Strategic Views

Threats of Wahabism

2010-01-27T17:03:00.001Z

The Menace of Wahabism

2010-01-27T16:04:00.003Z

Wahabism is a menace to human society and specially to Muslims. This menace started with Muhammad bin Abd-ul-Wahab who was a so-called 'reformist' hailing from Najd region of what is now ''Saudi'' Arabia.

His teachings have influenced and ''effected'' many in the Muslim world specially the people of kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. Essentially it became a threat to shiism predominantly prevelant in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Wahabism specially had a deep impact on ''Deobandi'' School of thought in Pakistan and under its influence neighbouring Afghanistan aswell became effected.

Wahabism is a very strict school of thought which forbids reason and logic in overall picture and thats exactly what the followers of Wahabism do; they do not see the overall picture and they think they are practising Islam properly following Wahabi teachings when this is not the case at all.

Islam encourages critical thinking, research, logical argument and debate supported with reason so that the followers of Islam go deep and search for the answers. On the other hand Wahabism is totally against this concept.

Unfortunatley, this Wahabism has effected many Muslims and the effects of this are tremendously huge. With the LACK of Critical thinking, research, logical arguments and debate supported with reason and the PRESENCE of imposition of (very limited narrow minded) Divine understanding of the faith of Islam as taught in Wahabism, majority of Muslims in the 21st century since the advent of Wahabism are illiterate, backward, lacking reason and discourage research and free thinking. The end result is that some of these ''effected'' Muslims provide the recruits or foot soldiers responsible for most of the terrorism in today's world. The rest of the Wahabis and Wahabi-inspired schools of thoughts such as Deobandis do not condemn the acts of terrorism and do not try their utmost to get rid of terrorism.

The ordinary people are just followers and this has been the case and will always be the case in the world. But the real people who hold responsibility are the people who know what is going on and who are at the helm of affairs. They have to take steps to eduacte people about this menace of Wahabism to make this World a safer and better place to live.

Iran Runs Military Nuclear Office, Intel Report Alleges

2010-01-26T22:08:00.000Z

NTI
Tuesday, Jan. 26, 2010

An intelligence document being studied by diplomats in Israel and Western powers alleges that a secret Iranian office is charged with overseeing military elements of the nation's nuclear program, Der Spiegel reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 25).

The United States and its allies have expressed concern that Iran could tap its uranium enrichment program to generate nuclear-weapon material. Tehran has insisted its atomic ambitions are strictly peaceful, and the government has repeatedly informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it has only one, nonmilitary organization involved in the country's uranium enrichment work.

The dossier, though, describes an Iranian Defense Ministry entity responsible for coordinating secret nuclear weapons development efforts. Referred to as the Expanded High-Technology Applications Department, or FEDAT, the office is said to be run by 48-year-old Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a ranking member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and a professor at Imam Hossein University in Tehran.

Seemingly adapted from the earlier Center for Aviation Technology in Tehran, the department is believed to split nuclear weapons development work with Iran's Atomic Energy Agency while competing with the agency in other respects. While the energy agency has generally concentrated on Iran's uranium enrichment program, the Defense Ministry department is assessed to have focused on efforts to develop a nuclear-capable warhead that could fit onto the nation's Shahab ballistic missiles, according to the report.

Such a weapon could be ready between 2012 and 2014, experts say.

The intelligence document indicates that Iran's nuclear weapons work is highly developed, according to officials familiar with the report.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog and Der Spiegel have both obtained documents detailing the office's scientific staff and purported organizational structure, but Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed the papers as forgeries aimed at incriminating his country.

The United States could begin a push for new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran once France begins its turn chairing the council next month, Der Spiegel reported. China is likely to maintain its opposition to tough economic penalties on the Middle Eastern state, though, a move that could force the United States and European nations to target Tehran independently of the international body (Der Spiegel, Jan. 25).

France yesterday called on other EU nations to move toward imposing additional sanctions on Iran, Agence France-Presse reported.

"The Europeans have to prepare the sanctions process," said Pierre Lellouche, European affairs minister for France. He said that Iran was prompting the new measures with its "refusal of all offers of a solution" to disputes over its nuclear activities.

"We have been in talks for six years," Lellouche said. "All the West's proposals have been rejected and now if we listen to the Iranian spokesman they are reaching 20 percent enrichment" of Iranian uranium, a development he said would place the country on the "threshold to [nuclear] militarization."

He added, though, that the European Union would not pursue its own penalties against Iran if the Security Council failed to agree on new sanctions (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, Jan. 26).

"We need to see what comes out of the Security Council discussions and the role the members play and then return to the subject," EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said after conferring with European foreign ministers, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur.

"The sanction instrument is a very blunt one, so it should be used with extreme care," added Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt (Deutsche Presse Agentur/Monsters and Critics, Jan. 25).

Italy yesterday called for more participation by Arab states in addressing the nuclear dispute, AFP reported.

"We together have to prevent Iran from going nuclear. This is a concern for all of us -- for Western democracies, the United States and Europe, but for Arab states as well," Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said in Washington during a press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"We are in perfect agreement in broadening the consultation of a number of states in the region that can be interested and are interested in talking about what to do," Frattini said (Agence France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Jan. 25).

Meanwhile, Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili's planned appearance in Moscow this week was delayed and no new date for the trip has been set, RIA Novosti reported.

The scheduled three-day visit was pushed back to permit further preparatory work, according to Iranian state media (RIA Novosti, Jan. 25).

Jalili had been expected to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse III/Google News, Jan. 26).

Elsewhere, Tehran today demanded the extradition of U.S.-based members of an opposition group it blamed for the bombing death this month of Iranian nuclear physics professor Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Reuters reported.

The Swiss ambassador to Iran, whose embassy serves as a point of contact to Washington by Tehran, was called to the Foreign Ministry.

"Regarding the assassination which was claimed by [the pro-Iranian monarchy organization] Tondar, we asked the Swiss Embassy for an explanation on how the U.S. accepted to have this terrorist group in their country," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. "They should be answerable about this and we want the criminals to be extradited to Iran," he said (Hossein Jaseb, Reuters, Jan. 26).

Pakistan Rejects Atom Bomb Material Cut - Off Talks

2010-01-25T23:04:00.000Z

The NewYork Times

By REUTERS

Published: January 25, 2010

GENEVA (Reuters) - Pakistan, citing a "clear and present danger" from its nuclear-armed rival India, ruled out on Monday global negotiations to ban the future production of material to make atomic bombs.

Confirming a Reuters report from January 22, Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Zamir Akram, said such a treaty would leave Pakistan -- the most recent member of the nuclear club -- at a permanent disadvantage.

Pakistan's stance, triggered by nuclear and arms deals between India and the United States as well as with other nuclear powers, is a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to revive global disarmament.

It also raises a stumbling block to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament, where members had proposed starting work on talks to halt production of the highly enriched uranium and plutonium used to make nuclear weapons in what would be known as a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).

"A fissile material cut-off treaty that only bans future production of fissile material is unacceptable to Pakistan," Akram told reporters. "It would only accentuate the disparity and imbalance that exists and that simply is not acceptable."

DISAPPOINTED OPTIMISM

Akram said Pakistan was willing to negotiate a fissile treaty that encompassed reductions of existing stocks of material.

It also was ready to discuss other areas proposed at the 65-member conference: nuclear disarmament, limiting the militarisation of outer space, and "negative security assurances" -- promises by nuclear powers not to use atomic weapons on non-nuclear states.

The conference broke a 12-year deadlock last May when all members, including Pakistan, agreed on a programme of work, including talks on a fissile treaty.

But Pakistan subsequently refused to allow the talks to start.

Akram said Islamabad's initial optimism about the Obama administration's disarmament intentions, which had led it to back the conference programme, had quickly evaporated.

Other countries were selling India weapons, he said, and under the terms of a civilian nuclear agreement Washington signed with India in 2005, India was negotiating deals with the U.S. and elsewhere to acquire nuclear technology and material.

Akram neither disputed nor confirmed estimates that India already has twice as many nuclear weapons as Pakistan.

A civilian deal signed with France would provide India with fissile material for its reactors for 60 years, allowing it to use its own stocks for weapons, he said.

India's nuclear and other arms plans were complicating the environment for disarmament talks, he said, saying it was unclear why the United States was helping India build up its nuclear potential.

"But for us it presents us with a clear and present danger arising out of the asymmetry in strategic capabilities in South Asia," he said.

Pakistan would not block the conference but needed more than vague promises that the talks could also cover fissile stocks.

"I want to be clear before we start negotiations what are we talking about," he said.

But Akram said he did not believe states with nuclear weapons would agree to include stocks in the negotiations.

And he condemned nuclear powers for signing civilian deals with India that undermine the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

"Their motivation is greed.. They want to make money. But for us it's life and death," he said.

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

Operation Shudi Karan Rape Sikh Girls 1984

2010-01-24T21:27:00.000Z

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Resigns Amid CIA Prison Row

2010-01-21T18:27:00.001Z

January 21, 2010

Associated Press

VILNIUS, Lithuania—Lithuania's foreign minister said he was resigning Thursday after locking horns with the president over CIA secret prisons and relations with neighboring Belarus.

A parliamentary investigation in December found that Lithuania's national security agency had helped the U.S. intelligence service set up two detention facilities in the Baltic country, though it found no evidence that they actually held prisoners.

Foreign Minister Vygaudas Usackas has said two facilities set up in 2002 and 2004 were never used to interrogate terror suspects.

President Dalia Grybauskaite has said, however, that she believes suspects were held at the prisons, and she admonished the minister for publicly expressing a different viewpoint.

The minister has also clashed with the president over foreign policy, with Mr. Usackas advocating a tougher stance toward Belarus and its authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenko.

"Considering the present situation I am announcing my resignation," Mr. Usackas told reporters, adding he would hand in his resignation later Thursday.

Mr. Usackas, 45, is the third minister to resign from Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius's government since it took office in December 2008.

Analysts said Mr. Usackas' departure will not undermine the center-right coalition, which is grappling with a severe recession.

Why Pakistan will not mount new attacks on militants

2010-01-21T18:08:00.005Z

BBC News

16:15 GMT, Thursday, 21 January 2010


Pakistan's military thinks it has strong reasons not to attack the militants

With its announcement that it will launch no new offensives against the Taliban in 2010, Pakistan's army appears to have opened a new innings in its favourite game with the West, says the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad.

For the United States, the statement by the Pakistan army could not have come at a worse time.

Its main intelligence agency, the CIA, is still coming to terms with the death of seven personnel in a suicide attack in Afghanistan by an al-Qaeda "double agent".

That attack, the worst suffered by the agency in four decades, was apparently planned and carried out by Taliban militants in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Under pressure from the US, the Pakistan army launched an operation there in the main Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan in November 2009.

The army has since been able to secure that territory and push out the militants.

Hillary Clinton wants Pakistan to target militants in Baluchistan

While some have been captured, most senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders have fled the region.

Intelligence officials say they have now taken refuge either in other nearby tribal regions or the neighbouring Balochistan province.

Mission impossible

Top US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have been calling for the military to go after the militants in these regions.

All this comes at a time when Pakistan's government is already under a great deal of domestic criticism.

This is mainly due to increased missile strikes by the US targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas.

These have turned a sometimes ambivalent tribal population against the Pakistan military.

Analysts say the tribesmen see the strikes, which have claimed more lives of civilians than of militants, as contiguous with the military operation.

But US officials have continued to press for more action, painting doomsday scenarios for Pakistan.

The latest such warning comes from US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said in India that al-Qaeda was planning to carry out attacks to provoke war with Pakistan.

But the Pakistan military appears to have its own views on the subject, and their say is likely to count the most.

Pakistani troops hold their positions on a hill top in South Waziristan.

Their latest decision is likely to sends shivers through all Western capitals which have a stake in Afghanistan.

For Washington, in particular, the military's U-turn will have far-reaching consequences.

Without Pakistani soldiers pressurising the Taliban in the tribal areas, it will be mission impossible for US forces in Afghanistan.

Diplomatic wrangling

Even with the additional 40,000 troops, it will not be possible to contain the insurgents.

With 2010 already being called a defining moment in the current conflict, the military has risked the all-out ire of the US with its decision.

But it appears to have thought out the move, given that it has gone public at a time when the US defence secretary is in Pakistan.

The military believes it has strong reasons not to move against the militants.

Many senior military officials have been angered by what they see are recent moves by the US and the UK to expand India's involvement in Afghanistan.

They see this as being specifically targeted against Pakistani interests.

There is also the matter of promised US aid to Pakistan, most of which has been delayed due to diplomatic wrangling.

US officials say much of the aid has been held up because of delays in processing visas for officials attached to the projects.

Without Pakistani offensives, will it be mission impossible for US forces?

But Pakistani intelligence officials say that many of these officials actually end up involved in activities "beyond their charter of duties".

In common parlance, its means the officials are seen as spies.

Extremely unhappy

The military's decision has also put the Pakistan government, with which it has been at odds of late, in an embarrassing position.

The military's unhappiness at the government stems from what it sees as its pandering to US demands at every turn.

One example which intelligence officials quote at liberty, is the manner in which US special forces personnel are allowed to enter and move around Pakistan without being documented by immigration.

Officials say the military is extremely unhappy with the interior ministry on this count.

The shaky PPP-led government, for its part, is too busy rolling from one political crisis to another to really take this matter in hand.

On a more direct note, Pakistan's military has also been demanding that the US give it more advanced helicopters and transfer its drone technology.

They say as the frontline state against the Taliban, such equipment is needed for greater success.

The US has, however, rejected these demands so far.

U.S. plans flights to Afghanistan via Russian air: diplomat

2010-01-20T22:02:00.000Z

Xinhua News
2010-01-21 04:09:11

MOSCOW, Jan. 20 (Xinhua) -- The United States has planned to carry out 11 military cargo flights to Afghanistan across Russian air space, said U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Beryle here on Wednesday.

Beryle also told the Ekho Moskvy radio station that five such flights so far have been completed, denying earlier reports that only one such flight occurred.

During a Moscow summit between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama last July, the two countries reached an agreement to let the U.S. military cargo to Afghanistan transit through the Russian territory and bypass troubled Pakistan.

The agreement will be extensively used this year, said the diplomat, as President Obama has declared major troop reinforcements to the Central Asia state.

Analysts said the reason behind Russia's cooperative attitude toward the U.S.-led military operation in Afghanistan was that terrorism posed a threat to Central Asia, and drugs were being transported to Russia from Afghanistan.

A two-front threat emerging for Pakistan

2010-01-20T21:32:00.000Z

By: Shireeen M Mazari | Published: January 20, 2010
The Nation

ISLAMABAD – A nightmare security scenario for Pakistan seems to be emerging - that of a two-front military conflict. Pakistan is already facing an internal militancy aided and abetted from Afghanistan and is threatened with all manner of likely US boots actually coming into Pakistan. Already, the drone attacks on Pakistani soil have increased. For all these reasons, Pakistan has moved a large chunk of its forces away from its Eastern border with India and along the LoC, and moved them to the Western front along the international border with Afghanistan as well as into FATA.
Now India has upped the military ante against Pakistan after meetings between Indian officials and America’s Holbrooke and Gates. Hence we are seeing the unprovoked Indian military firing at Pakistani forces across the international border, the working boundary and across the LoC, which has resulted in death and injury for Pakistani soldiers. What can possibly be the Indian intent at this time to undertake such military adventurism? Had it been given some go-ahead by the Americans.
This new military provocation comes when there seems to have been a decision made by the British and Americans to give India a major military role in Afghanistan. The two allies are all set to spring this nasty decision onto Pakistan at the international conference on Afghanistan in London at the end of this month when it will be proposed that India train the Afghan National Army - something it is already doing at a small level covertly and on that pretext already has its operatives in Afghanistan. It is these operatives who are conducting the aid and assistance to militants within Pakistan.
In view of these developments, what are the immediate options for Pakistan which will protect its interests as well as signal an effective message to both the US and India?

First and most immediate, Pakistan needs to move its troops back to its Eastern front and cease operations in FATA. We need to distinguish between our militancy problem, which is certainly threatening and very real, but has multiple dimensions, and the misguided US ‘War on Terror’. On the Western front, it needs to realign its forces along the Chaman border area with Afghanistan where it is expected US boots may enter Pakistan on the ground.
Second, it needs to tell the US in no uncertain terms that it will not tolerate these Indian military incitements and may well up the ante also choosing its own time, place and type of response.
Third, Pakistan needs to categorically refuse to participate in the London Conference if the plan to train the Afghan National Army by India is even discussed informally. In fact, under the circumstances, if India participates in the Conference, Pakistan should consider the option of boycotting it. Let us see how far the US and UK get in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active cooperation!
Fourth, it is time to demand that Indian operatives move out of Afghanistan and Indian consulates in Afghanistan along the border area with Pakistan be closed.
The fact that the Indian aggression has come immediately in the aftermath of the discussions between the Indians and visiting Americans including Defence Secretary Gates, and following on the heels of the visit to Kabul by India’s DG MI, shows only too clearly the Indo-US nexus in terms of presenting Pakistan with a possible two-front threat.

Hinduism: Racism in USA vs. Untouchability in India

2010-01-20T21:09:00.000Z

Indian Army uses rape as an interrogation technique

2010-01-20T19:03:00.000Z

FSB Contemplates Procuring Israeli UAV’s

2010-01-20T15:45:00.000Z

Jamestown Foundation
Roger McDermott
Jan 19, 2010

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has reportedly opened negotiations to purchase unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) in Israel for use within the FSB border guard service. On January 13, Kommersant claimed that the FSB had entered discussions with the Israeli defense company Aeronautics Defense Systems, citing a starting price of $3 million dollars for an unspecified number of UAV’s. The FSB is interested in procuring at least five Orbiter high-performance UAV’s in order to enhance border security. The Orbiter has a tactical operating radius of up to 50 kilometers, capable of carrying a 1.5 kilogram payload (video camera and other equipment), with a flying time of two to three hours at a maximum altitude of 5,500 meters and a speed of 140 km per hour. Fitted with a noiseless electric engine, it can be controlled by a single operator requiring only ten minutes for a catapult launch (http://www.aeronautics-sys.com/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Orbiter.pdf; Kommersant, January 13).

That the FSB should express interest in UAV’s is unsurprising; there are a number of locations where they would enhance border security, ranging from the Russian-Kazakh border to potential conflict zones such as Abkhazia, South Ossetia as well as in the North Caucasus. The deterioration of the security situation in the North Caucasus is undoubtedly a factor in the timing of the FSB initiative, since special services are at the forefront of combating the rising tide of insurgency. The possible UAV procurement follows an earlier defense ministry purchase of twelve UAV’s from the same Israeli company at a cost of $53 million. Since the border service was subordinated to the FSB in 2003, the FSB has studied issues relating to the operational use of UAV’s and gained experience in conducting aerial reconnaissance using domestically produced platforms. For instance, the Voron helicopter UAV was designed for special operations in urban areas (Agentstvo Voyennykh Novostey, November 29, 2007). The FSB has used the Eleron-10 UAV in the North Caucasus and reportedly requested further technical modifications. Lieutenant-General Nikolay Rybalkin, the Deputy-Chief of the FSB border guard service claimed in May 2008 that his service constantly used domestically made UAV’s, describing them as the “least expensive” and the “most efficient means” of protecting the state borders. He made passing reference to possible interest in foreign systems, but emphasized that the FSB relied upon the achievements of the Russian defense industry (Kommersant, January 13).

In August 2008, as tension increased in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Army-General Vladimir Pronichev, the First Deputy-Director of the FSB and head of the border service claimed that border aviation including UAV’s had been mobilized. Earlier, in 2007, the Izhevsk Company Bespilotnyye Sistemy (Unmanned Systems) won a tender to deliver ZALA UAV’s to the FSB (both the aircraft and helicopter versions, ZALA 421-04M and ZALA 421-06 respectively). Pronichev stated in May 2009 that drones were deployed in border areas with “challenging terrain” (RIA Novosti, May 31, 2009). Two of these new platforms were delivered in October 2009, although the exact numbers in the contract remain unknown. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the Russia-Georgia war in August 2008 both the defense ministry and the FSB carried out unsuccessful tests of domestically manufactured UAV’s. Not only were these unable to accomplish their assigned missions, there was also a case of one UAV (Irkut-10) crashing during the tests. In October 2008, Anatoliy Mikheyev, the Deputy-Chief of the technical development directorate of the FSB Border Guard Service said that advanced command and control systems and UAV’s were being considered for wider introduction. He noted that the border troops had experimented with UAV’s on the Russian-Kazakh border and in the Caspian region (Interfax, January 12; Kommersant, June 23, 2009).

While the Russian defense ministry procurement of UAV’s from Israel has undoubtedly set a precedent that can be utilized by the FSB, the distinction between the platform types is significant. The defense ministry purchases from Israel related to new generation tactical I-View MK150 (operating radius of up to 100 km) and the medium-class Searcher MKII (operating to a maximum of 250km). Whereas, the lightweight Orbiter is in direct competition with the domestically produced Eleron-10 and Irkut-10, the FSB interest in foreign procurement may indicate service dissatisfaction with these Russian made UAV’s (Kommersant, January 13).

On January 16, Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye assessed the reports of FSB interest in foreign procurement. Analyzing the possible reasons for leaking the fact that this option is being considered, the article portrayed the FSB as using this mechanism to exert additional pressure on the defense industry. Such pressure is now mounting from various quarters, including the defense ministry, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov. However, this seems limited to dressing down the management of defense companies, calling for greater competitiveness and expressions of confidence that the country is still capable of manufacturing high quality products (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, January 16). Yet, despite fresh injections of capital, protection from the impact of the financial crisis and the optimistic pronouncements of government officials, the system is simply failing to meet the needs of domestic security customers.

The FSB has now joined the chorus of complaints from the army and air force, demanding superior quality drones. In November 2009, Colonel-General Aleksandr Zelin, the Commander-in-Chief or the Russian Air Force rejected domestic UAV’s, characterizing them as inadequate in terms of “speed, altitude or the resolution of the equipment installed on them” (Interfax, November 27, 2009).

However, whereas the defense ministry purchased foreign platforms that were beyond the present capability of the Russian defense industry, the FSB’s expression of interest in lightweight UAV’s is the clearest signal yet of the underlying weaknesses in domestic produce. It may also indicate that the FSB has proven unable to procure sufficient numbers of these drones, and is consequently compelled to look abroad, perhaps also in the hope that it might stimulate future domestic orders. Moreover, it also inadvertently reveals that the Russian state cannot adequately protect its borders using modern technology without foreign assistance.

Black flags greet Gen Kapoor in Nepal

2010-01-19T18:57:00.001Z

Hindustan Times
Kathmandu, January 19, 2010

An off-the cuff remark reportedly made last month could overshadow all other issues on agenda during Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor’s four-day Nepal visit that began on Tuesday.

Black flags greeted Kapoor on his arrival at Tribhuwan International Airport and nearly 1200 Maoists staged demonstrations outside Indian Embassy and Singha Durbar—the official seat of Nepal government--to register their protest against his statement and alleged Indian interference in Nepal.

In the past weeks, a lot of media space and political hype has followed Kapoor’s alleged statement expressing reservation on en mass integration of former Maoist rebels into the Nepal Army.

The comment made at an official dinner during his Nepalese counterpart General Chatraman Singh Gurung’s India visit had led Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda to term it as India’s “naked interference” in Nepal’s internal affairs.

The Indian Embassy tried to do a delayed damage control by issuing a statement this month that media reports had “highly distorted” Kapoor’s remark and it didn’t reflect the Indian government’s position, but it failed to act as a balm.

Although External Affairs Minister SM Krishna expressed India’s displeasure at baseless mudslinging by Maoists during his meeting with Prachanda on Saturday, the former prime minister and his party colleagues have not put an end to their anti-India rhetoric.

On Monday, the opposition Maoists, who have launched a national awakening against foreign powers, boycotted parliament seeking a reply from Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal on Kapoor’s remark.

Kapoor’s goodwill visit is expected to increase defence cooperation between both neighbours. He will meet the Nepalese Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Nepal Army chief and visit several military training establishments as well.

Kapoor will also be conferred the honorary rank of General of the Nepal Army by President Ram Baran Yadav on Thursday as per tradition between both nations. The Nepal Army chief was also conferred the similar title during his India visit.

The Army chief’s reported statement made last month on the need for India to develop capability to engage in a two-front war with Pakistan and China has also led to lot of negative reactions in Pakistan.

US diplomats in Pakistan visa row

2010-01-19T14:18:00.000Z

Thursday, 17 December 2009

By M Ilyas Khan
BBC News, Islamabad

Some strong anti-American sentiment is expressed in Pakistan

US diplomats have complained that Pakistan is delaying the extension of visas of more than 100 US officials.

They say that those affected are engaged in diplomatic, military and aid services and may not be able to return to Pakistan after the Christmas break.

There are also reports of US diplomatic vehicles being repeatedly stopped and searched at Pakistani checkpoints.

But Pakistani foreign office spokesman Abdul Basit told the BBC there was "no question of delaying tactics" on visas.

The claims come at a time when the US administration is calling for international support for its "war on terror".

The latest developments indicate a new low in US-Pakistan relations.

Visa clampdown

"At least 135 visas are being held up by the Pakistani authorities," the chief spokesman of the US embassy in Pakistan, Richard Snelsire, told the BBC News website.

More and more US officials are applying to go to Pakistan

"Extensions of these visas have not been denied, but they are being delayed," he said.

But Mr Basit said that Pakistan had good relations with the United States, so there was no question of any deliberate initiative to inconvenience the Americans.

"The delays may be due to procedural constraints," he said.

"It happens in other countries as well. Many Pakistanis sometimes get visas very late, or are refused."

The Associated Press news agency quoted an unnamed US diplomat as saying the visa clampdown and the US vehicle searches were a reaction to widespread anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, and were probably temporary.

American officials say that those employees likely to be affected by the visa delays include aid workers and others bringing help to Pakistan.

US President Barack Obama signed into law a $7.5bn (£4.6bn) aid package for Pakistan last October for economic and social programmes.

Under the law, a large number of American workers must be deployed in Pakistan to carry out accounting and aid-monitoring procedures.

American diplomats believe this additional deployment may increase the strength of the US embassy staff from about 500 to nearly 800.

Various quarters in the Pakistani establishment have been critical of this impending increase in US diplomatic activity in the country.

The Pakistani army has also publicly criticised some provisions of the US aid package as "intrusive meddling" in the country's internal affairs.

In recent weeks, the Pakistani media has carried prominent reports of incidents of American officials "resisting" Pakistani law enforcement officials conducting searches of their vehicles at security checkpoints.

The Americans believe the practice is meant to harass US diplomats.

Elite US troops ready to combat Pakistani nuclear hijacks

2010-01-18T21:15:00.001Z

Times Online
January 17, 2010

Christina Lamb in Washington

Professor Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan security research unit at Bradford University, has tracked a number of attempted security breaches since 2007. “The terrorists are at the gates,” he warned.

In a counterterrorism journal, published by America’s West Point military academy, he documented three incidents. The first was an attack in November 2007 at Sargodha in Punjab, where nuclearcapable F-16 jet aircraft are thought to be stationed. The following month a suicide bomber struck at Pakistan’s nuclear airbase at Kamra in Attock district. In August 2008 a group of suicide bombers blew up the gates to a weapons complex at the Wah cantonment in Punjab, believed to be one of Pakistan’s nuclear warhead assembly plants. The attack left 63 people dead.

A further attack followed at Kamra last October. Pakistan denies that the base still has a nuclear role, but Gregory believes it does. A six-man suicide team was arrested in Sargodha last August.

Fears that militants could penetrate a nuclear facility intensified after a brazen attack on army headquarters in Rawalpindi in October when 10 gunmen wearing army uniforms got inside and laid siege for 22 hours. Last month there was an attack on the naval command centre in Islamabad.

Pakistani police said five Americans from Washington who were arrested in Pakistan last month after trying to join the Taliban were carrying a map of Chashma Barrage, a complex in Punjab that includes a nuclear power facility.

The Al-Qaeda leadership has made no secret of its desire to get its hands on weapons for a “nuclear 9/11”.

“I have no doubt they are hell-bent on acquiring this,” said Mowatt-Larssen. “These guys are thinking of nuclear at the highest level and are approaching it in increasingly professional ways.”

Nuclear experts and US officials say the biggest fear is of an inside job amid growing anti-American feeling in Pakistan. Last year 3,021 Pakistanis were killed in terrorist attacks, more than in Afghanistan, yet polls suggest Pakistanis consider the United States to be a greater threat than the Taliban.

“You have 8,000-12,000 [people] in Pakistan with some type of role in nuclear missiles — whether as part of an assembly team or security,” said Gregory. “It’s a very large number and there is a real possibility that among those people are sympathisers of terrorist or jihadist groups who may facilitate some kind of attack.”

Pakistan is thought to possess about 80 nuclear warheads. Although the weapons are well guarded, the fear is that materials or processes to enrich uranium could fall into the wrong hands.

