to the system all the more electrifying, and dangerous. The military, and indeed much of official Washington, viewed Bhutto as a dangerous rabble-rouser; he was overthrown in 1977.
Bhutto’s army chief of staff, Zia ul-Haq, not only deposed the prime minister but had him tried and executed two years later on a trumped-up charge. Zia crushed all opposition and introduced into the country’s public life, especially into the military, a quite new element of austere and evangelical piety. Previous rulers, themselves religiously moderate, found Islam convenient, in much the same way that they found India convenient. Zia, a true believer, empowered religious societies and political parties in a bid to foster a new national ideology. His tenure coincided with the C.I.A.’s war on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; Zia’s military and intelligence officials were the ones who controlled the Afghan mujahedeen, doled out their American funds and sometimes came to share their worldview.
By the time of Zia’s death in a plane crash in 1988, his harsh reign was coming unglued in the face of a democratic challenge led by Bhutto’s daughter, Benazir. A new era began in which all the forces born over the previous four decades contended for supremacy: the military sense of right and obligation to rule; populist and democratic politics; Islamic mobilization; and, increasingly, blatant, rampant corruption. Bhutto was twice elected prime minister, and she was twice removed by the country’s president, acting at the behest of the military, “for corruption and incompetence.” The chief source of corruption, according to many analysts, was her husband. Zardari was jailed on a series of charges — none of which he was ultimately convicted of — from 1990 until Bhutto returned to power in 1993.
Each time Bhutto fell, a new election was held, and she was replaced by Nawaz Sharif, a protégé of General Zia and a voice for the citizens of Punjab, as well as for those uncomfortable with the “liberalism” — or secularism — of the PPP. Like Benazir Bhutto, Sharif ruled with the sufferance of the military and the intelligence apparatus. And like her, he ultimately fell afoul of his overseers. The era of democratic rule came to a crashing end in 1999, when General Musharraf led yet another coup.
THE GENERALS HAD CREATED a self-fulfilling prophecy: by infantilizing Pakistan’s democracy, they proved that civilians were unfit to rule. Indeed, as Zardari sagely observed in our conversation: “If you look at your own history, American history, and then you see, How does democracy become the best formula of the world to govern? Democracy becomes the best formula of the world because it learns from its mistakes.” The generals had never given civilian rule the chance. Of course, that was precisely the precious opportunity that Zardari’s critics said he was so recklessly putting at risk.
As a young man in Karachi, Asif Ali Zardari had a distinctly raffish reputation. A contemporary of Zardari’s from those days told me that his family had warned him away from Zardari, who was said to run in a bad crowd. His father had been a middling landowner — a feudal, in Pakistani terms — who had urbanized and owned the Bambino Cinema, which showed American movies. As a kid, Zardari hung around the theater and got into scrapes. He went to London, where, according to his wife — in her autobiography, “Daughter of the East” — he attended the “London Centre of Economic and Political Studies.” Zardari now says he studied at something called the London School of Business Studies. Young Zardari seemed much more interested in spending money than in making it. He had a disco in his house — very much the rage in Karachi at the time — and he drank and chased women. He was an ardent polo player with his own squad, known as the Zardari Four. He was handsome, trim in his polo outfit, with a flourishing mustache.
Zardari pretends — but just barely — to be stumped by accounts of his former exploits. When I asked about the fabulous jewelry he bought and the great wine he drank once he came into real money, he waggled his eyebrows, Groucho-wise, in mute acknowledgment of past delights. “I will not comment on those things,” he said gravely, “because Islam forbids drinking.” What’s more, he added, with a show of indignation, “this description you give — who is fun-loving, who is easygoing, who is consumption of Scotching and wining and dining and dancing — why would that kind of man opt for a life that he knows for sure that he will have to go through a lot of trouble and tribulation?” Why, in short, would he marry Benazir Bhutto — besides the fact that she was the most dazzling woman in Pakistan, beautiful, rich and famous? Zardari says that he wooed Bhutto because “she was the ultimate hope for Pakistan.” O.K. He also said, rather mysteriously, “Benazir and myself are related.” This, if true, was news to even very knowledgeable observers. Whatever the case, Zardari pursued Bhutto tirelessly, while his stepmother worked on Bhutto’s female relatives, in the time-honored fashion. Bhutto writes that she found him gallant, gracious and charming. In December 1987, they married. One year later, she won a resounding electoral victory and became prime minister.
Over the course of the next seven years, while his wife was in and out of power, he appears to have spent his time making himself immensely wealthy. He bought a 355-acre estate south of London and an apartment in London, among other properties. Investigators once found an account at Citibank with more than $40 million in it. The revenue for all this is widely believed to have come from bribes; Zardari became known as “Mr. 10 Percent.” He came to be seen as well as something of a thug: among the notorious tales from that time that Pakistanis love repeating to one another was one from 1990, when Zardari supposedly strapped a bomb to a man’s leg and forced him to withdraw millions of rupees from his bank account. Saeed Minhas, the Islamabad editor of Daily Aajkal, first met Zardari at this time and was shocked to discover, upon being hugged by him, that Zardari had a pistol tucked into his salwar kameez.
Among the many court cases mounted against Zardari and his wife were one in Switzerland claiming that he had received illegal commissions in exchange for awarding contracts to two Swiss companies and another for supposedly taking bribes from a Dubai-based gold-bullion dealership. Pakistani investigative officials claimed that the Bhutto family and associates took in more than $1.5 billion through various questionable schemes during this period. Nevertheless, Zardari can rightly assert that he has never been convicted, though in large part because Musharraf passed an ordinance wiping out pending cases against senior officials (himself included).
Zardari was imprisoned once again after Bhutto’s second tenure ended in 1996, and he remained in jail until 2004. He was an “A Class” prisoner, enjoying fine meals delivered from the Bhutto mansion, but he also says he was tortured, including having his tongue ripped open. The injustice and the suffering he endured — and endured with excellent humor and composure — provided him with a moral currency, which he otherwise altogether lacked, in the culture of the PPP. Indeed, when I asked Farhatullah Babar, the party spokesman, why the PPP chose Zardari to lead it, he said, “One factor was this” — and pulled down from the wall a framed copy of a letter Bhutto wrote out by hand. Babar read aloud the crucial passage: “I would like my husband Asif Ali Zardari to lead you in the interim period until you and he decide what is best. I say this because he is a man of courage and honor. He spent more than 11 1/2 years in prison without bending despite torture.” This document is dismissed as a transparent forgery by the many people who loathe Zardari. As with practically everything else about him, the truth is very difficult to determine.
Zardari does seem to have exhausted much of the deep well of loyalty from which Benazir Bhutto and her father drew. I met any number of people who told me that they had been party members practically since birth, that the Bhuttos had stayed at their parents’ homes — and that while they would never, ever abandon the party, they had given up on Zardari. Safdar Abbasi, who had worked with Benazir since 1983 and was with her when she died, said to me: “Mr. Zardari had the opportunity of continuing with the legacy of both the Bhuttos and going on with the populist line. Instead, he opted for power politics.”
The issue that comes up again and again is Zardari’s supplanting of competent figures in favor of a tight, and isolating, circle of loyalists, friends from prison days and family members. Rehmat Shah Afridi, the publisher of The Frontier Post, a former boon companion of Zardari and still, he says, a confidant, speaks much more fondly of Pakistan’s president than do many others. “He is a very good friend,” Afridi says. “He never thinks, You are a small man, or a poor man, and I am a big man.” But even Afridi says that Zardari’s fatal weakness is his habit of trusting his friends — or the wrong friends. He recalls visiting Zardari last spring and saying: “Please, Asif, who is on your left and right? If they did some good for you when you were in prison, give them some portfolio, but don’t put them in your kitchen cabinet.” Zardari, he says, “is surrounded by the most corrupt people, from Karachi and Khyber.” I asked Afridi why Zardari consorts with these characters. “Because,” he said, “they know how to butter him.”
Government-by-crony is scarcely unheard-of in Pakistan — or elsewhere. But the urgency of Pakistan’s problems make clubhouse rule seem like a dangerous anachronism. One morning I met with Ahmad Mukhtar, the minister of defense. I asked an aide why we were meeting in the office of Pakistan International Airlines. “Oh,” he said, “Mr. Mukhtar is also chairman of P.I.A.” — another government post. Mukhtar offered a series of extremely stilted explanations for his party’s behavior in the current political crisis as well as for the president’s accumulation of wealth — “Anyone who has land will become very rich in this country” — and spoke of military matters with surprising vagueness. I asked if he had a background in either the military or aviation. “No,” he said, “I’m a businessman. We’re into shoes.” His family had 400 shoe stores. More important, he was a PPP veteran and a Zardari loyalist who spent time with him in jail.
BY MARCH 12, THE FIRST DAY of the long march, Pakistanis were watching the narrative of “movement politics” unfold — live, on television — as policemen in riot gear lobbed tear-gas canisters at lawyers in black suits, ladies in high heels, PML-N workers and the more battle-hardened rank and file of the Islamist party, Jamaat-e-Islami. By the following day, the “AA,” as the Pakistanis say — the army and the Americans, the twin bogeys of civilian government — had swung into action. The army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, had met several times with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and with Zardari. He was said to be urging compromise with the marchers, though the meetings themselves awakened fears from Pakistan’s not-very-distant past. Anne Patterson, the American ambassador, met with both Zardari and Nawaz Sharif. Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy for the region, spoke with Zardari; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a 25-minute conversation with Zardari and spoke with Sharif as well.
For perhaps the first time in the history of Pakistan, these feared forces, the AA, were trying to protect democracy rather than curtail it — though you could argue that all this meddling only confirmed, and perpetuated, the country’s political immaturity. In any case, neither side was prepared to buckle under outside pressure: Zardari offered to reopen the Supreme Court case against the Sharifs, but not to restore the judges; Sharif refused to call off the march. The confrontation moved toward its climax.
It was very easy to forget, amid all the hullabaloo, exactly why it was that Pakistan, the world’s sixth most populous nation, with 170 million people, so desperately needs effective governance. It’s the threat of extremism, of course, that accounts for all those phone calls from high-ranking American officials. But the exigencies of daily life come first for most Pakistani citizens. I received a sobering account of economic failure from Shaukat Tarin, the minister of finance. A former Citibank executive with an old-fashioned banker’s girth, Tarin is one of the very few technocrats in a cabinet consisting largely of loyalists. It was Tarin who steered Pakistan away from the shoals of bankruptcy last fall by negotiating a $7.6 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Now he is trying to make long-term plans — which, he added, the president had given him a free hand to do. Tarin ticked off Pakistan’s dismal current indicators: the growth rate of agricultural production has dropped every decade, and the country is now importing wheat; real income growth has been concentrated among the urban middle class, while rural poverty has increased; manufacturing is in decline; the information-technology sector booming in India barely exists. Only remittances from Pakistanis working abroad have staved off disaster.
Everybody’s favorite front-line state, Pakistan has suffered the “foreign-aid curse” as other nations suffer “the resource curse.” As Tarin put it, “We have avoided the tough decisions, and we just keep hoping that something will happen, and we will get this infusion of foreign aid.” Tax-collection rates are dismal, and the country spends paltry sums on education and health. Little serious planning has been done on either agriculture or manufacturing. Infrastructure remains primitive. And the bureaucratic culture sedates the entrepreneurial spirit. “There’s no performance management,” Tarin said, “no merit, a lot of nepotism.”
I asked Tarin if he worried that Pakistan’s political melodrama would diffuse the intense focus the country’s problems require. He laughed uneasily. The country’s chaotic politics “could have wrecked the very democracy we were talking about,” he said. “You cannot achieve economic stability without political stability.” But when I asked Tarin if any of his cabinet colleagues shared his sense of urgency and of the need for systemic change, he maintained a prudent silence. “This is the long-term history of Pakistan,” he said. “This is not one government.”
Zardari maintains that while Pakistan imported grain last year — when he wasn’t in office — it had a bumper crop this year. He seemed to share Tarin’s view of the dangers of aid dependence. “The world philosophers,” he asserted, “have come to the conclusion that aid has never been one of the best ways of developing countries.” But then he scrambled his talking points and said that when he first spoke with Bush administration officials, he called for a “Marshall Plan” for Pakistan.
The civilian government does at least exercise control over the economy, but national security and defense remain the domain of the military. Early in his tenure, Zardari made several bold efforts to assert civilian authority over the military. He sought to transfer control over the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the feared military-intelligence service, from the army to the Ministry of the Interior; the military simply refused. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, carried out by Pakistanis apparently operating from a Pakistani base, Prime Minister Gilani said that Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of the ISI, would go to India to coordinate the investigation; instead, a lower-level official was dispatched. After these episodes, Zardari backed off.
The relationship between the military and the civilian government is thoroughly opaque, and you can hear wildly different views about the ambitions of the military from Pakistani analysts. Rifaat Hussain, a military analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, says flatly, “I can assure you that General Kayani has absolutely no political ambitions.” I heard the same view from retired military officials and diplomats. Others are not nearly so persuaded. Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group worries that American military officials are far too inclined to accept Kayani’s insistence that he wishes to return the military to the barracks. She points out that he previously served as director-general of the ISI, which is notorious for playing by its own rules — and elements of which, according to American officials cited in a recent New York Times account, continue to work with terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which appears to have planned the November attack in Mumbai. During the crisis of the long march, Ahmed said, the military “would have been given a pretext to intervene,” if only by forcing the antagonists to settle on terms of its own devising. No one I spoke with said he believed that the military wanted to seize power, but many argued that it seeks to expand its own space at the expense of civilian government.
There is, of course, a reciprocal relationship between weak civilian governance and military supremacy. Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a retired officer and a leading military analyst, pointed out that so long as party hacks serve in the most sensitive positions, the military will feel justified in preserving its position. Another example of weak governance, according to Masood, was Zardari’s statement in a speech that Pakistan would not be the first to use nuclear weapons against India — a break with Pakistani doctrine hailed by many as a significant breakthrough. Not Masood: “I would have been very happy if he had seriously said, ‘No first use.’ But the way he did it was irrelevant. It wasn’t part of a larger strategic rethinking. He didn’t discuss it with the military” — which controls nuclear policy. “He doesn’t even understand the vocabulary.”
Zardari actually seems less encumbered by the obsession with India, and less equivocal about the need to take on terrorists, than most of his predecessors, including his wife. Precisely because he is an outsider, he was not immersed in the culture of Pakistan’s security services. And yet the widespread perception that he has tacitly approved the Americans’ drone strikes, as well as occasional hot-pursuit violation of Pakistan’s border, has damaged him politically. And in any case, his failure to formulate a coherent security policy, much less to articulate it in public, has reduced his views almost to a curiosity. Masood, an avowed foe of military supremacy, is biting on the subject. “The only way to counter the rising force of extremism in Pakistan today is through the strengthening of civil society,” he told me. “Zardari is doing just the opposite.”
Underneath all of Pakistan’s problems is the failure to provide decent governance. Extremism flourishes in the absence of legitimate state authority. This is patent in the self-governing tribal areas along the Afghan border, but the most striking current example is the Swat Valley, once a honeymooners’ paradise and now a militant statelet within Pakistan’s formal jurisdiction. The army actually succeeded in pushing militants out of the area in 2006 and 2007. But the government of the North-West Frontier Province, which Musharraf had given as a sort of prize to his more moderate Islamist allies, made little attempt to field a police presence, or to provide the services, above all functioning courts, that residents of the area demanded. These are the same demands Pakistanis elsewhere have made; the difference was that in Swat the extremists offered themselves as an alternative.
The new provincial government elected in 2008 promised to negotiate with the extremists rather than fight them. And that is precisely what has happened. The forces of Sufi Muhammad, the militant leader, have laid down their arms in exchange for a pledge to create Shariah courts. But other militants have an agenda of their own, including closing down girls’ schools. Most analysts were appalled by the deal. “It was an act of capitulation,” says Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States. “And there’s no assurance that this will be the final domino.” Zardari, to his credit, has so far refused to sign off on the deal. But there’s little he can do to affect the outcome.
Meanwhile, American policy is coming down the road like a monster truck. With the strategic reviews now complete, the Obama administration is planning an enormous increase in development aid to Pakistan, reaching $1.5 billion a year over five years, as well as an increase in military aid, to be directed to counterinsurgency warfare. The administration’s increasing receptivity to negotiating with some elements of the Taliban and fighting others puts it far more in line with Pakistani thinking than the Bush administration ever was. But as President Obama said on March 27, “after years of mixed results” from military aid to Pakistan, “we will not provide a blank check.” Obama emphasized that extremists “are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan.” Someone in Pakistan must make that case, and it can’t be the army chief of staff. As Ambassador Lodhi told me: “Pakistan needs strong leaders who can stand up and say, ‘Here is the extremist threat that Pakistan faces, and this is what we must do.’ We have a democratic government, but they haven’t used that status to go to the people and articulate a policy.”
SUNDAY, MARCH 15, turned out to be one of the most extraordinary, and exciting, days in the recent history of Pakistan. That morning, a spokesman for the PML-N reported that more than 3,000 party workers had been arrested. Hundreds of police officers surrounded the home of Nawaz Sharif, and officials announced that he would be detained there for the next 72 hours. The lawyers’ leader, Aitzaz Ahsan, was detained and then escaped. In Lahore, cadres of the Jamaat-e-Islami Party threw rocks at advancing officers; the officers flung the rocks back and fired hundreds of rounds of tear gas and rubber bullets. The roads to Islamabad were sealed off with trucks, containers and steel barriers. The Zardari government appeared to have successfully squelched the long march, even if at real cost to its standing.
And then it hadn’t. Around 4:30 that afternoon, the Lahore police district coordinating officer announced his resignation from the force — live, on television. Other officers followed. Sharif left his home in a caravan of cars — and as the caravan inched forward, the police fell back and then melted away. The government continued to take a hard line, but plainly, something had happened. Around midnight, reports began to circulate that Prime Minister Gilani would speak. The cabinet was meeting; General Kayani was once again on the scene. Pakistanis, a late-night people in any case, waited hour by hour in front of the television. Finally, at 5 in the morning, Gilani delivered a brief address in which he announced that the government had agreed to reinstate Chief Justice Chaudhry the following Saturday, when Chief Justice Dogar was scheduled to retire from the bench. Sharif and the lawyers agreed to call off the long march.
THE NEXT DAY, EVERYONE was jubilant, save PPP officials. The whole nail-biting drama had provided a tremendous boon to Sharif, to the lawyers and to the judiciary, to General Kayani and perhaps to the prime minister — to everyone, in short, save Asif Ali Zardari. Sheik Mansour Ahmed, a PPP loyalist who earlier solemnly explained to me that the march was a ploy by Islamists to pressure President Zardari into easing up on the militants, now said Gilani was “not playing a positive role.” The official line, implausible though it sounded, was that Zardari had orchestrated the whole affair. Waqar Khan, a recently minted Zardari insider now serving as minister of investments, told me: “I think the president has done a phenomenal job by returning the chief justice, and they’ve done it at the right time. They’ve accepted the wishes of the people.”
It’s not clear what in fact happened that afternoon. Najam Sethi, editor of The Daily Times and one of Pakistan’s leading political analysts, says he believes that General Kayani played the decisive role behind the scenes, and that the army thus not only “re-established its credibility in the eyes of the people” but also managed to “cut the president down to size.” That is not, of course, the way Zardari recounts the events of that day. He says that his government ordered the police to fall back out of concern that “aggressive parties” associated with the Sharif brothers might use a confrontation to commit acts of violence. In any case, he said, his law minister had advised him that he could not have two sitting chief justices and so would have to wait for Dogar’s retirement to restore Chaudhry. I asked him, frankly incredulous, if he was saying that he had always intended to reinstate Chaudhry but had held off saying so until that moment.
“No,” Zardari said. “I’m not saying that. I’m saying that different positions existed given by the law.” And he apparently had to wait for a clear ruling among his advisers.
But there’s no getting around the damage the president did to his own standing. He tried to strike a blow at Nawaz Sharif, his chief adversary, and it was Sharif who emerged the stronger. American officials, increasingly convinced both that Zardari is not the interlocutor they had hoped for and that his days in power may be numbered, have begun to pay more attention to Sharif, long considered dangerously close to Islamist forces. Leading PML-N officials say they have learned from past mistakes. They have learned, for example, to accept an independent media and an independent judiciary. It’s not clear if Sharif himself has profited from experience. In the course of a phone conversation last week, he passed up all opportunities for self-scrutiny and advocated a response to terrorism that combined dialogue with tribal elders and economic and social development; military force was apparently not part of the equation.
And what about President Zardari? I asked him if he had learned any lessons from the previous week. He pondered. “Every day,” he said, “man is growing and learning. What you were yesterday, you are probably not today, because today’s you is yesterday’s experience. One is always learning.” Indeed, one is.
James Traub, a contributing writer for the magazine, is the author most recently of “The Freedom Agenda.”
Rahul Gandhi's election affidavit : Misrepresentation
Source: OFFSTUMPEDApril 4th, 2009 - 6:27 pm
According to the documents filed, Rahul Gandhi is an M.Phil in development economics from Trinity College, University of Cambridge, 1995. He has done his Bachelor in Arts from Rollins College, Florida, in 1994.
Dr. Swamy on Rahul Gandhi's education & citizenship
Raul Vinci Chronicles - Cambridge Contradicts Rahul Gandhi Affidavit
Read More
Manish Tiwari accentuates Rahul Gandhi’s ignorance READ MORE
Sultanpur (Uttar Pradesh), April 4 (IANS) The total worth of Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi is around Rs.2.25 crore (Rs.22.5 million/$450,000), and the young scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family does not own a vehicle, according to an affidavit filed by him Saturday.
Rahul Gandhi, 38, who is seeking re-election from Amethi, filed his nomination papers for the Lok Sabha seat Saturday afternoon. The affidavit filed as part of the documents says his assets total around Rs.2.25 crore.
The Congress general secretary wrote nil against the column asking whether he owns a vehicle.
And the cash deposit that he owns, with the State Bank of India, Delhi, is not much either - Rs.70,000.
He has deposits with financial institutions worth Rs.7,000.
His deposits with non banking financial institution, NDFC (National Development Finance Corporation) is Rs.742,966. With the HDFC (Housing Development Finance Corporation) in New Delhi, he has Rs.341,892. Both are long term deposits.
Rahul Gandhi’s deposits with postal savings, the Life Insurance Corporation and the National Savings Scheme total Rs.1,029,128 (over Rs.1 million).
He owns 333 gm of jewellery worth Rs.150,000.
His assets, including values of claims and interests, are Rs.729,621.
He also owns agricultural land in two places. A 4.692 acre land in Mehrauli, Delhi, of which an undemarcated 50 percent is his share. The value is Rs.986,244 as on March 31, 2008.
He owns another plot of six acres in Faridabad, Haryana, worth Rs.2,822,000 (over Rs.28 lakh).
He owns two shops in the Metropolitan Mall in Saket, New Delhi. Shop no.24 in the mall is 514 sq ft and valued at Rs.55 lakh.
Another shop on the ground floor - 996 sq ft - is valued at Rs.1 crore 8 lakhs (Rs.10,800,000).
Against liabilities, he filed that je had taken a Rs.70 lakh loan from HDFC in 2006, of which Rs.23 lakh has to be returned.
He has paid income tax of Rs.1,120,880 and sales tax of Rs.532,000.
He paid property tax of Rs.78,000 this year.
According to the documents filed, Rahul Gandhi is an M.Phil in development economics from Trinity College, University of Cambridge, 1995. He has done his Bachelor in Arts from Rollins College, Florida, in 1994.
He filed his nomination at the Sultanpur District Collectorate at the office of the additional district magistrate Radhey Shyam, who is the returning officer for the Amethi Lok Sabha polls.
There are no criminal cases pending against the Amethi MP.
INDIA: Despite EC order, few affidavits posted online
http://www.livemint.com/2009/03/27235651/Despite-EC-order-few-affidavi.html
Source: LIVE MINT
Samanth Subramanian
New Delhi: Despite an Election Commission notice urging chief electoral officers to scan and upload candidates’ affidavits on their websites “not later than 24 hours” after they have been received, most states have yet to comply with this stipulation.
This lapse is significant because at the end of last week, a study by a non-profit institute found that 63 of the candidates who had filed their candidature had criminal records, and the first phase of the elections is to kick off on 16 April.
Also See Election Scan (Graphic)
These affidavits function as summaries of candidates’ criminal records as well as disclosures of their assets and are intended to give voters information they need before they enter the polling booths.
Of the 15 states voting (at least partially) in the first phase of the Lok Sabha elections, only three states— Chhattisgarh, Mizoram and Kerala—have posted filed affidavits online to any significant degree. At the time of writing, the official websites of the chief electoral officers of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh were inaccessible, while that of Jammu and Kashmir did not even show the schedule for the phased elections in the state.
“This is the first time we’re specifying this kind of 24-hour timeline, but it seems now like they’re not always able to do this everywhere,” said K.F. Wilfred, Election Commission secretary. “They aren’t doing this purposely—maybe they’re just not as good at it in some places. So now we may be able to have the affidavits online in 24 hours in all places, and a delay of a day or two may have to be acceptable.”
But Anil Bairwal, national coordinator of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), points to the importance of these affidavits. “Between the announcement of the candidates and the elections, there is not much time for people to debate their candidates,” he said.
As political parties continue to nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds, the information contained in the affidavits becomes vital to the democratic process. Last week, for example, ADR and National Election Watch had found 63 declared candidates with criminal records, including 39 with “serious criminal cases, like murder, attempt to murder, robbery, theft (and) kidnapping.”
Some chief electoral officers, Bairwal added, didn’t even know that the notice about uploading affidavits within 24 hours has been issued: “We had to send a copy of it to them.”
In Orissa, Prabhakar Sahu, a spokesperson for the state’s chief electoral officer Alka Panda, confirmed that her office had not received the Election Commission’s communication, even though at least 40 nominations have been filed already. “When the letter reaches, accordingly the action will be taken,” Sahu said. “It should take only two or three hours.”
In Meghalaya, nominations began to be filed on 23 March, and the state’s chief electoral officer, Prashant Naik, said that he had received seven candidates’ nominations till date. “We do have affidavits from previous elections on our website, but not yet for these elections,” he admitted. “Tomorrow there’s a scheduled videoconference with the Election Commission to discuss this, and after that we will begin uploading them immediately.”
Hemanta Narzary, chief electoral officer of Assam, said his office would enlist the help of the National Informatics Centre, the Indian government’s Web services organization, to upload its affidavits. “We have received only one nomination over the last couple of days but there were four nominations filed today,” he said. “So we hope to start putting the affidavits on our website soon.”
Asked if the 24-hour deadline was reasonable, Narzary laughed and said: “It isn’t as if by uploading the affidavits in 24 hours, it will provide a scoop of any sort. But if the Election Commission has said it, we will try to get it done.”
The 24-hour deadline “was a positive step, although I don’t know about the logistics of it. How fast the machinery can be activated will have to be seen, because there are always teething problems in this kind of move,” said All Indian Congress Committee secretary Tom Vadakkan. “But it’s wise to become as transparent as possible. Any information—as fast as it is available—should be useful.”
Graphics by Paras Jain / Mint
Source: LIVE MINT
Samanth Subramanian
New Delhi: Despite an Election Commission notice urging chief electoral officers to scan and upload candidates’ affidavits on their websites “not later than 24 hours” after they have been received, most states have yet to comply with this stipulation.
This lapse is significant because at the end of last week, a study by a non-profit institute found that 63 of the candidates who had filed their candidature had criminal records, and the first phase of the elections is to kick off on 16 April.
Also See Election Scan (Graphic)
These affidavits function as summaries of candidates’ criminal records as well as disclosures of their assets and are intended to give voters information they need before they enter the polling booths.
Of the 15 states voting (at least partially) in the first phase of the Lok Sabha elections, only three states— Chhattisgarh, Mizoram and Kerala—have posted filed affidavits online to any significant degree. At the time of writing, the official websites of the chief electoral officers of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh were inaccessible, while that of Jammu and Kashmir did not even show the schedule for the phased elections in the state.
“This is the first time we’re specifying this kind of 24-hour timeline, but it seems now like they’re not always able to do this everywhere,” said K.F. Wilfred, Election Commission secretary. “They aren’t doing this purposely—maybe they’re just not as good at it in some places. So now we may be able to have the affidavits online in 24 hours in all places, and a delay of a day or two may have to be acceptable.”
But Anil Bairwal, national coordinator of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), points to the importance of these affidavits. “Between the announcement of the candidates and the elections, there is not much time for people to debate their candidates,” he said.
As political parties continue to nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds, the information contained in the affidavits becomes vital to the democratic process. Last week, for example, ADR and National Election Watch had found 63 declared candidates with criminal records, including 39 with “serious criminal cases, like murder, attempt to murder, robbery, theft (and) kidnapping.”
Some chief electoral officers, Bairwal added, didn’t even know that the notice about uploading affidavits within 24 hours has been issued: “We had to send a copy of it to them.”
In Orissa, Prabhakar Sahu, a spokesperson for the state’s chief electoral officer Alka Panda, confirmed that her office had not received the Election Commission’s communication, even though at least 40 nominations have been filed already. “When the letter reaches, accordingly the action will be taken,” Sahu said. “It should take only two or three hours.”
In Meghalaya, nominations began to be filed on 23 March, and the state’s chief electoral officer, Prashant Naik, said that he had received seven candidates’ nominations till date. “We do have affidavits from previous elections on our website, but not yet for these elections,” he admitted. “Tomorrow there’s a scheduled videoconference with the Election Commission to discuss this, and after that we will begin uploading them immediately.”
Hemanta Narzary, chief electoral officer of Assam, said his office would enlist the help of the National Informatics Centre, the Indian government’s Web services organization, to upload its affidavits. “We have received only one nomination over the last couple of days but there were four nominations filed today,” he said. “So we hope to start putting the affidavits on our website soon.”
Asked if the 24-hour deadline was reasonable, Narzary laughed and said: “It isn’t as if by uploading the affidavits in 24 hours, it will provide a scoop of any sort. But if the Election Commission has said it, we will try to get it done.”
The 24-hour deadline “was a positive step, although I don’t know about the logistics of it. How fast the machinery can be activated will have to be seen, because there are always teething problems in this kind of move,” said All Indian Congress Committee secretary Tom Vadakkan. “But it’s wise to become as transparent as possible. Any information—as fast as it is available—should be useful.”
Graphics by Paras Jain / Mint
Russia Sparks Energy Paranoia
Apr 2009
The Kremlin
The current paranoia over Russian expansion threatens to turn into outright hysteria as news emerges that a Russian company has acquired one-fifth of a Hungarian refinery, Jeremy Druker writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Jeremy Druker in Prague for ISN Security Watch
At first glance, the announcement earlier this week that a Russian company had bought a fifth of a Hungarian refining company might seem to warrant a brief news item on the business pages. In reality, Surgutneftegaz's surprising €1.4 billion (US$1.87 billion) purchase of 21 percent of MOL has alarmed officials across Europe worried about Russian expansion into the EU's security sector.
The deal has also sparked worries - bordering on outright panic - among newspaper columnists in Central Europe.
The issue of energy dependency on Russia has been high on the agenda of European officials for years, but hit home in January during the Russian-Ukraine gas dispute. Many continue to view any acquisitions by Russian energy companies in Europe as part of a Kremlin-led strategy to stymie efforts at diversification, whether the Russian companies involved are state-owned or private.
The latter category technically fits Surgutneftegaz, but no one really knows who controls the company, which has a notoriously opaque ownership. Allegations have surfaced over the years of a special relationship with the Kremin, and the Financial Times and others have asserted that Vladimir Bogdanov, the head of the company, is a close ally of former Russian president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The purchase seems to have hit those worried about Russian influence in the EU's energy sector particularly hard because it was so unexpected. Austrian oil company OMV had cherished its shares in MOL, trying for years to gain control over its Hungarian rival, only to be repeatedly rebuffed.
In the end, OMV apparently lost patience with the lack of progress and opposition of various Hungarian government officials, and began to negotiate with Surgutneftegaz. After the announcement of the purchase - the Russian company's first abroad - Budapest claimed to have been taken by surprise.
That reality has pointed up the chimera of supposed EU cooperation, as Czech commentator Jan Machacek observed in his daily column on the website of Respekt, a Czech news magazine.
