tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10130143257619630392024-03-13T22:51:09.832+05:00National SecurityThis blog discusses social, political, economic and governance issues which, directly or indirectly, impact national security.Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-18347116320547491572014-04-10T14:30:00.002+05:002014-11-23T00:45:30.346+05:00Pakistan's interest in Kashmir is as legitimate as that of Russia's in Crimea<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ilccVp21tYM/U0ZkeJAdp-I/AAAAAAAAAGI/T8ZCaGfpVwA/s1600/crimea.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ilccVp21tYM/U0ZkeJAdp-I/AAAAAAAAAGI/T8ZCaGfpVwA/s1600/crimea.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">By: <b>HUSSAIN SAQIB</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Russia has finally annexed Crimea,
heretofore a part, and as much as 50% of landmass, of Ukraine, on the pretext
of overwhelming majority of Russian population living in the peninsula. The
annexation was formalized after a referendum, dubbed sham by the western media.
Almost every member of the international community voiced concern over Russia’s
actions. Even non-Western states such as China and even Iran also made clear
their support for the principles of non-intervention, state sovereignty and
territorial integrity – oblique criticisms of Moscow’s disregard for
cornerstone Treaty of Westphalia norms. Russia got support from the countries
in its area of influence like Cuba, Venezuela and Syria. The world was,
however, bewildered at the stance adopted by India, claiming to be World’s
largest democracy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Has New Delhi, a new-found darling
of the West, betrayed international community? Most probably yes, because West
had pinned hopes on India to become a counterweight to China to serve US
interests in Indian and Pacific Oceans and South China Sea. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Let’s see what India’s stance
on Russian incursion into Crimea is: New Delhi <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/india-backs-russias-legitimate-interests-in-ukraine/">respects
Russia’s “legitimate interests”</a> in Crimea. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Surprised anyone? No. This is
because India has a history of its own incursions into its neighboring states that
are weaker and dependent upon India. The cases of Bhutan and Sikkim are
historical evidence to establish that for India, principles enunciated in the
Treaty of Westphalia are not applicable as long as it can easily usurp and
annex its weaker neighbors. It even
tried to make an incursion into China in 1962 but failed after a humiliating
defeat at the hands of Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) of China. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Apart from the fact that the
West feels betrayed at the hands of India, latter’s stance raises one
disturbing question: If Russia has legitimate interests in the Crimean
peninsula because of majority of Russian population, why this principle cannot
be applied to the valley of Jammu and Kashmir and why India does not recognize,
or respect, Pakistan’s legitimate interests in the valley? The basic principle
for partition of India was faith; the Muslim majority Kashmir valley must join
Pakistan as against its forcible occupation by India. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Why India has deployed a large
chunk of its army in Kashmir to suppress the movement against Indian occupation
in which tens of thousands of innocent lives have been lost? Why a demand for a
plebiscite in Kashmir, promised by India’s prime minister, angers India every time
it is raised at the UN? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">India’s desire to realign itself
with Russia in the upcoming bipolar world is welcome but even the most ruthless
stance in international relations is taken on some principles. If the principle
is that forcible occupation legitimizes the stance, then India is doing no
favor to its democratic posture which is exposed to the risk of further erosion after
the current elections being fought on the basis of <i>Hindutva. </i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-70624258706632182112014-02-27T13:03:00.000+05:002015-03-07T21:04:03.526+05:00Indian Submarine fleet is not only vulnerable, it is not even enough<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hcDTsdQrCr4/Uw7xAmwNQlI/AAAAAAAAAF4/-z84d_simvE/s1600/INS_SINDHURATNA_360_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hcDTsdQrCr4/Uw7xAmwNQlI/AAAAAAAAAF4/-z84d_simvE/s1600/INS_SINDHURATNA_360_1.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Indian Chief of Naval
Staff has resigned after a recent incident on board INS Sindhuratna, a
Russian-built conventional submarine in Indian Navy. He is being hailed for a
graceful exit but he did not quit for nothing; the challenges faced by Indian
Navy under his watch, and particularly its submarine fleet, are enormous. The
fleet is not only unsafe, it is depleting faster than expected raising alarm
bells. Indian defense planners are genuinely worried about Navy’s combat
capabilities with a fleet which would be as big as Pakistan’s in a period of
two years. India’s global ambitions to serve its own interests and those of the
US, in Indian Ocean and the Pacific have been completely ruined.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Bookman Old Style, serif;">Related Story:<u> </u></span><a href="http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2012/11/indias-scorpenes-project-runs-into.html" style="font-family: 'Bookman Old Style', serif;"><b>India’s
Scorpenes project runs into snags as its submarine fleet nears depletion….</b></a></span></h2>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Bookman Old Style","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Indian Navy has two major
issues which expose it to severe risks; its safety record is very poor with at
least 10 mishaps reported in the last seven months, and its fleet is depleting
fasted than expected. This is something which has worried India’s defense
bosses and they have expressed their unease very clearly. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According to a report by <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/indian-navy-s-10-mishaps-in-last-seven-months-488782?pfrom=home-otherstories">NDTV</a>,
there were 10 incidents in Indian Navy in the last seven months. These
incidents included fire on board and casualties. These incidents are; death of
18 sailors after explosion, fire on submarine INS Sindhurakshak in August,
2013, when the sub was docked at a high-security dockyard in Mumbai. The vessel
tilted and sank nose-down. The fire on country’s only aircraft carrier INS
Viraat in September and other incident damaging subs and ships are numerous. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">India’s defense planners
have projected that the Indian Navy's submarine force levels will be the lowest
in its history by 2015. This is in the backdrop of China’s scaling up its
underwater capabilities, says a secret report of the ministry leaked by <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/threat-from-sea-submarine-force-to-be-weakest-by-2015/article1-1039493.aspx">Hindustan
Times</a>. According to this report, Indian Navy will be left with merely six
to seven submarines, including India's first and only nuclear-armed ballistic
missile submarine INS Arihant, as it begins phasing out the Russian Kilo class
and German HDW Type 209 submarines next year. The report warned India had
"never before been poised in such a vulnerable situation" and the
undersea force levels were "at a highly precarious state".<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Indian Navy currently
operates 14 submarines, including a nuclear-powered attack submarine leased
from Russia. However, the "viable strength" of its submarine arm is
much less, factoring in the operational availability of the boats. As against
this, China operates close to 45 submarines, including two ballistic missile
submarines. China may plan to construct 15 additional Yuan-class attack
submarines, based on German diesel engine purchases. Yuan-class boats could be
equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems to recharge their
batteries without having to surface for more than three weeks, a capability
currently unavailable with the Indian Navy. The ministry is genuinely worried that
if undersea capability is eroded, there is an inverse increase in both
capability and strength of the Chinese and Pakistani navies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-83846502170382711102013-02-02T23:02:00.000+05:002013-02-03T03:46:19.103+05:00Handing over Gwadar Port to China is now too little too late….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-98VP1okUoLI/UQ1T_MRFnuI/AAAAAAAAAFE/-g6kG966YJw/s1600/Gwadar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-98VP1okUoLI/UQ1T_MRFnuI/AAAAAAAAAFE/-g6kG966YJw/s400/Gwadar.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If
we infer from empirical evidence that Gwadar Deep-sea port on Makran Coast is
first of the three major factors of Balochistan insurgency, it will not be an
exaggeration. The other two factors are natural gas and oil reservoirs in
Balochistan which are “weapons of mass destruction” attracting attention of the
West and the USA; and of course Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. The Gwadar Port has
both commercial and strategic significance. It commercial significance hurts
economic interests of Pakistan’s so-called friends in the <i>Umma</i> and its strategic importance hurts India and the US. The port
was built by China and is undoubtedly a precious gem in the String of Pearls.
It gives China a shortest possible route for its import of oil from the Gulf
and it gives China and Pakistan a strategic advantage over Indian-built
Chabahar port West of Gwadar in Iran.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">India
and the USA along with UAE had openly opposed the construction of the port
through funding and </span>fueling<span style="font-size: small;"> armed resistance in Balochistan. Major outcome of
this insurgency is inability of Pakistani government to build enabling
infrastructure of rail and roads through Balochistan thus making the port
dysfunctional. The operator of the port, Port of Singapore Authority had no
long-term stakes in the infrastructure; therefore, it remained dormant while
the port was dysfunctional. During this
period, the insurgency remained under check except for media war fought by
separatists highlighting the issue of their foot soldiers’ having disappeared. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">However,
the situation is changing and there is a gross danger of wide-spread insurgency
and renewed wave of fighting because of a recent decision of Pakistani
government to say goodbye to Port of Singapore Authority and hand over
operation of Gwadar deep-sea port to a Chinese corporation. It does not augur
well for Pakistan, at least in the near term. This will usher the country in general
and the province of Balochistan in particular, into a renewed spate of fierce
fighting, killings, terrorist attacks and enhanced level of insurgent and
separatist operations. <span style="line-height: 115%;">Those opposing this port will try once again to
activate the insurgency and do whatever they can to fund and arm the insurgents
to make it impossible for China to make the port functional and build the
enabling infrastructure. This is what they have been doing ever since construction
of the port started.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This decision will inject a certain amount
of realpolitik sense to the rhetoric of higher-than-mountains and
deeper-than-oceans Sino-Pakistan relations. The United States and Pakistan
are not exactly on the best of terms, China is a rising power, they share a
common interest in containing India which is in direct conflict with US
interests in the region. As a result, there has been the <a href="http://www.securitydefenceagenda.org/Contentnavigation/Library/Libraryoverview/tabid/1299/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2593/Pakistan-asks-China-to-build-naval-base.aspx" target="_blank">occasional press story</a> about
closer ties, which begets the inevitable U.S.-based blog posts about <a href="http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/08/31/china-to-add-pakistans-gwadar-port-to-string-of-pearls/" target="_blank">China expanding its "string of
pearls" strategy</a> of more deep-water ports in the
Asia/Pacific region. There are some analysts who would want us to believe that
this latest development would neither please China nor annoy the US. According
to them, a rising China with global ambitions is unlikely to supplant the
United States in Pakistan, according to Chinese experts on Pakistan, as well as
Pakistani and American officials. And while Pakistan’s latest flirtations with
Beijing have been received cordially, Pakistani officials have walked away from
their junkets with far less in hand than they might have hoped. This is because
“China’s core interests lie elsewhere — in its competition with the United
States and in East Asia,. China has shown little interest in propping up the
troubled Pakistani economy, consistently passing up opportunities to do so.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">According
to a New York Times story, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/world/asia/chinese-firm-will-run-strategic-pakistani-port-at-gwadar.html?ref=world" target="_blank">Chinese Firm will Run Strategic Pakistani Port</a>, the
fate of Gwadar, once billed as Pakistan’s answer to the bustling port city of
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has been a focus of speculation about China’s
military and economic ambitions in South Asia for the past decade. Some
American strategists have described it as the westernmost link in the “string
of pearls,” a line of China-friendly ports stretching from mainland China to
the Persian Gulf, that could ultimately ease expansion by the Chinese Navy in
the region. Gwadar is close to the Strait of Hormuz, an important oil-shipping
lane. But other analysts note that Gwadar is many years from reaching its
potential, and they suggest that fears of creeping Chinese influence might be
overblown.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The
New York Times is confident that despite Pakistan prostrating itself before
China, Beijing has been extremely leery of getting too enmeshed in that
country. It has rejected repeated requests for military basing, and only
now has a commercial Chinese company agreed to manage a port that appears to
be the Pakistani exemplar of "white elephant. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The
handing over of port operations to Port of Singapore Authority was flawed in
the first place. This port should have been operated by China from day one. The
decision at this stage is too late too little to say the least. But it will have
perilous fallout for the province of Balochistan, for the country and the
security establishment. The Court and the media, in the meantime, will have a
field day for the reasons best known to everyone. </span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-1521367201058643222013-01-09T12:50:00.001+05:002014-11-26T23:40:03.691+05:00Afghanistan will continue to be epicenter of regional instability even after 2014 ….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Pw2u7bOSKE/UO0fnw2NmAI/AAAAAAAAAE0/in_PSK1Asqk/s1600/Afpak.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4Pw2u7bOSKE/UO0fnw2NmAI/AAAAAAAAAE0/in_PSK1Asqk/s320/Afpak.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><b>HUSSAIN SAQIB</b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Those
who have pinned hopes for peace and stability in South Asian region on withdrawal of coalition
forces from Afghanistan in 2014 are in for a rude shock and disappointment. The region
has all the potential plunge into more instability after competing interests of Pakistan, Iran,
India and China come into play and each stakeholder tries, through its proxies,
to have its pound of flesh. If history is any guide, Afghanistan is destined to
live in war and bloodshed or, to the horror of the world, be captured and ruled
by the Taliban. The Taliban proudly claim to have resisted, fought and forced
the draw-down and, thus, are the </span><i style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">bona fide</i><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">
contender for the throne of Kabul. If we build a future scenario on the basis
of aftermath of withdrawal of Soviet forces in February, 1989, the picture that
would emerge is not in the interest of any of the power brokers. The worst
victims of the death and mayhem will be Afghanistan itself followed by
Pakistan. Pakistan is primary target of terrorists of all hues but after the
draw-down, the world at large will experience a tidal flow of terrorist
activities.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
US has considered in detail the possibility of handing over Afghanistan to Afghan
National Security Forces. This would also be a recipe for disaster because
credible sources have indicated near complete infiltration of the Taliban in
Afghan National Army. Recent incidents of <a href="http://passivevoices.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/an-alarming-shift-from-blue-on-green-to-green-on-blue/">Green-on-Blue</a>
attacks have confirmed the worst fears of security analysts. Common Afghans are
no less hostile to the coalition forces which has amply been demonstrated by
successful attacks of the Taliban in the heart of most-guarded district of the
Afghan capital. These attacks could not be successful without the aid of, and
connivance with, the local Afghans. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
coalition (read: the US) would, thus, be back to square one after withdrawal of
its troops and would have wasted trillions of taxpayers’ dollars and precious
human lives in Afghan misadventure. This does not include “collateral damage”
in thousands killed in Pakistan and Afghanistan and destruction of physical infrastructure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to an <a href="http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=pers&nid=1576">analysis</a>
of a senior Pakistani diplomat, American policymakers need to face up to three
harsh realities in Afghanistan. One, the US-NATO presence in Afghanistan is now
opposed by the majority of Afghans. The circle of alienation has widened
progressively. At first, the ousted Taliban were the aggrieved party; US-NATO
tactical errors and expanded military presence in south and east Afghanistan
extended the alienation to most Pakhtuns. The corruption of Karzai and his
coterie deepened popular hostility. Two, for different reasons, both of
Afghanistan’s critical neighbors —Pakistan and Iran — are now anxious to ensure
the withdrawal of US-NATO troops and have no incentive at present to support
Washington’s policy objectives to transition power to a ‘moderate’ Afghan
government.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Americans
have such a remarkable knack for turning friends into foes for no plausible
reason. Iran cooperated initially in ousting the Taliban and installing
the Tajik-dominated regime in Kabul. But its inclusion in George W. Bush’s
‘axis of evil’ and the subsequent escalation of US sanctions and military
threats against Iran’s nuclear program have placed Tehran firmly among
America’s detractors in Afghanistan. Simultaneously, the US relationship with
Pakistan has deteriorated to unprecedented depths. The aerial shooting spree
which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on the border added ultimate injury to the
insult of the major strategic reversals that Pakistan’s involvement in
America’s ‘war on terror’ has entailed — a hostile Tajik-dominated regime in
Kabul, a fight with Pakistan’s own Pakhtuns and militants, an open back door
for India to do mischief in western Pakistan, the collapse of the Kashmiri
freedom struggle, and the one-sided US ‘strategic partnership’ with India. To
top it all, the US has accepted the Karzai-Tajik narrative that it is the ‘safe
havens’ in Pakistan, rather than internal Afghan disaffection that is driving
the insurgency against the foreign forces in Afghanistan. It is a most
convenient excuse for failure, for US generals and politicians.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
third reality is the growing opposition to the Afghan war in America. If the US
army had been a conscript force today, as in Vietnam, and those who were
fighting and dying were not only the children of the poor but also the rich,
the Afghan adventure would have been long over. In the US Congress, calls for
withdrawal now emanate from both left and right. Some hard-liners say that the
aim of defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has been achieved. Most are weary of
expending more money and blood for objectives whose strategic value to the US
is, at best, marginal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">With
these realities, it is not difficult to anticipate that the Taliban can exploit
the popular disaffection to bring about an internal collapse of the Kabul
regime. Anticipating the growing compulsion for US withdrawal, and their
inevitable victory, the Taliban will negotiate with the US on their own terms. With
nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, the possibilities of Israel’s
misadventure in Iran with US help have diminished but with sanctions still in
place, the US is virtually all alone to deal with the mess it has created for
itself in Afghanistan. Although its relations with Pakistan are improving after
Salala incident, the trust deficit still continues to haunt the relationship.
With growing anti-US sentiment in Pakistan, it would be impossible for any
administration in Pakistan to go out of the way and bail out Americans from the
Afghanistan conundrum. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
US has failed not only in achieving its objectives of Afghanistan misadventure;
its complete withdrawal will unleash a series of terrorist attack outside the
South Asian region where al Qaeda has extended its franchise. According to an
analysis by <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/terrorists-will-bounce-back-2013-7932">The
National Interest</a>, developments elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa
will compound the emergence of this new threat in South Asia. Although al Qaeda
al Jihad is based on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, it influences threat
groups in North Africa, the Levant and the Arabian Peninsula. Groups from
outside the region, notably the Middle East, are likely to return to
Afghanistan and play primary and peripheral training and operational roles.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to this analysis, recent developments would catalyze the spread of terror
activities Middle East and Africa and draw people in hordes to al Qaeda message.
The Israeli attack in Gaza in November 2012 increased global Muslim resentment
and anger against the West. Africa is developing as a new epicenter of
terrorism. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) expanded from North Africa to
the Sahel. AQIM shared its expertise with Boko Haram (BH) in Nigeria. In
November 2012, Abu Bakr Shekau, its leader, expressed BH's solidarity with
associates of al Qaeda al Jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Somalia and
Yemen. After Qaddafi's fall, North Mali has emerged as a training ground and a
battlefield. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Therefore,
the withdrawal of coalition forces from Afghanistan will usher the world at
large and particularly the Muslim countries in Asia, Middle East and Africa to
a new era of infighting, civil wars and terrorism. Functionally and regionally,
developments in Afghanistan will be the most influential. The Salafi-Jihadists
and a segment of Islamists consider Afghanistan “the mother of all battles.” If
the jihadists reconstitute Afghanistan for a second time, it will affect not
only Western security but also will impact Asia’s rise. Driven by success,
returning fighters will reignite conflicts in Kashmir, Xinjiang, Uzbekistan,
Mindanao, Arakan, Pattani, tribal Pakistan and other Muslim lands. With half of
India already in the clutches of insurgency, the emerging scenario will only
help strengthen instability of the South Asian region.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-67879715911876344232013-01-07T19:35:00.000+05:002013-01-07T19:41:17.811+05:00US military's boss needs Israel's blessings for his appointment....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4GuP-C9SLv8/UOrc5Zw1B_I/AAAAAAAAAEk/GqFOGw1PjC0/s1600/israel_lobby.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4GuP-C9SLv8/UOrc5Zw1B_I/AAAAAAAAAEk/GqFOGw1PjC0/s320/israel_lobby.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: left;">The nominated boss of US military machines has
to fight his way through Senate confirmation proceedings before he takes the
driving seat to stop and think about US global wars. He is a staunch critic of
Israel and some believe that if he had earned ire of Israel, he may have to
work very hard to be appointed US Defense Secretary.</span><span class="apple-converted-space" style="text-align: left;"><span style="background: #FAFAFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Criticizing
Israel is no less than an act of blasphemy and criticism by someone from the US
can dash all his hopes to be someone important in the administration. Sen.
Chuck Hegel from Nebraska and a decorated Vietnam veteran, recently nominated
to take the reins of US war machine as Secretary Defense is expected to face
tough resistance from pro-Israeli lobby in the Senate. His acts of commission
include the unforgivable stand against Israel. His appointment is subject to
confirmation by the Senate where Republicans are keenly awaiting to quiz him on
Israel and his other controversial views resented by Israel. They openly
describe him to be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state
of Israel in our nation's history. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Does
his nomination for the coveted slot give any indication of US ignoring the
concerns of its ally, Israel? Can he survive the onslaught and be confirmed by
pro-Israeli lobby in the Senate? Let us see.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to </span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9784034/Chuck-Hagel-to-face-questions-over-Israel-views-ahead-of-defence-secretary-nomination.html"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
Telegraph</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">, despite being a fellow Republican who sat in
the Senate for the party from 1997 to 2009, Mr. Hagel holds markedly less
hawkish views on foreign and military policy than many former colleagues. The
66-year-old Vietnam veteran endorsed Mr. Obama, a Democrat, in 2008, having
criticized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and urging a less gung-ho approach
to America's alliance with Israel. In a 2006 interview he said that the
"political reality" of Washington was that "the Jewish lobby
intimidates a lot of people up here", prompting allegations that his views
verged on anti-Semitic. But he dismissed the criticism by aligning himself with
US interests saying, "I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States
senator.” Mr. Hagel also voted against sanctions on Iran and urged Israel to
engage in direct talks with Hamas, the militant Islamic group.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">He
is the one who, without mincing his words, clearly stated the motive for
attacking Iraq in 2003. He said, “People say we're not fighting for oil. Of
course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do
you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Michael
Moore, in his </span><a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33530.htm"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">article</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
addressed Mr Hagel saying, “thank you, Chuck Hagel. We may not agree on much,
but we agree that politicians should tell the truth about war and peace and
life and death. We're all in your debt for that -- especially since, when it
comes to Iraq and oil, President Obama's first Republican Secretary
of Defense, Robert Gates, </span><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/09/16/us-usa-iraq-gates-idUSN1618999120070916?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">couldn't manage it</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Mr
Hagel may or may not sail through hostile confirmation proceedings in the Senate,
but his nomination indicates that Obama administration is not impressed with
the policies of present Israeli administration. This could be due to many
reasons, chiefly among them being Prime Minister Netanyahu's open
preference for the Republicans in the US election two months ago.
According to </span><a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/2013159114491198.html"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">ALJAZEERA</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">,
one reason for Obama's apparent indifference may be that there is almost no
possibility that Netanyahu will not be the next prime minister. The
only question is whether Netanyahu's next government will be as far right (and
pro-settlement expansion) as his current government or much farther to the
right. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Israel’s
stakes in who-occupies-White-House are very high. Every Israeli is aware that
without the support of President Obama, Israel would be in desperate straits.
The United States provides Israel with billions of dollars of aid a year, aid
which is used to purchase the weapon systems that sustains Israel's
"military edge" which enables it to both maintain the occupation and
defend itself. That aid also provides Israel with the economic cushion it needs
to preserve its immunity to the recession that has afflicted most of the world.
It is the President of the United States who decides whether to stand
(virtually alone) with Israel at the United Nations, using veto to block any
resolution that Israel opposes. It is the President who has adopted Israel's
position on Iranian nuclear development as his own, leading the effort to
punish Iran with sanctions and reiterating Israeli threats that there will be
war if Iran develops nuclear weapons (despite the fact that Israel is said to
have some 200 warheads).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">In
short, Israel is almost entirely dependent on the President of the United
States. As for Congress, it matters too but, on all foreign policy matters, it
is the President who leads. That is how the United States Constitution works.
