September 22, 2012



In an article written on June 12,2004, I had inter alia stated as follows:
“ For its intelligence-collection and covert action operations directed against India, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) uses four external bases - Kathmandu, Dubai, Bangkok and Colombo.

While Kathmandu and Dubai are used by the ISI for intelligence collection as well as covert actions, Bangkok is used as an alternate sanctuary and as a clandestine meeting place to brief and debrief its agents in India. After the Mumbai blasts of March,1993, the ISI had the perpetrators of the terrorist attack shifted to Bangkok from Karachi and kept them there for some time in different hotels in order to prevent the detection of their links with the ISI by the US diplomatic missions in Pakistan, which were enquiring into Indian allegations in this regard.

“Past evidence indicated that the main interest of the ISI in using Colombo as a base was to collect intelligence about developments in sensitive Indian nuclear and missile establishments, many of which are located in South India, particularly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

“For collecting intelligence about these establishments, the ISI generally uses Sri Lankan Tamil-speaking Muslims visiting India as well as South Indians visiting Colombo. Colombo also serves as a convenient transit point for arranging clandestine visits of Indians co-operating with the ISI to Karachi by the flights of the Pakistan International Airlines without any entry of their visits in their passports.

“There has been no evidence so far of the ISI using Colombo as a base for covert actions directed against India. However, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) has been showing increasing interest in taking jihad to the Muslims of the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. There have been persistent reports of the beginning of a radicalisation of small sections of the Tamil-speaking Muslim youth of the Eastern Province. During the riots in the Eastern Province in the middle of 2002, pamphlets in the name of a so-called Osama Brigade came to notice. The Chennai media had reported subsequently that some members of an organisation called the Muslim Defence Force (MDF) arrested by the Chennai Police had been in touch with one Abu Hamza of the LET based in the Gulf and that they were to meet him clandestinely in Sri Lanka. However, the meeting did not materialise as Abu Hamza did not come.

“The LET is very close to the ISI and it would not have taken its initial moves to explore the possibility of using Sri Lanka as a clandestine base for its activities and for creating sleeper cells there without the knowledge and prior clearance of the ISI.

“The recent investigations into the clandestine nuclear proliferation activities of A.Q.Khan, the so-called father of the Pakistan atom bomb, have revealed that BukharySeyed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan Tamil Muslim of Indian origin, married in Malaysia and with business interests in Kuala Lumpur and Dubai, was one of the external kingpins of Pakistan's clandestine nuclear procurement network. In a speech at the National Defence University of Washington DC in February last, President Bush had described this Sri Lankan Tamil-speaking Muslim as the "chief financial officer and money-launderer" of A.Q.Khan's clandestine operations.

“In the past, the ISI had posted its officers in junior and middle level clerical posts as well as in diplomatic posts in the Pakistani High Commission in Colombo.While it had never posted its officers as the head of the Pakistani diplomatic mission, HussainHaqqani, a journalist who was then allegedly close to the ISI, was posted as the Pakistani High Commissioner to Sri Lanka during the first tenure of Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister (1990-93).

“The "Jang", the Urdu daily of Pakistan, has now reported that the Pervez Musharraf regime has decided to post Col (retd) Bashir Wali, former Director of the Pakistani Intelligence Bureau (IB), as the new High Commissioner to Sri Lanka. It is not clear at what stage is the proposal. Has his name been already sent to the Sri Lankan Government for agrement? If so, has the Sri Lankan Government given its consent?

“The IB is part of Pakistan's Ministry of the Interior. Like its Indian counterpart, it used to be a largely Police organisation, but since the days of the late Gen.Zia-ul-Haq, there has been a gradual militarisation of the organisation. Musharraf has made it for all practical purposes a wing of the ISI, with Lt.Gen.Ehsan-ul-Haq, the Director-General of the ISI, exercising powers of supervision and co-ordination over it.

“It was reported in the Pakistani media last year that Musharraf had tried to send Brig. (retd) Ejaz Shah, who used to handle Omar Sheikh, the accused in the kidnapping and murder case of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist,in the ISI as the Pakistani High Commissioner to Australia, but the Australian Government did not reportedly give its agrement. He then tried to send him as Ambassador to Indonesia, which also did not give its agrement. It has recently been reported that he has since been posted to the IB to supervise operations relating to India.

“If the "Jang" report is correct, the posting of a former Director of the IB to Colombo as High Commissioner could have serious implications for India's national security. The Government of India should immediately express its concerns to the Sri Lankan Government and oppose his being based in Colombo. “

2. Subsequently, on June 18,2004, I wrote as follows:

"The Island", a daily of Sri Lanka, has reported as follows on June 17,2004: "Pakistan with the concurrence of Sri Lanka has appointed Colonel (retd) Bashir Wali as Islamabad's top envoy here, Sri Lankan and Pakistan High Commission officials said. "He is expected to take over the mission before end of this month," an official said."We don't see any reason to disagree with Pakistan's choice," the official said, dismissing concerns over the planned appointment among a section of political analysts in India."

“For Col. Wali, this would be the second posting in the Pakistani High Commission in Colombo. He had earlier served as the head of the Pakistani intelligence set-up in the High Commission in the 1990s and then as an intelligence officer in the Pakistani High Commission in London.

“It was during his previous stay in Colombo that  AlUmmah, the terrorist organisation of Tamil Nadu, expanded its activities in Tamil Nadu and Kerala and , during his stay in London, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) set up secret cells in the UK to recruit volunteers for its jihadi terrorist operations from amongst the members of the Muslim community in the UK. This ultimately led to a ban on the LET by the British Government.

“It is reported that Col. Wali was and still is an active member of the TablighiJamaat (TJ), which acts as the cover organisation of Pakistani jihadi organisations such as the LET, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) and helps them in their recruitment of cadres not only in Pakistan, but also in other countries of the world. During his earlier stay in Colombo, he had reportedly sent a number of Tamil Muslims from the Eastern Province to Karachi to study in the Binori madrasa on scholarships provided by the TJ. Mufti NizamuddinShamzai of this madrasa, who was considered the mentor and god father of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Pakistani jihadi and anti-Shia organisations, was assassinated by unidentified elements in Karachi on May 30,2004.

“While in Pakistan, Col. Wali used to attend regularly the annual conventions of the LET at Muridke, near Lahore, and was also attached to the Taliban as an adviser for some months in the 1990s. He was considered a protege of Brig (retd).Imtiaz, who headed the political division of the ISI during the tenure of the late Gen.Zia-ul-Haq, and had helped Imtiaz in running the ISI operations for training the terrorists from India's Punjab in Pakistani territory and arming them.

“When Benazir Bhutto came to power in 1988, she sacked Imtiaz, who was taken by Nawaz, the then Chief Minister of Pakistani Punjab,as his intelligence adviser. After the sacking of Benazir by the then President GhulamIshaq Khan in 1990, Nawaz, on taking over as the Prime Minister, appointed Imtiaz as the Director of the IB, a post which has since been upgraded as Director-General. Imtiaz took Wali into the IB and made him responsible for assisting the terrorists in Punjab and J&K. The training of the terrorists from Mumbai, responsible for  the  blasts of March,1993, was allegedly organisded by him on behalf of the ISI in association with Dawood Ibrahim, the mafia leader, who was designated by the US in October last year as an international terrorist because of his linkages with Al Qaeda and the LET.

“ Now that the Sri Lankan Government seems to have confronted India with a fait accompli by agreeing to the appointment of a die-hard anti- Indian sponsor of terrorism against India as the head of the Pakistani diplomatic mission in Colombo, India has to carefully analyse the implications of his presence in Colombo and take the necessary follow-up action. His presence in Colombo will pose a threat not only to India's national security, but also to stability and law and order in Sri Lanka's Eastern Province. “

3.On August 14,2006,seven persons, including four special commandos of the Special Diplomatic Security Unit, providing VVIP escort to the vehicle of Col.(retd) Bashir Wali  were killed in a three-wheeler explosion that targeted the military convoy that was escorting the diplomatic vehicle of Col.BashirWali  in the heart of Colombo city, on Flower Road in Kolpity. Col. Wali escaped unhurt and was subsequently withdrawn to Pakistan.