“All it needs is someone in Pakistan within the nuclear establishment and in a position of key access to become radicalised,” said MowattLarssen. “This is not just theoretical. It did happen — Pakistan has had inside problems before.”

Bashir Mahmood, the former head of Pakistan’s plutonium reactor, formed the Islamic charity Ummah Tameer-e-Nau in March 2000 after resigning from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. He was arrested in Islamabad on October 23, 2001, with his associate Abdul Majeed for alleged links to Osama Bin Laden.

Pakistan’s military leadership, which controls the nuclear programme, has always bristled at the suggestion that its nuclear facilities are at risk. The generals insist that storing components in different sites keeps them secure.

US officials refused to speak on the record about American safety plans, well aware of how this would be seen in Islamabad. However, one official admitted that the United States does not know where all of Pakistan’s storage sites are located. “Don’t assume the US knows everything,” he said.

Although Washington has provided $100m worth of technical assistance to Islamabad under its nuclear protection programme, US personnel have been denied access to most Pakistani nuclear sites.

In the past fortnight the US has made unprecedented formal protests to Pakistan’s national security apparatus, warning it about fanning virulent anti-American sentiment in the media.

Concerns about hostility towards America within elements of the Pakistani armed forces first surfaced in 2007. At a meeting of military commanders staged at Kurram, on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a Pakistani major drew his pistol and shot an American. The incident was hushed up as a gunfight.

‘Anti-terror strategy in six months’

2010-01-17T18:14:00.001Z

By Azaz Syed
Sunday, 17 Jan, 2010

ISLAMABAD: The National Counter-terrorism Authority (NACTA), a newly established civilian government body, has formally undertstarted the formulation of new counter-terrorism policy.

“We are trying to formulate the new counter-terror policy in next six months, the new policy will be prepared with the consultation of all the stakeholders,” said Tariq Pervez the chief of NACTA while talking to the participants of a round table , closed door , simulation conference , specially held to gather recommendations from the experts of different segments of life.

The closed door meeting was first of its kind in which almost ten experts of different schools of thoughts were invited like the gray haired Inaam ul Haq the former Foreign Minister who once remained a key player in formulating the country’s foreign policy supportive of the armed militants.

Ahmed Rashid, renowned Pakistani journalists who is viewed as a Pro-American analyst in the Pakistani military establishment was also present with his lethal but realistic arguments.

“We have invited you all to help government to formulate new counter-terror policy,” Tariq Pervez , inviting the participants for their point of views, after giving detailed briefing on the organization and proposed working of Nacta.

Tariq Pervez, who has earned respect and fame as one of the top counter-terror experts, also suggested the participants to give their opinions about the definition of terrorism and the future role of NACTA.

Inaam ul Haq, a former foreign minister who is still considered a favourite of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), while opening the discussion raised two important questions

“We should define terrorism knowing that we should not include the national liberation organizations in the orbit of terrorism. And the role of NACTA should also be defined _ whether it is an advisory body or has some operational role.”

Tasneem Noorani, a former interior secretary, pointed out the weakness of the education system, saying that it had led to an alternative in the shape of Madrassah education. He said that Nacta should also review the education policy.

Journalist Ahmed Rashid addressed the most important question of the entire session by bluntly asking Tariq Pervez: :Have you taken ISI on board?

Tariq Pervez replied: “Yes. ISI is on board and I have held a number of meetings with the current DG, Lt.Gen.Ahmed Shuja Pasha, who is supportive of Nacta’s role.”

China terms Indian Generals statement as ‘unfriendly’

2010-01-17T12:24:00.000Z

Jan 14, 2010‎

ISLAMABAD, (SANA): Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, Lau Zhaohui has expressed his concern over the statement of Indian Chief of Army Staff, Deepak Kapoor that it can take on Pakistan and China at the same time, what he termed,” as very unfriendly” remark.

In an interview with a local news paper, he said that his statement adversely affected regional peace and security and did not help Sino-lndia relations.

He termed such kind of (irresponsible) statements unfriendly and not beneficial to regional peace, stability of the region, saying and it also have certain impacts on Sino-Indian relations.

To a question about the defence cooperation between Pakistan and China he said the ties between the two countries are time tested and cooperation, technical and scientific assistance to Pakistan is an answer to that. Last year JF-17, Khalid Tank and Frigate-22 are recent developments and elaboration of cooperation between two friendly countries, he added.

To another question he said Pakistan and China have commonality of views, strategy and stance on the peace and stability in the region including Afghanistan issue. “We have same purpose and targets and we had always cooperated in using the same language and with same actions,” he added.

Pak, China to work closely to address strategic issues

2010-01-14T14:23:00.001Z

Zee News
Jan 11. 2010

Islamabad: Pakistan and China will work closely to address regional security and strategic issues, including "intra-regional disputes and posturing of involved states," an apparent reference to a purported report which claimed that India is preparing for a two-front war with both.

During talks between a Pakistani team led by Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman Gen Tariq Majid and Gen Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of the People's Liberation Army yesterday, the two sides focussed ways of addressing "the tenuous spectre of strategic stability in the region," an official statement said.

The latest round of the Pakistan-China Defence and Security Talks also decided to address the "intra-regional disputes and posturing of involved states."

Ma is heading a Chinese delegation that is holding talks with Pakistan's top military leadership.

Though the statement did not mention the specific "intra-regional disputes" that were discussed, analysts believe it was an apparent reference to Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor's purported comments that his force is preparing for a two-front war involving Pakistan and China.

The bilateral defence and security talks are aimed at "sharing perspectives on the fast-evolving regional security situation for developing common insight into emerging scenarios and coordinating common responses," the statement said.

The comments purportedly made by Kapoor have been widely criticised by Pakistan’s civil and military leadership.

An unnamed official was quoted by the influential a newspaper as saying that the dialogue had a "greater significance" because it took place against the backdrop of Kapoor’s reported remarks about a "proactive strategy of simultaneously waging a war against Pakistan and China."

Both sides have taken the remarks seriously and "vowed to frustrate attempts to jeopardise regional security," the official said.

Gen Majid described the "time-tested multi-dimensional Pakistan-China strategic partnership as the bedrock of stability in the region."

He said: "As the world grows more complex and regional situation more challenging, it has become even more critical to add greater depth and dynamism to this relationship."

During yesterday's discussions, the two sides also discussed the impact of "changing global security dynamics, progress in efforts against terrorism and violent extremism (and the) revised US strategy for Afghanistan," the statement said.

The discussions also focussed on threats related to terrorism by the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a militant group fighting for an independent state in China’s Xinjiang province, and measures for the security of Chinese nationals working in Pakistan.

The ETIM is believed to have close links with al Qaeda and militants based in Pakistan’s tribal belt.

The Pakistani and Chinese military officials conducted a "comprehensive review of bilateral military cooperation and the progress of various ongoing defence projects."

They made specific proposals for "mutually beneficial future collaboration in operational, training, intelligence, logistics and defence industrial fields, including indigenisation projects and joint ventures."

The statement did not give details about these projects. Pakistan has received two of four F-22P frigates ordered from China and plans to induct 42 JF-17 Thunder combat jets, which are jointly developed by the two countries, into its air force over the next few years.

Pakistan is also set to receive four airborne warning and control system aircraft from China by 2012.

General alert in Pakistan

2010-01-11T10:13:00.003Z

Asia Times
Jan 8, 2010
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - At a time when Islamabad is trying to implement a United States-sponsored initiative for a spirit of dialogue between Pakistan and India, an Indian general has stirred up a hornet's nest, eliciting a belligerent response from across the border.

Indian General Deepak Kapoor, according to media reports, last week said in a closed-door seminar that his country could take on Pakistan and China simultaneously and "bring it to a satisfactory conclusion in 96 hours", and even suggested that a "limited war under a nuclear overhang" was possible in South Asia.

Pakistan, tightly allied with the United States-led "war on terror" and tied down with its commitment to Washington to focus on its western border with Afghanistan rather than on India, chose not to officially respond to the Indian general's remarks.

However, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Tariq Majeed, who by virtue of his designation becomes the operational head of all Pakistan's armed forces in the event of war, spoke out.

"Leave alone China, General Deepak Kapoor knows very well what the Indian armed forces cannot do and what the Pakistani armed forces can pull off militarily ... I have doubts that he can be so outlandish in strategic postulations as to put India on a self-destructive path," said Kapoor, known for his anti-American attitude. If the report were correct, he said, the uncalled-for rhetoric only depicted a lack of strategic acumen.

Kapoor identified five thrust areas that would drive a new Indian doctrine.

1 -While the armed forces prepare for their primary task of conventional wars, they must also factor in the eventuality of "a two-front war" breaking out. In tune with this, after acquiring a greater offensive punch along the entire western front with Pakistan by the creation of a new South-Western Army Command in 2005, India was now taking steps - albeit belatedly - to strategically counter the stark military asymmetry with China in the eastern sector. There is now "a proportionate focus towards the western and northeastern fronts".

2-The armed forces need to "optimize" their capability to effectively counter "both the military and non-military facets" of asymmetric and sub-conventional threats like weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, cyber warfare, electronic warfare and information warfare.

3-The armed forces have to substantially enhance their strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities to protect India's geopolitical interests stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Malacca Strait. "This would enable us to protect our island territories; and also give assistance to the littoral states in the Indian Ocean region."

4-Interdependence and operational synergy between the army, navy and air force must become the essence of strategic planning and execution in future wars. "For this, joint operations, strategic and space-based capability, ballistic missile defense and amphibious, airborne and air-land operations must be addressed comprehensively."

5-India must strive to achieve a technological edge over its adversaries. "Harnessing and exploitation of technology also includes integration of network centricity, decision-support systems, information warfare and electronic warfare into our operational plans."

Pakistan's Majeed, a four-star general, was in mid-2008 twice offered the position of chief of army staff by former president Pervez Musharraf when Musharraf turned against the incumbent army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani. Each time, Majeed refused, as he prefers to stay in the background, although he has emerged as a leader on several issues.

The bulk of the Pakistan army was against Asif Ali Zardari when he announced his decision to run for president, a position he assumed on September 9, 2008. Majeed, however, rallied the top brass, urging that the democratic process should be given a chance and that if the political forces wanted Zardari, their decision should be respected.

Naturally, Zardari was thankful and offered to elevate Majeed, including to a position with complete command and control over all of the branches of the armed services. Majeed declined but continued to exert what influence he had.

From mid-2009, he was at the forefront of the initiative to start a dialogue process with the Taliban, an issue he discussed with senior visiting US military officials. This raised the ire of some sections of Pakistan's strategic quarters which were closely allied with the American war in Afghanistan. Some officers even boycotted Majeed's meeting with his American counterpart, Admiral Mike Mullen, in violation of all protocols.

However, Majeed continued to air his views, which emphasize dialogue with militants. He believes that the American war machine has been badly sucked into Afghanistan and that Pakistan should distance itself from being pulled into that quagmire.

Gradually, Majeed's arguments have taken hold and in the past few weeks there have been some developments concerning Pakistan's dealings with the US.

A stringent mechanism has been adopted in issuing visas to Americans, which has restricted American defense contractors in Pakistan. Their growing presence in the country has for some time been a bone of contention. US diplomats, too, have been under pressure, such as being forced to use regular immigration counters at airports.

This does not mean that Pakistan overnight has become anti-American, or that its cooperation with the US will suddenly cease. These are critical times, though, for both the US and Pakistan, the former embroiled in Afghanistan, the latter struggling with spreading militancy, and what are now just trends could evolve into something bigger.

Three important appointments in Pakistan this year could have an influence on such trends, including Majeed's sentiments.

The director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Shuja Pasha, is due to retire in March. The government has so far not shown any interest in extending his tenure. Army chief Kiani is due to step down in November. Washington is keen to see his term extended, as he dovetails perfectly with American policies on the region. Majeed, too, is slated to retire in October, which leaves him a matter of months to push his views.

Russian company 'ordered hit'

2010-01-04T20:09:00.000Z

John Helmer

Times Live
Jan 2, 2010 10:40 PM | By JIM JONES

Three men armed with guns and fake papers purporting to be from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) were arrested after attempting to enter Helmer's Moscow office. Helmer, suspicious of the men, called the police.

Under interrogation, the men allegedly told police they were from a detective agency owned and hired by aluminium group Rusal and its controlling shareholder, Oleg Deripaska.

Helmer, who has reported from Moscow for 20 years, has written extensively on the aluminium group's business activities in Russia, South Africa, Guinea and Nigeria. His latest articles have focused on Rusal's parlous financial state and Deripaska's attempts to avoid litigation over his alleged defrauding of a Rusal co-founder.

Rusal itself is chaired by Viktor Vekselberg, an oligarch who sits on South Africa's Presidential International Investment Council.

In South Africa, Vekselberg and his company Renova have interests in United Manganese of Kalahari and Transalloys as well as links with the ANC's Chancellor House investment arm.

Shortly before Christmas, Helmer had been warned by the Australian Foreign Ministry in Canberra that his personal security was under threat.

Helmer took the information to the police who, along with the FSB, provided him and his wife with covert protection.

When the three would-be attackers were arrested, police found them carrying plans of Helmer's offices, photographs of his wife, of his home and office as well as documents allegedly linking the gang and its agency directly to Rusal.

The men claimed that they had been hired to check on the Helmers' whereabouts. They were employed by Alfa-Inform, a Moscow detective agency.

Helmer has been reporting on alleged racketeering by Vekselberg and into the business practices that have stymied Deripaska's attempts to gain stock exchange listings and raise funds for Rusal in London and Hong Kong.

Rusal is the largest Russian investor in sub-Saharan Africa but has recently fallen foul of the governments of Guinea and of Nigeria.

Before the economic crisis, while Rusal's African and Russian aluminium interests were booming, Deripaska had been tagged as the world's ninth-richest man.

Indian Military ready for war against China, Pakistan

2009-12-31T19:30:00.000Z

The Nation
December 30, 2009

India Army ready for war against China, Pakistan
Shimla-based Indian Army Training Command, headed by Lt-General A S Lamba is getting ready for something Indian Military never was ready before. Indian Air Force, Navy, and Army is ready to face Pakistan and China at the same time.
India's 1.13-million strong Military is now panning to handle two major war fronts at the same time. India considers Pakistan and China as part of the same camp. India knows the next war will be between India and Pakistan+China. India will get indirect support from America and Russia, but Indian Military will have to fight the two war at the same time.
Indian Military has been training for the mini giant war against two nuclear powered nations at the same time. China has used Pakistan for a long time to keep India busy. Now time has come for India to recognize a massive threat from China and Pakistan at the same time.
Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor emphasizes that India is ready for the successful firming-up of the cold start strategy (to be able to go to war promptly) in the multiple fronts against multiple different militias at the same time.
The plan is a full thrust assault into multiple anomies at the same time with massive Air Force superiority. If attacked by Pakistan and china at the same time, India will launch self-contained and highly-mobile `battle groups'', with Russian-origin T-90S tanks and upgraded T-72 M1 tanks at their core, adequately backed by far superior air cover and artillery fire assaults, for rapid thrusts into enemy territory within 96 hours.

India plans to end the war decisively within the first 96 hours forcing the other sides into a fast submission of ceasefire.
People's Liberation Army is aware of the capacities of Indian Army and Air Force. It will be exactly opposite of 1962 war. That is why they are busy building massive infrastructure in the Indian border areas especially in Aksai Chin and Tibet.
The real war in that scenario will be between India and China while Pakistan will be used by China to create adequate disturbance for Indian Military.
That is the reason why Lt-General A S Lamba of Indian Army is so keen a massive thrust into Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of assault.
India's biggest advantage is the its software capabilities in integrating signal intelligence with ground intelligence. India will use algorithmic seek and scan technology to counter the Chinese threats in the North and possible Pakistani nuclear threat in the West.
India is focused on integrating its Navy, Army and Air Force into an integrated command and Control system completely controlled and dominated by the superior software algorithms that can prove deadly in the war front. (India Daily)

Could the Deteriorating Situation in Daghestan Again Trigger a Wider War?

2009-12-30T21:52:00.000Z

Georgian Daily
December 29, 2009
Paul Goble

According to a Daghestani analyst, “the campaign to destabilize” his republic both from within and without “is gathering force and is no longer under the control of either the Kremlin or Makhachkala,” a situation that means “private political games could lead to the largest armed conflict in the North Caucasus in the 21st century.

In a comment posted on the Polit.ru portal today, Magomed Suleymanov catalogues some of the murky events of the last few weeks in that North Caucasus republic that was both a casus belli in 1999 and that because of the nature of its population could now lead to an even larger conflict with more parties involved

A few days ago, Suleymanov notes, the FSB “accused” Tbilisi of preparing “a diversionary-terrorist group” that it planned to send into Daghestan to engage in “terrorist acts against the heating and energy system and the railway transport network,” plans that the Moscow special service said it was countering by beefing up Russian border guard facilities.

Given Georgian President Mihkiel Saakashvili’s statements about the North Caucasus, the way in which conflicts over the lack of heat and electric power led to public protests last winter, and uncertainty in Makhachkala over who will be the next republic leader, these charges appeared plausible even if they were completely self-serving from the FSB’s point of view.

Then today, Suleymanov continues, a Caucasus opposition website featured an interview with Said Khachuyev, head of the Chechen diaspora in Hamburg, who called on Georgia to recognize both Chechnya, which he said was “no longer” part of Russia, and Daghestan, if Tbilisi wants to play “big role” in the region.

In this way, the Polit.ru commentator says, “in the struggle for Daghestan are included not only local elites but external to Daghestan groups: Chechen Wahhabi groups and the Georgian special services,” a situation that is likely to be on display first in Derbent where a repeat election is scheduled and then in Makhachkala when a presidential candidate is named.

With regard to the first, Suleymanov notes, “not only electoral commissions are preparing for the new round of Derbent voting but also band formations,” a pattern that tragically has been true of the voting in that North Caucasus republic in the past and one certain to be on display as the date for the Derbent election approaches.

And concerning the second, the problems in Makhachkala are intensifying with each passing day that the Kremlin has failed to nominate its candidate for the top job – especially since it published a list of five names, including incumbent Mukhu Aliyev, more than a month ago.

Marko Shakhbasov, the editor in chief of Makhachkala’s weekly “Novoye delo,” told Suleymanov that “the behavior of many deputies completely coincides with the attitudes dominating now in the republic’s bureaucracy” where “ no one knows who will be the new president and each fears to take any step” which might offend the individual chosen.

These tensions were exacerbated by the appearance of what purported to be a letter from the deputies to Russia’s procurator general Yury Chaika concerning the situation in the republic. After its appearance on a local website, Suleymanov says, several of its signatories denied that they had even seen the appeal, let alone signed it.

One deputy, Rizvan Isayev, said that he did nto know “who stood behind this initiative,” describing it as “a typical provocation.” When he heard about it, he said he would not sign such a thing, and the appearance of a document bearing his signature among others was thus a falsification: “the signature which is on the appeal,” he said, “is not mine.”

Daghestan, as many Moscow commentators have pointed out, is with the possible exception of Ingushetia the most unstable republic in the North Caucasus. That has the effect of encouraging those on all sides interested in fishing in troubled waters, even if any particular report may not be in fact true.

But there is another reason for focusing on Daghestan as a potential detonator of a broader conflict in the region, albeit it is one that Suleymanov does not mention. His republic is far and away the most Islamic of any in the entire Russian Federation, something that ensures that what happens there will affect the more than 20 million Muslims of Russia.

Just how Islamic Daghestan now is was underscored by Maksud Sadikov, rector of the North Caucasus University Center of Islamic Education. He noted that 55 percent of all mosques in Russia are in Daghestan, 85 percent of Russia’s hajis live there, and 90 percent of all Islamic educational institutions are on its territory

China vows to deepen military co-op with Pakistan

2009-12-20T12:16:00.000Z

Xinhua News
2009-12-18 23:12:01

BEIJING, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- The Chinese armed forces would like to improve friendly and cooperative relations with the Pakistani armed forces, a senior Chinese military official said here Friday.

Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie made the remarks when meeting with Noman Bashir, visiting Pakistani chief of the naval staff.

China attached great importance to its traditional friendship with Pakistan, Liang said, adding that the two countries had conducted comprehensive and multi-level military exchanges and cooperation in various areas.

The Pakistani armed forces and people cherished their friendship with the Chinese armed forces and people, Noman Bashir said, noting that Pakistan would like to work with China to promote the comprehensive and cooperative partnership.

The Kaiga warning

2009-12-13T11:36:00.003Z

The Economic Times

2 Dec 2009, 0431 hrs IST, ET Bureau
The Recent incident of water in one particular water cooler at the Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant in Karnataka being spiked with a small dose of heavy water serves as a wake-up call on industrial safety, days before the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas tragedy. We need higher safety standards and their rigorous implementation at locales dealing with hazardous substances.

Employee sabotage at a nuclear plant is shocking, but not implausible, and so must be taken into account in the security protocol. Of course, the Kaiga incident in which 55 employees had to be hospitalised is nowhere on the scale of the Bhopal tragedy. But given the huge expansion that has been envisaged in the nation’s nuclear programme, foolproof safeguards against any untoward incident become

against any untoward incident become all the more vital.

Given that expansion and the historic international recognition and acceptance of our nuclear programme and capabilities, one could also argue that India’s nuclear establishment no longer needs to be cloaked in excessive secrecy. Ushering in greater transparency would boost national and global confidence in our safety and security procedures. Indeed, that in itself would be an important aspect of India settling into the role of a fully-established and responsible nuclear power. And safety standards are not just about engineering, as the theft of vials of heavy water at Kaiga shows. Standards must cover human conduct in their scope.

The destructive potential of nuclear energy, if not handled with utmost care, is too horrific to contemplate. The Chernobyl disaster proved how far-reaching and long-lasting the destructive effects of radioactive poisoning can be. As had the Japanese hibakusha, survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who eked out painful lives and passed on mutant genes to their next generations. And as nuclear energy becomes increasingly more important for India, both because it helps us reduce our dependence on imported oil and because it is a cleaner source of energy, we cannot afford to let down our guard. Incidents like Kaiga must not recur, ever.

Radioactive water poisons 55 at Indian nuclear plan

2009-12-13T11:31:00.001Z

The Irish Times - Monday, November 30, 2009

INDIAN AUTHORITIES have begun investigating the radioactive contamination of a drinking water cooler at a nuclear power plant in southern Karnataka state that led to some 55 workers being treated for poisoning, senior government officials said yesterday.

Routine tests on Wednesday showed employees at the Kaiga plant, 450km northwest of Bangalore, had been exposed to increased levels of tritium, used in nuclear reactors, in the cooler.

Exposure to tritium – also known as Hydrogen-3 and used in research, fusion reactors and neutron generators – increases the risk of cancer.

The chairman of the overarching Atomic Energy Commission, Anil Kakodkar, speaking to the Headlines Today television network, blamed the incident on sabotage.

Mr Kakodkar claimed that an insider had “played mischief” by spiking the cooler with the radioactive material and attempted to allay fears of an attack on the facility.

Mr Kakodkar said security was “fool-proof”, and there was no chance of an outsider gaining access to the atomic plant.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India, which operates the country’s civil nuclear facilities, said in a statement that preliminary enquiries revealed no radioactive leak or security breach.

“It is possibly an act of mischief,” the statement said. No one needed to be hospitalised after the incident and everyone tested returned to work, it declared, adding the incident had not affected public safety.

The operational and safety record of India’s highly secretive Department of Atomic Energy has been somewhat questionable.

In the late 1990s the country’s nuclear facilities recorded at least 134 mishaps, or what they termed “Safety Related Unusual Occurrences”.

In 1998 the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board claimed that 28 of these incidents occurred in nine nuclear power stations, but none were “serious”.

Five of these, however, including a fire, led to plant closures, and another in 1997 to the death of a scientist after exposure to poisonous gas at a heavy water plant in Andhra Pradesh state.

In 1992 a major radioactive leak from ill-maintained pipelines near the Cirus and Dhruva reactor complex at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre near Mumbai was found to have caused severe soil contamination, reportedly affecting people living nearby.

India also concluded a deal with Canada at the weekend for access to much-needed nuclear technology and uranium after a gap of 34 years.

Prime minister Manmohan Singh, who negotiated the deal with counterpart Stephen Harper on the sidelines of the Commonwealth heads of government summit in the Caribbean, said the development “augurs extremely well” for ties between the states.

Canada ended nuclear co-operation with India in 1974 after it used plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor for its first atomic bomb.

Last year the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries agreed to lift the three decade-plus ban on civilian nuclear trade with India, even though New Delhi declined to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Indian uranium theft misses media eyes

2009-12-13T11:26:00.001Z

Wednesday Dec 09,2009

Islamabad—The arrest of three Indian nationals who successfully stole depleted uranium from Indian nuclear installations and were trying to smuggle that remained off the mainstream Indian and Western media. Only one Indian channel and a less known internet media site reported Tuesday that three suspected uranium smugglers had been arrested by the Navi Mumbai Crime Branch.

According to the reports three Indian men were arrested from Mumbai’s Panvel area on Monday and five kilograms of uranium were recovered.

Indian police said that the recovered items had been sent to the India’s Bhaba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) for analysis.

Indian Police arrested the three persons involved but refused to dissolve their identity or name any of them.

This recent discovery of stolen uranium was third such incident of nuclear-related recurrences in less than a week and has put a question mark on the security of Indian nuclear materials. Early in the week two persons were arrested from the Tarapur Nuclear Power Centre for trying to steal sensitive computer parts. Early last month an incident of radiation leak was reported at the Kaiga Nuclear Power Centre in Karnataka and more than four dozen Indians were hospitalized.

The security lapse in India was reported at a time when India reached a nuclear agreement with Russia and is about to conclude another US-style nuclear cooperation accord with Canada.

Pakistan Observers commenting on the issue said that had it been the case with Pakistan the Indian and Western media would have run the story as Breaking News and several international channels would have used the incident as a lead story.

However, today hardly any international news channel or leading newspaper even reported the Indian incidents.

According to a senior political analyst Ihteshamul Haq “Indians were alleging Pakistan for a very long time that Pakistan had remained involved in nuclear proliferation but the incident of uranium recovered from common man in Maharashtra shows that Indian nuclear security setup is not so strong.

He said “The security lapse can be seen when we talk about Indian uranium issue.

“Pakistan government must take strong stance against the issue and it must take the issue to the international community especially at the platforms of United Nations and European Union,” he demanded.

US diplomat made to apologise - Make US nationals respect the law of the land

2009-12-12T12:05:00.006Z

The Nation
By: Kashif Ali Abbasi | Published: December 11, 2009
ISLAMABAD – Young police officers’ commitment to law enforcement was revealed when one of them, a young ASP, chased a fleeing US embassy vehicle after it deliberately ignored the police’s request at a picket to stop and broke through the picket instead. The ASP gave them chase and brought the Americans back from two kilometres away from the picket and forced them to tender an apology to the police officials deployed there, sources said on Thursday.
Sources said that the incident took place on Tuesday evening within the limits of Golra police station when police officials deployed at a picket established on Kashmir Highway near Golra morrh stopped a suspicious Black Land Cruiser with tinted glasses, registeration number GB 0332. But the luxury vehicle’s riders ignored the police signal and sped away.
On this, the valiant police officer Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Saddar Circle Capt(R) Liaqat Ali Malik, who was present on the occasion, started chasing the vehicle and finally held the luxury vehicle near the Motorway, some 2 kms away from the picket, sources said.
Sources said that ASP, along with two police officials, stopped the said vehicle by intercepting his car in front of the Land Cruiser near Motorway Chowk and asked the riders to step out of the vehicle for checking. But the Americans refused to comply with the police officer. The two arrogant Americans did not bother to come out of the car or even roll down their windows. Instead, they merely displayed their US embassy cards and diplomatic number plate.
Also, almost immediately, the police officer also received a threatening call from the US embassy but he ignored all pressure.
Quoting the ASP, sources mentioned that he said to the Americans, “I can die but I will not let you go without conducting a search. You have only one option: come out of the vehicle and allow my officials to search and follow my vehicle towards the same picket where you have to apologise to all the officials deployed there as you people have violated the law.”
According to sources, after an exchange of harsh words, finally the Americans had to follow the police officer and they were made to apologise to all the police officials deployed at said picket. Only then did the officer let them leave. It is relevant to note here no arms and ammunitions were recovered from the said vehicle. When contacted ASP Capt (r) Liaqat Malik confirmed the incident but refused to share the details. He may be taken to task for being a patriotic and conscientious officer given how the US has pressured senior officials to accept US nationals breaking the law with impunity.

The Dawn
By Munawer Azeem
Friday, 11 Dec, 2009
ISLAMABAD, Dec 10: American diplomats have once again ignored the security cordon around the capital city, but this time they were made to apologise, police officials told Dawn on Thursday.

A black Land Cruiser, carrying license plates reading GB 0332, was signaled by security personnel to stop at a checkpoint on the Kashmir Highway Tuesday evening, but the driver sped away.

