The slave’s dream

By Jawed Naqvi

“Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.” Arundhati Roy? Wrong. It’s Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar, the Dalit leader who wrote India’s republican constitution 60 years ago.

Chief Minister of Gujrat, Narendra Modi’s administration reinforces an Indian variant of apartheid. -Photo by AFP

Going by Ambedkar’s expressed fears, the Indian republic is like Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s Slave’s Dream. It was created by a people that were subjugated by colonialism and its republican ideals were shaped by a human rights pioneer who rose from the lowest layers of the country’s caste heap, a form of slavery in some ways more degrading than apartheid.

India celebrates its Republic Day each year with an hour-long display of military hardware, which of late has included dummies of nuclear-tipped missiles. The accompanying convoy of floats showcasing the country’s cultural variety (and humour) with everything ranging from ayurvedic massages to tribal dances, to harvest festivals is a more realistic sample of the country’s anarchy and depth than imported military arsenal, which guzzles depleted resources, annoys neighbours and contributes to keeping millions of Indians in penury and poor health.

Ambedkar’s fear of an inhospitable soil that deters rather than nurtures democracy if left to itself has been vindicated by the country’s sharp tilt to the right since 1990. His most entrenched detractors belong to the Hindu right, but the exigencies of the country’s caste arithmetic, which shores up the parliamentary system, compels them to woo his followers, if not his legacy.

That’s why it remained unclear on Tuesday, as to which was a bigger affront to India’s democracy – the inability of the state for the first time in 19 years to hoist the Indian flag in the alienated precincts of Srinagar’s Lal Chowk or a vaudeville staged by the chief minister of Gujarat who carried a giant replica of the Indian constitution on elephant back to display his sudden fondness for the rule of law.

“This is a historic moment for Gujarat, as the procession of the constitution is being taken out for the first time in Indian history,” Chief Minister Narendra Modi proclaimed not without dollops of irony. There was no remorse in his tone over the worst anti-Muslim pogrom his state witnessed, and for which he is being investigated.

Ambedkar had perhaps anticipated Modi’s antics, whose administration reinforces an Indian variant of apartheid, in which Muslims and Dalits have been driven to live in hidebound ghettoes. Let’s hear what Ambedkar had to say about a Republic Day he had helped create.

“On 26th January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one-man one-value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of democracy which this Constituent Assembly has so laboriously built up.”

“There is no nation of Indians in the real sense of the world. It is yet to be created. In believing we are a nation, we are cherishing a great delusion. How can people divided into thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realise that we are not yet a nation, in a social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us.”

“… My definition of democracy is – a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the social life are brought about without bloodshed. That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test. But when you are judging the quality of the material you must put it to the severest test. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow men…”

“A democratic form of government presupposes a democratic form of a society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy. It may not be necessary for a democratic society to be marked by unity, by community of purpose, by loyalty to public ends and by mutuality of sympathy.”

“But it does unmistakably involve two things. The first is an attitude of mind, and attitude of respect and equality towards their fellows. The second is a social organisation free from rigid social barriers. Democracy is incompatible and inconsistent with isolation and exclusiveness resulting in the distinction between the privileged and the unprivileged.”

“What we must do is not to content ourselves with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there is at the base of it a social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items. They form a union in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.”

“… On 26th January, 1950, India will be an independent country. What would happen to her independence? Will she maintain or will she lose it again? This is the first thought that comes to my mind. It is not that India was never an independent country. The point is that she once lost the independence she had. Will she lose it a second time? It is this thought which makes me most anxious for the future. What perturbs me greatly is the fact that not only has India once before lost her independence, but she lost it by treachery of some of her own people.”

“Will history repeat itself? It is this thought which fills me with anxiety. … Will Indians place the country above their creed or creed above their country? I do not know. But this much is certain that if the parties place creed above country, our independence will be put in jeopardy a second time and probably be lost forever. This eventuality we all must resolutely guard against. We must be determined to defend our independence with the last drop of our blood.”

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Indian role in Afghanistan needs to be spelt out: US

By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON: The United States urged India on Wednesday to be transparent with Pakistan about their activities in Afghanistan.

In a report sent to the White House in September, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who commands US and Nato force in Afghanistan, warned that “increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter measures.” – File photo

At a briefing at the Pentagon, spokesman Geoff Morrell also discounted Indian role in training Afghan security forces.

The Pentagon press secretary said that US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had discussed the Afghan situation with Indian leaders, including the issues that concerned Pakistan, when he visited New Delhi last week.

“We did discuss Afghanistan with the government in Delhi and discussed the need for the Indian government to be as transparent as they can be with the Pakistani government about their activities in Afghanistan,” he said.

Asked if the United States would like India to train Afghan security forces, Mr Morrell said that the international community was not contemplating any such role for India.

“They clearly have contributed much in the monetary sense, financial support to the government in Afghanistan and that is greatly appreciated by us, by the Afghans and, I think, by the international community,” said the Pentagon spokesman.

“But beyond that, I think, you saw him (Secretary Gates) speak to this talk of perhaps the Indians providing training to Afghan forces. And that is not something that we, that I think, anybody is pursuing at this point.”

Secretary Gates told reporters in New Delhi last week that India and Pakistan had deep suspicious about each other’s activities in Afghanistan and stressed the need for “full transparency”.

Pakistan complains that India is using its influence in Afghanistan to stir trouble in Balochistan and had also provided weapons and financial assistance to the militants in Fata.

Islamabad also sees India’s strong presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its own security, fearing that New Delhi is trying to bring pressure on Pakistan from both its eastern and western borders.

Initially, US policy-makers ignored Islamabad’s complaints. Instead, they continued to remind Pakistani officials that the militants, and not India, were their main enemy and they should focus on fighting the militants.

But attitudes in Washington began to change after a realisation that US efforts to persuade Pakistan to stop fearing India had not worked. In recent congressional hearings such senior US military officials as Admiral Mike Mullen and Gen David Petraeus admitted that Washington needed to be receptive to Islamabad’s concerns.

In a report sent to the White House in September, Gen Stanley McChrystal, who commands US and Nato force in Afghanistan, warned that “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan” and “the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian”.

The general also warned that “increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani counter measures”.

The McChrystal report also noted: “Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan. While the existence of safe havens in Pakistan doesn’t guarantee ISAF failure, Afghanistan does require Pakistani cooperation and action against violent militancy, particularly against those groups active in Afghanistan.”

Altaf Hussain’s Misperception about Balochistan

Sajjad Shaukat

Every responsible politician of the country knows that Pakistan has been facing multiple crises of grave nature in wake of suicide attacks and target-killings. At this critical juncture, instead of emphasizing national unity, Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) Chief Altaf Hussain said on January 19 that there are “plotters who are bent upon sowing the seeds of hatred between the Baloch and the MQM…these conspirators are trying to pit the Baloch against the MQM.” Under this misperception, he further alleged, “Balochistan is a province and should not be treated like a colony.” Ignoring ground realities, he also demanded that the military operation should be brought to an immediate end. Especially, it was his is telephonic address to eminent Baloch personalities whose sympathies, Altaf wants to gain at the cost of Pakistan.

