The nuclear family

Rajesh Rajagopalan
Thursday , Apr 08, 2010 at 0236 hrs

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/thenuclearfamily/601744/0

Next week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be attending the nuclear security summit in Washington DC. The summit represents a good opportunity for India to continue its transition from being a target of the global nuclear non-proliferation order to being one of its managers. But to make that transition, India needs to be a little more aggressive and venturesome in its diplomacy than it has been so far.
The summit is the culmination of more than a year of preparation by the Obama administration and represents one part of a multi-pronged effort, all aimed at creating the necessary climate for a successful nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference, which is scheduled to take place in a few weeks. NPT review conferences (RevCons) are held every five years as a stock-taking effort by the NPT members and the last one in 2005 was a disaster. The Obama administration is keen on repairing the damage to the NPT, which it sees as the result of the Bush administration’s disdainful approach to arms control.

The Obama administration is keen on a successful nuclear security summit because the other prongs of the Obama strategy have had mixed results. Obama was hoping to take the US to the RevCon after getting the US Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), publishing a radical new nuclear strategy that would propose a no first use posture, making significant progress on the fissile materials control treaty (FMCT), and signing a new strategic arms control treaty with Russia, in addition to holding the nuclear security summit. Such successes would have given the US the momentum to prevent the RevCon from becoming another shouting match between third world members complaining about inadequate progress on nuclear disarmament and nuclear weapon states seeking to further tighten rules on safeguards and civilian nuclear commerce. But there has been no progress on the CTBT or the FMCT, and the proposed radical changes to the nuclear strategy (the just-released nuclear posture review) have been watered down. But the US and Russia have reached an agreement on strategic arms reductions and a useful outcome at the nuclear security summit would help the US present some progress at the NPT RevCon.

The subject matter of the summit itself is largely unobjectionable, even if somewhat hyped. The key worry is that lax security and accounting practices regarding nuclear materials would allow such materials to be diverted, potentially allowing terrorist groups from getting them and building bombs. Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network illustrates this nightmare. But most terrorist groups do not even want nuclear weapons because the group would have to divert significant amounts of organisational, personnel and financial resources to pursue such weapons when they could get as much attention at far cheaper rates. Moreover, most such groups have tangible political goals. For them, nuclear weapons are the kiss of death: they would become political outcasts and no state will support them or even provide sanctuary. That is why some of the most ruthless and best funded and organised of such groups, including the Tamil Tigers and Hamas, never sought such weapons.

That does not mean there is nothing to worry. There are groups like al-Qaeda that seem to have no tangible political goals but which seek and have the potential for acquiring nuclear weapons. In addition, the consequences of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons are so great that we need to treat even that remote possibility with seriousness.

For India, there is little to be lost by participating. Some of the focus is indirectly likely to be on Pakistan and watching Islamabad squirm is always satisfying. But there is more at stake too.

Increasing worries about diversion of nuclear technology and materials for weapons has made civil nuclear transfers to non-nuclear countries difficult. New ideas such as international fuel banks have been floated to reduce the risks of nuclear commerce. Traditionally, India has found itself campaigning alongside the non-nuclear powers for greater openness in nuclear commerce and lesser restrictions on indigenous nuclear programmes. But New Delhi needs an attitude adjustment because India’s interests today are different from what it used to be.

First, though India is still not considered a legal nuclear-armed state, it is one for all practical purposes. India needs to live up to that position, not continue the rhetoric of an earlier age. Second, the US-India nuclear deal and the nuclear supplier group waiver have opened up international nuclear commerce for us. Not only are we no longer outsiders, we are actually in a better position than non-nuclear member states of the NPT. There is less worry that we might seek to build weapons since we already have them. Third, India’s huge demand for nuclear power, and the number of countries and companies that are lining up to take a shot at the Indian market means that even additional measures to curtail nuclear commerce are unlikely to apply to us.

Finally, the further spread of nuclear weapons is as much a threat to us as any other nuclear weapon state. And tightening of nuclear commerce to reduce the risk of diversion is in our interest, especially since they are unlikely to apply to us.

Changing our relationship with the global nuclear regime is thus in our interest. Obviously, changing that relationship requires work on both sides of the fence. The global nuclear regime is still getting used to the idea of India as an insider rather than outsider. But to be on the management side requires New Delhi also to use some of these opportunities to assert itself in its new position.

The writer is professor of international politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

ACTION PLAN TO DEAL WITH MAOIST INSURGENCY--- SOME SUGGESTIONS

B.RAMAN

1. Start a crash programme for the development of road and telecommunications infrastructure in the entire tribal belt of Central India. The Chinese realised that without effective road and rail communications, the internal security will be weak. They poured billions of dollars into infrastructure development programmes in the areas with internal security vulnerabilities. If one has only one usable road in a district, it will be unfair to blame the police for using the same road for their to and fro movements.

2.Provide effective security to road construction engineers and workers. They will become the target of attacks by Maoists to disrupt the construction.

3.It will be futile for the present to undertake operations to free the so-called liberated zones from the control of the Maoists. The State will incur large casualties without making headway. Prevent the terrorists from expanding the "liberated zones" which they have already set up by strengthening the State's presence and control in the areas where the Maoists have not yet been able to make inroads. The programme for the prevention of the expansion of the "liberated zones" should provide for physical security enhancements and a development-cum-humanitarian component to address the grievances and needs of the inhabitants. Maintenance of internal security and prompt identification and redressal of grievances should go hand in hand. Strengthen the grievances redressal machinery in the areas still under the State control.

4. Every district in the tribal belt should have two Additional Collectors. One should focus exclusively on internal security and the other exclusively on development and grievances redressal. They should work under the overall supervision of the Collector.

5.Undertake a programme for the rapid expansion of the police presence and capacity in the tribal areas still under the control of the State. Widely scattered police stations with small strengths will be counter-productive. Have a smaller number of well-located and well-connected police stations with substantial strengths and a good communications network. Issue mobile phones to all police station staff to facilitate quick communications. Connect all police stations with each other and with the District Police Headquarters through video-conferencing link-ups.