4.Commenting on the incident, I wrote as follows:

“Since taking over as the Pakistani High Commissioner in Colombo, he ( Col.Wali) has been very active in promoting military-military relationship between Sri Lanka and Pakistan and liaison between the intelligence agencies of the two countries. “ It was suspected that the LTTE targeted him because of this.

5.The Indian media has reported last week the arrest of a suspected spy of an ISI officer posted in Colombo by the Tamil Nadu Police. Our media has stated as follows:  “The arrest of DhameemAnzari, the alleged spy nabbed while attempting to pass on sensitive information to the ISI in Colombo, has reportedly exposed an increase in the activities of the Pakistan intelligence agency in Sri Lanka. Anzari had reportedly confessed to Q Branch police during initial interrogation that the ISI, which operated out of the Pakistani Embassy in Colombo, had increased its activities of monitoring the southern states of India.Police said Anzari (35), son of Abdul Rahman of Thanjavur, went to the Pakistan consulate (High Commission in Colombo) and met Boss alias AmeerSubbiahSiddique, said to be the man in charge of the TN unit of the ISI at the Consulate. Ameer reportedly had asked Anzari to get him security details of installations in India, especially TN, and promised a hefty sum in return. He tried to send the information online but it failed to reach Ameer. So, he was waiting to hand it over to Ameer personally. Anzari took footage and photos of security installations in South India and reportedly told several acquaintances that he was making a movie to portray how secure India was.”

6.While the activities of the ISI and the Pakistani IB from the Pakistani High Commission in Colombo have been well known in the past, this is possibly the first time a suspected Tamil agent of the ISI operated from Colombo has been caught. He needs to be thoroughly interrogated to establish whether he was operating alone or was part of a network.

7.In the light of the details ascertained from him, our counter-intelligence capability for monitoring the activities of the Pakistani intelligence from their station in Colombo needs to be reviewed to remove any loopholes.s

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

September 21, 2012

Airpower at 18,000’: The Indian Air Force in the Kargil War

The Kargil conflict offers an exemplary case study in the uses of airpower in joint warfare in high mountain conditions and is key to a full understanding of India’s emerging air posture.

In the spring of 1999, the world slowly became aware of Pakistan’s foray into the Kargil-Dras sector of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, a provocation that would incite the limited war now known as the “Kargil conflict.” This clash represented a watershed in Indo-Pakistani security relations because it demonstrated that even the presence of nuclear weapons might not dampen the competition that has persisted historically between the region’s largest states. But the conflict distinguished itself in other ways as well, especially in the scale and type of military operations.

Although past struggles for advantage along the disputed borders outside of declared wars invariably involved small infantry elements on both sides, the Kargil conflict was unique both in the number of major Indian land formations committed to the struggle and New Delhi’s decision to employ airpower. The role of airpower, however, was tinged with controversy from the very beginning. Both during and immediately after the conflict, it was not clear whether the Indian Air Force (IAF) leadership of the time advocated the commitment of Indian airpower and under what conditions, how the IAF actually performed at the operational level and with what effects, and whether the employment of airpower was satisfactorily coordinated with the Indian Army at either the strategic or the tactical levels of war. Whether airpower proved to be the decisive linchpin that hastened the successful conclusion of the conflict was also uncertain—but all these questions provided grist for considerable disputation in the aftermath of the war.

What the Kargil conflict demonstrated, however, was that airpower was relevant and could be potentially very effective even in the utterly demanding context of mountain warfare at high altitudes. At a time when India is compelled to think seriously about the security challenges posed by China’s continuing military modernization—especially as it affects India’s ability to protect its equities along the formidable Himalayan borderlands—a critical assessment of the IAF’s contributions to the Kargil conflict is essential and in fact long overdue. Various partial analyses have appeared already; they are indispensable because they address several specific dimensions of IAF operations ranging from the early debates about strategy and the political impact of employing airpower to overcoming the various difficulties that the IAF had to surmount in quick order if its instruments of combat were to make a useful contribution to the success of India’s national aims. The combat capabilities brought to bear in the airspace above the mountain battlefields, obviously, constituted only the visible tip of the spear; a vast and often invisible system of organization and support involving everything from managing intratheater airlift to redeploying combat squadrons to planning and coordinating operations to improvising technical fixes amidst the pressure of combat were all implicated in airpower’s contribution to the Kargil War.

This story has never been told before in depth or with comprehensiveness and balance—yet it deserves telling both because it sheds light on an important episode in Indian military history and because its lessons have implications for managing the more demanding threats that India is confronted with in the Himalayas. This monograph by Benjamin Lambeth advances both aims admirably. It represents a serious scholarly effort to understand how the IAF actually performed at Kargil and is exemplary for the meticulousness of its research, the political detachment of its analysis, and its insights which could come only from one of America’s premier analysts of airpower, who also happens to have accumulated extensive flight experience in more than three dozen different types of combat aircraft worldwide since 1976. Lambeth’s oeuvre—manifested during a distinguished career of over forty years (most of it at RAND)—has always been wideranging: in addition to his many writings on airpower and air warfare, it has included seminal studies on Soviet military thought; nuclear deterrence, strategy and operations; geopolitics in the superpower competition; and the evolution of military technology and its impact on warfighting.

Given his diverse interests and his formal academic training at Georgetown and Harvard, it is not surprising that Lambeth’s study ranges across multiple levels of analysis, from the geopolitical to the tactical. This broad approach permits him to cover airpower’s contribution to the conflict in extraordinary detail. It relies not simply on the published record but also on detailed interviews with the IAF’s leadership and its combat cadres as well as on extensive communications with a host of participants from the other services involved in the war, all brought together in a seamless and coherent analytical narrative. As the result, the report is simultaneously a chronicle of what the IAF actually did and a fair evaluation of both its achievements and its shortcomings. National security analysts in the United States and in India, as well as policymakers in both countries, would do well to read the monograph carefully because of its judgments about IAF capabilities and the paths implicitly suggested for future U.S.-Indian defense (and in particular airpower) cooperation.

The South Asia program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is privileged to publish Lambeth’s report. I am especially grateful to the Indian Council for Cultural Relations for supporting the Endowment’s ongoing research on Indian security.

Senior Associate 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

September 20, 2012

Baloch leaders demand international intervention in Balochistan at New York rally

United Nations, Sep.21 (ANI): Baloch leaders and activists held a protest rally in front of the United Nations headquarters in New York to demand international intervention to resolve the Balochistan crisis.

The rally was organized by the Washington-based Baloch Society of North America (BSO-NA), the Balochistan National Congress (BNC) and the Moscow-based Baloch Unity Organization, and was attended by representatives of Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun and Hindu communities living in North America.

Dr. Jumma Marri, the President of the Baloch Unity Organization, came all the way from Moscow to attend the protest.

"The ongoing Pakistani and Iranian military aggression, gross human right violations, war crimes and Genocide have surpassed all limits", a statement issued by Baloch Society of North America said.

Dr. Wahid Baloch, the President of BSO-NA and chief organizer of the rally, called upon United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki moon and other world leaders to intervene in Balochsitan in order to save Baloch lives.

"Balochistan was never a part of Pakistan or Iran, but an independent sovereign state, and was illegally occupied, divided and forcefully annexed into these countries against the Baloch will and consent. Both Pakistan and Iran are in violation of international law by occupying Balochistan illegally against the Baloch will and consent," claimed Dr. Wahid.