It is the President who defends the national interest abroad. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">But
there is an emerging consensus by analysts that US interests are being damaged
by Israel's current course, because an Israeli government dominated by
ultra-nationalists, racists and fascists impacts on US standing throughout the
world. After all, the world (and not just the Muslim world) understands that Americans
are Israel's enabler. By opposing Hagel and preventing his nomination, pro-Israeli
lobby is trying to show to the administration that they are a force to reckon
with. That is probably why it is time for President Obama to send a clear
message to Israel by nominating former Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of
Defense. There is only one way to send a message to Israel that will be heard:
It will be by nominating Hagel. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><i>Please also read:</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><a href="http://passivevoices.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/can-chuck-hagel-survive-the-onslaught-of-pro-israeli-lobby/">Can Chuck Hagel survive the onslaught of pro-Israel lobby?</a></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-62250886548645738992012-12-15T15:39:00.000+05:002015-04-05T23:30:36.300+05:00The sixth warfare domain: Human brain under attack…..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FZsBE2axbds/UMxSlM7CpXI/AAAAAAAAAEU/luv0fKhi3LM/s1600/brain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FZsBE2axbds/UMxSlM7CpXI/AAAAAAAAAEU/luv0fKhi3LM/s320/brain.jpg" height="189" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></i>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><b>Hussain Saqib</b></span></div>
<i><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br />The
conqueror of the world is the one who conquers hearts</span></i><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">-</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;">Iqbal, poet
philosopher</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">Winning hearts and minds has always been
the ultimate objective of any war because without winning hearts and minds, the
victory cannot become sustainable. A rough translation of the poetry of great
Oriental poet philosopher quoted above says it all in a poetic manner. By conquering
hearts, he definitely meant winning hearts and minds. In Oriental poetry heart
always meant mind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">Experts have been working on this
enterprise for a fairly long time. They don’t call it winning of hearts and
minds; in their own lingo they describe it as hacking of human brain. In this,
they are not talking about winning hearts and minds per se, they are working on
“capturing” the brain which houses the mind. If they succeed, they will
introduce the latest domain, sixth of a series, of the warfare domains. Traditionally, the warfare was limited to
land, sea and air. Then the fourth domain of space was added. It was further
extended to the fifth domain; the cyberspace. But now there’s a sixth and
arguably more important war-fighting domain emerging: the human brain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">According to an article titled <i>Hacking the Human Brain: The Next Domain of
Warfare</i> which appeared in <a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/the-next-warfare-domain-is-your-brain">WIRED</a>,
this new battle-space is not just about influencing hearts and minds with
people seeking information. It’s about involuntarily penetrating,
shaping, and coercing the mind in the ultimate realization of Clausewitz’s
definition of war: compelling an adversary to submit to one’s will. And the
most powerful tool in this war is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface" target="_blank">brain-computer interface</a> (BCI) technologies, which
connect the human brain to devices. Current BCI work ranges from researchers
compiling and interfacing neural data such as in the <a href="http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/" target="_blank">Human Conectome
Project</a> to work by scientists hardening the human brain against <a href="https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/neuroscience-meets-cryptography-designing-crypto-primitives-secure">rubber
hose cryptanalysis</a> to technologists connecting the brain to robotic
systems. While these groups are streamlining the BCI for either security or
humanitarian purposes, the reality is that misapplication of such research and
technology has significant implications for the future of warfare.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">Where BCIs can provide opportunities for
injured or disabled soldiers to remain on active duty post-injury, enable
paralyzed individuals to use their <a href="http://www.mobiledia.com/news/155488.html">brain to type</a>, or allow
amputees to feel using <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12490048">bionic limbs</a>,
they can also be exploited if <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/cybercrime-and-hacking/20900/hacking-mind-3-new-brain-hacks-expose-new-realm-security-privacy-risks">hacked</a>.
BCIs can be used to manipulate … or kill. Recently, security expert Barnaby
Jack demonstrated the vulnerability of biotechnological systems by highlighting
how easily <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9232477/Pacemaker_hack_can_deliver_deadly_830_volt_jolt">pacemakers</a> and
implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) could be hacked, raising fears
about the susceptibility of even life-saving biotechnological implants. This
vulnerability could easily be extended to biotechnologies that connect directly
to the brain, such as <a href="http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/vagus-nerve-stimulator-for-epilepsy">vagus
nerve stimulation</a> or <a href="http://www.mayfieldclinic.com/PE-DBS.htm">deep-brain stimulation</a>. Outside
the body, recent experiments have proven that the brain can control and
maneuver <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/08/zhejiang-university-china-brain-controlled-quadcopter/">quadcopter
drones</a> and <a href="http://io9.com/5713561/neuroscientists-create-the-first-brain+controlled-exoskeleton">metal
exoskeletons</a>. How long before we harness the power of mind-controlled
weaponized drones – or use BCIs to enhance the power, efficiency, and
sheer lethality of our soldiers?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">Given that military research arms such
as the United States’ DARPA are investing in <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/movement-control/">understanding
complex neural processes</a> and enhanced <a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/136446-darpa-combines-human-brains-and-120-megapixel-cameras-for-the-ultimate-military-threat-detection-system">threat
detection</a> through BCI scan for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P300_(neuroscience)">P300</a> responses, it
seems the marriage between neuroscience and military systems will fundamentally
alter the future of conflict. And it is here that military researchers need to
harden the systems that enable military application of BCIs. We need to prevent
BCIs from being disrupted or manipulated, and safeguard against the ability of
the enemy to hack an individual’s brain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">The possibilities for damage,
destruction, and chaos are very real. This could include manipulating a
soldier’s BCI during conflict so that s/he were forced to pull the gun trigger
on friendlies, install malicious code in his own secure computer system, call
in inaccurate coordinates for an air strike, or divulge state secrets to the
enemy seemingly voluntarily. Whether an insider has fallen victim to BCI
hacking and exploits a system from within, or an external threat is compelled to
initiate a physical attack on hard and soft targets, the results would present
major complications: in attribution, effectiveness of kinetic operations, and
stability of geopolitical relations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";">Like every other domain of warfare, says
the article, the mind as the sixth domain is neither isolated nor removed from
other domains; coordinated attacks across all domains will continue to be the
norm. It’s just that military and defense thinkers now need to account for the
subtleties of the human mind … and our increasing reliance upon the
brain-computer interface. Regardless of how it will look, though, the threat is
real and not as far away as we would like – especially now that researchers
just discovered a <a href="http://sezso.newsvine.com/_news/2012/09/09/13764287-hackers-backdoor-the-human-brain-successfully-extract-sensitive-data">zero-day
vulnerability</a> in the brain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-77003865360884148112012-11-24T13:50:00.001+05:002015-03-05T00:02:29.187+05:00India’s Scorpenes project runs into snags as its submarine fleet nears depletion….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aIVfod2Ymqo/ULCJuuLXz-I/AAAAAAAAAEA/rTkJjSjuHgE/s1600/Sub.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aIVfod2Ymqo/ULCJuuLXz-I/AAAAAAAAAEA/rTkJjSjuHgE/s320/Sub.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;">India’s
plans to counterweight Pakistan’s submarine capability, and have an edge over
China’s inferior submarine technology forced it to go for French submarine, a
sister boat of Pakistan’s Agosta. But its plans have run into snags and have
been severely frustrated. The blame has been laid at the door of “procurement
bureaucracy” which is being targeted for a massive cost-escalation and huge
time over-run which will seriously damage the combat capabilities of India
Navy. On the strength of its Navy, India was poised to serve global American
interests in Indian Ocean and, by extension, in the Pacific.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>India
may have acquired a nuclear-powered submarine of a very old Russian vintage, it
only serves the purpose of power projection. The toothless power, so to say.
But its project of development of conventional submarine, Scorpene, in India
under a transfer-of-technology program is not faring any better. The whistle-blower report of India’s Auditor-General, the Controller and
Auditor-General (CAG), raises alarms and concerns. </b><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
report is clearly critical of the Scorpene acquisition. Indian Defense Minister
had to admit to India’s Parliament that the project was running about 2 years
behind schedule, due to “some teething problems, absorption of technology,
delays in augmentation of industrial infrastructure and procurement of MDL
purchased materials (MPM).” The CAG report criticizes the fact that the
submarine requirement was approved in 1997, but no contract was signed until
2005, and then for only 6 of the envisioned 24 boats. Overall, the project cost
had increased from Rs 12,609 crore in October 2002 to Rs 15,447 crore by October
2005 when the contract was signed. Once it was signed, the CAG believes that
“the contractual provisions resulted in undue financial advantage to the vendor
of a minimum of Rs 349 crore.”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
overall project, which includes a submarine construction facility at Mazagon
Dockyards Ltd. (MDL), is placed at Rs 18,798 crore, or 187.98 billion rupees
(currently about $4 billion). The Times of India believes that the final
program cost will be over Rs 20,000 crore (currently about $4.3 billion), as
the cost of key equipment that MDL shipyards needs is rising quickly. Rediff
News notes other excerpts from the CAG report, adding that an accompanying Rs
1,062 crore deal for Exocet anti-ship missiles will have issues of its own:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">“But
even before the missiles become operational on the submarine, the warranty
period of first two batches of the missiles supplied by the company would have
expired, it added. India also extended to the [submarine] vendor “Wide ranging
concessions” on warranty, performance bank guarantee, escalation formula,
arbitration clause, liquidated damages, agency commission and performance
parameters….”<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
update on the project is that the program has been delayed several times and
the price has gone up to $5 billion ($834 million each), a cost-over-run of 25%.
While this effort will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists
experienced in building modern submarines, all that will be wasted due to this
delay. The deal was mismanaged to the extent that it is now three years behind
schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years delay
in even getting started. The original plan was to have the first Indian built
Scorpene delivered at the end of this year. But now, because of problems
getting the construction facilities and skilled workmen ready, the first
Scorpene won't be delivered until 2015, with one each year after that until all
six are delivered. That schedule is subject to change, and probably will, for
the worse. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to <a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20120906.aspx">Strategy
Page</a>, this is a not a good news because India's submarine fleet is dying of
old age and new boats are not going to arrive in time. The plan was to have a
dozen new subs in service by the end of the decade. At present, there will be
(with a bit of luck) six of them in service by then. The procurement
bureaucracy is still seeking a supplier for the second six diesel-electric
subs. There's some urgency to all this because this year, five of India's 16
diesel-electric subs (10 Kilo and two Foxtrot class Russian built boats and four
German Type 209s) were to be retired (some are already semi-retired because of
age and infirmity). Type 209s are being kept in service but not allowed out to
sea much for several more years, because of project delay. That leaves India
with 14 subs. But in the next year or so several of the older Kilos will reach
retirement age. Thus, by the time the first Scorpene arrives in 2015, India
will only have five or six working subs. India believes it needs at least 18
non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China. India is also
building and buying nuclear subs. India received a Russian Akula nuclear attack
(SSN) sub earlier this year. This one is on lease with the option to buy.
Indian SSNs and SSBNs (missile carrying boats) are under development, as they
have been for decades.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to comparative technical details publically available, the Scorpenes are
similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan bought in 1990s. The
first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in
Pakistan. The Scorpenes purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani
Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation
between French and Spanish sub builders. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface
displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 533mm (21 inch)
torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried). The
Scorpene is a little heavier (1,700 tons), has a smaller crew (32), and is a
little faster. It has six 533mm torpedo tubes and carries 18 torpedoes and/or
missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion)
system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder
to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low
speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). The Pakistanis have an option to retrofit AIP
in their current two Agostas.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">While
India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract
was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary due to a
new role assigned to India by the US. The Chinese subs are not as effective as
the Pakistani boats; both because of less advanced technology and less well
trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to
expand their naval presence into the Indian Ocean. Thus the delays and cost
overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. But
at the rate India is going, it will be nearly a decade before all six of the
Scorpenes are in service. At that point, India would have about a dozen subs
(including nuclear powered models under construction). China will have over 60
boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear. China does have a lot for its warships
to deal with off its coasts and in the Western Pacific but it does retain the
capability of putting more subs off the Indian coast than can the Indian Navy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-58113619146254367632012-11-05T10:44:00.000+05:002012-11-05T10:44:09.926+05:00What are the short-term objectives of Baloch insurgents?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U8nRTAgd3m4/UJdR_23_tvI/AAAAAAAAADw/r2gnDClEmEg/s1600/Gwadar+-+Balochistan+-+Pakistan+6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U8nRTAgd3m4/UJdR_23_tvI/AAAAAAAAADw/r2gnDClEmEg/s400/Gwadar+-+Balochistan+-+Pakistan+6.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Pakistan’s
populist Supreme Court is seized with the issue of insurgency in Balochistan.
Every word of observations that the honorable judges utter during the
proceedings turns into music for anti-Pakistan media. It is the very same media
which has launched campaign against Pakistan in general and its security forces
in particular. The basis for the sinister campaign is perceived brutalities of
the security forces in Balochistan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Balochistan,
Pakistan’s largest province, is no ordinary piece of land; its geographical
location and its untapped mineral reserves make it a target of special interest
among players of regional politics including the US, India, former Soviet Union,
UAE and even Afghanistan. All these countries have one converging interest in
Balochistan; the province should become an independent state in their geo-strategic
interests. Located very close to the oil lanes of the Persian Gulf and having a
common border with Iran and Afghanistan, Balochistan is strategically very
important. Commanding almost the entire coast of the country – 470 miles of the
Arabian Sea, and boasting of a deep sea port recently completed with Chinese
assistance at Gwadar, Balochistan comprises 43 per cent of Pakistan’s total
area but is home to just over five per cent of the population, 50 per cent of which
are ethnic Pakhtuns. Balochistan has always been ruled autocratically by sardars
(tribal chiefs) who have kept their people backward, illiterate and deprived.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">These
sardars have been extorting billions each year from big corporations, federal
government and equal billions in the name of development funds. They remain up
in arms against the government to keep the funds flowing. Their other sources
of funding are money from regional players channeled as donations. Mainly three
sardars of Bugti, Marri and Mengal tribes have been in revolt against the
federation from time to time. These sardars used to inflame nationalist
sentiments and demand for greater provincial autonomy and control over the
province’s natural resources developed into a demand for independence. The
armed insurgent group, Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has been active in
acts of terrorism to keep the province destabilized for various long-term and
short-term objectives which serve the interests of sole civil power and the
states under its influence.</span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 14.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to </span><a href="http://vkb.isvg.org/Wiki/Groups/Balochistan_Liberation_Army"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Institute
for Study of Violent Groups</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">, BLA was formed in 1999 and has 500
active members. Like many guerrilla and terrorist groups, the BLA has a
structure comprised of both paramilitary and cellular components. The majority
of the organization is composed of various units assigned to different training
camps under various leaders, but some are assigned to urban cells and are
responsible for the planting of explosives and reconnoitering targets. Some of
the cells are ad hoc and once a BLA member has completed a mission, he may
return to his paramilitary unit. There is no shortage of weapons in Balochistan
available to the militants; many are regularly supplied from across
Pakistan-Afghanistan border courtesy a host of “consulates” established for
this very purpose. Other weapons are left over from previous conflicts in
Afghanistan. Common weapons in the region include Russian Kalashnikovs,
RPGs (rocket propelled grenades), and various types of land mines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Pakistan
has always asserted that an “outside hand” is playing a role in the Baloch
insurgency, though conclusive determinations are difficult to come by. One of
the most widely cited examples of outside aid occurred in 1973 when Pakistan
authorities entered the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad and uncovered a small
arsenal of weapons, including 300 submachine guns and 48,000 rounds of
ammunition. Akbar Bugti extended a helping hand in dismissal of ANP government
and was made governor as a reward. He is the one who supervised the worst military
operation against the insurgents. The government claimed that the arms were
destined for Balochistan; these accusations were never proven. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
BLA is not believed to have an organized recruitment effort in place; rather,
the group is capitalizing on popular sentiment in the province and giving Balochs
with nationalist tendencies a way to fight back at the government. The chief
means of attracting poor, uneducated Baloch youths are the dozens of training
camps believed to be in operation in the province. The group’s targeting and
tactics are designed to reduce the economic incentive for the central
government’s presence in the province. Accordingly, sites where natural
resources are harvested by the government are the most common target; these
include natural gas pipelines and oil fields. Soldiers and civilians
working in government capacities in Quetta are also prominent targets, in
addition to journalists. The BLA has shown equal proficiency with both
bombings and armed assault, though it appears that members prefer the use of
RPGs as opposed to planted explosives, some of which appear to have been
planted by younger members with little or no insurgency experience.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">The
insurgents and their sponsors may have disintegration of Pakistan and
establishment of an independent state of Balochistan as their long-term
objective but their short-term objectives are very clear; closing down of
deep-sea port of Gwadar and failing Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. India
and UAE have direct stakes in the first objective whereas the US does not want
to allow the pipeline project to go ahead. Gwadar port has both strategic and
commercial implications for UAE and India. Chinese involvement in building the
port, aimed at generating economic activity in Balochistan and facilitating the
Chinese to import oil and raw materials from the Middle East and Africa and
export goods through a land corridor extending from Gwadar to China’s Sinkiang
province, became the sore of many eyes. An oil refinery in Gwadar and
recovering huge mineral deposits in the province to serve as the precursor of
another enormous economic opportunity – a trade corridor for Central Asia,
particularly for its oil and gas.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Dissident
sardars rose up in arms in an effort to destroy the project and its profound
impact on Balochistan’s economy for fear of losing their hold on the people. In
a sustained campaign, aided and abetted by outside interests opposed to Gwadar
port, fears were expressed that this was an effort to colonize Balochistan. In
this backdrop, a low intensity insurgency festered in Balochistan for a few
decades now.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">India
began meddling in Afghanistan in the mid-1970s in the post-Bangladesh era. By
fostering an insurgency, India tried the same model in Balochistan – exploiting
the disaffection between the state and the dissident sardars. The aim was to
deny Pakistan the energy resources, bleed it economically, and fragment it
ultimately. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) – the most active insurgent
group today, made its debut in 1973. Arms from the former Soviet Union found
their way into the province and many insurgents were clandestinely trained and
educated there. Down the road India became concerned at the development of
Gwadar port which, besides making the Baloch people economically independent,
was to be of strategic importance to the Pakistan Navy. India did not like the
Chinese presence at Gwadar as this was to interfere with its desire of
controlling the Indian Ocean region with its upcoming blue water navy. Leaders
of Baloch insurgencies have publicly listed India among their sponsors.
Brahamdagh Bugti, a BLA leader, said that he accepted assistance from India and
Afghanistan to defend the Baloch nationalist cause.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.balochonline.com/en/why-insurgency-in-balochistan.html"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Baloch
Media Network</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"> quotes Wahid Baloch, President of Baloch
Society of North America, as saying, “We love our Indian friends and want them
to help and rescue us from tyranny and oppression. In fact, India is the only
country which has shown concern over the Baloch plight. We want India to take
Balochistan’s issue to every international forum, the same way Pakistan has
done to raise the so-called Kashmiri issue. We want India to openly support our
just cause and provide us with all moral, financial, military and diplomatic
support.” Not to be left behind was the former RAW agent B. Raman who wrote
this to Sonia Gandhi: “struggle for an independent Balochistan is part of the
unfinished agenda of the partition”. With Afghanistan coming under US occupation,
Mossad, MI6 and the CIA jumped into the fray with an agenda of Greater
Balochistan, providing new partners to India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Small
pockets of local resistance mushroomed into organized foreign funded, armed
groups, which were discretely supported by the three dissident tribal chiefs.
As a hub for joint operations, India established a ring of 26 consulates along
the Balochistan border in Afghanistan and Iran that began funding, training and
arming the dissidents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Interestingly,
major stakeholders of insurgency are not the common people of Balochistan. The
insurgent groups are led by the scions of the three rebel chiefs who are in
line to succeed their aging patriarchs. The movement offers no substitute to
the Sardari system. By creating instability through acts of terrorism they hope
to chase the Chinese away and create obstacles for the Iran-Pakistan gas
pipeline, which is opposed by Washington.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">According
to the analysis of Baloch Media Network, the selection of targets and use of
modern weapons demonstrates quite clearly that the dissidents have been trained
by military experts. Insurgencies of this magnitude cannot last without very
large funds that the insurgents cannot raise on their own. According to an
estimate the financial outlay for BLA alone is 50-90 million rupees per month.