Altaf’s address evoked an instant reaction a participant who drew his attention to the Gutter Bagheecha dispute between the Baloch of Karachi and the MQM in which noted Baloch persons were shot dead.

At the same time, while urging the government and the rebel Baloch nationalists to resolve differences through dialogue, MQM leader left no stone unturned in manipulating the drastic situation of Balochistan where terrorist events such as attacks on government buildings, kidnappings, blowing the gas pipelines and target-killings have become a routine matter.

In fact, through his duplicity, Altal Hussain has been implementing the shrewd diplomacy of Machiavelli who advises the leaders to have a lion-like image outwardly, and act upon the traits of goat inwardly. In his sense, a good leader should be a good opportunist. Although Machiavelli suggests this cunning diplomacy in order to protect the overall interests of the state, yet Altaf has started applying the same for disintegration of Pakistan’s federation.

However, the main of Altaf Hussain’s statement was to give an indirect signal to the separatist elements so as to intensify their anti-Pakistan move.

As regards the province of Balochistan, we cannot blame MQM chief without some concrete evidence. In this regard, silence of Altaf over the foreign conspiracy against Balochistan clearly shows that he is encouraging the anti-state elements, and his integrity is doubtful.

It is notable that in 2008, Pakistan’s government had launched a successful approach of reconciliation particularly with the Baloch landlords. The level of violence had fallen to the minimum. It was in these circumstances that the then Corps Commander, Lt-Gen Khalid Shamim Wyne had claimed on November 9, 2008, “We have moved from the insurgency phase to the reconciliation phase, however, if foreign elements continue to infiltrate in Balochistan, they could stir trouble and undermine our efforts to restore peace.” His observation proved quite true as covert support to the militants by the secret agencies like Indian RAW, Israeli Mossad and Afghanistan’s Khad with the tactical aid of American CIA succeeded in sabotaging the peace process in Balochistan.

It is of particular attention that after meeting the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit at Sharm el-Sheikh, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani remarked on July 18, 2009 that during the talks, he also raised the issue of Indian interference in Balochistan.

In this context, on April 23 last year, in the in-camera sitting of the Senate, Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik displayed documentary evidence of Indian use of Afghanistan to create unrest in Balochistan. The main aim of in-camera session was also to show the engagement of CIA against Pakistan.

In the recent past, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi have openly stated that India and some external elements are backing the Baloch separatists. During the ongoing military operations, ISPR spokesman, Maj-Gen. Athar Abbas, while showing to the media larger quantity of arms and ammunition, revealed that foreign hands has been helping the insurgents of the Frontier Province and especially those of Balochistan.

Apart from the above facts, as to why MQM chief is taciturn in relation to the external plot against Balochistan which is part of the conspiracy against Pakistan because the latter is the only Islamic nuclear state-not tolerated by the US, India and Israel. In this respect, by covertly backing the Baloch nationalist leaders, foreign elements have been fulfilling a number of covert designs. While foreign agents kidnap and kill the political leaders in Balochistan and elsewhere, but Baloch people, openly, accuse Pakistan’s intelligence agencies in this context. This is what these external plotters intend to achieve. Another purpose is to gain the sympathies of Baloch general masses for Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) which has been fighting for secession of the province. In this regard, on July 23, 2008, Akber Bugti’s grandson, Brahmdagh Bugti told the BBC that they had the right to accept arms from anywhere including India.

There is another CIA and Indian-supported separatist group, Jundollah (God’s soldiers) which is also working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, its militants with the cooperation of foreign agents kidnapped and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan.

In this regard, question arises as to why MQM leader Altaf did not issue any statement about the involvement of RAW and other foreign agencies which are tying to separate Balochistan in order to fulfill their anti-Pakistan aims.

The unrest actually started in Balochistan when various projects such as construction of Gwadar Deep Sea Port, Mekran Coastal Highway, IPI gas project etc. were undertaken by the previous government to develop the backward regions of the province. The sole aim was to eliminate frustration among the people by providing infrastructure and employment opportunities.

The Baloch Sardars (feudal lords) who are being backed by external powers started opposing all the developmental projects. These Sardars who were running their own private jails and ‘farrari camps’ resisted the government plans as they did not want to give up the old system of feudal lords, which the world had witnessed during the Middle Ages. However, Baloch Sardars became hostile towards any initiative which could give a greater blow to their so-called prestige entailing brutalities, being perpetrated on the innocent people. These Sardars contacted the foreign elements which were already conspiring against Pakistan.

Meanwhile, MQM chief’s opposition to the military operation in Balochistan is quite illogical. It was Pak Army which eliminated the farrari camps and private jail of the Baloch Sardars, and thus set free hundreds of innocent people.

Notably, as to why strategic game, being played by India and America is not known to Altal Hussain who does not take cognizance of the fact that Balochistan with its ideal geo-strategic location with Gwadar seaport could prove to be Pakistan’s key junction, connecting rest of the world with Central Asia. It is due to multiple strategic benefits that the US which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to control Balochistan as an independent state in counterbalancing China and containing Iran. Owing to these reasons, Washington and New Delhi are creating instability in Pakistan by supporting Baloch separatists to complete their hidden agenda.

In that backdrop, on October 15, 2008 Pakistan and China signed eleven agreements to enhance bilateral cooperation in diverse sectors including energy, trade and space technology. China also agreed to supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan. From time to time, both Beijing and Islamabad conclude various agreements to further strengthen their mutual cooperation.

Besides silence of Altaf on the kidnappings and killings of Iranians and Chinese engineers in the last three years also displays his double standard which itself indicates that he is only deepening rift between the people of Balochistan and the Centre.

It is noteworthy that on August 8, 2007, Major (Retd) Tanvir Hussain, the parliamentary secretary for defence accused the American CIA of killing Chinese nationals in Pakistan to harm the cordial relations between Islamabad and Beijing.

Despite the recently announced Balochistan package, and the settlement of issues, relating to National Finance Commission in favour of Balochistan by the government, Altaf Hussain’s misperception is not without sinister designs. He may criticise the policies of the government to increase his vote bank, but in order to get the sympathies of the Baloch by encouraging them through his own self-assumed perceptions amounts to incitement of the Baloch people for secession which in fact proves his conspiracy against Pakistan.

President in Punjab

Dear Sajjad Ahmad
January 23rd, 2010

A controversy is going on in the media about the absence of Sharif brothers from Punjab at the time of President’s visit to Lahore. A general perception is that the CM undertook a tour abroad and prolonged it there till the President was back in Islamabad just to avoid subjecting himself to the protocol warranted of him. This perception got further impetus when Mr. Zardari, ostensibly noticing his absence, vengefully told a PPP crowd that he would visit Punjab every month and hold open kechehries where all ministers would be present and personally answerable to their problems. Such a headlong confrontation between a federating unit chief executive and the symbol of federation is highly undesirable, to say the least.

