 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
India on the path of aggression |
Sajjad Shaukat
AFTER learning positive lessons from the past conflicts, especially World War I and World War II, in the modern era of new trends like renunciation of war as a state policy, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, it is expected that unlike the non-state actors, state actors will behave with responsibility when controversy arises between them or two countries over any issue. Quite contrarily, Indian irresponsible civil and military leaders are still acting upon aggressive policy towards Pakistan and China.
In this connection, Indian present Army Chief General VK Singh has said on October 15, 2010 that China and Pakistan posed a major threat to India’s security, while calling for a need to upgrade country’s defence. Notably, General Singh after taking over the charge on March 30 had said in his first strategic statement, “Indian Army is well prepared to face any threat from China.” Before him, Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had vocally revealed on December 29, 2009 that Indian Army “is now revising its five-year-old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.”
While India is no match to China in conventional and nuclear weapons, but the statements of its two army chiefs clearly show that Indian rulers are ready to go even to the extent of war against Beijing. That is why India’s war-mongering policy continues against China.
Notably, in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then Defence Minister George Fernandes had declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” India which successfully tested missile, Agni-111 in May 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China.
As regards Indian new military build up against China, on May 31 last year, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 km south of the Chinese border-Aksai Chin area.
India has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads between the Sino-Indian border. In this context, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops—raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC). New Delhi has also announced to develop immediately 1,100 kms of strategic roads on the Indo-Tibetan border.
With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008, India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an under sea platform after completing its project in connection with air, land and sea ballistic systems.
On May 10, 2009, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had disclosed that New Delhi “will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines”. Mehta also accused Beijing and explained that the “Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea” and “wish to enter the Indian Ocean”. However, under the pretension of Chinese threat, Washington, New Delhi and Israel are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.
It is notable that in order to conceal its covert activities, India has always blamed China for backing Maoist uprising. In this respect, instead of addressing the root causes of the Maoist uprising, Indian government has recently intensified its blame game against China, alleging for supplying arms to these insurgents.
Besides, peace-loving country like China, Pakistan is also particular target of India’s aggressive policy. In this regard, during the terrorist’s attack on the Indian parliament and during the Kargil crisis, Indian rulers had left no stone unturned in intimidating Islamabad through war-like approach coupled with concentration of troops on the Pak-Indian border.
It is mentionable that in the aftermath of the Mumbai carnage of November 26, 2008, New Delhi again acted upon aggressive policy. In wake of a continued rising tension between the two nuclear states regarding the culprits of Mumbai tragedy, Pakistan proved itself as a responsible state actor. On February 12, 2009, Islamabad submitted its report to India after lodging FIR against the nine suspects and taking six accused persons into custody. Pakistan’s positive behaviour was greatly appreciated by the foreign officials and media, while on the other side, New Delhi along with its media anchors took it as a surprise because India has, itself, been acting upon a reckless policy regarding Pakistan which is still being pursued through a threatening style.
However, since November 26, 2008, setting aside our ruler’s views that non-state actors were linked to the Mumbai mayhem, India’s blindly rejection of Islamabad’s offer of joint investigation, various contradictory statements of Indian military and civilian leadership such as calling Pakistan the epicentre of terrorism, emphasizing to hand over the fugitives to New Delhi, take action against them inside Pakistan, terrorism is state policy of Islamabad and all options are open for India including military one—deployment of Indian military troops across the international border have shown that India is a reckless state actor. Despite Islamabad’s optimistic reaction, India had not ruled out surgical strikes on selective targets of our country.
The fact of the matter is that Islamabad’s realistic reply has proved, without any doubt, that some non-sovereign entities in Pakistan, India and even in some western countries had planed Mumbai catastrophe, but New Delhi wanted to unilaterally blame Islamabad in that respect in order to conceal Indian culprits because its real anti-Pakistan designs would be exposed through a genuine probe. In that regard, Islamabad also raised 30 questions in the report, reciprocally seeking information about Indian officials involved in Malay villages and Samjotha Express blasts in which Indian mastermind Lt. Col Srikant Purohit was found guilty in targeting Muslims and details on the death of Indian Anti-terrorist Squad Chief Hemant Karkare during Mumbai tragedy.
