March 07, 2010

IRAN: Special Measures for Chaharshanbeh Suri Events

SOURCE: Persia House

http://www.persia-house.com/node/1113

Security Forces Prepare to Crack Down during Ancient Persian Holiday Now a Venue for Youthful Rebellion

Farda News – Summary translation by Persia House
March 2, 2010

Events in recent months have caused officials to take special measures into consideration for the last Wednesday of the year [Chaharshanbeh Suri: the last Tuesday evening of the Iranian calendar year, which is celebrated in streets and neighborhoods throughout Iran with bonfires and firecrackers] in order to prevent abuse of the celebration.


Persia House Analysis:

The Chaharshanbeh Suri celebrations, which begin on the evening of Tuesday, March 15, will be the next test of the regime’s ability to maintain public order and prevent anti-government activity. Given the regime’s state of readiness, opposition activity during the festival may be limited to isolated demonstrations in neighborhoods in Tehran and some of the other large cities in Iran. Chaharshanbeh Suri is an ancient Zoroastrian festival celebrating the imminent arrival of spring and the Iranian New Year.

The Iranian security forces and judiciary are preparing in advance to quash any unrest, and confront anyone who might use the celebrations (which normally last into the early hours of Wednesday morning) as an opportunity to demonstrate against the Iranian regime. In addition to putting the security and fire services on alert, the government is planning speedy trials before specially assigned judges for anyone arrested on Chaharshanbeh Suri—including for possession of firecrackers. The Tehran Prosecutor and the Commander of Iran’s Law Enforcement Forces have warned that anyone causing a disturbance on the streets of Tehran will not be dealt with leniently. These security preparations are in contrast to the more permissive approach the government took in the past.

Iranians of all religions and ethnicities have traditionally celebrated Chaharshanbeh Suri by jumping over bonfires and sending children door-to-door to ask for treats. Over the past decade, however, Iran’s youths have transformed the celebration into an occasion to vent their frustration against social restrictions placed on them by the Islamic Republic. In the more Westernized parts of Tehran, for instance, it is not uncommon to see spontaneous dance parties, illegal in Iran, erupt in the middle of the street, sometimes with girls removing their headscarves. Even more widespread is the use of firecrackers and cherry bombs with such high power to shatter windows and keep families indoors for fear of injury.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has not called for mass protests on March 15, despite requests by some government opponents for demonstrators to mobilize, likely out of fear that demonstrations could degenerate into violence. His reluctance to mobilize demonstrators may also be an acknowledgement that the security forces are expected to be as successful in blocking the movements of protestors as they were during the February 11 anniversary of the Islamic Revolution

AfPak: Indian threat assessment

K Subrahmanyam

http://www.sarvesamachar.com/



There are clear indications of Pakistan projecting a radical change in respect of its policies towards the five Jehadi entities listed in President Obama’s Pak-Af strategy, in his West Point speech on 1st December, 2009. Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Haqqani network had all been cited as the extremist enemies, which are to be disrupted, dismantled and defeated. Pakistan had earlier initiated military action against the Pakistani Taliban which had challenged the Pakistani state.

Commenting on this operation and about the perceived difference in Pakistan’s attitude towards other Jehadis, Admiral Dennis Blair, the US Director of National Intelligence in his Annual Threat Assessment statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee on 2nd February, 2010 said “Islamabad’s conviction that militant groups are an important part of its strategic arsenal to counter India’s military and economic advantages will continue to limit Pakistan’s incentive to pursue an across-the-board effort against extremism…….Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces in Afghanistan,….It has continued to provide support to its militant proxies, such as Haqqani Taliban, Gul Bahadur group, and Commander Nazir group…..The Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani militant safe haven in Quetta, will continue to enable the Afghan insurgents and Al Qaeda to plan operations, direct propaganda, recruiting and training activities, and fundraising activities with relative impunity.”

On 8/9 February, Pakistani authorities arrested five members of the Quetta Shura including Mullah Barader, Commander of the Afghan Taliban and Deputy to Mullah Omar, the Taliban Chief and more than a hundred militants, including two Al Qaeda people. Since then, the Pakistani media – both electronic and print – have launched a virulent campaign against the Taliban and its threat to Pakistan. Foreign Minister Quereshi has asserted that these actions had been taken in Pakistan national interest. Senior US leaders, such as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry and Ambassador Holbrook have praised the changed Pakistan policy of cooperation with US intelligence and strategy.

The White House Press Secretary has also warmly endorsed the change. The Pune Bakery explosion and attack on the Indian residents’ hostel in Kabul, both believed to have been carried out by LET, happened only after this supposed shift in policy. It is therefore an issue calling for very careful assessment by our security establishment: what is the nature, scope and significance of this policy change and what are likely to be its implications for the Indian security.

The change of policy may be looked at, in terms of four possible alternative scenarios. The first, and least likely one, is that the move is a sincere one and the Pakistani Army, which is the real ruler of Pakistan, has decided to fall in line with the US strategy of fighting all the five jehadi groups described by President Obama as cancers eating into the vitals of Pakistan and posing an existential threat to that country. Such a change in policy would however, not resonate with the extremely harsh stand taken by the Pakistani Foreign Secretary in the Indo-Pak Talks on 25th February, the two explosions in Pune and Kabul and encouragement of Hafiz Saeed (the real leader of LeT) to call for war against India.