The question arises did the President visit Punjab on an official tour or went there on his own to hold party meetings in his capacity of being its Co-Chairman. If it was an official tour it must have been planned well in advance and the Punjab government must have been involved in arranging the protocol, security, logistics and administration etc. for the visiting President. In such a case the absence of the Chief executive of the province is highly objectionable. But, if the visit was a private jaunt as is Mr. Zardari’s wont to visit Shanghai, Dubai and London then Mr. Shahbaz Sharif cannot be much ! blamed f or being away from the province. In any case it is unfortunate and shouldn’t have happened.

Truly

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

NA adopts Anti-Money Laundering Bill 2009

* Bill suggests one to ten years imprisonment, fine up to Rs 1m for violators
* Fine may extend to Rs 5m in case of a company and any employee found guilty

By Tahir Niaz

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly adopted the Anti-Money Laundering Bill 2009 on Wednesday proposing one to 10-year imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 1 million for violation of the law.

The bill was moved by Minister of State for Finance and Revenue Hina Rabbani Khar. Mentioning the objectives of the bill, the minister said the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the Asian Pacific Group, which are responsible for monitoring compliance of AML/Combating Financing Terrorism (CFT) regime by member countries, had raised serious reservations on certain provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Bill 2007. “This required necessary review and changes in the law to bring it in line with international standards,” she said, adding that amendments to the bill were also part of conditionalities under Pakistan’s Accelerating Economics Transformation Programme of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

She said in order to meet requirements indicated by internal bodies and lending institutions, the proposed amendments address and broadly provide for the law’s applicability in the area of countering financing of terrorism, expansion in the list of predicate offences and modifying the definition of money laundering in line with the internationally accepted standards.

For punishments, the bill provides that whoever commits offences of money laundering will be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which will not be less than one year but may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to Rs one million and shall also be liable to forfeiture of property involved in the money laundering.

Company: It further provides that the aforesaid fine may extend to Rs five million in case of a company and every director, officer or employee of the company found guilty under this section, shall also be punishable under this section.

Under the bill, the federal government shall constitute a financial monitoring unit that will have independent decision-making authority on day-to-day matters coming within its areas of responsibility.

For the investigating officers, the bill provides that any officer exercising powers under this bill or any rules made under it, who, without prior permission of the court surveys or searches or causes to be surveyed or searched, any building or place; or detains or searches or arrests any person, shall for every such offence be liable, on conviction, for a term which shall may extend to two years or fine which may extend to Rs 50,000 or both.

The House also passed the Pakistan Engineering Council (Amendment) Bill 2009, further to amend the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975. The Bill was presented to the House in pursuance of the Supreme Court orders.

Afghan president Hamid Karzai urges West to buy off the Taliban

Christina Lamb in Washington and Miles Amoore in Wardak

After giving up on winning victory in Afghanistan by military means, the international community is resorting to the centuries-old method of buying its way out.

In London this week, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, will launch a British and American-backed plan for “reintegration” of the Taliban and call for international funding to offer jobs and bribes to bring insurgents in from the cold.

The conference, which starts on Thursday, will be the first big international gathering on Afghanistan since President Barack Obama announced his military strategy last month, including a surge of 30,000 American troops.

The aim was to accompany the surge with a new political strategy and ways for the Afghans to provide their own security by setting up local militias, which could include former Taliban.

With intelligence reports warning that Taliban influence is spreading, both aims now appear in jeopardy.

Divisions between civilian and military officials have led to a reported suspension of the militia programme, while Karzai’s newly appointed cabinet is regarded by many as even more corrupt than his last. Failure to offer effective government is seen as a critical factor in growing Taliban influence.

In Wardak, a province bordering Kabul, the risks of adopting American tactics are clear. Over the past two years, Karzai’s government has gradually lost control of the province to the Taliban.

Most local religious leaders are now bankrolled by the insurgents but one, Mullah Azizul Rahman Sediqi, known as “Super Mullah”, pledged his full support for a US-sponsored plan to arm militiamen so they could fight back.

He has since lived in constant fear of assassination. First the Taliban planted a bomb inside the mullah’s mosque. He removed the crude device and took it to a nearby field to detonate. Days later the Taliban fired mortars at his home, blowing out the windows.

Some believe the creation of militia forces in areas where the Afghan police force, army and Nato troops are too thinly spread – or too unpopular to maintain control – could be a critical part of handing over control of security to Afghans.

The first government-sponsored local militia in Wardak was set up last March in Jalez district and has doubled in size in the past 10 months to a force of more than 350.

Its commander, Mohammed Ali, claims his men, a ragtag bunch of lightly armed villagers aged from 17 to 50, have recaptured most of the villages in the district, pushing the Taliban into the barren mountains that surround it.

But despite repeated assurances of improved security, it was not possible to travel to the district last week without an armed escort.

“The Taliban still use the mountains to fire grenades at our convoys,” Ali explained with a toothless grin as he squatted in one of his mud-hut checkpoints on the road into Jalez. “They lay IEDs [improvised explosive devices] on the route into the district and ambush us.”

Hopes that Karzai would boost the prospects for security by cleaning up his administration were set back by the announcement of his new cabinet. Ten of his 17 nominees were rejected by parliament this month.

“I don’t think it’s a weaker government but it’s not as strong as it could have been,” David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said in Washington last week. However, he insisted: “The alternatives to this very, very difficult project in which we’re engaged are worse.”

Many people were disappointed with a government they regarded as weaker, according to Barmak Pazhwak, Afghan officer for the US Institute of Peace. “It’s more corrupt and more full of local power groups who Karzai did deals with to get elected,” he said.

Miliband insists the international community can exert leverage by withholding funds from ministries that don’t perform.

But the West’s toothlessness was highlighted by Karzai’s failure to take any action against his half-brother, Ahmed Wali, widely regarded as one of the biggest drug lords in southern Afghanistan.

In a gloomy prognosis for 2010, Major-General Michael Flynn, the most senior allied intelligence officer in Afghanistan, has warned that the Taliban have tightened their grip on the civilian population and believe they have only to keep on blowing up soldiers to achieve victory.

Last Monday, the Taliban showed their ability to penetrate the capital with a series of attacks that killed 20 and injured 70, leaving a shopping centre in flames.

Western officials tried to put a positive spin on the assault, pointing out that in contrast to the last big attack in October on a UN guest house, Afghan troops arrived on the scene promptly, taking on the insurgents and preventing wider bloodshed.

Given the spread of Taliban influence, however, it is unclear how much support there will be for Karzai’s reintegration plan to persuade Taliban militants to switch sides.

Central to the plan will be a grand peace council. This will include representatives from all sectors of Afghan society, including religious leaders, with the aim of giving armed opponents a guarantee that their views will be heard.

“The government will provide the Taliban and other insurgent groups who wish to respect the constitution a dignified way to renounce violence and peacefully reintegrate into their communities,” says a draft version of the plan.

The international community has insisted that key Taliban leaders such as Mullah Mohammed Omar would not be part of any such plan. “The red line is links to Al-Qaeda,” Miliband said. But the document offers “key leaders of the Taliban movement” an opportunity for amnesty and reintegration.

Aside from differences between nations over who to negotiate with, there is scant evidence that the Taliban wish to come in from the cold.

US officials admit that it was a bad tactical error for President Obama to cite a target date of July 2011 to start withdrawing troops in his speech announcing the surge.

