Ramanisblog

Tag: International relations

  • US ‘Forged’ Nuclear Documents, Says Iran

    Charges and counter charges-who is telling the Truth?
    Iran’s president has said documents appearing to show his country is working on a nuclear bomb trigger were “forged” by the US.

    Iranian president Ahmadinejad visits the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility
    The papers, revealed last week by The Times newspaper, describe a four-year plan to test the neutron initiator.
    Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the reports about a nuclear trigger were “fundamentally not true”.
    Speaking to US TV network ABC News, he said of the documents: “They are all a fabricated bunch of papers continuously being forged and disseminated by the American government.”
    Foreign intelligence agencies have dated the documents to early 2007, four years after Tehran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme, the newspaper claimed.
    The world powers know the documents are damning but they are choosing to wait until they use them to try and damn Iran.
    Sky’s foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall
    He said accusations that Iran was continuing work on a nuclear arms plan were “a repetitive and tasteless joke”.
    US President Barack Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod has said any accusation that Washington had fabricated documents was “nonsense”.
    He added: “Nobody has any illusions about what the intent of the Iranian government is.”
    Tehran has insisted its nuclear programme is solely for civilian purposes and rejects Western suspicions that it is covertly trying to develop a bomb.
    Mr Ahmadinejad also said Iran was ready to strike a uranium enrichment deal if the US and the West respect the Islamic Republic and stop making threats.
    Iran is under three sets of UN sanctions for refusing to suspend enrichment and it risks more after rejecting a UN-brokered deal to send its low-enriched uranium abroad to be further refined into fuel for a reactor.
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Iran-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-Says-US-Forged-Documents-About-Nuclear-Bomb-Trigger-Claims/Article/200912415506440?DCMP=EMC-news_OBU

  • UN presses Sri Lanka over Tamil Tiger killings

    If the Government says ‘Fonseka’ betrayed the country’, it is an admission of guilt.
    While the world has been paying its attention only to Osama,Pakistan,North Korea and Climate Change,Sri Lanka has quietly executed Genocide of Tamils.
    Would the world have kept quiet if a tragedy of this magnitude takes place in in Europe?
    Where are the Asian countries and Human Rights Activists?
    The Sri Lankan government says the UN has asked it to explain allegations that Tamil Tiger rebel leaders were executed as they tried to surrender.
    The president’s office said it was studying the request and would take any action necessary.
    The claims – rejected by the government – were first made in a Sri Lankan newspaper and attributed to Sri Lankan ex-military chief Gen Sarath Fonseka.
    Gen Fonseka has since said his remarks were misunderstood.
    The general, a candidate in next month’s presidential election, has said he was only repeating what he had been told by journalists who had been at the scene.
    However, government officials have accused Gen Fonseka of “betrayal”.
    After the war’s bloody end in May, some diplomats alleged that the army summarily killed a group of surrendering people led by senior Tiger rebels.
    But the Sri Lankan government has said they were in fact shot by other rebel fighters.

    Gen Fonseka’s comments caused a storm of controversy
    The UN’s request came from its special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Philip Alston.
    The statement from President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s office said the UN “has asked the government to provide explanations with regard to the circumstances of the death of three senior LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] cadres and their families at the last stages of military operations to defeat the LTTE in May this year”.
    The Sri Lanka’s government crushing military victory ended the Tigers’ quarter-century war to create a separate state for ethnic minority Tamils.
    The UN estimates that up to 7,000 civilians died in the final stages of the war, although the government disputes the figures.
    Both sides were accused of human rights violations and atrocities during the long conflict.
    ‘War without witness’
    During the war’s last few months it was difficult to obtain information from the battle zone as there were no independent monitors on the ground and media access to the conflict zone was strictly restricted.
    As a result, Western nations described the conflict as a war without witness.
    Analysts say despite its repeated denials, the Sri Lankan government may find it difficult to convince the outside world, unless there is a credible independent investigation into the final stages of the conflict.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8425091.stm

  • Pakistan Supreme Court strikes down amnesty deal

    More head ache for US.Will it jettison Zardari and prop up Nawaz Sharief?He also had cases against him; they can be reopened anytime.Or will Zardari bring in his son? The last option seems to be the one Zardari is likely to take.
    Affairs of Pakistan is like noodles,you do not know where it starts and where does it end.

    President Asif Ali Zardari could once again face charges of corruption after Pakistan’s Supreme Court found that an amnesty deal that allowed many officials to serve in the government was unconstitutional.
    By Carol Huang Staff Writer / December 16, 2009

    Islamabad, Pakistan
    Pakistan’s Supreme Court struck down a controversial amnesty deal on Wednesday that had erased charges ranging from corruption to murder against 8,000 people, including President Asif Ali Zardari. The verdict could invite political instability at a time when Pakistan is grappling with a deadly fight against militants and US pressure to do more.

