The Eye of the Eagle" for the Baloch diplomacy.

By Munir Mengal - Paris, France


The Eye of the Eagle - the ability to keep focused and lead a-head, through thick and thin, on what will be needed to emerge victorious as a solo victory.

The Baloch Nation is at a critical stage. And it is probable to me that, no plan we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the personalities, or groups, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can structure, and repair, the event is in the hands of the Baloch people. It is up to them, that how they design their future, path of struggle and the respective destiny.


A go-through of Inside:

During struggle movements for independence social peace will be threatened, if people desires, expectations, and aspirations could not be articulated well in political strategies. Then either a situation of chaos or failure or disaster awaits for them. Certainly, risk free plan is out of context. But, a controlled social peace threat strategy is possible. Hence, the Baloch have to shape their political strategies of their struggle – to navigate the future. And make a comprehensive strategy to gain, develop and protect the national fundamentals i.e. sovereignty, basic human rights, moral and cultural values, social justice, democracy, secular identity etc.

The realistic approach for a just Independence struggle has to be based on a comprehensive win-win strategy for it’s Masses. This shall be followed as a fundamental principal. Only it is they, who have given us the right to struggle and lead. They have the right to be the end consumers of “Independence” irrespective of any political faith, and class structure. The encouraging and vigorous fact for the Baloch people is that, and it has been recognized and expressed at all levels, that the lead of the struggle is in the hands of the people, no-one irrespective of his class structure and of his influence can control it. From the historical events we can take an insight that as, Martin Luther King jr. recognizes that, “Privileged groups rarely give up their privileges without strong resistance and the people will not stop fighting for freedom’’.

An International Maneuvering Approach:

Baloch diplomatic strategies must also co-relate with the Global Political Strategies (GPS), values, and to the international community peace and safety plans. The Baloch writers, thinkers and philosophers shall deliver internal advice and strategic counsel to better inform their group-level discussions, shape the national movement planning, help the masses to properly understand new opportunities and threats attached to the policies, and address their immediate and longer-term political strategies and reputational challenges. It is to be noted that, Political Intelligence and Risk Assessments shall be considered as the key factors for such a critical planning.

It is known that, sketching such strategies which shall be related to the nature of the masses' available resources and to the people' and must keep the institutions democratic and be able to extract (share) benefits from International community or bend the government's and organizations behavior in their favor, is highly tactical and difficult. But it has to be done, there is no alternative process for success. Unfortunately, until now the Baloch political parties and individuals have failed diplomatically to realize the world to analyze the causes of their struggle and the resulting appropriate solution. By strong and par policies we have to convince the world and get their confidence, is the ultimate need of the time. Many Baloch critics say that, the Baloch society is not that institutionalized. They have to recognize this fact that the burdon of institutionalizing the society lies on their shoulders and no one can escape from this fact. We must consider two prime factors: what we hope to achieve and how we shall achieve it. If we do not keep the political goal in mind, our plans will lack direction and rarely achieve the desired effect. Strategic plans shall be based on the current political and military environment, and your goal is to take advantage of that environment before it changes.

The Balochistan and Pakistan conflict is not very difficult for the United Nations to deal with, other then the historical, cultural, language, religious etc. factors the Balochistan issue is also very unique and crystal clear, as the Baloch ask the Pakistan to respect the Baloch determination as declared by H.H. Khan Kalat on 11th August 1947, and then the resolutions passed from the lower and upper parliament houses of the Balochistan, a right then was asked by the United Kingdom. It is also mandatory as per the UN charter on the member states to respect the “determination of the people”.

There is a dire need for diplomacy to take centre stage so that there is more negotiating and less confrontation with respect to international community understanding and UN charter. The United Nations would only be compelled to act without hesitation, if the Baloch diplomatic strategy is structured comprehensively and categorically. It is because of these possibilities, that there is a heightened importance for diplomacy than ever before.

This involves attempts to convince, and get support by discussing the policies, actions, objectives of the struggle, historical facts, cultural realities, and the secular identity of the Baloch, exploring knowledge for the benefit of those who may not comprehend the problem, and of the future peace and global trade opportunities for the regional and international community. Diplomacy therefore entails the management of change that comes up from time to time in international relations. Therefore, it it is meaningless, to say who is who, and have what interests. Any one can be any one, who can create or attach herself with any interests. If you have the capability and potential to create co-related strategies, interests, future agendas, and sufficient know how, to accomollate and realize the opportunities created. Also important is the involvement of civil society organizations and nongovernmental organizations. It would therefore be myopic for one to think that the use of force in such national movement struggles would end immediately or with time, without any realization.

Spirit of a nation is the most valuable factor for any struggle. Therefore, for chalking out any political plans or diplomatic strategies the leaders and diplomats shall calculate it's direct and indirect impact on the national spirit.

Without structuring a comprehensive, well integrated and multi-layered diplomatic strategy it is impossible to move for a long run.

The dynamic beat of deep uprising on one side, and the barbaric army operations and human rights violations by the other side, it is clear that, there is a quest for freedom, justice, and human dignity on the part of the people who have long been victims of occupation and of forced annexation of the Balochistan. Occupation and forced annexation is illegal and no one can legalize it by articulating it any manner.

Most importantly, the art of diplomacy is an ongoing process that requires a strong desire to come to a viable and sensible conclusion. Otherwise,

"Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy". Norman Schwarzkopf

Sarkozy for India in UNSC

Shubhadeep Choudhury & Shiv Kumar
Tribune News Service

Bangalore/Mumbai, December 4

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101205/main1.htm

India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council and its candidacy for the Nuclear Suppliers Group today got vocal support from French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who described India as a “stabilising factor in Asia”.

Sarkozy did not explicitly call Pakistan an “exporter of terror” — a remark that British Prime Minister David Cameroon made during his visit to Bangalore earlier this year — but expressed concern over the use of Pakistan’s soil for terror acts beyond its borders.

Addressing a gathering at the ISRO Satellite Centre in Bangalore, Sarkozy said, “Pakistan and Afghanistan are a major source of terror… We need a stable, democratic and prosperous Pakistan that is fully engaged in the fight against terrorism and determined to prevent its territory from serving as a base for terrorist acts, regardless of the country targeted.”

The French President said the recent election of India to the Security Council for two years should serve as the prelude for the permanent Indian presence within the UN Security Council. “How could a country with one billion people be left out of the Security Council?” he said.

Sarkozy, who reached Bangalore this morning with his glamorous wife Carla Bruni and French officials and business representatives to kick off his second visit to India, said the UN Security Council must also be enlarged by the inclusion of Germany, Japan, Brazil and an African and an Arab country.

“What is at stake here is the UN’s ability to respond to 21st century crisis using 21st century instruments. It is a matter of realism,” he said.

Lauding India’s role in social and economic development programmes in war-ravaged Afghanistan, Sarkozy said the opening of Afghanistan’s economy, the fight against drug trafficking and the establishment of a secure regional environment demanded the cooperation of all Afghanistan’s neighbours. “India must assume its full role (in Afghanistan) in the process,” he said.

The French President extended full support to India’s civil-nuclear programme. He said nuclear energy would now form the focus of Indo-French cooperation. Noting that 80 per cent of France’s electricity requirement was met though nuclear power plants, Sarkozy said France’s decision to rely on nuclear energy had proved visionary and ensured its energy independence.

Notably, Sarkozy would reach Mumbai on Tuesday along with a high-powered delegation comprising around 60 CEOs of top companies from his country. Those part of his delegation include officials of companies like Dassault, EADS and Areva, who are looking to sign multi-million dollar contracts with Indian firms, according to industry bodies here.

The biggest deal that Sarkozy is expected to oversee is the signing of the agreement between French nuclear equipment major Areva and the Nuclear Power Corporation (NCP) of India. As per the agreement between the two countries, Areva is to build two European pressurised reactors (EPR) for NPC’s nuclear power complex scheduled to be built at Jaitapur in Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri district.