The date, which was inserted by the White House at the last minute to assuage disgruntled Democrats, has led the Taliban and their backers in Pakistan to believe they just have to wait.

“The Taliban are telling the local population the Americans will be gone in 18 months and we’ll be in charge so you better not cross us or we’ll kill you,” said an adviser to General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan.

McChrystal is circulating among his field commanders a paper written by a special forces major called “one tribe at a time”, which backs partnerships with tribal militias.

But reports yesterday claimed that the US had suspended the militias, fearing they could lead to the creation of new warlords. According to The New York Times, Hanif Atmar, the Afghan interior minister, said that while some of the militias had been effective in combating the Taliban, others were out of control.

“In Kunduz, after they defeated the Taliban in their villages, they became the power and they took money and taxes from the people,” he said.

Troops target opium town

American patrols were probing Taliban defences this weekend around a town of mud-walled compounds that may become the first big battlefield of the American “surge” in Afghanistan.

Their target is Marjah, a Taliban-controlled farming town in Helmand province that is expected to be the focus of an American-led offensive in coming weeks.

“It’s been clear for weeks about the need to clear out Marjah, so that’s going to happen,” said Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, during a tour of the province.

The Americans plan to field three battalions against fighters in the town, 380 miles southwest of Kabul. They will be joined by units of the Afghan national army. Some of the 9,500 British troops in Helmand are expected to mount a parallel operation.

About 30,000 troops will pour into Afghanistan as President Barack Obama’s “surge” intensifies.

Military sources believe the Taliban may fight to hold Marjah, because it lies at the heart of Helmand’s opium production.

US marines are gathering intelligence in advance of any battle. On Friday, three squads of the marines’ 1st battalion, 6th Regiment, were fired on from nearby houses as they moved into a desiccated poppy field.

Additional reporting: Michael Smith

Wars without heroes

MERCENARIES PRODUCE NO HEROES

Iftikhar A Khan

The war in Iraq has entered its seventh year and in Afghanistan its ninth year. Yet both imperialist wars have so far failed to produce any ‘war heroes’ to extol. During the Second World War, one of the Royal Air Force ace pilots prided in shooting down six Axis powers fighter planes in one dogfight and was awarded an appropriate gallantry award; no such heroic deeds by the coalition forces have come to fore in Iraq and Afghanistan. As both Muslim countries have neither regular armies nor air forces to offer any modicum of resistance against the massive onslaught of US-led NATO forces, there’re no tales of heroism related to the Western troops. These forces only pick up their dead and grievously wounded soldiers to ship them back home. The dead are given a quiet burial without eulogising their achievements in the battlefield.

In fact, to portray the nation as humane and civilised, the US has banned showing the pictures and footage of dead heroes reaching home in body bags. Does it depict West’s guilt instead of pride in waging unprovoked, unjustified wars against an invisible enemy? Otherwise, why would the two imperialist powers downplay their heroes? Even the wounded soldiers grumble about maltreatment by the civilians.

Former British chief of general staff, Gen Richard Dannit, complained that retuning soldiers often felt ‘devalued’ with a sense of alienation measured in alcohol, drug addiction, divorce, suicide and imprisonment. Sometimes the civilians mock the returning soldiers. Now there’s stark difference between a national war and a corporate war. National wars enjoy the support of the majority of their population; corporate wars are driven by the naked greed of military hardware manufacturers, oil corporations, security companies, and entities that profit from massacring innocent men, women and children of the weaker nations. The corporate wars are ventures in which politicians particularly in the US democratic system, who decide to launch wars, are indebted to corporations, which donate funds for their election campaigns. Were such sleazy donations prohibited, the war scenario would change, sanity would prevail, and victimised nations spared the bloodbath.

But peace doesn’t seem at hand in the near future despite President Obama’s intention to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2011. On the one hand he intends to withdraw while on the other he has asked the Congress for an additional $33 billion to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan besides the whopping $708 billion for defence next year. And the Pentagon urgently wants to acquire more Predator and Reaper drones for surveillance and attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan to go on until 2013 – one reason why Richard Holbrook recently dismissed offhand the possibility of ending drone flights that cause slaughter of innocent people in the tribal areas. It’s well known that CIA operates the drone flights. So it’s a covert war being fought against an undefined enemy, call it counterinsurgency, counterterrorism or whatever. There’s no dearth of misleading names attached to the war, but at the bottom it remains a war of occupation by the foreign troops and war of freedom by the Afghan people whose land has been occupied. In other words, Afghans are refuges in their own territory.

Therefore, these wars will not produce heroes. Can a CIA operative in the US who pushes the joystick button to launch hellfire missiles by a Predator or a Reaper drone to kill mostly innocent people in mud hamlets in FATA be called a war hero? If such an operator is killed, as were the seven in Khost recently, how would he be eulogised; how would his requiem sound like? Similarly, if Worldwide XE mercenaries known as the defence contractors, whose strength in Afghanistan exceeds regular US troops, are killed, how would they be honoured with medals of valour? Perhaps the time has come when, instead of uniformed soldiers being decorated for gallantry, nameless, faceless operators of intelligence agencies will embellish the medals of honour on their chests. Even the drones could lay claim to gallantry awards.

Pakistan acts to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan

* Islamabad believes India is looking to Afghanistan for destabilising Pakistan

By Sajjad Malik

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has successfully mobilised the defunct six-plus-two talks formula to counter the US pressure regarding giving India a “greater role” in warn-torn Afghanistan’s rehabilitation.

Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours – Pakistan, Iran, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, as well as the US, are meeting today (Tuesday) in Turkey to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and to take stock of measures for the restoration of peace in the country.

The original “six-plus-two” also included Russia, but in the new set up Moscow representation has been replaced by the United Kingdom.

The Chinese foreign minister and senior officials from Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan will attend the conference, which will also be attended by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke’s deputy, Paul Jones.

Diplomatic sources said Pakistan has been lobbying for the renewal of talks among Afghanistan’s neighbours in order to foil Indian designs of gaining a foothold on Afghan soil.

Pakistan believes India is not an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan and therefore should have limited role in the country.

Turkey has been asked to convene the meeting, as it enjoys the backing and trust of Pakistan and is accepted as a neutral party for promoting a common approach to the conflict. The conference will urge regional players to work together in order to stabilise Afghanistan and the region.

The revival of the talks group has come at a crucial juncture – on Thursday, around 50 nations will be meeting at the London Conference to discuss the Afghan issue and deliberate on measures to help the war-ravaged nation.

The organisers of the London Conference, like the US, are trying to convince Pakistan on accepting the greater Indian role in Afghanistan.

Destabilisation: “It is not possible for us to give India a role in Afghanistan as it is using Afghan soil to destabilise Pakistan. Also, India has been traditionally aligned with Russia and played a part in the destruction of Afghanistan,” sources said. They said the last meeting of the six-plus-two group was held before the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban had agreed to give 80 percent of representation in the Afghan government to the Northern Alliance. “Since then, fortunes have reversed and the Taliban have lost the government. Now the six-plus-two group will try to pave the way for the participation of the Taliban in the new government,” sources said.

