Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live

IAEA Inspectors To Supervise Iran’s Bushehr NPP Fuel Changeover

$
0
0

By Trend News Agency

By Umid Niayesh

Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will attend the procedure of the Bushehr nuclear power plant’s fuel changeover next week, deputy head of the Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Mohammad Ahmadian said, Iranian ISNA news agency reported on Jan. 30.

Ahmadian went on to say that about one third of the power plant’s fuel, which is some 27 tons, will be replaced.

Along with replacing the fuel, Iranian and Russian experts will do scheduled annual services of the power plant, he said, adding that the procedure, on the average, will take about 45 days.

The fuel assemblies of the power plant have been sealed by the IAEA inspectors after the primary fueling, Ahmadian underlined.

“The reactor will be sealed again by the IAEA inspectors after the fuel change has been completed,” he added.

Spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Behrouz Kamalvandi said on Jan. 28 that the Bushehr nuclear power plant is to halt activities for a few days for the fuel changeover.

He further explained that the fuel changeover operations were due to take place in mid January but were delayed upon the request of ministries of oil and energy that wanted to use the gas needed by the power plant for household consumption because of the cold season in the country.

Ahmadian underlined that the Bushehr power plant produced daily 24,000 megawatts hour of electricity during the cold season, which led to savings of about 6 million liters of liquid fuel in thermal power plants of the country.

The article IAEA Inspectors To Supervise Iran’s Bushehr NPP Fuel Changeover appeared first on Eurasia Review.


India-China Ties Need Fresh Initiatives – Analysis

$
0
0

By IDN

By Shastri Ramachandaran

Although he was frustrated in sealing a long-term India-US strategic partnership – with the nuclear deal not gaining India a seat in the N-technology regimes — keeping that priority at the centre of foreign policy enabled Singh to upscale and deepen India-China relations like never before.

This is no mean achievement considering that there is much wider support – among the public, media, policy-shaping elite, think tanks, industry and business, and powerful sections in the political, military and official establishment – for India embracing the US (and its interests) than engaging with China in India’s interests.

For an “accidental” politician, who became Prime Minister for his presumed lack of political savvy, Manmohan Singh showed a canny appreciation of the dynamics of global power play: as long as he rooted for the US as India’s primary partner for all seasons and reasons, he would not be hindered in seeking cooperation and friendship with other countries, including those perceived to be “threats”, “rivals” or “enemies”.

In a globalised, de-ideologised world where international relations are driven primarily by business (trade) and profit motives, power is the sole currency. Despite the US-China rivalry, the two are friends and partners, often working in tandem even while carving out their respective spheres of influence.

Given this scenario – and the global financial crisis of 2008, which saw the emergence of the US and China as virtually G-2 – the challenge for India was to “Americanize” (have business) relations with China without affecting its goal of a strategic partnership with the US. In short, New Delhi had to build parallel tracks to Washington and Beijing. And, for a while, Manmohan Singh did this – creating conditions for India-China trade and business regardless of the boundary dispute – with aplomb.

His excellent rapport with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao strengthened ties, enriched cooperation, and saw India-China trade grow by leaps and bounds particularly in the five years since their Beijing summit in 2008. India-China relations flourished even though the two were seen as racing against each other toward faster growth.

Singh seemed to realise that India’s ability and strength to negotiate with China, and hasten the process of normalisation, could be leveraged against the India-US strategic relationship. China respects power and strength, and India’s strategic ties with the US coupled with China-US rivalry, made Beijing wary but, at the same time, eager to seize every opportunity for cooperation with India.

There was no explicit quid pro quo between India and China in so far as the US was concerned. Yet India declining to be drawn in to US-led schemes for containment of China and New Delhi’s calculated ambivalence to Washington’s strategic options such as its “Asia pivot” may be counted, in the Chinese view, among the benefits of enhanced cooperation. New Delhi, for its part, knows that China would have been less respectful of an India not rooted in a strategic partnership with the US. Singh deserves credit for this although his overall report card on foreign affairs is far from flattering.

However, this avowedly “great progress in friendship and fruitful cooperation” did not prevent China’s Ladakh incursion in April 2013, which took India by surprise and gave rise to tensions that revived memories of the 1962 conflict. The unprovoked military intrusion, coming soon after a new leadership had assumed office in China – on the eve of External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid’s visit to Beijing and shortly before Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to New Delhi on his first foreign tour after taking charge – was decried as a gross violation of trust.

The incursion underscored that peace and tranquility on the border, normalisation, booming trade and cooperation across multiple tracks did not mean that “incidents” could be ruled out. It was a grim reminder that India-China ties could turn volatile. Singh rode out the storm and did not let powerful sections, vested interests and lobbies vitiate the atmosphere to a point where they could force the government to cancel the visit of Khurshid or Premier Li.

There are no clear and convincing answers to why the Ladakh incident occurred, but it seemed to be business as usual with more joint statements and agreements being signed during Li’s visit. This was followed by the 16th meeting on the India-China Boundary Question and the 5th China-India Strategic Dialogue. Manmohan Singh’s last major foreign policy excursion was to China in October.

For all the friendly outpourings, agreements and exchanges in various channels, India-China relations have not recovered the comfort and equilibrium that prevailed before the Ladakh incident. Besides the bitter aftertaste, there is an erosion of trust, apprehensions over the imponderables in the relationship and new questions about how old differences need to be handled.

More than tangibles, what is missing about China in India is a buzz. It is no longer the big topic of talk in political corridors, business circles or diplomatic quarters. There is a palpable absence of excitement about opportunities, especially economic, entrepreneurial, educational and cultural. India-China ties have become dull, routine. So much so that even new initiatives such as the first China-India Media Forum, exchange visits of youth delegations, sister-city agreements or cultural shows do not attract the attention they did.

All these make 2014 an important year. One year is too short a time to reverse the damage suffered in 2013 – which undid much of Manmohan Singh’s accomplishments in bilateral relations. 2014 is the 60th anniversary of Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence) and designated as the “Year of Friendly Exchanges” between India and China.

This is an opportunity for India-China relations to regain visibility through a variety of activities and exchanges. Both sides need to take bold and imaginative steps to recover the lost robustness of a relationship that was blossoming but far from achieving even a small part of its potential.

Shastri Ramachandran is an independent journalist based in New Delhi. A version of this article first appeared on January 29, 2014 on The Citizen under the headline India-China relations in dire need of new triggers and is being published by arrangement with the writer.

The article India-China Ties Need Fresh Initiatives – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Hamas And Hezbollah Agree To Disagree On Syria – Analysis

$
0
0

By Giorgio Cafiero

Born of a common struggle against Israel and nourished by common benefactors in Syria and Iran, Sunni Hamas and Shiite Hezbollah have long been natural allies despite their sectarian differences. Ever since the early 1990s, when Israel exiled Hamas’ leadership to Lebanon, the two groups have cultivated an alliance that has shaped the Middle East’s balance of power for decades.

But the crisis in Syria has ruptured the old “axis of resistance,” with regional forces giving the two organizations opposing stakes in the conflict and bringing unprecedented tension to their relationship. While Hezbollah fighters have fought and died for Bashar al-Assad in some of the civil war’s fiercest battles, Hamas has thrown in its lot with the rebels and retreated deeper into the embrace of Sunni Islamist powers in the region.

For a time, it appeared that the partnership might be over, with Hamas calling on Hezbollah to extricate itself from Syria and Hezbollah accusing Hamas of funneling weapons and technology to Sunni jihadists. Yet the two groups appear to have looked beyond Syria’s civil war and calculated that more is to be lost than gained from a total divorce. Despite outbursts of inflammatory rhetoric, Hamas and Hezbollah have apparently agreed to disagree on Syria while maintaining a strategic partnership against Israel.

Feet in the Fire

Wary of alienating either their patrons or the Arab street, Hamas and Hezbollah cautiously avoided taking any strong position during the Syrian conflict’s earliest stages in 2011. But even then there were hints that their studied neutrality could not last. For example, like Hamas, Hezbollah urged the Damascus regime to enter a dialogue with the opposition. But unlike Hamas, Hezbollah soon rescinded this suggestion, most likely under pressure from Tehran.

As international powers became increasingly involved, Hamas and Hezbollah were also pressured to take a stance that would define their attitudes towards the conflict.

In December 2011, Hamas made a bold move to transfer its political bureau from Syria—where it had been based since 1999—to Qatar, a main sponsor of the Syrian rebels and post-Mubarak Egypt. “We supported the Syrian regime as long as it was fighting the Israeli enemy,” said Hamas deputy foreign minister Ghazi Hamad, “but when it oppressed its people we decided to part ways with it, despite the fact that this is considered a big loss for Hamas.” Although the group tried to project a veneer of neutrality after leaving Damascus, high-ranking leaders appeared to tip their hands. In February 2012, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh delivered an emotional speech at al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, where he lauded “the heroic people of Syria who are striving for freedom, democracy, and reform” as worshipers chanted, “No Hezbollah and no Iran.”

Hezbollah, seeking to avoid a public rupture with Hamas, refused to condemn the group’s decision to leave Syria and issued an internal order preventing Hezbollah spokesmen from criticizing their Palestinian counterparts. But Hezbollah increasingly characterized the Syrian uprising as a foreign-orchestrated plot to weaken resistance to Israel.

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah was quick to remind Palestinians that during the Israel-Hezbollah War of 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in Gaza (2008-2009), Syria had provided both organizations with arms like no other Arab state. He went on to mock the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states by requesting that they send arms into Gaza. Nasrallah’s ultimate aim was to highlight the Gulf monarchies’ de facto neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict while challenging Doha and Riyadh’s pan-Arab credentials.

Despite these pleas for solidarity, Hamas and Hezbollah’s tension over Syria worsened throughout 2012 and 2013. In the spring of 2013, Hezbollah sent its own fighters into Syria to dislodge the rebels from Qusayr, a strategically vital town along the Syrian-Lebanese border that had been under rebel control since July 2012. Following seventeen days of fierce fighting, the rebels were finally expelled from the city, a victory largely attributed to Hezbollah’s direct intervention. In response, an Egypt-based Hamas leader publicly urged Hezbollah “to take its forces out of Syria and to keep their weapons directed against the Zionist enemy.”

In turn, Hezbollah sources claimed that Hamas operatives had assisted Sunni jihadists in Qusayr after discovering tunnels dug with Iranian devices that Hezbollah had transferred to Hamas for use in Gaza. This was a particularly grim accusation, since Hezbollah reported losing many soldiers to booby-trapped tunnels during the siege. Hamas authorities have continuously denied these claims, but other rumors have persisted, including that Hamas members fought against the Syrian regime at the Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

Rapprochement?

With tensions coming to a head, Hamas and Hezbollah officials met in Beirut last summer in an attempt to restore the relationship. Since then, spokesmen for each group have taken pains to insist on their agreement to disagree on Syria and to continue their cooperation on other fronts.

From Beirut, some representatives of Hamas reportedly continued on to Iran, which is said to have cut its support for Hamas in the wake of the group’s flight from Syria. This development particularly alarmed members of Hamas’ military wing, which is heavily dependent on the arms it receives from Tehran. Reflecting divisions within Hamas about how to approach the Syrian conflict, Hamas military commander Marwan Issa reportedly urged political leader Khaled Mashal to keep a line open to Iran, a call that was supported by Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar.

While negotiators worked to rebuild ties, regional events recast the field. As the war in Syria dragged on and rival rebel factions began to turn on each other, a military coup rocked Egypt, expelling the elected Muslim Brotherhood government, restoring the secular military to power, and resealing the border between Gaza and Egypt. Gone was Hamas’ dream of a new regional balance of power with Muslim Brotherhood franchises holding power in Egypt, Gaza, and Syria. Meanwhile, Qatar continued to offer Hamas a political home in Doha and generously supported development projects in Gaza, but the small Gulf state proved unwilling to provide the military assistance that Hamas had relied on from Iran.

These developments paved the way for Hamas’ rapprochement with Iran after two years of deteriorated ties, which in turn eased the way for the normalization of its ties with Hezbollah. In September 2013, following several weeks of meetings, Hamas and Hezbollah announced that they had formed a stronger pact with Iran to fortify the tottering “axis of resistance.”

Remembering the Stakes

Even as Hamas gradually restores its relationship with Iran and Hezbollah, some of its officials still wave the Free Syrian Army (FSA) flag. “Hamas does not flirt nor does it plead with anyone,” said Haniyeh in a defiant speech last October. “It does not regret nor does it apologize for honorable positions, just to placate others. It does not feel that it is in the type of trouble necessitating that others be paid to save it from.” But in light of Assad’s strengthened hand in Syria, a proliferation of hostile al-Qaeda-linked forces in the Syrian opposition, and a narrowing regional pool of useful allies, realism may compel Hamas to agree to disagree with its allies in Lebanon and Iran.

Hezbollah is unlikely to abandon Assad anytime soon. Its concerns about anti-Shiite jihadists, or Takfiris, gaining influence in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria naturally pit the Party of God against the Sunni-dominated Syrian rebellion—a dynamic that may be encouraged by an ongoing spate of car bombs and other jihadist attacks on Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon. Even if Hezbollah quietly begins to reconsider its role in Syria, its patrons in Iran—with whom Hezbollah is much more intricately tied than Hamas—will lean hard on the Lebanese force to hold the line.