Reportedly, massive cash is flowing into their hands from Afghanistan through
American defence contractors, CIA foot soldiers and free lancers. The Americans
have developed an interest in Balochistan for several reasons. It is the only
available route for transportation of oil and gas from Central Asian and
Caspian Sea region after alternate routes via Russia or China were not found
feasible. Then Balochistan itself had an estimated 19 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas reserves and six trillion barrels of oil reserves in addition to
gold, copper and other minerals, making it attractive for exploration. Like the
Indians, the Americans also did not like the Chinese breathing down their neck
in Gwadar – so uncomfortably close to the oil lanes of the Straits of Hormuz
and the US bases in the Indian Ocean, although at no point did Pakistan and
China contemplate Gwadar to become a Chinese military base. Balochistan shares
a long border with Iran along Iranian Balochistan, which is inhabited by a
large Baloch population.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Look
at the demand of Baloch sardars which was accepted for political expedience;
remove army cantonments and garrisons from Balochistan. The armed forces are
virtually absent from Balochistan yet they are held accountable for act of
brutality unleashed by the terrorists. The BLA have all the characteristics of
a foreign funded terrorist organization. It has massacred thousands of innocent
civilians simply in order to spread fear and keep the province destabilized to
serve foreign interests. Its victims include Punjabi settlers and even Baloch
youth itself. Its tactics are the very same employed by Mukti Bahini in East
Pakistan insurgency. They kill, loot and vandalize in the garb of security
agencies’ personnel and successfully manipulate the obliging media. Yet it has
not been declared a terror outfit because it is sponsored by CIA, MI5 and RAW
besides intelligence agencies of UAE and Afghanistan. The reasons are obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-51775311055790191882012-10-07T23:27:00.000+05:002015-06-15T20:23:45.747+05:00RealPolitik: Pakistan reaches out to Russia to change the contours of a unipolar world.....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S6RsoHsVX3I/VX7kJuuVeRI/AAAAAAAAAGs/AkxBKuHJK30/s1600/904003-Armychief-1434374769-651-640x480.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S6RsoHsVX3I/VX7kJuuVeRI/AAAAAAAAAGs/AkxBKuHJK30/s400/904003-Armychief-1434374769-651-640x480.jpg" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">HUSSAIN SAQIB</span></b></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
When President Putin postponed his visit to Pakistan in 2012, the most jubilant countries were India and the US but it was subsequently revealed that this postponement did not mean anything to lift the spirits of Cold War adversaries now turned into allies. The on-going visit to Russia by Gen Raheel Sharif, Pakistan's most powerful stakeholder is a sufficient indication of realpolitik. Cold War adversaries are switching partners and the events are unfolding so swiftly that it has become difficult to keep track of who will be whose friend after Americans pack up from Kabul and leave. One thing is for sure; foes of yesterday will be compelled by the realities of realist politics of today to switch sides and embrace each other.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="zem_slink" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=55.75,37.6166666667&spn=10.0,10.0&q=55.75,37.6166666667%20(Russia)&t=h" rel="geolocation" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Russia">Russia</a> of today is the successor of Soviet empire of yester-years, though reduced to much smaller in size. Russia, and then the <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.history.com/topics/perestroika-and-glasnost" rel="historycom" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Perestroika and Glasnost">USSR</a>, which played for centuries the Great Game for gaining influence and foothold in Central Asia and get a direct access to Kabul finally lost the Game to the West in the battlefields of Afghanistan. Along with this defeat, it also lost its imperial glory by ceding a sizable portion of its territory to independent Central Asian States. It, however, seems that it never gave up its ambitions on Afghanistan; it has been watching with amused interest the plight of <a class="zem_slink" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=50.8761555556,4.42201111111&spn=0.01,0.01&q=50.8761555556,4.42201111111%20(NATO)&t=h" rel="geolocation" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="NATO">NATO</a> forces in Afghanistan. It had read the writing on the wall and was confident that NATO would not meet a fate different from what it itself encountered after a decade-long war of 1980s.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Russia under Putin has revived its hope in Afghanistan and is moving to deepen its geo-economic ties with South Asia as a whole, with Pakistan serving as a gateway for energy trade to the entire subcontinent in advance of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in 2014. Badly bruised by harsh treatment meted out by the Americans, Pakistan feels compelled to look towards not only its old friend China but also its longtime adversary, Russia. If India after having been in the cold during Cold War can warm up to the US, why can’t Pakistan hope to be friends with Russia? This is what the realist politics is all about. For Pakistan, Russia can not only help the civilian government in Islamabad to shore up its economic record, it can also offer an alternative source of military hardware to the country’s armed forces. Diversifying its sources of military supplies has taken on new-found importance for Islamabad given Washington’s increasing reluctance to supply the full spectrum of arms and China’s continued inability to meet all of Pakistan’s requirements.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To understand the potentials of Pak-Russia friendship, we will have to make an assessment of the present state of <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations" rel="wikipedia" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Russia – United States relations">US-Russia relations</a>. This subject has dominated the foreign policy debates of both the major contenders of power in next presidential elections of the US which are just round the corner. The Obama administration is being harshly criticized by the opponents for its increased focus on its Pacific Century and allocation of future military and political resources to contain China. In their view, Russia under president Putin is a much greater threat to American ambitions than China. According to <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/17/yes_russia_is_our_top_geopolitical_foe" style="color: #bc0404;">Foreign Policy</a>, Russia is the major counterweight to American power and influence. A huge country that straddles what the great geographer <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder" rel="wikipedia" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Halford Mackinder">Halford Mackinder</a> called the Eurasian “heartland” is sure to operate with substantial effect in the world. A country with thousands of nuclear weapons, still-substantial armed services, and a cornucopia of natural resources will have its innings in high politics. Republican presidential candidate, Romney’s assertions about Russia should be seen less as stale strategic thinking and more as a critique of <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369" rel="biographycom" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.">Barack Obama’s</a> looming “Pacific shift,” which implies that China has moved into position as our top geopolitical foe. Yet Beijing, in the throes of modernization and heavily weighed down by a massive population, increasingly urgent energy needs, and a troubled political transition can hardly be seen as new No. 1 geopolitical foe of the US.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">According to this analysis, China’s military is still decades away from having any kind of ability to project force over meaningful distances. The 100-mile width of the Taiwan Strait could just as easily be a thousand miles, given China’s lack of force-projection capability. Even the quite large <a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army" rel="wikipedia" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="People's Liberation Army">People’s Liberation Army</a> is full of question marks, with few substantive changes evident since it got such a bloody nose during the 1979 war with Vietnam. To be sure, the Chinese navy is very innovative, with its emerging swarms of small, short-ranging missile boats. And Chinese hackers are among the best in the world. But these capabilities hardly form the leading edge of a global military power.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This, by implication, suggests that with Russia’s greater capabilities, and intentions so clearly and so often inimical to American interests, the smart geopolitical move now would be for Washington to embrace Beijing more closely, giving Moscow a lot more to think about on its eastern flank. This was a strategic shift that worked well for <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.lyst.com/nixon" rel="lyst" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Nixon">President Richard Nixon</a> 40 years ago, when he first played “the China card”; it might do nicely again today.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The present US-China relations do not suggest any potential conflict given the fact that U.S. trade with China amounts to more than half a trillion dollars annually — more than ten times the level of Russo-American economic interaction. And Beijing also serves as a major creditor. It simply makes little sense to provoke China, as Obama’s announced Pacific shift already has. If Romney is right about the return of post-Soviet Russia as the world’s bête noire, then any American Pacific shift should be more about alliance with, rather than alienation of, Beijing.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Russian stance on the issues of US intervention in Syria for regime-change clearly suggest the divergence of interests of both the countries. With reinstallation of president Putin in Moscow, hopes that Russia will support any American initiative are fading away. According to a report by <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/03/21-arms-control-pifer" style="color: #bc0404;">Brookings</a>, the US has a list of demands which Russia may not accept. These include further reductions of nuclear arms, including non-strategic nuclear weapons; a cooperative NATO-Russia missile defense arrangement; joint efforts to deal with the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea and Iran; and consultation on steps to bolster security and stability in Central Asia as the NATO coalition prepares to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan. The <a class="zem_slink" href="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667&spn=10.0,10.0&q=38.8833333333,-77.0166666667%20(United%20States)&t=h" rel="geolocation" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="United States">United States</a> is trying to explore ways to increase trade and investment relations with Russia, which could help build a foundation for a more sustainable relationship.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="zem_slink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin" rel="wikipedia" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank" title="Vladimir Putin">President Putin</a>’s re-election is considered a major challenge to smooth-sailing from the American point of view. Mr. Putin spent his formative years in the 1980s as a KGB officer. As his rhetoric during the election campaign made clear, he holds a wary skepticism about U.S. goals and policies. For example, his comments suggest he does not see the upheavals that swept countries such as Georgia, Ukraine, Tunisia or Egypt as manifestations of popular discontent but instead believes they were inspired, funded and directed by Washington. This may seem like a paranoiac view, but Mr. Putin has made so many allusions to it that it is hard to conclude that he does not believe it. That is a complicating factor for the bilateral relationship.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">According to <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/03/21-arms-control-pifer" style="color: #bc0404;">Brookings</a>, Mr. Putin’s experience as president dealing with the Bush administration was not a happy one. In 2001-02, he supported U.S. military action against the Taliban, including overruling his advisers to support the deployment of U.S. military units into Central Asia; shut down the Russian signals intelligence facility in Lourdes, Cuba; agreed to deepen relations with NATO; calmly accepted the administration’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and agreed to a minimalist arms control agreement that fell far short of Moscow’s desires. In his view, he received little in return. His perception is that Washington made no effort to accommodate Moscow’s concerns on issues such as the future of strategic arms limits, missile defense deployments in Europe, NATO enlargement, relations with Russia’s neighbors in the post-Soviet space or graduating Russia from the Jackson-Vanik amendment.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">As against yesterday, Mr. Putin faces a tougher opposition at home. Soviet and Russian leaders in the past resorted to the image of a foreign adversary—all too often the United States—to rally domestic support, and one can see aspects of that in Mr. Putin’s campaign rhetoric. But the constituency to whom that appeals is already largely on Mr. Putin’s side. He may conclude that he can focus better on his domestic challenges if his foreign policy results in more positive relations with countries such as the United States. The upshot is that Mr. Putin’s return can and probably will mean more bumpiness in the U.S.-Russia relationship. He will pursue his view of Russian interests. On certain issues, those will conflict with U.S. interests, and Washington and Moscow will disagree, perhaps heatedly.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In this state of US-Russia relationship, Pakistan sees its opportunity in warming up to Russia after 2014. Despite postponement of much-awaited visit of president Putin to Pakistan,the two significant visits of Pakistan’s army and air chiefs to Russia give some indications of the future Pakistan-Russia relations.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">According to an assessment of warming up Pakistan-Russia relations carried out by <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2012/03/08/beneath-the-radar-a-russia-pakistan-entente-takes-shape/" style="color: #bc0404;">Reuters</a>, bilateral visits alone don’t transform ties, and especially ones with a troubled history behind them. And then there is India to be factored in, both for Russia and Pakistan. Moscow has long stood in India’s corner from the days of the Cold War to its role as a top weapons supplier to the Indian military, still ahead of the Israelis fast clawing their way into one of the world’s most lucrative arms markets. A <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/russian-submarine-to-reach-indian-shores-mid-march-180705" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank">nuclear-powered </a>submarine has just sailed from Russia to be inducted into the Indian navy - a force-multiplier in the military with the sub’s ability to stay beneath waters long and deep and far from home. But the stepped up Russia-Pakistan diplomacy suggests a thawing of ties at the very least. And at another level, by raising the quality and quantity of these exchanges, is Russia signaling it will pursue a multi-vectored policy in a fast changing South Asia? <a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/335409/to-russia-with-love/" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank">Tanvir Ahmad Khan</a>, a former Pakistani foreign secretary who was also once the country’s ambassador to Moscow, says the two countries are on the verge of ending a “long history of estrangement” and that two factors have led to this landmark development. One is that there is now a national consensus in Pakistan to engage Russia earnestly, and two, “Vladimir Putin’s Russia has read the regional and global scene afresh and recognized Pakistan’s role as a factor of peace and stability.”</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Pakistan’s compulsion to diversify its foreign partners lies in its present ties with the United States which have soured so much that Pakistan can no longer be considered as an ally, ready to do its bidding as in the proxy war against the Red Army in Afghanistan. And India’s ties with the United States, on the other hand, have been transformed, with Washington virtually legitimizing it as the world’s sixth nuclear weapon state, something that even Russia never went as far to support during all the years as close allies. And if India and the United States are holding ever so advanced joint military exercises (there is one going on now in the <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-05/news/31124062_1_military-exercises-mechanised-forces-rajasthan-desert" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank">Rajasthan desert </a>which has a border with Pakistan) and considering multi-billion dollar defense deals as part of a new booming strategic relationship, Russia and Pakistan are also looking at launching military exchanges. Last year the commander of the Russian ground forces, Col-Gen Alexander Postinov, was in Pakistan and according to <a href="http://www.dawn.com/2011/09/18/islamabad-moscow-set-sights-on-new-era-in-relations.html" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank">Pakistani newspapers </a>discussed with Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani the possibility of expanding defense ties by holding joint military exercises, exchanging trainees and trainers and selling and buying weapons, although it seems these were to be confined to counter-terrorism equipment.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It may be interesting to know that the <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/20/us-china-pakistan-idUSTRE74J2QK20110520" style="color: #bc0404;" target="_blank">50 JF-17 Thunder fighter </a>planes that China is supplying to Pakistan use a Russian engine, and it’s likely that Russia gave the green signal for China to go ahead. New Delhi was probably not impressed, but it has kept its silence. Russia is also reported to have indicated its willingness to get involved in the 1,640 km TAPI project bringing piped gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and into energy-starved Pakistan and India, a project that has been hanging fire for years. Russian investors were also interested in the Thar coal project which involves developing a large energy complex in Sindh province to produce 6,000 MW of coal-based power and introduce to the country the concept of gasification and production of liquid fuel from coal.</span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-593689098568332292012-07-30T22:06:00.001+05:002015-03-05T00:03:17.144+05:00Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan make a difficult triangle….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7xBhnPdKBak/UBa-62V2-NI/AAAAAAAAADA/VcqmZ6YGu_Q/s1600/saudi-king-achmadinajb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7xBhnPdKBak/UBa-62V2-NI/AAAAAAAAADA/VcqmZ6YGu_Q/s320/saudi-king-achmadinajb.jpg" height="223" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia
make a very complex triangle of relationships. Unfortunately, Pakistan can
enjoy good relationships with only one of them. Our strategic compulsions,
however, do not allow us to abandon any one of them. Iran is Pakistan’s Western
neighbor and sits on the periphery of Pakistan’s most troubled province,
Balochistan. Iran has a Balochistan of its own and figures in the international
conspiracies to carve out an Independent Balochistan comprising Pakistani and
Iranian Balochistan. Jundullah, an anti-Iran terrorist group operating from
Pakistan is sponsored and funded by the CIA. Pakistan has to collaborate with
Iran to fight and neutralize separatist elements in Balochistan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Iran holds the key to regional
peace; Afghanistan being center of gravity. Iran has its stakes and influence
in non-Pashtun Afghanistan. It has military ties with India and its Chabahar
port, very close to Gwadar, was built by India to encircle Pakistan, in line
with its strategic objectives. If Pakistan antagonizes Iran, it risks increased
Indian influence on its West and South-West. It will be a tough task with India
all poised to assume greater role in Afghanistan after NATO drawdown of troops.
It may be kept in mind that in order to develop Chabahar port, India has
already built road infrastructure on Iran-Afghanistan border spending $750
million which will provide an access to Central Asia from Iran and neutralize the
positive outcome of Gwadar port for Pakistan. It is for this reason that India
and US are investing funds in Balochistan insurgency to prevent Pakistan and
China from taking advantage of Gwadar. Gwadar will only be useful after
Pakistan build roads and rail infrastructure in Balochistan which, given the
intensity of insurgency, is not possible for Pakistan anytime soon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistan’s geo-strategic
location is very interesting. It is very close to the mouth of Strait of Hormuz
and every ship carrying all oil for East of Pakistan passes through North Arabian
Sea i.e. Pakistan’s territorial waters. Any tension in the region and an
imminent clash of interest of the world with Iran will direct impact Pakistan’s
economic, political and strategic stability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistan is an energy deficient
country. The natural answer to this problem is import of gas from Iran for
which IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline project was initiated. Fearing
incidental benefits of this project to China and also under US pressure, India
is already out of this project. Pakistan is also under immense US pressure to
abandon the project and concentrate on a very unfeasible TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India)
gas pipeline project. Pakistan has yet not abandoned IP project and is a target
of fury of US and its allies. Though Pakistan is still a part of the deal but
its lukewarm response is already frustrating Iran. Any delay in launching the pipeline project
will cost Pakistan Iran’s goodwill<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Another difficult development
is Iran’s pursuit of its nuclear program. This also threatens the regional
peace with India and Pakistan already in possession of nuclear capabilities.
Iran’s nuclear program threatens Israel and the US-Israel nexus can go to any
limit to deprive Iran of this capability.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">This is where the Saudi
strategic interests figure in. Saudi Arabia has been Iran’s traditional
adversary. These adversarial relationships were under wraps prior to 1979 when
both the countries were America’s Cold War allies but the these adversarial
relationships intensified after Iran was ruled by religious clergy whose
religious beliefs are opposed to those of Saudi Arabia. Both the countries have
not fought any war so far but they are in proxy war since 1979 and the battle
field, unfortunately, has been Pakistan. Sectarian violence intensified in
Pakistan causing deaths and bitterness and polarizing Pakistani society. Saudi Arabia
does not approve of Pakistan’s close relations with Iran and tries to drive
wedge between the two neighboring countries. Increased attacks on Hazaras of
Balochistan and other Shia pilgrims by pro-Saudi extremists outfits is a clear
indication that Saudi Arabia can go to any limit to teach Pakistan a lesson for
its Iran relations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Iran’s nuclear program is
viewed a direct threat, not only to Israel but also Saudi Arabia and its
allies. Recent troubles in Bahrain against the ruling regime supported by Saudi
Arabia triggered under Iranian influence played a great part in further
worsening Iran-Saudi Arabia relationships. It is generally assumed that any
possible strike on Iran’s nuclear installations will have a tacit approval and
support of Saudi Arabia. There were rumors in the recent past that Saudi Arabia
had offered Israel to use its airspace for aerial attacks on Iran. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistan’s economy depends on
Saudi Arabia in more than one ways. Nearly 60% of foreign remittances, a life
blood for Pakistan’s economy, come for Pakistani diaspora working in Saudi
Arabia and its allied countries. These workers not only bring petro-dollars,
they also harbor close sympathy with these Arab countries. This gives a great
leverage to Saudi Arabia to meddle in Pakistan’s affairs directly and also
through right-wing clergy funded by Saudis. This clergy was strengthened in
Afghan jihad through massive donations which promoted <i>Wahabi</i> Islam and its violent side in Pakistan. The extremists in
Pakistan are still sympathetic to Saudi Arabia and derive strength from its
religious policies of intolerance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">In addition to this, Pakistan
has to depend on Saudi oil to power its economy which is available on deferred
payments. Saudi Arabia is practically a US-satellite country. Pakistan often
uses Saudi influence to reach out to the US in difficult times. Like other
financial institutions, Saudis also extend economic cooperation to Pakistan
when it is approved of by the US.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Saudis are suspicious of the
current regime in Pakistan and are apprehensive of its pro-Shia policies. They
think that PPP government is playing a dual role; trying to please both Iran
and Saudi Arabia. The space created by this suspicion is proactively being
filled by India which worries Pakistan. Saudi Arabia was visibly unhappy over
the closure of NATO supplies for such a long period. The Saudi decision to hand
over Mumbai attack suspect to India was pressurize Pakistan to come to terms
with the US, and by implication with Saudi Arabia.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">This situation is a cause of
concern for Pakistan’s security establishment. It cannot afford to annoy Saudi
Arabia for economic and political reasons. Warming up of Saudis to India is
another cause of concern. As for Iran, it was never a reliable friend for a
variety of reasons but it could have been kept in good humor had Saudi-Iran
standoff not caught Pakistan. India is building bridges with Pakistan’s friends;
Afghanistan is already hostile and has traditionally been a safe haven for
anti-Pakistan elements of all hues, including Baloch nationalists. In this
situation, Iran can be a source of more worries if it keeps annoying
international community. It could be even more worrisome if it repairs its
relationship with India after the recent banning of Iranian oil in Indian
waters and India’s jumping the IPI ship.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<a href="http://www.pakistanaffairs.pk/showthread.php?1855-Iran-Saudi-Arabia-and-Pakistan-make-a-difficult-triangle%85">Pakistan Affairs: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan....</a></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-24747299270821520202012-07-25T01:29:00.001+05:002012-11-20T10:00:39.953+05:00Galbraith was the original author of Indo-US nuclear cooperation in 1962…..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BU2aKZRhsrM/UA8ErPkJ6yI/AAAAAAAAAC0/b_WTeOx1Gu4/s1600/JFK.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BU2aKZRhsrM/UA8ErPkJ6yI/AAAAAAAAAC0/b_WTeOx1Gu4/s320/JFK.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The United States encouraged
India in early 60s to develop a nuclear device to fight China without
comprising its commitments as a Soviet ally. In the era of Cold War, as we all
know, India was a bitter opponent of the USA and a close ally of USSR. India
remained staunch ally of USSR till disintegration of the Soviet empire in 1991.
During Afghan jihad (1979-89), when Afghans were fighting Soviet occupation
forces with the help of Pakistan, US and Saudi Arabia, India was a sworn enemy
of the US. Due to its alliance with USSR, India was a target of Afghan fury
during and after the jihad. In fact, Taliban regime which came into being after
departure of Soviet Army was opposed to India and was allied with Pakistan. It
was due to pro-Pakistan regime in Afghanistan that the country was considered a
strategic depth by Pakistani strategists.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Americans are, however, warming
up to India in spite their past relations. This warming up is taking place at
the expense of Pakistan which has so far remained more allied than the NATO
allies of the US. Some analysts dub this sudden change of hearts as a
compulsion of realist politics; Pakistan has outlived its utility after
Afghanistan end-game and the US needs India to contain China in the Pacific. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">But it has now been emerged
that the US was trying to win Indian hearts from the very beginning. There are
two factors which brought the two countries together; </span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">John Kenneth Galbraith</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">, the American Ambassador to
India appointed by President Kennedy and India’s humiliating defeat in
Indo-China War of 1962. Galbraith befriended Nehru during his tenure. He
rendered great help to India in its hour of distress and kept Pakistan away
from taking advantage of India fragile position as a result of devastating
defeat at the hands of Peoples Liberation Army.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">It was the same Ambassador
Galbraith who was very close to former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
This friendship was carried forward by his son Peter W Galbraith till Benazir's tragic assassination. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">According to an article by Bruce
Riedel, an analyst and a career CIA officer in <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/article/jfks-overshadowed-crisis-7073">The
National Interest</a>, Indi-China war also posed a crisis for America’s young
president, John F. Kennedy, who had entered office determined to build a strong
U.S. relationship with India. But his attention that fateful autumn was
diverted to a more ominous crisis—the one involving Soviet efforts to place
nuclear missiles in Cuba—that unleashed a dangerous nuclear face-off with the
Soviet Union. Thus, Kennedy confronted two simultaneous crises, one far
overshadowed by the other at the time and also later in history.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">According to this article, when
Kennedy became president in January 1961, the United States and India were
estranged democracies. In the 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy promised a
departure from Eisenhower’s foreign policy and as a senator had sponsored
legislation to increase food aid to India. And so it wasn’t surprising that as
president he sought to woo India and its leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, into a
closer relationship with Washington that didn’t require any formal
anticommunist commitment from India. He sent his friend John Kenneth Galbraith
to New Delhi as U.S. ambassador. Like presidents before and after, he tried to
befriend both India and Pakistan and had invited Pakistan’s president Mohammad
Ayub Khan to visit the United States twice during his thousand days in office. The
Kennedy team hailed Pakistan as a reliable ally against communism and a model
for development in the Third World.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">But it was the India
relationship that most preoccupied Kennedy as he contemplated U.S. relations
with South Asia. Galbraith’s appointment put a Kennedy man and a firm advocate
of his New Frontier at the center stage of U.S.-Indian relations. No president
since has sent such a close friend and high-powered representative to New Delhi
as ambassador.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">According to Bruce Riedel, the
most important development in the relationship emerged with the Chinese
invasion of India in October 1962 to seize control of territories it claimed
along the 3,225-kilometer border. The Chinese forces, superior in leadership
and weapons, routed the Indian Army, which retreated in confusion from the
Himalayas. The situation was most precarious in India’s easternmost regions,
which were linked to the rest of the country only by a narrow land connection
north of what was then East Pakistan. After maintaining its neutrality in the
Cold War for fifteen years, India found itself the victim of a Chinese invasion
it was powerless to halt. Nehru was devastated. He reluctantly turned to the
United States and Britain, asking for immediate supplies for the Indian Army.
In his panic, he also requested the deployment of American bombers to repulse
the Chinese advance. America unexpectedly found itself arming both Pakistan and
India, with no assurance they would not use the weapons against each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">It is clear from Galbraith’s
diary that Washington was surprised by the Chinese invasion. But, with the U.S.
bureaucracy fixated on the life-and-death duel over Cuba, Galbraith was given
almost no instructions from the White House or State Department during the key
period of the Indo-Chinese crisis. Thus, he became the main decision maker on
the American side, a role he relished. Working closely with his British
counterpart, as U.S. diplomats typically do in South Asia, Galbraith fashioned
a response that backed India and delivered much-needed military assistance to
the Indians. Once a request for aid was formally transmitted, the first
American shipments of military support arrived by air four days later. British
support came as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Chinese intentions were
impossible to decipher. After their initial victories, they paused for several
weeks. Then they attacked again with devastating results, driving the Indians
back in the East. Had they pressed on in the most vulnerable sector, they could
have cut off Assam and eastern India and linked up with East Pakistan. Even
Calcutta was at risk. Nehru asked for more aid—a dozen squadrons of American
fighters and two squadrons of bombers—to redress the imbalance. In his
desperation, he sought direct American military intervention, at least in the
air. This would have meant war with China.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">There ensued many anxious
moments in New Delhi, Washington and London until China unilaterally announced
a cease-fire on November 19, 1962. Kennedy never had to answer the request for
air power. The war was over; India was humiliated; Nehru was devastated. But
U.S.-Indian relations were better than ever before. America’s approval ratings
among Indians soared from 7 percent at the start of the war to 62 percent at
the end.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Galbraith’s Memoirs make it
clear that, even as he faced the Chinese threat, he had to devote an equal
measure of his energy and skill to managing Indo-Pakistani relations. Pakistan
promptly sought to exploit India’s distress. Ayub’s government suggested to the
American embassy in Karachi that Pakistani neutrality in the war could be
assured by Indian concessions in Kashmir. Implicitly, an Indian refusal would
bring Pakistan into the war. China tried to sweeten the deal by offering a
nonaggression pact with Pakistan. Galbraith writes that throughout the crisis:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">My concern . . . was about
equally divided between helping the Indians against the Chinese and keeping
peace between the Indians and Pakistanis. . . . The nightmare of a combined
attack by Pakistan and China, with the possibility of defeat, collapse and even
anarchy in India, was much on my mind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">In short, at a defining early
moment in U.S.-Indian relations, when China and India were military
adversaries, America found itself trying to manage the Indo-Pakistani rivalry
to avoid Armageddon in India. Pakistan was outraged that America was arming its
rival and wanted to be bought off in Kashmir. Working with his American and
British counterparts in Karachi, Galbraith persuaded India and Pakistan to
begin a dialogue on Kashmir. Nehru reluctantly agreed. Galbraith describes him
as a much-diminished prime minister. He had devoted his entire life to Indian
independence but now was forced to rely on Washington and London. American
C-130s were delivering vital military aid, and an American aircraft carrier,
USS Enterprise, was visiting Madras to show tangible support.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Galbraith suggested to Kennedy
in one of his private letters that the United States and United Kingdom seize
the opportunity to quietly move toward a Kashmir settlement. Galbraith opposed
a territorial settlement; he envisioned a much more subtle deal that would
transform the entire nature of South Asian politics, a fundamental
rapprochement based on regional cooperation that would make Kashmir largely
irrelevant. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">JFK was determined to keep a
strong alliance with Pakistan even as he improved ties with India. But as U.S.
arms flowed to India in the wake of the Chinese invasion, the U.S.-Pakistani
connection began to sink. Islamabad did not want an ally that armed both sides.
