REVAMPING OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY MACHINERY

REVAMPING OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY MACHINERY

B.RAMAN

In a detailed interview to Shri Vir Sanghvi, telecast by the CNBC-TV 18 channel, Shri P.Chidambaram, Minister for Home Affairs of the Government of India, has spoken, inter alia, of how in his view the counter-terrorism machinery of the Government of India should work. Relevant extracts from the interview are annexed.

2.Two important points emerge from the interview---- the exclusive responsibility of the Home Minister to exercise political oversight over the internal security machinery and the limited executive role of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in internal security management.

3. The principle of the exclusive responsibility of the Home Minister for internal security management had been observed right from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister of the day depended on the Home Minister for ensuring that internal security was effectively maintained. For this purpose, the Home Minister had under his administrative and operational control the Intelligence Bureau and the various central police organizations or para-military forces. He also had the responsibility for guiding and co-ordinating the work of the State Police forces.

4. The line of responsibility for political oversight was very clear with no room for doubt till the assassination of Indira Gandhi in October,1984. After her assassination, this clear line of responsibility got increasingly diluted or blurred due to various reasons such as the following:

• The creation of new agencies for security-related duties such as the Special Protection Group (SPG) for the security of the incumbent and past Prime Ministers and their families and the National Security Guards (NSGs) as a special intervention force against terrorism. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, decided that the SPG and the NSG should work under the political oversight of the Prime Minister and the operational oversight of the Cabinet Secretary.
• Terrorism assuming international dimensions necessitating co-operation with the counter-terrorism and homeland security agencies of other countries. Diplomacy assumed an important role in counter-terrorism particularly against State sponsors of terrorism. The US created a counter-terrorism division in the State Department to deal with these international and diplomatic dimensions . It continues to function even after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2004. Some other countries followed the US model. Under Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, this international and diplomatic dimension was given greater importance than under the predecessor Governments. A number of Joint Counter-Terrorism Working Groups with different countries came into existence and joint counter-terrorism exercises were organized with interested countries, including the US and China. While the responsibility for the co-ordination of the international and diplomatic dimensions was given to the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Defence exercised the co-ordination responsibilities in respect of joint counter-terrorism exercises.
• With terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and its associates acquiring or attempting to acquire specialized capabilities for what came to be known as catastrophic terrorism such as terrorism involving the use of weapons of mass destruction material, terrorism in the cyber space to disrupt or destroy critical infrastructure, aviation terrorism, maritime terrorism etc, the need for the State acquiring specialized counter-capabilities was realized. For meeting these needs, the role of the Ministry of Defence, the Armed Forces and the various science and technology institutions naturally got enhanced.

5. The problems we face in India arise from the fact that whereas terrorism has increasingly assumed new dimensions and new frontiers, no attempt has been made to work out a comprehensive approach to deal with terrorism in its classical form, terrorism in its post-9/11 form and likely forms of terrorism of the future as well as with State-sponsors of terrorism such as Pakistan and other States failing to act against terrorism such as Bangladesh. While the threat posed by terrorism of different hues continues to evolve, our concepts to deal with it has not been keeping pace with the threat.

6. In working out a comprehensive approach to internal security management in general and counter-terrorism in particular, the National Security Adviser (NSA) has to play an important role as an ideas man, who looks beyond the day-to-day nuts and bolts aspect of counter-terrorism. Shri Chidambaram is right when he says that the NSA should have little executive role in internal security management. The executive role has to be that of the Home Minister. However, the NSA has to play an active role in evolving concepts which take into account the international and specialized dimensions of the new terrorism of today. He would also be the right person for co-ordinating and supervising the evolving machinery to facilitate India taking advantage of the growing international co-operation against terrorism.

7. The concept of intelligence co-ordination has also been evolving. The role of intelligence in internal security management has many components:

• Intelligence collection within our frontiers.
• Trans-border intelligence collection.
• Intelligence collection in foreign countries.
• Use of technical gadgets for the collection of intelligence specifically required for internal security management.
• Use of technical gadgets for the collection of intelligence of relevance to internal as well as external security.

8. Presently, there is no single Ministry or Department capable of co-ordinating all these roles. Is it necessary to create a single nodal point in the Prime Minister’s office to co-ordinate these roles in the form of a National Intelligence Adviser? This question has been posed by different analysts from time to time since the Kargil conflict of 1999, but has not been addressed seriously. It is time to address it as part of an exercise to revamp our security machinery----internal as well as external.

9. In India, the concept of an intelligence community has not evolved. Similarly, the concept of leadership roles in security-related matters has not received attention. In the US, under the Intelligence Community Act, all agencies are required to function as an organic whole. There is a consolidated intelligence budget for the community as a whole, which is prepared and got approved by the Congress by the Director, National Intelligence. After the Congressional approval, he makes the individual allocations to different agencies. The leadership role in respect of counter-intelligence is with the FBI, in respect of counter-terrorism with the National Counter-Terrorism Centre, in respect of Homeland Security with the Department of Homeland Security and in respect of covert actions with the CIA. The designated leaders coordinate the follow-up action.

10. In Israel, the leadership role in respect of internal security is that of Shin Bet, the security agency, in respect of external security that of Mossad, the external intelligence Agency, and in respect of trans-border security that of the military intelligence agency. We dot not have such clearly-defined leadership roles.

11.From a perusal of Shri Chidambaram’s address of December 23,2009, in the Intelligence Bureau, and his latest interview to Shri Vir Sanghvi, it is apparent that he has been approaching the exercise for the revamping of our security machinery essentially from the point of view of the Home Ministry. This is a very important aspect, but it is equally important to give the exercise a larger dimension in order to evolve a comprehensive security machinery with clearly laid down concepts, carefully defined leadership roles and a workable co-ordination drill. In such a larger exercise, the NSA has to play an active role not only as an adviser to the Prime Minister, but also to the Cabinet as a whole in matters relating to national security. ( 8-2-10)

( 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

EXTRACTS FROM THE INTERVIEW OF SHRI P.CHIDAMBARAM, HOME MINISTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BY SHRI VIR SANGHVI FOR THE CNBC-TV 18 CHANNEL

Vir Sanghvi: The other thing that is said is that the first thing you did apparently when you took over as Home Minister is you instituted a meeting at apparently noon every day at which the chiefs of intelligence agencies came and you had a look at what the situation on the ground was and that the National Security Advisor also started coming to these meetings. There is a suggestion that you were given as part of your brief the job of bringing the security agencies within the ambit of the home ministry, is this accurate?

P Chidambaram: No that is a job I wrote for myself.

Vir Sanghvi: It was completely your own job description?

P Chidambaram: Yes but then when I took over, the Prime Minister graciously said, you will have a free hand because time is very limited, and if there is any problem, come back to me. When I thought about my job that weekend, I said, the first thing is we must bring everybody together, because I had to learn and act and change and deliver all in five months.