    The ruling that the 2007 National Reconciliation Ordination (NRO) is unconstitutional opens the door for existing cases to resume and for new legal challenges to be lodged against Mr. Zardari’s right to hold office.

    Many Pakistanis welcomed the decision as a rare victory against corruption. Courtroom observers ran outside and chanted against Zardari and in favor of the justices’ decision to declare any acquittals under the NRO “of no legal effect.”

    But it is uncertain how the Supreme Court’s action will play out in the legal battle to oust Zardari as well as in the political arena.

    The NRO was “the most discriminatory piece of legislation. It just stood the rule of law on its head,” says Maleeha Lodhi, a former ambassador to the United States.
    “But of course it comes at a challenging and pivotal moment for Pakistan,” she continues. “A great deal with depend on what the aftermath will be.”

    At the center of the storm: Zardari

    The NRO was originally cast as a way to free elected officials and bureaucrats from “politically motivated” cases so they could serve in government. But many Pakistanis saw it as a get-out-of-jail free card for the political elite tied to Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Party members currently serving as defense minister, interior minister, and ambassador to the US, among others, all got a clean slate.

    For Zardari, the charges lifted include questions about a $4 million country estate in England and $40 million in foreign bank accounts. His total assets amount to $1.5 billion, according to a government anticorruption body, a figure his spokesman denies. Zardari had served 11 years in jail on corruption charges but was never convicted, and in 2004 left Pakistan.

    The biggest legal battle ahead, over whether Zardari can stay in office, could take months to resolve. As president, he enjoys immunity. But his opponents plan to argue that, with his corruption charges now restored, he was ineligible to run for office in the first place and must step down.

    Ball in president’s court

    Outside the courts, meanwhile, a political fight could break out, depending largely on how Zardari responds.

    In a conciliatory move last month, he promised to effectively become a figurehead, by fulfilling a promise to transfer hefty presidential powers – the right to dismiss the prime minister, dissolve Parliament, and pick the Army chief – back to the prime minister. But Zardari could raise the stakes by mobilizing supporters to take to the streets.

    Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar says the government “will accept and honor the verdict,” but has yet to determine how to respond politically.

    The uncertainty has raised concerns that the military will intervene in government, as it’s done throughout Pakistan’s 62-year history. But since taking over in 2007, Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani has largely pulled the Army out of politics. With 30,000 soldiers battling the Taliban, Army officials may feel too busy to step in anyway. And like many Pakistanis, the military brass may not mind watching Zardari fall.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2009/1216/Pakistan-Supreme-Court-strikes-down-amnesty-deal

  • Pakistan military not seeking takeover: U.S. general

    Since when Generals of any country inform foreign powers of their intention to effect a coup, especially of Pakistan?
    Secondly Headley affair disclosures indicate that terrorists have infiltrated Pakistan military.So if any take over takes place, it will be of terrorists.
    ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – The United States believes Pakistan’s military has no intention of trying to seize power, U.S. Central Command chief General David Petraeus said during a visit to an ally that is struggling against Taliban militants.

    The movements of Pakistan’s all-powerful military are closely watched both at home and in Western countries such as the United States and Britain, which are piling pressure on the government to help them fight a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

    The military has ruled for more than half of Pakistan’s turbulent 62-year history and no civilian government has ever served out a full term, earning the nuclear-armed country the reputation of being an unstable state.

    In a briefing with Pakistani journalists during a visit to Islamabad, Petraeus said Pakistan’s military had told him it was not interested in destabilizing the elected civilian government.

    “I have seen no indication that (army chief) General Ashfaq Kayani is entertaining such a notion,” local newspapers on Tuesday quoted Petraeus as telling reporters at the U.S. ambassador’s residence when asked about his meeting with Kayani.

    “Whenever we have talked to them they say they are committed to democratically elected civilian government.”

    The army is seen as the institution best able to unite Pakistan in times of crisis, even though military coups have hurt the country’s democratic credentials.

    But its vulnerability to increasingly daring militants became clear this month when suicide bombers and gunmen killed at least 40 people in an attack on a mosque near army headquarters, 30 minutes from the capital Islamabad.

    Such attacks close to the heart of the military establishment would have been unthinkable in the 1980s, when Pakistan’s army and intelligence service backed militants in their war against Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan.

    “GNAWING SOCIETY”

    President Asif Ali Zardari has called for urgent national action to fight the growing threat from the Taliban.