The coalition forces badly need breathing space in Afghanistan following a deadly 2009, in which the force lost at least 504 soldiers, including 305 US and 108 British troops. Sources said US-led forces were giving a thought to Pakistan’s viewpoint on the Afghan conflict, an idea substantiated by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ statement during a recent visit to Pakistan that said that Washington was with Pakistan and supported its efforts for peace in Afghanistan.

The presence of both the UK and the US at the Turkish initiative speaks volumes about their interest in a regional solution.

Poverty And Wealth

By A. Srinivas

Among the developing countries, India stands in the second position, since six decades, on which way is this Indian Democracy moving? Answer to this is, on one side increase in poverty and on the other side increase in assets being centralized in the hands of few, this is our democracy. United Nations Organizations (UNO) has long back reported as, “The absence of income is not the only reason for poverty, but non-availability of facilities such as education, health, proper employment, absence of peoples’ participation in politics is also poverty.” But in India caste is also one of the undeniable reasons for poverty.

United Nations Organizations (UNO) has long back reported as, “The absence of income is not the only reason for poverty, but non-availability of facilities such as education, health, proper employment, absence of peoples’ participation in politics is also poverty.” But in India caste is also one of the undeniable reasons for poverty.

The World Bank did research in various countries considering the peoples earning of 1.5 dollars per day as norm for the study of poverty, but in the past only 1 dollar was considered as criterion but later it was revised to 1.5 Dollars. The estimation of Indian poverty data is based on this study. There are 140 crores of people world wide, whose daily earnings are less than 1.2 dollars (approximately 55 rupees). Wherein, Indian population is more than 100 crores, 45 crores 60 lakhs of these kinds of people are found in India. According to Arjun Sen Gupta committee, 80% of the people live depending on Rs. 20 per day. Due to the drastic increase in the rates of essential commodities from 2005 onwards, the life has become burden to the lower middle class and middle class people as well. 20 crores of people sleep with empty stomach everyday because they do not have anything to eat. To eradicate hunger, India is in the 94th position, and is backward than the neighboring countries such as China and Pakistan.

In India out of 100 new born infants, 67 of them die within a year, 93 of them die within 5 years. One of the reasons according to 2004 report is, out of Gross national Income, only a small percentage is spent on peoples health.

Another thing is out of 194 countries, only 4 countries are spending less than us on health. We are not even in the position of spending 2% of GDP on health.

One, out of five children dying world wide, within five years of age is from our country. According to UNICEF report, ten lakhs of children die every year. In our country 5 lakhs of infants die within 28 days, 60% of women deliver at homes; 78 thousand of women die during pregnancy and delivery.

India is in top position in the case of child labour. 12.6 million Children’s childhood is being destroyed, who are working in various sectors. Poverty is seed bed for child labour. Among them children of rural areas are working as agricultural labour and bonded labour. In urban areas 58% of children are working in hazardous industries. In the education field, among the 100 children admitted in 1st class, only 53% of them reach till 10th class, and 38% reach till degree level. Only 7% of the students are studying higher education (IIM, IIT, MBA).

In fact where did the development and wealth go which was achieved in 60 years? What happened to the efforts, resources and wealth earned by crores of people? A new group of upper middle class emerged in India, which is in 2nd position among the developing countries. Multi storied buildings appeared in big number. Salaries are increasing, therefore consumerism also increased.

IT, BPO sectors created jobs on big scale. The things seen such as resorts, hotels, corporate hospitals, shopping malls, international schools, foreign tours, modern cars, mobiles are only the assets.

The biggest exploitation known in the Human history which got publicity during the time of 2009 elections is of the black money hidden in Swiss bank. 1,50,000 crores dollars i.e. Rs.75,00,000 (seventy five lakhs of crores) of Indian black money is in Swiss bank. This lakhs of crores of money, which is earned in illegal ways by political leaders, corporate, business sectors and corrupted higher officials, is hidden in Swiss bank since many years. Apart from this, still thousands of crores of black money is in our country itself. Our foreign loan is more than 12,50,000 crores, which means the black money in Swiss bank is 5 times more than that of the Indian foreign loan. In this lakhs of crores of money more than 100 crores is of Indians. It was pretended that the efforts are being done to bring back money from Swiss bank. But it seems the UPA government is not interested in doing so.

Our constitution builders clearly stated that the wealth should be decentralized; if wealth is consolidated then the rights provided by the state will be violated. Contrary to this, all the money went into the hands of few people. According to the Forbes Magazine, (Millionaires list) in this list not only Indians names got place but their number as millionaires also increased.

Ours is a starvation country, where more than six lakhs of farmers and weavers attempted suicide and died country wide, who is responsible for these deaths? Who is responsible for this poverty? The statistics clearly visible to us are in the form of declining faith of people on electoral political system. The reason for all this is, if The World Bank, American policies are one aspect; in the matter of destructive development, all the parties possess same type of political acceptance in our country. Party agenda are different, faces are different, but the policies are the same. There is an urgent need to make people aware of their rights and to make people conscious of the importance of the constitutional values and benefits.

A. Srinivas is Human Rights Activist.

India’s Dirty Secret Flushed Out

India is committing a billion US dollars in Afghanistan. This Indian generosity is not seen anywhere else. Not even inside India itself, where the world’s largest poverty and health problems exist. The US is now inviting India to send cheap soldiers to Afghanistan to rescue the Americans where NATO and the British won’t help. The argument that US and Indian officials often make is about how humanitarian this Indian aid is. What they forget to mention is that it is purely driven by India’s desire to secure Afghan soil for espionage against Pakistan. The Americans know this and it is obvious that want India in Afghanistan in order to maintain this occupied country as a military and intelligence outpost to destabilize the region. [Editor-PakNationalists].

More than half of Indian population defecate in the open. More households have TV than toilets.
Rhys Blakely | Times UK
POSTED BY PKKH

It is possibly the worst job in the world, a task so disgusting, demeaning and dangerous that it has been illegal for 17 years.

However, at least 340,000 Indians (a conservative government estimate – other experts reckon the figure is close to a million) are forced to scrape a living by cleaning up other people’s excrement.

In 1993, the practice of employing a “manual scavenger” – a job description that masks the rank grossness of the work with an Orwellian flourish – was outlawed in India. So was the building of “dry latrines” – the kind that have no flush, have to be emptied by hand, and breed diseases.

The dirty truth, however, is that three government deadlines to eradicate manual scavenging, the most recent on March 31 2009, have passed. Dry latrines are still being dug all over the country, in both rural and urban areas.

A shortage of water and space and a lack of reliable sewage systems often make them the easiest, cheapest option.

At issue, however, is more than the woeful state of infrastructure in India, a country where 660 million people still defecate in the open and more households have TV sets than have proper toilets. For the persistence of scavenging speaks to the robustness of the centuries-old caste system as much as to a chronic lack of basic sanitation.

A new report by WaterAid, an NGO, highlights the how almost all manual scavengers are Dalits, the group at the bottom of the caste hierarchy, who were formerly known as Untouchables. About 80 per cent are women.