Question arises as to why there is no international pressure by the sole superpower or UN on Indian government to handing over Lt. Col. Purohit, other similar criminals and especially Ajmal Kasab to Pakistan. And why India avoided joint probe in this serious matter. In fact, India has only been exploiting the Mumbai events to fulfil some covert aims against our country. First, New Delhi wants to divert the attention of US President Barack Obama from the thorny issue of Kashmir as earlier he had recognised an inter-relationship between war against terrorism in Afghanistan and this dispute. Second, India wants to use delaying tactics in relation to the composite dialogue or any result-oriented talk in resolving any issue with Pakistan. Third, New Delhi intends to continue creating unrest in Pakistan by supporting insurgency in Balochistan and Pakistan’s other regions from Afghanistan where it has established a terror-structure with the help of Indian army and intelligence agency, RAW. Fourth, India, with the backing of America, wants to contain China with a view to thwarting Sino-Pak cooperation, especially in the Gwadar seaport.
The most alarming point, however, is that Indian all clandestine designs as part of its aggressive policy are not only directed against Pakistan and China but also against Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. There is no doubt India’s aggressive policy will ultimately weaken the federation of India itself as non-state actors or insurgents are present almost in every state of India. Nevertheless such an aggressive policy will further embolden Hindu terrorists who already keep on massacring Muslims and Christians intermittently.
In November 2010, President Obama will visit India to sign a number of agreements with New Delhi. Most likely India is going to ask purchase of C-17 and F35 aircrafts along with latest defence-related equipments from the US. It seems that America will further encourage India in its hot pursuit policy in one or the other way. In fact, while playing an opportunist role, India wants to extract maximum benefits from the US.
It is the right hour that Obama should take cognizance of the fact that Indo-US defence pact is likely to initiate a dangerous arms race in the region as China and Pakistan will be compelled to give similar response to New Delhi. American president should know that Indian regional hegemonic designs are a potent threat to the global peace. US president must take serious notice of Indian gross human rights violations in Kashmir, against Maoists, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. Washington must also force India to resolve Kashmir dispute with Pakistan for the sake of regional peace.— Opinion-Maker
|
| |
|
The Empire from inside |
|
Fidel Castro Ruz
Biden thought that Al Qaeda would take the path of least resistance and that they would not return to their former places of origin if:
“1.The U.S. maintained at least two bases- Baram y Khandahar- so Special Operations Forces could raid anywhere in the country.
“2.The U.S. had enough manpower to control Afghan air space.
“3.Human intelligence networks inside Afghanistan provided targeting information to Special Operations Forces.
“4.The CIA’s elite, 3,000-Afghan-strong-Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams (CTPT) could move freely.
“Afghanistan had to become a slightly more hostile environment for Al Qaeda than Pakistan so that they would decide to not return.
“Obama needed someone to guide him. He had been in the Senate for only four years and Biden had been there for 35. The President thought that the military couldn’t put pressure on him, but they could crush an inexperienced President. Biden came to Obama’s aid and Obama said to him: ‘You know these guys. Go after it. Push’.
“Later Obama confessed that he wanted his vice president to be an aggressive detractor, and that he said exactly what he was thinking, that he would ask the most difficult questions, because he was convinced that that was the best way to serve the people and the troops, establishing a strong discussion about these matters of life or death.
“Obama called on a small group of the most experienced members of his national security staff in order to analyze the 66-page classified assessment written by McChrystal which, in summary, said that if more troops were not going to be sent it was probable that the war would likely end in a failure in the next 12 months. The President added that the options in this case were not good and he made it clear that he would not automatically accept the solution proposed by the general or by anyone else. ‘We need to come this with a spirit of challenging our assumptions’.
“Peter Lavoy, the deputy for analysis in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, believed that behind the attacks of the unmanned planes, Bin Laden and his organization had been beaten, besieged, but not finished off, that Al Qaeda had become the Taliban leech.
“Obama wanted to know if it were possible to defeat Al Qaeda and how; if it were necessary to defeat the Taliban to defeat Al Qaeda; that it could occur in the next few years; what kind of presence was it necessary to have in Afghanistan in order to be able to have an efficacious antiterrorist platform.
“What wasn’t said and what everyone knew was that a President could not lose a war nor could he be perceived as losing it. Obama said that it was going to be necessary to work for five years and he was proposing that other national priorities be considered.
CHAPTER 15
Admiral Mullen appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing heading towards a second two-year term, two days after the first session dedicated to the strategy. In his statement, the admiral refers to the strategy suggested by McChrystal and he adds that this “probably means more forces”.
When Obama heard about Mullen’s testimony, he let his staff know how unhappy he was knowing that Mullen was publicly endorsing McChrystal’s strategy. The admiral stated that “The Taliban insurgency grows in both size and complexity”, and that was why he was supporting a properly resourced, classically pursued counterinsurgency efforts. Had Mullen ignored what Obama said just two days earlier? Had the President not told everyone, including Mullen, that none of the options looked good, that they needed to challenge their assumptions, and they were going to have four or five long sessions for debate? What was the president’s principal military adviser doing, going public with his preventive conclusions?