Vir Sanghvi: You know the background which is it is being posited by many people that you took away a lot of jobs that Narayanan use to do – your answer is always been look you people are making too much of this we have been friends for years – but let us leave friendship out of this. On purely functional terms you did take over a lot of the job didn’t you?

P Chidambaram: No. I did not take away any of his responsibilities. I did not take over any of his responsibilities. All I said was that whoever is doing whatever, it must be under political oversight. I happened to be the person providing the political oversight and therefore everybody accepted it.

Vir Sanghvi: Which is a departure from what had happened before? In Mr Advani’s time it did not happen, Mr Shivraj Patil’s time it didn’t happen. So in that sense the home ministry did assert itself over the national security advisor.

P Chidambaram: That is how it should be isn’t it.

Vir Sanghvi: I personally agree that is how it should be but it wasn’t how it was?

P Chidambaram: It wasn’t for whatever reason I do not know. But if I was going to be responsible as I was made responsible on that day then I was going to make sure that I knew it was going on. The only way that I could know what was going on what happen and what did not happen was to exercise political oversight over every agency that was concerned with security.

Vir Sanghvi: My question to you therefore is what is the role of national security advisor should he be an intelligence overload to whom the chief of intelligence’s report should he be an advisor to the Prime Minister?

P Chidambaram: Essentially I think he is an advisor to the Prime Minister, advisor to the National Security Council. He heads a very important body, the NSES, the Secretariat, which combines not only intelligence from internal security matters but a number of other things - Diplomatic intelligence, external intelligence, nuclear command authority etc.

So he brings all the strands together and then advises the Prime Minister. Surely he must be in the loop as far as internal security is concerned, who can he not be in the loop, he has to be in the loop. But whether he should have executive responsibility given the pressures of work and time I think is an open question.

My personal view is that he should have very few executive responsibilities as far as internal security is concerned. That should be given to other professionals.

Vir Sanghvi: That leads me to the question of where Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) reports because R&AW cannot report to the home ministry by definition because it is an external agency, of course you have said that when it comes to terrorism the R&AW chief must be involved because there has to be a nodal point on terrorism. But what happens to R&AW, it is a bit fatherless, isn’t it in the current system?

P Chidambaram: R&AW reports to the Prime Minister now. But I think there is broad agreement that so far as counter terrorism is concerned, I don't think anybody has a serious objection that R&AW would have to report to the Home Minister.

Vir Sanghvi: Let me now go back to 26/11, do you think one of the reasons we were so ill-prepared for what happened was because mechanisms like these were not in place?

P Chidambaram: Yes, of course. There should have been one point where everything converged, all information converged. Today it converges in a group of about six-seven people who meet everyday. That is how it should be which is what the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) will be.

It will be an institutional mechanism rather than an individual-headed mechanism. And the response will be an institutional response rather than an individual driven response.

Vir Sanghvi: You have seen the evidence that there was a fair amount of intelligence pointing to 26/11 which was ignored. Do you think it was inevitable that would have been ignored or if there had been a system like this in place we would have acted on it?

P Chidambaram: The system in this place would have surely connected the dots. There were three separate pieces of information, they were not connected.

Vir Sanghvi: So there was a failure?

P Chidambaram: I said so.

Vir Sanghvi: There were two aspect to 26/11, one was that 26/11 happened without us knowing because we didn’t connect the dots as you said. The second was our response which was surely inadequate and took too long to put together, so would that happen again?

P Chidambaram: I don’t think so. If god forbids anything like 26/11 happens, we will respond in a much swifter passion. We have a much better command and control system here and our people will respond very quickly.

Vir Sanghvi: What about state police forces, one of the problems of 26/11 was that they now know were the problems within the Bombay Police, and it’s the same?

P Chidambaram: That’s not correct, they are getting better every day, the capacity is better, response time is quicker. We have set out SOPs now and when we sent the NSG or the Central Paramilitary force what will be the command and control structure. They can command any plane, why their own plane.

Vir Sanghvi: Which they were allowed to under the NSG act any how?

P Chidambaram: Because no body had been authorized to do that.

Vir Sanghvi: It was as simple as that?

P Chidambaram: I think so. I am not going into the past I didn’t decide that I will issue but I issued authority and they can take over any plane now.

BALOCHISTAN: Feb 9 deadline for recovery of missing persons

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\02\08\story_8-2-2010_pg7_5

LAHORE: The Punjab Home Department has ordered all police officials, including the inspector general, to secure the release of all missing person by tomorrow (Tuesday). RPOs, CPOs and DPOs across the province have been asked to form joint investigation teams and keep the Home Department informed of all progress on this front. Acting on the orders of the Supreme Court, the government of Balochistan has directed all the police stations in the province to register first information reports in missing persons’ cases. The Balochistan home secretary said the government had issued directives in light of the Supreme Court orders to register a separate FIR for each missing person. The secretary the Home and Tribal Affairs department had received the documents of 65 missing people, eight of whom had been recovered. aaj kal report

KASHMIR IS THE DEFINING ISSUE OF INDIAN IDENTITY

by Subramanian Swamy

I believe that the Kashmir "issue"[1] can no more be solved by dialogue either with the Pakistanis or the Hurriyat[2] This is because the Pakistan army has now a majority of captains and colonels owing allegiance to the Taliban. In another five years, they will reach, by promotions, the corp commander level. We know that the government in Pakistan is controlled by the seven corp commanders of the army. Therefore a Taliban government in Pakistan is inevitable and a jehad against India the logical consequence of the same. In turn the Hurriyat is an organization that cannot go against Pakistan.

Hence India has about five years to prepare for a decisive and defining war with Pakistan and we must prepare to win it. We therefore have to throw out of office in the coming elections all those Indian politicians who crave or preen themselves on being popular in Pakistan by sounding reasonable and secular as also equivocating on every issue. For the survival of the ancient civilization of India we have to win that inevitable war and recover the whole of Kashmir.

I will not blame the jehadis for the coming war. They are after all programmed that way by Islamic theology. I will blame ourselves for not understanding the fundamentals of Islam as propounded in the Sira and the Hadith. It teaches that if Muslims are in a majority, they must rule [Darul Islam], and then everyone else is a dhimmi and a kafir who do not have equal rights of worship. Thus in Saudi Arabia, you cannot even display a picture of a Hindu god inside your own home! When Muslims are in a hopeless minority, then Sira and Hadith urges Muslims to make a deal with the majority and make no demands [Darul Ahad]. In US and Australia for example, Muslims will therefore never ask for separate shariat personal law. If Muslims are not hopelessly in a minority, then Islam directs that true Muslims conduct subversions and act against all human values to leverage their position [Darul Harab] to become of defining influence in the polity and ultimately rulers. We saw this in Kashmir recently when the government was made to cave in on the most humane gesture of allotting land to make Hindu pilgrims feel comfortable while on arduous journey to Amarnath caves. And we have it on the authority of the Chief Minister of the state that the agitation against the allotment was financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

It is foolish therefore in the face of this reality to expound the banal sentiment that "all Muslims are not terrorists or fanatics". Of course that is true. Or that Koran is a message of peace. May be it is. However, the Islam of the cutting edge of Muslim thought propounded by leaders such as Osama Bin Laden is in Sira and Hadith, which calls on the faithful to wage war against the infidels who cannot strike back effectively and crush them.

