Tag: International relations

  • Shia Sunni Divide in Pakistan. Reuters Report.

    Shia Sunni divide has been the bane of Islam.

    Though not well versed in Koran, I believe that a Religion which believes One God.it sounds silly to speak of Sectarian Divide .

    It can be found in all Religions especially the ones who profess that there is Equality in their Religion.

    Now coming to the point you find SaudiArabia funding Mossad for operations against Iran.

    The feud between the Islamic Countries  is endangering Islam as a Religion?

    Would the followers of Islam realize this?

    Read The investigative Story by Reuters on Te Shia Sunni Divide in Pakistan.

    ImamHusaynMosqueKarbalaIraqPre2006.JPG/220px-ImamHusaynMosqueKarbalaIraqPre2006.JPG
    Imam Husayn Mosque KarbalaI,Iraq.

    “About 20 men dressed as Pakistani soldiers boarded a bus bound for a Muslim festival outside this mountain town and checked the identification cards of the passengers. They singled out 19 Shi’ites, drew weapons and slaughtered them, most with a bullet to the head.

    The shooters weren’t soldiers. They were a hit squad linked to the Sunni Muslim extremist group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, or LeJ. They had trekked in along a high Himalayan pass that hot August morning to waylay a convoy of pilgrims.

    Here and across Pakistan, violent Sunni radicals are on the march against the nation’s Shi’ite minority.

    With a few hundred hard-core cadres, the highly secretive LeJ aims to trigger sectarian violence that would pave the way for a Sunni theocracy in U.S.-allied Pakistan, say Pakistan police and intelligence officials. Its immediate goal, they say, is to stoke the intense Sunni-Shi’ite violence that has pushed countries like Iraq close to civil war.

    More than 300 Shi’ites have been killed in Pakistan so far this year in sectarian conflict, according to human rights groups. The campaign is gathering pace in rural as well as urban areas such as Karachi, Pakistan’s biggest city.

    The Shi’ites are a big target, accounting for up to 20 percent of this nation of 180 million.

    In January, LeJ claimed responsibility for a homemade bomb that exploded in a crowd of Shi’ites in Punjab province, killing 18 and wounding 30. LeJ’s reach extends beyond Pakistan:

    Late last year, LeJ claimed responsibility for bombings inAfghanistan that killed 59 people, the worst sectarian attacks since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001.

    “No doubt – (LeJ) are the most dangerous group,” said Chaudhry Aslam, a top counter-terrorism police commando based in Karachi, whose house was blown up by the LeJ. “We will fight them until the last drop of blood.”

    For an outlawed group accused of fomenting such mayhem, the leader of LeJ is surprisingly easy to find.

    Malik Ishaq spent 14 years in jail in connection with dozens of murder and terrorism cases.

    He was released after the charges could not be proved – partly because of witness intimidation, officials say – and showered with rose petals by hundreds of supporters when he left prison in July 2011.

    Although Ishaq is one of Pakistan’s most feared militants, he enjoys the protection of followers clutching AK-47 assault rifles in the narrow lane outside his home.

    There, in the town of Rahim Yar Khan in southern Punjab province, Reuters visited him for an interview.

    “The state should declare Shi’ites as non-Muslims on the basis of their beliefs,” said Ishaq, calling them the “greatest infidels on earth.” Young supporters with shoulder-length hair in imitation of the Prophet Mohammad hung on every word.

    FOLLOWING THE TRAIL

    To assess the LeJ threat, Reuters followed the group’s trail across Pakistan – from Ishaq’s compound, to Gilgit in the foothills of the Himalayas, recruiting grounds in central Punjab, and the backstreets of Karachi on the Arabian Sea coast.

    In interviews, police, intelligence officials, clerics and LeJ members described a group that has grown more robust and appears to be operating across a much wider area in Pakistan than just a few years ago. But it had a head start.

    The LeJ once enjoyed the open support of the powerful spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence.

    The ISI used such groups as military proxies in India and Afghanistan and to counter Shi’ite militant groups.

    Since being outlawed after the attacks of September 11, 2001,

    LeJ has worked with Sunni radical groups al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban in several high-profile strikes.

    Among them were assaults in 2009 on Pakistan’s military headquarters and on Sri Lanka’s visiting cricket team.

    Washington says LeJ was involved in the killing of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl in 2002.