In this context, tension between the Palestinian and Lebanese groups will probably continue as long as the Syrian stalemate does. But by the same token, in the absence of an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty and an end to tensions along the Israeli-Lebanese border, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue to view their respective struggles against Israel as a common denominator that justifies a strong alliance despite their opposing stakes in Syria.

Giorgio Cafiero is a Washington, DC-based foreign affairs analyst. On Twitter: @GiorgioCafiero.
Peter Certo is the editor of
Foreign Policy In Focus, a progressive foreign policy journal published by the Institute for Policy Studies.

This article was published at The Atlantic Council and is reprinted with permission.

The article Hamas And Hezbollah Agree To Disagree On Syria – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Lessons From The Economics Of Crime – Analysis

$
0
0

By VoxEU.org

By Stephen Machin and Olivier Marie

What have economists contributed to our understanding of criminal behaviour and crime control? Could they help make sense of the recent large crime drop documented in the UK and other countries (Draca 2013, Marie 2010)?

As we approach the fiftieth anniversary of Nobel laureate Gary Becker’s seminal contribution (Becker 1968), the economics of crime is becoming part of the standard portfolio that makes up the discipline. On both sides of the Atlantic, a critical mass of academic economists has specialised in the study of crime and its control, and the field is growing rapidly.

Of course, social scientific study of crime was well established by the time of Gary Becker’s contribution with the dominant disciplines being sociology and psychology since the 1920s. Becker chose to bypass rather than engage with that tradition, stating that “a useful theory of criminal behaviour can dispense with special theories of anomie, psychological inadequacies, or inheritance of special traits and simply extend the economist’s analysis of choice.”

With this disciplinary imperialism as a guide, subsequent contributions from economists tended to adopt the view that crime research was virgin territory. Economists were initially not so welcome in criminology and, for the most part, were unconcerned, feeling they had little to learn from the ‘natives’. More recently, that separation between has begun to break down in a constructive manner with the growth of multi-disciplinary public-policy programmes and thinktanks.

In a new book, we examine the contribution of economists to the study of criminal behaviour and crime control (Cook et al. 2013). In doing so, we identify four key strands:

  • A normative framework for evaluating criminal law and crime prevention.
  • The application of sophisticated quantitative methods to analyse the causes of crime and the effects of crime-control measures in this framework.
  • The conception of criminal behaviour as individual choice, influenced by perceived consequences.
  • The aggregation of individual choices into a systems framework for understanding crime rates and patterns.

Policy choice

During the 1960s, with riots in US cities, escalating rates of crime and drug abuse, Congress created several high-profile commissions to assess the underlying problems and recommend effective reforms. Prominent criminologists of the day offered their opinions but had little in the way of relevant evidence. The political scientist James Q Wilson was a critical observer of criminology at the time and noticed that its sociological orientation did not lend itself well to evidence-based policy recommendations.

Crime was understood to be caused by culture and social structure. An analysis of these ‘root causes’ of crime provided little guidance for policymakers, whose ability to change structural aspects of society was very limited. In Britain, the lack of connection between criminology and policy was perhaps even greater, since the dominant ethos was against policy engagement, in part because of its heavier focus on the social context of crime.

Among the social sciences, economics tends to be best suited for addressing issues relevant to policy design.

  • The economic model presumes that observed behaviour is not the inevitable result of underlying social conditions, but rather results from individual choices influenced by perceived consequences. If government policy can change those consequences, then behaviour change can follow, especially for the marginal individual.
  • Furthermore, economics incorporates a well-developed normative framework that defines the public interest and lends itself to policy prescription.

Indeed, Becker’s contribution was primarily in the normative realm. He pointed out that the social costs associated with crime are the sum of the direct costs of victimisation and of efforts to control and prevent crime. If the goal is to minimise total social costs, then the optimal amount of crime is unlikely to be zero, since at some point the marginal costs of additional prevention will exceed the marginal benefit of an additional reduction in crime. And just because crime rates are declining does not mean that the ‘crime problem’ is less overall – crime-control costs, such as large increases in the prison population must be considered.

The normative framework also provides guidance for evaluating specific interventions. The economic question is not limited to ‘what works’ in crime control, but ‘what is worthwhile’. Cost-benefit analysis provides a set of rules for answering that question, and more generally, encourages a comprehensive approach to evaluation.

Quantitative methods

The other important feature of the application of the normative framework has been the contribution by economists of using advanced and innovative statistical methods. As economists have increasingly embraced the use of natural and field experiments, they have developed a much more robust understanding of what causes crime, and are now able to generate good estimates of the efficiency of different policy tools. This is true of the use of programme evaluation methods, as well where particular crime initiatives have been evaluated.

One economist who has been particularly creative in finding ways to study and identify the causes of crime is the University of Chicago’s Steven Levitt, whose research (and subsequent emergence as a celebrity, thanks to his 2005 Freakonomics book) has done much to inspire subsequent cohorts of graduate students in economics. Massive improvements in data quality and availability have also made possible great progress in statistical investigations into the causes of crime and what works to reduce offending.

Crime as a rational choice

A simplistic, but common understanding of crime, is that the population can be divided neatly into two groups: good guys and bad guys. In this view, the bad guys commit crime unless they are incapacitated, and the good guys are reliably law abiding. The economic model of crime shifts the focus from character to the choices available to individuals. While certain aspects of character (or what economists are inclined to call ‘preferences’) are surely not irrelevant, criminal activity represents a choice, or set of choices, that is available to everyone.

The choice of whether to commit crime is driven by the consequences, which differ among individuals depending on the opportunities available to them. This perspective leads naturally to a presumption that deterrence works – crime rates will be inversely related to the likelihood and severity of punishment.

But the economic model also incorporates the idea that programmes to improve legitimate life opportunities may have a deterrent effect through increasing the opportunity cost of time spent in criminal activity or prison. A recent study has confirmed that education had a large crime-reducing effect in England and Wales after cohorts of individuals were forced to stay longer at school because of changes in minimum school leaving age legislation (Machin et al. 2011).

The economic focus on choices and consequences does not preclude the possibility that character is also important in influencing criminal involvement. Efforts to rehabilitate criminals may focus on either increasing the quality of legitimate opportunities, or changing cognitive processes and capacities, such as self-control, empathy, and rationalisation.

While there have been myriad evaluations of specific programmes intended to reduce rates of recidivism, there still remains considerable uncertainty about the overall effect of a spell of imprisonment on subsequent behaviour.

Feedbacks and interactions

Economics is a social science. The theory of individual behaviour serves as a building block for a theory of aggregate outcomes. The interacting systems that connect crime-related choices by individuals to aggregate outcomes have not been fully worked out by economists, but the research literature provides a start on this project.

Criminal activity may be viewed as produced by individuals (active criminals) at a rate that is limited by the activities of the criminal justice system and private security measures. The electorate chooses through the political process how much public resource to devote to the criminal justice system, and households and businesses make myriad individual choices about how much private effort to devote to crime prevention and avoidance.
There are at least three noteworthy feedback loops in this system:

  • The capacity of the criminal justice system to control crime may be diluted by an increase in crime rates, which then causes a reduction in the likelihood or severity of punishment – resulting in further increases in crime.
  • An increase in the crime rate may raise the political salience of crime, leading to increased criminal-justice budgets and stricter sentencing, which may then rein in the crime rate.
  • A rise in crime may induce greater private efforts at prevention and avoidance of victimisation (e.g. locking doors, carrying weapons, hire guards, etc), which can in turn change public security provision and crime patterns.

Observed crime rates are thus the outcome of a complex interactive system, which may frustrate the goal of making unambiguous predictions, or even keeping track of all the relevant mechanisms.

Crime economics

Economists are here to stay in the study of crime, the criminal justice system, and crime prevention. They have brought with them a strong presumption that criminal behaviour can be modelled using the same conceptual apparatus that has been developed for risky decision-making, labour supply, consumer and firm behaviour, and even market structure and performance.

What is more, criminal law and crime-prevention programmes can be evaluated using the same normative apparatus that has become routinely applied to education, health, and environmental regulation. This ‘technology transfer’ to study of the criminal domain, first initiated by Gary Becker in 1968, has proven productive for both scholars and policymakers.

About the authors:
Stephen Machin
Professor in the Department of Economics, University College London; Research Director at the Centre for Economic Performance, LSE; and a CEPR Research Fellow.

Olivier Marie
Assistant Professor of Economics, Maastricht University; Research Associate, LSE Centre for Economic Performance; Research Fellow, CESifo

References
Becker, G (1968) ‘Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach’, Journal of Political Economy 76, 169-217.

Cook, P J, S Machin, O Marie and G Mastrobuoni (2013), Lessons from the Economics of Crime, MIT Press.

Draca, M (2013) ‘The UK’s Riddle of Peacefulness: What Explains Falling Crime?’, CentrePiece 18(1).

Levitt, S (2005) Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, William Morrow.

Machin S, O Marie and S Vujić (2011), “The Crime Reducing Effect of Education”, Economic Journal 121, 463-84.

Marie, O (2010) “Reducing Crime: More Police, More Prisons or More Pay?“, CEP Policy Analysis No. 12.

The article Lessons From The Economics Of Crime – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Policy Of Opacity – OpEd

$
0
0

By Eurasia Review

By Ali Raza

When a state possesses a nuclear weapon, it has to address two issues to efficiently employ and manage its nuclear weapons. Firstly, it needs to develop a doctrine that defines the circumstances and purposes for which such weapons could be used. Secondly, the need of command and control system is vital that ensures the use of nuclear weapons in accordance with their nuclear doctrine and not in other circumstances.

Since the successful Pakistan nuclear tests, it has maintained ambiguity over its nuclear weapon employment policy and its nuclear doctrine as well. International community and especially India has serious apprehensions regarding this policy of Pakistan.

The international community  is determined forcefully that Pakistan should disclose its policy regarding use of nuclear weapons. Due to all these facts, Pakistan has faced sarcastic and knavish behavior from the international community as well as its arch-rival India.
Keeping in view the horrible consequences and devastation of nuclear weapons, the question arises here is that why Pakistan has adopted the policy of nuclear opacity?

The answer to this question is quite complex. Pakistan is having the option to opt the policy of “First use” or even “No First Use” but Pakistan is going with the policy of opacity so it could be interpreted as that Pakistan doesn’t want to go for “First Use” or even “No First Use” in fact Pakistan wants to prevent itself with respect to use or no use of nuclear arsenals, that’s why Pakistan is going with the policy of opacity. Because policy of opacity is the only policy by which deterrence can be assured at maximum level. This policy of opacity depicts that how much Pakistan is mature and concerned about deterrence stability. It is clear from above lines that nuclear weapon is not a military tool but a political tool and Pakistan in real terms is following its essence.

Pakistan and India has a history of four wars with each other. And owing to the Indian conventional military supremacy over Pakistan, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, has successfully managed some sort of material peace among both the states. It is clear that nuclear weapons are playing significant role in terms of preventing war among both states.

Paradoxically speaking, Pakistan’s concept of nuclear deterrence is India specific. It was Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who developed the concept of nuclear deterrence in order to strengthen Pakistan’s survival. He, in Ayub Khan’s era repeatedly warns that India’s ultimate intentions are to build an atomic bomb. By the efforts of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a National Command Authority (NCA) was established that assumed the responsibility of developing a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan is still passing through the phase of constructing nuclear doctrinal concepts and testing them. However, from statements made by political and military leaders, we can deduce Pakistan’s doctrine regarding use of weapons. Following are the key features of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine.

a) Since the establishment of nuclear weapons project, it can be observed that Pakistan’s objective of development of nuclear weapon was to protect itself from the large scale conventional or nuclear attack from India. So, one can easily figure out that Pakistan’s nuclear program is India specific, and it is designed to prevent Indian’s from launching nuclear or large-scale conventional attacks on Pakistan.

b) It is said that credible minimum nuclear deterrence is one of the feature of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. The statements of Pakistani military and political leaders reflect that Pakistan aims to build a small but credible nuclear force to deter Indian aggression.

c) It is indicated from the statements of officials of Pakistani that Pakistan has adopted a policy of massive retaliation. In 1998, against the backdrop of rumors of an Indian preemptive attack, Pakistan warned India that an Indian strike would be reciprocated with massive retaliation with unforeseen consequences. In 2001-2002, General Pervaiz Musharaf warned India in the words, “We don’t want war. But if war thrust upon us, we would respond with full might, and give a befitting reply.”

d) In contrast to India, policy of Nuclear First Use is the key feature of Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine. Pakistan has also rejected India’s offer to sign an agreement banning the first use. There are two reasons which compelled Pakistan to adopt this policy (i) First nuclear strike affordable financially and less complex to build. (ii) India’s conventional military power far outweighs Pakistan military.

e) If the target of nuclear weapons is some big cities, it is known as counter value targeting. Pakistan has not yet disclosed its targeting policy. Moreover, it appears that Pakistan would focus on counter-value nuclear targeting.

f) Pakistan has declared setting up of a NCA in 2000 and delegated employment and deployment control over all strategic forces and organizations to this body. However, it is not yet clear that what control mechanism Pakistan has adopted or will prefer to adopt.
Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is rough and its details are yet to emerge.