    Some militants are fighting the government but others cross into Afghanistan to attack U.S.-led troops from lawless tribal strongholds with forbidding mountain terrain.

    Analysts say Pakistan resists pressure to crack down on those types of fighters because it sees them as leverage against the influence of its traditional enemy and fellow nuclear power India in Afghanistan.

    Pakistan’s APP news agency cited Zardari as saying that “extremism and militancy was gnawing society at the core” and that the writ of the government must be established “at all costs.”

    The Pakistani Taliban are made up of disparate militant groups with a common goal of imposing their harsh brand of Islam in Pakistan, including public lashings and executions for those deemed immoral. They have blown up hundreds of girls’ schools.

    Zardari, who is deeply unpopular partly because of his ties with Washington, has other troubles which analysts say could distract him from the war against militants.

    He is fighting for his political survival at a critical time for the region and some of his aides, including the interior and defense ministers, may face revived corruption charges.

    Western allies are highly unlikely to ease their push for Pakistan to root out Taliban and al Qaeda fighters crossing over to Afghanistan from a region seen as a global hub for militants. The demands have inflamed already high anti-American anger. Many Pakistanis believe their government is fighting America’s war despite a wave of militant bomb attacks in towns and cities.

    To make matters worse, the bloodshed has hurt confidence in an economy in virtual recession. Investors don’t expect the violence to ease anytime soon. In a telling sign, they have factored it into their stock market trading.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BE0V520091215?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsearly

  • Europe and Afghanistan.

    Why should EU share US’s perception?They know what had happened with 14 member coalition for Operation Desert Storm.What did they gain out of it?Nearly all leaders of the countries who were a party to that decision have lost their jobs.Nor do the people of these countries want these wars of US.Every country has the right to decide its options.
    Afghanistan is not and should not be just the United States’ fight. Al Qaeda has used its sanctuaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan to plot and launch attacks on European cities. We welcome the news that some of America’s 42 military partners in Afghanistan plan to send more troops.

    It was not an easy call. As President Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech last week, “In many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public.” And in Europe any ambivalence has long been replaced by fierce demands for withdrawal.

    Still, NATO’s announcement that an additional 7,000 troops will be going falls short of what is needed, and has too many casualty-limiting caveats attached.

    That isn’t good for Afghanistan or NATO, which has never fully shouldered the burden of this mission. And it is unfair to the American people, who are being asked to make disproportionate sacrifices for what is, emphatically, a common fight.

    When more closely parsed, the NATO numbers look even less impressive. Almost 2,000 will come from countries outside the alliance (including Australia, South Korea, Sweden and aspiring NATO members, Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia and Montenegro). And more than half of the new NATO troops will come from just three member states: Britain, whose force will go up to 10,000; Italy, which will go to roughly 4,000; and Poland, which will total 2,800.

    So far, neither France, which has 3,750 troops there, nor Germany, with roughly 4,300, has agreed to send any additional troops.

    Meanwhile, the Netherlands, with roughly 2,200, will withdraw its forces in the course of 2010; Canada, with 2,800, will be leaving by 2011. That means as American troop levels rise from 68,000 to 98,000 by next summer, allied troop levels are not likely to go much higher than the present 38,000.

    Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of European support for the United States and offers of assistance in Afghanistan under the common defense clause of the NATO treaty. The Bush administration arrogantly spurned that offer, and then proceeded to alienate European opinion with its disastrous war in Iraq. Trans-Atlantic cooperation on Afghanistan still has not recovered.

    The challenge for President Obama and European leaders is to overcome that unhappy recent history before it does more damage to the war effort in Afghanistan and to the NATO alliance. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, have repeatedly stated that their countries have a stake in the future of Afghanistan and the future of NATO. But both are wary of pushing their voters too far, too fast. (Both have essentially postponed their decisions on further troop contributions until late next month.)

    Democratically elected leaders cannot ignore public skepticism, but they should not surrender to it when they know better. Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy must educate their voters to the harsh reality that Europe will also pay a high price if the Taliban and Al Qaeda get to retake Afghanistan and further destabilize Pakistan.

    There is a lot Europe can do in addition to sending more troops. Afghanistan also needs more skilled civilian advisers to work with President Hamid Karzai’s new cabinet appointees. And it urgently needs help reconstructing its dysfunctional national police force — a job the United Nations initially assigned to Germany, which fumbled it. NATO had it right in 2001. Defeating Al Qaeda is a matter of common defense. President Obama is right to insist that the allies do more. Now Europe’s leaders need to demand more of themselves.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/opinion/14mon1.html?_r=1&hp