By M K Bhadrakumar
By the yardstick of Jacques, the melancholy philosopher-clown in William Shakespeare's play As You Like It, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has indisputably passed the stage of "Mewing and pucking in the nurse's arms".
Nor is SCO anymore the "whining schoolboy, with his satchel/And shining morning face, creeping like snail/Unwillingly to school". The SCO more and more resembles Jacques' lover, "Sighing like a furnace, with a woeful ballad/Made to his mistress' eyebrow." Indeed, if all the world's a stage and the regional organizations are players who make their exits and entrances, the SCO is doing remarkably well playing many parts. That it has finally reached adulthood is beyond dispute.
But growing up is never easy, especially adolescence, and the
past year since the SCO summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, has been particularly transformational. What stands out when the SCO's ninth summit meeting begins in the Urals city of Yekaterinburg in Russia on Monday is that the setting in which the regional organization - comprising China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - is called on to perform has itself unrecognizably shifted since last August's gathering of leaders in Dushanbe. First, the big picture.
The locus shifts east
The world economic crisis has descended on the SCO space like a Siberian blast that brings frost and ice and leaves behind a white winter, sparking mild hysteria. The landscape seems uniformly attired, but that can be a highly deceptive appearance. Russia and China, which make up the sum total of the SCO experience, are responding to the economic crisis in vastly different terms.
For Russia, as former prime minister and well-known scholar academician Yevgeniy Primakov observed ruefully in a recent Izvestia interview, "Russia will not come out of the crisis anytime soon ... Russia will most likely come out of the recession in the second echelon - after the developed countries ... The trap of the present crisis is that it is not localized but is worldwide. Russia is dependent on other countries. That lessens the opportunity to get out of the recession in a short period of time." [1]
Primakov should know. It was he as president Boris Yeltsin's prime minister who steered Russia out of its near-terminal financial crisis 10 years ago that brought the whole post-Soviet edifice in Moscow all but tumbling down.
Russia's economic structure is such that 40% of its gross domestic product (GDP) is created through raw material exports, which engenders a highly vulnerable threshold when the world economy as a whole gets caught up in the grip of recession. But what about China?
This was how Primakov compared the Chinese and Russian economic scenario:
In China too, as in Russia, exports make up a significant part of the GDP. The crisis smacked them and us. The difference is that China exports ready-made products, while on our country [Russia] a strong raw material flow was traditional. What are the Chinese doing?
They are moving a large part of the ready-made goods to the domestic market. At the same time, they are trying to raise the population's solvent demand. On this basis, the plants and factories will continue to operate and the economy will work.
We [Russia] cannot do that. If raw materials are moved to the domestic market, consumers of such vast volumes will not be found. Raise the population's solvent demand? That merely steps up imports.
This is only one part of a complex story, but the short point concerns the vastly different prospects of economic stabilization in the current crisis that China and Russia face. To be sure, its impact on the geopolitics of the SCO space cannot be overlooked. Simply put, China's profile as the "donor" country in the SCO space is shining brighter than ever before. China has given US$25 billion as a loan to Russia and $15 billion as a loan to Kazakhstan, the two big-time players in the SCO, during the April-May period.
Last week, in yet another breathtaking move, China offered a loan of $3 billion to Turkmenistan. The loan for Russia is a vital lifeline for its number one oil major Rosneft and its monopoly pipeline builder Transneft. The loan for Kazakhstan, which goes partly towards acquiring a 50% stake in MangistauMunaiGaz, increases China's share of oil production in Kazakhstan to 22%. Again, the loan for Turkmenistan ensures that China has the inside track on the fabulous Yolotan-Osman, which is reputed to be one of the biggest gas fields in the world.
No heartburn in Moscow
In short, if the law of nature is such that gravitation in life is inevitably towards where the money comes from, the locus of the SCO has shifted to Beijing more than ever before. In any other context, this would have straightaway introduced a high state of disequilibrium within the SCO. It took decades for France and Germany to figure out cohabitation within the European Economic Community. The China-Russia equilibrium within the SCO has always been delicate, but it may have prima facie become more so than ever before. But in actuality, it isn't so.
It goes to the credit of the leaderships in Moscow and Beijing that they have steered their relationship in a positive direction by rationally analyzing the imperatives of their strategic partnership in the overall international situation rather than in a limited sphere of who gains access to which gas fields first in the Caspian or who is a lender and who is a borrower in these extraordinary times.
Thus, the frequent tempo of Russia-China high-level exchanges has been kept up. Both sides are sensitive to each other's core concerns and vital interests. Russia's conflict in the Caucasus last August was a litmus test and Beijing passed the test. The Russia-China mutual understanding survived intact without bruises.
Despite China's highly principled position on the issue of political separatism and secessionism, and despite all efforts by Western propaganda, China kept a watchful position on Georgia's breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and silently took note of Moscow's recognition of their unilateral declaration of independence, but on balance remained broadly sympathetic to Russia's concerns and predicaments, which Moscow duly appreciated.
Again, belying all Western expectations that Russian and Chinese priorities in energy security diverge, the two countries have finally begun taking big strides on the ground in energy cooperation. A variety of factors went into it - the fall in demand for energy in the recession-struck European markets; strains in Russia-European Union energy relations; Russia's own search for diversification of its Asian market; Russia's energy rivalries with the European Union and the United States in the Caspian and so on - but the fact remains that Moscow is increasingly overcoming its hesitancy that it might get hooked to the massive Chinese energy market as an "appendage", as a mere provider of raw materials for China's economy.
The 25-year $25 billion China-Russia "loan-for-oil" deal signed in April alone amounts to Russian oil supplies equivalent of 4% of China's current daily needs. Not bad at all. But it is in the sphere of natural gas that we may expect big news in the coming period. This is virgin soil. Russia at present does not figure as a gas exporter to the Chinese market. And natural gas is where the world's - and especially China's - focus is turning in the coming decades.
Powerful Kremlin politician Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin is on record that the Russian leadership will be making some major proposals to Chinese President Hu Jintao during his visit to Russia to attend the SCO summit. ("Whatever amount they [China] ask for, we [Russia] have the gas," Sechin reportedly said.) It cannot be lost on observers that the Kremlin has earmarked the SCO summit event for taking such a strategic step in energy cooperation with China.
Thus, it has become a moot point whether Moscow has or has not yet realized the then president Vladimir Putin's four-year-old idea of forming an "energy club" within the SCO framework. Effectively, a matrix is developing among the SCO countries (involving member countries as well as "observers") in the field of energy cooperation. It has several templates - China on the one hand and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan on the other; Russia-China; China-Iran; Russia-Iran; Iran-Pakistan; and, of course Russia's traditional ties with the Central Asian states. (If the current Iranian plan for an oil pipeline linking the Caspian Sea and the Gulf of Oman materializes soon, yet another template may be formed involving Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.)
Arguably, so far these vectors have not collided with each other, despite the prognosis of Western experts that Russian and Chinese interests in the Central Asian and the Caspian region will inevitably collide [2]. Moscow seems to be quite comfortable with the idea that the Chinese are accessing the region's surplus energy reserves rather than the US or EU countries. As a commentator put it, "Russia is also doing its damnedest to keep Europe out of Central Asia ... In Central Asia, it's starting to look as if Moscow and, to a lesser extent, Beijing ... may have already outmaneuvered Europe." [3]
SCO gatecrashes the Hindu Kush
Less than three years ago, a leading American expert on the Central Asian region, Dr Martha Brill Olcott of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the SCO as "little more than a discussion forum". Olcott said, "Today, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization does not pose any direct threat to US interests in Central Asia or in the region more generally." [4]
That was a debatable point even three years ago, more so now. What seems to have happened is that the US simply has had no choice but to learn to live with a unique regional organization that insists on keeping it excluded. Any regional body that includes Russia and China cannot but be of interest to Washington. No doubt, SCO has been an object of intense curiosity for US regional policies through the past decade. American diplomats did all they could to debunk it in its formative years. Finally, Washington reconciled. This was evident from the fact that eventually the US began making efforts of its own, vainly though, to gain observer status in the SCO.
The list of participants at the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg testifies to the SCO's steady evolution as an influential regional and international body. Curiously, the list of participants includes Mahinda Rajapaksa, president of Sri Lanka, as a "dialogue partner". In terms of realpolitik, SCO has broadened its reach to the Indian Ocean region. Clearly, it is a matter of time before Nepal, Myanmar Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are associated with the SCO processes one way or another. The SCO already has institutionalized links with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
A stage has come when the SCO's common stances on regional and international issues are widely noted by the international community and discussed threadbare by regional experts. Quite likely, this year's statement will reflect a common SCO position strongly endorsing the Sri Lankan government's policy of rebuffing the Western intrusive approach in terms of humanitarian intervention in the island's current problem affecting displaced Tamils.
For Colombo, the SCO support will come as a much-needed shot in the arm in warding off Western pressure in the period ahead. Already in the United Nations Security Council, Colombo depends on the robust support of Russia and China, both veto-holding powers from the SCO.
Again, the SCO's formulations this year on the North Korean and Iran nuclear problems will be read with interest. Last year's statement on the conflict in the Caucasus was widely discussed by regional experts.
During the past year, the SCO has virtually gatecrashed into the Afghanistan problem, so much so that it is going to be counter-productive for Washington to shut out the regional body altogether from the Hindu Kush. The SCO has rapidly built on its nascent idea of a "contact group" with Kabul. It has maintained a smooth working relationship with the government led by President Hamid Karzai. If anything, Karzai's recent difficulties with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) capitals have prompted him to reach out to Moscow.
United States pressure on Karzai to keep him away from the SCO is unlikely to work again. Karzai will be present at the Yekaterinburg summit meeting. His vice presidential running mate, Karim Khalili, recently visited Moscow. Karzai's other running mate, Mohammed Fahim, has old links with Russia's security agencies.
The SCO conference on Afghanistan held in Moscow on March 27
was primarily intended to challenge the US's monopoly over conflict resolution in Afghanistan, though its focus was on the problem of drug trafficking. It followed three years of futile efforts by the SCO to forge a partnership with NATO for the stabilization of the Afghan situation, which Washington kept frustrating.
Finally, the US was compelled to attend the Moscow conference lest Russia and China dissociate from similar American-sponsored forums on Afghanistan. The conference has opened a window of opportunity for regional powers to get involved with Afghanistan's stabilization, independent of US strategy. Countries like India, which are being left out of the loop, will find the SCO as a useful framework to work with. (India will be represented at the SCO summit for the first time ever at the level of the prime minister.)
The SCO conference also assumes significance in the context of the Barack Obama administration's AfPak strategy, which envisages "grand bargains" with regional powers. The SCO sized up that Washington's game plan would be to strike "grand bargains" individually and separately with each of the countries in the region, which would effectively ensure that the US retained the monopoly of conflict resolution and enabled the US to give new underpinnings to its regional policies aimed at broadening and deepening its influence in Central Asian and Southwest Asian geopolitics.
Bush's policies continue
NATO has officially invited Kazakhstan, a major SCO member country, to take part in its Afghan operations. [5] This is despite Kazakhstan being an active promoter and a prominent member of the Collective Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the SCO, both of which have repeatedly offered partnerships to the Western alliance for its Afghan mission. [6]
Robert Simmons, the NATO secretary general's special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, is on record as saying that the Kazakh army has already achieved "interoperability" with NATO forces and could make a good showing in the Afghan mission. Clearly, NATO is sidestepping the CSTO and the SCO and would prefer to deal with Central Asian capitals individually. The US is striking similar "grand bargains" with other Central Asian capitals in terms of gaining access to new military base facilities.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in April that Russia and China would strengthen their military cooperation through the SCO and engage in several joint military maneuvers. He implied that these plans were aimed at limiting the US's presence in Central Asia. From the Russian and Chinese point of view, it is obvious that the erosion of the US's economic foundations is not preventing Washington from pursuing with renewed vigor its project aimed at regaining lost influence in Central Asia.
The Obama administration's proposed budget for the State Department allocates aid of $41.5 million for Kyrgyzstan and $46.5 million for Tajikistan, whereas the corresponding figures for the current fiscal year are $24.4 million and $25.2 million, respectively. US military aid to the two countries will also similarly be increased under the new budget.
The justification given is that Central Asia's strategic importance has risen of late for US regional policies. According to budget justification documents released by the State Department in Washington on May 7:
Central Asia remains alarmingly fragile: a lack of economic opportunity and weak democratic institutions foster conditions where corruption is endemic and Islamic extremism and drug trafficking can thrive. For this region, where good relations play an important role in supporting our [US] military and civilian efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, the [budget] request prioritizes assistance for the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan.
The political rationale of the aid request makes no bones about the fact that geopolitics is a factor in Washington's decision to step up aid to Central Asia at a time when the Russian capacity to bankroll Central Asian economies is in serious doubt. "The United States rejects the notion that any country has special privileges or a 'sphere of influence' in this region; instead the United States is open to cooperating with all countries in the region and where appropriate providing assistance that helps develop democratic and market institutions and practices."
Curiously, Washington has lately made it clear that it has no intentions of vacating the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan in August without a last-ditch effort to get Bishkek to reconsider its decision. Apart from sustained US diplomatic efforts to persuade a rethink in Bishkek, Washington has also sought the good offices of Karzai to raise the issue with his Kyrgyz counterpart President Kurmanbek Bakiyev - interestingly enough, on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg.
Therefore, it is against the backdrop of the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, which causes concern among the SCO member countries, as well as the robust US diplomacy in the Central Asian region to expand American influence that the Chinese and Russian decision to step up SCO military cooperation will be viewed. The SCO defense ministers' meeting held on April 29 in Moscow confirmed reports that China and Russia would hold 25 joint maneuvers this year. (In the entire period since 2002, China has held only 21 military exercises with foreign countries.)
Interestingly, all these proposed maneuvers will be focused on the "war on terror". The SCO war games for 2009 began with a joint "anti-terror" exercise in Tajikistan near the Afghan border. The main exercise, codenamed Peace Mission 2009, is planned for July-August. This year's exercises assume the nature of a conventional drill operation insofar as they will involve more than 2,000 Russian and Chinese troops with heavy weapons such as tanks, transport planes, self-propelled artillery and possibly including strategic bombers.
The exercises will be held in three stages inside Russia and in northeastern China. Unmistakably, closer Chinese-Russian military cooperation within the SCO framework has been prompted by their perception that the US is pressing ahead with its strategic plans to bring the energy-rich Eurasian region under its influence.
Can Obama become a heretic?
In a remarkably candid interview recently, well-known Russia scholar Professor Stephen Cohen at New York University said he didn't believe "anything substantially or enduringly good" is about to happen in US-Russia relations in the foreseeable future. Nor is a "real partnership" possible between the two countries.
More ominously, he warned that the US-Russia relationship was fast getting "militarized", as it used to be during the Cold War. He said, "NATO expansion has militarized the relationship between the US and Russia, between the United States and the former Soviet republics, and between Russia and the former Soviet republics. Remove NATO expansion, remove the military aspect, and let them compete otherwise." [7]
More startlingly, Cohen assesses that despite the Obama administration's call to "reset" ties with Russia, the "old thinking" prevails in Washington - "that Russia is a defeated power, it's not a legitimate great power with equal rights to the US, that Russia should make concessions ... that the US can go back on its promises because Russia is imperialistic and evil."
Cohen said Russia hands in the Obama administration - Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, National Security Advisor General James Jones, National Security Council member Michael McFaul - are all in one way or another associated with the "old thinking" toward Russia. "So there are no new thinkers in Obama's foreign policy okruzhenie [circles]. There is enormous support in the US for the old thinking. It's the majority view. The American media, the political class, the American bureaucracy - they all support it. Therefore, all hope rides with Obama himself, who is not tied to these old policies. He has to become a heretic and break with orthodoxy."
Cohen added:
Now you and I might say that's impossible, but there is a precedent. Just over twenty years ago, out of the Soviet orthodoxy, the much more rigid Communist Party nomenklatura, came a heretic, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev. It's not a question of whether we like Gorbachev's leadership or we don't. The point is that he came forward with something he called "new thinking", breaking with the old Soviet thinking, and the result was that he and [president Ronald] Reagan ended the Cold War, or came very close to doing so. So the question is whether Obama can break with the old thinking.
Thus, the extraordinarily high degree of mutual understanding that the Russian and Chinese leaderships have been able to work out in the recent period within the SCO has a much broader framework than appears at first sight. US policies towards Russia have significantly contributed to these regional compulsions felt by Moscow and Beijing. Chinese commentaries are consistently sympathetic towards Russia apropos the range of issues affecting US-Russia relations in Eurasia.
In an extremely meaningful political gesture on April 28, Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guangalle, heading a military delegation and visiting Moscow in connection with the SCO defense ministers' meeting, traveled to Russia's North Caucasus Military District to discuss regional security with Medvedev. This happened just two days ahead of the formalization of the Russian decision to deploy troops for the defense of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
What emerges is that both Russia and China remain skeptical ZAfghanistan. Izvestia wrote recently, "Today, despite their hypocritical talk of 'cooperation' (by which they mean the shipment of NATO military freight across Russia), the [US-led] coalition is keeping Russia away from Afghanistan as much as possible, even though their own policies in Afghanistan are the worst possible example of a murderous neo-colonial regime." [8]
Izvestia continued the tirade:
Mass killings of the civilian population by the American army such as bombing wedding and funeral processions, extending the fighting to Pakistan and dragging it into Afghanistan's internal ethnic and political feud - all these and similar actions, which have been without any social or commercial investment in Afghanistan, threaten the whole world, Russia included.
The Afghans, sick and tired of the pointless presence of foreign military forces, have asked Russia to restore its clear-cut peaceful Afghan policy. A delegation of influential Afghan politicians will arrive in Moscow to attend the May 14 Russian-Afghan forum. The group mainly includes Pashtun leaders, who have shaped the country's political and state backbone for centuries. They are convinced that the way to peace and settlement in Afghanistan will depend on Russia's policy.
CSTO to counter NATO
Does all this add up to the SCO becoming a military alliance?
This is a question that has come up frequently during the past decade. It still refuses to go away. There has been even some degree of characterization of the SCO at times as an "Asian NATO". But the answer is a firm "no'. The plain truth is that neither China nor Russia would be comfortable for the foreseeable future with the idea of a military alliance between them, although both have shared concerns over the US agenda for NATO's eastward expansion.
Besides, we should not overlook that Central Asian countries also have their own so-called "multi-vector" foreign policy, which places primacy on national autonomy and independence that precludes the possibility of their becoming part of a military bloc as such.
At any rate, Uzbekistan, the maverick of them all but a key country all the same in regional security, will forever keep everyone guessing whether its mind is on the same thing that it speaks about at any given time, or whether its actions are going to be in conformity with its own words. Tashkent stayed out of the SCO exercises in April in Tajikistan. It is right now having a slinging match with Kyrgyz border guards about recent incidents of violence in the Ferghana Valley.
However, Moscow has been steadily working on another option. The CSTO - Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - is transforming into a full-blooded military alliance. "The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation Until 2020", which was recently approved by Medvedev, says that Moscow views the CSTO as the key instrument to counter regional challenges, and political and military threats. The document says pointedly that the struggle for energy resources in the Caspian and Central Asia may conceivably lead to armed conflicts.
The special summit meeting of the CSTO held in February in Moscow decided to set up a collective rapid-response force to help bloc members to repulse aggression or to meet any emergency. Moscow has been focusing for some time on the strengthening of the CSTO and recent strides in this direction are a major foreign-policy success for the Kremlin. No doubt, the impetus is to keep "third countries" out of Central Asia. Medvedev has said that the rapid-reaction force "will be just as good or comparable to NATO forces". The CSTO's joint rapid-reaction force will hold military exercises in August-September in Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus.
The force will comprise an airborne division and an air assault brigade from Russia, and an air assault brigade from Kazakhstan. The other CSTO members (except Uzbekistan) will contribute a battalion-size force each. To quote a Russian expert, "A collective rapid-reaction force will give CSTO a quick tool, leaving no time for third parties to intervene." [9]
"The rapid-response force is a major but so far only one of the first steps toward creating a powerful military political organization," he added. Indeed, Kommersant newspaper broke the news on May 29 that Russia was planning to build a strong military contingent in Central Asia within the framework of the CSTO, which will be comparable to NATO forces in Europe. "Work is being conducted in all areas, and a number of documents have been adopted," the report said, quoting Russian Foreign Ministry sources.
The unnamed Russian official said, "It will be a purely military structure, built to ensure security in Central Asia in case of an act of aggression." It will include armored and artillery units and a naval flotilla in the Caspian Sea, according to the CSTO spokesman. The Russian news agency Novosti reported that the new force would comprise large military units from five countries - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. It commented, "The creation of a powerful military contingent in Central Asia reflects Moscow's drive to make the CSTO a pro-Russian military bloc, rivaling NATO forces in Europe."
Interestingly, a summit meeting of the CSTO is scheduled for Moscow on Sunday on the eve of the SCO summit in Yekaterinburg. The million-dollar question is the co-relation, if any, between the CSTO and the SCO summits in the scheme of things in Moscow and Beijing. The political and diplomatic symbolism in the timing of the two summits on successive days cannot be lost on observers. There has been some talk that the CSTO and the SCO would eventually have an institutionalized back-to-back relationship of sorts. (All the SCO member countries except China are also CSTO members.)
Conceivably, Moscow and Beijing have been exchanging views on the CSTO's emergence as a coherent military bloc in Central Asia, with which China shares thousands of kilometers of border. What seems to be happening is that China tacitly welcomes the Russian initiative to build up the CSTO's capabilities as a military setup. At the very least, Beijing isn't doing anything to dampen Russia's enthusiasm, let alone counter the Russian move through countervailing steps. There could be several factors at work here.
One, any strengthening of security in Central Asia also benefits China. Two, to the extent that the CSTO becomes a bulwark against any NATO expansion into Central Asia, it also works to China's advantage. Three, Moscow's determination to stand up to the US's containment strategy serves Beijing's purpose. Four, the CSTO's build-up means the consolidation of Central Asian countries, which precludes opportunities for the US to expand its influence in the region, let alone roll back Russian and Chinese influence.
Five, the emergence of the CSTO in Central Asia virtually forecloses any future US attempts to place elements of its missile defense system in the border regions of China close to the Xinjiang autonomous region, where China has located important missile sites. Finally, the CSTO harbors no animus against China insofar as all the CSTO members except Armenia and Belarus are in any case SCO members. China's rapidly expanding influence in Central Asia ensures that the bulk of the CSTO countries will have high stakes in friendly relations with Beijing.
Thus, an intriguing security paradigm is developing in Central Asia. Quintessentially, the SCO will keep shying away from becoming a military bloc. This is not feigned posturing. It is real. At the same time, in political terms, the SCO is the facilitator of a regional security understanding that is leading to the full-blooded evolution of the CSTO as an anti-NATO military bloc.
Arguably, in the absence of the SCO, Moscow and Beijing would have to invent such a body. For, without the SCO, any such formation under Moscow's leadership of a NATO-like military bloc shaping up right on China's sensitive border regions would have been simply unthinkable.
Notes
1. Marina Zavada and Yuriy Kulikov, "Yevgeniy Primakov", Autopilot Does Not Work in a Crisis, Izvestia, May, 8, 2009.
2. According to the data from the US Energy Information Administration, the three “Stans” of Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan - have more than 7 trillion cbm of proven gas reserves, or around 4% of the global share, and much of the has hasn’t yet been harvested. The "Stans" have committed much of their harvestable gas to Russia and China through the next decade.
3. S Adam Cardais, "Central Asian Gas Not a Panacea for Europe", Business Week, February 3, 2009.
4. Dr Martha Brill Olcott, "The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Changing the Playing Field in Central Asia", testimony before the Helsinki Commission, September 26, 2006.
5. "NATO invites Kazakhstan to join Afghan peacekeeping operation", Nezavisimaya Gazeta, May, 14, 2009.
6. Significantly, the next round of the SCO joint military exercises will be held in 2010 in southern Kazakhstan.
7. "Interview with Stephen F Cohen on US-Russia Relations", Washington Profile, April 2009.
8. "Afghanistan: Russia’s chance to influence global politics again", Izvestia, May 13, 2009. 9. Ilya Kramnik, "CSTO: joining forces in a crisis", RIA Novosti, February 5, 2009.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
June 13, 2009
Indian Maoists setting up arms factories, developing electronic IEDs
Indian Express
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/476239/
Sunday , Jun 14, 2009 at 1128 hrs
Giridh, Jharkhand : The Naxals, who surprised everyone by using rocket launchers for the first time during the Lok Sabha polls, have already set up about four units to manufacture weapons and ammunition, say central security agencies. The Naxals, who usually target security forces with manual improvised explosive devices, are now slowly developing remote-controlled IEDs which can be activated from a distance with just the push of a button.
The improvement in fire-power is being supported by intensive training on the lines of regular forces,say sources. Central security agencies and local police sources say the Maoists have started two factories each in the dense forests and hills of both Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. Sources say that though another such factory existed earlier in Bihar, the Naxals have dismantled it.
Early last year, a combing team of the CRPF and the local police had come across one such unit used for making small bombs and mortar shells in Jharkhand. The Naxals who are trying to improve their firepower have also come out with the deadly 'Claymore Mines', or what are often called 'directional IEDs'.
Unlike in the past, when IEDs use to be buried beneath the road in a small can, the Claymore Mines, which come with a thick aluminium plate, can be fitted to a tree.
The IED, when exploded, will deflect the shrapnels in a direction opposite to the plate, thus focusing them to a particular area as against conventional IEDs where the impact is in a circular area around the device. Certain blasts in Chhattisgarh have pointed to the possibility of remote-controlled IEDs being used but they are yet to become a standard strategy for the Naxals, say sources. "Naxals are constantly trying to improvise and have also set up factories for this. During searches by security personnel, they have come across few chips which suggest that they are trying to develop remote-controlled IEDs. If they succeed, it would prove deadly," according to a source. "The Naxalites also make their own guns besides those snatched from policemen and procured from outside. Their locally-made guns called 'pahar' can be used to severely injure a person if not kill him. The pellets break into pieces on impact and hence are deadly," the source says.
The left-wing extremists are known for using gelatin sticks in their explosives. They are sourced from mining areas, say sources. A source says that the Maoists also undergo military training similar to that of securitymen, which "suggests a possibility of ex-army or ex-policemen" helping in preparing training modules, whether due to force or their own wish.
One of the Naxal training CDs seized by security forces in Andhra Pradesh gives an insight into the training modules with the militants practising crawling backwards. Security forces have also come across abandoned centres of Naxals having rope climbing, ladder, crawling tunnels and other obstacles used for hard training. The Naxals have also hit upon an innovative way to store their ammunition by hiding it in branded plastic water tanks placed in the ground and covered with mud and stones. Sources said the logic behind it was that there are less chances of formation of moisture, which might damage the ammunition.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story-print/476239/
Sunday , Jun 14, 2009 at 1128 hrs
Giridh, Jharkhand : The Naxals, who surprised everyone by using rocket launchers for the first time during the Lok Sabha polls, have already set up about four units to manufacture weapons and ammunition, say central security agencies. The Naxals, who usually target security forces with manual improvised explosive devices, are now slowly developing remote-controlled IEDs which can be activated from a distance with just the push of a button.
The improvement in fire-power is being supported by intensive training on the lines of regular forces,say sources. Central security agencies and local police sources say the Maoists have started two factories each in the dense forests and hills of both Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. Sources say that though another such factory existed earlier in Bihar, the Naxals have dismantled it.
Early last year, a combing team of the CRPF and the local police had come across one such unit used for making small bombs and mortar shells in Jharkhand. The Naxals who are trying to improve their firepower have also come out with the deadly 'Claymore Mines', or what are often called 'directional IEDs'.
Unlike in the past, when IEDs use to be buried beneath the road in a small can, the Claymore Mines, which come with a thick aluminium plate, can be fitted to a tree.
The IED, when exploded, will deflect the shrapnels in a direction opposite to the plate, thus focusing them to a particular area as against conventional IEDs where the impact is in a circular area around the device. Certain blasts in Chhattisgarh have pointed to the possibility of remote-controlled IEDs being used but they are yet to become a standard strategy for the Naxals, say sources. "Naxals are constantly trying to improvise and have also set up factories for this. During searches by security personnel, they have come across few chips which suggest that they are trying to develop remote-controlled IEDs. If they succeed, it would prove deadly," according to a source. "The Naxalites also make their own guns besides those snatched from policemen and procured from outside. Their locally-made guns called 'pahar' can be used to severely injure a person if not kill him. The pellets break into pieces on impact and hence are deadly," the source says.
The left-wing extremists are known for using gelatin sticks in their explosives. They are sourced from mining areas, say sources. A source says that the Maoists also undergo military training similar to that of securitymen, which "suggests a possibility of ex-army or ex-policemen" helping in preparing training modules, whether due to force or their own wish.
One of the Naxal training CDs seized by security forces in Andhra Pradesh gives an insight into the training modules with the militants practising crawling backwards. Security forces have also come across abandoned centres of Naxals having rope climbing, ladder, crawling tunnels and other obstacles used for hard training. The Naxals have also hit upon an innovative way to store their ammunition by hiding it in branded plastic water tanks placed in the ground and covered with mud and stones. Sources said the logic behind it was that there are less chances of formation of moisture, which might damage the ammunition.
Step Up To The Task
Step Up To The Task
12 Jun 2009, 0000 hrs IST, Prakash Singh
Times of India
The president's address to Parliament unveiled an ambitious agenda for reforms in which internal security has been given high priority, and rightly
so. The country has been reassured that the government would follow a policy of ''zero tolerance'' towards terrorism and that ''stern measures'' would be taken to deal with insurgency and left-wing extremism.
Unfortunately, there is a sense of complacency that has set in here because there has been no major incident since 26/11. We must remember that the reason there has been no major terror strike since the Mumbai attacks has been more due to the international pressure on Pakistan and the action taken by that country against terrorists operating within its boundaries rather than any strengthening of the security apparatus by our government.
As soon as Pakistan is able to get the economic assistance it desperately needs, it would revert to its old game of sponsoring terrorism. The manner in which Hafiz Saeed, chief of the banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), and founder of the outlawed Lashkar-a-Taiba (LeT), has been let off the hook is evidence, if needed at all, of Pakistan's ambivalence. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that the government improves our security architecture comprehensively. Else, all our efforts in other areas would come to a naught. Economic development can take place only in a secure environment.
It may be recalled that the Rand Corporation, a US think tank, had, in the aftermath of the 26/11 incidents in Mumbai, clearly warned that ''India will continue to face a serious jihadi terrorist threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups for the foreseeable future''. In fact, it even said ''the threat will continue to grow''. Another US think tank, Stratfor, also said that in the context of ''jihadi insurgency along India's western frontier and Pakistan seemingly losing control of its militant proxies, another major Islamist attack in India is inevitable''.
Meanwhile, the US state department, while ranking India ''among the world's most terrorism affected countries'' deplored that ''the Indian government's counterterrorism efforts remained hampered by its outdated and overburdened law enforcement and legal systems''. Government no doubt took some positive measures in the wake of 26/11. However, our overall preparedness leaves much to be desired.
The police and intelligence organisations in the states continue to be in poor shape. The majority of states have been lackadaisical in implementing the Supreme Court's directions on police reforms. The Centre has been dragging its feet over introducing the Model Police Bill for Delhi and the Union territories. The police force is woefully short of manpower, apart from the fact that a sizeable chunk of the force is diverted to protect so-called VIPs. There is misplaced emphasis on open-ended expansion of the paramilitary forces. What we need to actually augment is the civil police force.
The 'thana' does not inspire any confidence either by its appearance or by its resources and equipment. Beat constables, the crucial link in internal security, exist on paper alone. Modernisation of the police has been slow, as has been highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Recruitment procedures are tainted and training continues to be neglected. The executive has, in some states, devastated the chain of command with deleterious effects on discipline in the ranks. If the morale of the police is low today, it's thanks to the politicians and the bureaucracy.
The Congress party, in its manifesto, recognised the ''imperative of police reforms''. It stated, ''A clear distinction between the political executive and police administration will be made''. The manifesto also assured that the police force ''will be better provisioned especially in the matter of housing and educational facilities''. The president has also reiterated the government's commitment to police reforms. It is high time that these promises are acted upon.
At the national level, our anti-terror policy must be defined in explicit terms. The National Investigating Agency and the Central Bureau of Investigation need to be merged. Having two parallel central investigating agencies makes no sense. The performance of the Research & Analysis Wing remains a matter of concern. It must develop offensive capabilities. The Intelligence Bureau needs to be depoliticised. The National Security Council is almost dysfunctional and the National Security Advisory Board has become a parking spot for retired officers who are in the good books of the establishment.
The problem of Bangladeshi immigration was dusted under the carpet by all previous governments. That cannot continue. To start with, fencing our borders with Bangladesh should be completed expeditiously overruling all political objections at the local level. The scheme to give multi-purpose identity cards to all Indian citizens should be implemented post-haste. In due course, government must prevail upon Bangladesh to accept the fact of illegal immigration and take back at least some of its nationals on the basis of a mutually agreed cut-off date.
It was unfortunate that in the wake of 26/11, the government did not appoint a national commission to examine the lapses in security and suggest comprehensive measures to overhaul the security matrix. Perhaps those in power scuttled the proposal lest they were exposed and held accountable. Though belated, the new government may still consider appointing such a commission to investigate systemic failures and recommend appropriate remedial measures.
The writer is a former director-general, BSF.
12 Jun 2009, 0000 hrs IST, Prakash Singh
Times of India
The president's address to Parliament unveiled an ambitious agenda for reforms in which internal security has been given high priority, and rightly
so. The country has been reassured that the government would follow a policy of ''zero tolerance'' towards terrorism and that ''stern measures'' would be taken to deal with insurgency and left-wing extremism.
Unfortunately, there is a sense of complacency that has set in here because there has been no major incident since 26/11. We must remember that the reason there has been no major terror strike since the Mumbai attacks has been more due to the international pressure on Pakistan and the action taken by that country against terrorists operating within its boundaries rather than any strengthening of the security apparatus by our government.
As soon as Pakistan is able to get the economic assistance it desperately needs, it would revert to its old game of sponsoring terrorism. The manner in which Hafiz Saeed, chief of the banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), and founder of the outlawed Lashkar-a-Taiba (LeT), has been let off the hook is evidence, if needed at all, of Pakistan's ambivalence. It is absolutely essential, therefore, that the government improves our security architecture comprehensively. Else, all our efforts in other areas would come to a naught. Economic development can take place only in a secure environment.
It may be recalled that the Rand Corporation, a US think tank, had, in the aftermath of the 26/11 incidents in Mumbai, clearly warned that ''India will continue to face a serious jihadi terrorist threat from Pakistan-based terrorist groups for the foreseeable future''. In fact, it even said ''the threat will continue to grow''. Another US think tank, Stratfor, also said that in the context of ''jihadi insurgency along India's western frontier and Pakistan seemingly losing control of its militant proxies, another major Islamist attack in India is inevitable''.
Meanwhile, the US state department, while ranking India ''among the world's most terrorism affected countries'' deplored that ''the Indian government's counterterrorism efforts remained hampered by its outdated and overburdened law enforcement and legal systems''. Government no doubt took some positive measures in the wake of 26/11. However, our overall preparedness leaves much to be desired.