“What good is it that European states strive for questions of European energy security to be managed on the basis of consensus and shared goals from Brussels? Individual governments then return from Brussels and make their own deals,” he wrote.
Even in the midst of the financial crisis, Surgutneftegaz was willing to pay twice the market price for part of MOL. Some, like Machacek, have alleged that the Russians overpaid in order to sway the Austrian government toward supporting the Russian-based South Stream gas line project instead of Nabucco, which is backed by the US and some EU states.
In the Czech Republic, the Hungarian deal has added to a feeling that Russian influence both in the energy sector and at the highest echelons of power has been increasing. The Russian company TVEL will, beginning in 2010, start supplying the Czech nuclear power plant Temelin with fuel, replacing Westinghouse, the American firm; a Czech subsidiary of the Russian company OMZ will take part in additional work on Temelin; and Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, controls Vemex, the second largest importer of gas from Russia, whose share in the local gas market has grown to 12 percent, four times what it was two years ago.
More mysterious has been President Vaclav Klaus's relationship with Lukoil, the Russian oil company. Information surfaced last year that Lukoil had paid for the Russian translation of a book Klaus authored that denies the existence of global warming.
But in early March, Respekt raised more questions, reporting on a secret meeting last fall between Klaus and Vagit Alekperov, the head of Lukoil and another friend of the Kremin (he has been “allowed” to keep his vast fortune while the Kremlin has readily struck down other oligarchs). Although Klaus hosted Alekperov at Prague Castle, the president's office has labeled the meeting “informal” and refused to disclose its content.
Respekt reported that the government had no advance knowledge of the visit and that some cabinet members only found out about the meeting through a regular report from the BIS, the domestic secret service. The magazine also said that the two men had met, secretly, a short time before Klaus was reelected president in February 2008. At the time Alekperov also met with Prime Minister Mirek Topolonek and Alekperov’s deputy met with then Minister of Transportation Ales Rebicek - again without any public explanation.
Klaus has long been seen as pro-Russian, including in his comments on the Russian invasion of Georgia last fall, when Klaus’ criticism of Russia was much tamer than that of other European leaders.
Lukoil apparently has big plans for the Czech Republic, having chosen the country as the base for a wave of wide-ranging investments in Central Europe. The company already owns about 50 gas stations that it bought from Conoco, part of a network of over 400 throughout Central Europe. More controversial, according to Respekt, the company received a 20 percent share - without a public tender - to supply fuel to the Prague airport.
All of that activity, plus that of other Russian companies, led Jaroslav Spurny of Respekt to warn in an opinion piece in early March that these “business” moves were all “about acquiring power and influence, by which the Kremlin could determine the political development of a country in which it has an interest.”
If Czech commentators didn't already have enough to fuel fears of Russian expansion, the business daily Hospodarske noviny reported on 1 April that a secret buyer (or buyers) has evidently been buying up shares of CEZ, the state-controlled energy colossus. CEZ and MOL have a joint venture to pursue projects together, including the construction of new power plants.
For years, the Czech government has resisted lucrative entreaties to sell its portion of the highly profitable CEZ. Speculation has focused on Gazprom, among others, as the possible suitor, and if should that come true, the current paranoia over Russian expansioin would likely boil over into outright hysteria.
Jeremy Druker is executive director, editor-in-chief and one of the founders of Transitions Online.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
Publisher
International Relations and Security Network (ISN)
The Kremlin
The current paranoia over Russian expansion threatens to turn into outright hysteria as news emerges that a Russian company has acquired one-fifth of a Hungarian refinery, Jeremy Druker writes for ISN Security Watch.
By Jeremy Druker in Prague for ISN Security Watch
At first glance, the announcement earlier this week that a Russian company had bought a fifth of a Hungarian refining company might seem to warrant a brief news item on the business pages. In reality, Surgutneftegaz's surprising €1.4 billion (US$1.87 billion) purchase of 21 percent of MOL has alarmed officials across Europe worried about Russian expansion into the EU's security sector.
The deal has also sparked worries - bordering on outright panic - among newspaper columnists in Central Europe.
The issue of energy dependency on Russia has been high on the agenda of European officials for years, but hit home in January during the Russian-Ukraine gas dispute. Many continue to view any acquisitions by Russian energy companies in Europe as part of a Kremlin-led strategy to stymie efforts at diversification, whether the Russian companies involved are state-owned or private.
The latter category technically fits Surgutneftegaz, but no one really knows who controls the company, which has a notoriously opaque ownership. Allegations have surfaced over the years of a special relationship with the Kremin, and the Financial Times and others have asserted that Vladimir Bogdanov, the head of the company, is a close ally of former Russian president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The purchase seems to have hit those worried about Russian influence in the EU's energy sector particularly hard because it was so unexpected. Austrian oil company OMV had cherished its shares in MOL, trying for years to gain control over its Hungarian rival, only to be repeatedly rebuffed.
In the end, OMV apparently lost patience with the lack of progress and opposition of various Hungarian government officials, and began to negotiate with Surgutneftegaz. After the announcement of the purchase - the Russian company's first abroad - Budapest claimed to have been taken by surprise.
That reality has pointed up the chimera of supposed EU cooperation, as Czech commentator Jan Machacek observed in his daily column on the website of Respekt, a Czech news magazine.
“What good is it that European states strive for questions of European energy security to be managed on the basis of consensus and shared goals from Brussels? Individual governments then return from Brussels and make their own deals,” he wrote.
Even in the midst of the financial crisis, Surgutneftegaz was willing to pay twice the market price for part of MOL. Some, like Machacek, have alleged that the Russians overpaid in order to sway the Austrian government toward supporting the Russian-based South Stream gas line project instead of Nabucco, which is backed by the US and some EU states.
In the Czech Republic, the Hungarian deal has added to a feeling that Russian influence both in the energy sector and at the highest echelons of power has been increasing. The Russian company TVEL will, beginning in 2010, start supplying the Czech nuclear power plant Temelin with fuel, replacing Westinghouse, the American firm; a Czech subsidiary of the Russian company OMZ will take part in additional work on Temelin; and Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, controls Vemex, the second largest importer of gas from Russia, whose share in the local gas market has grown to 12 percent, four times what it was two years ago.
More mysterious has been President Vaclav Klaus's relationship with Lukoil, the Russian oil company. Information surfaced last year that Lukoil had paid for the Russian translation of a book Klaus authored that denies the existence of global warming.
But in early March, Respekt raised more questions, reporting on a secret meeting last fall between Klaus and Vagit Alekperov, the head of Lukoil and another friend of the Kremin (he has been “allowed” to keep his vast fortune while the Kremlin has readily struck down other oligarchs). Although Klaus hosted Alekperov at Prague Castle, the president's office has labeled the meeting “informal” and refused to disclose its content.
Respekt reported that the government had no advance knowledge of the visit and that some cabinet members only found out about the meeting through a regular report from the BIS, the domestic secret service. The magazine also said that the two men had met, secretly, a short time before Klaus was reelected president in February 2008. At the time Alekperov also met with Prime Minister Mirek Topolonek and Alekperov’s deputy met with then Minister of Transportation Ales Rebicek - again without any public explanation.
Klaus has long been seen as pro-Russian, including in his comments on the Russian invasion of Georgia last fall, when Klaus’ criticism of Russia was much tamer than that of other European leaders.
Lukoil apparently has big plans for the Czech Republic, having chosen the country as the base for a wave of wide-ranging investments in Central Europe. The company already owns about 50 gas stations that it bought from Conoco, part of a network of over 400 throughout Central Europe. More controversial, according to Respekt, the company received a 20 percent share - without a public tender - to supply fuel to the Prague airport.
All of that activity, plus that of other Russian companies, led Jaroslav Spurny of Respekt to warn in an opinion piece in early March that these “business” moves were all “about acquiring power and influence, by which the Kremlin could determine the political development of a country in which it has an interest.”
If Czech commentators didn't already have enough to fuel fears of Russian expansion, the business daily Hospodarske noviny reported on 1 April that a secret buyer (or buyers) has evidently been buying up shares of CEZ, the state-controlled energy colossus. CEZ and MOL have a joint venture to pursue projects together, including the construction of new power plants.
For years, the Czech government has resisted lucrative entreaties to sell its portion of the highly profitable CEZ. Speculation has focused on Gazprom, among others, as the possible suitor, and if should that come true, the current paranoia over Russian expansioin would likely boil over into outright hysteria.
Jeremy Druker is executive director, editor-in-chief and one of the founders of Transitions Online.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).
Publisher
International Relations and Security Network (ISN)
April 03, 2009
Banker Julius Meinl arrested in Vienna over fraud
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090402/banker-julius-meinl-arrested-in-vienna-over-fraud.htm
By Boris Groendahl and Alexandra Schwarz
Posted 02 April 2009 @ 09:16 am EST
Julius Meinl-- Cappuccino
Something got me started
You know that I will love you
Lately since we parted
I truly know that I need you
Id give it all up for you
Yes I would
Totally broken hearted
Guilty of what I did to you
Lately since we parted
I truly know that I need you
Id give it all up for you
Yes I would
Youve got to help me help me help me
Banker Julius Meinl V, head of an Austrian coffee-roasting dynasty and chairman of Meinl Bank, was arrested late on Wednesday on suspicion of defrauding investors through secretive share buybacks.
The arrest follows 18 months of investigations by prosecutors and financial watchdog FMA, and mainly relates to Meinl's role in the fall of Meinl European Land, a listed real estate firm started by Meinl Bank, Vienna prosecutors said.
Among other crimes, British-born Meinl is accused of having orchestrated a buyback in which Meinl Land bought 1.8 billion euros ($2.4 billion) worth of its own shares to prop up the share price before it suddenly fell off a cliff in July 2007.
"The most serious is defrauding investors by buying back shares to prop up the share price," said Michaela Schnell, spokeswoman for Vienna state prosecutors. "He was arrested because there is risk of escape."
Other allegations include that Meinl Bank damaged Meinl Land shareholders by overcharging for services, and that it wrongly portrayed Meinl Land shares as an almost risk-free investment in several widely advertised share issues during 2005 to 2007.
Meinl, a personal friend and business partner of former Austrian Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser, would face up to 10 years in jail if found guilty. His lawyer was not available for a comment.
Meinl Bank declined to comment on the suspicions against its chairman but only issued a statement reassuring clients that the bank and clients' deposits were safe.
MEINL'S RISE AND FALL
Julius Meinl's arrest marks the nadir for a once proud family that started selling coffee beans in Vienna in 1862, built a retail chain, fled from the Nazis to Britain in 1938 and then rebuilt the chain in Austria after the war.
Trained at Bear Stearns in the 1980, Julius took over the family's bank and turned it into the center of the family's fortune, selling off the retail business but for a posh deli in Vienna's center.
Apart from the bank, which mainly does wealth management and investment banking, Julius used property acquired when he was still running a retail chain as the starting point for Meinl Land, which became a shopping mall developer in emerging Europe.
Meinl Land sold shares to the public in an IPO in 2002 and between 2005 and 2007 raised a total of 4.3 billion euros in several share issues, mostly sold to Austrian retail investors.
While Meinl Bank never officially held a stake in Meinl Land while it was listed, the bank owned the company that acquired and managed Meinl Land's investments for a fee, it handled its capital measures and it acted as its market maker.
The share buybacks took place between February and July 2007 and were not authorized by and not disclosed to shareholders until they were concluded.
The buybacks buoyed Meinl Land's share price at a time when real estate stocks were falling across the world. When they eventually became public, Meinl Land's share price dropped sharply at the end of July 2007.
The buybacks overlapped with a period in which a vehicle controlled by Meinl Bank was selling 620 million euros worth of the stock in the market, and with initial public offerings of two similarly structured sister company of Meinl Land.
Meinl Bank does not dispute the buybacks, but says it did not need shareholder authorization and denies it bought back shares directly from Meinl Bank or an affiliate.
Meinl Land was last year taken over by Israeli real estate investment firm Gazit Globe and renamed Atrium European Real Estate
The two other companies Meinl started -- Meinl International Power
(Additional reporting by Sylvia Westall in Vienna and Tova Cohen in Tel Aviv; editing by Simon Jessop and Andrew Callus)
Read the full article of:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090402/banker-julius-meinl-arrested-in-vienna-over-fraud.htm
Copyright 2009 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
FACTBOX
April 2 (Reuters) - Julius Meinl V, chairman of Austria's closely-held Meinl Bank, was arrested late on Wednesday on suspicion of defrauding investors in secretive share buybacks in 2007, Vienna prosecutors said on Thursday. [ID:nL2619867]
Following are five facts on 49-year-old Meinl and his bank:
* Meinl was born 1959 in London, heir to a family which started a shop selling coffee beans in Vienna in 1862 and which then grew into a retail chain in Austria. The family emigrated to London when Nazi Germany occupied Austria in 1938 and rebuilt the chain after World War Two, but kept its British citizenship.
* The Meinl chain name and logo -- a stylised Moorish child wearing a fez -- were synonymous with food retailing in Austria until Julius Meinl sold the then loss-making retail chain in 2000. He kept one luxury deli in Vienna and coffee and preserves production.
* Meinl Bank was founded as a side business in 1923 but over the years turned into the centre of the family's business after Meinl, who had been trained at investment bank Bear Stearns in New York in the 1980s, took it over as a 23-year old in 1983 and turned it into a wealth management and investment banking firm.
* Meinl made headlines in 2006 when pictures were published of a yachting trip with then Austrian finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser and Wolfgang Floettl, a banker who was later convicted of breach of trust in the scandal around Austrian union-owned bank BAWAG.
* Meinl Land -- whose investments were managed by a company owned by Meinl Bank -- sold shares to the public in an IPO in 2002 and between 2005 and 2007 raised a total of 4.3 billion euros ($5.7 billion) in equity in several share issues, which were widely advertised in mainstream media and mostly sold to Austrian retail investors.
(Reporting by Boris Groendahl; Editing by David Holmes)
Banker Julius Meinl V left a Vienna jail on a record 100 million euro ($134 million) bail on Friday after being arrested earlier this week to face accusations of defrauding investors.
Meinl, chairman of Austria's Meinl Bank and head of a coffee-roasting dynasty, left the Vienna jail in a taxi after spending two nights behind bars, dodging photographers waiting for him outside. He was arrested late on Wednesday.
Prosecutors accuse him of having defrauded investors in 2007 through secretive share buybacks. A judge ordered Meinl's release on Friday after the highest bail ever paid in Austria was confirmed to have arrived on the court's account.
His lawyers rejected the accusations again in a news conference on Friday and said the arrest came out of the blue after several hours of questioning by prosecutors on Wednesday evening.
"It was a very calm and detailed questioning and when we were done I had already put on my coat when the prosecutor suddenly said, 'And now for the unpleasant part'," Meinl's lawyer Herbert Eichenseder told journalists.
"It came totally out of the blue for all of us," he said. "Meinl was stunned."
Eichenseder and Christian Hausmaninger, another Meinl lawyer, said they were surprised about the move because they said Meinl had cooperated during the entire 18-month investigation and never missed a meeting or withheld files.
Hausmaninger said the case was legally complex because it involved both Austrian law and that of the British Channel island of Jersey, where the company at the centre of the allegations is incorporated.
"We believe it's our job to explain misunderstandings," Hausmaninger said. "We'll try even harder now."
SECRET BUYBACKS
Eichenseder said London-born Meinl gave his British passport to the court and had to report once a month to authorities. The court may allow him to travel abroad on prior request to pursue his business.
"He has been commuting regularly as part of his business, and he plans to ask the court to allow him to continue doing his job," he said.
Prosecutors had said the 49-year-old was taken into custody to stop him escaping -- possibly in his fully-tanked private jet parked at Vienna airport, for which Meinl has a pilot's licence.
He is Austria's 12th-richest man according to magazine Trend took over his family's Meinl Bank aged 23 after training at investment bank Bear Stearns in New York. In 2000 he sold the retail chain his family had built since 1862.
The accusations against Meinl mainly relate to his role in the fall of Meinl European Land, a real estate firm started by Meinl Bank, listed in Vienna but incorporated in Jersey.
Among other crimes, Meinl is accused of having orchestrated a buyback in which Meinl Land bought 1.8 billion euros worth of its own shares to prop up their price, before they suddenly tanked in July 2007.
Thousands of Austrians lost their money in the scheme which prosecutors say wrongly pedalled Meinl Land as an almost risk-free investment.
The judge who decided on the bail has promised to better take care of the money Meinl paid in. "She has promised to try to get a good interest on the money," Eichenseder said. "I thought that was very kind of the judge."
India Elections 2009 - Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi
Source: OFFSTUMPED
India Elections 2009 - Open Letter to Rahul Gandhi
Dear Rahul Gandhi
I am writing to you because Times of India has this report from PTI that you will always take care of me.
Now that you have promised to the whole nation that you will take care of me, I thought it was important for you to know me close and personal for you dont seem to know very much.
Let me begin with your assurance that the UPA Government was a Government of the “poor people” and “aam admi”.
Did you know that back in 2004 you said the same thing that the UPA Government would be a government for the “poor people” ?
Well even if you didnt I am happy that you kept your promise.
Because of your promise State Governments across the country took good care of us poor people.
They took such good care of us poor people that between 2004 and 2008
#1 The proportion of BPL population fell to 26% from 28% at the national level
#2 poverty decreased across all states barring Uttarakhand
#3 poverty has declined in 380 of the 543 Lok Sabha constituencies
So I am little confused when you say the UPA Government in 2009 will be a Government of the poor because guess what there are many of us who are no longer poor !
#1 Does that mean that if in 2004 you were for us, now in 2009 you are against us ?
#2 Does that mean you will take care of us only if we remain poor and you will abandon when we no longer remain poor ?
#3 Does that mean we are “common masses” as long as we remain poor and you will treat as uncommon exceptions when we are no longer BPL ?
#4 Does that mean if in 2004 when you came to our village found that we didnt understand “India Shining”, we should remain ignorant that way for 5 years and still not understand it in 2009 ?
#5 Does that mean India should never shine for us even if we manage to improve our standard of living ?
You may not have all the answers for these but I think I do.
When the rest of us in those 385 Lok Sabha constituencies managed to reduce poverty, in your own pocket borough of Rae Barelli poverty increased.
I now understand your duplicity better.
#1 When you say you are for the poor in 2004 and in 2009 what you really mean is you are for the poor staying poor election after election ?
#2 When you say you will take care of the aam admi in 2004 and in 2009 what you really mean is you want the aam admi to continue to be helpless and dependent election after election ?
#3 When you say you are a Government for the common masses in both 2004 and 2009 what you really mean is you want us to remain faceless underachievers ?
#4 When you say in 2004 and in 2009 that we didnt understand India Shining, what you really mean is you want us to remain ignorant and never understand what “India Shining means” ?
#5 When you say in 2004 and in 2009 that anyone who talks of India Shining is talking for the rich, what you really mean is you never want us to aspire to become rich and you never want India to Shine for us ?
I can see how well you have done this in Rae Barelli and Amethi and I can also how well your comrades-in-arms the CPI-Mafioso has done this in West Bengal where after decades for claiming to be pro-poor the Government has actually accomplished by keeping the people of Bengal poor and by increasing their numbers so there are more poor to celebrate the triumph of Social Justice.
You made this claim today that
Congress president Sonia Ganhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and myself will not let down common man and will leave no stone unturned in removing poverty
but how can I believe you when you are coming back to me in 2009 with the same attitude you had in 2004.
Here I am in 2009, I am no longer below the poverty line, I am hungry for knowledge and learning, I am hungry for opportunities.
But I see that you dont have a new message for me.
I see that you want me to feel guilty that I am now above the poverty line.
I see that you want my fellow poor to look upon me as rich and anyone who wants myy vote as being there enemy.
You claim the opposition is practising divisive politics, but I see here that you are practising the same divisive politics by making my fellow poor feel victims of my success and by making me feel guilty about that.
I see that you are practising the same divisive politics by making an enemy of the poor anyone who wants to talk about how India can shine for me with new skills, knowledge and opportunities.
But what hurts the most is when you claim to take care of me as an aam admi when you were nowhere to be seen when Terrorists struck in Varnasi, Delhi, Bangalore, Mumbai, Malegaon, Samjhauta Express, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Guwahati and again in Mumbai on 26th November 2008.
When my kith and kin aam admi who were both poor and common died in these incidents you did nothing to take care of us and you now come back in 2009 to talk about something that happened in 1999.
I dont care about what happened in 1999. I do care about what happened to the promises you made in 2004 and what you delivered at the end of 2008.
In closing as “an above the poverty line”, “not so common”, “one in a few” aam admi, I am lead to conclude that you have no real intention of taking care of me and that you intend to make an enemy of anyone who provides me with the opportunity to take care of myself.
Yours Sincerely
a recently uplifted and barely Above The Poverty Line Aaam Admi
Pakistan planting rumour against RAW
by Capt.Johannan
A rumour is being planted in Pakistan press that Indian RAW is interested in eliminating CJ of Pakistan Iftiqhar Choudhry and has infiltrated special teams to do the job. Rehman Malik has planted some SOURCE REPORTS during SriLankan cricket team attack on similar lines.
CJ Iftiqhar has become a thorn in the flesh of Army and civilian politicians and bureaucracy.He was hated by Army and Musharaff and now Zardari. Some pro Army Taliban elements may be instructed to eliminate him so that INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IS KILLED in its infancy while blame can be put on Indian RAW.
A rumour is being planted in Pakistan press that Indian RAW is interested in eliminating CJ of Pakistan Iftiqhar Choudhry and has infiltrated special teams to do the job. Rehman Malik has planted some SOURCE REPORTS during SriLankan cricket team attack on similar lines.
CJ Iftiqhar has become a thorn in the flesh of Army and civilian politicians and bureaucracy.He was hated by Army and Musharaff and now Zardari. Some pro Army Taliban elements may be instructed to eliminate him so that INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY IS KILLED in its infancy while blame can be put on Indian RAW.
US to develop "space situational awareness" for "spherical battlespace "
by Capt. Ben Sakrisson
Air University Public Affairs
4/2/2009 - COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AFNS) -- The world is no longer flat and information is no longer static. Neither can military operations confine focus to one area of a conflict while remaining oblivious to interconnections with the larger picture. It is time the view of the battlefield is turned upside-down. This is the message of the commander of Air Force Space Command.
Speaking before a crowded conference hall here March 31 at the 25th National Space Symposium, Gen. C. Robert Kehler laid out his vision of the redefined theater of operations -- the spherical area of operations.
"I am going to define that as an area starting at the geostationary distances from the earth and extending down," General Kehler said. "I think for far too long we have looked at our conception of future battlespace by standing on the ground and looking up. I think that might be the wrong way to look."
While the concept of always seeking the high ground is as old as military doctrine itself, seeking to understand this newly defined area is a daunting task.
"The spherical battlespace is constantly changing as on-orbit objects transverse across a volume that is 6,000 times larger than the airspace of the earth below," General Kehler said.
The seemingly trivial decision of what domain to cover, in fact, results in a great degree of study and debate on the extent of a given space that should be covered by a single asset.
"In our headquarters, we're combing through the different layers of space, high altitude, air and terrestrial to better understand how a degree of adequate redundancy and complementing capability can be achieved to preclude an overinvestment in one domain which creates vulnerability for our operating forces," said Army Lt. Gen. Kevin T. Campbell, commanding general of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command and commander of Joint Functional Component Command-Integrated Missile Defense of U.S. Strategic Command.
While the connection between space and cyberspace may be unclear to many outside of these career fields, to those within the space community, the connection is clear.
"Nearly 100 percent of the product from space is information," said Col. Sean D. McClung, the director of Air University's National Space Studies Center.
To this end, the vital cyberspace link to troops in the field is connected via space assets.
"Space capabilities provide intelligence that would otherwise be lost, warnings that would otherwise be undetected, and communications that would otherwise be impossible," General Kehler said.
Perhaps one of the most difficult pieces of the puzzle to get right, though, is the determination of how many assets are required from private industry at a given point in time and how to balance the need for increased bandwidth in a contingency against the need for operational security.
"You have to have a way to talk about capacity reallocation and reprioritization. When you get into a real hot battle what happens is, unless you have already planned it, there is no capacity," said Richard DalBello, vice president of legal and government affairs at Intelsat General Corporation, the largest provider of satellite services in the world. "If this stuff is not worked out in advance, it is not going to be worked out in a conflict."
Likewise, with respect to space-based assets, the ability to determine with certainty and react in a timely manner to threats in their orbital paths is still in its infancy.
"Straight-line thinking no longer works; objects are always in motion," General Kehler said. He further advocated for better situational awareness in both space and cyberspace.
The effort to build a national space situational awareness, or SSA, architecture is underway, though it is not yet up to full operational capability. Currently, "we have space situational awareness, (but) it is not as good as we would like it to be," said Col. Dustin A. Tyson, the chief of the Space Control Division at the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.
The future goal with the development of a national SSA architecture, according to Colonel Tyson, is to "evolve SSA from what we have a tendency to do today, forensic, to predictive knowledge." Once this critical process is complete, the military will be one step closer to having advanced warnings of possible collisions in space rather than investigating the cause in the aftermath. In the spherical area of operations, that determination is made at 11,000 meters per second.
Comment on this story (comments may be published on Air Force Link)
Air University Public Affairs
4/2/2009 - COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AFNS) -- The world is no longer flat and information is no longer static. Neither can military operations confine focus to one area of a conflict while remaining oblivious to interconnections with the larger picture. It is time the view of the battlefield is turned upside-down. This is the message of the commander of Air Force Space Command.
Speaking before a crowded conference hall here March 31 at the 25th National Space Symposium, Gen. C. Robert Kehler laid out his vision of the redefined theater of operations -- the spherical area of operations.
"I am going to define that as an area starting at the geostationary distances from the earth and extending down," General Kehler said. "I think for far too long we have looked at our conception of future battlespace by standing on the ground and looking up. I think that might be the wrong way to look."
While the concept of always seeking the high ground is as old as military doctrine itself, seeking to understand this newly defined area is a daunting task.
"The spherical battlespace is constantly changing as on-orbit objects transverse across a volume that is 6,000 times larger than the airspace of the earth below," General Kehler said.
The seemingly trivial decision of what domain to cover, in fact, results in a great degree of study and debate on the extent of a given space that should be covered by a single asset.
"In our headquarters, we're combing through the different layers of space, high altitude, air and terrestrial to better understand how a degree of adequate redundancy and complementing capability can be achieved to preclude an overinvestment in one domain which creates vulnerability for our operating forces," said Army Lt. Gen. Kevin T. Campbell, commanding general of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command and commander of Joint Functional Component Command-Integrated Missile Defense of U.S. Strategic Command.
While the connection between space and cyberspace may be unclear to many outside of these career fields, to those within the space community, the connection is clear.
"Nearly 100 percent of the product from space is information," said Col. Sean D. McClung, the director of Air University's National Space Studies Center.
To this end, the vital cyberspace link to troops in the field is connected via space assets.
"Space capabilities provide intelligence that would otherwise be lost, warnings that would otherwise be undetected, and communications that would otherwise be impossible," General Kehler said.
Perhaps one of the most difficult pieces of the puzzle to get right, though, is the determination of how many assets are required from private industry at a given point in time and how to balance the need for increased bandwidth in a contingency against the need for operational security.
"You have to have a way to talk about capacity reallocation and reprioritization. When you get into a real hot battle what happens is, unless you have already planned it, there is no capacity," said Richard DalBello, vice president of legal and government affairs at Intelsat General Corporation, the largest provider of satellite services in the world. "If this stuff is not worked out in advance, it is not going to be worked out in a conflict."
Likewise, with respect to space-based assets, the ability to determine with certainty and react in a timely manner to threats in their orbital paths is still in its infancy.
"Straight-line thinking no longer works; objects are always in motion," General Kehler said. He further advocated for better situational awareness in both space and cyberspace.
The effort to build a national space situational awareness, or SSA, architecture is underway, though it is not yet up to full operational capability. Currently, "we have space situational awareness, (but) it is not as good as we would like it to be," said Col. Dustin A. Tyson, the chief of the Space Control Division at the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.
The future goal with the development of a national SSA architecture, according to Colonel Tyson, is to "evolve SSA from what we have a tendency to do today, forensic, to predictive knowledge." Once this critical process is complete, the military will be one step closer to having advanced warnings of possible collisions in space rather than investigating the cause in the aftermath. In the spherical area of operations, that determination is made at 11,000 meters per second.
Comment on this story (comments may be published on Air Force Link)
The Next Space Age
Gen. C. Robert Kehler, Commander, Air Force Space Command
Remarks to the National Space Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colo., March 31, 2009
Thank you, Elliot, for the kind introduction. What a great opening ceremony you held last evening -- a real celebration of achievement.
I can't tell you how proud I am to be with you this morning representing 40,000 men and women of Air Force Space Command. You saw a number of Airmen in the video a couple of minutes ago. Those Airmen you saw were doing a number of important things for the United States of America -- securing, operating, and maintaining our combat-ready ICBM force, and their dedication, along with the rest of the nuclear enterprise that forms the basis of the Nation's deterrent. That's an important mission for us and, as I tell our people every day, perfection is the standard.
We also saw Airmen in that video who conduct satellite, space launch and other space operations. This command wields capabilities that enable our Joint commanders to know more about their adversaries, to see the battlefield more clearly, and to strike more quickly and precisely than ever before. Space capabilities provide intelligence that would otherwise be lost, warning that would otherwise be undetected, and communications that would otherwise be impossible.
Space is no longer just the high ground, it is an integral part of the Joint fight. Today, space capabilities are embedded in a complex of systems that serve forces and commanders at every level and that span the spectrum of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities. And they do this from peace through crisis and war. Today, in Air Force Space Command, we are clearly active participants in the Joint fight that we are waging in overseas contingency operations. The capabilities we present have shaped the American way of warfare.
You also saw other Airmen in the video operate in cyberspace, with all the opportunities and challenges that suggests, and who will soon pick up lead command responsibility for United States Air Force cyberspace activities.
We're really excited about what is happening at Air Force Space Command. I think most of you know that we made some decisions in this Air Force that have directly impacted the command. For example, we are moving the ICBM force out of Air Force Space Command and into a command that we are standing up called Air Force Global Strike Command. We are also moving lead command responsibilities for cyberspace into Air Force Space Command and standing up an operational command for cyberspace within Air Force Space Command.
These are exciting times for sure. We're taking decisive steps to position resources and people to meet the challenges that America will encounter in the vital domains of space and cyberspace.
I'm reminded that newsman David Brinkley once remarked that he was worried that we may be approaching the point where we have more people willing to make speeches than we have people willing to listen to them. I hope that's not the case this morning. In fact, a few minutes before I came in here, (...) someone said, "Gee, I hope the speaker is good this morning," and I said, "I hope so, too!" So we'll see.
I need to thank the Space Foundation once again for bringing us together here in Colorado Springs to discuss the important issues we have in the National Space Enterprise. I'm a little intimidated to follow the panel we just had, because I will talk about the theme of the conference as well - that's "The Next Space Age." I think since it is the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation, it is important and fitting that have that conversation.
No question about it, our world has changed drastically thanks to the accomplishments of the first space age. Some people say we are already in the third space age. I'm not going to do that. Let's just call all that went before today the first space age. Let's take the theme of this conference from today forward into the next one. That's easy enough for a guy like me to understand. I think we will see equally drastic changes with the accomplishments of the next space age. As we saw with the award recipients last evening, space has always been a place of inspired technological advancement and human searching. It is also a place of serious national security activity. Given the suit I wear that's what I am going to talk about today and I will confine my remarks to some issues with national security in the next space age.
The United States Air Force has played a very key role throughout the first space age. Just to name a few examples, Space launch vehicles that formed the basis of the later Mercury flights and all the Gemini flights came off of the drawing board of Gen. Bennie (Bernard A.) Schriever's team in the Western Development Division - today's Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles, Calif. Commercial satellite communications advanced in a great many ways due to the work done on military satellite communications also at SMC. And, of course, no one questions the value of GPS to the entire world. I would offer that GPS has even become its own word - it's no longer an acronym. When you get that kind of positioning, as my corporate friends would tell me, you've got something. That's the U.S. Air Force that's doing that. I like to remind people of that. I think our accomplishments are down farther on the list than they should be.