    Now it is gathering strength anew.

    The risks are heightened by Pakistan’s long-standing role as a battlefield in a proxy war between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi’ite Iran, which have been competing for influence in Asia and the Middle East since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

    That competition has heated up since the United States toppled secularist dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq and left the country under the control of an Iranian-influenced Shi’ite government.

    Intelligence officials say the LeJ is drawing financial support from Saudi donors and other Sunni sources.

    “Unfortunately, the state for strategic reasons turned a blind eye to the LeJ for a long time,” said a retired army general. “Now we have a situation where it has become Pakistan’s Frankenstein.”

    Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who is in charge of internal security, told Reuters that “we always take action” against the LeJ when the group is suspected of murder or terrorism. “We track people and arrest them.”

    When asked why those arrested are often freed, he said: “Look, my job is to arrest people, not to let them go.

    We all know who lets them off the hook and why,” he said, referring to local politicians and elements of the military who turn a blind eye to their activities or even support them in some cases.

     

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-pakistan-militants-idUSBRE89N00W20121024

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Russian President Threatens to deploy Missiles at the US.

    1945 map of the Pentagon road network, includi...
    Image via Wikipedia
    Signature of Dmitry Anatolyevich Mendvedev, Pr...
    Image via Wikipedia

     

    Russia‘s president has threatened to deploy missiles to target the US missile shield in Europe if Washington fails to give a legal action if the shield continued to be built without a binding agreement outlining it would not be aimed against Russia.

    US, used to taking nations for granted as it has been with the likes of Egypt,Pakistan, is.one of thee days going to take Moscow for granted and is going to get hit.

    Unfortunately the world will be hit for the worse.

    For a bankrupt nation this brinkmanship is uncalled for.

    Some one will call US’s bluff,possibly Iran?

    Time US behaved measuredly

    The US has repeatedly assured Moscow that its proposed missile defence system would not be directed against Russia’s nuclear forces and reinforced its stance again. “I do think it’s worth reiterating that the European missile defense system that we’ve been working very hard on with our allies and with Russia over the last few years is not aimed at Russia,” said Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman. “It is … designed to help deter and defeat the ballistic missile threat to Europe and to our allies from Iran.”

    But Medvedev said Moscow would not be satisfied by simple declarations and wants a legal guarantee setting out the boundaries. He added: “When we propose to put it on paper in the form of precise and clear legal obligations, we hear a strong refusal.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/23/medvedev-threatens-us-missile-shield

  • US-India a ‘threat’-slip of the tongue or the mask is off?

    Leon Panetta, America's new Secretary of Defen...
    Image by roberthuffstutter via Flickr-Leon Panetta.

    US always has its interests and is not taken in by any ideals ot sentiments.Any body is disposable once its objectives are met.

    India is being courted to balance China, fight terrorism in Afghanistan and of course for its vast market and cheap labor force.

    India should be wary of US while accepting its help.

    Deep within, the US is definitely worried over the emerging clout of India, next only to China might be calculating to deal with India after taking care of China and thankfully it is not going to happen as China is too wily a customer unlike India.

    Panetta’s remark is a Freudian slip and has to be taken seriously by the policy makers.