The Saddar circle’s sub-divisional police officer, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Capt (retired) Liaquat Ali Malik, who was present at the picket, chased the four-wheel drive with his staff and intercepted just short of the Islamabad Toll Plaza.

As the driver again hit the gas, but police officers’ drawn pistols made the diplomat give up the race.

ASP Malik approached the vehicle and asked the two occupants to come out and let the police search them and their vehicle. However, the foreigners refused the request and introduced themselves as senior American diplomats, presenting their embassy-issued identification cards and the original diplomatic registration plates for the vehicle.

During the episode, the diplomats misbehaved with the police and also made phone calls to some officials, including their embassy’s security supervisor.

The ASP was also asked to talk to the supervisor, who asked him to allow the diplomats proceed but ASP Malik refused.

Later, some senior Pakistani officers approached the ASP and directed him to let the diplomats move forward.

In reply, ASP Malik insisted that they would be allowed to proceed only if they tendered an apology to the police personnel and agreed to physical search.

After a few moments, the diplomats received a call and they let the police search them and their vehicle.

They along with the ASP returned to the checkpoint, where they apologised to the security personnel.

India's War Intentions

2009-11-28T11:59:00.003Z

The report of Indian ‘Task force on national security and terrorism’ endorsed by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) demanding New Delhi to react militarily to Pakistan and conduct surgical strikes, has sent a wave of anger among the economic circles in Pakistan as well as entire South Asia.

ISI Chief confronts CIA counterpart with evidence

2009-11-22T02:19:00.003Z

The Nation
By: Maqbool Malik | Published: November 21, 2009

ISLAMABAD – Serious differences are understood to have cropped up between Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency ISI and US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) over the latter’s dismal role in countering terrorism in Pakistan, TheNation reliably learnt on Friday.
According to well-placed sources, the differences between the two strategic partners in war against terror cropped up when ISI Chief Lt. General Ahmed Shujja Pasha in a meeting expressed his disappointment to his US counterpart, the CIA chief spymaster Leon Panetta, over the US failure to help Pakistan in counter-terrorism efforts.
Although there was no official confirmation either from the US Embassy or ISPR about the meeting, it was learnt that both of them had thought provoking talks here in which General Pasha had presented to the CIA official a shocking evidence about Indian interference into Pakistan by using Afghanistan soil. General Pasha, the informed sources said, had presented the evidence about Indian efforts aiding terrorism in Balochistan and Waziristan.
The sources said that General Pasha was critical to the CIA’s counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan and CIA’s failure to provide concrete actionable information to Pakistan in containing flow of aid to terror networks operating from Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.
The sources said that the CIA chief is currently visiting Pakistan as a follow-up to the visit of US of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address complains of Pakistan’s military establishment.
The CIA chief is to meet Army Chief General Ashfaq Pavez Kayani today and is likely to get the similar input from him, the sources said. He is also expected to visit Saudi Arabia before his return to USA.

Pakistan's name change?

2009-11-20T22:05:00.000Z

The News
ANP flayed for demanding change in Pakistan’s name

Friday, November 20, 2009
By By Our Correspondent
LAHORE

The Right wing parties have come hard on the Awami National Party (ANP) for demanding change in the existing name of Pakistan, terming the act contrary to the national interest.

Pakistan Tehrik e Insaaf (PTI) Lahore president Mian Mehmood ul Rasheed, in a press release issued here Thursday, said the demand by the ANP was against the ideas of the nation’s founder, Quaid-e- Azam and the 1973 Constitution.

Terming the demand a conspiracy to divide the nation, he said no such suggestion would be welcomed by the people of Pakistan.

He said the ANP must prefer national interest over its own agenda.

He said no sincere Pakistani could even think of eliminating the word ‘Islamic’ from the name of the country and it seemed that only those elements which never accepted Quaid e Azam as their leader had made such a demand.

Similarly, Tanzim e Islami ameer Hafiz Saeed said the demand for change in the name of Pakistan showed the nefarious intentions of the anti-state elements which could never see the prosperity of the Islamic republic.

He said the elements must keep in mind that Pakistan had come into being in the name of religion, adding, such a demand was in conflict with the national interests, especially in context of the prevailing circumstances.

‘ANP never demanded change in name’: Awami National Party (ANP) senior vice-president Haji Mohammed Adeel has said the party has never demanded change in the name of ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’, terming all such allegations baseless.

Talking to The News, Haji Adeel said the ANP had great respect for the Constitution and had always abided by it. He said the party had merely demanded the reversal of the amendments in the Constitution by the military dictators, adding the party could never think of violating the Constitution. “We don’t want the name of Islamic Republic of Pakistan changed,” he said.

The News

Updated at: 2215 PST, Wednesday, November 18, 2009

KARACHI: Minister for Overseas Pakistanis and Parliamentary leader of the MQM Dr Farooq Sattar said Awami National Party (ANP) put up a proposal to change the name of Pakistan, which the MQM has supported.

He said the ANP gave this proposals to the Committee for Constitutional Reforms that Pakistan’s name be changed from Islamic Republic of Pakistan to People’s Republic of Pakistan.

Farooq Sattar also hoped that the Committee on Constitutional Reforms will give good news at the commencement of new year.

He said the proposal was tabled that Gilgit-Baltistan should be given a status of fifth province and it should have representation in NFC Award.

The Nation
By: Abrar Saeed | Published: November 19, 2009

From Islamic to Peoples Republic of Pakistan?

ISLAMABAD – Awami National Party (ANP) during the deliberations of Parliamentary Reforms Committee had proposed to change the name of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as Peoples Republic of Pakistan, while Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) supported the move, the sources close to these political parties disclosed to TheNation.
The idea was, however, dropped due to strong opposition from the rest of the members of the committee, the sources added.
MQM Deputy Convener and Federal Minister Dr. Farooq Sattar confirmed it to the media in an informal chat on Wednesday and said that MQM along with PPP members of the committee supported the idea of renaming Islamic Republic of Pakistan as Peoples Republic of Pakistan.
On the other hand, ANP member of the committee Haji Adeel denied having proposed the name of Peoples Republic of Pakistan to replace Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, some members of the committee on condition of anonymity confirmed it to TheNation that ANP had proposed the said change in the name of the country and MQM and PPP members had supported it.

New Delhi's presence in Kabul to mar war goals: Kayani

2009-11-14T11:31:00.000Z

The Nation
By: Maqbool Malik | Published: November 14, 2009

ISLAMABAD – Reiterating Pakistan’s firm commitment to combat terrorism, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Friday made it clear to the US that Indian presence in Afghanistan would not help achieve objectives of the war on terror.
General Kayani made these remarks while talking to the US National Security Advisor General (Retd) James Jones who called on him at GHQ.
The visiting US dignitary also held separate meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi.
Though ISPR press release said that the COAS and James Jones discussed matters of mutual interests, TheNation has learnt from other reliable sources that General Kayani expressed his deep concerns over Indian blatant interference into Pakistan through Afghanistan. “Pakistan cannot tolerate it as it was tantamount to be counterproductive in the war against terror,” the sources added.
The Chief of Army Staff also pointed out that Indian presence in Afghanistan might adversely impact efforts seeking to woo moderate Taliban in Afghanistan. General Kayani apprised the US dignitary about operation Rah-e-Nijat being carried out against terrorists in South Waziristan Agency.
The sources further informed that they also discussed the security situation in region and agreed to increase bilateral intelligence sharing.
Earlier, Jones also called on President Asif Ali Zardari and discussed issues relating to Pakistan’s struggle against militancy, rehabilitation of IDPs and early reimbursement of the arrears in coalition support fund (CSF).
When the US official called on Prime Minister Gilani, the PM underlined Pakistan’s concerns on the possible effects of surge in the US forces in Afghanistan, particularly in the bordering province of Helmand. Gilani emphasised that crossing over of Afghan Taliban into Pakistan’s territory must be factored in the new policy.
Gilani also called for regular consultations and coordination between the two sides in deployment of the US forces in Afghanistan, strengthening of the mechanism of border coordination centres, fencing of Pakistan-Afghan border, introduction of telemetric system for stemming the supply of weapons and drugs, and stopping the crossover of undesirable elements from Afghanistan into Pakistan.
The Prime Minister also drew the attention of the US National Security Advisor towards fast deteriorating conditions of road communication network between Karachi and Peshawar and between Karachi and Quetta-Chaman sectors due to heavy container traffic carrying supplies for the US-ISAF forces. He hoped that the US would assist Pakistan in revamping its road infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted smooth supplies for its forces in Afghanistan.
The PM apprised the visiting US emissary that Pakistani forces were over stretched because of continuous tension on the eastern border. It was imperative that the US should be sensitive about Pakistan’s core interests, which were Kashmir, water issue, Indian military capability and the requirements of balance of power in South Asia, he added. The US hence has to use its influence over India for resumption of composite dialogue and lessening of tension with Pakistan to enable Pakistan to concentrate its attention and energies in the fight against militancy and terrorism.
General (R) James L. Jones reciprocated by agreeing with the Prime Minister that the new US policy on Afghanistan should be formulated by taking into account the vital interests of Pakistan. He said that the US was committed to assist Pakistan economically, in reconstruction of militancy-affected areas and in capacity building of its forces.
He assured the Prime Minister that Obama administration fully recognised Pakistan’s concerns about the long-term peace and security of South Asia and would keep urging the Indian leadership to return to composite dialogue process.

Defending the Arsenal

2009-11-11T16:02:00.004Z

America’s dealings with Pakistan may be increasing the risk of radicalization

The NewYorker

In an unstable Pakistan, can nuclear warheads be kept safe?

by Seymour M. Hersh November 16, 2009

In the tumultuous days leading up to the Pakistan Army’s ground offensive in the tribal area of South Waziristan, which began on October 17th, the Pakistani Taliban attacked what should have been some of the country’s best-guarded targets. In the most brazen strike, ten gunmen penetrated the Army’s main headquarters, in Rawalpindi, instigating a twenty-two-hour standoff that left twenty-three dead and the military thoroughly embarrassed. The terrorists had been dressed in Army uniforms. There were also attacks on police installations in Peshawar and Lahore, and, once the offensive began, an Army general was shot dead by gunmen on motorcycles on the streets of Islamabad, the capital. The assassins clearly had advance knowledge of the general’s route, indicating that they had contacts and allies inside the security forces.

Pakistan has been a nuclear power for two decades, and has an estimated eighty to a hundred warheads, scattered in facilities around the country. The success of the latest attacks raised an obvious question: Are the bombs safe? Asked this question the day after the Rawalpindi raid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We have confidence in the Pakistani government and the military’s control over nuclear weapons.” Clinton—whose own visit to Pakistan, two weeks later, would be disrupted by more terrorist bombs—added that, despite the attacks by the Taliban, “we see no evidence that they are going to take over the state.”

Clinton’s words sounded reassuring, and several current and former officials also said in interviews that the Pakistan Army was in full control of the nuclear arsenal. But the Taliban overrunning Islamabad is not the only, or even the greatest, concern. The principal fear is mutiny—that extremists inside the Pakistani military might stage a coup, take control of some nuclear assets, or even divert a warhead.

On April 29th, President Obama was asked at a news conference whether he could reassure the American people that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could be kept away from terrorists. Obama’s answer remains the clearest delineation of the Administration’s public posture. He was, he said, “gravely concerned” about the fragility of the civilian government of President Asif Ali Zardari. “Their biggest threat right now comes internally,” Obama said. “We have huge . . . national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.” The United States, he said, could “make sure that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure—primarily, initially, because the Pakistan Army, I think, recognizes the hazards of those weapons’ falling into the wrong hands.”

The questioner, Chuck Todd, of NBC, began asking whether the American military could, if necessary, move in and secure Pakistan’s bombs. Obama did not let Todd finish. “I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort,” he said. “I feel confident that the nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands. O.K.?”

Obama did not say so, but current and former officials said in interviews in Washington and Pakistan that his Administration has been negotiating highly sensitive understandings with the Pakistani military. These would allow specially trained American units to provide added security for the Pakistani arsenal in case of a crisis. At the same time, the Pakistani military would be given money to equip and train Pakistani soldiers and to improve their housing and facilities—goals that General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the chief of the Pakistan Army, has long desired. In June, Congress approved a four-hundred-million-dollar request for what the Administration called the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund, providing immediate assistance to the Pakistan Army for equipment, training, and “renovation and construction.”

The secrecy surrounding the understandings was important because there is growing antipathy toward America in Pakistan, as well as a history of distrust. Many Pakistanis believe that America’s true goal is not to keep their weapons safe but to diminish or destroy the Pakistani nuclear complex. The arsenal is a source of great pride among Pakistanis, who view the weapons as symbols of their nation’s status and as an essential deterrent against an attack by India. (India’s first nuclear test took place in 1974, Pakistan’s in 1998.)

A senior Pakistani official who has close ties to Zardari exploded with anger during an interview when the subject turned to the American demands for more information about the arsenal. After the September 11th attacks, he said, there had been an understanding between the Bush Administration and then President Pervez Musharraf “over what Pakistan had and did not have.” Today, he said, “you’d like control of our day-to-day deployment. But why should we give it to you? Even if there was a military coup d’état in Pakistan, no one is going to give up total control of our nuclear weapons. Never. Why are you not afraid of India’s nuclear weapons?” the official asked. “Because India is your friend, and the longtime policies of America and India converge. Between you and the Indians, you will fuck us in every way. The truth is that our weapons are less of a problem for the Obama Administration than finding a respectable way out of Afghanistan.”

The ongoing consultation on nuclear security between Washington and Islamabad intensified after the announcement in March of President Obama’s so-called Af-Pak policy, which called upon the Pakistan Army to take more aggressive action against Taliban enclaves inside Pakistan. I was told that the understandings on nuclear coöperation benefitted from the increasingly close relationship between Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kayani, his counterpart, although the C.I.A. and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have also been involved. (All three departments declined to comment for this article. The national-security council and the C.I.A. denied that there were any agreements in place.)

In response to a series of questions, Admiral Mullen acknowledged that he and Kayani were, in his spokesman’s words, “very close.” The spokesman said that Mullen is deeply involved in day-to-day Pakistani developments and “is almost an action officer for all things Pakistan.” But he denied that he and Kayani, or their staffs, had reached an understanding about the availability of American forces in case of mutiny or a terrorist threat to a nuclear facility. “To my knowledge, we have no military units, special forces or otherwise, involved in such an assignment,” Mullen said through his spokesman. The spokesman added that Mullen had not seen any evidence of growing fundamentalism inside the Pakistani military. In a news conference on May 4th, however, Mullen responded to a query about growing radicalism in Pakistan by saying that “what has clearly happened over the [past] twelve months is the continual decline, gradual decline, in security.” The Admiral also spoke openly about the increased coöperation on nuclear security between the United States and Pakistan: “I know what we’ve done over the last three years, specifically to both invest, assist, and I’ve watched them improve their security fairly dramatically. . . . I’ve looked at this, you know, as hard as I can, over a period of time.” Seventeen days later, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We have invested a significant amount of resources through the Department of Energy in the last several years” to help Pakistan improve the controls on its arsenal. “They still have to improve them,” he said.

In interviews in Pakistan, I obtained confirmation that there were continuing conversations with the United States on nuclear-security plans—as well as evidence that the Pakistani leadership put much less weight on them than the Americans did. In some cases, Pakistani officials spoke of the talks principally as a means of placating anxious American politicians. “You needed it,” a senior Pakistani official, who said that he had been briefed on the nuclear issue, told me. His tone was caustic. “We have twenty thousand people working in the nuclear-weapons industry in Pakistan, and here is this American view that Pakistan is bound to fail.” The official added, “The Americans are saying, ‘We want to help protect your weapons.’ We say, ‘Fine. Tell us what you can do for us.’ It’s part of a quid pro quo. You say, also, ‘Come clean on the nuclear program and we’ll insure that India doesn’t put pressure on it.’ So we say, ‘O.K.’ ”

But, the Pakistani official said, “both sides are lying to each other.” The information that the Pakistanis handed over was not as complete as the Americans believed. “We haven’t told you anything that you don’t know,” he said. The Americans didn’t realize that Pakistan would never cede control of its arsenal: “If you try to take the weapons away, you will fail.”

High-level coöperation between Islamabad and Washington on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal began at least eight years ago. Former President Musharraf, when I interviewed him in London recently, acknowledged that his government had held extensive discussions with the Bush Administration after the September 11th attacks, and had given State Department nonproliferation experts insight into the command and control of the Pakistani arsenal and its on-site safety and security procedures. Musharraf also confirmed that Pakistan had constructed a huge tunnel system for the transport and storage of nuclear weaponry. “The tunnels are so deep that a nuclear attack will not touch them,” Musharraf told me, with obvious pride. The tunnels would make it impossible for the American intelligence community—“Big Uncle,” as a Pakistani nuclear-weapons expert called it—to monitor the movements of nuclear components by satellite.

Safeguards have been built into the system. Pakistani nuclear doctrine calls for the warheads (containing an enriched radioactive core) and their triggers (sophisticated devices containing highly explosive lenses, detonators, and krytrons) to be stored separately from each other and from their delivery devices (missiles or aircraft). The goal is to insure that no one can launch a warhead—in the heat of a showdown with India, for example—without pausing to put it together. Final authority to order a nuclear strike requires consensus within Pakistan’s ten-member National Command Authority, with the chairman—by statute, President Zardari—casting the deciding vote.

But the safeguards meant to keep a confrontation with India from escalating too quickly could make the arsenal more vulnerable to terrorists. Nuclear-security experts have war-gamed the process and concluded that the triggers and other elements are most exposed when they are being moved and reassembled—at those moments there would be fewer barriers between an outside group and the bomb. A consultant to the intelligence community said that in one war-gamed scenario disaffected members of the Pakistani military could instigate a terrorist attack inside India, and that the ensuing crisis would give them “a chance to pick up bombs and triggers—in the name of protecting the assets from extremists.”

The triggers are a key element in American contingency plans. An American former senior intelligence official said that a team that has trained for years to remove or dismantle parts of the Pakistani arsenal has now been augmented by a unit of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the élite counterterrorism group. He added that the unit, which had earlier focussed on the warheads’ cores, has begun to concentrate on evacuating the triggers, which have no radioactive material and are thus much easier to handle.

“The Pakistanis gave us a virtual look at the number of warheads, some of their locations, and their command-and-control system,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “We saw their target list and their mobilization plans. We got their security plans, so we could augment them in case of a breach of security,” he said. “We’re there to help the Pakistanis, but we’re also there to extend our own axis of security to their nuclear stockpile.” The detailed American planning even includes an estimate of how many nuclear triggers could be placed inside a C-17 cargo plane, the former official said, and where the triggers could be sequestered. Admiral Mullen, asked about increased American insight into the arsenal, said, through his spokesman, “I am not aware of our receipt of any such information.” (A senior military officer added that the information, if it had been conveyed, would most likely “have gone to another government agency.”)

A spokesman for the Pakistani military said, in an official denial, “Pakistan neither needs any American unit for enhancing the security for its arsenal nor would accept it.” The spokesman added that the Pakistani military “has been providing protection to U.S. troops in a situation of crisis”—a reference to Pakistan’s role in the war on terror—“and hence is quite capable to deal with any untoward situation.”

Early this summer, a consultant to the Department of Defense said, a highly classified military and civil-emergency response team was put on alert after receiving an urgent report from American intelligence officials indicating that a Pakistani nuclear component had gone astray. The team, which operates clandestinely and includes terrorism and nonproliferation experts from the intelligence community, the Pentagon, the F.B.I., and the D.O.E., is under standing orders to deploy from Andrews Air Force Base, in Maryland, within four hours of an alert. When the report turned out to be a false alarm, the mission was aborted, the consultant said. By the time the team got the message, it was already in Dubai.

In an actual crisis, would the Pakistanis give an American team direct access to their arsenal? An adviser to the Pentagon on counterinsurgency said that some analysts suspected that the Pakistani military had taken steps to move elements of the nuclear arsenal “out of the count”—to shift them to a storage facility known only to a very few—as a hedge against mutiny or an American or Indian effort to seize them. “If you thought your American ally was telling your enemy where the weapons were, you’d do the same thing,” the adviser said.

“Let me say this about our nuclear deterrent,” President Zardari told me, when asked about any recent understandings between Pakistan and the United States. “We give comfort to each other, and the comfort level is good, because everybody respects everybody’s integrity. We’re all big boys.”

Zardari and I met twice, first in his office, in the grand but isolated Presidential compound in Islamabad, and then, a few days later, alone over dinner in his personal quarters. Zardari, who became President after the assassination, in December, 2007, of his charismatic wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, spent nearly eleven years in jail on corruption charges. He is widely known in Pakistan as Mr. Ten Per Cent, a reference to the commissions he allegedly took on government contracts when Bhutto was in power, and is seen by many Pakistanis as little more than a crook who has grown too close to America; his approval ratings are in the teens. He is chatty but guarded, proud but defensive, and, like many Pakistanis, convinced that the United States will always favor India. Over dinner, he spoke of his suspicions regarding his wife’s death. He said that, despite rumors to the contrary, he would complete his five-year term.

Zardari spoke with derision about what he depicted as America’s obsession with the vulnerability of his nation’s nuclear arsenal. “In your country, you feel that you have to hold the fort for us,” he said. “The American people want a lot of answers for the errors of the past, and it’s very easy to spread fear. Our Army officers are not crazy, like the Taliban. They’re British-trained. Why would they slip up on nuclear security? A mutiny would never happen in Pakistan. It’s a fear being spread by the few who seek to scare the many.”

Zardari offered some advice to Barack Obama: instead of fretting about nuclear security in Pakistan, his Administration should deal with the military disparity between Pakistan and India, which has a much larger army. “You should help us get conventional weapons,” he said. “It’s a balance-of-power issue.”

In May, Zardari, at the urging of the United States, approved a major offensive against the Taliban, sending thirty thousand troops into the Swat Valley, which lies a hundred miles northwest of Islamabad. “The enemy that we were fighting in Swat was made up of twenty per cent thieves and thugs and eighty per cent with the same mind-set as the Taliban,” Zardari said. He depicted the operation as a complete success, but added that his government was not “ready” to kill all the Taliban. His long-term solution, Zardari said, was to provide new business opportunities in Swat and turn the Taliban into entrepreneurs. “Money is the best incentive,” he said. “They can be rented.”

Zardari’s view of the Swat offensive was striking, given that many Pakistanis had been angered by the excessive use of force and the ensuing refugee crisis. The lives of about two million people were torn apart, and, during a summer in which temperatures soared to a hundred and twenty degrees, hundreds of thousands of civilians were crowded into government-run tent cities. Idris Khattak, a former student radical who now works with Amnesty International, said in Peshawar that residents had described nights of heavy, indiscriminate bombing and shelling, followed in the morning by Army sweeps. The villagers, and not the Taliban, had been hit the hardest. “People told us that the bombing the night before was a signal for the Taliban to get out,” he said.

Zardari did not dispute that there were difficulties in the refugee camps—the heat, the lack of facilities. But he insisted that the fault lay with the civilians, who, he said, had been far too tolerant of the Taliban. The suffering could serve a useful purpose: after a summer in the tents, the citizens of Swat might have learned a lesson and would not “let the Taliban back into their cities.”

Rahimullah Yusufzai, an eminent Pakistani journalist, who has twice interviewed Osama bin Laden, had a different explanation for the conditions that led to the offensive. “The Taliban were initially trying to win public support in Swat by delivering justice and peace,” Yusufzai said. “But when they got into power they went crazy and became brutal. Many are from the lowest ranks of society, and they began killing and terrorizing their opponents. The people were afraid.”

The turmoil did not end with the Army’s invasion. “Most of the people who were in the refugee camps told us that the Army was equally bad. There was so much killing,” Yusufzai said. The government had placed limits on reporters who tried to enter the Swat Valley during the attack, but afterward Yusufzai and his colleagues were able to interview officers. “They told us they hated what they were doing—‘We were trained to fight Indians.’ ” But that changed when they sustained heavy losses, especially of junior officers. “They were killing everybody after their colleagues were killed—just like the Americans with their Predator missiles,” Yusufzai said. “What the Army did not understand, and what the Americans don’t understand, is that by demolishing the house of a suspected Taliban or their supporters you are making an enemy of the whole family.” What looked like a tactical victory could turn out to be a strategic failure.

The Obama Administration has had difficulty coming to terms with how unhappy many Pakistanis are with the United States. Secretary of State Clinton, during her three-day “good-will visit” to Pakistan, late last month, seemed taken aback by the angry and, at times, provocative criticism of American policies that dominated many of her public appearances, and responded defensively.

Last year, the Washington Times ran an article about the Pressler Amendment, a 1985 law cutting off most military aid to Pakistan as long as it continued its nuclear program. The measure didn’t stop Pakistan from getting the bomb, or from buying certain weapons, but it did reduce the number of Pakistani officers who were permitted to train with American units. The article quoted Major General John Custer as saying, “The older military leaders love us. They understand American culture and they know we are not the enemy.” The General’s assessment provoked a barrage of e-mail among American officers with experience in Pakistan, and a former member of a Special Forces unit provided me with copies. “The fact that a two-star would make a statement [like] that . . . is at best naïve and actually pure bullshit,” a senior Special Forces officer on duty in Pakistan wrote. He went on:

I have met and interacted with the entire military staff from General Kayani on down and all the general officers on their joint staff and in all the services, and I haven’t spoken to one that “loves us”—whatever that means. In fact, I have read most of the TS [top secret] assessments of all their General Officers and I haven’t read one that comes close to their “loving” us. They play us for everything they can get, and we trip over ourselves trying to give them everything they ask for, and cannot pay for.

Some military men who know Pakistan well believe that, whatever the officer corps’s personal views, the Pakistan Army remains reliable. “They cannot be described as pro-American, but this doesn’t mean they don’t know which side their bread is buttered on,” Brian Cloughley, who served six years as Australia’s defense attaché to Pakistan and is now a contributor to Jane’s Sentinel, told me. “The chance of mutiny is slim. Were this to happen, there would be the most severe reaction” by special security units in the Pakistani military, Cloughley said. “But worry feeds irrationality, and the international consequences could be dire.”

The recollections of Bush Administration officials who dealt with Pakistan in the first round of nuclear consultations after September 11th do not inspire confidence. The Americans’ main contact was Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, the agency that is responsible for nuclear strategy and operations and for the physical security of the weapons complex. At first, a former high-level Bush Administration official told me, Kidwai was reassuring; his professionalism increased their faith in the soundness of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine and its fail-safe procedures. The Army was controlled by Punjabis who, the Americans thought, “did not put up with Pashtuns,” as the former Bush Administration official put it. (The Taliban are mostly Pashtun.) But by the time the official left, at the beginning of George W. Bush’s second term, he had a much darker assessment: “They don’t trust us and they will not tell you the truth.”

No American, for example, was permitted access to A. Q. Khan, the metallurgist and so-called father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, who traded crucial nuclear-weapons components on the international black market. Musharraf placed him under house arrest in early 2004, claiming to have been shocked to learn of Khan’s dealings. At the time, it was widely understood that those activities had been sanctioned by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (I.S.I.). Khan was freed in February, although there are restrictions on his travel. (In an interview last year, Kidwai told David Sanger, for his book “The Inheritance,” that “our security systems are foolproof,” thanks to technical controls; Sanger noted that Bush Administration officials were “not as confident in private as they sound in public.”)

A former State Department official who worked on nuclear issues with Pakistan after September 11th said that he’d come to understand that the Pakistanis “believe that any information we get from them would be shared with others—perhaps even the Indians. To know the command-and-control processes of their nuclear weapons is one thing. To know where the weapons actually are is another thing.”

The former State Department official cited the large Pakistan Air Force base outside Sargodha, west of Lahore, where many of Pakistan’s nuclear-capable F-16s are thought to be stationed. “Is there a nuke ready to go at Sargodha?” the former official asked. “If there is, and Sargodha is the size of Andrews Air Force Base, would we know where to go? Are the warheads stored in Bunker X?” Ignorance could be dangerous. “If our people don’t know where to go and we suddenly show up at a base, there will be a lot of people shooting at them,” he said. “And even if the Pakistanis may have told us that the triggers will be at Bunker X, is it true?”

In the July/August issue of Arms Control Today, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who recently retired after three years as the Department of Energy’s director of intelligence and counter-intelligence, preceded by two decades at the C.I.A., wrote vividly about the “lethal proximity between terrorists, extremists, and nuclear weapons insiders” in Pakistan. “Insiders have facilitated terrorist attacks. Suicide bombings have occurred at air force bases that reportedly serve as nuclear weapons storage sites. It is difficult to ignore such trends,” Mowatt-Larssen wrote. “Purely in actuarial terms, there is a strong possibility that bad apples in the nuclear establishment are willing to cooperate with outsiders for personal gain or out of sympathy for their cause. Nowhere in the world is this threat greater than in Pakistan. . . . Anything that helps upgrade Pakistan’s nuclear security is an investment” in America’s security.