6. Prepare an urgent database of the modus operandi used by the Maoists in different incidents for setting off landmines, explosive devices and booby-traps. The Maoists are learning their modus operandi and skills not from the Internet and from Al Qaeda and other jihadi terrorist groups. They are learning them by studying the MO used by the Chinese PLA, by the Vietcong in Vietnam, by the Pathet Lao in Laos, by the White Flag Communists in Myanmar, by the Communists in Malaya and by the Maoists in the Philippines and Nepal. The jihadis' MO are urban-specific for use in urban conglomerations. The Maoists' MO are jungle-specific. They are making effective use of material available in the jungles for their booby-traps. Update this data-base after every incident and create widespread awareness of these MO in the police force. Teach the police force appropriate techniques for countering these MO.

7.The Maoists are building up their holdings of hand-held weapons through successful raids on police stations and armouries. It is a matter of serious concern that they are repeatedly able to do it. Enhance physical security in all police establishments where weapons are kept. Hold officers in charge of armouries responsible and take action against them every time the Maoists launch a successful raid for the capture of arms and ammunition.

8. Don't make an unintelligent foray into Maoists "liberated zones" and strongholds and get trapped. Think of ways of trapping the Maoists by goading them into attacking the strongholds of the State and be prepared to inflict heavy casualties on them when they do so.

9. Think of ways of preventing the flow of essential articles like rice etc into the Maoists "liberated zones" and strongholds in order to starve them.

10. Set up an Auxiliary Intelligence Corps like the Territorial Army or the Auxiliary Air Force. It should consist of part-time volunteers for intelligence collection by people in other professions who want to or are willing to help the intelligence agencies. Their links with the intelligence agencies must be protected by making the training of short duration and one-to-one instead of in a class where everyone becomes aware of the identities of others. After the training, give them mobile telephones and instruct them as to how to remain in touch with their controlling officers in guarded SMS messages using domestic codes. Pay them well---- a certain amount unrelated to their production of intelligence plus an additional amount for each piece of useful intelligence collected by them. They should be capable of operating autonomously without the need for frequent briefings by their controllers. This would be the State's answer to the sleeping cells of the insurgents.

11. Decimation operations inside the "liberated zones" should be centrally planned and implemented without the local formations taking the initiative for such operations. In this way, operational security could be better maintained. (8-4-10)

BALOCHISTAN: Outcome of the Immature Conscious

By: Dr. Allah Nazr Baloch

Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch is a Baloch freedom fighter activist and former president of the nationalist Baloch Students Organization. He was abducted by Pakistani intelligence agencies on March 17, 2005, along with six other Baloch nationalists^[1]. He was released on bail in June 2006 by an anti-terrorist court^[2]. Human rights organization Amnesty International has documented his case and reported that he was tortured while being held in prison including being given electric shocks^[3]. After his torture, he was not able to stand for two months^[4].He is a medical doctor by profession and is regarded as a hero in the Baloch movement for his stauch left-wing views.

Translated by: Moreid Baloch

I might not agree with Arundhati Roy’s sentence that, “stories storm like swarms”, while Stanley Witt comments on daily life affairs that, “the man can observe”. Ideas could be anyone’s but the expression and sequence of ideas should be different which is the elevation of human wisdom and revelation of human consciousness. Can a shepherd draw any idea from the routine habits of his flock? Certainly! Can he elaborate the behavior and habits of the flock into ideas within himself? Definitely! How many beautiful ideas can a human mind accommodate into his unconscious? Or how much room does the unconscious have for malice? What wretched would demarcate the borders of his thoughts who inhibits in a human-jungle all the time? It has been less-noticed that there are few things which are encoded into human unconscious. For example; volume, malice, stature, status, fame, revenge etc. Theses are the things that have resemblance with Marx’s Theory of Negation. Experience proves that perhaps measurement of the unconscious is beyond the capabilities of a common man. In order to polish the subconscious, one has to empower the conscious over unconscious, as Plato suggests.

To accept the truth as the truth or get the truth accepted by force only suites the human intellect. Undoubtedly, there is room for exaggeration. But, as Tegore said, “pleasing sound of a stream can be silenced in the storm, its direction can be diverted, its quality and quantity can be changed, but it can only sustain for a while, not for long”.

The stream starts singing on its own rhythm as usual after the storm calms down. Can the movements of unconscious make the human intellect helpless? Can the human intellect be subdued by the expression of unconscious or emotions? Perhaps, it is like the storm that is trying to disrupt the mild melody of a stream with its unmusical noise ephemerally. Incomprehensible things are naturally encoded into the unconscious. Contrivance is not a part of the unconscious but the consciousness. Nevertheless, it does or can apt every such thing in the way that only a few giants could. Is patience either the other name for helplessness or the evolution of human intellect or consciousness? When, the storm of unconscious breaks out then, the serene behavior of the conscious is called patience. It can only be applied onto the human society.

Rest of the creation is exempted because, they can not benefit from their experiences. Debreu portrays his hero as a giant because he wants his experiences to be the beacon for the entire humanity. The hero, for which, Debreu calls himself a dwarf, in my opinion; those people rank higher than the giants. Because, dwarfs always endanger themselves in order to surpass the giants and prove their reverence. So as to there is no wonder in presenting commonsense ideas in one’s own way or arguing it with one’s own superficial cloak. For example; an immature-mind is trying to end its existence gradually while striving to adopt someone’s posture, body movement or way of speech unconsciously. However, he does not want to use even one thousandth of his own conscious. Is he still a slave of unconscious or fed-up of evolution?

Some immature minds constantly stay still as if this ice never breaks, but busy in keeping up the state of putting up layers after layers like Siberia. That is also a part of subconscious or unconscious. Sustaining the uniqueness and dissolving the situation is something that is beyond an immature-mind can handle. Intellect, insight, perception are all the same thing. Whether it is commonly thought or considered for sure, that the intellect, perception, insight, ratiocination are connected to each other. But, in order to purify its existence, intellect, ratiocination and perception give birth to logic. Is the man is complete who leaves the state of affairs on the mercy of others instead of his own perception? Is the human intellect sufficient in order to become a complete human being? Is it harmonious to bury rest of the branches or off-shoots of conscious?