He added "We want an end of the illegal occupation and re-unification of our land Balochistan. We are one Nation as Baloch. We have been divided by artificially drawn borders, which we do not recognize. These artificially drawn borders are separating us from our friends and families", he continued.

Dr. Marri called upon the United Nations to put pressure on Pakistan to comply with conventions on enforced disappearance and torture it brazenly refuses to sign.

"This attitude has encouraged Pakistan to flout all laws and norms regarding human rights and civil liberties in Balochistan", said Dr. Marri.

He added," The situation in Balochistan is no secret, because even the Chief Justice of its Supreme Court laments the human right abuses and extra-judicial killings by the premier intelligence agencies, the Army and the Frontier Corps. He, on record, has blamed them and summoned them to court, but the abductions, killing and subsequent dumping has not only continued, but increased substantially."

The protest rally was also addressed by several prominent Sindhi, Pashtun and Hindu community leader and activists.

Mashal Khan Takkar, the Founder of Great Afghanistan Movement (GAM), in his speech said that all Pashtuns stand by their Baloch brothers in their quest for freedom and justice.

He said that the Baloch-Pashtun have had strong bonds of brotherhood for centuries.

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Unar of Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz and Habib Bhutto, the central acting president of Jeay Sindh student Federation, deplored Pakistan's atrocities and human right violations in Sindh and ask for a full U.N. investigation of their leader Bashir Ahmaed Qureshi's murder by Pakistan agencies.

"The U.N. must pressure Pakistan to respect the rights of Hindus and the rights of all other minorities in Pakistan and provide them full safety and security", he demanded.

Arshad Umrani, the president of Balochistan Strategy Forum, USA (BSF), who came from Chicago with Hammal Baloch and Qurratulain Umrani to join the protest, denounced Pakistan's state terrorism against the Baloch and Sindhi people in Sindh and Balochistan and reiterated his full support for Baloch people.

The protest in New York coincided with the ten-day long visit of a five member U.N. Working Group on Enforced Disappearances comprising Olivier de Frouville, the Chair-Rapporteur in Pakistan.

After meeting political leaders in Pakistan and the family members of missing persons in Quetta, U.N. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances pressed the government and the judiciary to fulfill their duty to thoroughly investigate the enforced disappearances and bring the perpetrators to justice. (ANI)

Crisis Replay... Soon Argentina Will Be on Sale Again

  Daily Reckoning Presents


Ronan Mcmahon Just over a decade ago Argentina spectacularly unraveled with the biggest default in history — $100 billion. Dollar deposits were converted to pesos. Then, overnight, the peg of one-to-one with the dollar was broken. The unpegged currency immediately devalued. Savings were wiped out. Banks were set alight and locals took to the streets in protest.

That crisis created the biggest buying opportunity of a decade. During the ?re sales you could have picked up a historic, high-end property in Buenos Aires or a vineyard in Mendoza for a song.

Today, Argentina is back in a bind. There is a strong possibility of another crack-up within the next year. And then we'll have the same opportunity we had a decade ago. The signs are all there. The streets of Buenos Aires have recently seen the return of the backstreet currency exchange.

According to the of?cial exchange rate, which is subject to capital controls, 4.4 pesos buys you a dollar. But on the street people are happy to pay up to 6.7. In?ation runs at 25%. The purchasing power of an Argentine's peso savings is going down by one-quarter each year.

The government claims in?ation is 9.9% and has outlawed calculating or quoting any other in?ation rate. Forty percent of dollar deposits have been withdrawn from Argentina since last October. Now there are capital controls. You need special permission to move your dollars overseas.

To take a foreign vacation, Argentines have to apply to a bureaucrat for permission and explain where they got the money for the trip. And there are rumors that it will be made illegal to talk about the existence of the shadow market exchange rate for dollars.

But a lot of Argentines' dollars and pesos don't reside in bank accounts. Property transactions typically take place in special rooms in lawyers' of?ces, and they're a cash deal. There's that much distrust of banks. They are ?ne for day-to-day things like paying your electric bill. Not for your savings, though.

And these transactions more often than not take place in dollars...if you pay in dollars you could get 25% off the price of property. The government has outlawed this, making the buying and selling of real estate in dollars illegal. Just one more rule Argentines will ?nd their way around.

By some reports, if an Argentine company complied with all the taxes and tariffs it faces, they would eat up more than the company's pretax pro?ts. So the shadow economy thrives. By necessity, it seems, rather than greed to pay less tax. Middle-class day-trippers take the ferry to Uruguay to put their savings in deposit boxes. The rich spend millions on condos in Punta del Este, Uruguay.

For Argentines, real estate is their bank. They understand in?ation and expropriation from bank and pension accounts. If they have some spare cash, they'll buy an apartment. Or a beach home across the Río de la Plata in Uruguay. Or a condo in Miami.

Now fewer Argentines are using local real estate as a hedge against in?ation. New construction and permit applications have fallen off a cliff. They just want their cash out.

The government claims that the rate of out?ow has slowed. But with every passing week, companies and individuals ?gure out new ways to get their cash out. For instance, companies buy ?nancial instruments locally in pesos that they immediately resell in New York for dollars.

Argentines have seen it all before. When a government and a banking system take your life's work with the stroke of a pen, you don't forget. If you're lucky enough to rebuild your savings, the next time you will be ready. And the harder the Argentine president, Cristina Kirchner, tries to keep assets in the country, the more they'll be siphoned out.

Meantime, Argentina is all but frozen out of international debt markets. The government hasn't reached a settlement with the group of creditors (known as the Paris Club) since its last default. So the country and the banking system desperately need these deposits to stay a?oat.

But they continue to do incredibly dumb things. Two years ago President Kirchner seized private pension accounts. Now she is going to lend $4.4 billion of this money, at a rate of one-tenth the in?ation rate, to new home buyers. A lottery will decide who gets the loans — not capacity to repay.

Argentina has major competitive advantages in beef production. But land under beef farming is contracting. Beef producers face large and complicated export tariffs and are forced to sell cheaply to the domestic market. Many have moved operations to Uruguay or switched to soya.

It's one crackpot idea after another. And the cycle repeats. Expropriating your citizens' savings or international companies like YPF (a subsidiary of Spanish oil company Repsol), which President Kirchner nationalized last April, might buy you some time. But not much. The writing is on the wall.

In the last crisis, the trigger event was Argentina's massive default on its sovereign debt. This time around Argentina doesn't face that scenario. Government spending has to be funded from printing presses, taxes, and expropriation of personal or company assets. It's hard to see how the government can collect more taxes. The printing presses are already causing the in?ation and the rush to backstreet currency-exchange brokers. There's a limit to what you can expropriate.

This time around the trigger event for a full-scale crisis will be the country's running out of hard currency. There will be no money to pay for imports. Argentina can make do without more Porsches and Gucci handbags, but the country will grind to a halt if industry and energy-producers can't get their hands on crucial imports. The factories will shut. Things will have to get really bad before we're in a "buy" situation. Pay attention if you turn on your TV and see news ?ashes of burning banks and of factories that don't have hard currency to buy raw materials, locking out their workers. If you turn on your TV a second day and see similar reports, then book your ?ight. Your dollars will go a long way.

Comparisons between the high-end neighborhoods of Paris and Buenos Aires are correct. It's a world-class capital with a wealth of cultural activities, ?ne dining, and shopping. Buy when the Argentine capital is in turmoil and you'll be sitting on prime real estate in one of the world's ?nest cities.

If you've ever dreamed of owning your own vineyard, I can think of no better place than Mendoza, Argentina's most famous wine-producing region. Mendoza sits at the foot of the Andes, 600 miles west of Buenos Aires. Soil and climate are perfect here for wine production.