“They will often have inherited their ‘scavenging rights’ and been tasked from an early age with removing human waste from public or private toilets, which have no flushing system, to dispose of elsewhere. Men who are scavengers usually have to manually clean out sewers and septic tanks. Scavengers are paid a pittance and treated with disdain and social stigmatism,” the study says.

Ninety per cent of scavengers have no protective equipment. Diseases such as dysentery, malaria, typhoid and tuberculosis are common. Men sent down the sewers in T-shirts and loincloths often die from inhaling toxic fumes.

Social taboos complicate the business of rehabilitation. In a small village, it is hard for a former scavenger to shrug off her past. If she tries to start a small business, it is likely to be boycotted by members of higher castes.

Even before she gets that far, however, there is the issue of self worth to overcome. “Imagine how a life spent picking up s*** affects your confidence,” says Indira Khurana, the report’s co-author and WaterAid’s head of policy in India. “For these people to stand up for their rights is a difficult thing.”

Some activists suggest that what scavengers really need is relocation programmes, so they can start new lives in places where they are not known and not burdened by the accident of their birth. It sounds like something out of a spy novel, but the stigma that follows these people around is that great, they suggest.

In some areas, imaginative thinking has produced results. The mothers of the northern state of Haryana, for instance, have adopted a simple message for men who call on their daughters: “No toilet; no bride”.

The government-initiated slogan – often lengthened in Hindi to something like “if you don’t have a proper toilet in your house, don’t even think about marrying my daughter” – has been plastered on hoardings across the region’s villages as part of a drive to boost the number of proper flush lavatories.

The campaign is one of the most successful efforts to combat India’s chronic shortage of proper plumbing, local officials claim – probably because a skewed sex ratio (there are more 8 per cent more men than women) means brides are gaining more leverage in marital bargaining while women have come to resent having to defecate outside under the cover of darkness.

About 1.4 million toilets have been built in the state since it was begun in 2005, many of them with significant government subsidies. “We have more toilets, less shame among women and less disease,” said S. K. Monda, the local government official in charge of the programme.

The Haryana project offers a ray of hope that helps explain why Ms Khurana is optimistic. She says that the new India – the India that has a world-class IT industry and a space programme – is ashamed of its caste-defined past. She thinks that political pressure – Dalits constitute a powerful vote bank – is mounting and can force change – and that schemes where community members pitch in to build proper flush lavatories have been proven viable.

She also reckons that an extensive study that will document the number of scavengers in detail will expose false claims by several state governments that they have eradicated the practice and force them to act.

It is to be hoped that she is right. But even if she is, the world’s worst job seems certain to exist for some years yet.

Also read: India Drowning In Its Own Excrement

Fewer than 10 percent of Indian cities have a sewage system. Some 665 million Indians practice open defecation, more than half the global total. In China, the world’s most populous country, 37 million people defecate in the open, according to Unicef. Incredible indeed.

Australian sentenced to death in Afghanistan

By ROHAN SULLIVAN
Associated Press Writer

SYDNEY – An Australian security contractor has been sentenced to death in Afghanistan for fatally shooting an Afghan colleague and trying to blame the slaying on the Taliban, Australian and Afghan officials said Wednesday.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said his government would try to prevent the former Australian soldier from being executed – an act that could raise tensions between Afghanistan and its largest non-NATO contributor of international security forces.

Australia strongly opposes the death penalty and regularly lobbies governments to commute the sentences of Australians convicted abroad of capital crimes.

Australian Robert William Langdon, 38, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death last October in a court in Kabul, and an appeals court upheld the verdict last week, Australian officials said Wednesday. They were confirming a media report Wednesday that detailed the case for the first time.

The Australian newspaper reported that Langdon was working for U.S.-based private security company Four Horsemen International and had admitted killing the Afghan guard last May during a heated argument about security for a convoy.

The newspaper said the convoy was ambushed by suspected Taliban in Wardak province south of Kabul but escaped to the provincial capital, where the two men argued about whether to continue.

Langdon told the court he shot the Afghan guard in self-defense as he reached for his pistol, though other witnesses disputed this account, the newspaper said. The court also heard that Langdon threw a hand grenade into the truck carrying the guard’s body and ordered other guards to fire into the air to simulate a Taliban attack, it said.

Abdul-Salam Kazi Zada, an official at the Kabul appeals court, gave a slightly different account to The Associated Press. He said the convoy had stopped around sundown during a trip from Kabul to volatile Ghazni province and that the Afghan guard, Mohammad Karim, had quarreled with the Australian, saying it was not safe to go on.

He said the Australian shot Karim with a Kalashnikov rifle, put the body in the back of a vehicle, and the convoy continued on. At some point, the convoy stopped again and the Australian instructed other guards to fire in the air, and threw a grenade into the back of the vehicle carrying Karim’s body, Zada said.

He said Langdon reported to authorities that the convoy had come under ambush, but that other guards told authorities that the ambush was staged. The Australian was arrested at the airport as he tried to leave the country, Zada said.

Rudd said Wednesday that Australian officials were lobbying the Afghan government for clemency for Langdon, but played down the chances of success.

“I don’t think it would be wise to predict or project the effectiveness of any particular intervention by me,” Rudd told Fairfax Radio.

Australia has around 1,500 troops in Afghanistan battling Taliban insurgents and training Afghan security forces – the largest international contingent outside the U.S.-European alliance.

Just a handful of Australians have been executed overseas in recent years, mostly for drug crimes. Most recently, Van Tong Nguyen was hanged in Singapore in 2005 for heroin importation despite top-level appeals from the government.

Langdon’s family said in a statement Wednesday he was appealing the latest ruling and his lawyers were conducting negotiations aimed at “forestalling possible serious penalties.” It did not elaborate.

Langdon could escape execution by striking a deal to pay compensation to the victim’s family under a principle known as ibra, or forgiveness, that is recognized in Afghanistan and some other countries governed by Islamic laws.

The family said it would not comment further on the case because it could jeopardize the negotiations and appeal.

Associated Press writer Amir Shah in Kabul contributed to this report.

India’s cricket blunder

Snubbing Pakistani cricketers to make a point in Islamabad is not a clever deployment of Indian soft power

Kapil Komireddi

Cricket used to be a charmingly lazy sport which gave its players the illusion of activity. But since the advent of the Indian Premier League, cricket has been transmogrified into a vulgar event in which the centerpiece itself is often pushed to the periphery. The IPL’s fixtures are sustained by fireworks, film stars, and blonde cheerleaders imported from America; there is even a beauty pageant, “Miss IPL”, whose winner is promised a role in a movie opposite one of the owners of the franchises. At best, the IPL is glamorous circus, a kitschified form of cricket, not serious sport.

Last week, the ringmasters of the circus put on a nauseating display of discrimination. At an auction to pick the players for the eight franchises that compete in the IPL, not a single Pakistani player was recruited. Pakistan reacted furiously. Mobs mobilised quickly to burn effigies of Lalit Modi, the head of the IPL; charges were levelled against the Indian government for conspiring to keep Pakistan out; and a parliamentary delegation due to visit India abruptly cancelled its trip.

