The Raymond Davis Case: Justice through diplomacy

February 7, 2011

by raven_gale

The mysterious case of Raymond Davis who murdered two Pakistani’s in broad daylight near Mazang Chowk has initiated the debate Blackwater operatives on Pakistani soil. Somehow, it seems that the more you get to know about it, the more perplexing the scenario gets. The statements given by US and Pakistani governments give the impression that both the governments are purposely trying to keep the general public clouded in confusion, and as far away from the truth as is humanly possible.

Up till now, what is known about the case is that Raymond Davis, a staff member of the US Embassy in Islamabad, shot two Pakistani men dead on Thursday, January 27, 2011 in a crowded part of Lahore (Mozang Chowk), according to him in self-defense. A US Consulate vehicle that rushed in to ‘rescue’ Mr. David then ran over a third person, who also died. A murder case was registered against Raymond Davis, who was handed into police custody. A case has also been registered against the driver of the US Consulate vehicle that ran over a third person, but the driver has not yet been apprehended.

Read Complete Article Here: http://my.nowpublic.com/world/raymond-davis-case-justice-through-diplomacy


An American goes to Pakistan: The Raymond Davis Case

February 7, 2011

By Shemrez

The Government of Pakistan, its electronic media and its people, have been captivated by the case of one Raymond Allen Davis, an ‘American’ allegedly using a pseudonym and a ‘diplomatic passport’ to come to Pakistan and shoot two Pakistanis in Lahore in broad daylight. The incident happened apparently in self-defense, and in addition to conspiracy-prone Pakistani society, a few questions remained unanswered which led to more and more sensationalism, and concealment of important facts.

First, there should be no doubt by now that ‘Davis’ is a US DoD contractor. His name seems more of a pseudonym because of General Raymond Gilbert Davis, a US Marines General who fought in World War II and retired from the post of Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps on March 31, 1972, after more than 33 years with the Marines. There is also Raymond Davis Jr., a chemist and physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2002. This only rings a bell if one remembers the CIA Station Chief in Islamabad who got ratted out; Jonathan Banks, apparently another pseudonym, because web searches for the name yield websites related only to an American TV/film actor.

Read Complete Article Here: http://shemrez.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/07/6004187-an-american-goes-to-pakistan-the-raymond-davis-case


INDIA: Internal insecurity more serious than external threats

September 9, 2009

SouthAsiaSpeaks

On 12 August, seven-year-old Juni Kumari was found missing from her home in the village of Ghagni in the state of Bihar, India. On 15 August, her body was found abandoned in a sugarcane field near her village. Juni’s mother recovered the girl’s body. Her head had been shaven and sandalwood paste applied to her forehead. Finding that her daughter had been murdered, she approached the local police to file a complaint. The police investigation revealed that the girl was a victim of a human sacrifice conducted by some Hindu priests in the village. One priest, a prime suspect in the case, was reportedly arrested by the police.

Security Excesses

On August 17, in Ahmadabad district of Gujarat state, the Muslim and the Hindu communities started an armed riot. The issue was a petty one having to do with a religious procession passing near a Muslim school. The police had to resort to firing their weapons in order to disperse the unruly mob. In just a matter of hours, they had destroyed building properties and looted businesses.

On July 23, in an incident of fake encounter, an innocent civilian was shot dead inside a medical store in Imphal, the capital city of Manipur state. The Manipur State Police Commando Unit, in the same incident, opened fire on passersby, killing a woman, seven-months pregnant and seriously injuring five other civilians.

This was an extremely savage incident. Later on the same day, in the state legislative assembly, the Chief Minister of Manipur, informed the state and his fellow legislators that terrorism can only be controlled through stern police action. By this statement, he not only justified the irresponsible police action, but also further declared two innocent civilians terrorists. The deceased as well as their family members failed to receive even the minimum decency of an apology.

The statement of the Chief Minister served the singular purpose of making public the government’s position. There would be no investigation into the incident. The statement carried with it the high detrimental quotient to anyone who wished to protest against the murders. In Manipur, one of the most militarised states in the country, such a public remark by the Chief Minister is enough to silence any protest. Yet, contrary to the Minister’s expectations, the people rallied in protest, literally paralysing the state for days. The protest is still going on.

On August 15, the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, in an address to the nation said, ” terrorism and infiltration through the boarder, sponsored by neighbouring countries, is the greatest threat the nation faces .” Dr. Singh was delivering his address to the nation on the 62nd anniversary of the country’s independence.

External threats have been and will remain a menace to India’s internal security. However, such threats are not unique to India or for that matter to any particular country. Threats, from outside a nation’s boarder, gain importance when its internal stability is weak. This has been proven repeatedly in Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and most recently, in Mumbai.

The biggest threat to India’s internal security is its own law enforcement agencies. The atrocious acts involving violation of duty and law, like that was reported from Imphal, have isolated the law enforcement agencies in the country from the people. A law enforcement agency that lacks the support and confidence of the people neither can enforce the law nor can be of any help to the people.

As of now, there is no legislative or normative framework in the country that fastens the basic components of law enforcement upon the law enforcement agencies. For instance, accountability and openness are two basic administrative elements that are unheard of within the law enforcement agencies in India. Officers are notorious for corruption and use of arbitrary force than for solving crime.

The use of torture and the practice of extra judicial execution are rampant in the country that the term ‘law enforcement’ has become a misnomer to refer to these agencies in India. Even human rights defenders in the country face such threats at the hands of the law enforcement agencies. For instance, there is a considerable amount of threat faced by human rights defenders in India, particularly in the state of Manipur.