The police and intelligence organisations in the states continue to be in poor shape. The majority of states have been lackadaisical in implementing the Supreme Court's directions on police reforms. The Centre has been dragging its feet over introducing the Model Police Bill for Delhi and the Union territories. The police force is woefully short of manpower, apart from the fact that a sizeable chunk of the force is diverted to protect so-called VIPs. There is misplaced emphasis on open-ended expansion of the paramilitary forces. What we need to actually augment is the civil police force.
The 'thana' does not inspire any confidence either by its appearance or by its resources and equipment. Beat constables, the crucial link in internal security, exist on paper alone. Modernisation of the police has been slow, as has been highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Recruitment procedures are tainted and training continues to be neglected. The executive has, in some states, devastated the chain of command with deleterious effects on discipline in the ranks. If the morale of the police is low today, it's thanks to the politicians and the bureaucracy.
The Congress party, in its manifesto, recognised the ''imperative of police reforms''. It stated, ''A clear distinction between the political executive and police administration will be made''. The manifesto also assured that the police force ''will be better provisioned especially in the matter of housing and educational facilities''. The president has also reiterated the government's commitment to police reforms. It is high time that these promises are acted upon.
At the national level, our anti-terror policy must be defined in explicit terms. The National Investigating Agency and the Central Bureau of Investigation need to be merged. Having two parallel central investigating agencies makes no sense. The performance of the Research & Analysis Wing remains a matter of concern. It must develop offensive capabilities. The Intelligence Bureau needs to be depoliticised. The National Security Council is almost dysfunctional and the National Security Advisory Board has become a parking spot for retired officers who are in the good books of the establishment.
The problem of Bangladeshi immigration was dusted under the carpet by all previous governments. That cannot continue. To start with, fencing our borders with Bangladesh should be completed expeditiously overruling all political objections at the local level. The scheme to give multi-purpose identity cards to all Indian citizens should be implemented post-haste. In due course, government must prevail upon Bangladesh to accept the fact of illegal immigration and take back at least some of its nationals on the basis of a mutually agreed cut-off date.
It was unfortunate that in the wake of 26/11, the government did not appoint a national commission to examine the lapses in security and suggest comprehensive measures to overhaul the security matrix. Perhaps those in power scuttled the proposal lest they were exposed and held accountable. Though belated, the new government may still consider appointing such a commission to investigate systemic failures and recommend appropriate remedial measures.
The writer is a former director-general, BSF.
INDIA: Umranikar to head anti-naxal team in Maharastra
Correspondent
Friday, June 12th, 2009 AT 10:06 PM
MUMBAI: Senior IPS officer and former Pune Police chief Jayant Umranikar was on Friday promoted as Director General of Police and has been tasked with combating Naxal violence in the Vidarbha region, where more than 30 policemen has been killed in two major ambushes this year.
Umranikar, an officer of the 1973-batch of the IPS, is currently Additional Director General of Police in-charge of training. An experienced officer he had a stint with Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) in the eighties and nineties. The development of Umranikar being made the chief of ANO indicates that the post has been upgraded to the rank of DGP.
On joining the Maharashtra-cadre, he has served in Aurangabad, Jalgaon, Bhiwandi, Thane and Satara. In the late eighties, he went to Cabinet Secretariat and during this stint with the R&AW he has served in Pakistan and some Gulf countries.
In 2001, he returned to the parent cadre and joined as Joint Commissioner of Police in Nagpur and then as Addl DG (ANO). Subsequently, he became the Commissioner of Nagpur and then went to Pune where he headed the CID before becoming the Pune Police Commissioner. Last year, he was transferred to Mumbai.
As a matter of fact, the Democratic Front government was concerned with the ground situation particularly in Gadchiroli district – where more than 30 policemen had died in two major ambushes. In both the cases, policemen were lured into a trap. As a matter of fact, DGP SS Virk too is concerned about this and hence the post of ANO was elevated.
Also a major plan awaits Umranikar, when Gadchiroli is bifurcated into two police districts and besides this Gondia would be combined into a focused area which would be looked after as a range with an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General.
Naxal attacks: Centre rushes high-level team to Jharkhand
Vinay Kumar
Home Ministry reorienting strategy
Naxals exploiting lack of coordination among government agencies and police
Police not following standard operating procedures
NEW DELHI: Concerned at the spate of deadly naxal attacks targeting police personnel, the Centre has rushed a high-level team to Jharkhand. Over the past two days 20 policemen have been killed in the State.
Union Home Ministry officials said the team comprising an Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary would assess the ground situation.
Maoist cadres have attacked policemen in Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh over the past two months, either blasting police vehicles by detonating landmines or ambushing police parties and shooting personnel dead.
100-day plan
As the new UPA government is chalking out a 100-day action plan for all ministries and departments, the Home Ministry is also reorienting and fine-tuning its response to naxal violence. Officials say the attempt is to elicit the response of the naxal-affected States to improve the ground-level policing and accelerate development plans.
A time-bound initiative in this effort could be included in the Ministry’s 100-day action plan, say informed sources.
Sitting ducks
Even as the Multiagency Centre (MAC) has been made operational and intelligence inputs are being shared among all States, the fact remains that naxals are exploiting the lack of intelligence and coordination among the government agencies and the police.
“Police teams end up as sitting ducks and Maoists are able to gather in large numbers, network themselves and attack the security personnel,” say the officials.
First task
The first and foremost task is to achieve perfect coordination among all arms of the State governments and the Centre, on the one hand, and the police forces and the intelligence gathering machinery, on the other.
The officials have indicated that development initiatives, taken at the level of the Union Cabinet Secretary in selected districts affected by naxal violence, are also being pushed vigorously and monitored regularly.
Knee-jerk reaction
The officials point out that State police teams often failed to adhere to the guidelines sent by the Centre and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that lay down the practice to be followed in search and raid operations or while acting on a tip-off.
Many a time, the police and Central forces left for engaging Maoists without adequate reinforcements and communication back-up.
In some instances, they have taken their vehicles on known routes and roads instead of going on foot, or taking with them road opening parties (ROPs) who will sanitise the route, say the officials.
Take advantage
Maoist cadres have also taken advantage of thick forests, particularly in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, and used the cover for getting away after the attack.
The sources say development measures, coupled with a flexible, highly mobile and disciplined police force that can quickly respond to real-time intelligence and other inputs, are the need of the hour.
Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, soon after assuming charge of the Ministry last month, said a concerted offensive would soon be launched against the naxalites.
Twin-pronged strategy
Mr. Chidambaram said the two-pronged strategy of combining police action with stepped-up development in the naxal-affected districts would be taken up.
Home Ministry reorienting strategy
Naxals exploiting lack of coordination among government agencies and police
Police not following standard operating procedures
NEW DELHI: Concerned at the spate of deadly naxal attacks targeting police personnel, the Centre has rushed a high-level team to Jharkhand. Over the past two days 20 policemen have been killed in the State.
Union Home Ministry officials said the team comprising an Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary would assess the ground situation.
Maoist cadres have attacked policemen in Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh over the past two months, either blasting police vehicles by detonating landmines or ambushing police parties and shooting personnel dead.
100-day plan
As the new UPA government is chalking out a 100-day action plan for all ministries and departments, the Home Ministry is also reorienting and fine-tuning its response to naxal violence. Officials say the attempt is to elicit the response of the naxal-affected States to improve the ground-level policing and accelerate development plans.
A time-bound initiative in this effort could be included in the Ministry’s 100-day action plan, say informed sources.
Sitting ducks
Even as the Multiagency Centre (MAC) has been made operational and intelligence inputs are being shared among all States, the fact remains that naxals are exploiting the lack of intelligence and coordination among the government agencies and the police.
“Police teams end up as sitting ducks and Maoists are able to gather in large numbers, network themselves and attack the security personnel,” say the officials.
First task
The first and foremost task is to achieve perfect coordination among all arms of the State governments and the Centre, on the one hand, and the police forces and the intelligence gathering machinery, on the other.
The officials have indicated that development initiatives, taken at the level of the Union Cabinet Secretary in selected districts affected by naxal violence, are also being pushed vigorously and monitored regularly.
Knee-jerk reaction
The officials point out that State police teams often failed to adhere to the guidelines sent by the Centre and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that lay down the practice to be followed in search and raid operations or while acting on a tip-off.
Many a time, the police and Central forces left for engaging Maoists without adequate reinforcements and communication back-up.
In some instances, they have taken their vehicles on known routes and roads instead of going on foot, or taking with them road opening parties (ROPs) who will sanitise the route, say the officials.
Take advantage
Maoist cadres have also taken advantage of thick forests, particularly in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, and used the cover for getting away after the attack.
The sources say development measures, coupled with a flexible, highly mobile and disciplined police force that can quickly respond to real-time intelligence and other inputs, are the need of the hour.
Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, soon after assuming charge of the Ministry last month, said a concerted offensive would soon be launched against the naxalites.
Twin-pronged strategy
Mr. Chidambaram said the two-pronged strategy of combining police action with stepped-up development in the naxal-affected districts would be taken up.
PAKISTAN'S TORTURE OF AMERICAN MAN RXPOSES NATIONAL SCHISMS
by Ahmar Mustikhan
American Reporter Correspondent
Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON -- He was forced to live like a blind man in a dark dungeon for eight months, so completely denied daylight that he could not know if it was day or night, after Pakistan's Military Intelligence secretly abducted him on suspicion of promioting U.S. interests.
"I literally lived like a blind man," says Sohrab Sarki, 43, bursting into tears. A motel business owner from Yuba City, Calif., he recalls the horror he felt when he first saw his face in the mirror after 20 months of army torture. "I never cried as much [in my life]. I could not recognize my face. I thought I was looking at the skeleton of my father," he said, after he was allowed to shave and provided with a mirror.
"The major question they asked was what is the agenda of the USA," he said. Sarki, a naturalized American, said he told his tormentors the U.S. was a friend of Pakistan and had poured billions of dollars into the country's coffers - Pakistan got upwards of $12 billion in U.S. assistance, mostly military aid, since 9/11 - and what made them think the U.S. would be pushing a secret agenda?
"On the table we do one thing, under the table we do another," the investigating officer responded, implying that in spite of best diplomatic relations the two countries now were estranged bedfellows. Sarki's 27-month ordeal began on Feb. 24, 2008, when more than two dozen armed members of Pakistan's Military Intelligence raided his home in Karachi. Whe he asked army officers to show him their warrant, one responded, "We never show any warrants."
Soon he was blindfolded and whisked away to an interrogation unit of the Military Intelligence in downtown Karachi, near the army corp commander's office.
"I was made to stand in a three-by-three-foot cell for many days. Once my feet got swollen, they struck it with rods, which hurt in the extreme," he recalls.
Sarki's narrative shows that Pakistan's generals are extremely suspicious of the U.S. role in the troubled southwest Asia region. "How are your brothers in the Baluchistan mountains doing?" Sarki said he was asked as interrogators grilled him about his links with two prominent slain leaders from Baluchistan - former chief minister and governor of Baluchistan, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who was assassinated on August 26, 2008, and provincial assembly member Nawabzada Balach Marri, who was killed November, 2007.
Sarki was also questioned about his ties with Sardar Ataullah Mengal, another former chief minister of Baluchistan. Pakistani intelligence killed Mengal's son, Asadullah Mengal, in the mid-1970s and as in the case of Nawab Bugti, his remains were never returned to his family. To this day, none knows where Mengal was buried.
When Sarki went missing in Pakistan, members of Congress asked Islamabad about his whereabouts. "In a written response, Pakistan government lied to the U.S. Congress that they do not know Sarki's whereabouts," said Iqbal Tareen, chief coordinator of Forum for Justice and Democracy in Pakistan.
Bush Administration officials have become wary of Pakistan's support of the Taliban in Afghanistan and in recent months haven demanded that Islamabad do more to fight extremist Islamic terrorism. Afghanistan, India and the CIA have accused Pakistan of secretly helping the Taliban.
According to a recent report in the Frontier Post, a U.S. online military newspaper, U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen suggested to Pakistani officials in a July meeting they should carry out a referendum in Baluchistan and Frontier provinces if they are unable to quell Islamic terrorism on their own.
Many analysts believe Baluchi and Pahstun nationalism are the best antidotes against extremism.
The Texas-sized Pakistani state of Baluchistan has been the scene of a bloody insurgency, which the Baluch call the Fifth War of Liberation. They say their native land was forcibly annexed by Pakistan in March 1948, more than seven months after the British granted the Baluchi independence separately from Pakistan and India.
Baluchi rebels accuse Islamabad of stealing their national wealth at the point of a gun. Under the de jure ruler of Baluchistan, the Khan of Kalat Beglar Begi ["The Prince among Princes"], Suleman Daud Ahmedzai, Baluchis are now knocking at the doors of the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
Before the start of Operation Enduring Freedom - launched by the U.S. to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan - Pakistan often tortured political activists after charging them with promoting India's political agenda. Sarki said he was himself surprised the line of questioning had changed and asked one of the Military Intelligence officers about it. "You are of a higher level," the colonel responded in what he presumed was an oblique reference to Sarki's U.S. nationality.
"I am indebted to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry for bringing people like me out of these graves [military torture cells]," Sarki said. Chaudhry was sacked by ex-President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for his judicial activism in spring lat year, but when he was restored by the Supreme Court of Pakistan the following fall. Musharraf sent him and the other judges back home one more time after imposing a state of emergency in November, but Musharraf has now resigned and Chaudry's reinstatement has been urged by some in the country's transition government
The judge is still opposed by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the senior member of the coalition of parties currently ruling Pakistan. The issue threatened to undermine the entire coalition after the other main opposition leader, former presidential candidate Nawaz Sharif, delivered an ultimatum to the PPP demanding Chaudry's reinstatement within 72 hours and then walked out on coalition talks.
"I also believe it was the sacrifice of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto that put the army on the back foot," Sarki said. Though the C.I.A. named Baitullah Mehsud, a shadowy Taliban warrior from Southern Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas as Bhutto's killer, most Pakistanis accuse the Punjabi and Mohajir generals and the country's secret services of being responsible for Bhutto's death. Before her death, Bhutto had accused Musharraf's alleged henchman retired Brig. General Ejaz Shah, chief of the Intelligence Bureau and former I.S.I. official, of being the main person behind plots to have her killed. Shah remain untouched as Pakistan newspapers said he is close to present home minister, Rahman Malik.
A U.N inquiry is also underway that may lay bare the facts about Bhutto's assassination. Sarki also credited Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Ill.), Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for helping him win freedom and returing to America in one piece.
Sarki met U.S. Department of State officials, who said they were sorry they could not do more for him while he was enduring torture in Pakistan.
"I saw adults wiping away tears from their eyes when he related his story of torture and the agony that he suffered at the hands of Pakistani intelligence services," said Khalid Hashmani, a Sindhi activist and intellectual who lives in McClean, Va.
Sarki believes a point of no return has reached in Pakistan's relationship with the rebellious Baluchistan and Sindh provinces, where nationalist sentiments run high over the alleged plunder of their resources by dominant Punjabis and Mohajirs.
"One's death will be the life of the other," he said, expressing Baluch and Sindhi fury against Islamabad. He said he had told his tormentors that Pakistan was an unnatural country and that a solution lies in freedom for the federating units.
Some constitutional experts say Pakistan's 1973 Constitution in letter grants full autonomy to the four federal units, but two military regimes that lasted two decades since 1977 have rendered the country's constitution into something lerss reliable than than toilet paper, they say.
"Pakistan is now under a cloud. The world has realized Pakistan is the problem [with regard to terrorism]."
Sarki was one of the founders of the World Sindhi Congress, which is active in the U.S. and U.K. for securing the rights of the Sindhi people and other minorities in Pakistan. He lives in Yuba City with his wife and two sons.
Copyright 2009 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.american-reporter.com/3,701W/190.html
American Reporter Correspondent
Washington, D.C.
WASHINGTON -- He was forced to live like a blind man in a dark dungeon for eight months, so completely denied daylight that he could not know if it was day or night, after Pakistan's Military Intelligence secretly abducted him on suspicion of promioting U.S. interests.
"I literally lived like a blind man," says Sohrab Sarki, 43, bursting into tears. A motel business owner from Yuba City, Calif., he recalls the horror he felt when he first saw his face in the mirror after 20 months of army torture. "I never cried as much [in my life]. I could not recognize my face. I thought I was looking at the skeleton of my father," he said, after he was allowed to shave and provided with a mirror.
"The major question they asked was what is the agenda of the USA," he said. Sarki, a naturalized American, said he told his tormentors the U.S. was a friend of Pakistan and had poured billions of dollars into the country's coffers - Pakistan got upwards of $12 billion in U.S. assistance, mostly military aid, since 9/11 - and what made them think the U.S. would be pushing a secret agenda?
"On the table we do one thing, under the table we do another," the investigating officer responded, implying that in spite of best diplomatic relations the two countries now were estranged bedfellows. Sarki's 27-month ordeal began on Feb. 24, 2008, when more than two dozen armed members of Pakistan's Military Intelligence raided his home in Karachi. Whe he asked army officers to show him their warrant, one responded, "We never show any warrants."
Soon he was blindfolded and whisked away to an interrogation unit of the Military Intelligence in downtown Karachi, near the army corp commander's office.
"I was made to stand in a three-by-three-foot cell for many days. Once my feet got swollen, they struck it with rods, which hurt in the extreme," he recalls.
Sarki's narrative shows that Pakistan's generals are extremely suspicious of the U.S. role in the troubled southwest Asia region. "How are your brothers in the Baluchistan mountains doing?" Sarki said he was asked as interrogators grilled him about his links with two prominent slain leaders from Baluchistan - former chief minister and governor of Baluchistan, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, who was assassinated on August 26, 2008, and provincial assembly member Nawabzada Balach Marri, who was killed November, 2007.
Sarki was also questioned about his ties with Sardar Ataullah Mengal, another former chief minister of Baluchistan. Pakistani intelligence killed Mengal's son, Asadullah Mengal, in the mid-1970s and as in the case of Nawab Bugti, his remains were never returned to his family. To this day, none knows where Mengal was buried.
When Sarki went missing in Pakistan, members of Congress asked Islamabad about his whereabouts. "In a written response, Pakistan government lied to the U.S. Congress that they do not know Sarki's whereabouts," said Iqbal Tareen, chief coordinator of Forum for Justice and Democracy in Pakistan.
Bush Administration officials have become wary of Pakistan's support of the Taliban in Afghanistan and in recent months haven demanded that Islamabad do more to fight extremist Islamic terrorism. Afghanistan, India and the CIA have accused Pakistan of secretly helping the Taliban.
According to a recent report in the Frontier Post, a U.S. online military newspaper, U.S. Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen suggested to Pakistani officials in a July meeting they should carry out a referendum in Baluchistan and Frontier provinces if they are unable to quell Islamic terrorism on their own.
Many analysts believe Baluchi and Pahstun nationalism are the best antidotes against extremism.
The Texas-sized Pakistani state of Baluchistan has been the scene of a bloody insurgency, which the Baluch call the Fifth War of Liberation. They say their native land was forcibly annexed by Pakistan in March 1948, more than seven months after the British granted the Baluchi independence separately from Pakistan and India.
Baluchi rebels accuse Islamabad of stealing their national wealth at the point of a gun. Under the de jure ruler of Baluchistan, the Khan of Kalat Beglar Begi ["The Prince among Princes"], Suleman Daud Ahmedzai, Baluchis are now knocking at the doors of the International Court of Justice at the Hague.
Before the start of Operation Enduring Freedom - launched by the U.S. to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan - Pakistan often tortured political activists after charging them with promoting India's political agenda. Sarki said he was himself surprised the line of questioning had changed and asked one of the Military Intelligence officers about it. "You are of a higher level," the colonel responded in what he presumed was an oblique reference to Sarki's U.S. nationality.
"I am indebted to Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry for bringing people like me out of these graves [military torture cells]," Sarki said. Chaudhry was sacked by ex-President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for his judicial activism in spring lat year, but when he was restored by the Supreme Court of Pakistan the following fall. Musharraf sent him and the other judges back home one more time after imposing a state of emergency in November, but Musharraf has now resigned and Chaudry's reinstatement has been urged by some in the country's transition government
The judge is still opposed by the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the senior member of the coalition of parties currently ruling Pakistan. The issue threatened to undermine the entire coalition after the other main opposition leader, former presidential candidate Nawaz Sharif, delivered an ultimatum to the PPP demanding Chaudry's reinstatement within 72 hours and then walked out on coalition talks.
"I also believe it was the sacrifice of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto that put the army on the back foot," Sarki said. Though the C.I.A. named Baitullah Mehsud, a shadowy Taliban warrior from Southern Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas as Bhutto's killer, most Pakistanis accuse the Punjabi and Mohajir generals and the country's secret services of being responsible for Bhutto's death. Before her death, Bhutto had accused Musharraf's alleged henchman retired Brig. General Ejaz Shah, chief of the Intelligence Bureau and former I.S.I. official, of being the main person behind plots to have her killed. Shah remain untouched as Pakistan newspapers said he is close to present home minister, Rahman Malik.
A U.N inquiry is also underway that may lay bare the facts about Bhutto's assassination. Sarki also credited Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Ill.), Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for helping him win freedom and returing to America in one piece.
Sarki met U.S. Department of State officials, who said they were sorry they could not do more for him while he was enduring torture in Pakistan.
"I saw adults wiping away tears from their eyes when he related his story of torture and the agony that he suffered at the hands of Pakistani intelligence services," said Khalid Hashmani, a Sindhi activist and intellectual who lives in McClean, Va.
Sarki believes a point of no return has reached in Pakistan's relationship with the rebellious Baluchistan and Sindh provinces, where nationalist sentiments run high over the alleged plunder of their resources by dominant Punjabis and Mohajirs.
"One's death will be the life of the other," he said, expressing Baluch and Sindhi fury against Islamabad. He said he had told his tormentors that Pakistan was an unnatural country and that a solution lies in freedom for the federating units.
Some constitutional experts say Pakistan's 1973 Constitution in letter grants full autonomy to the four federal units, but two military regimes that lasted two decades since 1977 have rendered the country's constitution into something lerss reliable than than toilet paper, they say.
"Pakistan is now under a cloud. The world has realized Pakistan is the problem [with regard to terrorism]."
Sarki was one of the founders of the World Sindhi Congress, which is active in the U.S. and U.K. for securing the rights of the Sindhi people and other minorities in Pakistan. He lives in Yuba City with his wife and two sons.
Copyright 2009 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.american-reporter.com/3,701W/190.html
June 12, 2009
Hambantota & Gwadar -- An Update
By B. Raman
The foundation for the construction of a modern port with Chinese assistance at Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka was formally laid in October, 2007. The construction actually started in January, 2008.
2. It is a 15-year project to be completed in stages. The entire project is estimated to cost US $ one billion. The present Chinese commitment is for the construction of the first stage only, which is estimated to cost US $ 360 million. China has agreed to give 85 per cent of this amount at concessional interest. The balance is being contributed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
3. The first stage of the 15-year (2008-2023) project is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. This stage envisages the construction of a 1000-metre jetty, which will enable the harbour to function as an industrial port for the import and export of industrial chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. By 2023, Hambantota is projected to have a liquefied natural gas refinery, aviation fuel storage facilities, three separate docks giving the port a transshipment capacity and dry docks for ship repair and construction. The project also envisages that when completed the port will serve as a base for bunkering and refueling.
4. The draught (depth) of the new harbour will be 16 metres against 15 metres in Colombo. A 230 metre passage-entrance channel will be created at the breakwater which is 988 metres long on the west end and 311 metres long on the east end.
5. The Government hopes that as a refueling location Hambantota will have many advantages over the Colombo port or ports in South India. The construction has been undertaken by a consortium of Chinese companies headed by the China Harbour Engineering Company and the Sino Hydro Corporation.
6. The project doesn’t have a separate consultant. The Sri Lanka Port Authority (SLPA) is functioning as the client-cum-consultant while the China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd is the contractor. In September, 2008, there were 328 Sri Lankans and 235 Chinese working at the site-----engineers, administrative personnel and others. The present number is not known.
7. The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo.
8. Reliable reports say that while the Sri Lankan authorities want Hambantota to emerge as a modern port with better facilities and efficiency than any of the ports in South India, they do not want the present importance of the Colombo port to be reduced. Colombo presently has the reputation of being the most modern and most efficient port in South Asia. They want this reputation to be maintained. There is no proposal at present to set up container yards and cater to container ships at Hambantota.
9. The present Chinese interest is in the use of the docking and refueling facilities that would come up in Hambantota for their commercial and naval ships. There is no proposal at present for a Chinese naval base at Hambantota.
10. The Chinese have helped Pakistan in the construction of a similar port at Gwadar on the Mekran coast in Balochistan. The first phase of the construction has already been completed and the port was commissioned when Pervez Musharraf was the President. The contract for the running of the port has been given to a Singapore company.
11. From the beginning, Gwadar was planned as a naval-cum- commercial port. Both Pakistan and China were interested in its naval potential. Pakistan wanted the naval facilities in Gwadar to give a strategic depth to its navy and reduce its dependence on the Karachi port, which is vulnerable to attack by the Indian Navy in times of war. The Chinese were interested in the use of the refueling and docking facilities of Gwadar for their naval ships visiting the Gulf area.
12. The Pakistanis had and continue to have ambitious plans for the development of Gwadar as a port to cater to the external trade of the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and the Xinjiang and the Sichuan provinces and the Tibetan region of China. They also offered to the Chinese the use of Gwadar as a transshipment point for oil and gas, which could be brought to Gwadar and from there moved by pipelines to Xinjiang. They also proposed the construction of a rail and road network between Gwadar and Xinjiang. They are also interested in the construction of a huge oil refining capability in Gwadar. Beyond agreeing to feasibility studies in respect of these proposals emanating from Pakistan, the Chinese have not made any firm commitments regarding their participation in any other project in addition to the port construction.
13. Even though it is about two years since the Gwadar port was commissioned, it has not been attracting many ocean-going ships. Most shipping companies prefer the continued use of the Karachi port despite its inefficiency. This is mainly due to the poor security situation in the Makran coast and the failure of the Pakistani authorities to develop the road and other infrastructure, which could sustain an increased level of activity at Gwadar. Even the Chinese preferred using the facilities at Karachi for the ships of their anti-piracy patrols than the facilities at Gwadar. Unless and until there is peace and stability in Afghanistan, the prospects of Gwadar emerging as the gateway for the external trade of the CARs will remain weak.
14. In contrast to Pakistan, Sri Lanka’s interest in developing Hambantota has remained purely commercial. It has very limited external trade. The Colombo port is able to meet satisfactorily its external trade needs. It does not need another port for this purpose. Its interest in Hambantota is as a source of additional foreign exchange earned by offering world class facilities and efficiency to international shipping companies. It is hoping that the present Colombo port and the new port coming up at Hambantota will give it an advantage over India, whose ports are not known for their modern facilities and efficiency.
15. The Sri Lankan Navy has a long history of cordial relations and co-operation with the Indian Navy. It fears no threat from the Indian Navy. As a result, the interest of the Sri Lankan Navy in Hambantota is minimal. But the Chinese interest is more strategic than purely commercial. It is very unlikely that Sri Lanka would allow the Chinese Navy to use Hambantota against India. But a Chinese naval presence in Hambantota would add to the concerns of the Indian Navy by increasing the vulnerability of the South to pressures from the Chinese Navy.
16. Reliable reports say that the Chinese have not so far raised the question of developing Hambantota as a naval base which they can also use to ensure the security of their oil and gas supplies. But they do not rule out the possibility of the Chinese raising it if and when negotiations are held for additional Chinese financial commitments for the subsequent stages of the project.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
The foundation for the construction of a modern port with Chinese assistance at Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka was formally laid in October, 2007. The construction actually started in January, 2008.
2. It is a 15-year project to be completed in stages. The entire project is estimated to cost US $ one billion. The present Chinese commitment is for the construction of the first stage only, which is estimated to cost US $ 360 million. China has agreed to give 85 per cent of this amount at concessional interest. The balance is being contributed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
3. The first stage of the 15-year (2008-2023) project is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. This stage envisages the construction of a 1000-metre jetty, which will enable the harbour to function as an industrial port for the import and export of industrial chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. By 2023, Hambantota is projected to have a liquefied natural gas refinery, aviation fuel storage facilities, three separate docks giving the port a transshipment capacity and dry docks for ship repair and construction. The project also envisages that when completed the port will serve as a base for bunkering and refueling.
4. The draught (depth) of the new harbour will be 16 metres against 15 metres in Colombo. A 230 metre passage-entrance channel will be created at the breakwater which is 988 metres long on the west end and 311 metres long on the east end.
5. The Government hopes that as a refueling location Hambantota will have many advantages over the Colombo port or ports in South India. The construction has been undertaken by a consortium of Chinese companies headed by the China Harbour Engineering Company and the Sino Hydro Corporation.
6. The project doesn’t have a separate consultant. The Sri Lanka Port Authority (SLPA) is functioning as the client-cum-consultant while the China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd is the contractor. In September, 2008, there were 328 Sri Lankans and 235 Chinese working at the site-----engineers, administrative personnel and others. The present number is not known.
7. The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo.
8. Reliable reports say that while the Sri Lankan authorities want Hambantota to emerge as a modern port with better facilities and efficiency than any of the ports in South India, they do not want the present importance of the Colombo port to be reduced. Colombo presently has the reputation of being the most modern and most efficient port in South Asia. They want this reputation to be maintained. There is no proposal at present to set up container yards and cater to container ships at Hambantota.
9. The present Chinese interest is in the use of the docking and refueling facilities that would come up in Hambantota for their commercial and naval ships. There is no proposal at present for a Chinese naval base at Hambantota.
10. The Chinese have helped Pakistan in the construction of a similar port at Gwadar on the Mekran coast in Balochistan. The first phase of the construction has already been completed and the port was commissioned when Pervez Musharraf was the President. The contract for the running of the port has been given to a Singapore company.
11. From the beginning, Gwadar was planned as a naval-cum- commercial port. Both Pakistan and China were interested in its naval potential. Pakistan wanted the naval facilities in Gwadar to give a strategic depth to its navy and reduce its dependence on the Karachi port, which is vulnerable to attack by the Indian Navy in times of war. The Chinese were interested in the use of the refueling and docking facilities of Gwadar for their naval ships visiting the Gulf area.
12. The Pakistanis had and continue to have ambitious plans for the development of Gwadar as a port to cater to the external trade of the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and the Xinjiang and the Sichuan provinces and the Tibetan region of China. They also offered to the Chinese the use of Gwadar as a transshipment point for oil and gas, which could be brought to Gwadar and from there moved by pipelines to Xinjiang. They also proposed the construction of a rail and road network between Gwadar and Xinjiang. They are also interested in the construction of a huge oil refining capability in Gwadar. Beyond agreeing to feasibility studies in respect of these proposals emanating from Pakistan, the Chinese have not made any firm commitments regarding their participation in any other project in addition to the port construction.
13. Even though it is about two years since the Gwadar port was commissioned, it has not been attracting many ocean-going ships. Most shipping companies prefer the continued use of the Karachi port despite its inefficiency. This is mainly due to the poor security situation in the Makran coast and the failure of the Pakistani authorities to develop the road and other infrastructure, which could sustain an increased level of activity at Gwadar. Even the Chinese preferred using the facilities at Karachi for the ships of their anti-piracy patrols than the facilities at Gwadar. Unless and until there is peace and stability in Afghanistan, the prospects of Gwadar emerging as the gateway for the external trade of the CARs will remain weak.
14. In contrast to Pakistan, Sri Lanka’s interest in developing Hambantota has remained purely commercial. It has very limited external trade. The Colombo port is able to meet satisfactorily its external trade needs. It does not need another port for this purpose. Its interest in Hambantota is as a source of additional foreign exchange earned by offering world class facilities and efficiency to international shipping companies. It is hoping that the present Colombo port and the new port coming up at Hambantota will give it an advantage over India, whose ports are not known for their modern facilities and efficiency.
15. The Sri Lankan Navy has a long history of cordial relations and co-operation with the Indian Navy. It fears no threat from the Indian Navy. As a result, the interest of the Sri Lankan Navy in Hambantota is minimal. But the Chinese interest is more strategic than purely commercial. It is very unlikely that Sri Lanka would allow the Chinese Navy to use Hambantota against India. But a Chinese naval presence in Hambantota would add to the concerns of the Indian Navy by increasing the vulnerability of the South to pressures from the Chinese Navy.
16. Reliable reports say that the Chinese have not so far raised the question of developing Hambantota as a naval base which they can also use to ensure the security of their oil and gas supplies. But they do not rule out the possibility of the Chinese raising it if and when negotiations are held for additional Chinese financial commitments for the subsequent stages of the project.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Indo-US nuclear deal plays out in slow motion
11 Jun 2009, 0914 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi, TNN
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-delays-implementation-of-nuclear-deal/articleshow/4641538.cms
NEW DELHI: Although a nuclear deal between US and India is a wrap, the wheels are moving at a grinding slow pace on implementing the deal, with the
US dithering on starting negotiations for the reprocessing agreement.
Government sources said civil nuclear issues occupied a large part of the discussions between William Burns and foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on Wednesday. It's likely they will come up for talks again when Burns meets NSA M K Narayanan on Thursday.
Negotiations for a reprocessing agreement is yet to start, because Washington, Indian officials said, was yet to set a date. India is insistent that a reprocessing deal is absolutely necessary for the nuclear deal to be meaningful. The deal said negotiations would start within six months of the signing of the agreement, but the US is yet to do so. The newly nominated US undersecretary of state for arms control, Ellen Tauscher, told the US Senate at her confirmation hearing that negotiations would start before August 2. In her hearing, she even promised that the entire process of implementing the deal would be completed a year from that date. Given the present pace, there is some scepticism here, and it's not clear whether US tardiness is just bureaucratic or deliberate.
Indian public and private entities seeking to reap early harvests from the deal have complained that around a score of licenses for nuclear and conventional dual use technologies and equipment are hanging fire with the US administration. The nuclear deal transferred dual-use licensing from presumptions of denial to presumptions of approval — but from all accounts, the Obama administration is yet to approve. Sources here said it would help if a political statement of intent from the top levels of the US government were sent down the system.
Sanctions and bans remain on Indian entities by the US despite the deal, these haven't yet been lifted.
Just as a sign of how long things can take between the two countries, a technology safeguards agreement (TSA) allowing India to launch spacecraft with US components is yet to be signed, though officials on both sides expected it to be signed on Thursday. This agreement has taken years of painful negotiations and has had to be delinked from a commercial space launch agreement (CSLA) which is still to be negotiated, but could be a boost for India's civilian space sector.
US sources said India should quickly name sites for US reactors and make them public. India had, in a letter of intent by the foreign secretary, told the US that it would buy reactors with a minimum of 10,000 Mwe of new power generating capacity from US companies. This was given to the US on September 10, 2008. Whether the reprocessing negotiations should precede the naming of sites or vice-versa is not yet clear.
For its part, India needs to take steps to formalise the safeguards agreement with the IAEA by submitting a separation plan, as well as sign up to the CSC convention. The convention for supplementary compensation on nuclear damage has been agreed to by India and is necessary, say officials, to enable US firms to participate in the civil nuclear sector in India. International nuclear firms, led by US companies, have been lobbying hard for India to adopt the convention under the IAEA. The global treaty allocates legal responsibility with the installing state and company for compensating nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident.