Granted that, there are plenty of blessings hidden in an inharmonious life or delirious ideas are outcome of the experiences of innumerable human beings. Or you might say that, whether these experiences are not forming a society. Is the trade of ideas and intellect possible in a human society? Granted that, whether presenting the incongruous ideas inopportunely or scrutinizing them with one’s own intellect and considering rest of the society or the people as losers who bring his ideas into their study. Whoever hail-stones the incongruous ideas then the consciousness always advocates the experiences of a Persian poet’s advise to flee, so that the intellect accepts it or escapes its way out. In my opinion; instead of escaping, one should employ patience with the aim of persuading subconscious or an immature-mind where conscious must employ logic. Because, getting away always creates individual flaws in the society. This immature-mind can become a terminal disease. And, the overwhelming possibility of its turning into a plague somewhere can not be ruled out.

www.sench.org

Mexico and the Failed State Revisited

"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR"

April 6, 2010 | 0902 GMT

By George Friedman

STRATFOR argued March 13, 2008, thatMexico was nearing the status of a failed state. A failed state is one in which the central government has lost control over significant areas of the country and the state is unable to function. In revisiting this issue, it seems to us that the Mexican government has lost control of the northern tier of Mexico to drug-smuggling organizations, which have significantly greater power in that region than government forces. Moreover, the ability of the central government to assert its will against these organizations has weakened to the point that decisions made by the state against the cartels are not being implemented or are being implemented in a way that would guarantee failure.

Despite these facts, it is not clear to STRATFOR that Mexico is becoming a failed state. Instead, it appears the Mexican state has accommodated itself to the situation. Rather than failing, it has developed strategies designed both to ride out the storm and to maximize the benefits of that storm for Mexico.

First, while the Mexican government has lost control over matters having to do with drugs and with the borderlands of the United States, Mexico City’s control over other regions — and over areas other than drug enforcement — has not collapsed (though its lack of control over drugs could well extend to other areas eventually). Second, while drugs reshape Mexican institutions dramatically, they also, paradoxically, stabilize Mexico. We need to examine these crosscurrents to understand the status of Mexico.

Mexico’s Core Problem

Let’s begin by understanding the core problem. The United States consumes vast amounts of narcotics, which, while illegal there, make their way in abundance. Narcotics derive from low-cost agricultural products that become consumable with minimal processing. With its long, shared border with the United States, Mexico has become a major grower, processor and exporter of narcotics. Because the drugs are illegal and thus outside normal market processes, their price is determined by their illegality rather than by the cost of production. This means extraordinary profits can be made by moving narcotics from the Mexican side of the border to markets on the other side.

Whoever controls the supply chain from the fields to the processing facilities and, above all, across the border, will make enormous amounts of money. Various Mexican organizations — labeled cartels, although they do not truly function as such, since real cartels involve at least a degree of cooperation among producers, not open warfare — vie for this business. These are competing businesses, each with its own competing supply chain.

Typically, competition among businesses involves lowering prices and increasing quality. This would produce small, incremental shifts in profits on the whole while dramatically reducing prices. An increased market share would compensate for lower prices. Similarly, lawsuits are the normal solution to unfair competition. But neither is the case with regard to illegal goods.

The surest way to increase smuggling profits is not through market mechanisms but by taking over competitors’ supply chains. Given the profit margins involved, persons wanting to control drug supply chains would be irrational to buy, since the lower-cost solution would be to take control of these supply chains by force. Thus, each smuggling organization has an attached paramilitary organization designed to protect its own supply chain and to seize its competitors’ supply chains.

The result is ongoing warfare between competing organizations. Given the amount of money being made in delivering their product to American cities, these paramilitary organizations are well-armed, well-led and well-motivated. Membership in such paramilitary groups offers impoverished young men extraordinary opportunities for making money, far greater than would be available to them in legitimate activities.

The raging war in Mexico derives logically from the existence of markets for narcotics in the United States; the low cost of the materials and processes required to produce these products; and the extraordinarily favorable economics of moving narcotics across the border. This warfare is concentrated on the Mexican side of the border. But from the Mexican point of view, this warfare does not fundamentally threaten Mexico’s interests.

A Struggle Far From the Mexican Heartland

The heartland of Mexico is to the south, far from the country’s northern tier. The north is largely a sparsely populated highland desert region seen from Mexico City as an alien borderland intertwined with the United States as much as it is part of Mexico. Accordingly, the war raging there doesn’t represent a direct threat to the survival of the Mexican regime.

(click here to enlarge image)

Indeed, what the wars are being fought over in some ways benefits Mexico. The amount of money pouring into Mexico annually is stunning. It is estimated to be about $35 billion to $40 billion each year. The massive profit margins involved make these sums even more significant. Assume that the manufacturing sector produces revenues of $40 billion a year through exports. Assuming a generous 10 percent profit margin, actual profits would be $4 billion a year. In the case of narcotics, however, profit margins are conservatively estimated to stand at around 80 percent. The net from $40 billion would be $32 billion; to produce equivalent income in manufacturing, exports would have to total $320 billion.

In estimating the impact of drug money on Mexico, it must therefore be borne in mind that drugs cannot be compared to any conventional export. The drug trade’s tremendously high profit margins mean its total impact on Mexico vastly outstrips even the estimated total sales, even if the margins shifted substantially.

On the whole, Mexico is a tremendous beneficiary of the drug trade. Even if some of the profits are invested overseas, the pool of remaining money flowing into Mexico creates tremendous liquidity in the Mexican economy at a time of global recession. It is difficult to trace where the drug money is going, which follows from its illegality. Certainly, drug dealers would want their money in a jurisdiction where it could not be easily seized even if tracked. U.S. asset seizure laws for drug trafficking make the United States an unlikely haven. Though money clearly flows out of Mexico, the ability of the smugglers to influence the behavior of the Mexican government by investing some of it makes Mexico a likely destination for a substantial portion of such funds.

The money does not, however, flow back into the hands of the gunmen shooting it out on the border; even their bosses couldn’t manage funds of that magnitude. And while money can be — and often is — baled up and hidden, the value of money is in its use. As with illegal money everywhere, the goal is to wash it and invest it in legitimate enterprises where it can produce more money. That means it has to enter the economy through legitimate institutions — banks and other financial entities — and then be redeployed into the economy. This is no different from the American Mafia’s practice during and after Prohibition.

The Drug War and Mexican National Interests

From Mexico’s point of view, interrupting the flow of drugs to the United States is not clearly in the national interest or in that of the economic elite. Observers often dwell on the warfare between smuggling organizations in the northern borderland but rarely on the flow of American money into Mexico. Certainly, that money could corrupt the Mexican state, but it also behaves as money does. It is accumulated and invested, where it generates wealth and jobs.