Argentina long held promise. In 1900 it was the world's sixth- richest country — richer than the US. Immigrants ?ooded from Europe. The British came to build the railways. They brought along Irish and Italians. The Spanish came. What followed is text-book mismanagement. When it comes to a head again, we'll have a full- blown crisis. And an opportunity to pounce once more.


Ronan McMahon
for The Daily Reckoning

Baloch Rally at the UN demands international intervention in Balochistan.

Baloch Rally at the UN demands international intervention in Balochistan.

September 18, 2012

NEW YORK -- (United Nations):  A highly successful peaceful protest rally, held in front of the United Nations Headquarters in New York, demanded from the UN and the world community to intervene in war torn Balochistan, where the ongoing Pakistani and Iranian military aggression, gross human right violations, war crimes and Genocide have surpassed all limits. 

The protester were chanting slogan:

STOP the human Right Violations in Balochistan, 
STOP the human Right Violations in Sindh, 
STOP the human Right Violations in Pashtunistan, 
STOP the human Right Violations in Pakistan,
STOP the human Right Violations of minorities in Pakistan,
STOP Killing in Balochistan, 
STOP military Operation in Balochistan, 
STOP the Genocide of Baloch Nation, 
Wake up, Wake up UNO, 
UNO we want intervention, 
UNO we want Freedom,
UNO we want Justice, 
FREE FREE Balochistan,
END THE OCCUPATION of Balochistan, 
China Hands OFF Balochistan, 
China Hands OFF GWADAR,  and 
Long live Baloch-Sindhi-Pashtun unity.

The rally was organized by Washington DC based Baloch Society of North America (BSO-NA), Balochistan National Congress (BNC) and Moscow based Balochunity organization and was attended by many members of Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun and Hindu communities living in North America. Dr. Jumma Marri, the President of Balochunity, came all the way from Moscow to attend the protest. 

Dr. Wahid Baloch, the President of BSO-NA and chief organizer of the rally called upon the UN secretary General and the world leaders to intervene in Balochsitan in order to save the lives of the Baloch people. 

"Balochistan was never a part of Pakistan or Iran, but an Independent sovereign state and was illegally occupied, divided and forcefully annexed into these countries against the Baloch will and consent. Both Pakistan and Iran are in violations of International law by occupying Balochistan illegally against the Baloch will and consent", he said.

" We want the End of the illegal occupation and re-unification of our land Balochistan. We are one Nation as Baloch. we have been divided by artificially drawn borders, which we do not recognize. These artificially drawn borders are separating us from our friends and families", he continued.

"Mr. Secretary-General, Our land, Balochistan, must be re-united and our families must live together in peace with honor and dignity in our own homeland, Balochistan", he told the UN Secretary-General and the world leaders, who were gathered here in New York for the opening of 67th session of UN General Assembly.

"Like any other nation in the world, it our inalienable right to be re-united and to live as one Nation, as Balochs, in our own homeland Balochistan", he said.

He said that under the occupation, the Baloch people are being subjected to systemic discrimination, harassment, intimidation, threats, aggression, politically marginalization, torture, disappearances, "kill and dump' and Genocide by Pakistan and Iran. 

"The Balochcidal policies are in place since the illegal occupation of Balochistan and Balochistan has been turned into the killing fields by Pakistani and Iranian military and Balochs are under siege and are living in fear and in hopelessness in their own homeland, Balochistan," he said.

"Mr. Secretary-General, all we are asking from the UN to live up to its mission and fulfill its obligations towards Balochistan. We demand from the UN Security council and the world leaders to pass the bold and historic resolution on Balochiustan, under the UN article# 7, to save the lives of defenseless Baloch people in occupied Balochistan before it is too late", Dr. Baloch demanded. (The full text of Dr. Wahid Baloch's speech is attached) 

Dr. Jummah Marri, president of Balochunity, Moscow, in his speech, called upon the UN to make Pakistan comply with conventions on enforced disappearance and torture it brazenly refuses to sign. 

"This attitude has encouraged Pakistan to flout all laws and norms regarding human rights and civil liberties in Balochistan", he said.

He said that, " the situation in Balochistan is no secret because even the Chief Justice of its Supreme Court laments the human right abuses and extra-judicial killings by the premier intelligence agencies, the Army and the Frontier Corps. He on record has blamed them and summoned them to court but the abductions, killing and subsequent dumping has not only continued but increased substantially". 

"As if to prove their point these institutions with the start of the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) mission's visit on September 10th have started dumping the brutally tortured bodies of hitherto missing persons. The Pakistani state wants to ensure that next time around there would be no fact-finding missions here to uncover their atrocities and excesses against the Baloch people", he elaborated.

Dr. Marri appealed to the conscience of the world to help Baloch get their inalienable right to freedom from Pakistan. (The full text of Dr. Jumma Marri's speech is attcahed) 

The protest rally was also addressed by several prominent Sindhi, Pashtun and Hindu community leader and activists. Mashal Khan Takkar, the Founder of Great Afghanistan Movement
(GAM), in his inspiring and heart warming speech said that all Pashtun stand by their Baloch brothers in their quest for freedom and justice. He said Baloch-Pashtun are bonded in strong bonds of brotherhood relationship for centuries." My dear brothers, now the time has come that we must unite as a single force for a single cause to preach freedom -- freedom and only freedom from Pakistan. Long live great Afghanistan and long live great Balochistan", he concluded his speech.

 Dr. Ghulam Nabi Unar of Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz and Habib Bhutto, the central acting president of Jeay Sindh student Federation, deplored Pakistan's atrocities and human right violations in Sindh and ask for a full UN investigation of their leader Bashir Ahmaed Qureshi's murder by Pakistan agencies.  

The leader of the Hindu community of New York said in his speech that Hindus in Balochistan and Sindh are being persecuted just because of their religion and are being subjected to kidnapping for ransom and forced conversion to Islam against their will, and are being forced to leave their ancestral home in Sindh and Balochistan."This has to stop", he said. 

"The UN must pressure Pakistan to respect the rights of Hindus and the rights of all other minorities in Pakistan and provide them full safety and security", he demanded.

Arshad Umrani, the president of Balochistan Strategy Forum, USA (BSF), who came from Chicago with Hammal Baloch and  Qurratulain Umrani to join the protest, denounced Pakistani state terrorism against the Baloch and Sindhi people in Sindh and Balochistan and  reiterated his full support for Baloch people. He condemned the violence and assassination of US ambassador Chris Steven along with three other Americans heroes. "We respect all religions but there is no room for violence and murder of innocent people in the name of religion," he said. Qurratulain Umrani distributed a flyer highlighting the conflict and military operation in Balochistan. 


This protest  strongly condemn the ongoing military operation, human right violations, arbitrary arrests, extra judicial killing, "kill and dump" policies, disappearance, genocide and Pakistani and Iranian State terrorism against the defenseless Baloch, Sindhi and Pashtun people in Balochistan, Pashtunistan and Sindh.

This protest denounce the illegal and unjust occupation of Balochistan by Pakistan and Iran and demands from the UN and International community to physically intervene in Balochistan and send peace keeping troops on the ground in Balochistan to end the illegal occupation of Balochistan and save the lives of Baloch people.

This protest welcome the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) fact finding mission's visit in Balochistan and ask the UN to do more to stop Pakistani and Iranian ongoing aggression against the defenseless Baloch people in occupied Balochistan.

This protest denounce the artificially drawn British borders of the Durand line and Goldsmith line and demands the redrawing of the map of the region based on ethnic, linguistic and cultural lines and peaceful balkanization of Pakistan on ethnic, linguistic and cultural lines to eliminate and eradicate Islamic extremism and terrorism once and for all. 

This protest strongly condemn the violence, terrorism and extremism in all of its forms and shapes.
This protest strongly condemns the looting and plunder of Baloch resources by Pakistan, Iran, China and all other private companies, including Barrack Gold, who are involved in the exploration of Balochistan's rich mineral resources and ask Chinese Government and all these other companies to stop their robbing of Baloch resources without the Baloch consent and to leave Balochistan peacefully until its freedom and sovereignty is restored. Once Balochistan is free, they can resume their work with Baloch consent and cooperation.