QnA: Should India and Pakistan allow USA to intervene in matters not concerning them?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/US-delays-implementation-of-nuclear-deal/articleshow/4641538.cms
NEW DELHI: Although a nuclear deal between US and India is a wrap, the wheels are moving at a grinding slow pace on implementing the deal, with the
US dithering on starting negotiations for the reprocessing agreement.
Government sources said civil nuclear issues occupied a large part of the discussions between William Burns and foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on Wednesday. It's likely they will come up for talks again when Burns meets NSA M K Narayanan on Thursday.
Negotiations for a reprocessing agreement is yet to start, because Washington, Indian officials said, was yet to set a date. India is insistent that a reprocessing deal is absolutely necessary for the nuclear deal to be meaningful. The deal said negotiations would start within six months of the signing of the agreement, but the US is yet to do so. The newly nominated US undersecretary of state for arms control, Ellen Tauscher, told the US Senate at her confirmation hearing that negotiations would start before August 2. In her hearing, she even promised that the entire process of implementing the deal would be completed a year from that date. Given the present pace, there is some scepticism here, and it's not clear whether US tardiness is just bureaucratic or deliberate.
Indian public and private entities seeking to reap early harvests from the deal have complained that around a score of licenses for nuclear and conventional dual use technologies and equipment are hanging fire with the US administration. The nuclear deal transferred dual-use licensing from presumptions of denial to presumptions of approval — but from all accounts, the Obama administration is yet to approve. Sources here said it would help if a political statement of intent from the top levels of the US government were sent down the system.
Sanctions and bans remain on Indian entities by the US despite the deal, these haven't yet been lifted.
Just as a sign of how long things can take between the two countries, a technology safeguards agreement (TSA) allowing India to launch spacecraft with US components is yet to be signed, though officials on both sides expected it to be signed on Thursday. This agreement has taken years of painful negotiations and has had to be delinked from a commercial space launch agreement (CSLA) which is still to be negotiated, but could be a boost for India's civilian space sector.
US sources said India should quickly name sites for US reactors and make them public. India had, in a letter of intent by the foreign secretary, told the US that it would buy reactors with a minimum of 10,000 Mwe of new power generating capacity from US companies. This was given to the US on September 10, 2008. Whether the reprocessing negotiations should precede the naming of sites or vice-versa is not yet clear.
For its part, India needs to take steps to formalise the safeguards agreement with the IAEA by submitting a separation plan, as well as sign up to the CSC convention. The convention for supplementary compensation on nuclear damage has been agreed to by India and is necessary, say officials, to enable US firms to participate in the civil nuclear sector in India. International nuclear firms, led by US companies, have been lobbying hard for India to adopt the convention under the IAEA. The global treaty allocates legal responsibility with the installing state and company for compensating nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident.
QnA: Should India and Pakistan allow USA to intervene in matters not concerning them?
Difference between Indian government and US
ORGANISER
By Dr Jay Dubashi
In India, it is a free house for foreigners. We are like a dharmashala where anybody can come and stay, and take any job and even become the president of a national political party. Any Tom, Dick and Harry from anywhere in the world can come and work in India, collect money by the bagful and go back—or remain here—no questions asked.
Many people in the world, particularly the blacks and the browns, identify with the American President, Barack Obama, so much that they consider him as their President. After all, he looks like them, has more or less the same background, and also talks like them. Obama's father was an African, his mother, a white woman, married an Indonesian after she divorced his father, and Obama himself lived in Indonesia for some time and went to school there. Obama's grandmother still lives, or used to live, in Africa.
But, as the whole world knows, Obama is neither an African nor an Asian. He is very much an American. After all, when every thing is said and done, he is President of the United States, is paid by US taxpayers, and lives in the White House. For him, US interests come first; everything else is secondary.
During the presidential campaign, Obama used to say that American companies were, investing too much outside America and were not creating jobs for Americans inside the US. According to him, this was wrong. After all, it stands to reason that US companies, no matter what business they do and where, should create jobs in the US, and pay US taxes. Instead, they were creating too many jobs outside America and many of them were not paying taxes in the US at all.
Obama now says that US companies should prefer Buffalo, New York, to Bangalore, India, meaning they should create more jobs in the US. He has therefore decided to bring in a new tax code, under which US companies will have to pay taxes on their profits outside the US, and will have to do without subsidies. This is going to hurt their so-called business out-sourcing, business outside America and therefore their overall profits. It is also going to hurt their Indian and other local employees, but that is not Obama's concern.
This means that US companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM etc, which do business in India and do not pay taxes on the profits they make here, will be affected. It also means that they will employ fewer Indian employees than before.
The main thing to remember is that Barack Obama is taking steps to safeguard the interests of Americans who have elected him their President. The fact that it will also affect the interests of Indians and others adversely is not his concern. They did not elect him president; the Americans did.
The Americans are very particular when it comes to jobs inside America. It is extremely difficult for US companies to employ non-Americans without going through a large number of steps and legal hurdles. Even in Hollywood, which has the image of a free-wheeling city where anything goes, outsiders can be employed only with the permission of trade unions. You cannot bring in a non-American script-writer without the permission of the script-writres' guild—in the US. There are actors, guilds, there are photographers' guilds and there are electricians' guilds. You cannot bring in foreign actors or actresses without the permission of the Actors' Guild, which, at one time, was headed by Ronald Reagan, before, of course, he became US President.
In her autobiography, Ingrid Bergman, a Swedish actress, describes what she had to go through to secure the permission of the Actors Guild to enable her to work in Hollywood, and how she had to humour Ronald Reagan and others to get a permit to act in US films. This was also the case with actresses like Marlene Dietrich, Sophia Loren and others, and actors like Maurice Chevalier and Laurence, Olivier, who were not Americans.
In India, it is a free house for foreigners. We are like a dharmashala where anybody can come and stay, and take any job and even become the president of a national political party. Any Tom, Dick and Harry from anywhere in the world can come and work in India, collect money by the bagful and go back—or remain here—no questions asked. Gazal singers come here regularly from Pakistan and sing to bejewelled women in Delhi and Mumbai, and go home loaded with goodies, also no questions asked. Such a thing can never happen in America or Britain, where even Charlie Chaplin was threatened with jail, unless he paid up.
The other day, there was a court case about a Pakistani singer called Adnan Sami who has or apparently been working in Bollywood for the last decade or so and has collected crores and amassed a huge fortune, according to his own wife. He owns dozens of flats in Mumbai and elsewhere and is said to be worth more than Rs 50 crore. In Pakistan, he was a nobody. In India, he is a celebrity of sorts and the twenty—some thing females who man our TV channels swoon, or used to swoon, at his appearances. Incidentally, he has brought his whole family to India, including his father.
The question is: how did he come to India in the first place? Who gave him permission to come and work in Bollywood? Does he have a permit and, if so, how did he get it? Does he pay taxes here at all? There are scores of Indian singers of a vastly superior calibre than Sami. Is there a Pakistani ring in Bollywood that works for Pakistani performers? If so, who patronises it? Incidentally, did Indian singers lodge a protest against foreign singers performing in India? And if not, why not?
This is the main difference between the US and the Indian government. The US government, including the US President, works for Americans; the Indian government works for foreigners. If a man like Quattrocchi, can get away with murder, figuratively speaking, and of course, Rs 64 crore, what is the government doing? By this time, Quattrocchi should have been in jail, along with his Indian patrons, for looting Indian taxpayers' money. Instead, this commission agent from Italy is richer by Rs 64 crore and enjoying the loot in Switzerland or wherever it is that Italians go after robbing other countries where they do their business.
Under Obama, people come first, companies afterwards. Obama is working in the interests of the country that elected him President, not foreigners who work for US companies. Companies in India can and do purchase politicians and get their work done. That is how we find Adnan Sami and others making money in India. But men like Barack Obama are made of sterner stuff. This is the main difference between India and the United States of America.
By Dr Jay Dubashi
In India, it is a free house for foreigners. We are like a dharmashala where anybody can come and stay, and take any job and even become the president of a national political party. Any Tom, Dick and Harry from anywhere in the world can come and work in India, collect money by the bagful and go back—or remain here—no questions asked.
Many people in the world, particularly the blacks and the browns, identify with the American President, Barack Obama, so much that they consider him as their President. After all, he looks like them, has more or less the same background, and also talks like them. Obama's father was an African, his mother, a white woman, married an Indonesian after she divorced his father, and Obama himself lived in Indonesia for some time and went to school there. Obama's grandmother still lives, or used to live, in Africa.
But, as the whole world knows, Obama is neither an African nor an Asian. He is very much an American. After all, when every thing is said and done, he is President of the United States, is paid by US taxpayers, and lives in the White House. For him, US interests come first; everything else is secondary.
During the presidential campaign, Obama used to say that American companies were, investing too much outside America and were not creating jobs for Americans inside the US. According to him, this was wrong. After all, it stands to reason that US companies, no matter what business they do and where, should create jobs in the US, and pay US taxes. Instead, they were creating too many jobs outside America and many of them were not paying taxes in the US at all.
Obama now says that US companies should prefer Buffalo, New York, to Bangalore, India, meaning they should create more jobs in the US. He has therefore decided to bring in a new tax code, under which US companies will have to pay taxes on their profits outside the US, and will have to do without subsidies. This is going to hurt their so-called business out-sourcing, business outside America and therefore their overall profits. It is also going to hurt their Indian and other local employees, but that is not Obama's concern.
This means that US companies like Hewlett-Packard, IBM etc, which do business in India and do not pay taxes on the profits they make here, will be affected. It also means that they will employ fewer Indian employees than before.
The main thing to remember is that Barack Obama is taking steps to safeguard the interests of Americans who have elected him their President. The fact that it will also affect the interests of Indians and others adversely is not his concern. They did not elect him president; the Americans did.
The Americans are very particular when it comes to jobs inside America. It is extremely difficult for US companies to employ non-Americans without going through a large number of steps and legal hurdles. Even in Hollywood, which has the image of a free-wheeling city where anything goes, outsiders can be employed only with the permission of trade unions. You cannot bring in a non-American script-writer without the permission of the script-writres' guild—in the US. There are actors, guilds, there are photographers' guilds and there are electricians' guilds. You cannot bring in foreign actors or actresses without the permission of the Actors' Guild, which, at one time, was headed by Ronald Reagan, before, of course, he became US President.
In her autobiography, Ingrid Bergman, a Swedish actress, describes what she had to go through to secure the permission of the Actors Guild to enable her to work in Hollywood, and how she had to humour Ronald Reagan and others to get a permit to act in US films. This was also the case with actresses like Marlene Dietrich, Sophia Loren and others, and actors like Maurice Chevalier and Laurence, Olivier, who were not Americans.
In India, it is a free house for foreigners. We are like a dharmashala where anybody can come and stay, and take any job and even become the president of a national political party. Any Tom, Dick and Harry from anywhere in the world can come and work in India, collect money by the bagful and go back—or remain here—no questions asked. Gazal singers come here regularly from Pakistan and sing to bejewelled women in Delhi and Mumbai, and go home loaded with goodies, also no questions asked. Such a thing can never happen in America or Britain, where even Charlie Chaplin was threatened with jail, unless he paid up.
The other day, there was a court case about a Pakistani singer called Adnan Sami who has or apparently been working in Bollywood for the last decade or so and has collected crores and amassed a huge fortune, according to his own wife. He owns dozens of flats in Mumbai and elsewhere and is said to be worth more than Rs 50 crore. In Pakistan, he was a nobody. In India, he is a celebrity of sorts and the twenty—some thing females who man our TV channels swoon, or used to swoon, at his appearances. Incidentally, he has brought his whole family to India, including his father.
The question is: how did he come to India in the first place? Who gave him permission to come and work in Bollywood? Does he have a permit and, if so, how did he get it? Does he pay taxes here at all? There are scores of Indian singers of a vastly superior calibre than Sami. Is there a Pakistani ring in Bollywood that works for Pakistani performers? If so, who patronises it? Incidentally, did Indian singers lodge a protest against foreign singers performing in India? And if not, why not?
This is the main difference between the US and the Indian government. The US government, including the US President, works for Americans; the Indian government works for foreigners. If a man like Quattrocchi, can get away with murder, figuratively speaking, and of course, Rs 64 crore, what is the government doing? By this time, Quattrocchi should have been in jail, along with his Indian patrons, for looting Indian taxpayers' money. Instead, this commission agent from Italy is richer by Rs 64 crore and enjoying the loot in Switzerland or wherever it is that Italians go after robbing other countries where they do their business.
Under Obama, people come first, companies afterwards. Obama is working in the interests of the country that elected him President, not foreigners who work for US companies. Companies in India can and do purchase politicians and get their work done. That is how we find Adnan Sami and others making money in India. But men like Barack Obama are made of sterner stuff. This is the main difference between India and the United States of America.
INDIA: On security
Arun Kumar Singh
http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/on-security,-diy.aspx
June.12 : I must state at the outset that in my opinion good India-US relations, based on mutual benefits, are important for strategic, economic and technological reasons. Unfortunately, media reports indicate a growing chill in India-US ties since President Barack Obama took office in January this year. Past history shows that Republican administrations in the US have been friendlier towards India. This is, indeed, confusing since any country's foreign policy is presumably based on long-term vision and goals and not on which party is in power.
On June 6, media reports leaked the worst-kept secret in South Asia — a confirmation by the Pentagon that Pakistan used over $5 billion of American aid, meant for the "war on terror", to acquire conventional military weapons for use against India. The list is known and, perhaps, someone in the American government may like to ask how the "war on terror" justifies Pakistan acquiring 18 F-16 fighter jets, eight P-3C Orion Long-Range Maritime Patrol (LRMP) aircraft, 500 American Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missiles (capable of shooting down enemy aircraft at over 60-km range), 5250 TOW anti-tank missiles and 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
The Pakistani Air Force chief recently stated that his Air Force would counter the Indian Air Force's Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance planes with 500 American BVR missiles. Pakistan is, of course, getting its own AWACS aircraft from Sweden in October this year, and it is presumed that payment for these six aircraft would also come from the American aid meant for the "war on terror".
Pakistan's growing conventional warfare arsenal assumes a more ominous form when we include its made-in-China weapons in the pipeline, at "friendship" prices — 150 JF-17 and 40 JF-20 fighter jets, two AWACS, four frigates, 155 mm artillery and medium-range 300 mm rockets. Pakistan may be a bankrupt nation which is sliding backwards in time (its illiterate population grew from 55 to 57 million in the last seven years), but it has a massive military which is armed to the teeth and is itching to use its new weapons against India.
Last fortnight, the American government let out the second worst-kept secret in South Asia: Pakistan possesses 60 uranium bombs for use against India, and that it has set up two more nuclear plants with Chinese assistance to produce the more-effective plutonium bombs, also for use against India.
Amazingly, Pakistan told America to "concentrate on Afghanistan and not to worry about Pakistan's nuclear weapons" and, almost in the same breath, asked for more aid. And a few days later "requested" the US to "write off Pakistan's debts" while simultaneously warning India that "peace will come only when the Kashmir problem is solved".
The US has, of course, responded with another $300 million humanitarian aid in addition to the new multi-billion "performance linked" five-year aid package already announced.
Indians who are over 60 years of age will have unpleasant memories of how the America-gifted F-86 Sabre jets, F-104 Starfighter jets and Patton tanks were used against India during the 1965 war, and how Chinese-American weapons were used in the 1971 war.
The recent discovery of terrorist weapons and grenades with Chinese markings in Kashmir also indicates an indirect Chinese connection to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba's (LeT) anti-India terror modules.
The impact of recent happenings, along with silent American pressure on India to "talk to Pakistan on Kashmir", has made Pakistan bolder in its Kashmir rhetoric and its covert-cum-overt actions — a top LeT operative was caught in India on June 4, while Pakistani troops opened unprovoked fire across the Line of Control (LoC) the same day.
All American statements on AfPak mention only the Al Qaeda (basically Arabs who threaten the Western world) and Taliban (Pashtuns who threaten the AfPak region). No mention has ever been made of the LeT and Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD, Pakistani-Punjabi terrorists who, under the Inter-Services Intelligence, control attacks on India, for example Mumbai's 26/11). Fortunately, the new Indian government has stood its ground and stated: "Talks with Pakistan will only commence once Pakistan takes action on its home-grown anti-India terrorists".
It appears that both China and the US, in pursuance of their long-term national interests, have decided to once again back Pakistan which has a strategic geographical location and, unlike India, is far more "servile and pliant" (last week Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and AfPak emissary Richard Holbrooke appeared at a joint press conference in Islamabad, raising questions of protocol).
The Indian defence preparedness will need to factor in this reality, along with China's claims on Arunachal Pradesh. Indeed our defence acquisitions (including the much-touted $10-billion fighter jet deal), along with major commercial transactions (acquisition of nuclear power plants), need to reflect our national interest (assured supplies, support for UN Security Council seat, transfer of dual-use technology and assistance in manned space exploration), rather than purchasing from the lowest bidder.
We must also have contingency plans with regard to punitive conventional strikes which may become necessary should Pakistani-backed terrorists repeat 26/11 attacks or the 2001 attack on Indian Parliament.
India must continue its efforts to improve relations with the US, but it also urgently needs to keep its "powder dry" and be ready for conflict.
In all this how do we factor in China's growing nuclear arsenal (estimated at about 400 weapons), along with its massive conventional military massed at our northern borders? Should India's nuclear policy be slightly modified to include Indian retaliation by using nuclear weapons against a nuclear adversary whose military has penetrated deep into Indian territory? How many nuclear weapons and delivery systems (missiles, fighter aircraft, submarine-based) do we need? The answer to this must take into account some losses during an enemy first strike (Pakistan or China or both) and the need to keep a reserve after our "second retaliatory strike". Do we need to carry out simulated exercises involving theoretical threats from our two nuclear neighbours?
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is expected to visit India in early July. She needs to be politely reminded that America-funded weapons in Pakistani hands are a threat to Indian security. And President Obama, fresh from his recent Cairo speech to the one-billion-strong Islamic world, needs to realise that there are over one billion Indians living in the only secular, stable, democratic nation in South Asia.
Irrespective of how Indo-US relations shape out, in the near future India must be prepared to defend itself without relying on foreign powers for assistance. A large country of a billion people, which has independently overcome the impact of global recession, must also independently overcome threats to its national security.
Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam
http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/on-security,-diy.aspx
June.12 : I must state at the outset that in my opinion good India-US relations, based on mutual benefits, are important for strategic, economic and technological reasons. Unfortunately, media reports indicate a growing chill in India-US ties since President Barack Obama took office in January this year. Past history shows that Republican administrations in the US have been friendlier towards India. This is, indeed, confusing since any country's foreign policy is presumably based on long-term vision and goals and not on which party is in power.
On June 6, media reports leaked the worst-kept secret in South Asia — a confirmation by the Pentagon that Pakistan used over $5 billion of American aid, meant for the "war on terror", to acquire conventional military weapons for use against India. The list is known and, perhaps, someone in the American government may like to ask how the "war on terror" justifies Pakistan acquiring 18 F-16 fighter jets, eight P-3C Orion Long-Range Maritime Patrol (LRMP) aircraft, 500 American Beyond Visual Range (BVR) air-to-air missiles (capable of shooting down enemy aircraft at over 60-km range), 5250 TOW anti-tank missiles and 100 Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
The Pakistani Air Force chief recently stated that his Air Force would counter the Indian Air Force's Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) surveillance planes with 500 American BVR missiles. Pakistan is, of course, getting its own AWACS aircraft from Sweden in October this year, and it is presumed that payment for these six aircraft would also come from the American aid meant for the "war on terror".
Pakistan's growing conventional warfare arsenal assumes a more ominous form when we include its made-in-China weapons in the pipeline, at "friendship" prices — 150 JF-17 and 40 JF-20 fighter jets, two AWACS, four frigates, 155 mm artillery and medium-range 300 mm rockets. Pakistan may be a bankrupt nation which is sliding backwards in time (its illiterate population grew from 55 to 57 million in the last seven years), but it has a massive military which is armed to the teeth and is itching to use its new weapons against India.
Last fortnight, the American government let out the second worst-kept secret in South Asia: Pakistan possesses 60 uranium bombs for use against India, and that it has set up two more nuclear plants with Chinese assistance to produce the more-effective plutonium bombs, also for use against India.
Amazingly, Pakistan told America to "concentrate on Afghanistan and not to worry about Pakistan's nuclear weapons" and, almost in the same breath, asked for more aid. And a few days later "requested" the US to "write off Pakistan's debts" while simultaneously warning India that "peace will come only when the Kashmir problem is solved".
The US has, of course, responded with another $300 million humanitarian aid in addition to the new multi-billion "performance linked" five-year aid package already announced.
Indians who are over 60 years of age will have unpleasant memories of how the America-gifted F-86 Sabre jets, F-104 Starfighter jets and Patton tanks were used against India during the 1965 war, and how Chinese-American weapons were used in the 1971 war.
The recent discovery of terrorist weapons and grenades with Chinese markings in Kashmir also indicates an indirect Chinese connection to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba's (LeT) anti-India terror modules.
The impact of recent happenings, along with silent American pressure on India to "talk to Pakistan on Kashmir", has made Pakistan bolder in its Kashmir rhetoric and its covert-cum-overt actions — a top LeT operative was caught in India on June 4, while Pakistani troops opened unprovoked fire across the Line of Control (LoC) the same day.
All American statements on AfPak mention only the Al Qaeda (basically Arabs who threaten the Western world) and Taliban (Pashtuns who threaten the AfPak region). No mention has ever been made of the LeT and Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD, Pakistani-Punjabi terrorists who, under the Inter-Services Intelligence, control attacks on India, for example Mumbai's 26/11). Fortunately, the new Indian government has stood its ground and stated: "Talks with Pakistan will only commence once Pakistan takes action on its home-grown anti-India terrorists".
It appears that both China and the US, in pursuance of their long-term national interests, have decided to once again back Pakistan which has a strategic geographical location and, unlike India, is far more "servile and pliant" (last week Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and AfPak emissary Richard Holbrooke appeared at a joint press conference in Islamabad, raising questions of protocol).
The Indian defence preparedness will need to factor in this reality, along with China's claims on Arunachal Pradesh. Indeed our defence acquisitions (including the much-touted $10-billion fighter jet deal), along with major commercial transactions (acquisition of nuclear power plants), need to reflect our national interest (assured supplies, support for UN Security Council seat, transfer of dual-use technology and assistance in manned space exploration), rather than purchasing from the lowest bidder.
We must also have contingency plans with regard to punitive conventional strikes which may become necessary should Pakistani-backed terrorists repeat 26/11 attacks or the 2001 attack on Indian Parliament.
India must continue its efforts to improve relations with the US, but it also urgently needs to keep its "powder dry" and be ready for conflict.
In all this how do we factor in China's growing nuclear arsenal (estimated at about 400 weapons), along with its massive conventional military massed at our northern borders? Should India's nuclear policy be slightly modified to include Indian retaliation by using nuclear weapons against a nuclear adversary whose military has penetrated deep into Indian territory? How many nuclear weapons and delivery systems (missiles, fighter aircraft, submarine-based) do we need? The answer to this must take into account some losses during an enemy first strike (Pakistan or China or both) and the need to keep a reserve after our "second retaliatory strike". Do we need to carry out simulated exercises involving theoretical threats from our two nuclear neighbours?
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is expected to visit India in early July. She needs to be politely reminded that America-funded weapons in Pakistani hands are a threat to Indian security. And President Obama, fresh from his recent Cairo speech to the one-billion-strong Islamic world, needs to realise that there are over one billion Indians living in the only secular, stable, democratic nation in South Asia.
Irrespective of how Indo-US relations shape out, in the near future India must be prepared to defend itself without relying on foreign powers for assistance. A large country of a billion people, which has independently overcome the impact of global recession, must also independently overcome threats to its national security.
Vice-Admiral Arun Kumar Singh retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam
CHINESE MEDIA FURY OVER ARUNACHAL PRADESH
B.RAMAN
The "Global Times" is a a tabloid brought out by the "People's Daily" group, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.It largely focusses on foreign affairs and has the reputation of being very nationalistic in its views on developments abroad.While the "People's Daily" sticks to the Party and Government lines on matters relating to China's relations with other countries, the "Global Times" takes a little more liberty in its comments.
2.Before April,2009, the "Global Times" was published in the Chinese language. Since April 20, 2009, the "People's Daily" group has been bringing out an English language edition, which is also available online. This new edition attracted attention recently when it came out with an article on the Tiananmen Square incident of !989, whereas the rest of the Chinese media had ignored its 20th anniversary.
3. In an article carried on June 1,2009, it made a reference to the "June 4 incident" without referring to the Tiananmen Square, but in a subsequent write-up of June 4,2009, it specifically referred to the " Tiananmen incident" and justified the action taken by the authorities in handling the incident. The write-up even carried a photo of the Tiananmen Square. It said: “Twenty years after the June 4 Tiananmen incident, public discussion about what happened that day is almost non-existent in mainstream society on the Chinese mainland.” It referred to a visit paid by its reporter in New York to the local office of the China Democracy Party to meet some of those who are still “sticking to their old cause.” It quoted a Chinese expert as justifying the handling in the following words: " “The Chinese Government made a sober and sensible decision to overcome hard times, restore social stability, and enhance economic reform in the 1990s.”
4.The exceptional reference to the Tiananmen Square incident was seen by many as indicating an attempt by the Party to justify to foreign audiences the party and Government line on sensitive issues on which discussion is not allowed inside China. Interestingly, on June 11,2009,the "Global Times" came out with a hard-hitting editorial against India on the issue of the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh, which is not accepted by China as Indian territory. China describes Arunachal Pradesh as "southern Tibet" and has been laying claim at least to the Tawang Tract, if not to the whole territory. The long-continuing negotiations between the two countries on the border question have not made progress due to the Chinese insistence on their claim to at least Tawang, if not to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.
5. The hard-hitting editorial was provoked by some comments reportedly made by Gen.J.J.Singh, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, on the continuing high-level of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this sector and the action taken by the Government of India to protect its territory through measures such as the deployment of additional troops in Arunachal Pradesh. A copy of the editorial is annexed.
6. The editorial warned: "India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome."
7. The fact that this editorial was reproduced by the "People's Daily" the same day strongly indicated , firstly, that it could not have been carried by the "Global Times" without prior vetting by the authorities and, secondly, that the editorial was written for the benefit of not only the foreign audience, but also the domestic readers. It was an instance of a governmental view conveyed through seemingly non-governmental channels.
8. The "Global Times" did not stop with that. The next day, it carried briefly the results of an online public opinion poll carried out on June 10 by one huanqiu.com. According to it, the results showed that 90 per cent of the participants believed that India posed a big threat to China after India announced it would dispatch 60,000 troops to the border with China. About 74 per cent of the participants believed that China should not maintain friendly relations with India anymore after its military provocation. And more than 65 per cent believed India's actions were harmful to bilateral ties---- more harmful to India. It quoted Dai Xun, a military expert, as saying that
India's military moves could cast a shadow over bilateral relations and could destroy the mutual trust between the two countries .
9. In a factual report on June 11,2009, the "China Daily" quoted Ye Hailin, an expert in India studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), as saying as follows: " New Delhi is strengthening its control because it knows clearly that China will not resort to military action to solve the problem. India is adopting this means to make its control over the area an accepted fact." It quoted Sun Shihai, another expert in the CASS, as saying: "It (additional deployment) is not helpful to resolve the border dispute, and could easily cause regional tension.The chance of a border conflict is not big, if India does not instigate it."
10.Since the beginning of this year, there have been fresh signs of a hardening of the Chinese stance on its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. This became evident when it opposed a proposal for a loan to India from the Asian Development Bank for a flood control project in Arunachal Pradesh. The criticism voiced in sections of the Chinese media, which do not carry anything without the prior approval of the Government and the party, of reported Indian moves for enhanced security in Arunachal Pradesh has been in unusually strong language.
11. The message, which the Chinese seem to be seeking to convey, is, firstly, that there cannot be a solution to the long-pending border dispute without a mutually satisfactory solution in the Arunachal Pradesh sector; secondly, despite the continuing differences, China will not take the initiative in making any military moves; and, thirdly, there could be a confrontational situation due to the reported additional Indian troop deployments in Arunachal Pradesh.
12. Arunachal Pradesh is Indian territory. India has the legitimate right to strengthen its capability to protect its territory through the required development of the infrastructure and troop deployments. India should go ahead with its plans in this regard. At the same time, India should refrain from projecting these moves in public as in response to a possible Chinese military threat. It will be better for all public statements in this regard to be made carefully from New Delhi and not from Arunachal Pradesh. (12-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
ANNEXURE (EDITORIAL CARRIED BY GLOBAL TIMES ON JUNE 11,2009)
INDIA'S UNWISE MILITARY MOVES
In the last few days, India has dispatched roughly 60,000 troops to its border with China, the scene of enduring territorial disputes between the two countries.
J.J. Singh, the Indian governor of the controversial area, said the move was intended to "meet future security challenges" from China. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed, despite cooperative India-China relations, his government would make no concessions to China on territorial disputes.
The tough posture Singh's new government has taken may win some applause among India's domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.
India has long held contradictory views on China. Another big Asian country, India is frustrated that China's rise has captured much of the world's attention. Proud of its "advanced political system," India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China's.
India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.
But India can't actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.
Indian politicians these days seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan. India's growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes.
But this is wishful thinking, as China won't make any compromises in its border disputes with India. And while China wishes to coexist peacefully with India, this desire isn't born out of fear.
India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.
Source: Global Times
The "Global Times" is a a tabloid brought out by the "People's Daily" group, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.It largely focusses on foreign affairs and has the reputation of being very nationalistic in its views on developments abroad.While the "People's Daily" sticks to the Party and Government lines on matters relating to China's relations with other countries, the "Global Times" takes a little more liberty in its comments.
2.Before April,2009, the "Global Times" was published in the Chinese language. Since April 20, 2009, the "People's Daily" group has been bringing out an English language edition, which is also available online. This new edition attracted attention recently when it came out with an article on the Tiananmen Square incident of !989, whereas the rest of the Chinese media had ignored its 20th anniversary.
3. In an article carried on June 1,2009, it made a reference to the "June 4 incident" without referring to the Tiananmen Square, but in a subsequent write-up of June 4,2009, it specifically referred to the " Tiananmen incident" and justified the action taken by the authorities in handling the incident. The write-up even carried a photo of the Tiananmen Square. It said: “Twenty years after the June 4 Tiananmen incident, public discussion about what happened that day is almost non-existent in mainstream society on the Chinese mainland.” It referred to a visit paid by its reporter in New York to the local office of the China Democracy Party to meet some of those who are still “sticking to their old cause.” It quoted a Chinese expert as justifying the handling in the following words: " “The Chinese Government made a sober and sensible decision to overcome hard times, restore social stability, and enhance economic reform in the 1990s.”
4.The exceptional reference to the Tiananmen Square incident was seen by many as indicating an attempt by the Party to justify to foreign audiences the party and Government line on sensitive issues on which discussion is not allowed inside China. Interestingly, on June 11,2009,the "Global Times" came out with a hard-hitting editorial against India on the issue of the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh, which is not accepted by China as Indian territory. China describes Arunachal Pradesh as "southern Tibet" and has been laying claim at least to the Tawang Tract, if not to the whole territory. The long-continuing negotiations between the two countries on the border question have not made progress due to the Chinese insistence on their claim to at least Tawang, if not to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.
5. The hard-hitting editorial was provoked by some comments reportedly made by Gen.J.J.Singh, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, on the continuing high-level of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this sector and the action taken by the Government of India to protect its territory through measures such as the deployment of additional troops in Arunachal Pradesh. A copy of the editorial is annexed.
6. The editorial warned: "India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome."
7. The fact that this editorial was reproduced by the "People's Daily" the same day strongly indicated , firstly, that it could not have been carried by the "Global Times" without prior vetting by the authorities and, secondly, that the editorial was written for the benefit of not only the foreign audience, but also the domestic readers. It was an instance of a governmental view conveyed through seemingly non-governmental channels.
8. The "Global Times" did not stop with that. The next day, it carried briefly the results of an online public opinion poll carried out on June 10 by one huanqiu.com. According to it, the results showed that 90 per cent of the participants believed that India posed a big threat to China after India announced it would dispatch 60,000 troops to the border with China. About 74 per cent of the participants believed that China should not maintain friendly relations with India anymore after its military provocation. And more than 65 per cent believed India's actions were harmful to bilateral ties---- more harmful to India. It quoted Dai Xun, a military expert, as saying that
India's military moves could cast a shadow over bilateral relations and could destroy the mutual trust between the two countries .
9. In a factual report on June 11,2009, the "China Daily" quoted Ye Hailin, an expert in India studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), as saying as follows: " New Delhi is strengthening its control because it knows clearly that China will not resort to military action to solve the problem. India is adopting this means to make its control over the area an accepted fact." It quoted Sun Shihai, another expert in the CASS, as saying: "It (additional deployment) is not helpful to resolve the border dispute, and could easily cause regional tension.The chance of a border conflict is not big, if India does not instigate it."
10.Since the beginning of this year, there have been fresh signs of a hardening of the Chinese stance on its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. This became evident when it opposed a proposal for a loan to India from the Asian Development Bank for a flood control project in Arunachal Pradesh. The criticism voiced in sections of the Chinese media, which do not carry anything without the prior approval of the Government and the party, of reported Indian moves for enhanced security in Arunachal Pradesh has been in unusually strong language.
11. The message, which the Chinese seem to be seeking to convey, is, firstly, that there cannot be a solution to the long-pending border dispute without a mutually satisfactory solution in the Arunachal Pradesh sector; secondly, despite the continuing differences, China will not take the initiative in making any military moves; and, thirdly, there could be a confrontational situation due to the reported additional Indian troop deployments in Arunachal Pradesh.
12. Arunachal Pradesh is Indian territory. India has the legitimate right to strengthen its capability to protect its territory through the required development of the infrastructure and troop deployments. India should go ahead with its plans in this regard. At the same time, India should refrain from projecting these moves in public as in response to a possible Chinese military threat. It will be better for all public statements in this regard to be made carefully from New Delhi and not from Arunachal Pradesh. (12-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
ANNEXURE (EDITORIAL CARRIED BY GLOBAL TIMES ON JUNE 11,2009)
INDIA'S UNWISE MILITARY MOVES
In the last few days, India has dispatched roughly 60,000 troops to its border with China, the scene of enduring territorial disputes between the two countries.
J.J. Singh, the Indian governor of the controversial area, said the move was intended to "meet future security challenges" from China. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed, despite cooperative India-China relations, his government would make no concessions to China on territorial disputes.
The tough posture Singh's new government has taken may win some applause among India's domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.
India has long held contradictory views on China. Another big Asian country, India is frustrated that China's rise has captured much of the world's attention. Proud of its "advanced political system," India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China's.
India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.
But India can't actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.
Indian politicians these days seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan. India's growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes.
But this is wishful thinking, as China won't make any compromises in its border disputes with India. And while China wishes to coexist peacefully with India, this desire isn't born out of fear.
India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.
Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.