Pakistan is still passing through the phase of formation of an appropriate nuclear doctrine. It can be concluded safely from the above mentioned discussions that Pakistan has adopted nuclear policy of opacity by keeping in view its military, geographical and strategic strengths and weaknesses. It is only option which serves Pakistan effectively. It can also be concluded that Pakistan is not in favor of any kind of hostility with India because such kind of hostility would ultimately lead both the states at the verge of nuclear war which would not be in favor of both the states and would result in instability for the whole South Asian region.

raza.svi@gmail.com. Writer works at Strategic Vision Institute

The article Pakistan’s Nuclear Policy Of Opacity – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Egypt’s Revolutionary Confusion – OpEd

$
0
0

By Neville Teller

The history of revolutions demonstrates that they are essentially a process, often lasting several years, not an isolated event. Academic studies, such as The Anatomy of Revolution by Crane Brinton, or Uprising by Mark Almond, have shown how revolutions tend to follow certain recognizable patterns. Perceived injustices perpetrated by the government spark a popular uprising which then catches fire and spreads. Factions within the pro- and anti-revolutionaries arise, fostering new conflicts, then often fade away. Leaders of this or that faction come and go. Finally a demagogic figure often emerges above the chaos and seizes power – a Cromwell as in the English revolution, a Napoleon as in the French, a Lenin as in the Russian.

Or, as in Egypt, a General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, newly elevated to Field Marshal on his way to the presidency.

Revolutions, as Almond points out, are 24-hour-a day events – they require stamina and quick thinking from both protesters and dictators. An elderly, inflexible, or ailing leader contributes to the crisis. Almond cites the cancer-stricken Shah of Iran, the debilitated Honecker in East Germany and Indonesia’s Suharto. In all cases decades in power had encouraged a political sclerosis which made nimble political maneuvers impossible and left the revolutionaries dominant.

Almond might just as well have pointed to Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, thirty years in power and rumored to be seriously ill at the moment the Egyptian revolution erupted, just three years ago.
Revolutions, asserts Almond, are made by the young – a thesis equally borne out by the Egyptian experience.

Back in 2008 workers in an industrial city in the middle of the Nile Delta were organizing a strike, set for April 6, to protest against low wages and high food prices. A group of young activists, determined to support them, dubbed themselves “The April 6 Youth Movement”.

Consisting of predominantly secular and well-educated young people, the group employed tactics so far unprecedented in the Middle East. They used Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, blogs and other new media tools to report on the strike, alert their networks about police activity, organize legal protection and draw attention to their efforts.

The group’s leaders included a young woman, Esraa Rashid, and 27-year-old Ahmed Maher. On April 6 thousands of workers did indeed riot. Egyptian security police struck back, killing four and arresting 400. Rashid was arrested and jailed for more than two weeks. A new demonstration on May 4, 2008 – President Mubarak’s 80th birthday – resulted in Maher’s arrest. He was questioned and beaten for about 12 hours. The next three years saw a succession of protests by the group, followed by other arrests, but the movement went from strength to strength. So it is not surprising that the April 6 Youth Movement, with their demands for free speech and democratic government, led the protests in 2011 aimed at removing President Mubarak from power.

Perhaps it is also not surprising that, following Egypt’s brief flirtation with democracy that resulted in the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control of the government and the presidency, the April 6 movement was among the first to protest at the abuse of that power. Young and secularist as they were, members of the movement had no desire to see Egypt shackled to the rigid Islamist rule at the heart of the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda. They felt that the high hopes voiced by many young, Western-inclined people in Tahrir Square in January 2011 had been dashed.

So the youth movement supported the popular uprising against the rule of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi and, with the help of the army, helped to topple him. The Muslim Brotherhood immediately commenced a program of violent opposition to the new régime, and in the ensuing street violence over a thousand of Morsi supporters were killed, mostly on the streets of Cairo, and thousands more jailed.

The leaders of the military coup, headed by General, now Field Marshal, al-Sisi, were determined to demonstrate that it was in earnest in its total opposition to the Brotherhood. The new interim government ruthlessly crushed all demonstrations of dissent, proscribed the Brotherhood as an illegal organization, and have put Morsi on trial. However the April 6 Youth Movement, no friend of the Brotherhood, is instinctively against the use of force by government, and was active in opposing al-Sisi’s strong-arm tactics.

As a result, a number of their most prominent figures have been detained for months or sentenced to prison amid a campaign to silence even secular voices of disagreement.

There could scarcely be a better example of the confusion inherent in on-going revolutionary situations. Within the space of a few years April 6, the leading populist movement, had opposed the existing government (Mubarak’s), had opposed the elected government that succeeded it (the Muslim Brotherhood’s), and was now opposing the administration that had succeeded both (al-Sisi’s).

A movement consisting of young people seeking a secular, democratic future for their country cannot be expected to take a long view. That was expressed by State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, as supporters of ousted President Morsi organized and carried out terrorist attacks across Egypt and the Sinai peninsular. “The Egyptian government and people are navigating their political transition in a challenging security environment, and violence aimed at undermining this transition has no place in Egypt.”

The clashes between Islamists and government forces contrasted with scenes of celebration in Tahrir Square and other major squares in provincial capitals, marking the third anniversary of Mubarak’s overthrow. Long queues of demonstrators lined up to enter the tightly secured squares through metal detectors. Some wore paper masks with al-Sisi’s picture, and their rallies exhibited a ferociously anti-Islamist tone.

Like the youth movement, Egypt itself has come full circle these past three years – from military régime to short-lived democracy and back again. But the revolution is still running its course; the story is not fully told. A future containing within it a spark of hope lies ahead. A new constitution has been approved by popular, if somewhat manipulated, vote, and presidential elections – which will certainly see Field Marshal al-Sisi voted into office – are to be followed by parliamentary elections, bringing with them the possibility of a non-Islamist régime, and real democracy.

The Egyptian government and people are, in Harf’s words, “navigating their political transition”, and are certainly encountering some choppy waters en route. All the same there is hope that the voyage could end in a happier and more stable future for the whole nation.

The article Egypt’s Revolutionary Confusion – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Understanding Shadows – Book Review

$
0
0

By Ludwig Watzal

Michael Quilligan, Understanding Shadows. The Corrupt Use of Intelligence, Clarity Press, Atlanta 2013, pp 366.)

Edward Snowden’s revelations have given the public insights into a world that leads a shadowy existence. He has opened a vista to a shadow world that threatens humanity with a new form of totalitarianism, all-encompassing and therefore unique. Compared with this new totalitarianism, the German Stasi and the Soviet KGB were amateurs.

Although Michael Quilligan’s book came out before Snowden revealed the criminal machinations of the NSA and its British servant, it gives the readers “a glimpse of hell” into the dirty work of intelligence agencies and their abuse of government secrecies. The so-called war on terror and references to “national security threats” or the “national interest” are used as pretexts to cover up criminal actions such as money-laundering, narcotics trafficking, abduction and murder to the wholesale slaughter for non-combatant civilians or outright wars like in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere across the Muslim world. After having read Quilligan’s “Understanding Shadows” I have second thoughts about who the real “terrorists” or “criminal organizations” are.

In seven chapters, the author, a Dublin-born journalist, deals with scandals that are far from over and done. These scandals contain inconsistencies that have not been cleared up to this day. Is it possible that intelligence agencies had their fingers in the pie? Or were the crimes of the secret agencies so big that its disclosure would have lifted the entire political system from its hinges.

The author describes the wide variety of events, beginning with the Israeli attack on the reconnaissance vessel USS Liberty during the Six-Day War in 1967, about “Londonistan”, which refers to the attacks by Algerian Islamists in the early 1990s in Paris, up to the attacks in London in 2005, extend through the U. S. and British pretexts that led to the Iraq war, as well as the mafia-like machinations of the Vatican to the intricacies of the British occupation of Northern Ireland.

In Chapter one Quilligan deals with the attack against the USS Liberty and asks why has the deadly June 1967 Israeli attack against the vessel never been publicly investigated in the U. S.? Why, until quite recently, were all Arabs killed by Israeli military or Mossad death squads referred to without question as “terrorists” by the international press? Not to speak of the many innocent victims of Israel’s low-intensity war of attrition against all those it considers enemies. Up till now, U. S. governments have covered up all crimes committed by Israeli governments against the Palestinian people.

This cover-up holds true also for the attack on the USS Liberty. From the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to the Obama administration all U. S. governments have covered up the incident. The author quotes from Livia Rokach’s book on Moshe Sharett’s diaries who believed that Western morality would not allow a Jewish state to behave according to “the laws of the jungle”. Quilligan states that Sharett was mistaken. Few years ago Ehud Barak, then Prime Minister of Israel, described the State of Israel “as a villa in the jungle”.

In the chapter “Londonistan”, a portmanteau first used by the French media during the GIA attacks in Paris during the 1990s, referring to the flight of Algerians to the United Kingdom. By now, everybody knows that GIA was infiltrated by French and Algerian secret agents, following the military coup guided by France, Great Britain and the U. S. Thousands of Islamist activists were detained in camps in the Algerian desert. London became a refuge for radical Islamist. In 2005, the London transit bombings happened. Since then, the CIA has a permanent operative presence in the UK, writes the author. To counter the “terrorist threat”, the British increased their secret service personnel in the embassies and at MI5 and MI6. Whether secret service agents prevent or foster terror is an open question. “Those in the West who believe the threat can be imperiously conquered, indeed that this war can be waged by drones, Special Forces ops, quiet assassinations, incarceration and torture, and it can still be won, should visit the ghettos and refugee camps in North Africa, the Middle East, southeast Asia or the Gulf states, and wait, with fear and trepidation, for the terror next time.” This conclusion of the author is not supported by facts, because the poverty in the third world has certainly not generated global terrorism. Did the Afghans attack the U. S. or Germany or was it the other way around? Or do the poor Africans run amok in Europe?

In the chapter “Seeing Things Invisible” Quilligan describes Tony Blairs enthusiasm to belong to George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” to take down the Saddam regime in Iraq. For the British Prime Minister, no lie was good enough for serving as adjutant to the trigger-happy U. S. President and its neoconservative string-pullers. Beside the American fabricated intelligence, Blair added his on lies and sex-up intelligence about the non-existence of Saddam’s WMD arsenal. Because of his lies, hundreds of British soldiers lost their live. The author describes a session in the House of Commons on September 24, 2002 in which the government lied to members of the House. Saddam’s so-called “yellow-cake” purchase in Niger “was included in a review of British intelligence relating to Iraq’s WMD program. The five-member committee, chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell, published its report on 14 July 2004, and claimed that there was sufficient intelligence to make a “well-founded judgment” that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium illegally from Niger, and also the Democratic Republic of Congo.” These lies led to British scientist and WMD expert, Dr. David Kelly, in July 2003, who had warned that the intelligence was being “sexed-up” to provide an excuse to invade Iraq, writes Quilligan. Dr. Kelly was then found dead, allegedly after suicide.

The readers of this book should understand that hardly any international crisis happened without the involvement of secret agencies or their shadowy contractors. A stimulating reading matter.

The article Understanding Shadows – Book Review appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Patrick Buchanan: How The GOP Lost Middle America – OpEd

$
0
0

By Patrick J Buchanan

Out of the Republican retreat on Maryland’s Eastern shore comes word that the House leadership is raising the white flag of surrender on immigration.

The GOP will agree to halt the deportation of 12 million illegal aliens, and sign on to a blanket amnesty. It only asks that the 12 million not be put on a path to citizenship.

Sorry, but losers do not dictate terms. Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO says amnesty is no longer enough. Illegal aliens must be put on a path to citizenship and given green cards to work — and join unions.

Rep. Paul Ryan and the Wall Street Journal are for throwing in the towel. Legalize them all and start them on the path to citizenship.

A full and final capitulation. Let’s get it over with.

To understand why and how the Republican Party lost Middle America, and faces demographic death, we need to go back to Bush I.

At the Cold War’s end, the GOP reached a fork in the road. The determination of Middle Americans to preserve the country they grew up in, suddenly collided with the profit motive of Corporate America.

The Fortune 500 wanted to close factories in the USA and ship production abroad — where unions did not exist, regulations were light, taxes were low, and wages were a fraction of what they were here in America.

Corporate America was going global and wanted to be rid of its American work force, the best paid on earth, and replace it with cheap foreign labor.

While manufacturing sought to move production abroad, hotels, motels, bars, restaurants, farms and construction companies that could not move abroad also wanted to replace their expensive American workers.

Thanks to the Republican Party, Corporate America got it all.

U.S. factories in the scores of thousands were shut down, shedding their American workers. Foreign-made goods poured in, filling U.S. stores and killing the manufacturers who had stayed behind, loyal to their U.S. workers.

The Reagan prosperity was exported to Asia and China by the Bush Republicans. And the Reagan Democrats reciprocated by deserting the Bush Republican Party and going home. But this was not the end of what this writer described in his 1998 book, “The Great Betrayal.”

As those hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, fast-food shops, car washes, groceries and other service industries also relished the rewards of cheap foreign labor, they got government assistance in replacing their American workers.

Since 1990, some 30 to 40 million immigrants, legal and illegal, have entered the country.

This huge increase in the labor force, at the same time the U.S. was shipping factories abroad, brought massive downward pressure on wages. The real wages of Middle Americans have stagnated for decades.

What was wildly wonderful for Corporate America was hell on Middle America. But the Republican Party had made its choice. It had sold its soul to the multinationals. And as it went along with NAFTA, GATT, fast track and mass immigration, to appease Corporate America, it lost Middle America.