It had not joined SEATO and CENTO to see American arms flowing to its archrival,
India. Ayub feared the American arms sent to India were rapidly diminishing his
qualitative advantage over his rival, and he was right.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Not surprisingly, Pakistan
turned increasingly to China. After the border agreement, Pakistan signed an
aviation agreement with the Chinese, which broke an American-inspired campaign
to isolate that communist nation. Pakistan International Airlines began regular
flights between Dacca and Shanghai. The Kennedy team responded with the first
of what would become a long list of sanctions on Pakistan—canceling a deal to
upgrade the Dacca airport.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">The Sino-Indian war had one
other major consequence: India moved closer to its decision to develop a
nuclear deterrent. Nehru had begun a nuclear-power program early after
independence and acquired reactors from the United States and Canada. But he
insisted India would use them only for peaceful purposes. His worldview held
the use of nuclear weapons to be unthinkable. But in the wake of the Chinese invasion,
the first Indian voices emerged in favor of a nuclear-weapons program. The
opposition party called for the development of the bomb to deter further
Chinese aggression. Nehru still demurred, but the path to a peaceful
nuclear-explosive test had begun.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Meanwhile, the Americans also
came to realize that the United States and India likely would need the bomb in
order to stop another major Chinese invasion. In 1963, Kennedy met with his
military advisers shortly before his death to review options in the event of
another Chinese attack. Secret tapes record Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara telling Kennedy, “Before any substantial commitment to defend India
against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that
commitment against any substantial Chinese attack, we would have to use nuclear
weapons.” Kennedy responded, “We should defend India, and therefore we will
defend India if she were attacked.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">THE KENNEDY era underscores
several key points about U.S. diplomacy in South Asia. First, it is virtually
impossible to have good relations with both India and Pakistan. We may want
them to stop being rivals, but they can’t escape their history and geography.
Almost every American president has sought to have good ties with both, though none
really has succeeded because it is a zero-sum game for two rivals who cannot
abide America being their enemy’s friend. When we give one country a
substantial gain, like the 2005 U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, the other
feels hurt and demands equal treatment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Second, China is our rival for
influence in the region because it has the capacity to frustrate American
goals. For Pakistanis, China is the “all-weather friend” that they can rely on,
unlike the unreliable and quixotic Americans. China provided Pakistan with key
technology to build the bomb in the 1970s while America was trying to prevent
Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons. Today, Beijing is building new
reactors to fuel the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world in Pakistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-74597471484288941012012-07-20T11:32:00.000+05:002015-03-05T00:14:56.897+05:00America’s Pacific Century is not about China alone…..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AEoFor3xPG0/UAj6vyTe__I/AAAAAAAAACY/dIWq-AOX-Qo/s1600/Pacific.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AEoFor3xPG0/UAj6vyTe__I/AAAAAAAAACY/dIWq-AOX-Qo/s400/Pacific.jpg" height="300" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">When President Obama revealed America’s intentions to shift focus from Middle East for an expanded
engagement in Asia, the analysts thought unanimously that this new focus comes
amid growing concerns among America's regional allies that its leadership role
in the Asia may be fading – just as China has begun to enhance its military and
assert claims to territories in the East and South China Seas. This move and sweet-talk
of <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific_century?page=full">America’s
Pacific Century</a> led many to believe, for solid reasons, that the <a href="http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2012/07/imminent-naval-conflict-between-number.html">Clash
of Titans in the Pacific</a> was imminent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">To put the plan into action, the <a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf" target="_blank">new US Defense Strategic Review </a>was finalized showing
the emphasis on challenges in the Asia-Pacific region and the goal to foster
progress in the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa. This can be
considered as a strategy to counter attempts by China and Iran to block US
power projection capabilities in areas like the South China Sea and the Strait
of Hormuz. US President Obama, who unveiled the new strategy at the Pentagon,
highlighted the re-orientation of the US’ strategic focus towards the region:
“We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific, and budget
reductions will not come at the expense of that critical region.” Officials
in the Pentagon are particularly concerned about the rise of China’s military
power and efforts to broaden its presence in the Asia-Pacific region, which
could jeopardize America’s military dominance in the region. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">China is purchasing and
developing a new generation of weapon systems that US officials fear are
designed to prevent US air and naval forces from projecting power into the Far
East. According to US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the smaller and leaner
force envisaged will be shaped to operate flexibly in the region. The document
itself expresses this re-orientation and indirectly addresses the Chinese
government: “US economic and security interests are inextricably linked to
developments in the arc extending from the Western Pacific and East Asia into
the Indian Ocean region and South Asia, creating a mix of evolving challenges
and opportunities. The growth of China’s
military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic
intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">US plans for global dominance
apart, the analysts now believe that America’s loss of interest in the Middle
East is not about China alone. The oil-rich Middle East is losing its
importance due to its terminally declining oil reserves. According to a report
carried by <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-fading-arab-oil-empire-7072">The
National Interest</a>, a confluence of developments—including rising prices and
production costs, declining reserves, and the availability of alternate fuels
and unconventional sources of oil—will decisively undermine the defining role
of the Middle East in the global energy market. Meanwhile, the United States
has vital interests at stake elsewhere in the world at least as pressing, if
not more so, than its interests in the Middle East. These include thwarting the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, fighting transnational terrorism
and maintaining stability in key strategic locations of the world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The comparative advantage in
producing oil is based on four factors. First, Middle Eastern oil is the
cheapest in the world to produce because of simple geology, most Middle Eastern
oil is a superior product, Middle Eastern oil developers benefit from economies
of scale because the cheap oil there is so plentiful and the Middle East’s
dominance of oil production and reserves makes it “too big to fail,” which
effectively lowers producers’ risks. Other than the Middle East’s comparative
advantage in oil production and the world economy’s need for oil to power
transport, the region would not be as strategically important otherwise. But
this comparative advantage in oil production is eroding because oil-production
costs in the Middle East are certain to rise and some oilfields producing
continuously for eighty years are rapidly maturing (meaning they are almost
past their peak production). This is pushing the producers to develop new
production capacity in other regions and through unconventional methods. Middle
East now accounts for only 46 percent of remaining reserves of oil and liquid
natural gas ultimately recoverable with conventional means and that is only
“proven” reserves. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">With these developments, the
Middle East suddenly becomes a minor player. Since 1945, the United States has sought
to prevent any single power from dominating the Middle East’s oil supplies and supported
anticommunist monarchies and autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain,
among others, during the Cold War. The U.S. military’s Central Command, formed
in 1983, has a forward headquarters in Qatar, and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet
is based in Bahrain. This military infrastructure guarantees a long-term U.S.
military presence in the region. Those policies now make less sense in light of
the brewing realities in the world oil market. These developments—the world’s
increasing energy efficiency and the Middle East’s loss of its comparative
advantage in oil production, the region will no longer be able to act as the
“central bank of oil,” and it will forever lose the ability to credibly
threaten to wield oil as a weapon. The sword of Damocles that has implicitly
hovered over the West since the 1970s will be gone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">However, the US interests in
the Middle East will remain intact because the region is considered a hotbed of
terrorism and may become a major locus of WMD proliferation. But South Asia
hosts terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, that threaten the United States
more directly. Middle East has two of the world’s most important choke points
for ocean-going trade: the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz. But governments
in the region, heavily reliant on exports, have strong interests in keeping
trade routes open. Despite Iranian leaders’ recent threats, no government is
likely to cut off its own economic lifeline voluntarily. Meanwhile, the Malacca
Strait in East Asia will remain important for a diverse array of ocean-going
trade for the foreseeable future.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The United States is also committed
to Israel’s security. If Iran succeeds in building a nuclear weapon, Israel
could face a potential existential threat—the same threat fellow U.S. allies in
East Asia, including South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, have been facing from North
Korea since 2006. Once again, U.S. interests in the Middle East are no more,
and probably less, important than U.S. interests in other regions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The changing realities of the
world energy market do not mean the United States can or should ignore the
Middle East. In the final analysis, it is now only Iran which can lead to
extended stay of America in the Middle East. Once Iranian threat to Israel is
neutralized, US can pay its full attention to Asia Pacific which is its
new-found darling to deal with growing economic and military might of China.
This will define its relations with India and Pakistan. With Iran continuing to
defy the dictates of American World Order, US presence in South Asia will be
imperative. This will be quite a distraction from its focus on its Pacific
Century. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-45793448790733238292012-07-08T13:39:00.002+05:002012-07-08T19:57:50.038+05:00The looming Clash of Titans in the Pacific…..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MIBhwiSz460/T_lFEg4jciI/AAAAAAAAACM/6b0WXbhlhlc/s1600/Plan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MIBhwiSz460/T_lFEg4jciI/AAAAAAAAACM/6b0WXbhlhlc/s400/Plan.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The First World Naval War
(FNWW) is around the corner and the battlefield is none other than the </span><a href="http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2011/08/towards-bipolar-world-via-south-china.html" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">South China Sea</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">. The FNWW will be a lot
different from the naval wars fought so far between big powers in the last
century. The future war will be fought between US and China but the gallant
warriors will be replaced by the unmanned vehicles aided by super sensors and
driven by artificial intelligence. Strategic location of the war theater has
pitched China against its neighbors who are under the US influence. There are
phenomenal realignments which could translate into another bi-polar world like
the one which came into being post-WWII? Professor </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Samuel Huntington</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, in his famous book, <i>Clash of Civilizations</i>...., predicted
a war between China and Vietnam sometimes close to 2010 over the maritime
resources of South China Sea. In view of Huntington, this would be a war within
a civilization; but the later evidence suggests that South China Sea will be a
hotbed of a much broader international conflict. Analysts have their
fingers crossed but given the economic growth and fast industrialization of
China, the world is already on the road to its cherished dream of bipolarity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The U.S. is not oblivious to
the potential conflict and has adopted a </span><a href="http://quotulatiousness.ca/blog/"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">new
approach</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> to
any potential war with China. The U.S. Department of Defense has been told
that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no more large-scale land
campaigns. The air force, navy, and marines responded with a plan (AirSea
Battle) that has been in the work for years. The new strategy is designed to
cope with the rising power of China in the Pacific. AirSea Battle involves
tighter planning and coordination of navy, marine, and navy forces, plus the
development of some new weapons and tactics and cooperation with allies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">AirSea battle concentrates on
military operations. But these will be heavily influenced by economic factors.
For example, during World War II the United States was a largely
self-sufficient “continental power.” That has changed. The U.S. is now like
much of the rest of the world, China included. If there were a maritime
blockade of China, the U.S. and many other Chinese trading partners would
suffer severe economic disruptions. There would be massive unemployment for all
concerned and that would happen despite energetic efforts by everyone to find
alternative sources to goods no longer available because of the disruption of
the China trade.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Let us look at the potential
fighting elements. These are unmanned vehicles like UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles), UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles), and USVs (Unmanned Surface
Vehicles) which are radically new technologies. There are already examples of
all three in service. There will be more and they will change everything by
incorporating more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) and new weapons. Others
are Super Sensors like Sonar, Artificial<i> </i>Intelligence,
All-Electric ships<i>,</i> Stealth
technology, Composites, Networking, Space Based Services, Nanotech, Laser
weapons, Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Two years ago many missile
experts in the U.S. Navy believed that the long rumored Chinese anti-ship
ballistic missile, the DF-21D, was operational. As far as anyone knows, or will
admit, the complete system has not been tested. There are hints that there were
some tests three years ago and that all the components of the system were
present and working. There are photos of DF-21Ds on TELs (transporter erector
launcher vehicles) and announcements of new units activated for the 2nd
Artillery Missile Brigade, equipped with DF-21 missiles. In theory, such
weapons are possible and for China they are an ideal way of attacking American
carriers. It's an expensive way to hit a carrier, since each of these missiles
costs over $20 million. But if you have to get it done that's a reasonable
price. In the future the price will come down a bit and anti-missile systems available
to warships will be better at dealing with them. Guided warheads could also be
launched from space satellites. You can see where this is going and there will
be a lot more of it this century.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The shift of American focus
from South Asia, Afghanistan, Middle East and Iran to Pacific Ocean is clear
signal that two giants are all set to collide somewhere in the Pacific and the
trigger of conflict is in the center of South China Sea dispute. Being aware of
this eventuality long ago, China had started building its Navy and brought it
from under the shadow of PLA (Navy) to China Navy and making it the second
largest after the US Navy. A pre-requisite to this development was economic
growth which China achieved by becoming the second largest economy. The
imminent conflict will, therefore, be between the Number One and Number Two.
And if this conflict takes place in a period of decade from now, it would
between equals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">A report carried by </span><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/chinas-blue-water-ambitions-7157"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The National Interest</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, says that as China develops
complex economic and strategic interests in Africa and the Middle East, freedom
of navigation through the Indian Ocean and much of the Pacific will concern
Beijing mightily. But unsurprisingly, there is discomfort with sharing maritime
security responsibilities close to home. Considering the relative strength of
those patrolling the waters—mainly Japan and the United States—the Chinese fear
that in times of crisis, access to critical sea lines of communication could be
blocked. Or worse, Beijing might be forced to compromise on its long-held logic
of </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073005664.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">sovereignty</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> over a region that
extends far beyond what international law </span><a href="http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">permits</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Before it can dominate the
seas, China has much catching up to do. The combined weight of twenty-one of
the world’s biggest navies is </span><a href="http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090217.The_US_Navy_Charti/R.20090217.The_US_Navy_Charti.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">6.75
million tons</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
Remove the United States Navy (USN), and that leaves the global fleet 46
percent lighter at about 3.63 million tons. Though not the most accurate gauge
of naval prowess, the skewered weight distribution—combined with the USN’s
pound-for-pound superiority—cannot bode well for a rising power wary of the
status quo. Unfortunately, what China has to show for three decades of naval
modernization are a handful of nuclear-powered </span><a href="http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type093shang.asp" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">attack</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">- and ballistic-</span><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/type_94.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">missile</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> submarines that lag
behind those of the world’s premier navies, an aircraft carrier they’re only
beginning to learn how to use and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM). Only the
ASBM really gives Beijing an edge over the competition. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The Pentagon reports the highly
maneuverable missile has a range of one thousand miles. Considering even the
next generation of naval fighter aircraft will lack the range to return to
their carriers if launched further than six hundred miles from their
intended </span><a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66752/seth-cropsey/keeping-the-pacific-pacific" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">target</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, denying potential adversaries’
access to a significant portion of the Western Pacific looks possible. But for
the near future, blue-water ambitions are likely to remain unfulfilled. A
refurbished Soviet-era aircraft carrier, ASBMs and a few unstealthy nuclear
submarines won’t allow the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to conduct
complex operations far from its shores, even if China’s sailors can master
their new boats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Given the bulk of what the PLAN
presently fields, the implications are likely to be felt closer to home. The
large fleet of Song, Ming and Romeo class diesel-electric submarines,
catamarans, Landing Platform Docks, and other short-range and shore-based
weapons will influence the day-to-day choices nearby countries will
make—especially whether to align more closely with China or the United States. China
is eager to see its maritime neighbors embrace its naval-modernization effort.
Such support is now vital after the apparent loss of Burma as an alternative
energy corridor, which has led some in Beijing to question the prudence of
banking on vastly expensive and highly tenuous relationships to secure
resources.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Whatever China is deliberating is
not very clear but it is understood that China is well aware of high cost of
miscalculation. China should understand that a stronger navy should allow
Beijing to throw its weight around with greater ease. But if Chinese naval
modernization is spurring others in the region to do the same—and if some of
its more powerful neighbors look more than capable of playing catch-up—it is
difficult to decipher what advantage the PLAN hopes to wield in the long term.
Hegemony in the Pacific and Indian Oceans seems unlikely. Anything less could
leave Beijing more isolated and vulnerable in a powerful, distrustful backyard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The U.S. Navy is rethinking how
it will use its submarines in a future Pacific War. According to </span><a href="http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20120706.aspx"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Strategy Page</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">a campaign against Chinese
shipping is unlikely, in part because of what actually happened during the last
great anti-shipping campaign, which occurred during World War II (1939-45).
After the war, the U.S. analyzed its operations against Japanese shipping and
found that submarines were important, but not the only weapon effective against
shipping. Some 8.9 million tons of Japanese shipping was sunk or so seriously
damaged (disabled) at the end of the war. Submarines accounted for 54.7 percent
of this. But 16.3 percent was attributable to carrier-based aircraft, 14.5
percent to land- based planes and 9.3 percent to mines (most dropped by B-29s).
Less than one percent was due to surface gunfire, and the balance of 4 percent
was caused by accidents. Because of their ability to operate in
enemy-controlled (mainly by land-based aircraft) waters, submarines accounted
for about 60 percent of the damage until the final months of the war. Then,
during late 1944, carrier task forces went deep into enemy controlled areas,
defending themselves against land-based warplanes and sinking a large numbers
of ships. After April, 1945 Japanese shipping was restricted to the Korean and
Manchurian runs and to shallow coastal waters. At this point the naval mines
dropped by B-29s in Japanese harbors and inland waterways accounted for 50 percent
of all ships sunk or damaged. That was then, but sixty years later the United
States is able to monitor large ocean areas and has aircraft that are able to
hit anything that's spotted. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The report says that the U.S.
has adopted a new approach to any potential war with China. The U.S. Department
of Defense has been told that, for the foreseeable future, there will be no
more large-scale land campaigns. The air force, navy, and marines responded
with a plan (AirSea Battle) that has been in the work for years. The new
strategy is designed to cope with the rising power of China in the Pacific.
AirSea Battle involves tighter planning and coordination of navy, marine, and
navy forces, plus the development of some new weapons and tactics and
cooperation with allies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">AirSea Battle has been widely
accepted, as China continues to make all its neighbors nervous. That's because
the Chinese name for China translates as "middle kingdom" as in
"China is the middle of the world." The Chinese government, a
communist dictatorship by any other name, is using nationalism to keep its
pro-democracy opposition off balance. China has border disputes, expressed or
implied, with all its neighbors. This has made the neighbors uneasy, especially
as Chinese military forces have been modernized and more aggressive over the
last decade. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">While Air-Sea Battle was
developed to keep the United States out of extensive land combat (the navy
still has commandos and marines for brief operations ashore), those kinds of
wars tend to show up when you least expect, want, or are prepared for them. For
the moment, U.S. military planners believe they can avoid a large land war.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The U.S. Navy has been studying
(and war-gaming) the situation and that included an examination of American
submarine use since World War II. After the 1960s, the U.S. shifted to using
only nuclear propelled submarines. During the Cold War (1948-91), American subs
were meant for use in defeating the growing Soviet (Russian) fleet. That force
disappeared in the 1990s. At that point the Chinese fleet got larger and
modernized, but is still nowhere near the size of the Soviet Navy. But this
time the U.S. was facing a major trading nation. Unlike Russia, which was
largely self-sufficient (or could get what it needed overland from neighbors), China
requires thousands of ships a year to handle exports and imports. Like Japan
during World War II, China is vulnerable here. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Discounting the significance of
economy in the conduct of war is always a very costly miscalculation. AirSea
battle concentrates on military operations. But these will be heavily
influenced by economic factors. With the U.S. is now dependent on other nations
like much of the rest of the world, China included, the U.S. and many other
Chinese trading partners would suffer severe economic disruptions if there were
a maritime blockade of China. This could trigger the risk of nuclear war.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The Chinese Navy is the second
largest naval service in the world, only behind the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy" title="United States Navy"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">United
States Navy</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
With a personnel strength of over 250,000, the PLAN also includes the
35,000-strong Coastal Defense Force and the 56,000-strong </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Marine_Corps" title="People's Liberation Army Marine Corps"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">PLA
Marine Corps</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">,
plus a 56,000-strong </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Naval_Air_Force" title="People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">PLA
Naval Air Force</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">,
operating several hundred land-based aircraft and ship-based helicopters. As
part of its overall program of naval modernization, the PLA Navy is moving
towards the development of a blue-water navy. There is a significant
strategic rethinking and the new strategic threats include possible conflict
with the United States and/or a resurgent Japan in areas such as the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Strait" title="Taiwan Strait"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Taiwan Strait</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> or the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea" title="South China Sea"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">South China Sea</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">. At the occasion of the 60th
anniversary of the PLAN, 52 vessels were shown in maneuvers off Qingdao in
April 2009 including previously unseen nuclear submarines. The demonstration
was seen as a sign of the growing status of China, while the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMC_Chairman" title="CMC Chairman"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">CMC Chairman</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao" title="Hu Jintao"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Hu Jintao</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, indicated that China is
neither seeking regional hegemony nor entering an arms race. Adm. Robert F.
Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, called the PLAN's modernization
"aggressive," and that it raised concerns in the region. Japan has also
raised concerns about the PLAN's growing capability and the lack of
transparency as its naval strength keeps on expanding. China has entered into
service the world's first anti-ship ballistic missile called </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21D" title="DF-21D"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">DF-21D</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
The potential threat from the DF-21D against U.S. </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier" title="Aircraft carrier"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">aircraft carriers</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> has reportedly caused
major changes in U.S. strategy. The PLAN's ambitions reportedly include
operating out to the first and second island chains as far as the South Pacific
near Australia, and spanning to the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_islands" title="Aleutian islands"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Aleutian islands</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, and operations extending to
the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_of_Malacca" title="Straits of Malacca"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Straits
of Malacca</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> near
the Indian Ocean.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The future Chines fleet will be
composed of a balance of assets aimed at maximizing the fighting effectiveness. On the high end, there
would be modern destroyers equipped with long range air defense missiles (</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052B_destroyer" title="Type 052B destroyer"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Type
052B</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052C_destroyer" title="Type 052C destroyer"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Type
052C</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051C_destroyer" title="Type 051C destroyer"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Type
051C</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">);
destroyers armed with supersonic anti-ship missiles (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovremenny_class_destroyer" title="Sovremenny class destroyer">Sovremenny class</a>); advanced nuclear
powered attack and ballistic missile submarines (</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_093_submarine" title="Type 093 submarine"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Type
093</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_094_submarine" title="Type 094 submarine"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Type
094</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">); advanced
conventional attack submarines (</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine" title="Kilo class submarine"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Kilo</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_041_submarine" title="Type 041 submarine"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Yuan</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">); aircraft carriers and large
amphibious warfare vessels capable mobilizing troops at long distances. On the
medium and low end, there would be more economical multi-role capable frigates
and destroyers (upgraded </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_051_destroyer" title="Type 051 destroyer"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Luda</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_052_destroyer" title="Type 052 destroyer">Luhu</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_053H3_frigate" title="Type 053H3 frigate">Jiangwei II</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_054A_frigate" title="Type 054A frigate">Jiangkai</a>);
fast littoral missile attack craft (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_037-II_class_missile_boat" title="Type 037-II class missile boat">Houjian</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_037-IG_class_missile_boat" title="Type 037-IG class missile boat">Houxin</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houbei_class_missile_boat" title="Houbei class missile boat">Houbei</a>); various landing ships and light
craft; and conventionally powered coastal patrol submarines.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Ronald O'Rourke of the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service" title="Congressional Research Service"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Congressional
Research Service</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> reported
that the long term goals of PLAN planning include: assert or defend China’s
claims in maritime territorial disputes and China’s interpretation of
international laws relating to freedom of navigation in exclusive economic
zones (an interpretation at odds with the U.S. interpretation); protect China’s
sea lines of communications to the Persian Gulf, on which China relies for some
of its energy imports; and assert China’s status as a major world power,
encourage other states in the region to align their policies with China, and
displace U.S. regional military influence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The developments are
interesting and clearly explain the shift of focus in US global ambitions. It
also explains how and why US is warming up to its Cold-war adversary, India and
why is it in a hurry to offload its Afghanistan baggage. It, in part, should
also explain US’s dumping of its Cold-war ally; Pakistan. It sometimes becomes
clear why the Chinese Muslim province is perpetually at war with tracks of
unrest leading to Pakistan’s restive regions where TTP is fighting Pakistan at
the behest of India and the US. There are indeed no long-term foes and friends
in realist politics. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-241910264019059022012-07-05T18:44:00.000+05:002012-07-05T18:50:55.876+05:00NATO supply routes: Our national interests are as sacred as yours….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_SYUwzG0M18/T_WZXga9AvI/AAAAAAAAACA/6Ss-a2bwAPE/s1600/hqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_SYUwzG0M18/T_WZXga9AvI/AAAAAAAAACA/6Ss-a2bwAPE/s400/hqdefault.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">In order to avert the risk of
its international isolation, Pakistan has agreed to reopen the ground lanes of
communication (GLOC), critically vital to the logistic support of NATO forces
fighting in Afghanistan. These forces are apparently engaged in war on terror
but the menace of terrorism has been strengthened many times over since October
2001 when the US decided to attack Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban regime
which was accused of providing sanctuaries to </span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">al-Qaeda</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">. It has now been established through hindsight that it was
</span><i style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">al-Qaeda</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> which attacked the US on 9/11
in order to pull the sole super power into Afghanistan, a graveyard of many
Empires. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The US and its allies have lost
the war as they have failed to achieve the stated objective of bringing peace
in Afghanistan. The US misadventure in Afghanistan has not only threatened the
peace and security of countries in this region including Afghanistan, Central
Asian states, China, Pakistan and India but it has also endangered the security
of US and its allies. Al-Qaeda is now a formidable force operating from many
bases around the globe. The US dream of defeating <i>al-Qaeda</i> has been totally frustrated. The West has lost in
Afghanistan like the British. Its bruised ego demands that it should leave like
a victor to justify hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars and, if that is
not possible, it should find a scapegoat and pass on the buck. Pakistan was a
convenient scapegoat but it proved itself otherwise during a long standoff
after the Salala incident. The US had to blink first leading to reopening of
GLOC by Pakistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The US had applied all the
tactics, many of those clearly dirty and blackmailing like raising the issue of
Balochistan, in order to pressure Pakistan into submission. This country, which
is now subsisting on international hand-outs, successfully held its ground on
principles and resisted all sorts of arm-twisting pressure. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Let us look at recent
developments and </span><a href="http://www.criticalthreats.org/pakistan-security-brief/pakistan-security-brief-july-2-2012"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Critical Threats</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> in the run-up to reopening of
GLOC. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">There was behind the scene
consultations. Pakistani’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State Tom Nides met in Islamabad last week to discuss
reopening NATO supply routes into Afghanistan. According to a Foreign Office
spokesman, the meeting led to significant progress, though no final decision
was reached. At the meeting, the U.S. delegation also assured Pakistan that the
U.S. would distribute the first $400 million dollar installment of the
Coalition Support Fund (CSF) within a week’s period. Sources said that the
technical and monetary issues related to reopening the supply lines have been
resolved and though a U.S. apology over the Salala border incident that
killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November may come forth this week, it will most
likely not come from “the highest ranks.” Other sources claim that a U.S. team
comprised of senior members of the White House National Security staff has
brought a </span><a href="http://dawn.com/2012/07/02/american-team-holds-talks-in-islamabad-clinton-calls-raja-pakistan-and-us-near-accord-on-nato-routes/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">draft
proposal</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> to
Islamabad that “meets Pakistan’s demand for an apology without embarrassing”
the Obama administration. Although the U.S. Department of Defense remains
opposed to the proposed apology, official sources claim that the U.S. State
Department is strongly supporting the proposal to accept Pakistan’s demand for
an apology.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Speaking jointly with Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey on Saturday, U.S. Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta said that Islamabad and Washington are continuing
discussions over reopening the Ground Lines of Communications (GLOCs) and
that the two countries should work together to confront a common enemy in the
Tehrik-e-Taliban (TTP). In reference to negotiations over reopening the NATO
supply routes, Panetta noted that “there are still some tough issues to
resolve.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed similar
sentiments when she talked to Pakistani Prime Minister via telephone on
Sunday, saying that the two countries should work together to defeat “the
common enemy.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">A Pentagon budget document
called the omnibus reprogramming request sent to U.S. Congress on Friday
revealed that continued closure of Pakistan’s NATO supply route is costing the
Department of Defense more than </span><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-06-30/afghan-supply-route-extra-costs/55948946/1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">$2.1
billion in extra transportation costs</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
In the document, the Army requested $1.7 billion from Congress for “shortfalls
that resulted from increased fuel costs and continued closure of the Pakistan
[GLOC]” while the Air Force asked for $369.2 million partially due to the
closure of the Pakistan [GLOC].” NATO Secretary General Andres Fogh Rasmussen,
on Monday, expressed </span><a href="http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=57017" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">hope that Pakistan would soon
reopen the NATO supply route</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
Rasmussen emphasized the importance of the NATO-Pakistan relationship in light
of the expected drawdown in the military campaign in Afghanistan by 2014.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">In the meantime, drone strikes
continued to target the terrorists. Some of the militants targeted were foreign
fighters belonging to the Turkmenistan Islamic
Movement. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Afghanistan-Pakistan relations
continued deteriorating due to Salala-like incidents and anti-Pakistan Taliban
strikes against Pakistani border posts. </span><a href="http://www.geo.tv/GeoDetail.aspx?ID=57003" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Afghanistan threatened to
report Pakistan to the UN Security Council</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> over what Afghan authorities allege was
“Pakistani rocket shelling” of the eastern province of Kunar in recent weeks.
According to an official speaking to AFP, rockets have displaced thousands of
villagers from Kunar as Pakistani security forces retaliate against Taliban
militants responsible for cross-border attacks. Foreign Ministry spokesman
Faramarz Tamana said Afghanistan “will refer this issue to the United Nations
Security Council,” if bilateral talks between President Hamid Karzai and Prime
Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf fail to produce any conclusions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistani officials claim
that </span><a href="http://dawn.com/2012/07/02/afghanistan-says-would-notify-unsc-on-pakistan-attacks/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">60 Afghan
soldiers crossed into Pakistan on Monday</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, sparking clashes in Upper Kurram agency that
resulted in the death of two tribesmen and the injury of another, according to
a senior official speaking to AFP on the condition of anonymity. Local
residents added that Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers pursued attackers
fleeing Shehar-e-Nau village in Pakitia province. Spokesman for army corps 203
in southeastern Afghanistan Colonel Ahmad Jan, however, denied the allegations,
claiming that ANA forces had “not entered Pakistan.” Pakistan plans to issue a
formal protest against Afghanistan in response to the incursion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">On last Sunday, hundreds of
militants reportedly gathered in Afghanistan’s eastern province of Kunar,
dozens of whom crossed into Sabir Killey village, in Upper Dir’s Soni Darr
area, in </span><a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/402394/six-militants-from-afghanistan-killed-in-upper-dir-officials/"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">an ambush on a Pakistani
security forces check post</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">.
In the ensuing firefight, six militants were killed. Pakistani intelligence
officials stated the militants belonged to Pakistani cleric Mullah Fazlullah’s
faction of the Pakistani Taliban. Meanwhile, </span><a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/401947/taliban-commander-killed-in-dir-operation-officials/"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Taliban commander Mullah
Mansoor was killed</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> on
Sunday following clashes between militants and security forces in the Dir Bala
area of Dir. According to local sources, 34 militants were killed during the
three days of fighting in the area. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">In the backdrop of these
developments, was Islamabad becoming increasingly desperate to find a way out
of this crisis created by closing down of GLOCs? In view of some analysts, it
would have been a disaster for Pakistan had the US, which is a big financer,
and international monitory institutions like the IMF and the World Bank,
refused to bail out its already frail economy." Both countries realized
that they were gaining nothing from the deadlock and they had to go forward. Both
countries had calmed down by now and they felt they had to get back to
business. When the Pakistanis were too angry in November last year, the US had
agreed to tender an apology, but the decision was halted on Pakistan's own
claim that the parliament was reviewing relations with the US. Observers
believe Islamabad's decision to resume NATO supplies will help ease its
tensions with the US.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">By perpetuating the crisis,
Pakistan was risking international isolation and its due role in the future of
Afghanistan. It, therefore, had to convince the US that its interests in
Afghanistan should not be put at stake for the benefit of India and other
regional players. By averting the risk of isolation, Pakistan is still exposed
to the risk of backlash from Islamists. These Islamists are necessarily the
Taliban of its supporters. It is the traditional <i>ghairat </i>brigade and right-wing political forces. The reopening of NATO
supply routes remains an unpopular decision in Pakistan. The government faced
immense political pressure from opposition parties, including hard-line
Islamist groups. Observers say that despite the fact that the resumption of
supplies will improve US-Pakistani relations; the PPP government is going to
face a severe backlash from the Islamist parties. Pakistani militants opposed
to the resumption of supplies - which includes the Taliban - have warned they
will carry out attacks on NATO supply trucks.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">But resumption of supply routes
without a formal apology indicates Islamabad’s desperation to end the crisis. In </span><a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/194502.htm" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">a carefully worded statement</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton said she was sorry for the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a
NATO airstrike on the Afghan border last November. She slipped in an apology
too on Pakistan’s behalf saying that, “We are both sorry for losses suffered by
both our countries in this fight against terrorists.” And she announced that
NATO supply routes, closed since last November, would be reopened.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">As it stands, at best the two
countries have agreed a truce which opens the political space for them to work
together to try to end the war in Afghanistan. According to </span><a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Reuters</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">, </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"> it is a missed opportunity for the United
States to redefine its relationship with Pakistan, returning instead to a toxic
mutual dependency which allows both countries to blame the other for their
failings. How close they manage to steer to either the former or latter outcome
– and the real risk is that they continue to muddle along in the middle – will
become clear only when the full details of their negotiations emerge. But there
are some fairly obvious signs to watch for. There is increased anti-Americanism
fuelled by right-wing forces, the Haqqani factor and continued drone strikes.
Pakistan has to safeguard its own national security interests.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Underneath what Washington sees
as near-suicidal reluctance by the Pakistani military to turn against
Islamist insurgents lies legitimate security interests. The colonial-era Durand
Line which marks the border with Afghanistan has never been recognized by
Kabul, leaving Pakistan vulnerable to the idea of a revived Pashtunistan
incorporating the Pashtun people of southern Afghanistan and those living on
the Pakistani side as far as the Indus river. Pakistan and Afghanistan are
never going to have settled relations until that border issue is addressed in
some way (tensions on the border have been flaring up again, aggravated by
accusations from both Afghanistan and Pakistan of militant sanctuaries on
either side.) Will the United States be willing to nudge the Afghans into talks
that, while unlikely to reach a settlement for years (Afghanistan is fiercely
opposed to recognizing the Durand Line as the border) would at least indicate a
readiness to address one of the root causes of conflict? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">To enhance Pakistan’s
skepticism, Washington has actively welcomed Indian participation in developing
Afghanistan; Pakistan opposes any Indian military involvement and only
reluctantly has accepted economic support. Have red lines on Indian involvement
in Afghanistan been agreed between the United States, Pakistan and India?
Apparently, there is no such agreement. If its past record is any evidence of
its future dealings with Pakistan, Pakistanis have no reason to rely on the US.
If the United States has achieved the feat of being disliked by almost all
sections of Pakistani society, it is partly because its past policies proved so
damaging to Pakistan, particularly its support for India. Its approach to
Pakistan has been one of using it for its own strategic ends whether these be
challenging the Soviet Union during the Cold War or fighting the war in
Afghanistan. That has been changing slowly – over the last few years Washington
has begun to acknowledge its real challenge was in stabilizing not Afghanistan but
Pakistan. With that has come tentative support for democracy – a country being
used purely for U.S. foreign policy ends is “more conveniently” run by a
general; a country in need of internal stabilization is more likely to be
balanced through democracy. How far will Washington continue to
support </span><a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2012/06/20/pakistan-is-not-egypt-and-it-hasnt-had-a-coup/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Pakistan’s
chaotic nascent democracy</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">,
or alternatively how far will it fall back on the old habits of
military-to-military cooperation?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The lessons learnt from the
seven-month long stand-off are very clear. The major lesson is that it is not
possible even for a super power, to browbeat Pakistan notwithstanding its
fragile economy, tainted leadership, political and ethnic polarization and
fragmented social order. Pakistan has a strong judiciary and a well-motivated
defense machine and these institutions are a sufficient pre-requisite for
country’s survival. Pakistan has conducted itself in a most responsible manner
and played its role in the efforts to bring peace in the region. Despite all
the dirty tactics employed by the US, including attacks on Pakistani border
posts from Afghanistan, Pakistan did not disappoint the world community. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-46411016404599197822012-02-27T17:55:00.003+05:002015-03-05T00:04:08.278+05:00Israel’s possible strike on Iran will only strengthen the Mullah regime….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ptC7qRrWBEc/T0t80CBKutI/AAAAAAAAAB4/-UZAvMAlX5k/s1600/israel_iran_invasion.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ptC7qRrWBEc/T0t80CBKutI/AAAAAAAAAB4/-UZAvMAlX5k/s400/israel_iran_invasion.gif" height="298" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">US, Israel and their allies are
arm-twisting and pressurizing Iran into submission over its nuclear program.
The rest of the world, including the so-called <i>Ummah, </i>is either watching Iran’s persistent defiance of global
pressure helplessly or with wide-eyes, except those nations of the region who
foresee devastating consequences of any misadventure in Iran. Iran feels that
its nuclear program is directly threatened by the USA, Israel and conservative
Arab nations for various reasons. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The
United States and its traditional allies (Britain, France, Germany, etc.) are
increasingly worried about a nuclear Iran, especially given the tense
relationship Iran has with most Western nations since the Iranian Revolution of
the late 1970s. Israel has a long history of conflict with the Muslim world,
and the current president of Iran has made several anti-Semitic comments, and
has indicated that he does not believe Israel should exist. Israelis are
worried that Iran's President is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons in order to
destroy Israel and kill millions of Jews.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Conservative Arab nations, such as
Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf States are equally wary of Iran’s
nuclear. Having a total lack of ability to target Iran’s nuclear installations
themselves, these Arab nations may very well aid and abet any attack by the
West and/or Israel. Historically Persian Iran has been in conflict with the
Arab nations. This is partly due to the fact that Iran is dominated by the
Shiite sect of Islam, while most Arab nations are controlled by the majority
Sunni sect of Islam.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Although, there is still no
hard proof that Iran’s nuclear program is designed to produce nuclear arms, the
US and its allies would like to forestall any future eventuality leading Iran
to becoming a nuclear state. Still, Israel’s right-wing Likud Party may
actually intend to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, just as Israel attacked
Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities to preserve its Mideast nuclear monopoly.
Whipping up a crisis over Iran also serves to deflect attention from the
unresolved question of Palestine and from Israel’s growing social and economic
problems.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Having assessed the cost, and
possibly learned from Iraq fiasco, the US & Co is exercising maximum
restraint in going to a war on the issue. The war, if it happens, will have the
potential for a wide-spread conflict engulfing in the war-flames the farther
shores. Apart from destabilization, destruction and devastation for the region,
will any attack by Israel or the US have any devastating consequences for the
attackers themselves?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">According<span style="color: red;"> </span>to a recent analysis carried by<span style="color: red;"> </span></span><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/radioactive-situation-6566"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">The National Interest</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">, </span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Israel has some three hundred
nuclear devices in its arsenal, capable of being delivered by medium-range
ballistic missiles, submarine-launched cruise missiles and aircraft with
standoff missiles. Two of Israel’s three German-supplied “<em><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;">Dolphin</span></em>-class” submarines carrying
nuclear-armed missiles are reportedly stationed off Iran’s coast, providing an
invulnerable second-strike capability for the Jewish state. Any Iranian nuclear
attack on Israel would result in Iran being vaporized. Israel’s potential
target list in Iran is clear. At least twelve major nuclear or nuclear-related
sites would have to be struck to seriously damage Iran’s nuclear program, some
of which is buried deep underground. Leading targets include the aboveground heavy-water/reactor
facility at Arak; reactors at Bushehr (a civilian power reactor relying on
Russian-supplied fuel), the new underground enrichment facility near Qum at
Fordow, the ore conversion plants near Isfahan, and other facilities at Qazvin,
Damghan, Tabriz, Lavizan, Chalus, Darkhovin and Parchin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Iran itself and the adjoining
states may become a direct target of nuclear fallout because destroying Iran’s
many reactors and processing facilities could release large amounts of
radiation and create radioactive dust storms. Winds would carry this toxic
miasma over Afghanistan and its large U.S. military garrison. Dangerous
radiation would also extend to Pakistan, western India, Iraq, Kuwait and to the
Gulf, where large numbers of U.S. military personnel are based. Equally
ominous, radioactive dust could blanket oil fields in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
the UAE. High-altitude winds would spread radioactivity around the globe, as
occurred at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, but at a factor of twenty times or more.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";">Air attacks may not be as
effective as a nuclear attack. The
Pentagon has estimated it will need to strike at least 3,200 targets in Iran,
including nuclear facilities, air and naval bases, military production plants,
headquarters, communications hubs, missile bases, Gulf ports, and
command-and-control facilities. After the first wave, air and missile strikes
as well as Special Forces raids would have to continue for weeks, perhaps
months. However, the most important result of an Israeli air campaign against Iran
would be to draw the United States into a long-running conflict with the
Islamic Republic that it neither wants nor can afford. After having lost two
expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is quite inconceivable that the US
would decide to go to a third major conflict which could possibly wreck
America’s finances and plunge the republic in an Orwellian state of permanent
war.</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background: white; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;">It may be kept in view that the national interests of Israel
and the United States do not converge, and many leading figures of the US
administration blindly believe the Israeli claims that Iran poses a deadly
threat to its existence, and act as if the Israeli nuclear arsenal is of no
concern.<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial;"><br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Paul Rogers in his report, </span><a href="http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects"><i><span style="color: red; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Military Action
Against Iran: Impact and Effects</span></i></a><i><span style="color: red; font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">,<b> </b></span></i><span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">warns that consequences of Iran conflict would be
devastating and would lead to a long war. The study follows Israeli
reports that Syria is manufacturing Iranian M-600 missiles for Hezbollah, the
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu calling Iran “the ultimate terrorist threat”
and saying it was a mistake to think Iran’s nuclear ambitions could be
contained, and a call from the United Arab Emirates Ambassador in Washington
for a military strike on Iran. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The report outlines the likely shape of an Israeli
strike, saying it would be focused not only on destroying ‘military real
estate’ – nuclear and missile targets - but also would hit factories and
research centers, and even university laboratories, in order to do as much
damage as possible to the Iranian expertise that underpins the program. The
strike would not be limited to remote bases but would involve the direct
bombing of targets in Tehran. It would probably include attempts to kill those
technocrats who manage Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. It would be widely
viewed across the Middle East as having been undertaken with the knowledge,
approval and assistance of the United States, even if carried out solely by
Israel.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Professor Rogers says that, “There would be many
civilian casualties, both directly among people working on Iran’s nuclear and
missile programs, but also their families as their living quarters were hit,
and secretaries, cleaners, laborers and other staff in factories, research
stations and university departments.”While much damage would be done to Iran’s
nuclear and missile programs, it would increase Iranian political unity, making
the Ahmadinejad regime more stable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Iran would be able to respond in many ways, argues
the report, including withdrawal from the <i>Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT)</i> and immediate action to develop nuclear weapons to deter
further attacks. Such work would use deeply-buried facilities that are reported
to be under construction. A series of actions aimed at Israel as well as
targeting the United States and its western partners including missile attacks
on Israel. These actions, including paramilitary and/or missile attacks on
western Gulf oil production, processing and transportation facilities would
cause a sharp rise in oil prices by closing the Straits of Hormuz.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Palatino Linotype","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The experts and analysts agree that an Israeli
attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would almost certainly be the beginning of
a long-term process of regular Israeli air strikes to further prevent the
development of nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles. Iranian responses
would also be long-term, ushering in a lengthy war with global as well as
regional implications. </span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The report concludes that “the consequences of a
military attack on Iran are so serious that they should not be encouraged in
any shape or form. However difficult, other ways must be found to resolve the
Iranian nuclear crisis.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-66128394843424914612012-02-10T20:54:00.001+05:002012-02-14T09:27:43.060+05:00US 5th Fleet faces the Sunburn in the Strait of Hormuz....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6BaJT5SVsfM/TzU9dke7s1I/AAAAAAAAABw/a9pRJ4mw6nI/s1600/Sunburn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6BaJT5SVsfM/TzU9dke7s1I/AAAAAAAAABw/a9pRJ4mw6nI/s400/Sunburn.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">In spite of rhetoric of the Mullah
regime, Iran’s nuclear capability cannot be an existential threat for Israel.
It, however, is a real challenge to superiority of Israel being the only
nuclear power in Middle East. Israel can hardly digest the prospect of having
lost the nuclear card at the hands of Iranian Mullahs. It wants to destroy Iran’s
nuclear installations in a surprise attack, have US Navy sink the whole of
Iranian Navy in the Gulf and rally around the civilized world for economic
sanctions to cripple and paralyze Iran’s economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The air attack has yet to materialize,
the sanctions have started taking their toll on the ordinary lives of Iranian
citizens but Iran’s resolve to go ahead with its nuclear program has not been
broken. Iran is daring the US to come and fight in the Gulf and its war games
in the Strait of Hormuz named as Velayat, are being perceived by independent
analysts as potential threat to oil supply in case Iran is pushed to the wall. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The current stand-off between
the US-led countries and stand-alone, soon-to-be nuclear-armed state of Iran
has occupied the attention of those who are keenly watching the developments
taking place in the region. Some are even betting on a surprise Israeli attack
on Iran’s nuclear installations and are predicting a catastrophe of unimagined
proportions. Iran’s persistent resistance suggests that Iran finds itself really
capable to close the Strait of Hormuz for long and even creating a world of
hurt for the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Iran is generally relying on a build-up of
anti-ship weapons called Sunburn missiles, which it has procured from Russia
and China over the last decade. These are top-notch weapons developed by the
Russians as a low-cost challenge to the expensive, tech-heavy weaponry of the
U.S., and specifically the aircraft carrier task force. A conflict is going to
be a huge test of a global-naval doctrine that Russia and China will watch with
tremendous interest. Iran's mix of anti-ship missiles (Sunburns, Onyxs, home
produced, etc) is unknown, but it is armed to the teeth with thousands of such
weapons in its possession.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Should the US Navy take the
risk of any misadventure in the Strait? According to an <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30482.htm">analyst</a>,
the US Navy is professional, but the Strait doesn’t allow for the normal
defense in depth available in open seas, in fact it offers the Iranians a cross
fire setup or triangulation. If you read discussions on various military sites,
there is a lively debate on American ship defense system like the Aegis.
However, almost nobody claims this to be fully protective against ship strikes.
And an oil tanker, no way. It is important that the US is working on new
generation laser defense to counter these missiles; however they are still in
development. This puts added pressure for Iran to have this fight now, not
later. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">The Sunburn is perhaps the most
lethal anti-ship missile in the world, designed to fly as low as 9 feet above
ground/water at more than 1,500 miles per hour with a disturbing range.
The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to
throw off Phalanx and other U.S. anti-missile defense systems. Given their low
cost, they’re perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the
bathtub-like Persian Gulf. Additionally, Iran must have plotted and mapped
every firing angle and location along the Gulf, their home-court coastline. Iran’s
home court strategic advantage and weaponry may mean nasty losses for the 5th
Fleet. If they leave, the Iranians would use naval mines to close the
strait and missiles to hamper the mine clearing operations.</span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">There are
varying opinions on this account too. According to an article in <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-defeat-iran-6479">National
Interest</a>, i</span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">f
Tehran crosses the Obama administration’s "red lines"—developing a
nuclear weapon or blocking world oil supplies transiting the Strait of
Hormuz—Washington will face a dilemma. The risks of using force are high, yet
the risk of inaction may also be unacceptable. If red lines are crossed the
United States must respond, but it should ponder options other than bombing. One
such option worthy of consideration: using mines around Iran's naval ports and
oil-export terminals. This might create better leverage than a campaign of air
strikes—without generating the death and destruction that could give Iran a
cause for perpetual grievance. Mining would shut in both the Iranian navy and
Iran's oil exports.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Modern
U.S. naval mines are not indiscriminate weapons. They have programmable
sensor-trigger mechanisms. These mines can be set to arm after a delay for a
warning period, select targets based on a ship’s magnetic, pressure and
acoustic signature, and they can be neutralized or cleared after a conflict. </span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Naval
mines have advantages over air strikes. Even precision-guided weapons might
well cause civilian casualties and collateral damage that cannot be undone. Air
attacks against inland targets would put American pilots at substantial risk.