The second alternative is that Pakistan is convinced that the US will withdraw from Afghanistan by mid 2011 and it is trying to pretend to go along with US – so as to take over Afghanistan after US departure. The Taliban will be asked to hibernate till the US departure.

The third possible scenario is that Pakistan hopes to deceive US as it successfully did in 2001. It is pretending to take action against the Jehadi groups but will protect them from American action so that they can play their role after the expected US departure.

The last and most complicated and realistic scenario is that the Americans are fully aware of the possibility of Pakistanis attempting to cheat them and notwithstanding this - they are going along with the Pak establishment to get the Taliban resistance reduced in the initial stages of the surge.

The US hopes to intensify its drone attacks. Already they are becoming increasingly effective against the jehadi leaders. If the Americans find that Pakistanis are double-crossing them as they did in 2001, there may be a confrontation between the two. Washington is keeping the Pakistanis on a tight leash by regulating release of coalition support funds, at a time when the Pakistani financial situation is extremely difficult. The US forces have stepped up their capability to monitor the communications and movements of Jehadi groups. They have the option of extending the drone strikes further interior into Pakistan to target the jehadi leaders. As such attacks increase, there is the possibility of Jehadis turning against Pakistani Army and cities as happened in the case of Pakistani Taliban. If that were to come about, Pakistan will be left with no alternative but to join the US in real war against the jehadis.

The terrorist threat to India will vary according to the scenario most likely to materialize. If Pakistanis are sincere on their change of policy, the threat to India will be minimal. For reasons explained earlier, this is the least likely scenario. In the case of scenarios two and three, which involve the Jehadis being kept in hibernation within Pakistan, the probability of terrorist attacks are relatively higher because of the compulsions to keep up their morale. In the case of the last scenario, the threat is perhaps the highest, till such time Pakistanis are compelled to fight their existential war. In such an eventuality, while the Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism may go down, the sleeper cells that have been already positioned may become active. Since any deception strategy by Pakistan is likely to get exposed in the next three or four months, that period will pose much higher risks of terrorist attacks on India.

If the US has a strategy to counter Pakistan’s deception, it will be in India’s interest to correlate its own counter-terrorism strategy with a broader American one. But given the nature of the counter-terrorism war against Pakistan, the US may not share its strategy with India in advance. This places India in a dilemma in assessing whether America is being taken for a ride (as it was during the Bush period) or is it biding its time to initiate a counter-terrorism attack to full effectiveness.

The first assessment will call for counter-measures by India in case of a terrorist attack while the second assessment may call for very restrained response. This judgment calls for very close interaction and coordination between the security establishments of India and US. While it is unrealistic to expect the US to reveal its counter-terrorism action plans in the Pak-Af area to the Indian authorities, it is in US interest to let India know their assessment of the Pakistani change in policy. Otherwise there is a risk of Delhi and Washington working at cross-purposes. That should be avoided at all cost.

(The Hindi version of this article first appeared in Dainik Jagran on Sunday, February 7, 2010.)

Don’t lose the Game


Kanwal Sibal
March 04, 2010
First Published: 23:21 IST(4/3/2010)
Last Updated: 23:25 IST(4/3/2010)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/opeds/Don-t-lose-the-Game/Article1-515243.aspx



The February 26 killing of Indians in another terrorist attack in Kabul stresses the mounting dangers for India in Afghanistan. Our vulnerabilities will increase as the West prepares to exit and strike a deal with the very forces responsible for this attack — the Taliban.

The United States-Nato strategy is to strengthen their ground position as they negotiate with the Taliban. With an additional 30,000 US and 10,000 Allied troops, the plan is to put military pressure on Taliban strongholds, eliminate the insurgents from key areas, hold those with trained and expanded Afghan forces, provide proper civilian administration, undertake development activities and, in the process, win over local populations to the government side and shrink the Taliban base within the country. The Marjah operation was to test the viability of this ambitious political/civilian/military strategy. But can it succeed without a credible, popular, galvanising national political authority in Kabul, and that too by July 2011?

How realistic is the policy of reintegrating and reconciliation with the Taliban? The December 2009 Nato statement describes reintegration as efforts at the tactical and operational levels to persuade low-level fighters, commanders and shadow governors to lay down their arms and to assimilate peacefully into Afghan society. Reconciliation is presented as high-level strategic dialogue with senior leaders of the insurgent groups (no distinction here between ‘good’ Taliban and ‘bad’ Taliban) designed to terminate their armed campaign against the Afghan people and their government. Both processes, according to the document, are to be Afghan-led. The January 28 London Conference on Afghanistan endorsed this policy.

The process of reintegration, according to Afghan representatives, will be advanced through strengthening Afghan institutions and their delivery capability, enforcing the rule of law, combating corruption, carrying out geographically balanced development activities, investing in education, creating legitimate economic opportunities, extending the reach of the government to remote areas etc.


Can this work of years be compressed into 18 months, and that too in an environment of increasing violence?
Physical security has also to be provided by the Afghan National Security Forces, set to increase to 171,600 by 2011, to those who break links with the Taliban against any future reprisals by the extremists. Can such a well-trained and adequately armed, motivated and loyal force be created in a few months?

