A National campaign against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) with the participation of fishing communities, environmentalists and community-based organizations was held on 12th August 2005 in India. Organized by the National Movement against Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (NMSSCP) the protest is a part of the bilateral campaign against the SSCP in Sri Lanka and India. The demonstration was held at Arcottuthurai in the Nagapattinam district in Southern India. Nearly 1500 volunteers of the Movement against Sethusamudram Ship Canal project and fishermen joined the demonstration, raising slogans against the governmental project which they said was ruining the livelihood of fishermen. An attempt by the volunteers and fishermen to go into the sea off Arcottuthurai in 200 fiberglass boats and block the dredging work there was averted by the Indian Police.
The Indian project regarding Sethusamudram Canal has serious environmental repercussions on the Sri Lankan coast and waters which is in contradiction to the international legal regime envisaged by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and South Asia Co-operative Environmental Programme (SACEP). Sri Lanka believes that her environmental concerns need to be addressed in the Environmental Impacts Assessment EIA Process. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka does not have such opportunity since this EIA is done solely by the Indian Authorities.  The EIA report does not fulfill the Sri Lankan concerns of the project.
Today we are living in a global village. The environmental consequences go beyond the political borders of the countries. Therefore the legal boundaries of the countries should not affect the concerns on the environment, nature and harmony of the civil societies in India and Sri Lanka. In this context, Sri Lanka believes that the Indian Government especially Tamil Nadu state government and the Tamil Nadu Pollution control Board should consider the concerns not only by the Indian citizens but also from the Sri Lankan citizens.  
People in the concerned region have serious environmental and social concerns with regard to this project. This area covers best coral reefs which contribute to the both Sri Lankan and Indian biodiversity. This benefits fishermen of both countries to fishing in the Gulf of Mannar. Some reports suggest that 35% -70% of the fish stock for the Sri Lankan side comes from these coral reefs. 
According to the EIA there will be dredging of over 80 million m3 sand and clay. Although there are proposals to deposit this dredged material in the Bay of Bengal and to create some lands in Pumban Island but the fine particles deposited on the coral can easily damage the reefs which will affect the biodiversity and the fishermen. Sri Lankan scientists are of the view that these fine particles can travel a long distance and the dredging can affect not only the vicinity of the construction site but also in other areas. 
This area is habitat to several species of whales, dolphins, turtles dugong and many other threatened species. Therefore serious investigation on the biodiversity in the area is very important.  The project is claimed to cause great damage to the marine eco-system in the Gulf of Mannar, including the National Marine Biological Reserve which houses some 3,600 species of plants and animals including a number of important species of corals.
The whole area is biologically rich and is rated among the highly productive seas of the world. The coral reefs in the gulf houses nearly 750 fish varieties with nearly 800,000 fishermen from both countries are dependent on these resources.
The most far-fetched and the worst prediction had been made by the Tamil Human Rights and Environmentalist group, Manitham. Manitham in its interim report on SSCP had predicted that half of Jaffna peninsula and nearly 85 islands on the Western and North Western coasts of Sri Lanka and half of Rameswaram would go under the sea if the Miocene era lime stone reef link between the Jaffna peninsula and Rameswaram is to be broken by dredging.
There are two circulations of water masses in the Bay of Bengal, the clockwise circulation of the south-west monsoon and the counter clockwise circulation of the north-east monsoon. Hydrological models show that the sea water from Bay of Bengal or from the western side does not cross over due to the Adam’s bridge sand deposits.  Sri Lankan scientist are of the opinion that the construction of the Ship Canal will damage this pattern and the changing of the water quality, water currents, temperature and  possible arrival of alien species may affect the biodiversity.  This may also affect the wave height which could cause beach erosion in both countries.  
Dumping of oil and grease and the waste material along the Ship Canal can damage the biodiversity too. This can affect the fish stocks in the area. This is already a problem in the existing ship route around Sri Lanka.  
Moreover, shallow water level will increase the risk of accidents.  Any oil spill can easily damage the sea bed and the coast due to the shallow nature of the bed. Navigation of oil tankers or ships containing chemical waste will increase the risk of damage. Sea turtle, other species and the shallow water environment is highly vulnerable to oil spills.