Source: Global Times
Teaching High School Students To Be Intel Analysts (Goerie.com)
The Erie City Schools, in cooperation with the Institute Of Intelligence Studies here at Mercyhurst, recently announced that they would begin to offer an intelligence analyst track in one of their high school career academies.The full news article is here but there is more to this story. This is another one of Bob Heibel's visionary initiatives and it appears to me to be a natural extension of the increasing number of colleges and universities that are offering intelligence courses or even full programs. While this may sound a bit too visionary for some, let me put it into perspective. We are in the middle of a study that is trying to get at the size, in dollars and people, of the "real" intelligence community. This real community includes all the law enforcement analysts and intelligence professionals in business as well as those in the national security community. Our initial estimates indicate that there are as many analysts in the US national security community alone as there are petroleum engineers in the entire US (17,000).
Our rough estimate suggests that, when you add in all of the law enforcement, competitive intel and other analysts in the business community, the total number of intel analysts in the US doubles. This exceeds the number of chemical engineers (30,000) in the country.According to the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the chemical engineering profession, however, has nearly 150 colleges and universities feeding it qualified graduates and STEM programs have become a staple offering in virtually every high school in the country. In contrast, there are only a handful (a growing handful but still a handful...) of colleges and universities offering even introductory intel courses, much less a full four year program.Nearly 20 years ago, Bob started the Mercyhurt program based on a single insight: If the government can depend on academia to educate its entry level doctors and lawyers, engineers and architects, computer specialists and military officers, why can't it depend on academia to provide entry level education to its intelligence analysts? In this light, extending this vision to the high school level makes it seem less radical -- in fact, it looks downright logical.
Source: Sources and Methods
http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/
____________________
Central Tech program focuses on intelStudents to learn in-demand skills
BY VALERIE MYERS valerie.myers@timesnews.com [more details]
Published: June 12. 2009 1:15AM
OAS_AD('Middle');
There's a world of new opportunities at Central Career and Technical School.A new intelligence technologist program beginning there this fall will prepare students for careers in demand by government, military, law enforcement and industry nationally and worldwide."The workplace is changing so rapidly that we can't keep up with it," Erie schools Superintendent Jim Barker said. "But we do know that training students to be proficient in intelligence gathering will open up a world of new job and educational opportunities."Central Tech's existing information technologies program has been retooled to emphasize intelligence gathering. Students will be trained to research issues and trends via computers and the Internet, in communications skills, in world cultures and geography, and to work as part of a team. Graduates of the four-year program will be ready for jobs working with intelligence analysts.The FBI alone has hired 540 analysts in the past year, said Robert Heibel, director of Mercyhurst College's Institute for Intelligence Studies. High school-trained technologists in time will do most of the research for those analysts."Ideally, they will work as a team," Heibel said.Mercyhurst's Institute for Intelligence Studies developed the new Central Tech program in cooperation with the Boys & Girls Club of Erie and the Erie School District. The Boys & Girls Club piloted the intelligence technologist program as a summer camp for 45 city children in 2007. The program was continued and expanded to an after-school course for Jefferson Elementary School seventh- and eighth-graders in 2008-09.Eleven students so far have enrolled in the new Central Tech program, said David Kranking, Erie School District director of career and technical education. Enrollment for 2009-10 is still open."We expect that, in time, the program will attract as many as 50 students each year," he said.Mercyhurst's Institute for Intelligence Studies will help Central Tech intelligence graduates find jobs."We have the contacts in the intelligence community to do that," Heibel said. "I guarantee that government and the military will snap these students up."Graduates alternately could go on to earn an associate degree in intelligence technology at Mercyhurst North East or a bachelor's degree in intelligence studies at Mercyhurst.Central Tech seniors and best friends Anita Brkic and Alma Mehinovic are keeping their options open. Originally enrolled in marketing at Central Tech, they switched to protective services and will take intelligence technologist courses this fall."I'm interested in CSI, and this is an opportunity to do something like that or even to work with spies and work in Washington," Brkic, 17, said."It's way out of the ordinary, and we don't want ordinary lives."VALERIE MYERS can be reached at 878-1913 or by e-mail.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE
GoErie.com and the Erie Times-News invite you to post your thoughts on this article or column in the box below.
But before you post, read these basic rules, or click here to read the complete terms of service. We reserve the right to delete posts and ban users who violate our code of conduct.
Be appropriate. Posts with obscene, explicit, sexist or racist language will be deleted.
Be polite. Posts containing personal attacks, insults, or threats will be deleted.
Be honest. Potentially libelous statements will be deleted.
Don’t 'spam'. Posts advertising or promoting commercial products will be deleted.
Help monitor your community. Click “Report Abuse” on any entry that violates these guidelines.
This is your forum, with your opinions. These posts don’t reflect the views of the Times Publishing Company or its employees.
-->
China: “India is a Paper Tiger and Will be Trounced if it Uses Force Against China”, Experts Warn
By D. S. Rajan
(To be read with SAAG paper No.3247 dated11 June 2009, www.southasiaanalysis.org)
Beijing’s official response to the Indian Prime Minister’s statement on Arunachal (9 June 2009) and India’s reported moves to dispatch additional troops to the Sino-Indian border, remains so far muted with no provocation to New Delhi. In contrast, the comments on the subject appearing in the country’s state-controlled media have been sarcastic with a rather threatening tone, towards India.
The PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Qin Gang (11 June 2009), while reiterating that the Sino-Indian border has never been formally demarcated, has stated that China wants a ‘just and rational’ solution to the border issue through talks with India. He has hoped that both sides would follow the consensus and principles agreed upon and protect together the stability and security of the border region.
The authoritative Global Times, affiliated to the Party organ People’s Daily, has on the other hand, been choosing a hard-hitting line towards India. Following its article, “India’s Unwise Military Moves” (People’s Daily Online, English, 11 June 2009), it has published a highly provocative comment (Global Times, Chinese, 12 June 2009) entitled “India is a paper tiger, its use of force will be trounced, say experts”, which needs a close examination. The comment alleged that Indian politicians have always been seen adopting a contradictory stand on China – advocating cooperation on one side and creating incidents on the other as well as declaring support to ‘one-China policy’ on one side and supporting the Dalai Lama “clique” for more than half a century on the other. It singled out the actions of Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh in this connection by referring to his visit to the disputed territory in the Eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border soon after his visit to China and his statement on 9 June 2009, that India would not compromise on the border question.
Declaring that China is not ‘afraid’ of the dispatch of 60,000 additional troops to the border, the Global Times write-up has listed India’s real motives for provoking China – raise the bogey of ‘security threat’ to the border for diverting the attention of Indians from the daily sharpening internal clashes in the country, maintain India’s big brother status in the region and tell the US and other powers that it can play an important role in their attempts to ‘contain’ China. Reiterating China’s stand that it does not recognise the McMahon line, and that it wants to solve the border problem through peaceful and friendly talks, the article has said that India’s actions in the border like sending additional troops, improving firepower and building airfields only hint at New Delhi’s efforts to ‘legalise its territorial occupation’. It has concluded by saying that it is laughable for Mr. Manmohan Singh to talk about preparedness to deal with the ‘security threat’ from China, while simultaneously calling for strengthening of relations with China in the international arena.
The ‘paper tiger’ language takes one to the past, when Mao termed the ‘imperialists’ as a paper tiger, to which Khrushchev responded by saying that ‘paper tiger has nuclear teeth’. This exchange had then ideological and policy connotations. Is it the same situation now? Has Beijing started to reassess India’s role in policy terms? It is anybody’s guess, but to say the least, the epithets in the Global Times look very unfriendly to India, not to mention their criticisms against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by name.
How to interpret the apparent mixed signals emanating from China? Beijing’s official caution would only mean that it wants no escalation of tensions with India on the border issue. Qin Gang’s press comments above, illustrate this point. On the other hand, China has strategic concerns and hence its use of the state-controlled media to convey the same to India. Such a methodology is not unknown to other nations including India. Of immediate concern to India, would be any signal, which may point to the Chinese military moves in the border in retaliation to steps being taken by it. The fact, however, is that China has already strengthened its military and logistic system in the borders and India’s latest steps are only in response to that.
Caught in a circle, both India and China should now jointly work towards diffusing any border tension, in the overall interest of bilateral relations. The good atmosphere, marked by trade jump and the ‘shared vision for the 21st century’, should not be allowed to get eroded through any radical step by each side.
(The writer, D.S.Rajan, is the Director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India. Email: dsrajan@gmail.com)
(To be read with SAAG paper No.3247 dated11 June 2009, www.southasiaanalysis.org)
Beijing’s official response to the Indian Prime Minister’s statement on Arunachal (9 June 2009) and India’s reported moves to dispatch additional troops to the Sino-Indian border, remains so far muted with no provocation to New Delhi. In contrast, the comments on the subject appearing in the country’s state-controlled media have been sarcastic with a rather threatening tone, towards India.
The PRC Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Qin Gang (11 June 2009), while reiterating that the Sino-Indian border has never been formally demarcated, has stated that China wants a ‘just and rational’ solution to the border issue through talks with India. He has hoped that both sides would follow the consensus and principles agreed upon and protect together the stability and security of the border region.
The authoritative Global Times, affiliated to the Party organ People’s Daily, has on the other hand, been choosing a hard-hitting line towards India. Following its article, “India’s Unwise Military Moves” (People’s Daily Online, English, 11 June 2009), it has published a highly provocative comment (Global Times, Chinese, 12 June 2009) entitled “India is a paper tiger, its use of force will be trounced, say experts”, which needs a close examination. The comment alleged that Indian politicians have always been seen adopting a contradictory stand on China – advocating cooperation on one side and creating incidents on the other as well as declaring support to ‘one-China policy’ on one side and supporting the Dalai Lama “clique” for more than half a century on the other. It singled out the actions of Indian Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh in this connection by referring to his visit to the disputed territory in the Eastern sector of the Sino-Indian border soon after his visit to China and his statement on 9 June 2009, that India would not compromise on the border question.
Declaring that China is not ‘afraid’ of the dispatch of 60,000 additional troops to the border, the Global Times write-up has listed India’s real motives for provoking China – raise the bogey of ‘security threat’ to the border for diverting the attention of Indians from the daily sharpening internal clashes in the country, maintain India’s big brother status in the region and tell the US and other powers that it can play an important role in their attempts to ‘contain’ China. Reiterating China’s stand that it does not recognise the McMahon line, and that it wants to solve the border problem through peaceful and friendly talks, the article has said that India’s actions in the border like sending additional troops, improving firepower and building airfields only hint at New Delhi’s efforts to ‘legalise its territorial occupation’. It has concluded by saying that it is laughable for Mr. Manmohan Singh to talk about preparedness to deal with the ‘security threat’ from China, while simultaneously calling for strengthening of relations with China in the international arena.
The ‘paper tiger’ language takes one to the past, when Mao termed the ‘imperialists’ as a paper tiger, to which Khrushchev responded by saying that ‘paper tiger has nuclear teeth’. This exchange had then ideological and policy connotations. Is it the same situation now? Has Beijing started to reassess India’s role in policy terms? It is anybody’s guess, but to say the least, the epithets in the Global Times look very unfriendly to India, not to mention their criticisms against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by name.
How to interpret the apparent mixed signals emanating from China? Beijing’s official caution would only mean that it wants no escalation of tensions with India on the border issue. Qin Gang’s press comments above, illustrate this point. On the other hand, China has strategic concerns and hence its use of the state-controlled media to convey the same to India. Such a methodology is not unknown to other nations including India. Of immediate concern to India, would be any signal, which may point to the Chinese military moves in the border in retaliation to steps being taken by it. The fact, however, is that China has already strengthened its military and logistic system in the borders and India’s latest steps are only in response to that.
Caught in a circle, both India and China should now jointly work towards diffusing any border tension, in the overall interest of bilateral relations. The good atmosphere, marked by trade jump and the ‘shared vision for the 21st century’, should not be allowed to get eroded through any radical step by each side.
(The writer, D.S.Rajan, is the Director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India. Email: dsrajan@gmail.com)
Brazil: more dependent than ever
Le Monde diplomatique
When the ‘magic moment’ turned to nightmare
President Lula fancied his country’s economy was ‘decoupled’ from the rest of the world’s. But when the economic crisis reached Brazil this March, it came on a tidal wave. Half a million people are now in poverty or extreme poverty
by Renaud Lambert
In May 2008 the US economy had begun its decline, but in Brazil things still looked fine. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva reckoned that his country was experiencing a “magic moment” (1): after a 5.67% rise in GDP in 2007, government morale was high. What was going on elsewhere didn’t matter; growth would continue “at its present rate for the next 15 to 20 years” (2).
By October 2008 the international financial system was collapsing. But Brazil still wasn’t worried. “Up there [in the US] the crisis is a veritable tsunami. If it arrives here it will only be a little wave, not even big enough to surf on,” the president said reassuringly in a speech on 4 October. A few months later, Luciano Coutinho, head of Brazil’s national development bank (BNDES), added: “Decoupling has, yes, taken place,” (3), alluding to the theory that the growth of countries on the periphery of the world capitalist system had become independent of the shocks felt at its centre.
Then came March 2009. When the wave did arrive, it brought a storm with it. The Bradesco bank’s estimates of GDP growth plummeted from more than 4% in June 2008 to 2.5% in December – and then to -0.3% this April. The rating agency Morgan Stanley has even predicted a 1.5% contraction in the Brazilian economy, which would be its biggest setback since 1948 (4).
In the last quarter of 2008, Brazil’s industrial output dropped by 19%. Eight hundred thousand workers lost their jobs between October and January (nearly 1% of the workforce), and that doesn’t even begin to take account of job losses in the informal economy, which employs around 40% of Brazilian workers. Half a million Brazilians have found themselves back in poverty or extreme poverty. The “magical moment” has turned into a nightmare from which Brazil will not emerge, according to its president in a speech on 6 April, until “we ask God for the crisis to disappear from Europe, the US and Japan”. More soberly, the Financial Times concluded on 11 March that Brazil’s economic results meant an end to the debate about its immunity from global contagion. The myth of decoupling was over.
None of this is surprising, though, given how much has been done in the past 15 years to increase the country’s dependence on foreign capital. One of the most significant developments has been the acceleration of foreign access to Brazil’s financial markets. This is all the more remarkable as it was made possible by sociologist-turned-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, whose work aimed to “build a path to socialism” (5) and the former trade unionist, President Lula.
Something Marx never imagined
In the late 1960s, Cardoso, who studied at the EHESS (Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales) in Paris, rejected the idea that a country on the periphery could develop by means of foreign capital without increasing its dependence: “The system of domination reappears as an ‘internal’ force through the social practices of local groups and classes which try to promote foreign interests” (6). Twenty years later, first as finance minister (1993-4) and then president (1995-2002), he discovered that the world had changed. He told Mais! magazine in 1996: “We have something that Marx never imagined… Capital has very quickly become internationalised and today it has become abundant. Some countries are able to derive profit from this situation. Brazil is one of them”.
Influenced by what he considered the successful economic stabilisation of Mexico and Argentina achieved through neoliberal policies, Cardoso made opening up Brazil to foreign capital the centrepiece of his own plans. The aim was no longer to promote autonomous development by substituting local production for imports. It was to facilitate imports so that they reinvigorated competition and gave a spur to productivity. Cardoso set about changing Brazil in order to woo investors. Tariff barriers came down, exchange controls were freed up and the constitution revised to enable an ambitious programme of privatisations to go through.
Imports leapt by 52.7% between the first and second half of 1994. As a result, many Brazilian businesses closed or had to go into partnership with foreign companies, which accounted for 70% of Brazilian mergers and acquisitions between 1995 and 1999. Somewhat amazed by the brazenness of this denationalisation programme, the staunchly pro-liberalisation Veja magazine observed that “the history of capitalism has rarely seen the transfer of control on such a scale in such a short period” (7).
In 2000 Rubens Ricupero, secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, assessed the effects of economies opening up to foreign capital: “The commercial objectives of the multinationals and the objectives of the host economies do not necessarily coincide” (8). “Not necessarily” is something of an understatement.
Under Cardoso, Brazil deindustrialised and the official unemployment rate almost doubled to reach 9%. Meanwhile headline GDP didn’t get above 1%. Opening up his country’s borders and relaxing exchange controls came at a price: Brazil’s balance of payments (value of exports minus the value of imports) fell from $10.5bn in 1994 to -$3.5bn just one year later. It had been in the black since 1980 but it was to remain in the red until 2000.
Brazil became a dependent nation since, as Cardoso himself put it, “to overcome our deficits we need a constant influx of foreign capital” (9). Efforts to attract that capital redoubled in spite of its harmful effect on the economy. And yet deficits weren’t brought under control.
Investors in Brazil are like investors everywhere: they want as significant a return on their investment as possible and they want to be able to repatriate those profits. Where foreign investment is insufficient to staunch the outflow of capital, foreign debt goes up; in Brazil’s case it rose from $150bn in 1994 to $250bn in 2002.
In a manner reminiscent of the US financier Bernie Madoff, who recently showed that the old pyramid fraud was alive and well, Brazil came up with a “Ponzi scheme”, by which yesterday’s debts are paid off today with borrowing which fuels tomorrow’s debts. The difference was that while Madoff only swindled the rich, the Brazilian government got a whole nation to cough up, in particular through stratospheric interest rates and a raft of austerity measures.
Perhaps this is unsurprising; when an economy is organised for the benefit of speculators, they tend to get preferential treatment. Brazil’s many high net-worth individuals quickly cottoned on to the fact that, with the interest rate so high, buying up debt securities was an enticing prospect. Many businesses have given up on productive investment. Development Cardoso-style became a synonym for financial development. Domestic debt rose by 900% during his presidency, while investment stagnated and became more and more dependent on foreign money, especially in the field of technology.
Cardoso was not the first to want to modernise Brazil, but he had the greatest impact. In 1998, The Economist reported approvingly that Cardoso had achieved in a little less than four years nearly as much as Margaret Thatcher had done in 12. His main opponent in Brazil, Lula da Silva, was less impressed; to him Cardoso was the “executioner of the Brazilian economy”.
Idol of investors
The election of Lula da Silva, a former “red” trade unionist, to the presidency in 2002 caused alarm. “Foreign investors had always wondered how Brazil would behave under a president from the left,” remembers Emilio Odebrecht, heir to the eponymous industrial empire. Lula had, after all, insisted during the 1998 presidential campaign (which he lost): “If it comes to paying interest or filling the stomachs of the people, I’m on the side of the people” (10). In the end though, according to Odebrecht, Silva’s election was “the best thing that could have happened to this country” (11). To the surprise of activists in his own party, once he was president, Lula soon became the idol of the investors and the financial markets.
At the time of his election, the Brazilian economy was dependent on a further loan from the IMF. As the Wall Street Journal explained on 14 August 2002, “The IMF loan is structured to induce the leftwing presidential frontrunners, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva and Ciro Gomes, to continue the conservative economic policies of the outgoing president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso.”
Was Lula already convinced that it was “impossible to govern without the support of the oligarchs” (12)? Perhaps. It’s certainly the case that he readily accepted governing on their behalf. Javier Santiso, an economist at the OECD, was delighted: “The transfer of power between Cardoso and Lula was a lesson in political elegance” (13). Those voters who had been hoping for a break with the past were doubtless less impressed by this display of refinement.
In his speeches, Lula continued to defend the idea of economic sovereignty. (What did it matter that it was precisely due to his country’s economic dependence that it was able to take such advantage of a favourable international economic situation?) If capital was pouring in, it showed Brazil was “becoming its own boss”.
But you can’t change a system and at the same time keep milking it. Brazilian exports grew at an average annual rate of 20% in 2003-6, temporarily resolving the balance of payments problem. But those exports were stimulated by a new wave of direct foreign investments, which went from $10bn in 2003 (about 2% of GDP) to the record level of $45bn in 2008 (or 3.5% of GDP). In other words, these exports came at the cost of even deeper penetration of the Brazilian economy by foreign capital.
You need to govern for all and not just for the poor, was Lula’s advice to his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales on 16 January this year. It’s a recommendation he has taken to heart himself. And if the whiff of prosperity that the country has enjoyed has brought some relief for the working classes – thanks to social programmes that are mainly based on handouts – it has transformed into a veritable avalanche of opulence for the speculators.
In 2007, for example, the inflow of foreign currency linked to the export boom inflated the value of the Brazilian real by around 20% relative to the dollar, while at the same time domestic debt securities enjoyed an annual interest rate of 13%. Foreign investors (or Brazilians who had borrowed dollars abroad at relatively low interest rates) therefore benefited from a return on investment of more than 30% at the end of the year. It’s hardly surprising that internal debt reached 160bn reais in January 2009 (over $680bn) or three times the country’s currency reserves, which the president boasts of as a sign of Brazil’s economic independence. In this arena all that has been achieved is further lining the pockets of the 20,000 Brazilian families who hold 80% of debt securities. Servicing those debts eats up 30% of the federal budget. Less than 5% of that budget meanwhile goes on health and 2.5% on education.
When Lula accepted the status quo on coming to power, he also accepted its vulnerability. As Cardoso himself admitted: “If billions of dollars can enter Brazil, then they can also leave it” (14). In fact, in times of crisis, the periphery goes from a situation of dependence with regard to the centre to a state of total subjugation in view of its need of liquidity. And if currency movements can’t be depended upon to deliver in terms of development, then massive outflows can be relied on to weaken a country’s economy. Therein lies the paradox of dependence: you lose when the dollars come in and you lose again when they go out.
Balance of payments sieve
In the space of a few months, the collapse of the international financial system transformed the Brazilian balance of payments into a sieve through which money poured. Take the commercial balance: it has been declining since 2006 – the value of the real has meant that imports have been growing at a faster rate than exports – and this January it recorded its first deficit in 93 months. There’s no real sign of recovery in sight since the IMF predicts an 11% fall in world trade in 2009. In conditions such as these, it becomes more difficult for Brazil to import the equipment on which its own output depends.
Repatriation of profits and dividends abroad rose to nearly $34bn in 2008 (nearly 3% of GDP), an increase of 50% over the previous year, and of 500% compared to 2003. The current account balance also recorded its biggest deficit in 10 years in 2008: $28.3bn or 2.5% of GDP.
Today, Brazil stresses that it has international reserves of around $200bn to reassure investors worried about the risk of a balance of payments crisis. It was negative in the last quarter of 2008 for the first time since the end of 2005, but with a deficit that was seven times greater, at $21bn, or 1.85% of annual GDP. For the moment, Brazil believes it has a significant room for manoeuvre; its intervention rate was close to 11% this March. However, according to the economist Paulo Henrique Costa Mattos, current liabilities could reach $600bn (15).
With the majority of the world’s countries rushing to get themselves deeper into debt, there’s strong competition on the government bond market; rates will go up and the weight of debts will further press down on the balance of payments and on the shoulders of Brazilians.
There’s nothing new about the phenomenon of dependence. In 1969, the Chilean foreign minister Gabriel Valdés told President Nixon: “Private investment has meant and does mean for Latin America that the sums taken out of our continent are several times higher than those that are invested… In one word, we know that Latin America gives more than it receives.”
In the past, some governments (not only those on the left) defended autonomous development programmes based on import substitution. Such projects were criticised by those who thought that, as they would be run by national bourgeoisies, they were doomed to failure. For those critics there was only one course: social revolution. The sociologist Cardoso was one of them. So, too, was the unionist Lula da Silva.
If Silva had truly wanted to decouple the Brazilian economy when he came to power, he should perhaps have opted for something other than embracing his predecessor’s economic programme. By failing to do so, he exemplified the transformation of a party of the Latin American left, which the OECD economist Javier Santiso described approvingly in these terms: “Expressions such as ‘class struggle’, ‘planned economy’ and ‘strategies of import substitutions’ have been replaced by others such as ‘democratic consensus’, ‘institutional consolidation’, ‘economic deregulation’ and ‘openness to the free market’.”
And so that is Lula da Silva’s box of tricks for tackling Brazil’s current economic difficulties. The US is asked for more trade, and the Brazilians are asked to tighten their belts. And God is asked for a return to the economics of the centre.
What about the foreign investors and the creditors at home? Nothing or very little is being demanded of them. When asked recently about who bore responsibility for the present crisis, the Brazil’s president replied: “We didn’t create the problem but we are part of the solution” (16). One has to wonder.
June 2009
A fine European farce
Iran: money and the mullahs *
Three months to save Pakistan *
The odd couple: Hizbullah and the general
Brazil: more dependent than ever
A government for all South Africans? *
The toy makers of Chenghai *
‘Mend the roof before it rains’
New faces of Irish politics
Towards zero growth *
Peter Custers: green means zero growth
Less green than he promised
Workers on a tightrope *
The career, a love story
The word from Jaipur *
Kerala: mad about books
Intimations of a greater truth
Translated by George Miller
More by Renaud Lambert
Renaud Lambert is a journalist
(1) “Brasil: Lula celebra el ‘investment grade’ de Brasil”, Infolatam, Brasilia, 1 May 2008.
(2) “The delights of dullness”, The Economist, 17 April 2008.
(3) Jonathan Wheatley, “New economic figures rattle Brazilians”, Financial Times, London, 7 February 2009.
(4) Andre Solani and Fabiola Moura, “Latin America may contract 4%, Morgan Stanley says”, Bloomberg, 16 March 2009.
(5) Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en América latina, Zahar, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1969.
(6) Ibid.
(7) See Geisa Maria Rocha, “Neo-dependency in Brazil”, New Left Review, no 16, July-August, London, 2002.
(8) Quoted by Geisa Maria Rocha, ibid.
(9) Fernando Henrique Cardoso (with Brian Winter), The Accidental President of Brazil, Public Affairs, New York, 2006.
(10) Christian Dutilleux, Lula, Flammarion, Paris, 2005.
(11) La Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo, 27 January 2008.
(12) “Lula ataca oligarquias, mas poupa Sarney”, O Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 6 February 2009.
(13) Javier Santiso, Latin America’s Political Economy of the Possible, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2006.
(14) Cardoso and Winter, op cit.
(15) “A crise econômica e suas consequências para os trabalhadores”, Socialismo e liberdade, São Paulo, 16 April 2009.
(16) “Latinoamérica elogiada por reacción a crisis global”, Latinforme, Buenos Aires, 16 April 2009.
When the ‘magic moment’ turned to nightmare
President Lula fancied his country’s economy was ‘decoupled’ from the rest of the world’s. But when the economic crisis reached Brazil this March, it came on a tidal wave. Half a million people are now in poverty or extreme poverty
by Renaud Lambert
In May 2008 the US economy had begun its decline, but in Brazil things still looked fine. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva reckoned that his country was experiencing a “magic moment” (1): after a 5.67% rise in GDP in 2007, government morale was high. What was going on elsewhere didn’t matter; growth would continue “at its present rate for the next 15 to 20 years” (2).
By October 2008 the international financial system was collapsing. But Brazil still wasn’t worried. “Up there [in the US] the crisis is a veritable tsunami. If it arrives here it will only be a little wave, not even big enough to surf on,” the president said reassuringly in a speech on 4 October. A few months later, Luciano Coutinho, head of Brazil’s national development bank (BNDES), added: “Decoupling has, yes, taken place,” (3), alluding to the theory that the growth of countries on the periphery of the world capitalist system had become independent of the shocks felt at its centre.
Then came March 2009. When the wave did arrive, it brought a storm with it. The Bradesco bank’s estimates of GDP growth plummeted from more than 4% in June 2008 to 2.5% in December – and then to -0.3% this April. The rating agency Morgan Stanley has even predicted a 1.5% contraction in the Brazilian economy, which would be its biggest setback since 1948 (4).
In the last quarter of 2008, Brazil’s industrial output dropped by 19%. Eight hundred thousand workers lost their jobs between October and January (nearly 1% of the workforce), and that doesn’t even begin to take account of job losses in the informal economy, which employs around 40% of Brazilian workers. Half a million Brazilians have found themselves back in poverty or extreme poverty. The “magical moment” has turned into a nightmare from which Brazil will not emerge, according to its president in a speech on 6 April, until “we ask God for the crisis to disappear from Europe, the US and Japan”. More soberly, the Financial Times concluded on 11 March that Brazil’s economic results meant an end to the debate about its immunity from global contagion. The myth of decoupling was over.
None of this is surprising, though, given how much has been done in the past 15 years to increase the country’s dependence on foreign capital. One of the most significant developments has been the acceleration of foreign access to Brazil’s financial markets. This is all the more remarkable as it was made possible by sociologist-turned-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, whose work aimed to “build a path to socialism” (5) and the former trade unionist, President Lula.
Something Marx never imagined
In the late 1960s, Cardoso, who studied at the EHESS (Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales) in Paris, rejected the idea that a country on the periphery could develop by means of foreign capital without increasing its dependence: “The system of domination reappears as an ‘internal’ force through the social practices of local groups and classes which try to promote foreign interests” (6). Twenty years later, first as finance minister (1993-4) and then president (1995-2002), he discovered that the world had changed. He told Mais! magazine in 1996: “We have something that Marx never imagined… Capital has very quickly become internationalised and today it has become abundant. Some countries are able to derive profit from this situation. Brazil is one of them”.
Influenced by what he considered the successful economic stabilisation of Mexico and Argentina achieved through neoliberal policies, Cardoso made opening up Brazil to foreign capital the centrepiece of his own plans. The aim was no longer to promote autonomous development by substituting local production for imports. It was to facilitate imports so that they reinvigorated competition and gave a spur to productivity. Cardoso set about changing Brazil in order to woo investors. Tariff barriers came down, exchange controls were freed up and the constitution revised to enable an ambitious programme of privatisations to go through.
Imports leapt by 52.7% between the first and second half of 1994. As a result, many Brazilian businesses closed or had to go into partnership with foreign companies, which accounted for 70% of Brazilian mergers and acquisitions between 1995 and 1999. Somewhat amazed by the brazenness of this denationalisation programme, the staunchly pro-liberalisation Veja magazine observed that “the history of capitalism has rarely seen the transfer of control on such a scale in such a short period” (7).
In 2000 Rubens Ricupero, secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, assessed the effects of economies opening up to foreign capital: “The commercial objectives of the multinationals and the objectives of the host economies do not necessarily coincide” (8). “Not necessarily” is something of an understatement.
Under Cardoso, Brazil deindustrialised and the official unemployment rate almost doubled to reach 9%. Meanwhile headline GDP didn’t get above 1%. Opening up his country’s borders and relaxing exchange controls came at a price: Brazil’s balance of payments (value of exports minus the value of imports) fell from $10.5bn in 1994 to -$3.5bn just one year later. It had been in the black since 1980 but it was to remain in the red until 2000.
Brazil became a dependent nation since, as Cardoso himself put it, “to overcome our deficits we need a constant influx of foreign capital” (9). Efforts to attract that capital redoubled in spite of its harmful effect on the economy. And yet deficits weren’t brought under control.
Investors in Brazil are like investors everywhere: they want as significant a return on their investment as possible and they want to be able to repatriate those profits. Where foreign investment is insufficient to staunch the outflow of capital, foreign debt goes up; in Brazil’s case it rose from $150bn in 1994 to $250bn in 2002.
In a manner reminiscent of the US financier Bernie Madoff, who recently showed that the old pyramid fraud was alive and well, Brazil came up with a “Ponzi scheme”, by which yesterday’s debts are paid off today with borrowing which fuels tomorrow’s debts. The difference was that while Madoff only swindled the rich, the Brazilian government got a whole nation to cough up, in particular through stratospheric interest rates and a raft of austerity measures.
Perhaps this is unsurprising; when an economy is organised for the benefit of speculators, they tend to get preferential treatment. Brazil’s many high net-worth individuals quickly cottoned on to the fact that, with the interest rate so high, buying up debt securities was an enticing prospect. Many businesses have given up on productive investment. Development Cardoso-style became a synonym for financial development. Domestic debt rose by 900% during his presidency, while investment stagnated and became more and more dependent on foreign money, especially in the field of technology.
Cardoso was not the first to want to modernise Brazil, but he had the greatest impact. In 1998, The Economist reported approvingly that Cardoso had achieved in a little less than four years nearly as much as Margaret Thatcher had done in 12. His main opponent in Brazil, Lula da Silva, was less impressed; to him Cardoso was the “executioner of the Brazilian economy”.
Idol of investors
The election of Lula da Silva, a former “red” trade unionist, to the presidency in 2002 caused alarm. “Foreign investors had always wondered how Brazil would behave under a president from the left,” remembers Emilio Odebrecht, heir to the eponymous industrial empire. Lula had, after all, insisted during the 1998 presidential campaign (which he lost): “If it comes to paying interest or filling the stomachs of the people, I’m on the side of the people” (10). In the end though, according to Odebrecht, Silva’s election was “the best thing that could have happened to this country” (11). To the surprise of activists in his own party, once he was president, Lula soon became the idol of the investors and the financial markets.
At the time of his election, the Brazilian economy was dependent on a further loan from the IMF. As the Wall Street Journal explained on 14 August 2002, “The IMF loan is structured to induce the leftwing presidential frontrunners, Luis Inácio Lula da Silva and Ciro Gomes, to continue the conservative economic policies of the outgoing president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso.”
Was Lula already convinced that it was “impossible to govern without the support of the oligarchs” (12)? Perhaps. It’s certainly the case that he readily accepted governing on their behalf. Javier Santiso, an economist at the OECD, was delighted: “The transfer of power between Cardoso and Lula was a lesson in political elegance” (13). Those voters who had been hoping for a break with the past were doubtless less impressed by this display of refinement.
In his speeches, Lula continued to defend the idea of economic sovereignty. (What did it matter that it was precisely due to his country’s economic dependence that it was able to take such advantage of a favourable international economic situation?) If capital was pouring in, it showed Brazil was “becoming its own boss”.
But you can’t change a system and at the same time keep milking it. Brazilian exports grew at an average annual rate of 20% in 2003-6, temporarily resolving the balance of payments problem. But those exports were stimulated by a new wave of direct foreign investments, which went from $10bn in 2003 (about 2% of GDP) to the record level of $45bn in 2008 (or 3.5% of GDP). In other words, these exports came at the cost of even deeper penetration of the Brazilian economy by foreign capital.
You need to govern for all and not just for the poor, was Lula’s advice to his Bolivian counterpart Evo Morales on 16 January this year. It’s a recommendation he has taken to heart himself. And if the whiff of prosperity that the country has enjoyed has brought some relief for the working classes – thanks to social programmes that are mainly based on handouts – it has transformed into a veritable avalanche of opulence for the speculators.
In 2007, for example, the inflow of foreign currency linked to the export boom inflated the value of the Brazilian real by around 20% relative to the dollar, while at the same time domestic debt securities enjoyed an annual interest rate of 13%. Foreign investors (or Brazilians who had borrowed dollars abroad at relatively low interest rates) therefore benefited from a return on investment of more than 30% at the end of the year. It’s hardly surprising that internal debt reached 160bn reais in January 2009 (over $680bn) or three times the country’s currency reserves, which the president boasts of as a sign of Brazil’s economic independence. In this arena all that has been achieved is further lining the pockets of the 20,000 Brazilian families who hold 80% of debt securities. Servicing those debts eats up 30% of the federal budget. Less than 5% of that budget meanwhile goes on health and 2.5% on education.
When Lula accepted the status quo on coming to power, he also accepted its vulnerability. As Cardoso himself admitted: “If billions of dollars can enter Brazil, then they can also leave it” (14). In fact, in times of crisis, the periphery goes from a situation of dependence with regard to the centre to a state of total subjugation in view of its need of liquidity. And if currency movements can’t be depended upon to deliver in terms of development, then massive outflows can be relied on to weaken a country’s economy. Therein lies the paradox of dependence: you lose when the dollars come in and you lose again when they go out.