This outreach to the Taliban imperils India’s interests in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai has singled out reconciliation as a key priority of his new government. While instrumental in forging close political ties with India to Pakistan’s intense discomfiture, he is now pushing for a policy that can gravely undermine India’s position in Afghanistan, give Pakistan the role it seeks in Afghanistan’s future, and allow the political expansion of the Taliban’s extremist religious ideology in the region. With his political legitimacy seriously eroded by last year’s fraud-smeared presidential election, his feeble Pashtun support and an ambivalent western one, why he believes he can favourably negotiate with the Taliban as president is unclear.

Such a post-US drawdown survival strategy is unlikely to succeed. A distrustful Pakistan would oust him at the earliest opportunity to facilitate its own grip over a future Afghan government. India has also to be wary of Karzai’s search for a Saudi role in the reconciliation process. Given their close nexus, Saudi intervention suits Pakistan. The Saudi foreign minister’s remarks to the Indian media during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recently-concluded visit to the kingdom, that they are not in touch with the Taliban, can be discounted. A gap is opening between what Karzai sees are Afghan interests and his own and those of India.

Western overtures to the Taliban constitute a significant diplomatic success for Pakistan. Its grit in resisting US pressure to act against the Afghan Taliban has been rewarded. With US Central Command Chief, General David Petraeus, now averse to Pakistan stirring up any more ‘hornets nests’ in the border areas, a self-confident Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is offering to mediate between the US-Nato and the Taliban. His only condition being that Pakistan’s need for a soft strategic depth in Afghanistan is recognised as an insurance against the Indian threat and limits are put on India’s presence in Afghanistan. Kayani’s stature in Pakistan has risen and Pakistan’s attitude towards India has hardened, as was evident during the recent foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi last week.

India would need to rethink its options in Afghanistan. We cannot count on President Karzai as before. Our local popularity is a fragile base for retaining our long-term influence, unless we can affect power equations within the country. Anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan need stronger backing by Russia, the Central Asian countries, Iran and India. The US is disregarding India’s long-term strategic interests in the region; it is yielding to Pakistan’s disruptive ambitions in Afghanistan.

An unreformed Pakistan that still promotes terrorism against us is being armed and conditions for the spread of an extremist version of Islam in our region are being created, with serious consequences for our security. Is the US failing a critical test of its ‘strategic partnership’ with India?

Kanwal Sibal is a former Foreign Secretary, Government of India
The views expressed by the author are personal

France not to toe U.S. line on civilian nuclear energy

Sandeep Dikshit


http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030756691000.htm



PARIS: France's panache for assertion of independence in foreign policy will be on display at an international conference on nuclear energy to be inaugurated by its President Nicolas Sarkozy here on Monday. The global meet takes place a month before a similar conference to be hosted by the U.S. which will look at access to civil nuclear energy from an entirely different perspective.

“We take into account rules established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ask countries to observe them and no more. The U.S. asks for more by incorporating conditionalities. It is their policy. Our policy is different,'' pointed out Ambassador Denis Gauer, General Secretary for the preparations to the conference.

In this respect, he recalled Mr. Sarkozy's observations which are at variance with those of the U.S.-UK alliance. “We don't want to be the leaders but have a clear position on nuclear energy. France is ready to help any country which wants to acquire civil nuclear energy. We can't have energy for the future for Western countries and have Eastern countries which can't get access to it,'' the French President had said. “That sums up the theme of the conference,'' said Mr. Gauer.

Over 60 countries including Pakistan and India, Israel and Syria will rub shoulders with the U.S. and other developed countries to deliberate on every aspect of developing a nuclear programme provided they fulfilled their international obligations by fully abiding with non-proliferation obligations.

All those who have shown an interest have been invited. France has chosen to invite Israel, India and Pakistan although they have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That is because none has infringed IAEA rules. But an invitation was not sent to Iran because France feels it is not developing its civil nuclear programme in a “responsible way'' and has “infringed international rules.''

Explaining the rationale for the meeting, co-sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) and IAEA, officials referred to the nuclear renaissance of the last 15 years during which a number of countries decided to launch civil nuclear programmes.

They include nations that had no involvement at all in this sector as well as those with fledgling projects. All of them, however, have been confronted with needs like appropriate legislation, training, access to research and development and financing. “That is why it is important to organise a conference to address their needs and to guide them on ways of using bilateral and multilateral cooperation,'' reasoned Mr. Gauer. It will also contribute to the much needed dialogue between the states that supply and the states that receive nuclear goods and technologies, he added.

Unlike the U.S., France believes that nuclear energy is an alternative to rising hydrocarbon prices and prospects of reducing resources that is forcing even oil rich countries such as Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Nigeria to look towards nuclear energy as a viable alternative.

“Nuclear energy is capable of meeting this demand. We cannot afford to ignore this pressing and legitimate demand. The international community must therefore share the benefits of civil nuclear energy while preventing proliferation risks, especially those related to the fuel cycle. In fact this is a solution to fulfil the desire expressed at Copenhagen by all countries including the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions,'' pointed out officials.

CHINA PUTS GOOGLE & OBAMA IN THEIR PLACE

B.RAMAN

The Chinese Government has quietly put Google and President Barack Obama in their place.

2. In January this year, Google had expressed its intention to review its presence in China if the Chinese Government continued to insist that its search engines should black out items and web sites of political dissidents. It also protested against the alleged snooping of the e-mail addresses of Tibetan and other separatist elements using the Google mail service by the Chinese authorities.