Leslie H. Gelb, a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said, “I don’t think there’s any kind of an agreement we can count on. The Pakistanis have learned how to deal with us, and they understand that if they don’t tell us what we want to hear we’ll cut off their goodies.” Gelb added, “In all these years, the C.I.A. never built up assets, but it talks as if there were ‘access.’ I don’t know if Obama understands that the Agency doesn’t know what it’s talking about.”

The former high-level Bush Administration official was just as blunt. “If a Pakistani general is talking to you about nuclear issues, and his lips are moving, he’s lying,” he said. “The Pakistanis wouldn’t share their secrets with anybody, and certainly not with a country that, from their point of view, used them like a Dixie cup and then threw them away.”

Sultan Amir Tarar, known to many as Colonel Imam, is the archetype of the disillusioned Pakistani officer. Tarar spent eighteen years with the I.S.I. in Afghanistan, most of them as an undercover operative. In the mujahideen war against the Soviet Union, in the eighties, he worked closely with C.I.A. agents, and liked the experience. “They were honest and thoughtful and provided the finest equipment,” Tarar said during an interview in Rawalpindi. He spoke with pride of shaking hands with Robert Gates in Afghanistan in 1985. Gates, now the Secretary of Defense, was then a senior C.I.A. official. “I’ve heard all about you,” Gates said, according to Tarar. “Good or bad?” “Oh, my. All good,” Gates replied. Tarar’s view changed after the Russians withdrew and, in his opinion, “the Americans abandoned us.” When I asked if he’d seen “Charlie Wilson’s War,” the movie depicting that abandonment and a Texas congressman’s futile efforts to change the policy, Tarar laughed and said, “I’ve seen Charlie Wilson. I didn’t need to see the movie.”

Tarar, who retired in 1995 and has a son in the Army, believed—as did many Pakistani military men—that the American campaign to draw Pakistan deeper into the war against the Taliban would backfire. “The Americans are trying to rent out their war to us,” he said. If the Obama Administration persists, “there will be an uprising here, and this corrupt government will collapse. Every Pakistani will then be his own nuclear bomb—a suicide bomber,” Tarar said. “The longer the war goes on, the longer it will spill over in the tribal territories, and it will lead to a revolutionary stage. People there will flee to the big cities like Lahore and Islamabad.”

Tarar believed that the Obama Administration had to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban, even if that meant direct talks with Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. Tarar knew Mullah Omar well. “Omar trained as a young man in my camp in 1985,” he told me. “He was physically fit and mission-oriented—a very honest man who was a practicing Muslim. Nothing beyond that. He was a Talib—a student, and not a mullah. But people respected him. Today, among all the Afghan leaders, Omar has the biggest audience, and this is the right time for you to talk to him.”

Speaking to Tarar and other officers gave a glimpse of the acrimony at the top of the Pakistani government, which has complicated the nuclear equation. Tarar spoke bitterly about the position that General Kayani found himself in, carrying out the “corrupt” policies of the Americans and of Zardari, while Pakistan’s soldiers “were fighting gallantly in Swat against their own people.”

A $7.5-billion American aid package, approved by Congress in September, was, to the surprise of many in Washington, controversial in Pakistan, because it contained provisions seen as strengthening Zardari at the expense of the military. Shaheen Sehbai, a senior editor of the newspaper International, said that Zardari’s “problem is that he’s besieged domestically on all sides, and he thinks only the Americans can save him,” and, as a result, “he’ll open his pants for them.” Sehbai noted that Kayani’s term as Army chief ends in the fall of 2010. If Zardari tried to replace him before then, Kayani’s colleagues would not accept his choice, and there could be “a generals’ coup,” Sehbai said. “America should worry more about the structure and organization of the Army—and keep it intact.”

Lieutenant General Hamid Gul was the director general of the I.S.I. in the late eighties and worked with the C.I.A. in Afghanistan. Gul, who is retired, is a devout Muslim and had been accused by the Bush Administration of having ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda—allegations he has denied. “What would happen if, in a crisis, you tried to get—or did not get—our nuclear triggers? What happens then?” Gul asked when we met. “You will have us as an enemy, with the Chinese and Russians behind us.”

If Pakistani officers had given any assurances about the nuclear arsenal, Gul said, “they are cheating you and they would be right to do so. We should not be aiding and abetting Americans.”

Persuading the Pakistan Army to concentrate on fighting the Taliban, and not India, is crucial to the Obama Administration’s plans for the region. There has been enmity between India and Pakistan since 1947, when Britain’s withdrawal led to the partition of the subcontinent. The state of Kashmir, which was three-quarters Muslim but acceded to Hindu-majority India, has been in dispute ever since, and India and Pakistan have twice gone to war over the territory. Through the years, the Pakistan Army and the I.S.I. have relied on Pakistan-based jihadist groups, most notably Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, to carry out a guerrilla war against the Indians in Kashmir. Many in the Pakistani military consider the groups to be an important strategic reserve.

A retired senior Pakistani intelligence officer, who worked with his C.I.A. counterparts to track down Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said that he was deeply troubled by the prospect of Pakistan ceding any control over its nuclear deterrent. “Suppose the jihadis strike at India again—another attack on the parliament. India will tell the United States to stay out of it, and ‘We’ll sort it out on our own,’ ” he said. “Then there would be a ground attack into Pakistan. As we begin to react, the Americans will be interested in protecting our nuclear assets, and urge us not to go nuclear—‘Let the Indians attack and do not respond!’ They would urge us instead to find those responsible for the attack on India. Our nuclear arsenal was supposed to be our savior, but we would end up protecting it. It doesn’t protect us,” he said.

“My belief today is that it’s better to have the Americans as an enemy rather than as a friend, because you cannot be trusted,” the former officer concluded. “The only good thing the United States did for us was to look the other way about an atomic bomb when it suited the United States to do so.”

Pakistan’s fears about the United States coöperating with India are not irrational. Last year, Congress approved a controversial agreement that enabled India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States without joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, making India the only non-signatory to the N.P.T. permitted to do so. Concern about the Pakistani arsenal has since led to greater coöperation between the United States and India in missile defense; the training of the Indian Air Force to use bunker-busting bombs; and “the collection of intelligence on the Pakistani nuclear arsenal,” according to the consultant to the intelligence community. (The Pentagon declined to comment.)

I flew to New Delhi after my stay in Pakistan and met with two senior officials from the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s national intelligence agency. (Of course, as in Pakistan, no allegation about the other side should be taken at face value.) “Our worries are about the nuclear weapons in Pakistan,” one of the officials said. “Not because we are worried about the mullahs taking over the country; we’re worried about those senior officers in the Pakistan Army who are Caliphates”—believers in a fundamentalist pan-Islamic state. “We know some of them and we have names,” he said. “We’ve been watching colonels who are now brigadiers. These are the guys who could blackmail the whole world”—that is, by seizing a nuclear weapon.

The Indian intelligence official went on, “Do we know if the Americans have that intelligence? This is not in the scheme of the way you Americans look at things—‘Kayani is a great guy! Let’s have a drink and smoke a cigar with him and his buddies.’ Some of the men we are watching have notions of leading an Islamic army.”

In an interview the next afternoon, an Indian official who has dealt diplomatically with Pakistan for years said, “Pakistan is in trouble, and it’s worrisome to us because an unstable Pakistan is the worst thing we can have.” But he wasn’t sure what America could do. “They like us better in Pakistan than you Americans,” he said. “I can tell you that in a public-opinion poll we, India, will beat you.”

India and Pakistan, he added, have had back-channel talks for years in an effort to resolve the dispute over Kashmir, but “Pakistan wants talks for the sake of talks, and it does not carry out the agreements already reached.” (In late October, Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, publicly renewed an offer of talks, but tied it to a request that Pakistan crack down on terrorism; Pakistan’s official response was to welcome the overture.)

The Indian official, like his counterparts in Pakistan, believed that Americans did not appreciate what his government had done for them. “Why did the Pakistanis remove two divisions from the border with us?” He was referring to the shifting of Pakistani forces, at the request of the United States, to better engage the Taliban. “It means they have confidence that we will not take advantage of the situation. We deserve a pat on the back for this.” Instead, the official said, with a shrug, “you are too concerned with your relationship with Pakistan.”

Pervez Musharraf lives in unpretentious exile with his wife in an apartment in London, near Hyde Park. Officials who had dealt with him cautioned that, along with his many faults, he had a disarmingly open manner. At the beginning of our talk, I asked him why, on a visit to Washington in late January, he had not met with any senior Obama Administration officials. “I did not ask for a meeting because I was afraid of being told no,” he said. At another point, Musharraf, dressed casually in slacks and a sports shirt, said that he had been troubled by the American-controlled Predator drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan, which began in 2005. “I said to the Americans, ‘Give us the Predators.’ It was refused. I told the Americans, ‘Then just say publicly that you’re giving them to us. You keep on firing them but put Pakistan Air Force markings on them.’ That, too, was denied.”

Musharraf, who was forced out of office in August, 2008, under threat of impeachment, did not spare his successor. “Asif Zardari is a criminal and a fraud,” Musharraf told me. “He’ll do anything to save himself. He’s not a patriot and he’s got no love for Pakistan. He’s a third-rater.”

Musharraf said that he and General Kayani, who had been his nominee for Chief of Army Staff, were still in telephone contact. Musharraf came to power in a military coup in 1999, and remained in uniform until near the end of his Presidency. He said that he didn’t think the Army was capable of mutiny—not the Army he knew. “There are people with fundamentalist ideas in the Army, but I don’t think there is any possibility of these people getting organized and doing an uprising. These ‘fundos’ were disliked and not popular.”

He added, “Muslims think highly of Obama, and he should use his acceptability—even with the Taliban—and try to deal with them politically.”

Musharraf spoke of two prior attempts to create a fundamentalist uprising in the Army. In both cases, he said, the officers involved were arrested and prosecuted. “I created the strategic force that controls all the strategic assets—eighteen to twenty thousand strong. They are monitored for character and for potential fundamentalism,” he said. He acknowledged, however, that things had changed since he’d left office. “People have become alarmed because of the Taliban and what they have done,” he said. “Everyone is now alarmed.”

The rise in militancy is a sensitive subject, and many inside Pakistan insist that American fears, and the implied threat to the nuclear arsenal, are overwrought. Amélie Blom, a political sociologist at Lahore University of Management Sciences, noted that the Army continues to support an unpopular President. “The survival of the coalition government shows that the present Army leadership has an interest in making it work,” she said in an e-mail.

Others are less sure. “Nuclear weapons are only as safe as the people who handle them,” Pervez Hoodbhoy, an eminent nuclear physicist in Pakistan, said in a talk last summer at a Nation and Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy forum in New York. For more than two decades, Hoodbhoy said, “the Pakistan Army has been recruiting on the basis of faithfulness to Islam. As a consequence, there is now a different character present among Army officers and ordinary soldiers. There are half a dozen scenarios that one can imagine.” There was no proof either that the most dire scenarios would be realized or that the arsenal was safe, he said.

The current offensive in South Waziristan marked a significant success for the Obama Administration, which had urged Zardari to take greater control of the tribal areas. There was a risk, too—that the fighting would further radicalize Pakistan. Last week, another Pakistan Army general was the victim of a drive-by assassination attempt, as he was leaving his home in Islamabad. Since the Waziristan operation was announced, more than three hundred people have been killed in a dozen terrorist attacks. “If we push too hard there, we could trigger a social revolution,” the Special Forces adviser said. “We are playing into Al Qaeda’s deep game here. If we blow it, Al Qaeda could come in and scoop up a nuke or two.” He added, “The Pakistani military knows that if there’s any kind of instability there will be a traffic jam to seize their nukes.” More escalation in Pakistan, he said, “will take us to the brink.”

During my stay in Pakistan—my first in five years—there were undeniable signs that militancy and the influence of fundamentalist Islam had grown. In the past, military officers, politicians, and journalists routinely served Johnnie Walker Black during our talks, and drank it themselves. This time, even the most senior retired Army generals offered only juice or tea, even in their own homes. Officials and journalists said that soldiers and middle-level officers were increasingly attracted to the preaching of Zaid Hamid, who joined the mujahideen and fought for nine years in Afghanistan. On CDs and on television, Hamid exhorts soldiers to think of themselves as Muslims first and Pakistanis second. He claims that terrorist attacks in Mumbai last year were staged by India and Western Zionists, aided by the Mossad. Another proselytizer, Dr. Israr Ahmed, writes a column in the Urdu press in which he depicts the Holocaust as “divine punishment,” and advocates the extermination of the Jews. He, too, is said to be popular with the officer corps.

A senior Obama Administration official brought up Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Sunni organization whose goal is to establish the Caliphate. “They’ve penetrated the Pakistani military and now have cells in the Army,” he said. (The Pakistan Army denies this.) In one case, according to the official, Hizb ut-Tahrir had recruited members of a junior officer group, from the most élite Pakistani military academy, who had been sent to England for additional training.

“Where do these guys get socialized and exposed to Islamic evangelism and the fundamentalism narrative?” the Obama Administration official asked. “In services every Friday for Army officers, and at corps and unit meetings where they are addressed by senior commanders and clerics.”

U.S. officials hopeful for new nuclear treaty with Russia

2009-11-07T22:49:00.000Z

The washington Post

Breakthrough on new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty possible this week

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, November 7, 2009; 1:51 PM

After months of negotiations with Russia, Obama administration officials are hopeful about a breakthrough -- possibly this week -- that would enable the two sides to sign a successor to their most extensive nuclear weapons treaty before it expires Dec. 5.

The optimism stems from a trip to Moscow in late October by national security adviser James L. Jones, who gave his Kremlin counterpart a package of proposals for the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, according to U.S. and Russian officials. Moscow has not yet formally responded, but high-level Russian officials have reacted positively, senior U.S. officials said.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in remarks released Saturday that the two sides "have every chance to agree on a new treaty, determine new [weapons] levels and control measures and sign a legally binding document [by] the end of the year." With U.S. policymakers and the Pentagon united behind Jones's proposals, Kremlin policymakers have gone back to the Russian military to get its approval or perhaps recommendations for counterproposals.

Securing a replacement for the 1991 treaty is a critical first step in President Obama's ambitious global arms-control agenda. Analysts and lawmakers have watched nervously as the agreement's deadline approaches, fearing a lapse in the complex verification procedures that are credited with providing stability between the nuclear giants. Both sides have discussed leaving those procedures in place until a new pact is verified.

U.S. officials' optimism contrasted with concerns expressed recently by U.S. and Russian analysts that the talks have not produced final agreement on key issues -- limits on nuclear-capable launchers; verification procedures; U.S. proposals to put conventional warheads on strategic land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles; and missile defense systems. The United States remains reluctant to give much ground on a Russian request for strong language linking disarmament to missile defense.

The new START agreement will contain relatively modest cuts in the 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads allowed each side under a June 2002 agreement between President George W. Bush and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin. At a summit in July, Obama and Medvedev agreed on a new ceiling of 1,500 to 1,675 for each side.

A more contentious issue has been reducing the number of nuclear-capable bombers and land- or submarine-based missiles, with the Russians pressing for deeper cuts than the U.S. side. The Russians have proposed that the current limit of 1,600 each be slashed to 500; U.S. negotiators have suggested 1,100. Jones's proposal was a "judicious compromise," a U.S. official said, without disclosing a figure. Outside speculation has put the number at around 700.

The Russians still want that total to include any strategic missile launchers that carry conventional rather than nuclear warheads, a position the U.S. negotiators may accept.

Another debate focuses on verification programs. The Russians have talked of halting U.S. inspectors' watch over their missile factories because they have no equal role in the United States, which is no longer building strategic ICBMs.

While a new accord now seems within reach by Dec. 5, it is still not likely to win ratification in the U.S. Senate for months. With that in mind, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) introduced a bill Thursday that would allow Obama to temporarily extend, on a reciprocal basis, privileges to Russian arms inspection teams that travel to the United States.

"Allowing a break in verification activities is not in the interest of the United States or Russia," Lugar said on the Senate floor.

Senior U.S. officials told the Post that they also want to put in place a "bridge mechanism" when the treaty expires to allow for the continuation of inspections, exchanges of data and notification about the testing and movement of weapons and other changes. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks.

The United States and Russia control more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, and both sides have said they hope that shrinking their stockpiles will inspire other nations to support tougher measures to prevent the spread of the deadly weapons to countries such as Iran.

A Russian response to Jones's proposals is expected soon, perhaps when both sides return to the negotiating table in Geneva on Monday.

"We hope that this will be the last round and that by December 5 we will have agreed on a new accord," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told the Interfax news agency, according to Agence France -Presse.

Ellen O. Tauscher, the undersecretary of state who oversees arms control and who accompanied Jones to Moscow, said, "There are issues that we have to work through, but there is also a path forward."

Even if the new treaty is signed soon, there is no chance it will be sent to the Senate before next year. Obama administration officials recognize that they have to prepare extensive backup material based on questions already raised by key Republicans, including Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who has been closely monitoring the talks.

Stage being set for safe exit of Zaidi, Abbasi

2009-11-07T20:28:00.001Z

The Nation
By: Sikander Shaheen | Published: November 05, 2009

ISLAMABAD – The omnipotent corridors of power are all bent upon digging grounds for the safe escape of Ali Zaidi and Jamil Abbasi, two prime culprits in the Inter-Risk Security Company scandal.
After two weeks of repeated attempts, this newspaper finally managed to extract some vital information privy to the latest developments from the pertinent channels that are now keeping the media men at bay for having been reportedly succumbed to massive pressures from powerful diplomatic quarters and government officials.
The latest developments indicate that Zaidi and Abbasi would possibly be given a safe passage to a European country in the next couple of months. Surprisingly enough, names of both accused have not been placed in the Exit Control List (ECL) meaning that off-the-stage preparations are going on to facilitate the culprits.
It is learnt that ‘stakeholders’ of Inter-Risk melodrama were waiting for the dust to settle before letting both the accused flee from Pakistan. In addition, “intensive bargaining” was going on between the ‘stakeholders’ regarding ‘distribution of due shares,’ which some government gurus were going to receive against giving a clean chit to Zaidi and Abbasi.
“Nothing is ‘finalised’ yet but the two perpetrators would be given a ‘green signal’ once the issues dies down and the dust is settled,” this correspondent heard from someone who keeps a first hand information of diplomatic quarters and interior affairs. In this regard, it is also learnt that Karachi’s sea route would be used to pass the accused to some neighbouring country, from where they would be taken to their destination.
The American Embassy, which remained highly instrumental in ‘luring’ the government officials to accept lucrative deals against letting the culprits flee, is setting the arrangements to send the recruits in permanent hide as well, who are expected to leave Pakistan in the coming months while some of them are believed to have already been sent to alternative countries via sea route.
While the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is interrogating Ali Zaidi, a former army officer, and Jamil Abbasi, the so-called proponent of human rights, not even a bit of information regarding recruits has been made public, as American Embassy directly protects them.

Geo-Strategic Chessboard Pushing India Towards War With China

2009-11-07T19:00:00.010Z

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Since 1947, India has not fully pledged itself to any camp or global pole during the Cold War and as a result was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (N.A.M.). Since the post-Cold War era that position has eroded. New Delhi has been gradually moving away from its traditional position, relationships, and policies in the international arena for over a decade. Now, once again, India has been vied for as an ally in the “Great Game” that is underway, placing her in the pivotal position which is examined in this article.

This round of the “Great Game” is being played under a far broader spectrum than the one played between Britain and Czarist Russia. In question is the Indian power relationship with two geo-political entities: the first is the “Periphery” and the second is “Eurasia.”

The Periphery and Eurasia: Vying for India on a Geo-Strategic Chessboard

Physical geography alone does not form or carve or determine geographic entities. The activity of people also is of critical importance to this process. Geographic units, from blocs and countries to regions, must be understood as a product of people interacting in socio-economic and political terms. The geographic entities that are subject herein are social constructions. In this conceptual context, Eurasia itself can be defined as a geo-political player and entity.

In a physical sense, Eurasia as a geographic landmass and spatial entity is neutral, just as are other geographic regions or units, and carries no meaning or value(s). Eurasia in socio-political terms as an active player, however, is altogether different. Herein, it is this active and politically organized Eurasia that is a product of the anti-hegemonic cooperation of Russia, China, and Iran against the status quo global order of the Periphery that is the Eurasia being addressed.

The Periphery is a collective term for those nations who are either geographically located on the margins of the Eurasian landmass or altogether geographically outside of the Eurasian landmass. This grouping or categorization of geo-political players when described are namely the U.S., the E.U., and Japan. In almost organic terms these players at the broader level strive to penetrate and consume Eurasia. This objective is so because of the socio-economic organization and political mechanisms (all of which serve elitist interests) of the Periphery. Aside from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, the Periphery includes Australia, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, and Israel.

It is in this tugging match that India is centred. It is also in this geo-strategic bout that India has adopted a pragmatic policy of open opportunism. Yet, New Delhi has also been steadily moving towards a stance favouring the Periphery against Eurasia.

India’s historically warm relationship with Iran has been tainted because of negotiations with the U.S. and E.U. and New Delhi’s relationship with China appears cordial on the surface, but it is fragile and double-edged. Although Russia and India maintain cooperation in regards to the purchase of Russian military hardware by India, this relationship too is in question regardless of continued Russian weapons supplies.

State policy, in turn influenced or controlled by local elites, is also pivotal to the formation of the larger geographic entities being addressed. The ruling circles and elites of India are pragmatic opportunists and their is no question in this. This characteristic, however, is a trademark of almost all elitist circles and is not unique to Indian elites alone. The position of the Indian elites, however, is noteworthy because they can flex their muscles and they can play both sides.

New Delhi Caught between Alliances?

As stated, New Delhi has been walking a pragmatic path between the emerging Eurasian pole and the more established Peripheral pole. The Eurasian pole was originally formed out of a reluctant necessity for survival against the thrust of the Periphery by Moscow. As the Russian-initiated Eurasian-based alliance gains global momentum it is also working to cultivate an end to Eurasian rivalries.

Since 2003, the lines of cooperation with the U.S., Britain, Germany, and France have been shifting and continuously restudied by Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, and their other allies, such as Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Tajikistan. The U.S., Britain, Germany, France and their shared proxies, NATO and the European Union, have been trying to obstruct the solidification of a united Eurasian entity. This is where India is key.

A factor that has obstructed Eurasian cooperation, with the inclusion of India, is the mutual suspicions of the Eurasians and, in general terms, their underlying resource rivalries. Due to these factors, the Eurasians appeared to be working together and alternatively to be keeping the lines of cooperation open with both the Periphery. A case in standing of this schizophrenic policy is what was once called the “Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” that clasped Russia on one side and France and Germany on the other. This Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis flexed its muscles in international relations and at the U.N. during the Anglo-American march to war against Iraq in 2003.

India and the Encirclement of China

New Delhi is not a constituent of the Periphery. Nor does India fully trust the nations of the Periphery. India does, however, appear to favour the Periphery. This can be attributed to the demographic nature of global resource competitions and long-standing Sino-Indian cleavages and tensions. The tensions and cleavages between China and India have also been capitalized on by the Periphery just as the Sino-Soviet split was by Henry Kissinger during the Cold War to keep China and the Soviet Union divided.

Due to tensions with China, the Indian ruling establishment still holds onto a vision about a showdown with the Chinese. Both states are demographic dinosaurs and are competing between themselves and with the status quo Peripheral powers for resources. Despite the fact that it is the nations of the Periphery that are disproportionately exploiting a far larger share of global resources, in the eyes of many in New Delhi the perception is that it is far easier to reduce the effect of global resource competitions by working to eliminate China rather than competing with the Periphery. It is these two reasons that are the basis for the formation of Indian animosity to Beijing.

An encircling military ring that involves India has been created around China. New Delhi has been involved in the framework of military cooperation with the Periphery aimed at China. Under this framework, India has joined Japan, the U.S., and Australia in forming a de facto “Quadrilateral Coalition” to neutralize China through the establishment of a ring of containment that could see a naval blockade form in the event of a war around the borders of China.

In a war between China and an outside power, cutting off Chinese energy supplies would be central to defeating Beijing. Without any fuel the military hardware of the People’s Liberation Army would be rendered useless. It is from this standpoint that India is building its naval strength and cooperating militarily in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific with the Periphery. It is also with Chinese energy supplies, Indian naval expansion, and the encirclement of China in mind that the Indian military has prepared to introduce, by 2014, what it calls “Indigenous Aircraft Carriers” (IACs), each with two takeoff runways and one landing strip for up to 30 military aircraft.

China, as well as Iran, also has a direct border with NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, which can be used as a military hub against the more vulnerable western flank of China. In this regard, the massive American-led NATO military build-up in Afghanistan is monitored with the utmost suspicion by Beijing and Tehran. In many senses, the Periphery is moving or pushing inwards towards the heart of Eurasia. The encirclement of China also parallels the rings of military alliances and bases created around Russia and around Iran. China also faces the threat of a missile shield project in East Asia just as the European core of Russia faces one in Eastern Europe and Iran faces one via such countries as the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Israel, and Turkey in the Middle East.

Playing all sides to get New Delhi its Place in the Sun?

Indian Prime-Minister M. Singh & US President G.W. Bush.

The 2006 meetings between George W. Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, including the Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement, are examples of the “divide and conquer” game the White House and its allies are playing. India is not passive in this game and is an active player too. The trilateral summits held between Russia, China, and India represent the opposite push to bring India fully into the Eurasian coalition of Moscow and Beijing. The U.S. has also been trying to obstruct the creation of a trans-Asian energy grid in Asia or a trans-Eurasian energy grid that would involve both sections of Europe and Asia within a single framework. One of these projects is the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline and another is the building of pipelines from the former Soviet Union to China.

Moreover, India has nurtured military ties with Russia, China, and Iran on one hand and the U.S., NATO, Australia, Israel, and Japan on the other hand. This is evident from the joint naval exercises held in April, 2007 between India and China off Qingdao and the joint Indian, U.S., and Japanese trilateral military exercise in the Pacific Ocean. Yet, India has not been neutral. India has also upgraded its missile arsenal so that it can target deeper into Chinese territory.

All in all, New Delhi has tilted in favour of the Periphery. At first glance, this is reflected by the fact that India is the only Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) observer member that has not applied for full membership within the Eurasian bloc and through New Delhi’s growing ties with NATO. India’s course also became clearer after an important trilateral conference between Russia, China, and India in 2007 that saw India diplomatically refuse Chinese and Russian demands to rebut America and reject full cooperation. In this regard, Indian officials have said that they do not want to compromise their strategic flexibility. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has also degenerated the situation further and expanded the rift between India on one side and Russia, Iran, and China on the other.

An Expanded Missile Arsenal for India

New Delhi has also been working to upgrade its military capabilities to match those of the U.S., Russia, and China. The process involves the possession of inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM), submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and ballistic missile defence (BMD) capabilities. The Times of India reported on May 13, 2008 that Indian military scientists predicted that India would posses all three capabilities by 2010 or 2011: By 2010-2011, India hopes to gatecrash into a very exclusive club of countries, which have both ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) as well as BMD (ballistic missile defence) capabilities.

Only the US and Russia strictly qualify for this club as of now, if all the three capabilities — ICBM, SLBM and BMD — are taken together, with countries like China not too far behind.

Top defence scientists, on the sidelines of the annual DRDO awards on Monday, told TOI [Times of India] they were quite confident India would have ICBMs and SLBMs, even though their strike ranges would be much lesser than American, Russian or Chinese missiles, as also a functional BMD system soon after the turn of this decade.

The nature of such a military build-up must be questioned. Who is it aimed at and what are its primary objectives? Are these capabilities meant to act as a deterrence or are they part of something more? These are important questions.

The United States Directly Threatens China

The answer to the Indian military build-up is embodied in two parts. One element to this answer is the military dogma of the U.S. towards China. The U.S. attitude is clarified in a May 2008 interview given to the Voice of America by Admiral Timothy J. Keating after a new Chinese submarine base was discovered, which was called a threat to U.S. interests in Asia. Admiral Keating is the American flag officer commanding U.S. forces in East Asia and the Pacific under United States Pacific Command (USPACOM), one of the highest military posts in the U.S. military.

Satellite images of alleged nuclear submarine base on Hainan Island.

China’s new underground nuclear submarine base close to vital sea lanes in Southeast Asia has raised US concerns, with experts calling for a shoring up of alliances in the region to check Beijing’s growing military clout.

The base’s existence on the southern tip of Hainan Island was confirmed for the first time by high resolution satellite images, according to Jane’s Intelligence Review, a respected defence periodical, this month.

It could hold up to 20 submarines, including a new type of nuclear ballistic missile submarine, and future Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups, posing a challenge to longstanding US military dominance in Asia.

China should not pursue such “high-end military options,” warned Admiral Timothy Keating, the top commander of US forces in Asia, in an interview with the Voice of America last week.

He underlined America’s “firm intention” not to abandon its dominating military role in the Pacific and told Beijing it would face “sure defeat” if it took on the United States militarily.

