War games
Feng Changhong

The world has been worrying lately about the dispute between Russia and the United States over the radar-based missile defense system that the latter plans to establish in Europe. People are wondering what the real reason behind this dispute is, even while the rest of the world seeks peace. What strategies are the two sides taking? Will the dispute lead to new military equipment competition, and even a new round of Cold War? And what will be the end of it?
Political elements
It has actually been America’s long-time wish to place a missile shield in Europe. After the Cold War, the United States continued to keep its eyes on Russia. At first it handled the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), and then established military bases in countries that were traditionally under Russian influence. When U.S. President George W. Bush came into power, he saw that Russia’s economic and military powers had been greatly weakened. Thereafter he started to seek absolute dominance of strategic nuclear weapons on the globe, and announced that the United States was quitting the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM). Since then the two countries have been contesting one another on the subject of anti-ballistic missiles. America’s target is to suppress Russia to make sure that it cannot compete with America on the world stage, so as to guarantee U.S. supremacy in world affairs.
The United States claimed that its goal was the safety of Europe and that it was protecting its allies from being attacked. However, Russia didn’t accept the explanation. Faced with the prospect of the possible attack from America, Russia has had to strengthen its military power and turn from positive defense to active attack. Now that the United States has decided to deploy an anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland, Russia has strongly opposed the plan and declared that if America did so, Russia would target its missiles toward U.S. anti-missile bases in those countries. Russia suggested recently that the anti-missile shield be erected in Azerbaijan, or even in Iraq or Turkey. America’s attitude toward this “interesting” proposition remains negative and rejective. The crisis cannot be resolved until the two sides make concerted efforts.
Technical elements
The U.S. ballistic missile defense plan covers the Theater Missile Defense (TMD), which is to protect U.S. troops overseas and U.S. allies from missile attack, and the National Missile Defense (NMD), which is to protect the U.S. mainland from missile threat. In September 2000, the Clinton administration announced that it was suspending the NMD system because of worldwide criticism and its technical immaturity. After President Bush assumed position, he combined the TMD and NMD and set up a comprehensive missile defense system (MD). In 2004, America started to deploy long-range intercepting missile systems in military bases in Alaska and California, and planned to install 20 missile-intercepting devices within three years. According to U.S. plans, America will set up 10 missile-eradicating devices for missile intercepting in Poland, and an advanced anti-missile radar system in the Czech Republic by 2011.
The U.S. MD system is made up of a pre-warning satellite, pre-warning radar, ground-based radar, a ground-based intercepting missile and battle management, a command, control and communications (BM/C3) system, in which the ground-based intercepting missile is the core of the whole system. From the angle of actual combat, the system can intercept missiles in three different courses, initial, mid and terminal, so as to protect U.S. troops in front lines, as well as allies and other important countries and regions where America has big interests.
Of late, America’s cooperativeness with its European allies on MD has yielded rich fruit. The European MD system, especially, established under the NATO framework, will be effective in protecting America’s European allies from missile attacks. However, the United States believes that its anti-missile system in Europe covers too limited an area to guarantee the safety of all NATO members. Thus it must set up new anti-missile bases in Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic and Poland, to fend off missile threats from countries such as Iran. America’s plan is obvious: in the name of expanding coverage of its anti-missile system, it aims to realize its own anti-Russia strategy, and this has been proved by the U.S. rejection of Russia’s suggestion of establishing a base in Azerbaijan.
Different strokes
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s suggestion was borne of thoughtful strategic consideration. First of all, his suggestion brought Russia more diplomatic sympathy from the world, and blew away America’s chance of stressing its stance on the anti-missile base, during the recent G8 summit. According to Russia, if the two countries could jointly use the radar base in Azerbaijan, the anti-missile coverage scope would include the whole of Europe. Plus, since Azerbaijan is a neighbor of Iran, Russia believes that a radar base in this country not only fits into U.S. plans to build an MD system in Eastern Europe to cope with threats from Iran, but also saves Russia the trouble of placing an offensive weapon system along European borders.
Second, at the military technical level, Putin pointed out that the Gabala missile pre-warning radar station in Azerbaijan used to be a Soviet Union military information base, and is now a Russia-rented radar station, according to an agreement signed by Russia and Azerbaijan. The radar base can monitor a range of about 6,000 square km, and serve as a pre-warning against sea-based ballistic missiles and ground-based missiles with nuclear warheads. Azerbaijan shares a border with Iran that is over 400 km long; the Gabala radar base is 150 km from the Iran borderline, and about 600 km from the Russia borderline. Putin’s suggestion means that Russia itself can use the radar base, and cannot be monitored. On the contrary, the U.S. chosen spots in Poland and the Czech Republic are at a distance of 3,000 km to Iran, but the one in the Czech Republic is only 1,000 km from Russia. Therefore, Russia’s suggestion should have been rational and acceptable to America. Russia also proposed that in the first phase the two powers could share the radar base in Azerbaijan, and the anti-missile defense system could be set up after some country tested long-range missiles. It takes at least three to five years to officially launch a long-range missile after it has been tested, and during that period of time, any kind of anti-missile defense installment can be established.
But this is not in accordance with U.S. strategy. What America cares is not the range of the radar base, but how to deter Russia. The planned missile intercepting station and pre-warning radar station cover an area as big as 100 square km, and will be fully U.S.-controlled bases. As a result, America can realize its goal of striking Russia strategically. The interception of ballistic missiles is carried out in three different phases during the missile’s flight, and the flying missile is easily destroyed during its initial course of booster phase, which means that the anti-missile system should be close to the targeted missile base. Therefore, Poland and the Czech Republic would be a better choice for the U.S. underhand strategy. Another goal of the United States is to further control Europe, by which the United States can stabilize its base in “New Europe” and squeeze Russia’s strategic space.
New round of military equipment competition Today the fragile ties between Russia and the United States are on the verge of deteriorating, owing to the anti-missile issue and the U.S. insistence that it deploys anti-missile bases in Russia’s neighborhood. U.S.-Russia relations have reached a crucial period, and the wisdom of the top leaders in the two countries will decide the future of their relationship. America will not regard Russia as its democratic ally; Russia’s ties with the United States will never be as close as those with Germany, India or China. U.S. action continues to greatly decrease Russia’s sense of security, as a result of which Russia will definitely enlarge its national defense investment. Because the U.S. behavior is going to damage the balance of world military power, a new round of military equipment competition is likely to be brought up.
The relationship between the United State and Russia now drops to the lowest point since the end of the Cold War.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

