India using terror as a propaganda ploy, says Pakistan

ANITA JOSHUA

Hopes Britain, France and Germany “will understand the true perspective of issues in the region”

Pakistan on Thursday accused India of using terrorism as a “propaganda ploy” and sought to convey to Britain, France and Germany – which after high-level interactions with New Delhi urged Islamabad to do more to counter terror – that “indulging in blame game just for commercial and political expediencies serves no useful purpose.”

Stating that Pakistan had conveyed its concerns to the three countries on their statements, Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit added: “We hope these countries with which we have very good relations will understand the true perspective of issues in this region. Terrorism is a global phenomenon and all countries need to cooperate with each other to address this issue effectively.”

“Unacceptable” references

Meanwhile, in a release issued by the Foreign Office, Pakistan described references to it in the India-Russia Joint Statement as “unwarranted and unacceptable”; adding that Islamabad’s views had been conveyed to Moscow.

Asked about statements from the Indian leadership on terrorism originating in Pakistan, Mr. Basit said India had a habit of raising a hue and cry while ignoring its own responsibilities. He pointed out that even four years after the Samjhautha Express blast, India had not shared the findings of its investigations or put perpetrators of the crime on trial. “India’s continued reticence raises many questions. It’s time India takes us into confidence and stop beating about the bush. The families of the 42 Pakistani victims are desperately waiting for answers and we cannot ride roughshod over their deep pain.”

No talks sans Kashmir

As for India blaming Pakistan for failure of July’s Foreign Minister-level talks, he said New Delhi was cherry-picking and avoiding resumption of dialogue on all issues. Stating that India was upset with Pakistan for raising Kashmir at the United Nations General Assembly, he noted: “How can Pakistan look the other way when innocent Kashmiris are brutalised and killed by Indian security forces. Pakistan is ready to resume the dialogue process but not to the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir dispute or other important issues.”

Had the Kashmir issue been resolved 60 years ago, Pakistan-India relations would have been on a different trajectory, Mr. Basit asserted. “But since this is a core issue, Pakistan obviously cannot agree to negotiations which do not include this dispute on the agenda.”

Why India is not a great nation

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD, commanded an Engineer Regiment on the Siachen Glacier, the most hostile battlefield in the world. A highly qualified officer (B Tech, MA (Public Administration), MSc (Defence Studies) and a Doctorate in Public Administration) he was also the Task Force Commander at Pokhran and was responsible for designing and sinking shafts for the nuclear tests of May 1998.

As India celebrates 62 years of Independence, one tends to wonder: what makes nations great? Why is the US an undisputed world power? Why has Britain remained undefeated for centuries? Why has India succumbed to foreign rule so often? Why is India still struggling with internal dissensions and fissiparous forces? What does India lack?

A chance meeting with a British army veteran in a train from Edinburgh to London proved highly revealing. According to him, the secret of British success lies in the public support and respect extended to the soldiers.

`Soldiers` loyalty to the nation and readiness for the supreme sacrifice are driven less by material considerations and more by an overwhelming urge to earn love and respect of their countrymen. A grateful nation`s recognition of their contribution to national security acts as the strongest motivator,` he declared.

`Britain never forgets its war heroes. Every major landmark in London is named after distinguished soldiers and not politicians,` he pointed out proudly. To prove his point further, he recalled, `Before World War II, it was not uncommon to see placards hanging outside some restaurants in Paris which read `Dogs, lackeys and soldiers not allowed`. On the other hand, even pregnant women used to get up and offer seats to soldiers in London buses. When the war broke out, France capitulated in no time while Britain remained undefeated.`

In an article written two days before the swearing-in of US President Barack Obama, his wife Michelle devoted 515 out of 863 words to the soldiers and their families. `So as I watch Barack take that oath, I`ll be thinking especially about those members of our American family who stand guard across the world and the loved ones who await their safe return… My husband and I are deeply grateful for the sacrifices that these families make to protect all American families. And we join them — today and every day — in praying for their loved ones and their safety. They don`t ask a lot in return, just a Washington that understands the challenges they face as part of their extraordinary commitment to our country… My husband understands that commitment, and he will ensure America lives up to its end,` she wrote.

`On Tuesday night, my husband and I will tuck in our daughters like we always do. Their bedrooms will be different, their home unfamiliar. But they will drift off to sleep protected by that same sacrifice that has kept all of our families safe and safeguarded our freedom for generations — the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform and their families…For that, we could not be more grateful — or more proud,` she added.

Now let us compare the above with the state of affairs in India. Can anyone recall a similar expression of sentiments by a national figure? Except for perfunctory platitudes on Independence Day, the Government has singularly failed to show compassion for the soldiers or tried to redress their genuine grievances. Apathetic political leadership and bureaucracy have made no attempt to understand the intensity of sense of hurt of the soldiers at their continued neglect and deliberate degradation.

Despite repeated representations, India still does not have a war memorial in the capital to honour independent India`s martyrs. India wants to ape the West in all sundry aspects, but not in matters that affect the well-being and morale of the armed forces. The Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington in Washington, the Arc de Triomphe in Paris and the Cenotaph in London are admired by all Indian visitors. Yet the absence of a suitable war memorial in New Delhi does not appear odd to them. Surprisingly, it does not even hurt the conscience of the nation. There is no other country that can be so apathetic to the memory of thousands of soldiers who have laid down their lives for its security.

Our Urban Development Ministry is more concerned with the vestiges of the British rule, and opposes a war memorial near India Gate in the name of preserving heritage. India Gate was built in the memory of soldiers who died in World War I during the British rule. India has fought five wars since Independence and over 40,000 soldiers have made the supreme sacrifice. Opposition to a war memorial on frivolous grounds is an affront to the memory of martyrs and displays shameless insensitivity to the feelings of those who have lost their family members. But then, no political leader or bureaucrat can be faulted for their inability to appreciate these issues as they never send their progeny to the military.