As mentioned under the mitigatory measures by Indian EIA reports, it will not be possible to ensure that ships navigating in this region do not use such paints and anticorrosive agents on ship bottom which cause damage to marine organisms. The EIA report states “A pilot should be trained or environmental watcher will board the ship to watch marine animals like turtle, dolphins, sea cow etc. in the region and navigate the ship safely avoiding any damage to this fauna”. This statement seems to be away from reality. 
In reality, the ship navigation route will affect the fishermen in the area. There will be strict security zone along the ship canal. Both Sri Lankan and Indian fishermen will be affected due to this new condition.
According to environmentalists, “Tsunami” would have destroyed Mannar area, had the SSCP been constructed before.
The Indian side is going ahead with the Sethusamudram project without any risk assessment, a cost benefit analysis and a compensation package. Also the Indian government does not have a contingency plan and has not considered the worst case scenario. Even the Indian citizens do not seem to have adequate information about the adverse effects of the project. The Indian government should adhere to the request made by the Environmental Foundation Ltd (EFL) to the government regarding the immediate availability of all relevant documents pertaining to the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project to the Indian public. The United Nations Environmental Programme should conduct an Environmental and Social Impacts Assessment together with the two countries for the proposed Sethusamudram Ship Canal project. The Indian government should agree that environmental and social problems have no political boarders. Any damage to the natural environment and the life forms will affect both the countries, not just Sri Lanka.

Pakistan committed to weed out terrorism
Khalid Khokhar

While the U.S., Afghan and U.N. officials have repeatedly questioned Islamabad’s willingness to stop al-Qaeda infiltration into Afghanistan from the Pakistani side and attacking the US-led allied forces in Afghanistan, the government of Pakistan continues its efforts to bust the al-Qaeda base in Waziristan region bordering Afghanistan. Undeterred by these allegations, Pakistan being a frontline state in the US-led war on terror, is committed to weed out terrorism of all sorts from its soil and has adopted both short and long-term strategies to counter the menace.
There have been significant successes in South Waziristan, rendering large areas inhospitable to terrorists, where the army is now focusing on the socio-economic uplift of the people of the area. Nevertheless, in the process of operation against armed militants, most of the wanted men slipped away into the North Waziristan tribal region. Now, the focus of its anti-terrorist operations has been shifted from Wana in South Waziristan to Miranshah in North Waziristan.
Pakistan has made positive and substantive contribution in the fight against terrorism. It has paid the heavy price and has come a long way in rooting out the scourge of terrorism. Already, Pakistan Army has conducted some 76 military operations against terrorists in Waziristan, and have killed 353 militants including 175 foreigners. Due to targeted military operations, all known terrorist bases in Waziristan have been busted, and they are on the run. Pakistan has handed over as many as 800 al Qaeda operatives into US custody including some high value targets in the al Qaeda leadership such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammad, Abu Zubaydah, and recently Abu Faraj al-Libbi. About 70,000 troops have been deployed on the bordering areas along side Afghanistan to contain Al-Qaeda element on the Western front. Most recently, additional 10000 troops have been sent to seal the western border. However, the border is very porous and has 249 unfrequented routes; the terrain is treacherous and very difficult to control. Pakistan has established 763 posts to stop cross-border infiltration along 600 kilometres common border where helicopters would carry out patrolling on the border. The coalition forces had been requested to provide ‘spy drone cover’ so that if any body tries to cross the border for subversive acts would be taken to task. 268 security personnel of Pakistan died and over 700 sustained injuries in the military offensives. It has paid the price in terms of blood and has come a long way in rooting out the evil of terrorism. This shows our sincerity and resolve in the fight against global terrorism.
Despite all positive efforts, it is lamentable that foreign media has not stopped its bitter criticism and still insists that Osama bin Laden and some top al- Qaeda figures are hiding somewhere in the mountain recesses of the region. But, the presence of high value targets in the tribal areas has been repeatedly ruled out by the government of Pakistan, because the spaces have been adequately squeezed. Moreover, to prevent cross-border infiltration, the issue of fencing 2,500 Kilometer Pakistan-Afghanistan border is on the anvil. The fencing would also help block the entry of Afghan refugees into Pakistan. A 3-member delegation from US led by Congressman Mark Wood, is visiting Pakistan to discuss the issue of erecting fence along the Afghan border. The fencing would start from NWFP and extend right up to Pakistan’s border with the Chinese territory of Xinjiang, passing on the way the Wakham Corridor where the Hindu Kush and the Pamirs meet. If materialized, the fencing would be the eighth wonder of the world in the arena of engineering excellence.