For the Mexican government to become willing to shut off this flow of money, the violence would have to become far more geographically widespread. And given the difficulty of ending the traffic anyway — and that many in the state security and military apparatus benefit from it — an obvious conclusion can be drawn: Namely, it is difficult to foresee scenarios in which the Mexican government could or would stop the drug trade. Instead, Mexico will accept both the pain and the benefits of the drug trade.

Mexico’s policy is consistent: It makes every effort to appear to be stopping the drug trade so that it will not be accused of supporting it. The government does not object to disrupting one or more of the smuggling groups, so long as the aggregate inflow of cash does not materially decline. It demonstrates to the United States efforts (albeit inadequate) to tackle the trade, while pointing out very real problems with its military and security apparatus and with its officials in Mexico City. It simultaneously points to the United States as the cause of the problem, given Washington’s failure to control demand or to reduce prices by legalization. And if massive amounts of money pour into Mexico as a result of this U.S. failure, Mexico is not going to refuse it.

The problem with the Mexican military or police is not lack of training or equipment. It is not a lack of leadership. These may be problems, but they are only problems if they interfere with implementing Mexican national policy. The problem is that these forces are personally unmotivated to take the risks needed to be effective because they benefit more from being ineffective. This isn’t incompetence but a rational national policy.

Moreover, Mexico has deep historic grievances toward the United States dating back to the Mexican-American War. These have been exacerbated by U.S. immigration policy that the Mexicans see both as insulting and as a threat to their policy of exporting surplus labor north. There is thus no desire to solve the Americans’ problem. Certainly, there are individuals in the Mexican government who wish to stop the smuggling and the inflow of billions of dollars. They will try. But they will not succeed, as too much is at stake. One must ignore public statements and earnest private assurances and instead observe the facts on the ground to understand what’s really going on.

The U.S. Strategic Problem

And this leaves the United States with a strategic problem. There is some talk in Mexico City and Washington of the Americans becoming involved in suppression of the smuggling within Mexico (even though the cartels, to use that strange name, make certain not to engage in significant violence north of the border and mask it when they do to reduce U.S. pressure on Mexico). This is certainly something the Mexicans would be attracted to. But it is unclear that the Americans would be any more successful than the Mexicans. What is clear is that any U.S. intervention would turn Mexican drug traffickers into patriots fighting yet another Yankee incursion. Recall that Pershing never caught Pancho Villa, but he did help turn Villa into a national hero in Mexico.

The United States has a number of choices. It could accept the status quo. It could figure out how to reduce drug demand in the United States while keeping drugs illegal. It could legalize drugs, thereby driving their price down and ending the motivation for smuggling. And it could move into Mexico in a bid to impose its will against a government, banking system and police and military force that benefit from the drug trade.

The United States does not know how to reduce demand for drugs. The United States is not prepared to legalize drugs. This means the choice lies between the status quo and a complex and uncertain (to say the least) intervention. We suspect the United States will attempt some limited variety of the latter, while in effect following the current strategy and living with the problem.

Ultimately, Mexico is a failed state only if you accept the idea that its goal is to crush the smugglers. If, on the other hand, one accepts the idea that all of Mexican society benefits from the inflow of billions of American dollars (even though it also pays a price), then the Mexican state has not failed — it is following a rational strategy to turn a national problem into a national benefit.

6/4: INDIA'S BLACK DAY IN COUNTER-INSURGENCY

B.RAMAN

6/4 will go down as a black day in the history of India's counter-insurgency just as 26/11 became a black day in the history of Indian counter-terrorism.

2. In a well-prepared and well-executed attack of unprecedented mobilisation, precision and savagery a large number of Maoists (Naxalites_) --- estimated by the local police to be about 1000 strong--- ambushed a combined party of over 80 members of the Central Resereve Police Force (CRPF) and the District Police returning from road security duty and managed to kill 72 members of the CRPF and one member of the District police force on April 6,2010. The Maoists had reportedly taken up position on a hill overlooking the route by which the party was returning after performing its task. It is not clear whether the route was a regular road or a motorable jungle track. The ambush took place in the thick Mukrana forests of Chhattisgarh's Dantewada district.

3. The fact that the Maoists were able to mobilise such a large number of persons for the ambush would indicate that they had advance indication of the return of the CRPF party by that route. They might have had advance intelligence of the plans of the party or they might have assessed that the CRPF might be returning by this road after watching the CRPF men conduct search and destroy operations in the area for three days.

4. A rule of precaution in counter-insurgency operation is that you don't use the same route for going to an operational area and for returning from there. Often, this precaution is not followed by the security forces either due to carelessness or due to the fact that the security forces do not have much of a choice due to the poor development of roads in the jungle areas in which the Maoists operate.

5. One may recall an incident a couple of years ago when a large police party had gone by boat from Andhra Pradesh into Orissa . The Maoists had noticed them going and had correctly assessed that the AP police party would be returning by the same route. When they did, a large number of Maoists had taken up position on a raised feature overlooking the river and they literally mowed down over 50 members of the police party.

6. We had probably not learnt the right lessons from the river ambush and facilitated a deadly road ambush in thick forests by not following basic dos and donts of counter-insurgency. The CRPF and the District Police have to perform a thankless task for want of proper road and telecommunications networks in the Maoist-infected areas. While the Maoists are trained to treck long distances by foot, the security forces tend to be road and vehicles-bound. They become sitting ducks for the insurgents, who surprise them with explosives and landmines and then mow them down with hand-held weapons. The reflexes of the security forces tend to be weak as could be seen from the fact that there have been very few instances of an ambushed security forces patrol recovering from the ambush and retaliating against the Maoists. Ambushes always tend to be fatal for the security forces with very few instances of successful counter-ambushes by the security forces.

7. Continuing serious deficiencies in rural policing and in police-rural communities relationships have been coming in the way of village help for the police by way of preventive intelligence. Counter-intelligence in the rural areas to prevent the penetration of the security forces by the Maoists is also weak. The fact that only one member of the District Police was killed in the ambush of April 6 as against 72 members of the CRPF makes one suspect possible collusion between the Maoists and some members of the District Police. Since the Maoist and the District Police recruits are recruited from the same rural stock, possibilities of penetration of the new police recruits by the Maoists are high.