This protest demands from the US government and world community to declare Pakistan and Iran as terrorist states and suspend all military and economic aid to Pakistan until Pakistan complies with the UN and international laws, respects, honors and safeguards human rights and stops its terror campaign against the Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtun people and all religious minorities, including Hindu, Sikh and Christian in Pakistan, scraps off its nuclear weapons and stops supporting and financing global jihad and Islamic terrorism.

This protest strongly condemns the ongoing daily intimidation, harassment, killings, attack and burning of Hindus, Christian, Sikh and other minorities in Pakistan by Pakistani Taliban and Islamic extremists and fanatics and asks the UN and world community to take notice of these inhuman acts and ensure the safety and security of all minorities in Pakistan. 

This protest strongly condemns the government of Pakistan for failing to provide security and safety to the lives, places of worship and properties of the Pakistani religious minorities.

This protest strongly condemns the arrest and kidnapping of Baloch Diaspora Political leader and human right activist Ehsan Aarjumandi, a Norwegian citizen, who was kidnapped by the Pakistani ISI on August 7, 2009, in Pakistani occupied Balochistan. This protest calls upon the UN, human right organizations, the US and Norwegian governments to ensure his safety, security and immediate safe release.

This protest demands the honorable return and rehabilitation of all Baloch IDP's in their homes in Balochistan and ask the UN to provide them with security and desperately needed food, water, shelter and medicine.

At the end of the protest a MEMORANDUM addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban ki-moon, along with facts and figures and photos of missing persons and a flyer titled "The case for Balochistan" (attached), was submitted by Dr. Wahid Baloch and Dr. Jumma Marri at the UN Secretariat-office.

September 19, 2012

US: Handout Nation

Number of People On Food Stamps vs. The Number of People With Full Time Jobs



The obnoxious anti-Muslim film produced by someone in the US and disseminated through the Internet has already caused five days of daily ant-US demonstrations in Chennai.
2.Muslim youth of Chennai did not react in such a vigorous manner over the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, during the visit of former US President George Bush to India in 2006 and against the cartoons published by a Danish journal in September 2005 projecting the Holy Prophet of Islam in negative colours.
3.The surprisingly angry reaction of the Muslim youth this time could be attributed partly to  the fact that the film is much,much more obnoxious than the Danish cartoons and partly to the feeling that the Government of India has not reacted against the film as vehemently as it should have.The anger in sections of the Muslim youth of Chennai also reflects the growth of religious activism among the Muslim youth in educational institutions and the dilution of the control of the elders of the community over the angry youth.
4. There are over 20 Muslim organisations in Tamil Nadu with different political agendas and objectives.The Muslim political consciousness movement in Tamil Nadu has been widely splintered. It continues to be so. However, whereas the elders constituting the leadership of these organisations are still splintered, the youth of these organisations have shown a readiness to come  together and work jointly for common Islamic causes.
5. The anger of the youth belonging to different organisations ( their number is estimated at around 5000 ) has had certain characteristics that need attention. Initially, the expression of anger started in the colleges and subsequently it spread to schools.The protests attracted a  number of Muslim women from colleges and schools who took to the streets in solidarity with the boys.On the fifth day on September 18,2012, some of the clergy in charge of prayers in  some of the main mosques of the city were also reported to have joined.
6.On the evening of September 18, when the elders tried to persuade the youth to go back to their mosques for their evening prayers, many of them in a spontaneous gesture of Islamic solidarity prayed in the middle of the Anna Salai (road) totally disrupting traffic. An incident like this has not happened  before. Details of the protests on all the five days underline the difficulties increasingly faced by the elders of the community in persuading the youth not to violate the law in expressing their anger.
7. The youth disregarding the appeals of the elders violated the law in various ways --- like acts of vandalism in and around the US Consulate-General on the first day, burning in the streets US flags and pictures of President Barack Obama on all the days and clashes with the police when they tried to prevent them from marching to the Consulate. The Chennai Police seemed to have been taken by surprise by the intensity of the anger and by the orchestrated manner in which attempts were made to give expression to it.
8. While there was apparently an attempt at competitive instigation of the anger by different organisations and youth groups from different educational institutions, the anger was kept directed against the US Government and President Obama without letting it degenerate into anger against US nationals living and working in Chennai. The anger was directed against the US Consulate as representing the US government, but not against other US establishments such as business houses.
9. The youth leaders also saw to it that the anger did not assume a communal dimension. There seems to be an anxiety among some leaders of the Muslim community that the anger could assume a communal dimension in the coming days as the VinayakChaturthi is observed. They have appealed to the youth to discontinue their protests and return to their classes. It remains to be seen whether the youth heed their appeals.
10. The Chennai Police has been doing well under tremendous pressure. They should step up their intelligence collection efforts and intensify their interactions with the influential members of the Muslim community---young and old—in order to seek their cooperation in mitigating the anger. The central intelligence agencies should pay more attention to the phenomenon of Muslim youth activism in Chennai.
11. This may please be read in continuation of my earlier article titled  “Anti-US Protests By Some Muslims In Chennai” at
(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:  Twitter @SORBONNE75)

September 18, 2012

From Gadhafi to Benghazi


September 18, 2012 | 0900 GMT

By George Friedman

Last week, four American diplomats were killed when armed men attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The attackers' apparent motivation was that someone, apparently American but with an uncertain identity, posted a video on YouTube several months ago that deliberately defamed the Prophet Mohammed. The attack in Benghazi was portrayed as retribution for the defamation, with the attackers holding all Americans equally guilty for the video, though it was likely a pretext for deeper grievances. The riots spread to other countries, including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, although no American casualties were reported in the other riots. The unrest appears to have subsided over the weekend.

Benghazi and the Fall of Gadhafi

In beginning to make sense of these attacks, one must observe that they took place in Benghazi, the city that had been most opposed to Moammar Gadhafi. Indeed, Gadhafi had promised to slaughter his opponents in Benghazi, and it was that threat that triggered the NATO intervention in Libya. Many conspiracy theories have been devised to explain the intervention, but, like Haiti and Kosovo before it, none of the theories holds up. The intervention occurred because it was believed that Gadhafi would carry out his threats in Benghazi and because it was assumed that he would quickly capitulate in the face of NATO air power, opening the door to democracy. 

That Gadhafi was capable of mass murder was certainly correct. The idea that Gadhafi would quickly fall proved incorrect. That a democracy would emerge as a result of the intervention proved the most dubious assumption of them all. What emerged in Libya is what you would expect when a foreign power overthrows an existing government, however thuggish, and does not impose its own imperial state: ongoing instability and chaos. 

The Libyan opposition was a chaotic collection of tribes, factions and ideologies sharing little beyond their opposition to Gadhafi. A handful of people wanted to create a Western-style democracy, but they were leaders only in the eyes of those who wanted to intervene. The rest of the opposition was composed of traditionalists, militarists in the Gadhafi tradition and Islamists. Gadhafi had held Libya together by simultaneously forming coalitions with various factions and brutally crushing any opposition. 

Opponents of tyranny assume that deposing a tyrant will improve the lives of his victims. This is sometimes true, but only occasionally. The czar of Russia was clearly a tyrant, but it is difficult to argue that the Leninist-Stalinist regime that ultimately replaced him was an improvement. Similarly, the Shah of Iran was repressive and brutal. It is difficult to argue that the regime that replaced him was an improvement.

There is no assurance that opponents of a tyrant will not abuse human rights just like the tyrant did. There is even less assurance that an opposition too weak and divided to overthrow a tyrant will coalesce into a government when an outside power destroys the tyrant. The outcome is more likely to be chaos, and the winner will likely be the most organized and well-armed faction with the most ruthless clarity about the future. There is no promise that it will constitute a majority or that it will be gentle with its critics.