At the meeting of the principal members of the National Security Council it was clear that they were furious. The generals and admirals are systematically playing him, boxing him.
Emmanuel commented that what was going on between the admiral and Petraeus was not right, that everyone had publicly supported the idea that more troops needed to be sent. The president didn’t even had a chance.
Morrell realized that Mullen could have ducked the controversy at his hearing by merely saying that his job was to be the principal military adviser to the president of the United States and secretary of the defence, and that he was to present his recommendations to them first in private before stating them publicly and that he didn’t consider it to be proper to share them before the Committee.
Morrell thought this was all part of Mullen’s compulsion to communicate, to enhance the prominence and stature of his position. He had a Facebook page, a Twitter account, videos on YouTube and a Web site called “Travels with Mullen: Conversation with the Country”.
As he left the lobby, Mullen himself discovered that it was he who was the topic of a heated powwow.
Emmanuel and Donilon asked him: How are we supposed to deal with this? You did this, and what should we say?
Emmanuel added that this was going to be the lead storied in all the evening news. —(To be cantinued)
|
| |
|
A tale of three cities |
|
Gen (R) Mirza Aslam Beg
CHARLES Dickens in his novel – A Tale of Two Cities depicts a paradoxical depiction of the Post-French Revolution. He says: “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times,” but the situation of the two capitals, Kabul and Islamabad, however is outrightly reminiscent of only the “worst of times,” being the most tormented regions of the world, due to insane invasion of Afghanistan, which has wrecked the country and has caused the wanton killing of millions of innocent men, women and children. It is being repeated in Pakistan also by various means, including the men-killing machine called drones, blind and oblivious of all humane considerations. Kabul is fighting for its national freedom for the last thirty years, while Islamabad is fighting against terrorism and for the consolidation of the democratic order, against despoticism. In both cases, the struggle has reached the point of decision. In both cases Washington is the common factor, hence the Tale of Three Cities.
Islamabad:
Islamabad is engaged in a grim struggle on several fronts: The most serious is the confrontation with the judiciary, where the government is trying to shield the NRO beneficiaries and the 18th amendment through manipulations of utterly indecent nature. The nation holds it breath, while the decisive moment is drawing closer for the final judgment to provide change and the opportunity for democracy to flourish under the supremacy of the Constitution. The failure to ameliorate the sufferings of the under-privileged is causing deep resentment. The scale of corruption has not only tarnished the image of the country but has also made the life of the common man miserable. The escalating prices of daily consumer goods, energy crisis, appalling law and order situation and the fear of the administrative system collapsing, has created a deep sense of despondency. People, therefore, demand a change, which is being resisted by means unbecoming of a democratic government. The print and the electronic media of Pakistan, during the last decade, has gained much of respectability, freedom of expression and expertise in investigative journalism and is keeping the public informed of the good and evil, causing deep friction between the government and the media. The confrontational situation on our borders with Afghanistan has had a deep impact on Pak-US relations, at this critical moment, when the occupation forces are facing the problem of safe exit from Afghanistan. Pakistan is not ready to commit its forces in North Waziristan, which is the bone of contention between Pakistan and USA, and is viciously not only linked to the issue of aid and assistance, but also the reimbursement of heavy expenditure Pakistan has incurred for engaging in War on Terror!
Notwithstanding this critical situation, there is no fear of the system collapsing, because the prime institutions of Pakistan, such as the judiciary, the armed forces, the political opposition, the media and the civil society are not asking for any drastic change, but a clean-up of the system, to ensure a sustainable democratic order.
Kabul:
Kabul stands at the turning point of history, as it was in Vienna in 1683, when the advancing Ottoman armies had laid siege to it, the heartland of Europe, and suffered a major defeat, resulting into the dismantling of the Ottoman Umpire and the resultant decline, defeat and degradation of the Muslim World as a whole. However, after World War II, as the colonial forces weakened, many Muslim countries gained independence, which was seen as threat to the interests of the western world, particularly after defeat of the Soviet Union at the hands of the Taliban and its retreat from Kabul. The vacuum thus created was promptly filled by the United States and its allies, by occupying Afghanistan – the heartland of the Muslim World. The purpose was to degrade and defeat the Taliban power, and extend American primacy and pre-eminence into Eurasia and beyond. But that was not to be, because the people of Afghanistan, after defeating the Soviets, have convincingly defeated the sole super-power of the world and its allies. The Afghans, therefore stands at the cross-roads, ready to lay down the parameters of peace in Afghanistan and the region. Kabul establishes the historical linkage with Vienna, which inflicted defeat on the rising Muslim Power, its fall, and now its rises again from the soil of Afghanistan, after a long period of over three centuries. Civilizations, thus cyclically rise, fall and then rise again, with a new momentum, thus repudiating the notion of clash of Civilizations. On the contrary, civilizations get matured through intermingling with each other.