8. The time has come to think in terms of using helicopter patrols and spotter drones in our counter-insurgency operations against the Maoists in areas covered by thick jungles. An important question to be examined in this connection is how to prevent civilian casualties of villagers and residents of jungles and avoid environmental damage. (6-4-10)

( 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 )

Alexander's 10 questions to 10 brahmins -- By Plutarch

http://www.e-classics.com/ALEXANDER.htm

A L E X A N D E R
"The Great"
(356 -323 B.C.)
A L E X A N D R O S
by Plutarch

While in India, Alexander took ten of the Brahmins prisoner. These men had a great reputation for intelligence, so Alexander decided to give them a test. He announced that the one who gave the worst answer would be the first to die, and he made the oldest Brahmin the judge of the competition.

Which are more numerous, Alexander asked the first one, the living or the dead? "The living," said the Brahmin, "because the dead no longer count."

Which produces more creatures, the sea or the land? Alexander asked the second. "The land," was his answer, "because the sea is only a part of it."

The third was asked which animal was the smartest of all, and the Brahmin replied: "The one we have not found yet."

Alexander asked the fourth what argument he had used to stir up the Indians to fight, and he answered: "Only that one should either live nobly or die nobly."

Which is older: day or night? was Alexander's question to the fifth, and the answer he got was: "Day is older, by one day at least." When he saw that Alexander was not satisfied with this answer, the Brahmin added: "Strange questions get strange answers."

What should a man do to make himself loved? asked Alexander, and the sixth Brahmin replied: "Be powerful without being frightening."

What does a man have to do to become a god? he asked the seventh, who responded: "Do what is impossible for a man."

The question to the eighth was whether death or life was stronger, and his answer: "Life is stronger than death, because it bears so many miseries."

The ninth Brahmin was asked how long it was proper for a man to live, and he said: "Until it seems better to die."

Then Alexander turned to the judge, who decided that each one had answered worse than another. "You will die first, then, for giving such a decision," said Alexander. "Not so, mighty king," said the Brahmin, "if you want to remain a man of your word. You said that you would kill first the one who made the worst answer." Alexander gave all of the Brahmins presents and set them free, even though they had persuaded the Indians to fight him

Has Karzai Gone Crazy?

What matters is whether he's a reliable partner.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, April 5, 2010, at 7:28 PM ET

---

What is to be done about Hamid Karzai? The short answer is: not much.

These past few years, since the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, the U.S. military has learned much about "asymmetrical conflicts," in which an ostensibly powerful nation (e.g., the United States) finds itself outmaneuvered by considerably weaker adversaries (e.g., al-Qaida, the Taliban) who have figured out how to tap our vulnerabilities.

It seems that the president of Afghanistan has been learning his own lessons about how to play this game.

Karzai's regime—its sovereignty, budget, army, police, even his personal security—depends entirely on the United States, NATO, and a handful of other foreign allies.

The Western powers have committed so much to the war because they see it as important to their security. Precisely because they have—and keep saying that they have—so much stake in Afghanistan, Karzai understands that he has much more leverage than the simple math might suggest.

It's like the old joke: If you owe the bank $1 million, the bank owns you; if you owe the bank $1 billion, you own the bank. We're the bank, and Karzai's the one in unfathomably deep debt, but he's calculating that we won't foreclose precisely because of this relationship (a politico-military equivalent of "too big to fail"), and he's probably right.

This may explain Karzai's latest string of eruptions. On April 1, he accused the West of trying to rig last fall's Afghan presidential elections (which, in fact, he had so blatantly rigged himself) and criticized the Western military coalition (which is all that's separating him from a rope and a lamp post) as invaders who are legitimizing the Taliban as a movement of "national resistance."

When it was clear that the objects of his attack were not amused, Karzai phoned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to apologize for any misunderstandings that his remarks might have caused. Then, over the weekend, he escalated the rhetoric. At a meeting with Afghan parliamentarians who had rejected a decree that would give Karzai the power to appoint all members of the currently independent Electoral Complaints Commission (and thus total power over elections, making him potentially president-for-life), he said, "If you and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban."

He also assured a group of tribal elders in Kandahar that he would cancel NATO's military operations in the province—which have been (very carefully) planned for the summer and which form the foundation for President Barack Obama's new strategy—if they didn't want it to go ahead.

Some U.S. officials, who have grown accustomed to Karzai's tantrums over the years, say these latest outbursts are beyond the pale and raise troubling questions about the whole military mission.

The point of our counterinsurgency campaign is not so much to destroy the enemy but, rather, to protect the Afghan people—to provide them with security so that the Afghan government can deliver basic services and thus earn the people's trust and allegiance, luring them away from the Taliban and other insurgents.

As Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, put it in a memo last year, the war's focus must be on "the will and ability to provide for the needs of the population, by, with, and through the Afghan government." (Italics added.)

When McChrystal wrote that memo, the big concern was that the Karzai regime's pervasive corruption might undermine his legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people. If so, even the most brilliantly executed military campaign would fail to accomplish its political objectives, because it would be impossible to provide services "by, with, and through" a distrusted Afghan government.

However, Karzai's latest remarks raise a more alarming question still: Is it possible for Western governments to work by, with, and through an Afghan president who denounces them at every turn, even to the point of characterizing them as imperialist invaders, thus affirming the main talking point of the Taliban and al-Qaida?

The issue here is not Karzai's peevishness or ingratitude. The issue is whether, under the circumstances, a counterinsurgency campaign can work—whether we're wasting lives and money.

One key question, which U.S. officials are exploring, is whether this rupture with Karzai can be mended. Some officials cite a chronology of events that suggests we may have (unwittingly) sent him off the deep end and that, therefore, we might be able to calm him back down.

The tensions started to escalate on March 10, a few weeks before his April Fools' Day outburst, when Karzai warmly welcomed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Kabul—an event seen in Washington as a deep affront. Yet this didn't come out of the blue. As the New York Times' Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler reported later, Karzai invited our No. 1 enemy for a state visit—then sat by calmly as Ahmadinejad delivered a fiercely anti-American speech in the presidential palace—"to spite" Obama for withdrawing an invitation for Karzai to visit the White House. This withdrawal came in response to Karzai's decree to take over the independent election commission—which is to say that relations have been at best up and down for a while.

Obama made his surprise visit to Kabul on March 28, in part to raise concerns with Karzai in person, in part to assure him of the United States' continued support. Officials say the meeting seemed to go well.

Then, on March 31, the Washington Post published a front-page story that quoted a "senior U.S. military official" threatening to put Ahmed Wali Karzai, the president's brother, on a list of most-wanted insurgents so that he can then be arrested or killed.