Look at the treatment meted out to India`s tallest military leader, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, the architect of India`s greatest victory ever. It took the Government decades to determine and release his dues. India has not found him worthy of its highest national honour, the `Bharat Ratna`. No political leader thought it necessary to attend his funeral.

In Britain and the US, heads of the State with full national leadership would have made it a point to be present to pay a nation`s grateful respects.

Nelson`s Column at Trafalgar Square occupies the pride of place in London. London boasts of numerous statues of military heroes. No statues of political leaders are seen in the developed countries. India, on the contrary, has not found it necessary to honour Field Marshal Manekshaw`s memory whereas statues of political leaders (many with dubious credentials) dot New Delhi.

It will not be out of place here to recall the speech of President Obama at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention at the Phoenix Convention Center on 17 August 2009. He said, `You have fulfilled your responsibilities. And now a grateful nation must fulfill ours. Whether you’ve left the service in 2009 or 1949, we will fulfill our responsibility to deliver the benefits and care that you earned.` He described America`s commitment to its veterans as sacred bonds and a sacred trust Americans are honour bound to uphold.

`You have done your duty – to your fallen comrades, to your communities, to your country. You have always fulfilled your responsibilities to America. And so long as I am President of the United States, America will always fulfill its responsibilities to you`, he declared.

Contrast the above pledge and assurance with the apathetic treatment meted out to the ex-servicemen in India. In the recent past, India was witness to the most unfortunate sight of numerous military veterans returning their medals to the President to register their protest against the Government`s indifference to their pleas. Medals earned during active service are the proudest possession of soldiers, and their being driven to surrender them should have made the Government sit up and take note.

But true to its wont, it remained totally unconcerned and unmoved. Not a single Government leader or official has considered it necessary to talk to the protesting veterans to resolve the issues. This episode will certainly go down as a dark chapter in the history of Independent India.

India won the Kargil War of 1999 at a huge cost — 527 officers and soldiers sacrificed their lives while over a 1,000 sustained battle injuries, many maimed forever. Yet, a senior Congress leader, Mr Rashid Alvi, had the impudence to state that commemoration was not warranted as the war took place due to an intelligence failure of the BJP Government. Every Indian soldier, both serving and retired, was aghast at the brazenness of the logic.

A notion has been deliberately perpetuated that the military must be kept under control through the bureaucracy lest it acquires political ambitions. Examples of Pakistan and Bangladesh are quoted to implant the fear of a military takeover in the minds of gullible and ignorant political leadership. A systematic and well planned strategy has been orchestrated to downgrade the military`s standing. The Sixth Central Pay Commission was the latest master stroke.

Although the public at large still holds the military in high esteem, a deliberate media campaign is being orchestrated by some elements with vested interests to show the military in a poor light. Instead of appreciating the military for initiating prompt disciplinary action against defaulters — handful acts of misdemeanor and indiscretion in a 1.3 million strong organisation — such cases are sensationalised to paint a negative picture of the services.

Historically, India does not have a culture of valuing its military. That is the reason that every invader succeeded in defeating and enslaving the sub-continent. If India survives today despite inept political leadership and the self-serving bureaucracy, it is only due to the unquestioned loyalty of the military and enormous sacrifices made by the soldiers.

Denigration of the military always proves fatal in the long run. Any country that discredits the status of its soldiers loses the moral right to expect them to die for its security. Great nations are distinguished by the esteem in which they hold their military.

No nation that stubbornly declines to honour the martyrs, respect the soldiers and care for the veterans can ever aspire to be counted amongst the great nations, slogans like `Mera Bharat Mahan` not withstanding.

This Is How US Agents Sneak Into Pakistan

For a few hundred dollars, low-paid border guards are allowing entry into Pakistan to spies and agents of multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. In this story and video, see how a US lady entered Pakistan through Torkham on Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, without visa and without the knowledge of Pakistani intelligence officers posted there. This happens in a country that faces terrorism exported by both US-controlled Afghanistan and its Indian ally.

BY SYED FAWAD ALI SHAH:

TORKHAM, Pakistan-Rampant corruption and a weak Pakistani state are helping the entry into Pakistan of spies and terrorists from multiple foreign intelligence agencies operating in Afghanistan. Almost all terror in Pakistan is coming from Afghanistan.

This American woman tried to sneak into Pakistan through Torkham on Afghan border today, Saturday, Mar. 13, 2010, around early afternoon. She was wearing an Afghan woman’s burqa and apparently spoke local dialects. She would have successfully crossed into Pakistan safely hidden among a group of Afghan women but something about her demeanor raised the suspicion of a Pakistani border guard.

However, the border guards, known as Khasadars, made sure that Pakistani intelligence officers posted in the area are not told about this arrest. Torkham is considered a hot station within Kasadar tribal force circles. With salaries that go less than PKR 10,000 per month [less than US$ 130], major checkpoints such as Torkham provide an extra source of income for the Khasadars through bribes from travelers.

The guards kept the woman in a room for about thirty minutes and then let her enter Pakistan in her burqa. She paid the Khasadar guards a handsome amount of money as bribe. According a source in the Khasadar Force who witnessed the whole thing, the woman didn’t panic. She appeared composed and familiar with the ways of the border guards. She knew what to do in such a situation.

Thanks to my contacts in the border force, I was able to make a cell phone video of her passport while the Khasadar chief at the checkpoint talked to her.

Her name on the passport was Zohra Rehmati, which makes her an American from either Iranian or Tajik-Afghan extract.

Over the past four years, a large number of US agents have entered Pakistan through Afghanistan. Several have been arrested in different parts of the country disguised as Afghan men, complete with beards and Turbans and fluent in Pashto, Dari and Urdu. Unfortunately, much of this covert American activity was sanctioned first by the Musharraf government and now by the pro-US Zardari-Haqqani combine in the incumbent government.