From two plants initially, the complex will have six nuclear reactors by 2030. The other big deal to be signed between the two sides is a $1.2 billion contract to refurbish 56 Mirage 2000 aircraft of the Indian Air Force.

Dassault is the frontrunner for the deal, according to French trade officials here.

In Mumbai itself, the groundwork is being done for the signing of deals worth hundreds of crores of rupees.

DANCES WITH THE DRAGON: We need an ambitious agenda for engagement b

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/04/stories/2010120462341400.htm

Nirupama Rao

The view that India and China are rivals is an over-generalisation and
over-simplification of a complex relationship.





This year saw India and China celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations. A couple of weeks from now, Premier Wen Jiabao will be in India and will participate in the closing ceremony of the Festival of China in India which will bring to a close the calendar of activities organised in both China and India to commemorate this occasion.

The six decades of the India-China relationship behind us have a record that is chequered. We became arbiters of our national destinies from the date of India's independence and China's liberation in the late 40s of the last century, inspiring many others in Asia and Africa to end colonialism and foreign domination. This was the time when India and China in a sense, rediscovered each other, understanding the potential of the synergy between two of the largest populated nations in the world on the global stage. The vision of our founding fathers is within our reach today as we regain our place in Asia and the world as leading global economies. The awareness of historical contact between the two peoples of India and China created the basis for our well-intentioned attempt in the 1950s to build a new type of relationship based on Panchasheela, or the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. It was an attempt which, however, faltered, telescoping into the troubled phase that enveloped our relationship in the sixties up until the mid seventies.

The leadership in both our countries understood the untenability of any sustained estrangement between us. The last three decades have been marked by well-intentioned efforts of exploration towards establishing the framework of a stable, peaceful, productive, and multi-sectoral relationship between India and China. Contradictions are sought to be managed, and our differences have not prevented an expanding bilateral engagement and building on congruence. There are elements of cooperation and competition that form the warp and weft of our relationship.

There are both challenges that the relationship confronts us with and also opportunities. As our Prime Minister has said, India and China will continue to grow, simultaneously, and our policies will have to cater to this emerging reality. For India, the situation is complex since China is not only our largest neighbour but also because China is today a major power in the world both from the traditional geo-political point of view and the more current geo-economic point of view. In the world of today, China is a factor in several equations and, therefore, it is intellectually satisfying to see that scholarship in India is increasingly dedicated to looking more closely at all facets of China.

China's rapid economic growth over the last three decades has been spectacular and riveting. It is now the second largest economy in the world with a GDP of roughly $5.5 trillion. China has begun to deal in the currency of global power, and its economic success is impacting its foreign, defence and security policies. The appellation of assertiveness is frequently applied to China's profile in global affairs today. The question that I am always asked is whether our relationship with China will be one dominated by increasing competition for influence and resources, as our economic needs grow. I believe that neither of us has the luxury of seeing each other in antagonistic terms. The view that India and China are rivals is an over-generalisation and over-simplification of a complex relationship which encompasses so many diverse issues. I believe the proposition of competition and rivalry should not be exaggerated in a manner that it overshadows our genuine attempts to manage and transact a rationally determined relationship.

It is true that divergences persist. We have a disputed border. There are legacies as well as lessons bequeathed to us by history. This is a complex problem and the cartographies that define national identity are internalised in the minds of people in both countries. At the same time, we are making a serious attempt at trying to arrive at a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary question as the recent 14th round of the Special Representatives talks will testify. The absence of a solution to the question is not due to lack of efforts but arises from the difficulty of the question.

What also needs to be appreciated is that the India-China boundary is one of the most peaceful of all borders. We have in place a well organised set of confidence building measures to ensure peace and tranquillity on the border. We are currently talking to each other on establishing more such mechanisms. There is maturity on both sides to understand the complexity of the issue and to insulate it from affecting our broader relationship. This policy on both sides I think has paid dividends and has contributed towards reducing the possibility of conflict.

Another issue of concern is the management of trans-border rivers. Many of the rivers nourishing the plains of Northern India and also areas in North-east India arise in the highlands of the Tibetan Autonomous Region and are a source of livelihood and sustenance for millions of our people. We are alert to reports of China damming trans-border rivers and have sought assurances from China that it will take no action to negatively affect the flow of the rivers into India, so that our rights as the lower riparian are not adversely affected. China has assured us that the projects on the Bramhaputra are run-of-the-river projects and are not meant for storing or diverting water. We look forward to working closely with China in this critical area of environmental and livelihood security.

There is, then, the question of the China-Pakistan relationship. India firmly believes that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest, and we are not against Pakistan's relations with other countries. While I agree that relationships between countries are not zero-sum games, we do not hesitate to stress our genuine concerns regarding some aspects of the China-Pakistan relationship particularly when it comes to China's role in PoK, China's J&K policy and the Sino-Pak security and nuclear relationship. The need for mutual sensitivity to each other's concerns cannot be denied. The issue of giving stapled visas to Indian nationals from the state of Jammu and Kashmir arises in a similar context. We believe that the India-China relationship will grow even stronger as China shows more sensitivity on core issues that impinge on our sovereignty and territorial integrity. We hope this can be realised.

Our trade with China is growing faster than that with any other country and China is our largest trading partner in goods with trade likely to exceed US$ 60 billion this year. There is also serious discussion between the two countries on correcting the trade imbalance and we would like to see more Indian goods and services entering the Chinese market. Many Chinese companies are now well established in India and many Indian companies are also opening up in China. We in India have also worked to resolve hurdles that have sometimes been faced by Chinese companies to ensure a level playing field for all foreign investors. We also expect similar access to Chinese markets especially in the area of pharmaceuticals, IT, engineering goods, where our companies have often faced non-tariff and opaque barriers. India is one of China's largest markets for project contracting. India needs an investment of US $ 1 trillion during the next Five-Year Plan period in infrastructure. China is well positioned to participate in this process.

The results of our policy of engagement are manifest in many areas and are not limited to bilateral trade and investment alone. Over 7,000 Indian students study in China, and the CBSE is set to introduce Chinese in the curriculum of schools from the next academic session. There is also an information gap that keeps our peoples from understanding each other better and which we need to bridge by concerted public diplomacy from both sides. There is much work to be done to improve perceptions within the media in both countries.

The global trend towards multi-polarity and a more even distribution of power has been accelerated by the recent global economic crisis. While the immediate financial aspects of the crisis may have been addressed, its structural causes in terms of global imbalances remain unsolved. This provides an opportunity to India and China to work together. Our consultations within the G-20 have shown the way in this regard. Similarly, we have partnered well in BASIC (for the climate change negotiations), and in the BRIC grouping of Brazil, India, Russia and China. We hope such cooperation will also be strengthened on the important issue of UN Reform and that we will be able to build common ground on the issue relating to the expansion of the Security Council and India's interest in permanent membership. In the immediate region in which both countries are located, Asia, as well, there is common ground between India and China on combating terrorism and extremism, enhancing maritime security, and on the need for a peaceful environment to permit the domestic economic growth and development of the two countries. An open, balanced and inclusive architecture to enable a transparent dialogue on these issues that concern security and stability in Asia is in the interest of both our countries.

As India and China continue to pursue their interests, and so long as their overwhelming preoccupation remains their domestic transformation, and both understand that this goal requires a peaceful periphery, it is my firm conviction that the elements of competition in the bilateral relationship can be managed and the elements of congruence can be built upon. As our interests get progressively more complex, the costs of any withdrawal from engagement will rise. I believe this is a big relationship with the clear possibility of an ambitious agenda of mutual engagement that will be one of the most important bilateral equations of our new century. It is in our interest to view it in a more wide-angled and high definition manner than ever before.

WIKILEAKS SHOW US MICRO-MANAGING PAKISTAN

Guest Column: By Rajeev Sharma


http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers43%5Cpaper4205.html




Two things stand out in the Pakistan-specific Wikileaks Cablegate:

(i) the United States is micro managing Pakistan in every conceivable sphere of activity to the extent that Pakistan emerges as a mere satrapy of the Americans;

(ii) Pakistan, like an impish child, is habitual of defying the guardian’s diktats and as a result the US is nowhere close to its ultimate strategic goals of controlling the Pakistani nukes and weaning the state away from jihadi terrorists.