The party went with the folks who paid for their campaigns, only to lose the folks who had given them their landslides.

When Republicans accede to the demand for amnesty, and immigration without end, it does not take a political genius to see what is going to happen. For it is happening now.

Almost all of those breaking our laws, crossing the border, and overstaying their visas are young, poor or working class. Between 80 and 90 percent are from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

They are Third World peoples. They believe in government action and government programs that provide their families with free education, health care, housing, food, and income subsidies. They are not Bob Taft or Barry Goldwater conservatives.

Perhaps 85 percent of all immigrants, legal and illegal, more than a million a year now, are people of color. And while over 70 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted Democratic for Obama, among voters of African descent, the Obama vote was well above 90 percent.

Four of every five U.S. citizens of Asian, African and Hispanic descent vote Democratic in presidential elections. And it is their numbers that are growing. Already they are well over a third of the U.S. population.

As has been observed often, America, demographically, is going to look like California. And while Nixon won California all five times he was on a national ticket, and Reagan won California in landslides all four times he ran, California has not gone Republican in six straight presidential elections.

Democrats outnumber Republicans there by more than two-to-one in the Congressional delegation and in the state assembly, and not a single Republican holds statewide office.

If Bush I had built that border fence back in 1992 and declared a moratorium on legal immigration that fall, as many implored him to do, the party of the Bushes would not be facing its demise well before midcentury.

The article Patrick Buchanan: How The GOP Lost Middle America – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Saudi Arabia Criminalizes ‘Terrorists’ Defaming State’s Reputation

$
0
0

By RT

Actions that threaten Saudi Arabia’s unity, disturb public order, or defame the reputation of the state or the king – will be considered acts of terrorism under a new counterterrorism law which has come into force in the gulf kingdom.

The new legislature was ratified by King Abdullah on Sunday after being approved by the Cabinet in December, following the initial proposal by the Interior Ministry and advisory Shura Council.

It defines terrorism as “any act carried out by an offender … intended to disturb the public order…to shake the security of society… stability of the state… expose its national unity to danger… suspend the basic law of governance or some of its articles,” according to its text as cited by Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Terrorists can also be considered those individuals who “insult the reputation of the state or its position… inflict damage upon one of its public utilities or its natural resources,” or those who attempt to force “governmental authority to carry out or prevent it from carrying out an action, or to threaten to carry out acts that lead to the named purposes or incite [these acts].”

The legislation, made up of 40 clauses, allows the security forces to arrest and detain suspects for up to six months with the possibility to extend the confinement for another six months. Suspects are allowed to be held incommunicado for 90 days without the presence of their lawyer during the initial questioning.

Internet surveillance and phone tracking are also allowed under the new legislature, as well as the right for the security services to raid the homes of suspected terrorists, without prior approval from a judge. People suspected of financing terrorist activities could also be prosecuted.

The interior minister, rather than any judge, is empowered to suspend sentences or drop charges and release a person on trial.

When the legislature was approved in December, HRW lashed out against the Kingdom’s strive to limit freedom of speech and criticized the monarchy over its very vague definition of terrorism.

“Vague and overbroad legal provisions cannot be the basis for overriding a broad array of fundamental rights,” HRW said in a statement in December. “Saudi Arabia’s denial of the rights to participate in public affairs, and freedom of religion, peaceful assembly, association, and expression, as well as its systematic discrimination against women greatly exceed any notion of justifiable restrictions.”

Activists are worried that the law will first of all be applied to silence the liberal opposition in the country. Saudi activist Abdulaziz Al Shubaily from the Saudi Association for Civil and Political Rights (HASEM) described the law as a “catastrophe”.

“If I call for the release of someone from jail for being held longer than their sentence, I can be tried for “asking the state to take action,” Shubaily said. “When I call for a constitutional monarchy, I can now be charged with terrorism.”

“They characterize you as a terrorist because you ask the kingdom to do something it does not want to do,” he added.

HRW researcher Adam Coogle said, that the new law is “draconian in spirit and letter, and there is every reason to fear that the authorities will easily and eagerly use it against peaceful dissidents.”

Saudi women who are seen driving can now be accused of disturbing public order for defying a driving ban imposed on females and face punishment under a new law. In October last year, several images emerged online of women getting in cars and going around the city as part of a unified protest.

The article Saudi Arabia Criminalizes ‘Terrorists’ Defaming State’s Reputation appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Japan’s ‘Pivot’ To Asian Littorals – Analysis

$
0
0

By Observer Research Foundation

By Darshana M. Baruah

December 2013 marked the 40th anniversary of ASEAN-Japan relations. The commemorative summit hosted by Tokyo saw significant developments in ASEAN-Japan partnership amidst ongoing China-Japan stand-off in the East China Sea (ECS). The joint statement of the summit suggested closer ASEAN-Japan ties in its struggle against China. The statement saw Tokyo and ASEAN nations pledging “to strengthen cooperation on air and maritime linkages … [and also] agreed to enhance cooperation in ensuring the freedom of over flight and civil aviation safety in accordance with the universally recognised principles of international law…” The statement comes in light of the recently announced Chinese Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the disputed islands in ECS, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China.

This was seemingly a show of unity amongst the ASEAN members this time around unlike the 2012 diplomatic debacle when for the first time in its 45 year history, ASEAN foreign ministers failed to issue a communiqué due to differences between the then Chair, Cambodia and the Philippines and Vietnam – sparking off debates regarding ASEAN’s unity and China’s hold over ASEAN through Cambodia.

While China favours a divided ASEAN, Japan has been calling for a united ASEAN as regional tension rise over maritime disputes. During the 16th ASEAN-Japan summit in October 2013, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stressed that “ASEAN… keep its unity” while resolving the maritime disputes in SCS. Tokyo has also been garnering support within ASEAN nations by re-engaging with the South East (SE) Asian countries dynamically. Abe visited all 10 ASEAN nations within the first 11 months of returning to office in December 2012. He is also the first Japanese PM to have visited all ASEAN nations while in office.

Tokyo also won hearts in the region through its aid to the Philippines in the aftermath of the devastating Typhoon Haiyan. While China was criticised for its “measly” aid toward its neighbour, Tokyo offered 53.1 million USD in assistance to Manila. Japan also sent three disaster relief medical teams and deployed 1000 Self-Defence Force (SDF) troops along with three naval vessels from the Maritime SDF and a SDF aircraft. Tokyo’s aid to Manila was one of the Japanese military’s largest overseas relief operations. The last prominent presence of the Japanese military in Manila was in World War II.

Beijing initially offered a 100,000 USD in assistance to Manila – a fraction of what other major players were offering to the typhoon ravaged country. Following an international outcry on the “insulting” offer, China increased its aid to 1.6 million USD. However, the damage was already done. While Tokyo emerged as a reliable partner in an emergency, SE Asian nations looked at China with apprehensions and a trust deficit – an opportunity for Tokyo to engage further with Beijing’s neighbours.

Japan is focused on engaging with the ASEAN nations with a renewed vigour. Abe pledged almost 20 billion USD in aid to SE Asian nations during the commemorative summit. Besides engaging with the ASEAN members collectively, Japan is also building bilateral ties with the countries and offering them development loans. During his visit to Myanmar in May 2013, Abe announced that Japan is ready to write off Myanmar’s nearly 2 billion USD debt while extending new development aid. Tokyo’s loans and economic goodwill has led to an increased Japanese presence in the country challenging China’s prominent position in Myanmar.

Tokyo is also very keen on engaging with SE Asian nations on the maritime front. Japan offered 10 multipurpose response vessels to the Philippines Coast Guard. The vessels will be used to patrol Manila’s shoreline to safeguard the country’s maritime territory. Tokyo will now be discussing the scope of giving patrol ships to Hanoi as well. The Prime Ministers of the two countries met on the sideline of the Commemorative Summit in December 2013 and both parties stressed on the need to maintaining “maritime order as well as international aviation order”.

Hanoi and Manila are embroiled in a serious maritime dispute with Beijing and appreciate Tokyo’s presence in the area to counter China. The two ASEAN nations have collided most with Beijing due to their conflict in the SCS. While China emphasises on solving the issue at a bilateral level, Philippines and Vietnam don’t want to be seated alone against their giant neighbour. They have welcomed the US pivot and seek extra regional powers in the region to balance an increasingly assertive China.

It is without doubt that Beijing is closely monitoring Tokyo’s movements in SE Asia and launched a “charm offensive” to mend souring ties with its disgruntled neighbours. A report in China Daily in November 2013, titled “Abe busy in ASEAN blitz aimed at Beijing” examined Abe’s tour of the ASEAN nations. Responding to reports on Abe garnering support against China’s ADIZ over the ECS, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated in December 2013 that “We believe that when developing relations with each other, relevant countries should not target a third party or undermine the third party’s interests.” An opinion in China’s Global Times on December 2013 noted that “Abe intends to defame China and pile up international censure on Beijing… but it’s doomed to fail”.

Following Abe’s success story with ASEAN nations, Japan kicked off 2014 by engaging with India. By bringing India on board, Tokyo would be ahead in its diplomatic offensive against China. Given New Delhi and Beijing’s border dispute, Tokyo is at an advantageous position to cooperate with India. New Delhi, so far, has welcomed Tokyo’s engagements but it’s yet to see if India would finally gather its political will to increase its presence in SE Asia.

Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera visited India in the first week of 2014 with a view to strengthen defence ties between the two countries. During the visit, Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony and his Japanese counterpart held a meeting to discuss bilateral military cooperation and further strengthen their strategic partnership. Post the meeting, Onodera stated that the discussions led to “mutual agreements on several aspects of defense cooperation”. He also emphasised that: “It is of particular importance for the Japanese side to further strengthen the relationship with India as is also indicated by Prime Minister Abe’s visit to India scheduled at the end of this month.”

In a very significant move, New Delhi has invited Tokyo to invest in the Northeast (NE) India – a region usually barred for the Chinese. NE India is a vital point of India’s Look East Policy – connecting India to SE Asia. According to reports, Japan will be investing in “developing the NE specially to build roads” – signalling toward expanding Indo-Japanese bilateral relationship.

In the maritime sphere, Japan and India held their first bilateral naval exercise ‘JIMEX 12′ (Japan India Maritime Exercise) in June 2012, off the coast of Tokyo. The second JIMEX followed in 2013 in the Bay of Bengal. The bilateral maritime exercise is now carried on an annual basis between the naval forces of the two countries. India has also invited Japan to participate in the Indo-US annual Malabar exercise this year.

In the joint statement with Abe, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh noted that: “Together with the visit of Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress of Japan to India last month, his visit exemplifies the momentum in our Strategic and Global Partnership.” He also stressed that “Japan is at the heart of India’s Look East Policy. It is also a key partner in our economic development and in our quest for a peaceful, stable and prosperous Asia and the world”. Prime Minister Abe underlined the importance of the agreement between the two countries to “step up cooperation in the area of maritime security through active dialogue and visits between the two countries”.

Abe’s visit to India as the Chief Guest at the Republic Day parade was a significant event in India-Japan bilateral relationship. Japan’s show of solidarity while India showcased its military might during the parade hints at the beginning of a deeper Japan-India defence cooperation. Both nations are involved in territorial disputes with China and enhanced cooperation between two countries is bound to raise eyebrows in Beijing.

Japan’s engagement with SE Asia focuses through expanding economic ties, cooperation on maritime issues and building close diplomatic relations through Abe’s travel diplomacy. This is Japan’s “pivot” to SE Asia and it is here to stay given its strategic rivalry with China — which is unlikely to disappear in the near future. ASEAN is a key player in Tokyo’s policy toward SE Asia. SE Asia is a very important route linking NE Asia to the India Ocean. It is a strategically important area given that the major Sea Lanes of Communications pass through this region. Therefore, it is not in Tokyo’s national interest to see SE Asia under the control of a hostile nation.

The strategically important Malacca Strait in the SCS links Asia with Middle East and Europe, carrying energy needs of the Asian powerhouses such as Japan, China and South Korea. According to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC), “Japan is dependent on imports for 96% of its primary energy supply” and the crude oil imports from the Middle East account for 90% of Tokyo’s oil imports.

It is imperative that ASEAN maintain its unity in the SCS issue in order to be able to counter China. Japan is extending a warm hand of friendship – a reliable friend they can fall back on in times of distress. Although it is unlikely for SE Asian countries to push away China and join hands with Japan, maintaining good relations with these countries is an important factor for Tokyo’s Beijing policy.

ASEAN countries and India have been responding positively to Japan’s extended friendship. The security situation in the region is changing and China is a common factor in the changing Asian power dynamics. Moreover, at a time when there is a growing uneasiness in Tokyo about Washington’s security guarantee, Japan is enthusiastically engaging with the Asian powers to gather support in the wake of Beijing’s bullying tactics in the maritime disputes of Asia Pacific.

(The writer is an Associate Editor of ORF South China Sea Monitor)

Courtesy: South China Sea Monitor

The article Japan’s ‘Pivot’ To Asian Littorals – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

China In The Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Vijay Sakhuja

China’s maritime ambitions are expanding and it is making forays into the deep seas beyond its waters. The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) has drawn plans to build scientific research vessels and mother ships for submersibles. Further, the scientific agenda for 2014 includes the 30th scientific expedition to Antarctica and 6th expedition to the Arctic. China will also dispatch its research vessels to the northwest Pacific to monitor radioactivity in international waters and its foray into the Indian Ocean would involve seabed resource assessment including the deployment of the 22-ton Jiaolong, China’s first indigenously built manned deep-sea submersible.