Balance of payments sieve
In the space of a few months, the collapse of the international financial system transformed the Brazilian balance of payments into a sieve through which money poured. Take the commercial balance: it has been declining since 2006 – the value of the real has meant that imports have been growing at a faster rate than exports – and this January it recorded its first deficit in 93 months. There’s no real sign of recovery in sight since the IMF predicts an 11% fall in world trade in 2009. In conditions such as these, it becomes more difficult for Brazil to import the equipment on which its own output depends.
Repatriation of profits and dividends abroad rose to nearly $34bn in 2008 (nearly 3% of GDP), an increase of 50% over the previous year, and of 500% compared to 2003. The current account balance also recorded its biggest deficit in 10 years in 2008: $28.3bn or 2.5% of GDP.
Today, Brazil stresses that it has international reserves of around $200bn to reassure investors worried about the risk of a balance of payments crisis. It was negative in the last quarter of 2008 for the first time since the end of 2005, but with a deficit that was seven times greater, at $21bn, or 1.85% of annual GDP. For the moment, Brazil believes it has a significant room for manoeuvre; its intervention rate was close to 11% this March. However, according to the economist Paulo Henrique Costa Mattos, current liabilities could reach $600bn (15).
With the majority of the world’s countries rushing to get themselves deeper into debt, there’s strong competition on the government bond market; rates will go up and the weight of debts will further press down on the balance of payments and on the shoulders of Brazilians.
There’s nothing new about the phenomenon of dependence. In 1969, the Chilean foreign minister Gabriel Valdés told President Nixon: “Private investment has meant and does mean for Latin America that the sums taken out of our continent are several times higher than those that are invested… In one word, we know that Latin America gives more than it receives.”
In the past, some governments (not only those on the left) defended autonomous development programmes based on import substitution. Such projects were criticised by those who thought that, as they would be run by national bourgeoisies, they were doomed to failure. For those critics there was only one course: social revolution. The sociologist Cardoso was one of them. So, too, was the unionist Lula da Silva.
If Silva had truly wanted to decouple the Brazilian economy when he came to power, he should perhaps have opted for something other than embracing his predecessor’s economic programme. By failing to do so, he exemplified the transformation of a party of the Latin American left, which the OECD economist Javier Santiso described approvingly in these terms: “Expressions such as ‘class struggle’, ‘planned economy’ and ‘strategies of import substitutions’ have been replaced by others such as ‘democratic consensus’, ‘institutional consolidation’, ‘economic deregulation’ and ‘openness to the free market’.”
And so that is Lula da Silva’s box of tricks for tackling Brazil’s current economic difficulties. The US is asked for more trade, and the Brazilians are asked to tighten their belts. And God is asked for a return to the economics of the centre.
What about the foreign investors and the creditors at home? Nothing or very little is being demanded of them. When asked recently about who bore responsibility for the present crisis, the Brazil’s president replied: “We didn’t create the problem but we are part of the solution” (16). One has to wonder.
June 2009
A fine European farce
Iran: money and the mullahs *
Three months to save Pakistan *
The odd couple: Hizbullah and the general
Brazil: more dependent than ever
A government for all South Africans? *
The toy makers of Chenghai *
‘Mend the roof before it rains’
New faces of Irish politics
Towards zero growth *
Peter Custers: green means zero growth
Less green than he promised
Workers on a tightrope *
The career, a love story
The word from Jaipur *
Kerala: mad about books
Intimations of a greater truth
Translated by George Miller
More by Renaud Lambert
Renaud Lambert is a journalist
(1) “Brasil: Lula celebra el ‘investment grade’ de Brasil”, Infolatam, Brasilia, 1 May 2008.
(2) “The delights of dullness”, The Economist, 17 April 2008.
(3) Jonathan Wheatley, “New economic figures rattle Brazilians”, Financial Times, London, 7 February 2009.
(4) Andre Solani and Fabiola Moura, “Latin America may contract 4%, Morgan Stanley says”, Bloomberg, 16 March 2009.
(5) Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto, Dependencia y desarrollo en América latina, Zahar, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1969.
(6) Ibid.
(7) See Geisa Maria Rocha, “Neo-dependency in Brazil”, New Left Review, no 16, July-August, London, 2002.
(8) Quoted by Geisa Maria Rocha, ibid.
(9) Fernando Henrique Cardoso (with Brian Winter), The Accidental President of Brazil, Public Affairs, New York, 2006.
(10) Christian Dutilleux, Lula, Flammarion, Paris, 2005.
(11) La Folha de São Paulo, São Paulo, 27 January 2008.
(12) “Lula ataca oligarquias, mas poupa Sarney”, O Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, 6 February 2009.
(13) Javier Santiso, Latin America’s Political Economy of the Possible, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2006.
(14) Cardoso and Winter, op cit.
(15) “A crise econômica e suas consequências para os trabalhadores”, Socialismo e liberdade, São Paulo, 16 April 2009.
(16) “Latinoamérica elogiada por reacción a crisis global”, Latinforme, Buenos Aires, 16 April 2009.
Three Months to Save Pakistan
Le Monde diplomatique
http://mondediplo.com/2009/06/03pakistan
June 9, 2009
by Najam Sethi
As the offensive against the Taliban continued in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier province (NWFP), the people of the Swat valley have been fleeing the war zone. Since the launch of military operations on 26 April, the army and paramilitaries have used tanks, artillery, mortar, helicopter gunships and jet bombers to attack the insurgents. Military spokesmen claim dozens of Taliban killed in action, but play down army losses and civilian deaths; international relief agencies say there is a major humanitarian crisis. More than a million refugees have fled, the largest mass migration since Pakistan came into being.
The Taliban has grown more powerful over the past two years in the NWFP and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), terrorising the population and defying the Pakistani government. By signing a peace deal on 28 February allowing the Taliban to administer Islamic law (sharia) in Swat, the NWFP government hoped to purchase calm and order. It was a risky undertaking and it backfired, producing the reverse of its intended effects. The deal emboldened the Taliban to spread out into the adjoining districts of Buner and Lower Dir, make new recruits and seize territories. The rapid advance covered areas barely 100 km from the capital Islamabad and the strategic Karakorum Highway, which links with China
The United States, which in its haste to make a new policy for the region had been pressing Pakistan’s government to take strong military action for months, was angry. Other countries feared the Zardari government may be overthrown, leading to civil war and loss of control of strategic and nuclear installations and arms.
Cynics note that the current, long-delayed military action was finally launched while Zardari was on a state trip to Washington, negotiating economic assistance and political support for his beleaguered regime from the Obama administration, which has pledged $1.9bn in counter-terrorism, economic and humanitarian aid and another $600m for military needs in the next two years. When General Pervez Musharraf was in power, from 1999 to 2008, he would obtain generous economic and military assistance from Washington in return for some newly captured al-Qaida operative or a small-scale military action against the Taliban in a remote tribal area. So Washington was especially annoyed when, contrary to promises, the Zardari government signed the peace deal with the Taliban and won parliamentary approval for it in March.
In view of the Taliban advances, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Centcom chief General David Petreaus, CIA chief Robert Gates and others in the US Senate and Congress have all made it clear to Zardari and Afghan president Hamid Karzai that the rules of business have changed. In exchange for economic and political support, there will be formal accountability “going forward,” in which common objectives will be listed and progress monitored in the war against al-Qaida/Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They told the leaders, who have a reputation for corruption and maladministration, to take things in hand, deliver governance to their people and join hands with the opposition at home and with their international friends to face the common Taliban/al-Qaida enemy that threatens to plunge the region into anarchy.
source : http://mondediplo.com/2009/06/03pakistan
http://mondediplo.com/2009/06/03pakistan
June 9, 2009
by Najam Sethi
As the offensive against the Taliban continued in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier province (NWFP), the people of the Swat valley have been fleeing the war zone. Since the launch of military operations on 26 April, the army and paramilitaries have used tanks, artillery, mortar, helicopter gunships and jet bombers to attack the insurgents. Military spokesmen claim dozens of Taliban killed in action, but play down army losses and civilian deaths; international relief agencies say there is a major humanitarian crisis. More than a million refugees have fled, the largest mass migration since Pakistan came into being.
The Taliban has grown more powerful over the past two years in the NWFP and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), terrorising the population and defying the Pakistani government. By signing a peace deal on 28 February allowing the Taliban to administer Islamic law (sharia) in Swat, the NWFP government hoped to purchase calm and order. It was a risky undertaking and it backfired, producing the reverse of its intended effects. The deal emboldened the Taliban to spread out into the adjoining districts of Buner and Lower Dir, make new recruits and seize territories. The rapid advance covered areas barely 100 km from the capital Islamabad and the strategic Karakorum Highway, which links with China
The United States, which in its haste to make a new policy for the region had been pressing Pakistan’s government to take strong military action for months, was angry. Other countries feared the Zardari government may be overthrown, leading to civil war and loss of control of strategic and nuclear installations and arms.
Cynics note that the current, long-delayed military action was finally launched while Zardari was on a state trip to Washington, negotiating economic assistance and political support for his beleaguered regime from the Obama administration, which has pledged $1.9bn in counter-terrorism, economic and humanitarian aid and another $600m for military needs in the next two years. When General Pervez Musharraf was in power, from 1999 to 2008, he would obtain generous economic and military assistance from Washington in return for some newly captured al-Qaida operative or a small-scale military action against the Taliban in a remote tribal area. So Washington was especially annoyed when, contrary to promises, the Zardari government signed the peace deal with the Taliban and won parliamentary approval for it in March.
In view of the Taliban advances, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, Centcom chief General David Petreaus, CIA chief Robert Gates and others in the US Senate and Congress have all made it clear to Zardari and Afghan president Hamid Karzai that the rules of business have changed. In exchange for economic and political support, there will be formal accountability “going forward,” in which common objectives will be listed and progress monitored in the war against al-Qaida/Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They told the leaders, who have a reputation for corruption and maladministration, to take things in hand, deliver governance to their people and join hands with the opposition at home and with their international friends to face the common Taliban/al-Qaida enemy that threatens to plunge the region into anarchy.
source : http://mondediplo.com/2009/06/03pakistan
Steve LeVine on WorldStreams Radio
Steve LeVine covers foreign affairs for Business Week. He previously was correspondent for Central Asia and the Caucasus for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for 11 years. His first book, The Oil and the Glory, a history of the former Soviet Union through the lens of oil, was published in October 2007. Putin’s Labyrinth, his new book, profiles Russia through the lives and deaths of six Russians. It was released in June 2008.
His Blog: http://oilandglory.com/
Date / Length: 6/11/2009 7:30 AM - 1 hr
Our guest is journalist and author, Steve LeVine. Vist worldstreams.org for more details and to listen to past programs
Racist Australia
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9017&page=0
By Bruce Haigh - posted Thursday, 11 June 2009
Recent attacks on Indian students have thrust the issue of racism in Australia into the mainstream news bulletins. The Indian Government has protested, the Indian media has expressed concern and Kevin Rudd has made one of his grave and concerned statements.
The Australian media toyed with the notion that perhaps there are elements of racism in this country.
Of course Australia is racist. It is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practised with some guilt and in polite company circumspection. Quiet soundings at social gatherings of what appear to be like- minded people, eventually leading to, once credentials seem to have been established, “I have nothing against them but ...”
Advertisement
Polite and sometimes not-so-polite racism is the underbelly of conservative politics and conservative attitudes. Racism weaves its way through Australian sport with varying degrees of official tolerance, but in some codes it has equal billing with misogyny. It was there for all to see with the crude sledging engaged in during the last Australian cricket tour of India.
In not-so-polite society racism is blatant. Have you seen the ugly text messages relating to Aboriginals, Muslims, Jews, Indians and refugees?
Australians from the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture expect new Australians from other cultural backgrounds to show some respect, perhaps even a small cringe and obsequiousness, forelock tugging, until such time as they know the ropes, cut their cultural ties and enter the main stream.
Temporary settlers and long term visitors are expected to absorb main stream culture more quickly and to show a suitable degree of deference. Some individuals and national groups are better at this than others. Maybe Indians have a problem with deference.
Of course racism is a fact of life in Australia. The treatment of Aborigines is the most glaring example and is there for the world to see. Aborigines are not equal before the law in Australia; they die in the back of prison vans. White fellahs speak, plan and make decisions on their behalf. Rehabilitation programs in prison are minimal and many prison guards display racial prejudice including toward visiting relatives. White decision makers are currently in the process of denying outstations to aboriginals.
Since the time of white settlement racism has been part of the weft and weave of this country.
The first identified threat by white settlers was from thieving, dispossessed, Aborigines, who were placed in the same category as Australian fauna, and then Asians, who apparently constituted a threat to the wage structure and racial purity. The Union Movement and The Bulletin magazine urged maintenance of a White Australia policy and it was not difficult to bring the squatters and members of the professional middle class along with them. Keeping Australia free for the white man was one of the catch cries for recruitment to the First AIF (Australian Imperial Force).
The White Australia policy “officially” died with the election of the Labor Whitlam government in 1972; but in reality it didn’t. Attitudes in the white macho middle class didn’t change. It was a badge of honour among the emotionally and intellectually beleaguered (and challenged) conservatives in the middle class to oppose anything the Whitlam government instituted.
Expecting big things from Malcolm Fraser when he was elected Prime Minister in 1976, they were disappointed, if not shocked with his attitude and policies toward Aborigines, refugees arriving by boat and by his opposition to apartheid. He was a class and party traitor.
Hawke and Keating maintained, and in some areas increased, policies of public decency toward Aborigines, minority groups and refugees. Under them both there was even a week-long celebration of the worth and value of refugees known as Refugee Week. It died under Howard.
John Howard brought his class and race warfare to government. He was a champion of the marginalised white middle class. His anger at the direction of policy over the preceding 24 years seethed and festered. WorkChoices and the detention and vilification of refugees were the resulting policies.
Howard’s treatment of refugees arriving by boat was state sponsored and sanctioned racism. It sent a powerful message, not to desperate refugees but to other Australians, some of whom saw it as encouragement to develop and express their own racism. Haneef was a victim. The unwillingness of the Australian Federal Police to admit mistakes or apologise also sent a powerful message both overseas and to those within this country who put the AFP on a higher pedestal than they do tolerance and human rights.
The Rudd Government has kept in place the fundamentals of the Howard government’s intolerant policies toward Aborigines and refugees. As an example to others it leaves much to be desired, as does Rudd’s recent intemperate attack on people smugglers. Does Rudd believe that government policies reinforcing and backing racist actions and attitudes would not have a negative impact at street level?
The Rudd Government has been gutless in reversing and attempting to heal the damage done by Howard. His government needs to implement a schools and university program promoting human rights and combating racism.
By Bruce Haigh - posted Thursday, 11 June 2009
Recent attacks on Indian students have thrust the issue of racism in Australia into the mainstream news bulletins. The Indian Government has protested, the Indian media has expressed concern and Kevin Rudd has made one of his grave and concerned statements.
The Australian media toyed with the notion that perhaps there are elements of racism in this country.
Of course Australia is racist. It is still viewed by mainstream Australia as wrong, so it is practised with some guilt and in polite company circumspection. Quiet soundings at social gatherings of what appear to be like- minded people, eventually leading to, once credentials seem to have been established, “I have nothing against them but ...”
Advertisement
Polite and sometimes not-so-polite racism is the underbelly of conservative politics and conservative attitudes. Racism weaves its way through Australian sport with varying degrees of official tolerance, but in some codes it has equal billing with misogyny. It was there for all to see with the crude sledging engaged in during the last Australian cricket tour of India.
In not-so-polite society racism is blatant. Have you seen the ugly text messages relating to Aboriginals, Muslims, Jews, Indians and refugees?
Australians from the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture expect new Australians from other cultural backgrounds to show some respect, perhaps even a small cringe and obsequiousness, forelock tugging, until such time as they know the ropes, cut their cultural ties and enter the main stream.
Temporary settlers and long term visitors are expected to absorb main stream culture more quickly and to show a suitable degree of deference. Some individuals and national groups are better at this than others. Maybe Indians have a problem with deference.
Of course racism is a fact of life in Australia. The treatment of Aborigines is the most glaring example and is there for the world to see. Aborigines are not equal before the law in Australia; they die in the back of prison vans. White fellahs speak, plan and make decisions on their behalf. Rehabilitation programs in prison are minimal and many prison guards display racial prejudice including toward visiting relatives. White decision makers are currently in the process of denying outstations to aboriginals.
Since the time of white settlement racism has been part of the weft and weave of this country.
The first identified threat by white settlers was from thieving, dispossessed, Aborigines, who were placed in the same category as Australian fauna, and then Asians, who apparently constituted a threat to the wage structure and racial purity. The Union Movement and The Bulletin magazine urged maintenance of a White Australia policy and it was not difficult to bring the squatters and members of the professional middle class along with them. Keeping Australia free for the white man was one of the catch cries for recruitment to the First AIF (Australian Imperial Force).
The White Australia policy “officially” died with the election of the Labor Whitlam government in 1972; but in reality it didn’t. Attitudes in the white macho middle class didn’t change. It was a badge of honour among the emotionally and intellectually beleaguered (and challenged) conservatives in the middle class to oppose anything the Whitlam government instituted.
Expecting big things from Malcolm Fraser when he was elected Prime Minister in 1976, they were disappointed, if not shocked with his attitude and policies toward Aborigines, refugees arriving by boat and by his opposition to apartheid. He was a class and party traitor.
Hawke and Keating maintained, and in some areas increased, policies of public decency toward Aborigines, minority groups and refugees. Under them both there was even a week-long celebration of the worth and value of refugees known as Refugee Week. It died under Howard.
John Howard brought his class and race warfare to government. He was a champion of the marginalised white middle class. His anger at the direction of policy over the preceding 24 years seethed and festered. WorkChoices and the detention and vilification of refugees were the resulting policies.
Howard’s treatment of refugees arriving by boat was state sponsored and sanctioned racism. It sent a powerful message, not to desperate refugees but to other Australians, some of whom saw it as encouragement to develop and express their own racism. Haneef was a victim. The unwillingness of the Australian Federal Police to admit mistakes or apologise also sent a powerful message both overseas and to those within this country who put the AFP on a higher pedestal than they do tolerance and human rights.
The Rudd Government has kept in place the fundamentals of the Howard government’s intolerant policies toward Aborigines and refugees. As an example to others it leaves much to be desired, as does Rudd’s recent intemperate attack on people smugglers. Does Rudd believe that government policies reinforcing and backing racist actions and attitudes would not have a negative impact at street level?
The Rudd Government has been gutless in reversing and attempting to heal the damage done by Howard. His government needs to implement a schools and university program promoting human rights and combating racism.
84 indigenous people massacred in Peru’s “oil war”
Published by mattwilkerson, June 8th, 2009
The true cost of oil
At least 84 indigenous people have been killed fighting to defend their traditional territories from oil exploration. As part of a free trade agreement with the US, Peru has altered their constitution and implemented new laws stripping indigenous tribes of their land rights and opening their lands to oil companies. In response there has been a massive uprising for the past month with tribes around the country shutting down major highways, rivers, oil installations, trains, and other critical infrastructure. To put it bluntly these new laws are a death sentence for the indigenous of the Peruvian Amazon.
It is often easy to get caught up in the abstractions of climate change, with our parts per millions and international treaties. This is not an abstraction. This is life and death for thousands of people. And may I add it is death being fueled by our addiction to oil. If we are serious about climate justice we need to provide solidarity to those resisting genocide in Peru.
Contact the Peruvian Embassy at:
Address:
1700 Massachusetts Ave., N.W
Washington D.C. 20036
Driving Directions
Telephone: (202) 833-9860 to 9869
Fax: (202) 659-8124
Email: webadmin@embassyofperu.us
Or organize a demo at one of their consulates around the country. They are located in:
DC, Miami, New York, LA, Chicago, SF, Boston, Houston, Atlanta, and Denver.
Source: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/06/08/84-indigenous-people-massacred-in-perus-oil-war/
MEND gives survival strategy to JTF troops
National News Jun 12, 2009 By Emma Amaize
http://www.vanguardngr.com/?p=1563
WARRI—AMID reports that the graves of some soldiers that were declared missing-in-action (MIA) by the Joint Task Force (JTF) on the Niger-Delta have been uncovered, the Movement for Emancipation of the Niger-Delta (MEND), which butchered and buried the soldiers in the graves, yesterday audaciously unveiled a tactic that service personnel of the Nigeria military could adopt whenever they found themselves in the creeks to avoid being killed in action (KIA).
It also renewed its warning to oil workers that operation Hurricane Piper Alpha, launched by the militants was real and ordered them to evacuate from the entire region.
One of the strategies, according to the militant group, in an online statement by its spokesman, Jomo Gbomo, specially directed to junior officers of the JTF, who the lot fall on to carry out assignments in the creeks, was for the soldiers not to shoot first at the militants or they would reply with more deadly strikes.
His words: “Some of your colleagues have begged for their lives and even told us of loved ones left behind, we sympathize with you and that is why it is important to understand that if you have an overzealous soldier or sailor by your side, caution him not to shoot at us or else it will end in a bloodbath to our advantage”.
He explained that in the case of attack on the Otunana flow station on Tuesday night, “Our attack did not claim the lives of any one because we were not fired upon as we approached. We will not shoot first, except fired upon”.
According to him, “our mission is to destroy the facilities that are being used to generate funds to buy bombs to destroy our already traumatized communities and the killing of soldiers becomes necessary only in self- defence”.
“Our fight”, he stated, “is just and we expect the government to do the right thing peacefully or we will have to negotiate true federalism which includes fiscal federalism when the oil and gas exports are down to zero”.
MEND told the soldiers in the detailed letter that “unfortunately, our paths are crossing at a time of war instead of a time of peace. With the potentials of our great country from the North to the South and the East to the West, one would have expected that almost 50 years after independence we will be meeting in an atmosphere of true federalism, prosperity, mutual respect and genuine peace”.
“Alas, this is not the case today where you have been posted to fight an unjust war against your fellow brothers all for the sake of blood oil.
“Some of you have a conscience. As you sit behind sandbags watching the gas flare from the oil wells, you wonder why the oil that is being processed every day and night is generating revenue for the country to develop other regions while the host communities remain in darkness, poverty, misery and to add salt to injury are bombed indiscriminately.
“Then, there are others who have come with an ignorant and arrogant attitude, developed by a strange doctrine that they are superior to our people in tribe, religion, culture and language.
They have been told that their mission is to ensure that oil continues to flow from the South to the North and gas from the South to the West and the dollars generated be used to build super highways and buildings in those regions, while the natives should be grateful to receive the crumbs and play second fiddle in an environment that is degraded by years of greed and insensitivity.
“By late 2005, some of us decided that the nonsense going on in our country has to stop. We formed the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta or MEND to bring out the wrong that have long been swept under the carpet and mend it right”, he stated.
“We had to take up arms to fight a system that is deaf and rigid to change. This fight has cost many of your colleagues and ours the ultimate sacrifice.
“Today, we hear a lot of talk about criminality hijacking our noble struggle and for that reason everyone must be treated as criminals and exterminated.
“Criminality is in every facet of the Nigerian society. Have you noticed that the fish starts to get rotten from the head?
“By ascending to the position of President through an electoral fraud, Yar’Adua is an
illegal commander –in- chief. Hijacking the peoples mandate is the highest form of criminality and therefore any order you take to destroy your fellow citizens from such a leader is having their blood on your head.
“While calling the kettle black, criminals can be found in the armed forces, the customs, police, immigration, ministries, banking sector and National Assembly. I am sure you have been reading one scandal or the other by the same men who order you to be sent to fight an unjust war while they relax in the comfort of their home or guest houses heaping a fortune for themselves and immediate family.
“Some of your officers may even be interested in having your beautiful wife for themselves so they post you to guard a facility in the middle of the dark forest hoping you will get killed or missing in action.
This is a possibility and you can learn from King David.
“When your colleagues protested for their stolen allowances due them after serving at the UN, the army rewarded their efforts with a life jail sentence.
“The generals who ruled this country and who continue to play a role in the government today are among those that have put the country in the mess we find ourselves. Yet, not one of them is in jail or has to face the Jerry Rawlings treatment.
“It was for such wickedness that the late Major Gideon G. Orkar and some gallant junior officers and men tried to change. We remember them today and salute them for their courage”, the militant group asserted.
Quoting from Mao Tse-tung, MEND said, “When you want to fight us, we don’t let you and you can’t find us.
But when we want to fight you, we make sure you can’t get away and we hit you squarely…. and wipe you out…The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue”.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/?p=1563
WARRI—AMID reports that the graves of some soldiers that were declared missing-in-action (MIA) by the Joint Task Force (JTF) on the Niger-Delta have been uncovered, the Movement for Emancipation of the Niger-Delta (MEND), which butchered and buried the soldiers in the graves, yesterday audaciously unveiled a tactic that service personnel of the Nigeria military could adopt whenever they found themselves in the creeks to avoid being killed in action (KIA).
It also renewed its warning to oil workers that operation Hurricane Piper Alpha, launched by the militants was real and ordered them to evacuate from the entire region.
One of the strategies, according to the militant group, in an online statement by its spokesman, Jomo Gbomo, specially directed to junior officers of the JTF, who the lot fall on to carry out assignments in the creeks, was for the soldiers not to shoot first at the militants or they would reply with more deadly strikes.
His words: “Some of your colleagues have begged for their lives and even told us of loved ones left behind, we sympathize with you and that is why it is important to understand that if you have an overzealous soldier or sailor by your side, caution him not to shoot at us or else it will end in a bloodbath to our advantage”.
He explained that in the case of attack on the Otunana flow station on Tuesday night, “Our attack did not claim the lives of any one because we were not fired upon as we approached. We will not shoot first, except fired upon”.
According to him, “our mission is to destroy the facilities that are being used to generate funds to buy bombs to destroy our already traumatized communities and the killing of soldiers becomes necessary only in self- defence”.
“Our fight”, he stated, “is just and we expect the government to do the right thing peacefully or we will have to negotiate true federalism which includes fiscal federalism when the oil and gas exports are down to zero”.
MEND told the soldiers in the detailed letter that “unfortunately, our paths are crossing at a time of war instead of a time of peace. With the potentials of our great country from the North to the South and the East to the West, one would have expected that almost 50 years after independence we will be meeting in an atmosphere of true federalism, prosperity, mutual respect and genuine peace”.
“Alas, this is not the case today where you have been posted to fight an unjust war against your fellow brothers all for the sake of blood oil.
“Some of you have a conscience. As you sit behind sandbags watching the gas flare from the oil wells, you wonder why the oil that is being processed every day and night is generating revenue for the country to develop other regions while the host communities remain in darkness, poverty, misery and to add salt to injury are bombed indiscriminately.
“Then, there are others who have come with an ignorant and arrogant attitude, developed by a strange doctrine that they are superior to our people in tribe, religion, culture and language.
They have been told that their mission is to ensure that oil continues to flow from the South to the North and gas from the South to the West and the dollars generated be used to build super highways and buildings in those regions, while the natives should be grateful to receive the crumbs and play second fiddle in an environment that is degraded by years of greed and insensitivity.
“By late 2005, some of us decided that the nonsense going on in our country has to stop. We formed the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta or MEND to bring out the wrong that have long been swept under the carpet and mend it right”, he stated.
“We had to take up arms to fight a system that is deaf and rigid to change. This fight has cost many of your colleagues and ours the ultimate sacrifice.
“Today, we hear a lot of talk about criminality hijacking our noble struggle and for that reason everyone must be treated as criminals and exterminated.
“Criminality is in every facet of the Nigerian society. Have you noticed that the fish starts to get rotten from the head?
“By ascending to the position of President through an electoral fraud, Yar’Adua is an
illegal commander –in- chief. Hijacking the peoples mandate is the highest form of criminality and therefore any order you take to destroy your fellow citizens from such a leader is having their blood on your head.
“While calling the kettle black, criminals can be found in the armed forces, the customs, police, immigration, ministries, banking sector and National Assembly. I am sure you have been reading one scandal or the other by the same men who order you to be sent to fight an unjust war while they relax in the comfort of their home or guest houses heaping a fortune for themselves and immediate family.
“Some of your officers may even be interested in having your beautiful wife for themselves so they post you to guard a facility in the middle of the dark forest hoping you will get killed or missing in action.
This is a possibility and you can learn from King David.
“When your colleagues protested for their stolen allowances due them after serving at the UN, the army rewarded their efforts with a life jail sentence.
“The generals who ruled this country and who continue to play a role in the government today are among those that have put the country in the mess we find ourselves. Yet, not one of them is in jail or has to face the Jerry Rawlings treatment.
“It was for such wickedness that the late Major Gideon G. Orkar and some gallant junior officers and men tried to change. We remember them today and salute them for their courage”, the militant group asserted.
Quoting from Mao Tse-tung, MEND said, “When you want to fight us, we don’t let you and you can’t find us.
But when we want to fight you, we make sure you can’t get away and we hit you squarely…. and wipe you out…The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue”.
Russia builds Baltic oil route to bypass Belarus
Reuters, Wednesday June 10 2009
* BTS-2 to ship 30 million tonnes a year to Baltic
* Completion scheduled for third-quarter 2012
* Russia could divert transit flows from Belarus, Ukraine
By Vladimir Soldatkin
UNECHA, Russia, June 10 (Reuters) - Russia started building a $4 billion oil pipeline on Wednesday to cut Belarus from a key supply route to Europe, as tensions grow between the ex-Soviet allies over warming ties between Minsk and the European Union.
The new pipeline, which will skirt Belarus on its 1,000-km route to the Baltic, was first mooted after a transit dispute in 2006 and will tighten Kremlin control over energy supply routes, also giving it the option to divert flows from Ukraine.
"It's a very significant loss for Belarus, not only in economic terms but politically, as the country is losing its reputation as a reliable transit nation," Yaroslav Romanchuk, head of the Mizes think tank in Belarus, said.
Russia, the world's No. 2 oil exporter, is keen to bypass the countries that stand between its abundant oil and gas reserves and customers in Europe after arguing with both Ukraine and Belarus over transit conditions in recent years. The Baltic Pipeline System extension will carry 30 million tonnes a year, or 6 percent of Russia's output last year, to Ust-Luga port on the Baltic Sea. The route, known as BTS-2, is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2012.
Construction begins only weeks after Russia shelved a $500 million loan to ease Belarus through the financial slowdown, saying it was unhappy with the economic policies of Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko.
With Minsk caught in a struggle for influence between Russia and the European Union, Moscow dealt a further blow to its neighbour's $1 billion dairy export business by banning almost all milk products in a market where it had a 4 percent share.
FLEXIBILITY OF SUPPLY
Russia's foremost energy official, Igor Sechin, said BTS-2 would afford Moscow the flexibility to re-route oil either from the Druzhba pipeline through Belarus or the Odessa-Brody route that carries Russian oil south to Ukrainian Black Sea ports.
Ukraine has said it might reverse flows through Odessa-Brody to deliver Caspian Sea region oil to Europe.
"Construction of BTS-2 allows for the lowering of risks in the event that flows through Odessa-Brody are reversed," Sechin, an influential deputy to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said at a ceremony to mark the start of construction.
He said talks were under way with Ukraine on the use of this pipeline, and also with Kazakhstan on supply of additional crude that could travel through the BTS-2 route.
BTS-2 will cost between 120 billion and 130 billion roubles ($3.8 billion-$4.2 billion) to construct. The pipeline starts in Bryansk region, about 400 km (250 miles) southwest of Moscow, and its capacity could eventually rise to 50 million tonnes.
A 172-km (108-mile) link to the Kirishi refinery in northwest Russia, owned by Surgutneftegaz, will join the pipeline's first stage. (Additional reporting by Andrei Makhovsky in Minsk; Writing by Robin Paxton)
* BTS-2 to ship 30 million tonnes a year to Baltic
* Completion scheduled for third-quarter 2012
* Russia could divert transit flows from Belarus, Ukraine
By Vladimir Soldatkin
UNECHA, Russia, June 10 (Reuters) - Russia started building a $4 billion oil pipeline on Wednesday to cut Belarus from a key supply route to Europe, as tensions grow between the ex-Soviet allies over warming ties between Minsk and the European Union.
The new pipeline, which will skirt Belarus on its 1,000-km route to the Baltic, was first mooted after a transit dispute in 2006 and will tighten Kremlin control over energy supply routes, also giving it the option to divert flows from Ukraine.
"It's a very significant loss for Belarus, not only in economic terms but politically, as the country is losing its reputation as a reliable transit nation," Yaroslav Romanchuk, head of the Mizes think tank in Belarus, said.
Russia, the world's No. 2 oil exporter, is keen to bypass the countries that stand between its abundant oil and gas reserves and customers in Europe after arguing with both Ukraine and Belarus over transit conditions in recent years. The Baltic Pipeline System extension will carry 30 million tonnes a year, or 6 percent of Russia's output last year, to Ust-Luga port on the Baltic Sea. The route, known as BTS-2, is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2012.
Construction begins only weeks after Russia shelved a $500 million loan to ease Belarus through the financial slowdown, saying it was unhappy with the economic policies of Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko.
With Minsk caught in a struggle for influence between Russia and the European Union, Moscow dealt a further blow to its neighbour's $1 billion dairy export business by banning almost all milk products in a market where it had a 4 percent share.
FLEXIBILITY OF SUPPLY
Russia's foremost energy official, Igor Sechin, said BTS-2 would afford Moscow the flexibility to re-route oil either from the Druzhba pipeline through Belarus or the Odessa-Brody route that carries Russian oil south to Ukrainian Black Sea ports.
Ukraine has said it might reverse flows through Odessa-Brody to deliver Caspian Sea region oil to Europe.
"Construction of BTS-2 allows for the lowering of risks in the event that flows through Odessa-Brody are reversed," Sechin, an influential deputy to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said at a ceremony to mark the start of construction.
He said talks were under way with Ukraine on the use of this pipeline, and also with Kazakhstan on supply of additional crude that could travel through the BTS-2 route.
BTS-2 will cost between 120 billion and 130 billion roubles ($3.8 billion-$4.2 billion) to construct. The pipeline starts in Bryansk region, about 400 km (250 miles) southwest of Moscow, and its capacity could eventually rise to 50 million tonnes.
A 172-km (108-mile) link to the Kirishi refinery in northwest Russia, owned by Surgutneftegaz, will join the pipeline's first stage. (Additional reporting by Andrei Makhovsky in Minsk; Writing by Robin Paxton)
Jai Ho, N00b and Slumdog as the 1,000,000th English Word
global language monitor
Web 2.0 beats Jai Ho, N00b and Slumdog as the 1,000,000th English Word
English passed the Million Word mark earlier today, June 10 at 10:22 am GMT
http://www.languagemonitor.com/
Word Number 1,000,001: Financial Tsunami
Austin, Texas June 10, 2009 – The Global Language Monitor today announced that Web 2.0 has bested Jai Ho, N00b and Slumdog as the 1,000,000th English word or phrase. added to the codex of fourteen hundred-year-old language. Web 2.0 is a technical term meaning the next generation of World Wide Web products and services. It has crossed from technical jargon into far wider circulation in the last six months. Two terms from India, Jai Ho! and slumdog finished No. 2 and 4. Jai Ho! Is a Hindi exclamation signifying victory or accomplishment; Slumdog is an impolite term for children living in the slums. Just missing the top spot was n00b, a mixture of letters and numbers that is a derisive term for newcomer. It is also the only mainstream English word that contains within itself two numerals. Rounding out the final five were another technical term, cloud computing, meaning services that are delivered via the cloud (or Internet), and a term from the Climate Change debate, carbon neutral. At its current rate, English generates about 14.7 words a day or one every 98 minutes.