The leaked American embassy cables also show that the Pakistani military and the intelligence agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) are deeply involved in the country’s nuclear power politics, quite often at variance with American interests.
America’s micro-management of Pakistan is especially evident in three key areas: (i) the American Special Forces operating in Pakistan; (ii) the US interference or unduly deep involvement in Pakistan politics; and (iii) the controversial drone strikes in Pakistani territory.

US SPECIAL TROOPS IN PAKISTAN

The cables put a seal of confirmation on a long suspected fact – that the American special troops are deployed in Pakistan for counter-terrorism efforts, though Pakistan repeatedly denied that there were any American boots on the ground. In fact, the Pakistani military covertly allowed only a handful of US special troops in October 2009 for deployment in North and South Waziristan along with Pakistani soldiers. This too was done in ways that constricted their operational powers. The American special troops were forbidden to conduct combat missions and were roped in only to provide "intelligence, surveillance and recon support" coordinating drone strikes and helping the military hunt down militants.

Nothing demonstrates Pakistan’s duplicity of running with the hare and hunting with the hound better than its stance on the so-called war against terror. Wikileaks’ cables on the American drone strikes on Al Qaida and Taliban targets inside Pakistani territory are an eye opener. The American diplomatic cables show that the Pakistani leadership was rather comfortable and "quietly acquiesced" with the drone strikes, though it raised a ruckus in the National Assembly after every drone attack.

One of the cables quotes Gilani as saying in August 2008 thus: "I don't care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it." In any case, there seemed no rationale for Pakistan to be genuinely disturbed about the drone strikes because it is the Americans who are doing Pakistan a favour by fighting Pakistan’s war against its Frankenstein monsters particularly when the Pakistani armed forces’ operations in the country’s lawless regions had failed to break the back of the jihadists. The documents also say that Pakistani civil servants view drones as an effective counter to the Taliban's influence in the tribal belt. Wikileaks quotes a senior Pakistani official as saying that most local people did not fear the strikes because "everyone knew that they only hit the house or location of very bad people".

AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN PAK POLITICS

The extent of American involvement in the Pakistani polity is revealed by the fact that the Pakistani army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani discussed with the Americans in early 2009 the possibility of "persuading" President Asif Ali Zardari to resign and replacing him with Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali Khan. Gen Kayani’s soft corner for Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was borne out by the fact that he wanted Gilani to continue as PM.

Evidently, Zardari was not unmindful of Gen Kayani’s aversion to him and his immense liking for Gilani. The leaked American cables quote him as saying that he feared a fresh army coup. Zardari is also quoted as telling the US Ambassador in Pakistan Anne Patterson that he had made provision in case of his assassination, saying his sister, Faryal Talpur, would be named president.

Pakistan has always had the tradition of disrespecting its own elected leaders. Zardari’s case is no different. The Wikileaks’ cables show how Army Chief Kayani and ISI Chief Pasha ganged up together against Zardari months after he was sworn in as President. "Kayani and Pasha's body language was disrespectful of their own president," then-Afghan Interior Minister Hanif Atmar told the Americans in 2009. Later in November 2009, Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik requested an urgent meeting at the US Embassy in Islamabad saying that the government needed political protection for the President. Malik told the US ambassador that Pasha was spinning intrigues against Zardari. Anne Patterson was not convinced that Pasha was acting alone. "Malik's view that ISI Director-General Pasha is behind the moves against President Zardari and that Chief of Army Staff Kayani is not involved is either naive or intentionally misleading," she wrote to the US State Department. "It would be impossible for Pasha to move without Kayani's acquiescence."

The Zardari-Gilani tug of war in the Pakistani polity is also given a clearer perspective in the Wikileaks cables. The documents describe Zardari as "pro-American and anti-extremist". Though the American embassy officials in Islamabad admit that Zardari was far from perfect, they categorically state that "Zardari runs the show, and Gilani has at times chafed at public acknowledgment of this fact". The American diplomats, according to the documents, have this to say about Zardari: "we believe he is our best ally in the government". They also describe the reports of Zardari-Gilani tensions as "exaggerated" and say that "Gilani knows his place and will tow Zardari's line".

INDO-PAK BRINKMANSHIP

The Wikileaks Cable Gate has given a new perspective into the India-Pakistan brinkmanship in the immediate aftermath of 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. Immediately after the November 2008 strikes both nuclear powers began to put their armies on alert. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate how an Indo-Pak military conflict loomed large as the then Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee apparently threatened Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari over the phone with war. "Both Chief of Army Staff General (Ashfaq Parvez) Kayani and President (Asif Ali) Zardari have stated flatly to Ambassador that the government of Pakistan would have no choice but to retaliate if attacked, and post has no doubt they are sincere," reads a classified US dispatch.

The Wikileaks cables say that New Delhi was convinced that Pakistan’s ISI had prior knowledge of the 26/11 attack and had approved it. During these chaotic days, communication between Pakistan’s military and the civilian government had become muddled and confused. Zardari, who according to the Wikileaks cables, is more powerful than his bête noire Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani but less powerful than Pakistan Army Gen Kayani, gave his army chief cursory information about his contacts with the US, other allies and India. At this point of time Zardari’s main task was to de-escalate tensions with India and he floated the trial balloon when he stated that he was willing to send ISI Chief Shuja Pasha to New Delhi to cool temperatures.

Eventually Pasha never travelled to New Delhi evidently because Gen Kayani vetoed Zardari’s offer saying that it would lay a wrong precedent, whet the appetite of the Indians, and the next time they would be demanding his head. Therefore, a tutored Zardari later told the Americans that it was "too early" for a meeting with the head of the intelligence agency: "Let the evidence come to light, let the investigation take its course. Then perhaps there is a position where the directors general could meet ... The DG (Pasha) is too senior a person to get into who overall looks into the investigation." Shortly thereafter, Pakistani law enforcement officials arrested 124 suspects and tensions eased somewhat. It took some time for Islamabad to press charges against seven of those detained and has already taken an eternity for bringing the trial of these seven men to its logical conclusion.

Immediately after 26/11, the Pakistani leadership, both civilian and military, was all honey and sugar with India. Pakistan offered intelligence sharing in its bid to mollycoddle India, though the Indian leadership rightly ignored these placatory gestures. While Indo-Pak intelligence sharing never materialized, Pakistan shared intelligence information with Israel regarding possible terrorist attacks against Jewish and Israeli sites in India, the US diplomatic cables leaked by Wikileaks show. This when Pakistan doesn’t even have formal diplomatic relations with Israel!


A document dated October 7, 2009 said Gen. Pasha told an American diplomat that he had conveyed intelligence on potential terror attacks in India to Israel. He told Anne Patterson that he had traveled to Oman and Iran to investigate information he received from the US about possible pending attacks in India. "Pasha asked Ambassador to convey to Washington that he had followed up on threat information that an attack would be launched against India between September-November. He had been in direct touch with the Israelis on possible threats against Israeli targets in India," the cable read.

PAKISTAN DEFIES US

The world has feared for long that the Pakistani nukes may spill over to the jihadists, either by accident or by design. The Wikileaks cables deal at length with the Western fear that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear programme "could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon" for a terrorist group. The leaked US embassy cables also discuss the possibility of Islamic hardliners gaining power in Pakistan, triggering off a tense nuclear stand-off with India. Some of these cables talk about some British officials privately pushing for a "Cold-War-like relationship" to emerge between India and Pakistan, with China helping to stabilise the situation.

