Thursday, July 26, 2012

RUSSIAN PAPER PRAVDA ON CHINA'S TERRITORIAL CLAIMS

China has territorial claims to nearly 20 countries
17.07.2012
Chinese leader Mao Zedong not only built a strong country but also outlined a global goal: "We must conquer the globe where we will create a powerful state." Today, China has territorial claims to all its neighbors. Naturally, the U.S. is dreaming of becoming a mediator in resolving disputes in the region. But it seems that Beijing absolutely does not care about their opinion.

Burma, Laos, Northern India, Vietnam, Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, the Ryukyu Islands, 300 islands of the South China, East China and Yellow Seas, as well as Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Taiwan, South Kazakhstan, the Afghan province of Bahdashan, Transbaikalia and the Far East to South Okhotsk - here is the complete list of areas that, according to Zedong, were lost due to the fall of the Qing empire. All of these countries and regions combined exceed the territory of modern China. Not all complaints are voiced by the Government of China in the international arena, but within the country the imperialist ambitions have not been lost, but rather, are actively promoted.
The PRC authorities talk out loud only about the areas that, at least theoretically, can be taken away from Japan and Korea. Tokyo is regularly frustrated not only because of the travel of the Russian leaders to the Kuril Islands, but also about the Chinese ships freely entering the disputed Senkaku Islands waters. Beijing believes that the Islands are called Diaoyu, and they belonged to China, but the malicious Japanese tricked the U.S. into giving them to Japan because after World War II the uninhabited archipelago was in the US jurisdiction.

Significant reserves of natural gas were found on the islands. For the growing industry of China and stagnant Japan it is more than a serious argument in favor of the struggle for the archipelago, no matter what it is called. Not to mention the fish that is found there in large quantities. To date, the only agreement the parties have reached in the negotiations is on the joint development of oil fields. In addition, if the Japanese behave more or less decently, the Chinese are regularly caught for illegal fishing in the area.

Any territorial dispute, but rather, its resolution, is a serious precedent. If China’s claim in respect of at least one territory from the list of the "lost" is satisfied, the Chinese machine would be unstoppable. Despite the fact that the Chinese are very pleased to partner with Russia and have always supported Russia in the UN Security Council, in person, on the sidelines, its diplomats supposedly jokingly hint to their Russian colleagues: you must understand that soon you will have to share the Far East? China has more than a billion people, while Russia’s vast territory barely has 150 million.
These dangerous trends - demographic, and as a result, geopolitical - must sound scary to the Russian government, but so far it seems that it is happy with the fact that Beijing makes territorial claims only to Seoul and Tokyo. In 2005 Russia had already given China a bounty in the form of 337 square kilometers of land in the area of Big Island (upper Argun River in the Chita region) and two sites in the vicinity of the islands Tarabarov and Big Ussuri near the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri.

However, none of the leaders of the military departments of ASEAN that includes all debating countries agree to recognize, for example, the fact that Diaoyu belongs to Japan. Instead, the defense ministers of Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand and Singapore urged the Japanese authorities to proceed with caution and within the framework of the international law. These countries certainly do not need a resolution to the dispute because in that case their territory will be separated from China only by perseverance of the latter.

They are silent about the "Iodo island" (the Chinese version is Suenchzhao. - Ed) in the East China Sea. The sneaky Chinese took the principle of dividing the Arctic as an example and now claim that the underwater ridge of this tiny piece of land is under close control of the Chinese. Since the Iodo is closer to Korea, in 2003 the Koreans built an uninhabitable marine research station there. From the standpoint of the international law, this rock in general should not be the subject of a debate.

In any case, the controversy continues, Japan and South Korea remain to be supported by their all-time ally - the United States. For the US, the unification of Southeast Asian Nations is a chance to save their own economy, because in that case the World Trade Center will move there, where currently there are no transnational corporations in the amount sufficient for the U.S.

The success of the White House in the region does not depend on the strength that America loves to show any chance it has, but rather, diplomacy, as the countries of ASEAN and Asia-Pacific region do not trust each other or anyone outside the regional boundaries. However, Washington is trusted here because of the support of Seoul and Tokyo. However, China has already pushed Japan out of the ranks of the largest economies in the world, and the structure of the region is no longer formed on spatial basis.