So, looking at the next space age is important to us in the Air Force, not only because space is important to national security, but because we know we will once again play a key -- albeit a different role as we develop the next space age.
At this point, I was going to haul out my crystal ball, and I was going to tell you precisely what the next space age will be like. Unfortunately, my aide left the crystal ball back at the office. It's not my fault, of course. But even if we'd brought the crystal ball, I don't think it could tell us all the things that we're going to need to know as we get after the issues of the next space age So, that's probably better anyway.
No one can define with certainty what the next space age will look like; instead, let's take a few minutes to do this the old fashioned way. Let's look at this the way we planners like to do it and look at the trends, and then we audit that against where I think we're going to go in the future. So let's take a look at global space and cyberspace trends.
We have come a long way from the middle of the 20th century, when the space race began between the Soviet Union and the U.S. We can all be thankful we've come a long way from that point in time. The Cold War ended, and again, thankfully, it ended peacefully, which was the objective all along. Many of you will remember that was a time when the requirement that formed the basis of the space race was "win the space race at any cost," and we invested a large amount of the national treasure to do just that.
We weren't quite sure where we were headed, but we had a group of visionaries who recognized the scientific, technical and, yes, the national security potential that was to be gained from space. We knew that it was the high ground, and we knew we had to establish our presence. We recognized the national security challenges we faced in the Cold War. We confronted a large, superpower with nuclear arms. They threatened our national survival. There were important areas and activities that we needed to observe without hindrance. There was a very high likelihood that a surprise attack could occur. The enemy was deployed over global distances and threatened us in many places. Of course our number-one task was strategic deterrence.
As a result we invested in communications systems, weather platforms, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, and we developed GPS - all space-based solutions for the problems of the day. As time passed and the Cold War ended, we demonstrated how those same capabilities could be used to revolutionize tactical operations. We saw the beginnings of that in Desert Storm, and we see that opportunity to use tactical operations throughout the operations we are conducting in contingencies around the world today. Now, in the 21st century, it is no longer two nations trying to one-up each other for national pride or strategic advantage. That doesn't form the backdrop for the next space age.
As I said, I don't have a crystal ball, but I see a future national security environment that is far more uncertain, far more complex and far more changing than ever before. Last November, Joint Forces Command published an intriguing document called "The Joint Operating Environment." That document gives a perspective on future trends, shocks, contexts and implications for us as we look to the future - kind of like the discussion of the last panel. It clearly states that no one can predict the future, but it lays out some considerations for us as we try to go to the future.
Much of what we have known of crisis and conflict over the ages will be the same - (Karl) von Clausewitz would recognize it in some cases. But much will be different. Let me quote this document for a moment because I think this is important: "The next quarter-century will challenge U.S. joint forces with threats and opportunities ranging from regular and irregular wars in remote lands to relief and reconstruction in crisis zones, to sustained engagement in the global commons."
That last part in particular caught my eye when that document came to Air Force Space Command a couple of months ago. Because the global commons certainly includes space and cyberspace and maybe in the future will be dominated by space and cyberspace. It goes on to say the causes of conflict will vary, enemy capabilities will range from precision-guided, long-range (inaudible) weapons to suicide vests, the threat of mass destruction will expand and, significantly, that "it is impossible to predict precisely how challenges will emerge and what form they might take."
We already see challenges in space, and we see them equally in cyberspace. Space is a place of intense growth, with nations, consortia and private companies joining the ranks of space-faring and space-capable nations. Space capabilities are becoming more accessible to people all over the world. We see an increase in the demand for space capabilities.
As the technologies for space have advanced, we have also seen a rapid increase in the accessibility of those services and in the accessibility to cyberspace. Of course, cyberspace is where all the operations that support our daily lives reside.
Computers and access to the Internet are everywhere, in homes, businesses, schools. We see the growth in space in ways we did not imagine at the beginning of the space age, and we'll see the growth in cyberspace in ways we do not imagine as we sit here today looking forward. The benefits of these capabilities are enormous to the entire human race, and we welcome the improvements in our lives that space and cyberspace have delivered. But, as I say around my command sometimes, the old Chinese saying, "May you live in interesting times" does not apply to us. We're not paid to live in interesting times - we're paid to deal with interesting times. The nation asks us to do that. But, there are two sides to this discussion. While farmers incorporate GPS for "precision farming," to increase their crop production, we have seen others trying to jam GPS.
Communications systems enable people around the world to do business in ways once thought impossible, but we have seen commercial communications satellites jammed. And, as many in the audience cannot live without a Blackberry™ and a cell phone. I'm probably one of those people, and my wife is really one of those people. It's amazing when you buy a person a Blackberry™ in self defense what happens. We have seen terrorists plan attacks using commercial (satellite) imagery, communicate during these attacks on their satellite phones, navigate with commercial GPS receivers, and get intelligence updates via the local news on their personal handheld devices.
We must face the reality of the global trends in space and cyberspace.
The amount of on-orbit objects is growing. More satellites are on orbit today. Every time a satellite is launched, rocket bodies, explosive bolts and various pieces of debris are intentionally left behind adding to the catalog and contributing to the problem we have. We are starting the next space age at a very, very different point than we started the first one.
Cyberspace is a dense, urban environment. People are shopping, going to school, to work - they are traveling and conducting banking business. Everything you can do walking down a street in downtown Colorado Springs, you can do in cyberspace. We need to be mindful of the problems, the challenges and the opportunities that portends for us. Because cyberspace is not only a dense urban environment, it's also a contested environment. Access is simple, a laptop and a wireless connection gives you access and entry to the entire world. Every day, someone tries to exploit our weaknesses in cyberspace. If they can do it, the asymmetric advantages to be gained in this domain are great. Therefore, a potential adversary will not ignore that.
In cyberspace we see criminals, vandals, and spies, and determined nation-states conducting nation-state business. So we can, and do expect to be challenged in both space and cyberspace. We see the global trends as an increase in users, an increase in capabilities, and an increase in challenges. So with that as a backdrop for the next space age, what do we do? How do we shape this? How do we account for the next space age? And what does it look like?
AFSPC Tomorrow
I'm not a futurist - thank heaven for that. I wouldn't be very good at it. But I will tell you that we're very attentive to those who are, and with these trends we see emerging, we can begin to see that the backdrop will be dynamic and uncertain. Flexibility and agility will be required. We have to started to come to grips with what I have begun to call the "spherical battlespace."
I uttered those words out in front of my staff and got the "stunned mullet" look...they said, "Yes, Sir." and I left. (laughter) So what does that mean? I'm not sure yet. I'm starting to think that we are looking into the future of space and cyberspace in the spherical battlespace. For our purposes today, let's confine ourselves to the area beginning at the geostationary distances from the Earth and extending down. For far too long we've looked at our conception of future battlespace as standing on the ground looking up. That might be the wrong way to look. So, bear with me for a minute, and maybe I'll stop getting that "stunned look" from all of you. (laughter)
This battlespace includes cyberspace and has different boundaries. It's about boundaries between Kepler and Bernoulli. It's about legal boundaries. It's about moral boundaries. It's about other boundaries that act on those domains and in that battlespace that we will have to contend with. In this spherical battlespace, orbital mechanics and electromagnetic laws rule, straight-line thinking no longer works, objects are always in motion, never at rest. Never at rest. Information is plentiful and actors can be anonymous.
This is a physical environment acted on by physical forces and environmental disturbances. The speeds are incredible. The closing speeds in the collision between the Iridium 33 and the Cosmos satellite approached 11,000 meters per second. A 30-06 round (a .30 caliber rifle round) goes downrange in about 1,000 meters per second. In my book, in a non-technical sense, that's pretty fast. Time and distance, therefore in this battlespace have completely different meanings.
This presents us a challenging problem set, and we do not have the luxury of simplifying the problem by focusing on one geographic part of the Earth at a time. The spherical battlespace is constantly changing as on-orbit objects traverse across a volume that is 6,000 times greater than the airspace of the Earth below it.
In the next space age, we must completely understand the domains of space and cyberspace. We're going to have to properly integrate the two - something that will fall on the shoulders of Air Force Space Command. We're going to have to be responsible to the needs of Combatant Commanders and other national users who may be engaged across the spectrum of conflict or in non-military contingencies, and maybe both at the same time, at any time. We must fully understand emerging Joint operational concepts as well as a dynamic operational environment that will be increasingly contested.
We will have to provide space, cyberspace and related capabilities that are integrated with other warfighting elements...and these capabilities must be protected. We must have better situational awareness of space and cyberspace. We will have to attract, develop and retain America's best talent.
We will have to have better engineering. Every launch vehicle and spacecraft that sheds it parts on purpose is contributing to the debris problem. And I'm going to make that your engineering problem. Because as we look to the next space age, we will not have the luxury to operate the way we have operated in the first space age.
We will need a miracle or two (or maybe more). For example, we're going to need better propulsion, better power, better plug-and-play technology. We're going to need better sensors that are smaller and lighter weight. We're going to need launch vehicles that we can assemble in a different way and get to orbit in a different way. We will need stronger partnerships in the next space age both within and outside of government and across governments.
We take on these ventures, knowing that our resources are constrained and our economy has been stressed -- two conditions that did not exist at the beginning of the last space age. The cost of new weapons programs has significantly increased while the share of the federal budget dedicated to defense spending may decrease. Sustaining and developing the future force will be challenged by fiscal realities that we must acknowledge and overcome.
The sky will not be unlimited in terms of our fiscal considerations as we enter the next space age.
The key to dealing with constrained resources lies in transforming our acquisition processes. With continued concerns over cost, schedule and performance, Air Force Space Command will require new approaches to rapidly produce the capabilities needed in the Information Age. As we say around our command, we must provide capabilities to the warfighter at the "speed of need." But, herein lies yet another challenge: our defense industrial base is facing serious issues.
A strong industrial base is critical to the vitality of defense, intelligence, civil, commercial and allied space and cyberspace systems that support national security. Numerous studies indicate the space industrial base, in particular, is on a downward trend. That is not to say that they don't produce amazing products with incredible capabilities - they do. But there are issues in the industry we've got to be mindful of. There is a crisis in the workforce with estimates projecting a shortfall in experienced scientists and engineers who support space science and technology development. At the advent of the next space age, we must take all these challenges into account.
We have to engineer better, operate better and properly define and meet the requirements of the Joint warfighter. Those will continue to change at a rapid pace...they will not stop. We will continue to provide the Joint commanders with game-changing capabilities that they need. Our Nation depends on us to do that. We depend on you in industry and academia and from the other places that we draw the talent and wherewithal to go into the next space age.
We have made a commitment to the Joint warfighter...and we will deliver. This is the essence of our vision. Every day, our professionals work tirelessly to ensure the combatant commanders can call upon a varied array of space capabilities. We will continue to effectively and efficiently deliver capabilities to meet those requirements, to support operations across the spectrum of conflict.
We recognize the challenges we face and are working to overcome and prosper in this demanding environment. And I am confident...confident in our Airmen, confident in our commanders, confident in our industry partners, confident in you, and confident in our ability to continue to provide the best space, missile and cyberspace capabilities our nation requires. We're going to meet the challenge of protecting the American people, their livelihoods and interests with utmost precision at the moment of need.
It is a pleasure for me to be here with you. I cannot tell you how proud I am of Air Force Space Command. Every member of AFSPC shares the privilege of serving the nation and our Air Force. Our team provides the most capable and remarkable military space, missile and cyberspace force the world has ever known. Our challenge is to ensure that those who come after us will be able to say the same thing.
I thank each of you for your continued support of our young men and women in uniform.
Thank you again to the Space Foundation for inviting me to speak.
Note: The general references a video shown before his speech, called "Around the Command" also shown at the 2008 Fall Commander's Conference
Remarks to the National Space Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colo., March 31, 2009
Thank you, Elliot, for the kind introduction. What a great opening ceremony you held last evening -- a real celebration of achievement.
I can't tell you how proud I am to be with you this morning representing 40,000 men and women of Air Force Space Command. You saw a number of Airmen in the video a couple of minutes ago. Those Airmen you saw were doing a number of important things for the United States of America -- securing, operating, and maintaining our combat-ready ICBM force, and their dedication, along with the rest of the nuclear enterprise that forms the basis of the Nation's deterrent. That's an important mission for us and, as I tell our people every day, perfection is the standard.
We also saw Airmen in that video who conduct satellite, space launch and other space operations. This command wields capabilities that enable our Joint commanders to know more about their adversaries, to see the battlefield more clearly, and to strike more quickly and precisely than ever before. Space capabilities provide intelligence that would otherwise be lost, warning that would otherwise be undetected, and communications that would otherwise be impossible.
Space is no longer just the high ground, it is an integral part of the Joint fight. Today, space capabilities are embedded in a complex of systems that serve forces and commanders at every level and that span the spectrum of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities. And they do this from peace through crisis and war. Today, in Air Force Space Command, we are clearly active participants in the Joint fight that we are waging in overseas contingency operations. The capabilities we present have shaped the American way of warfare.
You also saw other Airmen in the video operate in cyberspace, with all the opportunities and challenges that suggests, and who will soon pick up lead command responsibility for United States Air Force cyberspace activities.
We're really excited about what is happening at Air Force Space Command. I think most of you know that we made some decisions in this Air Force that have directly impacted the command. For example, we are moving the ICBM force out of Air Force Space Command and into a command that we are standing up called Air Force Global Strike Command. We are also moving lead command responsibilities for cyberspace into Air Force Space Command and standing up an operational command for cyberspace within Air Force Space Command.
These are exciting times for sure. We're taking decisive steps to position resources and people to meet the challenges that America will encounter in the vital domains of space and cyberspace.
I'm reminded that newsman David Brinkley once remarked that he was worried that we may be approaching the point where we have more people willing to make speeches than we have people willing to listen to them. I hope that's not the case this morning. In fact, a few minutes before I came in here, (...) someone said, "Gee, I hope the speaker is good this morning," and I said, "I hope so, too!" So we'll see.
I need to thank the Space Foundation once again for bringing us together here in Colorado Springs to discuss the important issues we have in the National Space Enterprise. I'm a little intimidated to follow the panel we just had, because I will talk about the theme of the conference as well - that's "The Next Space Age." I think since it is the 25th anniversary of the Space Foundation, it is important and fitting that have that conversation.
No question about it, our world has changed drastically thanks to the accomplishments of the first space age. Some people say we are already in the third space age. I'm not going to do that. Let's just call all that went before today the first space age. Let's take the theme of this conference from today forward into the next one. That's easy enough for a guy like me to understand. I think we will see equally drastic changes with the accomplishments of the next space age. As we saw with the award recipients last evening, space has always been a place of inspired technological advancement and human searching. It is also a place of serious national security activity. Given the suit I wear that's what I am going to talk about today and I will confine my remarks to some issues with national security in the next space age.
The United States Air Force has played a very key role throughout the first space age. Just to name a few examples, Space launch vehicles that formed the basis of the later Mercury flights and all the Gemini flights came off of the drawing board of Gen. Bennie (Bernard A.) Schriever's team in the Western Development Division - today's Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles, Calif. Commercial satellite communications advanced in a great many ways due to the work done on military satellite communications also at SMC. And, of course, no one questions the value of GPS to the entire world. I would offer that GPS has even become its own word - it's no longer an acronym. When you get that kind of positioning, as my corporate friends would tell me, you've got something. That's the U.S. Air Force that's doing that. I like to remind people of that. I think our accomplishments are down farther on the list than they should be.
So, looking at the next space age is important to us in the Air Force, not only because space is important to national security, but because we know we will once again play a key -- albeit a different role as we develop the next space age.
At this point, I was going to haul out my crystal ball, and I was going to tell you precisely what the next space age will be like. Unfortunately, my aide left the crystal ball back at the office. It's not my fault, of course. But even if we'd brought the crystal ball, I don't think it could tell us all the things that we're going to need to know as we get after the issues of the next space age So, that's probably better anyway.
No one can define with certainty what the next space age will look like; instead, let's take a few minutes to do this the old fashioned way. Let's look at this the way we planners like to do it and look at the trends, and then we audit that against where I think we're going to go in the future. So let's take a look at global space and cyberspace trends.
We have come a long way from the middle of the 20th century, when the space race began between the Soviet Union and the U.S. We can all be thankful we've come a long way from that point in time. The Cold War ended, and again, thankfully, it ended peacefully, which was the objective all along. Many of you will remember that was a time when the requirement that formed the basis of the space race was "win the space race at any cost," and we invested a large amount of the national treasure to do just that.
We weren't quite sure where we were headed, but we had a group of visionaries who recognized the scientific, technical and, yes, the national security potential that was to be gained from space. We knew that it was the high ground, and we knew we had to establish our presence. We recognized the national security challenges we faced in the Cold War. We confronted a large, superpower with nuclear arms. They threatened our national survival. There were important areas and activities that we needed to observe without hindrance. There was a very high likelihood that a surprise attack could occur. The enemy was deployed over global distances and threatened us in many places. Of course our number-one task was strategic deterrence.
As a result we invested in communications systems, weather platforms, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms, and we developed GPS - all space-based solutions for the problems of the day. As time passed and the Cold War ended, we demonstrated how those same capabilities could be used to revolutionize tactical operations. We saw the beginnings of that in Desert Storm, and we see that opportunity to use tactical operations throughout the operations we are conducting in contingencies around the world today. Now, in the 21st century, it is no longer two nations trying to one-up each other for national pride or strategic advantage. That doesn't form the backdrop for the next space age.
As I said, I don't have a crystal ball, but I see a future national security environment that is far more uncertain, far more complex and far more changing than ever before. Last November, Joint Forces Command published an intriguing document called "The Joint Operating Environment." That document gives a perspective on future trends, shocks, contexts and implications for us as we look to the future - kind of like the discussion of the last panel. It clearly states that no one can predict the future, but it lays out some considerations for us as we try to go to the future.
Much of what we have known of crisis and conflict over the ages will be the same - (Karl) von Clausewitz would recognize it in some cases. But much will be different. Let me quote this document for a moment because I think this is important: "The next quarter-century will challenge U.S. joint forces with threats and opportunities ranging from regular and irregular wars in remote lands to relief and reconstruction in crisis zones, to sustained engagement in the global commons."
That last part in particular caught my eye when that document came to Air Force Space Command a couple of months ago. Because the global commons certainly includes space and cyberspace and maybe in the future will be dominated by space and cyberspace. It goes on to say the causes of conflict will vary, enemy capabilities will range from precision-guided, long-range (inaudible) weapons to suicide vests, the threat of mass destruction will expand and, significantly, that "it is impossible to predict precisely how challenges will emerge and what form they might take."
We already see challenges in space, and we see them equally in cyberspace. Space is a place of intense growth, with nations, consortia and private companies joining the ranks of space-faring and space-capable nations. Space capabilities are becoming more accessible to people all over the world. We see an increase in the demand for space capabilities.
As the technologies for space have advanced, we have also seen a rapid increase in the accessibility of those services and in the accessibility to cyberspace. Of course, cyberspace is where all the operations that support our daily lives reside.
Computers and access to the Internet are everywhere, in homes, businesses, schools. We see the growth in space in ways we did not imagine at the beginning of the space age, and we'll see the growth in cyberspace in ways we do not imagine as we sit here today looking forward. The benefits of these capabilities are enormous to the entire human race, and we welcome the improvements in our lives that space and cyberspace have delivered. But, as I say around my command sometimes, the old Chinese saying, "May you live in interesting times" does not apply to us. We're not paid to live in interesting times - we're paid to deal with interesting times. The nation asks us to do that. But, there are two sides to this discussion. While farmers incorporate GPS for "precision farming," to increase their crop production, we have seen others trying to jam GPS.
Communications systems enable people around the world to do business in ways once thought impossible, but we have seen commercial communications satellites jammed. And, as many in the audience cannot live without a Blackberry™ and a cell phone. I'm probably one of those people, and my wife is really one of those people. It's amazing when you buy a person a Blackberry™ in self defense what happens. We have seen terrorists plan attacks using commercial (satellite) imagery, communicate during these attacks on their satellite phones, navigate with commercial GPS receivers, and get intelligence updates via the local news on their personal handheld devices.
We must face the reality of the global trends in space and cyberspace.
The amount of on-orbit objects is growing. More satellites are on orbit today. Every time a satellite is launched, rocket bodies, explosive bolts and various pieces of debris are intentionally left behind adding to the catalog and contributing to the problem we have. We are starting the next space age at a very, very different point than we started the first one.
Cyberspace is a dense, urban environment. People are shopping, going to school, to work - they are traveling and conducting banking business. Everything you can do walking down a street in downtown Colorado Springs, you can do in cyberspace. We need to be mindful of the problems, the challenges and the opportunities that portends for us. Because cyberspace is not only a dense urban environment, it's also a contested environment. Access is simple, a laptop and a wireless connection gives you access and entry to the entire world. Every day, someone tries to exploit our weaknesses in cyberspace. If they can do it, the asymmetric advantages to be gained in this domain are great. Therefore, a potential adversary will not ignore that.
In cyberspace we see criminals, vandals, and spies, and determined nation-states conducting nation-state business. So we can, and do expect to be challenged in both space and cyberspace. We see the global trends as an increase in users, an increase in capabilities, and an increase in challenges. So with that as a backdrop for the next space age, what do we do? How do we shape this? How do we account for the next space age? And what does it look like?
AFSPC Tomorrow
I'm not a futurist - thank heaven for that. I wouldn't be very good at it. But I will tell you that we're very attentive to those who are, and with these trends we see emerging, we can begin to see that the backdrop will be dynamic and uncertain. Flexibility and agility will be required. We have to started to come to grips with what I have begun to call the "spherical battlespace."
I uttered those words out in front of my staff and got the "stunned mullet" look...they said, "Yes, Sir." and I left. (laughter) So what does that mean? I'm not sure yet. I'm starting to think that we are looking into the future of space and cyberspace in the spherical battlespace. For our purposes today, let's confine ourselves to the area beginning at the geostationary distances from the Earth and extending down. For far too long we've looked at our conception of future battlespace as standing on the ground looking up. That might be the wrong way to look. So, bear with me for a minute, and maybe I'll stop getting that "stunned look" from all of you. (laughter)
This battlespace includes cyberspace and has different boundaries. It's about boundaries between Kepler and Bernoulli. It's about legal boundaries. It's about moral boundaries. It's about other boundaries that act on those domains and in that battlespace that we will have to contend with. In this spherical battlespace, orbital mechanics and electromagnetic laws rule, straight-line thinking no longer works, objects are always in motion, never at rest. Never at rest. Information is plentiful and actors can be anonymous.
This is a physical environment acted on by physical forces and environmental disturbances. The speeds are incredible. The closing speeds in the collision between the Iridium 33 and the Cosmos satellite approached 11,000 meters per second. A 30-06 round (a .30 caliber rifle round) goes downrange in about 1,000 meters per second. In my book, in a non-technical sense, that's pretty fast. Time and distance, therefore in this battlespace have completely different meanings.
This presents us a challenging problem set, and we do not have the luxury of simplifying the problem by focusing on one geographic part of the Earth at a time. The spherical battlespace is constantly changing as on-orbit objects traverse across a volume that is 6,000 times greater than the airspace of the Earth below it.
In the next space age, we must completely understand the domains of space and cyberspace. We're going to have to properly integrate the two - something that will fall on the shoulders of Air Force Space Command. We're going to have to be responsible to the needs of Combatant Commanders and other national users who may be engaged across the spectrum of conflict or in non-military contingencies, and maybe both at the same time, at any time. We must fully understand emerging Joint operational concepts as well as a dynamic operational environment that will be increasingly contested.
We will have to provide space, cyberspace and related capabilities that are integrated with other warfighting elements...and these capabilities must be protected. We must have better situational awareness of space and cyberspace. We will have to attract, develop and retain America's best talent.
We will have to have better engineering. Every launch vehicle and spacecraft that sheds it parts on purpose is contributing to the debris problem. And I'm going to make that your engineering problem. Because as we look to the next space age, we will not have the luxury to operate the way we have operated in the first space age.
We will need a miracle or two (or maybe more). For example, we're going to need better propulsion, better power, better plug-and-play technology. We're going to need better sensors that are smaller and lighter weight. We're going to need launch vehicles that we can assemble in a different way and get to orbit in a different way. We will need stronger partnerships in the next space age both within and outside of government and across governments.
We take on these ventures, knowing that our resources are constrained and our economy has been stressed -- two conditions that did not exist at the beginning of the last space age. The cost of new weapons programs has significantly increased while the share of the federal budget dedicated to defense spending may decrease. Sustaining and developing the future force will be challenged by fiscal realities that we must acknowledge and overcome.
The sky will not be unlimited in terms of our fiscal considerations as we enter the next space age.
The key to dealing with constrained resources lies in transforming our acquisition processes. With continued concerns over cost, schedule and performance, Air Force Space Command will require new approaches to rapidly produce the capabilities needed in the Information Age. As we say around our command, we must provide capabilities to the warfighter at the "speed of need." But, herein lies yet another challenge: our defense industrial base is facing serious issues.
A strong industrial base is critical to the vitality of defense, intelligence, civil, commercial and allied space and cyberspace systems that support national security. Numerous studies indicate the space industrial base, in particular, is on a downward trend. That is not to say that they don't produce amazing products with incredible capabilities - they do. But there are issues in the industry we've got to be mindful of. There is a crisis in the workforce with estimates projecting a shortfall in experienced scientists and engineers who support space science and technology development. At the advent of the next space age, we must take all these challenges into account.
We have to engineer better, operate better and properly define and meet the requirements of the Joint warfighter. Those will continue to change at a rapid pace...they will not stop. We will continue to provide the Joint commanders with game-changing capabilities that they need. Our Nation depends on us to do that. We depend on you in industry and academia and from the other places that we draw the talent and wherewithal to go into the next space age.
We have made a commitment to the Joint warfighter...and we will deliver. This is the essence of our vision. Every day, our professionals work tirelessly to ensure the combatant commanders can call upon a varied array of space capabilities. We will continue to effectively and efficiently deliver capabilities to meet those requirements, to support operations across the spectrum of conflict.
We recognize the challenges we face and are working to overcome and prosper in this demanding environment. And I am confident...confident in our Airmen, confident in our commanders, confident in our industry partners, confident in you, and confident in our ability to continue to provide the best space, missile and cyberspace capabilities our nation requires. We're going to meet the challenge of protecting the American people, their livelihoods and interests with utmost precision at the moment of need.
It is a pleasure for me to be here with you. I cannot tell you how proud I am of Air Force Space Command. Every member of AFSPC shares the privilege of serving the nation and our Air Force. Our team provides the most capable and remarkable military space, missile and cyberspace force the world has ever known. Our challenge is to ensure that those who come after us will be able to say the same thing.
I thank each of you for your continued support of our young men and women in uniform.
Thank you again to the Space Foundation for inviting me to speak.
Note: The general references a video shown before his speech, called "Around the Command" also shown at the 2008 Fall Commander's Conference
Bush administration discredited crucial strategic concepts
The damage done
The Bush administration discredited crucial strategic concepts
By Ralph Peters
Source: Armed Sources Journal
Link: http://www.afji.com/2009/03/3922317
The quickest way to discredit a good idea is to execute it incompetently. Human nature will blame the idea along with those who botched it. The presidential administration of George W. Bush came to power with a number of sound, even crucial, military and strategic concepts in mind, such as regime change, pre-emptive attacks, punitive expeditions and decapitation strikes. Unfortunately, the implementation of such strategic endeavors was entrusted to a cadre of inexperienced, stunningly arrogant pseudo-academics who were, at best, close-minded and naive. The result was a succession of disappointments, setbacks and outright failures that triggered the emotional rejection of sound ideas that had been misapplied.
Much has been written about the concrete errors of the Bush administration in the military and strategic spheres, but the focus is ever upon the immediate costs, with little regard to the crippling of future policy formulation and the diminution of our range of options in the crises of tomorrow. Even allowing for the faddish nature of Bush hatred among the intelligentsia, the damage done to our conception of what can or cannot be done by our military and what is or isn’t permissible in war may hamper our effectiveness for decades.
Perhaps the greatest paradox of the Bush administration’s military legacy is that the intelligentsia finally got what it wanted — academically credentialed officials in virtually every top position and the shunning of the advice of military professionals. That this occurred under a Republican president should not obscure the lesson about what happens when theoreticians without practical experience are put in charge of life-and-death decisions. For all its cowboy iconography, the Bush administration was not composed of Rough Riders, but of senior appointees insulated from break-your-nose reality since childhood. They could not grasp the ferocious aspects of human nature that war reveals and empowers. Only the quality of our military rescued the administration’s foreign endeavors — to the extent they have been rescued — and now we face a future in which our military is going to be underfunded, operationally restricted and strategically misapplied.
The Bush administration’s mismanagement of its wars did not set defense thinking back a mere three decades to the post-Vietnam era, but a full century: The greatest power in history is determined to become a strategic Lilliput.
Regime change: an idea subverted
The Bush administration’s strategic illiteracy regarding Iraq robbed not only the U.S., but humankind, of a critical tool to facilitate peace, human rights, development and improved governance. During the Cold War, the age-old tradition that legitimate states enjoy the right to do as they wish within their own borders metastasized into a defense of monstrous dictators hiding behind artificial frontiers. A figure such as Saddam Hussein could seize power through a coup and maintain it in a sea of blood, then claim “sovereignty” when faced with foreign dismay. As I write, “President” Robert Mugabe, who has ravaged a once-rich country to the point where hunger prevails and cholera kills thousands, is considered untouchable. Murderous thugs rule Myanmar; Sudan butchers its own citizens; and Iran, the government of which has stated its intent to destroy Israel, pursues nuclear weapons with essential impunity. Meanwhile, the true basis of all legitimate sovereignty — the will of the population — goes ignored.
No moral human being can maintain that a dictator has the right to slaughter his own people — yet, the international community defends that right. In 2003, with the dismantling of Saddam’s regime, there was a brief, wonderful glimmer of hope that things might change. Around the world, frightened dictators hastened to make nice, while states that had tolerated or even abetted terrorists suddenly found it necessary to shake the offending crumbs from their aprons. The Bush administration’s noble decision to remove the Baathist regime had the potential to move human governance forward. Instead, the incompetence with which it was done set back freedom and decency elsewhere: The strongmen gained a new lease on life.
The immediate failing of the administration was its reluctance to send enough troops and show the right mettle for an effective occupation — or even to anticipate the need for an occupation. The administration’s notion of how developments would unfold was formed not from the sober assessments of generals, diplomats or senior intelligence officials, but through a bizarre combination of mirror-imaging and wishful thinking that led a supposedly tough-minded vice president to rely for his situational awareness on an Iraqi fortuneteller. (Dick Cheney and his national security adviser spoke with then-indicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi daily during the invasion and its aftermath, while angrily dismissing unwelcome reports from Americans on the ground.)
The problem wasn’t what we did, but how we did it — and, above all, unrealistic expectations. The hermetic circle around the president, vice president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talked itself into a congenial fantasy: Not only would a country that had been raped for two generations prove instantly problem-free and capable of democratic self-government, but its rehabilitation would pay for itself (even netting a tidy profit for well-positioned American firms).
The most worthless words in the English language may be “if only,” but consider how differently things might have turned out that first year in Iraq had we held sensible expectations and made the traditional preparations to assume an occupation’s responsibilities. The administration’s ideological theorists assumed that removing Saddam would inevitably lead to optimal results. Instead of exploring rational options based upon worst-case scenarios — the standard military planning procedure — the administration simply crossed its fingers. The realist’s basic choices would have been to break the regime’s hold on power then leave and let the Iraqis sort themselves out, or to accept that staying on to nurture a new government demanded a full-blown, no-nonsense, shoot-the-looters occupation. Instead, the cabal inside the administration chose a third option: Remove Saddam as cheaply as possible, at great risk, then loiter in Baghdad, hoping for the best. The well-intentioned but startlingly arrogant neoconservatives were certain they understood the use of military force better than any generals.
In the wake of the Bush administration’s transfer of power to its successor, Iraq does have a chance at maintaining a customized pseudo-democracy, but the agony and tangible costs along the way discredited the inherently sensible idea of regime change. Chastened, the Bush administration abandoned its ideals and re-embraced the Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes it initially had sought to liberalize. In 2003, our actions terrified Iran, Libya and even America’s No. 1 enemy, Saudi Arabia. By 2009, they barely took us seriously — and we had defaulted to betting, once again, on the regime of Egypt’s aging president, Hosni Mubarak, with a pile-on-the-chips enthusiasm reminiscent of the hand we played with the last shah of Iran.