The struggle for Kashmir by the jehadis thus is not just for independence. They instead want a Darul Islam there and for the state to become a part of the Caliphate. Hindus are a special target because despite Iran, Iraq, Egypt and other countries becoming majority Muslim after less than two decades of conquest and brutalization, India after a thousand years of massacres, mayhem and rape remained dominantly Hindu. This is a living affront for the fundamentalist Muslim, and in their seminaries and madrassas in Iran and Saudi Arabia, they even today debate and agonize over it.

Contrary to the British imperialist propaganda, Hindus did not just lie down and be conquered by foreign invaders. Hindu fighting spirit had never dimmed even if weakened by traitors within. Periodically Hindus rose in revolt symbolized by the Vijayanagaram empire [which lasted 300 years] or in Shivaji's bravery, or Guru Gobind Singh's campaigns or the Mahratta national onslaught.

Most of us thus remained Hindus, defiant, even if in poverty and misery singing Vande Mataram.[3] This is the true history of India which the fundamentalist Muslim and the British imperialist historians cannot bear to acknowledge.

Accommodation and compromise with Islamic terrorists is self-defeating and suicidal. We have instead to fight back, for which Kashmir is the starting point. Hindu renaissance, long overdue, will be nurtured if we look for an opportunity to seize back the occupied areas of Kashmir, and make the jehadis feel that in India there can only be Darul Ahad for Muslims. We had opportunities earlier to demonstrate that: e.g.,in 1948, 1971, 1999, and 2001. But we let it go.

Hence, let there be no more intellectual confusion about the identity of India as a Hindu Rashtra [Nation], which means a land of Hindus and those others who acknowledge proudly that their ancestors are Hindus. If Muslims acknowledge this truth, then they are welcome as a part of our family. And those who do not so acknowledge cannot be equal citizens in India. Hence, we shall not agree to any more truncation of Indian territory

We have to therefore disown UN Resolutions and India-Pakistan treaties such as signed in Simla [1972] as unauthorized Nehruvian policy blunders. The legality of the Instrument of Accession signed in favour of India by the then Maharaja of J&K on October 26, 1947 has to prevail. Otherwise it will create a plethora of legal issues including what will become the status of the Maharaja if we abrogate this Instrument. Will Dr. Karan Singh, the son of Maharaja Hari Singh, have then a claim to be regarded again as an independent and sovereign King of J&K? In the Junagadh issue, Pakistan had held the Instrument once signed is "final, irrevocable, and not requiring the wishes of the people to be ascertained". That is the correct position. But the Junagadh Nawab after signing the Instrument in favour of Pakistan, invaded the neighbouring princely states, states which had acceded to India. So when the Indian Army was moved by Patel to defend these areas, the Nawab ran away to Pakistan. His subjects were mostly Hindu who then welcomed the Indian army.

Furthermore, on what legal basis can we de novo seek to ascertain the wishes of the people of J&K when the Indian Independence Act [1947] passed by the British Parliament makes no provision for the same? After all it was this same Act which created a legal entity called Pakistan, carved out from the united India. India under the Act was a settled and continuing entity out which the British Parliament made a new entity called Pakistan. Never in previous history there was ever a country called Pakistan. The concept itself was formulated only in 1947.

By what mechanism can then Pakistan today seek to amend or even de-recognise the Act without unwittingly undermining the legal status of Pakistan itself? That is, if the Instrument of Accession is called into question, will not Partition itself be subject to challenge as without legal basis on the same consideration? I raise this question also because in the case of Beruberi in Eastern India, the transfer of that area to Bangla Desh although agreed to, has been enmeshed in prolonged litigation in the Indian Supreme Court because of Article 1 of the Indian Constitution which bars de-merger of any Indian territory after 1950.

Indian army jawans[4] created Bangla Desh out of Pakistan. But despite that, and drunk with their Darul Islam status, the Bengali Muslims have not only driven out the Hindus or butchered them or forcibly converted them but millions of Bengali Muslims have sneaked into India and are happily working with Hindus in India. Partition was agreed to by Hindus only for those Muslims who could not bear to live under Hindu hegemony. And now after getting their territory, they cannot now say that they are happy to live in India with Hindus.

Hence, a virat Hindu Rashtra [nation] should tell Bangla Desh to take back their Muslims or hand over one-third of Bangla Desh territory as compensation. If they do not agree, then we must send two divisions of Indian army from Sylhet to Khulna and annex one third of north Bangla Desh as our due for bearing the economic and political burden of Bangla Deshis in our country. This will make our access to Assam and Northeast much easier too.But most of all it will send a powerful and salutary signal to Pakistani terrorists that Hindus will no more be passive.

These actions are possible if we gear up diplomatically for it. Today the world is sick of the terrorism and the greed of Muslims nations to make money out the sale of oil which they have got by sheer accident of geology. Hence, we must make strong allies. Israel is one such country. We must find ways to make China see our interests. It can be done if we know how to come to an understanding with them. This is essential for isolating Pakistan. At present China has begun to see the tinder box that Pakistan has become. Uighurs from Xinjiang have been to madrassas of Pakistan for training in subversion in Urumuchi and to sabotage the Beijing Olympics This worries China. It should concern us too.

Hence to lay the foundation for the liberation of Kashmir, we must have President's Rule for some time. India should refuse to engage in any dialogue on Kashmir in which the other side does not accept the whole of Kashmir as an integral and inalienable part of India. The people of Kashmir should be left in no doubt in their minds where the citizens of Hindu Rashtra stand on the future of the state: that it lies with us. Every Hindu has a claim on Kashmir. I for one claim it because my gotra [lineage, clan] is Kashyapa. It was RShi Kashyapa who invented Kashmir out the Dal lake. Hence my claim.

We should undo the "cleansing" of the state of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits by sending 1 million ex-servicemen and families into the Kashmir valley for re-settlement. Article 370 of the Constitution will have to be removed for that purpose, but according to the Constitution itself, it is supposed to be a "temporary provision" not requiring a Parliamentary two-thirds majority for amendment. It can be erased by a Presidential Notification on the recommendation of the Union Cabinet.