The intervention in Libya, which I discussed in The Immaculate Intervention, was built around an assumption that has little to do with reality -- namely, that the elimination of tyranny will lead to liberty. It certainly can do so, but there is no assurance that it will. There are many reasons for this assumption, but the most important one is that Western advocates of human rights believe that, when freed from tyranny, any reasonable person would want to found a political order based on Western values. They might, but there is no obvious reason to believe they would.

The alternative to one thug may simply be another thug. This is a matter of power and will, not of political philosophy. Utter chaos, an ongoing struggle that leads nowhere but to misery, also could ensue. But the most important reason Western human rights activists might see their hopes dashed is due to a principled rejection of Western liberal democracy on the part of the newly liberated. To be more precise, the opposition might embrace the doctrine of national self-determination, and even of democracy, but go on to select a regime that is in principle seriously opposed to Western notions of individual rights and freedom.

While some tyrants simply seek power, other regimes that appear to Westerners to be tyrannies actually are rather carefully considered moral systems that see themselves as superior ways of life. There is a paradox in the principle of respect for foreign cultures followed by demands that foreigners adhere to basic Western principles. It is necessary to pick one approach or the other. At the same time, it is necessary to understand that someone can have very distinct moral principles, be respected, and yet be an enemy of liberal democracy. Respecting another moral system does not mean simply abdicating your own interests. The Japanese had a complex moral system that was very different from Western principles. The two did not have to be enemies, but circumstances caused them to collide. 

The NATO approach to Libya assumed that the removal of a tyrant would somehow inevitably lead to a liberal democracy. Indeed, this was the assumption about the Arab Spring in the West, where it was thought that that corrupt and tyrannical regimes would fall and that regimes that embraced Western principles would sprout up in their place. Implicit in this was a profound lack of understanding of the strength of the regimes, of the diversity of the opposition and of the likely forces that would emerge from it.

In Libya, NATO simply didn't understand or care about the whirlwind that it was unleashing. What took Gadhafi's place was ongoing warfare between clans, tribes and ideologies. From this chaos, Libyan Islamists of various stripes have emerged to exploit the power vacuum. Various Islamist groups have not become strong enough to simply impose their will, but they are engaged in actions that have resonated across the region. 

The desire to overthrow Gadhafi came from two impulses. The first was to rid the world of a tyrant, and the second was to give the Libyans the right to national self-determination. Not carefully considered were two other issues: whether simply overthrowing Gadhafi would yield the conditions for determining the national will, and whether the national will actually would mirror NATO's values and, one should add, interests.

Unintended Consequences

The events of last week represent unintended and indirect consequences of the removal of Gadhafi. Gadhafi was ruthless in suppressing radical Islamism, as he was in other matters. In the absence of his suppression, the radical Islamist faction appears to have carefully planned the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. The attack was timed for when the U.S. ambassador would be present. The mob was armed with a variety of weapons. The public justification was a little-known video on YouTube that sparked anti-American unrest throughout the Arab world.

For the Libyan jihadists, tapping into anger over the video was a brilliant stroke. Having been in decline, they reasserted themselves well beyond the boundaries of Libya. In Libya itself, they showed themselves as a force to be reckoned with -- at least to the extent that they could organize a successful attack on the Americans. The four Americans who were killed might have been killed in other circumstances, but they died in this one: Gadhafi was eliminated, no coherent regime took his place, no one suppressed the radical Islamists, and the Islamists could therefore act. How far their power will grow is not known, but certainly they acted effectively to achieve their ends. It is not clear what force there is to suppress them. It is also not clear what momentum this has created for jihadists in the region, but it will put NATO, and more precisely the United States, in the position either of engaging in another war in the Arab world at a time and place not of its choosing, or allowing the process to go forward and hoping for the best. 

As I have written, a distinction is frequently drawn between the idealist and realist position. Libya is a case in which the incoherence of the distinction can be seen. If the idealist position is concerned with outcomes that are moral from its point of view, then simply advocating the death of a tyrant is insufficient. To guarantee the outcome requires that the country be occupied and pacified, as was Germany or Japan. But the idealist would regard this act of imperialism as impermissible, violating the doctrine of national sovereignty. More to the point, the United States is not militarily in a position to occupy or pacify Libya, nor would this be a national priority justifying war. The unwillingness of the idealist to draw the logical conclusion from their position, which is that simply removing the tyrant is not the end but only the beginning, is compounded by the realist's willingness to undertake military action insufficient for the political end. Moral ends and military means must mesh.

Removing Gadhafi was morally defensible but not by itself. Having removed him, NATO had now adopted a responsibility that it shifted to a Libyan public unequipped to manage it. But more to the point, no allowance had been made for the possibility that what might emerge as the national will of Libya would be a movement that represented a threat to the principles and interests of the NATO members. The problem of Libya was not that it did not understand Western values, but that a significant part of its population rejected those values on moral grounds and a segment of the population with battle-hardened fighters regarded them as inferior to its own Islamic values. Somewhere between hatred of tyranny and national self-determination, NATO's commitment to liberty as it understood it became lost. 

This is not a matter simply confined to Libya. In many ways it played out throughout the Arab world as Western powers sought to come to terms with what was happening. There is a more immediate case: Syria. The assumption there is that the removal of another tyrant, in this case Bashar al Assad, will lead to an evolution that will transform Syria. It is said that the West must intervene to protect the Syrian opposition from the butchery of the al Assad regime. A case can be made for this, but not the simplistic case that absent al Assad, Syria would become democratic. For that to happen, much more must occur than the elimination of al Assad.

Wishful Thinking vs. Managing the Consequences

In 1958, a book called The Ugly American was published about a Southeast Asian country that had a brutal, pro-American dictator and a brutal, communist revolution. The novel had a character who was a nationalist in the true sense of the word and was committed to human rights. As a leader, he was not going to be simply an American tool, but he was the best hope the United States had. An actual case of such an ideal regime replacement was seen in 1963 in Vietnam, when Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam was killed in a coup. He had been a brutal pro-American dictator. The hope after his death was that a decent, nationalist liberal would replace him. There was a long search for such a figure; he never was found. 

Getting rid of a tyrant when you are as powerful as the United States and NATO are, by contrast, is the easy part. Saddam Hussein is as dead as Gadhafi. The problem is what comes next. Having a liberal democratic nationalist simply appear to take the helm may happen, but it is not the most likely outcome unless you are prepared for an occupation. And if you are prepared to occupy, you had better be prepared to fight against a nation that doesn't want you determining its future, no matter what your intentions are. 

I don't know what will come of Libya's jihadist movement, which has showed itself to be motivated and capable and whose actions resonated in the Arab world. I do know that Gadhafi was an evil brute who is better off dead. But it is simply not clear to me that removing a dictator automatically improves matters. What is clear to me is that if you wage war for moral ends, you are morally bound to manage the consequences.

Read more: From Gadhafi to Benghazi | Stratfor 

September 17, 2012



Our national trait for wishful-thinking often  worries me.

2. A rationally argued assumption is an important part of strategic thinking, a wishful thought with no rational basis is not.I had pointed out in some of my articles in the past how we often confuse wishful-thinking for strategic analysis. Some, if not many of those, who have made a name in our country as strategic analysts, are actually wishful-thinkers. There are many wishful-thinkers even in our security bureaucracy.

3. These observations have been triggered by some E-Mailed comments received by me on my article of September 17,2012, asking whether our humiliation of 1962 by China can repeat itself. The majority of those who have argued that the question of another 1962 does not arise have given two reasons, both of which appear to me to be nothing but wishful thoughts.