“As expected, English crossed the 1,000,000 word threshold on June 10, 2009 at 10:22 am GMT. However, some 400 years after the death of the Bard, the words and phrases were coined far from Stratford-Upon-Avon, emerging instead from Silicon Valley, India, China, and Poland, as well as Australia, Canada, the US and the UK,” said Paul JJ Payack, president and chief word analyst of the Global Language Monitor. “English has become a universal means of communication; never before have so many people been able to communicate so easily with so many others.”
The English language is now being studies by hundreds of millions around the globe for entertainment, commercial or scientific purposes.” In 1960 there were some 250 million English speakers, mostly in former colonies and the Commonwealth countries. The future of English as a major language was very much in doubt. Today, some 1.53 billion people now speak English as a primary, auxiliary, or business language, with some 250 million acquiring the language in China alone.
These are the fifteen finalists for the one millionth English word, all of which have met the criteria of a minimum of 25,000 citations with the necessary breadth of geographic distribution, and depth of citations.
1,000,000: Web 2.0 – The next generation of web products and services, coming soon to a browser near you.
999,999: Jai Ho! – The Hindi phrase signifying the joy of victory, used as an exclamation, sometimes rendered as “It is accomplished”. Achieved English-language popularity through the multiple Academy Award Winning film, “Slumdog Millionaire”.
999,998: N00b — From the Gamer Community, a neophyte in playing a particular game; used as a disparaging term.
999,997: Slumdog – a formerly disparaging, now often endearing, comment upon those residing in the slums of India.
999,996: Cloud Computing – The ‘cloud’ has been technical jargon for the Internet for many years. It is now passing into more general usage.
999,995: Carbon Neutral — One of the many phrases relating to the effort to stem Climate Change.
999,994: Slow Food — Food other than the fast-food variety hopefully produced locally (locavores).
999,993: Octomom – The media phenomenon relating to the travails of the mother of the octuplets.
999,992: Greenwashing – Re-branding an old, often inferior, product as environmentally friendly.
999,991: Sexting – Sending email (or text messages) with sexual content.
999,990: Shovel Ready – Projects are ready to begin immediately upon the release of federal stimulus funds.
999,989: Defriend – Social networking terminology for cutting the connection with a formal friend.
999,988: Chengguan – Urban management officers, a cross between mayors, sheriff, and city managers.
999,987: Recessionista – Fashion conscious who use the global economic restructuring to their financial benefit.
999,986: Zombie Banks – Banks that would be dead if not for government intervention and cash infusion.
———————————————————————————————————
In addition, the 1,000,001st word is Financial Tsunami – The global financial restructuring that seemingly swept out of nowhere, wiping out trillions of dollars of assets, in a matter of months
Each word was analyzed to determine which depth (number of citations) and breadth (geographic extent of word usage), as well as number of appearances in the global print and electronic media, the Internet, the blogosphere, and social media (such as Twitter and YouTube). The Word with the highest PQI score was deemed the 1,000,000th English language word. The Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI) is used to track and analyze word usage.
Global Language Monitor has been tracking English word creation since 2003. Once it identifies new words (or neologisms) it measures their extent and depth of usage with its PQI technology.
English Language Millionth Word Finalists Announced, including: alcopops, bangster, de-friend, n00b, quendy-trendy, slumdog, and wonderstar
English to Pass Millionth Word June 10 at 10:22 am GMT
Million Word March Now Stands at 999,824
Austin, Texas May 29, 2009 – The Global Language Monitor today announced the finalists for the Million Word March. The English Language will cross the 1,000,000 word threshold on June 10, 2009 at 10:22 am Stratford-Upon-Avon time.
“The Million Word milestone brings to notice the coming of age of English as the first, truly global Language”, said Paul JJ Payack, president and chief word analyst of the Global Language Monitor. “There are three major trends involving the English language today: 1) An explosion in word creation; English words are being added to the language at the rate of some 14.7 words a day; 2) a geographic explosion where some 1.53 billion people now speak English around the globe as a primary, auxiliary, or business language; and 3) English has become, in fact, the first truly global language.”
Due to the global extent of the English language, the Millionth Word is as likely to appear from India, China, or East L.A.as it is to emerge from Stratford-upon-Avon (Shakespeare’s home town). The final words and phrases under consideration are listed below. These words represent each of the categories of Global English that GLM tracks, Since English appears to be adding a new word every 98 minutes or about 14.7 words a day, the Global Language Monitor is selecting a representative sampling. You can follow the English Language WordClock counting down to the one millionth word at www.LanguageMonitor.com.
These words that are on the brink of entering the language as the finalists for the One Millionth English Word:
Australia: Alchopops – Sugary-flavored mixed drinks very much en vogue.
Chinglish: Chengguan – Urban management officers, a cross between mayors, sheriff, and city managers.
Economics: 1) Financial Tsunami – The global financial restructuring that seemingly swept out of nowhere, wiping out trillions of dollars of assets, in a matter of months. 2) Zombie Banks – Banks that would be dead if not for government intervention and cash infusion.
Entertainment: Jai Ho! — From the Hindi, “it is accomplished’ achieved English-language popularity through the multiple Academy Award Winner, “Slumdog Millionaire”.
Fashion: 1) Chiconomics – The ability to maintain one’s fashion sense (chicness) amidst the current financial crisis. 2) Recessionista – Fashion conscious who use the Global economic restructuring to their financial benefit; 3) Mobama – relating to the fashion-sense of the US First Lady, as in ‘that is quite mobamaish’.
Popular Culture: Octomom (the media phenomenon of the mother of the octuplets).
Green Living: 1) Green washing – Re-branding an old product as environmentally friendly. 2) E-vampire – Appliances and machines on standby-mode, which continually use electrical energy they ‘sleep’. 3) Slow food: — Food other than the fast-food variety hopefully produced locally (locavores).
Hinglish: Chuddies – Ladies’ underwear or panties.
Internet: 1) De-follow – No longer following the updates of someone on a social networking site. 2) De-friend – No longer following the updates of a friend on a social networking site; much harsher than de-following. 3) Web 2.0 – The next generation of web services.
Language: Toki Pona – The only language (constructed or natural) with a trademark.
Million Word March: MillionWordWord — Default entry if no other word qualifies.
Music: Wonderstar – as in Susan Boyle, an overnight sensation, exceeding all realsonable expectations.
Poland: Bangsters – A description of those responsible for ‘predatory’ lending practices, from a combination of the words banker and gangster.
Politically incorrect: 1) Slumdog – a formerly disparaging comments upon those residing in the slums of India; Seatmates of size – US airline euphemism for passengers who carry enough weight to require two seats.
Politics: 1) Carbon neutral — One of the many phrases relating to the effort to stem Climate Change. 2) Overseas Contingency Operations – The Obama re-branding of the Bush War on Terror.
Sports: Phelpsian – The singular accomplishments of Michael Phelps at the Beijing Olympics.
Spirituality: Renewalist – Movements that encompass renewal of the spirit; also call ‘Spirit-filled’ movements.
Technology: 1) Cloud Computing – The ‘cloud’ has been technical jargon for the Internet for many years. It is now passing into more general usage. 2) N00b — From the Gamer Community; a neophyte in playing a particular game; used as a disparaging term. 3) Sexting – Sending email (or text messages) with sexual content.
YouthSpeak: Quendy-Trendy — British youth speak for hip or up-to-date.
Extra Credit:
French word with least chance of entering English Language: le courriel – E-Mail.
Most recognized English-language word on the planet: O.K.
Each word is being analyzed to determine which is attaining the greatest depth (number of citations) and breadth (geographic extent of word usage), as well as number appearances in the global print and electronic media, the Internet, the blogosphere, and social media (such as Twitter and YouTube). The Word with the highest PQI score will be deemed the 1,000,000th English language word. The Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI) is used to track and analyze word usage.
Global Language Monitor has been tracking English word creation since 2003. Once it identifies new words (or neologisms) it measures their extent and depth of usage with its PQI technology.
In Shakespeare’s day, there were only 2,000,000 speakers of English and fewer than 100,000 words. Shakespeare himself coined about 1,700 words. Thomas Jefferson invented about 200 words, and George W. Bush created a handful, the most prominent of which is, misunderestimate. US President Barack Obama’s surname passed into wordhood last year with the rise of obamamania.
Web 2.0 beats Jai Ho, N00b and Slumdog as the 1,000,000th English Word
English passed the Million Word mark earlier today, June 10 at 10:22 am GMT
http://www.languagemonitor.com/
Word Number 1,000,001: Financial Tsunami
Austin, Texas June 10, 2009 – The Global Language Monitor today announced that Web 2.0 has bested Jai Ho, N00b and Slumdog as the 1,000,000th English word or phrase. added to the codex of fourteen hundred-year-old language. Web 2.0 is a technical term meaning the next generation of World Wide Web products and services. It has crossed from technical jargon into far wider circulation in the last six months. Two terms from India, Jai Ho! and slumdog finished No. 2 and 4. Jai Ho! Is a Hindi exclamation signifying victory or accomplishment; Slumdog is an impolite term for children living in the slums. Just missing the top spot was n00b, a mixture of letters and numbers that is a derisive term for newcomer. It is also the only mainstream English word that contains within itself two numerals. Rounding out the final five were another technical term, cloud computing, meaning services that are delivered via the cloud (or Internet), and a term from the Climate Change debate, carbon neutral. At its current rate, English generates about 14.7 words a day or one every 98 minutes.
“As expected, English crossed the 1,000,000 word threshold on June 10, 2009 at 10:22 am GMT. However, some 400 years after the death of the Bard, the words and phrases were coined far from Stratford-Upon-Avon, emerging instead from Silicon Valley, India, China, and Poland, as well as Australia, Canada, the US and the UK,” said Paul JJ Payack, president and chief word analyst of the Global Language Monitor. “English has become a universal means of communication; never before have so many people been able to communicate so easily with so many others.”
The English language is now being studies by hundreds of millions around the globe for entertainment, commercial or scientific purposes.” In 1960 there were some 250 million English speakers, mostly in former colonies and the Commonwealth countries. The future of English as a major language was very much in doubt. Today, some 1.53 billion people now speak English as a primary, auxiliary, or business language, with some 250 million acquiring the language in China alone.
These are the fifteen finalists for the one millionth English word, all of which have met the criteria of a minimum of 25,000 citations with the necessary breadth of geographic distribution, and depth of citations.
1,000,000: Web 2.0 – The next generation of web products and services, coming soon to a browser near you.
999,999: Jai Ho! – The Hindi phrase signifying the joy of victory, used as an exclamation, sometimes rendered as “It is accomplished”. Achieved English-language popularity through the multiple Academy Award Winning film, “Slumdog Millionaire”.
999,998: N00b — From the Gamer Community, a neophyte in playing a particular game; used as a disparaging term.
999,997: Slumdog – a formerly disparaging, now often endearing, comment upon those residing in the slums of India.
999,996: Cloud Computing – The ‘cloud’ has been technical jargon for the Internet for many years. It is now passing into more general usage.
999,995: Carbon Neutral — One of the many phrases relating to the effort to stem Climate Change.
999,994: Slow Food — Food other than the fast-food variety hopefully produced locally (locavores).
999,993: Octomom – The media phenomenon relating to the travails of the mother of the octuplets.
999,992: Greenwashing – Re-branding an old, often inferior, product as environmentally friendly.
999,991: Sexting – Sending email (or text messages) with sexual content.
999,990: Shovel Ready – Projects are ready to begin immediately upon the release of federal stimulus funds.
999,989: Defriend – Social networking terminology for cutting the connection with a formal friend.
999,988: Chengguan – Urban management officers, a cross between mayors, sheriff, and city managers.
999,987: Recessionista – Fashion conscious who use the global economic restructuring to their financial benefit.
999,986: Zombie Banks – Banks that would be dead if not for government intervention and cash infusion.
———————————————————————————————————
In addition, the 1,000,001st word is Financial Tsunami – The global financial restructuring that seemingly swept out of nowhere, wiping out trillions of dollars of assets, in a matter of months
Each word was analyzed to determine which depth (number of citations) and breadth (geographic extent of word usage), as well as number of appearances in the global print and electronic media, the Internet, the blogosphere, and social media (such as Twitter and YouTube). The Word with the highest PQI score was deemed the 1,000,000th English language word. The Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI) is used to track and analyze word usage.
Global Language Monitor has been tracking English word creation since 2003. Once it identifies new words (or neologisms) it measures their extent and depth of usage with its PQI technology.
English Language Millionth Word Finalists Announced, including: alcopops, bangster, de-friend, n00b, quendy-trendy, slumdog, and wonderstar
English to Pass Millionth Word June 10 at 10:22 am GMT
Million Word March Now Stands at 999,824
Austin, Texas May 29, 2009 – The Global Language Monitor today announced the finalists for the Million Word March. The English Language will cross the 1,000,000 word threshold on June 10, 2009 at 10:22 am Stratford-Upon-Avon time.
“The Million Word milestone brings to notice the coming of age of English as the first, truly global Language”, said Paul JJ Payack, president and chief word analyst of the Global Language Monitor. “There are three major trends involving the English language today: 1) An explosion in word creation; English words are being added to the language at the rate of some 14.7 words a day; 2) a geographic explosion where some 1.53 billion people now speak English around the globe as a primary, auxiliary, or business language; and 3) English has become, in fact, the first truly global language.”
Due to the global extent of the English language, the Millionth Word is as likely to appear from India, China, or East L.A.as it is to emerge from Stratford-upon-Avon (Shakespeare’s home town). The final words and phrases under consideration are listed below. These words represent each of the categories of Global English that GLM tracks, Since English appears to be adding a new word every 98 minutes or about 14.7 words a day, the Global Language Monitor is selecting a representative sampling. You can follow the English Language WordClock counting down to the one millionth word at www.LanguageMonitor.com.
These words that are on the brink of entering the language as the finalists for the One Millionth English Word:
Australia: Alchopops – Sugary-flavored mixed drinks very much en vogue.
Chinglish: Chengguan – Urban management officers, a cross between mayors, sheriff, and city managers.
Economics: 1) Financial Tsunami – The global financial restructuring that seemingly swept out of nowhere, wiping out trillions of dollars of assets, in a matter of months. 2) Zombie Banks – Banks that would be dead if not for government intervention and cash infusion.
Entertainment: Jai Ho! — From the Hindi, “it is accomplished’ achieved English-language popularity through the multiple Academy Award Winner, “Slumdog Millionaire”.
Fashion: 1) Chiconomics – The ability to maintain one’s fashion sense (chicness) amidst the current financial crisis. 2) Recessionista – Fashion conscious who use the Global economic restructuring to their financial benefit; 3) Mobama – relating to the fashion-sense of the US First Lady, as in ‘that is quite mobamaish’.
Popular Culture: Octomom (the media phenomenon of the mother of the octuplets).
Green Living: 1) Green washing – Re-branding an old product as environmentally friendly. 2) E-vampire – Appliances and machines on standby-mode, which continually use electrical energy they ‘sleep’. 3) Slow food: — Food other than the fast-food variety hopefully produced locally (locavores).
Hinglish: Chuddies – Ladies’ underwear or panties.
Internet: 1) De-follow – No longer following the updates of someone on a social networking site. 2) De-friend – No longer following the updates of a friend on a social networking site; much harsher than de-following. 3) Web 2.0 – The next generation of web services.
Language: Toki Pona – The only language (constructed or natural) with a trademark.
Million Word March: MillionWordWord — Default entry if no other word qualifies.
Music: Wonderstar – as in Susan Boyle, an overnight sensation, exceeding all realsonable expectations.
Poland: Bangsters – A description of those responsible for ‘predatory’ lending practices, from a combination of the words banker and gangster.
Politically incorrect: 1) Slumdog – a formerly disparaging comments upon those residing in the slums of India; Seatmates of size – US airline euphemism for passengers who carry enough weight to require two seats.
Politics: 1) Carbon neutral — One of the many phrases relating to the effort to stem Climate Change. 2) Overseas Contingency Operations – The Obama re-branding of the Bush War on Terror.
Sports: Phelpsian – The singular accomplishments of Michael Phelps at the Beijing Olympics.
Spirituality: Renewalist – Movements that encompass renewal of the spirit; also call ‘Spirit-filled’ movements.
Technology: 1) Cloud Computing – The ‘cloud’ has been technical jargon for the Internet for many years. It is now passing into more general usage. 2) N00b — From the Gamer Community; a neophyte in playing a particular game; used as a disparaging term. 3) Sexting – Sending email (or text messages) with sexual content.
YouthSpeak: Quendy-Trendy — British youth speak for hip or up-to-date.
Extra Credit:
French word with least chance of entering English Language: le courriel – E-Mail.
Most recognized English-language word on the planet: O.K.
Each word is being analyzed to determine which is attaining the greatest depth (number of citations) and breadth (geographic extent of word usage), as well as number appearances in the global print and electronic media, the Internet, the blogosphere, and social media (such as Twitter and YouTube). The Word with the highest PQI score will be deemed the 1,000,000th English language word. The Predictive Quantities Indicator (PQI) is used to track and analyze word usage.
Global Language Monitor has been tracking English word creation since 2003. Once it identifies new words (or neologisms) it measures their extent and depth of usage with its PQI technology.
In Shakespeare’s day, there were only 2,000,000 speakers of English and fewer than 100,000 words. Shakespeare himself coined about 1,700 words. Thomas Jefferson invented about 200 words, and George W. Bush created a handful, the most prominent of which is, misunderestimate. US President Barack Obama’s surname passed into wordhood last year with the rise of obamamania.
Why India looks at Germany for new anti-terror blueprint
Indan Express, India
New Delhi: One common strand running through all the lapses in the anticipation and response to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, as shown in The Indian Express series, was the lack of inter-agency coordination at every level: from intelligence assessment and operational networking after the attacks to coordination with support groups meant for response, rescue and even medical help.
As the new government works on its internal security revamp roadmap that includes a national counter-terrorism centre to address these very issues, it’s looking at several measures, key among them being the setting up of the NCTC with a detailed reporting structure and creating joint commands with Central and State representatives for Naxal-affected areas.
The NCTC will have “collation and fusion” centres down to the district level so that intelligence can be streamlined and relayed more effectively. Each state will have a subsidiary multi-agency centre that will be connected to the NCTC. The goal: to provide professional and analytical treatment to every bit of local intelligence.
While there are several models available across the world, Germany presents a good case to take up here for three broad reasons:
n It is one country that has not witnessed a major terrorist attack since the 1972 Munich Games, has thwarted seven major attempts since 9/11 and works an efficient system despite high threats given some of its own citizens converted to Islam and received training Pakistan and Afghanistan for attacks inside Germany — all that Hans-Gorg Maassen, Deputy Director General of the Interior Ministry’s Counterterrorism Directorate, says is “we have very good staff, but I also think we have been very lucky.”
n The National Security Guard is modelled largely on Germany’s famed counterterrorism force GSG-9 with the same equipment profile (MP-5 sub machine guns, PSG-1 snipers and Glock pistols)’
n And most significantly, Germany too has a federal system of governance with its 16 states responsible for law and order issues as in India.
Other countries of similar importance would be US, UK, Israel and France from an Indian perspective.
India is in talks with all these countries, but has moved closer to signing an agreement with Germany — a draft for which is ready, covering a range of areas, particularly intensifying deeper cooperation with GSG-9 and its police.
Though there have been issues with Berlin on procuring weapons, which has laws for its weapons not to be used in conflict areas like J&K and against minorities, exceptions have been made like in the case of the Eurocopter , meant for ferrying soldiers to Siachen.
In any case, German officials too have indicated that these are not insurmountable issues when it comes to training elite forces.
But there are larger lessons to be learnt here. Like other countries, Germany has a counterterrorism centre that works round the clock:
n As many as 40 different agencies are represented in this facility. They are in contact with every state besides being the nodal point for all intelligence received from within or outside Germany.
n Every information has to be brought to the centre, which assesses, consults with other agencies and obtains real time feedback to operational authorities.
n A joint internet centre has been added to monitor all “jehadi” websites, blogs and related information.
n A new law empowers police to use spyware or other such tools to access the hard drive of computers of individuals sending and receiving suspect emails. But a panel of eminent jurists has to first approve any such request from the police.
n Routine daily interaction among different agencies has fostered a habit of cooperation that allows greater ability to appreciate each other’s resources and limitations, vital during a real emergency.
n Significantly this centre also has a link with the Bundeswehr Military Command centre which monitors German military operations.
The GSG-9 is no different. In the spirit of Germany’s federal system, the elite commando force has developed an ethos of “coordinated ops”.
Each state has a SWAT team, some even have two. The trick here is that GSG-9 conducts exercises round the year with these teams. Recently, it had three to four SWAT teams of states located along Germany’s coast and created a mock situation of hostage aboard a luxury liner.
The SWAT teams would be the first to act. But what should they do till the GSG-9 arrives? Here is where exercises of this nature help and according to GSG-9 officials, the SWAT teams know what is expected of them to make the GSG-9 assault successful.
Having trained together, the SWAT teams are seen by GSG-9 as its key assets in such situations.
As a result, GSG-9 remains a small force of 274 personnel unlike the NSG that has grown well beyond 8000. GSG-9 officials say a smaller number helps retain the elite character and the SWAT teams are able to provide the numbers when needed. The improving performance levels of SWAT teams make GSG-9 much bigger than it seems on paper. GSG-9 too had five-member HIT teams like the ones NSG deployed in Mumbai. But this has since been improved to nine. One important addition being a paramedic, which is important given that NSG felt the need for immediate medical help.
Also, one team member has a small camera fitted into the gear to record operations, which could be vital in terms of evidence besides gaining important training lessons.
So, it is crucial for India to introduce key changes that do not require a major legal framework, but more revamp and reworking of the systems that currently work as islands.
New Delhi: One common strand running through all the lapses in the anticipation and response to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, as shown in The Indian Express series, was the lack of inter-agency coordination at every level: from intelligence assessment and operational networking after the attacks to coordination with support groups meant for response, rescue and even medical help.
As the new government works on its internal security revamp roadmap that includes a national counter-terrorism centre to address these very issues, it’s looking at several measures, key among them being the setting up of the NCTC with a detailed reporting structure and creating joint commands with Central and State representatives for Naxal-affected areas.
The NCTC will have “collation and fusion” centres down to the district level so that intelligence can be streamlined and relayed more effectively. Each state will have a subsidiary multi-agency centre that will be connected to the NCTC. The goal: to provide professional and analytical treatment to every bit of local intelligence.
While there are several models available across the world, Germany presents a good case to take up here for three broad reasons:
n It is one country that has not witnessed a major terrorist attack since the 1972 Munich Games, has thwarted seven major attempts since 9/11 and works an efficient system despite high threats given some of its own citizens converted to Islam and received training Pakistan and Afghanistan for attacks inside Germany — all that Hans-Gorg Maassen, Deputy Director General of the Interior Ministry’s Counterterrorism Directorate, says is “we have very good staff, but I also think we have been very lucky.”
n The National Security Guard is modelled largely on Germany’s famed counterterrorism force GSG-9 with the same equipment profile (MP-5 sub machine guns, PSG-1 snipers and Glock pistols)’
n And most significantly, Germany too has a federal system of governance with its 16 states responsible for law and order issues as in India.
Other countries of similar importance would be US, UK, Israel and France from an Indian perspective.
India is in talks with all these countries, but has moved closer to signing an agreement with Germany — a draft for which is ready, covering a range of areas, particularly intensifying deeper cooperation with GSG-9 and its police.
Though there have been issues with Berlin on procuring weapons, which has laws for its weapons not to be used in conflict areas like J&K and against minorities, exceptions have been made like in the case of the Eurocopter , meant for ferrying soldiers to Siachen.
In any case, German officials too have indicated that these are not insurmountable issues when it comes to training elite forces.
But there are larger lessons to be learnt here. Like other countries, Germany has a counterterrorism centre that works round the clock:
n As many as 40 different agencies are represented in this facility. They are in contact with every state besides being the nodal point for all intelligence received from within or outside Germany.
n Every information has to be brought to the centre, which assesses, consults with other agencies and obtains real time feedback to operational authorities.
n A joint internet centre has been added to monitor all “jehadi” websites, blogs and related information.
n A new law empowers police to use spyware or other such tools to access the hard drive of computers of individuals sending and receiving suspect emails. But a panel of eminent jurists has to first approve any such request from the police.
n Routine daily interaction among different agencies has fostered a habit of cooperation that allows greater ability to appreciate each other’s resources and limitations, vital during a real emergency.
n Significantly this centre also has a link with the Bundeswehr Military Command centre which monitors German military operations.
The GSG-9 is no different. In the spirit of Germany’s federal system, the elite commando force has developed an ethos of “coordinated ops”.
Each state has a SWAT team, some even have two. The trick here is that GSG-9 conducts exercises round the year with these teams. Recently, it had three to four SWAT teams of states located along Germany’s coast and created a mock situation of hostage aboard a luxury liner.
The SWAT teams would be the first to act. But what should they do till the GSG-9 arrives? Here is where exercises of this nature help and according to GSG-9 officials, the SWAT teams know what is expected of them to make the GSG-9 assault successful.
Having trained together, the SWAT teams are seen by GSG-9 as its key assets in such situations.
As a result, GSG-9 remains a small force of 274 personnel unlike the NSG that has grown well beyond 8000. GSG-9 officials say a smaller number helps retain the elite character and the SWAT teams are able to provide the numbers when needed. The improving performance levels of SWAT teams make GSG-9 much bigger than it seems on paper. GSG-9 too had five-member HIT teams like the ones NSG deployed in Mumbai. But this has since been improved to nine. One important addition being a paramedic, which is important given that NSG felt the need for immediate medical help.
Also, one team member has a small camera fitted into the gear to record operations, which could be vital in terms of evidence besides gaining important training lessons.
So, it is crucial for India to introduce key changes that do not require a major legal framework, but more revamp and reworking of the systems that currently work as islands.
June 09, 2009
Death To The F-35
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090607.aspx
June 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This is a planning exercise that takes into account all the nations military and civil resources as applied to a list of potential opponents and in wars that could break out in the next decade. This analysis is used to determine what weapons will be needed in the future. The QDR also has to take into account the "guidance" from the president and Congress. The air force believes that a more optimistic (about world peace) government will provide guidance that indicates a need for fewer F-35s (currently the air force plans to buy 1,763.)
Another problem is that many people, including some generals in the air force, believe that its next generation fighter will not have a pilot on board. Many air force generals admit that the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. But some believe that the F-35 will be facing stiff competition from pilotless fighters before F-35 production is scheduled to end in 2034.
UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) are not particularly popular with many U.S. Air Force leaders, but that is not the case in many other countries. Air force generals around the world see the unpiloted jet fighter as a way to break the monopoly the U.S. Air Force has had on air supremacy for the last sixty years. Most Americans don't even think of this long domination of the air, but potential enemies of the United States are well aware of it, and that domination has a profound effect on how those nations do their military planning. In effect, if you think about going to war with the United States, you take for granted that American aircraft will control the skies above. Robotic jet fighters could change that. And this is forcing American air force generals to confront a very unsavory prospect; a sixth generation fighter that is flown by software, not a pilot.
It's not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn't always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that's what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will.
Meanwhile, simulations, using fighter flown by software, versus those flown by humans, have been used for over two decades. The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with.
The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software, and now the United States, and Russia, are creating pilotless fighters. Many air force generals are convinced that the pilotless fighters will perform as well for real, as they have in the simulations. So convinced are U.S. Air Force generals, that they are seriously considering a sixth generation fighter that will not carry a human pilot. Otherwise, enemy pilotless fighters would have an edge over the U.S. sixth generation aircraft.
The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It's the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best "software pilots." Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.
Next Article SUBMARINES: Plastic Fantastic Terrifying
June 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This is a planning exercise that takes into account all the nations military and civil resources as applied to a list of potential opponents and in wars that could break out in the next decade. This analysis is used to determine what weapons will be needed in the future. The QDR also has to take into account the "guidance" from the president and Congress. The air force believes that a more optimistic (about world peace) government will provide guidance that indicates a need for fewer F-35s (currently the air force plans to buy 1,763.)
Another problem is that many people, including some generals in the air force, believe that its next generation fighter will not have a pilot on board. Many air force generals admit that the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. But some believe that the F-35 will be facing stiff competition from pilotless fighters before F-35 production is scheduled to end in 2034.
UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) are not particularly popular with many U.S. Air Force leaders, but that is not the case in many other countries. Air force generals around the world see the unpiloted jet fighter as a way to break the monopoly the U.S. Air Force has had on air supremacy for the last sixty years. Most Americans don't even think of this long domination of the air, but potential enemies of the United States are well aware of it, and that domination has a profound effect on how those nations do their military planning. In effect, if you think about going to war with the United States, you take for granted that American aircraft will control the skies above. Robotic jet fighters could change that. And this is forcing American air force generals to confront a very unsavory prospect; a sixth generation fighter that is flown by software, not a pilot.
It's not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn't always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that's what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will.
Meanwhile, simulations, using fighter flown by software, versus those flown by humans, have been used for over two decades. The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with.
The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software, and now the United States, and Russia, are creating pilotless fighters. Many air force generals are convinced that the pilotless fighters will perform as well for real, as they have in the simulations. So convinced are U.S. Air Force generals, that they are seriously considering a sixth generation fighter that will not carry a human pilot. Otherwise, enemy pilotless fighters would have an edge over the U.S. sixth generation aircraft.
The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It's the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best "software pilots." Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.
Next Article SUBMARINES: Plastic Fantastic Terrifying
Who's who in resetting U.S.-Russia relations
Japan Times
By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY
MOSCOW — Germany's ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is a legend in Russia. He serves Gazprom's interests for a measly couple of million euros a year, sits in on sessions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and writes books about his staunch friendship with "Genosse Wladimir," who, in the not-so-distant past, earned himself the well-deserved nickname of "Stasi" among business circles in gangster-ridden St. Petersburg.
But it is not immediately obvious whether it is Schroeder licking Vladimir Putin's boots nowadays or vice versa. The two are building, or trying to build, the Nord Stream gas pipeline, an exceptionally costly project that satisfies twin strategic objectives. Demonstratively hostile to the interests of both Belarus and Ukraine, the pipeline is intended to ensure that these countries are under Russia's energy thumb, regardless of who is in power.
As a bonus, the pipeline will also consolidate the Russian economy's status as an appendage of Germany's — its supplier of natural resources. Some of Schroeder's predecessors as German chancellor sought to attain the same objective by rather different means.
The Kremlin's achievements in securing the help of Americans willing to offer their influence are equally impressive. Indeed, the Obama administration's Russia policy is being nurtured with advice from people who have no official position in the administration but who do have close business ties to Russia and the Kremlin: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker, Thomas Graham and Dimitri Simes.
The first two are major geo-politicians; Graham and Simes are respected as outstanding Russia specialists. They write key reports for the administration, and shuttle between Moscow and Washington, coordinating the parameters of the Obama administration's effort to "reset" the bilateral relationship.
Like Schroeder, all these people are not economically disinterested. Baker is a consultant for the two companies at the commanding heights of the Russian economy, Gazprom and Rosneft. The Kissinger Associates lobbying group, whose Russian section is headed by Graham, feeds into the Kissinger- Primakov working group, a quasi- private sector effort, blessed by Putin, to deepen ties between Russia and the United States.
It is highly instructive to read the recommendations of these people and groups, as they unobtrusively render the objectives of their Kremlin clients into a language familiar to American leaders.
Graham's latest contribution, "Resurgent Russia and U.S. Purposes," is most revealing in this respect. The author finds the government of a "Russia getting up off its knees" to consist of progressive modernizers fully aware of the challenges facing their country as it attempts to "return to the great powers club."
To become a genuinely developed and "modern country," Graham continues, "in the coming decade Russia will need to invest at least one trillion dollars in modernizing its infrastructure. America and the West in general have a vital interest in seeing the modernization of Russia succeed. The lion's share of the technologies, knowhow, and a substantial proportion of the investment, needs to come from Europe and the U.S."
In addition to the technology and investments, Graham quietly slips in a foreign policy suggestion for the Obama administration that is sure to please the Kremlin: "Finlandizing" Ukraine. Unless that sort of appeasement is pursued, he warns, Russia will continue to oppose the U.S. "wherever and whenever it can."
According to Graham, "At the extreme, a weak Russia, with its vast resources and sparse population east of the Urals, could become the object of competition among the great powers, notably China and the U.S."
That unspoken help-us-develop-or- we'll-let-the-Chinese-do-it threat is a logical development of Putin's homily at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, where he advocated decisive action to end the world economic crisis. His recipe? Western countries should write off half a trillion dollars' worth of debt owed to them by the Russian state corporations run by his pals from the Dresden KGB and the Ozero dacha cooperative. But no amount of money will succeed in modernizing Putin's kleptocratic regime, which has already squandered trillions in oil wealth.
Simply put, the Putin system is institutionally and intellectually antithetical to the task of modernization.
Graham's only error in his presentation is his attempt to frighten the administration with a hypothetical confrontation between the U.S. and China over Russian resources. This is not his area of specialization. Kissinger works personally with the Chinese account, jointly propounding with his longtime rival Zbigniew Brzezinski the notion, so seductive for an America growing weary of its imperial burden, of a global Big Two.
Here is a recent sample of Kissinger's geopolitical arts: "The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system . . . The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations" after the war.
No doubt Kissinger believes every word he wrote, but his ideas also honestly articulate the aspirations of his customers. It's just that not all customers have the same motives.
One wants to get his hooks into a further trillion dollars that it can pick away at, while the other wants to become "a central construct of the system of international relations." In both cases, the customers are getting the influence for which they are paying.
Andrei Piontkovsky is a Russian political scientist and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. © 2009 Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org)
By ANDREI PIONTKOVSKY
MOSCOW — Germany's ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is a legend in Russia. He serves Gazprom's interests for a measly couple of million euros a year, sits in on sessions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and writes books about his staunch friendship with "Genosse Wladimir," who, in the not-so-distant past, earned himself the well-deserved nickname of "Stasi" among business circles in gangster-ridden St. Petersburg.
But it is not immediately obvious whether it is Schroeder licking Vladimir Putin's boots nowadays or vice versa. The two are building, or trying to build, the Nord Stream gas pipeline, an exceptionally costly project that satisfies twin strategic objectives. Demonstratively hostile to the interests of both Belarus and Ukraine, the pipeline is intended to ensure that these countries are under Russia's energy thumb, regardless of who is in power.
As a bonus, the pipeline will also consolidate the Russian economy's status as an appendage of Germany's — its supplier of natural resources. Some of Schroeder's predecessors as German chancellor sought to attain the same objective by rather different means.
The Kremlin's achievements in securing the help of Americans willing to offer their influence are equally impressive. Indeed, the Obama administration's Russia policy is being nurtured with advice from people who have no official position in the administration but who do have close business ties to Russia and the Kremlin: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker, Thomas Graham and Dimitri Simes.
The first two are major geo-politicians; Graham and Simes are respected as outstanding Russia specialists. They write key reports for the administration, and shuttle between Moscow and Washington, coordinating the parameters of the Obama administration's effort to "reset" the bilateral relationship.
