The Republican candidate-I
Fidel Castro Ruz

THESE reflections are self-explanatory. In that already famous Super Tuesday, a day of the week when a number of States of the Union were selecting the candidate of their choice for the presidency of the United States from among a group of contenders, one of the likely candidates to replace George W. Bush was John McCain. Due to of his pre-packaged hero image, and his alliance with strong contenders such as Rudy Giuliani, the former governor of the state of New York, other candidates had already gladly endorsed him. The intense propaganda of social, economic and political factors having great significance in his country, and his personal style had turned him into the frontrunner. Only the extreme Republican right represented by Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, in disagreement with some insignificant McCain concessions, was still offering some resistance on February 5th. Subsequently, Romney would also withdraw in favor of McCain. Huckabee is still in the contest.
On the other hand, the struggle for the Democratic Party candidate is much tougher. Even though we are dealing, as usual, with an active part of the enfranchised population that tends to be a minority, we are already hearing all kinds of opinions and speculations about the consequences of the final outcome of the electoral battle for the country and the world, if mankind escapes the warmongering adventures of Bush. It is not up to me to talk about the history of a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I have never done so, and perhaps I would never have. Why should I be doing it at this time? McCain has said that some of his comrades were tortured by Cuban agents in Vietnam. His advocates and publicity experts tend to emphasize that McCain himself suffered such torture at the hands of the Cubans.
I hope that the U.S. people will understand that I consider it my obligation to enter into a detailed analysis of this Republican candidate and to respond to him. I shall do so on the basis of ethical considerations. The McCain file shows that he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam from October 26, 1967. As he tells it himself, he was 31 years old at the time and flying his 23rd bombing mission. His plane, an A-4E Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi by an anti-aircraft missile. Because of the hit, he lost control and ejected over Truc Bach Lake, in the middle of the city, suffering fractures in both arms and one knee. A patriotic crowd, seeing an aggressor come down, gave him a hostile reception. McCain himself says he was relieved at that moment to see the arrival of an army squad.
The bombing of Vietnam, begun in 1965, shocked international opinion, very sensitized to air attacks by the superpower against a small third world country which had been turned into a French colony, thousands of miles away from distant Europe. The Vietnamese people fought against Japanese occupation forces during World War II and, when that war ended, France once again took control. Ho Chi Minh, the modest leader who was much loved by all, and Nguyen Giap, his military commander, were internationally admired figures. The famous French Foreign Legion had been defeated. In trying to avoid that, the aggressor powers were at the point of using a nuclear weapon at Diên Biên Phu.
The noble “anamitas”, as José Martí affectionately called them, holders of millenary culture and values were portrayed, to U.S. public opinion, as a barbarian people unworthy of existence. In terms of suspense and commercial advertising, nobody can compete with the American specialists. The specialty was used unrestrictedly in the case of the POWs, and particularly in the case of McCain. Going along with that, McCain later said that the fact that his father was an Admiral and commanded the U.S. forces in the Pacific led the Vietnamese Resistance to offer him early liberation if he would admit that he had committed war crimes; he refused, arguing that the Military Code provides that prisoners be liberated in the order they were captured, and that meant five years of prison, beatings and torture in a prison area the Americans called the “Hanoi Hilton.”
The final pull out from Vietnam was disastrous. An army which was half a million strong, trained and armed to the teeth, could not hold back the thrust of the Vietnamese patriots. Saigon, the colonial capital, today called Ho Chi Minh City, was embarrassingly abandoned by the occupation forces and their accomplices, some of them holding to helicopters. The United States lost more than 50 thousand of their precious sons and daughters, not counting those that were wounded.  They had spent 500 billion dollars in that war without taxes, always distasteful in their own right. Nixon unilaterally revoked the commitments of Bretton Woods setting the foundations of today’s financial crisis. Their only achievement was a Republican Presidential candidate 41 years later. McCain, one of the many U.S. pilots shot down and wounded in the declared, or undeclared, wars of their country, was decorated with the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.