He said Washington should “tighten” its alliances in Asia to check China’s growing military might and develop “interoperability” capabilities among allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Singapore, as well as Indonesia and Malaysia.

James Lyons, an ex-commander of the US Pacific Fleet, said the United States needed to reestablish high-level military ties with the Philippines as part of efforts to enhance US deterrence in the wake of China’s naval expansion.

He said “operational tactics” used against the former Soviet Union during the Cold War should be applied against China.

He suggested US leasing a squadron of F-16 fighter jets and navy vessels to the Philippines, where Washington once had naval and air bases, as part of the deterrence strategy.

“We don’t need a permanent base but we need access,” Lyons said, suggesting also that Japan play a more “meaningful” role in protecting critical sea lanes in the region.

“Again the Soviets, we raised that deterrence equation and we won the war without firing a shot basically ... there is no cheap way out and we have to improve our posture in the Western Pacific along with our allies,” he said.

Richard Fisher, an expert of China military affairs at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a US think tank, expected US confrontation with China as Beijing modernized its nuclear ballistic missile submarines, referred to in military jargon as SSBNs.

What James Lyons suggests as an ex-military officier about the U.S. using Japan as a counter-balance against China is clearly being applied with other nations in Asia. In addition, without India using Japan or a whole coalition of other Asian states carries far less weight against China, especially one supported by Russia. India is clearly key in the U.S. geo-strategy for dealing with China and in general for Eurasia.

The Hindustani Wild Card: India as a Eurasian Wedge against China?

To obstruct the unification of Russia, Iran, and China the Bush Jr. Administration in 2004 intensified the venture of using India as a Eurasian wedge or counter-weight to China. The U.S. aim is to eventually undermine the coalition between Russia, China, and Iran by using India or alternatively to use India as a spearhead against the Chinese. This latter tactic would be similar to the strategy used by the U.S. government in relation to Iraq and Iran, which resulted in the Iraq-Iran War in 1980.

In this Iraq-Iran War model both Baghdad and Tehran were seen as enemies by U.S. strategists and the aim was to get both Middle Eastern republics to neutralize one another. Henry Kissinger summed this U.S. policy by saying the point was for both the Iraqi and Iranian sides to destroy one another. The same scenario could happen and be applied to India and China. The realization of this confrontational project has already been announced by the Indian military. What has long been thought has become public and that is that the Indian military has been preparing for war against Beijing. This is the second element to the question about the Indian military build-up.

The Hindustan Times reported on March 26, 2009:

The Indian military fears a [sic.] ‘Chinese aggression’ in less than a decade. A secret exercise, called ‘Divine Matrix’, by the army’s military operations directorate has visualised a war scenario with the nuclear-armed neighbour before 2017.

“A misadventure by China is very much within the realm of possibility with Beijing trying to position itself as the only power in the region. There will be no nuclear warfare but a short, swift war that could have menacing consequences for India,” said an army officer, who was part of the three-day war games that ended on Wednesday.

In the military’s assessment, based on a six-month study of various scenarios before the war games, China would rely on information warfare (IW) to bring India down on its knees before launching an offensive.

The war games saw generals raising concerns about the IW battalions of the People’s Liberation Army carrying out hacker attacks for military espionage, intelligence collection, paralysing communication systems, compromising airport security, inflicting damage on the banking system and disabling power grids. “We need to spend more on developing information warfare capability,” he said.

The war games dispelled the notion that China would take at least one season (one year) for a substantial military build-up across India’s northeastern frontiers. “The Tibetan infrastructure has been improved considerably. The PLA can now launch an assault very quickly, without any warning, the officer said.

The military believes that China would have swamped Tibet with sweeping demographic changes in the medium term. For the purposes of Divine Matrix, China would call Dalai Lama for rapprochement and neutralise him. The top brass also brainstormed over India’s options in case Pakistan joined the war to [sic.; too]. Another apprehension was that Myanmar and Bangladesh would align with China in the future geostrategic environment.

Although the materialization of a war against China is not a guaranteed event, war preparations are being made against the Chinese. The disturbances within the borders of China in Xinjiang and Tibet and in Myanmar (Burma), which is important to Chinese energy security, that are so widely advertised in the name of democracy and self-determination in the U.S. and E.U. are part of an effort to destabilize and weaken China. It is also in this context that India is involved with operations, such as supporting the Tibetan government-in-exile of the Dahali Lama, that have been destabilizing China.

The Australian military has also announced it is expanding its military in preparation for a forecast major war in the Asia-Pacific region. Japan has also been expanding its military, while Tokyo has been preparing itself to join a NATO-like sister-alliance in the Asia-Pacific that would include Australia, the U.S., and South Korea and be directed against China, Russia, and North Korea. Myanmar and Laos can be targeted too by this military build-up and NATO-like alliance, as can the other Southeast Asian states of Indo-China, specifically Vietnam and Cambodia, if they change their policies.

The Strategic Ties of New Delhi and Tel Aviv: Indo-Israeli Military and Space Cooperation

India launches Israeli satellite.

On January 21, 2008 a new chapter in Indo-Israeli strategic cooperation was unveiled; India launched a Israeli spy satellite, known as TecSAR (TechSAR) or Polaris, into space via an Indian space rocket at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra Padesh. The Israeli satellite was bragged to be mainly aimed against Iran by Israeli sources. Israel’s spy satellite launched by India has greatly enhanced Israel’s intelligence-gathering capabilities against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

The satellite launch by New Delhi has revealed that the Indian government has little reservations in assisting in any Israeli or Anglo-American military ventures in the Middle East against Iran and its allies. Tehran immediately voiced its strong and official disapproval to India for aiding Israeli military objectives against Iran’s national security. The Israeli satellite launch was delayed several times. The Jerusalem Post and one of its noted reporters, Yaakov Katz, published an article that claimed that the delayed space launch of the Israeli satellite was a result of strong Iranian pressure on the Indian government.

Politicians in India opposed to Indo-Israeli military and space cooperation denounced the Indian government’s attempts to present the launch as merely “business as usual” by hiding the military implications and objectives behind an act with underlying hostile intentions against Iran. The Indian government officially argued to the Indian people that the satellite launch was just a commercial transaction between Tel Aviv and New Delhi, but the military implications of the deal reveal that India is no longer neutral in regards to Tehran. The fact that the Israel spy satellite has been described by Tel Aviv as a means to confront Tehran and Damascus (officially described as “enemy states”) is an omission in itself that New Delhi is knowingly an accomplice to hostile acts against Iran and Syria.

The satellite launch was shrouded in complete secrecy by the Indian government. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) which had always announced all its space launches as a symbol of national pride kept silent for the Israeli satellite launch. Large numbers of different Indian groups and people across India condemned the secrecy behind the mission and cited it as a sign of guilty by the Indian government. People’s Democracy, the official mouth piece of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CP-M), complained that the citizens of India had to learn about the details of the launch from Israeli news sources.

Chairman of Tata Group Ratan Tata with President and CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries Itshak Nissan after signing an MoU in New Delhi in February 2008.

The Israeli spy satellite was built by Israel Aerospace Industries, which has major business interests in regards to India. On February 18, 2008 Israel Aerospace Industries, and the Tata Group signed a corporate agreement with Israel Aerospace to cooperate and jointly develop military hardware and products through a memorandum of understanding. Like a tell-tale sign this agreement was announced less than a month after the launch of the Israeli spy satellite built by Israel Aerospace Industries. The Tata Group and its companies also have corporate agreements with Boeing, Sikorsky Aircraft, and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), which are all competing against Russian arms manufacturers.

Indian cooperation with Israel extends all the way into the realm of nuclear politics and policy. On September 17, 2008 at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna a vote was almost unanimously cast for a IAEA resolution urging all Middle Eastern states to abandon making nuclear bombs. In a case of irony, the only state that voted against the IAEA resolution was Israel, which accuses Iran and Syria of pursuing nuclear weapons. Tel Aviv voted against the IAEA resolution, while Tehran and Damascus voted for the it and the U.S., Canada, Georgia, and India all in support of Israel abstained.

New Delhi Deepens ties with the U.S., NATO, and Israel

In military terms, there is a real strategic “American-Indian-Israeli Axis.” New Delhi’s strategic ties with the U.S., NATO, and Israel have been deepening. The strategic axis formed by the U.S., India, and Israel has also been denounced by various political parties and figures across the political landscape of India.

Firstly, the geo-strategic rationale for an alliance between the U.S. and India is the encirclement or containment of the People’s Republic of China. The other rationale or intentions of such cooperation are the neutralization of Russia as a player in Central Asia and the securing of energy resources for both the U.S. and India. In this project, the U.S. sees India as a natural counter-weight to China. The U.S. also has used India in its objective of trying to isolate Iran.

In regards to Tel Aviv, Israel sees India as part of a broader periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” was imagined and utilized as a basis of geo-strategy by Tel Aviv after 1979 when the “old periphery” that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest allies, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” has been conceptualized against both the Arab World and Iran (or compounded as the Arabo-Iranian World). This is why the Israeli relationships with India, Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Turkey are important, and in some cases full fledged alliances.

Likewise NATO and India also have shared interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia, which India sees as part of its own periphery or “near abroad.” These shared interests and the mutual animosity to Chinese energy interests in Central Asia has brought India and NATO, led by the U.S., into the same camp. NATO also sees India as a military partner in its strategy to become a global military alliance. In addition, dealing with Pakistan is also another shared commonality between NATO and India.

The Project for “Greater South Asia” and Indian Ambitions in its “Near Abroad”

As Hindu means everything beyond the Indus and Hindustan the “land beyond the Indus” in ancient Iranian, the word “Industan” can be used to talk about the land and basin around the Indus River. Hereon, this term will be used to refer to the geographic area adjacent the Indus to India’s western flank. [17] This area includes Pakistan and can be extended to include Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Although Industan may not be exactly an accurate definition for the area beyond Pakistan, Industan still fits well, especially in light of Indian geo-political thinking. That is why the term will be used.

Industan, is part of India’s “near abroad” or periphery, and in a sense even a part of an expanded periphery that emerged with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is with this in mind that India established its first military base, at Ayni, on foreign soil in Tajikistan. The converging interests of the U.S. and India are clear in the U.S. State Department’s re-definition of Central Asia as a part of “Greater South Asia.” Greater South Asia is the conceptualization of Central Asia as a region within South Asia, which is synonymous with the Indian sub-continent. The concept of Greater South Asia is part of the project to bring the former Soviet republics of Central Asia into the orbits of the U.S. through cooperation with India, as a regional gendarme.

Turning to Pakistan, India has a shared interests with the U.S. and NATO in the subjection of Pakistan. Pakistan would cease to be a client state of the U.S. or a manageable state, because of a likely revolution that would occur in the scenario of a broader war in the Middle East against Iran or a far larger Eurasian war involving China and Russia. Nuclear weapons in the hands of such a revolutionary government in Islamabad would be a threat to Indian national security, NATO operations in Afghanistan, and Israel. It is in the shared interests of the U.S., NATO, Israel, and India to neutralize such a strategic and tactical threat from emerging in Pakistan. This is why NATO has underpinned the objective of balkanizing Pakistan and why the U.S. has talked about taking over Pakistani nuclear facilities via the U.S. military. The subjection of Pakistan is also territorially and militarily to the advantage of New Delhi, because it would eliminate a rival and allow India to gain territory that in the view of many Indians was lost with the partition of India in 1947.

The Naval build-up in the Indian Ocean and the Geo-Politics of the Sri Lankan Civil War

To the southern borders of Eurasia is the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is the scene of major international rivalries and competition(s). Sri Lanka is also a front in these rivalries. It is in this context that India is part of a major naval build-up running from the coastline of East Africa and the Arabian Sea to the waves of Oceania. Aside from the fleets of the U.S. and its NATO allies that have large presences in the Indian Ocean, the naval fleets of Iran, India, China, Japan, and Australia are also all being expanded in league with this trend of militarization. Also, India and China are working to release large nuclear submarine fleets into the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The naval encirclement of Eurasia and the naval expansion of China are also reasons why U.S. Navy ships have been repeatedly caught violating Chinese waters and illegally surveying Chinese territory.

The water around the Arabian Peninsula all the way around from the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea (Arabian Gulf) carries large fleets of ships either belonging to the U.S., NATO, or their allies. At any point the U.S. and its allies can stop international shipping in these waters. The problem of piracy in these waters is very closely linked to their militarization and is a justification for militarization. This is one of the reasons that the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the Horn of Africa, where Somalia is located, have seen the deployment of the naval forces of Russia, China, and Iran as a strategically symmetric move.

It should be noted that relations between Sri Lanka and India started to unravel in 2009. The Sri Lankan government has accused the Indian government of supporting the Tamil Tigers drive to create a Tamil state by dividing Sri Lanka. Much of this has to do with the geo-strategic struggle between the Periphery and Eurasia in the Indian Ocean.

In this regard, India is not only working against Chinese interests in the Indian Ocean, but it is also actively cooperating with the U.S. and its allies. In the scenario of a conflict between Eurasia and the Periphery or between China and India the maritime route that passes by Sri Lanka would be vital to the Chinese military and Chinese energy security. For this reason Sri Lanka has joined the SCO as a “dialogue partner” under the protective umbrella of Russia, China, and their allies. Not only has Sri Lanka joined the SCO, but it also hosts a Chinese port in a pivotal point in the Indian Ocean and near the borders of India that has put Colombo at odds with New Delhi.

Arms Manufacturer and Nuclear Rivalry in India

Since the end of the Cold War there has been a drive to push out Russian arms manufacturers out of the Indian market by Anglo-American, Franco-German, and Israeli military contractors. France and Israel have also been traditionally the second and third largest weapon sources for India after Russia. Russian manufacturers have been competing fiercely against military manufactures based in France, Germany, Israel, Britain, and the U.S. to remain as New Delhi’s top arms suppliers.

In addition, the elites in New Delhi have been putting their weight behind Russia’s rivals in India. India has become one of the most significant markets for Israeli military hardware and has replaced the void left to Israeli weapons exporters by the loss of the South African arms market that was caused by the collapse of Apartheid in 1993. Additionally, Israel has moved on to replace France as the second largest provider of military hardware to India. This is while France in 2006 and 2008 has made headway in nuclear cooperation agreements with India, following the 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal.

India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA): “Superalignment” or “Counter-Alignment?”

In addition, the U.S. is trying to use the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Dialogue Forum, a loose trilateral alliance of go-between states, against China, Venezuela (and its Latin American bloc that can be called the Bolivarian Bloc), Russia, and Iran. In reality and simplistic terms the IBSA powers are rising, second tier global players. They originally appeared to be engaging in a policy of “superalignment,” the cultivation of strategic relations with all major powers and blocs, as opposed to “counter-alignment.” A global web of alliances, counter-alliances, cross-cutting, and intersecting alliances are beginning to come into view, just like the environment in Europe and the Middle East on the eve of the First World War.

Despite the fact that Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance, along with Germany and the Austro-Hungarians, it decided to side with the Triple Entente after secret negotiations and promises that were never honoured by Britain and France. There are circles in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran that believe that India could act treacherously just as Italy did by not honouring its obligations to its allies, Vienna and Berlin. These suspicions also see this as a possibility even if India entered the SCO as a full member and joined the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition in Eurasia.

In the frankest words, India, Brazil, and the Republic of South Africa are benefiting from the compounded friction between the U.S., France, Britain, Germany, China, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. To clarify, the reason that this friction is best described as compounded is because the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente work as two separate sub-units and sometimes align with the interests of opposing powers. This is also true about cooperation between Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and China. In Eurasia, Russia and Iran sometimes work as a pair, while Russia and China or China and Iran do so at other times. This trend in regards to the Eurasians, however, is changing as the cohesion between Russia, China, and Iran increases.

This behaviour is observable in the positions of both India and Brazil on Kosovar Independence. Both the foreign ministers of India and Brazil, Celso Amorim and Pranab Mukherjee, made a joint statement in Brasilia about the declaration of independence by Kosovo by announcing that India and Brazil were studying its legal ramifications under a wait-and-see policy of the “evolving situation” as Pranab Mukherjee called it.

The Case of Elitism: Where the Indian Elites Stand

On April 2, 2009 the Group of Twenty (G-20) met in London in regards to the global economy and declared that New Delhi would have a bigger role in the global economy. The question about “India’s place in the sun” that is often mentioned in international studies about its emerging status as a global power is not really about India as a nation-state or even the interests of its general population, but is really a question about the position of its ruling and economic classes or its elites (a small minority that make decisions on behalf of the majority) and their place within the global power structure and the international elitist compact that is forming through neo-liberal globalization.

Part and parcel of this enterprise is what appears to be India’s demands for a greater role, or share, for its elites in the global economy through some form or another of expanded interlocking directorships. Interlocking directorships is a term used to describe when the members of the board of directors or managing body of one corporation also serve as members of the board of directors or managing body of other corporations. This is very frequent amongst elitist circles and a way for them to maintain a monopoly on their power. It is these interlocking directorships that are uniting global elites and the impetus for global amalgamation.

India has always had indigenous elites, who in numerous cases worked hand in glove with the British during the period of the British Raj. Starting from the colonial period, borrowing from a term used by the Canadian political economist Wallace Clement, most the Indian indigenous elites became “comprador elites.” Comprador elites are any elite groups that represent or manage the interests of “parasite elites” or foreign elites, which in the case of the British Raj would have been the British elites. A modern example of a comprador elite would be the Indian chief executive officers (CEOs) of Indian subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations, such as PepsiCo India and Monsanto India.

Moving on, the British could not rule most of India without these elites and therefore cooperated with them. London made sure that the Indian elites would be fully integrated into the British Empire by involving them in the administration of India, sending them to British schools, and making them Anglophiles or lovers of all things British. Britain would also grant the Indian elites their own economic fiefdoms in return for their cooperation. The relationship was very much symbiotic and in reality the Indian elites were the biggest supporters of the British Empire and opposed Indian independence. It is only when the Indian elites were offended by London, because of the denial of their requests to have a status within the British Empire like the Dominions, such as Canada and Australia, that the Indian Independence Movement gained momentum.

With Indian independence many of the comprador elites became indigenous elites, in the sense that they were serving their own interests and no longer serving British interests in India. Yet, some comprador elites remained who served British economic interests. For a period of time after Indian independence there were tensions between the Indian indigenous elites and both the comprador elites and their parasite elite backers in London as the indigenous elites moved into the former niches of the British. This does not mean that there were not those within the indigenous elites that made agreements or compromises with the British for the post-independence period.

As time passed and the Cold War supposedly ended, the Soviet Union fell apart, neighbouring China accepted capitalism, and a push for unipolarity accelerated, the different types of elites in India started cooperating even more. More specifically, the indigenous elites of India and foreign elites in the U.S. and E.U. started collaborating, with the comprador elites helping interlock the indigenous and foreign sides even more. The state of elitist modus vivandi, living together in uneasy post-independence armistice, was gradually evolving into broader cooperation. For example, in the financial sector the comprador elites, indigenous elites, and parasite elites have worked together to erode state control of the banking system that has resulted in the mushrooming and growth of private and foreign banks in India starting in the 1990s.

Enter Dr. Manmohan Singh: The Economic Origins for New Delhi’s Strategic Shift?

The Indian shift away from non-alignment and its strategic partnerships is deeply connected to the unseen regime change in New Delhi that was initiated with the restructuring of Indian economic policy. 1991 was a year of change for India. It was also the year that President George Bush Sr. declared that the “New World Order” was beginning to emerge and also the same year as the Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A common denominator between 1991 and India in the late-2000s is Dr. Manmohan Singh, the current head of the Indian government. Dr. Singh received his doctorate (PhD.) as an economist from Oxford University and also attended Cambridge University. He is a former ranking officer of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in India. His positions included Deputy for India on the IMF Committee of Twenty on International Monetary Reform (1972-1974), IMF Associate (1976-1980, 1982-1985), Alternative Governor for India on the IMF Board of Governors (1982-1985), and Governor for India on the Board of Governors of the IMF (1991-1995). Several of these positions coincided with appointments within the government and national cabinet of India. This also includes the position of Dr. Singh as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India (1982-1985).

Dr. Singh was one of the faces behind the restructuring of the Indian economy in 1991, in league with the IMF. He was appointed as the Indian Finance Minister in 1991 by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, a man accused with corruption, during a financial crisis that was brought about by IMF policies. India was nearly bankrupted during this period of reforms and state assets surrendered to domestic and foreign private investors. The economic policies of establishing a truly self-sufficiently Indian economy were abandoned and privatization became wide spread. Economic liberalization pushed aside the long-term goals of eliminating poverty in India and providing high standards of living. The Indian agricultural sector was also infected by foreign multi-national corporations through the so-called “Green Revolution.”

Before being appointed to the post of Indian Finance Minister, Dr. Singh was decisive in creating the financial crisis in India through coordination with the IMF. The policies of Dr. Singh by design also left India without enough reserves to meet its financial commitments. India was also deprived of the means to improve its economy by IMF policies The origins of these policies became obvious when Indian civil servants started complaining of sloppy, American-style, and non-British spelling, writing, and grammar in Indian government finance documents and papers. As a result Indian national assets and wealth were siphoned off and foreign control, including that of the Bank of England, of Indian finances began. 1996 spelled the death of the Rao Administration in India because of the backlash of economic liberalization and the unpopularity of the government.

With the economic shifts of 1991 began the road down the path to political shift. On May 22, 2004 the IMF’s man in New Delhi, Dr. Singh, returned to office to became the Prime Minister of India. This time political reforms including turning India’s back on the Non-Alignment Movement (N.A.M.), Iran at the IAEA, and Russia’s aim to realize the Primakov Doctrine were on the table.

“Clash of Civilizations” in Eurasia

In many Indian circles the colonial bonds with London are still strong and there are views that New Delhi, or at least the Indian elites, are natural members of the Anglo-American establishment. There is also a taint of racial theory attached to these views with links to the caste system and the Indian elite’s Aryan self-concepts. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” notion and Mackinder’s geo-strategic population model are factors behind these views too. Resource competition, demographics, and economic competition are seen as fuel that will inevitably draw India and China into a clash for supremacy in Asia.

"Emerging alignments" of civilizations, per Samuel Huntington’s theory in Clash of Civilizations, 1996.

Is it primarily because of geography, amongst other factors, that Indian Civilization (labeled as Hindu Civilization in regards to Huntington’s model) is said to have a conflicting relationship or affiliation with Chinese Civilization (labeled as Sinic Civilization by Huntington’s model) and Islamic Civilization? This theory is short-sighted; if true where are the centuries of fighting between Chinese and Indian civilization? For the most part both lived in peace. The same applied to Islamic Civilization.

A clash is not the natural ends of interaction between different civilizations or societies. Interaction is always based initially on trade and it is the form of economic trade and the aims of either party that can result in a clash. Foreign powers that utilize a “Clash of Civilizations” scheme do so because of the economy of control. A mere reading of Anglo-American strategic doctrine and observations of Anglo-American practices brings this to light.

A historical look will prove the “Clash of Civilizations” as a theory to be wrong and actually illustrates that Indian Civilization really overlaps with both Islamic Civilization and Chinese Civilization. Moreover, it is wrong to categorize the conflict between Pakistan and India as a conflict between all Muslims and the nation-state of India or even any of the internal fighting amongst Muslims and non-Muslims in India. Vedicists (one of the proper names for Hindus) and Muslims, as well as several other religions lived together in relative peace until the the start of British involvement in India. The animosity between Pakistan and India is a synthetic construct where local elites and foreign powers worked together, not only to divide territory, but to control local groups that have lived together for hundreds of years by alienating them from one another.

Why a “Clash of Civilizations” in Eurasia?

By extension of the utilization of the “Clash of Civilizations” notion, which predates Samuel P. Huntington, India and Vedicism are depicted as enemies by the Pakistani elites as a means of domestic distraction and to direct internal tensions about social inequality and injustice towards an outside source. The outside enemy, the “other,” has always been used domestically to distract subject populations by local leaders. In the case of the Indian sub-continent certain native circles have jointly invested in continuing the British policy of localized conflict as a means of monopoly.

In an over simplistic understanding, even if one were to use Huntingon’s model to explain who benefits from civilizational conflict because of global civilizational rivalry, it would have to be the civilization with the most relationships due to the fact that it has the most rivals to put down. In relation to trade a civilization with the most relationships would also be in a position to initiate the most clashes because it can afford to burn some of its bridges (or cut ties) and is in a position to initiate clashes between other civilizations.

Under a system of cooperation and fair-trade conflict of a grand scale would not happen, but under a competitive international system pushing for monopoly this is a direction being taken by the status quo. This is where critics of global capitalism lament about the unnatural nature of capitalism. This system, however, is not a system of capitalism. It is fitting to apply a new term at this point: ubercapitalism. Ubercapitalism is a system where the framework of regulation, taxation, and law are controlled and directed by elites for their own benefits. In Marxist-Leninist terms the state is an agent of elite interests. Even the capitalist concept of laissez-fair commerce is violated and disregarded because the state and the business environment are controlled by these elites.

If there was fair-trade between these so-called civilizational entities there would be no need for clashes, but this by itself does not mean that there would altogether be no conflict. Ideology, faith, and hubris are also factors, but in most cases ideology and faith have been manipulated or constructed to support the economic structure and to justify conflict and hierarchy. A lack of fair-trade or control over finite resources necessitates manufactured conflict; this is the only way the players controlling wealth can retain their positions.

Despite the talk about a “Clash of Civilizations” the most natural path of social evolution is one of relative peace and cooperation. The conceptualization of Latin America, India, Israel, the so-called West, China, the Muslim countries, the Orthodox Christian countries, and the Buddhist nations as different or distinct civilizations is also a fallacy in itself and very abstract. Distinctions do exist, but they are far less than the similarities and not enough to support Huntington’s civilizational model.

New Delhi’s Trajectory: A Reversion to the British Raj?

Is India reverting to the status quo of the British Raj? India has moved beyond a policy of superalignment. India’s elites believe that to achieve their place in the sun they must buy into the socio-economic and political agenda of the so-called, “Core countries” — the global financial power holders of the Periphery. India’s commitment to the Non-Alignment Movement (N.A.M.) is also dead all but in name. The foreign policy course that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had charted for India has been abandoned.

Internally, for the last two decades India has been colonizing itself. Communities and ethnic groups have been played agains one another. These are both cases where local and foreign elites are working hand-in-hand. The ruling elites, with the aid of the Indian government, are appropriating all forms of resourses, rights, and property from countless people to fuel the so-called economic liberalization process with no regard for their fellow citizens. Water and national assets are being privatized and virtual slave labour is, once again, being institutionalized — everything that Mahatma Gandhi and his follower worked hard to eliminate. The free trade deals being struck by the U.S. and E.U. with India are a part of this process and have been integrating India into the global economic order.

Hand-in-hand with India being part of a global economic order goes the domination of Eurasia. India is on a serious path of militarization that will lead New Delhi towards conflict with China. In such a war both Asian giants would be losers and the U.S. and its allies the real winners.

Due to their flexibility the Indian elite may still change course, but there is a clear motion to exploit and mobilize India in Eurasia against its neighbours and the major powers of Eurasia. This is the true meaning, intent, nature, and agenda behind the so-called “Clash of Civilizations” in Eurasia. The threat of a nuclear war between China and India is real in the words of the Indian military, but what is important to realize is that such a confrontation is part of a much larger series of wars or a wider struggle between the powers of Eurasia and the nations of the Periphery, led by the United States.

Dalai Lama trip strains India-China ties

2009-11-04T22:41:00.000Z

By Giles Hewitt (AFP) – 04 Nov, 2009

NEW DELHI — Twin thorns in the side of India-China relations will get a simultaneous tweak this weekend when the Dalai Lama visits a Buddhist region at the heart of a border row between the Asian giants.

Sandwiched between Myanmar, the kingdom of Bhutan and Tibet, the lush, forested state of Arunachal Pradesh in the Himalayan foothills is governed by India but claimed by China.

Beijing tends to view visits to Arunachal by senior Indian officials as an unnecessary assertion of sovereignty and it protested vigorously over a tour of the region last month by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

A visit there by the Dalai Lama is seen as a double provocation, given China's sensitivity to anything involving the exiled Tibetan leader whom it regards as a "splittist" intent on fomenting separatist unrest in his homeland.

According to Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu, the three-day visit set to begin Sunday "further exposes the anti-China and separatist nature of the Dalai clique".

The mere presence of the Dalai Lama in India, where he has lived for 50 years and set up his government in exile, has been a constant irritation in a bilateral relationship that has struggled to overcome decades of distrust.

China and India fought a brief but bloody war over their Himalayan territories, including Arunachal, in 1962.

The conflict left a festering border dispute which 13 rounds of bilateral talks have failed to resolve.

India's growing economic and diplomatic clout has made it more assertive in dealings with its regional rival and the government has stood firm in the face of increasingly shrill Chinese protests over both the prime minister's and the Dalai Lama's trips to Arunachal.