In 2008, Anne Patterson, cabled to Washington: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon." The US cables say that the US diplomats have been particularly worried that "despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world".
The Americans have fancied their nation’s complete control over the Pakistani nuclear arsenal but, as the reports show, they are a long way from achieving this goal. Pakistan has steadfastly rejected a pro-active involvement of the Americans in the Pakistani nuke management. The Pakistanis have dug in their heels as is evident from Richard Holbrooke’s recent visit to Pakistan wherein he merely received a briefing on the "physical, personnel and command and control safeguards for Pakistan's nuclear weapons." The Americans laboriously worked towards a plan for "fuel removal" to the US from a research reactor years ago. But Pakistan jettisoned the American plans. A Pakistani decision-making official in the Foreign Ministry was quoted by the Wikileaks as saying that "if the local media got word of the fuel removal, they certainly would portray it as the United States taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons."

The David Coleman Headley saga is yet another example of Pakistan’s open defiance against the US. In December 2009 the FBI informed Pakistan about the big fish in their net: Headley, an American citizen of Pakistani origins. Pakistan sought access to Headley as he pleaded guilty to the charges, but the Americans refused. The measure of the US-Pakistan disconnect on terrorism issues is reflected by the fact that the Pakistanis paid back in the same coin and refused the Americans direct access to Ilyas Kashmiri, an alleged accomplice of Headley. Incidentally Kashmiri is an officer of the Special Services Group, an elite commando unit that was trained by the Americans. The wheel comes to full circle!

India denies Musharraf a visa

New Delhi, Dec 1: India has refused to give a visa to former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf to attend a function in Delhi as it was "not convinced" of the reason for the visit, sources said Wednesday. Musharraf had last week accused India of fomenting trouble in Pakistan's Balochistan province.


According to external affairs ministry sources, Musharraf had applied for visa at the Indian High Commission in London to visit here at the invitation of the India chapter of an international group, Young Presidents' Association.

Official sources said that India did not sanction the visa as it was "not convinced" of the reason for the visit. They said the decision was taken by the home ministry.

The former military dictator has been based in London since being forced to step down after the 2008 Pakistani general elections.

Musharraf has been tying to make a comeback into Pakistani politics by essentially harnessing social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. He had even launched his own political party, All Pakistan Muslim League, in June.

On Nov 26, Musharraf had told a Pakistani television channel that he had "solid evidence" of India and Afghanistan creating unrest in Balochistan.

He alleged that tribal leader Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti's grandson, Bramdagh Bugti, is received by agents from the Indian spy agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) whenever he visits India.

"I know that they finance him, they give him weapons to create trouble and stab us in the back in Balochistan."

Officials said that this statement had been one of the reasons for the denial of visa.

Besides, India had got alarmed when some supporters of Musharraf had also applied for a visa to travel alongwith him, which seemed to be now more than just an invitation to deliver a speech.
--IANS

Dislodging the legitimate ‘dictators’

Kishore Mahbubani
Fri Dec 03 2010, 04:08 hrs
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/dislodging-the-legitimate-dictators/719733/0

President Obama brought many gifts to India. The biggest gift he brought was a clear signal that US-India relations have entered a positive new terrain. Many of the suspicions that had continued to persist as a relic of the Cold War differences between India and America have gone. A new era has certainly emerged in Indo-American relations.

One symbolic indication of this new era was provided by President Obama’s categorical support for India’s admission as a new permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC). There can be no doubt that Obama was completely sincere in expressing this support. Despite this, the big question remains whether this strong support brings India any closer to joining the UNSC as a permanent member.



It is vital to remember here that the question of UNSC reform and expansion has been discussed by the UN for almost two decades. In 1992, the UN set up the “Open-ended Working Group on UNSC Reform”. Some wag has wisely suggested that the name of the group be changed from “open-ended” to “never-ending”, which would be a more accurate description of its performance.





So what is holding up UNSC reform? The simple answer is that there is a natural gridlock in place. For every country that wants to join, there is a neighbour or rival that feels uncomfortable. Hence, for a Brazil that wants to join, Argentina is uncomfortable. For a Japan that wants to join, China and South Korea feel uncomfortable. Despite the apparent closeness of the European Union member states, many EU states do not welcome Germany’s candidature as a permanent member. When I served as Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, my Italian counterpart used to quip, “Why should only Germany and Japan join? Italy also lost World War II.”




The resistance to change, however, does not come from neighbouring states only. Among the larger membership of the UN, there are also deep qualms about adding more permanent members with a veto. Why is this so? The simple answer is that the five permanent members (or P-5, as they are commonly referred to) have abused their veto powers. In theory, they are meant to use their privileged status to “maintain or restore international peace and security”. In practice, they have used their veto powers to protect their national interests, not the interests of the international community.




To make matters worse, the P-5 have refused to accept any kind of democratic accountability or transparency for their performance as permanent members. Even though the charter says explicitly that the UNSC is obliged to submit a report to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) (where all 192 UN members are represented), the P-5 refuse to accept any kind of explicit or implicit accountability to the 192 members. Indeed, many P-5 members actually believe (secretly) that far from the UNSC being accountable to the UNGA, the UNSC is actually superior to the UNGA. The UNSC is in one way more powerful than the UNGA because it can make decisions that are mandatory for all 192 members. Hence, when the UNSC imposes sanctions on Iran, all states have to comply.




What happens when a person or an organisation is given absolute powers without any balancing accountability for these powers? The simple answer is that the person begins to behave like a “dictator”. Indeed, in some ways, the P-5 are the only legitimate “dictators” left in the world. And, as dictators, they do not want to see any dilution of their powers.




Ironically, even though the US is the world’s most powerful democracy domestically, it does not accept the principle of democratic accountability for its international performance. Instead, like any other great power, it does not wish to accept any constraints on its behaviour. This is another reason why the US is not keen to see any real reform in the UNSC. Many years ago, I had a private meeting with a senior US diplomat. I asked him for the bottom-line of the US position on UNSC reform. He replied candidly, “15 members already give us tremendous problems when we try to secure a consensus. A larger number is not in America’s interests.” I wasn’t the first to learn this American bottom-line position. My Pakistani colleague had told me the same point earlier. This is why he was confident that no UNSC reform would happen soon. To be fair, the US is not the only P-5 member which is reluctant to expand the UNSC. In a US diplomatic cable which was leaked this week, an unidentified Chinese official was quoted as saying that China wanted the United States to maintain its position on UNSC reform and not be “proactive” on the matter. “The P-5 should not be diluted. If we end up with a ‘P-10’, both China and the United States would be in trouble,” he told the American ambassador.


All this therefore creates a painful conundrum for India. There can now be no doubt whatsoever that India deserves a permanent seat in the UNSC. Indeed, a UNSC without India as a permanent member will clearly be seen to be illegitimate. Yet, to secure the support of the 186 other non-permanent members of the UNSC, a plan must be put forward that makes the UNSC more transparent and accountable. Any such plan would be explicitly or implicitly opposed by the current P-5. In short, any exercise to reform the UNSC is enormously difficult. Success would require the wisdom of a Solomon. Or maybe an Obama.






The writer is dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore and the author of ‘The New Asian Hemisphere’ canasiansthink@expressindia.com

Steve Solarz, A true friend of India

Source: REDIFF
Last updated on: January 27, 2005 23:02 IST
T P Sreenivasan, among India's [ Images ] most distinguished diplomats, continues his column based on his encounters with some of the world's most famous people.


"Why didn't the Indians integrate with the local communities?"

"What was the nature of the guarantees the British gave Indians when they came here?"

"What did the Government of India do to prevent discrimination against Indians?"

"Would the Indians rise in armed revolt if discrimination persists?"

The questions came at me like machinegun fire and I had to answer them swiftly and briefly. The next question followed in the same fashion and I had just enough time to catch my breath. The young Congressman had his eyes riveted on me and he appeared impressed with my answers, but he did not respond to them. He continued with his questions.

The year was 1987 and the venue was the residence of the US ambassador to Fiji, Edward Dillery. US Congressman Steve Solarz had come to Fiji to study the plight of Indians there soon after the military coup by Sitiveni (Steve) Rabuka. Solarz had specially asked to meet the Indian ambassador and, therefore, Dillery had invited me to lunch with the Congressman. I was exhausted by the time he finished the questioning and reached out for a strong gin and tonic as I studied the man.