A TV movie based on his memoirs of the experiences as a POW was broadcast on Memorial Day of 2005 and he became famous for videos and speeches on the subject. The worst statement he made regarding our country was that Cuban interrogators had been regularly torturing American prisoners. As a reaction to McCain’s incredible words, I became interested in the matter. I wanted to know where such a strange legend had come from. I asked that someone find information on the attribution. I was informed that there was a highly promoted book which was the basis for the movie. This was written by McCain and Mark Salter, his Senate administrative advisor, who continues to work and write with him. I asked for it to be translated. This was done, as on other occasions, very quickly by qualified staff. The title of the book: Faith of My Fathers, 349 pages, published in 1999.
His accusation against internationalist Cuban revolutionaries —using the nickname Fidel to identify one of them who was capable of “torturing a prisoner to death”— is totally lacking in any ethics. Allow me to remind you, Mr. McCain: The commandments of your religion forbid you from lying. Your years in prison and the wounds you received as a result of your attacks on Hanoi do not excuse you from the moral duty of truth. Some facts must be brought to your attention. In Cuba, we had a rebellion against a despot who was put into power by the United States on March 10, 1952, imposed on the Cuban people, when you were just about to turn 16 years old, and the Republican government of a celebrated soldier, Dwight D. Eisenhower –who indeed was the first one to speak of the industrial-military complex– immediately recognized and supported that government. I was a bit older than you; I would have my 26 birthday that August, the same month when you were born. Eisenhower had not yet completed his presidential term that had begun in the 1950’s, some years after he became famous for the allied landing in the north of France, with the support of 10 thousand planes and the most powerful naval force known up to that time.
It was a war, formally declared by the powers fighting Hitler. The Nazis had launched a pre-emptive attack, without warning and without any prior declaration of war. A new style of producing great slaughters was imposed on mankind. In 1945, two bombs of roughly 20 kilotons each were used against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I once visited the first of those cities. In the 1950’s, the government of the United States came to build such nuclear attack weapons. One of them, the MR17, came to weigh 19.05 tons and measured 7.49 meters; it would be carried in their bombers and would unleash an explosion of 20 megatons, equivalent to a thousand bombs like the one that was dropped over the first of those two cities on August 6, 1945. It is a fact that would infuriate Einstein who, in the midst of his contradictions, would often express regret about the weapon that, without meaning to, he helped to manufacture, with his scientific theories and discoveries.
When the Revolution triumphs in Cuba on January 1st, 1959, almost 15 years after the explosion of the first nuclear weapons, and we proclaim an Agrarian Reform Act based on the principle of national sovereignty, consecrated by the blood of millions of combatants who died in that war, the United States response was a program of illegal deeds and terrorist attacks against the Cuban people, signed by the President of the United States himself, Dwight D. Eisenhower. The attack on the Bay of Pigs followed the exact instructions of the President of the United States and the invaders were escorted by U.S. naval units, including an aircraft carrier. The first air assault with U.S. B-26 planes flying out of secret bases was a pre-emptive attack using Cuban markings on the planes so that world opinion would see this as a revolt by our national air force.
You accuse Cuban revolutionaries of being torturers. I seriously urge you to find a single one of the more than a thousand prisoners captured during the Bay of Pigs fighting who had been tortured. I was there, not in some protected position at a distant general command post. I personally captured a number of prisoners with the help of some assistants; I walked in front of armed squads who were still lying under cover of the forest’s vegetation, paralyzed by the presence of the Chief of the Revolution. I’m sorry that I have to mention this because it might appear to be boasting, and that is something I honestly detest. The prisoners were citizens born in Cuba organized by a powerful foreign power to fight against their own people.
You have admitted that you are in favor of the death penalty for very serious crimes. What would have you done if faced by such acts? How many would you have sentenced for that treason? In Cuba, we tried several of the invaders who, under Batista’s orders, had previously committed horrendous crimes against Cuban revolutionaries. I visited the mass of Bay of Pigs prisoners, —that is how you call the Girón Beach invasion— on more than one occasion, and I talked with them. I like to find out man’s motives. They showed surprise and expressed their acknowledgement of the personal respect with which they were treated.