China’s scientific urge had driven its attention to seabed exploration. In the 1970s, it actively participated in the UN led discussions on seabed resource exploitation regime. At that time it did not possess technological capability to exploit seabed resources. In the 1980s, it dispatched ships to undertake hydrographic surveys of the seabed. On 5 March 1991, China registered with the UN as a Pioneer Investor of deep seabed exploitation and was awarded 300,000 square kilometers in the Clarion–Clipperton area in the Pacific Ocean. Soon thereafter, China Ocean Mineral Resources R & D Association (COMRA), the nodal agency for seabed exploration and exploitation of resources was established. In 2001, China obtained mining rights for poly-metallic nodule and in 2002, poly-metallic sulfide deposits in the Southwestern Indian Ocean. In 2011, COMRA signed a 15-year exploration contract with the International Seabed Authority (ISA) that entrusted it with rights to develop ore deposit in future.

Although the Jiaolong has been built indigenously, it is useful to mention that the hull, advanced lights, cameras and manipulator arms of Jiaolong were imported and acquanauts had received training overseas. In August 2010, Jiaolong successfully positioned the Chinese flag at 3,700 meters under the sea in South China Sea and displayed China’s technological prowess in deep sea operations. China also possesses an unmanned deep-sea submarine Qianlong 1 (without cable) which can dive to 6,000 meters and an unmanned submersible Hailong (with cable) that can take samples from the seabed. As early as 2005, six Chinese acquanauts (five pilots and one scientist) had undergone deep sea dive training in the US. Currently, China has eight deep-sea submersible operators including six trainees (four men and two women) being trained at State Deep Sea Base in Qingdao on a 2-year course.

China’s plans to deploy the manned deep-sea submersible Jiaolong in the Indian Ocean merits attention. The primary task for Jiaolong is to gather geological data, carry out assessment of seabed resources, record biodiversity for exploration and mining. However, China faces a number of technological challenges to develop undersea exploration and extraction systems and equipment. There are few external sources to obtain specialised equipment and a majority of the ‘geophysical surveying instruments on the international market are not allowed to be sold to China’ amidst fears that these highly sensitive sub-sea sensors could be used by the Chinese navy to develop underwater detection system particularly for the submarines.

It is not beyond the realm of imagination that Jiaolong can potentially monitor submarine cables which carry nearly 99 per cent of digital data and crisscross the Indian Ocean. It will be useful to mention that the undersea cables are prone to covert tapping and in the past, there have been a number of incidents when undersea cables were targeted. For instance in 1914, Great Britain dispatched a ship to cut Germany’s five trans-Atlantic submarine telegraph cables, and in 1917 it eavesdropped on a German communication to the Mexican government. During the Cold War the US had undertaken tapping operation of the Soviet underwater cables and Operation Ivy Bell involved USS Halibut deployed in the Sea of Okhotsk to tap the Russian submarine communication cable between Petropavlovsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula to the Soviet Pacific Fleet headquarters at Vladivostok. The ‘Five Eyes Alliance (United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand) is designed for eavesdropping on the network of cables which carry global phone calls and internet traffic.

Jiaolong can possibly monitor maritime and naval activity in the Indian Ocean. This fits well into China’s Indian Ocean strategy where its shipping remains vulnerable to a number of asymmetric threats and chalenges as also the regional navies that can disrupt the free flow of Chinese shipping from Africa and the Gulf region. Jiaolong can also monitor the US, UK, France and Indian nuclear submarine activity by trailing their radioactive signature. It is fair to argue that the deployment of the Jiaolong goes well beyond its scientific utility and supports the Chinese navy’s maritime strategy.

Vijay Sakhuja
Director (Research), Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA), New Delhi

The article China In The Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Syria Today: Assad Regime, Internal Divide And External Intervention – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Ranjit Gupta

There are three aspects of the Syrian imbroglio: First, what was originally a political struggle has become a progressively more devastating civil war. Second, those fighting against the Assad regime have fragmented into several distinct and contending elements – the Western and Gulf countries’ backed Syrian National Coalition, now the weakest of the opposition groups in terms of fighting ability; a large array of Islamist groups, many armed and funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, significant numbers of whom have come together under two different Islamist fronts; the Nabhat Al Nusrah, an effective fighting unit largely composed of Syrians but an affiliate of Al Qaeda; and, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), an Al Qaeda outfit, consisting mainly of Iraqis, the most extremist, brutal and effective fighting unit, whose agenda goes much beyond the mere removal of Assad and is the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamist Emirate. The involvement of so many different groups makes the possibility of any solution very difficult. Third, the active involvement of foreign countries – France, Iran, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UK and the US; this has led directly to Syria getting to the point where it is now. The enormous complexity of the situation should be self evident.

Those advocating regime change need to seriously ponder over the fact that that the internal situation today in both Iraq and Libya is far worse than it was when Saddam and Gaddhafi were in power. Intrusive military interventions by foreign countries in Libya and Iraq are not examples to be emulated but shunned. Indeed, externally encouraged efforts towards regime change in Arab countries must stop forthwith. Given the current ground realities in Syria and its diverse ethnic and sectarian makeup, regime change in Syria could lead to a much worse outcome than in those two countries, even the breakup of the country with deeply destabilizing consequences for the Levant as a whole.

In the past year Assad has regained a lot of lost ground. All other opposition rebels are now spending greater effort fighting the ISIL considering it a more detestable and dangerous enemy than the Assad regime. The very recent Turkish air strike on a convoy of the ISIL and Premier Erdogan’s visit to Iran suggest that Turkey is rethinking its policy in Syria. There is increasing reluctance of Western countries’ to aid rebels fearing that arms will fall into the hands of extremist groups. Thus, Assad is much stronger today vis-a-vis both his domestic and international adversaries than in June 2012 when the first Geneva conference “agreed on guidelines and principles for a political transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people”. It is now increasingly highly unlikely that Assad can be defeated on the battleground. Therefore, he is hardly likely to agree to his handing over power in a conference room. Pursuing regime change now is a no brainer.

Humanitarian issues such as ensuring that aid should reach the millions in dire distress and urgently attending to the desperate conditions of the 4 million plus internally displaced should be accorded top priority. The second priority must be addressing the growing violence much of which, for all practical purposes, has now morphed into pure terrorism. Geneva II can be said to represent the beginning of a peace process and an encouraging sign is agreement that the next meeting will be held starting Feb 10th.

Another hopeful feature of Geneva II was, in the words of UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, “there is of course agreement (amongst the fighting entities) that terrorism …is a very serious problem inside Syria but there’s no agreement on how to deal with it”. Another good omen is that both sides of internal Syrian conflict observed a minutes silence together to remember those killed. Now that a door has been opened, the warring parties within Syria need to pursue these two issues on a priority basis. However, the boycott of hard line extremists suggests that in the unlikely event of any agreement, its implementation would be sabotaged. This is a risk that will have to be taken and should become an excuse for no action.

Iran was not represented even though the UN Secretary General had invited it; the invite had to be withdrawn due to strong US opposition. Iran commands the greatest influence with Assad; Iran and Russia acting in tandem are the only two countries that can persuade Assad to make meaningful compromises. Iran’s participation therefore is absolutely vital to the success of any conference on Syria.

An agreement amongst the main players – the patrons of the different contending parties within Syria: the P- 5, EU, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – on a common approach is a prerequisite. Therefore a separate conference involving them should be held soonest possible complementing a resumption of the Geneva II talks on February 10. A priority subject should be taking on the ISIL and similar extremist groups head on.

Ranjit Gupta
Distinguished Fellow, IPCS and Former Indian Ambassador to Yemen and Oman

The article Syria Today: Assad Regime, Internal Divide And External Intervention – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Japan: Implications Of Indiscriminate Assertiveness – Analysis

$
0
0

By IPCS

By Sandip Kumar Mishra

Shinjo Abe’s unrelenting tough approach towards China is arguably the second most important development in recent years in East Asia after the growing military might of China. There is lots of support across the region for his policy of ‘staring at China’ on the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands disputes, especially among those countries, which have been uncomfortable with growing ‘Chinese assertiveness’ in the region but unable to stop it. The US stance has also been overall supportive to the changed posture of Japan.

However, Abe’s indiscriminate assertiveness, which hurts South Korea and other regional players, would be unable to achieve desired results. There are critiques of Japanese foreign policy, who point out that Japan has not been able to create trust in any of its neighboring countries such as South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and China. Thus, Japan needs to moderate its assertiveness and make it more nuanced to make it more palatable and wide-based.

The biggest problem in Shinjo Abe’s approach is that it entirely disregards ‘goodwill capital’ of Japan, which has been accumulated in the post-World War-II period. Japan evokes a very different kind of state behaviour, which denounced use of force in resolving inter-state disputes and concentrated on welfare of people inside its own territory and beyond. The concept of official development assistance (ODA) became synonym of the Japanese economic assistance to many Asian, African and Latin American countries. Japan could and must utilize this ‘capital’ for creating a network of relations across the region along with economic interdependence and people-to-people contacts, which would make it costly for China or any other countries to becoming assertive. It does not mean that Japan could be complacent on its defense preparedness, however, it does need to be approached in a framework of cooperative security involving as many as possible like-minded countries of the region. Japan has been respected for its peace-constitution and enough deliberation must happen before abandoning the alternate model of Japan.

Even if, Japan decides to make a paradigm shift in its foreign policy approach, which seems to be the case under Shinjo Abe, it must be more careful in articulating it. First and foremost, it is advisable to Japan to work on its defense preparedness without too much rhetoric directed against one or other country. In 2013, Japanese defense budget was increased to Yen 4.77 trillion which was an increase first time after 2002. The increase in itself is enough to create suspicions in the minds of observers and any sharp words are further going to create mistrust in the regional countries. Probably, Japan could learn from China, which continues augmenting its defense capabilities but keeps talking about ‘peaceful rise’ and ‘harmonious development’.

Secondly, even if Shinjo Abe administration intends to be tough towards ‘Chinese assertiveness’, Japan needs to be more careful about its other neighboring countries including South Korea. In last one year of his term, South Korea-Japan relations have further deteriorated. It would not be enough to say that South Korean government has either been too much sentimental or playing the game of domestic populism. When Japanese ministers, members of parliament and Shinjo Abe himself visits Yasukuni shrine, it is well-known that South Korea would not take it easy. When, insensitive statements are given and confrontational actions are taken on the issues related to history disputes, comfort women and Dokdo/Takeshima islands disputes, it is going to affect South Korea’s perception about Japan and its intensions. Rather than expecting South Korea to be more accommodative to the new posture of Japan, a more conciliatory approach must be adopted in dealing with South Korea. By using all possible channels of communication, it must be conveyed to South Korea in a credible manner that in the Japan’s contest with China, Tokyo would seek cooperation from South Korea.

Thirdly, Japan also must re-emphasize that it would like to have more cooperation with the US and other democracies in the region such as South Korea, Australia and India. It would be a different paradigm for the Asian security architecture in which a multipolar, inclusive, open and rule-based structure is sought for. In case, Japan tries to counter ‘Chinese assertiveness’ by it own assertiveness, it might be considered no different than China. To have a different framework needs emphasis on involving all possible partners and creating regimes, institutions and structures rather than having a tit-for-tat approach.

The recent visit of Shinjo Abe to India probably could be used as the beginning for a more nuanced Japanese assertiveness in the regional politics, which would try to create network of multilateral partnerships. India, though has avoided to express any opinion on Japanese indiscriminate assertiveness, would be more comfortable if Japan tones down its rhetoric. Similarly, it would be easier for the US to keep both Japan and South Korea, two of its closest allies in the East Asia, together. The changed Japanese approach would also be in consonant with Australian foreign policy approach. Japan needs to realize that to contest with China on the turf created by China would not only be dangerous but also be an isolating exercise and it must be avoided.

The author teaches at the University of Delhi and is a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS)

Sandip Kumar Mishra
Faculty, University of Delhi and Visiting Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS).

The article Japan: Implications Of Indiscriminate Assertiveness – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Qatar’s Sports-Focused Public Diplomacy Backfires – Analysis

$
0
0

By James M. Dorsey

A perceived lack of real progress in the improvement of conditions for foreign labour, aggravated by a Qatari reluctance to engage in public debate beyond platitudes, is undermining the soft power goals underlying the Gulf state’s sports strategy.

The silver lining in the public relations beating Qatar is taking is that it forces international sports associations like FIFA, the world’s governing soccer body, to include issues of labour and other rights in their policy towards hosts of mega events like the 2022 World Cup. That was already evident last year when the International Olympics Committee (IOC) rejected Qatar’s bid to host the 2020 Olympics, in part, according to labour activists, because of workers’ material conditions.

FIFA, in its latest response to persistent media reporting on onerous living and working conditions of foreign workers who constitute a majority of the Gulf state’s population and are building vast infrastructure projects some of which are World Cup-related, demanded this week that Qatar report in its progress on improving living and working circumstances.