Clichés become clichés because they convey tested truths, and we can pile them on when analyzing the Bush administration’s failures: “The devil is in the details,” “Anything worth doing is worth doing well,” “There’s no free lunch,” “If something can go wrong, it will,” “Always plan for the worst case,” “Always have a Plan B,” and, not least, “Walk softly, and carry a big stick.” But no amount of criticism is going to redeem the administration’s genius for doing the right thing appallingly badly. Had it gotten regime change right, we would live in a different, better world today. But its execution was so inept that millions more human beings will suffer and die because incompetence discredited an idea whose time had come.
Pre-emptive attacks
Another valuable tool has been banished, for now, from our arsenal of concepts: pre-emptive attacks. By focusing exclusively on spurious claims that Iraq was readying weapons of mass destruction in a secret program, the Bush administration made doing the right thing look like bullying justified by lies. Unaccountably, the administration failed to play the human-rights card — which would have been sounder policy, putting “Old Europe” and its profiteers on the defensive. The catastrophic perversion of intelligence has been amply discussed elsewhere, but what remains bewildering is the way the administration crammed all of its justification eggs into one basket — then waited for the WMD bunny to appear.
In an age of the proliferation of WMD — notably, nuclear weapons — pre-emptive strikes must remain an option. Unfortunately, the standards of proof of hostile capabilities and intentions have soared to the point where decisive U.S. action in a timely manner seems unlikely for years, if not decades, to come.
The dangerous age in which we live cannot afford to indulge in moral equivalency. Even as we insist that our enemies really don’t mean the threats they hurl in our direction, they move along with their preparations to fulfill their murderous promises. As the cardinal example of the moment, Iran’s nuclear program menaces Israel, the Sunni Arab states to the west and southwest, and our own interests and freedom of action in a vital region. Thanks to the botch-up in Iraq, though, it’s unlikely that we will take effective pre-emptive action, no matter the evidence compiled about Iran’s purposes. While this is not intended as an argument for attacking Iran today, we need to recognize the possibility that our reluctance to act boldly in the future may have terrible consequences — far worse than the most comprehensive pre-emptive strike would generate. This isn’t about cure-all prescriptions, but preserving options. Again, the Bush-era incompetence at war-making rendered the astute and timely employment of military force far more difficult for future administrations.
In this new, second age of WMD, when great-power rivalries subject to rational calculation have been replaced by knife fights between gods, we appear apt to wait until we have witnessed a regional apocalypse before acting. Without behaving as warmongers, there are times when we have to shoot first for the good not only of ourselves, but of civilization. Thanks to the Iraq debacle, we won’t.
While the term “punitive expeditions” is far too honest to be used by any administration or the Pentagon (where the very model of a modern major general would rather be politically correct than effective), the concept is of tremendous practical value. Suppose we had sent enough forces to Afghanistan to do it right — to corral and kill al-Qaida’s remnants while convincing the Taliban that the U.S. and its citizens meant business — instead of trying to do things on the cheap (only to find ourselves bogged down in a deepening tar pit). Suppose that, after slaughtering al-Qaida’s cadres and leaders, while bloodying the Taliban, we had simply withdrawn — with the promise to return, if provoked again. Would we be safer? We certainly would have more strategic options, and more young Americans would be alive. And the world’s only superpower would not be at the mercy of corrupt Pakistan.
What if, after reaching Baghdad, pummeling the Baathist regime, then capturing Saddam (after killing his sons), we had come home — after making it clear that we would not tolerate open interference by Iraq’s neighbors? Would the subsequent civil strife have been deadlier than the bloody mess we fostered by flopping indecisively on the Iraqi couch and chowing down on ideological junk food for almost four years before growing serious about restoring public order? While we cannot know precisely what course Iraq would have taken, we can be certain that al-Qaida would not have thrived, that (again) more young Americans would still be alive, that we would be less indebted (although various private gunslinger organizations would be poorer), and that the Iraq that emerged, whatever its other qualities, would not have been defiant toward the U.S.
Perhaps the greatest practical failing of the administration’s idealists was their unquestioned assumption that, when the U.S. sends in our troops, we must remain to fix every local plumbing leak. We can’t afford that and it doesn’t work. God and occupations help those who help themselves. Frequently, an occupation isn’t the answer, but a new problem. Defending our citizens and our interests does not mean we have to adopt our former enemies. While full-scale occupations may be necessary or wise in specific cases, more often we just need to convince violent enemies that it’s dumb to take on those bad-hombre Americans. Why is this so difficult for our leaders to comprehend? How could President Bill Clinton expect to foster good governance in Somalia? How could President George W. Bush expect Iraqis to turn into flower children overnight? How can President Barack Obama expect Afghanistan to become a modern, unified state?
The most-promising concept in play is, in fact, a postmodern version of the punitive expedition: our Predator attacks, occasional airstrikes and black operations in Pakistan and elsewhere. Having seen the utility and effectiveness of such actions on a small scale, can’t we envision taking punitive actions on a greater scale, when appropriate? Call them by whatever innocuous name or acronym you wish, but punitive expeditions are effective, relatively economical and — critical to the American psyche — relatively quick. We should no more assume that our troops must remain wherever they are deployed than cops would assume a requirement to remain at a crime scene for all eternity.
All of these concepts are, of course, interrelated. Another variant on regime change is the decapitation strike, in which the ruling clique of a criminal government is eliminated without resort to a full-scale invasion bound to create collateral damage and punish the relatively innocent. Ethically and morally, decapitation strikes should appeal to us; however, we’re trapped in traditional European thinking in which heads of state and senior officials are sacred beings, although the masses are disposable. And, as always, the well-meaning souls who do such terrible harm would cry, “Assassination!”
We have lost our grip on what is and is not moral. Would it have been immoral if we had possessed and employed the means to eliminate Hitler and his inner circle in 1942? Or in 1939, for that matter? In the 21st century, as various technologies coalesce to permit us to find and target individuals with stand-off weapons, isn’t it obviously more humane to target the lawless leader directly than to fight through the masses he has oppressed or conscripted? Yet, every tinpot Hitler will have his defenders — especially among the Western intelligentsia.
We are not yet at a technological level that can guarantee success in decapitation strikes, but the day is coming. Tragically, though, our Air Force has already discredited this valuable concept. By flogging “shock and awe” as the answer to all our strategic needs, it oversold immature technologies and forgot human psychology. As Joint Forces Command chief Gen. James Mattis, an exemplary Marine, grasped in his over-the-beach assault on “effects-based operations,” we can’t just impress a determined enemy into surrendering by breaking a few windows. In over-promising results from a succession of dismally ineffective shock-and-awe air campaigns, a procurement-driven Air Force refused to analyze the enemy: Why would someone in Saddam’s position ever surrender, given his recognition that this was an all-or-nothing game? Saddam was perfectly willing to fight to the last Iraqi. Without killing him, his family and his inner circle, you weren’t going to get peace in our time. War isn’t about show-and-tell. It’s about killing.
As our capabilities are refined, we increasingly will have the ability to target the truly guilty — the leaders of hostile states or terrorist organizations. While war will remain a messy, ugly, business overall, we occasionally will have the opportunity to strike and eliminate those who make the decisions, rather than those who have no choice but to carry out those decisions. This, rather than absurd and crippling rules of engagement, would introduce a new humanity to warfare. Eliminating hostile leaders and their cliques would not guarantee a perfect outcome, but it would increase the probability that the targeted regime’s successors would behave more circumspectly.
Of course, academic theorists and activists in search of a cause will demand, “Who are we to decide to eliminate Dictator X?” The answer is “We’re us. We represent freedom, decency and civilization. In this world, force prevails. We’re going to make sure it’s our force.”
Gulliver’s travails
We have the world’s most capable military. And we’re determined to cripple it. Splendid troops and cutting-edge weapons systems diminish precipitously in value when they are not employed with strategic insight, clear goals, sound planning — and courage. Since the end of the Vietnam War, successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, have deployed our troops simply because they couldn’t think of anything else to do. Soldiers and Marines became the universal bandage, applied to unhappy patients by nearsighted physicians: Lebanon, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq — not one of these deployments began with a clear end-state in mind and a realistic plan for achieving it. The greatest “combat multiplier” we could acquire in the coming decades would be a new sense of realism about what war means and the necessity of clearly stated missions. Do the hard mental labor before pulling the trigger.
The ultimate military legacy of the administration of George W. Bush will not be the wars it fought but the future wars it made more difficult to fight effectively. We enter a new administration with a strategic arsenal emptied of sound ideas by disastrous performances. AFJ
The Bush administration discredited crucial strategic concepts
By Ralph Peters
Source: Armed Sources Journal
Link: http://www.afji.com/2009/03/3922317
The quickest way to discredit a good idea is to execute it incompetently. Human nature will blame the idea along with those who botched it. The presidential administration of George W. Bush came to power with a number of sound, even crucial, military and strategic concepts in mind, such as regime change, pre-emptive attacks, punitive expeditions and decapitation strikes. Unfortunately, the implementation of such strategic endeavors was entrusted to a cadre of inexperienced, stunningly arrogant pseudo-academics who were, at best, close-minded and naive. The result was a succession of disappointments, setbacks and outright failures that triggered the emotional rejection of sound ideas that had been misapplied.
Much has been written about the concrete errors of the Bush administration in the military and strategic spheres, but the focus is ever upon the immediate costs, with little regard to the crippling of future policy formulation and the diminution of our range of options in the crises of tomorrow. Even allowing for the faddish nature of Bush hatred among the intelligentsia, the damage done to our conception of what can or cannot be done by our military and what is or isn’t permissible in war may hamper our effectiveness for decades.
Perhaps the greatest paradox of the Bush administration’s military legacy is that the intelligentsia finally got what it wanted — academically credentialed officials in virtually every top position and the shunning of the advice of military professionals. That this occurred under a Republican president should not obscure the lesson about what happens when theoreticians without practical experience are put in charge of life-and-death decisions. For all its cowboy iconography, the Bush administration was not composed of Rough Riders, but of senior appointees insulated from break-your-nose reality since childhood. They could not grasp the ferocious aspects of human nature that war reveals and empowers. Only the quality of our military rescued the administration’s foreign endeavors — to the extent they have been rescued — and now we face a future in which our military is going to be underfunded, operationally restricted and strategically misapplied.
The Bush administration’s mismanagement of its wars did not set defense thinking back a mere three decades to the post-Vietnam era, but a full century: The greatest power in history is determined to become a strategic Lilliput.
Regime change: an idea subverted
The Bush administration’s strategic illiteracy regarding Iraq robbed not only the U.S., but humankind, of a critical tool to facilitate peace, human rights, development and improved governance. During the Cold War, the age-old tradition that legitimate states enjoy the right to do as they wish within their own borders metastasized into a defense of monstrous dictators hiding behind artificial frontiers. A figure such as Saddam Hussein could seize power through a coup and maintain it in a sea of blood, then claim “sovereignty” when faced with foreign dismay. As I write, “President” Robert Mugabe, who has ravaged a once-rich country to the point where hunger prevails and cholera kills thousands, is considered untouchable. Murderous thugs rule Myanmar; Sudan butchers its own citizens; and Iran, the government of which has stated its intent to destroy Israel, pursues nuclear weapons with essential impunity. Meanwhile, the true basis of all legitimate sovereignty — the will of the population — goes ignored.
No moral human being can maintain that a dictator has the right to slaughter his own people — yet, the international community defends that right. In 2003, with the dismantling of Saddam’s regime, there was a brief, wonderful glimmer of hope that things might change. Around the world, frightened dictators hastened to make nice, while states that had tolerated or even abetted terrorists suddenly found it necessary to shake the offending crumbs from their aprons. The Bush administration’s noble decision to remove the Baathist regime had the potential to move human governance forward. Instead, the incompetence with which it was done set back freedom and decency elsewhere: The strongmen gained a new lease on life.
The immediate failing of the administration was its reluctance to send enough troops and show the right mettle for an effective occupation — or even to anticipate the need for an occupation. The administration’s notion of how developments would unfold was formed not from the sober assessments of generals, diplomats or senior intelligence officials, but through a bizarre combination of mirror-imaging and wishful thinking that led a supposedly tough-minded vice president to rely for his situational awareness on an Iraqi fortuneteller. (Dick Cheney and his national security adviser spoke with then-indicted fraudster Ahmed Chalabi daily during the invasion and its aftermath, while angrily dismissing unwelcome reports from Americans on the ground.)
The problem wasn’t what we did, but how we did it — and, above all, unrealistic expectations. The hermetic circle around the president, vice president and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talked itself into a congenial fantasy: Not only would a country that had been raped for two generations prove instantly problem-free and capable of democratic self-government, but its rehabilitation would pay for itself (even netting a tidy profit for well-positioned American firms).
The most worthless words in the English language may be “if only,” but consider how differently things might have turned out that first year in Iraq had we held sensible expectations and made the traditional preparations to assume an occupation’s responsibilities. The administration’s ideological theorists assumed that removing Saddam would inevitably lead to optimal results. Instead of exploring rational options based upon worst-case scenarios — the standard military planning procedure — the administration simply crossed its fingers. The realist’s basic choices would have been to break the regime’s hold on power then leave and let the Iraqis sort themselves out, or to accept that staying on to nurture a new government demanded a full-blown, no-nonsense, shoot-the-looters occupation. Instead, the cabal inside the administration chose a third option: Remove Saddam as cheaply as possible, at great risk, then loiter in Baghdad, hoping for the best. The well-intentioned but startlingly arrogant neoconservatives were certain they understood the use of military force better than any generals.
In the wake of the Bush administration’s transfer of power to its successor, Iraq does have a chance at maintaining a customized pseudo-democracy, but the agony and tangible costs along the way discredited the inherently sensible idea of regime change. Chastened, the Bush administration abandoned its ideals and re-embraced the Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes it initially had sought to liberalize. In 2003, our actions terrified Iran, Libya and even America’s No. 1 enemy, Saudi Arabia. By 2009, they barely took us seriously — and we had defaulted to betting, once again, on the regime of Egypt’s aging president, Hosni Mubarak, with a pile-on-the-chips enthusiasm reminiscent of the hand we played with the last shah of Iran.
Clichés become clichés because they convey tested truths, and we can pile them on when analyzing the Bush administration’s failures: “The devil is in the details,” “Anything worth doing is worth doing well,” “There’s no free lunch,” “If something can go wrong, it will,” “Always plan for the worst case,” “Always have a Plan B,” and, not least, “Walk softly, and carry a big stick.” But no amount of criticism is going to redeem the administration’s genius for doing the right thing appallingly badly. Had it gotten regime change right, we would live in a different, better world today. But its execution was so inept that millions more human beings will suffer and die because incompetence discredited an idea whose time had come.
Pre-emptive attacks
Another valuable tool has been banished, for now, from our arsenal of concepts: pre-emptive attacks. By focusing exclusively on spurious claims that Iraq was readying weapons of mass destruction in a secret program, the Bush administration made doing the right thing look like bullying justified by lies. Unaccountably, the administration failed to play the human-rights card — which would have been sounder policy, putting “Old Europe” and its profiteers on the defensive. The catastrophic perversion of intelligence has been amply discussed elsewhere, but what remains bewildering is the way the administration crammed all of its justification eggs into one basket — then waited for the WMD bunny to appear.
In an age of the proliferation of WMD — notably, nuclear weapons — pre-emptive strikes must remain an option. Unfortunately, the standards of proof of hostile capabilities and intentions have soared to the point where decisive U.S. action in a timely manner seems unlikely for years, if not decades, to come.
The dangerous age in which we live cannot afford to indulge in moral equivalency. Even as we insist that our enemies really don’t mean the threats they hurl in our direction, they move along with their preparations to fulfill their murderous promises. As the cardinal example of the moment, Iran’s nuclear program menaces Israel, the Sunni Arab states to the west and southwest, and our own interests and freedom of action in a vital region. Thanks to the botch-up in Iraq, though, it’s unlikely that we will take effective pre-emptive action, no matter the evidence compiled about Iran’s purposes. While this is not intended as an argument for attacking Iran today, we need to recognize the possibility that our reluctance to act boldly in the future may have terrible consequences — far worse than the most comprehensive pre-emptive strike would generate. This isn’t about cure-all prescriptions, but preserving options. Again, the Bush-era incompetence at war-making rendered the astute and timely employment of military force far more difficult for future administrations.
In this new, second age of WMD, when great-power rivalries subject to rational calculation have been replaced by knife fights between gods, we appear apt to wait until we have witnessed a regional apocalypse before acting. Without behaving as warmongers, there are times when we have to shoot first for the good not only of ourselves, but of civilization. Thanks to the Iraq debacle, we won’t.
While the term “punitive expeditions” is far too honest to be used by any administration or the Pentagon (where the very model of a modern major general would rather be politically correct than effective), the concept is of tremendous practical value. Suppose we had sent enough forces to Afghanistan to do it right — to corral and kill al-Qaida’s remnants while convincing the Taliban that the U.S. and its citizens meant business — instead of trying to do things on the cheap (only to find ourselves bogged down in a deepening tar pit). Suppose that, after slaughtering al-Qaida’s cadres and leaders, while bloodying the Taliban, we had simply withdrawn — with the promise to return, if provoked again. Would we be safer? We certainly would have more strategic options, and more young Americans would be alive. And the world’s only superpower would not be at the mercy of corrupt Pakistan.
What if, after reaching Baghdad, pummeling the Baathist regime, then capturing Saddam (after killing his sons), we had come home — after making it clear that we would not tolerate open interference by Iraq’s neighbors? Would the subsequent civil strife have been deadlier than the bloody mess we fostered by flopping indecisively on the Iraqi couch and chowing down on ideological junk food for almost four years before growing serious about restoring public order? While we cannot know precisely what course Iraq would have taken, we can be certain that al-Qaida would not have thrived, that (again) more young Americans would still be alive, that we would be less indebted (although various private gunslinger organizations would be poorer), and that the Iraq that emerged, whatever its other qualities, would not have been defiant toward the U.S.
Perhaps the greatest practical failing of the administration’s idealists was their unquestioned assumption that, when the U.S. sends in our troops, we must remain to fix every local plumbing leak. We can’t afford that and it doesn’t work. God and occupations help those who help themselves. Frequently, an occupation isn’t the answer, but a new problem. Defending our citizens and our interests does not mean we have to adopt our former enemies. While full-scale occupations may be necessary or wise in specific cases, more often we just need to convince violent enemies that it’s dumb to take on those bad-hombre Americans. Why is this so difficult for our leaders to comprehend? How could President Bill Clinton expect to foster good governance in Somalia? How could President George W. Bush expect Iraqis to turn into flower children overnight? How can President Barack Obama expect Afghanistan to become a modern, unified state?
The most-promising concept in play is, in fact, a postmodern version of the punitive expedition: our Predator attacks, occasional airstrikes and black operations in Pakistan and elsewhere. Having seen the utility and effectiveness of such actions on a small scale, can’t we envision taking punitive actions on a greater scale, when appropriate? Call them by whatever innocuous name or acronym you wish, but punitive expeditions are effective, relatively economical and — critical to the American psyche — relatively quick. We should no more assume that our troops must remain wherever they are deployed than cops would assume a requirement to remain at a crime scene for all eternity.
All of these concepts are, of course, interrelated. Another variant on regime change is the decapitation strike, in which the ruling clique of a criminal government is eliminated without resort to a full-scale invasion bound to create collateral damage and punish the relatively innocent. Ethically and morally, decapitation strikes should appeal to us; however, we’re trapped in traditional European thinking in which heads of state and senior officials are sacred beings, although the masses are disposable. And, as always, the well-meaning souls who do such terrible harm would cry, “Assassination!”
We have lost our grip on what is and is not moral. Would it have been immoral if we had possessed and employed the means to eliminate Hitler and his inner circle in 1942? Or in 1939, for that matter? In the 21st century, as various technologies coalesce to permit us to find and target individuals with stand-off weapons, isn’t it obviously more humane to target the lawless leader directly than to fight through the masses he has oppressed or conscripted? Yet, every tinpot Hitler will have his defenders — especially among the Western intelligentsia.
We are not yet at a technological level that can guarantee success in decapitation strikes, but the day is coming. Tragically, though, our Air Force has already discredited this valuable concept. By flogging “shock and awe” as the answer to all our strategic needs, it oversold immature technologies and forgot human psychology. As Joint Forces Command chief Gen. James Mattis, an exemplary Marine, grasped in his over-the-beach assault on “effects-based operations,” we can’t just impress a determined enemy into surrendering by breaking a few windows. In over-promising results from a succession of dismally ineffective shock-and-awe air campaigns, a procurement-driven Air Force refused to analyze the enemy: Why would someone in Saddam’s position ever surrender, given his recognition that this was an all-or-nothing game? Saddam was perfectly willing to fight to the last Iraqi. Without killing him, his family and his inner circle, you weren’t going to get peace in our time. War isn’t about show-and-tell. It’s about killing.
As our capabilities are refined, we increasingly will have the ability to target the truly guilty — the leaders of hostile states or terrorist organizations. While war will remain a messy, ugly, business overall, we occasionally will have the opportunity to strike and eliminate those who make the decisions, rather than those who have no choice but to carry out those decisions. This, rather than absurd and crippling rules of engagement, would introduce a new humanity to warfare. Eliminating hostile leaders and their cliques would not guarantee a perfect outcome, but it would increase the probability that the targeted regime’s successors would behave more circumspectly.
Of course, academic theorists and activists in search of a cause will demand, “Who are we to decide to eliminate Dictator X?” The answer is “We’re us. We represent freedom, decency and civilization. In this world, force prevails. We’re going to make sure it’s our force.”
Gulliver’s travails
We have the world’s most capable military. And we’re determined to cripple it. Splendid troops and cutting-edge weapons systems diminish precipitously in value when they are not employed with strategic insight, clear goals, sound planning — and courage. Since the end of the Vietnam War, successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, have deployed our troops simply because they couldn’t think of anything else to do. Soldiers and Marines became the universal bandage, applied to unhappy patients by nearsighted physicians: Lebanon, Somalia, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq — not one of these deployments began with a clear end-state in mind and a realistic plan for achieving it. The greatest “combat multiplier” we could acquire in the coming decades would be a new sense of realism about what war means and the necessity of clearly stated missions. Do the hard mental labor before pulling the trigger.
The ultimate military legacy of the administration of George W. Bush will not be the wars it fought but the future wars it made more difficult to fight effectively. We enter a new administration with a strategic arsenal emptied of sound ideas by disastrous performances. AFJ
Pakistan: What is its Frontline Status?
Source: South Asia Analysis Group
Guest Column by Kishan Bhatia
(The views expressed are his own)
In the land of pure the journalists are not safe (A. Cowasjee, Dawn, Sunday, 29 Mar, 2009) and neither are players of international cricket teams and the trainees at the police academy from murderous attackers. The attacks on the police academy located about six miles inside Pakistan from its border with India were taking place as the Dawn Op-ed writers were pontificating on the law and order situation in Pakistan. A detailed report, “Militants give bloody show of Strength” by Syed Saleem Shahzad is available at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC31Df02.html.
The nuclear and missile armed Pakistani Generals are unable to maintain the writ of the nation by delivering law and order to a nation beleaguered by terrorists. So to the political masters, the Sahibs and Sahibas of Pakistan, I ask, what is the frontline status of Pakistan?
The revolution of 1979 forced the Shah in to exile and brought Ayatollahs to power in Iran. America was locked in to the Cold War against communism promoted by the USSR. The global oil crisis of 1973-74 had made the world’s second largest oil producer Soviets petrodollars rich as oil prices in 1970s increased from $10 barrel to $80 a barrel. Soviets occupied Afghanistan in 1979.
These events collectively forced America to switch its frontline state strategy from Iran to Pakistan. America was joined by petrodollars rich Arabs of Persian Gulf and Red Sea – collectively the world’s largest oil producers – to provide material and financial aid to Pakistan under dictatorship of President Zia-ul Haq in 1980s to build a jihadi force of Afghan refugees and tribal Pashtuns east of the Duran Line to challenge Soviets in Afghanistan.
Soviets faced two wars in 1980s. First was economic and second was in Afghanistan. Economically USSR faced declining petrodollar revenues over a period of six years (1980-86) by as much as $20 billion a year as oil prices decreased by 80% to $17 a barrel. The Afghan war drained it militarily forcing Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the USSR disintegrated in the Gorbachev era (1986-91) as with a bankrupt treasury it was unable to meet its globally overextended economic obligations to spread communism.
The Soviets global expansion ambitions were rooted in petrodollars driven economy. The USSR imploded as petrodollars evaporated.
America had replaced Pakistan for Iran as its frontline state in 1980s against USSR in the Cold War and Pakistan was assigned to challenge Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. America was joined by the petrodollars rich Arab states of Persian Gulf and Red Sea to provide Pakistan all material and financial aid to build jihadi forces.
The petrodollar losses over six years (1980-86) suffered by the Soviets crippled its ability to continue occupation in a war torn Afghanistan. A limited success in Afghanistan in 1989 against Soviets was blown in to a myth that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires. Well, does this myth also apply to Pakistan that tried and failed to establish a "strategic depth" with occupation of Afghanistan by Taliban (1994 - 2002)?
After routing of al Qaeda and Taliban from Afghanistan in 2002, occupation of Afghanistan by allied forces and the six year (2003-08) American adventure in Iraq, the nuclear and missile armed Pakistani Generals and ruling elites were counting on America getting war fatigue to withdraw from Muslim lands.
Reality is that President Obama has announced that America will outlast terrorist in safe heavens of Afpakia. In announcing his new Afghanistan and Pakistan policy, President Obama articulated a clear and focused goal: “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
From the USA perspective the heart of the problem lies in Pakistan and the goal is to ensure that it "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States and its allies." The larger vital national interests of USA are to prevent Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear weapons and materials from falling into the hands of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic extremists by taking control of the country.
In 2009 America hyphenated Afghanistan and Pakistan giving birth to Afpakia after six years of failed attempts to coax Pakistan, an ally on WOT, and its ruling elites to contain and may be neutralize the terrorism originating from safe heavens of Pakistan. The recent events culminating with the Second Lahore Attack at a police academy, the Mumbai mayhem, the First Lahore Attack on visiting Sri Lanka cricket team, repeated disruptions in Western Pakistan of American supply lines to Afghanistan and the Swat treaty of 2009 has shown to America that it had to shift gears and find a new frontline state.
The significance of this transformation after a detailed reevaluation of political situations in South Asia is that the Obama administration according to its latest White Papers has now designated Afghanistan, not Pakistan to be its frontline state and al Qaeda and its associates in safe heavens of Pakistan to be its enemy target.
Following the cliché, "You lead, follow or step aside" America has let Pakistani Army Generals know what their choices are.
The new games have been initiated in South Asia by the Obama Administration. In what capacity Pakistan participates in the games remains to be seen.
(Dr. Bhatia is an analyst on contemporary developments impacting on South Asia and America . Email: kbhatia323@hotmail.com)
Guest Column by Kishan Bhatia
(The views expressed are his own)
In the land of pure the journalists are not safe (A. Cowasjee, Dawn, Sunday, 29 Mar, 2009) and neither are players of international cricket teams and the trainees at the police academy from murderous attackers. The attacks on the police academy located about six miles inside Pakistan from its border with India were taking place as the Dawn Op-ed writers were pontificating on the law and order situation in Pakistan. A detailed report, “Militants give bloody show of Strength” by Syed Saleem Shahzad is available at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC31Df02.html.
The nuclear and missile armed Pakistani Generals are unable to maintain the writ of the nation by delivering law and order to a nation beleaguered by terrorists. So to the political masters, the Sahibs and Sahibas of Pakistan, I ask, what is the frontline status of Pakistan?
The revolution of 1979 forced the Shah in to exile and brought Ayatollahs to power in Iran. America was locked in to the Cold War against communism promoted by the USSR. The global oil crisis of 1973-74 had made the world’s second largest oil producer Soviets petrodollars rich as oil prices in 1970s increased from $10 barrel to $80 a barrel. Soviets occupied Afghanistan in 1979.
These events collectively forced America to switch its frontline state strategy from Iran to Pakistan. America was joined by petrodollars rich Arabs of Persian Gulf and Red Sea – collectively the world’s largest oil producers – to provide material and financial aid to Pakistan under dictatorship of President Zia-ul Haq in 1980s to build a jihadi force of Afghan refugees and tribal Pashtuns east of the Duran Line to challenge Soviets in Afghanistan.
Soviets faced two wars in 1980s. First was economic and second was in Afghanistan. Economically USSR faced declining petrodollar revenues over a period of six years (1980-86) by as much as $20 billion a year as oil prices decreased by 80% to $17 a barrel. The Afghan war drained it militarily forcing Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989 and the USSR disintegrated in the Gorbachev era (1986-91) as with a bankrupt treasury it was unable to meet its globally overextended economic obligations to spread communism.
The Soviets global expansion ambitions were rooted in petrodollars driven economy. The USSR imploded as petrodollars evaporated.
America had replaced Pakistan for Iran as its frontline state in 1980s against USSR in the Cold War and Pakistan was assigned to challenge Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. America was joined by the petrodollars rich Arab states of Persian Gulf and Red Sea to provide Pakistan all material and financial aid to build jihadi forces.
The petrodollar losses over six years (1980-86) suffered by the Soviets crippled its ability to continue occupation in a war torn Afghanistan. A limited success in Afghanistan in 1989 against Soviets was blown in to a myth that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires. Well, does this myth also apply to Pakistan that tried and failed to establish a "strategic depth" with occupation of Afghanistan by Taliban (1994 - 2002)?
After routing of al Qaeda and Taliban from Afghanistan in 2002, occupation of Afghanistan by allied forces and the six year (2003-08) American adventure in Iraq, the nuclear and missile armed Pakistani Generals and ruling elites were counting on America getting war fatigue to withdraw from Muslim lands.
Reality is that President Obama has announced that America will outlast terrorist in safe heavens of Afpakia. In announcing his new Afghanistan and Pakistan policy, President Obama articulated a clear and focused goal: “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
From the USA perspective the heart of the problem lies in Pakistan and the goal is to ensure that it "cannot be used as a base to launch attacks against the United States and its allies." The larger vital national interests of USA are to prevent Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear weapons and materials from falling into the hands of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic extremists by taking control of the country.
In 2009 America hyphenated Afghanistan and Pakistan giving birth to Afpakia after six years of failed attempts to coax Pakistan, an ally on WOT, and its ruling elites to contain and may be neutralize the terrorism originating from safe heavens of Pakistan. The recent events culminating with the Second Lahore Attack at a police academy, the Mumbai mayhem, the First Lahore Attack on visiting Sri Lanka cricket team, repeated disruptions in Western Pakistan of American supply lines to Afghanistan and the Swat treaty of 2009 has shown to America that it had to shift gears and find a new frontline state.
The significance of this transformation after a detailed reevaluation of political situations in South Asia is that the Obama administration according to its latest White Papers has now designated Afghanistan, not Pakistan to be its frontline state and al Qaeda and its associates in safe heavens of Pakistan to be its enemy target.
Following the cliché, "You lead, follow or step aside" America has let Pakistani Army Generals know what their choices are.
The new games have been initiated in South Asia by the Obama Administration. In what capacity Pakistan participates in the games remains to be seen.
(Dr. Bhatia is an analyst on contemporary developments impacting on South Asia and America . Email: kbhatia323@hotmail.com)
Cyberdouane: France to fight against fraud on the Internet
Cyber-criminals will soon be the latest innovation by Eric Woerth in the fight against organized crime: Minister of the Budget has in fact launched a cyberdouane whose mission is to "collect, enrich and exploit the information to effectively fight against fraud on the Internet. " .
Last month French budget minister Eric Woerth presented a “cyberdouane” (cybercustoms) program to the country’s parliament. The unit, which aims to keep tabs on commercial operations on the Internet, answers to the Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquetes Douanieres (DNRED:.