You should know that while we were negotiating their liberation in exchange for compensation by food and medicines for children, the U.S. government was organizing plans to assassinate me. There is a record of this in what was written by people taking part in the negotiation process.  I shall not go into detail about the long list of hundreds of assassination attempts on me. None of this is made up. It has been stated in official documents circulated by the U.S. government. What ethics underlie such deeds, vehemently defended by you as a matter of principles? I shall attempt to delve deeper into those matters.

(to be continued)




BLA’s regrouping in European countries
Rasul Buksh Raisani

EVER since the “targeted military operation” against Baloch militants in Pakistan’s strategically important and resource-rich province of Balochistan, many rebel tribesmen of Bugti, Marri and Mengal tribes sought refuge in European countries. Nevertheless, the Government is still facing nefarious activities though at a much lesser scale from Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) – an international terrorist group that is banned by British Government in July 2006. The reason may be that at the most crucial juncture when Baloch militants were on the run, the Europeans allowed “rogue element” to seek shelter in foreign countries on the pretext of “political asylum”. The Baloch militants took full advantage of the so-called liberal policies to regroup and re-organize in the guise of foreign-based organizations of Pakistani origin to commit acts of terrorism inside Pakistan. The west, being the biggest ally in the US-led war on terror, is unwittingly protecting and harbouring such dangerous terrorists wanted in many terrorist acts in Balochistan. Today, the continuation of Baloch militant’s attacks on strategic installation, is a devastating outcome of western’s “human rights” policies. Unless the European nations change stance, the danger to Pakistan will continue to multiply.
BLA - a declared terrorist organization under Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, claims responsibility for most of the attacks in reaction to the ongoing developmental activities in the province meant to improve the life-style of the common people. The BLA is supported by a handful of tribal chiefs bent on resisting socio-economic development and progress of Balochistan. The tribal chieftains discourage education and progress for the lower segment of their tribes to ensure that common tribesmen don’t become aware of their rights and privileges. These feudal lords use force and cruel methods to control the poor and keep them under their grip. They established 40-50 farari camps (military training centres) in the province to impart sophisticated training in “guerilla warfare”. Following the crackdown in the Marri and Bugti areas since December 2005, the Government succeeded in enforcing the “writ of government” by busting 90% of BLA’s sanctuaries. On the other side, the Government is investing millions of rupees into Balochistan with the aim of turning the province into a regional economic and energy hub. The completion of Gwadar port and other mega projects would create better employment opportunities, reduce poverty and bring prosperity in the province.
The International terrorism, no matter when, by whom, where, and in what form, is a dangerous threat to the world peace. This requires mutual cooperation from all peace-loving countries. Every country should adopt “uniform strategy” in condemning and fighting terrorism resolutely. Until 2005, UK has been denying the fact that the British citizens of Pakistani origin who were born, bred and educated in the UK could do such unspeakable and horrific things. But, it the first time that House of Commons has taken into account how terrorism in Pakistan may affect Britain and its Muslim population. The arrest of Faiz Baloch and Hyrbyair Marri by British Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Command from north-west and west London on 4 December 2007, on the charges of “commissioning, preparing or instigating acts of terrorism”, exhibits the seriousness of UK Government in combating terrorism in UK. Consequently, most of the terrorist organizations have closed their offices in UK and now are building their base in Sweden/Norway as the main hub of BLA activities. Mr Afzal Marri is planning to establish FM Radio Station and publishing of the Baloch magazines in UK. Baloch renegade have bought time from 