3. The Chinese authorities, while regretting the decision of Google, had pointed out that the restrictions imposed in the interest of national security by the Chinese Government were in force even when Google entered the Chinese market. They looked upon the move of Google for a so-called review as politically motivated without any legal justification and made it clear that Google was welcome to continue to function in China provided it observed the Chinese regulations relating to the Internet. They rejected with indignation Google’s allegations of cyber snooping by Beijing.

4. Members of the Obama Administration, including Mrs.Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State, came out in support of Google, but this did not have any effect on Beijing. Since then there has been a stalemate with neither Google nor the Chinese Government making any further move in the matter.

5. In the latest development, the Chinese authorities have strongly denied that any talks on the issues raised by Google were going on with its officials. They have bluntly made it clear that while they would be happy if Google decided to continue in China and observe its Internet regulations, they would be equally happy to facilitate its exit from the Chinese market if it wanted to quit.

6.The “China Daily” reported as follows on March 6,2010: “China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology refuted that China has been involved in any negotiations with Google since the US search engine threatened on January 21 to pull back from the country."We have yet to have any direct contacts or negotiations with them on this topic," said Miao Wei, vice-minister of the MIIT, at the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress. Google had never filed reports over alleged Internet regulations and cyber attacks to the ministry or requested for negotiations, said Miao. It had also never informed the ministry that it was planning to withdraw from China. He said China respects Google's right to decide whether to continue its business in the country. "If Google decides to continue its business in China and abides by China's laws, it's welcome to stay," Miao said. "If the company chooses to withdraw from the Chinese market, it must go through certain procedures according to the law and regulations and deal with customers' problems that may arise." Miao also said he didn't think the Google incident should affect relations between China and the US."It's not a huge problem that should impact the relationship of two countries," he said. He said China doesn't want to see an Internet technical incident upgraded to a political dispute.He also said China welcomes Google to provide further information about the hacker attacks it claimed. "We will definitely investigate on the issue, because we are the victims of hackers too."Google had studied China's laws and regulations before it entered the Chinese market in 2007 and had pledged in written form to abide by the laws and regulations.”

7.The Chinese have similarly put Obama in his place over his decisions to sell a fresh package of arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the White House last month. The Chinese had initially reacted strongly against these decisions and announced the postponement of exchanges of military level visits between the two countries over the Taiwan issue. They had also threatened to impose sanctions against US companies selling military equipment to Taiwan under the proposed package. They have since played down these threats and permitted the US naval ship USS Nimitz to visit Hong Kong.

8. On Tibet, they had strongly criticised the Mr.Obama's meeting with His Holiness, but refrained from openly threatening any retaliatory action. However, Chinese officials were spreading word that President Hu Jintao may not attend the Nuclear Security Summit to be held in the US next month to which Obama attaches considerable importance to express Beijing's unhappiness over the sale of arms to Taiwan and over the meeting with His Holiness.

9.Chinese sources see a link between the speculation about a likely boycott of the nuclear security summit by Mr.Hu Jintao and Mr.Obama's decision to send Mr.James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State, and Mr.Jeffrey Bader , a White House aide, to Beijing last week reportedly to remove misunderstandings arising from the decisions to sell more arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness. The visiting US officials were reported to have reassured their Chinese interlocutors that Mr.Obama's decisions did not mean any change in the US position on the one-China policy and that Tibet was an integral part of China

10. Commenting on the visit of the two officials to Beijing, Mr.Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said on March 4,2010, that the US and China "agreed on the high importance each attaches to the relationships and their commitment to building a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship." He added that the US responded to China's concerns on Taiwan "by reiterating that it has followed a consistent approach, pursued by both administrations of both political parties, on a 'One China' policy."

11. Briefing the media in Beijing, Qin Gang, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that the US had agreed to "take China's position seriously, honor China's core interests and major concerns" and to act to improve relations. Mr. Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, also commented on the relations with the US while briefing the media on March 7,2010, on China’s foreign policy in the margins of the annual session of the National People’s Congress, the Chinese Parliament, being held since March 5,2010. He urged the US to take seriously China's position and respect China's core interests and major concerns with credible steps.

12. He added: "The United States should properly handle relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return the China-US relationship to the track of stable development. The China-US relationship had a good start after President Obama took office last year. However, the US arms sales to Taiwan and the US leader’s meeting with the Dalai Lama caused a serious disturbance to the China-US ties and posed difficulty to the cooperation between the two countries. Such a situation is not in the interest of either side, and the responsibility for the difficulty in Sino-US relations does not lie with China."

13. Referring to the talks with the two visiting US officials, he said: “"The Chinese side stated in full its principled position on China-US relations and on major issues, including Taiwan and Tibet related issues. We pointed out that the relevant moves taken by the US side had seriously violated the principles set out in the three China-US joint communiques and the China-US joint statement. The moves undermined China's core interests and the overall interests of China-US relations, and China is firmly opposed to these moves."