This new service aims to collect, enrich and exploit the information to fight effectively against fraud on the Internet (imports of narcotics, drugs, counterfeiting, weapons and ammunition, artworks and other goods subject to trafficking or illegal transactions). . Noting that the development of commerce on the Internet is accompanied by an increase of "cybercrime", Eric Woerth wished accentuate the response to customs fraud on the Internet, advancing customs staff dedicated to this mission from 4 to 15 agents . "Cyberdouane" is composed of 8 analysts and 7 investigators from Customs .
The "cyberdouaniers", specializing in new technologies and in particular the communication protocols of the Internet, is to detect illicit transactions on the Internet and trigger controls targeted thorough investigations. The creation of "Cyberdouane" within the DNRED is the first component of a comprehensive plan to fight against cybercrime desired by the Minister, through 9 strategic areas: strengthening of supervision and inter-government cooperation with the owners of trademark rights, Internet service providers and merchants, financial institutions and payment over the Internet, at international level and the empowerment of consumers .
Eric Woerth said he wanted to double in 2009 the results of the customs department in the fight against fraud on the Internet. He welcomed the seizures of counterfeit goods being made in 2008 following the customs controls on postal parcels and express cargo: 21 tons of cigarettes and 148 000 items of counterfeit goods.
Eric Woerth also stressed the need to strengthen all forms of cooperation between state services and players in the world of the Internet to create a sense of insecurity for "cybercriminals". He finally stated that it was important to empower people so that they are neither actors nor accomplices or victims of Internet fraud.
he National Intelligence and Customs Investigations (DNRED) gains a new service in the fight against cybercrime, "Cyberdouane. This service aims to collect, enrich and exploit the information to fight effectively against fraud on the Internet (imports of narcotics, drugs, counterfeiting, weapons and ammunition, artworks and other goods subject to traffic or transactions illegal).
Noting that the development of commerce on the Internet is accompanied by an increase of "cybercrime", Eric Woerth wished accentuate the response to customs fraud on the Internet, advancing customs staff dedicated to this mission from 4 to 15 agents . "Cyberdouane" is composed of 8 analysts and investigators from Customs 7.
The "cyberdouaniers", specializing in new technologies and in particular the communication protocols of the Internet, is to detect illicit transactions on the Internet and trigger controls targeted and thorough investigations.
The creation of "Cyberdouane" within the DNRED is the first component of a comprehensive plan to fight against cybercrime desired by the Minister, declined through 9 strategic areas: strengthening of supervision and the dismantlement of l adaptation of the legal and the inter-government cooperation with the owners of trademark rights, Internet service providers and merchants, financial institutions and payment over the Internet, international cooperation and the empowerment of consumers .
Last month French budget minister Eric Woerth presented a “cyberdouane” (cybercustoms) program to the country’s parliament. The unit, which aims to keep tabs on commercial operations on the Internet, answers to the Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquetes Douanieres (DNRED:.
This new service aims to collect, enrich and exploit the information to fight effectively against fraud on the Internet (imports of narcotics, drugs, counterfeiting, weapons and ammunition, artworks and other goods subject to trafficking or illegal transactions). . Noting that the development of commerce on the Internet is accompanied by an increase of "cybercrime", Eric Woerth wished accentuate the response to customs fraud on the Internet, advancing customs staff dedicated to this mission from 4 to 15 agents . "Cyberdouane" is composed of 8 analysts and 7 investigators from Customs .
The "cyberdouaniers", specializing in new technologies and in particular the communication protocols of the Internet, is to detect illicit transactions on the Internet and trigger controls targeted thorough investigations. The creation of "Cyberdouane" within the DNRED is the first component of a comprehensive plan to fight against cybercrime desired by the Minister, through 9 strategic areas: strengthening of supervision and inter-government cooperation with the owners of trademark rights, Internet service providers and merchants, financial institutions and payment over the Internet, at international level and the empowerment of consumers .
Eric Woerth said he wanted to double in 2009 the results of the customs department in the fight against fraud on the Internet. He welcomed the seizures of counterfeit goods being made in 2008 following the customs controls on postal parcels and express cargo: 21 tons of cigarettes and 148 000 items of counterfeit goods.
Eric Woerth also stressed the need to strengthen all forms of cooperation between state services and players in the world of the Internet to create a sense of insecurity for "cybercriminals". He finally stated that it was important to empower people so that they are neither actors nor accomplices or victims of Internet fraud.
he National Intelligence and Customs Investigations (DNRED) gains a new service in the fight against cybercrime, "Cyberdouane. This service aims to collect, enrich and exploit the information to fight effectively against fraud on the Internet (imports of narcotics, drugs, counterfeiting, weapons and ammunition, artworks and other goods subject to traffic or transactions illegal).
Noting that the development of commerce on the Internet is accompanied by an increase of "cybercrime", Eric Woerth wished accentuate the response to customs fraud on the Internet, advancing customs staff dedicated to this mission from 4 to 15 agents . "Cyberdouane" is composed of 8 analysts and investigators from Customs 7.
The "cyberdouaniers", specializing in new technologies and in particular the communication protocols of the Internet, is to detect illicit transactions on the Internet and trigger controls targeted and thorough investigations.
The creation of "Cyberdouane" within the DNRED is the first component of a comprehensive plan to fight against cybercrime desired by the Minister, declined through 9 strategic areas: strengthening of supervision and the dismantlement of l adaptation of the legal and the inter-government cooperation with the owners of trademark rights, Internet service providers and merchants, financial institutions and payment over the Internet, international cooperation and the empowerment of consumers .
$11 trillion parked in tax havens: OECD; Mitrokhin archives; immunity to looters?
http://sites. google.com/ site/hindunew/ recovering- looted-wealth
$11 trillion parked in tax havens: OECD
4 Apr 2009, 0130 hrs IST, AGENCIES
Â
LONDON: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) a group of rich countries said that according to its estimate, $11 trillion is parked in tax havens, which is more than 10 times the total amount committed by the G-20 leaders to revive the global economy.
It named four countries Philippines, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Uruguay as non-cooperative tax havens. The OECD also named as many as 39 countries, including Switzerland and Luxembourg, which are not fully-compliant with the international tax standards. The list has been published after the leaders of G-20 nations on Thursday decided to crack down on tax havens and agreed to exchange informations on tax upon request.
According to OECD, the four countries Costa Rica, Malaysia, Philippines and Uruguay have not committed to internationally agreed tax standards, while the rest have committed but not "substantially" implemented the same.
Apart from Switzerland and Luxembourg, other names in the list include Liechtenstein, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Brunei, Guatemala, Singapore, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Netherlands, Liberia, Bahrain and Bahamas.
The grouping of developed nations has also named 40 countries, which have substantially implemented the international tax standards. The list includes Mauritius, the country from where large amount of investments are routed into India.
The OECD takes into account many factors to determine a jurisdiction as a tax haven, including whether the country imposes "no or only nominal taxes". Other criteria includes lack of transparency and whether laws prevent exchange of information related to tax with other governments.
Other nations which have not substantially implemented international tax standards are Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Dominica, Gibraltar, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Montserrat, Nauru, Antilles and Niue.
The list also has names of Panama, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Turks and Caicos Islands and Vanuatu.
Â
http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/Business/ 11-trillion- parked-in- tax-havens/ articleshow/ 4356602.cms
Â
http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 23/13/42469606. pdf Countering offshore tax evasion: the role of the OECD
http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 32/45/42356522. pdf Overview on OECD work on harmful tax practices
Â
BJP must seek KGB papers
Ashok Malik  (Pioneer, Saturday, April 4, 2009)
In arguing that an investigation into Indian slush funds in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other secret banking havens should be a priority for the next Government, the BJP has made a noteworthy recommendation. The quantum of Indian-origin money — political bribes, contractual paybacks, receipts against contraband taken out of the country, corporate embezzlement and so on — may be speculated upon. The modalities of finding it and claiming it on behalf of the law may be debated. Yet, the principle is unexceptionable.
There is, however, one other inquiry with international ramifications that the BJP must commit itself to, should it come to power on May 16. Indeed, it is the only party without the baggage and with the positioning to do this — to study the Indian links in the Mitrokhin Archive.
As is well known, the Mitrokhin papers are the largest repository of KGB documents ever removed from the Soviet Union/Russia. In 1992, Vasili Mitrokhin, a senior archivist at the KGB who had copied and pilfered thousands of top-secret files over the years, defected to the United Kingdom with his treasure.
The Mitrokhin Archive is in the custody of MI-6, the British external intelligence agency. A small, extremely sanitised portion of the KGB papers was published after vetting by London’s intelligence and political establishment as the Mitrokhin Archive I (1999) and the Mitrokhin Archive II (2005).
The first book dealt with the KGB’s network of spies, agents and front organisations in Europe and the West. Volume II described the phenomenon in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The second book devoted two chapters to India, which it called “the Third World country on which the KGB eventually concentrated most operational effort during the Cold War�.
The KGB, Mitrokhin Archive II alleged, routinely bribed Left and Congress politicians, including Ministers in Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Government. It bought secrets and paid retainers. The KGB funded election campaigns of chosen candidates and parties, including supporting the Congress in its years out of power (1977-79), and operated through a network of recruits in the intelligentsia, the media and the civil service, in addition to, of course, political proxies.
The Mitrokhin books were careful not to mention too many proper nouns, largely restricting themselves to naming people who were dead, or referring to KGB code names and broad descriptions of individuals and institutions. However, the chapters on India offer tantalising clues and often mention some names in other contexts, as if pointing the reader in the right direction.
Take this extract: “The Indian Embassy in Moscow was being penetrated by the KGB, using its usual varieties of the honey trap. The Indian diplomat PROKHOR was recruited, probably in the early 1950s, with the help of a female swallow, codenamed NEVEROVA, who presumably seduced him. The KGB was clearly pleased with the material which PROKHOR provided, which included on two occasions the Embassy codebook and deciphering tables, since in 1954 it increased his monthly payments from 1,000 to 4,000 rupees.�
PROKHOR is not identified. However, a pro-Soviet Indian diplomat who rose to the highest positions in South Block is quoted in the book in an otherwise harmless sentence. Old timers in Delhi have put two and two together and concluded that the gentleman — now dead — may have been PROKHOR.
Mitrokhin Archive II was published in September 2005, and much of what it contained in reference to India was reported in the media. So why is it relevant today?
The fact is the book was only a teaser trailer, all that was allowed to be shared with lay readers. MI-6 and the British Foreign Office have made it clear that friendly countries and intelligence agencies are free to request access to the Mitrokhin papers, or at least to those sections and dossiers that concern them.
The foreword to Mitrokhin Archive II says, “A report by the all-party British Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reveals that a series of other Western intelligence agencies have also proved ‘extremely grateful’ for the numerous CI (counter-intelligen ce) leads provided by Mitrokhin’s material.�
Aside from Britain, the United States, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have used the KGB papers to uncover spies and traitors among their own people, in their Government and security systems.
Consider the response in India. When the Mitrokhin details became public three-and-a- half years ago, the Congress, the CPI(M) and the CPI combined to disparage them. Parliamentary discussion was stonewalled. Mr Anand Sharma, then the Congress spokesperson and now the Minister of State for External Affairs, even said, “There has been no precedent when fictional accounts are discussed in Parliament.�
Together as allies in 2005 — as they were as fellow travellers in the 1970s — the Congress and the Left joined forces to bury the Mitrokhin scandal. Among the major democracies, India is perhaps the only one that has not formally requested access to the Mitrokhin Archive and not asked MI-6 if the papers could help authorities in New Delhi identify those who were passing on information to Moscow, in return for monetary or other benefit.
Some of these people are gone but many may still be alive, living as respectable citizens, perhaps still attempting to determine the course of Indian public policy and diplomatic choices. It is also possible that most of them are just too old and living a quiet retirement. Either way, India deserves to know the truth — not necessarily to send every one of these people to prison, but to arrive at a proper closure to a disquieting chapter in its modern history.
A start can only be made if the Government of India writes to its British counterpart, asking it be allowed to study the Mitrokhin papers. There is, however, a conspiracy of silence. For obvious reasons, the Congress and the Left will not do it. The gaggle of opportunistic socialist and regional parties that straddle the UPA and the NDA will not be interested either. Only the BJP represents a political philosophy that had nothing to do with the KGBisation of India’s polity in the Cold War years.
That is why the BJP must promise that, should it win the election, it will begin the process of unravelling the truth hidden in the Mitrokhin Archive. Indian money needs to be redeemed from Swiss banks; so does Indian honour from KGB extension counters.
(malikashok@gmail. com) http://www.dailypio neer.com/ 167186/BJP- must-seek- KGB-papers. html
Â
BJP mulls black cash pardon
PIYA SINGH (Telegraph, Kolkata)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
Global tax havens: 70
Assets parked: $1.7 to 11.5 trillion
Indian black money: $200 to $500 billion
Preferred havens: Switzerland, Mauritius, Austria, Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands
April 3: If the BJP is voted to power, it could come out with an amnesty scheme to force tax dodgers to bring back the billions of dollars they have stashed away in Swiss banks and other tax havens around the world.
“The usual model is to offer an immunity on tax payments that can extend to six months,� said S. Gurumurthy, the chartered accountant who has been named a member of a task force formed by the BJP to help ferret out information about the cash mountain abroad.
If an amnesty scheme is offered, it will be only the second since the process of economic liberalisation began in 1991.
P. Chidambaram, who was the finance minister in the H.D. Deve Gowda government, had announced a voluntary disclosure of income scheme (VDIS) in the budget in 1997. The VDIS — which was operational between June and December 1997 — was one of the most successful black money schemes and had raised Rs 10,000 crore.
The BJP released its manifesto today which said: “We will take determined steps to bring back the money (estimated at Rs 25,000 crore and Rs 75,000 crore) illegally stashed in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and use it for infrastructure development, housing, health and social welfare schemes.�
The manifesto added that if this sum was recovered, the government would be able to allocate Rs 4 crore to every Indian village.
The G20 has also announced a crackdown on tax havens, following which the Philippines, Uruguay, Costa Rica and the Malaysian territory of Labuan have been named the worst offenders. The four are usually not preferred by Indians. The G20 has also threatened to slap sanctions on havens that refuse to exchange information.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh endorsed the G20’s call yesterday but the Congress manifesto has been silent on the issue.
Along with Gurumurthy, the BJP named three other members to the task force: R. Vaidyanathan, a professor of finance at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore; Mahesh Jethmalani, a lawyer and the party’s candidate against Priya Dutt, and Ajit Doval, a national security expert. All of them have agreed to work voluntarily on this task force.
“India is the only country that has not taken an aggressive position on tax havens. They have not uttered a word against tax havens which means that they are happy with them,� Gurumurthy told The Telegraph.
Gurumurthy said the task force would try and determine how much money had been spirited abroad. He said Raymond Baker, a researcher on corruption and money laundering, had estimated that about $137 billion had been taken out of India between 2002 and 2006.
A study conducted by Baker’s organisation, Global Financial Integrity, and sponsored by the Ford Foundation reckoned that $27.3 billion was sucked out of the country every year.
“The task force is in touch with Raymond Baker and we are trying to work with him,� Gurumurthy said.
http://www.telegrap hindia.com/ 1090404/jsp/ frontpage/ story_10772682. jsp
$11 trillion parked in tax havens: OECD
4 Apr 2009, 0130 hrs IST, AGENCIES
Â
LONDON: OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) a group of rich countries said that according to its estimate, $11 trillion is parked in tax havens, which is more than 10 times the total amount committed by the G-20 leaders to revive the global economy.
It named four countries Philippines, Costa Rica, Malaysia and Uruguay as non-cooperative tax havens. The OECD also named as many as 39 countries, including Switzerland and Luxembourg, which are not fully-compliant with the international tax standards. The list has been published after the leaders of G-20 nations on Thursday decided to crack down on tax havens and agreed to exchange informations on tax upon request.
According to OECD, the four countries Costa Rica, Malaysia, Philippines and Uruguay have not committed to internationally agreed tax standards, while the rest have committed but not "substantially" implemented the same.
Apart from Switzerland and Luxembourg, other names in the list include Liechtenstein, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Brunei, Guatemala, Singapore, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Netherlands, Liberia, Bahrain and Bahamas.
The grouping of developed nations has also named 40 countries, which have substantially implemented the international tax standards. The list includes Mauritius, the country from where large amount of investments are routed into India.
The OECD takes into account many factors to determine a jurisdiction as a tax haven, including whether the country imposes "no or only nominal taxes". Other criteria includes lack of transparency and whether laws prevent exchange of information related to tax with other governments.
Other nations which have not substantially implemented international tax standards are Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cook Islands, Dominica, Gibraltar, Grenada, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Montserrat, Nauru, Antilles and Niue.
The list also has names of Panama, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Turks and Caicos Islands and Vanuatu.
Â
http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/Business/ 11-trillion- parked-in- tax-havens/ articleshow/ 4356602.cms
Â
http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 23/13/42469606. pdf Countering offshore tax evasion: the role of the OECD
http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/ 32/45/42356522. pdf Overview on OECD work on harmful tax practices
Â
BJP must seek KGB papers
Ashok Malik  (Pioneer, Saturday, April 4, 2009)
In arguing that an investigation into Indian slush funds in Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other secret banking havens should be a priority for the next Government, the BJP has made a noteworthy recommendation. The quantum of Indian-origin money — political bribes, contractual paybacks, receipts against contraband taken out of the country, corporate embezzlement and so on — may be speculated upon. The modalities of finding it and claiming it on behalf of the law may be debated. Yet, the principle is unexceptionable.
There is, however, one other inquiry with international ramifications that the BJP must commit itself to, should it come to power on May 16. Indeed, it is the only party without the baggage and with the positioning to do this — to study the Indian links in the Mitrokhin Archive.
As is well known, the Mitrokhin papers are the largest repository of KGB documents ever removed from the Soviet Union/Russia. In 1992, Vasili Mitrokhin, a senior archivist at the KGB who had copied and pilfered thousands of top-secret files over the years, defected to the United Kingdom with his treasure.
The Mitrokhin Archive is in the custody of MI-6, the British external intelligence agency. A small, extremely sanitised portion of the KGB papers was published after vetting by London’s intelligence and political establishment as the Mitrokhin Archive I (1999) and the Mitrokhin Archive II (2005).
The first book dealt with the KGB’s network of spies, agents and front organisations in Europe and the West. Volume II described the phenomenon in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The second book devoted two chapters to India, which it called “the Third World country on which the KGB eventually concentrated most operational effort during the Cold War�.
The KGB, Mitrokhin Archive II alleged, routinely bribed Left and Congress politicians, including Ministers in Mrs Indira Gandhi’s Government. It bought secrets and paid retainers. The KGB funded election campaigns of chosen candidates and parties, including supporting the Congress in its years out of power (1977-79), and operated through a network of recruits in the intelligentsia, the media and the civil service, in addition to, of course, political proxies.
The Mitrokhin books were careful not to mention too many proper nouns, largely restricting themselves to naming people who were dead, or referring to KGB code names and broad descriptions of individuals and institutions. However, the chapters on India offer tantalising clues and often mention some names in other contexts, as if pointing the reader in the right direction.
Take this extract: “The Indian Embassy in Moscow was being penetrated by the KGB, using its usual varieties of the honey trap. The Indian diplomat PROKHOR was recruited, probably in the early 1950s, with the help of a female swallow, codenamed NEVEROVA, who presumably seduced him. The KGB was clearly pleased with the material which PROKHOR provided, which included on two occasions the Embassy codebook and deciphering tables, since in 1954 it increased his monthly payments from 1,000 to 4,000 rupees.�
PROKHOR is not identified. However, a pro-Soviet Indian diplomat who rose to the highest positions in South Block is quoted in the book in an otherwise harmless sentence. Old timers in Delhi have put two and two together and concluded that the gentleman — now dead — may have been PROKHOR.
Mitrokhin Archive II was published in September 2005, and much of what it contained in reference to India was reported in the media. So why is it relevant today?
The fact is the book was only a teaser trailer, all that was allowed to be shared with lay readers. MI-6 and the British Foreign Office have made it clear that friendly countries and intelligence agencies are free to request access to the Mitrokhin papers, or at least to those sections and dossiers that concern them.
The foreword to Mitrokhin Archive II says, “A report by the all-party British Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) reveals that a series of other Western intelligence agencies have also proved ‘extremely grateful’ for the numerous CI (counter-intelligen ce) leads provided by Mitrokhin’s material.�
Aside from Britain, the United States, Germany and Italy are among the countries that have used the KGB papers to uncover spies and traitors among their own people, in their Government and security systems.
Consider the response in India. When the Mitrokhin details became public three-and-a- half years ago, the Congress, the CPI(M) and the CPI combined to disparage them. Parliamentary discussion was stonewalled. Mr Anand Sharma, then the Congress spokesperson and now the Minister of State for External Affairs, even said, “There has been no precedent when fictional accounts are discussed in Parliament.�
Together as allies in 2005 — as they were as fellow travellers in the 1970s — the Congress and the Left joined forces to bury the Mitrokhin scandal. Among the major democracies, India is perhaps the only one that has not formally requested access to the Mitrokhin Archive and not asked MI-6 if the papers could help authorities in New Delhi identify those who were passing on information to Moscow, in return for monetary or other benefit.
Some of these people are gone but many may still be alive, living as respectable citizens, perhaps still attempting to determine the course of Indian public policy and diplomatic choices. It is also possible that most of them are just too old and living a quiet retirement. Either way, India deserves to know the truth — not necessarily to send every one of these people to prison, but to arrive at a proper closure to a disquieting chapter in its modern history.
A start can only be made if the Government of India writes to its British counterpart, asking it be allowed to study the Mitrokhin papers. There is, however, a conspiracy of silence. For obvious reasons, the Congress and the Left will not do it. The gaggle of opportunistic socialist and regional parties that straddle the UPA and the NDA will not be interested either. Only the BJP represents a political philosophy that had nothing to do with the KGBisation of India’s polity in the Cold War years.
That is why the BJP must promise that, should it win the election, it will begin the process of unravelling the truth hidden in the Mitrokhin Archive. Indian money needs to be redeemed from Swiss banks; so does Indian honour from KGB extension counters.
(malikashok@gmail. com) http://www.dailypio neer.com/ 167186/BJP- must-seek- KGB-papers. html
Â
BJP mulls black cash pardon
PIYA SINGH (Telegraph, Kolkata)Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â
Global tax havens: 70
Assets parked: $1.7 to 11.5 trillion
Indian black money: $200 to $500 billion
Preferred havens: Switzerland, Mauritius, Austria, Liechtenstein, Isle of Man and the Cayman Islands
April 3: If the BJP is voted to power, it could come out with an amnesty scheme to force tax dodgers to bring back the billions of dollars they have stashed away in Swiss banks and other tax havens around the world.
“The usual model is to offer an immunity on tax payments that can extend to six months,� said S. Gurumurthy, the chartered accountant who has been named a member of a task force formed by the BJP to help ferret out information about the cash mountain abroad.
If an amnesty scheme is offered, it will be only the second since the process of economic liberalisation began in 1991.
P. Chidambaram, who was the finance minister in the H.D. Deve Gowda government, had announced a voluntary disclosure of income scheme (VDIS) in the budget in 1997. The VDIS — which was operational between June and December 1997 — was one of the most successful black money schemes and had raised Rs 10,000 crore.
The BJP released its manifesto today which said: “We will take determined steps to bring back the money (estimated at Rs 25,000 crore and Rs 75,000 crore) illegally stashed in Swiss bank accounts and tax havens and use it for infrastructure development, housing, health and social welfare schemes.�
The manifesto added that if this sum was recovered, the government would be able to allocate Rs 4 crore to every Indian village.
The G20 has also announced a crackdown on tax havens, following which the Philippines, Uruguay, Costa Rica and the Malaysian territory of Labuan have been named the worst offenders. The four are usually not preferred by Indians. The G20 has also threatened to slap sanctions on havens that refuse to exchange information.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh endorsed the G20’s call yesterday but the Congress manifesto has been silent on the issue.
Along with Gurumurthy, the BJP named three other members to the task force: R. Vaidyanathan, a professor of finance at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore; Mahesh Jethmalani, a lawyer and the party’s candidate against Priya Dutt, and Ajit Doval, a national security expert. All of them have agreed to work voluntarily on this task force.
“India is the only country that has not taken an aggressive position on tax havens. They have not uttered a word against tax havens which means that they are happy with them,� Gurumurthy told The Telegraph.
Gurumurthy said the task force would try and determine how much money had been spirited abroad. He said Raymond Baker, a researcher on corruption and money laundering, had estimated that about $137 billion had been taken out of India between 2002 and 2006.
A study conducted by Baker’s organisation, Global Financial Integrity, and sponsored by the Ford Foundation reckoned that $27.3 billion was sucked out of the country every year.
“The task force is in touch with Raymond Baker and we are trying to work with him,� Gurumurthy said.
http://www.telegrap hindia.com/ 1090404/jsp/ frontpage/ story_10772682. jsp
London Cornerstone of Britain’s Anti-Terrorist Program
Source: IntelligenceOnline.com
02/04/2009
London Cornerstone of Britain’s Anti-Terrorist Program
The publication of Britain’s new anti-terrorism strategy in late March underscored the central role played by the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism.
Assigned to coordinating all of Britain’s anti-terrorism operations (see graph below), the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) is barely two years’ old. Since its inception the organization has been headed by Charles Farr, who rose through the ranks in Britain’s security establishment and could well be named head of MI6, the country’s foreign intelligence agency (IOL 578).Published on March 24, the new version of the anti-terrorist Contest strategy unveils the entire British system for the first time. Alongside government officials, security companies figure high on the totem pole, represented, as they are, by a Resilience Industry Suppliers Council (RISC). Headed by Stephen Phipson, who is also chief of Smiths Detection, RISK speaks for more than 2,000 British companies, among them giants like BAE Systems, Thales UK and Qinetiq, as well as trade associations (British Security Industry Association, Defence Manufacturers Association) and two think tanks (Chatham House and RUSI). The companies are seeking lucrative contracts for infrastructure protection, biometric equipment, NRBC detection gear and goods needed for protection at the Olympic Games in London in 2012.
Venezuela and Iran to Form Joint Companies and Bank
April 3rd 2009, by Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com
The Irani-Venezuelan Bank in Tehran (VTV) Mérida, April 3, 2009
(venezuelanalysis.com)-- Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez arrived in Teheran, Iran, on Wednesday night to deepen bilateral cooperation between the two countries, inaugurate a joint bank, and discuss the creation of bi-national mining companies.
On Thursday Chavez met with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential palace, and will likely spend Friday and part of Saturday in the country as well.
In his seventh visit to the country, Chavez and Ahmadinejad will discuss and revise the 205 bilateral agreements that the two countries have in areas such as food, energy, education, culture, science and technology.
“Our countries should strengthen their commercial alliance in order to free ourselves from global free trade and to create fair trade,” Chavez said.
Ahmadinejad agreed, “Now that the world is changing, bilateral relations between Iran and Venezuela should be a model of fraternal and constructive relationships for other countries of the world.”
On Friday Chavez will attend the inauguration of the Irani-Venezuelan bank, which the presidents say should aim to create an alternative and independent structure to the international financial system and would hopefully help alleviate the effects of the financial crisis.
Both countries are contributing an initial $US 100 million each out of a total of $US 600 million each.
“We’ve already named a vice president of the bank,” Chavez told the press.
“The big banks of the world fell to pieces, but here a bank is being born, and over there in South American another bank is being born, as in the Caribbean there is….the Bank of ALBA [Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas],” he said.
Iran and Venezuela are also evaluating the creation of two joint mining companies, one of which would be in Venezuela, and the other in Iran.
“We’ve already been working for years with the mining ministry of Iran. If you all know the amount of mining resources that we have discovered in the last few years you’d fall on your backs: gold, diamond, precious rocks and other minerals,” Chavez said.
“We, in the countries of the South, need to create some transnational companies that unite us, to confront the power of the transnationals of capitalism.”
Chavez also congratulated Iran, saying, “Today on the first of April is exactly 30 years since the national referendum here in Iran, in which the people were asked what regime they wanted, and 98% pronounced themselves in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We want to congratulate the people of Iran...for these thirty years of revolution.”
Guantanamo prisoners would be welcome in Venezuela
Before arriving in Iran, Chavez attended the Arab-South America Summit in Qatar, where he later talked on Al Jazeera TV.
In the interview he said the US run prison centre in Guantanamo bay, Cuba, is an expression of US imperialism and that Venezuela wouldn’t have any problems with receiving its prisoners.
Chavez called for the US government to return the territory in which it is run to Cuba.
On the show he also criticized US president Barack Obama and said that for the time being Venezuela wasn’t planning on re-establishing relations with Israel. However, he said he’d like to deepen relations with Egypt and to increase economic trade with it
Al Jazeera and Telesur (Television of the South) also signed a new cooperation agreement.
The Irani-Venezuelan Bank in Tehran (VTV) Mérida, April 3, 2009
(venezuelanalysis.com)-- Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez arrived in Teheran, Iran, on Wednesday night to deepen bilateral cooperation between the two countries, inaugurate a joint bank, and discuss the creation of bi-national mining companies.
On Thursday Chavez met with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the presidential palace, and will likely spend Friday and part of Saturday in the country as well.
In his seventh visit to the country, Chavez and Ahmadinejad will discuss and revise the 205 bilateral agreements that the two countries have in areas such as food, energy, education, culture, science and technology.
“Our countries should strengthen their commercial alliance in order to free ourselves from global free trade and to create fair trade,” Chavez said.
Ahmadinejad agreed, “Now that the world is changing, bilateral relations between Iran and Venezuela should be a model of fraternal and constructive relationships for other countries of the world.”
On Friday Chavez will attend the inauguration of the Irani-Venezuelan bank, which the presidents say should aim to create an alternative and independent structure to the international financial system and would hopefully help alleviate the effects of the financial crisis.
Both countries are contributing an initial $US 100 million each out of a total of $US 600 million each.
“We’ve already named a vice president of the bank,” Chavez told the press.
“The big banks of the world fell to pieces, but here a bank is being born, and over there in South American another bank is being born, as in the Caribbean there is….the Bank of ALBA [Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas],” he said.
Iran and Venezuela are also evaluating the creation of two joint mining companies, one of which would be in Venezuela, and the other in Iran.
“We’ve already been working for years with the mining ministry of Iran. If you all know the amount of mining resources that we have discovered in the last few years you’d fall on your backs: gold, diamond, precious rocks and other minerals,” Chavez said.
“We, in the countries of the South, need to create some transnational companies that unite us, to confront the power of the transnationals of capitalism.”
Chavez also congratulated Iran, saying, “Today on the first of April is exactly 30 years since the national referendum here in Iran, in which the people were asked what regime they wanted, and 98% pronounced themselves in favor of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We want to congratulate the people of Iran...for these thirty years of revolution.”
Guantanamo prisoners would be welcome in Venezuela
Before arriving in Iran, Chavez attended the Arab-South America Summit in Qatar, where he later talked on Al Jazeera TV.
In the interview he said the US run prison centre in Guantanamo bay, Cuba, is an expression of US imperialism and that Venezuela wouldn’t have any problems with receiving its prisoners.
Chavez called for the US government to return the territory in which it is run to Cuba.
On the show he also criticized US president Barack Obama and said that for the time being Venezuela wasn’t planning on re-establishing relations with Israel. However, he said he’d like to deepen relations with Egypt and to increase economic trade with it
Al Jazeera and Telesur (Television of the South) also signed a new cooperation agreement.
Tehran working to advance its space program
15:51 | 03/ 04/ 2009
MOSCOW. (Andrei Kislyakov, for RIA Novosti) - The international community, busy discussing the upcoming launch of a North Korean booster with a satellite, or possibly a warhead, did not notice Iran's announcement that its satellite had successfully completed its scientific mission after more than a month in orbit.
Iran put its first communications satellite, Omid (Hope), into a near-Earth orbit on February 2. The satellite was carried into orbit by an Iranian launch vehicle, Safir (Messenger).
Iran has the missile potential, based on the best achievements of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, for becoming a fully-fledged space power soon, and also for manufacturing strategic missiles.
After the successful launch on February 2, Reza Taghipour, head of Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization, mentioned their ambition to launch an astronaut into space before 2021. Iran's minister of communications said Tehran was working on seven types of satellites, including three high-orbit ones. It plans to orbit five satellites by 2010.