    Press Trust of India
    WASHINGTON, 18 NOV: In a major goof-up, new US defence secretary Mr Leon Panetta clubbed India and China, describing them as emerging “threats”, but his office quickly retracted the remarks, saying Washington strongly values close ties with New Delhi.
    Mr Panetta put his foot in the mouth as he departed from prepared text during a speech at a shipyard in Connecticut, where he said, “we face the threats from rising powers ~ China, India, others ~ that we have to always be aware of and try to make sure that we always have sufficient force protection out there in the Pacific to make sure they know we’re never going anywhere.”
    The defence secretary’s comments came at an awkward moment just when President Barack Obama met Prime Minister Mr Manmohan Singh and the two leaders agreed to boost ties not only bilaterally but at multilateral level also.
    The Pentagon chief, who spoke to the workers at the shipyard which builds nuclear attack submarines, described the array of threats to the USA as coming from Iran, North Korea and cyber attacks.
    But the former CIA chief, who recently publicly said that he was looking forward to visit India, strayed from the known US foreign policy stand by adding China and India to the list of countries posing security dangers that USA would need to make clear to these powers.
    However, Pentagon Press secretary Mr George Little was quick to clarify Mr Panetta’s remarks, saying the USA strongly values a close relationship with India and sees it a nation of increasing prominence and power.
    “The secretary strongly values a close military relationship with India, which he sees as a nation of increasing prominence and power. He doesn’t view India as a threat,” Mr Little said.
    “The USA and India work together on a regular basis to find ways of cooperating around common security interests. We’re committed to pursuing even stronger cooperation in the future,” Mr Little said in a statement after Mr Panetta’s speech.
    Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said it would be incorrect to draw a conclusion from Mr Panetta’s speech that the USA sees India and China as a threat. “Any suggestion that he (Panetta) was implying that he considered India and China military threats is false. The secretary believes it is important to improve our military relationships with both countries,” he said. “He was referring instead to the challenges these rising powers face within themselves, challenges that we share with them as we try to forge better relationships going forward in a very turbulent, dynamic security environment,” Capt. Kirby said.
    In his speech, Mr Panetta said in 10 years of war against terrorism, the USA has weakened Al Qaida and the Taliban. “We weakened the Taliban. We’ve had the lowest violence levels in Afghanistan in five years. We’re beginning to secure key areas of that country. We’re developing an Afghan army, an Afghan police. We are moving in the right direction.
    “A lot of work to be done, but hopefully by the end of 2014 we’ll be able to again have an Afghanistan that can govern and secure itself,” he said.

    http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390437&catid=35

  • China or US -Pakistan’s Dilemma.Analysis.

    Though written in lucid prose,the article presumes the importance of Pakistan than warranted by its polity.
    True, a Nation need not be huge and economic power house as India is.
    But at least the Nation should be stable and be economically self-reliant;it should have some political system in place;the responsibilities of the various organs must be clear.
    Only then Alliance with a country like Pakistan which is more or less a failed State, where none knows,including their President knows what happens in the Country(remember the instance of Indian planes incursions into Pakistan last year), will be beneficial to the Allies.
    The Alliance with Pakistan, apart from the reasons mentioned in the article, is also motivated by the anxiety ,rather urgency of the World(not merely US) to stop the export of terrorism.
    Having found Pakistan to be an unstable State,the US is slowly giving up on Pakistan, though it is discomforting for the US to deal with India, as India wants to deal with US on its terms and not as a supplicant like Pakistan
    China regards Pakistan to check mate US in the region.
    Having noticed that US is developing India relationship,China is looking elsewhere to encircle India as Pakistan can only be a liability to it in the long run;China wants Pakistan remains unstable.
    Funniest point is that Pakistan has a grievance that it has not been involved in Afghan Rebuilding.while the World knows the part played by Pakistan in Afghan confusion.

    The dynamic nature of geo-political environment is transitioning from American efforts to retain its uni-polarity to a stage where the emerging competitors and challengers are moving to a position of asserting their influence. This is likely to result in geo-economic, geo-political and geo-strategic changes, realignments and re-assertions, in certain regions which are likely to play important, if not pivotal roles in the future. These are high-stake political games which may well result in either prolonging geo-political status-quo or the commencement of changes towards a multi-polar balance of power.

    To maintain the geo-political status-quo, major US concerns are likely to remain focused on Asia. These include an emerging China, sustaining support for a countervailing India, a resurgent Russia and a concerned Muslim world attempting to redefine its place in the world polity. While US led efforts aimed at containment of Russia are stabilizing almost along the original Russian borders in Europe, endeavours to curtail her expansion towards the south and limit Russian and Chinese influence in Eurasian hinterland are underway.

    PakistanPakistan

    In February 2002, Colin Powell told the House International Relations Committee that, “America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before.” Chairman of NATO Military Committee while on a recent visit to Australia stated that, securing the safety of Washington and Brussels requires the expansion of a US dominated military alliance into “the Euro-Asian and Asian-Pacific regions.” Major US and NATO presence in Afghanistan and their efforts to enhance military presence in various Central Asian countries under the garb of providing support for Afghan war are clear indications in this direction.