14. While the US has thus taken the initiative to cool the bilateral tensions by reassuring Beijing that there has been no change in its one-China policy and on Tibet being an integral part of China, it is not yet clear whether the Chinese are sufficiently satisfied by the US assurances and whether President Hu will attend the nuclear security summit. (8-3-10)



( 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 )

BANGKOK CONFERENCE: Jr.Muneer Mengal with his Grandma and Mr.Basheer Naved





An Insider's Perspective on Afghanistan

DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAR 10, 2010 | 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Location:

B1 Conference Center
Center for Strategic and International Studies
1800 K Street, NW
Washington DC, 20006

An Insider's Perspective on Afghanistan

With

Roy Gutman
Foreign Editor, McClatchy Newspapers
Author, “How We Missed the Story:
Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan”

And

Dr. Nadir Atash
Author, “Turbulence: The Tumultuous Journey
of One Man's Quest to Bring Change in Afghanistan”

Moderated by
Rick “Ozzie” Nelson
Director, CSIS Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program
Senior Fellow, CSIS International Security Program

Mr. Gutman, who won the 1993 Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the Balkans, and Dr. Atash, one of the first Afghan-Americans to return to Afghanistan after 9/11, trace in their books the historic, political, and cultural realities of Afghanistan and its relationship with the West at various points in time. They provide perspectives on how critical the understanding of a country's history, culture, and people is to formulating U.S. policy and an assessment of current counterinsurgency and reintegration efforts.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

B1 Conference Center, CSIS
1800 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

RSVP required for admission.

Please RSVP (acceptances only) by e-mailingexternalrelations@csis.org.

PJAK Ringleader Arrested in Germany

Abdulrahman Haj Ahmadi PJAK leader
TEHRAN (FNA)- Germen security forces arrested the ringleader and two senior members of an Iraq-based armed opposition of the Islamic Republic called Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK) - an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).




FNA correspondent in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region reported that the terrorist gang leader, Abdurrahman Hajji Ahmadi, was arrested at his residence in Germany.

The 2-hour long operation was carried out by 12 members of the German anti-terrorism police units, the report said, adding that the police had seized Ahamdi's phone set, PC and also other communication equipments.

Police also arrested Ramzi Kartel and Zobayr Aydan, two senior members of the terrorist group in another operation.

Kartel and Aydan were arrested in a hideout commonly used by the members of the terrorist group.

PJAK, a militant Kurdish nationalist group with bases in the mountainous regions of northern Iraq, has been carrying out numerous attacks in western Iran, southern Turkey and the northeastern parts of Syria where the Kurdish populations live.

The separatist group has been fighting to establish an autonomous state, or possibly a new world country, in the area after separating Kurdish regions from Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

The outlawed group has been staging attacks across the border in Iran since 2004 in an attempt to establish an independent Kurdish state.

An April 10, 2006 report by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan were establishing contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups in Iran such as the PJAK rebels.

Later in November 2006 Hersh wrote that, "Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan.

"The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran," Hersh added.

According to Hersh, Israel has been providing the Kurdish group with "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the US."

The development came two weeks after Iran arrested another notorious terrorist, Abdolmalek Rigi, the ringleader of the Pakistan-based Jundollah terrorist group.

Burma Saves Its Tigers and Not Its Women

5 Mar 2010

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=113388


Cora Weiss reports on the International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma - an overwhelming day of stories told by remarkable women of all ages of inhumanity leaving the listeners wondering how the women could have survived. From openDemocracy

By Cora Weiss for openDemocracy.net

The World Bank is determined to play conservationist and protect the last of the 3200 wild tigers, down from 100,000 a century ago, most in Burma, but finds it is “shackled from doling out aid” to this South East Asian nation. But shackles also seem to be in place when it comes to a robust policy to demand freedom for Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, her National League for Democracy adherents and thousands of Burmese members of traditional ethnic groups jailed or abused following a democratically held election in May 1990 which gave her party 80% of parliamentary seats. The military coup following that election has left the natural resource wealthy country drowning in the most egregious human rights abuses including documented child soldiers, sexual violence, forced labour, slavery, destruction of entire villages of the many ethnic groups, extra judicial killings, over a million internally displaced persons and a record of being condemned for this by the UN for the past 15 years.

This is the background that led to the International Tribunal on Crimes against Women of Burma, held on March 2nd in New York City as one of nearly 200 parallel civil society sponsored events during the United Nations 54th Commission on the Status of Women annual conference.

Recommendations from the judges, Nobel Peace laureates, Jody Williams and Shirin Ebadi, Thai law Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn and Prof. Heisoo Shin of Korea’s Women’s University, include those to Burma’s military regime to:

STOP all forms of violence against women;

STOP attacks and persecution against ethnic nationalities and groups;

RELEASE immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners;

GRANT access to UN agencies and NGO humanitarian groups;

PROVIDE access to and cooperate with United Nations and human rights organizations to monitor human rights within Burma;

RATIFY all human rights treaties…;

To the Asia-Pacific region including ASEAN to:

IMPEL Burma to comply with the ASEAN Charter and international legal obligations and human rights standards;

INVITE the ASEAN Human Rights Commission to submit reports covering particular issues related to Burma;

SUPPORT the establishment of the ASEAN Commission for Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children, including consideration of the situation in Burma;

To the international community, particularly the United Nations, to:

URGE states to take collective action to ensure the implementation of SCRs 1325, 1820, 1888,and 1889 guaranteeing women’s full participation in post conflict reconstruction and freedom from all forms of sexual violence;

URGE the UN Security Council to refer Burma to the International Criminal Court,

To civil society to:

CONTINUE to actively engage with the peoples of Burma inside and outside the country and to mobilize public pressure at all levels to raise consciousness of the crimes and violations being committed by the Burmese military regime against the peoples of Burma, especially women and children.