Therefore, territorial claims of China, and not Russia, India or, for example, Australia are so important for Washington. Beijing is the only capital of the world, ready to use force in the struggle for the sake of expansion. During the last ten years, while America was blowing up its financial bubble, China has not only developed the industry, but also equipped its area of interest with military equipment. China has placed 38 new diesel and nuclear submarines in the region, purchased four destroyers of class "Modern" from Russia and built another dozen on its own, and has launched a network of ground-based ballistic missiles to destroy naval targets.
Only one other country has done this before - the Soviet Union during the "Cold War". It is no wonder that the Americans are very concerned with the regular quarrels between China and its major allies. Construction of a naval base on Hainan Island does not add confidence to the U.S. The proximity to the Malacca Strait poses a threat to the smooth supply of Washington’s main allies in the region - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - this is the way the US sees the situation. The American senators have already decided that such behavior is a threat to Beijing’s regional peace and stability, economic development and even "food security". The international community is well aware what usually follows such wording.

Ilona Raskolnikova
Pravda.Ru

ISLAM:THE ARAB IMPERIALISM-WHAT IS A PROPHET?-By ANWAR SHEIKH

Anwar Shaikh was a Jihadist turned apostate of Islam and became one of first and prominent critics of Islam of modern times. This is a part of his famous book, 'Islam, The Arab Imperialism'.

PREFACE

The Prophet Muhammad of Arabia (peace be upon him), when assessed fairly, undoubtedly emerges as the greatest national hero that any country ever produced.

His greatness, however, lies in masterfully exploiting the concept of Prophethood, which, being an integral tradition of the Middle Eastern culture, is less spiritual and more political.

Prophethood is based on the doctrine of revelation: it means that God, the Creator, loves mankind so much that He wants to guide the human creatures to save them from hell. In return for this favour, God demands absolute submission, that is, man must worship the All-Mighty and live by His laws without ever questioning their purpose, validity and relevance.

The medium of revelation i.e. the person through whom God is supposed to reveal His will, is called the Prophet; he is God's Agent on earth. Since God cannot be seen or contacted, the Prophet's word begins to rank as the Word of God, and the Creator, for total lack of communication with people, recedes into the background. As a result, the Prophet, who (apparently) claims to be God's most humble servant, rises as the dominant force in God-Prophet relationship. It is he who comes to hold the keys of paradise. Therefore, a person must believe in the Prophet to qualify for heaven; he who believes in God alone, cannot rank as a believer; he is an infidel and must go to hell, no matter how righteous he may be!

This exposes the true nature of Prophethood. If its purpose is to glorify God and guide people to righteousness, then how is it that salvation depends upon believing in the Prophet, and belief in God counts for nothing? Again, if the aim of Prophethood is to spread righteousness, then how can a righteous person be thrown into hell just for not acknowledging the Prophet? Even more baffling is the fact that God becomes powerless in relation to the Prophet because there is nothing that He can do for those who believe in Him alone.

Since Prophethood seeks to elevate a Prophet at the expense of God, it has, obviously, nothing to do with God or guidance. It is just a political device of the Middle Eastern origin, which enables its operator to achieve his ambitions under the pretence of spirituality. With a view to bridling the curious human mind, the doctrine of Prophethood discourages free will, which is the fountain of free-thinking, enquiry and social progress. Instead, it imposes complete hegemony of fate on man to drive him as if he were an ass.

In fact, Prophethood is the tool of Dominance-Urge, which goads a person to seek the highest possible position in a social or political hierarchy. All the conquerors, heads of states, etc., however, represent ephemeral type of Dominance-Urge because it expires with the demise of its possessor. However, its spiritual counterpart is a lasting phenomenon because a Prophet commands his followers from beyond his grave through the law that he laid down in his holy book.

Since existence is subject to the Principle of Change, no social law is eternal unless there is a body of people, who respects it and is willing to enforce it. It is especially true in regard to a Divine Code, which is held as sacred and true after a passage of centuries despite its total irrelevance to human problems. This is why that religious enthusiasts are always fanatical, utterly opposed to reason. Since a Prophet represents the most severe form of Dominance-Urge, he seeks to create a band of national followers, blindly dedicated and ready to glorify him through all ages. This is what makes a Prophet a staunch nationalist, who knows that his divine status depends upon the rise and fall of his own people. For this reason, he builds a strong nation through a good deal of effort, making his own glory, the beginning and end of this exercise.