ALSO READ: Ashwin Mahesh on The Home Coming

Solarz, in his mid-40s and with a handsome face and piercing eyes, was the very picture of an American intellectual. It was then my turn to question him, but I did so slowly and hesitatingly as he did not seem inclined to share his views with me. But soon he opened up and spoke his mind. He had digested everything I had said, compared my points with what he had already learnt and reinforced his conclusions. I urged him to influence US public opinion in favour of Fiji Indians, who knew no other country as theirs. India was a distant land for them. He reassured me that he would try his best; he had no hesitation in taking up the Fiji Indian cause.

I did not meet Solarz for the next 10 years. I knew he was India's best friend in the US Congress, that he had set up the India Caucus in the Congress, that he was instrumental in setting up a South Asia Bureau in the State Department, that he had got into trouble on account of some technical irregularities relating to his personal cheques and that he lost his Congressional constituency on account of a delimitation exercise.

Indian Americans were upset about his downfall and continued to give him support. Solarz became an unofficial lobbyist for India after he left Congress. He studied issues relating to India-US relations and spoke and wrote about them with conviction, clarity and persuasiveness. He gave the impression that he was for India, right or wrong, but he had cogent arguments to substantiate his points in favour of India.

President Clinton found in Solarz a reliable adviser on South Asia and by the time Clinton began his second term, Solarz and others had convinced him that a new policy towards South Asia, with India at its centre, was warranted. Another staunch supporter of India, Frank Pallone, became the head of the India Caucus. But Solarz continued to support the Caucus's efforts from outside. He also traveled to India several times to meet Indian leaders and to deepen his understanding of the country.

ALSO READ: Washington's fallible South Asia policy

I met Solarz socially in Washington a few times after I arrived in Washington in October 1997. But it was at a Congressional hearing in May 1998 that I first witnessed what Solarz could do for India. The Congressional hearing on India was planned several months before the nuclear tests of May 11 and 13, and was meant to highlight the positive elements in the new US-India relationship that Clinton ushered in. It was also planned as an occasion for Senator (Jesse) Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to speak positively about India after he had a change of heart about the country at the behest of Swadesh Chatterjee, an Indian-American activist from North Carolina.

But the hearing, which was held within days of our nuclear tests, was a catastrophe from India's point of view. The hearing which came about because of the embassy's efforts, turned into the worst tirade against India in US Congressional history. The testimonies of participants, which were meant to boost bilateral relations, turned into accusations of betrayal and deceit. Helms himself was at his anti-Indian worst and suggested that India would be a threat to the US itself in the days to come as it had a space capability. 'India has not just shot itself in the foot, but also in the head,' he thundered. At the end of the tirade, he suddenly remembered that he owed his Indian-American friends something and said some kind words about the contribution of Indians to the US. But that did not detract from the venom he spewed on India.

It was then the turn of Steve Solarz. He spoke of India's strengths as a democracy, of the long tradition of India-US relations and the new economic reforms which led to the opening of a huge market for US goods. He spelt out the contours of the Clinton policy towards India. As for the nuclear tests, he referred to India's threat perceptions, particularly its experience of Chinese aggression in 1962 and the continued occupation of Indian territory by China. While conceding that India had violated the non-proliferation regime, he sought an understanding of India's compulsions to guarantee its security. Solarz's testimony sounded like blasphemy for a majority of the audience, which was in a mood to condemn and castigate India. But it saved the day for India; there was at least one lone voice to support its position on that fateful day. Every word he spoke was worth its weight in gold for India.

Solarz became an official lobbyist for India soon thereafter, together with three other firms which were already working with the embassy. Solarz joined a lobbying firm to legitimise his role, but worked more or less alone to support India's case on the Hill and elsewhere. His main role was as a strategist who advised us on how to approach different Congressmen and senior officials. My weekly meetings with lobbyists came alive as Solarz gave new ideas and approaches, which were thoroughly discussed. Solarz himself spoke to a number of Democratic Congressmen and enlisted their support. He helped us draft Congressional letters and other documents with the skills of a seasoned Congressman.

Solarz worked hard on the idea of marshalling Indian-American resources to India's advantage on the same lines that Israel had worked on the Jews. But in the absence of a unified leadership and unity within the community, the plan did not work out. But his standing in the community and his general reputation as a friend of India helped advance our cause in Washington. He was not expected to be objective when it came to India, but his presentations were compelling and absorbing.

Solarz spoke warmly about me at Ambassador Naresh Chandra's farewell in Washington at the end of 2000. He said he had known that India's best diplomats were sent as Deputy Chiefs of Mission to Washington and that the post was "a one-way ticket to stardom." I had to add that the same was true of ambassadors to the United States.

Solarz is a politician whose talents have not been fully used by his own party and country. His intellectual abilities and people skills should have given him a unique position in the Democratic Party. He continues to be intellectually alive and active, but he is considered a spent political force. I saw him in India in the winter of 2003 on a plane to Udaipur. He was his own self again, firing questions at me with the same rapidity as he did in 1987. He appeared aged, but no less sharp and no less enthusiastic about India.

T P Sreenivasan was India's former ambassador to the United Nations, Vienna [ Images ], and former governor for India, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

SIT's reported clean chit to Narendra Modi vindicates our stand: BJP

Published: Friday, Dec 3, 2010, 17:20 IST
Place: New Delhi | Agency: PTI


BJP today said the Supreme Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) reportedly giving a clean chit to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots cases vindicates the party's stand on the issue.

"This issue is in court. We are not aware of what the SIT has said, so we will not be able to make a detailed comment. But if such an outcome is there then it will be a truth which will vindicate our stand on the matter," leader of opposition in Rajya Sabha and MP from Gujarat Arun Jaitley said.

BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain said, "BJP has taken the stand to cooperate with law. People may have been conspiring against the BJP, but we believe in law."

The SIT has submitted its report to the apex court on allegations levelled by the wife of a former Congress MP Ahsan Jafri, Zakiathat Modi and his close aides aided and abetted the post-Godhra carnage in which her husband was killed.

A newspaper report claimed that the SIT has said there was no proof of Modi's complicity in the violence that took place after the Godhra incident.

Mukul Rohtagi, counsel for the Gujarat government, said the state government has been maintaining for the last 10 years that Modi had no role to play in the riots.

"The riots were unfortunate but to allege that the CM was engineering them or was negligent... is a falsehood," he said.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said the SIT report was submitted to the apex court in a sealed cover and wanted to know how it was leaked to a newspaper.

The SIT had summoned Modi a few months ago and grilled him for a few hours on the issue.

The court had on April 27, 2009 asked the SIT to inquire into Zakia's complaint.

Zakia had alleged that Modi and 62 others, including his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted the riots which left over 1,000 people dead. Her husband Ehsan Jaffery was killed along with 69 others by a mob at Gulbarg Society in Ahmedabad.

WIKILEAK: BALOCH REQUEST UNHCR FACILITATE MOVEMENT OF BRAHMDAGH BUGTI TO IRELAND

Friday, 18 December 2009, 11:04
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 ISLAMABAD 003037
NOFORN
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 12/18/2034
TAGS PREL, PGOV, PREF, PK, AF
SUBJECT: BALOCH REQUEST UNHCR FACILITATE MOVEMENT OF
BRAHMDAGH BUGTI TO IRELAND
Classified By: Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, for reasons 1.4 (b)(d)

Summary

1. A senior UN official approaches the US with a proposal to obtain asylum for Baloch nationalist leader Brahumdagh Bugti, who is wanted by Pakistan, in Ireland. The plan collapses after a meeting between the CIA station chief and the head of the ISI. Key sections highlighted in yellow.
   