President Karzai assiduously reads the American press and is extremely sensitive to longstanding accusations that his brother, the head of Kandahar's provincial council, is a drug lord (a charge they both deny). Two U.S. officials I spoke with think that the Post article might have spurred him to make his wild-eyed remarks over the next three days.

It may be time for Obama to send Sen. John Kerry back to Kabul for another half-dozen meetings with Karzai, over 300 more cups of tea, as he did last October, when he persuaded the Afghan president to hold a second round of elections after the first round was proved to be so rigged.

Maybe Kerry can pamper Karzai with recitations of reassurances. If not, there's trouble ahead. Obama could threaten to pull out of Afghanistan if Karzai doesn't straighten up, but Karzai would surely see this as a bluff and might call it. Then what? If Obama really sees his commitment as vital to U.S. interests (and he wouldn't have ordered the escalation if he didn't), then he's not likely to take the gamble.

Another option is to go around Karzai's authority and deal more with Afghanistan's provincial governors and tribal elders. This has been part of Obama's plan all along. Last November, shortly before announcing his new strategy, Obama said in an ABC-TV interview that he and his advisers were focusing on "not just a national government in Kabul but provincial government actors that have legitimacy in the right now."

Gerard Russell, a former U.N. official in Kabul (who is now at Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy), said in a phone interview Monday that the Western coalition is pursuing this approach to some extent. The ongoing military operation in Helmand province has elevated the power of some independent Afghans there, at the expense of Karzai's people.

However, Russell added, there are risks to going around Karzai as the centerpiece of a strategy. "Karzai is very good at this sort of thing," Russell said. "He could undermine these regional governors if they get too powerful."

Russell thinks there was an opportunity last year, before the elections, to get rid of Karzai. Others disagree. They say that Karzai's agility has always been underrated and that, even if it hasn't, an alternative candidate might have been worse. There is also the matter of the "Diem complex." The CIA's assassination of South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem during the Kennedy administration, did nothing to improve political prospects and only sucked the United States more deeply into the quagmire.

In any event, Russell agrees that, at this point, the West is faced with just two options on what to do about Karzai: either withdraw support for him—or back him all the way. Ambivalent support or persistent bickering is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

Which is why someone probably needs to start sipping those 300 cups of tea.

When Obama announced his new strategy late last year, he said that the troops he was sending to Afghanistan would begin to come out in July 2011. In elaborating on this policy, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to Congress that it would be clear by the end of 2010 whether the strategy was succeeding, and decisions about how many troops to withdraw would be made on that basis.

It is now clearer than ever that the strategy's success or failure is, in large measure, up to Karzai. If he hasn't proved to be a reliable partner by then, it's time for us to back someone else—or leave.

Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow Slate and the Slate Foreign Desk on Twitter.

Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2249536/

PAKISTAN: Text of president’s address to parliament

ISLAMABAD: Following is the text of President Asif Ali Zardari’s address to the joint sitting of parliament on Monday.

Bismillah-ir-Rahman-ir-Rahim

Madam Speaker!

I submit myself before Allah, in all humility, to address parliament at the beginning of its third year.

It is a great honour for me, to share with this august House, the achievements of the government and the aspiration of our people.

I wish to thank you for the honour shown to me. This is indeed a Benazir day, a Benazir moment. It is a moment enshrined in her philosophy, in her idea for Pakistan.

Indeed, it is a milestone, in the struggle of the people. There were anxious moments when some people feared that we had failed.

But collectively we were able to resolve differences, making history by restoring the 1973 constitution, and more.

The 18th Amendment Bill has already been laid in parliament.

I pause to congratulate each one of you, because today belongs to every Pakistani.

I congratulate each and every member of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms (PCCR), of parliament and indeed the whole nation on the laying of this bill. I also congratulate all the political parties in the government and the opposition for displaying true national spirit.

They have all risen above partisan politics, in an unprecedented show of national solidarity. I wish to thank Law Minister Dr Babar Awan and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for extending cooperation to the parliamentary committee, led by the honourable Raza Rabbani, adviser to the prime minister. I am truly appreciative of the commitment and hard work put in by Rabbani and all members of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms. Two years ago, standing here I had urged the Parliament, to revisit the 17th Amendment and do away with Article 58 (2b).

And last year, repeating the request, I also urged you madam speaker, to form an all parties committee for this purpose. History will record, that it was achieved, when the first woman speaker in the Muslim world, presided over this august House. Congratulations Madam Speaker. We have reasons to be proud. It is the first major constitutional reform in more than three decades. Previously there were piecemeal constitutional amendments. But most of these were brought about to legitimise un-elected leaders and not for the cause of the people.

This indeed is a great achievement of the democratic process. That has begun to take root. The amendments will make the constitution, truly democratic and federal in character, and restore provincial rights and parliamentary sovereignty.

I need not repeat the salient features of the constitution. The 17th Amendment has been repealed subject to amendments and the provinces given autonomy as never before.

We have, therefore, honoured our pledge to restore the supremacy of parliament. Finally, the people of Pukhtoonkhwa will get their identity as their province is renamed Khyber-Pukhtoonkhwa.

Madam Speaker!

We are witnessing the power of a democratic government in action. A democracy, that some people think is fragile.

Fragile it may seem, but irresponsible it is not. Indeed we could have achieved much more, only if the democratic process had not been repeatedly buried. And, the constitution not dismissed with contempt as a mere 15-page document.

We all know, that the history of our constitution is a history of subversion. The repeated suspension of the constitution by undemocratic forces gravely undermined the federation.

It led to the tragic neglect of the provinces and dis-empowered the people. Sad is the history of our constitution being abrogated. But sadder still is that the pillars of the state validated the subversion of the constitution. The nation can take pride that it has closed that sorry chapter.

Madam Speaker!

The first constitution was given to the people in 1973 by the political leaders of the time, led by Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

It was based on parliamentary democracy, federalism and Islamic principles. It had the support and backing of all provinces and major political parties.

In a short span of five years, the people of Pakistan made great progress in freedom, democracy and constitutionalism.

The nation was filled with energy, a sense of purpose and shared destiny. The country was buzzing with ideas and enterprise. People were given their universal right to a passport, and the economy grew, as money poured in from expatriates. The people got jobs and had opportunities in all sectors. Fundamental rights were introduced for the first time, and people felt protected.