The life of the Prophet Muhammad is a fascinating model of this truth. He welded the fragmented Arab tribes into a unified nation and inspired them with a great political ideal, leading to the establishment of a mighty Arab Empire, which the misguided Muslims of the Indian subcontinent think of as the Islamic Empire, despite the fact that the status of the non-Arab Muslims in it was no better than that of Indians in the British Empire. The Prophet Muhammad was essentially a nationalist. To make the Arabs a pure nation, he even (successfully) carried out ethnic cleansing by massacring and banishing the Jews from Arabia.

In fact, Islam is the most effective tool of imperialism; other nations, usually acquire political and cultural glory through economic power or sword and fire but Islam achieves this aim through the medium of faith-in- Muhammad, the only source of paradise, replete with beautiful virgins, pretty boys and rivers of wine, milk and honey. This lure of paradise has turned all non-Arab Muslims into moths, eager to cremate themselves on the flame of the Arabian cultural hegemony. So blinded are the non-Arab Muslims by the magnitude of the Arabian glory, emanating from the Islamic faith, that the father will kill his own son if he denies its spiritual, legal and moral suzerainty. What can be more fantastic than the fact that Muslims all over the world prostrate towards Mecca at least five times a day. The Prophet gained this singular honour for his country through a spiritual mechanism, which, despite being phoney, appears felicitous, fruitful and fitting. Yet it testifies, not only to the unique political vision of the Prophet, but also offers an amazing study to someone, wishing to engage in discovering the human skills of marvel, mystery and manipulation.

It is not wishful thinking. I have burnt enough midnight oil to uncover the reality of Prophethood. As this doctrine is an open insult to the dignity of God, who is held as the Perfect and Creator, Islam cannot be a Divine religion. Owing to its deep-rooted tendencies to benefit the Arabs at the expense of its followers belonging to the foreign lands, it is reasonable to conclude that Islam is nothing but the tool of the Arab Imperialism.

Is there anyone who can sincerely answer the points raised in this treatise?

Anwar Shaikh Cardiff 1. 7. 1998

13 YEARS AFTER KARGIL WAR - AN ARTICLE BY GEN VED MALIK, FORMER COAS

The strength of a military force lies in the quality of its human resource, weapons and equipment, and its morale. There is no better time to reiterate this than now, exactly 13 years after the Kargil war.

Twenty days after taking over as Army Chief, while addressing the Prime Minister and his CCS colleagues in a Combined Commanders’ Conference (October 20, 1997), I had described the state of the army as ‘the spirit is strong but the body is weak’, and then proceeded to indicate the high deficiencies of arms, ammunition and equipment.

In March 1999, just before Kargil war, I wrote to Defense Minister George Fernandes stating “The army is finding that major acquisitions get stymied for various reasons and a feeling of cynicism is creeping in. By and large, the prevailing situation is that nothing much can be done about the existing hollowness in the army. By denying essential equipment, the armed forces would gradually lose their combat edge which would show adversely in a future conflict...”

And then in May 1999, despite the Lahore Agreement, Pakistan surprised us strategically and tactically. Before melting of the snows, Pakistan Army units lodged themselves on several heights in Kargil and Southern Siachen sectors to dominate the Srinagar-Kargil-Leh highway. When the fog of war cleared and reality emerged that the intruders were not Mujahideen but Pakistan Army units, the whole nation was shocked.

During the war, while briefing the media, a journalist asked me as to how the army was going to fight in the face of its severe weapons and equipment shortages. My spontaneous reply was: ‘We shall fight with whatever we have.’ Someone from the Ministry of Defence complained to the Prime Minister about my statement. He asked me whether I should have made such a remark. I explained that my response was to a direct question from a journalist. Any attempt to cover up the true state of affairs would have conveyed an impression to the army rank and file that their Chief was indulging in double talk. If that happens, they would lose confidence in me.

To get away from long faces and depression in New Delhi and to boost my own morale, I went to the Kargil and Siachen front and addressed troops regularly. Interacting with them and seeing their commitment and motivation, I would get re-assured.

When the Prime Minister asked a wounded Garhwali soldier in Srinagar hospital what can he do for him, the response was “I want to rejoin my battalion as soon as possible” and “Please get us some lighter weapons and equipment so that we can climb mountains much faster.”

The spirit was strong; the morale high. We were confident that we would throw the intruders out from Kargil and Siachen sectors. And if the situation demanded, we could also attack across the border.

Looking back, however, I cannot help wondering that if we had the required quantity and quality of weapons and equipment; would Pakistan Army have dared to attack us in Kargil or would we have suffered that many casualties?

How has the situation changed today? Let me deal with the weapons and equipment state first.