Like Schroeder, all these people are not economically disinterested. Baker is a consultant for the two companies at the commanding heights of the Russian economy, Gazprom and Rosneft. The Kissinger Associates lobbying group, whose Russian section is headed by Graham, feeds into the Kissinger- Primakov working group, a quasi- private sector effort, blessed by Putin, to deepen ties between Russia and the United States.
It is highly instructive to read the recommendations of these people and groups, as they unobtrusively render the objectives of their Kremlin clients into a language familiar to American leaders.
Graham's latest contribution, "Resurgent Russia and U.S. Purposes," is most revealing in this respect. The author finds the government of a "Russia getting up off its knees" to consist of progressive modernizers fully aware of the challenges facing their country as it attempts to "return to the great powers club."
To become a genuinely developed and "modern country," Graham continues, "in the coming decade Russia will need to invest at least one trillion dollars in modernizing its infrastructure. America and the West in general have a vital interest in seeing the modernization of Russia succeed. The lion's share of the technologies, knowhow, and a substantial proportion of the investment, needs to come from Europe and the U.S."
In addition to the technology and investments, Graham quietly slips in a foreign policy suggestion for the Obama administration that is sure to please the Kremlin: "Finlandizing" Ukraine. Unless that sort of appeasement is pursued, he warns, Russia will continue to oppose the U.S. "wherever and whenever it can."
According to Graham, "At the extreme, a weak Russia, with its vast resources and sparse population east of the Urals, could become the object of competition among the great powers, notably China and the U.S."
That unspoken help-us-develop-or- we'll-let-the-Chinese-do-it threat is a logical development of Putin's homily at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, where he advocated decisive action to end the world economic crisis. His recipe? Western countries should write off half a trillion dollars' worth of debt owed to them by the Russian state corporations run by his pals from the Dresden KGB and the Ozero dacha cooperative. But no amount of money will succeed in modernizing Putin's kleptocratic regime, which has already squandered trillions in oil wealth.
Simply put, the Putin system is institutionally and intellectually antithetical to the task of modernization.
Graham's only error in his presentation is his attempt to frighten the administration with a hypothetical confrontation between the U.S. and China over Russian resources. This is not his area of specialization. Kissinger works personally with the Chinese account, jointly propounding with his longtime rival Zbigniew Brzezinski the notion, so seductive for an America growing weary of its imperial burden, of a global Big Two.
Here is a recent sample of Kissinger's geopolitical arts: "The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system . . . The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations" after the war.
No doubt Kissinger believes every word he wrote, but his ideas also honestly articulate the aspirations of his customers. It's just that not all customers have the same motives.
One wants to get his hooks into a further trillion dollars that it can pick away at, while the other wants to become "a central construct of the system of international relations." In both cases, the customers are getting the influence for which they are paying.
Andrei Piontkovsky is a Russian political scientist and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. © 2009 Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org)
An entrepreneurial ambassador
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Source: JAPAN TIMES
By RICHARD B. DASHER
PALO ALTO,, Calif. — The announcement of Silicon Valley attorney and Barack Obama fundraiser John V. Roos as U.S. ambassador- designate to Japan has sparked questions about what this appointment means for the U.S.-Japan relationship. Is the choice of a Washington outsider with no obvious Japan experience a sign of "Japan passing"?
The personal qualifications and interests of the ambassador-designate will become clearer in the coming months under the scrutiny of the press and Senate confirmation. But one can already argue that Roos' experience as a key player in the creation and growth of some of Silicon Valley's greatest companies instead may be just right for the relationship of the U.S. with an emerging New Japan.
As CEO of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR), Roos leads an institution that is more than just a large law firm in the San Francisco area. WSGR changed the legal services industry by establishing a new type of specialized practice, namely full service legal solutions for new high-tech companies and related industries.
Until John Arnot Wilson established the direct predecessor of WSGR in Palo Alto in 1961, entrepreneurs in what would later become Silicon Valley had little alternative but to go to San Francisco law firms whose expertise and worldview focused on large corporate clients and traditional financial institutions.
Wilson and his team developed a culture as well as a suite of legal services that was responsive to, and aligned with, the needs of high-tech entrepreneurs and venture investors. In 1969, they even took the pioneering step of creating an investment company to manage the stock options that some startup clients were using instead of cash to pay their legal fees.
With a history that includes assisting in the formation of the first Silicon Valley venture capital firms and seeing companies like Apple Computer and Google through initial public offerings, WSGR has played a direct role in shaping the Silicon Valley of the present.
Roos came to WSGR in 1985 as part of an aggressive expansion of the firm from 32 lawyers in 1981 to 97 lawyers in 1986. Promoted to partner in 1988, he became a player in the subsequent exponential growth both of the firm and of Silicon Valley. WSGR now includes around 600 attorneys, and its client base numbers over 300 public and 3,000 private companies. Moreover, Roos, who became CEO in 2005, achieved his professional success during a time of major seismic shifts in the Silicon Valley business environment: several boom-and-bust economic cycles, the emergence of new technology paradigms, and intense globalization.
According to the "2008 Index of Silicon Valley," a language other than English is now spoken in 48 percent of the homes of Silicon Valley, more than double the U.S. national average.
His experience puts Roos at the center of a dense network of personal and business relationships with key players in every aspect of the Silicon Valley new venture ecosystem: serial entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, top university innovators and successful venture accelerators, as well as the large firms, opinion makers, journalists and others with whom they interact.
Accordingly, Roos has direct personal insights into the full range of conditions that face the high-tech industries that have come to the forefront of business relationships between the U.S. and Japan. His work as an attorney has required him to recognize and adapt quickly to the corporate cultures and concerns of new clients on a case-by-case basis. His success, achieved in the volatile atmosphere of Silicon Valley, bodes well for his ability to grasp quickly the new patterns of institutional change that are beginning to emerge in what has been termed the New Japan.
The scale and breadth of change already under way in Japan extends to all sectors: economy, government and politics and social structure and culture itself. It has been clear for some time that Japan is in the process of making a major shift toward a more innovation-based knowledge economy.
Japanese government programs and private sector emphasis on increasing the capacity for entrepreneurship, open innovation and global integration all point to some new model of economic competitiveness for Japan. Government itself has been the object of numerous efforts at reform, and the future impact of current demographic trends (low birth rate, aging population) has become a top concern among Japanese citizens as well as policymakers.
Nevertheless, exactly which new patterns will become the stable, dominant characteristics of New Japan is still an open question. This topic is the focus of several recent and ongoing research programs in U.S. universities and research institutions, including some that are being conducted jointly with Japanese counterparts.
The U.S. Foreign Service likewise includes many professional career diplomats with a wealth of experience who have been following all aspects of the evolution of U.S.-Japan relations. Ambassadors are encouraged by the State Department to develop their own signature, country-specific programs.
For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Italy Ron Spogli launched the Partnership for Growth, a comprehensive program to grow a new venture ecosystem, which resulted in a measurable increase in new venture formation and angel and venture investing in Italy.
Any ambassador will have many resources at his disposal to deal with the full range of issues that may appear in the U.S.-Japan relationship. It is his personal experience as a driver of the Silicon Valley innovation machine under conditions of rapid, dramatic change that makes John Roos a very promising choice for ambassador to Japan at the present time.
Professor Richard B. Dasher has been director of the U.S.-Asia Technology Management Center at Stanford University since 1994. From 1986-1990, he was attached to the U.S. Embassy Tokyo as director of the Foreign Service Institute field school in Yokohama, which provides full-time training to U.S. diplomats.
Source: JAPAN TIMES
By RICHARD B. DASHER
PALO ALTO,, Calif. — The announcement of Silicon Valley attorney and Barack Obama fundraiser John V. Roos as U.S. ambassador- designate to Japan has sparked questions about what this appointment means for the U.S.-Japan relationship. Is the choice of a Washington outsider with no obvious Japan experience a sign of "Japan passing"?
The personal qualifications and interests of the ambassador-designate will become clearer in the coming months under the scrutiny of the press and Senate confirmation. But one can already argue that Roos' experience as a key player in the creation and growth of some of Silicon Valley's greatest companies instead may be just right for the relationship of the U.S. with an emerging New Japan.
As CEO of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (WSGR), Roos leads an institution that is more than just a large law firm in the San Francisco area. WSGR changed the legal services industry by establishing a new type of specialized practice, namely full service legal solutions for new high-tech companies and related industries.
Until John Arnot Wilson established the direct predecessor of WSGR in Palo Alto in 1961, entrepreneurs in what would later become Silicon Valley had little alternative but to go to San Francisco law firms whose expertise and worldview focused on large corporate clients and traditional financial institutions.
Wilson and his team developed a culture as well as a suite of legal services that was responsive to, and aligned with, the needs of high-tech entrepreneurs and venture investors. In 1969, they even took the pioneering step of creating an investment company to manage the stock options that some startup clients were using instead of cash to pay their legal fees.
With a history that includes assisting in the formation of the first Silicon Valley venture capital firms and seeing companies like Apple Computer and Google through initial public offerings, WSGR has played a direct role in shaping the Silicon Valley of the present.
Roos came to WSGR in 1985 as part of an aggressive expansion of the firm from 32 lawyers in 1981 to 97 lawyers in 1986. Promoted to partner in 1988, he became a player in the subsequent exponential growth both of the firm and of Silicon Valley. WSGR now includes around 600 attorneys, and its client base numbers over 300 public and 3,000 private companies. Moreover, Roos, who became CEO in 2005, achieved his professional success during a time of major seismic shifts in the Silicon Valley business environment: several boom-and-bust economic cycles, the emergence of new technology paradigms, and intense globalization.
According to the "2008 Index of Silicon Valley," a language other than English is now spoken in 48 percent of the homes of Silicon Valley, more than double the U.S. national average.
His experience puts Roos at the center of a dense network of personal and business relationships with key players in every aspect of the Silicon Valley new venture ecosystem: serial entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, top university innovators and successful venture accelerators, as well as the large firms, opinion makers, journalists and others with whom they interact.
Accordingly, Roos has direct personal insights into the full range of conditions that face the high-tech industries that have come to the forefront of business relationships between the U.S. and Japan. His work as an attorney has required him to recognize and adapt quickly to the corporate cultures and concerns of new clients on a case-by-case basis. His success, achieved in the volatile atmosphere of Silicon Valley, bodes well for his ability to grasp quickly the new patterns of institutional change that are beginning to emerge in what has been termed the New Japan.
The scale and breadth of change already under way in Japan extends to all sectors: economy, government and politics and social structure and culture itself. It has been clear for some time that Japan is in the process of making a major shift toward a more innovation-based knowledge economy.
Japanese government programs and private sector emphasis on increasing the capacity for entrepreneurship, open innovation and global integration all point to some new model of economic competitiveness for Japan. Government itself has been the object of numerous efforts at reform, and the future impact of current demographic trends (low birth rate, aging population) has become a top concern among Japanese citizens as well as policymakers.
Nevertheless, exactly which new patterns will become the stable, dominant characteristics of New Japan is still an open question. This topic is the focus of several recent and ongoing research programs in U.S. universities and research institutions, including some that are being conducted jointly with Japanese counterparts.
The U.S. Foreign Service likewise includes many professional career diplomats with a wealth of experience who have been following all aspects of the evolution of U.S.-Japan relations. Ambassadors are encouraged by the State Department to develop their own signature, country-specific programs.
For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Italy Ron Spogli launched the Partnership for Growth, a comprehensive program to grow a new venture ecosystem, which resulted in a measurable increase in new venture formation and angel and venture investing in Italy.
Any ambassador will have many resources at his disposal to deal with the full range of issues that may appear in the U.S.-Japan relationship. It is his personal experience as a driver of the Silicon Valley innovation machine under conditions of rapid, dramatic change that makes John Roos a very promising choice for ambassador to Japan at the present time.
Professor Richard B. Dasher has been director of the U.S.-Asia Technology Management Center at Stanford University since 1994. From 1986-1990, he was attached to the U.S. Embassy Tokyo as director of the Foreign Service Institute field school in Yokohama, which provides full-time training to U.S. diplomats.
Sino-Russian Axis and Security Challenges for Transatlantic Relations
For Such a Time as This
The Sino-Russian Axis and Security Challenges for Transatlantic Relations
This paper examines the strategic implications of the interplay between NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The author sheds light on the possibility of the SCO counterbalancing the influence of NATO in Central Asia and describes possible flashpoints where the US and its allies might be pulled into a regional conflict. The paper also provides background information on Chinese-Russian relations and attempts by Russia to divide NATO's unity.
© 2009 Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung (ISPSW)
Download:
English (PDF · 15 pages · 349 KB)
Author:
Christina Y Lin
Series:
ISPSW Publications
Publisher:
Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung (ISPSW), Berlin, Germany
The world's military spending grows, along with number of conflicts
REUTERS/Jo Yong-Hak
16:5009/06/2009
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Global military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have totaled $1,464 billion, an increase of 4% in real terms compared to 2007, and of 45% since 1999. Military expenditure comprised approximately 2.4% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) writes in its Yearbook 2009.
The Swedish analysts write that the driving forces behind the increase were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia's return to the global scene, as well as the growth of China. This may be so, but it appears that growing world tensions were the root cause of these and other factors.
According to SIPRI, the United States' military expenditure was the largest in the world in 2008, $607 billion (41.5% of the world's total). Other large military spenders were China ($84.9 billion), France ($65.7 billion), Britain ($65.3 billion), and Russia ($58.6 billion).
Twenty-five years ago, the world was divided into two warring camps. But the Cold War they were waging, although it cost them much money and effort, actually had a stabilizing effect on the world. The two superpowers controlled their satellite countries, and although the global arms stockpiles were sky-high and mutual rhetoric was very harsh, the number of local conflicts taking place simultaneously was relatively stable.
The disintegration of the socialist bloc and subsequently the Soviet Union disrupted the balance, and the probability of conflicts grew dramatically. New players tried to fill the military vacuum, which resulted in new local wars, including in the former Soviet Union. The number of simultaneous conflicts grew from 25-30 in 1972-1974 to 30-35 in 1985-1986, and peaked at 45-50 in 1992-1993.
After that, their number plummeted, only to start growing again in the 21st century, when the Soviet Union's adversaries in the Cold War increased their military activity.
Many analysts believe that the conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans would have been unimaginable when the Soviet Union was strong, because its influence alone could prevent Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent U.S. Operation Desert Storm to liberate it, and also the interference of foreign powers in the internal Yugoslav conflict.
By the end of the 1990s, NATO and above all the United States unambiguously demonstrated their intention to use military force to solve domestic and global problems. After the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, Washington ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to liquidate terrorist organizations and lower the terrorist threat. However, these goals have not been attained to this day.
The civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were provoked by foreign interference, which local people view as occupation. As a result, more and more innocent civilians are dying in terrorist attacks there and in other countries.
The growing threat of military conflicts has encouraged many countries to increase spending on the acquisition of modern weapons and training of their armed forces. The trend has spread worldwide, from Southeast Asia to Latin America.
Another factor spurring military expenditure is the growing prices of weapons and military equipment. This explains why military expenses are growing although the number of military systems each particular country has is decreasing. A modern fighter plane now costs $30-$100 million compared to $8-$10 million 25-30 years ago, even though the dollar has become considerably weaker.
The Untied States, although it spends over $600 billion on its armed forces, has to gradually cut the number of the main types of armaments, from aircraft carriers to armored personnel carriers. The same is true of other countries, including Russia.
The number of weapon systems is decreasing, but the world is not becoming a safer place.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
16:5009/06/2009
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Global military expenditure in 2008 is estimated to have totaled $1,464 billion, an increase of 4% in real terms compared to 2007, and of 45% since 1999. Military expenditure comprised approximately 2.4% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2008, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) writes in its Yearbook 2009.
The Swedish analysts write that the driving forces behind the increase were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia's return to the global scene, as well as the growth of China. This may be so, but it appears that growing world tensions were the root cause of these and other factors.
According to SIPRI, the United States' military expenditure was the largest in the world in 2008, $607 billion (41.5% of the world's total). Other large military spenders were China ($84.9 billion), France ($65.7 billion), Britain ($65.3 billion), and Russia ($58.6 billion).
Twenty-five years ago, the world was divided into two warring camps. But the Cold War they were waging, although it cost them much money and effort, actually had a stabilizing effect on the world. The two superpowers controlled their satellite countries, and although the global arms stockpiles were sky-high and mutual rhetoric was very harsh, the number of local conflicts taking place simultaneously was relatively stable.
The disintegration of the socialist bloc and subsequently the Soviet Union disrupted the balance, and the probability of conflicts grew dramatically. New players tried to fill the military vacuum, which resulted in new local wars, including in the former Soviet Union. The number of simultaneous conflicts grew from 25-30 in 1972-1974 to 30-35 in 1985-1986, and peaked at 45-50 in 1992-1993.
After that, their number plummeted, only to start growing again in the 21st century, when the Soviet Union's adversaries in the Cold War increased their military activity.
Many analysts believe that the conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans would have been unimaginable when the Soviet Union was strong, because its influence alone could prevent Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent U.S. Operation Desert Storm to liberate it, and also the interference of foreign powers in the internal Yugoslav conflict.
By the end of the 1990s, NATO and above all the United States unambiguously demonstrated their intention to use military force to solve domestic and global problems. After the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001, Washington ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq to liquidate terrorist organizations and lower the terrorist threat. However, these goals have not been attained to this day.
The civil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were provoked by foreign interference, which local people view as occupation. As a result, more and more innocent civilians are dying in terrorist attacks there and in other countries.
The growing threat of military conflicts has encouraged many countries to increase spending on the acquisition of modern weapons and training of their armed forces. The trend has spread worldwide, from Southeast Asia to Latin America.
Another factor spurring military expenditure is the growing prices of weapons and military equipment. This explains why military expenses are growing although the number of military systems each particular country has is decreasing. A modern fighter plane now costs $30-$100 million compared to $8-$10 million 25-30 years ago, even though the dollar has become considerably weaker.
The Untied States, although it spends over $600 billion on its armed forces, has to gradually cut the number of the main types of armaments, from aircraft carriers to armored personnel carriers. The same is true of other countries, including Russia.
The number of weapon systems is decreasing, but the world is not becoming a safer place.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
June 08, 2009
OBAMA'S CAIRO MESSAGE: CHINESE MEDIA YET TO REACT SUBSTANTIVELY
B.RAMAN
Four days after President Barack Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world at the Cairo University on June 4,2009,the Government-controlled English media in China is yet to comment substantively on his address.
2. The only substantive comments so far have been on the significance of his visit to Saudi Arabia, a curtain-raiser to his visit to Egypt and on the reactions to his speech in Israel. The Chinese media also reported briefly the salient points of Osama bin Laden's audio message to the Muslim world disseminated by the Al Jazeera before Obama arrived in Cairo.
3. The comments on the significance of Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia were contained in an analysis by Li Xuejiang, senior reporter of the People's Daily in the US. His comments were disseminated by the Xinhua on June 4,2009, in a despatch under the title "How does Obama play "Middle East card"? The analysis said that Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt had two objectives and his halt in Saudi Arabia had "multipurposes".
4. The article said: "This is Obama's first-ever trip to the region since becoming President in late January, which has two obvious objectives, namely, to declare his goodwill to the Muslim world so as to help improve the image of the United States among Muslim people worldwide and to advance the Middle East peace process. President Obama has multiple purposes in his visit to Saudi Arabia. The first and foremost is to urge this oil-rich Arab nation to go on contributing in stabilizing the global oil market; the second is to discuss with it the Iran issue, which is of concern to both nations; and the third is to ask the Saudi government to persuade Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), and Prime Minister (President) Asif Ali Zardari to compromise to each other and reconcile themselves to the prospect of stabilizing the situation in Pakistan.The fourth purpose of his visit is to urge Saudi Arabia to beef up its support to the power of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and, the last but not the least is to ask the Saudi government to lead the Arab world in indicating some goodwill signs to Israel, so as to facilitate restarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks."
5. The article added: "In Egypt on Thursday, President Obama would make a speech to the Muslim people worldwide. Sources acknowledged that Obama will make the speech at elite Cairo University aiming at strengthening the US ties with the Muslim world. However, people cannot expect that his speech in Cairo would change everything and put an end once and for all to all negative impressions the unfair U.S. Middle East policies have left on people worldwide if he fails to come up with concrete policy measures."
6. Before Obama delivered his Cairo speech, the Xinhua disseminated a collation of various key quotations of Obama relating to the Muslim world since he assumed office on January 20. It was not clear whether this collation was prepared by Xinhua itself, or whether it was merely circulating a collation prepared by the staff of Obama in Washington DC before he embarked on his tour. The collation is annexed.
7. Before Obama arrived in the Middle East, Xinhua disseminated a curtain-raiser on his visit based on an analysis of comments made by the staff of Obama and some non-Governmental analysts in the US and Egypt.The curtain-raiser said: "Analysts said the speech aims at rebuilding U.S. credibility in the Muslim world, which was tarnished during the Bush era. Though he has made a successful debut in a Muslim country two months ago, Turkey does not belong to the Arab world that represents nearly half of the Muslim countries. The NATO member, which stands across Europe and Asia and is carrying out reforms for a long-expected EU membership, is deemed by the West as part of Europe. His wide-ranging speech in the Turkish parliament focused on the cooperation of the two allies rather than a comprehensive stance on Muslim issues."
8.It added: "The U.S. President chose Cairo as his platform to reach out to both the Muslim world and Arab world. Egypt as a country "in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs......Obama's decision of making the speech in Cairo University rather than the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which hosted his special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and top diplomat Hillary Clinton, also implies his determination and readiness to get involved in the Muslim publics (politics?) ."
9. The Xinhua commentary on the reactions in Israel covered in a fairly detailed manner the reactions in the electronic as well as the print media. It concluded: "All of the Israeli coverage sought out what would make for good talking points at home. One that many picked up on was the way the audience applauded every time Obama referred to the Koran and Muslim values, or threw in a word in poorly pronounced Arabic. At the same time the highly-educated gathering did not clap when Obama urged them to recognize Israel and to reject Holocaust denial. These are highly sensitive issues in Israel and the opinion formers here say as a collective the Arab world must address these issues early on if it expects Israel to rejoin the peace process."
10, The Chinese are apparently waiting to study how the Islamic world as a whole reacts to Obama's speech before formulating their own analysis. They would be particularly interested in finding out how the Islamic elements in Pakistan----- Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and the various Islamic political parties---- react to Obama's address. This would ultimately determine whether the speech helps in cooling down the anti-US anger in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or not. Till 9/11, the widespread anti-US feelings in the Islamic world were largely due to the Palestine issue. Since then, so many other issues have cropped up that the situation is more complicated now. It is no longer a simple question of just addressing the perceived Arab anger. (8-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
A COLLATION OF OBAMA'S QUOTATIONS AS DISSEMINATED BY XINHUA
U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo University on Thursday.Following are some key quotations of Obama on Muslims since taking office in January.
On Jan. 20, Obama mentioned the word "Muslim" twice in his inaugural speech.
-- "We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.
-- "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West -- know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
On Jan. 26, Obama chose the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite TV for his first television interview since taking office.
-- "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, we sometimes make mistakes."
-- "(There are) respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
On April 6, Obama made a speech at Turkish Parliament in Ankara, capital of a Muslim country.
-- "The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam."
-- "America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaida."
-- "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them."
On June 2, the British broadcaster BBC aired an interview with Obama, who was about to fly to Middle East.
-- "There are misapprehensions on the part of the West about the Muslim world, and obviously there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
On June 2, the French television channels I-Tele and Canal Plus made an interview with Obama, who will visit Europe for D-day commemorations a few days later.
-- "If you take the number of Muslim Americans, we would be one of the largest Muslim countries of the world."
-- "What we need is to create a better dialogue, so that the Muslim world understands better how the U.S., but how effectively the West thinks about many of these difficult issues -- terrorism, democracy."
Source:Xinhua
Four days after President Barack Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world at the Cairo University on June 4,2009,the Government-controlled English media in China is yet to comment substantively on his address.
2. The only substantive comments so far have been on the significance of his visit to Saudi Arabia, a curtain-raiser to his visit to Egypt and on the reactions to his speech in Israel. The Chinese media also reported briefly the salient points of Osama bin Laden's audio message to the Muslim world disseminated by the Al Jazeera before Obama arrived in Cairo.
3. The comments on the significance of Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia were contained in an analysis by Li Xuejiang, senior reporter of the People's Daily in the US. His comments were disseminated by the Xinhua on June 4,2009, in a despatch under the title "How does Obama play "Middle East card"? The analysis said that Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt had two objectives and his halt in Saudi Arabia had "multipurposes".
4. The article said: "This is Obama's first-ever trip to the region since becoming President in late January, which has two obvious objectives, namely, to declare his goodwill to the Muslim world so as to help improve the image of the United States among Muslim people worldwide and to advance the Middle East peace process. President Obama has multiple purposes in his visit to Saudi Arabia. The first and foremost is to urge this oil-rich Arab nation to go on contributing in stabilizing the global oil market; the second is to discuss with it the Iran issue, which is of concern to both nations; and the third is to ask the Saudi government to persuade Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), and Prime Minister (President) Asif Ali Zardari to compromise to each other and reconcile themselves to the prospect of stabilizing the situation in Pakistan.The fourth purpose of his visit is to urge Saudi Arabia to beef up its support to the power of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and, the last but not the least is to ask the Saudi government to lead the Arab world in indicating some goodwill signs to Israel, so as to facilitate restarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks."
5. The article added: "In Egypt on Thursday, President Obama would make a speech to the Muslim people worldwide. Sources acknowledged that Obama will make the speech at elite Cairo University aiming at strengthening the US ties with the Muslim world. However, people cannot expect that his speech in Cairo would change everything and put an end once and for all to all negative impressions the unfair U.S. Middle East policies have left on people worldwide if he fails to come up with concrete policy measures."
6. Before Obama delivered his Cairo speech, the Xinhua disseminated a collation of various key quotations of Obama relating to the Muslim world since he assumed office on January 20. It was not clear whether this collation was prepared by Xinhua itself, or whether it was merely circulating a collation prepared by the staff of Obama in Washington DC before he embarked on his tour. The collation is annexed.
7. Before Obama arrived in the Middle East, Xinhua disseminated a curtain-raiser on his visit based on an analysis of comments made by the staff of Obama and some non-Governmental analysts in the US and Egypt.The curtain-raiser said: "Analysts said the speech aims at rebuilding U.S. credibility in the Muslim world, which was tarnished during the Bush era. Though he has made a successful debut in a Muslim country two months ago, Turkey does not belong to the Arab world that represents nearly half of the Muslim countries. The NATO member, which stands across Europe and Asia and is carrying out reforms for a long-expected EU membership, is deemed by the West as part of Europe. His wide-ranging speech in the Turkish parliament focused on the cooperation of the two allies rather than a comprehensive stance on Muslim issues."
8.It added: "The U.S. President chose Cairo as his platform to reach out to both the Muslim world and Arab world. Egypt as a country "in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs......Obama's decision of making the speech in Cairo University rather than the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which hosted his special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and top diplomat Hillary Clinton, also implies his determination and readiness to get involved in the Muslim publics (politics?) ."
9. The Xinhua commentary on the reactions in Israel covered in a fairly detailed manner the reactions in the electronic as well as the print media. It concluded: "All of the Israeli coverage sought out what would make for good talking points at home. One that many picked up on was the way the audience applauded every time Obama referred to the Koran and Muslim values, or threw in a word in poorly pronounced Arabic. At the same time the highly-educated gathering did not clap when Obama urged them to recognize Israel and to reject Holocaust denial. These are highly sensitive issues in Israel and the opinion formers here say as a collective the Arab world must address these issues early on if it expects Israel to rejoin the peace process."
10, The Chinese are apparently waiting to study how the Islamic world as a whole reacts to Obama's speech before formulating their own analysis. They would be particularly interested in finding out how the Islamic elements in Pakistan----- Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and the various Islamic political parties---- react to Obama's address. This would ultimately determine whether the speech helps in cooling down the anti-US anger in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or not. Till 9/11, the widespread anti-US feelings in the Islamic world were largely due to the Palestine issue. Since then, so many other issues have cropped up that the situation is more complicated now. It is no longer a simple question of just addressing the perceived Arab anger. (8-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
A COLLATION OF OBAMA'S QUOTATIONS AS DISSEMINATED BY XINHUA
U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo University on Thursday.Following are some key quotations of Obama on Muslims since taking office in January.
On Jan. 20, Obama mentioned the word "Muslim" twice in his inaugural speech.
-- "We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.
-- "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West -- know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
On Jan. 26, Obama chose the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite TV for his first television interview since taking office.
-- "My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, we sometimes make mistakes."
-- "(There are) respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
On April 6, Obama made a speech at Turkish Parliament in Ankara, capital of a Muslim country.
-- "The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam."
-- "America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaida."
-- "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them."
On June 2, the British broadcaster BBC aired an interview with Obama, who was about to fly to Middle East.
-- "There are misapprehensions on the part of the West about the Muslim world, and obviously there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West."
On June 2, the French television channels I-Tele and Canal Plus made an interview with Obama, who will visit Europe for D-day commemorations a few days later.
-- "If you take the number of Muslim Americans, we would be one of the largest Muslim countries of the world."
-- "What we need is to create a better dialogue, so that the Muslim world understands better how the U.S., but how effectively the West thinks about many of these difficult issues -- terrorism, democracy."
Source:Xinhua
WAR AGAINST TERRORISM: THE PAKISTANI FARCE
B.RAMAN
Some years ago, when Gen.Pervez Musharraf, the blue-eyed warrior against terrorism of the then President George Bush, was the President of Pakistan, its police had arrested an individual on a charge of belonging to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation. When he was produced before an Anti-Terrorism Court, it asked the Government lawyer to produce a copy of the notification under which Al Qaeda had been declared a terrorist organisation. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had overlooked declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.He promised that a notification would be issued shortly and wanted that the arrested person should continue to remain in custody till then. The court did not accept the plea. It ordered his release. It held that even if it was a fact that he belonged to Al Qaeda, he had not committed an offence because Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organisation under Pakistani laws.
2. Some years later, in December 2008 to be precise, the Pakistani Govt. placed Prof.Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political front of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), under house arrest in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist strike of November 26. The action was taken following the decision of the anti-terrorism Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council to include the JUD and the LET as associates of Al Qaeda and the LET.
3.Sayeed went to the Lahore High Court to challenge his house arrest. The Government lawyer told the court that the action of the Sanctions Committee obliged the Government to act against him. When the court did not agree with that contention and asked the lawyer whether the Government had any independent evidence of its own, the lawyer met the three judges privately and showed them what he claimed was independent evidence of the LET's links with Al Qaeda. The judges wanted to see a copy of the Government notification under which Al Qaeda was declared a terrorist organisation.
4.After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had not yet declared Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. The court told him that if that was so, the LET's having links with Al Qaeda is no offence under the law.
5.The court, which ordered the release of Sayeed on June 2,2009, released on June 6,2009, the details of the grounds on which it ordered his release. One of the grounds says: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation." The court added: "Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
6.Thus, eight years after 9/11, Pakistan is yet to declare Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. Is this sheer, shocking negligence or is there something more sinister to it? Does one require any more evidence to show that Pakistan's so-called war against terrorism is a farce?
6.Annexed is a copy of a report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on the details of the grounds cited by the court for Sayyed's release, (8-5-09)
(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 )
ANNEXURE
( Report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on June 7,2009)
LHC full bench issues detailed judgement in Hafiz Saeed case
Bench observes detention decision lacks solid evidence
* Bench says Pakistani laws silent on Al Qaeda being terrorist organisation
* Points out negligence in detention orders
Staff Report
LAHORE: A full bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday released a 20-page detailed judgment in the detention case of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Dawa leader Col (r) Nazir Ahmad.
The bench held that the government’s decision to detain the Dawa leaders was not based on solid evidence and the material provided by the government against them was incorrect and even prepared after their detention. The bench observed that the government had no evidence that Saeed and Nazir had any link with Al Qaeda or were involved in anti-state activities, except the ‘bald allegations’ leveled by the Indian lobby that they were involved in the Mumbai attacks.
The bench on June 2, through a short order, while accepting a habeas corpus petition, had declared the detention of both Dawa leaders illegal and had ordered their release.
The bench held the material against the petitioners was mostly based on intelligence reports, which had been obtained after four months of their detention. Moreover, these reports were found to be incorrect as nothing apprehended in the reports actually took place, it held.
The bench observed that several intelligence reports were obtained during the period when the petition was pending, apparently to cover the lacunae, but there was no solid evidence or source to supplement the reports. About the Dawa leaders’ involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the bench observed that not a single document had been brought on the record that Dawa or the petitioners were involved in the said incident.
On the government’s point of view that the leaders were detained on the United Nations’ directions, the bench observed that in the Memoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab case, it had already been held that there was no evidence that Dawa had links with Al Qaeda.
Silent laws: The bench held that the security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan were silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation.
The bench held, “Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
The bench observed that it was mandatory for the detaining authority to provide grounds of detention, but it violated the provisions of the constitution by depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to assail their detention before a competent forum and also to know the allegations against them.
The bench held that this violation of law alone was sufficient to declare the detention of the petitioners illegal.
Negligence: The bench pointed out the negligence of the detaining authorities in issuing the detention orders. It remarked that even the second order passed by the home secretary did not contain that it was an extension of the earlier order, but from the language, it seemed to be a fresh order. This showed that the executive authorities had passed the detention orders in a careless manner, and did not even know that the detainee was already in custody. On the question of the review board’s authority to extend the detention, the bench held that the status of the board was of a recommending body.
The bare perusal of Article 8 of the Constitution revealed that a sitting judge of the LHC, nominated by the chief justice, was a member of the board but even then the LHC had set aside the order of the review board in different reported judgments. The bench remarked that even the apex court had already declared that the order of the review board was quasi-judicial and was amenable in writ jurisdiction. On the question of maintainability of the petition, the bench held that it was maintainable, as prima facie the government had no sufficient grounds to detain the petitioners as a preventive measure. The bench comprised of Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Zubdatul Hussain.
Some years ago, when Gen.Pervez Musharraf, the blue-eyed warrior against terrorism of the then President George Bush, was the President of Pakistan, its police had arrested an individual on a charge of belonging to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation. When he was produced before an Anti-Terrorism Court, it asked the Government lawyer to produce a copy of the notification under which Al Qaeda had been declared a terrorist organisation. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had overlooked declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.He promised that a notification would be issued shortly and wanted that the arrested person should continue to remain in custody till then. The court did not accept the plea. It ordered his release. It held that even if it was a fact that he belonged to Al Qaeda, he had not committed an offence because Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organisation under Pakistani laws.
2. Some years later, in December 2008 to be precise, the Pakistani Govt. placed Prof.Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political front of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), under house arrest in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist strike of November 26. The action was taken following the decision of the anti-terrorism Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council to include the JUD and the LET as associates of Al Qaeda and the LET.
3.Sayeed went to the Lahore High Court to challenge his house arrest. The Government lawyer told the court that the action of the Sanctions Committee obliged the Government to act against him. When the court did not agree with that contention and asked the lawyer whether the Government had any independent evidence of its own, the lawyer met the three judges privately and showed them what he claimed was independent evidence of the LET's links with Al Qaeda. The judges wanted to see a copy of the Government notification under which Al Qaeda was declared a terrorist organisation.