Ms. Rehmati, if that is her real name, may or may not be a CIA operative, or one of its private contractors associated with either DynCorp or Xe International. But such lax security in a country that is a target of terrorism, DynCorp managed to create quite a covert network in Pakistan before being busted by Pakistani security last year. DynCorp remains in Pakistan, thanks to backing from both the US Embassy in Islamabad and the pro-US government, despite repeated attempts by the country’s security officials to force the US defense contractor to wrap up its operations here. Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater, also operated in Pakistan until 2005 before being moved to Afghanistan, according to an earlier report in the New York Times. But going by the number of incidents in Pakistan over the past couple of years where US private agents were seen operating in major Pakistani cities, it is safe to say that both contractors continue to quietly operate in Pakistan in one

Private contractors help give CIA the benefit of deniability if an agent is arrested on foreign territory.

CIA has been known to send US citizens of foreign descent to their home countries for espionage.

The most recent example is Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American who was busted in Tehran carrying sensitive documents handed to her by an informant. Ms. Saberi was sent to Iran posing as a journalist. CIA even managed to get her newspaper accreditation from a major American newspaper. The US government was embarrassed at the arrest because Ms. Saberi was arrested red handed receiving official documents from a contact.

In Pakistan, a State that is falling apart at the seams, with no central figure or department to control the rot, is providing the perfect environment for meddling in the country not only by the United States, UK, India and other established powers based in Afghanistan, but also by a puppet regime like that of Mr. Hamid Karzai and his spymasters, who in eight years are in a good position today to wreak mayhem inside Pakistan while the politicians in Islamabad and the military in Rawaplpindi have little recourse beyond words of appeasement or caution during closed-door meetings with foreign powers in Afghanistan that are never translated into action to reestablish Pakistan’s writ domestically and in the region.

Mr. Shah is an independent journalist based in Peshawar.

Pakistan’s Wrong Type Of Democracy

Our democratically-elected — and backed by the United States and Britain, the world’s finest democracies — President Zardari has just appointed an acquaintance as the country’s ambassador to Syria.

As his first order of business, the gentleman, Mr. Aminullah Raisani, destroyed one of the finest English-language schools running in Damascus, owned by the Government of Pakistan. He fired the entire staff of the school, and ‘imported’ his family members from Pakistan, including brothers, sisters, sisters-in-law, etc., and appointed them for a collective MONTHLY salary of US $ 38,000, which translates into PKR 3.2 million.

Today’s The News International published a report on this heist, with stunning details about how sisters and brothers-in-law of the Ambassador have been appointed against salaries reaching up to US $ 3,500 per month.

The school attracts children of the elite in the Syrian capital. Foreign diplomats also prefer the school because of its English and Arabic corriculum.

This kind of grand theft is not unual in Pakistan but it says a lot about why the governing structure in this country is collapsing and why the country is headed for a disaster in the coming years, leading to internal chaos along social fault lines.

Pakistan’s ruling system is a British import. It is not suited to the country. Pakistan needs a tailored demcoratic system that would preserve media and social freedoms but also minimize instability and make use of the creativity of the Pakistani people.

Above all, Pakistan needs a system that would replace feudal and career politicians with creative decision makers.

What we have is a system monopolized by a feudal elite, which has grown stronger because the Pakistani military, the country’s strongest institution, has been inadvertently strenghtening that elite and using it for decades. In today’s Pakistan, Pakistanis from the middle and the lower middle classes have no opportunities to progress and achieve. Opportunities are reserved for the likes of Ambassador Raisani.

Read Ambassador Raisani’s School of Thought:Plunder It All and Clueless, Careless Politicians Declare Their Peantuts . The two reports provide an insight into why Pakistan’s governing system is leading the country to a national failure.

By Ahmed Quraishi

NON-DIPLOMACY: THE BAGGAGE OF AMERICAN EXTREMISM

NO ENEMY, NO NEGOTIATIONS

ONLY THE DEAD ARE REAL

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

When General Petraeus asked for the “surge” in Iraq, he also opened negotiations with top Sunni and Shiite militia leaders, opened not only “negotiations” but started passing out cash. This combined with the “hammer” of a powerful new military force was the temporary military solution he had been tasked with, one that was, within limits, successful. The lack of real diplomatic negotiations after that has bogged the US down in Iraq where it now looks like we may spend years.

Now our new “surge” in Afghanistan won’t even have a Taliban “buyoff.” We had become addicted to the “black and white” version of Bushitism to the extent that we, as a nation, have given up thought entirely. We know we can’t win. Do we expect an army of angels to come down from heaven, the ones Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld dreamed of, or are we going to start acting like a world leader again and identify the players, bring them to the table and do our best to really win where it counts?

There are a couple of ways to go when discussing diplomacy. You can talk about the process and how it should end a conflict or look at the underlying reasons for never even considering it. Do we accept that abandoning diplomacy as a sign of “weakness” so we could move forward with the ill fated invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan was part of a realignment of our culture? How do we recover from basing our actions on facts to basing them on belief and mythology?

Eight years of bizarre “Christian Zionism,” a military run by religious fanatics and a government of drugstore cowboys and phony evangelists was unprepared to guide a superpower toward policies of responsible world leadership.

Now, President Obama is afraid to stop “driving over a cliff” simply because nobody wants to tell the American people the truth, how stupid and useless we have actually become, and how idiotic our policies have been. It is assumed that so many Americans are mentally defective, addicted to imaginary vaccine plots and secret UN invasions, that acting like a responsible and intelligent world leader would not seem “credible.”

NEGOTIATIONS: WHO AND HOW

We have a couple of problems to begin with. Few understand what Afghanistan is. It certainly isn’t a country, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is a product of haggling between Britain and Russia over a hundred years ago, and a bit more misguided fooling around in 1947.

Afghanistan is aligned with India and hates Pakistan.