Convened by the Nobel Women’s Initiative and the Women’s League of Burma, the Tribunal brought 12 Burmese women to testify on Violence Against Women, Civil and Political Violations, and Economic, Social and Cultural Violations. They wanted to raise the visibility of Burma’s crimes against women; produce findings by eminent judges that respond to the testimonies and assign responsibility for human rights violations; engage members of the international community to their global responsibility to protect citizens whose governments are unable and or unwilling to do so; join others in calling for the release of political prisoners including Nobel Peace laureate Daw Aung Suu Kyi (daughter of General Aung San whose movement liberated Burma from Japan in 1945 which was followed by Burma’s independence as a democratic state in 1948); encourage support for activists working to promote justice, democracy, peace and equality for Burma; promote dialogue between women; value women’s perspectives in all movements to achieve peace and democracy; and to bolster the spirit of change for people within Burma. And they did just that. It was an overwhelming day of stories told by remarkable women of all ages of inhumanity leaving the listeners wondering how the women could have survived.

Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi asked, after we heard the list of recommendations, how we can expect the military dictatorship to respond to the demands of refugees from Burma. “We need to find a way for Burma to carry out our desires. When non democratic governments are accused, they use sovereignty as their excuse, saying we can’t interfere in their internal affairs.”

Shirin should know. She has defended human rights in her own country of Iran and is no longer welcome to practice law there. “We live in a globalized world. Globalization can only be effective when it can stop injustice and inequality. We’ve heard sad stories today. There are no courts and no justice. How long can we wait for these injustices to stop? We ask international organizations to listen to our recommendations. We urge the full participation of women in all post conflict decisions”, she said.

Jody Williams reminded us of the words we heard from the brave women who had the courage to participate, who broke the silence of the women still suffering unimaginable brutality, humiliation, and violations. Women who told their stories saying, “This is my witness”, and “We are prisoners in our own country”, “I am a refugee child of refugees”, “This story is a common story, so common as to become normal”. Jody promised to “amplify your cries, which will contribute to an end of impunity. Women should no longer be invisible”.

Before the proceedings began, I asked Jody why the NWI was doing this. “Justice hasn’t come to Burma. Our sister, Aung San Suu Kyi, is imprisoned (under house arrest). It’s a case of foiled democracy. The international community is not taking a consistent stand that will lead to justice for the people of Burma.”

I wanted to know why some of the 150 people in the audience decided to attend. Pam Yates, documentary film maker whose Reckoning is about the International Criminal Court, told me that the “Nobel Women’s Initiative is the most important organization for peace and security” and she senses that the cause of the Burmese women belongs in the ICC. Dr. Susan Maloney came from Los Angeles where her organization, Sister of Holy Names, works on trafficking of women and children. It is a coalition of 17 religious communities of women, not related to the Catholic Church, she said. Rhonda Copelon, the woman who helped to get rape during conflict declared a war crime in the Rome Statute, and who founded and led the CUNY International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic, hoped that “these testimonies and the recommendations of the judges will become a force for governments, especially the US and the UN to consider their legal obligations either under international law, UN resolutions or the Charter to protect the people of Burma. When a government fails to protect its people there is the Responsibility to Protect resolution. We hope this event will be a vehicle to see the urgency- to do something sooner rather than later.”

May-Oo Mutran, a constitutional scholar, read the testimony of a woman we’ll call Ruth Tha who was imprisoned when she was five months pregnant for five years of hard labour for some violation of Art. 17.1 a law which she knew nothing about. Her job in her “death cell” was to catch 25 flies a day and if she didn’t she was beaten, which happened daily. Medical care was only available if the prisoners could pay for it, and having no money they received no treatment. When summoned to the so called clinic it was inevitably for sexual abuse.

We heard 12 such testimonies, each more devastating and brutal than the next. A middle school girl was kidnapped and I’ll spare you the details, but hard as it was for us to listen, think of how unbearable it must have been for these young women to have survived the ordeals and relive the experience every time they tell the stories.

Charlotte Bunch, founding director of the Center for Women’s Global Leadership at Rutgers University, wrote the guiding manual which was used to organize this Tribunal, following experiences of a previous tribunal in Tokyo. She served as moderator and explained that they wanted to “call attention to the suffering and resiliency of women in Burma and support their efforts.”

Walking Amongst Sharp Knives, the 106 page report from the Karen Women’s Organization was released the day before the Tribunal. It details testimony from 95 women between the ages of 25 and 82, who have become village chiefs, and suffer unbelievable torture and abuses. The increase in the number of women as chiefs, a role traditionally played by men, is because the men have been brutally treated and killed by the Burmese Army. The women have been elected chiefs through the lowlands of Eastern Burma where the Karen ethnic minority of 7 million people try to live. Karen women have documented abuses including: crucifixion, burning people alive, rape and gang rape, including of girl children, torture, beatings, water torture, burying people up to their heads and beating them to death, arbitrary executions, beheadings, slave labour, and forcing them to provide so called comfort women to the Burmese Army. This remarkable report shows the challenges women assuming leadership face in a patriarchal and militarised society.