Then we await a war. We do not have to go to war with Pakistan on Kashmir because a Talibanised Pakistan will provide us with the opportunity. What I am advocating here is that we prepare mentally and militarily for that eventuality, and having been provided that opportunity, go for the jackpot -- to use an American slang.


Editor's End Notes (Not part of the Original article)

[1] Kashmir Issue. Because of agitation by Indian Muslims, India was partitioned in 1947 into two independent states: India and Pakistan. This was accompanied by a large population exchange. When the dust settled, Pakistan was mostly Muslim, India was Hindu with a sizable Muslim population. To read the excellent analysis by Jeffrey Weiss, "India and Pakistan -- a Cautionary Tale for Israel and Palestine," click here. Muslims have continued to agitate for more territory.

[2] The Hurriyat is an umbrella group of Muslim political, business and religious organizations, which have banded together to promote Kashmir separatism. As noted on www.satp.org: "Since the international community frowned upon the resort to violence by non-state actors, the Hurriyat was an ideal platform to promote the Kashmiri secessionist cause." The Hurriyat views Kashmir as the 'unfinished agenda of Partition.'

[3] Vande Mataram ("Hail to the Mother(land") is India's especially beloved song, its nationalist song, which since the late 1800s conveyed the Indian desire to be free of British rule. It visualizes the nation as Mother Durga, a Hindu goddess. It was rejected as the national anthem because its imagery was considered offensive to Muslims.

[4] Young man. Private soldier.


Subramanian Swamy is an economist, who has taught on the university level both in India and U.S.A. He was a founding member of the Janata Party in India and has served as a cabinet minister. He has promoted normalizing relations with China and Israel. Contact him by email at ilky@sify.com

This article was submitted july 16, 2008. It was a lecture delivered on July 9, 2008 to Indian students and American scholars at MIT.

Fifth sense: Advanced fighters are not the whole answer to air power challenges

http://www.afji.com/2010/02/4424113

Armed Forces Journal

Advanced fighters are not the whole answer to air power challenges

BY GENE MYERS

Retired Col. Thomas Ehrhard, in his Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments study “An Air Force Strategy for the Long Haul,” wrote that the U.S. faces three primary existing and emerging strategic challenges that are most likely to preoccupy senior decision-makers in the coming years: “defeating ... Islamist radicalism,” “hedging against the rise of a hostile or more openly confrontational China and the potential challenge posed by authoritarian capitalist states” and “preparing for a world in which there are more nuclear-armed regional powers.”

These challenges demand far more than one-size-fits-all national defense structures where our combatant commanders plan and the services provide for a single force structure that can cover the range of military operations from disaster relief through insurgency to nuclear warfare. For the Air Force, the focus of this discussion, the nation is not well-served by the almost fanatical pursuit of hundreds, maybe thousands, of short-range fighter aircraft augmented by unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), such as the Predator and Reaper, which have made such a contribution over Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ehrhard’s report maintains that the Air Force is building what he calls a “ ‘middle-weight’ force structure that is much too sophisticated and expensive for low-end or irregular conflicts, while also lacking needed capabilities to address challenges at the high end of the military competition.”

å Bases that are 500 miles or nearer from targets, and that are secure from short- and medium-range attack capabilities, including nuclear, biological and chemical as well as terrorists/insurgents.There is no argument that fighters such as the new fifth-generation F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II make a vital contribution under the right circumstances. These circumstances are:

å Partner nations that are willing to provide these close-range bases on their territory, an increasingly equivocal proposition as political necessity and alliances shift and they realize that their territory will be targeted by America’s enemies.

å A fairly advanced conventionally armed adversary with more or less traditional operational strategies, such as China or North Korea (which almost guarantees that adequate bases will be threatened).

å An adversary with airpower capable of threatening U.S. air operations and thus requiring a robust U.S. air superiority capability.

Note that Afghan insurgents operating in populated areas and in small mobile cells are not generally profitable targets for conventional air attack, as the continuing drumbeat of protest over civilian casualties and resulting severe restrictions of U.S. air operations point out. Advocates of Predator UAVs are quick to insist that these weapons are highly effective in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, where such operations predominate, as they have proven to be, and demand that their numbers be greatly increased and capabilities improved as a result.

At the other end of the range of military operations against more sophisticated military capabilities, the current stock of UAVs would be extremely vulnerable and as a single force element incapable of delivering the high volume of firepower likely required in many conflicts. Of course, this does not eliminate their usefulness in selected instances.

However, the Air Force “fighter mafia” that has dominated service leadership since at least the early 1980s has bet their hats, spats and swords on fifth-generation fighter aircraft as the dominant, and, if left totally to them, almost exclusive air combat force element for at least the first third of the 21st century.

But it is my belief that fighters and UAVs, even if considered together, leave much capability to be desired. Of the three challenges presented at the opening of this discussion, the fighter/UAV combination can manage perhaps one and a half: the Islamist radicals to the degree they can be found and advanced military capability threats that are within effective fighter operational range from bases that are hardened enough to withstand attack from those advanced enemy forces.

I have previously pointed out in these pages that it is important to remember the reason the Air Force is a separate service and its members wear blue uniforms instead of green ones — and that is the ability to rapidly project power globally and rapidly, meaning reaching an objective in minutes (perhaps even seconds) or hours. An Air Force structure dominated by short-range fighters, no matter how advanced, and UAVs does not fit the bill here.

Of course, this does not consider vital airlift requirements. Suffice it to say that this is as much a part of rapid global power projection as any other element.

Until recently forced to give ground by congressional action, Air Force leaders would not give up, or even willingly cut back, on their single-minded drive to build both the F-22 and the F-35 (variants of the F-35 will be acquired by the Navy, Marines and several international partners). “Fill the fighter gap” was, and really still is, the clarion call heard down the halls of the Pentagon and Air Combat Command headquarters. And filling that gap was described as requiring 1,763 F-35s for the Air Force alone, plus the original request for 340 F-22s. These are admittedly very capable aircraft that are far superior to the legacy counterparts such as the F-15 and F-16 they are to replace, but they come at a substantial cost of approximately $122 million each for the F-35 and somewhere around $145 million for the F-22. This would provide 2,100 aircraft with a combat range of only around 500 miles. Because of this, they must operate from increasingly scarce forward bases that are more vulnerable every day to enemy action, from terrorist infiltration to missile borne chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

Counterterrorism and counterinsurgency are officially the raison d’être of all military operations nowadays. And everyone is jumping on that bandwagon despite its implications for those folks in South Korea, Taiwan, Israel and who knows where else who look to us to honor our commitments with forces of a different kind. That force would be required to operate from long range (especially in the Pacific region), possibly with minimum notice against a wide variety of targets, including mechanized ground forces as well as advanced combat aircraft and sophisticated air defense systems that would be encountered during missions deep into enemy territory.