1330 to 1500 hours every Sunday from FM 88.0 MHZ Radio Station Stockholm Sweden. Reportedly, they have started projecting Baloch cause and pressing the idea of Independent Balochistan in Baloch language live programme with the name of “Balochi Radio”. Mr Masood, Zari and Sara are the key members of management of FM 88 who are engaged with the Baloch rebel leaders. They are also negotiating with the management of FM 101.1 MHZ Radio Station in Sweden to enhance coverage of Baloch Radio in Sweden and Norway. The Balochis have sought permission from local police of Sweden for fundraising while visiting shops/public places. Through media campaign, they are also requesting for funds/donation to be used for abetting terrorism in Balochistan. Source further revealed that Baloch term this campaign of fund collection as “Water Project Fund - Balochistan”. Baloch have opened own media centre with the name of “Baltimore Independent Media Centre” P.O Box 13022 Stockholm, Sweden. Mir Azad Khan Baloch, General Secretary of so-called .the Government of Balochistan (in exile) operating from Israel, is trying to organize the Baloch community in UK through his contacts to raise voices/protests against arrest of Hyrbyair Marri/banning BLA. The Great Balochistan National Conference (GBNC) based in Europe has been the sole factor in financing the supply of arms and ammunition to the local groups. There is another organization in United States by the name of the American Friends of Balochistan (AFB) which is generating funds for the rebel tribesmen by highlighting the so-called miseries of Balochis. The UK/EU Organizer of World Sindhi Congress (WSC) Ms. Suraiya Makhdoom, is very active in seeking financial support from the UK-based Balochs and Sindhis. Apart from this, a mushroom of websites advocating the so-called Balochi cause has cropped-up during a very short span of period.
There is a strong need to take appropriate programmes and initiatives to reach out to people/organizations harbouring terrorism. All the foreign-based organizations consisting of nationals of Baloch origins, supporting/funding the renegade Baloch activists should be taken to the task by the counterterrorism authorities of the respective country. All the Balochi websites operating in western countries responsible of fanning anti-Pakistan sentiments are tantamount to inciting people to commit acts of terrorism, therefore, should also be banned. These anti-Pakistan alliances working in foreign countries are distorting the positive and favourable national image at the international level. They can not be allowed to continue with these negative and harmful activities at any cost. In an air strike, the NATO forces in Afghanistan’s Helmand province killed the operational leader of BLA Mir Balach Marri on November 21, 2007, inflicting a severe blow to the command and structure of the outfit. Terrorism can only be beaten when all the peace loving countries mobilize themselves to isolate and defeat its perpetrators. The western democracies have to set aside their soft policy and should be more aggressive to conduct covert operations against masquerade terrorists exploiting the western doctrine on human rights to their benefit. After all the sole objective common to all counterterrorism forces, is the eradication of terrorism from this beautiful planet.




Indian hegemony on Nepal
Waqar Ahmed

RECENTLY the Indian Border Special Force (Sima Sasastra Bal) (SSB) ordered certain Nepali families from Triveni Susta Village to leave the area as the territory belonged to the Indian State of Bihar. About 1000 Indian farmers, who had entered Susta with the help of Indian forces, destroyed about 10 hectares of sugarcane planted by Nepali farmers and also manhandled men and women. In reaction Nepali farmers formed a Committee for a “Save Susta Campaign” coordinated by Gopal Prasad Gurung. They took their appeal to Kathmandu, asking the Nepal government to intervene immediately and start fixing the border. The human rights defenders, researchers, border specialists and historians visited Susta village to inspect the problems. The situation they describe is horrific, created by the “big brother” of South Asia. The seven-member inspection team found the Indians to have encroached into about 200 hectares of Nepali land. Indian farmers were found building houses in those areas and about 1000 SSB were stationed there. Now the total Nepali land that India has grabbed in Susta alone has reached about 14,000 hectares.