Most Afghani’s are Pashtun tribesmen, some are settled and many are nomadic, some of whom are extremely warlike, requiring no given enemy, they will attack each other out of boredom.

Currently, the “Taliban,” not the same Taliban as before, but a new “friendlier” Taliban, or so they tell us, controls 80% of Afghanistan entirely and most of the other 20% too. We keep trying to name leaders, heartless “evil doers” to get troops and money flowing but, in truth, nobody is in charge.

This is the problem. With nobody in charge, President Karzai in Kabul runs nothing, the Taliban is a loose bunch of “unnamed others” who would be fighting each other if we weren’t there, there is nobody we can easily negotiate with even if we weren’t as crazy as they are, a fact in evidence to everyone but us.

SURROGATE WAR BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Much of the war in Afghanistan invovles India and Pakistan in ways American doesn’t see. India is supplying the Taliban because they are fighting against Pakistan. India likes the United States but their weapons are used against the US. India doesn’t care.

Pakistan wants Afghanistan to have a small army because war between Afghanistan and Pakistan is very likely. It that happens, India is likely to invade Pakistan and the war will go nuclear. This is almost unavoidable and we are paying no attention to this.

BIN LADEN AND THE TERRORISTS

All “reality based” people know Osama bin Laden has been dead for years. The only people mentioning him are con men looking for someone to blame or trying to scare idiots. Not only is bin Laden dead but Al Qaeda, if it existed at all, and proof of this is scarce, either moved to Africa or everyone in Al Qaeda quit and went home.

We can all agree they went to Africa and we can run around there looking for them. All we find now is an occasional “leader” who we blow to kingdom come with our Predator drones. What we do agree on is that there are fewer members of Al Qaeda than would fill a bus. These are America’s official estimates, the ones used by Gates and McChrystal.

There is no evidence that there are any terrorist training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan where attacks on the US are being planned. This is a fantasy.

Can you expect an intelligence estimate whose cover sheet is adorned with mysterious quotes from the Old Testament to be any more credible inside than outside? This was the norm in the Rumsfeld Pentagon. If the truth didn’t match biblical prophesy as interpreted by TV evangelists, the military changed the truth.

Reality based people call “changed truth” a form of lying.

WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?

Nobody wants to admit who the interested parties are in the conflict between Iran, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, the real problem. The US is involved for sure. Britain caused the problem, so they should be included. Brits like Richard North and Mike Smith are among the few who understand any of this.

China has considerable interest in the region as does Russia. Without recognizing their economic spheres of influence, no lasting solution can be realized.

Israel is the primary arms supplier to India and maybe others too. They also have economic interests but generally act thru their surrogate, the United States.

WHERE DO WE START?

A first step would be to push the Taliban to set up a Shura or leadership council and arrange for a cease fire. The threat of 30,000 new troops and expanded Predator attacks should make these discussions desirable.

Accepting the fact that Afghanistan will solve their own problems and that no foreign power will do anything positive there militarily is paramount.

Outlining regional problems, nuclear threats, decades old conflicts and regional economic needs should be on the table.

War without purpose is what we have now. Our cover story, forcing a military solution on a nation that rejects, not only Karzai and his Kabul regime but all American involvement may sell in Washington and Tel Aviv but not in the real world.

Educating Americans about the realities of our own mistakes and the depth of the idiocy of others we have walked into blind and, oh yes, deaf too, is a start.

Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.

Probe reveals lead-up to Iraq war

by Alice Ritchie Alice Ritchie

LONDON (AFP) – The first full-scale inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war opened Tuesday with testimony suggesting Washington was gearing up for possible conflict two years before Tony Blair led London to war.

A protestor wearing a Tony Blair mask covers his hands with fake blood as he demonstrates outside the venue for the public inquiry into the Iraq war. The first full-scale inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war has opened with families of soldiers killed in combat desperate to hear Tony Blair justify the decision to join the US-led invasion.

More than six years after the US-led invasion, inquiry chairman John Chilcot said no-one was “on trial” in the year-long probe but promised not to shy away from criticism as he seeks to learn lessons from the conflict.

Chilcot profile

The highlight of the public inquiry will be an appearance by then prime minister Blair , who is due to give evidence in January.

The first day of hearings was dominated by testimony from top civil servants who told how some in the US administration were already considering toppling Saddam Hussein ‘s Iraqi regime two years before the 2003 invasion.

However, they said Britain distanced itself from these “voices” and said they remained sidelined even within the United States until after the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington.

“No-one is on trial here. We cannot determine guilt or innocence. Only a court can do that,” Chilcot said in his opening remarks .

“But I make a commitment here that once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making criticisms, either of institutions or processes or individuals, where they are truly warranted.”

Chilcot’s five-member inquiry committee has already met with families of the 179 British troops who died in Iraq, some of whom attended Tuesday’s session.

“I just want the truth,” Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon died in Iraq in 2004, told AFP afterwards, adding: “I’ve never had any answers. I’ve never been told anything. Why we went in, whether it was legal.”

Timeline: Britain’s role in Iraq

Gentle, who wears a picture of her son in a gold heart around her neck, said she would return when Blair gives evidence. “If mistakes were made, he’s the one that’s got to live with it,” she said.

A small group of protesters gathered outside the inquiry venue in central London, wearing masks of Blair, former US president George W. Bush and current British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and with fake blood on their hands.

Anti-war campaigners want a ruling on the legality of the conflict, which took place without explicit approval from the UN Security Council.

Inside, there seemed to be little public interest. In contrast to the one million people who marched against the invasion on one day in 2003 — only about half of the seats in the public gallery were filled.

They heard senior civil servants outline how Iraq was considered a threat in 2001 because of a “clear impression” that it intended to “acquire WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability.”

Iraq’s suspected possession of such weapons was the main justification for the invasion in March 2003, but they were never found.