The emancipation of women began as they entered the police force, Foreign Service and subordinate Judiciary. Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) got autonomy with its own president, prime minister and judiciary.

Balochistan got provincial status, with a provincial assembly and a high court.

The emancipation of the people in the Tribal Areas and Northern Areas began. The Simla Accord of 1972 bought the longest peace between India and Pakistan, and brought back the Pakistani prisoners of war, with safety and honour. The first PPP government led the historic OIC summit and gave Pakistan its nuclear programme. But, just as people had begun to feel a sense of relevance, on the fateful day of July 5,1977, the constitution was subverted. The hopes and dreams of a people were shattered, a process of national decay set in. Without learning from history, the constitution was further distorted by yet another intervention in 1999.

Madam Speaker!

The PPP and its allies had promised the nation, that distortions to the 1973 constitution would be removed, the powers of the parliament would be restored.

I am happy that Allah gave us the opportunity to rise to the expectations of the people.

It shows that given political will, parliament can deliver. That if we keep aside our prejudices and egos, we can move mountains.

Strengthening parliament has been the cornerstone of our political philosophy.

Benazir refused to weaken democracy by rejecting offers made to her to boycott parliament, when her party had only 17 members in the National Assembly. In line with her philosophy in November last year, I gave up the National Command Authority (NCA), and placed it under parliament through the PM.

Although I was neither asked nor required to do so. We are all answerable to history. I have said before that I have walked from the gallows to the Presidency.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had declared that he would prefer to die at the hands of dictator rather than at the hands of history.

Benazir will remain alive in history for standing up to the militants, despite threats and warnings, not only from ordinary people but also from heads of governments. As the custodian of their legacy I have my eyes on history. By standing in their shadows today and empowering the parliament, I hope to walk into the annals of history, Inshallah.

Madam Speaker!

Let us pledge that we will uphold the supremacy of the constitution.

This requires that each pillar of the state work in its constitutional limits, and does not trample on the domain of others. For stability and development, each organ of the state must work within the parameters of the constitution. We believe in reconciliation, and not confrontation. I recall that after the martyrdom of Benazir, some had advised confrontation.

We were advised to boycott elections and confront dictatorship in the streets. But we said that democracy was the best revenge. Today I hope they will admit that our stand has been vindicated to some extent.

In the words of Benazir, “We did not come this far, we did not sacrifice this much, to fail. Together we will find a tomorrow better than any of the yesterdays we have ever known”. (Unquote) I want to take this opportunity to say, that the constitutional reforms package is not a favour to anyone. It is a national duty, our duty to the people of Pakistan. Let there be no doubt about it.

Madam Speaker!

May I remind you, that from the first day our government inherited; an ailing economy compounded by the neglect of power sector, circular debt and global recession, rising militancy and extremism and a crisis of confidence. Indeed, time and history has placed a great responsibility, on our shoulders. We cannot abandon our duty. We have to give solutions and move on. I realise the economic burden on our nation.

We are aware that prices have risen, and incomes are squeezed. Notwithstanding the boom in rural economy I realize the economic hardships faced by men, women and children. But I am confident that we will overcome the challenges left to us by the previous regimes.

To stabilise the economy, the government had to take some very difficult decisions, even at the cost of its popularity, which no political government likes to do. As a result of those difficult decisions we hope to put the economy on road to recovery. The foreign exchange reserves have increased and the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) has made impressive gains, without any artificial inducements.

Remittances have increased by nearly 25 percent a year, due to new incentives.

For the first time, remittances in one month, exceeded $800 million, last September.

A new policy of public-private partnership has been adopted. International credit rating agencies have upgraded Pakistan.

The government has achieved, international financial respectability, despite all the obstacles. The crisis of confidence has been one of our most serious political challenges. That is why we apologised to the people of Balochistan, for the excesses done to them in the past.

But we have done much more than tendering an apology. The government has taken a number of significant measures. After many years, the National Finance Commission (NFC) Award was finalised with consensus. I congratulate the government for once again making history. I had the honour of addressing parliament twice in one year.

In my second address to parliament, I had urged the setting up of a committee on Balochistan. The Aghaaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan has been announced. The government has set up a commission on missing persons. Indeed once again, madam speaker, the honour is also shared with you. Political reforms have been launched, in Gilgit-Baltistan. A woman has been appointed the governor of Gilgit-Baltistan in the name of Benazir. The Council of Common Interests has been reconstituted. A lot more needs to be done. It can be done. It will be done.

Maana Keh Na Zameen Ko Gulzar
Kar Sakai

Kuch Khaar Kam To Kar Gai Guzrai Jidher Sai Hum

Madam Speaker!

Poverty has chained the creative potential of our people. The government introduced the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) to break the cycle of poverty.

Digital Smart Cards have been introduced for transparency. The smart cards will entitle the poor families to accident and health insurance, and many other social benefits.

Interest free loan of Rs 300,000 named the Waseela-e-Haq, is given to the female head of the family. This has been done to empower our mothers and sisters. These are ground breaking steps towards a welfare state.

I am aware that a crippling power shortage has slowed economic and industrial growth.

We inherited a shortfall of thousands of megawatts of electricity, but will not offer any excuses. We realise the suffering that load shedding causes to our people.

We are painfully aware of the darkness it spreads, how children study by candlelight, and how the wheels of industry often stop.

We will not dwell on the past, as to how the independent power projects launched by Benazir Bhutto were made controversial.

The government is addressing the problem with the help of the private sector, although some have tried to make the Rental Projects controversial. The construction of the Neelum Power Project in AJK has started. The Bhasha Dam has been launched. It will generate 4500 MW of power, and store over 6.5 million-acre feet of water The Thar Coal Project has been revived. The government is mindful of the water issue. For the first time, a special assistant to the PM on water has been appointed. We have raised the issue with India.

It was the first issue that I raised with the Indian leadership in my first meeting and I have raised it on every occasion since then. We will continue to raise it at every international forum, within the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

The government is also addressing water issues between the provinces.

The issues will be resolved through available constitutional and legal mechanisms. Thirty-two small and medium dams will be built in the country.

Work on three of the dams has already started. For the first time, state land in their command areas will be irrigated and distributed free, among the women of that area. For the first time in over four decades, agriculture is being revolutionised, through hybrid seed, improved technology and high intensity cultivation.

Madam Speaker!