 

‘Jamia Hafza’ incident - Blatant mockery of true Islam
Mehwish Hassan Sara


Militants or Jihadis turning to be dissidents of the state is not a new phenomenon in Pakistan and world wide. The widely pronounced term politicization of Islam or religion implies the use of religion for achieving political ends or for vested interests at national and global level. In Pakistan this phenomenon gained its full impetus during General Ziaul Haque’s regime, during which seminaries run by Islamic clerics were patronized and encouraged to flourish due to governments policy needs.
Islam is often being used by right wing Islam parties in Pakistan to gain political power and moulding ‘Islamic Fiqah’ according to their needs either personal or collective in nature. This trend gave way to the misinterpretation of word Jihad in Pakistan and Islamic world. Jihad or battle against Non-Muslims became a popular slogan during the Afghan Soviet war and millions of illiterate poverty ridden young people from Pakistan and the Arab world were trained to fight for Islam in Afghanistan. However after the closure of the war in Afghanistan in 1989 these Islamic students termed as ‘Taliban’ were consumed in Islamic seminaries mushroomed all over Pakistan and Central Asian Republics. Unfortunately these Islamic schools assumed the role of purging the Pakistani society itself and world witnessed worst Sectarian killings in 1990’s. Then later on these composite Islamic Groups were alleged by US after 9/11 shook echelons of power in Washington. Unfortunately despite Pakistan’s unconditional support in war against terror to US in all spheres Pakistan still stands highly prone to terrorism its self.
According to International law and Islamic law state dissidents or rebels challenging the writ are supposed to be castigated or penalized by the government. Jamia Hafza administration challenged the government writ several times moreover threatened the social freedom of common citizens by abductions, throwing acid and harassing women. The illegitimate confiscation of the Children’s library adjacent to the Lal Masjid was another offensive on part of the Lal Majid administration. This all is polar opposite to Islamic teachings and true sprit of slam which is based on tolerance, fraternity and obeying the law of the land when the government is Islami.There is no concept of Jihad if it is aimed against other muslim population or the Islamic government.
Mulana Abdul Aziz Ghazi and his brother Abdur Rahid Ghazi are trying to equate their movement with Hazarat Imam Hussein (a.s). That is in fact just a mockery of Islam as Imam Hussein (RA), God forbid, did not escape veiled or disguised in a Burqa at all. Islam doesn’t teach running away when time tests. These acts proved the fallacy of the movement and what a distorted religion can render. This seminary also served as safe hideout for foreign militant’s details are still not declassified. The government also remained dormant and showed ignorance over the Lall Majid issue initially unless the citizens protested on the main avenues of Islamabad against the Burqa vigilantism.
One should try to look at the economic and social causes which feed such movements. Its a question that how thousands of common Pakistanis got into this seminary answer is simple as in a poverty ridden state with every family having meagre earning, incentives of food, clothing and shelter for poor children are enough to be admitted in such seminaries. This is the core reason for high number of lower class getting into such extremist fringe seminaries. Laxity of the state responsibility could be seen in satisfying the needs of the common people.
Jamia Hafza incident would have number of fall outs or repercussions. First of all the problem of the indoctrination of brain washed children will have to be encountered. Then would Pakistni socity be able to accommodate all the dropped out of Jamia Hafza. This all has to be seriously addressed by the government and Islamic world as this incident is true mockery of Islam and Pakistan.
 