The officials described “voices” in Washington talking about deposing Hussein as early as 2001, but insisted US and British policy was focused on containing the Iraqi leader’s ambitions through sanctions and a no-fly zone.

William Patey, head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office in 2001, said he ordered a memo in late 2001 detailing “all the options” for Iraq. It included regime change, but he said this was quickly dismissed.

He added: “We were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that end of the spectrum.”

Peter Ricketts, who chaired Britain’s top intelligence committee in 2000-2001, said: “I was certainly not aware of anyone in the British government promoting or supporting active measures for regime change.”

Thinking in Washington shifted after the September 11 attacks, said Simon Webb, then policy director at the Ministry of Defence, “to say that we cannot afford to wait for these threats to materialise.”

Britain also changed the way it viewed WMD proliferation and counter-terrorism but Ricketts said: “We still had our focus on the weapons inspector route and the sanctions-type route.”

The inquiry, the third official probe into the war, is looking at all elements of British involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009 when nearly all its troops withdrew.

WAR ON TERROR BROUGHT ISLAM IN FOCUS

Ghazala Awan

The events of 9/11 created dramatic changes in the lives of peoples all across the globe. A new term widely used TERRORISTS for Muslims, was spread like a virus. Instead of developing hate and fear, this event and vocabulary got more people to study and read about Islam. It became a blessing in disguise, since more people have started to take to Islam that has become the focus of studies and discussions. Islam reissued, people are reverting to it. Now on one hand Muslims, themselves are now reading Real teachings of Quran and learning about the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) guidance to know the basics of religion. They want to know about real Islam which is a very positive thing to do as this is the only way to learn about any faith or religion. Unfortunately majority of Muslims specially new generations born in and raised in the West were unaware about the original Islamic studies, so 9/11 and criticism of media compelled them to go back to the origin; now they are well aware of it and found that Islam has been misinterpreted and misrepresented, twisted the belief around to fit their own needs by some individuals and groups. Thereafter people are getting closer to real Islam,

There has been much talk about Muslim beliefs and the Islam nation altogether. The basis of the religion is peaceful and understanding. Growth of Islam unbelievably is higher after 9/11.There are between 6 to 7 million Muslims in America today. In other words, Muslims outnumber some Christian denominations and may be outnumbering certain other religious minorities both in the US and elsewhere in the West. Researches done in the year 2000 by prominent American universities and Islamic foundations show that the number of Muslims is increasing rapidly and that Islam is getting popular by the day.

This rapid growth of Islam in America was reported in a news article, “Islam Is Growing in America,” by Jodi Wilgoren, The New York Times, 10/22/2001, also on the American army Internet site ( www.defenselink.mil ) and a New York Times article, “Islam Attracts Converts by the Thousands,” contains interviews with converts, analyzes Islam’s rapid rise in America, and states

After Sept.11,Siebert-Llera, Jewish lawyer , who knew enough to differentiate between the Islamic extremists who hijacked the planes and the majority of practicing Muslims, decided to know more about Islam converted to Islam by saying that,

“I felt like I finally found a house where I can place all my morals, my ideals,” He said first I bought a copy of Quran and just skimmed through the pages. I did not find the passages that some said advocated terrorism.” After 2 years constant study of Islam. He called his parents and older sister, Andrea, on Oct. 6, 2004. He converted to the Islam.

It’s not in America alone everywhere in the world this is happening, especially in Europe, Rupee News paper, published from New York, printed a news on July 20th, 2008: In a recent interview with the BBC, British Home Secretary Jack Smith made some interesting observations about the rapid spread of Islam in Europe.

According to Smith, around 50,000 British are converting to Islam each year and since 2001, four hundred thousand British have converted to Islam. He said the Muslim population in Britain has reached 2 million and followers of Islam are now the second biggest population in Britain after Christians. He even suggested setting up an Islamic University in Britain given the overwhelming population of the Muslims in that country.

All these references and statics show that Islam has been republished after 9/11 and war on terror did not affect on its universal acceptance, and could not erase it from the globe but gave it a new shining face after dusting off the mist of misunderstanding, provided a chance to have insight of it.

Ghazala Awan is a lawyer by profession. She specialises in Civil and Family Law.

Alcohol killing Indian men in Britain: study

Indian men in Britain are more susceptible to alcohol-related problems than white British males, according to scientific study published on Wednesday.

The research found that deaths linked to alcohol were disproportionately high among Indian men here, and exploded the “myth” that Indian men did not drink much alcohol.

“The evidence is showing that for every 100 white British males that are dying from alcohol-related disease in the UK there are 160 Indian men in the UK dying,” said the report’s author, Dr. Gurprit Pannu.

“That’s a massive increase. And on top of that what we see now is an increased admission rate to hospital.”

Scientists believe the reasons behind Indian men’s susceptibility to the effects of alcohol are biological and cultural.

Dr. Pannu said: “They have a different pattern of drinking. Sikhs, for example, drink spirits more than lager.

“With spirits, the alcohol consumption is higher and you are not going to get a full stomach like you do with lager.”

The report urges the government to provide more “culturally specific” advice to help combat the problem.

Dr. Pannu said it was a “myth” that Indian men were light drinkers.

“Historically people think that people from the Indian sub-continent drink less than people here in the UK but the evidence put together showed that this just wasn’t true,” he said.

The report, titled Alcohol Use In South Asians In The UK, was written for the British Medical Journal.

It was conducted by Dr. Pannu, a consultant psychiatrist who works in Sussex.

His research was gathered at an international conference organised by the South Asian Health Foundation.

Dr. Pannu said: “The conference brought together a number of international experts in this area and we collected their findings for the editorial.”

Britain stands ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with Pakistan: PM

LONDON: Britain stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Pakistan following the latest attacks there in which 40 people died Thursday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s spokesman said.

Brown wrote to President Asif Ali Zardari after militants unleashed coordinated attacks on Pakistani police, storming offices in Lahore and bombing a northwest station to escalate 11 days of carnage.

“Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan in the fight against terrorism and extremism,” said Brown’s spokesman.

The simultaneous assaults underscored the power of armed radicals to strike in the heart of Pakistan and the weakness of poorly-equipped security forces, despite promises of a new offensive against the Taliban near the Afghan border.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan, which borders Afghanistan and is a key ally in the US-led fight against terror, is reeling from Taliban-linked attacks in which more than 160 people have died since October 5.

Iran has Passed the Test that Iraq Did

Eric Margolis

The leaders of the United States, Britain and France staged a bravura theatrical performance here last week by claiming to have just ‘discovered’ a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qom. On cue, a carefully orchestrated North American media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and ‘long-ranged missiles.’

In reality, the Qom plant, Iran’s second uranium enrichment operation, was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the 
 intelligence community.

Iran claimed the plant would not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear watchdogs say Iran should have revealed the plant earlier. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice. Iran alerted the UN last week and said it would invite inspectors. That did nothing to silence Western howls of outrage.

The reluctance of Iran to reveal its nuclear sites is magnified by constant threats of attack against them by Israel and the US. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN ‘nuclear inspectors’ were actually spies for CIA or Israel’s Mossad. This may explain some of Iran’s secretive behaviour. The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. France secretly supplied Israel with the capability to produce 
 nuclear weapons.

Iran’s test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria in North America. The media kept mislabeling Iran’s ancient SAM-2 anti-aircraft missiles as ‘long-ranged missiles.’ The leaders of the US and Canada warned of the ‘grave threat’ to the world from Iran. What they really meant, of course, was Israel.

Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another phony crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium 
 to 5 per cent.

Nuclear weapons require 95 per cent. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance. The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Teheran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same 
 impossible test.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran’s challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. It has a long record of nuclear deception and dissimulation. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US, fearful of as third war, is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qom plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements. More pressure was applied at this week’s meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad poured fuel on the fire, again questioning the Holocaust and staging the ostentatious launch of missiles with little military value.

Why did Ahmadinejad antagonise the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel 
 from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, ‘American Raj,’ Iran’s leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Teheran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

Iran appears to be very slowly developing a ‘breakout’ capability to be able, if necessary, to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice – for defensive purposes. Iraq’s invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbours Israel, India and Pakistan.

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the 
 Teheran government.

Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that US-led siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalised.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read NY Times article, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by ‘those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America’s interests in the Middle East…’ That’s code for Israel’s American supporters.

Eric S Margolis is a veteran US journalist who has reported from the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan for several years

French arms exports rise 13%

Deals with countries including Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Morocco have pushed French arms sales up to their highest level since 2000.

France is trying to move away from its heavy reliance on sales to the Middle East [AFP]

The increase of 13 per cent on last year’s sales follows a drive by Nicolas Sarkozy, the country’s president, to support defence export companies.

The government argues that the industry provides 50,000 jobs in France.

French companies took new orders worth $9.7bn, meaning they have about seven per cent of the world’s arms market, according to the defence ministry’s annual report released on Monday.

France remains the world’s fourth largest arms exporters behind the United States, Britain and Russia.

Sarkozy delegation

However, the ministry said France, which sold weapons systems worth $12bn in 2000, was struggling to maintain its world ranking in an increasingly competitive market.

“France has had trouble holding on to its position” since the start of the decade, the ministry said in its annual report published on Monday.

“We are getting away from the classic idea that France only exports to the Middle East” – Laurent Teisseire, defence ministry spokesman

Sarkozy led an arms export delegation to Brazil this month, which finalised a deal to buy four conventional submarines and is pondering whether to buy French Rafale warplanes, built by Dassault Aviation.

“We are getting away from the classic idea that France only exports to the Middle East and we are doing what is necessary to respond to the needs of Europe, Asia and Latin America,” Laurent Teisseire, a defence ministry spokesman, said.

Brazil and France signed a defence accord in December last year worth up to $12.6bn, including the supply of 50 EC725 Super Cougar helicopters built by EADS subsidiary Eurocopter.

Rafale snubbed

Morocco was France’s second-largest client in 2008 with a contract to buy FREMM frigates built by a state-controlled company.

France has seen its defence exports come under pressure for most of the decade after it struggled to repeat the success of Dassault’s previous generation of Mirage warplanes with the multi-role Rafale, which has not yet found a buyer.

France suffered an embarrassing setback at the end of the previous year when Morocco snubbed a French offer of Rafales in favour of Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters, prompting Sarkozy to order a shake-up of France’s arms export system.

In third place last year for French arms sales was Saudi Arabia, thanks in part to a deal to buy air-refuelling tankers converted from passenger aircraft built by EADS subsidiary Airbus.

IMF, EU leaders praise Pakistan’s economic performance

GEO Business

WASHINGTON: Finance and Economic Affairs Adviser Shaukat Tareen met with top IMF leaders and ministers of major European powers here Saturday, who commended Pakistan’s achievements in a short span of time and assured of their continued support for the country.

Tareen, who is leading a high-level Pakistani delegation to the annual World Bank-IMF gathering, had productive meetings with Managing Director, International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss Kahn, Deputy Managing Director Murilo Portugal and ministers of Germany, Britain, France, Turkey, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan.

The two Fund leaders and UK’s Secretary of State for International Development Douglas Alexander commended the achievements Pakistan has made through its homegrown program. Ms Wieczorek-Zeul, Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany and IMF officials appreciated the courageous measures taken by Pakistan to correct the macroeconomic imbalances and achievements that have been made so far. They reaffirmed their commitment to support the country in meeting its economic challenges and establishing safety nets for the poor.

The advisor to the Prime Minister urged the United Kingdom to expand its area of work to include other provinces in addition to existing development operations in Punjab and NWFP. The German Minister vowed to provide support for social safety nets and also offered debt swap for HIV AIDS and Malaria Global Fund.