4.The first is that the Chinese are no longer in a position to spring a trans-Himalayan surprise on us as they did in 1962.The second is that the strong Navy that we have built up since 1962 will act as a deterrent to any more trans-Himalayan adventurism by the PLA. According to them, our Navy is in a position to disrupt Chinese energy supplies across the Indian Ocean and without assured energy supplies the Chinese would not be able to indulge in any adventurism across the Himalayas.

5. I feel uncomfortable with both these wishful-thoughts.Before October 1962, our political leaders had so convinced themselves about the superiority of our Army over the PLA that they thought that all they had to do was to order our Army to thrown out the illegal Chinese posts in our territory in the North-East and it would do so without any problems. Jawaharlal Nehru and V.K.KrishnaMenon, the then Defence Minister, were living in a world of wishful-thinking.

6. Nehru openly went around saying that he had asked the Army to throw out the Chinese.The Chinese took note of his statements, which proved to have been irresponsible in retrospect, and launched a pre-emptive act of retaliation to neutralise our Army's capability for throwing out the Chinese posts and inflict a humiliation on our Army.

7. That kind of wishful-thinking about the relative strengths of the two Armies and Air Forces is fortunately not there now. We take each other's trans-Himalayan capabilities with a lot of realism. Realistic thinking and analysis is the foundation of good strategic thinking.

8.But I notice a new wishful thought clouding our strategic thinking presently and that is about the perceived superiority of our Navy over the Chinese Navy in the Indian Ocean area.I am confident that the Chinese Navy will not be able to disrupt our energy supplies across the Indian Ocean , but I do not share the confidence of those who have commented on my article that our Navy would be able to disrupt Chinese energy supplies and that the realisation of this will deter any trans-Himalayan adventure by the Chinese.

9. The Chinese are realistic geostrategic thinkers and planners. They know energy adequacy could turn out to be their weak point in any future military confrontation with any external power. They have been trying to build up their strategic reserves, diversifying their sources of supply and means of having the supplies reached to them. Their energy security diversification plan speaks well of their strategic foresight. I wish we have similar foresight.

10.So, to think and argue that our Navy has become a deterrent to Chinese designs and intentions would be unwise.Moreover, in our thinking, we should try to visualise what role the Pakistani Navy will seek to play in the event of another military conflict between India and China. We should be prepared with contingency planning for the eventuality that the Pakistani Navy will try to keep some of our ships bottled up near the Western ports so that we can't use them against the Chinese.

11.If there is another military conflict between India and China, it is not going to be a copy-cat of 1962.The PLA is not going to move into our territory on foot and motor vehicles and occupy territory after over-powering our posts as they did in 1962. In my view, the most likely scenario is that copter-borne, specially trained units of the PLA will take our Armed Forces by surprise by undertaking a lightning occupation of Tawang and Itahnagar in Arunachal Pradesh. They will then try to force us to concede Chinese sovereignty over Tawang in return for their conceding our sovereignty over Itahnagar and the rest of Arunachal Pradesh. I also expect that the copter-borne PLA forces will come not from the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR),but from Qinghai, Gansu or Sichuan.

12. We are now in a better position than we were in 1962 to detect  Chinese preparations for a classical military strike from the TAR.Are we in a position to detect and neutralise a copter-borne invasion from bases outside the TAR?What are the other scenarios possible? What would be the options available to us?

13. Those are the questions that we in governmental and non-Governmental circles should examine with our feet firmly on the ground and without any wishful-thinking.

14.My two articles on the forthcoming 50th anniversary of the 1962 humiliation should not be misinterpreted to mean that I have probably lost faith in the possibility of a negotiated solution of the border dispute with China. I have not. I greatly respect the pragmatism of the Chinese political and military leadership.

15. When they initiated the military conflict with India in 1962, they were a poor country with a primitive economy. They did not have to worry about the likely impact of a military conflict on their economy and on the livelihood of their people.

16.Today, China is a major and influential economic and military power itching to catch up with the US.Any military conflict with India could have worrisome impact on their economy. Their interest in keeping their economy sustained and flourishing has made them a cautious power----more cautious than they were in 1962. They would avoid a military confrontation as far as possible.

17. At the same time, I am disturbed to notice the doggedness with which they have been pursuing their territorial sovereignty claims---whether  with us in Arunachal Pradesh or  with some ASEAN powers in respect of the South China Sea islands or  with Japan in respect of the East China Sea Islands.

18. This doggedness should forewarn usthat  if an opportunity presented  itself they may not hesitate to seek a military solution to the border dispute.

19. Chinese strategic thinking is marked by a mix of pragmatism and opportunism. We should not create unwittingly a tempting opportunity for them by our military unpreparedness. ( 18-9-12)

(The  writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:  Twitter @SORBONNE75)



US pitches for greater role for India

September 17, 2012 22:28 IST

Noting an upswing in bilateral ties over the years, the United States has pitched for greater role for India [ Images ] in the world and said it was keen to work with New Delhi [ Images ] on it.
"The US can work with India over its growing role in the world," US Ambassador to India Nancy Powell stressed during a panel discussion, which included Indian Ambassador in Washington Nirupama Rao [ Images ].
"Trade relations are growing. It reflects our desire to proceed with arrangements for the civil nuclear deal," Powell said as Rao noted the India-US relationship has "wide political support across the spectrum" in both countries and stressed that it will not change.
"The US has extended support to India's membership of multilateral export regimes. We are exploring new frontiers," the Indian ambassador said.
Rao also said that India and US can replicate their Afghanistan model of cooperation in Central Asia.
"When it comes to Central Asia, we can do what we are actually doing in Afghanistan in areas of agriculture, women empowerment," she said.
Accepting the importance of Central Asia, Powell said private companies in America will have to take initiative and recognise the region's potential as a good place to invest.
"All of us recognise the rich potential in Central Asia. It's our private companies which have to look at this region and decide that it is good place to invest," the US Ambassador said.
"We certainly can help governments in the Central Asia and work with India as well to create and environment framework to make it attractive. First decision have to be driven by the private sectors," she said. 

Powell also lauded the contributions of the three-million-strong Indian community to the American society. 

"We are also trying to encourage more American students to come to India, she said.
Rao said India and the US are looking at ways to improve their intelligence sharing mechanism and forging cooperation in new areas for strengthening homeland security.
Replying to a question on cooperation in area of homeland security, she said, "We are looking at this moment on how we do a better intelligence and information sharing and also other aspects such as science and technology cooperation on homeland security."
Noting that the two countries have initiated Ministerial-level dialogue over homeland security, Rao said, "This is one component (intelligence sharing) on which we will see heightened activities in 2013. Constantly new areas of cooperation are being developed on homeland security."
Stating that cooperation between India and US has settled into a "certain pace and rhythm", both the diplomats said the relation between the two countries is elaborately conceived and developed. 

"Our relation with India is extremely broad which includes trade, commerce, security, defence and economic aspects. We are having discussion on various issues such as natural gas, renewable energy, nuclear energy, higher education, health, commerce and trade," Powell said, adding "it is encouraging that we have great expectations from each other."
Both diplomats highlighted the need for people-to-people contact and underlined the importance of exchange programmes involving academicians, students and professionals from fields of innovation, science and technology and health. 

"We would like more young American students come to India and understand the country. This is a question of being more informed on what is happening here and why it is useful and essential to know India better." 

The panel discussion on "advancing a defining partnership for the 21st century", was chaired by former Indian envoy to the US Ronen Sen.