Iran has advanced a great deal in the field of missile and rocket technology. The Omid satellite orbited by the Safir booster will soon be followed by the Kaveshgyar (Explorer) rockets. The Western intelligence community has warned that Iran's successes in peaceful space exploration point to its expanded possibilities in the field of ballistic missiles.
Iran's missile industry is based on the Soviet RS-14 Scud and its modernized North Korean and Chinese versions. Iran used more than 300 Scud missiles it had bought from North Korea to create the Shahab-1 and -2 missiles in the 1990s, and launched their production at home by 1997. It is rumored that Iran is also manufacturing its Shahab-2 missiles in Syria.
Next it produced the Shahab-3 missile on the basis of North Korea's No Dong-1/A and No Dong-1/B missiles, which had possibly been created and modernized with Iran's financial assistance. The first successful launch of the Shahab-3 missile with a North Korean engine was made in July 2000. On September 22, 2003, Shahab-3 missiles mounted on mobile launchers took part in a military parade in Tehran.
Western analysts assume that the missile has a range of some 2,000 km (1,243 miles) and a payload of 700 kilograms, which qualifies it as a medium-range missile. In other words, it is a strategic missile. By early 2008, Iran presumably increased its payload to 1.3 tons without affecting its range.
Iran is currently working on solid-fuel ballistic missiles, Shahab-5 and Shahab-6, with a range of 3,000 (1,865 miles) and 5,000 km (3,108 miles), respectively. This means that Tehran is on the verge of creating intercontinental strategic missiles.
It is also developing the ground infrastructure for its missiles. Iran already has seven missile centers at Isfahan, Semnan, Shiraz, Sultanabad, Lavizan, Kuh-e Barjamali and Shahrud, as well as a host of smaller enterprises.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Andrei Kislyakov, for RIA Novosti) - The international community, busy discussing the upcoming launch of a North Korean booster with a satellite, or possibly a warhead, did not notice Iran's announcement that its satellite had successfully completed its scientific mission after more than a month in orbit.
Iran put its first communications satellite, Omid (Hope), into a near-Earth orbit on February 2. The satellite was carried into orbit by an Iranian launch vehicle, Safir (Messenger).
Iran has the missile potential, based on the best achievements of the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, for becoming a fully-fledged space power soon, and also for manufacturing strategic missiles.
After the successful launch on February 2, Reza Taghipour, head of Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization, mentioned their ambition to launch an astronaut into space before 2021. Iran's minister of communications said Tehran was working on seven types of satellites, including three high-orbit ones. It plans to orbit five satellites by 2010.
Iran has advanced a great deal in the field of missile and rocket technology. The Omid satellite orbited by the Safir booster will soon be followed by the Kaveshgyar (Explorer) rockets. The Western intelligence community has warned that Iran's successes in peaceful space exploration point to its expanded possibilities in the field of ballistic missiles.
Iran's missile industry is based on the Soviet RS-14 Scud and its modernized North Korean and Chinese versions. Iran used more than 300 Scud missiles it had bought from North Korea to create the Shahab-1 and -2 missiles in the 1990s, and launched their production at home by 1997. It is rumored that Iran is also manufacturing its Shahab-2 missiles in Syria.
Next it produced the Shahab-3 missile on the basis of North Korea's No Dong-1/A and No Dong-1/B missiles, which had possibly been created and modernized with Iran's financial assistance. The first successful launch of the Shahab-3 missile with a North Korean engine was made in July 2000. On September 22, 2003, Shahab-3 missiles mounted on mobile launchers took part in a military parade in Tehran.
Western analysts assume that the missile has a range of some 2,000 km (1,243 miles) and a payload of 700 kilograms, which qualifies it as a medium-range missile. In other words, it is a strategic missile. By early 2008, Iran presumably increased its payload to 1.3 tons without affecting its range.
Iran is currently working on solid-fuel ballistic missiles, Shahab-5 and Shahab-6, with a range of 3,000 (1,865 miles) and 5,000 km (3,108 miles), respectively. This means that Tehran is on the verge of creating intercontinental strategic missiles.
It is also developing the ground infrastructure for its missiles. Iran already has seven missile centers at Isfahan, Semnan, Shiraz, Sultanabad, Lavizan, Kuh-e Barjamali and Shahrud, as well as a host of smaller enterprises.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
April 02, 2009
Israel rushes to India's defense
Source: Asia Times Online
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Israel emerged as India's number one defense partner last week when it was revealed that New Delhi had signed a US$1.4 billion deal with the country to purchase a 70 kilometer shore-based and sea borne anti-missile air defense system.
This is among the bigger defense deals between the two countries and the biggest military joint venture by India with a foreign country, overtaking the India-Russia BrahMos cruise missile project.
A senior defense official said the total value of the deal was over $2 billion, with one portion valued at $600 million being hived off to
the state-controlled Defense Research and Development Organization.
This makes Israel India's biggest defense supplier, clocking over a billion dollars in new contracts in 2007 and 2008 to overtake Russia.
Russia has been supplying India with $875 million in defense equipment every year. Other main Indian defense partners are Sweden, Britain and France, with the United States an emerging competitor.
"We have a very special defense relationship with India," Israeli Major General Udi Shani, director of the Defense Ministry's Sibat export agency, was quoted as saying recently.
Last August, New Delhi inked a $2.5 billion deal with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) and Rafael to jointly develop a new and advanced version of the Spyder surface-to-air missile system.
In May this year, India should receive the first of three new Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) developed for the Indian Air Force by IAI. The three "eyes in the sky" Phalcons priced at $1.1 billion will be mounted on Russian-delivered Ilyushin-76 aircraft. The deal was inked in March 2004 and has been delayed due to problems in technical integration.
Talks are underway for the purchase of another three AWACS.
India also recently purchased aerostat radars from Israel to spot surreptitious guerilla attacks, such as the one in Mumbai last November where the attackers used dingy boats to infiltrate the city. That deal is valued at $600 million.
The radars will be stationed at strategic points along the western border to issue advance warning against incoming enemy aircraft and missiles.
It is estimated that in the past decade India and Israel have signed defense deals valued at over $10 billion. This is not going to slow down, either.
IAI officially announced the latest defense contract with India last week, more than a month after it was inked. In a statement the company said that "early disclosure was liable to cause material difficulties in execution of the contract, and even result in its cancelation".
There have been allegations of kickbacks in the India-Israel deal, which is a usual accusation that follows any big defense contract. Particularly vitriolic have been the anti-American, anti-Israeli left parties in India.
Both IAI and Rafael have been under federal investigation in India since 2006 for alleged irregularities relating to former defense minister George Fernandes, former navy chief Sushil Kumar and the purchase of a Barak anti-missile ship defense system six years ago. The issue is yet to be resolved.
Political meaning is being attached to the revelation of the sale, given that general elections in India are scheduled for next month. The Congress Party's coalition government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been under pressure to show evidence of stronger security measures in the wake of the Mumbai strikes.
The deal was signed on February 27 - right before the general elections were announced in India and the model code of conduct that debars government moves to implement decisions that may influence voters came into effect.
Security is one key electoral issue in the wake of repeated terror attacks in India in the past few years. However, most observers agree there is an emerging political and military consensus that India's security framework has to be shored up to guard against non-state players in Pakistan launching repeated attacks.
Following the Mumbai attacks that killed nearly 200 people, Indian intelligence agencies have been speaking about rogue terror elements in Pakistan firing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at Indian cities.
Last month, India conducted its third successful missile intercept test in Orissa, as part of an indigenous plan to build a defense system against incoming ballistic missiles by 2010, which is more powerful than the anti-missile system being procured from Israel.
An effective ballistic missile defense (BMD) system is considered to be a key weapon in thwarting threats of rogue elements firing stolen nuclear-tipped missiles at India from Pakistan or Bangladesh, a possibility heightened by the bold Mumbai strikes.
India has also been holding talks with the United States, Israel and Russia to hasten the BMD deployment in the past few weeks. The first BMD test was in November 2006, followed by another in December 2007.
After failing the first trial, the new version of the 290km-range supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, which apparently is capable of delivering nuclear warheads, was successfully test fired in Rajasthan's Pokhran range twice last month.
In the context of India's war against terror, Israel, with its expertise in radars and missiles, will be a key player.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. He can be reached at sidsri@yahoo.com)
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Israel emerged as India's number one defense partner last week when it was revealed that New Delhi had signed a US$1.4 billion deal with the country to purchase a 70 kilometer shore-based and sea borne anti-missile air defense system.
This is among the bigger defense deals between the two countries and the biggest military joint venture by India with a foreign country, overtaking the India-Russia BrahMos cruise missile project.
A senior defense official said the total value of the deal was over $2 billion, with one portion valued at $600 million being hived off to
the state-controlled Defense Research and Development Organization.
This makes Israel India's biggest defense supplier, clocking over a billion dollars in new contracts in 2007 and 2008 to overtake Russia.
Russia has been supplying India with $875 million in defense equipment every year. Other main Indian defense partners are Sweden, Britain and France, with the United States an emerging competitor.
"We have a very special defense relationship with India," Israeli Major General Udi Shani, director of the Defense Ministry's Sibat export agency, was quoted as saying recently.
Last August, New Delhi inked a $2.5 billion deal with Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI) and Rafael to jointly develop a new and advanced version of the Spyder surface-to-air missile system.
In May this year, India should receive the first of three new Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) developed for the Indian Air Force by IAI. The three "eyes in the sky" Phalcons priced at $1.1 billion will be mounted on Russian-delivered Ilyushin-76 aircraft. The deal was inked in March 2004 and has been delayed due to problems in technical integration.
Talks are underway for the purchase of another three AWACS.
India also recently purchased aerostat radars from Israel to spot surreptitious guerilla attacks, such as the one in Mumbai last November where the attackers used dingy boats to infiltrate the city. That deal is valued at $600 million.
The radars will be stationed at strategic points along the western border to issue advance warning against incoming enemy aircraft and missiles.
It is estimated that in the past decade India and Israel have signed defense deals valued at over $10 billion. This is not going to slow down, either.
IAI officially announced the latest defense contract with India last week, more than a month after it was inked. In a statement the company said that "early disclosure was liable to cause material difficulties in execution of the contract, and even result in its cancelation".
There have been allegations of kickbacks in the India-Israel deal, which is a usual accusation that follows any big defense contract. Particularly vitriolic have been the anti-American, anti-Israeli left parties in India.
Both IAI and Rafael have been under federal investigation in India since 2006 for alleged irregularities relating to former defense minister George Fernandes, former navy chief Sushil Kumar and the purchase of a Barak anti-missile ship defense system six years ago. The issue is yet to be resolved.
Political meaning is being attached to the revelation of the sale, given that general elections in India are scheduled for next month. The Congress Party's coalition government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been under pressure to show evidence of stronger security measures in the wake of the Mumbai strikes.
The deal was signed on February 27 - right before the general elections were announced in India and the model code of conduct that debars government moves to implement decisions that may influence voters came into effect.
Security is one key electoral issue in the wake of repeated terror attacks in India in the past few years. However, most observers agree there is an emerging political and military consensus that India's security framework has to be shored up to guard against non-state players in Pakistan launching repeated attacks.
Following the Mumbai attacks that killed nearly 200 people, Indian intelligence agencies have been speaking about rogue terror elements in Pakistan firing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles at Indian cities.
Last month, India conducted its third successful missile intercept test in Orissa, as part of an indigenous plan to build a defense system against incoming ballistic missiles by 2010, which is more powerful than the anti-missile system being procured from Israel.
An effective ballistic missile defense (BMD) system is considered to be a key weapon in thwarting threats of rogue elements firing stolen nuclear-tipped missiles at India from Pakistan or Bangladesh, a possibility heightened by the bold Mumbai strikes.
India has also been holding talks with the United States, Israel and Russia to hasten the BMD deployment in the past few weeks. The first BMD test was in November 2006, followed by another in December 2007.
After failing the first trial, the new version of the 290km-range supersonic BrahMos cruise missile, which apparently is capable of delivering nuclear warheads, was successfully test fired in Rajasthan's Pokhran range twice last month.
In the context of India's war against terror, Israel, with its expertise in radars and missiles, will be a key player.
Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. He can be reached at sidsri@yahoo.com)
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
April 01, 2009
Indian Experts review terror threats
Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090402/jsp/jharkhand/story_10760280.jsp
SUDHIR KUMAR MISHRA
Ranchi, April 1: A team of experts from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Special Protection Group (SPG) arrived in the state capital today to assess threat perceptions from Naxalites and Islamic fundamentalist forces, particularly Lashkar-e-Toiba (Let), in the wake of the general elections.
The security experts held a meeting with senior officials at the police headquarters to work out effective ways and means to face the challenges.
They are also likely to visit different parts of the state to evaluate the ground realities.
According to sources, several terrorist squads are believed to have entered the country with a mission to kill some top politicians during campaigns and disrupt the election process. Police suspect that a Let squad has entered Jharkhand too.
State director-general of police V.D. Ram has already directed the superintendents of police to ensure that the forces never moved in vehicles on kuchha roads.
An officer of the special branch said Naxalites are yet to begin their groundwork. “The rebels are either waiting to strike deals directly with potential candidates or something else is cooking in their minds,” the official added.
However, the police admitted that vague information was available on the presence of Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives in the state and tracking them was practically impossible.
Ironically, they seem to be banking on Naxalites to foil the nefarious designs of terrorists.
If the Maoists rise against the terrorists, the latter will never succeed in their mission in Jharkhand, pointed out a senior police official.
“The rebels should realise that there will be sympathy for BJP if the Islamic fundamentalist forces are able to prove their point during elections. And if the party comes to power, the Maoist organisations will face bigger threats from the official machinery,” said a senior official of the IB.
Never lower your guard, MHA tells 40 leaders
Express news service
Posted: Apr 02, 2009 at 0138 hrs IST
New Delhi: In the wake of intelligence reports that terrorist groups might try to target important political leaders during the elections, the Home Ministry has asked about 40 high-profile leaders to strictly adhere to the security drill prescribed for them and cooperate fully with the security agencies.
The Ministry has also written to the state governments asking them to ensure proper protection for these VIPs when they campaign in their respective states.
The 40 leaders, which include most of the NSG and SPG protectees, are said to be on the target of not just terrorist organisations but also of Naxalites and insurgent groups wanting to make their presence felt during the elections.
In a letter written on March 27, Home Minister P Chidambaram has advised all these leaders to follow the do’s and don’ts of the security arrangements made for them and stressed that it was better to err on the side of caution.
He said in case the leaders under threat had doubts over what security procedures needed to be followed, they were welcome to contact officials in the Home Ministry or even the Home Minister.
The ministry has also shared the information available with intelligence agencies on the threats posed to these leaders.
The intelligence agencies had last month picked up specific inputs which suggested that Terror groups were planning to attack popular politicians in the run-up to the elections with the aim of disrupting the election procedure in the country.
Chidambaram had recently also visited the border areas in Punjab and Rajasthan and urged the Border Security Force to step up its vigil in order to thwart expected attempts by infiltrators to enter the country ahead of the elections.
Security alert to Buddha
NISHIT DHOLABHAI
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090402/jsp/nation/story_10761285.jsp
New Delhi, April 1: The Centre has urged leaders to take precautions and co-operate with security personnel following inputs that 40 politicians, including Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, are targets of terror groups and Naxalites.
The advisory is in the form of a letter Union home minister P. Chidambaram wrote on March 27, saying the leaders should “take adequate measures, cooperate with security forces and share tour programmes and movement plans with central and state authorities during the election period”.
The threat from the Maoists is high in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa, the letter has said, adding the risk of strikes by Pakistan-based outfits is already omnipresent, more so after the attack on Mumbai in November last year.
Other than Bengal chief minister Bhattacharjee, the list includes defence minister A.K. Antony. Sources said the home ministry had written to the Kerala police chief to tighten security ahead of the defence minister’s visit to his native state this week.
“The ministry has taken steps to alert and sensitise the state governments responsible for the security of these (40) leaders in their areas,” a ministry official said.
The sources did not specify if the list of 40 included Varun Gandhi — now in jail under the National Security Act after his alleged hate speech and arson by his supporters — who has sought more security, citing “family history”.
A PTI report said Varun wrote a letter to Chidambaram on March 20, asking for more security. “In light of the current controversy (over the anti-Muslim speech), I would like to request that there be a review of the threat perception to me and my security status be accordingly upgraded,” Varun wrote.
“In view of the family history, I feel sure you will appreciate the gravity of the situation.”
Chidambaram replied the same day, saying the matter would be “looked into for appropriate action”.
SUDHIR KUMAR MISHRA
Ranchi, April 1: A team of experts from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and the Special Protection Group (SPG) arrived in the state capital today to assess threat perceptions from Naxalites and Islamic fundamentalist forces, particularly Lashkar-e-Toiba (Let), in the wake of the general elections.
The security experts held a meeting with senior officials at the police headquarters to work out effective ways and means to face the challenges.
They are also likely to visit different parts of the state to evaluate the ground realities.
According to sources, several terrorist squads are believed to have entered the country with a mission to kill some top politicians during campaigns and disrupt the election process. Police suspect that a Let squad has entered Jharkhand too.
State director-general of police V.D. Ram has already directed the superintendents of police to ensure that the forces never moved in vehicles on kuchha roads.
An officer of the special branch said Naxalites are yet to begin their groundwork. “The rebels are either waiting to strike deals directly with potential candidates or something else is cooking in their minds,” the official added.
However, the police admitted that vague information was available on the presence of Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives in the state and tracking them was practically impossible.
Ironically, they seem to be banking on Naxalites to foil the nefarious designs of terrorists.
If the Maoists rise against the terrorists, the latter will never succeed in their mission in Jharkhand, pointed out a senior police official.
“The rebels should realise that there will be sympathy for BJP if the Islamic fundamentalist forces are able to prove their point during elections. And if the party comes to power, the Maoist organisations will face bigger threats from the official machinery,” said a senior official of the IB.
Never lower your guard, MHA tells 40 leaders
Express news service
Posted: Apr 02, 2009 at 0138 hrs IST
New Delhi: In the wake of intelligence reports that terrorist groups might try to target important political leaders during the elections, the Home Ministry has asked about 40 high-profile leaders to strictly adhere to the security drill prescribed for them and cooperate fully with the security agencies.
The Ministry has also written to the state governments asking them to ensure proper protection for these VIPs when they campaign in their respective states.
The 40 leaders, which include most of the NSG and SPG protectees, are said to be on the target of not just terrorist organisations but also of Naxalites and insurgent groups wanting to make their presence felt during the elections.
In a letter written on March 27, Home Minister P Chidambaram has advised all these leaders to follow the do’s and don’ts of the security arrangements made for them and stressed that it was better to err on the side of caution.
He said in case the leaders under threat had doubts over what security procedures needed to be followed, they were welcome to contact officials in the Home Ministry or even the Home Minister.
The ministry has also shared the information available with intelligence agencies on the threats posed to these leaders.
The intelligence agencies had last month picked up specific inputs which suggested that Terror groups were planning to attack popular politicians in the run-up to the elections with the aim of disrupting the election procedure in the country.
Chidambaram had recently also visited the border areas in Punjab and Rajasthan and urged the Border Security Force to step up its vigil in order to thwart expected attempts by infiltrators to enter the country ahead of the elections.
Security alert to Buddha
NISHIT DHOLABHAI
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090402/jsp/nation/story_10761285.jsp
New Delhi, April 1: The Centre has urged leaders to take precautions and co-operate with security personnel following inputs that 40 politicians, including Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, are targets of terror groups and Naxalites.
The advisory is in the form of a letter Union home minister P. Chidambaram wrote on March 27, saying the leaders should “take adequate measures, cooperate with security forces and share tour programmes and movement plans with central and state authorities during the election period”.
The threat from the Maoists is high in Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Orissa, the letter has said, adding the risk of strikes by Pakistan-based outfits is already omnipresent, more so after the attack on Mumbai in November last year.
Other than Bengal chief minister Bhattacharjee, the list includes defence minister A.K. Antony. Sources said the home ministry had written to the Kerala police chief to tighten security ahead of the defence minister’s visit to his native state this week.
“The ministry has taken steps to alert and sensitise the state governments responsible for the security of these (40) leaders in their areas,” a ministry official said.
The sources did not specify if the list of 40 included Varun Gandhi — now in jail under the National Security Act after his alleged hate speech and arson by his supporters — who has sought more security, citing “family history”.
A PTI report said Varun wrote a letter to Chidambaram on March 20, asking for more security. “In light of the current controversy (over the anti-Muslim speech), I would like to request that there be a review of the threat perception to me and my security status be accordingly upgraded,” Varun wrote.
“In view of the family history, I feel sure you will appreciate the gravity of the situation.”
Chidambaram replied the same day, saying the matter would be “looked into for appropriate action”.
Quote of the Day: Anatoly Temkin on "Number Guy" Blog
"Numbers do not lie, it's the people who make wrong conclusions based on what they want to say and adjusting numbers to substantiate their point."
-- Dr.ANATOLY TEMKIN , Boston University
Commenting on Carl Bialik's Blog "NUMBER GUY" LINK http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/
About Number Guy
The Numbers Guy examines numbers in the news, business and politics. Some numbers are flat-out wrong or biased, while others are valid and help us make informed decisions. Carl Bialik tells the stories behind the stats, in daily updates on this blog and in his column published every other Friday in The Wall Street Journal. Carl, who holds a degree in mathematics and physics from Yale University, also cowrites The Daily Fix, a sports column on WSJ.com. He welcomes your comments at numbersguy@wsj.com. LINK http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/
ABOUT ANATOLY TEMKIN
Associate Chairman
Department of Computer Science
Boston University Metropolitan College Computer Science Department 808 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 251 Boston, MA 02215
E-mail: temkin@bu.edu Phone: (617) 353-2567
Department of Computer Science
Boston University Metropolitan College Computer Science Department 808 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 251 Boston, MA 02215
E-mail: temkin@bu.edu Phone: (617) 353-2567
WEBINAR ON LAW AND POLICY IN GLOBAL SERVICES
Pending U.S. Legislative Challenges to Global Services and Captives
A webinar, Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time U.S.
45 minutes only
Speakers:
William B. Bierce, Esq., Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. – outsourcing lawyer
Caren Z. Turner, Esq., Turner Govt. and Public Affairs – registered lobbyist and political analyst
Congressional staff, invited.
This webinar will identify and analyze a number of early indicators of the Obama Administration’s and the Democratic-controlled Congress’s policies that will have a major impact on buyers and sellers of outsourced and captive services, both domestically and offshore. In this seminar, you will hear about:
Pending legislation that could facilitate unionization and reduce outsourcing opportunities.
Executive Orders and Proclamations that may violate NAFTA and WTO obligations, and the potential impact on “free trade” and “protectionism” abroad.
Environmental legislation that could impair local manufacturing in the U.S.
Trends in Presidential and congressional policies affecting sourcing practices and costs.
Prognostications on passage of legislation and adoption of Presidential actions.
Strategies for risk management and development of new opportunities.
This webinar is by invitation only. Kindly contact mling@biercekenerson.com to express early interest. We will have a page on www.biercekenerson.com and www.outsourcing-law.com for eventual signups.
A webinar, Tuesday, April 28, 2009, 11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time U.S.
45 minutes only
Speakers:
William B. Bierce, Esq., Bierce & Kenerson, P.C. – outsourcing lawyer
Caren Z. Turner, Esq., Turner Govt. and Public Affairs – registered lobbyist and political analyst
Congressional staff, invited.
This webinar will identify and analyze a number of early indicators of the Obama Administration’s and the Democratic-controlled Congress’s policies that will have a major impact on buyers and sellers of outsourced and captive services, both domestically and offshore. In this seminar, you will hear about:
Pending legislation that could facilitate unionization and reduce outsourcing opportunities.
Executive Orders and Proclamations that may violate NAFTA and WTO obligations, and the potential impact on “free trade” and “protectionism” abroad.
Environmental legislation that could impair local manufacturing in the U.S.
Trends in Presidential and congressional policies affecting sourcing practices and costs.
Prognostications on passage of legislation and adoption of Presidential actions.
Strategies for risk management and development of new opportunities.
This webinar is by invitation only. Kindly contact mling@biercekenerson.com to express early interest. We will have a page on www.biercekenerson.com and www.outsourcing-law.com for eventual signups.
Samskrita Correspondence Course - Direct coaching assistance
SarvebhyaH NamaskaaraH!
You may be aware of the fact that Samskrita Bharati frequently conducts guidance coaching classes(contact classes) in Chennai, for those who have opted for the Correspondence Courses conducted by Samskrita Bharati (Tamilnadu) Trust, Rajapalayam. The following schedule lists the dates of such classes in Chennai upto and including July, 2009:
Month Date
April 12, 26
May 3
June 7, 14, 28
July 5, 12
Venue : Sri Sarada Vidyalaya Girls High School, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017.
Time : 10:00 AM – 01:00 PM
The dates for the examinations will be announced in due course.
Please avail of this opportunity of direct coaching assistance in case any of you or any of your friends/relatives are pursuing Samskrita study through correspondence.
Note : Pl note that fresh admissions to the first level ( Pravesha ) CLOSES IN APRIL, 2009.
Pranams to all Acharyas!
SB, Chennai
You may be aware of the fact that Samskrita Bharati frequently conducts guidance coaching classes(contact classes) in Chennai, for those who have opted for the Correspondence Courses conducted by Samskrita Bharati (Tamilnadu) Trust, Rajapalayam. The following schedule lists the dates of such classes in Chennai upto and including July, 2009:
Month Date
April 12, 26
May 3
June 7, 14, 28
July 5, 12
Venue : Sri Sarada Vidyalaya Girls High School, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600017.
Time : 10:00 AM – 01:00 PM
The dates for the examinations will be announced in due course.
Please avail of this opportunity of direct coaching assistance in case any of you or any of your friends/relatives are pursuing Samskrita study through correspondence.
Note : Pl note that fresh admissions to the first level ( Pravesha ) CLOSES IN APRIL, 2009.
Pranams to all Acharyas!
SB, Chennai
An England in India goes to the polls
THE RIGHT VIEW
1 Apr 2009, 1034 hrs IST, Tarun Vijay
After six decades of independence, India is virtually ruled by a lady who is originally a westerner and doesn’t have a command of any Indian
language unless supported by a written text in Roman. And she has become the only hope to bring back the remnants of what was once a grand old Congress party led by Mahatma Gandhi back to power through her speeches in broken Hindi addressed to India’s predominant rural voters.
She is credited with having helped the Congress win 145 Lok Sabha seats and 26.21% votes in elections held in 2000, became the head of a 219-member coalition drawn from 16 parties and ruled India from her home with Manmohan Singh acting as her nominee Prime Minister. So much so that an American embassy publication spread out her picture on one full page and Manmohan Singh was relegated to a corner passport size. It created embarrassment and corrections were made in later editions.
The flexibility of Indian voters, if one can describe this attribute modestly, is amazing. The west’s overpowering influence in recent times can be said to have begun in 1615, with a visit of Sir Thomas Roe, England's first official ambassador to India, who secured privileges for the East India Company from Jehangir, son of Akbar.
India would never be the same again.
The east, the far-east and the immediate neighbourhood, once such a hub of Indian cultural influence that it became known as Indochina, was turned to lesser importance and faded away from Indian priorities. It was only after five decades of independence that a look-east policy was devised but it still remains feeble compared with our western fixations.
The presence of a colonial power that set the cultural agenda too and gave new westward dreams of an upwardly mobile life to a common Indian drove the Indian journey and fixed our dreams to Vilayat.
It seriously affected the status of our languages. Once a nation that had the most scientific and ancient language, Sanskrit, perfect on parameters of grammar, vocabulary and phonetics, and had preserved the age-old reservoir of Hindu wisdom and scholarship – India was 80% literate before the British rule, with astounding contributions in astronomy, mathematics, life sciences, arts and theatre, literature, sea warfare, and mind-boggling wonders in architectural superiority, all attained in languages common Indians knew and spoke – India is run on a language that was never hers, was in fact imposed through coercion shutting the old and time-tested centres of Indian learning calling them as “dead, useless centres of obscurantism”.
The new contemporary rulers of any variety or colour or ideology, look at Sanskrit and other Indian languages with disdain and would never prescribe books of ancient wisdom like Vedas or the Upanishads to be taught in Indian schools under a heritage programme fearing loss of Muslim votes.
Bharat, the glorified “golden bird” famous in Arabic and Greek fables, has become a poor translation of Romanized western elitist ideas. An India, that’s what it is known as.
Though the world over our ancient books are highly respected as the gift of India, India and her politicians take them as merely Hindu scriptures, that may invite the wrath of the minorities if promoted through state apparatus and patronage. Though Sanskrit remains the language of solemnizing birth, marriage and ensuring a heaven-bound journey after death, an upwardly mobile elite of Gurgaon-Bangalore variety won’t have time or inclination to understand it. It’s of no use – no employment, no social status, no political benefit is gained through it.
In any elite circle of decision making, whether it is governance, media, arts and culture or literature, it’s simply elevating and profitable too, to shun speaking an Indian language and use English with a foreign accent to register a powerful presence and of course facilitate success. And more the American slang, the more “awfully impressive” it becomes.
Newspapers and magazines compete with each other to publish on their front pages any garbage churned out by any author recognized and awarded in Britain or New York, but never ever they would give that space and honour to an Indian language writer of greater eminence.
This change in the contours of Indian political scene and social behaviour has occurred so subtly that mostly it has been either ignored or taken as a natural phenomenon of modern progressivism and a sign of India surging ahead.
Indian rulers boast to have more English speaking people than the United Kingdom and invite foreign investments underlining “Sir, we have the largest number of work force that understands English”.
When an Indian launched a new expensive brand in undergarments, it was named Euro and the other one was Dollar. A “masses’ car” manufacturer, named it the way a foreigner would understand rather than an Indian.
We still love to call the rule of the imperialist British with a simple three-letter word: Raj. In Hindi Raj means the Rule. So those who propagated and accepted this usage for the British time in India, they wanted to assert that if there was anything that can be called as a Rule of Law, it was only during the British rule.
An Indian employee attired in dhoti-kurta is still not looked upon approvingly in India’s offices as an acceptable dress code and if he speaks English, his virtues would be described like this: though he dresses like a villager, he speaks fluent English, must be highly educated, you know.
Anything related to Indian villages is considered naturally backward, obscurantist and in south Delhi’s chic parlance “ethnic”. Indian judges love to adorn Victorian headgear and barristers and lawyers use the same old black coat and white pants while arguing, though they may be sweating profusely in an Indian summer. (Ironically Britain’s lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, felt last year that wigs contribute to the public view of judges as fusty and out of touch and that their wardrobe was, in fact, ridiculous).
To get admission to any area of a respectable vogue – from IAS to medicine – or seeking a driving license to a railway ticket issued through the internet, you must know English. At airports, tickets and boarding passes are all invariably in English, because the rulers are sure those who can afford air travel must be from an English-friendly environment. All medicines are labelled in that language of “acceptable” excellence and if a doctor, (I know a few) has his letterhead printed in Hindi, he makes’ news’, being an off-track, exceptional person.
But still he can’t write his prescription in a language that his patient understands. To be computer-savvy means to be English-friendly. This atrocious situation has denied access to the new technology to millions of Indian language speakers, who are still waiting for software that will help them use the “machine of progress”. No party has ever seriously tried to facilitate the “real masses” use information technology in their own languages.
From Kashmir to Kozhikode and Tirap to Tanakpur, English-speaking coaching centres and books and special training modules have come up. Even bus tickets are printed in English and the administration and political party offices work in that language of the colonialists whom our nationalist leaders once described as “looters, robbers and the wretched beasts who brought havoc on us and divided our motherland”. Our aircraft still exhibit two letters to denote their territory and they are VT. It means Viceroy’s Territory.
So, this India that quotes British examples to reinforce its debates on the Indian constitution, quotes British laws to explain Indian Acts, showcases British parliamentarian traditions to correct Indian parliament’s behaviour, and goes to the polls to elect a new government that would lead us to a new future.
This situation has influenced and changed our habits and world view. The great reservoir of Indian stories has been subtly replaced with Archie and Roald Dahl. Bedtime stories of grand ma, reflecting indigenous culture and world view through well-preserved oral traditions have almost vanished.