The report intended to inform testimony in mid-February in the European parliament by FIFA executive Theo Zwanziger, a former German Football Association head critical of the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar. FIFA, whose executive committee is expected to take up the issue on March 20, needs to demonstrate that Qatar is making true on pledges to improve workers’ conditions and loft words embodied in a series of statements and charters.

“FIFA expects to receive information on the specific steps that Qatar has taken since FIFA President Blatter’s last trip to Doha in November 2013 to improve the welfare and living conditions of migrant workers,” FIFA said in a statement.

In response to a three-year old campaign by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and human rights groups as well as media reporting spearheaded by Britain’s The Guardian, Qatar has pledged to increase the number of inspectors overseeing the implementation of existing rules and regulations. These provisions are widely viewed as meeting international standards despite widespread criticism of the kafala or sponsorship system that significantly restricts workers’ freedom of movement and ability to change jobs.

Qatar has also drafted a number of charters of workers’ rights, the most ambitious of which is that of the Qatar Foundation that, according to people involved in its drafting, seeks to structurally alter a labourer’s migration cycle which involves corrupt middlemen and company human resource officers. The problem is the foundation has never published the charter nor reported on progress it has made in making the migration cycle less onerous.

FIFA’s request for a progress reports follows a report in The Guardian’s Sunday paper, The Observer, according to which 185 Nepalese construction workers died last year as a result of onerous labour conditions. That would bring the number of reported Nepalese deaths over the last two years to 382. Trade unionists have focused on the Nepalese community because it accounts for up to one quarter of Qatar’s two million inhabitants. Nepalese rank among the lowest paid workers in Qatar.

“We are currently in the middle of an intensive process, which is exclusively aimed at improving the situation of workers in Qatar. Ultimately, what we need are clear rules and steps that will build trust and ensure that the situation, which is unacceptable at the moment, improves in a sustainable manner,” Mr. Zwanziger said in a statement.

The public relations beating of Qatar stems from the Gulf state’s apparent inability to draw conclusions from a failed communications strategy ever since winning its World Cup bid. Qatar failed initially to anticipate the criticism of its success driven by questions about the integrity of its bid as well as envy and jealously by those who had unsuccessfully competed against it. It subsequently surrendered the public relations battlefields to its detractors by deciding not to engage in the false hope that criticism would eventually subside.

The result is not only that Qatar is on the defensive but that it has lost significant ground in achieving a core goal of its vast investment in sports in general and soccer in particular: the projection of soft power in a bid to compensate for a lack of hard power. Soft power is a key Qatari defence and security strategy based on the realization that it will never have the military strength to defend itself irrespective of what hardware it acquires or the number of foreigners it recruits to populate its armed forces.

Sports is central to a soft power strategy designed to embed and endear Qatar in an international community in ways that would ensure that the world would come to its aid in times of need much like a US-led force expelled Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait in 1990. Qatar has so far missed the plank with international public opinion associating it more with modern day slavery than with being a cutting edge 21st century nation that is contributing to the global good.

In an apparent decision to take more control of preparations of the World Cup, Qatar’s 33-year old emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamid al Thani, a sports enthusiast and member of the IOC executive committee, downgraded the Supreme Committee that had so far been in charge of organizing the World Cup and created a new body chaired by himself and populated by his appointees to oversee event and operational planning as well as coordination with FIFA.

In many ways, Qatar, Nepal and other labour supplying countries have much to gain from working together to tackle workers’ material living and working conditions. Kanak Mani Dixit, a prominent Nepali journalist and editor of the Kathmandu-based Himal, recently argued that Nepalese authorities and civic groups were co-responsible by allowing abuse to occur.

“The job migrants of Nepal are entrapped not only by the sponsor-manpower nexus but by a neglectful Kathmandu civil society and a government that has floundered all these years when it comes to foreign affairs and the protection of overseas citizens. The Kathmandu discourse on migrant labour is marked by a sense of fatalism—the diffidence explained perhaps by a fear of shaking the honey pot. The Gulf migrants are perceived as the luckier ones, given that the poorest of all cross the open border into the employment sump that is India,” Mr. Dixit wrote.

“While there is little or no possibility of collective bargaining within the labour-receiving Gulf countries at this stage, the sending countries including Nepal—individually and collectively—could cooperate to demand better ‘migration governance’ in the GCC region. It is a delicate task that requires research, diplomatic skill and committed activism—so that the fundamental rights of the workers are protected without exposing Nepali workers to formal or informal bans (as happened with Filipina workers, when Manila sought to raise their base income),” Mr. Dixit said.

“As a major labour exporter, Nepal must come out of the fog and get involved in the accelerating discourse. Priority in foreign affairs must be given to the relationships with the labour-receiving countries, especially those of the Gulf and Malaysia. We must rise from the wreckage of foreign affairs, including the appointment of incapable political-appointee ambassadors, which has directly hurt the prospects of citizens working overseas,” Mr. Dixit argued, calling for the creation of a ministry for foreign employment.

The article Qatar’s Sports-Focused Public Diplomacy Backfires – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Poland And Lithuania Haunted By Their Involvement In Hosting CIA Torture Prisons – OpEd

$
0
0

By Andy Worthington

In the long search for accountability for the torturers of the Bush administration, which has largely been shut down by President Obama, lawyers and human rights activists have either had to try shaming the US through the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, or have had to focus on other countries, particularly those that hosted secret CIA torture prisons, or had explicit involvement in extraordinary rendition.

Successes have been rare, but hugely important — the conviction of CIA officials and operatives in Italy, for the blatant daylight kidnap of Abu Omar, a cleric, on a street in Milan in February 2003, and the court victory in Macedonia of Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen kidnapped in Macedonia, where he had gone on a holiday, and sent to a CIA “black site” in 2003 until the US realized that his was a case of mistaken identity. In the UK, the whiff of complicity in torture at the highest levels of the Blair government led to pay-offs for the British nationals and residents sent to Guantánamo.

Court cases were also launched in Spain, although they were suppressed, in part because of US involvement (under President Obama), and currently there are efforts to hold the US accountable before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights for its use of Djibouti in a number of cases involving “extraordinary rendition” and “black sites.”

Perhaps the most enduring of the ongoing investigations is in Poland, one of three European countries that hosted CIA “black sites,” the others being Romania and Lithuania. A long-running prosecutor-led investigation in Poland has led to three “high-value detainees” at the Polish site, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah and Walid bin Attash — being granted victim status, and the prison’s existence continues to nag at the consciences of those in Poland who are appalled that a torture site on Polish soil — at Stare Kiejkuty, in the north east of the country — was used from December 2002 to September 2003, and was the place where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times.

In December, the determination of those seeking accountability paid off when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg held a hearing to examine the role of the Polish authorities in the extraordinary rendition, secret detention and torture of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. A ruling on that is expected sometime this year.

New information about the “black site” in Poland

Reporters too keep digging away at the story, and the latest is Adam Goldman of the Washington Post. In “The hidden history of the CIA’s prison in Poland,” published on January 23, Goldman reported that former CIA officials, speaking anonymously, had told him that, early in 2003, the US had paid the Polish government $15 million for the use of Stare Kiejkuty, which “had been flown from Germany via diplomatic pouch,” was packed in “a pair of large cardboard boxes,” and was picked up from the US Embassy in Warsaw by two CIA officials, who then took the boxes to the headquarters of the Polish intelligence service (Agencja Wywiadu), where, as Goldman reported, they “were met by Col. ­Andrzej Derlatka, deputy chief of the intelligence service, and two of his associates.”

Goldman proceeded to recap how Poland became the location for a “black site,” explaining how, after the capture in Faisalabad, Pakistan of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, better known as Abu Zubaydah (or Zubaida), on March 28, 2002, the CIA “needed a place to stash its first ‘high-value’ detainee.” Goldman also described Zubaydah as “a man who was thought to be closely tied to the al-Qaeda leadership and might know of follow-on plots,” but this is being generous to the CIA and the Bush administration, as there were certainly some within America’s intelligence apparatus who knew this not to be true.

Nevertheless, the US sought a place where Zubaydah could be interrogated away from prying eyes — a torture prison far from the US mainland, in other words. Goldman wrote that Cambodia and Thailand “offered to help,” but Cambodia “turned out to be the less desirable of the two.” Agency officers told their bosses that the proposed site was “infested with snakes,” so Thailand was chosen instead. Months later, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, suspected of involvement in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, was taken to the site about an hour’s drive from Bangkok.

With more “high-value detainees” expected, a former senior agency official told Goldman that a more suitable location was required. “It was just a chicken coop we remodeled,” the official said. When the CIA “reached out to foreign intelligence services,” Poland responded. The Polish intelligence service, Goldman wrote, “had a training base with a villa that the CIA could use in Stare Kiejkuty, a three-hour drive north of Warsaw.” He added, “Polish officials asked whether the CIA could make some improvements to the facility. The CIA obliged, paying nearly $300,000 to outfit it with security cameras.”

Even so, the building was “not spacious.” It was a two-storey villa, but it could only hold a handful of prisoners. To create more space, a “large shed behind the house” was also “converted into a cell.”  The agency official told Goldman, “It was pretty spartan,” and also explained that there was an additional room where cooperative prisoners “could ride a stationary bike or use a treadmill.”

Al-Nashiri and Zubaydah were flown to the Polish site, code-named “Quartz,” on December 5, 2002. Five days later, Goldman wrote, “an e-mail went out to agency employees that the interrogation program was up and running, and under the supervision of the Special Missions Department of the Counterterrorism Center (CTC). Officials then began shutting down the prison in Thailand, eliminating all traces of the CIA presence.”

Goldman also noted that former CIA officials told him that Mike Sealy, a senior intelligence officer, was appointed to run the site. He was described as a ‘program manager’ and was briefed on the torture program developed by the CIA and approved by Jay S. Bybee of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in the “torture memos” written by John Yoo.

With the usual careful language of the mainstream media, Goldman refused to describe the torture program honestly, instead calling it “an escalating series of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that were formulated at the CIA and approved by Justice Department lawyers,” which “included slapping, sleep deprivation and waterboarding, a technique that involved pouring water over the shrouded face of the detainee and creating the sensation of drowning” — more accurate, as ever, would be to describe it as a form of controlled drowning that the torturers of the Spanish Inquisition at least had the honesty to describe as “tortura del agua.”

Sealy apparently “oversaw about half a dozen or so special protective officers whom the CIA had sent to provide security,” although “the number of analysts and officers varied.” Goldman added that Polish officials “could visit a common area where lunch was served, but they didn’t have access to the detainees.”

Describing “problems in the implementation of the interrogation protocols,” Goldman wrote that CIA officials “clashed over the importance of Nashiri’s alleged role in the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.” A former official said, “He was an idiot. He couldn’t read or comprehend a comic book,” rather undermining the case being made at Guantánamo by prosecutors in his trial by military commission. As Goldman explained, however, other CTC officials thought otherwise — that he “was a key al-Qaeda figure and was withholding information.”

Two former US intelligence officials told Goldman that there was “a tense meeting in December 2002,” at which senior CIA officials “decided that they needed to get tougher with him,” and sent in Albert El-Gamil, “a CIA linguist who had once worked for the FBI in New York.” El-Gamil, as Goldman explained, “was of Egyptian descent and spoke Arabic fluently, but he was not a trained interrogator,” and it was he who, notoriously, “subjected Nashiri to a mock execution” and put a drill to his head while he was blindfolded, events recorded in the CIA Inspector General’s 2004 report into detention and interrogations.

Goldman noted that senior CIA officials only found out about these abusive episodes in January 2003, via a security guard. Sealy and El-Gamil were then taken out of Poland and dismissed from the program, leaving the CIA soon after, according to several officials.

In his article, Goldman also reported what happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his capture in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in March 2003. After being flown to Poland, he apparently “proved difficult to break, even when water­boarded,” according to several former CIA officials who spoke to Goldman, who also reported that KSM “would count off the seconds, between 20 and 40, knowing that the simulated drowning always ended within a certain period.”

One official told Goldman that, on one occasion, KSM “fell asleep on the waterboard between sessions,” while other officials “stated that he finally crumbled after extended sleep deprivation,” which sounds likely, as prolonged sleep deprivation is horrendous, although how useful his information was remains questionable.

Goldman also reported that KSM’s ego allowed his interrogators to secure information, which may well be true — although it may be that it would have been even easier getting him to talk without the torture, through proper, detailed rapport-building. As Goldman described it, “He liked to lecture the CIA officers, who would then steer the conversations in ways that benefited them,” and he also “liked to joust with his inquisitors.”

Goldman’s sources also told him that Abu Zubaydah “provided important information to his interrogators.” He apparently “identified people in photographs and gave what one official called ‘hundreds of data points,’” although, again, how reliable that information was is open to question. Abu Zubaydah’s identifications of people from photographs litter the classified military files from Guantánamo, which were released by Wikileaks in 2011, but they are, in general, both vague and unreliable. As the Washington Post explained in March 2009, “not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu [Zubaydah]‘s tortured confessions.” The Post added that, according to former senior government officials, “Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu [Zubaydah] — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced.”

Officials also told Goldman that Abu Zubaydah “was even willing to help get new detainees to talk,” and a former official said that he stated, “Allah knows I am only human and knows that I will be forgiven.”