During a regional summit in Thailand last month, Singh told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao that India considered the Dalai Lama an "honoured guest" while foreign secretary Nirupama Rao stressed that he was "free to visit any part of our country".

Indian strategic analyst Pre Shankar Jha believes such statements are indicative of the failure of successive Indian governments to understand the depth of Chinese concern over the Tibetan issue in general and the Dalai Lama in particular.

"China has not been able to assimilate Tibet, and blames India for its failure because, by giving the Dalai Lama shelter, it has kept the Tibetan political and cultural identity alive," Jha wrote in the latest issue of the influential Outlook magazine.

India, Jha argued, views the Tibetan exiles here as refugees who must simply be discouraged from anti-China political activity on Indian soil.

"Beijing, however, regards them as a well-knit insurgent group that skillfully mobilises international sympathy and uses the Internet to reach Tibetans within China to foment insurgency," he said.

China has ruled Tibet since 1951 after sending in troops to "liberate" the Himalayan region the previous year.

Opposition to Chinese rule has bubbled over from time to time, most recently in March last year when fierce anti-China protests erupted in Lhasa and spread across the region.

Rahul Roy-Choudhury, who runs the South Asia security program at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, agrees that New Delhi and Beijing approach their common disputes from different angles.

"For India the border issue is much more of a concern, along with trade issues. For China, the greater concern is Tibet," Roy-Choudhury told AFP.

"There is no common view on where the priority lies and it's this lack of consensus which is preventing any resolution."

The Dalai Lama, meanwhile, has expressed "surprise" at China's protests over his Arunachal visit and suggested that Beijing was being over-sensitive.

"The Chinese government politicises too much wherever I go," he told reporters on a visit to Japan last week.

The Nobel peace laureate has an emotional attachment to Arunachal which provided his point of entry into India when he fled Tibet in 1959 following a failed uprising against Chinese rule.

During his visit, he will give teachings at India's biggest Tibetan monastery in Tawang, which was briefly occupied by Chinese troops in 1962 before they withdrew.

Proposal to extend General Kayani’s tenure in the air

2009-10-30T20:18:00.001Z

Thursday, October 29, 2009
By Ansar Abbasi

ISLAMABAD: There are reports about the growing mistrust between the military establishment and the Presidency though the latter categorically denies this.

In their background meetings and off-the-record discussions, authorities and officials clearly hint that the situation between the two has really become tense and some even fear that it may lead to a 1999-like situation where the mistrust had grown between the then prime minister and the Army chief.

Analyst and writer Ahmad Rashid recently wrote in an essay, “Not surprisingly they are convinced that the Army’s move was part of a long term plan to unseat Asif Ali Zardari as President and bring in someone more compliant — or at the very least force the president to sack some of his advisers whom the Army loathes.

Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain political icon Benazir Bhutto, has long taken a diametrically opposite view to the Army on foreign policy — he would like peace with India, closer ties to the US and an end to the safe havens the Afghan Taliban have in Pakistan.”

Sources in the government also admit in their off-the-record discussion that the recent talk of “minus one formula” was a deliberate spin on the part of the government apparently to pre-empt any adverse move against President Zardari.

Though the media in that case too was blamed to have popped up the “minus one formula,” it had actually come from Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira and then later repeated by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah.

President Asif Ali Zardari’s spokesman Farhatullah Babar, when contacted on Tuesday, denied that there existed any mistrust between the Presidency and the military establishment.“The reports about the mistrust are not correct and do not reflect the reality,” he said, adding that the security establishment accepts the supremacy of civilian government and parliament.

“It (the existence of mistrust) could be the view of some columnists and writers but there is no truth in it,” Babar said. He said it was a propaganda that was deliberately unleashed in such situations. Babar, however, said that he did not know who was behind this propaganda.

When asked whether the president desires to make some key changes in the military establishment, he said that that this question does not warrant a comment.However, it has been confirmed from more than one sources that President Zardari was desirous of dragging the issue of 17th Amendment by the end of the next year i.e. 2010, so that in October next year he could appoint a chief of the Army staff of his choice which, under the present circumstances, seems to be a remote possibility.

Contrary to President Zardari’s wish to exercise his constitutional powers with regard to the appointment of Army chief, vested in him under the 17th Amendment, the PML-N leadership, however, does not want this to happen.

Instead, like several other political parties, the PML-N is appreciative of the role of incumbent Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani ever since he took over as the COAS. He is considered a professional soldier, who has no political ambitions. Although, Nawaz Sharif never met Kayani, in his private meeting he has been heard praising the Army chief for his professionalism and for redeeming the respect of Pakistan Army after Musharraf’s departure.

During the last two years of his command as the Army Chief, General Kayani earned respect from both within the military and outside for de-politicizing the institution of Army, which was badly hurt by General (retd) Musharraf.

Perhaps not many but his close aides and some friends including journalists, to whom he usually opens up his heart, are aware of opinion the president holds about the incumbent Army chief.

However, a proposal has already been aired and now being discussed in political and bureaucratic circles to give an extension to General Kayani beyond his present three-year term, possibly for another two to three years.

How the president would react to this is not known right now but Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would support the proposal and would possibly be the approving authority to grant this extension by the time we reach October 2010.

US spying on Kahuta since 2003

2009-10-25T20:02:00.000Z

The Nation
By: Shahid Rao | Published: October 23, 2009

ISLAMABAD – Despite the fact that Americans have been permanently housed near Pakistani nuclear installations at Kahuta since 2003 in the guise of imparting training at the Police College Sihala, neither the military nor the PPP regime has dared to dislodge them.
According to reliable sources, the PPP government paid no attention at all to the hue and cry raised by senior police officials against the dubious movements and installation of the American trainers.
It has been learnt that some senior police officials have been continuously raising questions on the quality of training courses being offered by the Americans to the senior police recruits. The officials at the same time claimed that Pakistani police officials could impart much better training courses than that the Americans were providing at present.
But the government turned a deaf ear to all these concerns of senior police officials and made no efforts to close the American training base allegedly involved in monitoring Pakistani nuclear activities.
Police officials, on condition of anonymity asked that even if this training by Americans was necessary at all, why had this very sensitive area been chosen and why this training has continued, risking the secrecy and sensitivity of nuclear installations of the country. They were of the view that Americans had no interest in the area except the intention to monitor the activities at the Kahuta nuclear sites.
Therefore, the sources observed that the government should immediately review this policy of allowing effectively an American base inside the Sihala Police College just nine kilometres away from the sensitive installations of Kahuta.
At present, the Americans are present at the Sihala Police College under two programmes. One is International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Programme (ICITA) a programme of America’s Justice Department and the other one is Anti-Terrorism Assistance Programme (ATAP).
According to the sources, the American base was on a four to five kanal area within the college compound covered with high rising walls and no one even from the senior college management was allowed to enter the so-called American enclave. The Americans have also placed containers as makeshift facility inside the said compound within the college boundaries.
Some police officials also made a revelation that a large size signboard prohibiting the foreigners to enter the areas was installed near Kak Bridge at the beginning of the Kahuta road. But, they added that the same board was replaced from this place just to give permission to the Americans to house themselves near the Kahuta nuclear site located closeby, during the former dictator Musharraf’s regime, in 2003. “Now this sign board prohibiting the foreigners to enter the area has been installed on the road towards Kahuta where premises of the Police College end,” Police officials pointed out to TheNation.
The sources, quoting senior officials, have proposed that the American training programmes could continue at some alternative place.

Agency wants survey of site to assess equipment

2009-10-24T19:58:00.000+01:00

The News
Thursday, October 22, 2009
By Ansar Abbasi & Shakeel Anjum

ISLAMABAD: Pakistani authorities suspect that Americans involved in training of the Punjab Police at the Sihala Police College may have been involved in espionage near the Kahuta nuclear site located close by. However, US diplomats strongly deny this.

A credible government source said at least one Pakistani security agency has clearly indicated in its report submitted to the government that the Americans might have installed radiation detection devices at their Anti-Terrorism Assistance Programme (ATAP) camp situated in the college to monitor activities in the Kahuta nuclear site.

“Concerned authorities may be asked for a joint survey of the ATAP Camp by incorporating technical experts to assess if any interception equipment to detect radioactive rays has been installed or not,” the report said.

The report also revealed that following US pressure, the Ministry of Interior vide its letter number 1/41/2003-Police dated June 29 also granted a no objection certificate (NoC) for import of explosive material by the office of the ATAP.

Like the case of Inter-Risk, now banned, the Interior Ministry issued the NoC for the import of explosives without getting any security clearance from the intelligence agencies.

Interestingly, initially the Interior Ministry decided to issue the NoC but it was subject to clearance by two intelligence agencies — the ISI and the IB — which sought clarification about the quantity and type of explosive and detail of courses.

Consequently, the Sihala College administration was approached, which sought details from the ATAP camp. But instead of providing the details, Robert A Clark and Bob of the ATAP Camp contacted the US embassy, which used its influence and managed to get the NoC bypassing the rules.

The ATAP base camp is located just nine kilometres away from the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL) and housed within the premises of the Sihala college but even the commandant of the college is not allowed to go there. Of late, the US embassy wanted additional space apparently for training purposes but the Punjab government refused to oblige the Americans.

Top authorities in the Punjab government also confirmed to The News that US Ambassador Anne Patterson not only personally met Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif but also wrote to him requesting for additional space at the Sihala college.

They offered additional training to the Punjab Police in the field of firearms and raids. “But we politely refused to offer any additional space,” the source confided to The News, admitting that serious questions are being raised about the presence and conduct of US trainers already present at the Sihala college. A senior spokesman for the Punjab, when approached, confirmed this.

Interestingly, in the last several months no training course for the police officials has been conducted by the ATAP at the college, but American’s presence is well pronounced. Commander of the police academy Nasir Khan Durrani also formally wrote to the top authorities in the Punjab to express his concerns over the activities of the ATAP officials.

Sources also said that US embassy officials were also found visiting the camp quite regularly. They revealed that two Americans working at the Sihala ATAP Camp along with four other Americans of the US embassy were intercepted near Kahuta in July 2009 by security officials of the KRL.

They were detained for 2-3 hours as they could not satisfy the KRL security personnel regarding their visit to the sensitive region.

However, a retired assistant director of the FIA, working with Americans at the ATAP Camp, was sent to take them back who, introducing himself as an FIA officer, freed the Americans and took them back to the camp. The sources disclosed that those Americans along with Pakistani staff riding on 4x4 vehicle, tried to trespass into the restricted area of Kahuta.

The Interior Ministry spokesman was not available to offer any comment on suspected spying of the country’s nuclear programme by Americans or to explain why the Interior Ministry issued an NoC to the Americans for the import of explosive material without getting clearance from security agencies.

The Interior Ministry spokesman, Rashid Mazari, never returns any call from The News. He was contacted by different staffers of The News Investigative Wing during recent weeks but he never responded.

The US embassy spokesman, however, when contacted denied that the US personnel involved in the police training activities at the Sihala Police College were involved in spying of the Khan Research Laboratories. He also denied the installation of monitoring and bugging devices there and explained that the ATAP officials were imparting training to the Pakistan police with the permission of the Government of Pakistan. When further probed, he said, “I don’t know where your story is going.” He added, “The key point that I emphasize here is that all things are being done with the (permission of) Government of Pakistan”.

When asked about the suspected installation of radiation detection devices there, he said, “I am not aware of any radiation detection devices there. There must be some bomb detection equipment for the Pakistani police.”

At one point, he asked The News correspondent, “Do you seriously think that the Government of Pakistan is going to allow us to install radiation detection devices there? Of course not, so I hope that I am not going to read tomorrow that you are going to write.”

He added that the Government of Pakistan was intimately involved and suggested The News to speak to the official spokesman of the Interior Ministry.

When asked about the reported trespassing of American officials and diplomats, he said he was neither aware of it nor had heard anything about it. He explained that the Pakistani diplomats in the US could travel anywhere without any restriction. On the contrary, the United States diplomats have to inform the Government of Pakistan when they desire to travel outstation. “Your diplomats don’t have to do this.”

Meanwhile, the US embassy while responding to a report on Tuesday expressed disappointment at media reports claiming that the Sihala law-enforcement training facility was being used to train foreigners on Pakistani soil.

“The report was factually incorrect and mischievous. The 512 Pakistani police officials who have trained at Sihala could easily set the record straight,” the embassy clarified in a statement published in the newspapers on Wednesday.

It said the US, since 2003, had helped train federal and provincial police officials in a variety of counter-terrorism measures at Sihala. The embassy stated the Pakistan government had proposed using the Sihala training facility, adding there was no “monitoring” equipment located at the facility.

It said that the administration of the Punjab Police College has repeatedly visited the facility, and added that the current commandant has complete, unrestricted access to the facility and all the personnel trained at the facility are Pakistani law enforcement personnel and no foreigners are trained there.

Defends US interests, warns Durrani

2009-10-24T18:53:00.000+01:00

The Nation
Imran Mukhtar | Published: October 22, 2009

ISLAMABAD – The Interior Ministry is browbeating the Commandant Police Training College Sihala as to why he has written a letter to the Punjab, Inspector General of Police (IGP), expressing his concerns over the presence of US security officials in the premises of the institute, the sources told TheNation.
Sources privy to the developments said that the Ministry was annoyed with Nasir Khan Durrani, Commandant Police Training College Sihala as to why he had written a letter to IGP seeking clarification from the Interior Ministry and Foreign Office about the terms and conditions of US security officials’ presence as well as the duration of their stay in the college premises.
The sources said that the Ministry had expressed its displeasure over the action of Commandant and in its reply to the IGP it was stated that the matter could have been discussed verbally and there was no need to write about it.
According to Ministry sources, the Interior Minister, Rehman Malik in his harsh reply to the IGP made it clear that US security officials would not be relocated from the centre and directed him to hush up the matter and stop propagating against it, otherwise Durrani would have to face the music.
The Ministry was also critical of leakage of such sensitive and confidential information to media and directed the IGP to keep secrecy of such sensitive matters in the larger interest of the state, the sources further disclosed.
Nasir Khan Durrani had written a letter to IGP on 15th of August that on the concurrence of Interior Ministry, US security officials were using the site which was part of the college and now it had become a “no go” area for the college administration.
In the letter, it was also said that high explosive material was stored within the premises of the site under the possession of US personnel, which was a security risk for the trainees of the college.
It is pertinent to mention here that Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) are only a few kilometres away from the Sihala College and it is suspected that Americans had installed sensitive monitoring equipments to monitor the activities of KRL.
The spokesman and Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Ministry were contacted for comments; the spokesman was not available for comments while PRO replied that he was admitted in the hospital and thus unable to comment on the issue.

Blackwater arms warehouse in Capital?

2009-10-22T19:54:00.000+01:00

The Nation
By: Imran Mukhtar | Published: October 20, 2009

ISLAMABAD – Kestral Logistics, a warehouse located in the industrial area of Sector I-9/3, and involved in arms trading, is working as the subcontractor of US security company, Xe Worldwide (Blackwater), TheNation has learnt.
The sources claimed that the company had arms deals with Blackwater and was importing heavy arms as well as ammunition for the US company for its ongoing illicit operations in Pakistan.
The sources said that Kestral Logistics was also involved in importing sensitive monitoring instruments for Blackwater, which had been installed at Sihala by the said security company to monitor activities of Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), Kahuta, as well as to keep an eye on the nuclear assets of Pakistan.
It has been learnt that Col (Retd) Shahid Latif and Mujahid, who run Kestral Logistics, manage weapons and such type of sensitive instruments for Blackwater with the support of US Embassy.
This scribe visited the industrial area himself and the suspicious activities of the warehouse employees made it quite evident that the company was involved in some extra-legal business. The warehouse has high walls, barbed wires and no signboard outside the boundary wall, making the activities of the house more doubtful.
Heavy security of the building was also witnessed as scores of security guards were deployed inside and on the main gate of the building. It is pertinent to mention here that even the people working in plainclothes inside the building were equipped with sophisticated weapons.
When the warehouse in charge was asked what kind of business they were running inside the building, he refused to answer, saying “I am not authorised to answer such type of questions” The people of the area were ignorant of the activities of the company and were also curious to know that what type of business activities were being done inside the building?
It is surprising that when the local police was contacted to know that if they had any information about the business activities of the company, the police was also unaware about that.
Habit Khan, additional SHO of Industrial Area Police Station said that the police was already conducting a survey about the complete details of business activities of all the warehouses of that area but he had no information about such activities of any warehouse involved in weapons’ trading business so far.

Establishment conveys

2009-10-17T19:51:00.000+01:00

Wednesday, October 14, 2009
By News Analysis By Ansar Abbasi
ISLAMABAD: Government’s keeping mum over intrusive policies of a foreign power towards Pakistan targeting the Pakistan Army, its prime intelligence agency the ISI and the country’s nuclear programme, has left no option for the powerful establishment but to defend the national interest of Islamabad without much worrying about foreign or local reaction.

The recent dismissal of the Kerry-Lugar Bill in its present shape by the corps commanders’ meeting and the on-going crackdown against foreign and local security agencies in and around the federal capital, convey Rawalpindi’s clear message that enough is enough and there will be no compromise on ISI, no give and take on the nuclear programme and no politicisation of the military establishment.

Last year, there were serious apprehensions raised and even shared with some leading politicians of the country about Asif Ali Zardari and if he, after becoming the President of Pakistan, would show the guts to resist foreign game plan to de-nuclearise Pakistan by weakening the ISI and hurting the military, those apprehensions could be subsided.

Then one of the leading political leaders told me in the presence of a key party man that he was conveyed by the establishment that anti-Pakistan foreign powers would expect from the new civilian government to make key changes in the military including that of the Army Chief, DG ISI, DG Strategic Planning Division etc; bring the nuclear programme under the civilian control; and reform the ISI. The leader also said that he could not trust the head of the state and admitted that a powerful country was after Pakistan and its nuclear programme but said that he would not like to do anything because he did not trust the establishment either because of his own past experiences.

The coming weeks and months, however, showed the things unraveling as was apprehended. The first piece of evidence came in the shape of government’s decision to bring the prime military led intelligence of the country - ISI — under the control of Interior Ministry. The notification was issued, the day Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani flew for Washington via London in his first official tour to the US. However, by the time he arrived at Dallas airport, the notification had been cancelled. But the talks about reformation of ISI continued.

In the meantime a PPP Senator, now sidelined, was told by a senior general that the establishment was getting vibes about an effort to transfer the country’s nuclear apparatus from under the military’s control to the civilian. “This will only be possible over our dead bodies,” the PPP Senator was told but he never conveyed this to the party’s high command.

But later what we saw was a major cut in the budget of the strategic institutions including Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Kahuta Research Laboratories and others. Not an ordinary but one of the top officials of one of these strategic institutions had shared with me some months back his extreme concern about this budgetary cut of the country’s nuclear programme and how seriously it was denting what was generally considered as the topmost priority of Pakistan. He was really feeling helpless and extremely concerned.

Till recently everything was behind the scene and if there was any tension it was not visible as such. The recent operation against Inter-Risk was the consequence of ISI’s work. There is no explanation as to why the Inter-Risk got licences of sophisticated weapons. The Deputy Commissioner Islamabad office record showed the Inter-Risk to have received gifted foreign arms from a local tribesman in Bannu.

What added to the establishment’s worries were the repeated incidents of clashes between the foreign diplomats and local officials in Islamabad. The foreigners in clear violation of law of the land were also carrying with them arms and in one case even pointed gun at an Islamabad police inspector. The ISI was keen to see the foreign diplomat/official, who pointed the gun at the Islamabad police inspector, to have been declared as persona non grate but before the Foreign Office could proceed in this case the Islamabad police made a compromise with the embassy of the foreign country.

In another case, which shook the establishment was the Islamabad police’s initiative to lodge a formal complaint against the ISI after the agency official questioned four foreigners, who were caught red-handed carrying sophisticated weapons near Peshawar More, Islamabad. However, later the Interior Ministry was made to remove the SP on whose order the ISI was booked. The same SP was also said to be instrumental while letting go scot-free another vehicle carrying four foreigners, who were wearing Taliban like look.

Such repeated incidents left no option for the establishment but to check the crossing of limits by the foreigners. Operation against Inter-Risk is a clear message to all and sundry that no one would be allowed to raise private army here. And Blackwater, in any disguise, is not welcomed in Pakistan. While the Islamabad police, on the instructions of the security agencies, was carrying out operation against Inter-Risk, the Interior Ministry was clueless as to what was happening on ground. However, later the Interior Ministry was made to cancel the licence of the Inter-Risk.

While at home we were facing a subtle flooding of Blackwater operatives, in Washington the Kerry-Lugar Bill was in the making. No proper consultation was done with concerned quarters here to assess as to what final shape the bill would take.

Besides the media and amongst politicians, many even in the establishment believe that most of the “contentious” conditionalities concerning army and the security agencies were included in the bill later. The bill looks at the Pakistan’s nuclear programme with abhorrence, paves the way for politicisation of the military by allowing the government to have its greater role in army promotions and appointments, suggests (indirectly) civilian control over the ISI for its possible reformation, talks of furthering the presence of foreigners in Pakistan, condemns al-Qaeda and Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba but is silent about Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and other local terrorist networks including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi that are hurting only Pakistan but not the US, India etc. Instead as Pakistan witnessed the latest terrorist attack on GHQ, reports of Pakistani intelligence agencies suggest that these terror networks are getting support from across the borders in India and Afghanistan.

Pak President contemplatinmg to replace Army Chief

2009-10-12T11:50:00.000+01:00

Sunday 11 Oct, 2009

LAHORE: Amidst rising tension between Pakistan’s civilian government and the country’s military tops brass over some controversial provisions of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, there are reports that President Asif Zardari has been contemplating to replace Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani for his persistent opposition to the USD 7.5 billion American financial assistance programme.

The Pakistani military leadership has already made public its opposition to the Kerry-Lugar Bill by issuing a formal press release following the October 7, 2009 corps commanders’ conference which evoked immediate panic at the presidency and in government corridors. The statement issued by the military spokesman expressed serious concern over some of the provisions of the legislative bill and warned that these could affect ’national security’. Unlike previous no-strings US aid packages, Kerry-Lugar non-military financial assistance bill makes support conditional on Pakistan’s military being subordinated to its elected government, and taking action against militants sheltering on its soil. The Pakistani military leadership’s ire is focused on the Kerry-Lugar Bill’s specific requirements that the US Secretary of State certify, at six-month intervals, that the Pakistani military remains under civilian oversight, even specifying such details as the need for the government to control senior command promotions.

Kerry-Lugar also requires that the Pakistani military act against militant networks on its soil, specifying those based in Quetta and Muridke. However, the Presidency has dismissed the concerns of the military leadership, with President Zardari forging ahead with his unwavering support for the bill. The presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar, while commenting on the press release issued by the military after the corps commanders’ conference, has said that there are established channels for the Pakistan Army to express its views and these should have been followed instead of making public the issue. These developments, especially after the corps commanders meeting in Rawalpindi to discuss the Kerry-Lugar Bill, even caused rumours about President Zardari’s possible sacking of the Army Chief General Kayani.

Amidst all these developments, the Pakistani ministry of defense has informed the presidency in a recent communiqué that seven senior generals of Pakistan Army including Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) General Tariq Majid, and three senior corps commanders are due to retire by November 28, 2010. Well informed sources in the ministry of defense say the presidency has been provided with the most up-to-date seniority list of the 30-plus serving generals and lieutenant generals of Pakistan Army, in the backdrop of the October 7 corps commanders’ conference in Rawalpindi, which expressed serious concerns on certain clauses of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, maintaining that they were bound to affect national security.

The seniority list, which is now carefully being scanned by the presidency, seems to have been updated till October 4, 2009 when four major generals of the Army were promoted by COAS General Ashfaq Kayani to the rank of lieutenant generals, including Maj-Gen Shafqat Ahmed, Maj-Gen Khalid Nawaz, Maj-Gen Alam Khattak, and Maj-Gen Sardar Mehmood. These promotions were made following the September 23, 2009 retirements of four three-star generals including Lt-Gen Muhammad Masood Aslam, Corps Commander Peshawar, Lt-Gen Hamid Khan, President of the National Defence University, Islamabad, Lt-Gen General Raza Mohammad Khan, Director General Joint Staff and Lt-Gen. Shafaat Ullah Shah, Chief of Logistics Staff, GHQ.

However, approached for comments, the presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar strongly refuted media reports that President Zardari wanted to remove General Ashfaq Kayani for making public the concerns of the corps commander to the Kerry-Lugar Bill. He said such reports were in fact a deliberate attempt to undermine President Asif Zardari. He said the issue was being politicized by vested interests despite the fact that the Kerry-Lugar Bill has nothing against the national interests and sovereignty of the country. “Let me make it clear that no one in Pakistan would want the security apparatus or for that anyone to subvert Pakistan’s political judicial institutions and processes. The hype about adverse conditions attached to the Kerry-Lugar Bill is simply unfounded and part of the attempt to delegitimize President Asif Zardari”, Farhatullah Babar concluded.

Between the lines

2009-10-09T20:00:00.004+01:00

The Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani presiding over the 122 Corps Commanders Conference held at General Headquarters on Wednesday. —ISPR

Published in Dawn

By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 09 Oct, 2009

Memo to the Pakistan Army: don’t wait for the revolution in military affairs to get a high-speed Internet connection. Actually, the army could have spared the country a fresh political crisis with even a dial-up connection.

Here’s what it had to do to give the government its ‘formal input’ — the ISPR’s terminology — on the Kerry-Lugar bill: run a search online, download the various iterations of the Biden-Lugar bill, study them and then forward its ‘formal input’ to the government.

If that sounds elementary and facetious, it is. Step back from the howling pack of critics for a minute and ask yourself, is it possible that the Pakistan Army was unaware of the broad contours, if not the specifics, of the Kerry-Lugar bill for all the months it wended its way through Congress?

To believe the army did not, or could not, know is to accuse the army of a staggering level of incompetence. Wednesday’s prickly ISPR statement also has this gem: ‘COAS reiterated that Pakistan is a sovereign state and has all the rights to analyse and respond to the threat in accordance with her own national interests.’ Given that the Kerry-Lugar bill has already been passed by Congress, the army’s interpretation of our ‘rights to analyse and respond’ would appear to be less a diagnosis and more a post-mortem.

Logic, then, suggests that the army was at least aware of what was unfolding in the US Congress. Which leads to the obvious question: what was the signal the army was sending on Wednesday and to whom?

Was it sending a signal to Zardari that it was putting him on notice, that he better shape up and pay obeisance to the army’s pre-eminence or else would be shipped out soon? By now, it’s clear the army doesn’t like Zardari’s way of doing business.

It quickly reversed his bid to put the ISI under civilian control, it slapped down his suggestion of a no-first-strike nuclear posture, it forced him to back off from precipitating a possibly bloody clash during the long march to restore the deposed judges in March — and now it has publicly contradicted the government and suggested the Kerry-Lugar bill impinges on national security. That’s already a long, ignominious list of reversals for a president who has been in office only 13 months. And those are only the differences that we know about publicly.

But like him or not, four factors limit the army’s ability to precipitate change in the civilian set-up headed by Zardari. One, the disastrous end to the Musharraf era has meant that the army’s political credentials are yet to recover. Two, the army has to stay focused on fighting the counter-insurgency. Three, there may be a pro-Gilani/anti-Zardari camp within the PPP, but historically the party has resisted following the dictates of the army. Four, the only other viable political alternative is Nawaz Sharif, but the army continues to eye him with mistrust.

So expect the status quo to hold for now. Indeed, Wednesday’s ISPR statement hints at this: ‘However, in the considered view of the forum, it is the parliament, that represents the will of the people of Pakistan, which would deliberate on the issue, enabling the government to develop a national response.’ Translation: we aren’t happy, but we’re not going to wind up the democratic project — for now. The emphasis still is on ‘shape up’ rather than ‘ship out.’

But the danger hasn’t passed yet. If there’s one thing that is clear from the country’s tattered, tawdry political history, it is that public jousting leaves fatal scars on the psyche of the players involved. A wounded ego can cause all sorts of rash decisions, and both Zardari and the army may yet try and slip a knife in the other’s back.

Other than Zardari, the army is also likely to have been sending a signal to the Americans. Roughly translated, it would read something like this: we’ve got business to do together, but don’t push us; we’re going to get it done as partners, not as clients.

Quetta, Muridke, the nuclear programme, civilian control over the army — there are enough red rags to the army in the Kerry-Lugar bill to make it very angry. But there are bigger issues at stake than just the bill in relations between the US and Pakistan at the moment, and the army’s response has to be seen in that context.

In all the debate and controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s re-evaluation of its own strategy on Afghanistan announced in March, little attention has been paid to the signals that the Pakistan Army has been quietly sending.