Indian newspapers publish only the western comic strips thus widening the perceptional gap with the east, which was always much closer to our cultural moors and worldview. The good, nice and admired faces and idioms and parameters of progress and scholarship are all transferred to New York, London and Sydney. Sunday papers’ marriage columns still show a great preference for “convent-educated girl fluent in English”.
If someone lists out the public issues of concern and the responses to them of the Anglicized elite and the rest, it will appear that the divide is too clear. It would be pronouncedly predictable. Like on Kashmiri Hindus, Ayodhya, religious conversions and jihad. The English speaking majority and the rest would represent two different worlds.
How is it changing India? Can it affect the age-old soul and fragrance so distinct and special that couldn’t be subdued during the onslaughts of last several centuries of foreign assaults?
The answer is no.
Like an old grand mansion, the old layers of Indian society may be showing some cracks in some precipices with aging de-plastered walls and faded colours as we see in Jaisalmer fort, but Indians have also shown an amazing talent to use the alien impositions to bolster the nationalist causes too.
If it was the social reform and a renaissance led by English-speaking Indian giants, it’s the new world of technology and science that’s being mastered by Indians on English wings. On the contrary some other religious groups missed the bus due to a fundamentalist rigidity and a late awakening.
The day when Indians will run India on the strength of Indian languages is still too far and not exactly on the agenda of even the Hindu nationalist political groups who have willy-nilly yielded to the prevalent importance of English.
But the real India is yet too far to be overwhelmed by this factor. English newspapers haven’t exceeded a daily combined circulation of 10 million while Indian language media sells 33 million copies a day. The Indian bazaar is still dominated by Indian languages and no party leader; however elitist he might be, can afford to seek votes in English. So the language of seeking peoples’ mandate remains Indian while the language of power centres has invariably become
English.
Though in some quarters, Sanskrit is seeing an amazing revival and currency, even in areas where Hindi is opposed for political reasons. The astounding success of Sanskrit Bharati, without having any state patronage, which is a case study for researchers, it still is miles away from having a principal space of trade and governance, a prerequisite for a language’s ascendancy to
power.
With this divide a new youthful India, 60% under 40 years of age, is gearing up to vote for her future.
(The author is director of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation)
1 Apr 2009, 1034 hrs IST, Tarun Vijay
After six decades of independence, India is virtually ruled by a lady who is originally a westerner and doesn’t have a command of any Indian
language unless supported by a written text in Roman. And she has become the only hope to bring back the remnants of what was once a grand old Congress party led by Mahatma Gandhi back to power through her speeches in broken Hindi addressed to India’s predominant rural voters.
She is credited with having helped the Congress win 145 Lok Sabha seats and 26.21% votes in elections held in 2000, became the head of a 219-member coalition drawn from 16 parties and ruled India from her home with Manmohan Singh acting as her nominee Prime Minister. So much so that an American embassy publication spread out her picture on one full page and Manmohan Singh was relegated to a corner passport size. It created embarrassment and corrections were made in later editions.
The flexibility of Indian voters, if one can describe this attribute modestly, is amazing. The west’s overpowering influence in recent times can be said to have begun in 1615, with a visit of Sir Thomas Roe, England's first official ambassador to India, who secured privileges for the East India Company from Jehangir, son of Akbar.
India would never be the same again.
The east, the far-east and the immediate neighbourhood, once such a hub of Indian cultural influence that it became known as Indochina, was turned to lesser importance and faded away from Indian priorities. It was only after five decades of independence that a look-east policy was devised but it still remains feeble compared with our western fixations.
The presence of a colonial power that set the cultural agenda too and gave new westward dreams of an upwardly mobile life to a common Indian drove the Indian journey and fixed our dreams to Vilayat.
It seriously affected the status of our languages. Once a nation that had the most scientific and ancient language, Sanskrit, perfect on parameters of grammar, vocabulary and phonetics, and had preserved the age-old reservoir of Hindu wisdom and scholarship – India was 80% literate before the British rule, with astounding contributions in astronomy, mathematics, life sciences, arts and theatre, literature, sea warfare, and mind-boggling wonders in architectural superiority, all attained in languages common Indians knew and spoke – India is run on a language that was never hers, was in fact imposed through coercion shutting the old and time-tested centres of Indian learning calling them as “dead, useless centres of obscurantism”.
The new contemporary rulers of any variety or colour or ideology, look at Sanskrit and other Indian languages with disdain and would never prescribe books of ancient wisdom like Vedas or the Upanishads to be taught in Indian schools under a heritage programme fearing loss of Muslim votes.
Bharat, the glorified “golden bird” famous in Arabic and Greek fables, has become a poor translation of Romanized western elitist ideas. An India, that’s what it is known as.
Though the world over our ancient books are highly respected as the gift of India, India and her politicians take them as merely Hindu scriptures, that may invite the wrath of the minorities if promoted through state apparatus and patronage. Though Sanskrit remains the language of solemnizing birth, marriage and ensuring a heaven-bound journey after death, an upwardly mobile elite of Gurgaon-Bangalore variety won’t have time or inclination to understand it. It’s of no use – no employment, no social status, no political benefit is gained through it.
In any elite circle of decision making, whether it is governance, media, arts and culture or literature, it’s simply elevating and profitable too, to shun speaking an Indian language and use English with a foreign accent to register a powerful presence and of course facilitate success. And more the American slang, the more “awfully impressive” it becomes.
Newspapers and magazines compete with each other to publish on their front pages any garbage churned out by any author recognized and awarded in Britain or New York, but never ever they would give that space and honour to an Indian language writer of greater eminence.
This change in the contours of Indian political scene and social behaviour has occurred so subtly that mostly it has been either ignored or taken as a natural phenomenon of modern progressivism and a sign of India surging ahead.
Indian rulers boast to have more English speaking people than the United Kingdom and invite foreign investments underlining “Sir, we have the largest number of work force that understands English”.
When an Indian launched a new expensive brand in undergarments, it was named Euro and the other one was Dollar. A “masses’ car” manufacturer, named it the way a foreigner would understand rather than an Indian.
We still love to call the rule of the imperialist British with a simple three-letter word: Raj. In Hindi Raj means the Rule. So those who propagated and accepted this usage for the British time in India, they wanted to assert that if there was anything that can be called as a Rule of Law, it was only during the British rule.
An Indian employee attired in dhoti-kurta is still not looked upon approvingly in India’s offices as an acceptable dress code and if he speaks English, his virtues would be described like this: though he dresses like a villager, he speaks fluent English, must be highly educated, you know.
Anything related to Indian villages is considered naturally backward, obscurantist and in south Delhi’s chic parlance “ethnic”. Indian judges love to adorn Victorian headgear and barristers and lawyers use the same old black coat and white pants while arguing, though they may be sweating profusely in an Indian summer. (Ironically Britain’s lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, felt last year that wigs contribute to the public view of judges as fusty and out of touch and that their wardrobe was, in fact, ridiculous).
To get admission to any area of a respectable vogue – from IAS to medicine – or seeking a driving license to a railway ticket issued through the internet, you must know English. At airports, tickets and boarding passes are all invariably in English, because the rulers are sure those who can afford air travel must be from an English-friendly environment. All medicines are labelled in that language of “acceptable” excellence and if a doctor, (I know a few) has his letterhead printed in Hindi, he makes’ news’, being an off-track, exceptional person.
But still he can’t write his prescription in a language that his patient understands. To be computer-savvy means to be English-friendly. This atrocious situation has denied access to the new technology to millions of Indian language speakers, who are still waiting for software that will help them use the “machine of progress”. No party has ever seriously tried to facilitate the “real masses” use information technology in their own languages.
From Kashmir to Kozhikode and Tirap to Tanakpur, English-speaking coaching centres and books and special training modules have come up. Even bus tickets are printed in English and the administration and political party offices work in that language of the colonialists whom our nationalist leaders once described as “looters, robbers and the wretched beasts who brought havoc on us and divided our motherland”. Our aircraft still exhibit two letters to denote their territory and they are VT. It means Viceroy’s Territory.
So, this India that quotes British examples to reinforce its debates on the Indian constitution, quotes British laws to explain Indian Acts, showcases British parliamentarian traditions to correct Indian parliament’s behaviour, and goes to the polls to elect a new government that would lead us to a new future.
This situation has influenced and changed our habits and world view. The great reservoir of Indian stories has been subtly replaced with Archie and Roald Dahl. Bedtime stories of grand ma, reflecting indigenous culture and world view through well-preserved oral traditions have almost vanished.
Indian newspapers publish only the western comic strips thus widening the perceptional gap with the east, which was always much closer to our cultural moors and worldview. The good, nice and admired faces and idioms and parameters of progress and scholarship are all transferred to New York, London and Sydney. Sunday papers’ marriage columns still show a great preference for “convent-educated girl fluent in English”.
If someone lists out the public issues of concern and the responses to them of the Anglicized elite and the rest, it will appear that the divide is too clear. It would be pronouncedly predictable. Like on Kashmiri Hindus, Ayodhya, religious conversions and jihad. The English speaking majority and the rest would represent two different worlds.
How is it changing India? Can it affect the age-old soul and fragrance so distinct and special that couldn’t be subdued during the onslaughts of last several centuries of foreign assaults?
The answer is no.
Like an old grand mansion, the old layers of Indian society may be showing some cracks in some precipices with aging de-plastered walls and faded colours as we see in Jaisalmer fort, but Indians have also shown an amazing talent to use the alien impositions to bolster the nationalist causes too.
If it was the social reform and a renaissance led by English-speaking Indian giants, it’s the new world of technology and science that’s being mastered by Indians on English wings. On the contrary some other religious groups missed the bus due to a fundamentalist rigidity and a late awakening.
The day when Indians will run India on the strength of Indian languages is still too far and not exactly on the agenda of even the Hindu nationalist political groups who have willy-nilly yielded to the prevalent importance of English.
But the real India is yet too far to be overwhelmed by this factor. English newspapers haven’t exceeded a daily combined circulation of 10 million while Indian language media sells 33 million copies a day. The Indian bazaar is still dominated by Indian languages and no party leader; however elitist he might be, can afford to seek votes in English. So the language of seeking peoples’ mandate remains Indian while the language of power centres has invariably become
English.
Though in some quarters, Sanskrit is seeing an amazing revival and currency, even in areas where Hindi is opposed for political reasons. The astounding success of Sanskrit Bharati, without having any state patronage, which is a case study for researchers, it still is miles away from having a principal space of trade and governance, a prerequisite for a language’s ascendancy to
power.
With this divide a new youthful India, 60% under 40 years of age, is gearing up to vote for her future.
(The author is director of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation)
March 31, 2009
JIHADI ATTACK ON MANAWAN POLICE ACADEMY IN LAHORE AREA
B.RAMAN
The commando-style suicidal raid by a group of unidentified terrorists into the heavily-guarded Police Academy at Manawan in the Lahore area on March 30, 2009, should be of concern to India and the rest of the international community for two reasons. Twenty police personnel are reported to have been killed in the raid into the police academy and its occupation by a group of 10 to 12 terrorists. The occupation lasted seven hours before the para-military forces intervened and terminated it. According to the Pakistani authorities, four terrorists died and six have been captured.
2. The first reason is the renewed use by the Pakistan-based terrorists of the old modus operandi of commando style swarm attacks with hand-held weapons. The first of these attacks was seen in Mumbai from November 26 to 29,2008, the second in Kabul on February 11,2009,and the third on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3,2009. The fourth has now been seen in the Lahore area at Manawan, about 12 kms from the Indian border in the Wagah sector. While the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) of Pakistan was found to have been responsible for the Mumbai attack, the Afghan and Pakistani authorities have not been able to establish the identity of the organisation or organisations behind the Kabul and the March 3 Lahore attacks. Rehman Malik, the Pakistani Internal Security Adviser, has voiced the suspicion that the Pakistani Taliban must have been responsible for the Manawan attack. Although the Pakistani authorities claim to have arrested six of those involved in the Manawan attack, they have not yet been able to establish their identity.
3. The second reason for concern arises from the possibility that if it was so easy for a group of 10 to 12 terrorists wearing police uniforms and wielding assault rifles to raid and occupy for seven hours a heavily-guarded establishment like the Police Academy in the Lahore area, it should be equally easy for a similar group to raid and occupy a Pakistani nuclear establishment. The terrorists have repeatedly seen in Kabul and Lahore how easy it is to surprise and overwhem at least temporarily the security personnel guarding the buildings targeted by them. More such incidents involving a similar MO are to be apprehended. We in India cannot remain complacent thinking wishfully that what happened in Lahore cannot happen in India. It can--- and it did in Mumbai.
4. However, it must be said to the credit of the Indian security forces that commando-style attacks with hand-held weapons on hard, heavily-guarded targets have invariably been beaten back by the security forces guarding them. One could cite as examples the unsuccessful terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi in December,2001, on the Akshardam Temple in Ahmedabad in September,2002, and on the training centre of the Central Reserve Police Force in Rampur in Uttar Pradesh in January,2008. The terrorists succeeded temporarily in Mumbai because the buildings targeted by them were private establishments, which were soft targets with no protection of trained security forces.
5.The only similarity between the Mumbai attack and the Manawan attack is the resort by the terrorists to commando-style suicidal attacks. There are some differences. The first difference is that at Mumbai --- as subsequently in Kabul--- the terrorists attacked multiple targets, whereas in Lahore on March 3 and in Manawan on March 30, the terrorists attacked a single target. The second difference is that at Mumbai the terrorists attacked innocent civilians, including foreigners, in unprotected soft areas, but in Kabul and Manawan, the terrorists attacked heavily protected public servants---- the personnel of the jail department at Kabul and policemen and polifce cadets at Manawan. The Sri Lankan cricketeers, though civilians, were heavily protected. Despite this, the terrorists managed to attack them and get away.
6. It should be of great concern to the international community that none of the major terrorist strikes of the last two years in Pakistan have been successfully detected by the Pakistani intelligence and police though they claimed to have identified the suspects and arrested some of them. Among the major undetected cases are the unsuccessful attempt to kill Benazir Bhutto at Karachi on October 18,2007, her assassination at Rawalpindi on December 27,2007, the explosion in the Marriott Hotel of Islamabad in September,2008, and the March 3 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team at Lahore.
7. Is this string of undetected major cases merely an indicator of police incompetence or , more ominously, is this also due to the complicity of elements from the Police and the military-intelligence establishment with the perpetrators of the attacks? (30-3-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The commando-style suicidal raid by a group of unidentified terrorists into the heavily-guarded Police Academy at Manawan in the Lahore area on March 30, 2009, should be of concern to India and the rest of the international community for two reasons. Twenty police personnel are reported to have been killed in the raid into the police academy and its occupation by a group of 10 to 12 terrorists. The occupation lasted seven hours before the para-military forces intervened and terminated it. According to the Pakistani authorities, four terrorists died and six have been captured.
2. The first reason is the renewed use by the Pakistan-based terrorists of the old modus operandi of commando style swarm attacks with hand-held weapons. The first of these attacks was seen in Mumbai from November 26 to 29,2008, the second in Kabul on February 11,2009,and the third on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore on March 3,2009. The fourth has now been seen in the Lahore area at Manawan, about 12 kms from the Indian border in the Wagah sector. While the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) of Pakistan was found to have been responsible for the Mumbai attack, the Afghan and Pakistani authorities have not been able to establish the identity of the organisation or organisations behind the Kabul and the March 3 Lahore attacks. Rehman Malik, the Pakistani Internal Security Adviser, has voiced the suspicion that the Pakistani Taliban must have been responsible for the Manawan attack. Although the Pakistani authorities claim to have arrested six of those involved in the Manawan attack, they have not yet been able to establish their identity.
3. The second reason for concern arises from the possibility that if it was so easy for a group of 10 to 12 terrorists wearing police uniforms and wielding assault rifles to raid and occupy for seven hours a heavily-guarded establishment like the Police Academy in the Lahore area, it should be equally easy for a similar group to raid and occupy a Pakistani nuclear establishment. The terrorists have repeatedly seen in Kabul and Lahore how easy it is to surprise and overwhem at least temporarily the security personnel guarding the buildings targeted by them. More such incidents involving a similar MO are to be apprehended. We in India cannot remain complacent thinking wishfully that what happened in Lahore cannot happen in India. It can--- and it did in Mumbai.
4. However, it must be said to the credit of the Indian security forces that commando-style attacks with hand-held weapons on hard, heavily-guarded targets have invariably been beaten back by the security forces guarding them. One could cite as examples the unsuccessful terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament House in New Delhi in December,2001, on the Akshardam Temple in Ahmedabad in September,2002, and on the training centre of the Central Reserve Police Force in Rampur in Uttar Pradesh in January,2008. The terrorists succeeded temporarily in Mumbai because the buildings targeted by them were private establishments, which were soft targets with no protection of trained security forces.
5.The only similarity between the Mumbai attack and the Manawan attack is the resort by the terrorists to commando-style suicidal attacks. There are some differences. The first difference is that at Mumbai --- as subsequently in Kabul--- the terrorists attacked multiple targets, whereas in Lahore on March 3 and in Manawan on March 30, the terrorists attacked a single target. The second difference is that at Mumbai the terrorists attacked innocent civilians, including foreigners, in unprotected soft areas, but in Kabul and Manawan, the terrorists attacked heavily protected public servants---- the personnel of the jail department at Kabul and policemen and polifce cadets at Manawan. The Sri Lankan cricketeers, though civilians, were heavily protected. Despite this, the terrorists managed to attack them and get away.
6. It should be of great concern to the international community that none of the major terrorist strikes of the last two years in Pakistan have been successfully detected by the Pakistani intelligence and police though they claimed to have identified the suspects and arrested some of them. Among the major undetected cases are the unsuccessful attempt to kill Benazir Bhutto at Karachi on October 18,2007, her assassination at Rawalpindi on December 27,2007, the explosion in the Marriott Hotel of Islamabad in September,2008, and the March 3 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team at Lahore.
7. Is this string of undetected major cases merely an indicator of police incompetence or , more ominously, is this also due to the complicity of elements from the Police and the military-intelligence establishment with the perpetrators of the attacks? (30-3-09)
(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 )
March 30, 2009
Is mod se jaate hain
Movie : Aandhi
Music Director : R.D Burman
LYRICS
Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Kuch Sust Kadam Raste Kuchh Tez Qadam Raahen
Patthar Ki Haveli Ko Shishe Ke Gharaundon Men
Tinakon Ke Nasheman Tak Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Aandhi Ki Tarahu Dakar Ik Raah Guzarati Hai
Sharamaati Hui Koi Qadamon Se Utarati Hai
In Reshami Raahon Men Ik Raah To Vo Hogi
Tum Tak Jo Pahunchati Hai Is Mod Se Jaati Hai
Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Ik Dur Se Aati Hai Paas Aake Palatati Hai
Ik Raah Akeli Si Rukati Hai Na Chalati Hai
Ye Sochake Baithi Hun Ik Raah To Vo Hogi
Tum Tak Jo Pahunchati Hai Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Kuchh Sust Qadam Raste Kuchh Tez Qadam Raahen
Patthar Ki Haveli Ko Shiishe Ke Gharondon Men
Tinakon Ke Nasheman Tak Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
Is Mod Se Jaate Hain
March 29, 2009
BUSH WINE IN OBAMA BOTTLE
B.RAMAN
President Barack Obama's new comprehensive Af-Pak strategy unveiled on March 27,2009, to deal with a mix of cancerous problems might impress and enthuse the new Internet generation with which Obama feels comortable, but not Indian professionals in terrorism with their feet firmly on the ground in this region. These problems arise from the continuing old Islamic insurgency of the 1980s vintage in Afghanistan, the new post-Lal Masjid raid Islamic insurgency in Pakistan, the continuing jihadi terrorism with many faces--- anti- West, anti-Indian, anti-Afghan, anti-Israeli, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-infidels and anti-apostates -- from sanctuaries and breeding grounds in Pakistan and the continuing spread of radical ideas justifying the use of terrorism from the madrasas of Pakistan
2. Former President George Bush left for Obama a bleeding stalemate with no end in sight. As a descriptive analysis of the kind of situation in the Af-Pak region inherited by him from Bush, Obama's new strategic broth to which many cooks have contributed, has shown a clear understanding of the problems confronting him in this region. Bush and his advisers were not as articulate as Obama and his advisers are and not as word-smart, but they too had come to a similar conclusion though not in as smart a language. Their conclusion was: Pakistan is the source of the plethora of problems faced in the region and unless and until that source is tackled effectively the bleeding will continue.
3. Obama and his advisers suffer from the same prescriptive deficiency as their predecessors. This deficiency arises from their tendency to mix facts with illusions. The facts were as clear to Bush and his advisers as they are now to Obama and his advisers. These are the existence in the Pakistani territory of the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda, the Pashtun Taliban and the Punjabi Taliban organisations with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) in the forefront and the role of the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in nursing them to serve what they perceive as Pakistan's strategic interests.
4. The prescriptive part of Obama's strategy is as full of illusions as the strategy of Bush was. There is a common root cause for the illusions of the two Administrations. The root cause is their inability to understand that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has convinced itself that Pakistan, which had lost its strategic relevance in the immediate aftermath of the end of the cold war,has acquired a new strategic importance.This is thanks to the terrorists of various hues operating from its territory and its nuclear arsenal. The continued existence of these terrorists is in its interest.Action against terrorism when unavoidable, support for terrorism when possible. That is its policy.It has been using its nuclear arsenal not only in an attempt to intimidate India and deter it from retaliating for terrorist strikes in Indian territory, but also to deter the US and the rest of the West from exercising too much pressure on it to deal with the terrorist sanctuaries in its territory.
5.Unless the mind of the Pakistani military and intelligence officers is disabused of this belief and they are made to co-operate with the international community in destroying the terrorist infrastructure in its territory, no strategy is going to work in ending jihadi terrorism bred in Pakistan. The major deficiency in the prescriptive analysis of Obama arises from his naive assumption that Pakistan can be made to co-operate more effectively against terrorism through a basket of incentives---- more military and economic assistance, more training, an emphasis on the continuing importance of Pakistan even after the war on terrorism is over etc.
6. Bush too hailed Pakistan as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism and provided it with various lollipops--- over US$ 10 billion in military and economic aid since 9/11, dual-use weapons and equipment which could be used against the terrorists as well as against India and a willingness to close the eyes to Pakistan's sins of commission and omission against India so long as it acted against terrorism directed at the US. These lollipops failed to make the regime of Pervez Musharraf co-operate sincerely against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. These incentives could not prevent the Neo Taliban of Afghanistan from staging a spectacular come-back from sanctuaries in Pakistan and Al Qaeda and its associates from organising acts of terrorism in different parts of the world.
7. The lessons from the failure of the strategy of Bush were: Firstly, a policy based only on incentives will not work in the case of an insincere state such as Pakistan. Secondly, a policy which makes a distinction between terrorism directed against the US and terrorism directed against India and the rest of the world will be ineffectve. Thirdly, the fear of exercising too much pressure on Pakistan lest the State collapse and its nuclear arsenal fall into jihadi hands is exploited by Pakistan to prevent the ultimate success of the war against terrorism.
8.One was hoping----on the basis of the statements by him during his election campaign--- that Obama would have factored these lessons into the formulation of his new strategy. Surprisingly, he has not. The same old policy of incentives and nothing but incentives is sought to be pursued under the garb of a so-called new strategy. The only new feature is the emphasis on the benchmarks of implementation which will determine the continued availability of the incentives to Pakistan at every stage. The only disincentive with which Pakistan has been confronted is the risk of the incentives drying up if it is seen as dragging its feet in its co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
9. Obama's strategy ---like the one of his predecessor--- is marked by a fear of punishing Pakistan if it does not change its policy of using terrorists to advance its own strategic agenda. The reluctance to punish Pakistan if it continues to be insincere in dealing with terrorism originating from its territory arises from the fear that too much pressure on Pakistan and a policy of punitive measures might push Pakistan into the arms of the jihadis or might result in a collapse of the Pakistani State with unpredictable consequences.The US must rid itself of this fear and make it clear to Pakistan that, if the worst comes to the worst, the world is prepared to face the eventuality of a failed Pakistan. A failed Pakistan may be a disaster for the people of Pakistan, but not necessarily for the rest of the world.
10. It is important to constitute a contact group to work out alternative strategies with incentives as well as disincentives, with rewards as well as punishments. Such a contact group must be only of the victims of terrorism. A contact group, which seeks to bring together the victims of terrorism as well as the perpetrator, will be a non-starter.
11. Obama's strategy has three components--- a counter-insurgency component for Afghanistan, a counter- terrorism component for use in Pakistan and a counter-radicalisation component for use in the entire Af-Pak region. It is a mix of military and political measures. While the military measures will be largely implemented by the US and other NATO powers plus Australia, the regional role of countries such as India, China and Iran is sought to be restricted to the political component. They will have no say in the way the military measures are implemented.
12. The US expectations that the international community will co-operate in implementing the unilaterally worked out US strategy can be belied because the strategy offers no end in sight to the wave of terrorism of Pakistani origin faced by them. This is particularly true of India. Even though the strategy projects Al Qaeda and its associates operating from sanctuaries in Pakistan as posing a threat to the world as a whole, its objective is limited to preventing another 9/11 in US territory mounted from this region. It does not pay equal attention to the concerns of India and other countries. The strategy is, therefore, unlikely to excite professionals in India. (30-3-09)
(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 )
President Barack Obama's new comprehensive Af-Pak strategy unveiled on March 27,2009, to deal with a mix of cancerous problems might impress and enthuse the new Internet generation with which Obama feels comortable, but not Indian professionals in terrorism with their feet firmly on the ground in this region. These problems arise from the continuing old Islamic insurgency of the 1980s vintage in Afghanistan, the new post-Lal Masjid raid Islamic insurgency in Pakistan, the continuing jihadi terrorism with many faces--- anti- West, anti-Indian, anti-Afghan, anti-Israeli, anti-Russian, anti-Chinese, anti-infidels and anti-apostates -- from sanctuaries and breeding grounds in Pakistan and the continuing spread of radical ideas justifying the use of terrorism from the madrasas of Pakistan
2. Former President George Bush left for Obama a bleeding stalemate with no end in sight. As a descriptive analysis of the kind of situation in the Af-Pak region inherited by him from Bush, Obama's new strategic broth to which many cooks have contributed, has shown a clear understanding of the problems confronting him in this region. Bush and his advisers were not as articulate as Obama and his advisers are and not as word-smart, but they too had come to a similar conclusion though not in as smart a language. Their conclusion was: Pakistan is the source of the plethora of problems faced in the region and unless and until that source is tackled effectively the bleeding will continue.
3. Obama and his advisers suffer from the same prescriptive deficiency as their predecessors. This deficiency arises from their tendency to mix facts with illusions. The facts were as clear to Bush and his advisers as they are now to Obama and his advisers. These are the existence in the Pakistani territory of the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda, the Pashtun Taliban and the Punjabi Taliban organisations with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) in the forefront and the role of the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in nursing them to serve what they perceive as Pakistan's strategic interests.
4. The prescriptive part of Obama's strategy is as full of illusions as the strategy of Bush was. There is a common root cause for the illusions of the two Administrations. The root cause is their inability to understand that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has convinced itself that Pakistan, which had lost its strategic relevance in the immediate aftermath of the end of the cold war,has acquired a new strategic importance.This is thanks to the terrorists of various hues operating from its territory and its nuclear arsenal. The continued existence of these terrorists is in its interest.Action against terrorism when unavoidable, support for terrorism when possible. That is its policy.It has been using its nuclear arsenal not only in an attempt to intimidate India and deter it from retaliating for terrorist strikes in Indian territory, but also to deter the US and the rest of the West from exercising too much pressure on it to deal with the terrorist sanctuaries in its territory.
5.Unless the mind of the Pakistani military and intelligence officers is disabused of this belief and they are made to co-operate with the international community in destroying the terrorist infrastructure in its territory, no strategy is going to work in ending jihadi terrorism bred in Pakistan. The major deficiency in the prescriptive analysis of Obama arises from his naive assumption that Pakistan can be made to co-operate more effectively against terrorism through a basket of incentives---- more military and economic assistance, more training, an emphasis on the continuing importance of Pakistan even after the war on terrorism is over etc.
6. Bush too hailed Pakistan as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism and provided it with various lollipops--- over US$ 10 billion in military and economic aid since 9/11, dual-use weapons and equipment which could be used against the terrorists as well as against India and a willingness to close the eyes to Pakistan's sins of commission and omission against India so long as it acted against terrorism directed at the US. These lollipops failed to make the regime of Pervez Musharraf co-operate sincerely against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. These incentives could not prevent the Neo Taliban of Afghanistan from staging a spectacular come-back from sanctuaries in Pakistan and Al Qaeda and its associates from organising acts of terrorism in different parts of the world.
7. The lessons from the failure of the strategy of Bush were: Firstly, a policy based only on incentives will not work in the case of an insincere state such as Pakistan. Secondly, a policy which makes a distinction between terrorism directed against the US and terrorism directed against India and the rest of the world will be ineffectve. Thirdly, the fear of exercising too much pressure on Pakistan lest the State collapse and its nuclear arsenal fall into jihadi hands is exploited by Pakistan to prevent the ultimate success of the war against terrorism.
8.One was hoping----on the basis of the statements by him during his election campaign--- that Obama would have factored these lessons into the formulation of his new strategy. Surprisingly, he has not. The same old policy of incentives and nothing but incentives is sought to be pursued under the garb of a so-called new strategy. The only new feature is the emphasis on the benchmarks of implementation which will determine the continued availability of the incentives to Pakistan at every stage. The only disincentive with which Pakistan has been confronted is the risk of the incentives drying up if it is seen as dragging its feet in its co-operation in the fight against terrorism.
9. Obama's strategy ---like the one of his predecessor--- is marked by a fear of punishing Pakistan if it does not change its policy of using terrorists to advance its own strategic agenda. The reluctance to punish Pakistan if it continues to be insincere in dealing with terrorism originating from its territory arises from the fear that too much pressure on Pakistan and a policy of punitive measures might push Pakistan into the arms of the jihadis or might result in a collapse of the Pakistani State with unpredictable consequences.The US must rid itself of this fear and make it clear to Pakistan that, if the worst comes to the worst, the world is prepared to face the eventuality of a failed Pakistan. A failed Pakistan may be a disaster for the people of Pakistan, but not necessarily for the rest of the world.
10. It is important to constitute a contact group to work out alternative strategies with incentives as well as disincentives, with rewards as well as punishments. Such a contact group must be only of the victims of terrorism. A contact group, which seeks to bring together the victims of terrorism as well as the perpetrator, will be a non-starter.
11. Obama's strategy has three components--- a counter-insurgency component for Afghanistan, a counter- terrorism component for use in Pakistan and a counter-radicalisation component for use in the entire Af-Pak region. It is a mix of military and political measures. While the military measures will be largely implemented by the US and other NATO powers plus Australia, the regional role of countries such as India, China and Iran is sought to be restricted to the political component. They will have no say in the way the military measures are implemented.
12. The US expectations that the international community will co-operate in implementing the unilaterally worked out US strategy can be belied because the strategy offers no end in sight to the wave of terrorism of Pakistani origin faced by them. This is particularly true of India. Even though the strategy projects Al Qaeda and its associates operating from sanctuaries in Pakistan as posing a threat to the world as a whole, its objective is limited to preventing another 9/11 in US territory mounted from this region. It does not pay equal attention to the concerns of India and other countries. The strategy is, therefore, unlikely to excite professionals in India. (30-3-09)
(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 )
Link between global dimming and warming baffles scientists
19:45 | 26/ 03/ 2009
MOSCOW. (Andrei Kislyakov, for RIA Novosti) - The latest research by European scientists, climatologists and astronomers suggests that the so-called global dimming, or the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s, is a major factor affecting climate change around the world.
The European scientific community offers different interpretations of this phenomenon, a fact that gives no reason for optimism. In other words, the jury is out over the positive and negative aspects of global dimming.
The whole world has been discussing global dimming for a long time. The latest findings by British scientists, mentioned in The Guardian newspaper, suggest that the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has dwindled by 20% over the past few years.
U.S. experts who have been measuring solar-radiation volumes for over 50 years say the amount of direct irradiance reaching the surface of our planet has shrunk by 10% between the late 1950s and the early 1990s. Some regions of the world, including Asia and Europe, get even less sunlight. Hong Kong and the former Soviet republics receive 37% and 20% less solar energy, respectively.