Let us see why there is a border dispute between India and Nepal? Nepal-India border is unique in the world in the sense that people of both the countries can cross it from any point, despite the existence of border check posts at several locations. Unlawful movement of goods and people is therefore a common feature on both sides of the India-Nepal border. The Narayani River flows from north to south, forming a 24 kilometer border between Nepal and India. No physical demarcation was made on either side of the river after Nepal and India signed the Sugauli Treaty in 1816. There are two methods of fixing the international boundaries i.e. the “Fixed Boundary Principle” and “Fluid Boundary Principle” which are recognized in the world. In Nepal-India’s case, the 9th meeting of the Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee of the two countries in the first week of January 1988 had agreed to demarcate the sector on the basis of the Fixed Boundary Principle. According to this principle, the borderline should have been fixed along the course followed by the Narayani River in 1816 no matter whether or not the river flows along that area today. India does not accept this principle in Susta, while it has created disputes in the Mechi River area in eastern Nepal by erecting new border posts inside Nepali territory as per the Fixed Boundary Principle. The two cases of Mechi River area and Narayani River area are exactly the same in nature but India has imposed two different principles for them.
To stop encroachment, a police post was established in Susta by the Nepal Government. The government also built a health post and school in order to maintain Nepal’s territorial integrity but time and again stories of confrontation between Nepali and Indian farmers have been coming to light. Also the locals narrate cases of Indian farmers trying to get Nepali citizenship by means of fraud and forgery in order to own those areas. Susta is not the only case, as Nepal shares over 1800 Kilometers of border with India and border disputes exist in at least 85 different places. Boundary posts at dozens of points have disappeared and in addition 372 square kilometers of the Nepali territory of Kalipani at the tri-junction of Nepal, India and China has been occupied by Indian troops since the 1960s whereas according to the map drawn with the help of the Canadian government in 1985 and another map drawn with the assistance of the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in 1992, the whole Susta area is shown as Nepal’s territory.
The most serious and adverse impact of open and uncontrolled Nepal-India border has been in the form of growing anti-social and lawless activities. The ever increasing crimes along the border have been a major concern for Nepal since early nineteenth century, and the Treaty of 1855 was aimed at controlling these problems. However, the policy of open border has rather enhanced such activities. The unrestricted movement across the border has indeed been responsible for all sorts of criminal, anti-social and illegal activities such as robbery, theft, murder, smuggling of goods to evade custom duties, narcotic drugs trafficking, trafficking of girls, arms smuggling and kidnapping for ransoms etc. In recent years, there has been sudden increase in crimes such as theft, robbery, kidnapping and murder on both sides of the border as well as increase in terrorist activities on the Indian side. The incursion of Indian police inside Nepal without permission in search of criminals who fled into Nepal has hurt the sentiments of the Nepalese and is reported to have generated hatred against India. There have been a number of intrusions/hot pursuits by Indian police in Nepal. Such unauthorized incursions by the Indian police with blatant violation of international law and code of conduct have created hatred in the minds of Nepalis. Apart from tampering with the Nepal India border by the local people in the Indian side, the Indian government itself has been involved in the violating the norms of international boundary treaty. The construction of dams on the rivers flowing from Nepal just across the Nepal India boundary on Indian side has resulted in flooding and submergence of large tracts of Nepalese territories. It started with the Bagmati River. Recently, the construction of dam over the Mirchiya River in India has submerged a large tract of Nepalese territory and threatened the submergence of the international heritage site of Lumbini, the birth place of Lord Buddha.
Several attempts have been made to resolve the Susta issue but nothing has happened due to a negative Indian attitude. Indian bureaucrats always suspect a ploy being hatched by Beijing or Islamabad when Nepal brings any agenda for discussion. There is a general feeling in Nepal that the Indian leaders and diplomatic personnel have a tendency to look upon Nepal with suspicion and distrust, particularly regarding Nepal’s relations with China and Pakistan. Early this month the Nepal-India Joint Technical Level Boundary Team met in order to resolve border disputes, but like many previous meetings, it ended inconclusively. Nepal is a sovereign country and the International community should take immediate action against Indian encroachment. In fact the issue should be internationalized as India, claiming itself a representative of South Asia, is seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Would India’s hegemonic nature towards smaller countries in the region qualify it to achieve the permanent seat in Security Council?