An air campaign could not assure the complete destruction of underground
targets.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Worse,
mere air strikes might not provide a successful exit strategy. An exit from
conflict must be based on forcing (and also enticing) Tehran to accept a
political settlement ending its threatening behavior. Yet in addition to its
inherent risks, a bombing campaign might cause the Iranian people to rally in
support of the unpopular regime. This could further embolden Iran's leaders.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Proponents
of this option believe that it could degrade Iran's ability to shut down the
Strait of Hormuz or attack U.S. forces on patrol. Iranian minelayers,
submarines and missile-armed surface ships would be trapped in their ports or
unable to return to them safely. Beyond that, mining Iran's oil-export
terminals would impose considerable costs on the regime. According to the IMF,
oil-export revenues account for more than 20 percent of Iran's $475 billion
gross domestic product (GDP). Assuming that 80 percent of oil exports by sea
can be halted by mines, and accounting only for lost oil profits, the net
impact could be a loss of Iranian GDP equal to $59 billion over one year. This
would be the equivalent of reducing Iran's GDP growth from today's 3 percent to
around negative 12 percent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Iran’s persistent resistance to
the world pressure may be due to its real capabilities or it may be just a
bluff. Israel and the US may actually attack Iran or are just arm-twisting it
into submission. Who will call whose bluff is only a matter of time but the
actual conflict will be catastrophic for both Iranian and American taxpayers.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;">Related link:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif;"><a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/10/the_ticking_clock">The Ticking Clock</a></span></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-36186850224806545682012-01-06T12:25:00.000+05:002012-01-08T13:06:28.920+05:00Let us now focus on land-based, non-military operations to fight piracy….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5jC5ks1ZJVw/TwagzWoQBNI/AAAAAAAAABo/VuyA3wzUsgQ/s1600/IMB-Piracy-Map-Somalia.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="244" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5jC5ks1ZJVw/TwagzWoQBNI/AAAAAAAAABo/VuyA3wzUsgQ/s320/IMB-Piracy-Map-Somalia.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Piracy off the Coast of Somalia has now become a serious threat for
international security and the global economy. </span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This piracy has endangered
innocent mariners from countries around the world and jeopardized commercial
shipping interests. The attacks by the pirates also pose an environmental
hazard as ships may be damaged or purposely run aground by the pirates, thereby
contaminating the seas, reefs, and coastal areas with dangerous pollutants. The
cause of particular concern is the unhindered growth of this menace as the
pirates have, in recent years, extended their attacks to the Gulf of Aden,
between Yemen and Somalia's north coast. Subsequently, the pirates have been
ranging farther out to sea -- up to 600 miles -- and now affect over 1 million
square miles (2.59 million square kilometers) in the Gulf of Aden, the West
Indian Ocean, and the Red Sea.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Somalia’s volatile economic, social, and political conditions that began
in the mid-1990s are said to be the breeding ground for this menace. With the
collapse of a central government and consequent weakening of country’s naval
forces, some Somali fishermen took it upon themselves to protect Somali waters,
and their economic interests, from over-fishing on one hand and illegal dumping
on the other by foreigners. These vigilante actions led to piracy as a means to
supplement livelihoods. Emboldened by the absence of an effective ruling
authority, the piracy that stems from the coast of Somalia has been transformed
into a highly organized and lucrative criminal business for its leaders and
enablers. It has proved to be an attractive, though risky, alternative for some
impoverished young men who have few if any options to a legal livelihood. That
said, pirates are criminals motivated by a desire for quick money making
Somalia less attractive as a place in which to invest and create employment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Interestingly,
most of the pirates are former fishermen, whose livelihoods were hurt by
foreign ships illegally fishing in Somali waters.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Others joined after seeing the
profitability of piracy, since ransoms are usually paid. The piracy is also
sponsored by the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord" title="Warlord"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">warlords</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">
who split the profits with the pirates. Other cadres recruited for piracy
include ex-militiamen, who previously fought for the local clan warlords, or
ex-military from the former</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siad_Barre" title="Siad Barre"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Barre</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">government
used as the muscle and technical experts, who operate equipment such as</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System" title="Global Positioning System"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">GPS devices</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">. The pirates
have been adequately trained in weapons, engines and navigation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
accumulated wealth of the pirates has generated some economic activity in the
area and the local residents appreciate the rejuvenating effect that the pirates'
on-shore spending and re-stocking has had on their impoverished towns, a presence
which has often provided jobs and opportunity when there were none. Entire
hamlets have in the process been transformed into veritable</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomtown" title="Boomtown"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">boomtowns</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, with local
shop owners and other residents using their gains to purchase items such as</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_generator" title="Electrical generator"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">generators</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">--
"allowing full days of electricity, once an unimaginable luxury." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The mechanism
of funding of piracy operations is interesting and has now been structured in a</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_exchange" title="Stock exchange"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">stock exchange</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, with
investors buying and selling shares in upcoming attacks in a bourse.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> R</span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">ansom money is paid in large
denomination</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar" title="United States dollar"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">US dollar</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">bills.
It is delivered to them in</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlap" title="Burlap"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">burlap</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">sacks
which are either dropped from helicopters or cased in waterproof suitcases
loaded onto tiny </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skiff" title="Skiff"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">skiffs</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">.
Ransom money has also been delivered to pirates via</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute" title="Parachute"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">parachute</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, as happened
in January 2009 when an orange container with $3 million cash inside was
dropped onto the deck of the supertanker</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Sirius_Star" title="MV Sirius Star"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">MV <i>Sirius
Star</i></span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">to secure the
release of ship and crew.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">To
authenticate the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknote" title="Banknote"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">banknotes</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">,
pirates use</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency-counting_machine" title="Currency-counting machine"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">currency-counting machines</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, the same
technology used at foreign exchange bureaus worldwide. According to one pirate,
these machines are, in turn, purchased from business connections in</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai" title="Dubai"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Dubai</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">,</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti" title="Djibouti"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Djibouti</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, and other
areas.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Hostages
seized by the pirates usually have to wait 45 days or more for the ships'
owners to pay the ransom and secure their release. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Somali pirates
allegedly get help from the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_diaspora" title="Somali diaspora"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Somali Diaspora</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">. Somali
expatriates, including reputedly some among the 200,000 Somalis living in
Canada, offer funds, equipment and information. Pirates' income from ransom has
been estimated to be about 39 million euro (about $58 million) in 2009</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">and $238 million in 2010.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">However, indirect costs of piracy to
the victims are much higher and estimated to be between $7 to 12 billion as
they also include insurance, naval support, legal proceedings, re-routing of
slower ships, and individual protective steps taken by ship-owners.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Further, piracy in Somalia leads to a
decrease of revenue for Egypt as fewer ships use the</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_canal" title="Suez canal"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Suez canal</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">(estimated loss of about $642
million), impedes trade with a number of countries such as</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya" title="Kenya"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Kenya</span></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">and</span><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span></span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen" title="Yemen"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Yemen</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">, and is
detrimental to tourism and fishing in the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles" title="Seychelles"><span style="color: windowtext; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-decoration: none;">Seychelles</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">A 2011 report
published by Geopolicity Inc, investigated the causes and consequences of
international piracy, with a particular focus on piracy emanating from Somalia.
The report asserts that piracy is an emerging market in its own right, valued
at between US$4.9-8.3 billion in 2010 alone, and it establishes, for the first
time, an economic model for assessing the costs and benefits of international
piracy. This model provides a comprehensive, independent framework of trend
analysis, whilst also highlighting where the greatest rates of return on
international counter pirate investment and policy are to be found across what
Geopolicity term the ‘Pirate Value Chain.’ The report states that the number of
pirates could double by 2016, increasing by 400 each year. This is being
fuelled by attractive financial incentives with Somali pirates earning up to
US$79,000/year; equating to almost 150 times their country’s national average
wage. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Piracy has
developed into a complex and lucrative enterprise; its second and third-order
impacts extend deep into Somali village structure and life. Piracy does not
simply enrich individuals or pirate groups; it brings wealth to entire
villages. Coastal villages make money by providing food to pirates and hostages
who wait for negotiations to end favorably. Local negotiators make money by
bringing the ship owners to pay the ransom money via a cash drop at sea or on
land. Further, pirate financiers — in many cases, pirates themselves — invest
in pirate crews who venture out to capture vessels on the high seas. The wives
of these pirates receive compensation money before their husbands go out on a
mission. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Pirates are also provided with
the necessary tools of the trade, such as satellite phones, global positioning
systems (GPS) and weapons. Pirate financiers will spend as much as US$30,000 on
a pirate group that “hunts” in the Indian Ocean, and upwards of US$10,000 on
pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden.
And to protect themselves and their operations, pirates pay local
militias (guns for hire) as much as US$10,000 per month to protect them from
sub-clan rivals or external threats.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The booming
business is profitable for all as the coastal villages around Haradheere
receive around 5% of a total ransom payment simply for allowing pirated ships
to anchor there. All ransoms are paid in
cash, and distributed between pirates, financiers, negotiators and local
village elders.</span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">According to
ongoing private sector research, the average “take” of pirates following the
payment of a ransom is broken down as follows:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">financiers
(and sponsors) receive 50%;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">the
pirates, pirate commander, mother ship
crew and attack squads split 30%;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">village
elders receive 10%; and,</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">the
security squad (guns for hire to protect hostages and vessels) receives 10%.</span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Interestingly,
while the individuals who risk their lives on a piracy operation split 30% of
the ransom money, the bankroller(s) ends up with 50% of the take.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">To date, there
is limited accessible research that identifies key pirate financiers and their
associated business investments. This
represents a gaping hole in our counter-piracy approach, given that that some
pirate financiers have invested in now thriving global businesses. However, as most
pirate “soldiers” are illiterate, they are happy to receive large amounts of
cash without knowing the true value of their services. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The system of
piracy finance is wide and complex, both in terms of scope and impact. Once the
international community better understands and identifies the “vertebrae” in
this, the proverbial backbone of Somali piracy, the chances of combating it
more effectively will drastically improve. Moreover, we will be better equipped
to assist Somalis in replacing this illegitimate economic system with a more
viable alternative. </span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Doing away completely
with the scourge of piracy off the East African coast is an extremely difficult
proposition. However, there are a number of ways suggested by some research
organizations that can address the problem more effectively than it has been to
date.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">According to
these suggestions, it needs to be understood that piracy cannot be stopped at
sea; it needs a comprehensive land-based solution. For this purpose, it is
essential to deprive them of the economic incentives of piracy. The primary
method to combat Somali piracy is to disrupt its economic system. Pressuring
and disrupting the flow of finance to the pirates is essential. The
international community must put a premium on identifying the key (Somali and
non Somali) players that finance piracy, as well as conduct deep research to
isolate and expose their investment patterns. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">A number of
governments are currently focusing on monitoring the <i>hawalah</i> systems – a traditional form of transferring funds found
especially in the Middle East and parts of Africa – through which individuals
who receive ransom cash have utilized in order to launder that money into
“legitimate” businesses. With proper research, businesses that are using the <i>hawalah</i> systems for illegal ends (i.e.
profiting from piracy) can be identified and action can be taken to stop their
expansion. This, in turn, will pressure pirate financiers by virtue of removing
their financial security blankets. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The supply
line of the pirates can be choked and disrupted by identifying the areas where
pirates buy their gear like equipment, weapons global positioning devices,
satellite and mobile phones.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
international community, as part of measures to take away incentives should
also offer alternative incentives. Finally, there must also be sufficient
disincentives, backed by accepted and strengthened social (and political)
authorities, to compel individuals to give up the business of piracy. The very
attitudes, values and beliefs of piracy’s “culture” must be attacked from
within by authoritative Somali voices. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Piracy is
essentially not a military or national security issue; it involves bread and
butter for a large part of Somali population. As it is economic issue in
character, it cannot be addressed through employment of military might alone.
This needs to be addressed through economic measures. Let us, therefore, shift
our focus and fight piracy, not from sea but from land and that too from the
economic front. As the economy of Somalia grows, young population gainfully
employed in legal occupations and the investors and sponsors deprived of the
return on their investment, the problem will be solved to a large extent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-27387327123038358142011-12-25T08:10:00.000+05:002011-12-25T18:47:39.564+05:00The Velayat in the Strait of Hormuz is no ordinary war-games….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tT-nc-o61Ls/TvaTPG596zI/AAAAAAAAABI/1k83VYrJGKA/s1600/Velayat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tT-nc-o61Ls/TvaTPG596zI/AAAAAAAAABI/1k83VYrJGKA/s320/Velayat.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The world seems to be united to teach
Iran a lesson it cannot afford to forget. Everyone, nearly everyone, has
designs to strip Iran of its oil wealth to pressure it into submission on its
nuclear program. But surprisingly, the isolated Iran is defiant and kicking. As
Europe is working on a ban on importing oil from Iran and an amendment to the
2012 U.S. defense authorization bill seeks to close down transactions with
Iran's Central Bank, there are other related developments taking place. China's
leading refiner, Sinopec, <span style="color: #c00000;"><a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/689264/Sinopecs-Iran-oil-imports-set-to-half.aspx" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: #c00000; text-decoration: none;">halved</span></b></a></span> its January purchases of Iranian crude
on a dispute over credit terms, while Saudi supplies surged by a third. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Everything
is taking place to achieve the fundamental objective of the anti-Iran world: to
narrow the circle of Iran's customers to China and a few others, giving them
the ability to extract discounts and thus starving the Islamic Republic of
revenue. But these are not the unilateral developments. While Iran is
panic-stricken, it has created panic of the matching proportion for the world
by </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">officially
commencing its 10-days war-games exercises, named as Velayat-e-90, in the Strait
of Hormuz. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
exercises could bring Iranian ships into proximity with United States Navy
vessels in the area. "Velayat" is a Persian word for
"supremacy" and it is currently used as a title of deference for the
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The war games cover a 2,000km
stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and
into the Gulf of Aden, near the entrance to the Red Sea. It will be Iran's
latest show of strength in the face of mounting international criticism over
its controversial nuclear program, which the West fears is aimed at developing
atomic weapons. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This is a very significant development which means that, if pushed
to the wall through international sanctions, Iran can block this most strategic
waterway depriving the world of the precious commodity of oil passing through
the Strait.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_pvpH1vZzT0/TvcRa2mkTpI/AAAAAAAAABU/uuY4Cmog6Fg/s1600/Strait_of_Hormuz_map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_pvpH1vZzT0/TvcRa2mkTpI/AAAAAAAAABU/uuY4Cmog6Fg/s1600/Strait_of_Hormuz_map.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Located between <a href="http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cabs/oman.html"><span style="color: red; text-decoration: none;">Oman</span></a> and <a href="http://www.eia.gov/emeu/cabs/iran.html"><span style="color: red; text-decoration: none;">Iran</span></a>, the Strait of Hormuz
connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Hormuz is
the world's most important oil chokepoint due to its daily oil flow of 15.5
million barrels in 2009, down from a peak of 17 million bbl/d in 2008. Flows through
the Strait in 2009 are roughly 33 percent of all seaborne traded oil (40
percent in 2008), or 17 percent of oil traded worldwide. On average, 13 crude
oil tankers per day passed eastbound through the Strait in 2009 (compared with
an average of 18 in 2007-2008), with a corresponding amount of empty tankers
entering westbound to pick up new cargos. More than 75 percent of these crude
oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South
Korea, and China representing the largest destinations. At its
narrowest point, the Strait is 21 miles wide, but the width of the shipping
lane in either direction is only two miles, separated by a two-mile buffer
zone. The Strait is deep and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude
oil tankers, with about two-thirds of oil shipments carried by tankers in
excess of 150,000 deadweight tons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Closure of the Strait of
Hormuz by Iran will jolt the oil world as it would require the use of longer alternate routes at increased
transportation costs. Alternate routes include the 745 mile long Petroline,
also known as the East-West Pipeline, across Saudi Arabia from Abqaiq to the
Red Sea. The East-West Pipeline has a nameplate capacity of 4.8 million bbl/d.
The Abqaiq-Yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, which runs parallel to the
Petroline to the Red Sea, has a 290,000-bbl/d capacity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">A new bypass is currently being
constructed across the United Arab Emirates. The 1.5 million bbl/d
Habshan-Fujairah pipeline will cross the emirate of Abu Dhabi and end at the port
of Fujairah just south of the Strait. Other alternate routes could include
the deactivated 1.65-million bbl/d Iraqi Pipeline across Saudi Arabia (IPSA),
and the deactivated 0.5 million-bbl/d Tapline to Lebanon. Additional oil
could also be pumped north via the Iraq-Turkey pipeline to the port of Ceyhan
on the Mediterranean Sea, but volumes have been limited by the closure of the
Strategic pipeline linking north and south Iraq.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">According to a recent
article carried by <span style="color: #c00000;"><a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/23/who_s_sanctioning_whom"><span style="color: #c00000;">Foreign Policy</span></a></span>, o</span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">il sanctions
are a bad idea if they work, and a bad idea if they fail. If they work,
American allies will be punished and some economically vulnerable countries,
such as Greece, will suffer a cutoff of oil just at the time they can least
afford it.</span><span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: -webkit-auto;">Or, if they "succeed" more dramatically,
and Iran's exports are really interrupted, oil prices will soar, plunging the
world back into renewed recession. Tehran can also respond by sabotaging oil
facilities in its Gulf neighbors and fomenting trouble via its proxies in
Iraq's oil hub of Basra. An isolated Iran can afford to play such a dangerous
game with the global economy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">But most likely,
oil sanctions would fail, and a great deal of diplomatic capital will have been
expended to no avail. Japan and South Korea, for instance, both rely on Iran
for 10 percent of their crude imports, and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color: #c00000;"><a href="http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201112190006" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px;" target="_blank"><b><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; color: #c00000; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-decoration: none;">waived</span></b></a></span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>oil
sanctions. Turkey<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span style="color: #c00000;"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/turkey-tupras-iran-idUSL6E7NL12E20111221" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px;" target="_blank"><b><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; color: #c00000; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-decoration: none;">renewed</span></b></a></span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>its
long-standing crude contract last Wednesday. And despite its incompetent
response so far, Iran should be able to find ways round tightened oil sanctions
-- barter trade, for example, or smuggling via Iraq and Pakistan -- with the
assistance of ingenious sanctions-busters lured by lucrative deals. What it
loses in discounts to China is largely made up by the higher prices these
geopolitical tensions bring. The United States' last secret weapon --
embargoing gasoline shipments to Iran -- inspired Tehran to make its
long-overdue subsidy reform and step up domestic refining capacity. In a way,
the U.S. Congress did Iran a favor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This imminent
clash between Iran and international titans, apparently, makes no sense. The
ultimate beneficiaries of the sanctions would not be US or Europe; it would
surprisingly be the America’s rivals: China and Russia. Iran, a country with 2
percent of US GDP and 1.5 percent of its military budget, will prefer to tilt
towards China even if it had to offer discounts on its oil sales. Meanwhile,
Russia's Urals grade is, unusually,<span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #1f1f1f;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/us-russia-oil-idUSTRE7BE0V720111215" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-color: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px;" target="_blank"><b><span style="border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-bottom-style: none; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-image: initial; border-left-color: windowtext; border-left-style: none; border-left-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-right-style: none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-top-style: none; border-top-width: 1pt; color: #003366; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in; text-decoration: none;">fetching</span></b></a><span class="apple-converted-space"><span style="color: #1f1f1f;"> </span></span>higher prices than better-quality
Brent oil as European refiners scramble for alternatives to Iran. And the
Kremlin is glad to see the neutering of its greatest potential rival in the EU
gas market.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Will the United
States shoot itself in the foot through these sanctions? This question is not
difficult to answer and immediate answer is in affirmative. The biggest lesson
of history is that nations don’t learn any lesson. The cost of sanctions to the
U.S. economy of expensive oil, was in the neighborhood of half a trillion
dollars, caused by decades of sanctions on investment in Iran, Iraq, and Libya.
The cost of the proposed sanctions is never mentioned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;">But the sanctions and the escalating costs of
transportation of oil due to Hormuz blockade by Iran would draw the US into
another misadventure. This could destabilize the region further and transform it into breeding
ground for US-hatred, extremism and terrorism. The Velayat in the Strait of
Hormuz is no ordinary war-games and must be taken seriously.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial; border-style: initial; outline-color: initial; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<br /></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-61995201616321621492011-11-10T13:38:00.002+05:002011-11-10T14:30:12.930+05:00IAEA report on Iran nukes: Is Obama really going to walk into another trap?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7EW_UQ776oM/TruKuWvBD0I/AAAAAAAAAA8/En1AWvyMO_Q/s1600/iaea_iran_300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7EW_UQ776oM/TruKuWvBD0I/AAAAAAAAAA8/En1AWvyMO_Q/s1600/iaea_iran_300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px;">Iran
has no dirty bomb right now but poses the threat, nonetheless. This is the essence
of the most critical report of the nuclear watchdog, International Atomic
Energy Agency. It says Iran might be working on developing nuclear weapons. Its
findings were widely-expected and have come days after Israel bluntly declared
that military action against Iran was getting closer. There are rising fears that
the report could be a pretext for an attack. In fact, the UN nuclear watchdog
has found no smoking gun, but has succeeded, nonetheless, in hyping up fears
that Iran is continuing its research on nuclear weapons. The report does not
expressly say that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it does however, say that
Iran is collecting all the information it would need to do so.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">The
basis for IAEA claims is Iranian computer models of nuclear warheads which the
watchdog views as a possible indication that Iran is planning to build an
atomic bomb. Among other evidence there is a satellite image of a steel
container that might be used to secretly test the high explosives needed to
trigger a nuclear weapon. Veracity of this report is not dependable given the
fact that IAEA does not have any intelligence capabilities. It seems to be
relying on reports that may have been fed by other sources having direct stakes
in Iran’s nuclear program. Many people suspect that these reports may be coming
from the US and Israel who doctored false evidence to build up a case to invade
Iraq in 2003.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">The
UN’s atomic watchdog report can serve one of the two purposes for the US and
Israel; the report could be used as a justification to start a war with Iran
which will have catastrophic repercussion or the report can be used as
political leverage to try and isolate Iran, and possibly to put a dent in its
flourishing economic relations with China. Having learned from the outcome of
Iraq invasion, no one in the international community would endorse a drastic
unilateral action by Israel because that could set the region on fire.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">The way media is working overtime to spread </span>terrifying<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> stories suggests that the war may be imminent. According to an article </span>titled, <i>Poisoning the air</i>, published by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/09/worlddispatch.usa">The Guardian</a> months before Iraq invasion, one of the oldest tricks in a run-up to a war is to spread terrifying stories of the things that the enemy may be about to do. Government officials plant these tales, journalists water them and the public, for the most part, swallow them. This sounds very prophetic bu the
question is; will Obama really want to go to war with Iran at this point in
time and repeat the blunders committed by Bush administration?</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Given
the present state of US economy, the saner elements within the administration
would definitely oppose another misadventure even if their stand leads to
divisions within Obama’s ranks. But according to a recent analysis in <a href="http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/11/04/the_world_is_misreading_obama_on_iran?wpisrc=obnetwork">Foreign
Policy</a> magazine, </span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-size: 12pt;">if the President believes there is
no other alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the ability to produce
highly enriched uranium and thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will seriously
consider military action and it is hardly a certainty he won't take it. From a
domestic political perspective, right now Obama's strong suit is his national
security performance. For the first time in years, he has taken the issue away
from the Republicans. Right now they simply cannot attack him as being weak or
assert they understand defense better. That is why they are so silent on the
issue. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-size: 12pt;">According
to this analysis, Obama has only four real areas of vulnerability on this
front. First, if he pushes too hard for defense budget cuts before the
election, the Republicans will go after him. He won't. He will seek cuts but
will be comparatively cautious. Next, if there were a terrorist attack of some
sort and the administration seemed unprepared or responded weakly, that would
create a problem. But that is a perennial wild card. Third, if he distances
himself from Israel, the Republicans will seek to capitalize on the sense some
supporters of that country have that Obama is not a committed friend. There is
already plenty of activity in that area ... and the Israelis are eager to take
advantage of their perceived election year leverage. And finally, if Iran were
to detonate a nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely attacked for a
policy of engagement that ultimately proved to be toothless. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-size: 12pt;">Given
the arguments for and against Iran misadventure, will Obama really choose to go
to another war at a time very close to election year? This is a question which
is agitating many minds. The people are looking at the unfolding events with
their fingers crossed. The Iran invasion will certainly change the
international political landscape, imperil the region, push oil prices up and
devastate global as well as the US economy. Iran, aware of these repercussions,
seems to be making all possible efforts to draw the US into an attack with aims
to bleed US economy. Bush walked into Afghanistan and Iraq trap and the principal victim of the attacks was US economy. Iran, already almost isolated internationally, has nothing
to lose. But the stakes of the US and the rest of the world are very high.