On 12 March 2012, former Chief of Army Staff wrote a letter to the Prime Minister ruefully informing him that the army’s air defense weapon systems were obsolete, the infantry was deficient of crew served weapons and lacked night fighting capabilities, and its tank fleet was devoid of critical ammunition. He alleged that there was ‘hollowness in the procedures and processing time for procurements as well as legal impediments by vendors’.

For the military and informed strategic community, there was nothing new in this letter. The surprise was that none of our worthy politicians, bureaucrats or media persons owned up that this was a chronic problem which had dogged the nation for decades. The Government had failed to rectify it.

Publication of this letter in the media created a furore in the Parliament and outside: less due to its serious strategic implications, more because a classified letter from the Army Chief to the Prime Minister had been leaked.

What about the military spirit?

In the recent past, we have witnessed an unhealthy row over the age of the last Army Chief, attempted bribe to purchase Tatra vehicles from BEML, and the deep-lying suspicion of the military over movement of some units for training near Delhi. The last mentioned incident reflects the lack of trust that continues to bother officials in the Government after 65 years of independence and after what the armed forces have contributed for the nation.

There is deep discontent among the armed forces veterans and widows. They feel cheated over pension disparities and anomalies. As a result, they have been organizing rallies, fast unto death agitations, and surrender of war and gallantry medals to the President to draw public and political attention. Less visible is the unhappy feeling among serving soldiers over automatic promotion and up gradation rules that the civil services have managed to secure for themselves. The general impression is that the political leadership takes little or no interest in the armed forces’ welfare and to protect their hierarchal status in the government and society.

A few days ago, the Prime Minister announced a Committee under the Cabinet Secretary to look into these anomalies and grievances. Against all organizational norms, the Committee had only civil secretaries as members; no representation from the military.

The Government may have forgotten Kargil war but in military history, it will go down as a saga of unmatched bravery, grit and determination. The army responded with alacrity and with its characteristic steadfastness and perseverance. How will it fight the next one? Not differently. Because the Indian soldier is a remarkable human being: spiritually evolved, mentally stoic and sharp, physically hardy and skilled. And his institution remains proud of its traditions of selflessness, devotion to duty, sacrifice and valour.

Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages

An illuminating Article By Brig. Mehboob Khan in Daily Times of Pakist

Before the advent of this paralysing strain of religious virus in the subcontinent, particularly in the ‘Ziaist’ Pakistan, most shades of Islam were peacefully cohabiting here

Desert is a formidable stilling basin that can soak up volatility and bite in the human beings. It is also a great teacher in patience, determination in adversity and self-reliance against odds. It could even pass on a pinch or two of equanimity to the deserving. However, those are measures of a different scale and are directly proportionate to the capacity of each receiving vessel. Moses came out of the desert stronger in heart and soul whereas Alexander the Great lost experienced soldiers and his life crossing one. There is the third dimension to the desert that is more mundane, more physical. It is want, loneliness, dearth, disease, hunger and thirst. It deals with helplessness of waste, inevitable of aridity and uselessness of expanse. In that useless expanse is found a flying insect, which is universally known as the sand fly and is dreaded globally. This poisonous insect bites unsuspecting but careless victim and the effects begin to appear after six weeks of hatching. An ulcer forms where it had stung and then it begins to expand. It takes long to heal and leaves a permanent ugly scar behind. A sand fly can travel hundreds of miles on the back of wild grazers and attack men out of the blue.
This is not intended to talk about how dreadful a sand fly could be but it reminds one of a similar and vastly deadlier, soul-ulcerating menace that has hit the careless but unsuspecting fellow Pakistanis emanating from the hard crusted Najdis of Saudi Arabia. I am referring to the spiteful Wahabist-Salafist cult that has invaded Pakistan first by stealth, then on invitation, through complacence and finally, outright bribe. There have been two routes that it followed, both willing accomplices in their crime against our wonderfully adjusted and socially balanced belief system and trusting people. The petro-dollar grabbing mullah and power hungry, illegitimate rulers like late General Zia were the co-conspirators and willing accomplices in this despicable plot against the people of Pakistan and the region.
Before the advent of this paralysing strain of religious virus in the subcontinent, particularly in the ‘Ziaist’ Pakistan, most shades of Islam were peacefully cohabiting here. Followers of other religions like Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and even Jews were neither threatened nor discriminated against. We had calm and mutual peace in our different religions and among various sects in Islam as a result of thousands of years of adjustment. After the attack of this black locust from the desert of Najd, it was never going to be so for a long time to come as they slow poisoned our minds and scorched our social landscape comprehensively against growth of reason, tolerance and coexistence. That we were to learn at a regrettably huge and continuing human, diplomatic and material cost.