4.After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had not yet declared Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. The court told him that if that was so, the LET's having links with Al Qaeda is no offence under the law.
5.The court, which ordered the release of Sayeed on June 2,2009, released on June 6,2009, the details of the grounds on which it ordered his release. One of the grounds says: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation." The court added: "Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
6.Thus, eight years after 9/11, Pakistan is yet to declare Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. Is this sheer, shocking negligence or is there something more sinister to it? Does one require any more evidence to show that Pakistan's so-called war against terrorism is a farce?
6.Annexed is a copy of a report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on the details of the grounds cited by the court for Sayyed's release, (8-5-09)
(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 )
ANNEXURE
( Report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on June 7,2009)
LHC full bench issues detailed judgement in Hafiz Saeed case
Bench observes detention decision lacks solid evidence
* Bench says Pakistani laws silent on Al Qaeda being terrorist organisation
* Points out negligence in detention orders
Staff Report
LAHORE: A full bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday released a 20-page detailed judgment in the detention case of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Dawa leader Col (r) Nazir Ahmad.
The bench held that the government’s decision to detain the Dawa leaders was not based on solid evidence and the material provided by the government against them was incorrect and even prepared after their detention. The bench observed that the government had no evidence that Saeed and Nazir had any link with Al Qaeda or were involved in anti-state activities, except the ‘bald allegations’ leveled by the Indian lobby that they were involved in the Mumbai attacks.
The bench on June 2, through a short order, while accepting a habeas corpus petition, had declared the detention of both Dawa leaders illegal and had ordered their release.
The bench held the material against the petitioners was mostly based on intelligence reports, which had been obtained after four months of their detention. Moreover, these reports were found to be incorrect as nothing apprehended in the reports actually took place, it held.
The bench observed that several intelligence reports were obtained during the period when the petition was pending, apparently to cover the lacunae, but there was no solid evidence or source to supplement the reports. About the Dawa leaders’ involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the bench observed that not a single document had been brought on the record that Dawa or the petitioners were involved in the said incident.
On the government’s point of view that the leaders were detained on the United Nations’ directions, the bench observed that in the Memoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab case, it had already been held that there was no evidence that Dawa had links with Al Qaeda.
Silent laws: The bench held that the security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan were silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation.
The bench held, “Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
The bench observed that it was mandatory for the detaining authority to provide grounds of detention, but it violated the provisions of the constitution by depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to assail their detention before a competent forum and also to know the allegations against them.
The bench held that this violation of law alone was sufficient to declare the detention of the petitioners illegal.
Negligence: The bench pointed out the negligence of the detaining authorities in issuing the detention orders. It remarked that even the second order passed by the home secretary did not contain that it was an extension of the earlier order, but from the language, it seemed to be a fresh order. This showed that the executive authorities had passed the detention orders in a careless manner, and did not even know that the detainee was already in custody. On the question of the review board’s authority to extend the detention, the bench held that the status of the board was of a recommending body.
The bare perusal of Article 8 of the Constitution revealed that a sitting judge of the LHC, nominated by the chief justice, was a member of the board but even then the LHC had set aside the order of the review board in different reported judgments. The bench remarked that even the apex court had already declared that the order of the review board was quasi-judicial and was amenable in writ jurisdiction. On the question of maintainability of the petition, the bench held that it was maintainable, as prima facie the government had no sufficient grounds to detain the petitioners as a preventive measure. The bench comprised of Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Zubdatul Hussain.
India can’t simply wait for America to deliver on Pak
OP-ED
The Asian Age
New Delhi
June 8, 2009-06-08
Vikram Sood
June.8 : In 1999, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, mentor of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jamat-ut-Dawa, had announced in one of his numerous sermons that have been allowed to continue unchecked: "Today I announce the breakup of India, Insha Allah. We will not rest until the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan." Nearly 10 years later, in October 2008, Saeed ranted: "India understands only the language of jihad, which cannot be suppressed. In fact with some support, jihad can break up India like the former USSR." For decades this man has poured pure vitriol on India under the benign eye of his benefactors and today he walks free in Lahore.
It has never been adequately understood in India that the Pakistan Army will never give up its perception of India as a threat, seek to avenge 1971 and use Hafiz Saeed and his hordes as an important weapon for this. Saeed has been an enduring favourite of the Pakistan security establishment and could not have been allowed to remain in any kind of custody for too long. The Pakistan Army cannot afford to have peace with India because should peace break out, then the primacy of the Pakistan Army will be lost. Its extensive business empire, valued at $38 billion, will be in serious jeopardy. The jihadis will become jobless and threaten Pakistan even more than they do today. It should not, therefore, surprise anyone that Saeed was released.
Pakistanis once again showed an impeccable sense of timing and disdain. They had just "won" the Swat battle, launched with great fanfare and huge hidden costs just ahead of President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Washington. A grateful West, desperate for some success story, then burst into adulatory gestures and found new reasons to ply their ally with even more funds. Saeed’s release was lost in the din of this praise. Besides, the release happily coincided with the visit to Pakistan by Richard Holbrooke, who dismissed the release as an "internal matter" of the Pakistanis. This has been a favourite escape route, used by many previous administrations whenever they wanted to cover up Pakistani transgressions.
In contrast, India’s sense of timing has been appalling. One day after Saeed’s release amid the usual round of angry reactions and soundbites, reports started circulating that India was about to resume the long-suspended dialogue with Pakistan. Everyone knew that pressure by the United States on India had abated only temporarily and that it would resume soon after the elections. It was also generally understood that the dialogue would be resumed after Pakistan had given India some satisfaction on issues relating to terrorism. One does not know who worked out this brilliant spin for the resumption, but it reflects poorly on our sense of timing and tactical wisdom. To say that we are not under anyone’s pressure and yet say the dialogue will resume prior to Hillary Clinton’s visit, so that she does not pressure us, only means we have wilted even before the heat has been turned on. The other reason put forward — that this would hopefully enable Pakistan to rein in its jihadis and prevent another Mumbai-type attack — can only be called supplication by a would-be major power to a failing state.
A few days prior to these events, The Nation of Lahore, in an editorial on May 29, referred to a report on "secret talks" between India and Pakistan which "could get underway in the near future in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute." It went on to add: "In public statements in response to Islamabad’s calls for resumption of talks, the Indian leadership continues to insist on the precondition of punishment for the Mumbai ‘culprits’ and destruction of the ‘terrorist infrastructure’. But it seems that covert pressure from outside is working, and New Delhi has decided to initiate secret diplomacy with the aim of resolving the dispute." So was our leak a clumsy coverup for another leak?
New Delhi’s subsequent reaffirmation that there would be no dialogue till the preconditions were met is a relief, but there is also more than a hint of a flip-flop. It shows inconsistency where hope is confused with reality and tactics are mistaken for policy. But there is another dialogue which must be conducted in all seriousness and sincerity. This is a dialogue with all those Kashmiris who voted the Omar Abdullah government into power. They have shown faith in the system, and their trust must be upheld. Those who advocated a boycott of the elections and those who receive instructions from across the Line of Control are irrelevant because their "mother country" is in a shambles, unable to protect its own Muslims. Pakistan has thrown everything at us, including the Americans, but it has not worked.
For some time, during the last administration in Washington, there was a sense of exultation in New Delhi that we had at last managed to get India and Pakistan "de-hyphenated" in American eyes, a lot of it credited to our newfound "status" as an emerging major power. We felt vindicated that the US too was getting apprehensive at the direction Pakistan was taking, and that at last the US would now read the situation as we did and act on the lines we thought they should. Unfortunately none of this happened. We failed to fully appreciate just how dependent the US had become on Pakistan as the linchpin of its war on terror in the region. The reality, of course, is that the US exerts influence in different ways in the two countries. It keeps reassuring Pakistan that India is not a threat to it, and so it could safely move its troops to the western border. At the same time it keeps arming it with weapons that can only be used against India — a fact that the Pentagon appears to be slowly acknowledging. At the same time it keeps nudging India to give Pakistan confidence on Kashmir so that it can fight a little better on the western front.
Let us, not, therefore depend on the US to deliver on Pakistan unless we show much greater determination and will ourselves. We have concentrated far too much and too long on verbosity, when reciprocity should have been the keyword. When Hillary Clinton arrives, we need to tell her that we will resume the dialogue with Pakistan in our own time, when our security concerns have been met, not just US security interests. We need to assert that if another Mumbai-type attack takes place, when US state department advisories claim is possible, then it would be politically unacceptable in India to respond only with a diplomatic response. In such an event, we expect the US and the West to warn Islamabad in no uncertain terms that India’s reaction would be justifiably harsh. In fact, it may be wiser to send messages to Pakistan in advance, advising restraint. The onus of preventing another war lies with Pakistan, not with India.
Good relations with the US is important for us and also for Americans (though in their present state of confusion they might not think so); but this cannot be at the cost of India’s security. Kashmir is not on offer, and India is not willing to be the sacrificial lamb.
Vikram Sood is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency
The Asian Age
New Delhi
June 8, 2009-06-08
Vikram Sood
June.8 : In 1999, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, mentor of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jamat-ut-Dawa, had announced in one of his numerous sermons that have been allowed to continue unchecked: "Today I announce the breakup of India, Insha Allah. We will not rest until the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan." Nearly 10 years later, in October 2008, Saeed ranted: "India understands only the language of jihad, which cannot be suppressed. In fact with some support, jihad can break up India like the former USSR." For decades this man has poured pure vitriol on India under the benign eye of his benefactors and today he walks free in Lahore.
It has never been adequately understood in India that the Pakistan Army will never give up its perception of India as a threat, seek to avenge 1971 and use Hafiz Saeed and his hordes as an important weapon for this. Saeed has been an enduring favourite of the Pakistan security establishment and could not have been allowed to remain in any kind of custody for too long. The Pakistan Army cannot afford to have peace with India because should peace break out, then the primacy of the Pakistan Army will be lost. Its extensive business empire, valued at $38 billion, will be in serious jeopardy. The jihadis will become jobless and threaten Pakistan even more than they do today. It should not, therefore, surprise anyone that Saeed was released.
Pakistanis once again showed an impeccable sense of timing and disdain. They had just "won" the Swat battle, launched with great fanfare and huge hidden costs just ahead of President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Washington. A grateful West, desperate for some success story, then burst into adulatory gestures and found new reasons to ply their ally with even more funds. Saeed’s release was lost in the din of this praise. Besides, the release happily coincided with the visit to Pakistan by Richard Holbrooke, who dismissed the release as an "internal matter" of the Pakistanis. This has been a favourite escape route, used by many previous administrations whenever they wanted to cover up Pakistani transgressions.
In contrast, India’s sense of timing has been appalling. One day after Saeed’s release amid the usual round of angry reactions and soundbites, reports started circulating that India was about to resume the long-suspended dialogue with Pakistan. Everyone knew that pressure by the United States on India had abated only temporarily and that it would resume soon after the elections. It was also generally understood that the dialogue would be resumed after Pakistan had given India some satisfaction on issues relating to terrorism. One does not know who worked out this brilliant spin for the resumption, but it reflects poorly on our sense of timing and tactical wisdom. To say that we are not under anyone’s pressure and yet say the dialogue will resume prior to Hillary Clinton’s visit, so that she does not pressure us, only means we have wilted even before the heat has been turned on. The other reason put forward — that this would hopefully enable Pakistan to rein in its jihadis and prevent another Mumbai-type attack — can only be called supplication by a would-be major power to a failing state.
A few days prior to these events, The Nation of Lahore, in an editorial on May 29, referred to a report on "secret talks" between India and Pakistan which "could get underway in the near future in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute." It went on to add: "In public statements in response to Islamabad’s calls for resumption of talks, the Indian leadership continues to insist on the precondition of punishment for the Mumbai ‘culprits’ and destruction of the ‘terrorist infrastructure’. But it seems that covert pressure from outside is working, and New Delhi has decided to initiate secret diplomacy with the aim of resolving the dispute." So was our leak a clumsy coverup for another leak?
New Delhi’s subsequent reaffirmation that there would be no dialogue till the preconditions were met is a relief, but there is also more than a hint of a flip-flop. It shows inconsistency where hope is confused with reality and tactics are mistaken for policy. But there is another dialogue which must be conducted in all seriousness and sincerity. This is a dialogue with all those Kashmiris who voted the Omar Abdullah government into power. They have shown faith in the system, and their trust must be upheld. Those who advocated a boycott of the elections and those who receive instructions from across the Line of Control are irrelevant because their "mother country" is in a shambles, unable to protect its own Muslims. Pakistan has thrown everything at us, including the Americans, but it has not worked.
For some time, during the last administration in Washington, there was a sense of exultation in New Delhi that we had at last managed to get India and Pakistan "de-hyphenated" in American eyes, a lot of it credited to our newfound "status" as an emerging major power. We felt vindicated that the US too was getting apprehensive at the direction Pakistan was taking, and that at last the US would now read the situation as we did and act on the lines we thought they should. Unfortunately none of this happened. We failed to fully appreciate just how dependent the US had become on Pakistan as the linchpin of its war on terror in the region. The reality, of course, is that the US exerts influence in different ways in the two countries. It keeps reassuring Pakistan that India is not a threat to it, and so it could safely move its troops to the western border. At the same time it keeps arming it with weapons that can only be used against India — a fact that the Pentagon appears to be slowly acknowledging. At the same time it keeps nudging India to give Pakistan confidence on Kashmir so that it can fight a little better on the western front.
Let us, not, therefore depend on the US to deliver on Pakistan unless we show much greater determination and will ourselves. We have concentrated far too much and too long on verbosity, when reciprocity should have been the keyword. When Hillary Clinton arrives, we need to tell her that we will resume the dialogue with Pakistan in our own time, when our security concerns have been met, not just US security interests. We need to assert that if another Mumbai-type attack takes place, when US state department advisories claim is possible, then it would be politically unacceptable in India to respond only with a diplomatic response. In such an event, we expect the US and the West to warn Islamabad in no uncertain terms that India’s reaction would be justifiably harsh. In fact, it may be wiser to send messages to Pakistan in advance, advising restraint. The onus of preventing another war lies with Pakistan, not with India.
Good relations with the US is important for us and also for Americans (though in their present state of confusion they might not think so); but this cannot be at the cost of India’s security. Kashmir is not on offer, and India is not willing to be the sacrificial lamb.
Vikram Sood is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency
Bahraini Authorities Recruit Mercenaries from Makran Town, Pakistan
The Bahraini Authorities Recruit of Mercenaries from Makran Town, Pakistan
Source: http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/2902
The Bahraini Authorities Recruit of Mercenaries from Makran Town, Pakistan: The Bahrain Government's use of foreign mercenaries to oppress Bahraini people with legitimate demands and grievances leads to a growing hostility towards foreigners
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights
6/6/2009
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses its deep concern and dismay regarding the news received from Baluchistan Province in Pakistan regarding the presence of a Bahraini security delegation in the Pakistani town of Makran. The security delegation is said to be working to recruit men from this city, who belong to the Baluch tribes in Pakistan, to work as mercenaries in the Bahraini security services.
In his statement to News Online, Mr. Basham Baluch - Official spokesman for the Baluch Liberation Front (BLF) – appealed to the Baluchi people, saying, “The Bahraini army is currently recruiting members of the Makran area in Baluchistan. Under the current circumstances, we call upon the Baluchi nation not to become part of any tyrant or oppressive army, at a time when the Baluchi nation is living in a state of war and is going through a critical period. Instead of turning the young Baluchestanis into hired killers, they should join the national armies (Baluch Liberation Front, Baluchistani Liberation Army, the Baluch Republican Army (BLA)), to make the independence of their homeland a reality.” He added, “We warn all these institutions and demand that they put an immediate end to the recruitment process in Makran area. We are in a status of war, and are struggling against the tyrants ourselves, and we do not want the Baluch people to be used and turned into mercenaries.” The Baluch Liberation Front (BLF) has people’s support among the Baluch in Pakistan and the rest of the Gulf countries, and is engaged in a resistance to separate their province from Pakistan.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights believes that the recruitment taking place in Makran aims to bring in more Baluch soldiers to join the Bahraini National Guard as well as the Special Forces that belong to the National Security apparatus. Both of these groups are made up of mostly foreign mercenaries, and used to suppress local movements petitioning for greater rights.
The National Security apparatus supervises the work of the semi-military forces on the field, which are made up of several thousands of individuals – almost 35% of whom are from Pakistani Baluchistan and were brought to Bahrain earlier, within alternating periods. These units are usually headed by an officer from the Al-Khalifa ruling family or by the tribes that are politically allied with it. Among these forces, there are no Shiite citizens.
These Special Forces, who are almost exclusively Sunni from a different countries, have been used to suppress the population of villages and areas where the majority of residents are Shiite (since Shiites make up the majority of the Bahraini population). Typically, these forces raid the Shiite villages after besieging the entrances and exits, and use tear gas and rubber bullets on all the residents, which has led to the injury of hundreds of people - among them elders, women and children who were wounded subject to suffocation. As well as this, several properties including houses and mosques have been damaged during sieges.
The Special Security Forces are also joined by groups of armed civilians affiliated with it. The armed civilians are of different nationalities, some are Baluch and others from some tribes in Jordan, Syria and Yemen. At times these forces dress in civilian clothes with black masks and attack villages, pursuing and abducting demonstrators and activists, and assaulting them.
According to the international standards on the prohibition of the use of mercenaries, the foreigners associated to the Special Forces are identified as mercenaries. They are brought selectively from abroad to be used in security or military issues outside the regular security and military services. They are trained and equipped, in particular, and are provided with features job-wise and materialistically, which the normal security employees - foreigners and citizens - do not get, such as housing, travel and family reunification. In Bahrain, the majority of the mercenary forces live with their families in areas isolated from the rest of the citizens, such as “Safra” area, and which is a remote area to the south of Riffa town. Most of those were granted the Bahraini citizenship, as part of the government's demographic change project which aims at changing the demography and turning the Shiite citizens in Bahrain to a minority. Documented reports indicate show that naturalised mercenaries have been used effectively in previous elections to marginalize the liberal opposition and the Shiite majority, as detailed in the documents of the Al Bandar report http://www.bahrainrights.org/node/528 and http://www.bahrainrights.org/node/610 . The actions of these forces and the violations committed by them have been condemned by International human rights organizations in the past.
The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the countries which have allowed or tolerated recruitment, use of, financing and training of mercenaries. It has even expressed its concerns regarding the danger activities of mercenary groups poses to civil peace and security in small states, regardless of the way the mercenaries are used or the form they take to acquire some legitimate position, such as resettling or naturalization or other. Bahrain, until now, has not signed the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989.
In the course of his comment, Nabeel Rajab – president of the BCHR – said, “We appreciate and respect the Baluch people, for these people have a history and civilization and are conscious of their rights due to the sufferings and oppression which their people have faced. These people also have their contributions in building our country Bahrain just as in the rest of the Arabian Gulf States.
However the security institutions in Bahrain are taking advantage of the economic situation and poverty that these Baluch are undergoing in their country, and are recruiting more of its youth as mercenaries in a way that violates international law, and are throwing them and risking their lives in battles against the residents of the country who are demanding their rights.
We believe that the majority of those recruits are ignorant of the role they are playing and the violations they are committing by accepting these jobs. Most of them do not know that mercenarism is internationally prohibited and condemned, besides creates a lot of hatred for the people of this country.”
Rajab added, “We call upon human rights organizations, political parties and civil societies institutions in Baluchistan province to work on educating young people about the risks of getting involved in such internationally prohibited and condemned work”.
Based on the above, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights renews its demands for the following:
1. To put an end to the policy of bringing and using foreign mercenaries to work for the security services and Special Forces to confront the peaceful public protests and local movements for greater civil and human rights
2. To dissolve the National Security apparatus and the Special Security Forces and to return their powers to the regular security institutions.
3. To end the decree of laws that violate rights, institutions and practices which restrict and suppress public liberties, and to guarantee and maintain civil and political rights and public freedoms, especially those related to expression, peaceful gathering and organization.
4. To end the continuous violations, pursuits, and abductions of human rights defenders and political activists, and to guarantee a healthy and appropriate environment for the work of the human rights organizations and civil institutions away from constraining regulations, interference and threats of the security services.
5. The members of the parliament should work on drafting laws that criminalize recruiting of mercenaries and should question those responsible for the security institutions for all the violations, and which includes recruiting and using mercenaries for internal disputes.
6. To initiate a genuine reconciliation between the ruling elite and all the people of Bahrain, with all their various sects and ethnicities, and to pave the way for true reforms where the government does not need to use foreigners against its own citizens.
Source: http://www.bahrainrights.org/en/node/2902
The Bahraini Authorities Recruit of Mercenaries from Makran Town, Pakistan: The Bahrain Government's use of foreign mercenaries to oppress Bahraini people with legitimate demands and grievances leads to a growing hostility towards foreigners
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights
6/6/2009
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses its deep concern and dismay regarding the news received from Baluchistan Province in Pakistan regarding the presence of a Bahraini security delegation in the Pakistani town of Makran. The security delegation is said to be working to recruit men from this city, who belong to the Baluch tribes in Pakistan, to work as mercenaries in the Bahraini security services.
In his statement to News Online, Mr. Basham Baluch - Official spokesman for the Baluch Liberation Front (BLF) – appealed to the Baluchi people, saying, “The Bahraini army is currently recruiting members of the Makran area in Baluchistan. Under the current circumstances, we call upon the Baluchi nation not to become part of any tyrant or oppressive army, at a time when the Baluchi nation is living in a state of war and is going through a critical period. Instead of turning the young Baluchestanis into hired killers, they should join the national armies (Baluch Liberation Front, Baluchistani Liberation Army, the Baluch Republican Army (BLA)), to make the independence of their homeland a reality.” He added, “We warn all these institutions and demand that they put an immediate end to the recruitment process in Makran area. We are in a status of war, and are struggling against the tyrants ourselves, and we do not want the Baluch people to be used and turned into mercenaries.” The Baluch Liberation Front (BLF) has people’s support among the Baluch in Pakistan and the rest of the Gulf countries, and is engaged in a resistance to separate their province from Pakistan.
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights believes that the recruitment taking place in Makran aims to bring in more Baluch soldiers to join the Bahraini National Guard as well as the Special Forces that belong to the National Security apparatus. Both of these groups are made up of mostly foreign mercenaries, and used to suppress local movements petitioning for greater rights.
The National Security apparatus supervises the work of the semi-military forces on the field, which are made up of several thousands of individuals – almost 35% of whom are from Pakistani Baluchistan and were brought to Bahrain earlier, within alternating periods. These units are usually headed by an officer from the Al-Khalifa ruling family or by the tribes that are politically allied with it. Among these forces, there are no Shiite citizens.
These Special Forces, who are almost exclusively Sunni from a different countries, have been used to suppress the population of villages and areas where the majority of residents are Shiite (since Shiites make up the majority of the Bahraini population). Typically, these forces raid the Shiite villages after besieging the entrances and exits, and use tear gas and rubber bullets on all the residents, which has led to the injury of hundreds of people - among them elders, women and children who were wounded subject to suffocation. As well as this, several properties including houses and mosques have been damaged during sieges.
The Special Security Forces are also joined by groups of armed civilians affiliated with it. The armed civilians are of different nationalities, some are Baluch and others from some tribes in Jordan, Syria and Yemen. At times these forces dress in civilian clothes with black masks and attack villages, pursuing and abducting demonstrators and activists, and assaulting them.
According to the international standards on the prohibition of the use of mercenaries, the foreigners associated to the Special Forces are identified as mercenaries. They are brought selectively from abroad to be used in security or military issues outside the regular security and military services. They are trained and equipped, in particular, and are provided with features job-wise and materialistically, which the normal security employees - foreigners and citizens - do not get, such as housing, travel and family reunification. In Bahrain, the majority of the mercenary forces live with their families in areas isolated from the rest of the citizens, such as “Safra” area, and which is a remote area to the south of Riffa town. Most of those were granted the Bahraini citizenship, as part of the government's demographic change project which aims at changing the demography and turning the Shiite citizens in Bahrain to a minority. Documented reports indicate show that naturalised mercenaries have been used effectively in previous elections to marginalize the liberal opposition and the Shiite majority, as detailed in the documents of the Al Bandar report http://www.bahrainrights.org/node/528 and http://www.bahrainrights.org/node/610 . The actions of these forces and the violations committed by them have been condemned by International human rights organizations in the past.
The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the countries which have allowed or tolerated recruitment, use of, financing and training of mercenaries. It has even expressed its concerns regarding the danger activities of mercenary groups poses to civil peace and security in small states, regardless of the way the mercenaries are used or the form they take to acquire some legitimate position, such as resettling or naturalization or other. Bahrain, until now, has not signed the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989.
In the course of his comment, Nabeel Rajab – president of the BCHR – said, “We appreciate and respect the Baluch people, for these people have a history and civilization and are conscious of their rights due to the sufferings and oppression which their people have faced. These people also have their contributions in building our country Bahrain just as in the rest of the Arabian Gulf States.
However the security institutions in Bahrain are taking advantage of the economic situation and poverty that these Baluch are undergoing in their country, and are recruiting more of its youth as mercenaries in a way that violates international law, and are throwing them and risking their lives in battles against the residents of the country who are demanding their rights.
We believe that the majority of those recruits are ignorant of the role they are playing and the violations they are committing by accepting these jobs. Most of them do not know that mercenarism is internationally prohibited and condemned, besides creates a lot of hatred for the people of this country.”
Rajab added, “We call upon human rights organizations, political parties and civil societies institutions in Baluchistan province to work on educating young people about the risks of getting involved in such internationally prohibited and condemned work”.
Based on the above, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights renews its demands for the following:
1. To put an end to the policy of bringing and using foreign mercenaries to work for the security services and Special Forces to confront the peaceful public protests and local movements for greater civil and human rights
2. To dissolve the National Security apparatus and the Special Security Forces and to return their powers to the regular security institutions.
3. To end the decree of laws that violate rights, institutions and practices which restrict and suppress public liberties, and to guarantee and maintain civil and political rights and public freedoms, especially those related to expression, peaceful gathering and organization.
4. To end the continuous violations, pursuits, and abductions of human rights defenders and political activists, and to guarantee a healthy and appropriate environment for the work of the human rights organizations and civil institutions away from constraining regulations, interference and threats of the security services.
5. The members of the parliament should work on drafting laws that criminalize recruiting of mercenaries and should question those responsible for the security institutions for all the violations, and which includes recruiting and using mercenaries for internal disputes.
6. To initiate a genuine reconciliation between the ruling elite and all the people of Bahrain, with all their various sects and ethnicities, and to pave the way for true reforms where the government does not need to use foreigners against its own citizens.
June 07, 2009
PAKISTAN: Listen to David Kilcullen's interview with BBC
David Kilcullen is an expert in counterinsurgency and has worked in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
A former Australian army officer he joined the United States State Department in 2005 before becoming a special advisor to General David Petraeus and then Condoleeza Rice.
This week on The Interview David Kilcullen talks to Lyse Doucet about modern warfare and the need to try to understand the culture of the enemy -- to get to know the way they act and think.
Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen
Click below link and listen his views on Pakistan
LISTEN:
A former Australian army officer he joined the United States State Department in 2005 before becoming a special advisor to General David Petraeus and then Condoleeza Rice.
This week on The Interview David Kilcullen talks to Lyse Doucet about modern warfare and the need to try to understand the culture of the enemy -- to get to know the way they act and think.
Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen
Click below link and listen his views on Pakistan
LISTEN:
How India pushes its bright students abroad
Source: DNA: Opinion, India
Sidharth Bhatia
Saturday, June 6, 2009 20:54 IST Email
In the mid-90s, the total number of Indian students studying in Australia was in the hundreds, probably even less than a thousand.
Australia was not on anyone's radar -- the first preference was the US, followed by the traditional destination Britain, which still retained its post-colonial cache. In any case Indians did not have the money to go abroad to study and if they somehow did, they chose to go for graduate studies, where scholarships were easier to come by.
The latest figure for Indians studying in Australia is estimated at slightly above 90,000 students. Australia is now the second choice of Indians after the US. Indians in fact prefer Australia for a host of reasons.
How did this happen? How did a remote country, with little or no old connection with India, with hardly any international reputation as a centre of education and manage to lure so many Indians to come there? And how has it managed to maintain a steady flow even though not all who go there have pleasant experiences during their stay?
Sometime in the 90s, the Australian universities under one banner launched a campaign in India (and in other countries, including China) to woo Indians. At the same time, scores of Indian agents were appointed by various educational institutions and promised incentives if they brought in Indian students; these agents fanned out not only to Mumbai and Delhi, but also to Chandigarh, Jaipur and Hyderabad, smaller towns where students had less opportunity to make it to the better colleges.
The Australians had a lot to offer -- cheaper education compared to the US, a fairly multicultural environment and a wide variety of courses, especially in non-traditional sectors like hotel management. In addition was the lure of allowing students to work for a limited number of hours every week. The biggest attraction was the possibility that the students could legally settle down in Australia.
Throw in a mix of sun, sand and a laidback lifestyle and it was a heady cocktail. I recall a British diplomat telling me once, "We were left standing at the gate by the Australians." The prestige of Britain was intact -- Oxbridge and all that -- but it was seen as too fuddy duddy, too rigid in its rules (work and migration) and too expensive by a ratio of three to one compared to Australia.
Once students reached Australia, however, things were not so hunky dory. Many of the institutions that wooed students were bucket shops, or at best minor institutions intent only on the money the international students brought in. The recent agitation by Indian students on racist attacks was perhaps an outburst of many old frustrations. In March 2006, international students at the Central Queensland University in Melbourne planned a strike as they felt they hadn't got the facilities they were promised. The university treated them like "cash cows," they said. There is anecdotal evidence of students feeling frustrated with the quality of education and with the difficulties in breaking into the Australian job market, apart from the cultural problems they encounter. But the financial commitment they have made, often by taking loans, and the promise of permanent residency keeps them going.
Why would thousands of students want to go to destinations like Australia, Canada and Singapore or indeed the US and UK for undergraduate studies? For an answer to that, pick up your nearest newspaper and see hundreds of youngsters queuing up for an application form.The HSC results have just been declared and Mumbai's colleges are in the process of declaring their "cut off" lists. These lists will open up seats for students in various streams and tell us a lot about what the Indian education system has become. The colleges (and not only the so-called prestigious ones) have no time for anyone who has not scored above 85 percent and even those will get admission only in courses that are not in demand. Degrees such as Bachelor of Media Management and a BSc in information technology are considered sexy; here the cut offs start at 90 percent plus.
The Indian system says if you have scored a 'mere' 84 per cent, it is the road to perdition. We all know that high marks in a particular set of exams are no way to judge the quality and potential of a student, but those are the rules, take them or leave them. Once you make it to a good college you can drift for three years, it doesn't matter; what matters is your marks in one high school exam which are your passport and visa for entry into those hallowed portals and brand you for the rest of your life.
Where does that leave the thousands of bright students who find all doors shut to them because the good colleges are so few and far between? What if someone wants to study, say fashion design and cannot get into NIFT? They can either join an indifferent institution at home or beg, borrow and steal funds and go abroad. Which is what they eventually do. Indian students collectively contribute over 2 billion dollars to Australia every year; many stay back, which is a gain for Australia and a big loss for India. The students know the price they pay, financially and otherwise. But they do it not out of choice but out of compulsion. Their own country has no place for them. If at the end of it, they have to face a bit of racism, so be it.
Sidharth Bhatia
Saturday, June 6, 2009 20:54 IST Email
In the mid-90s, the total number of Indian students studying in Australia was in the hundreds, probably even less than a thousand.
Australia was not on anyone's radar -- the first preference was the US, followed by the traditional destination Britain, which still retained its post-colonial cache. In any case Indians did not have the money to go abroad to study and if they somehow did, they chose to go for graduate studies, where scholarships were easier to come by.
The latest figure for Indians studying in Australia is estimated at slightly above 90,000 students. Australia is now the second choice of Indians after the US. Indians in fact prefer Australia for a host of reasons.
How did this happen? How did a remote country, with little or no old connection with India, with hardly any international reputation as a centre of education and manage to lure so many Indians to come there? And how has it managed to maintain a steady flow even though not all who go there have pleasant experiences during their stay?
Sometime in the 90s, the Australian universities under one banner launched a campaign in India (and in other countries, including China) to woo Indians. At the same time, scores of Indian agents were appointed by various educational institutions and promised incentives if they brought in Indian students; these agents fanned out not only to Mumbai and Delhi, but also to Chandigarh, Jaipur and Hyderabad, smaller towns where students had less opportunity to make it to the better colleges.
The Australians had a lot to offer -- cheaper education compared to the US, a fairly multicultural environment and a wide variety of courses, especially in non-traditional sectors like hotel management. In addition was the lure of allowing students to work for a limited number of hours every week. The biggest attraction was the possibility that the students could legally settle down in Australia.
Throw in a mix of sun, sand and a laidback lifestyle and it was a heady cocktail. I recall a British diplomat telling me once, "We were left standing at the gate by the Australians." The prestige of Britain was intact -- Oxbridge and all that -- but it was seen as too fuddy duddy, too rigid in its rules (work and migration) and too expensive by a ratio of three to one compared to Australia.
Once students reached Australia, however, things were not so hunky dory. Many of the institutions that wooed students were bucket shops, or at best minor institutions intent only on the money the international students brought in. The recent agitation by Indian students on racist attacks was perhaps an outburst of many old frustrations. In March 2006, international students at the Central Queensland University in Melbourne planned a strike as they felt they hadn't got the facilities they were promised. The university treated them like "cash cows," they said. There is anecdotal evidence of students feeling frustrated with the quality of education and with the difficulties in breaking into the Australian job market, apart from the cultural problems they encounter. But the financial commitment they have made, often by taking loans, and the promise of permanent residency keeps them going.
Why would thousands of students want to go to destinations like Australia, Canada and Singapore or indeed the US and UK for undergraduate studies? For an answer to that, pick up your nearest newspaper and see hundreds of youngsters queuing up for an application form.The HSC results have just been declared and Mumbai's colleges are in the process of declaring their "cut off" lists. These lists will open up seats for students in various streams and tell us a lot about what the Indian education system has become. The colleges (and not only the so-called prestigious ones) have no time for anyone who has not scored above 85 percent and even those will get admission only in courses that are not in demand. Degrees such as Bachelor of Media Management and a BSc in information technology are considered sexy; here the cut offs start at 90 percent plus.
The Indian system says if you have scored a 'mere' 84 per cent, it is the road to perdition. We all know that high marks in a particular set of exams are no way to judge the quality and potential of a student, but those are the rules, take them or leave them. Once you make it to a good college you can drift for three years, it doesn't matter; what matters is your marks in one high school exam which are your passport and visa for entry into those hallowed portals and brand you for the rest of your life.
Where does that leave the thousands of bright students who find all doors shut to them because the good colleges are so few and far between? What if someone wants to study, say fashion design and cannot get into NIFT? They can either join an indifferent institution at home or beg, borrow and steal funds and go abroad. Which is what they eventually do. Indian students collectively contribute over 2 billion dollars to Australia every year; many stay back, which is a gain for Australia and a big loss for India. The students know the price they pay, financially and otherwise. But they do it not out of choice but out of compulsion. Their own country has no place for them. If at the end of it, they have to face a bit of racism, so be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