   
2. Read related article

1. (S/NF) Summary: XXXXXXXXXXXX, who has been designated by UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres as XXXXXXXXXXXX in Pakistan, met with the Ambassador and Deputy Chief of Mission on December 13 to discuss the U.S. Government's position on the possible movement of Baloch leader Brahmdagh Bugti from Afghanistan to a country of asylum. He requested U.S. intervention with Pakistani authorities if UNHCR agrees to facilitate this movement. XXXXXXXXXXXX Brahmdagh's uncle, reportedly told XXXXXXXXXXXX that the Government of Ireland has agreed to offer asylum to Bugti, although UNHCR has not yet confirmed this offer. At the request of UNHCR, the Ambassador agreed to engage President Zardari and have the Embassy follow up with Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to ensure that the GOP would not act against such a transfer or negatively respond to UNHCR's potential involvement. In a subsequent conversation, however, DGI ISI Pasha registered to COS the Pakistan military's opposition to allowing Bugti to obtain refugee status. While getting Bugti out of Afghanistan is still a good idea, we do not believe UNHCR should be involved. End Summary.

2. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX met recently with XXXXXXXXXXXX, who sought UNHCR support in facilitating the movement out of Afghanistan of Brahmdagh Bugti, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti's grandson and head of the Baloch Republican Party. XXXXXXXXXXXX reportedly told XXXXXXXXXXXX that the Government of Ireland was willing to receive Brahmdagh Bugti, who "had to get out of Afghanistan and would not be safe returning to Pakistan." XXXXXXXXXXXX also contended that the USG would be supportive of this transfer. (Note: XXXXXXXXXXXX has met with Embassy poloffs several times to float the idea of moving Bugti, sharing with us that Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister is willing to help Bugti gain asylum there. End Note.)

3. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX sought a meeting on December 13 with the Ambassador to discuss the USG position on the potential transfer of Bugti, although UNHCR has yet to verify Ireland's willingness to receive him or to make a determination as to whether Bugti is eligible for refugee status. The British Government has previously refused to consider asylum for Bugti. According to XXXXXXXXXXXX, while UNHCR believes that moving Bugti from Afghanistan and from close proximity to and influence in Baloch insurgent activity in Pakistan would be in the Pakistani Government's interest, High Commissioner Guterres is concerned that UNHCR's potential involvement in this transfer could have a negative impact on UNHCR's humanitarian access, operations, and security in Pakistan. UNHCR is seeking assurances that the Pakistani Government will not act against such a transfer or penalize UNHCR's potential involvement in it. XXXXXXXXXXXX told the Ambassador that his meeting with XXXXXXXXXXXX and all UNHCR's interaction with Baloch leaders have been carefully monitored by Pakistani intelligence.

4. (C) UNHCR will hold an in-house meeting to be attended by XXXXXXXXXXXX to discuss more generally what to do with regard to the Baloch in Afghanistan. Besides Bugti, there are "a few hundred" Baloch in Kandahar (largely from Dera Bugti), XXXXXXXXXXXX explained. He said that recognizing these Baloch as refugees would be well received by the Pakistani Baloch community - which believes UNHCR has been insufficiently supportive of them despite Baloch assistance in facilitating the release of kidnapped UNHCR Quetta Sub-Office Head John Solecki -- but would not be well-received by the Government of Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD 00003037 002 OF 002

5. (C) The Ambassador told XXXXXXXXXXXX that the USG would be supportive of moving Bugti out of the region but said that UNHCR would need to confirm first Ireland's willingness to grant him asylum. She and XXXXXXXXXXXX both expressed concern about the possible implications of XXXXXXXXXXXX's stipulation that Bugti would need to be able to freely travel outside his country of asylum. The Ambassador agreed to engage President Zardari and have the Embassy follow up with Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to ensure that the GOP would not act against a transfer of Bugti out of Afghanistan or negatively respond to UNHCR's potential involvement.

6. (S/NF) In a subsequent conversation, DG ISI Pasha told COS that he believed Bugti should return to Pakistan to stand trial for his crimes. While declaring that the decision belonged ultimately to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he made clear that the Pakistan military would not favor allowing Bugti to be accorded refugee status. It was also clear from Pasha's comments that efforts on the part of UN agencies to effect Bugti being provided with asylum in Europe would color the Pakistan military's perception of those agencies and would affect their working relationships.

7. (S/NF) Comment: On the basis of Pasha's remarks, we are advising XXXXXXXXXXXX that it would be better for UNHCR not to pursue this initiative with Bugti. End Comment. PATTERSON

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/240580

Barkha Dutt on the Allegations Against Her

http://www.ndtv.com/page/?type=barkha-statement

As a journalist, whose work has been consistently hard-hitting and scathingly critical of the ongoing 2G scam and the former Telecom Minister, I am astonished, angered and hurt to see the baseless allegations against me in sections of the media this week.

While there is no doubt that journalists must be held to the same exacting standards of accountability that we seek from others, the allegations in this instance, as they relate to me, are entirely slanderous and not backed by a shred of evidence. The edited conversations between PR Representative Nira Radia and me have been headlined to suggest that I misused my role as a journalist to "lobby" for A. Raja, a man I have never met.

While this is completely untrue, I can understand the anger and anguish that such a misrepresentation can create, among viewers who rely on me to report honestly and impartially. And I would like to address some of the questions raised by these edited transcripts.

The tapes seem to add up to hundreds of hours of conversations between Nira Radia and people from different backgrounds, including scores of well-known journalists and editors from all the major media organisations (TV and Print) in India. Despite this, much of the commentary has been strangely selective in its focus. And quite often, vindictively personal. Consider, for example, that online it is being dubbed "BarkhaGate."

I cannot speak on behalf of any other journalist on the tapes. Framed in the backdrop of a larger media debate, every journalist's conversation on these tapes must, of course, be evaluated on its own merit. So, speaking only for myself, the insinuation made by the magazines are preposterous.

By definition, the insinuation of "lobbying" implies either a quid-pro-quo of some kind or a compromise in how I have reported the story. As anyone who has watched my coverage of the ongoing 2G scam over the past year would know - to suggest either is entirely absurd. (ATTACHED BELOW ARE LINKS TO SEVERAL SHOWS HOSTED BY ME ON THE 2G SCAM OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS). In several different statements, I have already challenged two newsmagazines who first carried the allegations to establish any proof of a quid-pro quo or a bias in reportage. I know that neither charge stands the test of any scrutiny.

For those perplexed by the ongoing debate, it could be useful to understand the context in which these conversations took place. The few, short conversations took place in the backdrop of cabinet formation in 2009, when the DMK had stormed out of the UPA coalition over portfolio allocation.

In this instance, Nira Radia, was clearly plugged into the inner workings of the DMK, a fact we only discovered when she rang up to tell me that the news flashes running on different news channels were incorrect; the stalemate between the DMK and the Congress had not yet been resolved. She corroborated her claim by saying she was in direct contact with the DMK chief and was in fact with his daughter, Kanimozhi. We talked about news developments within the DMK and the Congress and nothing I said was different from what I was reporting on TV minute-by-minute.

Ironically, the one sentence being used to damn me, "Oh God, What should I tell them", is in fact two separate sentences, neither of which are related to A Raja or the telecom portfolio at all. When transcripts are edited and capture neither tone nor context, the message is severely distorted. The phrase "Oh God," was nothing more than a response to a long account by Nira Radia on a DMK leader, TR Baalu, speaking to the media without sanction from the party. The excerpt, "What should I tell them," was in response to her repeatedly saying to me over several different phone calls, that if I happened to talk to anyone in the Congress, I should ask them to talk the DMK chief directly.

As a matter of record, I never passed on any message to any Congress leader. But because she was a useful news source, and the message seemed innocuous, I told her I would. Ultimately, I did no more than humour a source who was providing me information during a rapidly changing news story.

AT NO STAGE WAS I EVER ASKED TO PASS ON ANY MESSAGE TO INTERCEDE ON BEHALF OF A PARTICULAR MINISTER OR PORTFOLIO. NOT ONCE, WAS I ASKED TO "LOBBY" FOR A. RAJA. NOT ONCE WAS I ASKED TO CARRY ANY MESSAGE REGARDING HIM OR ANY OTHER APPOINTMENT.