The Americans and their allies – European Union and India, therefore are faced with a sense of humiliating defeat on several fronts, with no clear modality for a safe exit from Afghanistan. Taliban now control over eighty percent of Afghanistan and the occupation forces, control main air bases, communication centres and the garrisons of Kandahar and Kabul only. The Afpak Strategy, i.e. the troops surge and intensified drone attacks also have failed to provide the “position of strength needed for meaningful negotiation with the Taliban”, who are demanding withdrawal of the occupation forces, prior to the negotiations. The effort to divide the Taliban has also failed, thus limiting the option to direct negotiations with the Taliban, on their terms. The immediate neighbours of Afghanistan, i.e., Pakistan, Iran and Russia, constitute the external front to Afghanistan. Admiral Petreaus’ policy of pressurizing and confronting Pakistan has back-fired and Pakistan has succeeded in giving a clear message that no such venture will be entertained in future. Iran being unduly pressurized by USA for the last several years, is paying back, by keeping a blind eye, to the smuggling of arms and ammunition into Afghanistan from the neighbouring countries. The Russians, since 2004-5 have let loose the regional smugglers of arms and ammunition, in retaliation to the revolutions whipped-up by the Americans in the Russian ‘near abroad’ in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Thus the hostility of the neighbours has come heavy on the occupation forces, with defeat staring into their faces.
Washington:
The Americans are facing a serious political dilemma at home, as the French faced in Vietnam, and lost the war in Paris. Due to the split between Pentagon and the State Department, on Afghan military and political strategy, the Security Advisor to the President, James Jones, the economic advisor and the strategic planner Axelrod, have resigned, while the public opinion is gradually turning against the war, with 65% demanding troops withdrawal from Afghanistan. The economic situation is further deteriorating, adversely impacting the life of the common man. While the strategic talks are being held at Washington, seeking a peaceful solution of the Afghan issue, the US policy appears working on cross-purposes as explained by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton: “The US is working on an outreach process with Taliban promising that if they remove Al-Qaeda, (numbering not more than seventy, according to CIA), the US will help them re-integrate into the Afghan society,” whereas a society destroyed by invasion, with institutions demolished and the country ravaged by lawlessness, it is beyond the capacity of the defeated armed forces of USA and the allies to integrate the society. Only Taliban under Mullah Omer could do that, as they did during the nineties – 1996-2001. With such a mindset the strategic dialogue in all probability would be working at cross-purposes. However the saving grace for the talk could be, if there was an agreement on the issue of drone attacks; immediate allocation of two billion dollars flood relief and not military aid package as proposed, would win the hearts of the Pakistani people; firm commitment on exit from Afghanistan, and the willingness to negotiate with the Taliban. The current strategic talks are not transactional any more, in which America could seek only to buy Pakistan’s loyalty through threat, coercion or aid. These talks would have no meaning, if “America looses substance in its relationship with Pakistan.”
It is time for USA and its allies to accept gracefully their mistake and consequent failures. Alexander Pope rightly counselled: “A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that, he is wiser today than he was yesterday.” Will USA display the moral courage to accept the mistake, is the question.
|
| |
|
Ban-Ki Moon’s behaviour mocks 65th anniversary of UN |
|
Philip Fernando
IT is tragic that Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon’s intellectual bent towards the demonic Tiger remnants, still warped towards their evil designs may tarnish the 65th anniversary of the UN this week. It stuck out as a sour thumb ignominiously mocking the more decent work of that august body. Moon seemed presumptuous, preposterous and loathsome judged by the accepted norms of decision making at the United Nations. His dual standards in dealing with rights violations round the globe are odious, unworthy of the impartiality expected of a Secretary General shattering the high hopes the Asians had in one of their own assuming the leadership at the UN the very first time after the stewardship of the Secretary General U Thant of Burma years ago.
Moon has been quite blind to Western countries blatantly flouting U N mandates, too numerous to spell in full here. Here are the grotesque ones: -invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, repeated drone attacks killings civilians in Pakistan.
The United Nations was established on October 24, 1945 with 51 countries as members now have a membership of 192 Nations. Moon has not paid the attention the small nations deserve in an era of big power dominance.