Goldman also noted that former officials involved in the torture program — Jose Rodriguez, the CIA’s former deputy director of operations, for example — have said that it produced “dramatic positive results,” although he noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee “intends to challenge such assertions” when — if — its 6,000-page report on the torture program, which was completed over a year ago, but has not yet seen the light of day, even in a severely redacted form, is made public. He quoted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the committee, stating that the report provides “a detailed, factual description of how interrogation techniques were used, the conditions under which detainees were held, and the intelligence that was — or wasn’t — gained from the program.”

According to Goldman, the committee “intends to release portions” of its report in the not too distant future.

Goldman’s article concluded with him noting that the CIA eventually had to leave Poland, “fearing that maintaining one location for too long risked exposure” — a sure sign that senior officials knew that what they were doing was wrong, however much John Yoo and Jay Bybee had tried to pretend it wasn’t. When it closed in September 2003, Goldman reported that the CIA “scattered detainees to Romania, Morocco and, later, Lithuania,” and added, “Looking for a long-term solution, the CIA paid the Moroccans $20 million to build a prison it never used that was code-named ‘Bombay.’” Curiously, he fails to mention “Strawberry Fields,” the facility within Guantánamo (exposed in 2010 by Matt Apuzzo and Goldman himself, when he was working for the Associated Press), where at least some of the “high-value detainees” were sent from September 2003 to March 2004, when they were flown out again. This was because the Bush administration had realized that, via Rasul v. Bush (the prisoners’ habeas corpus case decided in June 2004), the Supreme Court was going to allow lawyers into the prison.

He added that the “black sites” in Romania and Lithuania were closed before Porter Goss stepped down as CIA director in May 2006, with some prisoners “sent to a Moroccan jail that had been previously used,” while others “were sent to a new CIA prison in Kabul called ‘Fernando,’” which had replaced the notorious “Salt Pit,” and he also notes that it was from these locations that the 14 “high-value detainees” were flown to Guantánamo in September 2006.

Senior Polish ex-intelligence official calls for transparency on “black site”

Adam Goldman’s article prompted Marek Siwiec, the head of Poland’s National Security Bureau from 1997 to 2004, including the years when the “black site” was open, to call for a “Commission of Public Trust” to be established to “expose what happened in Poland,” as Reuters described it.

Siwiec, who is now with the European Parliament, told Reuters, “The poor truth is better than a perfect lie. At this moment we have a number of poor lies and this creates a situation that I think should be changed. We have the position of common sense, the majority of people, who say: ‘Of course there was something, whatever it was.’”

He made it clear that he “had not been informed of any decision to let the CIA run a jail in Poland at that time, when he was a security adviser to then-president Aleksander Kwasniewski,” but as Reuters explained, “his call for a full investigation is the closest any senior Polish intelligence official, past or present, has come to acknowledging Poland has a case to answer on the matter.” He added that a commission “could unearth the truth, find out why it happened without apportioning blame to individuals, and of course the conclusions should be: Never again.”

As Reuters explained, “If any state officially acknowledges a role — and activists say Poland is the most likely to do so — that could lead to prosecutions of officials and to governments being forced to reveal details of sensitive dealings with US intelligence.”

Siwiec is one of several Polish officials, including then-president Kwasniewski, who were identified by Dick Marty in his 2007 Council of Europe report as officials who, as Reuters put it, “may be held accountable for knowing about or authorizing a CIA jail,” although they have all denied the allegations. Siwiec, in fact, sued Marty for claiming he had known about the “black site,” and the lawsuit was only dropped when Marty claimed parliamentary immunity.

As Reuters explained, the situation is difficult because, under Polish and international laws regarding torture and illegal detention, “anybody who knew about or authorised a CIA jail in Poland could be prosecuted — a factor that may discourage people who were involved from discussing candidly what happened.”

That, of course, is a problem that is not unique to Poland, of course, and which adds to the difficulties of securing accountability for America’s torture program in any country that may have been at all implicated (even to the extent of intelligence sharing, or turning a blind eye while rendition flights passed through their airspace or used their airports). However, when speaking about Adam Goldman’s article, Marek Siwiec called the information “credible,” but made a point of adding that Poland “should not leave to others to reveal what happened on its soil.”

Lithuanian court allows investigation on behalf of “high-value detainee” 

In further good news, a court in Lithuania has given another “high-value detainee,” Mustafa al-Hawsawi (one of the 14 sent to Guantánamo in September 2006), the right to “an investigation into his alleged torture in a secret CIA detention centre in the country,” as Amnesty International described it in a news release. Al-Hawsawi was seized in Pakistan in 2003, and has stated that he was rendered to a CIA torture prison in the village of Antaviliai, in Lithuania, for some time between September 2004 and September 2006.

Amnesty International described the decision as “a breakthrough for justice,” after years of stonewalling by Lithuania, and Julia Hall, Amnesty’s expert on counter-terrorism and human rights, stated, “The court’s decision in the case of Mustafa al-Hawsawi is a real victory in the pursuit of accountability for Lithuania’s alleged complicity in the CIA rendition and secret detention programmes. The Lithuanian court has set an example for all of Europe and the USA by upholding the rule of law and recognizing that victims of torture and enforced disappearance at the hands of the CIA and European agents have an absolute right to a thorough investigation.”

She added, “The Lithuanian government and Prosecutor General must now open a full and effective investigation into Mustafa al-Hawsawi’s claims and ensure that any other individuals who have alleged that they were held in secret CIA detention there are afforded the same right.”

The Regional Court in Vilnius ruled that Mustafa al-Hawsawi’s claims “involved violations under the Lithuanian Constitution and international agreements and that he had a right to a full investigation,” adding that the previous refusal to investigate, made by the Prosecutor General in October 2013, had been “groundless.” A lower court had upheld that decision, but this new ruling paves the way for a new investigation.

Amnesty International also noted that the Prosecutor General had refused to initiate an investigation into the case of Abu Zubaydah, who was held in Lithuania after Poland, and stated that any new investigation in Lithuania should include him too.

The article Poland And Lithuania Haunted By Their Involvement In Hosting CIA Torture Prisons – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.


Armed Suspect Nabbed In New York For Alleged Threats Against Bush 43

$
0
0

By Jim Kouri

A man characterized as being an emotionally disturbed person (EDP), who wished to harm a former U.S. president, was nabbed sitting in an automobile with a fully-loaded rifle, a machete and a metal can filled with gasoline. The man, identified as Benjamin Smith, was charged Friday with threatening to kill former President George W. Bush.

The 44-year-old Smith, of Pittsford township in upstate New York, was arrested in Manhattan by the U.S. Secret Service, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan. Federal prosecutors claim Smith said he wished to have a relationship with Bush’s oldest daughter, Barbara.

“Bush will get his,” Smith screamed as he was taken into custody by U.S. Secret Service agents, according to the criminal complaint. Smith also claimed he was divorced from his wife and wished to begin a romantic relationship with Barbara Bush.

It is a federal crime to threaten a current or former president and former presidents still receive Secret Service protection.

The criminal complaint states that a woman claiming to be Smith mother called police on Thursday to inform them that she discovered a note in her home and that a rifle was missing from that home which she said she shares with her son.

“I’m going to work for George W. Bush and the Pentagon,” the note said, according to news stories. “I have to slay a dragon and then Barbara Bush is mine.”

Secret Service were successful in tracking Smith to Manhattan through his cell phone’s GPS (global positioning system) and they arrested him.

Smith’s criminal defense attorney, Peggy Goldenberg, argued during the preliminary hearing that the note and Smith’s ravings do not equal a “true threat.”

The judge also conceded it was “unclear” a jury would find Smith guilty. “Admittedly, there is some inconsistency in the notion that the way to win Barbara Bush’s affections is to kill her father,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman said.

The article Armed Suspect Nabbed In New York For Alleged Threats Against Bush 43 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Afghanistan: An Unabated Turmoil Between Global Powers – OpEd

$
0
0

By Eurasia Review

By M.N. Rushdy Getaberiya

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is a landlocked sovereign state forming part of South Asia, Central Asia, and to some extent Western Asia. Afghanistan is also a home to thirty million inhabitants with a very less amount compared to its land area and any other state in the region.

Although it is entitled to be called as a sovereign state, yet its sovereignty is challenged in different fronts is an undeniable truth even in the 21st century, which the globe is infested with, so called democracy. Historical accounts evidently proves that the Afghanistan is confronted many war’s in its course of history against every invaders by its people. Apparently, and unfortunately we happened to experience this bitter warring tragedy during our time as every others in the history.

It is pivotal to understand the ground realities of today’s Afghanistan, that their population has been suffering under every regime and it is also cited that the oppressor has been ousted by a revolution or buy any other indigenous united forces within the Afghanistan invariably. Living in the post-modern globalized world, we are able to take notice and witness that the people of western hemisphere heaves frequently voice against the warfare, and in favor of human-rights, feminist-rights, LGBT rights, yet a few moderate western media raised voice against the war imposed on Afghans. One way the people of Afghanistan being oppressed and feared by their local Taliban threats and western backed war-lords are snowing the fear among the minds of the people, while on the other hand the foreign invasion on their land. Thus, in this context with whom an Afghan should be sided? And in actual sense Afghans are confused, and living in a clef stick or more like a death-defying situation in their mother-land.

It is also an irrefutable fact that despite Afghanistan was officially recognized as a sovereign state by the international community after the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1919 that gives right to Afghanistan as a sovereign state, yet in reality the country has never enjoyed the said status. Neither the United Nation nor by any other neighboring states let the Afghans to live their own way of life. As a matter-of-fact that Afghans are peaceful, but the war-mongering nations forcefully imposed wars on them, if we take a momentary look at the history of this mountainous land; it was the Alexander of Macedonia, the Genghis Kahn of Mongolia, Major-General Sir William Elphinstone of British, and some historically defined arrogant generals of Russia and finally the United States of America led ISAF and NATO forces are also apparently repeating the very same mistake what their predecessors did in this land.

On the other hand, it is a fact that the geo-strategic locality of Afghanistan has been playing a significant role in the history and very important. The location of this land is a crucial factor in determining its foreign policy, Afghanistan shares border with degenerated USSR, China, Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan had a remarkable geo-political significance both for the USSR and the British India where the 19th century first “The Great Game” was taken place. Whereby in the 20th century two ideological banners raised based on capitalist and communist blocs, such as the second “Great Game” broke out. Even today Afghanistan remains the same, and no changes have taken place in this land, as the people of Afghanistan prefer to live under Islamic set-up, different groupings and religious affiliations are prevalence in today’s Afghanistan as it was ever. So would the Americans be able to change the mindset of Afghans? Or had the Afghans influenced by any other extra-regional powers ever, except the Islamic set up? The answer is no, and then again the question arises why?

Geo-strategic importance of Afghanistan, the latest unfolding pace in Afghanistan and Central Asia, chiefly disregarded by the media’s focus on the scenario of the US and NATO defeating the Taliban, may greatly alter the geo-strategic importance of the region and have far reaching consequences. Whilst the instability continues to escalate in Afghanistan, the United States, China and Russia are desperately engaging for control of Central Asia’s vast energy reserves. Thus, Afghanistan was a victim of an international strategy and will remain as a victim of it.

But, what defers Mongols, Russians, and British from American led ally is just the stratagem applied on Afghans. Mongols, Russians, and the British were mastered at creating chaos and destruction, but the American led western allies strategically dispensed billions of dollars in to Afghanistan, which the Russians obviously failed. It may be the Americans thought they would keep the Afghans busy with money; however the question arises that for how long this dollar-flowing strategy would work and long lasted especially after 2014 withdrawal of foreign troops?.

Another aspect of foreign interests in Afghanistan that has not escaped the eyes of experts is the undisputed amount of interest expressed by major powers such as Iran, china and Indian in their gestures to determine the policy direction that will be taken by afghan government in post 2014. This notion has been asserted by the keen interest expressed by Indian government, there is no secret India has been greatly involved in afghan mineral exploitation with a view of controlling the country’s foreign policy. This move has been reinforced by the amount of investments that is associated by India while on the other side the combined force between Iran and India has also been attributed to their keenness to control the rich mineral resources, the construction of Chabahar port is a clear illustration of how far the two countries would go to fulfill their wishes. The aim of such an initiative is to have total access and control of Afghan trade and economic capabilities thus locking the neighboring countries like Pakistan.

Another very important player is China which has not been left behind in the ongoing mineral rush, China has won several contracts and exploitation blocks to extract minerals and a good example is the copper mining which has a potential of returning billions of dollars to the afghan economy. This rush means that countries like china are keen to not only have fully access to the minerals but also have a significant amount of influence on the policies both at the domestic and international level.

Now the war is going to be over, so what is next?

Most importantly, the contemporary stage of transition is a crucial time for Afghanistan. With the ongoing pulling out of ISAF/NATO forces to be accomplished in 2014, thus it is vital to observe and focus on the security transition that is on the move. Yet anticipated progress towards both national and local political instability has to be designed. An important component of that process will be an economic and political accommodation to allocate the division of natural resources. Most significantly, Afghanistan is repeatedly dismissed in the West as an impecunious and unsuccessful state, yet the untapped mineral deposit in Afghanistan is the ultimate goal of all the big-powers in Afghanistan. According to the U.S. Defense Department and the USGS declared for the first time, about 70% of Afghanistan was surveyed using a method called hyper spectral imaging. And U.S. defense personals expected in 2010 that there could be as much as $1 trillion worth of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium in Afghanistan. And altogether country holds unexploited natural resources worth $3 deposits.