Tareen had also a meeting with Ramon Fernandez President, French Treasury. Pakistan proposes to seek assistance from France in areas of debt coordination, debt management and macroeconomic forecasting. In meeting with Mehmet Simsek, Turkish Minister of Economy, Pakistan and Turkey agreed to increase mutual trade volume as well as investment in various business opportunities. The finance advisor had good meetings with his counterparts from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka.

Japan tries to loosen the US leash

There is talk of a new generation of Japanese politics ahead of the upcoming election – but will the US relax its embrace?

Simon Tisdall

The opposition Democratic party’s expected victory in Japan’s 30 August general election is creating a new element of uncertainty in the Asia-Pacific region, already unsettled by North Korea‘s war drums and China‘s assertiveness. The ruling conservative Liberal Democratic party (LDP) has held power for 52 of the past 53 years. It is the political linchpin of the US-Japan alliance. Now, largely due to lamentable domestic policy failures, opinion polls suggest it is all but dead in the water.

The centre-left Democratic party of Japan (DPJ), ahead by up to 20 points in some surveys, is committed, on paper at least, to a radical reappraisal of Japan’s postwar defence partnership with Washington. Its manifesto pledges to “re-examine the role of the US military in the security of the Asia-Pacific region and the significance of US bases in Japan”. Questions have been raised about the continuing presence of roughly 50,000 American troops on Japanese soil and more broadly, about Japan’s military support for US operations in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

At the same time, DPJ leaders are advocating improved ties with former adversaries, notably China and South Korea, strained during the 2001-2006 premiership of Junichiro Koizumi. Party chief Yukio Hatoyama has vowed not to follow Koizumi in paying respects to Japan’s war dead at the Yasukini shrine in Tokyo, seen in Beijing as a symbol of unrepentant Japanese militarism.

Speaking in Tokyo today at a Thomson Reuters conference, Katsuya Okada, the DPJ’s second-in-command, said the party wanted an equal relationship with the Obama administration. “There are various issues of concern between Japan and the US. It is necessary … to work on changing systems based on trust,” he said. Japan lacked independence, he complained. “If Japan just follows what the US says, then I think as a sovereign nation that is very pathetic.”

Okada expressed impatience with the pace of international nuclear disarmament, always a sensitive issue in Japan. Although his party welcomed Barack Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world, he suggested Japan should pursue its own disarmament and non-proliferation policies. These and other apparently game-changing DPJ positions have led to talk of a generational shift in Japanese politics, bringing to office leaders who have no personal memories, guilty or otherwise, of the war, and no particular reason to thank the US for the postwar alliance.

For all the chit-chat about mould-breaking, a sharp reality check may await the DPJ. Take the nuclear issue: as prime minister Taro Aso noted in Hiroshima last week, Japan continues to benefit from the US “nuclear umbrella” when it comes to threats from North Korea, just as during the cold war. While most Japanese supported the abolition of nuclear weapons, he said, such a development was unlikely in the foreseeable future, whatever the DPJ might do or say.

Despite its talk of Asian outreach, the DPJ has already confirmed it will adhere to Aso’s tough line on North Korea’s nukes and missiles and the long-running issue of Japanese citizens abducted by Pyongyang. It will also continue with a $3.1bn missile defence programme jointly developed with the US.

In a similarly realistic vein, the DPJ admitted this week that notwithstanding growing economic inter-dependence, China’s rapidly rising military spending was a concern. But there was not much it could do about it.”There is no option for us to be in a military conflict. We should not be in an arms race but rather aiming to reduce arms in the future,” Okada said almost plaintively. Japan is currently struggling with its worst postwar recession while China is its top two-way trading partner and its biggest 2008 export market – after the US.

The DPJ reacted cautiously last week to a government defence review that recommended easing constitutional constraints to allow Japan’s military to expand global co-operation with the US. In truth, its circumspection reflect splits within the party about how far to go in loosening the US leash – or whether to try at all.

Nor will the US voluntarily relax its close embrace, just because some new faces show up at Tokyo head office next month. According to Harvard professor Joseph Nye, Washington attaches high priority to its Japanese alliance, “a central feature of stability in east Asia”. Shared concerns ranging from China to trans-national pandemics, terrorism and the threats posed by failed states would bind the US and Japan more closely than ever in the 21st century, he predicted.

It’s a lesson other useful long-time US allies, such as Britain, have learned over the years. Whatever DPJ leaders may fondly think, there’s no escaping America when it doesn’t want to be escaped.

Making War to Bring ‘Peace’

By Noam Chomsky

A debate is under way at the United Nations over a policy that may seem uncontroversial: an international framework to prevent severe crimes against humanity.

The framework is called “responsibility to protect,” or R2P, in U.N. parlance. A restricted version of R2P, adopted at the U.N. World Summit in 2005, reaffirmed rights and responsibilities that were accepted by member states in the past and sometimes implemented by them.

However, the discussions about R2P or its cousin, “humanitarian intervention,” are regularly disturbed by the rattling of a skeleton in the closet: history, to the present.

Throughout history, few principles of international affairs apply generally. One is the maxim of Thucydides that the strong do as they wish while the weak suffer as they must.

Another principle is that virtually every use of force in international affairs has been accompanied by lofty rhetoric about the solemn responsibility to protect the suffering populations, and factual justifications for it.

Understandably, the powerful prefer to forget history and look forward. For the weak, it is not a wise choice.

The skeleton in the closet made an appearance in the first dispute considered by the International Court of Justice 60 years ago, the Corfu Channel case about an incident involving Great Britain and Albania.

The court determined it “can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the defects in international organization, find a place in international law…from the nature of things, (intervention) would be reserved for the most powerful states, and might easily lead to perverting the administration of justice itself.”