Anyone who has bothered to read the entire transcript of these conversations instead of just the headline, would notice that the conversation is essentially a journalist soliciting information from one of the many people plugged in - something all journalists do as part of newsgathering. And as journalists, we also often humour our sources without acting on their requests.

The only "benefit" I ever got from talking to Nira Radia was information; information I used to feed the news.

It is important to remember that at this point, in May 2009, none of us were aware of the present investigation against Nira Radia. Like most other journalists in India, I knew Nira Radia professionally as the main PR person for the Tata Group. In this instance, she clearly represented one side of the story. She was just one of many people I spoke to as is typical in such news stories. As journalists we deal with different kinds of people, who sometime solicit information and at other times, provide news leads. Unless we believe in only press-conference driven journalism, the need to tap into what's happening behind-the-scenes in the corridors of power involves dealing with a multitude of voices, and yes, we cannot always vouchsafe for the integrity of all those we use as news sources. We concern ourselves primarily with the accuracy of the information.

But, I must come back to my original objection to what the two magazines have implied. Strangely, when I complained to the editor of Open magazine about the smear campaign against me, he sent me a text saying , there was "not much remarkable" in my conversations and went on to even say that, "there is one bit in the strap where the word go-between is used that I don't like myself." I have to wonder then, with anger, why he did not pause before using such a defamatory description.

Are there learnings in this for me? Yes, of course there are. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and with what we know now, I realise that when we talk to people who represent or belong to the power establishment, there can be a danger in sailing too close to the wind, even for those of us who are experienced and are driven purely by a deep passion for news.

The takeaway from this debate for me pertains to the everyday practice of journalism. I think of how different kinds of people, who could be potential sources of news, call me, and indeed all editors in this country every day, with different requests ranging from complaints about stories to requests for coverage and yes, sometimes we are also asked to pass on innocuous bits of information. Never have these requests - nor will they - dictate the agenda of my news decisions. But, the calls that we treat with polite friendliness, to keep our channels of news open, clearly need to be handled with more distance. This controversy has made me look at the need to re-draw the lines much more carefully.

There is also another learning. I have always operated by a code of ethics that holds me as accountable to the public as the politicians I grill on my show. The selective and malicious nature of some of the commentary against me has reinforced my awareness of how responsible we ought to be before we level an allegation against another.

While a genuine debate on media ethics is always welcome in the quest for self improvement, I hope this debate will also look at what amounts to character assassination.

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/page/?type=barkha-statement&cp

Attacks on Nuclear Scientists in Tehran

By Ben West

STRATFOR

"Attacks on Nuclear Scientists in Tehran is republished with permission of STRATFOR."

On the morning of Nov. 29, two Iranian scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear development program were attacked. One was killed, and the other was injured. According to Iranian media, the deceased, Dr. Majid Shahriari, was heading the team responsible for developing the technology to design a nuclear reactor core, and Time magazine referred to him as the highest-ranking non-appointed individual working on the project.

Official reports indicate that Shahriari was killed when assailants on motorcycles attached a “sticky bomb” to his vehicle and detonated it seconds later. However, the Time magazine report says that an explosive device concealed inside the car detonated and killed him. Shahriari’s driver and wife, both of whom were in the car at the time, were injured.

Meanwhile, on the opposite side of town, Dr. Fereidoon Abassi was injured in a sticky-bomb attack reportedly identical to the one officials said killed Shahriari. His wife was accompanying him and was also injured (some reports indicate that a driver was also in the car at the time of the attack). Abassi and his wife are said to be in stable condition. Abassi is perhaps even more closely linked to Iran’s nuclear program than Shahriari was, since he was a member of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and was named in a 2007 U.N. resolution that sanctioned high-ranking members of Iran’s defense and military agencies believed to be trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Monday’s incidents occurred at a time of uncertainty over how global powers and Iran’s neighbors will handle an Iran apparently pursuing nuclear weapons despite its claims of developing only a civilian nuclear program and asserting itself as a regional power in the Middle East. Through economic sanctions that went into effect last year, the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany (known as the “P-5+1”) have been pressuring Iran to enter negotiations over its nuclear program and outsource the most sensitive aspects the program, such as higher levels of uranium enrichment.

The Nov. 29 attacks came about a week before Saeed Jalili, Iran’s national security chief, will be leading a delegation to meet with the P-5+1 from Dec. 6-7 in Vienna, the first such meeting in more than a year. The attacks also came within hours of the WikiLeaks release of classified U.S. State Department cables, which are filled with international concerns about Iran’s controversial nuclear program.

Because of the international scrutiny and sanctions on just about any hardware required to develop a nuclear program, Iran has focused on developing domestic technologies that can fill the gaps. This has required a national initiative coordinated by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) to build the country’s nuclear program from scratch, an endeavor that requires thousands of experts from various fields of the physical sciences as well as the requisite technologies.

And it was the leader of the AEOI, Ali Akhbar Salehi, who told media Nov. 29 that Shahriari was “in charge of one of the great projects” at the agency. Salehi also issued a warning to Iran’s enemies “not to play with fire.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elaborated on the warning, accusing “Zionist” and “Western regimes” of being behind the coordinated attacks against Shahriari and Abassi. The desire of the U.N. Security Council (along with Israel and Germany) to stop Iran’s nuclear program and the apparent involvement of the targeted scientists in that program has led many Iranian officials to quickly blame the United States, United Kingdom and Israel for the attacks, since those countries have been the loudest in condemning Iran for its nuclear ambitions.

It seems that certain domestic rivals of the Iranian regime would also benefit from these attacks. Any one of numerous Iranian militant groups throughout the country may have been involved in one way or another, perhaps with the assistance of a foreign power. A look at the tactics used in the attacks could shed some light on the perpetrators.

Modus Operandi

According to official Iranian reports, Abassi was driving to work at Shahid Beheshti University in northern Tehran from his residence in southern Tehran. When the car in which he and his wife were traveling was on Artash Street, assailants on at least two motorcycles approached the vehicle and attached an improvised explosive device (IED) to the driver’s-side door. The device exploded shortly thereafter, injuring Abassi and his wife.

Images reportedly of Abassi’s vehicle show that the driver’s side door was destroyed, but the rest of the vehicle and the surrounding surfaces show very little damage. A few pockmarks can be seen on the vehicle behind Abassi’s car but little else to indicate that a bomb had gone off in the vicinity. (Earlier reports indicating that this was Shahriari’s vehicle proved erroneous.) This indicates that the IED was a shaped charge with a very specific target. Evidence of both the shaped charge and the utilization of projectiles in the device suggests that the device was put together by a competent and experienced bomb-maker.

An eyewitness account of the attack offers one explanation why the device did not kill Abassi. According to the man who was driving immediately behind Abassi’s car, the car abruptly stopped in traffic, then Abassi got out and went to the passenger side where his wife was sitting. The eyewitness said Abassi and his wife were about 2 meters from the car, on the opposite side when the IED exploded. Abassi appears to have been aware of the attack as it was under way, which apparently saved his life. The eyewitness did not mention whether he saw the motorcyclists attach the device to the car before it went off, but that could have been what tipped Abassi off. If this was the case, the bomb-maker may have done his job well in building the device but the assailants gave themselves away when they planted it.

In the fatal attack against Shahriari, he also was on his way to work at Shahid Beheshti University in northern Tehran in his vehicle with his wife, according to official reports. These reports indicate that he definitely had a driver, which would suggest that Shahriari was considered a person of importance. Their car was traveling through a parking lot in northern Tehran when assailants on at least two motorcycles approached the vehicle and attached an IED to the car. Eyewitnesses say that the IED exploded seconds later and that the motorcyclists escaped. Shahriari was presumably killed in the explosion while his wife and driver were injured.