Women and minorities are the most vulnerable groups. The government enacted legislation against the harassment of women at the workplace. We will pursue the pledges made by Benazir at the Beijing Conference and in the document on the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Women have been made beneficiaries of the BISP The job quota for women has been increased. Efforts are continuing, to draw the minorities into the mainstream of national life.

The blasphemy law will not be allowed to be misused, against anyone for settling personal and political scores.

An inter-faith complex is being planned in Islamabad, and interfaith harmony committees are being established at district level. Steps have also been taken to integrate the special people in the mainstream of national life.

Madam Speaker!

The second parliamentary year witnessed an exceptionally dynamic Parliament.

It passed a record number of bills.

The PM personally attended sessions of parliament 96 times. It is a record. Congratulations Mr prime minister.

Laws have been passed, to protect the weak and the vulnerable, and undo the wrongs done by dictators. The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace law is one such landmark piece of legislation. It was our obligation to the women of Pakistan in the name of Benazir. I wish to compliment parliament on its performance. The government believes in transparent accountability of all. That is across the board, and not selective.

Let everyone be judged by the same yardstick. Let there be no different laws for different people.

I am happy to state that after consultations with the stakeholders, reforms in FATA and amendments to the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) have been finalised. These reforms will soon be implemented.

The UN inquiry commission that was tasked with probing the assassination of Benazir will be submitting its report very soon. We are also mindful of our obligation to carry out a national investigation.

Madam Speaker!

I can assure you that, health and education and population planning will receive far greater attention and resources than ever before. We need to work collectively to combat hunger and disease.

For labour also, the PPP manifesto has guided our action. After restoring the sacked employees, the government also regularised contract employees. Now a worker can no longer be dismissed from service for no reason, as was the practice in the past. The workers have been given the right to seek legal remedies against dismissal. Trade union activities have been restored The Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme has been introduced.

It offers 12 percent stock shares to workers in state run enterprises. It benefits 500,000 families. For the first time, workers have been made part of the national productive process, through ownership.

Madam Speaker!

Militancy and extremism have been the greatest threat to our national security in recent times. I assure you we will fight militancy to the finish.

Benazir said, and I quote, “We are prepared to risk our lives. But we are not prepared to surrender this great nation to militants”. (Unquote) The nation has risen to her call. We will make peace with those, willing to give up violence. But use force against those, who challenge the writ of the state.

The government will not allow the use of its soil, for terrorist activities against any other country. We will also not allow anyone to violate our sovereignty. I assure you that the sovereignty of Pakistan has been protected and solemnly pledge that it will be safeguarded at all costs. The nation is proud of the sacrifices made by the members of the armed forces, para-military forces, police and specially the citizens in fighting militancy. Their sacrifices will not go in vain. I also commend the Ministry of Interior led by Rehman Malik for their courage in confronting militancy.

Madam Speaker!

Our brothers and sisters working abroad are a source of great strength. They need to be recognized and honoured. Last year, the PM had announced to give the right to vote to the Pakistanis abroad. The modalities of giving the right to vote will soon be finalised. It is a matter of great satisfaction that, 87 percent of the population has been issued computerised national identity cards. Compared with only 44 percent of what we inherited. It is a great leap forward towards documentation.

In this regard I appreciate the performance of the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA).

We are committed to upholding the freedom of media. The government plans to work with all stakeholders, to create an atmosphere of self -regulation without state interference.

We respect the majesty of the law. The government has enhanced the pay scales, allowances and perks of members of judiciary. We hope to provide easy access to justice, for every one.

Madam Speaker!

Pakistan seeks a stable regional environment. We believe in investing in relationships. Our relationship with China remains the bedrock of our foreign policy. Measures have been taken to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan. We strongly support an Afghan-led reconciliation and reconstruction process.

We have improved relations with all countries in the region. For durable peace we consider it essential to normalise relations with India. We want an honourable and peaceful settlement of all outstanding disputes, including the water issue, and the core issue of Indian-held Kashmir (IHK), in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the IHK people. We do not want an arms race in the region.

However, a disproportionate increase in military budget by the largest democracy does not help the cause of arms reduction. We believe that dialogue alone can ensure peace and understanding. We can fight militancy better, through dialogue and cooperation instead of doubting each other.

We will continue to strengthen cooperation within the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) framework.

We greatly value our relations with all Muslim countries and will continue to strive for enhanced ties with them. Partnerships with the US and Europe have strengthened over the past year. For the first time the Pakistan-European Union (EU) Summit was held which was addressed by the head of state.

This is in sharp contrast to the isolation we inherited. The UK PM wrote to the heads of the EU, requesting them to address urgently our concerns about market access. I thank PM Gordon Brown for this. The strategic dialogue with the US is aimed at addressing core issues of Pakistan. I welcome US President Barack Obama’s new initiatives toward Pakistan. Our focus has been, and will remain, trade and not Aid. The international community is increasingly realising the importance of Pakistan, and our commitment, in fighting militancy and strengthening democracy.

Madam Speaker!

This is not the end of the road. Our journey has only just begun. It is with a sense of purpose that I look ahead. I call upon parliament to pass the 18th Amendment Bill without delay. The people of Pakistan are keenly watching and waiting for this crucial reforms bill to pass. This initiative must lead to new beginnings. As representatives of the people, let us make common cause to address urgent needs of our people. The benefits of democracy must translate into a tangible dividend that is visible in people’s lives.

As we move on, let us also learn from our mistakes. The year 2010 should be the year of building of national consensus, on holding elections to local bodies.

It should be the year to mobilise the youth, and draw them into the mainstream of national life.

We need to protect them from sliding into militancy. We will continue efforts for a marshall plan for rebuilding Pakistan and the region. We will invest in modern technology for better governance and mass outreach.

Pakistan faces serious issues of poverty, water shortage and energy deficits as well as tax collection. We urgently need to create jobs, increase exports and invest in infrastructure. I am confident that Inshallah by the end of our term, the democratic government will deliver on many more promises.

Madam Speaker!

Allow me to recall the words of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which he said in his address to the Nation on April 14, 1972.

He said, and I quote, “History beckons us, and our people are ready to march forward. Do we, the members of this distinguished Assembly, have the courage and wisdom to lead our people towards their cherished goal of democracy. As Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah said, democracy is in our blood. It is in our bone marrow. When the fruit of democracy is within our reach, shall we now fail to grasp it?” (Unquote).
Thank You
Pakistan Paaindabad!