After an attack, Iran will be a problem bigger than the terrorists and highly
impossible to handle in the event of a war.</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Will Obama walk into another trap laid for the US, now by Iran or give diplomacy a chance? Only the time will tell.</span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><i>Related story:</i></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></span><br />
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/11/09/diplomacy-is-the-least-damaging-option-with-iran/#axzz1dIEWuKEE">Diplomacy is the least damaging option with Iran</a> (Financial Times)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-89226034681013554742011-10-24T13:02:00.000+05:002015-03-05T00:08:17.163+05:00Afghanistan: America running out of options ….<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZnIqJRqDiKc/TqUasH-uLwI/AAAAAAAAAA0/c01EkkWzcag/s1600/hillary-clinton-hina-rabban.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZnIqJRqDiKc/TqUasH-uLwI/AAAAAAAAAA0/c01EkkWzcag/s400/hillary-clinton-hina-rabban.jpg" height="266" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">Hussain Saqib</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">Washington, after a sustained campaign
of Pakistan-bashing has started sweet-talking again. But this should surprise no
one, not the Pakistanis, who have become accustomed to this very familiar
pattern of US behavior in Pak-US relations, particularly in relation to
Afghanistan. Sweet-talk, coerce and sweet-talk again. The end-game has put Washington in such a complex situation that
it has to employ all possible tactics to salvage from this ill-conceived misadventure.
A decade after Washington’s invasion, occupation, and needless war in
Afghanistan, events signifying </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">sweet-talk-coerce-and-sweet-talk-again pattern </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">have started unfolding at an amazingly quicker pace.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">There was an attack on Kabul’s most guarded
enclave called the Ring of Steel, housing US embassy and other offices. Then
there was an unfortunate murder of the born-again prophet of peace, Professor Rabbani.
The US administration launched a
sustained campaign of accusations against Pakistan for its alleged involvement in
September 13 attack on American embassy in Kabul, and Karzai government pointed
finger at Pakistan for its alleged role in Rabbani’s murder. Both the US and
its puppet-regime in Kabul were acting in unison. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">There was, therefore no surprise when US
Secretary of State retracted and admitted in Islamabad that the US had no
evidence to prove its allegations. Karzai did not lag behind and admitted that
some sections of his administration were rather quick to blame Pakistan for
Rabbani’s murder. He even went as far as
to say that if fighting started between India and Pakistan and Pakistan and the
US, his country would stand by Pakistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">How could one explain this sudden change
of heart?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">The United States is well aware that is
now trying to make the maximum out of a lost battle. It wants an honorable exit
and its continued presence in the region. The Afghanistan endgame, for the US,
is actually outright defeat as it has not been able to achieve a single
objective of its needless campaign despite losing lives, face and a staggering
sum of $ one trillion in direct war costs. At this point, the Obama
Administration is anxious to convert </span><span id="IL_AD8"><span class="ilad"><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">the
military</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">
stalemate into a form of permanent truce, if only the Taliban were willing to
accept what amounts to a power sharing deal that would allow Washington to
claim the semblance of success after a decade of war.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">According to an article in <a href="http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/24/afghan-war-remains-endless-while-obamas-iraq-plan-fails/"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Foreign Policy Journal</span></a>,
President Obama seeks to retain a large post-”withdrawal” military presence
throughout the country mainly for these reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">To protect its client regime in Kabul
led by Karzai, as well as Washington’s other political and commercial interests
in the country, and to maintain a menacing military presence on Iran’s eastern
border, especially if U.S. troops cannot now remain in Iraq.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">To retain territory in Central Asia for
U.S. and NATO </span><span id="IL_AD6"><span class="ilad"><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">military forces</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"> positioned close to what Washington
perceives to be its two main (though never publicly identified) enemies — China
and Russia — at a time when the American government is increasing its political
pressure on both countries. Obama is intent upon transforming NATO from a
regional into a global adjunct to Washington’s quest for retaining and
extending world hegemony. NATO’s recent victory in Libya is a big advance for
U.S. ambitions in Africa, even if the bulk of commercial spoils go to France
and England. A permanent NATO presence in Central Asia is a logical next step.
In essence, Washington’s geopolitical focus is expanding from the Middle East
to Central Asia and Africa in the quest for resources, military expansion and
unassailable hegemony, especially from the political and economic challenge of
rising nations of the global south, led China.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">There is another incentive for the U.S.
to continue fighting in Afghanistan — to eventually convey the impression of
victory, an absolute domestic political necessity.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">The most compelling reason for the Afghan
war is geopolitical— finally obtaining a secure military foothold for the U.S.
and its NATO accessory in the Central Asian backyards of China and Russia. In
addition, a presence in Afghanistan places the U.S. in close military proximity
to two volatile nuclear powers backed by the U.S. but not completely under its
control by any means (Pakistan, India). Also, this fortuitous geography is
flanking the extraordinary </span><span id="IL_AD3"><span class="ilad"><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">oil
and natural gas</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">
wealth of the Caspian Basin and energy-endowed former Soviet Muslim republics
such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.</span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">This panic on the part of American
strategists on the 10<sup>th</sup> anniversary of what can be mildly termed as
a misadventure is due to the fact that the US even after a decade of its stay
in Afghanistan has not a slightest clue to the country it had dreamed to
conquer. It has not been able to sell this misadventure even to those it had
sought to liberate from the Taliban. A new survey by the International Council
on Security and Development showed that 92% of 1,000 Afghan men polled had
never even heard of the attack on the World </span><span id="IL_AD4"><span class="ilad"><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Trade</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">
Center and the Pentagon — the U.S. pretext for the invasion — and did not know
why foreign troops were in the country. It had no idea that one of the poorest
and least developed countries in the world — a society of 30 million people
where the literacy rate is 28% and life expectancy is just 44 years — would
fiercely fight to retain national sovereignty. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">The Bush Administration, which launched
the Afghan war a few weeks after 9/11, evidently ignored the fact that the
people of Afghanistan ousted every occupying army from that of Alexander the
Great and Genghis Kahn to the British Empire and the USSR. It has now dawned on
Washington that its $1.4 trillion annual military and national security
expenditures are a major factor behind its monumental national debt and the
cutbacks in social services for the people, but aside from White House rhetoric
about reducing redundant Pentagon expenditures, overall war/security budgets
are expected to increase over the next several years.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">The recent visit of Secretary Clinton to
Islamabad and her sudden change of tone, and heart, was no surprise to anyone.
It clearly suggests that, for its economic compulsions, the US wants to get out
of the Afghanistan mess it has created itself, as soon as possible. It wants to
do so without compromising on its broader objectives and its interests in the
region. It seeks to broker a peace deal with the Taliban factions through
Pakistan and is pressuring Pakistan to push Haqqanis, the most powerful of
Taliban, to the negotiating table. It thought Pakistan could arm-twist Haqqanis
into submission through a military operation in North Waziristan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">Pakistan maintained its firm stand and
on its refusal, the US now wants Pakistan to facilitate reconciliation with
Taliban to enable the US to leave Afghanistan with some grace, if not a loser. It
was Pakistan which facilitated direct US-Taliban contact in one of the Gulf
states earlier this year. That meeting apparently ended as a total fiasco
forcing the US to use Pakistan again. But talking with militant groups has been
a long-standing effort by the United States as it prepares to withdraw troops
from Afghanistan, and Clinton herself said there had been U.S. overtures to the
Haqqanis. Now she wants Pakistan's help.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><span id="midArticle_6"></span>The US
thinks that Pakistan, for a variety of reasons, has the “capacity to encourage,
to push, to squeeze ... terrorists, including the Haqqanis and the Afghan
Taliban, to be willing to engage on the peace process”. This reflects the
reality that the United States is desperate and is running out of options in
Afghanistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;">This explains the clear pattern of
sweet-talk, coerce and sweet-talk again. The barrage of allegations by senior
US officials and Karzai administration were clearly a part of coercive tactics
to force Pakistan to fall in line. The futility of these tactics has now made
them pursue the alternative course of sweet-talking Pakistan into doing the US
bidding. This sudden change of heart is, therefore, not so sudden. It is what
is required for facilitating Obama administration to put up a face good enough to
go for reelection. And it can put up a threatening face again if the
circumstances so required.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><i>Related article:</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Palatino, serif;"><a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/281682/the-five-per-cent-serpent/">The five per cent serpent </a> (The Express Tribune)</span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-52621774196347918812011-10-02T17:29:00.001+05:002011-10-03T11:16:25.735+05:00Anti-US alliance of the Cold War: What else is common between India and Afghanistan?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VvJzkw5NvGM/TohYhP4QsrI/AAAAAAAAAAw/_0nJt9oqi6w/s1600/kabulBomb_1497780c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VvJzkw5NvGM/TohYhP4QsrI/AAAAAAAAAAw/_0nJt9oqi6w/s320/kabulBomb_1497780c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">If history is any guide, India has an extra-ordinary preference for puppet governments in Afghanistan. Both India and Afghanistan were active allies of USSR against the US during the Cold War. Now when the reins of power are again in the hands of another unpopular and foreign-supported regime in Kabul, India is active again to gain some sort of foothold in Kabul. In fact, both India and
Pakistan are trying to outsmart each other for a major chunk of influence in
post-US Afghanistan. Pakistan has a national security objective in having a
decisive say in Kabul; Afghanistan is its immediate neighbor, its backyard.
India is trying to overtake Pakistan for Kabul race precisely for the same
reason; Afghanistan is Pakistan’s immediate neighbor. India has its strategic
interests in Kabul because while in Kabul, it can encircle Pakistan and imperil
its Western borders in order to keep it in line and establish its hegemony in
the region. It has already opened a number of border posts, called consulates,
along Pak-Afghanistan border which are busy pumping money to intensify Pakistan
insurgency and label Pakistan as sponsor of Afghanistan unrest.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">India has a
bigger dream to realize through its presence in Kabul. It wants to keep China at
leash by keeping it away from this confluence of cross-roads leading to Central
Asia. It has made heavy investments in building infrastructure in this
war-ravaged country. On this point, the
US and India have converging interests. If the US, therefore, has to make a
choice between India and Pakistan for a suitable heir to Kabul throne, it would
more probably pick India.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The realist
politics are driven by nothing but the selfish national interests and thus, have
very interesting political dynamics. India was an anti-US ally of Soviet Russia
in the Cold War era. It was a bitter critic of the US supporting Afghanistan insurgency
when Communist forces occupied Afghanistan. The then government of Afghanistan,
largely unpopular, was in Soviet camp. India and the then-Afghanistan were
allies. It is for this reason that in that popular revolt against Soviet Russia,
India was opposed to the Mujahideen who were funded and equipped by the CIA. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Look at the irony
of history. Pakistan was a committed US ally in the war against Soviet Russia. Without
Pakistan’s support, Mujahideen could not drive Russian forces leading to
disintegration of Soviet Union, a goal the US wanted to achieve at all costs.
Pakistan has always remained on the right side of the US during the cold war and
paid dearly for that. With the changing scenario, it now finds itself in the woods
after having earned American fury despite fighting US “war on terror” for 10
years. The loss of human lives alone of Pakistanis, branded as collateral
damage, is 4000 military men and 35000 civilians. Such are the ways of
international politics. India, despite having remained aloof, and largely unhurt,
in the war or terror, is now preparing to take the reins of power after the
endgame in Afghanistan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Afghanistan’s
present government is a replica of the pro-Russia regime of 1970s and 1980s;
unpopular, unrepresentative and supported by the occupation armies. For these
reasons, it needed the political support of USSR and India then and of the US
and India now. The best way to sustain this support is to accuse Pakistan for
anything and everything happening in the country.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It will be
very interesting to look at the Indian interests in Afghanistan as perceived by
Indian analysts. According to an article in <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/07/19/afghanistan_is_now_indias_problem">Foreign Policy</a>, India is a
significant player in Afghanistan. It has the world's fifth-largest aid program
there, having committed $1.5 billion in developmental assistance. It has played
a key role in reconstruction and has developed training programs for Afghan
civil servants and police. India has made these investments in the country
because its policymakers are keen on ensuring that a radical Islamist regime
does not return to the country, that Pakistan not wields a <i>disproportionate</i> influence on any future government, and that
Afghanistan might serve as a bridgehead for India's economic ties to the
Central Asian states. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">India can do
anything to ensure that a representative government does not return to
Afghanistan, if it gives some space to Pakistan to wield some interest in
Afghanistan. According to the article,
India fears that a reconstituted Taliban regime would allow a host of
anti-Indian terrorist groups, most notably Lashkar-e-Taiba, to find sanctuaries
and training grounds in Afghanistan. Some astute New Delhi-based analysts also
worry that a resurgent Taliban may actually help broker a peace agreement
between the Pakistani regime and Pakistani domestic terrorist groups like
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. That, they argue, could redirect the collective
wrath of various jihadi organizations from internecine conflict and focus it on
India, and more specifically Indian-controlled Kashmir. Finally, they are
concerned that a Taliban-dominated regime would forge links with the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan and other jihadi groups in Central Asia, thereby adversely
affecting India's quest for access to energy resources and markets in the
region. Yet New Delhi also sees the writing on the wall but it will not easily
walk away from Afghanistan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">India is counting
on its historic ties to the Northern Alliance, which is a representative body of
Afghanistan’s ethnic minorities and which India opposed in Afghanistan Jihad of
1980s. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">According to <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2062364,00.html">TIME</a>, with the U.S. looking for an exit,
India is trying to figure out what its role in Afghanistan's uncertain future
will be. U.S. counterinsurgency strategy aims to "clear, hold, build and
transfer" a stable Afghanistan back to its people. The Indian government
hopes to aid the "build and transfer" part of that effort by helping
to develop Afghanistan's infrastructure and institutions. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Whatever New
Delhi does, it can expect truculent opposition from archrival Pakistan, which
has long tried to influence what happens in Afghanistan, primarily to ensure
that the country's power players are friendly to Islamabad. Its suspicion of
India's regional intentions is plainly revealed in several cables released by
WikiLeaks. Pakistan's press routinely accuses India of sending in spies in the
guise of doctors and engineers, and Islamabad claims that India's four
consulates are bases for espionage and for funneling aid to separatist rebels
in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. Pervez Musharraf, a former Pakistani
President, is convinced New Delhi is responsible for providing insurgents with
weapons. "The Afghans have nothing," he told Time, "so it must
be the Indians." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">While
discussing <i>India’s Stake in Afghanistan</i>,
<a href="http://www.securityaffairs.org/issues/2011/20/d%27souza.php">The
Journal of International Security Affairs</a> writes in post 9/11 Afghanistan,
India’s interests have centered on three broad objectives: security concerns,
economic interests and regional aspirations. India has revived its historical,
traditional, socio-cultural and civilizational linkages with the objective of a
long-term stabilization of Afghanistan. As part of this effort, India has
supported the nascent democratic regime, seeing in it the best hope for
preventing the return of the Taliban. India is also looking beyond
Afghanistan’s borders, working to revive Afghanistan’s role as a “land bridge”
connecting South Asia with Central Asia and providing access to strategic
energy resources. Along these lines, India has actively promoted greater trade
and economic integration of Afghanistan with South Asia through the regional
mechanism of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">With
the establishment of an interim government in Afghanistan under President Hamid
Karzai in 2001, India announced that it would provide $100 million in
reconstruction aid to Afghanistan. Since then, India has followed a policy of
high-level engagement—characterized by a range of political, humanitarian,
cultural, economic and infrastructure projects. India today ranks overall as
Afghanistan’s sixth-largest bilateral donor country, having invested heavily in
a range of key sectors of the Afghan economy and pledged to do so to the tune
of $1.3 billion more in the years ahead. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">There
is indeed a critical security concern to India’s involvement in Afghanistan,
however—specifically, the possibility of terror emanating from the extremely
volatile Pakistan-Afghanistan border and spilling over into India. A strong,
stable and democratic Afghanistan would reduce the dangers of extremist
violence and terrorism destabilizing the region. Since 9/11, New Delhi’s policy
has broadly been in congruence with the U.S. objectives of decimating the
Taliban and al-Qaeda and instituting a democratic regime in Kabul. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Today,
however, a resurgent Taliban and mounting instability have worsened the outlook
for Afghanistan. In the coming days, India’s “aid only” policy is bound to face
new challenges—and adapt to them. While Delhi resists putting “boots on
ground,” it will need to widen its web of engagement in the rapidly-shrinking
political space in Afghanistan. India must revive its traditional Pushtun
linkages and at the same time re-engage other ethnic groups as it attempts to
strike a balance between continuing support for the Karzai government and
increasing its engagement with other factions. By doing so, India will position
itself to influence Afghanistan’s evolving political sphere, and serve as a
serious interlocutor in the intra-Afghan and inter-regional reconciliation
process now underway. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">India has no
cultural ties with Afghanistan as being claimed by the Indian analysts.
Afghanistan, a country of Muslims has ethnic ties and cultural similarities
with its immediate neighbors. India is trying hard to ensure continuation of
minority-dominated puppet government in Kabul, like it did in 1970s and 1980s,
as any popular government chosen by majority Pashtuns will not let India achieve
a foothold with the sole objective of using Afghanistan as bridge for its
strategic objectives, regional ambitions and its access to resource-rich
Central Asia.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Palatino Linotype', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-30676612179146710492011-09-27T21:13:00.000+05:002011-09-29T17:37:01.000+05:00Pakistan-bashing is not without a reason....<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zcE53POgNZU/ToH0ux2dT9I/AAAAAAAAAAs/P8JA-tRJE6Y/s1600/Kabul.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zcE53POgNZU/ToH0ux2dT9I/AAAAAAAAAAs/P8JA-tRJE6Y/s1600/Kabul.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The current wave of Pakistan-bashing is not without a reason. There are plans to discredit Pakistan and create enabling environments for India to take over Afghanistan after the US departure. Pakistan has been used beyond its capacity and its services are no more required by the US. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The infamous September 13
attack on the Ring of Steel in Kabul is no different from the previous attacks but, understandably, it has brought tremors in international
relations. As anticipated by some cynics, the alliance of 10 years forged to fight terrorism is falling apart,
with allies talking tough to each other, pointing fingers and frothing at the
mouth. They are practically at each
other’s throats. This attack and its after-shocks in the form of bad-mouthing by the allies, has brought home a very clear message to the
world; many thousand lives were lost for nothing and precious years feeding
whole one generation on terror-fear have been wasted. And one trillion dollars
of US taxpayers’ hard-income have gone down the drain. Today the Taliban, which
the world wanted destroyed, are more formidable than 2011. They will gain
further strength from the present stand-off between the US and Pakistan. <i>Al Qaeda</i> sitting on the fence is
jubilant as it never expected to realize the desired results so easily. The US obliged
al Qaeda by blindly walking into mouse trap called Afghanistan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The attack which was carried
out with operational excellence paralyzing US security apparatus in Afghanistan
for 20 hours carries two distinct stamps; it was a Taliban job executed by a
few fighters and it could not have been carried out so brilliantly without
inside help from the US Embassy. Instead of admitting security and intelligence
failure, the US has needlessly started looking for a scapegoat. A senior U.S.