    In the post 9/11 environment Asia therefore became the test-bed of American attempts to assert and realign the politico-economic order to maintain her full-spectrum domination and deny or delay the emergence and assurgence of competing powers. US invasion of Iraq was essentially a venture to sustain these objectives and not against terrorism which had roots in Afghanistan. It was thought that the US adventure in Iraq would achieve its objectives soon and would allow shifting the focus to stabilize Afghanistan for a protracted US presence because of geo-political compulsions. While the US was busy in Iraq, they co-opted Indian support to replace Pakistan as a stabilizing influence in Afghanistan, mainly due to Pak-US trust deficit. This also provided Americans an opportunity to project Indian influence in Central Asia to dilute the existing Russian and increasing Chinese support base.

    Having failed in her earlier attempts to coerce Pakistan through application of direct strategy, India readily took this opportunity to pay back Pakistan for its alleged interference in Indian Occupied Kashmir and ventured in to a strategic encirclement of Pakistan. Under a calibrated strategy, US also supported India by attempting to persuade Pakistan to allow passageway for sustaining the Indian influence in Afghanistan and beyond. While addressing a press conference in January this year in Islamabad, Hillary Clinton openly supported this venture to the discomfiture of her hosts. However, Pakistan did not acquiesce and avoided a self-inflicted strategic encirclement.

    Moreover, in order to dilute and contain resurgent Taliban, US contrived with Indian and Afghan support to shift the terrorist center of gravity to Pakistani territory resulting in manifold increase in drone attacks in Pak regions bordering Afghanistan. However, the US desire to confine this war to Af-pak region was short-lived. Soon the Taliban outside of so-called Af-pak region re-emerged stronger, warranting a US surge followed by a crisis of command and strategy.

    Also, the Americans soon realized Indian inability to replace Pakistan’s strategic influence in its backyard. This also solidified the fact that the geo-politically influenced strategic pivot provided by Pakistan could not and would not be replaced by India, no matter how powerful India may be. Pakistan had withstood the challenge, no matter how weak it had been or would be. Achievement of US geo-political and geo-strategic goals therefore would become extremely difficult without co-opting Pakistan. This fact can not be overstated by citing a statement of Senator McCain (courtesy wikileaks), who while talking to David Cameron in a 2008 meeting said that, “if they (Pakistan) don’t cooperate and help us, I don’t know what we are going to do.”

    Many believe that India is a regional power, yet they fail to realize the fact that its regional prowess can only be exercised against nations as small and vulnerable as Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh. It has not been able to convincingly project its power potential against present day Pakistan and China and it is unlikely to happen in the future as well. US Embassy, New Delhi (courtesy wikileaks) corroborates this fact indicating that, with present Indian military capabilities, Cold Start doctrine would encounter mixed results.

    US, France, UK, China and Russia etc can project their power potential because either they do not have a powerful regional threat to counter or they have enough capability to deter a regional threat and also project their capability to take care of extra-regional threats.

    India cannot laterally expand its influence beyond its western borders due the existence of geo-political impediments in addition to the geographical restrictions placed by the presence of Pakistan. Expansion of its influence towards the east is impeded due to the large geographical lay of China. Myanmar can provide India with limited ability to expand towards South East Asia. She attempted to undertake such a venture but due to its internal upheaval in adjoining areas failed to take timely advantage. Chinese influence in Myanmar has in the meantime increased manifold which may limit future Indian endeavours. Therefore the only direction it may be able to expand its influence is towards the vast expanse of sea in the south.

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/pakistans-geopolitical-dilema-china-or-us-viewpoint-from-pakistan-analysis-22032011/#comment-95089

     

  • Transparency and Governanace.WikiLeaks

    Logo used by Wikileaks
    Image via Wikipedia

     

     WikiLeaks has embarrassed the Governments the world over by its exposure of Foreign Relations details of  many a country.

    As has been pointed out ,there has been wilful wrong doing,outright lying,dressing up of information , deals within deals  by Nations.

    Also there has been special interest groups for whom there was a specific agenda to be carried out and the leaders have done their bidding.

    It also exposed the crassly crude descriptions of world leaders by those in authority.

    Does this mean one should ensure all documents relating to foreign relations be in the Public Domain?

    Answer is Yes and No.

    Those details the exposure of which might be a National Security Threat may be with held.

    (this begs the question.who decides on what National Security is ?

    This can be addressed separately.)

    Other than this, all documents must be in the Public Realm,especially relating to natural Resources sharing, Exports, Duty cut backs Corporates)

      In a Democracy such as India, the Opposition Parties have a Duty to perform in eliciting the information on the Floor of the Parliament .