Since the year of 2003, the Taliban and its allied web have increasingly stretched out their control in the ungoverned southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, launching on a daily basis attacks that have injured and killed thousands of civilians. While on the other hand America is forcing Afghanistan to sign a defense pact, which Afghanistan assume that it would be a threat for the Afghan national security and the Afghan presidential election is yet to come in mid-2014.

After a careful analysis it’s fair to conclude that the mineral rush in Afghanistan has just began and its will have a great impact on Afghanistan’s survival, it will either make or destroy the country. Afghanistan has an opportunity to avoid the resource curse attributed to availability of natural resources and the only way to do so is by formulating policies to curb the leaks that will occur in tendering and issuing of rights while at the same time ensure that the exploration of the resources will lead to the well-being of afghan people. They should ensure that there is a system of checks and balance to curtail corruption and misappropriation of resources that would otherwise benefit the afghan population through equal distribution of national cake fairly across the board.

Whether targets are achieved or still the country is an unabated turmoil- A fully-engaged in this decade old war directly. Who gains and who lose? – Withdrawal 2014 will again form power-vacuum in Afghanistan, and there is no ART in domestic governance. Because President Karzai rules just only within his palace. And Taliban will thrive to exist as the NATO withdrawal in 2014, India, Iran and Pakistan’s interest in Afghanistan. Indian regional hegemonic role will be seen as a threat for Pakistanis interest and arch-rivalry.

There is no doubt nations will compete to access the huge mineral resources in Afghanistan and it’s up to the afghan government to ensure that in doing so the process is above the board for the well-being of its people and avoid any avenues that will lead to a threat of Afghan security in post 2014.

M.N. Rushdy Getaberiya
Political Analyst

The article Afghanistan: An Unabated Turmoil Between Global Powers – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

India-Japan Relations: The China Factor – Analysis

$
0
0

By Monish Gulati

There has been a strengthening of India-Japan relations across various domains leading to interactions at multiple levels both in government and non-government sectors. Several drivers, including the containment of China, have been identified as those leading to this intensification of cooperation and greater understanding between the two countries. While Japan has been quite explicit about the ‘China factor’, India has sought to underplay the issue even to the point of back pedalling on certain measures and initiatives. The outcome of the latest visit of the Japanese Prime Minster to India seems to suggest that there is new-found confidence in Indian strategic posturing to deal with an assertive China.

The recent Indian actions, to “accommodate” Chinese strategic and security concerns, particularly with reference to India’s relations with Japan, can be tabbed down to the 2007 edition of the annual Malabar series of naval exercises. The Malabar series, which began in 1992, include diverse activities, ranging from fighter combat operations from aircraft carriers, to maritime interdiction operations. In September 2007, Japan along with India, US, Australia and Singapore participated in the first ever five-nation multilateral naval exercise, Malabar-07-2 held in the Bay of Bengal. After the exercises China sent a demarche to all the five participants of the naval exercise as it viewed the event as a collective security arrangement against its national interests. As a result India stopped multilateral naval exercises in its waters. The next edition of Malabar exercise held off the coast of Goa reverted to the bilateral format.
For the 2009 edition of the Malabar series, the Indian Navy did invite the Japan Maritime Self Defence Force (JMSDF) to participate, but the exercise was conducted off the coast of Okinawa, Japan. However, the participation of Indian warships in the exercise with the US and Japanese navies closer to Chinese maritime area of interest this time invited criticism back home. The 2010 edition in Indian waters was again an Indo-US bilateral event. The 2011 edition was cancelled due to the Tohoku Earthquake.

In the meanwhile, India and Japan agreed upon the conduct of bilateral naval exercises during Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s visit to Japan in November 2011 as a means to address Chinese objections. The maiden Japan-India Maritime Exercise (JIMEX) was conducted off Japan in January 2012. The second round of the bilateral JIMEX and the first to be conducted in Indian waters took place in the Bay of Bengal from Dec 19-22, 2013. The exercise focused on maritime security cooperation.

Indian desire to placate China seems to have reached a high point last year when India suddenly withdrew from a joint naval exercise with the US and Japanese navies off the US Pacific island of Guam. It was reported that India was only interested in bilateral naval exercises and that Malabar should be confined to exercises with the US in the Indian Ocean. Even the bilateral Malabar exercise with the US navy off Visakhapatnam was significantly scaled down. Some analysts even went so far as to suggest that India had attempted to coincide the Malabar exercise with Indian Army’s 10-day joint training with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), codenamed Hand-in-Hand which had recommenced after a five-year hiatus near Chengdu. Former Naval chief Admiral Mehta commented that India’s “strategic submission”, fearing Chinese outrage, wouldn’t augur well for the country.

Given the aforementioned soft and back-pedalling by India to accommodate Chinese concerns, the decision to invite the JMSF to take part in this year’s edition of the India-US Malabar (likely to be held in the Western Pacific), is a signal to China that India is coming to its own. The joint statement issued after the Manmohan Singh-Shinzo Abe meeting welcomed India’s invitation. The request to participate in the Malabar exercise came during a four-day visit to New Delhi by Japanese Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera in early January 2014.

India is also set to become the first country since World War II to buy military equipment from Japan as Abe looks to do away with a ban on weapons exports that has kept his country’s defence contractors out of foreign markets. The two countries are looking to finalise a $1.65 billion deal for the ShinMaywa US-2 amphibious aircraft. New Delhi is likely to buy at least 15 US-2, which are priced at about $110 million each. A joint working group is slated to meet in March to consider plans to assemble it under licence in India. The plan is to deliver two aircraft and then assemble the rest of the aircraft with an Indian partner. The procurement of the US-2 is seen as part of the Indian response to China’s “string of pearls” strategy in Southeast Asia. India’s navy is also reportedly interested in Japanese patrol vessels and electronic warfare equipment.

On Jan 25, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made special mention in a media statement during the Abe’s visit of “expanding defence and security cooperation”, as the two sides agreed to hold talks between chiefs of the national security councils of the two countries. In this process India acknowledged Japan’s National Security Strategy and the establishment of the National Security Council (NSC) of Japan. The two prime ministers expressed satisfaction at the launch of regular consultations between the secretary general of national security secretariat of Japan and India’s national security advisor. The Japanese National Defence Programme Guidelines, besides referring to the US and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), state that Japan must increase its cooperation with India and other countries that share the common interest of enhancing the security of maritime navigation from Africa to the Middle East to East Asia.

The two prime ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate in the rare earths sector and shared “the strong resolution” that the commencement of commercial production of rare earths by Indian and Japanese enterprises should take place at the earliest. China had recently threatened to withhold the supply of rare earths to Japan during their stand-off in the East China Sea.

In the regional context, India has invited Japan to participate in infrastructure development programmes of the country’s northeast states, an area where China is sensitive to even Indian actions given its contested territorial claims in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. India is hoping that a new economic and transport corridor involving India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and possibly even Thailand would take shape in the future.

China downplayed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to India as a bilateral issue, even as the state media termed the trip as a failure for “not succeeding in pinning down Beijing”. According to the BBC, several Chinese media outlets carried reports of Abe’s visit, but analysts quoted in the papers were sceptical that India could be persuaded to enhance strategic ties at the cost of Chinese “friendship”. A Chinese analyst was quoted in the Global Times as saying “India’s main purpose is to obtain practical interests from Japan, and Abe’s wooing of India to resist China is more of his own wishful thinking”.

Despite the confluence of interests, Japan and India have differing approaches to managing their relations with China. For Tokyo, US-Japan-India strategic ties are a means to balance the rise of China, while New Delhi views Beijing is a key pivot of its multi-aligned foreign policy and forging a network of nations on China’s periphery may not be in Indian national interest. As the two allies proceed to forge closer ties they would be mindful that Asia’s geo-political equilibrium is not unbalanced.

(Monish Gulati is a Research Fellow with the Society for Policy Studies. He can be contacted at m_gulati_2001@yahoo.com)

This article appeared at the South Asia Monitor and is reprinted with permission.

The article India-Japan Relations: The China Factor – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Kerry Lambasted By Israel For ‘Amplifying’ Boycott – OpEd

$
0
0

By Palestine Chronicle

By Richard Irvine

Poor US Secretary of State John Kerry. He tries to defend Israel, even to save Israel; he tries to legitimize its illegal occupation and have the Palestinians accept their dispossession, and in return he is lambasted by Israel’s politicians as “an amplifier” of “anti-Semitic boycotts.”

John Kerry, who has been engaged since the summer in trying to resurrect the long moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process, is due to present his proposed framework agreement to both sides in the coming week.  If reports are to be believed, the framework agreement gives much more to Israel than is either morally or legally justified.  Indeed if it corresponds to Thomas Friedman’s New York Times account it amounts to a virtual capitulation to Israeli demands and ‘facts on the ground’.

Israel will retain its illegal settlement blocs, maintain a substantial military presence in the Palestinian Jordan Valley, and have nullified the Palestinian refugees legal right of return.  To top it all, the Palestinians will then humiliate themselves by recognizing the worldwide Jewish moral, political and legal right to the land that they, the Palestinians, have been driven from.  In return then the Palestinians will be allowed the doubtful panacea of a state with a capital of some sort in part or parts of East Jerusalem.  Israel will have to give up nothing that it is either legally or morally entitled to; the Palestinians will have to give up their basic collective right to self-determination and their individual right to return to the land from which they were expelled.

With this deal on offer one would imagine the Israeli government would be positively cock-a-hoop – maybe they are – but if so they playing the negotiations game with a mean poker face.  Striving to drum up Israeli support for this deal of the century, John Kerry attempted to alert its political class to the alternatives if they declined it.  Speaking on Saturday he had the audacity to remind Israel that the current occupation is not sustainable, that in his words, “[T]oday’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there’s been an uptick in some violence.  But the fact is the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.”

Although saying no more than the obvious, Kerry then went on to play Cassandra and predict what would occur if Israel failed to endorse his plan: “You see for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things.”  In a week in which Scarlett Johansson put herself definitely on the wrong side of history by choosing to represent the Israeli settlement company Soda Stream over the worldwide humanitarian charity Oxfam, Kerry again was saying no more than should be already obvious.

However, accepting the obvious appears to be a step to far for the Canute-like Israeli political class.  Ignoring all that the US has done and continues to do for Israel, Israel’s politicians lined up to declaim Kerry’s remarks.

Breathtakingly, they chose almost as one to interpret his warning of boycott as an endorsement of boycott, a paranoia that surprised the US State Department into issuing a tetchy clarifying statement reiterating US opposition to boycott.  Amongst the several ludicrous comments made by Israel’s politicians were Prime Minister Netanyahu’s denunciation of “unethical” boycotts; Economy Minister Bennett’s sulky bottom-lip moan that Kerry should “stand beside us, against anti-Semitic boycott efforts targeting Israel, and not for them to be their amplifier”; and fantastically Strategic Affairs Minister Steinitz’s hurt little boy whinge that “The things … Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable.”

No clearer evidence is needed of just how spoilt a political child Israel has become.  Even though its friend Kerry, if what is reported is true, has effectively bowed to its demands in his framework agreement, when he dares to couple his acquiescence with a modicum of truth, the indulged toddler Israel can only throw a tantrum.  Whether Israel will later see sense must be a matter for speculation, but with a political class as out of touch with reality as this I don’t think there is much reason to fear it will.  Indeed, perhaps nothing demonstrates Israel’s lack of an understanding of reality better that Minister Steinitz’s final remarks on Kerry – “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests.”

Perhaps someone should tell Steinitz that it is Israel that wields the gun, and that it is Palestinians that have real as opposed to metaphorical guns not so much to their heads, but daily pushed in their faces.  However, with politicians as delusional and as arrogant as Israel’s, I believe I can be confident that despite Kerry’s best efforts, Israel will be unable to ward off the boycott avalanche that is coming, and that the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement will be able to achieve the just peace the US led international peace process never sought to deliver.

- Richard Irvine is a co-ordinator of the Palestine Education Initiative. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

The article Kerry Lambasted By Israel For ‘Amplifying’ Boycott – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Super Bowl: Seattle Seahawks Crush Denver Broncos 43-8

$
0
0

By VOA

The Seattle Seahawks trounced the Denver Broncos 43-8 Sunday in the 48th annual American football Super Bowl held in MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

The Seahawks’ vaunted defense completely dominated Denver’s equally celebrated offense, led by future Hall of Fame quarterback Peyton Manning. They forced Denver into four turnovers, including two interceptions by Manning, one of which was returned 69 yards for a touchdown by linebacker Malcolm Smith to give the Seahawks a 22-0 lead before halftime.

Percy Harvin virtually sealed Seattle’s win with an 87-yard kickoff return to start the second half, and quarterback Russell Wilson finished off the Broncos with two-late game touchdown passes to receivers Jermaine Kearse and Doug Baldwin.

Denver fell behind on the game’s first possession when a bad snap flew past Manning and into the end zone for a safety, giving Seattle an early 2-0 lead.

The loss marred a history-making regular season for Manning, who earned his fifth career National Football League Most Valuable Player award just one day earlier.

Seattle Linebacker Smith was named the game’s Most Valuable Player.

The article Super Bowl: Seattle Seahawks Crush Denver Broncos 43-8 appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Viewing all 73639 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images