The same perspective informed the first meeting of the South Summit of 133 states in 2000. Its declaration, surely with the bombing of Serbia in mind, rejected “the so-called `right’ of humanitarian intervention, which has no legal basis in the United Nations Charter or in the general principles of international law.”

The wording reasserts the U.N. Declaration on Friendly Relations (1970). It has been repeated since, among others by the Ministerial Meeting of the Non-aligned movement in Malaysia in 2006, again representing the traditional victims in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Arab world.

The same conclusion was drawn in 2004 by the high-level U.N. Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The panel concluded that U.N. Charter “Article 51 needs neither extension nor restriction of its long-understood scope.”

The panel added, “For those impatient with such a response, the answer must be that, in a world full of perceived potential threats, the risk to the global order and the norm of nonintervention on which it continues to be based is simply too great for the legality of unilateral preventive action, as distinct from collectively endorsed action, to be accepted. Allowing one to so act is to allow all”-which is, of course, unthinkable.

The same basic position was adopted by the U.N. World Summit in 2005. The Summit also stated the willingness “to take collective action…through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter…should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations” from serious crimes.

At most, the phrase sharpens the wording of Article 42 on authorizing the Security Council to resort to force. And the phrase keeps the skeleton in the closet-if we can regard the Security Council as a neutral arbiter, not subject to the maxim of Thucydides.

That assumption, however, is untenable.

The Council is controlled by its five permanent members, and they are not equal in operative authority. One indication is the record of vetoes-the most extreme form of violation of a Security Council Resolution.

During the past quarter-century, China and France together vetoed 7 resolutions; Russia, 6; the United Kingdom, 10: and the United States, 45, including even resolutions calling on states to observe international law.

One way to mitigate this defect in the World Summit consensus would be to eliminate the veto, in accord with the will of the majority of the U.S. population. But such heresies are unthinkable, as much so as applying R2P right now to those who desperately need protection but are not on the favored list of the powerful.

There have been departures from the Corfu Channel restriction and its descendants. The Constitutive Act of the African Union asserts “The right of the Union to intervene in a Member State…in respect of grave circumstances.” That differs from the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS), which bars intervention “for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state.”

The reason for the difference is clear. The OAS Charter seeks to deter intervention by the United States, but after the disappearance of the apartheid states, the AU faces no similar problem.

I know of only one high-level proposal to extend R2P beyond the summit consensus and the AU extension: the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty on Responsibility to Protect (2001).

The commission considers the situation in which “the Security Council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time.” In that case, the report authorizes “action within area of jurisdiction by regional or sub-regional organizations…subject to their seeking subsequent authorization from the Security Council.”

At this point, the skeleton in the closet rattles loudly. The powerful unilaterally determine their own “area of jurisdiction.” The OAS and AU cannot do so, but NATO can, and does.

NATO has determined that its “area of jurisdiction” extends to the Balkans, Afghanistan and beyond.

The expansive rights accorded by the International Commission are in practice restricted to NATO alone, violating the Corfu Channel principles and opening the door for R2P as a weapon of imperial intervention at will.

The “responsibility to protect” has always been selective. Thus it did not apply to the sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States and United Kingdom and administered by the Security Council, condemned as “genocidal” by the distinguished diplomats in charge, both of whom resigned in protest.

There is also no thought today of applying R2P to the people of Gaza, a “protected population” for whom the United Nations is responsible.

And nothing serious is contemplated about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the murderous conflict in eastern Congo. There, the BBC just reported, multinationals are once again accused of violating a U.N. resolution against illicit trade of valuable minerals-funding the violence.

Nor is R2P invoked to respond to massive starvation in the poor countries.

Several years ago UNICEF reported that 16,000 children die every day from lack of food, many more from easily preventable disease. The figures are higher now. In southern Africa alone it is Rwanda-level killing, not for 100 days, but every day. Action under R2P would be easy enough, were there the will.

In these and numerous other cases the selectivity conforms to the maxim of Thucydides and the expectations of the I.C.J. 60 years ago.

But the maxims that largely guide international affairs are not immutable, and, in fact, have become less harsh over the years as a result of the civilizing effect of popular movements.

For such progressive reform, R2P can be a valuable tool, much as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been.

Even though states do not adhere to the Universal Declaration, and some formally reject much of it (crucially including the world’s most powerful state), nonetheless it serves as an ideal that activists can appeal to in educational and organizing efforts, often effectively.

The discussion of R2P may be similar. With sufficient commitment, unfortunately not yet detectable among the powerful, it could be significant indeed.

India launches nuclear submarine

India has launched its first nuclear-powered submarine, becoming only the sixth country in the world to do so.

Mr Singh said ‘we do not seek to threaten anyone’

The 6,000 tonne Arihant was launched by India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a ceremony on the south-east coast.

It was built entirely in India with Russian assistance and a second one is due to be constructed shortly.

It will undergo trials over the next few years before being deployed and will be able to launch missiles at targets 700km (437 miles) away.

Until now, only the US, Russia, France, Britain and China had the capability to build nuclear submarines.

‘China threat’

Launching the INS Arihant, Mr Singh said India had no aggressive designs on anyone.

But the sea was becoming increasingly relevant to India’s security concerns, he added.

India has relied mainly on Russian-built submarines until now

“It is incumbent upon us to take all measures necessary to safeguard our country and to keep pace with technological advancements worldwide,” he told the ceremony in the port city of Visakhapatnam.

The BBC’s Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says until now India has been able to launch ballistic missiles only from the air and from land.

Nuclear submarines will add a third dimension to its defence capability.

When it is eventually deployed, the top-secret Arihant will be able to carry 100 sailors on board.

It will be able to stay under water for long periods and thereby increase its chances of remaining undetected.

By contrast, India’s ageing conventional diesel-powered submarines need to constantly surface to recharge their batteries.

Our correspondent says the launching of the Arihant is a clear sign that India is looking to blunt the threat from China which has a major naval presence in the region.