Terror acts in Iran, a sign of enemies’ carrot and stick policy: official
Tehran Times Political Desk

TEHRAN - Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Director Ali Akbar Salehi has said the recent terrorist attacks in Tehran show that the culprits have adopted a carrot and stick policy in the run-up to the talks between Iran and the 5+1 group (five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany), which will be held in Geneva from December 6 to 7.

Salehi made the remarks in Tehran on Wednesday at the funeral ceremony of Professor Majid Shahriari, who was killed in one of the attacks.

On Monday, two prominent physicists were targeted by terrorists in two separate bombings. Professor Majid Shahriari was killed and Professor Fereydoun Abbasi Davani was injured in the attacks. The two academics were both on their way to work at Shahid Beheshti University in northern Tehran when they were attacked. The police say that in both incidents, terrorists riding motorcycles attached magnetic bombs to the physicists’ cars.

On Wednesday, a number of other Iranian officials also condemned the terrorist attacks.

UN Security Council, Zionists are responsible

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that the permanent members of the UN Security Council must be held responsible for the attacks.

“They had named all these scientists in their resolutions as those who have been sanctioned,” Ahmadinejad said in Tehran on Wednesday.

Fereydoon Abbasi Davani, who was wounded in the second bomb attack, was named in UN Security Council Resolution 1747, which was adopted in March 2007.

Ahmadinejad added that the country’s security forces will soon identify the perpetrators of the attacks and the enemies will regret their action after the Iranian nation’s response.

He also stated that if the assassinations continue, “we will bring the permanent members of the UN Security Council to trial, one by one.”

UN Security Council members behind attacks

Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili said that UN Security Council member states are responsible for the attacks, adding, “It is a great scandal for the UN Security Council that terrorists implement its resolution.”

Enemies cannot separate people from Islamic establishment

Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi stated that the enemies will not be able to separate the Iranian people from the Islamic establishment and velayat-e faqih (rule of the supreme jurisprudent) by launching a soft war against Iran and assassinating its best scientists.

Such moves show the enemies’ desperation in the face of the Iranian nation’s resolve, Vahidi observed.

U.S., Zionists are responsible

First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi also condemned the terrorist acts, saying that the United States and the Zionist regime were behind the attacks.

Iran’s scientific progress will gain momentum

Deputy Majlis Speaker Mohammad Hassan Abutorabifard stated that the assassination of Professor Shahriari will only accelerate the country’s scientific progress.

Enemies have reached an impasse

In his condemnation of the attacks, the director of the Supreme Leader’s Offices at Universities, Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Mohammadian, said that the fact that Iranian scientists are being assassinated shows that the enemies have reached an impasse.

Assassinations are enemies’ last resort

Former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who is currently the foreign policy advisor of the Supreme Leader, stated that the enemies have done everything in their power to undermine Iran and have failed, so they have resorted to assassinations.

Shahriari was a thorn in the eye of U.S.

Basij Commander Mohammad-Reza Naqdi stated that Professor Shahriari was a “thorn in the eye of the United States” and that is why he was assassinated.

Desperate moves show Israel and its allies are on the decline

Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaii said that Israel and its allies were behind the attacks, but such moves show that they are on the verge of decline.

The official account of the attack is contradicted by the Time magazine report, which cites a “Western intelligence source with knowledge of the operation” as saying that the IED that killed Shahriari detonated from inside the vehicle. Images of what appears to be Shahriari’s vehicle are much poorer quality than the images of Abassi’s vehicle, but they do appear to show damage to the windshield and other car windows. The car is still very much intact, though, and the fact that Shahriari’s driver and wife escaped with only injuries suggests that the device used against Shahriari was also a shaped charge, specifically targeting him.

Capabilities

Attacks like the two carried out against Abassi and Shahriari require a high level of tradecraft that is available only to well-trained operatives. There is much more going on below the surface in attacks like these that is not immediately obvious when reading media reports. First, the team of assailants that attacked Abassi and Shahriari had to identify their targets and confirm that the men they were attacking were indeed high-level scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. The fact that Abassi and Shahriari held such high positions indicates they were specifically selected as targets and not the victims of a lucky, opportunistic attack.

Second, the team had to conduct surveillance of the two scientists. The team had to positively identify their vehicles and determine their schedules and routes in order to know when and how to launch their attacks. Both attacks targeted the scientists as they traveled to work, likely a time when they were most vulnerable, an MO commonly used by assassins worldwide.

Third, someone with sufficient expertise had to build IEDs that would kill their targets. Both devices appear to have been relatively small IEDs that were aimed precisely at the scientists, which may have been an attempt to limit collateral damage (their small size may also have been due to efforts to conceal the device). Both devices seem to have been adequate to kill their intended targets, and judging by the damage to his vehicle, it appears that Abassi would have received mortal wounds had he stayed in the driver’s seat.

The deployment stage seems to be where things went wrong for the assailants, at least in the Abassi attack. It is unclear exactly what alerted him, but it appears that he was exercising some level of situational awareness and was able to determine that an attack was under way.

It is not at all surprising that someone like Abassi would have been practicing situational awareness. This is not the first time that scientists linked to Iran’s nuclear program have been attacked, and Iranian agencies linked to the nuclear program have probably issued general security guidance to their employees (especially high-ranking ones like Abassi and Shahriari). In 2007, Ardeshir Hassanpour was killed in an alleged poisoning that STRATFOR sources attributed to an Israeli operation. Again, in January 2010, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, another Iranian scientist who taught at Tehran University, was killed in an IED attack that also targeted him as he was driving to work in the morning. While some suspected that Ali-Mohammadi may have been targeted by the Iranian regime due to his connections with the opposition, Abassi and Shahriari appear much too close to the regime to be targets of their own government (however, nothing can be ruled out in politically volatile Tehran). The similarities between the Ali-Mohammadi assassination and the attacks against Abassi and Shahriari suggest that a covert campaign to attack Iranian scientists could well be under way.

There is little doubt that the Nov. 29 attacks struck a greater blow to the development of Iran’s nuclear program than the previous two attacks. Shahriari appears to have had an integral role in the program. While he will likely be replaced and work will go on, his death could slow the program’s progress (at least temporarily) and further stoke security fears in Iran’s nuclear development community. The attacks come amid WikiLeaks revelations that Saudi King Abdullah and U.S. officials discussed assassinating Iranian leaders, accusations that the United States or Israel was behind the Stuxnet computer worm that allegedly targeted the computer systems running Iran’s nuclear program and the return home of Shahram Amiri, an Iranian scientist who alleged that the United States held him against his will earlier in the summer.

The evidence suggests that foreign powers are actively trying to probe and sabotage Iran’s nuclear program. However, doing so is not that simple. Tehran is not nearly as open a city as Dubai, where Israeli operatives are suspected of assassinating a high-level Hamas leader in January 2010. It is unlikely that the United States, Israel or any other foreign power could deploy its own team of assassins into Tehran to carry out a lengthy targeting, surveillance and attack operation without some on-the-ground help.

And there is certainly plenty of help on the ground in Iran. Kurdish militants like the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan have conducted numerous assassinations against Iranian clerics and officials in Iran’s western province of Kordestan. Sunni separatist militants in the southeast province of Sistan-Balochistan, represented by the group Jundallah, have also targeted Iranian interests in eastern Iran in recent years. Other regional militant opposition groups like Mujahideen-e Khalq, which has offered intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program to the United States, and Azeri separatists pose marginal threats to the Iranian regime. However, none of these groups has demonstrated the ability to strike such high-level officials in the heart of Tehran with such a degree of professionalism. While that is unlikely, they have the capability and a history of eliminating dissidents through assassinations. Furthermore, the spuriousness of many contradictory media reports makes the attacks suspicious.

It is unlikely that any foreign power was able to conduct this operation by itself and equally unlikely that any indigenous militant group was able to pull off an attack like this without some assistance. The combination of the two, however, could provide an explanation of how the attacks targeting Shariari and Abassi got so close to complete success.

Read more: Attacks on Nuclear Scientists in Tehran | STRATFOR