This massacre of our culture, faith and great social values by Wahabist Saudis is a massive crime against humanity and people of Pakistan. In the traditions of Peninsular Arab, a guest is not expected to stay more than three days; thereafter, he must set off to the next destination or pay for his expenses and for good reason. In the subcontinent, we had so much in plenty and therefore, have always been generous to a guest, never ask him to leave unless he himself decides to go. Barren Najd and fertile Indus-Gangetic plains were and are two completely incompatible and vastly different worlds. Let alone us, they have never been able to reconcile with the more civilised Iraqis, Egyptians or Iranians next door to date. There is no way that their value system, social references and more importantly, mental imagery of social panorama can ever match and mix with ours. That is why this latest Arab re-conquest of Pakistan has resulted in a cultural genocide destroying our lovable traditions, easygoing popular fairs, happy folk festivals and of our inclusive and magnanimous lifestyle. Theirs is a mechanical, dehydrated and a rather stiffer version of Islam. What they can never understand and therefore, would remain averse to is that matters of faith are never mechanical; they belong to the sublime and the superior aesthetic self. It is extremely personal and never regimented. Try as much as they may but they can never understand how much one is in communication with God, at which affectionate wavelength, from which calling station, and how much honey is flowing between the two. For them religion and belief is black and white with no room for the huge humanity outside or the better ones inside. They refuse to grant that God is everybody’s and not a Wahabist monopoly. He is not a mathematical sum or a measurable quantity. God is where one could reach Him and not where you place Him.
Let me explain a little more. Madho Lal Hussain (1538-1599) was a mystic Sufi saint in Lahore in the times of Emperor Akbar, the Great. Lahore then was the core of Muslim heartland in the Indian subcontinent at the height of the Mughal rule. Imagine, Muslims practising parts of Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism simultaneously, 400 years ago in the heart of Muslim hinterland and becoming a venerated saint. This is impossible today but this unique miracle of superlative communal adjustment could happen only in Lahore and in the subcontinent. Lahore is also home to another Sufi ‘heretic’ called Baba Bulleh Shah of Kasur (1691-1757) who could have been burnt on the stake if Najdi paymasters of our pulpit were around then. Lahore is the heart of Pakistan too. See how brutally it has been pulverised by alien dogmas and their bloodthirsty foot soldiers. Their hired assassins, killing dozens of devotees, bombed the shrine of another great Sufi saint, Data Gunj Bakhsh in Lahore. That madness also sadly destroyed a very delicate niche for peace and harmony in the hearts of millions of devotees and common Pakistanis. They cannot make out why the shrine of Data Sahib, who has been held in such great esteem for his piety and benevolence by generations after generations since 700 years, was attacked. This is that moral atrocity perpetrated by the Wahabist-Salafists and their fellow barbarians that one must resist with full resolve. They are bent upon uprooting the entire moorings and grand structure of our society, faith and civilisation. We are being dragged back to more than 800 years of evolution where arenas are being erected for executions of non-adherent other sects, heretics like Madho Lal Hussain, and delightfully outspoken men, like Baba Bulleh Shah. Again, Mansoor Hallaj would be beheaded, people will be persecuted for their faith and their robotic qazis would preside over communities of the mute and the dead, consigning them to the dark and damp dungeons forever.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

China and India as strategic partners

The economic rise of China and India, though it lags behind, is accompanied by a roughly commensurate rise in their political and military weight. Although they confront many problems at home encouraging overwhelming preoccupation with domestic political affairs, the growing relative power of these emerging economies has caused alarm in the United States and around the region about the potential of military strategic competition. There are American political leaders and strategists who argue for sharply divergent approaches toward China and India, a fashion that caught brief favour in countries like Japan and Australia a few years back.

This approach toward China as a strategic competitor and India as a strategic partner was never soundly based.

For one thing, the economics are driving India and China closer together — not further apart. China is becoming a larger and larger economic partner for India. China became India's largest trading partner in 2008, and India–China trade hit US$60 billion this year. The leaders have set a target of US$100 billion of two-way trade by 2015.

For another thing, it is not at all clear that China's and India's political and strategic interests are quite so differently aligned vis-à-vis those of the US as some might imagine or wish.