    Unfortunately they don’, for they know they have to face same fate when they come to power and they also have things to hide.

    Take Bofors issue,Musharraf failing to sign the Agreement,bringing into the open Black Money stashed abroad.

    Finally it all comes to Leaders of Integrity and Honesty, which, now  ,is at a premium.

    WikiLeaks is neither the Russian Bolshevik party nor the American Democratic party. Nevertheless WikiLeaks is readdressing the issue which was left open at the end of the First World War: is diplomatic secret in the people’s interest? Both Trotsky and Wilson moved their agenda forward to some limited extent: the Soviet Union soon became a harsh dictatorship and transparency was so despised under Stalin that even the map of the Moscow underground was a classified document. The practice of publicity had better luck in the United States and in other Western countries. Transparency and accountability started to be common sense in consolidated democratic regimes although state secret still exists and diplomacy is still covered by the seven veils of classified documents. Even in the most democratic countries, secrecy in international affairs continues to be justified by the need to protect the state’s integrity and to guarantee citizens’ security and these aims prevail over the need to guarantee transparency and freedom of expression.

    Through WikiLeaks world public opinion was informed of numerous violations of humanitarian law in Afghanistan, of false reports on the legitimacy of the military intervention in Iraq, of the exaggeration of the weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein. This core information has been peppered with hundreds and hundreds of more exciting but less relevant gossip about political celebrities. Not surprisingly, those holding the secrets have reacted furiously against the leaks, have made what efforts they can to prevent further leaks and threatened retaliation against those who provided the information, those who published it and even those who dared to read it. The prize for the most furious reaction goes to Congressman Peter King, who wanted WikiLeaks to be declared a foreign terrorist organization. These reactions are certainly comprehensible but not justified. If there is the need to fight a war, the citizens, the taxpayers and even more the conscripted should clearly know the reasons for spilling blood on the battleground. Otherwise, as Noam Chomsky correctly pointed out, “government secrecy is to protect the government from its own population”.

    Until now WikLleaks’ revelations have not provoked major damage to intelligence mechanisms, either in Afghanistan or anywhere else. It may always be that such revelations can harm and identify specific persons, making their actions and their information services known to malicious people. Excessive transparency can in principle be dangerous for a few individuals, and it should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of individuals. At the expense of violating the privacy of many individuals, WikiLeaks has allowed public opinion to know that public offices have been used for private purposes, that false information has been released with the explicit aim of diverting public attention, that crimes have been committed without liability. Looking at the outcomes so far produced, it can be argued that the violation of privacy has been minimal compared to the relevance of the information provided to public opinion.

    An instrument like WikiLeaks has proven to be helpful not only in making governments and their officials more accountable. It has also proved very useful to check and control the business sector. We have already seen that WikiLeaks has started eating into banking secrecy, with the publication of the greatest tax dodgers’ lists by a banker that worked in Cayman Islands on behalf of the Swiss bank Julius Baer. In this case, it would be difficult to claim that confidentiality on tax evasion and money laundering should be protected in deference of privacy. It is somehow surprising that some Courts, rather than using the occasion to prosecute financial crimes, have preferred to be on the side of the banks and requested that leaked documents should be removed from the public domain.

    WikiLeaks raises a more general point that needs to be addressed: is there any effective filter between the load of information leaked out and what is actually published? WikilLeaks today has been a pioneer and it is carrying out an important public function, but it is probably inappropriate that an unaccountable private organization holds so much power. The opportunity to publish classified document has traditionally been a prerogative of all media, but there is no media, to date, that is solely devoted to releasing classified documents. This puts WikiLeakes in a league by its own.

    The responsibility to monitor the transparency of geopolitical relations, of financial flows and of other sensitive information should be put in the hands of organizations that are themselves fully transparent and accountable. The empirical research carried out by One World Trust on the accountability of inter-governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and of business corporations has often provided counter-intuitive results, indicating that institutions such as the World Bank are more transparent than institutions such as the WWF International.# Paradoxically, WikiLeaks risks being an organization more secretive than those whose documents it publishes. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” said Juvenal and today we can wonder: “Who will assure the transparency of those who generate transparency?”

    http://www.opendemocracy.net/daniele-archibugi-marina-chiarugi/wilson-trotsky-assange-lessons-from-history-of-diplomatic-transpar?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=0