While opposing an American troop build-up in Afghanistan, the army is also not calling for a troop withdrawal. In fact, it has been pushing the ‘stability’ line with the Americans: shore up the Afghan government; give more space to our favourites, the Pakhtuns; negotiate with the amenable among the Afghan Taliban; neutralise, or reduce, the interests of players like India; and start thinking about an exit time frame.

In addition to this, it is quite clear that at the operational level, intelligence
cooperation to capture or eliminate the Al Qaeda types as well as the Pakistani
militants attacking the state from their bases in Fata is continuing.

So the army clearly realises the importance of working with the Americans to secure the state’s interests. But it also knows that there is a limited convergence of interests. From the Pakistani perspective, the Americans suffer from two chronic problems: one, they are clumsy and often create a bigger mess; and two, some of their interests in the region are at cross-purposes with Pakistan’s.

Enter the Kerry-Lugar bill into that wary, mutually suspicious relationship. On the one side, you have American officials like Vice President Joseph Biden, partner in the creation of the Kerry-Lugar bill, with his ‘Pakistan first’ theory that essentially portrays the country as a danger to the world and itself.

On the other side, you have the Pakistan Army, which realises the need to work with the Americans on certain issues but also suspects them of trying to undermine Pakistan’s genuine interests and pooh-poohing its security threat perceptions.

The likely result: those here in Pakistan demanding that we slam the door on the Americans after kicking them out will be disappointed; however, we will continue to carp and complain publicly while privately continuing a tightly calibrated, limited security-based alliance.

A method in the madness, then? Perhaps. But the army’s signalling won’t seem so clever if the brinkmanship on the domestic front ends in the collapse of the transition to democracy.

Kerry-Lugar Bill is an insult, Army tells US military

2009-10-08T21:25:00.000+01:00

GEO News
Updated at: 0950 PST, Wednesday, October 07, 2009

KARACHI: As anger mounts over the degrading language and observations in the Kerry-Lugar Bill on Pakistan’s military services and intelligence agencies, the Army conveyed its part of protest to the United States when Commander of International Forces in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal met Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani at the GHQ on Tuesday, informed officials said.

According to senior anchorperson of Geo News Kamran Khan, these officials said that General Kayani told General McChrystal that like the Pakistani people, the military and intelligence services were furious at the observations made on Pakistan’s security establishment in the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Kayani also protested over the controversial statements made by some US officials in recent days.

“General McChrystal returned from the GHQ with an unambiguous message that the terms set in the Kerry-Lugar Bill on the national security interests of Pakistan are insulting and are unacceptable in their present formulation,” according to an official familiar with the content of the meeting.

Informed official sources said that the Army’s strong reaction to the Kerry-Lugar Bill was shared in detail with the government when General Kayani met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Sunday.

In a related development, also on Tuesday, Gilani asked Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to convey Pakistan’s reservations in his meetings with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama’s Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and key members of the US Congress.

While Tuesday’s meeting with General McChrystal provided General Kayani with an opportunity to convey the Army’s serious objection to the controversial sections of the bill in detail, he had lodged an initial protest during his meeting with General McChrystal in Kabul, where he had gone last week toattend the tripartite military conference.

The Kerry-Lugar Bill and its impact on national security interests of Pakistan will be a key subject of discussion when the corps commanders and principal staff officers of the Army meet under General Kayani on Wednesday.

While the nation’s response is currently focused at the controversial content of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the government is also concerned about a growing unregulated arrival and stay of American citizens in Pakistan.

Concerns grew when Pakistanís security agencies recorded various cases of illegal acquisition of weapons by security firms connected with the US Embassy in Pakistan. Prime Minister Gilani, sources said, has already ordered a complete record with specific details and pre-clearance of US citizens entering Pakistan on US government business.

Army top brass to scrutinise US aid bill

2009-10-08T21:18:00.000+01:00

DAWN
Wed 07 OCT, 2009

ISLAMABAD: The Kerry-Lugar bill is expected to consume a fair share of the corps commanders’ time when they meet in Rawalpindi on Wednesday.

There are indications that the US aid legislation is likely to find little support at the General Headquarters and may ultimately sour relations between the armed forces and the government, which favours the bill and claims it as a major foreign policy success.

According to sources, the bill appears unpalatable, not just because of its feared impact upon the nation’s sovereignty, but primarily because it imposes strong checks on the country’s security matrix.

The most contentious parts of the otherwise pro-democracy document that are viewed as highly intrusive by certain circles are three certifications that the US secretary of state is required to provide to congressional committees for continuing security assistance and the format of monitoring reports.

The certifications include confirmation that the government continues to cooperate in investigating nuclear proliferators; is making sustained efforts against terrorists, including blocking support by elements within the military and intelligence network for terrorists, taking action against terrorist bases and acting on intelligence about high-value targets provided to it; and that the security forces are not subverting the political and judicial processes.

Almost all these aspects are covered in the format prescribed for the assessment reports, but an additional stipulation that has sent alarm bells ringing in the military establishment concerns an assessment of how effective a control the government has on the military, including oversight and approval of defence budgets, chain of command, promotions of senior commanders and civilian involvement in strategic planning.

Apart from these, there are hardly any other conditions for the development and economic assistance which forms the core of the bill. Its stated objectives are supporting democratic institutions; assisting efforts for expanding the rule of law and promotion of human rights; aiding economic freedom and development; investing in people, particularly women and children; and strengthening US public diplomacy.

Senior military officials confirmed that they were concerned about certain elements of the bill and saw it as interference in the country’s internal affairs.

‘Obviously the Kerry-Lugar bill is related to security and would be examined at the corps commanders’ conference,’ an official said.

Analysts believe that the apprehensions in the military have played a role in setting the agenda for a public debate on the issue in spite of the fact that the bill supports democracy.

PML-Q secretary general Mushahid Hussain, like many other politicians opposing the legislation, centres his criticism on US double-standards, threats to Pakistan’s sovereignty and security, its destabilising effects and demeaning the country’s dignity.

But he makes a valid point that differences over aid may create a rift between the civilian and military leadership as emboldened political leaders would try to gain influence over the monitoring and control of the armed forces’ professional matters.

The US Embassy’s Counsellor for Political Affairs, Bryan D. Hunt, told Dawn that the rationale behind the conditions was that the Congress felt very strongly that the US should be dealing with civilian governments. ‘Pakistan also agrees that we should be dealing with civilians, and not the military.’

However, he regretted that this shared agreement on promoting democracy was getting lost in the ‘nationalist debate’ that had followed the approval of the bill by the Congress.

Mr Hunt described much of the criticism as ‘unfortunate and short-sighted’.

But more importantly, politicians wrangling over the military-related conditions have lost sight of a caveat that follows the certification clause: ‘The secretary of state, under direction of the president, may waive the limitations… if the secretary of state determines that it is important to national security interests of the United States.’

Seen against a history of US support for military-led removal of civilian governments, there is every likelihood that Washington, in case of any military intervention, may find an excuse for dumping politicians because of its ‘national interests’.

This waiver clause would be handy in such an eventuality.

Covert activities under federal government's nose

2009-10-07T20:09:00.000+01:00

The Nation
By: Maqsood Tirmizi | Published: September 29, 2009

A secret facility outside Pakistani federal capital Islamabad that was being used by DynCorp to impart military training to Pakistani recruits. In March, US Ambassador sought personal intervention of Pakistani officials to get a lincense for the US defense contractor to import weapons and guards to protect diplomats. In September, Pakistani authroties discovered how the Americans were raising private militias inside Pakistani cities.

ISLAMABAD - The owner of Inter-Risk Security Company Capt (r) Syed Ali Zaidi allegedly trained almost three batches of recruits in the Rawat Industrial Area where he was running a training centre under the label of ‘Care and Craft Auto Mobiles.

According to reliable sources, foreign trainers used to visit the alleged training centre to train the recruits. “It was assumed that Zaidi himself was training the people but there were some reports about foreign trainers who used to come there for training the people”, source said. Capt(retired) Ali Jafar Zaidi belonged to the SSG and had been detailed to general (retired) Musharraf and ex Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

Sources also revealed that each batch might consist of 25 to 30 recruits who were given different kinds of training including the usage of sophisticated weapons. These trained guys after completion of their training were reportedly sent or deputed with a foreign embassy’s official,” a source informed.

He also stated that Captain Zaidi was getting $ 2000 for each trained guy while his trained people were getting Rs 40,000 per head as their salary. “The alleged training centre was closed when the police raided the Centre 18/19 September, the source added.

A red coloured three/four floor building with a huge yard is situated in Rawat Industrial Area. The building was surrounded with walls and green sheets while a fence was also used on the walls. Labourers of the nearby factories, when asked, told that the auto workshop may have been closed for Ramazan, but when it was open, no body was allowed to go in. certainly there were no cars to be seen for auto repairs!

It is worth recalling that Islamabad Police raided the house of Zaidi but he was not found while police recovered a huge cache of arms and ammunition including 61 repeater guns, pistols and a rifle. However, according to Zaidi’s lawyer Syed Murtaza Ali, Zaidi had got an interim bail (bail before arrest).

Capital suggestion --- Russians or Taliban?

2009-09-27T18:59:00.001+01:00

Published in The News International

Sunday, September 27, 2009
Dr Farrukh Saleem

Who is America’s enemy number 1? Russians or the Taliban? On August 8, 2008, Russia’s 58th Army invaded South Ossetia. Russian Air Force’s 4th Army of Air Forces and Air Defence bombarded America’s eager ally, Georgia. America — the US Army being fully deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan — could only call out for “both sides to show restraint.”

On November 25, 2008, Peter the Great, Russia’s nuclear-powered Kirov-class battle-cruiser along with Admiral Chabanenko, the anti-submarine destroyer, participated in naval exercises with the Venezuelan Navy a mere 1,200 miles from Miami. Now, that hasn’t happened in the past 20 years. Russia is re-exerting itself over Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan was goaded by the Kremlin to order the US Air Force (USAF) out of the Manas Air Base (being used by the US military to support operations in Afghanistan). Uzbekistan was made to tell the USAF to vacate the Karshi-Khanabad airbase (the US Air Force was using the base to support its war in Afghanistan). In 2008, the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) — with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan as members — held the largest-ever brigade manoeuvres with armoured vehicles, artillery, aviation, anti-aircraft defence and communications units. The CSTO is planning an airbase in Osh and another one in Khujand. Russia is reviving its military installations in Nurek, Kulyab, Dushanbe, and Kurgan-Tyube. The Russian Air Force is sprucing up its rapid-reaction Kant Air Base and the Russian Navy is doing the same with its 338th Communications Hub in Kara-Balta.

Russia is using Iran — they are perhaps using each other — to limit America’s influence. Russia has threatened to supply Iran with S-300 long-range surface-to-air-missile systems that could potentially pre-empt an air strike by the Israeli Air Force. Russia’s Atomstroyexport is building the first VVER-1000/446 reactor power unit for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran. In effect, Russia has managed to defeat America’s attempts to isolate Tehran. Russia is re-exerting itself in the Baltic region — Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Russia is re-enforcing in the Caucasus — Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia is fortifying its will in Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The Russian bear is waking up from its 20-year hibernation. The Russian bear has a window of opportunity because the US Army’s Brigade Combat Teams (the ‘basic deployable unit of manoeuvre in the US Army’) are all deployed; Iraq (45 BCTs), Afghanistan (eight BCTs), Japan (two BCTs), Germany (one BCT), South Korea (one BCT) and Bosnia (one BCT).

Now to the Taliban. The Taliban are essentially a non-extraterritorial entity in the sense that the Taliban do not have transnational ambitions. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is an extraterritorial entity in the sense that Al Qaeda has transnational ambitions. Strategically, that makes Americans amenable to the Taliban. Furthermore, Al Qaeda’s operational capability, prima facie, has been depleted to an extent that Al Qaeda has failed to launch even a single attack on the mainland US since September 11, 2001.

Obama can continue either the ‘war on terror’ or take on the resurging Russian bear; can’t fight them both. In effect, the insurgent timeline is much, much longer than Obama’s political timeline. For America, 2010 is election year while the insurgents have all the time in the world. For America, 2010 means 440 new members of the House. For America, 2010 means 34 new members of the Senate. For America, 2010 means 37 new governors. For Obama, 2011 will be campaign year. For Obama, 2012 will be election year. The insurgents have all the time in the world. Pakistan-Afghanistan is the Taliban homeland. American BCTs are mere visitors here. Russia has the potential to challenge American hegemony; the Taliban don’t. America will have to decide: who is America’s enemy number 1? Russians or the Taliban?

The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: farrukh 15@hotmail.com

Does the west take the Afghans for fools?

2009-09-27T18:56:00.002+01:00

Published in The News International

Sunday, September 27, 2009
By Charles Ferndale

The American commander of the Western forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, says he needs more troops or the war there will be lost within 12 months. He says also that US/NATO forces should kill fewer Afghans and try harder to win over their hearts and minds. “Hearts and minds” is a dreadful cliché, meaning little. But accepting it for the moment, there is no hope whatever of the Western powers winning over the hearts and minds of a people whom they have never even begun to understand. The only way we can win over their hearts and minds is to pull out of their country. I shall not attempt here to educate people who seem unwilling to learn, but I shall say only what is obvious to most people in the war region.

The fighters opposing western presence in Afghanistan, whom we conveniently call “the Taliban,” do so because they think the war in Afghanistan is evil. They are proud to die fighting against this evil. And, in increasing numbers, they are willing to do so. They are fighting a war of national and cultural liberation from foreign oppressors. What we westerners find it hard to grasp is that there are few things about the west that appeal to Afghans. Even if we possessed the virtues to which we lay claim, they would not want to be like us. They do not admire us. So winning over their hearts and minds would require us to leave them alone, which, as I understand it, would be unthinkable for our geopolitical strategists.

Afghans are not easily fooled; they know we wish to tame them and turn them into our obedient servants. Not only do they not like our culture, but to accept it would require them to give up their own culture. It would require us to persuade them that the codes by which they have lived for thousands of years are bad, while the codes of aggressive, opportunistic, dishonest, murderous unbelievers, who are their historical enemies, are better. We could only succeed in this venture by destroying the soul of the Afghan people; by cowing them into submission. They would rather die. Afghans have seen armed opportunists before and they are a proud people. They really do prefer death to dishonour, which is one reason why no one has ever conquered them.

They see our presence in their country as evil, for many obvious reasons. We are a non-Muslim occupying armed force which it is the religious duty of every true Muslim to oppose; we are killing thousands of Afghans (most of whom are unarmed) for no reason acceptable to the families and fellow nationals of those we kill; we are maiming many thousands more; we are killing and maiming their animals; we are destroying their farms and livelihoods; we are destroying their homes; we are imprisoning and torturing their people; we have put power back into the hands of the very brutes from whom Mullah Omer liberated the country (almost bloodlessly) from 1994 to early 2001 (until we destroyed his power and brought to the fore all the worst people in Afghanistan); we are trying to impose upon them a political system that is entirely alien to their culture and that threatens the foundations that supported their culture for hundreds of years; we are corrupt liars who preach at them for their allegedly being corrupt liars; we kill them in the name of false ideals and false promises; we have done nothing whatever to improve the lives of most Afghans, while our industrialists have enriched themselves at the expense of the poor there; we refuse to give an honest answer to the question of why we are there at all, but talk rubbish about protecting our streets from terrorism; Westerners “tending to the needs” of Afghans in Kabul earn at least $300 a day (‘danger money’, though they are not in danger), while Afghans starve and die on less than $1 a day. In Afghanistan, the gap between our precepts and our practices is as tragically wide as is the gap between our incomes and theirs. Afghans are now starving to death, and well over a third of the population is suffering from malnutrition and its attendant diseases. Billions of dollars a month go into Afghanistan and most of it goes straight back out again into the bank accounts of the affluent.

The Afghan war is an excuse to make some people very rich indeed. Almost no money reaches poor Afghans. We are dangerous hypocrites destabilising the region. All this is obvious to all Afghans. They are perceptive people. The means normally used in our own cultures to deceive the public are unavailable to most Afghans. Few read. Few have televisions sets. Few have radios. All they know is that they are fighting the most technologically advanced army in history; it is as heartless as it is advanced. Since the western armies arrived in 2001, pretending to be liberators, thousands of Afghans have died and every aspect of life has got much worse. These are some of the reasons why our military activities are seen as evil by an increasing number of Afghans.

Meanwhile, General McChrystal says he wants more troops, so as to kill fewer Afghans! And he wants the soldiers to learn Pashto, so as to win over the hearts and minds of the people they are used to oppress! God preserve the Afghans from such insultingly, simple-minded dishonesty. Fortunately, few Afghans will have heard this nonsense. If they heard it they would laugh bitterly. The only people who appear unable to see through this sham are western leaders, perhaps because they are party to it.

The writer has degrees from the Royal College of Art, Oxford University, and the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London. He divides his time between the UK and Pakistan. Email: charlesferndale@yahoo.co.uk

The perils of an Israeli airstrike on Iran

2009-09-27T18:53:00.001+01:00

From The Sunday Times

September 27, 2009

American and Israeli military planners have been examining options for an attack on Iran for almost three decades. There is no shortage of possible targets: Iran has dozens of nuclear-related sites that are known to western officials.

Yet military experts in Washington and Tel Aviv acknowledge that a surprise airstrike would be likely to succeed only in delaying Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. It would also present daunting logistical and political challenges with no guarantee that even a sustained assault on known facilities would eradicate Tehran’s nuclear threat.

With President Barack Obama committed to diplomatic pressure, the most likely military scenarios involve Israeli airstrikes that would require mid-air refuelling and long flights through potentially hostile Arab air space. “Anyone who meets regularly with senior Israeli officials knows that Israel is considering military options ... with an understanding that they pose serious problems and risks,” said Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon planner.

The three likeliest targets for an Israeli attack are reactors at Bushehr and Arak and a centrifuge production facility at Natanz. All are 1,000 miles or more from Israel, at the outer operating margins of Israeli air force bombers.

The Bushehr light water reactor is being built and fuelled by Russia and is not yet operational. Any attack on it would be certain to infuriate Moscow and might provoke the Russians into supplying Iran with more advanced anti-aircraft defences.

The heavy water reactor at Arak has been at least partially sheltered from air attack and is not expected to be completed for several years.

The Natanz facilities have also been sheltered underground and are defended by short-range Russian TOR-M surfaceto-air missiles.

The Israeli air force is equipped with US-supplied GBU-28 earth-penetrating bombs designed to destroy underground targets. Israel may also have developed its own variant of a nuclear-tipped bunker-busting bomb.

Yet the real problem for military planners is that no outside agency has a clear idea of where else Iran may have hidden its weapons-related technologies, notably the long-range missiles that might one day deliver nuclear warheads.

“It is doubtful that even the US knows all the potential targets,” said Cordesman. “They may now be in too many places for an Israeli strike to destroy Iran’s capabilities.”

US experts believe that while Israel unquestionably has the military capability — and may have the political will — to mount a long-range attack, it could not sustain the kind of long-term barrage that Washington launched against Baghdad in the early phases of two Gulf wars.

The diplomatic uproar that would be certain to follow any Israeli attack might limit Tel Aviv to a one-off operation that it could never hope to repeat. “That would not be on the scale required to do more than delay parts of the Iranian programme,” said Cordesman.

Only if America joined in would Iran have reason to worry. There is no immediate likelihood of a US military strike; but there are still some in Tel Aviv who believe that an Israeli raid might force Obama’s hand and persuade the Pentagon to join the attack.

The fog of war in Afghanistan

2009-09-27T18:39:00.005+01:00

Any serious scrutiny reveals the claims used to justify Nato's presence to be utterly specious

Published in The Guardian on 23rd August 2009

By Charles Ferndale

On Newsnight on August 2009, while being interviewed by Gaven Esler, US General David Petraeus said that the Afghan war is "not a war of choice". He was echoing President Obama, Gordon Brown, British military officials and others. We are told constantly that Nato forces have to be there to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a training ground for terrorist attacks on our countries. The implication is that we are killing Afghans in their tens of thousands to stop Britons at home from being killed in their tens, or, at worst, in their hundreds.

The claim that we are in Afghanistan to keep terrorists off our streets is false; our presence there increases the threat of terrorism here.

Afghanistan has not been an important planning area for any attacks on western countries and the Taliban have shown no inclination to conduct war against Nato countries outside Afghanistan (so far, but we seem to be doing our best to change their practices). Petraeus said the attacks on the World Trade Towers were planned in Afghanistan. This remark is disingenuous. Osama bin Laden may have been in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks, but had he been in New York, London, Paris or Hamburg, his whereabouts would have made no difference to the outcome. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks resided in Germany, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and were trained (in part) in flying schools set up by the CIA in Florida.

Gordon Brown recently repeated the claim that 75% of the terrorist attacks planned against Britain so far have been planned in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Another dishonest statement. Mr Brown has no idea what number of terrorist attacks on Britain have been planned, nor where they have been planned, so he cannot know what percentage were planned in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The most he can even claim to know is what percentage of the terrorists attacks planned and known to our intelligence services were planned in one of those two countries.

And what about the convenient disjunction in the claims of our officials – that the terrorist plots were planned in Afghanistan or Pakistan? In which country were these alleged terrorist attacks planned? Does Brown think we don't care? If none were planned in Afghanistan, then what relevance have they to our presence there?

For the existence of any such plans to afford us grounds for killing thousands of Afghans in their own country, it would have to be shown (minimally) that such plots could not be hatched elsewhere. Clearly, that cannot be shown. So, even if such plans might have exited, or might occur in future, their existence, or possible existence, offers no grounds for our belligerent presence in Afghanistan.

Western officials talk little of the fact that when the Taliban were in power, from 1996 to 2001, opium production in Helmand was eliminated completely. Newspapers allege repeatedly that the Taliban is financing itself with sales of heroin. The media's favourite estimate of the profit made by the Taliban is $100m a year. How do they know? Second, which Taliban make this money? There is no unified command. There are at least 14 different groups being called "Taliban". Nato officials are probably the source of most claims about the drug trade in Afghanistan. Can they be trusted? Simultaneously with claims that the drug trade is run by the Taliban, we are told that it is run by Karzai's supporters. But Karzai is America's man. Can these commentators have it both ways? Or is the drug trade financing both sides?

Despite the billions of dollars that have poured into Afghanistan since 2001, no help has been given to the poor there. Actually, the condition of the poor has got much worse since 2001, which is why, contrary to yet more dishonest statements by our officials, most Afghans support the Taliban. And the plight of women (outside of the privileged families located mainly in Kabul) has also got much worse since the Taliban were overthrown (hard as this may be for us liberals to believe). The BBC's world affairs editor John Simpson was honest enough to say last week that, had the money spent so far on the Afghan war been spent on the poor, there would be no war there. At last, we see a glimmer of truth in the self-serving, meticulously disseminated "fog" of war.

Jirga – 19th September 2009

2009-09-21T23:01:00.001+01:00

Maj. (R) Muhammad Amir Former Intelligence Officer in fresh episode of Jirga and discusses with Saleem Safi.

Meray Mutabiq – 20th September 2009

2009-09-21T22:57:00.001+01:00

Meray Mutabiq – 20th September 2009

Gen. (r) Hamid Gul and Dr. Pervez Hood Bhai Quaid Azam University in fresh episode of Meray Mutabiq and talked with Dr Shahid Masood.

US 'needs fresh Afghan strategy'

2009-08-31T22:14:00.001+01:00

BBC
31 Aug, 2009

A top US general in Afghanistan has called for a revised military strategy, suggesting the current one is failing.

In a strategic assessment, Gen Stanley McChrystal said that, while the Afghan situation was serious, success was still achievable.

The report has not yet been published, but sources say Gen McChrystal sees protecting the Afghan people against the Taliban as the top priority.

The report does not carry a direct call for increasing troop numbers.

"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," Gen McChrystal said in the assessment.

Copies of the document have been sent to Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

Mr Gates said that although he had not yet seen the report he expected it to show that there were "challenges that remain before us... and areas where we can do better" in Afghanistan.

"There is no question that we have a tough fight ahead of us, but by the same token a lot of positive things have been happening," Mr Gates said.

He highlighted the increase in US and other troops and Afghanistan's recent presidential election, despite continuing violence in the country, but warned that casualties were going to rise as troops tackled the Taliban.

The report came as further results from last week's presidential election were released, with ballots now counted from almost 48% of polling stations.

President Hamid Karzai is leading so far, with 45.8% of the votes counted.

The independent Electoral Complaints Commission says that of more than 2,100 allegations of wrongdoing during voting and vote-counting, 618 have been deemed serious enough to affect the election's outcome, if proven.

Crisis of confidence

Gen McChrystal's blunt assessment will say that the Afghan people are undergoing a crisis of confidence because the war against the Taliban has not made their lives better, says BBC North America editor Mark Mardell.

The general says the aim should be for Afghan forces to take the lead - but their army will not be ready to do that for three years and it will take much longer for the police.

And he will warn that villages have to be taken from the Taliban and held, not merely taken.

Responding to Gen McChrystal's review, Afghanistan's deputy minister of rural rehabilitation, Wais Barmak, said Afghans should have been consulted about military strategy from the start.

"We would have had better achievements, better results, if the Afghans were consulted right from the beginning," he told the BBC's Newshour programme.

He said the government and development agencies should provide services for the people in the aftermath of the military operation.

"That is one way to engage with the people on the ground and re-establish the trust and confidence of the people in their government."

Gen McChrystal also wants more engagement with the Taliban fighters and believes that 60% of the problem would go away if they could be found jobs.

More than 30,000 extra US troops have been sent to Afghanistan since President Barack Obama ordered reinforcements in May - almost doubling his country's contingent and increasing the Western total to about 100,000.

This report does not mention increasing troop numbers - that is for another report later in the year - but the hints are all there, our correspondent says.

But when Gen McChrystal's report lands on Mr Obama's desk he will have to ponder the implications of increasing a commitment to a conflict which opinion polls suggest is losing support among the American people.

The latest Washington Post-ABC news poll suggests that only 49% of Americans now think the fight in Afghanistan is worth it.

In a recent BBC interview, Gen McChrystal said that he was changing the whole approach to the conflict in Afghanistan - from what he described as a focus on "body count", to enabling the Afghans to get rid of the Taliban themselves.

Nato partners

On Saturday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised more support for UK troops in Afghanistan, during a surprise visit to the country.

During the visit he met Gen McChrystal. Correspondents say the pair discussed the need to speed up the pace of training of Afghan troops.

The British Ministry of Defence said it would look closely at any recommendations from Gen McChrystal.

"The UK conducted a review of policy earlier this year and the prime minister set out a new strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan on 29 April.

"General McChrystal's work will be an important input to further planning, and we will work closely with him and our Nato partners moving forward," an MoD spokesman added.

• An earlier version of this article suggested that General McChrystal's report was expected to liken the American military in Afghanistan to a bull charging at a matador [the Taliban] - slightly weakened each time it is "cut".

In fact this remark was part of a more general commentary on US counterinsurgency policy, made by Gen McChrystal in his Counterinsurgency Guidance to units in the field, issued last week.

Russian gov't approves energy strategy until 2030

2009-08-27T23:50:00.000+01:00

MOSCOW, Aug. 27 (Xinhua) -- The Russian government has approved an energy strategy that aims to make full use of the country's natural resources and strengthen its position on international energy markets, Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said Thursday.

The strategy, approved until 2030, would increase domestic oil and gas production, and it outlined three phases for energy development, Shmatko told reporters after a government meeting.

The main goal of the first stage was to eliminate the impact of the ongoing economic crisis on the energy sector and pave the way for post-crisis development. The second stage would focus on improving energy efficiency, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.

By the end of the third stage, Russia was expected to have switched to highly efficient use of traditional energy and stood ready for transition to alternative energy, according to the strategy.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said at the meeting that Russia "should get a well-balanced, effective and modern fuel and energy complex that has a high safety margin" by implementing the strategy.

The Russian economy, heavily depending on the exportation of energy and raw materials, has been hit hard by the global financial crisis.

Russia eyes $2 trillion for energy sector by 2030

2009-08-26T23:20:00.000+01:00

MOSCOW, Aug 26 (Reuters) - Russia plans to invest up to 60 trillion roubles ($1.9 trillion) in its energy sector by 2030 in a drive to boost stagnanting oil and gas output, two sources in the government said on Wednesday.

They said Asian markets would increase their share of Russia's energy export volumes to 25 percent by 2030 from only 6 percent today.

"Europe's share is set to decrease, although volumes will be rising," one of the sources said on condition of anonymity.

Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said Russia's Energy Strategy-2030 plan would be revised on Thursday at a government meeting presided over by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He gave no further details.

One of the government sources said the plan foresaw an increase in Russian oil output to 530-535 million tonnes by 2030 from 481.1 million tonnes in 2008. Natural gas output would rise to 880-940 billion cubic metres from 665 bcm last year, he said.

For this, the authorities plan to set aside a total 60 trillion roubles, or 5.0-5.5 percent of gross domestic product each year.