Real causes of terror can no longer be swept under carpet
Phillip Knightly

SOMETHING odd is happening in the war on terror. Although there have been apparent successes in Britain (the conviction of three men for conspiracy to murder) and Australia (the arrest of an Indian doctor on suspicion of terrorist activity), the overall picture is by no means as rosy as these events make it appear. In the United States, the media has turned on the architects of the war, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, with a viciousness that would been unthinkable a few years ago.
In its current issue, the influential New Yorker magazine blames Cheney for what has been happening. It accuses him of manipulating a “callow, lazy and ignorant” Bush into refusing to accept that the laws of the United States can in any way stop them from doing whatever they want in their “endless, endlessly expandable war on terror.” The magazine says they have inflicted unprecedented disgrace on America’s moral and political standing by launching the Iraq war under false pretences, conducting it with “stupifying incompetence” and of crippling America’s armed forces, “which no longer overawe and will take years to rebuild”.
Britain is beginning to think the same way. Admiral Sir Alan West, Gordon Brown’s new security minister, warns that the war on terror is not going to be won quickly and could take ten to fifteen years or longer. He says the government has failed to get its anti-terrorism message across and what is now needed is some “un-British snitching”. But how extensive this informing on your neighbours might become was highlighted by Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Intelligence Studies at Brunel University.
The same day as Admiral West gave his downbeat assessment of the war on terror, Glees estimated that there were “up to 200,000 potential martyrs at universities at home and abroad who are susceptible to recruitment” to terrorist groups, a terrifying thought for the counter-terrorism services. In my view, the problem is that governments have from the beginning failed to define what they consider terrorism to be. Is it simply “a form of violence you don’t like” (Professor Richard Rubenstein, Centre for Conflict Analysis and Resolution)? Is it attacking civilians, rather than soldiers?
But, according to British author Phil Ress, the USA and Israel are bigger killers of civilians than their terrorist foes, so such a definition would sweep both governments into the net as well. And if you leave terrorism undefined or defined loosely so as to get agreement, then you have to accept that it will never go away. Next, we have refused to consider what the terrorists’ motives might be. Instead we simply wrote all terrorists off as “evil people” out to destroy our way of life. But this begs the question: why do there appear to be more evil people around today than there used to be. We ruled out in advance any negotiations of any sort with our terrorist foes. But anyone who has studied recent history knows that the best chances of ending terrorist attacks is through negotiations. Terrorism over Kenya, Cyprus, Aden and, especially Northern Ireland, ended because negotiations brought compromise.
And finally we allowed those with a vested interest to exaggerate the terrorist threat. Counter-terrorism has proved a boom business, providing thousands of new jobs for security and intelligence officers, surveillance and forensic experts — and, yes, authors and journalists. All of these naturally tend to paint any threat in strong colours, because it is in their professional and financial interests to do so. When commentator Christopher Hitchens writes that the dominant fact of our future will be that nowhere is safe from terrorist attack, that no matter where you live, “it’s coming”, that makes headlines. But when anyone points out that it is irrational to spend billions of dollars a year on anti-terrorism measures when food poisoning killls far more people, no one wants to hear. Dame Stella Rimington, former head of Britain’s security service, is one of the few experts to try to put it all into perspective. “We are tending towards this sense that we must all be one hundred per cent safe. A better way of presenting it is to say that the world is a difficult and dangerous place and [if we want to be safe] then we have to make choices about how much of our civil liberties we want to give up.” My answer is: none.

—Khaleej Times