If Pakistanis are calling the exclusion of their cricketers a conspiracy, it is because it looks very much like one. The IPL initially claimed that a potential problem with visas was the reason why franchise owners did not bid for Pakistani players: as a profit-making business venture, the IPL could not afford to take risks by paying for players whose participation could not be underwritten by the state authorities. If that is the case, why were Pakistani players included in the auction pool in the first place? Besides, losses from the possible denial of visas could easily have been restricted with a clause subjecting the contract’s activation to a successful visa application. Instead, 11 Pakistani players were cleared for auction on 6 January – only to be utterly humiliated at the on 19 January. Unknown abecedarians were acquired for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the reigning world champions of 20-20 cricket were uniformly snubbed. The Indian government’s role in this affair is rather murky. First came the official denial: New Delhi had nothing to do with the IPL’s decision. This was promptly followed up with a gratuitous piece of advice – telling Pakistan to “introspect on the reasons” for its players’ rejection – which seemed to suggest that New Delhi had something to do with it.

To conservative commentators, this development represents a dual triumph: not only was Pakistan tamed – it was tamed by the private sector. Rising to the IPL’s defence, the journalist Ashok Malik argued that, given the focus on individual stars, the franchises’ reluctance to recruit Pakistani players was reasonable. “If one of these [promotional campaigns] focused on a Pakistani cricketer,” he wrote, “and happened to coincide with, say, a terror incident linked to Islamist groups across the border, it may become inconvenient.” Malik here is grafting his own bigotry on to his compatriots: surely, Indian audiences can make a distinction between an “Islamist” terrorist and a Pakistani cricketer? And if they cannot, then they deserve to be condemned, not pandered to.

The belief that this boycott is somehow a clever deployment of Indian soft power is similarly misplaced. Far from forcing the Pakistani state into rethinking its policy toward India, it will serve merely to demoralise Pakistan’s beleaguered civil society – a constituency whose support and goodwill India desperately needs. Consider the humiliation from ordinary Pakistanis’ point of view. There will be over 70 foreign cricketers participating in the IPL – including, oddly, 26 from Australia, where Indian students have been subjected to endless attacks – but not even one from their cricket-mad country. Some of the world’s best cricketers are being subjected to a cricketing apartheid for the failures of their state. To its neighbours in South Asia, India, with its newfound prosperity, looks increasingly like an arrogant giant that is keen to starve its opponents to extinction. The IPL has contributed to that image.

Wanted: Tony Blair for war crimes. Arrest him and claim your reward

Chilcot and the courts won’t do it, so it is up to us to show that we won’t let an illegal act of mass murder go unpunished

George Monbiot

The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won’t address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg tribunal called “the supreme international crime”: the crime of aggression.

But there’s a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November: “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don’t want the answer.”

Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had “no sound mandate in international law”. Last month Lord Steyn, a former law lord, said that “in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal“. In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law“.

Under the United Nations charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged. The parties to a dispute must first “seek a solution by negotiation” (article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN security council only “if an armed attack occurs against [them]” (article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq’s attempts to negotiate. At one point the US state department even announced that it would “go into thwart mode” to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection (all references are on my website). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.

We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that “a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers’ advice, none currently exists.” In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, told the prime minister that there were only “three possible legal bases” for launching a war – “self-defence, ­humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [security council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.” Bush and Blair later failed to obtain security council authorisation.

As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal adviser to the ­Foreign Office, revealed, her office had ­”consistently” advised that an ­invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that “an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression”. Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot inquiry tomorrow. Expect fireworks.

Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg principles as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties”. They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome statute, which established the international criminal court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair’s government in 2001, provides for the court to “exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression”, once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted.

There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don’t yet exist. The governments that ratified the Rome statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still has not been adopted.

Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws, though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains ­illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass ­murder commissioned overseas.

All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the international criminal court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government that had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, “moved on” from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.

But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush’s government, at the Hay festival in 2008, and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe, nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen’s arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, ­payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the European Union. He didn’t of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

So today I am launching a website – www.arrestblair.org – whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I’ve laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available until Blair faces a court of law. The higher the ­reward, the greater the number of ­people who are likely to try.

At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press ­governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No ­civilised country can allow mass ­murderers to move on.

Muslim profiling is a recipe for insecurity

The profiling of ordinary Muslims loses the support of the very people we need to contain al-Qaeda

Ed Husain

Here we go again. Another botched terrorist attack, and a much-needed excuse for some agenda-driven American ideologues to demand opening “new fronts” in the “war on terror”, with “profiling” of Muslims at airports expected to be at the core of the airport security review announced yesterday by Gordon Brown. I am sorry, but that thinking is wrong, flawed, and will make matters worse.

Yemen is not a willing home to al-Qaeda – it is victim to an ideology exported from neighbouring Saudi Arabia. In our desire to blame and, eventually, bomb, let us not forget the other Yemen: one of the last bastions of traditional, serene Islam. Yemeni Sufis have been imparting their version of normative Islam for centuries through trade and travel. Hundreds of British Muslims have been studying in Yemen’s pristine Islamic institutions. They have returned to Britain connected to an ancient chain of spiritual knowledge and now lead several Muslim communities with the Sufi spirit of love for humans, dedication to worship, and service to Islam.

For me, empowering and supporting this Yemeni Islam against the rigid, literalist, supremacist Wahhabite ideology of our Saudi allies in Riyadh is a sure recipe for eventual victory. But will we dare upset the House of Saud? It seems unlikely. President Obama literally bowed before the Saudi king in London last year.

We are now being told that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) runs terrorist camps and this justifies “pre-emptive strikes” on Yemen. But what is AQAP except leading Saudi terrorists – Naser al-Wahishi and Said al-Shihri – who have now set up shop in Yemen, with a ragtag army of 200 men? Who is Osama Bin Laden except a Saudi who wanted political reforms in his own country, failed, and then turned his guns on the western backers of the Saudi regime?

Time and again, from September 11 to the attempted Detroit-bound airline attack last week, there are Saudi fingerprints – ideological and practical – on terrorist attacks and yet western powers stab in the dark in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now possibly Iran and Yemen with the unconvincing language of making us safer in our streets here.

In both Britain and America demands for profiling all Muslims at airports are increasing in volume. This mindset not only fails to understand that most Muslims around the world detest al-Qaeda, but this outlook also cannot comprehend how terrorists are always one step ahead of the game. If it is Muslim-sounding names that are to be stopped, would a name like Richard Reid – the infamous shoe bomber – have been detected? If it is Asian men that are to be stopped, then we will see an increase in white men recruited for terror?

After all, al-Qaeda’s English spokesperson is Adam Gadahn, a white American. If it is men who are stopped, we will see women terrorists emerge. Let us not forget Palestinian groups’ repeated use of single women as suicide bombers. Do not underestimate the power of terrorists to recruit serving airline pilots and other aviation personnel. Where there is a will, there will always be a way.

The profiling of ordinary Muslims not only opens other avenues for al-Qaeda, but results in the harassment and potential loss of support from the very people we need on our side to contain al-Qaeda: ordinary Muslims. Without mainstream Muslims on side, western powers cannot deal al-Qaeda and its associates the blow that it deserves. After all, it was the Muslim father of the Nigerian would-be plane bomber who alerted the US embassy in Lagos six weeks before last week’s attempted attack. Muslim families are our first line of defence against terrorism. Can we afford to lose that unseen, unappreciated buffer against extremists?