So, if it is the Air Staff’s intent to divest itself of everything but the ability to provide close air support for ground forces, let’s go back to wearing green suits. The requirement for air superiority and close air support for ground forces are minimal in Iraq and Afghanistan but could be substantial somewhere else in the future. That alone does argue for maintaining the ability to assure air superiority, but from the context of a far more balanced force structure.

National political and military planning guidance warns of the emerging capabilities of our potential adversaries, including at least some advanced conventional capabilities. Their anti-access operations could include use of weapons of mass destruction; short- to medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles; anti-ship mines and antiaircraft weapons to interdict deploying forces; terrorist and special forces attacks; and direct information system attacks through computer viruses, information alteration, deception and psychological operations. The friction, uncertainty and public concern these activities could cause would be likely deciding factors in U.S. participation. And let’s face it, the more we build a ground support air force, the fewer options we will have on the world stage beyond committing that force into harm’s way or doing nothing.

An effective global U.S. military strategy will require:

å Immediate access to the conflict area to act before an adversary can consolidate gains or even complete preparations to act.

å Rapid action over global distances as forward bases are less available.

å Accomplishing tasks that will make a real difference in the situation as soon as we get there, which means reducing consolidation and preparation to a minimum.

å Minimal casualties and collateral damage in order to preserve public support and freedom of action.

U.S. forces may be forced to operate at longer ranges from their targets. The April 2000 Final Report on Strategic Responsiveness made a strong case for strengthening Air Force global responsiveness. But it also stated that because of the increasing availability of WMD and access-denial tactics, “Even less in the early 21st Century can the Air Force make the strategic assumption that forward basing will be available or accessible in future operations.” This assessment hasn’t gotten any better since 2000.

Barry Watts, in his 2005 CSBA paper on Air Force long-range strike capability, wrote that “the evidence argues that the institutional Air Force is neither taking — nor planning to take — the near-term steps to ensure that the U.S. will have the long-range strike capabilities the country will need in the mid- to long-term.” But still, (barring a major change in policy, which could possibly in fact be in the offing) the 21 existing B-2s is all the new global range strike capability we will get — the production line has been closed.

An enhanced fleet of intercontinental range, stealthy, manned and unmanned aircraft is necessary to assuring U.S. rapid global offensive capabilities. Watts argues, and I agree, that “a crucial challenge likely to be unmet” by failure to provide a true global strike capability “is neglecting to hedge against the rise of Asian powers and the spread of nuclear weapons.”

The bottom line is that the Air Force has been very busy trying to build a short-range air force in a long-range world. But the days of “bare base” deployments where everything needed to operate a short-range fighter squadron or wing from forward locations is hauled into a host country and set up with immunity from hostile action are coming to a close in many areas of the world.

A BRIGHT SPOT

There is a potential bright spot here. On Dec. 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “We are probably going to proceed with a long-range strike initiative coming out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and various other reviews going on. We’re looking at a family of capabilities, both manned and unmanned.” Note that the term he used was probably, which is far from a definitive directive, and even that was from the secretary, not from senior Air Force leaders. It is also interesting to note that, unlike all in the past, the current QDR process is focused within the Office of the Secretary of Defense with only minimal direct service participation. It leaves one to wonder if Air Force refusal to back off its myopic pursuit of its fifth-generation fighter force structure is at least partly to blame. Much remains to be seen here.

To be sure, with administration support, Congress has halted production of the F-22 air superiority fighter at 187 aircraft and threatens to stanch the buy of F-35s to far less than the 2,443 requested by all the U.S. services.

Advocates of both aircraft who lament the loss of some of these admittedly very capable systems would have a valid argument for larger-scale production if the planes could operate at longer ranges from bases not vulnerable to keep-out strategies from a wide variety of targets, including insurgent cells operating from populated areas, but they can’t. This does not argue for their elimination entirely but does strongly suggest that they be included within a larger force structure that is not a “middleweight” surrogate for a true global aerospace force that provides for strong high-end war fighting (including major conventional and nuclear warfare) as well as low-end capabilities (including against terrorists and insurgents operating from rugged and urban terrain).

This force would surely include low-end specialist UAVs such as the Predator as well as global-ranging strike aircraft (some potentially unmanned) such as an advanced B-2 or the new aircraft that Gates mentioned. In the middle would be the fifth-generation fighters that would operate against moderately capable adversaries and serve as a “swing force” for other higher- and lower-end contingencies as needed, but certainly not 2,600 of them. Let’s get real.

Malalai Joya: The voice from the back of the room

The voice from the back of the room

http://mondediplo.com/2010/01/19afghanistan

Malalai Joya is only 32, but she has been an exile, a refugee, a teacher of girls in the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and now that country’s youngest member of parliament. She’s still on the run though, and still threatened with assassination

by Andrew Oxford

Afghanistan is a young nation ravaged by old conflicts. This does not refer to the new government created after the 2001 invasion (or the violent battles between different tribes that have carried on into the new millennium). Its youthfulness is a statistical fact buried in UN and World Bank reports: 60% of the country is under the age of 25, and many may not live much beyond that (1).

Nearly a decade has passed since Nato troops, led by the US, “liberated” Afghanistan. But there is little to show for the occupation, the billions of dollars of aid money, and the thousands of soldiers and civilians killed. Not much is heard from the young majority. The political discourse in Kabul neglects their future; it is dominated by the usual suspects, bearded bureaucrats and provocateurs of wars past.

“They are law brokers not law makers,” says Malalai Joya. At 32, she is Afghanistan’s youngest member of parliament (and has adopted the name Malalai after the Afghan nationalist hero Malalai Maiwand). She is an outspoken critic of the fundamentalists who subjugate the women of her country. Now she is internationally prominent as the voice for an independent Afghanistan. Her message – end the occupation and the Karzai government – is refreshing and daunting, a manifesto for what the West should really be fighting for.

Her parliamentary career began with the Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, of 2003, which sought to shape the “free” Afghanistan. As Afghan politicians fought for their place in the new government and hammered out a constitution, interest groups jockeyed for power. Malalai Joya lobbied just for a chance to speak, shouting “We kids can’t get a word in!” from the back of the room. She’s tiny and has a frustratingly soft voice, so it is hard to imagine that she is a formidable opponent of warlords. But when she takes to the microphone, it’s clear how easily she makes enemies.

A tired chairman allowed her to speak for three minutes because she had “travelled far”. Ninety seconds proved too much. Denouncing the “warlords and criminals” present at the Loya Jirga, she blamed them for the terrible state of their country and called for them to be jailed and prosecuted rather than given positions of power. “They might be forgiven by the Afghan people but not by history,” she said before the microphone was cut. A small burst of applause was drowned by jeers of outrage as delegates leapt from their seats and charged towards her. The chairman demanded that security remove her for “crossing the lines of common courtesy”.