Libya, and the Chinese yuan, give new edge to Putin’s Pakistan visit

Sandhya Jain
18 September 2012
The murder of the US envoy and three other diplomatic staff members in Libya on the night of Sept 11 following telecast on YouTube of a film maligning the Prophet, which inflamed sentiments of Muslims worldwide, has given an entirely new dimension to Russian President Vladimir Putin's pre-scheduled visit to Pakistan early next month. As Washington dithers between containing the fallout and flexing muscle in the region by sending troops towards Iran, both Moscow and Beijing (which has cordial relations with Islamabad) are getting ready to assume a greater leadership role in international affairs.
Thwarting America's regime change ambitions in Syria and Iran would now be high priority. Moscow and Beijing have already coordinated moves in the Security Council to bar US-NATO from initiating Libya-style regime change in Damascus, and can be expected to intensify resistance to US manoeuvres.
As the US economy hurtles towards the abyss, reports suggest that China and Russia are getting ready to secretly create a BRICS Central Bank and Monetary Fund. New Delhi would be party to this decision, and these and other moves being planned by countries opposing western hegemony will naturally disturb the West. This may explain the sudden pragmatism in Indian foreign policy.
On Sept 6, China announced its decision to bypass the dollar for global oil customers and allow them make purchases in yuan. Shockingly, this announcement was ignored by the Indian Media, though it will surely help India's oil purchases from Iran and benefit our overall energy security. [Enhanced FDI in the Indian media can only be to our detriment, and is a move that merits serious reconsideration].
Anyway, as the yuan purchase catches on, the dollar will lose its place as the global reserve currency and Col. Muammar Gaddafi, who died a brutal death because of his determination to nix the dollar with an African gold dinar, will be vindicated in history.
On Sept 7, in a clearly coordinated move, Moscow and Beijing signed an agreement whereby the Russian Federation agreed to sell oil to China in any and all amounts desired – without using the dollar. In other words, China will sell Russian oil – and the oil of any other nation empowering it to do so, such as Iran which is being squeezed by US sanctions – in yuan. It will take on the US oil majors on behalf of all nations resisting US hegemony in oil.
A new Sino-Russian alliance is thus emerging as a major pole of the comity of nations; it will be in the interests of India and other nations seeking to be independent, to climb on the bandwagon.
In this fast-changing and evolving international scenario, President Putin will land in Islamabad early October, the first ever Russian head of state to do so. He will end the frostiness induced by the Cold War and kick-start Moscow's new assertiveness in southern Asia where hitherto America enjoyed preeminence. Russia was keen to enhance its profile in the region following India's increased closeness to Washington since the UPA came to power in 2004; though changing events have made New Delhi pause and take a more nuanced stance on several issues. Hence Mr. Putin has no provocation to abandon a traditional ally, and is already scheduled to visit New Delhi in November for the 13th Annual Indo-Russian Summit.
Afghanistan and Iran figure high on the Moscow-Islamabad agenda. Indeed, Mr. Putin will also be attending a quadrilateral meeting on Afghanistan with leaders of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan.
On its part, India is keen to have a sphere of influence in Kabul in the wake of the withdrawal of US-NATO troops; Pakistan is determined not to be denied its 'strategic depth'. Russia may be thinking of aligning with Pakistan to get a foothold in Afghanistan to maintain the regional balance of power, just as Iran has been coordinating moves with India. All four nations share concerns that Afghanistan may lapse into a civil war-like condition in the absence of a domestic consensus regarding the future political set up there and the continued fragility of the Karzai regime. Greater regional coordination brokered by Moscow could be in order.
Already the neighbourhood is becoming more closely intertwined, with both Moscow and Beijing endorsing Tehran's right to nuclear technology and opposing American sanctions against Iran. Pakistan, already close to China, will benefit from increased warmth with Moscow in the wake of growing hostility and drone attacks from America. Russia supports Pakistan's desire to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar visited Russia in February this year to set the tone for Mr. Putin's visit. President Zardari, who had previously visited Moscow in August 2010 to participate in the four-nation summit between Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Russia on regional security and economic development, went again in May and army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani is going there this month, the first such visit since the advent of the Cold War. Clearly, the region is changing fast.
One immediate purpose of Mr. Putin's visit is to discuss the financing of the $1.5 billion Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Project. Russia is also keen to finance the transnational Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, and is negotiating with Iran, China and Russia.
Reports say Iran has proposed a plan to lay Pakistan's portion of the pipeline on the basis of 'supplier's credit' whereby Tehran will provide the pipeline and compressors on credit, and Pakistan will make payments after two years. Iran has offered a loan of $250 million on government-to-government basis; Pakistan needs $500 million.
This will be a heavy duty visit and the Russians are coming with all cylinders firing. They are going to fund the renovation of the Guddu and Muzaffargarh power plants; renovation and expansion of the Pakistan Steel Mills from 1.1 million tons to 1.5 mt per annum at an estimated Rs. 30 billion; help in upgrading the Railways tracks, and discuss projects in the energy and education sectors, besides investments in oil, gas and mineral exploration.
In a working group meeting earlier this year, Russia offered $500 million for the Central Asia South Asia electricity project which will bring 1300 MW of surplus electricity from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. This is a continuation of the Russian policy of returning to its "near abroad". Russia needs stability in the Central Asian countries where Islamic terrorism is rearing its head and the terror groups have links inside Pakistan. Enhanced engagement with Islamabad may pay dividends here. Russia meanwhile is continuing to cooperate with Washington on the shipment of NATO equipment out of Afghanistan through the Northern Distribution Network.
A major area of cooperation will be currency swap agreements and opening of bank branches in the two countries.
New Delhi, which has diversified its arms suppliers in recent times, will keenly watch if Moscow opens its arms bazaar to Islamabad. Some years ago, Russia joined hands with Ukraine to sell tanks to Pakistan.
The author is Editor,
Follow us on Twitter


September 17, 2012
Bill would terminate Pakistan's designation as a major non-NATO ally

WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Friday, Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) introduced H.R. 6391, a bill to remove the major non-NATO ally (MNNA) status from Pakistan.

"It's time to break with Pakistan, but at the very least, we should stop providing them the eligibility to obtain our own sophisticated weaponry in an expedited process. Too many of our own men and women have died because of Islamabad's treachery."

In 2004, then-President Bush granted Pakistan MNNA status in an effort to get Pakistan to help the U.S. fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban. MNNA status is significant, granting critical benefits in the areas of foreign aid and defense cooperation. A MNNA country is eligible for priority delivery of defense material, an expedited arms sale process, and a U.S.  loan guarantee program, which backs up loans issued by private banks to finance arms exports. It can also stockpile U.S.  military hardware, participate in defense research and development programs, and be sold more sophisticated weaponry.
Eight years after its designation, the evidence shows that Pakistan has in fact been no ally of the U.S. It has cut off the supply route to our troops in Afghanistan, refusing to re-open it without the U.S. apologizing and paying three times as much as before. It harbors and cooperates with the Taliban who kill American troops. The U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which is American soil, was twice attacked by what U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker described as "Pakistan-based insurgents." Last fall, then Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen called the terrorist Haqqani network in Pakistan's tribal regions, the suspect behind the embassy attack, a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence service. Most recently, Islamabad arrested and convicted the heroic doctor who, according to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta "intelligence that was very helpful" in identifying the exact location of Osama bin Laden.
Pakistan is the Benedict Arnold nation in the list of countries that we call allies. It's time to remove a designation that brings privileges it does not deserve.
Congressman Ted Poe (TX-2) is a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Anti-Terrorism Caucus.

H. R. 6391 

    To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, and for other purposes.


September 13, 2012

    Mr. Poe of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


    To terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Termination of designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally.

Effective beginning on the date of the enactment of this Actâ€"

(1) the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(a)(1)) or any other provision of law is hereby terminated; and

(2) the President may not issue a separate designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of such Act or any other provision of law.

SEC. 2. Report on countries designated as a major non-NATO allies.

Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report that contains the following:

(1) A complete and updated list of each country that is designated as a major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k(a)(1)).

(2) A justification as to why each such country should continue to be designated as a major non-NATO ally pursuant to section 517(a)(1) of such Act.