To those in Washington, Tokyo or Canberra, who incline to the Quad strategy (an 'alliance' of the US, Japan, India and Australia against China), not as a contingency but as some kind of in-your-face alternative to Chinese engagement, politically and militarily, it would do well to reflect upon the independent evolution and challenges of India's relationship with China. These are two powers with common borders, each with its own vulnerabilities, inexorably becoming increasingly economically complementary. As China and India growing share interests and objectives in global governance, the need to deal with each other's growing power in their own Asian space grows too.

This week's lead essay from George Gilboy and Eric Heginbotham argues (in a digest of the main argument of their new book from Cambridge University Press, Chinese and Indian Strategic Behavior: Growing Power and Alarm) that the view of China as a competitor against whom Washington — with India as its partner — should 'hedge' is altogether too simplistic. '[B]oth China and India will present the US with sustained challenges as well as opportunities in the coming years. Washington will need nuanced, if not distinct, approaches to each' in order to manage them, they say.

Gilboy and Heginbotham point out that there is no evidence to support the claim that the difference in domestic political systems — India's democracy versus China's one-party state — causes one or the other of them to be more or less likely to use force, build military power, seek trade advantages or pursue narrow self-interest.

'China has been involved in more militarised conflicts than India since 1949', they argue, but from 1980 to 2001 both have used force an equal number of times. China also has 'more maritime disputes than India and has recently raised regional concerns by more firmly asserting its claims. But China has moved further in negotiating territorial disputes than India'. On key issues relating to global governance, 'India is not markedly closer to the US than China. Indian and Chinese voting records in the UN General Assembly show that on issues related to Iran, Sudan, Burma, Middle East security and nuclear proliferation, China and India are often more closely aligned with each other than either is with the US'.

Both China and India are expanding their defence budgets, China not uniquely so.

China certainly remains more open to trade and foreign investment than India — India's foreign trade is five times smaller than that of China — and partners have levelled an equal number of complaints against them in the WTO.

China and India are also pursuing similar energy strategies via state firms and in developing economies.

Gilboy and Heginbotham warn that care should be taken in basing expectations of international behaviour on political ideals or domestic regime differences, and that policy makers should, rather, rely on a 'nuanced, pragmatic realism' as a guide to foreign policy. They suggest that the US ought to rebalance its India policy by building more robust economic and diplomatic foundations for it before delivering greater military and geostrategic support. They suggest that the US should maintain its deterrent capabilities in East Asia vis-à-vis China, at the same time, positioning 'military forces in ways that minimise the risk of provoking reactions that undermine — rather than buttress — stability'. The reality is, they conclude, that US dealing with both China and India will be best secured by prioritising the techno-economic challenge from these rising powers, primarily by pursuing domestic policies within the US that maintain or strengthen its existing technological and economic advantages.

The world of Asia's rising powers will be more complex than is often assumed, this analysis suggests, and unlikely to revolve around the singular challenge of balancing China's growing power.

Other recent articles in which you may be interested from the East Asia Forum are listed below. You can click the title of each one or visit www.eastasiaforum.org for daily content.

Peter Drysdale
Editor, East Asia Forum
16th July

Outgoing U.S. envoy - U.S. troops to stay on in Afghanistan till 2024 DAWN

WASHINGTON: A US plan to keep some combat troops and an effective air power in Afghanistan is having a positive impact not only on the internal situation but also Kabul’s neighbours, says a senior US diplomat. According to the plan, outlined recently in the US media, American troops will stay in Afghanistan until 2024 as Washington will not allow the Taliban to take over that country.

The Obama administration’s new Afghan policy, although already reported by various media outlets, has now also been confirmed by the outgoing US ambassador to Kabul, Ryan Crocker.

In two separate interviews to the US media this week; Mr Crocker made it clear that the American military — including some combat troops — will stay in Afghanistan for at least 10 years after the expected US withdrawal in 2014.

Reports in the US media say the troops will include Special Forces soldiers and an effective air power to contain the rebels.

In his interview to Wall Street Journal, Mr Crocker said the new plan was also acceptable to Pakistan, which recently allowed two Taliban representatives to travel to Japan to attend a June 28 international conference on Afghanistan.

Asked whether he thought the meeting represented a step for Afghan-to-Afghan reconciliation, Mr Crocker said: “There’s definitely smoke — and some fire.”

He noted that the Kyoto meeting may have had some tacit support from Pakistan, where much of the top Taliban leadership is based.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, he said, was likely keeping tabs on insurgents and their travels. “They had to get out of Pakistan to get there,” Mr Crocker said. “My guess is that the ISI said, ‘OK’.”