We saw nothing but war

“We are the war generation,” she recently told me after addressing supporters at the City University of New York. “We saw nothing in our lives but disaster, war, violence, and all these catastrophic situations.” As the classroom began to empty and those who remained clustered around the refreshments table, she drifted between English and Persian, shaking hands, and posing for pictures as any good politician would. Her appearance does not betray the refugee camps, the safe houses and the five assassination attempts.

She is the daughter of a medical student who left school to fight the Soviets, and her life has been lived on the run. Four days after her birth, the Communist government took power and prepared for the Russian invasion. She has lived in exile in Iran, Pakistan and any number of refugee camps, and she grew up among the forgotten casualties of war who would later be her proudest constituency: the widows, the orphans, the displaced. After the Soviets fled, civil war engulfed Afghanistan, and the Taliban emerged victorious, a chauvinist and extremist government took hold of her homeland and turned Malalai Joya into a quiet rebel. At 15, she began work as an underground teacher for a women’s rights group. Teaching girls how to read, she constantly dodged the watchful authorities; and in the austerity of her fugitive existence, among the illiterate and oppressed, she became a committed activist.

Tiny but powerful: Malalai Joya speaks and the women listen

With the feminist Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women’s Capabilities, Malalai became a prominent voice for women in the shadows of subversion. In 2001, when Nato ran the Taliban out of Kabul, she and her colleagues were poised to seize the opportunity of building a new nation. “After 9/11, they occupied my country under the banner of women’s rights and human rights and democracy, but they bring into power this photocopy of the Taliban,” she told supporters in New York. “That’s why today, the situation in Afghanistan is a disaster.” Malalai is quick to point out the reality of occupation for average Afghans. Poverty remains endemic (2), corruption is flourishing thanks to the billions of dollars foreign governments and NGOs have poured in, and the recent election was, she says, “a ridiculous drama ... just rubbing salt in the injured heart of my people”; for despite a few legal and political benefits, women are still treated like property.

“The situation of woman is a disaster and just as catastrophic as under the domination of the Taliban,” she said. Having lived through the Taliban’s rule as an underground teacher, Malalai has been an eyewitness to the terror of the fundamentalists. The liberation, she says, has brought little change. Considering the rise in self-immolation and rape in recent years, Malalai says: “Women are the most victimised because women are a big power, one wing of the bird. When one wing of the bird in society is injured, how can the bird fly?”

The burgeoning opium poppy trade has underscored what Malalai had always suspected about the occupation. “In the last eight years, they have turned my country into the centre of drugs.” It was not unexpected. “They are saying to the poor farmers ‘stop planting poppies’ but the governors of these provinces are drug traffickers. Four persons who have high posts in Karzai’s cabinet are famous drug traffickers.” The US complicity in the multibillion dollar drug trade, as evidenced by Hamid Karzai’s brother’s close connections to both the CIA and the heroin underworld (3), have made it clear that poppies are not just a convenient cash crop for the struggling farmers. They are a new natural resource and the drug lords and their occasional allies in the occupation forces are the new colonialists who mean to prosper in the market that leaves most Afghans living in dire poverty.

Geopolitics have defined Afghanistan from the ancient trading routes through the mountains to the British, Soviet and US expeditions and occupations. Its location has been a blessing and a curse. “They invaded my country to have access to the gas and oil of the Asian republics,” Malalai said. “And now the people of my country are crushed between three powerful enemies: the occupation forces bombing and killing innocent civilians, most of them women and children; and the Taliban and these warlords.”

Truth is the first casualty

As a member of the parliament representing the rural Farah province, Malalai was suspended by her colleagues years ago for making remarks considered too critical. She says this suspension was a plot by the fundamentalists to silence her. So she travels widely, in her country and the world. “The first casualty in war in a country like Afghanistan is the truth,” she says. “The truth itself is political.” But it could be her best weapon.

“They say a civil war will happen in Afghanistan if the troops leave but nobody wants to talk about today’s civil war. As long as these soldiers are in Afghanistan, there will be civil war.” The US and Nato soldiers are seen as just another enemy in a nation that prides itself on ferocious independence. The British, the Soviets and the US and its cohorts cannot tame Kabul or the Khyber Pass; even the native forces of the Taliban and the Northern Alliance struggle to restrain a population historically inclined to buck occupation.

Malalai hopes democracy can replace decades of colonisation and strife. She is quick to acknowledge how naive she seems; yet she is an unwavering believer in the power of her own people, who are their only agents of action. “No nation can donate liberation to another nation. My people can liberate themselves if they let us live in peace. Over these 30 years, we lost almost everything. But we did gain one important thing and that is political knowledge. The resistance of my people is day by day increasing.” “When the people stand up, they can defeat them.”

Andrew Oxford is a journalist in San Antonio, Texas

(1) United Nations World Population Prospects

(2) The UN Development Project ranked Afghanistan last in their poverty index and found that over 70% of the population had no improved water source.

(3) “Brother of Afghan leader said to be paid by CIA”, The New York Times, 27 October 2009.

China: Articles in the Top Party Theoretical Organ Downplay Sino-US differences

By D. S. Rajan

Two signed Chinese language articles in the current issue of ‘Qiu Shi’, the theoretical organ of the Chinese Communist Party, are noteworthy for their definite tendency to play down the impact on Sino-US relations coming from the latest bilateral frictions centering round three issues – trade dispute, US arms sales to Taiwan and the upcoming meeting between President Obama and the Dalai Lama. While the journal has no doubt given a disclaimer that the views in the articles are from individual scholars and do not represent its own stand, what cannot be missed is that the assessments could not have been published without Qiu Shi’s tacit endorsement of the contents; this raises the possibility that the articles tend to reflect the party-line at high levels on the subject.

The first article, captioned “ Basic Factors and Variables in Sino-US Relations” (Qiu Shi, 2 February 2010, reproduced from Liberation Daily of Shanghai, contributed by Professor Chen Dongxiao, Vice-President of the Shanghai Institute of International Studies) has discussed two questions relating to Sino-US relations – what contributed to the excellent bilateral relationship in 2009 and what could be the variables in 2010?.

Listing ‘opportunities, favourable conditions and popular support’ as basic factors, Professor Chen has found that the Sino-US relations in 2009 were most influenced by ‘structural’ aspects which facilitated bringing of changes by the two nations into their respective strategic positions, especially by way of adjusting to each others’ strategic interests. The main drivers for such changes have been the growth in China’s international power and influence as well as directions taken by both China and the US to tackle core global common issues.