Iran’s nuclear issue and new alignments
Shamsa Ishfaq

The Iran nuclear crisis came into the open in year 2003, since then US has adopted an unequivocally hard-line stance against Iran. France, Germany and Britain (EU-3) at that time chose to be conciliatory because president Khatami agreed to freeze uranium enrichment. Now that Iran’s new government has revoked the freeze uranium enrichment process, the EU has reacted strongly. However the Iranian government has reiterated that its nuclear programme is peaceful and civilian in nature. Backed by United States, EU-3 drafted a resolution calling on International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) to report Iran to the UN Security Council for non-compliance with nuclear safeguards regulations.
The outcome of the resolution with 22 votes for, 12 abstentions and one against has highlighted the split between western nations and others such as Russia, China and South Africa. Pakistan abstained, Russia and China vetoed the move to penalize Iran but old friend India sided EU and US stance. At the moment whether Iran is guilty or not is not so much the key issue. It is new alignment emerging in international relations that is significant. Now equation is like China and Russia countervailing EU-USA and India seeking shelter under later.
Pakistan desisted to avoid instability in the region and urged to seek a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue. She warned that any military action against Iran would create unprecedented turmoil in the region. It would be wise to deal the issue within the frame work of IAEA instead of Security Council. Pakistan attaches great importance to its historical, cultural and religious ties with Iran despite she has always been given a back seat by Iran as compared to India.
China opposed the resolution in view of the fact that kicking the nuclear issue from Vienna to New York could encourage Iran to take extreme measures. Analysts around the globe agree on to Chinese stance of referring Iran to Security Council as unconstructive.
Russia has long been an opponent of referring Iran to the Security Council. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained, while Iran is cooperating with the IAEA, not enriching uranium and observing a moratorium, while IAEA inspectors are working in the country, it would be counter productive to report this question to the UN Security Council. Russia has political, economic and strategic reasons to support Iran’s nuclear energy programme. Russia is helping Iran build its first nuclear power station at Bushehr in a contract worth $ 800 million, money that Russia badly needs. Iran is near Turkey and close to Russian border. Russian support to Iran is to avoid creation of enemies on her border. Russia and Iran also border energy-rich Caspian Sea region, where both have long-standing and common interests ranging from development of oil and gas deposits to caviar harvesting. US also views Caspian Sea region as a zone of strategic interests and Iran is in a key geographic position as a transit region.
Another shift that Iranian nuclear imbroglio has exposed is of ally India from Iran to US-EU camp. India has been an important ally of Iran since long and enjoyed her unprecedented support at all occasions. Their warm relationship can be gauged from the fact that President Khatami was the chief guest at India’s republic day parade on 26th January 2003. On 17 June 2003, Iranian Ambassador Siavosh Yaghoobi said, ‘Iranian and Indian relations are not dependent on any external political considerations’. Both have signed multi-dimensional economic pacts, shared defence and strategic vision and much talked 2,500 km Indo-Iranian gas pipeline.
In short India supported by Iran whenever needed turned her back when Iran needed her. After all, Indians are not fool. They can well estimate the benefits they can reap under US shadow especially when plans of getting a seat in UN Security Council and advancement in nuclear programme are already set. Indian response has shocked not only Iran but the entire world. Having deep and warm ties with Iran, it was expected that India will oppose Iran referral and support its nuclear programme which is entirely peaceful.
Now in this changing scenario new alignments in international relations are emerging. There is an air of déjà vu in this scenario. India has voiced in favour of EU-3 draft but has also asked Iran to show flexibility. The opposition of Russia and China to the resolution has challenged the American hegemony. China being the fastest growing economy in the world today and Russia with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons would hardly be overlooked by USA. Such potential challengers are likely to change the present power equation in future. At the same time, what impact the policy shift in indo-iran relations will have on region would be another case study for strategic scientists.