The Karen Women’s Organization report, like that of the Commissioners who served the International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, calls for a UN Security Council Commission of Inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity inflicted by the Burmese military.

Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for most of the past 20 years and is barred from participating in the elections promised for this year which will no doubt result in continued militarisation with a parliament.

There is a long list of actions taken by US administrations from 1997 when Pres. Clinton banned investment in Burma, and Congress banned imports or loans, and Condi Rice called Burma an “outpost of tyranny”, and Bush likened Burma to Belarus and Cuba and the list goes on. But Chevron, which includes Unocal still works Burma’s gas fields; and while US companies cannot have clothes made there, they can profit from Burma’s oil and gas. China is building an oil pipeline, Thailand has rights to over a million cubic feet of natural gas and India has 5 trillion cubic feet! France, Thailand and Chevron have a pipeline which, according to a recent issue of Mother Jones, gave the junta a profit of over $1Billion. The economic ties are huge. Burma is a member of ASEAN with which the EU is negotiating a free trade agreement; China is heavily invested in Burma’s oil, gas and hydro electric power development. China and Russia have refused to let a Security Council resolution get passed even without language of genocide, or crimes against humanity.

Meanwhile, Suu Kyi’s appeal to be released from house arrest after the provocative and insane act of an American who swam to her house and whom she took in to dry was rejected by the Burmese Supreme Court last week. While the visit of a UN envoy in February prompted the release of an 82 yr old man held for 7 yrs under house arrest. And also this past month an American of Burmese origin, working for democracy, was sentenced to five years of hard labour on charges of carrying a forged identity card. Press about Burma is considerable, and action is zero. There is a full page horror story of the Rohingya refugees, a Burmese ethnic group, who sought refuge from military abuses in Burma, being seized, beaten, persecuted and abused in Bangladesh where they have lived for years. They are being forced back to Burma, now called Myanmar by the military junta, where they will face brutal treatment. Bangladesh offers no documentation, no identity, and they have no rights to education or other government services. Robberies, assaults and rapes have significantly increased, and according to the director of the Arakan project, they are either arrested, jailed or pushed back over the border.

The International Tribunal was a civil society model of a remarkable inquiry into crimes against humanity and war crimes. The United Nations should be doing this. And the Commission on the Status of Women, which meets annually and is reviewing and appraising the Beijing 4th World Conference on Women held 15 years ago, should have welcomed this to its meeting. The Beijing meeting was dedicated to Equality, Development and Peace. But the CSW has sadly ignored the peace leg from Beijing which should have been on its agenda. It is left to civil society to press for peace and for women to fully participate in the peace process.

“The struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma is a struggle for life and dignity.” Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.


Cora Weiss is President of the Hague Appeal for Peace and UN representative for the International Peace Bureau.

Editor's note:

To view the original article, please click here.

Logo openDemocracy

openDemocracy
This article originally appeared on openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence.

March 06, 2010

Pakistan Army: the struggle within

http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/06/stories/2010030652431200.htm

Praveen Swami

Later this year, President Asif Ali Zardari will appoint a new army chief. Faultlines within the state could be forced open.

“India,” Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari famously said in an October 2008 interview, “has never been a threat to Pakistan.” In his first major interview, given just a month after taking office, he described jihadists in Jammu and Kashmir as “terrorists.” He imagined “Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India's huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones.”

Early last month, Pakistan's army chief, General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani, outlined a rather different vision. In a presentation to the media, he asserted that the Pakistan army was an “India-centric institution,” adding this “reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved.” His words were not dissimilar in substance from the language used by jihadists such as Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed in recent speeches.

Later this year, President Zardari will make a decision that could force open the faultlines between the military-led establishment and the Pakistan People's Party. Gen. Kayani is scheduled to retire in November 2010. Mr. Zardari, as the commander-in-chief, holds the power to appoint his successor.

Ever since Gen. Kayani — a former Inter-Services Intelligence chief — took office, the Pakistani state has set out on escalating tensions along its eastern frontier. Fighting along the Line of Control has increased, and jihadist infiltration escalated reversing an eight-year trend. Last week, Jammu and Kashmir secessionists were told by Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir that his country had reverted to its traditional policies on the state — policies that included unconcealed support for jihadists. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's secret envoy Satinder Lambah, who has been holding secret meetings with his Pakistani counterpart Riaz Mohammad Khan, has discovered that Islamabad no longer appears interested in pursuing a five-principles path to peace advocated by the former President, Pervez Musharraf.

The army, it has long been evident, loathes its commander-in-chief: Mr. Zardari, for example, is never invited to address the staff at military installations.

Last year, Mr. Zardari was forced to hand over control of the National Command Authority, which controls Pakistan's nuclear assets, to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani. The military also appears to have been working hard to strip Mr. Zardari of his sole source of authority over the army. In January, Parliament's constitutions reforms committee unanimously agreed that Article 243 be amended to give the Prime Minister—rather than the President — effective power to appoint the services chiefs. Even as things stand, Mr. Zardari could face resistance if he picks a chief of his choice. Defence Secretary Syed Athar Ali is a former Lieutenant-General; his predecessor in office, retired Lieutenant-General Iftikhar Ali Khan, refused to sign on the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's orders sacking the then army chief, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

But come November, Mr. Zardari will likely hold the ace in his hand — and a bitter struggle could break out if he chooses to play it.