Analysing the imperatives for Washington which arose in 2009, the Shanghai-based expert has felt that under the impact of global financial crisis and the “Iraq-Afghanistan double-burden”, the US international power and hegemony began to face a decline, forcing it to shift to a ‘defensive strategic adjustment’ line and that accordingly, the regime of the ‘new generation leader’ Obama, introduced a ‘smart-power’ diplomacy, looked for ‘multi-partners’ and sought cooperation and support from everywhere. In particular, it came under compulsion to rely on China’s strength to ward off the financial crisis and accelerate economic recovery. Internationally, the Obama regime hoped for getting China’s help to tackle various diplomatic problems and global issues; the aim has been to rebuild American leadership. President Obama’s announced policies of ‘not containing China’, playing down US-China differences on human rights and other traditional issues, delaying arms sales to Taiwan and easing intervention on the Dalai Lama issue, have been symbols of the ‘strategic adjustment’ line of the US in 2009.

Acknowledging that no change has occurred in the US-China balance of power, with former ‘being strong’ and the latter being ‘weak’, Professor Chen has further explained as to why China responded to the US policy readjustment in 2009; he has pointed out that for China’s development and security, maintaining active cooperation and promoting healthy and stable development of ties with the US are needed and that on that basis, China seized the initiative, arrived at a new position in relations with the US, established new mechanisms for interaction between the two sides and developed new areas of bilateral cooperation.

On variables in 2010, Professor Chen has said that in the US, domestic influences concerning the issues of China’s core interests, like Tai Du (‘Taiwan independence’), Zang Du (‘Tibet independence’) and Jiang Du (‘ Xinjiang in –dependence’) may continue to prevail, adding that the three factors may be used by the US as ‘pawns’ to maintain pressure on China. There may also be US pressures on China with respect to matters like rebalancing of world economy, climate change and post-financial crisis ‘burden sharing’.

What is notable is the scholar’s optimistic tone at the end. According to his assessment, the ‘symbiotic’ growth in Sino-US mutual interests and the situation of mutual dependence in strategic interests between the two will not be reversed in 2010; they will also be maintained for a long term. Professor Chen has in the final stressed “both sides need each other in the interest of strategic balance and should cooperate as partners, for the purpose of meeting common challenges in the new century”.

The second article, captioned “ Sino-US Relations Suffer Strains, but Still Controllable” (Qiu Shi, 2 February 2010, reproduced from Liberation Daily of Shanghai, written by Prof Jin Canrong, Vice President, International Studies Department of the People’s University, Beijing) has predicted that the impact on Sino-US relations from the three “time-bombs” (Trade friction, Arms sale to Taiwan and the Dalai Lama factor) will become controllable in 2010.The assessment has cited following as reasons in this regard – (i) both China and the US have developed a strong desire to solve all issues dividing them, as a requisite to maintain peace and development, (ii) the importance of Sino-US relations goes beyond the bilateral context now and any confrontation among them will affect regional and global economy and politics. Regionally, the two are required to cooperate in depth for solving hot issues in Asia and bringing stability. Globally, both need each other in fighting terrorism, preventing proliferation of nuclear arms, dealing with climate change and addressing financial crisis. Also, at regional and global levels, China and the US are already actively participating in ‘sophisticated’ cooperation mechanisms like APEC, G-8 plus 5 and G-20, not to mention the Sino-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue framework and (iii) China and the US have developed common economic interests. Bilaterally, their economies have come to depend on each other, with the trade between the two sides reaching US$ 400 billion.

Professor Jin has concluded by saying that the “three time bombs” above may cause fluctuations in the Sino-US relations in 2010 and the ties may not be as good as they were in 2009.But 2010 may not witness any change in the overall framework of bilateral ties, of which dialogue and cooperation will be the mainstream.

It would be important for the analysts to take notice of the non-alarmist tones in the articles above, the publications of which have coincided with another authoritative write-up foreseeing a ‘steady path for China and the US towards warmer relations’ (by Zhang Jiye, Global Times, English edition, 2 February 2010), but also asking China to be careful from a long term point of view on the possibilities of US shifting its policy directions towards China, once it regains power. This, coupled with concerns expressed in Qiu Shi over the prevailing domestic influences in the US concerning Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang independence activities, may suggest that in spite of Beijing’s expectations of the differences with Washington remaining under control in 2010, it continues to nurture strategic suspicions about US future intentions vis-a-vis China.

(The writer, Mr D.S.Rajan, is Director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India. Translation and examination done by himEmail: dsrajan@gmail.com)

Strengthen laws dealing with internal security: Modi

By ANI
February 7th, 2010

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday praised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram for their bold initiative in tackling terrorism and improving the security scenario in the country.

Interacting with media on the sidelines of Chief Ministers’ Conference on internal security, Modi praised Singh for his inclusive approach on terror.

Modi also added that Chidambaram has been extremely swift and positive in tackling terror.

“Security is of prime concern in our country and there are two ways of tackling this issue. Firstly, by increasing the strength of our security forces and secondly, by increasing the judicial strength,” he said.

“While Manmohan Singh has been in the seat of PM, these issues of terror are being tackled. Also, the Ministry of Home Affairs under P Chidambaram has been extremely positive and swift. We are now getting positive and speedier response from the Centre over terror issue,” Modi added.

Modi’s reaction came as a surprise, as earlier this month the Union Home Ministry urged President Pratibha Patil to reject the controversial Gujarat Control of Orgnised Crime Act (GUJCOCA).

It has already created bitter debate between the Centre and Gujarat and turned into a political battle to make into reality.

Earlier Modi had blamed the Centre for not approving it because the state is running by the opposition and they don’t want to let them to take any initiative in this regard while the similar law is implemented in the Maharashtra state which ruled by the Congress Government.

On other hand, Home Ministry had rejected the allegations and raised objection over some points in the draft as he recommended deleting of its two provisions in the draft. (ANI)

---

IANS

NEW DELHI: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi Sunday said that there was need to strengthen laws dealing with the country's internal

security.

While addressing the chief ministers' conference on internal security convened by the government here, Modi said internal security threatened by organised crime and terrorism needed to be confronted with a strong resolve which should not be limited to physically strengthening the law enforcement mechanism.

"Our policy decisions and laws to deal with such issues should have enough teeth. The biggest issue concerning internal security, to my mind, is lack of adequate legal provisions to support our efforts," he said.

Modi's remarks came in the backdrop of the central government's refusal to give its nod to the president to sign the controversial Gujarat Control of Organised Crime Bill passed by the state assembly.

The chief minister has on earlier occasions criticised the central government for opposing certain provisions in the bill, saying they were similar to the existing laws in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The central government had suggested some amendments to the bill.

In his speech, Modi referred to the dossiers sent to Pakistan on the involvement of "people and state agencies" in the Nov 26, 2008 Mumbai terror attack.

He said the country should build its inherent strength and institutional mechanisms so that "we do not have to rely upon external forces for bringing perpetrators of crime against our people within our country to book".