Energy exports contribute a large share of Russia's budget, but oil output fell last year for the first time in a decade. (Reporting by Darya Korsunskaya and Anastasia Lyrchikova, writing by Vladimir Soldatkin; Editing by Keiron Henderson)

Beyond 200 deaths in Afghanistan: Analysis

2009-08-18T22:29:00.000+01:00

TELEGRAPH

In the two and a half months of the Falklands war, 255 British troops were killed in action.

By Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan
Published: 7:00AM BST 17 Aug 2009

We have lost 204 servicemen and women in Afghanistan in the eight years since 2001.

Why is this tragic, but much less intensive, casualty rate causing so much more soul-searching?

Because counter insurgency warfare is far more opaque than ‘conventional’ combat in its objectives and its progress, and because the government has been much more reluctant to brand the Afghan campaign a war and prepare the population of the United Kingdom for its consequences.

Two questions must be asked when committing troops to battle, and frequently reviewed as the campaign unfolds, especially when critical points are reached, such as now.

First: is the cause worth expending the lives of British soldiers? The cause is no less than the protection of United Kingdom citizens against terrorist attack at home and abroad.

Nearly 150 defenceless British people were killed in the September 11 attack, the 2002 Bali bombing and the 2005 strikes in London.

These three attacks, and numerous Islamist extremist plans around the globe, link back to the vortex of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Both the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain intent on restoring their violent hegemony in Afghanistan. As the central theatre of operations in the war on terrorism, it remains essential that we do not allow this to happen.

It is of equal importance that Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state, does not fall to the extremists, a prospect that would be increased by a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan.

Second: are our objectives achievable? By war, no. By an eventual political settlement, yes. But that settlement can only be accomplished on terms acceptable to us from a position of strength.

We must first undermine the insurgency by continued attrition of its leaders and fighters, and by splitting off those elements that are reconcilable.

We must enable the Afghan government to take over the management of the insurgency as rapidly as possible.

That includes more effective and geographically extended governance, and increased operational capability of the Afghan security forces.

We must extend and maintain the confidence and support of the Afghan people, including protection from extremist oppression, improved prosperity where possible, and critically by convincing them that they will not eventually be abandoned to the Taliban.

None of this will be easy and it will not be quickly achieved. But our government has an absolute obligation to justify its military strategy with sufficient persuasiveness to maintain the support of the nation.

Because as the situation gets tougher for our fighting men and women in Afghanistan the last thing we can afford to do is to falter at home.

Richard Kemp is the author of Attack State Red, an account of military operations in Afghanistan, to be published on September 3 by Penguin.

Analysis: Iran's show of strength from hardliners

2009-08-04T13:09:00.000+01:00

With each day that passes, the hopes of Iran's pro-reform protesters diminish as the Islamic regime consolidates its stranglehold over power after June's bitterly contested presidential election.

By Con Coughlin
Published: 7:58PM BST 03 Aug 2009

Yesterday's ceremony to endorse President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's second term in office demonstrated that the guardians of Iran's Islamic revolution will maintain their dominance of the country's political landscape.

The ruthless efficiency with which the regime, under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader, has set about suppressing the protests means that opposition movements have been driven underground, and now have to rely on terrorist attacks to maintain the pressure on the government.

Last weekend, anti-government protesters were blamed for blowing up a major railway bridge in the south Iranian city of Ahwaz, which Iran's Revolutionary Guards use to transport military equipment.

Such desperate measures are now necessary because pro-reform leaders feel they have no other means of expressing their opposition. But with Mr Ahmadinejad set to serve another four-year term, the regime remains confident that it is strong enough to withstand any challenges it may face to its authority – particularly from the West.

Iran has until September to respond to Washington's offer to "unclench its fist" and engage in direct talks on ending the international crisis over its nuclear programme. But with both Mr Khamenei and Ahmadinejad controlling the key levers of power, the prospects of Tehran undertaking any radical policy shift in its dealings with the West are remote indeed.

India plans to attack Pakistani nuclear installations using Baitullah Mehsud’s gang

2009-07-13T00:43:00.003+01:00

This article was published in The Asian Tribune

Published by editor Asian tribune

Published on June 11, 2009

Islamabad, 11 July, (Asiantribune.com): It is learnt through reliable sources that Indian and Israeli special services units in collaboration with TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan ) -–a terrorist organisation– are preparing an attack on one of Pakistan ’s strategic installation in order to achieve multiple goals. Well trained TTP members, around 750, will take part in this attack. Participation of Indian and Israeli units will be confined to supervision of attack and handling post attack scenario.

India has reportedly released funds to TTP for this sole attack which will create a delicate situation for Pakistani military establishment in the world. There is also information that Indians have already planned provision of some “dirty bomb” (radioactive material) to terrorists of TTP fighting against Pakistani military for this attack.

Pakistan army already has been stretched in FATA as a result of carefully devised strategy of drone attacks by CIA which creates hatred for the army and sympathy of locals for TTP chieftain Baitullah Mehsud. It has become evident from the last three drone attacks in South Waziristan that one of them was carried out on a funeral of a TTP leader who was killed in an earlier attack on the same day.

The question here is; does CIA really want to eliminate Baitullah Mehsud and his terrorist outfit TTP?

Circumstantial evidences and confession of Baitullah’s ex-aides (Haji Turkistan and slain Qari Zainuddin) had confirmed that TTP is much more than what appears in the world media (i.e an anti-USA force in reality is a pro-US and anti-Pakistan entity).

Now this latest intelligence about a possible attack on one of Pakistan ’s strategic military sites in which TTP will play a role of foot soldiers has proved beyond any doubt that TTP is foreign funded proxy force operating inside Pakistan to fulfill agenda of Pakistan ’s enemies (read India and Israel led by US).

CIA and its agents in international media are building a case against Pakistani nuclear weapons advocating the notion that these might fall into wrong hands. According to media reports Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has already said that Pakistani installations are partially under attack from militants.

How this ominous plan will be executed is still not clear but according to reliable sources malicious activities around some of these installations have been noticed. On further investigation by Pakistani intelligence it was revealed that plan of much worse repercussions is under way.

Planning phase of this attack is carried out in Afghanistan where Indians and Israelis are training Afghan forces and intelligence.

During recent operation in Malakand and FATA bodies of dead Afghan nationalists (Most probably trained by same Indian and Israeli instructors) were recovered. It will therefore be no surprise if same Afghan elements also take part in this attack on Pakistan ’s nuclear facilities.

The contemplated attack also puts a big question mark on CIA’s sincerity and credibility since without its active involvement the said plan cannot take off. It may be recalled that the ISI provided information about Baitullah’s whereabouts, at least twice in May 2008, but CIA never attacked his hideouts. Now when Pakistan army has decided to take him out at its own, CIA has suddenly discovered that he is the biggest enemy of US.

Untimely drone strikes have raised many questions about CIA’s intentions in WoT.

1- Is CIA really trying to kill Baitullah for good?

2- If the answer is in affirmative then why now when Pakistan army is there on ground and PAF is carrying out aerial assault much more accurately than CIA’s drones?

3- Why CIA didn’t act earlier when information was passed to it by Pakistan ?

4- Why CIA/US never provided necessary gear to Pakistani forces to trace Baitullah or at least jam his communication system?

5- Why CIA attacked North Waziristan when Pakistan army’s operation in South Waziristan is underway and thereby opened a second front?

Answers to these questions lead only to one conclusion. CIA is protecting TTP to enable India and Israel to accomplish their task.

The high intensity of Pakistani operation backed by PAF in FATA has sent a clear signal to the masterminds who have conceptualised the attack on nuclear instalation that they are running short of time. The CIA instead of helping Pakistan to focus its major attention towards the chief foe Baitullah seemed to be helping RAW and Mossad to buy more time. While Pak army is trying to keep North Waziristan peaceful for the time being in spite of the deadly attack on one of the military convoy, CIA has provoked Hafiz Gul Bahadur, chief of Uthmanzai Wazir tribe by carrying out a drone attack. Gul Bahadur is already very annoyed over repeated drone attacks and suspects that Pak governent and army have a role in it.

It is suspected that CIA is playing a double game by carrying out token drone attacks against strongholds of Baitullah and at the same time is not sparing Gul Bahadur. The idea is to activate all the fronts simultaneously and make the position of army precarious.

All this proves that role of CIA is no different than that of RAW and Mossad.The trio have common objectives against Pakistan’s nuclear program which is seen as an obstacle in the way of accomplishment of US grand designs in the region. The purpose of intended attack on any Pakistani nuclear site, even partially successful or botched, will give legtimacy to their propaganda campaign that:

-Pakistan ’s nuclear weapons are unsafe and can fall into “wrong hands”. hence the need to roll it back or to be taken over by IAEA teams to ensure its “security”.

-Pakistani military is too inept to protect its own buildings and installations.

-National confidence and local support for Pakistani military that had shot up after its highly successfulopeations in Malakand Division will be considerably reduced.

-The situation will be further complicated if Pakistan , after such an attack, try to defend its nuclear program through taking a rigid stand.

-This will provide an opportunity to international media and anti-Pakistan establishments to approach UN and get Pakistan declared as a vulnerable state incapable of protecting its strategic assets physically.

-It will provide an opportunity to further defame and isolate Pakistan on the plea that it is not ready to work with “international community” to “secure” its vulnerable nuclear program.

-It would allow USA to obtain UN sanction for imposing measures on Pakistan to safeguard its nuclear instalations through nuclear inspectors of IAEA as was the case of Iraqi military sites in 1990s.

-This will also give a license to international inspectors (CIA operators always in their ranks) to access every building inside Pakistan on pretext of a possible vulnerable nuclear site.

- Pakistan could be subjected to harsh sanctions in case it resists any UN declaration against its nukes. Pakistan had already gone through similar sanctions in 1990s when there was a virtual ban in international market on selling weapons to Pakistan .

-Currently Pakistan is in process of getting its entire military upgraded under a comprehensive program to be complete by 2019. If sanctions hit Pakistan now, then most of this upgrading will face a halt as a result of ban put on sale of sophisticated weapon systems to Pakistan. India on the other hand would be free from any such restriction and thus would be in an ideal situation to tilt strategic balance heavily in its favour.

-Another dimension to this possible attack is its impact on Pak-China relations in future. Currently Chinese are working on a number of projects along with Pakistani engineers.

If Pakistan fails to protect Chinese technicians on its own soil and in case of any harm or deaths of Chinese in this kind of an attack, it will force China to think seriously about its cooperation with Pakistan .

Indo-Isreali collaboration to destroy Pak nuclear program dates back to early 1980’s. However, each time the duo conspired to execute the surgical strike, Pakistan reacted promptly. The response was so severe that the aggressors had to abandon thir plans. This time Indian plan is much more disturbing as foot-soldiers and logistical support will be provided from within Pakistan so this plan has much more probability of success than what Indians tried in 1980’s.

Stage is set and time is running short for both sides. Some “so-called” local commander of Al-Qaeda in “ Afghanistan ” have already threatened that Pakistani nuclear weapon will be used against US. They are convincing the world that any attack by Al-Qaeda against US can take place either in Afghanistan or in US or even worse inside Pakistan. The idea is to prove that Pakistani nuclear weapons are the most dangerous thing on the planet. (Like Iraqi WMDs were once).

Apart from raising security measure on all nuclear installations, Pakistan must also convey a very strong message through all possible channels that any such attempt against Pakistan ’s nuclear program will have an opposite and much more intense reaction against India and Afghanistan and situation can easily turn out of control and a full blown war can erupt in the region.

Pakistan’s foreign office must become much more clearer and vocal about what Pakistan will do if its nuclear program comes under any attack. Pakistan has already stated its policy in clear terms that in case of any attack on its nuclear instalations, whether external or internal, the onus will be on India alone and Pakistan would respond accordingly. Pakistan has earmarked targets inside India to cater for such a eventuality.

It is time Pakistan must prepare a dossier to present to international media and establishments about Indian involvement in Pakistan ’s North West creating unrest and supporting insurgencies. For the sake of its future generations Pakistan will have to play very carefully but with a vigor and honor and if Pak-US relations are hindering this in future we must have a second thought about these so-called strategic relations.

CHINA'S STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS

2009-07-12T05:47:00.002+01:00

by Major General Yang Huan

Major General Yang Huan was Deputy Commander, Second Artillery (Strategic Rocket Forces), PLA. His paper is excerpted from Defense Industry of China, 1949-1989 (Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 1989).

China's Second Artillery Corps, a strategic missile troop of the People's Liberation Army, mainly has the task of strategic nuclear counterattack. The research as well as the development of strategic nuclear weaponry are the foundation for constructing and developing the Second Artillery Corps.

China's strategic nuclear weapons were developed because of the belief that hegemonic power will continue to use nuclear threats and nuclear blackmail. From the day of establishment, the People's Republic of China faced a major economic and technology blockade from hostile powers. Further, it also faced serious nuclear threats from hegemonism. To oppose nuclear war, smash nuclear blackmail, safeguard national security and sovereignty, and keep peace throughout the world, China needed a powerful national defense and its own strategic nuclear weapons. At that time, the Central Committee of the Party, Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai made a wise decision to make China's strategic nuclear weapons independently. This decisive and timely step paved the way for developing our strategic nuclear weapons.

As early as 1956, Mao Zedong pointed out, "We also need the atom bomb. If our nation does not want to be intimidated, we have to have this thing." In June 1958, he stated, "To make atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, and intercontinental missiles, from my point of view, is perfectly possible in ten years." Later on, he further instructed us that development of strategic nuclear weapons should "have some achievement, and be fewer but better." What Mao Zedong said gave us a clear guidance on our effort to research and manufacture our strategic nuclear weapons. It is not hard to imagine how difficult it was during those days in China to develop advanced weapons with a weak economy and a backward scientific and technological community. But under the leadership of the Central Committee of the Party and its specialized committee, all Chinese people gave strenuous support to the cadres, the experts, the technicians, and the PLA officers and men who shouldered the responsibility of developing our advanced weapons. These people exerted themselves to carry out a determined struggle for the final victory. They lived plainly, they worked hard, they devoted themselves selflessly to the projects, they relied on their own efforts in research and manufacturing, and after an extremely hard struggle they surmounted the difficulties at last.

On October 16, 1964, our first atom bomb exploded successfully; on October 27, 1966, we succeeded on our nuclear missile trial test; on June 17, 1967, our first hydrogen bomb was exploded. These tests allowed made us step into a new period, that of mastering the development of nuclear missile weapons. China's achievements within such a short period of time evoked a strong response all over the world. The Chinese Government has declared again and again, "China is compelled to conduct nuclear tests and develop nuclear weapons in order to break the nuclear monopoly; China's nuclear weapons will be used definitely for self-defense; the Chinese Government has always advocated an all-round prohibition and a complete destruction of nuclear weapons in the world." This is the fundamental stand China maintains on possessing nuclear weapons.

In 1958 we built up the special Artillery Corps, then on July 1, 1966, the Second Artillery Corps was officially established with approval of the Central Military Committee. In the last 20 years, the Corps has gradually been developed and strengthened and equipped with different kinds of nuclear missile weapons it made by itself. The Second Artillery Corps trained in the use of weapons, coordinated training, battle simulation and tactical exercises, and successfully launched different types of missiles and improved both its ability to master strategic weaponry and fighting capability. At the same time, it strengthened its research work on the formation of weapons systems, weapons use in battle, and development of such systems, and improved weapon quality. It has also done a great amount of work on command systems, battlefield construction, weapons testing, and maintenance and repair. The Second Artillery Corps has become a well-trained strategic missile corps with a certain level ofnuclear counterattack capability.

For over 30 years, we developed our strategic nuclear weapons from short-range to medium-range to long-range and intercontinental missiles, and provided our army with a number and variety of missiles and nuclear weapons. Our armed forces are now capable of striking back with nuclear weapons, which greatly strengthens our national defense and our international status. Additionally, it helps to weaken the nuclear monopoly of the superpowers, contain nuclear war, and safeguard world peace.

Since the 1980s, the international situation has relaxed somewhat, but the role of military force in national security policy has not decreased. The number of strategic weapons owned by the big nuclear powers has already surpassed the saturation level, and weapon technology has reached a very high level, constituting a serious threat to world peace and security. At the same time, the problem of nuclear proliferation and especially the concern of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands have become more and more serious, and there is no end to the regional arms race. We should have a clear mind and maintain vigilance when facing such a situation, and should also follow the development of the high technology in the world, maintaining our strategic nuclear weapons in accordancewith the actual conditions of our country.

The research and development of our first generation of strategic nuclear weapons were a great success, but we must understand that there is still a great distance between the world's advanced level of technology and our own. Our historical experience has shown that for the sake of our national security interests, and for world peace and stability, we must develop strategic nuclear weapons and keep pace with the advanced world level. Ours is a developing country that is engaged in economic construction. Our Party Central Committee and the Central Military Committee have, according to scientific analysis of the international situation and in consideration of the actual conditions of our country, made decisions to change the strategic thinking that guides our military development. Under the current situation, the development of our strategic nuclear weapons should focus on long-term goals. We should develop advanced weapons that suit our national defense strategy, and at the same time we should improve current weapons to raise the quality and the comprehensive fighting capability. Science and technology should be our guideposts, and we should aim for advanced levels of 21st century technology, strengthening the study of single-item high technology weapons. We should work hard on the survival, fast reaction, accuracy, and break-through and high-command technologies for weapons systems. These should be the direction for the development of our strategic nuclear weapons. We should conduct research in the following aspects:

Improve the survivability of the strategic nuclear weapons. Survivability is an important factor in waging a nuclear counter strike. We should strengthen research on small, solid fuel and highly automated mobile missiles and on the technology of invisibility, for reinforcing defense work against nuclear or nonnuclear strike; and improve the survivability of missiles before launch and in flight.
Improve the striking ability of strategic nuclear weapons. Accuracy and power are chief factors used to judge weapon striking power. To increase the credibility of limited nuclear deterrence, we should work to improve accuracy, and our new generation of strategic weaponry should be of higher precision.
Improve the penetration technology of strategic weapons. Strategic weapons can be used in actual fighting only when they can penetrate enemy defenses and reach and strike the target a necessary condition to protect itself and destroy a target. In an era when space technology is developing rapidly and a defense system with many methods and many layers is appearing, we should pay special attention to the study of break-through technology.

To sum up, we conclude that the development of strategic nuclear weapons is one main aspect in strengthening national defense and is an important symbol of modernization for our military. In future development, the advanced qualities of strategic weapons will rely to a large degree on the development of the high technology and reflect the comprehensive power of a country. To safeguard more effectively our national security and territorial integrity and sovereignty, plus the socialist modernization construction, we must have a modernized army and improve and develop our strategic nuclear weapons. We should, in accordance with the actual conditions of our country, develop a limited number of high quality strategic nuclear weapons that could be used effectively to strike back against an enemy using nuclear weapons to attack us. We should strive to build a small in number but effective strategic missile corps with Chinese characteristics, and make further contributions to the safeguarding of our country, world peace, and the progress of mankind.

Where Iron Is Bigger Than Oil or Gold

2009-07-11T01:40:00.003+01:00

Published in The New York Times

By BETTINA WASSENER

Published: July 10, 2009

HONG KONG — Oil, gold and rice are the commodities that often grab headlines. But for countries like China and Australia, it is the price of iron ore that can determine whether their economies go boom or bust.

For months, China has been locked in an intense, behind-the-scenes dispute over iron ore pricing with the world’s top miners, having refused the price that steel makers in other major countries like Japan and South Korea had already accepted.

The price haggling is an annual ritual that pits China, now the world’s third-largest economy, against exporting countries like Australia, as each acts in its best national interest.

In the latest escalation of tension in negotiations this year, China has detained an Australian national who is the chief negotiator for one of the world’s mining giants, Rio Tinto, and accused the person of stealing state secrets. Three Chinese nationals working for Rio Tinto have also been detained.

Whatever the details of the accusations, the detentions underscore the growing importance and extreme sensitivity of what might to outside eyes appear an arcane, dull and mysterious business: iron ore.

It may not command the political attention of oil — over which wars are waged — but iron ore ranks among the most important commodities in the world, the main ingredient in steel that goes into construction, bridges and ships.

China, which is rapidly expanding its cities, imports about half the world’s supply each year. Japan, the world’s second-largest importer of iron ore, imports about 15 percent. South Korea, Germany and France follow.

About 850 million tons of iron ore were shipped around the world in 2008. With prices averaging about $90 per ton last year, the market totaled between $75 billion and $80 billion.

Still, the intricacies of the iron ore market remain below most people’s radar. No wonder, as most of the world’s ore, unlike oil or stocks, is not traded on global exchanges. Instead, contracts are agreed upon annually between producers like Rio Tinto, BHO Billiton and Vale — which account for three-quarters of the market — and the steel makers who buy the ore, like Bao-steel Group of China and Nippon Steel Corp. of Japan.

Each year, these companies meet behind closed doors in talks that can last as long as six months to determine the price at which various types of ore are to be shipped during the next year.

This benchmark contract system accounts for about 70 percent of the market and is a system that gives miners the predictability they need to make the huge capital outlays needed to extract the ore from the ground. Buyers also enjoy that predictability. But with so much of the price fixed a year in advance, the stakes are huge.

And this year, with the jury still out on how rapidly the world’s economy — and with it the demand for iron ore — will recover, the annual round of pricing negotiations has been especially intense.

Japanese and South Korean steel makers recently accepted a price 33 percent below the previous year’s level. But breaking the usual practice of adopting these earlier agreements, China has dug in its heels and is holding out for a larger reduction, of as much as 45 percent.

It can afford to. China’s growing economic importance, especially in a year of crisis like this one, has given the country’s negotiators unprecedented clout.

“In the last 15 years or so, the global market has gone from 400 million tons a year to about twice that — and all that has been because of demand from China,” said Peter Strachan, an independent analyst in Australia. “In the last five years or so, China has become absolutely dominant in the marketplace.”

In the world of iron ore trade, the relationship between China and Australia is especially tight-knit. China takes up 80 percent of the ore shipped from Australia, said another analyst, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The arrests could hardly have come at a more critical juncture in the negotiations, he said.

Hindu mentality's sickness - Women being raped by the Indian Army in Occupied Kashmir and World Silence

2009-07-11T01:05:00.007+01:00

There have been thousands of cases of Muslim women in Occupied Kashmir being raped by Indian soldiers and then killed in a pathetic attempt to hide the crime. The world is silent over this issue and one wonders why?

Hindu mentality is a mentality that creates class system. It divides human beings into four classes and those are,

Brahmans ; the ones who 'came' from Head of God ( which one though?) so therefore meant to rule

Kashtri ; the ones from Arms so meant to fight

Vesh ; the ones coming from stomach hence farmers

Shudras; the ones from feet hence Untouchables and slaves

This sick concept is the doundation of Hinduism. Hindus specially the brahmans are by nature cowardly and very cunning. They have been priests in the past and try to rule but getting someone else to do the fighting for them specially the sikhs. The Sikhs are a brave and noble people and they have been used by the Brahmans to fight for their evil designs in the past. But the Brahmans have not even spared these Sikhs and massacred them in Golden Temple in thousands and then Delhi riots.

Rape is an act always committed by a coward and a sick man. Rape is the worst of crimes and such people are not human beings but even worse then animals and they should be dealt with accordingly aswell. Brahman mentality has always been one behind these rape acts and its always these brahmans who commit these acts.

There are numerous examples and one of them is Gujrat. In Gujrat, thousands of Muslim women were raped by Hindu mobs. Similarly, In kashmir thousands of Muslim women have been raped and then killed by these sick Hindu inspired by their sick mentality.

"... a threat to the villagers that all males would be killed and their women taken to army camps to breed a new race if there was any militant activity in their village." (Brig. R. P. Sinha, Indian Army, March 8, 1991)

This is the reflection of the sick mentality of Hindus.

Recently, we again have seen the same thing repeated again and these are the cases which have been reported. There have been countless incidents never reported. These are the values and standards of the Indian Army's hindus and the World is just watching.

Where did the ''Pakistani Taleban'' terrorists come from?

2009-07-11T00:38:00.008+01:00

The Pakistani military has sorted out the Swat issue and killed many terrorists there. These terrorists could not be called human beings. The barbaric acts they committed were unspeakable and its difficult to find similar examples in modern history. The questions are,

Where did these ''Pakistani Taleban'' come from?
Who provided weapons to them? Surely weapons dont grow in Swat.
Who provided them with the training?
What were Saudi, Yemeni, Syrian, Egyptian people doing there and how can they be Taleban?
Who provided and paid for the Thuraya communication system?

How did all of this happen? There are a lot of questions and Pakistani government and the one of the best spy agencies in the world, ISI knew all the answers. Yet the 'India appeasement' policy of PPP resulted in a silence of Government officials.

Indian consulates all over the border of Afghanistan and Paksitan, the Durand line, have the answer. What are these consulates doing there since 2001. Surely this is plenty of time to start a campaign across the border. How do you go about it, thats simple. Find some pashto speaking Indians living in Afghanistan and start training new operatives in Pashto language. Prepare them for future role and give them the appropriate training on the model of Tamil Tigers. Teach them the basic Islamic teachings and specially related to Jihad and twist the teachings to suit your goals. Now you have got a militia. Supply them with the weapons on which they have been trained and send them over through the bribed and cultivated assets.

There is another source. The uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras who are in alliance with India. Why not use them and send them over. Hence, there have been many cases in Swat when the so-called Pakistani Taleban Came over, they couldnt speak Urdu, Punjabi or Pashtu or any language spoken in Pakistan at all.

Thats how it all started but India has failed yet again as it failed in Srilanka. Similar strategy was applied in Srilanka following the same Akhand Bharat philosophy inspired by Chanakya but it FAILED. Similar movement was created and supported in Balochistan but the results were not as India expected. Indian RAW is trying its best to destabilize Pakistan and isolate Paksitan but instead Pakistan's importance is growing and now after Pakistan has offered to the USA to negotiate between the Taleban and the USA for a long term solution in Afghanistan, India must be fuming.

Pakistan says Taliban leader will talk to U.S.

2009-07-11T00:25:00.004+01:00

July 10, 2009

By Michael Ware
CNN

(CNN) -- Pakistan's military has declared that not only is it in contact with Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar but that it can bring him and other commanders to the negotiating table with the United States.

The acknowledgment of on-going communication with Taliban forces using sanctuary in Pakistan to launch military strikes against U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan is part of a new diplomatic overture to help the Obama administration find an end to the long-running conflict.

In a CNN exclusive interview, Pakistan military spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in return for any role as a broker between the United States and the Taliban, Pakistan wants concessions from Washington over Islamabad's concerns with longtime rival India.

And senior U.S. officials have told CNN the Obama Administration is willing both to talk to top Taliban leaders and to raise some of Pakistan's concerns with India.

With NATO's Afghan force commanders conceding the military fight against the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan is at a "stalemate" and that a recent influx of American combat troops is hoped to break the deadlock, the consensus among military and diplomatic figures in the region is that the United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan militarily.

Most believe a resolution to the conflict will ultimately be a political, and economic, one rather than a military victory that will necessitate negotiations with the Taliban. Such a resolution will have to be struck with the involvement of Pakistan, India, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, as well as NATO and the United States.

And with the Pakistan military, with its intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), now going public with its offer to act as broker to help initiate talks, this could be the first opportunity for a breakthrough in ending the Afghan war that began with the U.S. invasion in 2001.

Abbas told CNN after its "very intense relationship" with militants during the fighters' alliance with the United States during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Pakistan military is now still in contact with Taliban commanders such as Mullah Omar, Jalalladin Haqqani and Mullah Nazir and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, leader of the militant Hizb-e-Islami group.

"That's right, the ISI was in the forefront of the whole struggle against the Soviets. Now, by maintaining the contacts with the organizations like [Mullah Omar's Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] doesn't mean that that state policy is [to be] providing them physical support or the funding or training," Abbas said.

After the 9/11 attacks Pakistani policy to support the groups did a "U-turn", he said.

"And the state followed, the army followed, the ISI followed. Having said that no intelligence organization in the world shuts its last door on any other organization. So therefore the contacts are there. The communication remains. But it doesn't mean you endorse what they are doing in Afghanistan. You know you have nothing to do with it because your plate is full."

And even further, Abbas said, the Pakistani military has the ability to get the Taliban to the table with the United States to broker a cease-fire by jump-starting a dialogue between the warring parties, Abbas said.

"That's right. Dialogue," Abbas said. "Eventually, one would have to return to the dialogue table. I think that can be worked out. That is possible."

Retired Gen. Hamid Gul, a former head of the ISI, Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA, is known as the "Godfather of the Taleban." He, too, said talks can be arranged. In terms of U.S. interests in Afghanistan, he said, there is only one man who can make it happen.

"Mullah Omar, nobody else," Gul said.

He insisted the Obama administration, through the Pakistan military, can access Mullah Omar. "Why not?" he said, "Is he a terrorist by any definition? Has he indulged in any act of terrorism?"

Gul added a stated Taliban condition to any discussions, the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan first, was not necessarily a fixed demand and, with concessions from Washington, could be softened and make way for negotiations to begin.