It is significant that Sri Lanka also celebrates the 55th anniversary of its admission to this organization this year. Sri Lanka was the 76th country to join the United Nations Organisation on December 14, 1955 when Sir John Kotelawala was the Prime Minister of the country.
Flawed UN panel on Sri Lanka:
Moon and his ill-advised and flawed panel are hideously insensitive to the upbeat tone of reconciliation discernible in Sri Lanka now. Moon’s irrational sleight of hand infuriates more than restrains, aggravates rather than diffuses the ethnic antagonisms that are being put to rest by the Sri Lankans.
Most malicious aspect of Moon’s cantankerous decision is (1) to undermine the commission set up by Sri Lanka to achieve amity after the long war and (2) to discard the cardinal mandate that the UN Secretary General is an integral part of any member state’s fundamental right to seek protection from terror as etched in the UN Charter of state rights. Moon has set in motion a train wreck with his narcissistic self-promotional moves.
The treacherous and heinous aspect of Moon’s decision was the contemptuous treatment of a sovereign state’s right to defend itself and protect its people against frightful killing sprees on its own soil of a proclaimed terrorist organization that went on a rampage for decades. Moon has failed to base his decision on any UN mandated authority prior to taking such a stand. His accountability demands from Sri Lanka are atrociously misguided.
Manipulative scare tactics:
The draconian attempt to fabricate unfounded incidence of imaginary wrongdoing during the receding stage of Lanka’s valiant war against terror are nothing but an imposition of manipulative scare tactics to nullify the path towards peace and restoration of moral values painstakingly sought by the Sri Lankans.
Moon also off-handily pooh-poohed the patently discernible path towards reconciliation emerging in the country following democratically held elections in the North and East and the allocation of enormous amount of resources to rebuild the decrepit infra-structure deliberately decimated by the Tigers, the re-establishment of avenues for enhancing education and as well as the recognizing of the places of historical and religious places of record.
Moon’s tilt towards a terror outfit:
Moon’s inexplicable tilt towards the LTTE terror outfit with a gargantuan record of unspeakable atrocities, including wanton and contemptible recruitment of children as cadres and scornful disregard for international authority was uncalled for.
Moon and his group of advisers had failed to thwart the contemptuous Tigers who had been infinitesimally mindless about UN authority for too long.
Moon’s weird web of accountability:
Damaging his credibility beyond repair, Moon has assumed that there were violations that occurred even before the investigations have begun indicative of malicious intent while the only perpetrator of terror, the Tigers were allowed to act with impunity for so long. The Tiger leaders-the sole inflictors of terror are beyond the reach of the law now. This is nothing but delusion gone berserk.
Moon impartiality is in question:
Moon’s impartiality also came into question in another matter: his rushing to condemn the alleged downing of a ship in South Korean waters few months ago, totally unacceptable at the UN level.
In a rare news conference, North Korean the envoy, Sin Son-ho, called the UN investigation carried out with a number of foreign experts, which hurriedly concluded that a North Korean torpedo blew up a ship in March this year, “a complete fabrication from A to Z.”
It was considered a rare blemish by a Secretary General trying to intervene rather undiplomatically in a dispute among long adversaries disregarding any inherent conflict of interest that may ensue due to such action.
Moon panel is fodder for Tiger regrouping:
Moon’s panel is trying to recreate imaginary scenarios tailor-made to suit the whims of the Tiger Diaspora. It would bring confrontation to the fore instead of the current climate of reconciliation. The panel is not able to bring back the Tiger leaders to justice and neither can the accountability doctrine so banally described by Moon be ever exerted on the dead Tiger leadership.
In a recent editorial, The Hindu lambasted Moon stating that “in a move reeking of the foul odour of cynicism and double standards.”
The Hindu further stated that “the very basis of the notification is totally unacceptable and untenable. First, Sri Lanka is a sovereign, independent country, having the indisputable right under the UN Charter itself, to act in its best judgment on issues relating to its internal affairs, especially where maintenance of peace and security is concerned.
“It is a settled canon of international conduct that no extraneous agency has any business to poke its nose into matters of internal governance of any country.”
Since crushing the LTTE in May 2009, both the Sinhalese and the Tamil communities, and especially the Buddhists and Hindus, have begun to take symbolic measures to heal the wounds of over three decades of war and mutual suspicions.
Secretary General Moon has treated those efforts as tripe. Secretary General Moon! Your slip is showing. Abandoning high moral ground bespeaks of a bankrupt diplomatic mind-set. What disgusting thoughts on the 65th anniversary of the UN!
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