"It is important that not only are we strong but are also perceived to be strong by subversive elements within and outside India," he said.

He said that the National Investigation Agency Act had powers of taking over investigation in FICN (Fake Indian Currency Note) offences and there was no need for asking the state governments to give general consent for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into such crimes.

"Did the government try to look at the track record of CBI in investigating offences which it is seized with?" he said.

Modi said the agenda for the conference did not include action taken on deliberations of previous meetings. He said his government was committed to building a mechanism to ensure that all criminal cases in the state were disposed off within 12 months.

Triple Curve graph

LaRouche uses his Triple Curve graphic, shown above, to demonstrate how he was able to forecast the present collapse of the globalized monetarist system, which is now reaching a critical point of instability. LaRouche is proposing a non-monetarist credit system as the basis for a new economic system to replace the bankrupt IMF. This is the only way to avoid a world-wide economic collapse.

SOURCE: http://larouchepub.com/

Kaliningrad Rising

February 3, 2010
http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Politics&articleid=a1265227442

By Roland Oliphant
Russia Profile

A Rare Show of Unity Amongst the Opposition Parties, the Largest Anti-Government Protest in Years, and a Governor in Trouble – Is There Something Different About Kaliningrad?

The horror of Kaliningrad is its Baltic temperatures. But that didn’t stop some 10,000 people from showing up for a rally to protest a hike in transportation tax and import duties. Organized by an unlikely alliance of opposition parties ranging from the Communist Party (KPRF) to the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR) and the pro-democracy Solidarnost movement, the protest was the largest in Russia in the past ten years.

The size of the demonstration was unprecedented. While the police estimated the crowd at around 7,000, the organizers cited a figure of anything from 10,000 to 12,000 people. Konstantin Doroshok, the leader of the Kaliningrad branch of Solidarnost, one of the opposition movements which helped to organize the demonstration, said the real number could have been higher, had it not been for hedging by the authorities and the Baltic enclave’s notoriously harsh weather. “When we first applied for the demonstration we estimated that about 15,000 people would attend,” said Doroshok. “But the authorities fenced off the area to restrict numbers. Then there’s the weather – there was snow, frost, wind – lots of people have said they wanted to go but decided not to come because of the weather, especially if they had children.”

United against United Russia

The organizers from the official opposition parties like the KPRF and LDPR that have factions in the State Duma, to the more marginalized Solidarnost, whose leaders include Boris Nemtsov and Gary Kasparov, are all political movements with their own ideological agendas. But the protestors they attracted to the streets were motivated by that perennial and most mundane of grievance of malcontented publics everywhere and in all ages – money.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was a decision by Georgy Boos, the governor of the Kaliningrad Region since 2005, to use powers granted him under an amendment to the tax code to set the base rate of transport tax in his region. Apparently sensing the public mood, he cancelled that plan two days before the protest, but it was too late – and while it was the catalyst, it was far from the only grievance.

A resolution drawn up at the end of the demonstration centered on the cancellation of the transport tax hike and called for the law (clause 2, article 31 of the tax code) that allows regional governments to set the base tax rate to be repealed. But it also included demands that the transport tax be included in the price of petrol; that fuel costs be reduced (and the dependency of domestic prices on the oil price in foreign exchanges be ended); that customs barriers on importing used cars should be dropped (like Vladivostok in the Far East, Kaliningrad does a brisk trade in importing second-hand cars from abroad); that taxes be frozen until the end of the economic crisis; that Kaliningraders’ pensions be increased; and, of course, that Georgy Boos resign.

The Kaliningrad region is small by Russian standards – with a population of around one million, about half of whom live in the city of Kaliningrad – it is a fraction the size of the Moscow or Leningrad Regions. The fact that it produced the largest demonstration for the best part of a decade is above all “indicative of the level of discontent with the activities of the authorities,” said Doroshok.

Kaliningrad, of course, is not quite Russia. Sandwiched as it is between Poland and Lithuania, regional political parties receive “about half the attention from the federal authorities” as their counterparts do in the rest of the country, reckons Doroshok. And like Vladivostok, which has also seen anti-government demonstrations in the past couple of years, its proximity to other countries allows its citizens to see that another life is possible. “We can see that groceries are half the price and wages are twice as high over the border,” he added.

But those factors were helped along by an unusual level of unity displayed by the usually fractious opposition groups. According to Doroshok, the cooperation was born of a common understanding that United Russia is exploiting their divisions. The parties agreed to put their political differences aside to back a non-political movement called Spravedlivost (“Justice”) that took on the organization of the meeting. In this sense, focusing on near-universal concerns about taxes, rather than ideology, paid off. Banners with slogans like “United Russia – United against Russians!” left little doubt as to who the demonstrators blamed for their troubles.

But despite openly anti-government sentiment, including placards calling on President Dmitry Medvedev to fire Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the crowd’s real ire was reserved for its governor.

Its not just ordinary citizens who have an axe to grind. “He came from Moscow, and was pretty aggressive with regard to regional political and business elites,” said Nikolai Petrov, an expert on regional affairs at the Carnegie Moscow Center. The size and timing of the protest – not long before Boos’ first term as governor ends in September 2010 – may indicate that the organizers had powerful backers, suggested Petrov. “A massive demonstration of this scale would only be possible if some members of the regional political elite are participating in or at least backing it,” he said.

Petrov did not elaborate on what form such “inspiration” from members of the political elite might have taken, but it is a charge Doroshok denies. “There might be political clans in United Russia, but we had no contact with them. We just raised economic questions, and people came to protest. It was entirely about social and economic policies,” he said.

Either way, the obvious antipathy toward Boos on behalf of a large portion of the Kaliningrad public and his failure to prevent the largest anti-government demonstration has raised questions about his political future. The president’s envoy to the North Western Federal District flew to the region on Sunday, swiftly followed by a high-ranking delegation from United Russia. An apparent attempt by Boos to assuage the protestors by suggesting to put an “against all” option on electoral ballots, released in a statement on Monday, was quickly stamped on by the party leadership. Boos’ office retracted it and the Untied Russia denied such a suggestion had even been made (“it’s expensive and leads nowhere,” wrote Boos in a retraction posted on the United Russia Web site).

All that may make him political toast. But his future is in the hands of President Dmitry Medvedev, rather than the voters of Kaliningrad (the abolition of gubernatorial elections in 2004 was another of the grievances voiced on Saturday), and Boos has so far been a rising star in the United Russia fold. “He’s strongly supported by United Russia, and there were rumors that there might be a job for him in Moscow if Mayor Yuri Luzhkov is replaced,” said Petrov. “The question is whether and how he can reach an agreement with the protestors and avoid a repetition, and above all, avoid creating a precedent for taking to the streets against unpopular governors.”