The US diplomat gave two reasons for this change in the ISI’s and Taliban’s attitude: One, Pakistan is increasingly feeling the ‘blowback’ of terrorism, two, the US plan to stay in Afghanistan at least up to 2024.

The US plan, he argued, had made it abundantly clear that Washington would not accept a Taliban takeover in Kabul.

Warm Regards
sanjeev nayyar

The 'Vivekananda Formula'

AK Bhattacharya
Business Standard, Jul 16,2012

(Cutting wings of the IAS)

Civil servants posted in New Delhi are fond of citing a famous story about Swami Vivekananda whenever questions are raised over the stranglehold of serving or retired IAS officers on regulatory jobs that come under the govt's ambit. The story may be apocryphal, but its significance in today's context of continuing IAS dominance is not lost on anyone.

One day, Vivekananda's teacher in school asked his students to reduce the length of the vertical straight line drawn on the blackboard without touching it in any way. The smart Vivekananda went up to the blackboard and drew another vertical straight line that was longer than the other.

The problem associated with the growing clout and presence of IAS officers can perhaps be traced to the absence of the Vivekananda formula. There could be many reasons the IAS network of officials has succeeded in creating its near-monopoly over several jobs within and outside the ministries, in addition to those of regulators. Periodically, the govt, too, has expressed concerns over such predominance that results in the exclusion of equally qualified and able candidates from non-IAS cadres. But the problem has remained largely unresolved.

So, why not create a more powerful service that can become a stronger magnet of attraction for talented people to join and get nominated to key positions? The clout of the IAS will continue to grow as long as you do not create a more powerful cadre of officers. For a govt that has failed to introduce any significant reform in the civil services, the task may look ambitious. But civil servants themselves also point out that the idea is worth exploring, since all other attempts or schemes to achieve the same goal have failed so far. If the IAS has succeeded in retaining its grip over key administrative positions in the entire country, it is largely because its members have not allowed any other cadre to either grow or acquire equal prominence in administration of ministries or even professional bodies under the govt.

Thus, the dept of statistics will rarely be headed by an officer from the Indian Statistical Service. Even the dept of revenue has, traditionally, been kept under the control of an IAS officer as its secretary, ignoring the claims of officials from the Indian Revenue Service. The story has been repeated in the law ministry. Where are the officers from the Indian Legal Service and why should they not be groomed and considered to head the law ministry? Indian Economic Service, too, has seen a steady decline, with few of its officials going up in the ladder to oversee the country's macro-economic management in the dept of economic affairs. This list can be much longer, but the point is clear. If the IAS dominance is not healthy as it has concentrated all power of administration in one elite service, then it is time the govt, like Vivekananda, created a new service, more powerful than the IAS.

Not that this thought completely bypassed policymakers in the govt in the past. The idea of the Industrial Management Pool, a cadre of professional managers selected from the private sector, was essentially aimed at creating a talent pool within the govt that could be more rich, effective and efficient than the generalist IAS officers. Some of the finest secretaries in the Union govt in the 1960s and 1970s belonged to the Industrial Management Pool, with professionals like DV Kapur and Lovraj Kumar heading economic ministries with distinction. At around the same time, an Indian Economic Service officer by the name of IG Patel headed the dept of economic affairs or Sharad Marathe, another IES officer, headed the industry ministry. IAS officers were still around then, but they had to compete with strong contenders for every job. An Indian Audits and Accounts Officer, R Ganapathy, could become the expenditure secretary. And a non-IAS officer like V Krishnamurthy could become the industry secretary.

Two things led to the gradual disappearance of competent non-IAS officers in the govt system:-

The IAS network became stronger, ensuring that no other all-India service got any fillip, incentives or support to pose any challenge to its dominance.

Two, the non-IAS all-India services failed to attract talent, reducing the ability and firepower of their bench strength.

There was a time when even the RBI had an informal quota for an IAS officer nominee for the post of a deputy governor. That practice has been discontinued in the last couple of decades. And this perhaps could happen also because the central bank paid more attention to build a strong cadre of its own officials. As a result, today RBI has its own cadre of officers who have been nurtured to grow within the organisation, reducing its dependence on outside talent for filling key vacancies.

The Vivekananda formula can work only if the govt starts paying attention to building in-house talent pool as an alternative to the IAS. Each regulatory body should invest time and energy in building cadres of officers who could grow and stake claim for even the top position. It is such pressure that will be the best antidote to the growing IAS dominance. The govt needs many more straight vertical lines that are longer than the IAS line, drawn long ago and one that remains virtually unchallenged.