official <i>--</i> Admiral Mike Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- has <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/23/the_gloves_come_off">publicly fingered</a> the Haqqani network as a
tool of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. What's surprising is
that this is particularly newsworthy: ISI's contacts with the Haqqanis, like so
many other intelligence outfits, have been an open secret for years. What's
different, of course, is that the latest Haqqani attack was not on American
forces deployed in Afghanistan but on the U.S. embassy in Kabul -- and that the
U.S. government possesses unambiguous evidence of official Pakistani complicity
in last week's assault. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But the ISI has always been
in the limelight or was being seen in bad light by the media. For every act of
secession or violence in remote Indian States called Seven Sisters or the Red
Corridor or Jammu & Kashmir, finger was invariably pointed in ISI
direction. There was a time of sustained campaign against ISI that it was felt
that ISI could even be behind earthquakes, epidemics, poverty, caste system
injustices and even broken marriages in India. If ISI is helping Afghans fight
USSR, it was an excellent force, if it was working to protect Pakistan and its
security interests; it is branded as a rogue agency. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The current campaign against
ISI has nothing to do with its alleged role in Taliban attack on Kabul and even
the US knows that. It is basically a war between ISI and RAW of India for their
respective country’s post-US influence in Afghanistan in which the US is siding
with RAW when it no longer needs ISI in its WoT. Such wars between the two
agencies are not a new phenomenon. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">According to <a href="http://www.cfr.org/india/raw-indias-external-intelligence-agency/p17707">Council
on Foreign Relations</a>, RAW set up two covert groups of its own in mid-80s,
Counter Intelligence Team-X (CIT-X) and Counter Intelligence Team-J (CIT-J),
the first targeting Pakistan in general and the second directed at Khalistani
groups. The two groups were responsible for carrying out <a href="http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsJul2007/bookmarkjuly.htm" target="_blank">terrorist
operations inside Pakistan </a>. Indian journalist and associate editor
of Frontline magazine, <a href="http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/display/ssispsru/Mr+Praveen+Swami" target="_blank">Praveen Swami</a>, writes that a
"low-grade but steady campaign of bombings in major Pakistani cities,
notably Karachi and Lahore" was carried out. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">According to <a href="http://www.cfr.org/india/raw-indias-external-intelligence-agency/p17707">Council
on Foreign Relations</a>, RAW is also accused of supporting Sindhi nationalists
demanding a separate state, as well as <i>Siraikis</i>
calling for a partition of Pakistan's Punjab to create a separate <i>Siraiki</i> state. India denies these
charges. However, experts point out that India has supported insurgents in
Pakistan's Balochistan, as well as anti-Pakistan forces in Afghanistan. But
some experts say India no longer does this. Pakistan is suspicious of India's
influence in Afghanistan, which it views as a threat to its own interests in
the region. Experts say although it is very likely that India has active
intelligence gathering in Afghanistan, it is difficult to say whether it is
also involved in covert operations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">As against allegations that
ISI has contacts with Haqqani Network fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan, RAW
has contacts with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) fighting Pakistani state in
Swat, South Waziristan and elsewhere in the tribal region. RAW is many steps
ahead of ISI in this respect. It is fanning and fuelling insurgency in
Balochistan and FATA and is funding and actually equipping TTP and Baloch
insurgents. Some target-killers arrested in recent Karachi unrest confessed to
have received training from RAW. No wonder, some call Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan
as Tehreek-e-RAWliban Pakistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Some pundits are worried that Haqqani
network, based in North Waziristan, has never attacked an official target in
Pakistan - further evidence of its collusive relationship with that country's
security services. When their struggle is focused on fighting foreign occupation
forces and their collaborators including India, why should these pundits insist the
network attack Pakistan which has no role in Kabul? By this flawed logic, TTP fighting
Pakistan and having killed 35000 civilians and 3000 security personnel provide evidence of its collusive
relationship with RAW and CIA. And mind you, this fight is taking place right inside
Pakistan. By all definitions, TTP and Baloch insurgency is proxy war being
fought by RAW inside Pakistan. Major objectives of this proxy war are keeping
Pakistan away from Afghanistan to give India decisive role in Kabul, keeping
China away from Gwadar-China energy corridor and depriving Pakistan from
natural resources of Afghanistan. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">After the decision of
drawdown from Afghanistan, the U.S. calculus has changed. It will now no longer
need Pakistan. It will certainly need India to inherit Afghanistan from the
NATO forces to keep India-supported ethnic minority in power. This explains why
a sustained campaign was launched some months ago to defame and discredit
Pakistan’s security establishment which, in their eyes, is major hurdle against
India’s foothold in Kabul. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">According to <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/26/us_pakistan_relations_is_this_the_end_of_the_affair">Foreign
Policy</a>, Pakistan is no ally when it comes to the endgame in Afghanistan --
and that plays the role of spoiler in America's relationship with the most
potentially important rising power of the 21st: century: India. These
developments raise the ugly but necessary question of what a completely
different - and adversarial -- U.S. approach to Pakistan would look like, one
that dispenses of the underlying logic that the countries are allies at all. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The approach bares the US
designs of delivering Kabul to India. The divorce papers are ready, which apparently
were written quite a long ago. According to the aforementioned article
published by <a href="http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/26/us_pakistan_relations_is_this_the_end_of_the_affair">Foreign
Policy</a>, such an approach would</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Require the United States
not to leave Afghanistan to Pakistan's designs but to keep a significant deployment
of U.S. troops in place to deter and defeat Islamabad's efforts to renew the
sphere of influence it enjoyed there when its Taliban allies were in power.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Call for the CIA to cease
cooperating with ISI, which it continues to rely on for access to the region,
on the grounds that our fundamental goals are incompatible.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Suggest doubling down on US
relationship with India, including supporting a greater Indian strategic,
political, and economic presence in Afghanistan which Americans think, would be
welcomed by most Afghans as a stabilizing force in a troubled country.</span></li>
<li><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Require the US to convince
Beijing not to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of American patronage
towards Pakistan; China would need to pursue approaches that complement American’s
rather than continuing to provide unqualified support to its “revisionist,
increasingly radicalized ally”.</span></li>
</ol>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This approach would also
require American leaders to take a hard look at their own history in the
region. The United States walked away from Afghanistan following the Soviet
withdrawal in 1989 and spent the 1990s sanctioning Pakistan, helping to spawn
the anti-Americanism that pervades the officer corps and broader public today.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The article wonders if the Americans
are prepared to walk away and sanction Pakistan again, and if they do, are they
prepared to deal with the consequences? Or have the current terms of the
relationship so manifestly failed that they have no choice? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-77169598468177685022011-09-24T16:23:00.000+05:002015-04-05T23:28:59.695+05:00Global peace demands Balkanization of India …<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cej09ZX_5Ow/Tn29MuHedZI/AAAAAAAAAAo/DV-1S-QZnnc/s1600/india_red_corridor_800-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cej09ZX_5Ow/Tn29MuHedZI/AAAAAAAAAAo/DV-1S-QZnnc/s400/india_red_corridor_800-11.jpg" height="353" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 16px;">HUSSAIN SAQIB</span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 16px;">India
is the only major country of the world facing a fiercest insurgency of such a
scale that nearly half of the country has plunged into instability imperiling
the security of the remaining half. As a matter of fact, destabilized India
poses grave risks to the peace and security of not only the region, the world
at large will be exposed to destabilization. The sheer size of the country, its
nuclear arsenal and its uncontrolled ambition to reign in the world makes it
even a bigger monster than <i>Al Qaeda</i>
and other such entities.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 16px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Presently,
seven states of North East India, known as Seven Sisters, and an equal number
of states from North East to South West of the country, known as Red Corridor,
are up in arms against the Union of India. In the North Western State of Jammu
and Kashmir, the independence movement is in full swing considerably eroding
the writ of the government. The independence movements and insurgency in India have
created security problems, not only for India itself, but the entire region of
South Asia. In order to divert public and the world attention from internal
security issues, India has kept itself engaged in reckless arms race and raised
the bogey of external threat, most notably from Pakistan and China, both
nuclear states. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Encircling
Pakistan is a broader and medium-term strategic objective of India’s security
establishment. The long-term objective is to disintegrate Pakistan and annex it
in the Indian Union in line with India’s another strategic objective to
reformulate <i>Akhand Bharat</i>. This is
being achieved through efforts for extending its influence to Pakistan’s
neighboring countries of Iran and Afghanistan. Opening of needless consulates
along Pakistan-Afghanistan border to fund, fan and fuel Taliban and Baloch
insurgency in order to destabilize its archrival is a part of the bigger game
plan. Similarly, building of Chabahar port west of Pakistan’s deep sea port of
Gwadar is an attempt to encircle Pakistan and deny China an energy corridor.
Its extension of its sphere of influence to Indian Ocean and realigning itself
with the states against China to serve American interests on the issue of South
China Sea brings into conflict of a bigger proportion. In order to stop India
from treading this dangerous trajectory, its internal insurgency needs to be
brought under control.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">There
are serious tensions between <b>Seven Sisters</b>
namely; Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland
and the Indian government. The movements are generally homegrown and are
separatist movements in character. Assam has been the hotbed of militancy for a
number of years due to its porous borders with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh" title="Bangladesh">Bangladesh</a>
and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan" title="Bhutan">Bhutan</a>. The
insurgency status in Assam is classified as very active. Insurgent groups in Manipur
may be broadly classified into hill-based and valley based. While the former
demand for tribal state to preserve their tribal cultures from outside
influence, the latter based their demands for independence from historical
perspective claiming that Manipur a princely state with its geographical area
extending to as far as the Kabaw valley of modern Myanmar during the British
colonialism and was never a part of India and continues to remain so. The
situation is no different in other states.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
<b>Red Corridor</b> is a term used to describe an impoverished region in the
east of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India" title="India">India</a> that
experiences considerable Naxalite communist insurgency. These are also areas
that suffer from the greatest illiteracy, poverty and overpopulation in modern
India, and span parts of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal states. Naxalites have been
declared as a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act of India (1967). According to Govt. of India, as of July 2011, 83 districts
(figure includes proposed addition of 20 districts) across nine states are
affected by Left Wing Extremism down from 180 districts in 2009.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
<b>insurgency in Kashmir</b> has existed in various forms since the
controversial accession of State to Indian Union. Thousands of lives have been
lost since 1989 due to the intensification of both the insurgency and the state
brutalities to curb it. According to official figures released in Jammu and
Kashmir assembly (Indian controlled), there were 3,400 disappearance cases and
the conflict has left more than 47,000 people dead as of July 2009.A widespread
armed insurgency started in Kashmir with the disputed 1987 election with some
elements from the State's assembly forming militant wings which acted as a
catalyst for the emergence of armed insurgency in the region. This region has
been a source of tension and reason for three wars between India and Pakistan
and, after both the states have become nuclear-armed states, it can become a
flashpoint of nuclear showdown. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">India's
Northeast consisting of the Seven Sisters is one of South Asia's hottest
trouble spots, not simply because the region has as many as 30 armed insurgent
organizations operating and fighting the Indian state, but because trans-border
linkages that these groups have, and strategic alliances among them, have acted
as force multipliers and have made the conflict dynamics all the more
intricate. With demands of these insurgent groups ranging from secession to
autonomy and the right to self-determination, and a plethora of ethnic groups clamoring
for special rights and the protection of their distinct identity, the region is
bound to be a turbulent one. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">Moreover,
the location of the eight northeastern Indian States itself is part of the
reason why it has always been a hotbed of militancy with trans-border
ramifications. This region of 263,000 square kilometers shares highly porous
and sensitive frontiers with China in the North, Myanmar in the East,
Bangladesh in the South West and Bhutan to the North West. The region's
strategic location is underlined by the fact that it shares a 4,500 km-long
international border with its four South Asian neighbors, but is connected to
the Indian mainland by a tenuous 22 km-long land corridor passing through
Siliguri in the eastern State of West Bengal, appropriately described as the
‘Chicken's Neck.' <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
situation in the Red Corridor is no less grave. The first 25 years of the
Naxalite insurgency were characterized by the communist principles on which the
movement was founded. Fighting for land reform, the rebels gained support from
the impoverished rural populations of eastern and central India. The Maoist
rebellion quickly adopted violence and terror as the core instruments of its
struggle against the Indian authority. Primary targets included railway tracks,
post offices, and other state infrastructure, demonstrating the Maoists’
commitment to undermining a central government that they believed exploited low
castes and rural populations. As states and the central government employed
uncoordinated and underfunded responses to the Naxalites, the threat expanded
beyond West Bengal and its neighboring states. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
2004, the two predominant rebel groups, the Maoist Communist Center (MCC) and
the People’s War Group (PWG), merged together. The resulting Communist Party of
India (Maoist) emerged as a solidified base of power for the Naxalites, with a
stated goal of overthrowing the Indian government. It has developed in its
modern form as a rebellion that comprises up to 40,000 permanent armed cadres
and 100,000 additional militia members. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">The
nascent stages of the movement reflected the stark contrast between urbanized
areas of India and the primarily rural, underdeveloped regions of Naxalite
influence. With the Maoist rebels firmly entrenched in geographically remote
areas, Indian government resources remained dedicated to urban security and
development concerns. As India looks increasingly to its east for vital
resources, the conflict continues to expand beyond the principles of its
origin. With a growing population and new development initiatives that require
additional coal-powered electricity sources, India’s urban centers have come
into direct contact with the states most affected by the Naxalite uprising:
West Bengal, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh,
and Maharashtra. Containing 85 percent of India’s coal reserves, these states
have presented insurgents with an opportunity both to strike at the heart of
national interests and to seek economic profit of their own. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">This
brief description of Indian insurgency shows that India has serious problems
with all its neighboring states who India wants to bully into submission in order
to quell the insurgency. Its problems having potential of triggering regional
wars of nuclear proportions are with Pakistan and China.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Baskerville Old Face', serif; font-size: 12pt;">In
the interest of global peace, it is essential to break India into smaller
states to thwart the risk of global anarchy and regional wars. The
long-standing demand of Jammu and Kashmir for independence, already accepted by
the world community should be translated into reality. The states of the Red
Corridor may be given autonomy and the Seven Sisters should be accepted as
ethnic and cultural entity for statehood. If India gets rid of these warring
states, it can progress as a vibrant country, it neighbors will have a measure
of safety and security and the world at large will be immune to any disorder
which is staring it in the face at the moment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-22417503314579908502011-09-21T20:19:00.000+05:002011-09-25T20:34:26.039+05:00Haqqani Network, Pakistan connection and shattered dreams of Afghanistan peace…..<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GNoEUaN1jPE/Tnn_5ios_oI/AAAAAAAAAAU/IkyqNFXE1-A/s1600/Rabbani.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GNoEUaN1jPE/Tnn_5ios_oI/AAAAAAAAAAU/IkyqNFXE1-A/s320/Rabbani.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Those who had any illusion of peace
in NATO-occupied Afghanistan are in for a big disappointment. Successful
attacks in Kabul in the last nine months are a sufficient testimony to the fact
that NATO forces are losing ground in Afghanistan. Along the ground, they are
losing patience and sanity. The latest turban-bomb attack to kill Afghanistan’s
anti-Taliban peace ambassador shows that as long as Karzai and company (read: Uncle
Sam) holds the reins of power in Kabul, peace can never return to this hapless
country. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/key-afghan-peacemaker-rabbani-killed-in-kabul-bombing/2011/09/20/gIQAxlF9hK_story.html?hpid=z1" target="_blank">assassination</a> of the representative of non-Pashtun
minority but a key Afghan political figure Burhanuddin Rabbani, head of the
commission meant to negotiate with the Taliban, the High Peace Council (HPC),
signals the massive challenges ahead in efforts to end the war. This
indicates one thing in clear terms; the peace initiative to be successful has
to come from the ethnic majority in Afghanistan.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">As expected, the blame for this
murder has been laid at the doorstep of Haqqani Network. And to justify NATO
forces’ inability to maintain order in Afghanistan, the Network is being shown
as a Pakistan-supported formidable force. Before analyzing the situation and
drawing conclusion if the Network indeed has its home-base in Pakistan, let us
look at the timeline of recent attacks in Afghanistan:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">Sept 20 - A Taliban representative
meeting with Rabbani, the head of Afghanistan's High Peace Council, detonates a
bomb hidden under a turban and kills him at his Kabul home.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">Sept 13 - Insurgents holed up on
five different floors of a partially constructed building shower Kabul's
diplomatic enclave with rocket-propelled grenades and gunfire for 20 hours,
while three suicide bombers -- one prevented -- strike police compounds
elsewhere in the city. Five Afghan police and 11 civilians, including children,
are killed. The U.S. blamed the attack, the most coordinated militant assault
on Kabul since the war began in 2001 on the Taliban-linked Haqqani network
based on Pakistan's northwest border with Afghanistan.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">Aug 19 - Taliban attackers lay
siege to a British cultural centre, killing at least nine people during an
hours-long assault on the 92nd anniversary of Afghanistan's independence from
British rule. A suicide bomber in car blew himself up in front of the gate of
the British Council before dawn, and another car packed with explosives
detonated moments later while four attackers, three of them men clad in burqa
cloak worn by Afghan women, stormed the compound.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">June 28 - At least 10 Afghan
civilians are killed when suicide bombers and heavily armed Taliban insurgents
attacked the Intercontinental hotel, Afghan officials said.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">May 21 - A suicide bomber kills
six people and wounds 23 when he strikes the cafeteria of a military hospital
in a heavily guarded area.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;">Jan 28 - A suicide attack on a
supermarket in the embassy district kills at least nine people, including a
prominent Afghan doctor, his rights activist wife and four of their children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Californian FB', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">The series of attacks deep inside
Kabul speaks clearly that it was more for failure of NATO forces than anything
else that the attacks were successfully planned and executed. Pakistan could be
a convenient scapegoat but realistic view of the events would reveal that the
accusations are only meant to cover the ineffective intelligence network and inefficient
response system. This also indicates that majority of Afghan citizens have
sympathies with the attackers which totally blinded the intelligence assets of
Afghanistan and NATO. Daily <a href="http://tribune.com.pk/story/256430/americas-spectre-syndrome-in-afghanistan/">Express
Tribune</a>, in an article titled, <i>America’s
SPECTRE syndrome in Afghanistan</i> has very brilliantly analyzed why Pakistan
has nothing to do with these attacks and why North Waziristan Agency cannot be
home-base for the attackers. According to this analysis, the Afghanistan
problem is not just about the Haqqani Network. Afghanistan has multiple
problems, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Haqqanis. Even
if the Haqqani Network were entirely taken out, Afghanistan would remain
largely the same. In fact, if the only stumbling block between an Afghanistan
gone bad and an idyllic Afghanistan were the Network, Afghanistan would have
been a piece of cake, not the wicked problem it has become.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">According to the article, the attacks
clearly show that the line of communication of the insurgents cannot stretch
back to North Waziristan. All these attacks have happened deep inside the
Afghan territory and indicate the steady loss of control of territory by the
Afghan government and the foreign troops. If, for the sake of the argument it
is conceded that the Taliban line of communication does extend back to North
Waziristan, then the ability of the fighters to go deep in and mount attacks
makes an utter mockery of the military and intelligence capabilities of the US
and its allies despite the tremendous resources at their disposal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Is this network operating to further
the aims of <i>al Qaeda</i>? The evidence
suggests that it has nothing to do with this outfit as it does not target Pakistan,
its citizens and its security apparatus. It has confined its operations in
Afghanistan and against the occupation forces. A recent interview of Siraj Haqqani
with Reuters suggest that they rejected previous attempts at talks by the US
and the Afghan government because those overtures were aimed at “creating
divisions” among the Taliban. It is therefore misleading to suggest that the
Haqqanis operate outside the overall strategic objectives of the Taliban.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Mullah Omar’s <i>Eid-ul-Fitr</i> message, more reconciliatory than the one delivered
previous year, speaks about some change in their stance. This message deals
with three basic points: the Afghanistan-specific focus of the Taliban; their
readiness to negotiate meaningfully, and a warning to the neighbors to desist
from interfering in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. Another important motif
running through that message was Taliban’s inclusive approach to governance. This
also shows that Taliban have come to accept that they cannot rule Afghanistan
to the exclusion of other entities. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">But the world has to make a clear
distinction between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP and its affiliates. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">In view of the fact that Haqqani
Network may not be the sole reason of humiliating defeat of the mightiest
armies, it is beyond comprehension that USA is pressuring Pakistan into
launching an attack on the so-called sanctuaries of the Network in NWA. This is
particularly disturbing in view of the circumstantial evidence (ability of the
Network to operate deep into Afghan capital) that the sanctuaries may have been
relocated to somewhere in Afghanistan. Is this pressure a sincere effort to
salvage Afghanistan situation for the US? For the sake of argument, if we
concede that the Network is indeed hiding in NWA and Pakistan Army’s operation
will weaken their ability to attack US interests in Afghanistan, will this give
some sort of face saving to the retreating NATO forces? What should be the
priority of Pakistan’s security establishment? To attack and eliminate the elements
of TTP and <i>al Qaeda</i> attacking
Pakistan or further thin out its resources to fight those who are a threat to
NATO forces? This is where interests of Pakistan and USA do not converge and
they will have to find a middle ground to come to an understanding. The
circumstances point to the fact that the problem exists within Afghanistan and should
be sorted out by NATO and Afghan National Army. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">The only way-forward to peace in
Afghanistan is purely home-grown initiative keeping in view the demographic
realities. Any proposal based on any other consideration will complicate the
matters further and push Afghanistan into a never-ending chaos and anarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Please also read: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><a href="http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2011/05/haqqani-network-story-of-charlie.html">Story of Charlie Wilson's saint and a guest at the White House</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><i><a href="http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2011/09/afghanistan-end-game-or-outright.html">Endgame
or humiliating defeat?</a><o:p></o:p></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><a href="http://passivevoices.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/uncle-sam-think-again-if-you-have-any-mischief-in-your-mind%E2%80%A6/"><i>Uncle Sam, think again if you any mischief in your mind...</i></a></span></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1013014325761963039.post-87975511056895401712011-09-16T19:17:00.000+05:002011-09-17T11:57:35.709+05:00Afghanistan: End-game or outright humiliating defeat?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--afMCG2PCb8/TnNZQX5eNxI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7y57BcBdwCw/s1600/kabul.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--afMCG2PCb8/TnNZQX5eNxI/AAAAAAAAAAM/7y57BcBdwCw/s320/kabul.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Bin
Laden is a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by
weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans.</span></i><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"> Michael F. Scheuer</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-left: .5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Afghanistan
end-game will lead to the world to square one. With US economy in shambles,
China rising both militarily and economically, South Asian region totally
destabilized, the only thing the super power should have done now but is allergic
to is: introspection. No one seems to have realized that the Afghanistan
misadventure has left the world more insecure and unsafe than it was before
9/11. The endgame now looks like retreat with no honors. It is now clearly
being seen as outright humiliating defeat. The weakened America will disturb
the world order and the sight on the horizon is not a pleasant sight; chaos is
writ large all over. This chaos will no more be the usual destiny of poor and
poorly governed nations. This chaos is spread across the globe. The remaining
period of the century now clearly belongs to insurgents, extremists, terrorists
and hate-mongers. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">The
Afghanistan misadventure has not only changed the world; it has distorted its civil and human face.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">The
latest Taliban attacks, multiple and coordinated, in Kabul and most notably on
its “ring of steel” protecting strategic enclave were surprise attacks. But
these did not come as a surprise as those watching the development were
expecting massive blows like this one to the world’s mightiest forces. The area
houses NATO headquarters, the U.S., U.K., and other embassies, and offices of
major Western NGOs. The security cordon attacked involves concrete barriers and
is equipped with state-of-the-art apparatus - including CCTV and metal
detectors. It is manned round the clock by heavily armed personnel and police
sniffer dogs, specifically deployed to stop suicide bombers and attackers from
bringing explosives and arms into the city.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G1hcl6WNU4s/TnNZp8YCZRI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/t1tnwHtuAro/s1600/KABUL+ATTACK+13-09-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-G1hcl6WNU4s/TnNZp8YCZRI/AAAAAAAAAAQ/t1tnwHtuAro/s400/KABUL+ATTACK+13-09-11.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Taliban’s ability to carry out this
multi-target and multi-location but finely coordinated operation in the Afghan
capital lays bare the depth of the U.S.-NATO failure in the country. Nearly a
decade into the U.S.-NATO occupation of Afghanistan no section of the country
is secure; not even the heart of the capital. Apparently only six Taliban
fighters kept Afghan and NATO forces engaged for over twenty hours in the Wazir
Akhbar Khan district.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Do
these attacks suggest that fate of the NATO forces in Afghanistan is not going
to be any different from that of the USSR? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Shrewd Taliban strategists are
employing the same tactics which were used to economically bleed the Soviet
Union. Michael F. Scheuer, a
former </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA" title="CIA"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">CIA</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"> intelligence officer, historian,
foreign policy critic, and political analyst, depicts bin Laden as a rational
actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy,
rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common
assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the
modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not
"terrorism") is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and
Islamist forces, who in places such as </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir" title="Kashmir"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Kashmir</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">, </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang" title="Xinjiang"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Xinjiang</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">, and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya" title="Chechnya"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Chechnya</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"> are "struggling not just for
independence but against institutionalized barbarism." He lost his job for
stating the obvious that US-Israel relations were a threat to America’s
national security.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">In his latest article which appeared
in </span><a href="http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-consequences-defeat-iraq-afghanistan-5886"><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">The National Interest</span></a>, <span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Michael F.
Scheuer says that </span><span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">there
is no way to obscure our defeat as Obama, Hillary Clinton, McCain and others
have labored to do in Iraq. The Taliban-led insurgency has spread across
Afghanistan, and the pattern of their operations has grown familiar and
apparently unbreakable. The insurgents are ascendant in any area of the country
they choose to occupy until NATO forces arrive. At that point, they move out of
NATO’s path to another region and establish ascendancy there. All Petraeus and
his counterinsurgency advisers were able to do with the troop surge is what had
been done before: U.S. and NATO forces dominate any piece of ground they stand
on out to a distance defined by the reach of their weapons. Beyond that small
area the insurgents are in charge, and as soon as coalition forces depart they
reacquire control of the ground on which NATO stood. Interestingly, this is
exactly the reality the Soviets encountered in the 1980s and that the British
encountered a century earlier. Perhaps Petraeus’s counterinsurgency gurus—John
Nagl, David Kilcullen, etc.—should have read a little history pertinent to
their task.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">When the Obama administration
decided troops’ surge, they had two goals in mind. These may be well-meaning
goals but were largely unattainable. One was to train Afghan military,
security, intelligence and police forces so they could maintain stability
without the aid of foreign forces. On 13 September, all those services failed:
they had no intelligence that warned of the attack; they did not detect Taliban
fighters moving into position for attack; and they could not repel the
attackers without the help of U.S. and NATO troops. The surge’s other main goal
was to attach the loyalties of Afghan citizens to Karzai’s government. The goal
itself was impossible to achieve as the attacks suggest that these could not
have been carried out without active cooperation of the Afghan citizens. The
Taliban could not have deployed in Kabul for the 13 September attacks without
logistical assistance and intelligence provided by some of the city’s
inhabitants as well as from its penetrations of the regime’s police and
security services. Five years of hearts-and-minds campaigning by McChrystal and
Petraeus have yielded failure. Period.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: 'Book Antiqua', serif;">Is there anything that the world can
do to reverse the tide and defeat the forces of extremism, bigotry and
terrorism? With the present hegemonic mindset, the dream of a pre-9/11 world
will remain a far-cry. But for those who still matter, it is still time for
introspection. The neocons and crusaders and Obamas and Osamas of this world
must be pushed aside. The world should reinvent its core human values,
eradicate international injustices and barbarism, treat all humans equally and
not as collateral for a select few. Justice for all is the catchphrase to turn
the tide.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Hussain Saqibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06433927973832758656noreply@blogger.com1