Gen. Kayani's three years in office have enabled him to build a substantial constituency within the army. For a variety of reasons, the army chief was able to promote a record number of top officers, and give others coveted positions. In 2008, Gen. Kayani promoted six officers to the rank of Lieutenant-General, and assigned several other Lieutenants-General and Major-Generals to prestigious offices. Last year, four more officers were promoted Lieutenants-General. From March onwards, eight Lieutenants-General will retire — including ISI Director-General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, Chief of General Staff Muhammad Mustafa Khan, Quartermaster General Zahid Hussain, and commander of the Karachi-based V Corps Shahid Iqbal. New opportunities will thus arise for Gen. Kayani to dispense patronage.

Islamabad military gossip has it that Gen. Kayani may use his goodwill within the army to lobby for a further year in office, as part of a deal which would also secure Mr. Zardari's position. Gen. Kayani may also attempt to have himself selected chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee. General Tariq Majeed, head of the JCSC, is due to retire just days before Gen. Kayani — a coincidence that could ease the move. If that indeed is Gen. Kayani's intention, though, he will unlikely be satisfied with the largely ceremonial position of JCSC chief. He could lobby for supervisory powers over top appointments — a move that would likely have President Zardari's support, since it would create tensions between the JCSC and the new army chief.

Gen. Kayani's own favoured choice for his successor, should he not secure an extension for himself, is the current ISI chief, Gen. Pasha, who is due to retire on March 18, 2010. However, Gen. Pasha has had a relatively brief tenure as Pakistan's spymaster — a fact which, read along with the critical state of affairs in the country, could justify an extension. Lieutenant-General Masood Alam, who heads the critical Peshawar-based XI Corps, was recently given an extension on just these grounds. However, Gen. Pasha has never commanded a Corps — normally a prerequisite for the top job.

Lieutenant-General Nadeem Taj will likely be the second in line for the army's top job, if Gen. Pasha's extension does not come through early in March. Now serving as commander of the Gujranwala-based XXX Corps, Gen. Taj is scheduled to retire only in April 2011 — and thus has time on his side. Long a key Musharraf aide, Gen. Taj was appointed Director-General of Military Intelligence, a position he held until February 2005. Later, he commanded the Lahore-based 11 Infantry Division, and served as commandant of the Pakistan Military Academy.

But any move to appoint Gen. Taj is likely to encounter intense resistance from the United States — and with some reason. Gen. Taj was made ISI Director-General in September 2007, just before Gen. Kayani replaced Gen. Musharraf as army chief. By late that year — as Gen. Kayani brought about changes in policy that the army saw as more consonant with its interests than the pro-western position of President Musharraf — Gen. Taj found himself in trouble with the U.S. In August 2008, President George W. Bush was reported to have complained that it had become “impossible to share intelligence on the al-Qaeda and the Taliban with Pakistan because it goes straight back to the militants.” Eventually, in October 2008, Gen. Taj was moved out of the ISI — but rewarded with charge of a prestigious Corps.

Khalid Shameem Wynne, Lieutenant-General who leads the Quetta-based XII corps and the army's southern command, appears the third in line for the top job — and least contentious among those in the race. From a family with a long military tradition — his father, Colonel Arshad Wynne, served during the India-Pakistan war of 1971— Gen. Wynne started his career in the 20 Punjab Regiment. He held several important posts, notably serving as Deputy Chief of General Staff, and commanding the prestigious Siachen-focussed 323 Infantry Brigade. Little is known about Gen. Wynne's political affiliations, perhaps because he has none. Notably, Gen. Wynne has had no tenure at the ISI, unlike both his rivals for the top job — and, of course, Gen. Kayani himself.

Wars of succession in the Pakistan army have often had significant political outcomes. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's October 1999 appointment of Lieutenant-General Ziauddin Butt — an engineering officer — precipitated the coup which led to Gen. Musharraf taking charge as President. President and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto picked the junior-most — and supposedly most subservient — candidate for the army chief's job. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who Bhutto described as “my monkey,” returned the compliment first by naming the Prime Minister Colonel-in-Chief of the Armoured Corps — and then sending him to the gallows. General Abdul Waheed Kakkar, appointed army chief by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan in the course of a bitter power struggle with Mr. Sharif, forced both politicians to resign.

Popular consensus has it that the Pakistan army is a battleground between Islamists and pro-western professionals. In fact, as scholars like Ayesha Siddiqa have shown us, the military is an independent political actor, representing a set of concrete interests: the military is, after all, Pakistan's largest owner of land and custodian of an industrial empire that runs everything from breakfast-cereal plants to banks. The army, thus, is not just the custodian of the ideological and territorial boundaries of the state; it is, in key senses, the state itself.

Gen. Musharraf was reviled by the army for having allowed Pakistan to be drawn into a war that threatens its primacy. Gen. Kayani has responded by seeking to repair the army's relationship with its long-standing Islamist allies —and by seeking to find a way out of the war in Pakistan's northwest by escalating tensions along its eastern border. It is no coincidence that jihadist operations like the November 2008 attack on Mumbai took place soon after Gen. Kayani took office. His successor will have to decide if the army's interests lie in this direction, or in charting a new course.

India has enormous equities in the looming struggle for control of the Pakistan army — and must watch its course with great care.