Replay in Afghanistan by Nitin Pai

Insightful. It would be interesting to see how things eventually shape up in Afghanistan. It has deep implications for India.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/nitin-pai-replay-in-afghanistan/480509/

Do not be fooled by the thaw in relations between the United States and Pakistan. The breach is deep and, unlike past troughs in the bilateral relationship, this time it extends to mutual antipathy at a popular level. Also, an entire generation of military officers from both countries now sees the other as the enemy. It will take a lot of time, statesmanship and luck to restore ties to what they were even on September 10, 2001. If Washington has yielded to Pakistan’s demands for an apology for US troops killing Pakistani soldiers at Salala last year, it is only to ease the conditions for the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan.

Barack Obama has executed a very smart policy change — he has effectively dehyphenated Af-Pak by extricating the US from the long-running Afghan civil war and focusing Washington’s attention on Pakistan. The US will put in a genuine effort to mitigate the risk of a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, but will essentially leave Afghans to fight out their own affairs. It will, instead, maintain a security presence in the region, tasked with keeping military pressure on jihadi militants who pose a threat to its own security.

What does that imply?

First, as far as Washington is concerned, not just Hamid Karzai but even the post-2002 Afghan state is dispensable. If the Afghan state cannot secure itself against Taliban revolutionaries or other factions that seek to destroy it, Washington will not be concerned beyond a point. This message, as we will see, has (predictable) consequences.

Second, although the US will withdraw its troops in 2014, it is not in a form that the Pakistani military-jihadi complex expected. Pakistani generals had long assumed that US withdrawal from Afghanistan automatically implied that they could take over the place the next day through a combination of Mullah Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Haqqanis. They had also assumed that they held the cards because international forces depended on their goodwill to make a face-saving exit. President Obama has delivered the Pakistani generals a nasty surprise — the residual US presence on the Afghan side of the Durand Line and drone strikes on Pakistani soil will calibrate how much Pakistan can influence the security and stability of Afghanistan.

Third, as a consequence of Washington extricating itself from Afghanistan, we are bound to see political factions emerge around tribal and ethnic lines, fighting and allying among themselves and seeking external support. This process will strengthen if the Taliban were to either take or share power.

Let’s not forget that the mujahideen separated into factions after the Soviets left in 1989 and fought each other. Let’s also not forget that there was no “Northern Alliance” before the Taliban became a dominant political force. So just because there isn’t visible opposition to the Taliban today, it doesn’t follow that there won’t be one if they came to power. Just because Messrs Omar, Hekmatyar and Haqqani are Pakistan’s proxies today, it doesn’t follow that they won’t reach for each other’s throats tomorrow. Of course this means “civil war”, if only because the Afghan civil war has been ongoing for a couple of decades now.

Fourth, if and when the “civil war” does take place, the US will become the swing power between the China-Pakistan-Saudi and the India-Russia-Iran alignments. It has so far been engaged in the self-weakening business of preventing India, Russia and Iran from cooperating over Afghanistan. Washington will have to decide which side it intends to back.

The smart thing for it to do would be to back regional powers selectively, while retaining for itself the power and influence that come from its role as the balancer. For this, though, it will need to have better relations with each of these alignments than they have with each other. Therefore, its ability to swing will depend on whether it can get over its Iran dogma and work out a modus vivendi, at least in Afghanistan.

Fifth, if Pakistan need not keep appearances of being an ally in the war on terror, the military establishment might well prefer to install a regime that is to its liking. To the extent that the Pakistani army’s needs for an “acceptable civilian face” to extract money from the US are diminished, Imran Khan’s – and Hafiz Saeed’s – political fortunes are set to improve.

Finally, India will need to remain open to support political factions in Afghanistan that might seek New Delhi’s assistance, even while robustly backing the legitimate leadership of the Afghan state.

The most important risk to India’s national security comes from the spillover of veteran Afghan militants. In the early 1990s, Pakistan solved two problems at one go by diverting the surplus militant manpower to Jammu & Kashmir. Given that it has been unable to even begin addressing the problem of de-radicalising its militant manpower base, its leaders – both military and civilian – will be tempted to do the same now. The longer these militants have reason to fight in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the better it is for India. This should be one of New Delhi’s policy goals.

It’s time to dust off histories of Afghanistan in the 1990s.

Warm Regards
sanjeev nayyar