Many analysts base this problem on humankind's endless efforts to transform the world.
Alexei Dmitriyev, a Russian professor and eco-geologist, blames the phenomenon on cosmic processes. However, Professor Dmitriyev, who has used logical-mathematical analysis to study Earth-space interaction, claims that space processes are changing the terrestrial atmosphere and that of other planets in the Solar System.
NASA experts who had published the relevant data in June 1999 agree that the Solar System has now entered a hydrogen bubble. Greater hydrogen content in interplanetary space and all over the Solar System expedites substance, energy and information exchanges between the Sun and the planets.
The Earth's atmosphere constantly receives additional energy and substances. This causes all present-day global changes, including global dimming.
British scientists say global dimming is fraught with serious consequences for human civilization. This process could wipe out all plant life on the Earth. Power generating facilities would also burn up much more fuel than they do today. Increased carbon dioxide emissions would increase the greenhouse effect and cause additional global warming.
Swiss scientists believe that global dimming is now coming to an end, and that this will cause disastrous consequences for the global climate. They are convinced that only this dimming phenomenon hinders the greenhouse effect and global warming.
Several previous independent studies have revealed that the Earth's surface now receives much less sunlight than before, and that this process had begun throughout the 1960s, to say the least. This process was offset by global warming, making it possible to underestimate the greenhouse effect's scale. And now global dimming is coming to an end.
The results of several new studies conducted by experts from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, show that in the 1980s global dimming began slowing down and has stopped completely since the 1990s.
Worst of all, a "brightening" trend has started. This corresponds to cloud structure changes and the extent of atmospheric pollution, the two main factors influencing the amount of solar light that can reach the terrestrial surface. Scientists say this process will soon cause undesirable consequences.
In addition, scientists believe that by the 1980s global dimming had partially offset the greenhouse effect, which was responsible for the dimming; however, this dimming no longer influences the greenhouse effect, experts say. This is also proved by the fact that the greenhouse effect has increased since the 1990s. Unbridled contributions to global warming may raise global temperatures by ten degrees centigrade by 2010, spelling extremely undesirable consequences for the animal and plant kingdoms.
The different interpretation of problems of global magnitude proves that we are just beginning to comprehend the processes on the Earth, which is just a tiny part of the Universe.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
MOSCOW. (Andrei Kislyakov, for RIA Novosti) - The latest research by European scientists, climatologists and astronomers suggests that the so-called global dimming, or the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s, is a major factor affecting climate change around the world.
The European scientific community offers different interpretations of this phenomenon, a fact that gives no reason for optimism. In other words, the jury is out over the positive and negative aspects of global dimming.
The whole world has been discussing global dimming for a long time. The latest findings by British scientists, mentioned in The Guardian newspaper, suggest that the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface has dwindled by 20% over the past few years.
U.S. experts who have been measuring solar-radiation volumes for over 50 years say the amount of direct irradiance reaching the surface of our planet has shrunk by 10% between the late 1950s and the early 1990s. Some regions of the world, including Asia and Europe, get even less sunlight. Hong Kong and the former Soviet republics receive 37% and 20% less solar energy, respectively.
Many analysts base this problem on humankind's endless efforts to transform the world.
Alexei Dmitriyev, a Russian professor and eco-geologist, blames the phenomenon on cosmic processes. However, Professor Dmitriyev, who has used logical-mathematical analysis to study Earth-space interaction, claims that space processes are changing the terrestrial atmosphere and that of other planets in the Solar System.
NASA experts who had published the relevant data in June 1999 agree that the Solar System has now entered a hydrogen bubble. Greater hydrogen content in interplanetary space and all over the Solar System expedites substance, energy and information exchanges between the Sun and the planets.
The Earth's atmosphere constantly receives additional energy and substances. This causes all present-day global changes, including global dimming.
British scientists say global dimming is fraught with serious consequences for human civilization. This process could wipe out all plant life on the Earth. Power generating facilities would also burn up much more fuel than they do today. Increased carbon dioxide emissions would increase the greenhouse effect and cause additional global warming.
Swiss scientists believe that global dimming is now coming to an end, and that this will cause disastrous consequences for the global climate. They are convinced that only this dimming phenomenon hinders the greenhouse effect and global warming.
Several previous independent studies have revealed that the Earth's surface now receives much less sunlight than before, and that this process had begun throughout the 1960s, to say the least. This process was offset by global warming, making it possible to underestimate the greenhouse effect's scale. And now global dimming is coming to an end.
The results of several new studies conducted by experts from the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland, show that in the 1980s global dimming began slowing down and has stopped completely since the 1990s.
Worst of all, a "brightening" trend has started. This corresponds to cloud structure changes and the extent of atmospheric pollution, the two main factors influencing the amount of solar light that can reach the terrestrial surface. Scientists say this process will soon cause undesirable consequences.
In addition, scientists believe that by the 1980s global dimming had partially offset the greenhouse effect, which was responsible for the dimming; however, this dimming no longer influences the greenhouse effect, experts say. This is also proved by the fact that the greenhouse effect has increased since the 1990s. Unbridled contributions to global warming may raise global temperatures by ten degrees centigrade by 2010, spelling extremely undesirable consequences for the animal and plant kingdoms.
The different interpretation of problems of global magnitude proves that we are just beginning to comprehend the processes on the Earth, which is just a tiny part of the Universe.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Indian Back Money in Swiss Banks : Commentary
N.Tiwari, USA
This Black money should be retrieved, and actually divied up by Indian population, and then mailed to all Indian citizens. It comes to over two lakh rupees per person (conservative estimates).
That "check is in your mail" will by itself trigger massive development in India, as we know how to save, and use money wisely. The idea that money should be gotten back is by itself not good enuff. Because once the money comes back, it will be re-eaten by India's politica-business- administrative class.
It should actually be gotten back, and distributed. It has been looted from the people of India, and they deserve to get it back.
LKA's argument is currently to win brownie points. It is like - look, I asked them to get back the money, and they are being evasive. However, the emphasis has to shift by arguing and promising, that if I get there in PMs post, then not only will I get the money back, but will actually distribute it, sans ifs and buts, amongst all Indians, equally. That people will actually get checks in the mail. It will not be that the govt will launch big, fancy awaas yojanaas, etc. Rather, people get the money and they figure out how to use it. The GOI (and Indian state govts) is not particularly good at making houses for people. Ask those who live in millions of houses built by DDA, BDA, LDA, JDA, ... and other orgs like Delhi Development Authority.
Now that will be a very very big move. It will be a game changer.
This Black money should be retrieved, and actually divied up by Indian population, and then mailed to all Indian citizens. It comes to over two lakh rupees per person (conservative estimates).
That "check is in your mail" will by itself trigger massive development in India, as we know how to save, and use money wisely. The idea that money should be gotten back is by itself not good enuff. Because once the money comes back, it will be re-eaten by India's politica-business- administrative class.
It should actually be gotten back, and distributed. It has been looted from the people of India, and they deserve to get it back.
LKA's argument is currently to win brownie points. It is like - look, I asked them to get back the money, and they are being evasive. However, the emphasis has to shift by arguing and promising, that if I get there in PMs post, then not only will I get the money back, but will actually distribute it, sans ifs and buts, amongst all Indians, equally. That people will actually get checks in the mail. It will not be that the govt will launch big, fancy awaas yojanaas, etc. Rather, people get the money and they figure out how to use it. The GOI (and Indian state govts) is not particularly good at making houses for people. Ask those who live in millions of houses built by DDA, BDA, LDA, JDA, ... and other orgs like Delhi Development Authority.
Now that will be a very very big move. It will be a game changer.
Our lawless land
By Ardeshir Cowasjee
Sunday, 29 Mar, 2009 | 01:25 AM PST
Source: DAWN , Pakistan
Law and order forms the first and foremost factor that a government must deliver unto the people who have either put its members where they are through a ballot box or who have been commandeered by military and other adventurers. Law and order has been the last thing on the collective minds of our governments whose priorities have invariably lain in the domain of self-preservation followed by self-perpetuation.
Within the space of six weeks, in this year not yet three months old, three journalists have been shot and killed. On Feb 18, in Swat Musa Khankhel of Geo TV was covering a ‘peace march’ in the renegade valley which has been handed over by government and army to the rampaging Taliban. The marchers were marching to pray for peace. Khankhel was killed by “some unknown person”.
The usual outpourings of shock and grief came from president, prime and other ministers and leaders of our deeply flawed political parties together with the usual condemnations and commitments to bring the murderer(s) “to justice and give them exemplary punishment”. Not surprisingly, and discounting the fact that Swat is no longer under any government control, Khankhel’s murderer(s) remain free and at large, primed to murder again.
Last Sunday in Lahore’s Defence Housing Society, Tariq Javed Malik, a reporter with DawnNews, was shot dead, reportedly by robbers who wished to relieve him of his cell phone — a common occurrence in this country. Again, statements prepared by flunkies were issued by the usual lot ‘condemning’ the murder. They all foolishly “asked law enforcement authorities in the Punjab to take measures to arrest the murderers”. Foolishly, because these people know as well as we know that this country has myriad laws on its statute books but they are seldom applied as disorder reigns and rules.
In Rawalpindi on Thursday, Raja Assad Hameed, correspondent of The Nation and Waqt TV, was shot and killed outside his house by “some unidentified persons” in what was reported to be a “target killing”. Yet again a list of government luminaries and sundry politicians expressed their “grief and sorrow” and “strongly condemned” the murder. Futile “demands” were again made to apprehend the murderers etc.
The murderers of Lahore and Rawalpindi, cities of the Punjab under governor’s rule, have little to fear as the police of the province is in disarray. As wrote one correspondent to this newspaper (Ahmed Noman of Islamabad) in his letter printed on March 27, “mass scale changes in the police hierarchy, just for political whims, have made this institution totally ineffective and inefficient”. He accuses the police force of being corrupt, involved in criminal activities with many officers reappointed who had been suspended for criminal and corrupt practices.
Nothing surprising, we are all well aware of the quality of our law-enforcement agencies, which quality is at a par with that of all our governments, without exception since the advent of social democracy late in 1971 which heralded in the swift decline of whatever institutions this country possessed.
The murderers of Malik and Hameed may rest easy, as may the gunmen who on March 3, in the centre of Lahore, not too far from the seat of governor’s rule, launched an armed attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team wounding six of them and killing eight others, mainly policemen guarding the team. The intelligence agencies and the police have been probing away but so far have come up with nothing. We expect nothing, governance and government being what they are.
We are all at risk, Pakistanis or foreigners who visit or are based here, such as journalists, particularly in the northern areas where the Taliban operate with impunity, totally out of control of the agencies whose job it is to enforce law and order but who are either helpless or linked in some way to the terrorist forces. Foreign journalists have admitted that the territory they can cover has of late been drastically reduced. No-go areas are the NWFP, the tribal areas of course, and parts of Balochistan. Their fears are not only that they may be killed — the greatest threat is kidnapping, now a popular activity of the militants who have slowly but gradually worked their way down to the borderlands of Punjab and encroached into the province (Mianwali has had its incident) and the Federally Administered Islamabad.
Suicide bombers are more or less the norm, as admitted by none less than the man who ‘advises’ on interior matters, Rehman Malik. He was adamant that the ‘long march,’ motoring through Punjab, destination the capital of the Republic, was highly susceptible to bombers, suicide or otherwise. Following the suicide blast in Islamabad on March 23 when a lone bomber took on the headquarters of the Special Branch, managing only to kill himself and one other, Malik admitted that he had information that there would be attacks and that Baitullah Mehsud had infiltrated into the area a score or so of Tehrik-i-Taliban youths in search of paradise. Routine condemnation came from the presidency and government, and Advisor Malik swore to deal with ‘them’ with an iron hand — empty words spouted by those who have neither the will nor the way.
Baitullah Mehsud was also at work on March 26 in Jandola when one of his brainwashed paradise-seekers blew himself up killing 12 in a crowded bazaar area. Then we come to Jamrud, just up the road from Peshawar where on March 27, in a mosque, at Friday prayers, over 50 praying people died, murdered by a fellow Muslim, a loyal Taliban.
Now to address the ‘worthies’ and ‘luminaries’ attempting to govern this unfortunate God-given Jinnah-made country: we are not satisfied with ‘condemnations’ or with reading headlines such as ‘Journalists, rights bodies flay Assad’s murder’. We want to read and to know what Rehman Malik, the man in charge of our safety and security and his like have done to apprehend the murderers. If the government is incapable of handling individual murders how can it combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How will we satisfy President Barack Obama? Money will not now easily flow in to fatten the fat.
This government cannot cope. That is clear. How and when will it all end?
arfc@cyber.net. pk
Sunday, 29 Mar, 2009 | 01:25 AM PST
Source: DAWN , Pakistan
Law and order forms the first and foremost factor that a government must deliver unto the people who have either put its members where they are through a ballot box or who have been commandeered by military and other adventurers. Law and order has been the last thing on the collective minds of our governments whose priorities have invariably lain in the domain of self-preservation followed by self-perpetuation.
Within the space of six weeks, in this year not yet three months old, three journalists have been shot and killed. On Feb 18, in Swat Musa Khankhel of Geo TV was covering a ‘peace march’ in the renegade valley which has been handed over by government and army to the rampaging Taliban. The marchers were marching to pray for peace. Khankhel was killed by “some unknown person”.
The usual outpourings of shock and grief came from president, prime and other ministers and leaders of our deeply flawed political parties together with the usual condemnations and commitments to bring the murderer(s) “to justice and give them exemplary punishment”. Not surprisingly, and discounting the fact that Swat is no longer under any government control, Khankhel’s murderer(s) remain free and at large, primed to murder again.
Last Sunday in Lahore’s Defence Housing Society, Tariq Javed Malik, a reporter with DawnNews, was shot dead, reportedly by robbers who wished to relieve him of his cell phone — a common occurrence in this country. Again, statements prepared by flunkies were issued by the usual lot ‘condemning’ the murder. They all foolishly “asked law enforcement authorities in the Punjab to take measures to arrest the murderers”. Foolishly, because these people know as well as we know that this country has myriad laws on its statute books but they are seldom applied as disorder reigns and rules.
In Rawalpindi on Thursday, Raja Assad Hameed, correspondent of The Nation and Waqt TV, was shot and killed outside his house by “some unidentified persons” in what was reported to be a “target killing”. Yet again a list of government luminaries and sundry politicians expressed their “grief and sorrow” and “strongly condemned” the murder. Futile “demands” were again made to apprehend the murderers etc.
The murderers of Lahore and Rawalpindi, cities of the Punjab under governor’s rule, have little to fear as the police of the province is in disarray. As wrote one correspondent to this newspaper (Ahmed Noman of Islamabad) in his letter printed on March 27, “mass scale changes in the police hierarchy, just for political whims, have made this institution totally ineffective and inefficient”. He accuses the police force of being corrupt, involved in criminal activities with many officers reappointed who had been suspended for criminal and corrupt practices.
Nothing surprising, we are all well aware of the quality of our law-enforcement agencies, which quality is at a par with that of all our governments, without exception since the advent of social democracy late in 1971 which heralded in the swift decline of whatever institutions this country possessed.
The murderers of Malik and Hameed may rest easy, as may the gunmen who on March 3, in the centre of Lahore, not too far from the seat of governor’s rule, launched an armed attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team wounding six of them and killing eight others, mainly policemen guarding the team. The intelligence agencies and the police have been probing away but so far have come up with nothing. We expect nothing, governance and government being what they are.
We are all at risk, Pakistanis or foreigners who visit or are based here, such as journalists, particularly in the northern areas where the Taliban operate with impunity, totally out of control of the agencies whose job it is to enforce law and order but who are either helpless or linked in some way to the terrorist forces. Foreign journalists have admitted that the territory they can cover has of late been drastically reduced. No-go areas are the NWFP, the tribal areas of course, and parts of Balochistan. Their fears are not only that they may be killed — the greatest threat is kidnapping, now a popular activity of the militants who have slowly but gradually worked their way down to the borderlands of Punjab and encroached into the province (Mianwali has had its incident) and the Federally Administered Islamabad.
Suicide bombers are more or less the norm, as admitted by none less than the man who ‘advises’ on interior matters, Rehman Malik. He was adamant that the ‘long march,’ motoring through Punjab, destination the capital of the Republic, was highly susceptible to bombers, suicide or otherwise. Following the suicide blast in Islamabad on March 23 when a lone bomber took on the headquarters of the Special Branch, managing only to kill himself and one other, Malik admitted that he had information that there would be attacks and that Baitullah Mehsud had infiltrated into the area a score or so of Tehrik-i-Taliban youths in search of paradise. Routine condemnation came from the presidency and government, and Advisor Malik swore to deal with ‘them’ with an iron hand — empty words spouted by those who have neither the will nor the way.
Baitullah Mehsud was also at work on March 26 in Jandola when one of his brainwashed paradise-seekers blew himself up killing 12 in a crowded bazaar area. Then we come to Jamrud, just up the road from Peshawar where on March 27, in a mosque, at Friday prayers, over 50 praying people died, murdered by a fellow Muslim, a loyal Taliban.
Now to address the ‘worthies’ and ‘luminaries’ attempting to govern this unfortunate God-given Jinnah-made country: we are not satisfied with ‘condemnations’ or with reading headlines such as ‘Journalists, rights bodies flay Assad’s murder’. We want to read and to know what Rehman Malik, the man in charge of our safety and security and his like have done to apprehend the murderers. If the government is incapable of handling individual murders how can it combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban? How will we satisfy President Barack Obama? Money will not now easily flow in to fatten the fat.
This government cannot cope. That is clear. How and when will it all end?
arfc@cyber.net. pk
BJP questions UPA Govt’s deafening silence about Indian wealth hoarded in secret Swiss bank accounts
BJP questions UPA Govt’s deafening silence about Indian wealth, estimated at between Rs. 25 lakh and Rs 70 lakh crore, hoarded in secret Swiss bank accounts.
●
In Hindi : http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf/mar_2809_1.pdf
This money belongs to the people of India – the farmers, the landless and the workers, who are in great economic stress today; BJP promises to bring it back.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is going to attend the G-20 summit in London on April 2. Ahead of this meeting, I wish to bring a highly important matter to the attention of the people of India.
It is well known that Swiss banks provide secrecy and safety for tax evaders, corrupt individuals and criminals of various nationalities to hoard their monies. Several offshore tax havens are also used for murky financial dealings. The extent of illicit money lodged in Swiss banks is mind-boggling. Estimates vary.
According to Wikipedia, they totaled $ 2.6 trillions (Rs. 130 lakh crores in today’s exchange rate) in 2001. In 2007, they were believed to be about $5.7 trillions (Rs. 285 lakh crore), a staggering 80% increase in six years.
It is equally well known that many wealthy Indians have deposited their illicit monies in secret Swiss bank accounts and tax havens elsewhere around the world. As per credible estimates, these amounts range between $500 billion (Rs. 25,00,000 crore) and $1400 billion (Rs. 70,00,000 crore).
So long as the West-dominated world economy was doing well for the western countries, their governments winked at the secretive functioning of Swiss banks and tax havens. However, the current global economic crisis, which put several of their important financial institutions on the verge of collapse, has forced them to take many unconventional steps to revive their ailing economies.
The leaders of France, Germany, UK and other countries have joined forces with the US President Barack Obama in the battle against tax havens. They are mounting pressure on Switzerland and offshore tax havens to put an end to banking secrecy to bring back their tax-evading citizens’ hidden wealth.
This is likely to be an important point on the agenda of the G-20 Summit in London. In February, UBS, the largest Swiss bank, was forced by the US tax authorities to reveal the names of some 300 presumed tax evaders. The US threatened to sue the UBS. Fearing that this could lead to the demise of the bank, the Swiss authorities invoked an emergency clause in their banking law and gave the data to the US. Soon thereafter the Obama administration announced a law to uncover illicit American money in all secretive tax havens, including the Switzerland.
UPA government’s evasive reply to my earlier demand
It is baffling that, in the face of this growing governmental activism in the West, the UPA Government has adopted a policy of deafening silence and inaction. It has taken no steps whatsoever to get information about illicit money kept abroad by Indian nationals and to strive to get it back.
Last year, I had written a letter to Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh about the need to get the names of Indians, presumed to have secret accounts in LGT Bank in Liechtenstein in Germany. I was disappointed to see that the reply I received from the then Union Finance Minister was evasive. (Copies of both letters attached.)
Commenting on India's ambivalence, Transparency International (TI) said that India has maintained “a stoic silence over the issue and has not approached the German government for this data’’ (The Economic Times, 25.5.2008). Some ministers in the UPA Government are reported to have made several trips to Switzerland as the personal leg of their official tours abroad.
Considering the size of the Indian wealth hoarded abroad, the government is duty-bound to take proactive steps to bring it back. The amount involved constitutes 3-10 times India's overseas debt, and 50-120% of India’s GDP. Even if we take the lower limit of the estimated amount of Rs. 25 lakh crore, the money is sufficient to:
• Relieve the debts of all farmers and landless
• Build world-class roads all over the country – from national and state highways to district and rural roads;
• Completely eliminate the acute power shortage in the country and also to bring electricity to every unlit rural home;
• Provide safe and adequate drinking water in all villages and towns in India
• Construct good-quality houses, each worth Rs. 2.5 lakh, for 10 crore families;
• Provide Rs. 4 crore to each of the nearly 6 lakh villages; the money can be used to build, in every single village, a school with internet-enabled education, a primary health centre with telemedicine facility, a veterinary clinic, a playground with gymnasium, and much more.
What a transformation it can make to the ordinary and poor Indian lives!
Financial RDX with terror links
The need to put an end to hoarding of Indian wealth abroad, and to bring back the wealth already hoarded, is all the greater since the illicit money seems to be a mix of political bribes, crime money and venal business. The money trail in the Bofors scam in the 1980s had revealed the involvement of secret Swiss bank accounts. Last year, when the stock market was booming, National Security Advisor Shri M.K. Narayanan ( http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?id=198&sprache=en& ) publicly stated that terror money might be operating through fund flows. What he had in mind was the Participatory Note [PN] mechanism for investment of undisclosed funds from abroad in Indian stock markets. The PN mechanism was introduced when India was desperately in need of forex inflow. The UPA government has permitted this mode of investment even after it had grown to alarming proportions. More recently, a hawala operator from Pune was found by the Income Tax department to have unaccounted wealth valued at Rs 35,000 crore. He is also suspected to have secret bank accounts abroad.
The BJP sees in secret banking the RDX that has the potential not only to blow up national financial systems but also to support and fund global terror networks whose attacks on India increased during the UPA regime. We do not expect any action from the UPA Government, which has shown total disinclination to act in this matter. In any case, its days are numbered.
If the people of India elect a BJP-led NDA Government in May 2009, we assure the nation that India will join the global effort to put an end to banking secrecy and intensify it by every means – diplomatic, political and economic – to get back the real Sovereign Wealth of our country. The BJP will intensely and actively educate the public opinion on this issue and take it to the masses and create intense public pressure on the system to uncover this nexus between secret foreign money, terror, and politics.
BJP’s promise and plan of action
The Bharatiya Janata Party will conduct mass public opinion polls on April 6, 2009, Foundation Day of the BJP, on Indian money in secret accounts abroad.
The Chief Ministers of the BJP-ruled States will write to the Prime Minister urging him to write to the Swiss and other authorities to disclose the names of hoarders of Indian monies abroad, since it is a huge loss to the state exchequer.
The BJP will form a Task Force comprising experts in law, accounting, management and intelligence to prepare a strategic document for India to recommend ways to get back the national wealth stashed away illegally by the corrupt politicians, venal businessmen and criminal overlords. Shri S. Gurumurthy, well-known chartered accountant and writer specializing in investigative journalism; Dr. R. Vaidyanathan, Professor of Finance at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore; Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, a renowned lawyer; and Shri Ajit Doval, an acclaimed national security expert, have agreed to work voluntarily on this Task Force.
(Shyam Jaju)
Headquarter Incharge
●
In Hindi : http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf/mar_2809_1.pdf
This money belongs to the people of India – the farmers, the landless and the workers, who are in great economic stress today; BJP promises to bring it back.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is going to attend the G-20 summit in London on April 2. Ahead of this meeting, I wish to bring a highly important matter to the attention of the people of India.
It is well known that Swiss banks provide secrecy and safety for tax evaders, corrupt individuals and criminals of various nationalities to hoard their monies. Several offshore tax havens are also used for murky financial dealings. The extent of illicit money lodged in Swiss banks is mind-boggling. Estimates vary.
According to Wikipedia, they totaled $ 2.6 trillions (Rs. 130 lakh crores in today’s exchange rate) in 2001. In 2007, they were believed to be about $5.7 trillions (Rs. 285 lakh crore), a staggering 80% increase in six years.
It is equally well known that many wealthy Indians have deposited their illicit monies in secret Swiss bank accounts and tax havens elsewhere around the world. As per credible estimates, these amounts range between $500 billion (Rs. 25,00,000 crore) and $1400 billion (Rs. 70,00,000 crore).
So long as the West-dominated world economy was doing well for the western countries, their governments winked at the secretive functioning of Swiss banks and tax havens. However, the current global economic crisis, which put several of their important financial institutions on the verge of collapse, has forced them to take many unconventional steps to revive their ailing economies.
The leaders of France, Germany, UK and other countries have joined forces with the US President Barack Obama in the battle against tax havens. They are mounting pressure on Switzerland and offshore tax havens to put an end to banking secrecy to bring back their tax-evading citizens’ hidden wealth.
This is likely to be an important point on the agenda of the G-20 Summit in London. In February, UBS, the largest Swiss bank, was forced by the US tax authorities to reveal the names of some 300 presumed tax evaders. The US threatened to sue the UBS. Fearing that this could lead to the demise of the bank, the Swiss authorities invoked an emergency clause in their banking law and gave the data to the US. Soon thereafter the Obama administration announced a law to uncover illicit American money in all secretive tax havens, including the Switzerland.
UPA government’s evasive reply to my earlier demand
It is baffling that, in the face of this growing governmental activism in the West, the UPA Government has adopted a policy of deafening silence and inaction. It has taken no steps whatsoever to get information about illicit money kept abroad by Indian nationals and to strive to get it back.
Last year, I had written a letter to Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh about the need to get the names of Indians, presumed to have secret accounts in LGT Bank in Liechtenstein in Germany. I was disappointed to see that the reply I received from the then Union Finance Minister was evasive. (Copies of both letters attached.)
Commenting on India's ambivalence, Transparency International (TI) said that India has maintained “a stoic silence over the issue and has not approached the German government for this data’’ (The Economic Times, 25.5.2008). Some ministers in the UPA Government are reported to have made several trips to Switzerland as the personal leg of their official tours abroad.
Considering the size of the Indian wealth hoarded abroad, the government is duty-bound to take proactive steps to bring it back. The amount involved constitutes 3-10 times India's overseas debt, and 50-120% of India’s GDP. Even if we take the lower limit of the estimated amount of Rs. 25 lakh crore, the money is sufficient to:
• Relieve the debts of all farmers and landless
• Build world-class roads all over the country – from national and state highways to district and rural roads;
• Completely eliminate the acute power shortage in the country and also to bring electricity to every unlit rural home;
• Provide safe and adequate drinking water in all villages and towns in India
• Construct good-quality houses, each worth Rs. 2.5 lakh, for 10 crore families;
• Provide Rs. 4 crore to each of the nearly 6 lakh villages; the money can be used to build, in every single village, a school with internet-enabled education, a primary health centre with telemedicine facility, a veterinary clinic, a playground with gymnasium, and much more.
What a transformation it can make to the ordinary and poor Indian lives!
Financial RDX with terror links
The need to put an end to hoarding of Indian wealth abroad, and to bring back the wealth already hoarded, is all the greater since the illicit money seems to be a mix of political bribes, crime money and venal business. The money trail in the Bofors scam in the 1980s had revealed the involvement of secret Swiss bank accounts. Last year, when the stock market was booming, National Security Advisor Shri M.K. Narayanan ( http://www.securityconference.de/konferenzen/rede.php?id=198&sprache=en& ) publicly stated that terror money might be operating through fund flows. What he had in mind was the Participatory Note [PN] mechanism for investment of undisclosed funds from abroad in Indian stock markets. The PN mechanism was introduced when India was desperately in need of forex inflow. The UPA government has permitted this mode of investment even after it had grown to alarming proportions. More recently, a hawala operator from Pune was found by the Income Tax department to have unaccounted wealth valued at Rs 35,000 crore. He is also suspected to have secret bank accounts abroad.
The BJP sees in secret banking the RDX that has the potential not only to blow up national financial systems but also to support and fund global terror networks whose attacks on India increased during the UPA regime. We do not expect any action from the UPA Government, which has shown total disinclination to act in this matter. In any case, its days are numbered.
If the people of India elect a BJP-led NDA Government in May 2009, we assure the nation that India will join the global effort to put an end to banking secrecy and intensify it by every means – diplomatic, political and economic – to get back the real Sovereign Wealth of our country. The BJP will intensely and actively educate the public opinion on this issue and take it to the masses and create intense public pressure on the system to uncover this nexus between secret foreign money, terror, and politics.
BJP’s promise and plan of action
The Bharatiya Janata Party will conduct mass public opinion polls on April 6, 2009, Foundation Day of the BJP, on Indian money in secret accounts abroad.
The Chief Ministers of the BJP-ruled States will write to the Prime Minister urging him to write to the Swiss and other authorities to disclose the names of hoarders of Indian monies abroad, since it is a huge loss to the state exchequer.
The BJP will form a Task Force comprising experts in law, accounting, management and intelligence to prepare a strategic document for India to recommend ways to get back the national wealth stashed away illegally by the corrupt politicians, venal businessmen and criminal overlords. Shri S. Gurumurthy, well-known chartered accountant and writer specializing in investigative journalism; Dr. R. Vaidyanathan, Professor of Finance at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore; Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, a renowned lawyer; and Shri Ajit Doval, an acclaimed national security expert, have agreed to work voluntarily on this Task Force.
(Shyam Jaju)
Headquarter Incharge
Advani attacked UPA over indian money in Swiss banks
UPA Attacked by Advani over indian money in Swiss banks
Posted by Ash gee on Sunday, March 29, 2009, 16:26
.
New Delhi: Upping the ante against ruling UPA government and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate LK Advani on Sunday said that at least Rs 25 lakh crore belonging to Indians are stashed in Swiss banks’ benami (secret) accounts.
Speaking to reporters here Advani pointed out, “During the economic crisis US had asked Swiss banks to reveal the information of their citizens’ accounts. Likewise Manmohan Singh can raise the issue of about the wealth of the Indian citizens abroad at the G-20 summit.”
Few years ago Western nations were not concerned about the money in Swiss banks and overlooked it. It is after the global economic crisis that their attitude has changed.
“I had made a request in Germany last year in this regard and wrote to the PM. Later I received Finance Minister’s reply on the issue which was not satisfactory and was more of an evasive action,” Advani told a press conference.
“According to the reports the amount lying in the Swiss banks is astounding…. according to wikipedia the amount was said to be USD 2.6 trillion in 2001 which reached USD 5.7 trillion in 2007,” he added.
He further revealed that “The Indian citizens’ money in Swiss banks is anywhere between USD 500 to 1400 billion according to an analyst.”
Quoting NSA MK Narayanan Advani said, “During boom period in the stock exchange last year NSA said that this boom is due to terror money.”
“The money in these accounts includes black money, crime money and terror money. So this money is constituted by corruption, crime and terror,” Advani state further.
Calling the matter as important Advani promised, “If NDA returns to power then we’ll force Indian citizens to bring back their wealth to India and use the money here.”
“Backwardness in our infrastructure, agriculture and other sector can all be corrected using this money. If the amount of Rs 25 lakh crore or USD 500 bn is brought back to India then villages across the nation can get potable water, schools with Internet facility can be opened in all villages each and every village can be allocated Rs 4 crore,” Advani said.
“We would request the Election Commission also to make it mandatory for all candidates to disclose whether they have any bank account outside India or not,” Advani said.
Advani looked to dodge the media over Varun Gandhi’s hate speech issue and promised to speak later.
The good sign for BJP was the presence of Arun Jaitley along with Advani suggesting that the internal rift of the party has been resolved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