In the end, this is a battle of ideas. No amount of drone attacks in Pakistan, troops in Afghanistan, occupation of Iraq and air raids in Yemen will stem terrorism. Violence breeds violence.

The strongest weapons available to our enemies are ideas of religious supremacy and perennial confrontation, backed with logistical networks, and repressive political conditions that help strengthen their narrative and network. Unless we in the west can combat their ideas with better ideas, puncture the alluring narrative of victimhood politics, question their self-assured martyrdom, and end perceptions of incessant enmity with non-Muslims then we will be confined to dealing with symptoms of terrorist attacks rather than healing the underlying causes. Nearly a decade after 9/11, when compared with military budgets, where is investment in these soft-power, counter radicalisation projects? The silence says it all.

Al-Qaeda’s shadow over Taliban talks

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD – With an international conference starting in London on Thursday expected to lay down a framework for the Afghan government to begin taking charge of its own security, in line with a timetable set by United States President Barack Obama to start drawing down US troops in 2011, efforts for reconciliation with the Taliban are also being stepped up.

However, sources directly involved in backchannel negotiations with the Taliban tell Asia Times Online they are skeptical of the Taliban being reconciled as the militants scent victory in Afghanistan and hence are not prepared to show any flexibility in their demands, the key one of which is that all foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

At the conference in London, Afghan President Hamid Karzai will unveil a British- and United States-backed plan for “reintegration” of segments of the Taliban. He is also expected to seek international funding to offer jobs and inducements to bring insurgents into the mainstream political process – the amount of US$1 billion has been mentioned. To this end, parliamentary elections in Afghanistan have been postponed from May to September, although ostensibly because the Independent Election Commission said it needed more funds.

Karzai is also pushing for Taliban names to be removed from a United Nations blacklist that imposes travel restrictions and asset freezes. “[They should be] welcome to come back to their country, lay down arms and resume life as citizens of Afghanistan, enjoying the privileges and the rights and the guarantees given by the Afghan constitution,” Karzai said.

He is also reported as saying that his Western allies fully back his plans for reconciliation with the Taliban – provided they are not “key members” of the movement, that they are not allied with al-Qaeda and that they renounce violence.

“The red line is links to al-Qaeda,” British Foreign Secretary David Miliband was quoted in the media this week as saying.

Herein lies the rub.

A December briefing prepared by the top US intelligence official in Afghanistan, Major General Michael Flynn, concludes that “the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is increasingly effective”. With regard to al-Qaeda, the 23-page briefing quotes Taliban detainees as saying that the Taliban see al-Qaeda as a “handicap”; however, it adds that al-Qaeda “provides facilitation, training and some funding” to the Taliban and predicts that “perceived insurgent success will draw foreign fighters” into Afghanistan.

A former Arab mujahid who fought in Afghanistan and who claims to have been in direct communication with senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, has told Asia Times Online that the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban is much deeper.

He said that following the leaking last year of a report by the US’s top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, that tens of thousands more US troops would be sent into Afghanistan, bin Laden met with Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the Afghan province of Helmand in October – apparently their first meeting in a long time.

According to the Arab fighter, the meeting marked a watershed in relations between the Taliban and al-Qaeda as the leaders agreed on closer relations and better coordination in the war against the Western coalition in Afghanistan. Further, they agreed that any invitation for dialogue was a ploy to lure the Taliban into a trap.

While there was apparently some disagreement on the issue of carrying out attacks in Pakistan, the leaders agreed on a joint macro strategy until the “complete defeat” of the foreign forces in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar, the fighter claims, was particularly impressed that bin Laden made the risky journey over the Hindu Kush mountains into southwestern Afghanistan.

Preparing to talk

The Pakistan military is at the forefront of efforts to set up talks with the Taliban, and Peshawar, capital of North-West Frontier Province, Quetta, capital of Balochistan province, and the national capital, Islamabad, have been scheduled as venues.

A next level of dialogue could then take place in the United Arab Emirates, where a former UAE ambassador is attempting to get Taliban representatives to meet with US, British and Saudi Arabian officials.

The Muslim Brotherhood is also expected to be involved in getting people to the dialogue table, as are various individuals. These include Arabs who fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s. One of them is Iraqi Mehmood al-Samarrai, alias Abul Judh, who was previously wanted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation for supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. He currently lives in Pakistan and is working to get some Taliban commanders to talk to Saudi officials.

However, a senior Arab diplomat who has been directly involved in some backchannel negotiations with the Taliban told Asia Times Online that one of the problems any talks faced was that neither side had changed its basic position: the Taliban want an unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops, while Western leaders want the Taliban to immediately stop all hostilities.

The diplomat also said he believed the Barack Obama administration was desperate to slow down the advances of the Taliban, given that the US Democrats had recently suffered a crucial setback in a senate election. Ahead of mid-term elections in the US in November, the party could not afford any more major embarrassments in Afghanistan, such as the suicide attack on a US spy base last year and the recent attacks in the heart of Kabul, the capital.

The dialogue initiative, whether or not motivated in part by the US’s desire to buy time, could, however, turn out to be another embarrassment.

If, as the Arab fighter claims, the links between the Taliban and al-Qaeda now run deeper than is generally reported, it would rule out any chance of senior Taliban commanders being reconciled: firstly, they would not want to switch, given their newfound loyalty to Mullah Omar and al-Qaeda. And secondly, if some did conceivably seek reconciliation, they would presumably be “barred” anyway for having links to al-Qaeda.

Lower-level Taliban could well be lured from the movement, but it is doubtful they would leave in sufficient numbers, and the leadership would still be intact to drive the resistance.

Previous reconciliation attempts have also done little to affect the Taliban’s leadership.

Within the Taliban, the institution of the ameerul momineen (commander of the faithful) plays a vital role. Any defiance towards ameerul momineen (Mullah Omar) means to become an outcast from the Taliban’s ranks and the person immediately loses his following.

An example is former Taliban commander Abdul Salam Rocketi, who was powerful in the southern province of Zabul. Several years ago, he switched sides and he is now a member of parliament. He was quickly replaced by little-known youths, to whom the rank-and file immediately gave their full support. The same would happen now should any commander defy Mullah Omar: he will have to leave his region and move to Kabul.

The dialogue initiative has been started, though, and efforts in this direction can be expected to intensify following this week’s meeting in London.

For the Afghan war theater, the claimed new coordination agreement between al-Qaeda and Taliban will see the Taliban stick to their guns, literally.

In the broader context, al-Qaeda says in the coming months it will concentrate on Saudi Arabia to put Riyadh under immense pressure to pull back from its support of the US-led “war on terror”.

In Pakistan, meanwhile, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistani Taliban), which has reorganized in Orakzai Agency after the military operations in the Waziristan tribal areas, will re-engage the army in an effort to force the political leadership not to become involved in the reconciliation efforts between Washington and the Afghan Taliban.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com