Special units of the state police the paramilitary units stationed in various parts of the country constantly bully and threaten human rights activists working under their jurisdiction. For this very reason reporting human rights violations from India has increasingly become a risky job. Neither the politicians, like Dr. Singh, nor other policy makers in the country are interested in addressing the issues that affects law enforcement in India. There are no attempts to prevent, or at the minimum reduce, the violence committed by law enforcement agencies in the country.

Indians are yet to hear a politician in the country speaking about reforms to the existing system. There is no healthy discussion in the country about eliminating torture or bringing accountability to the actions of the country’s law enforcement agencies. Instead, the rhetoric is about threats from outside the country. This empty speech has to be understood as only a political attempt to justify the use of violence and continue allowing impunity to the state agencies, particularly to the police and paramilitary units.

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
August 25, 2009


INDIA: Internal insecurity more serious than external threats

September 9, 2009

SouthAsiaSpeaks

On 12 August, seven-year-old Juni Kumari was found missing from her home in the village of Ghagni in the state of Bihar, India. On 15 August, her body was found abandoned in a sugarcane field near her village. Juni’s mother recovered the girl’s body. Her head had been shaven and sandalwood paste applied to her forehead. Finding that her daughter had been murdered, she approached the local police to file a complaint. The police investigation revealed that the girl was a victim of a human sacrifice conducted by some Hindu priests in the village. One priest, a prime suspect in the case, was reportedly arrested by the police.

Security Excesses

On August 17, in Ahmadabad district of Gujarat state, the Muslim and the Hindu communities started an armed riot. The issue was a petty one having to do with a religious procession passing near a Muslim school. The police had to resort to firing their weapons in order to disperse the unruly mob. In just a matter of hours, they had destroyed building properties and looted businesses.

On July 23, in an incident of fake encounter, an innocent civilian was shot dead inside a medical store in Imphal, the capital city of Manipur state. The Manipur State Police Commando Unit, in the same incident, opened fire on passersby, killing a woman, seven-months pregnant and seriously injuring five other civilians.

This was an extremely savage incident. Later on the same day, in the state legislative assembly, the Chief Minister of Manipur, informed the state and his fellow legislators that terrorism can only be controlled through stern police action. By this statement, he not only justified the irresponsible police action, but also further declared two innocent civilians terrorists. The deceased as well as their family members failed to receive even the minimum decency of an apology.

The statement of the Chief Minister served the singular purpose of making public the government’s position. There would be no investigation into the incident. The statement carried with it the high detrimental quotient to anyone who wished to protest against the murders. In Manipur, one of the most militarised states in the country, such a public remark by the Chief Minister is enough to silence any protest. Yet, contrary to the Minister’s expectations, the people rallied in protest, literally paralysing the state for days. The protest is still going on.

On August 15, the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, in an address to the nation said, ” terrorism and infiltration through the boarder, sponsored by neighbouring countries, is the greatest threat the nation faces .” Dr. Singh was delivering his address to the nation on the 62nd anniversary of the country’s independence.

External threats have been and will remain a menace to India’s internal security. However, such threats are not unique to India or for that matter to any particular country. Threats, from outside a nation’s boarder, gain importance when its internal stability is weak. This has been proven repeatedly in Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Assam and most recently, in Mumbai.

The biggest threat to India’s internal security is its own law enforcement agencies. The atrocious acts involving violation of duty and law, like that was reported from Imphal, have isolated the law enforcement agencies in the country from the people. A law enforcement agency that lacks the support and confidence of the people neither can enforce the law nor can be of any help to the people.

As of now, there is no legislative or normative framework in the country that fastens the basic components of law enforcement upon the law enforcement agencies. For instance, accountability and openness are two basic administrative elements that are unheard of within the law enforcement agencies in India. Officers are notorious for corruption and use of arbitrary force than for solving crime.

The use of torture and the practice of extra judicial execution are rampant in the country that the term ‘law enforcement’ has become a misnomer to refer to these agencies in India. Even human rights defenders in the country face such threats at the hands of the law enforcement agencies. For instance, there is a considerable amount of threat faced by human rights defenders in India, particularly in the state of Manipur.

Special units of the state police the paramilitary units stationed in various parts of the country constantly bully and threaten human rights activists working under their jurisdiction. For this very reason reporting human rights violations from India has increasingly become a risky job. Neither the politicians, like Dr. Singh, nor other policy makers in the country are interested in addressing the issues that affects law enforcement in India. There are no attempts to prevent, or at the minimum reduce, the violence committed by law enforcement agencies in the country.

Indians are yet to hear a politician in the country speaking about reforms to the existing system. There is no healthy discussion in the country about eliminating torture or bringing accountability to the actions of the country’s law enforcement agencies. Instead, the rhetoric is about threats from outside the country. This empty speech has to be understood as only a political attempt to justify the use of violence and continue allowing impunity to the state agencies, particularly to the police and paramilitary units.

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission
August 25, 2009


Swords and Ploughshares

March 24, 2009

Sustainable Security in Afghanistan Requires Sweeping U.S. Policy Overhaul

SOURCE: Army National Guard

The Center for American Progress sponsored a simulation exercise to assess the impact of various foreign assistance reforms on the ability of the U.S. government to stabilize countries in crisis, choosing Afghanistan as the crucible.

Executive summary

The breadth and complexity of the security challenges facing the United States abroad often defy solution through the application of military force alone. The Sustainable Security Program at the Center for American Progress over the past year generated a series of analyses to examine alternative approaches to conventional notions of national security-alongside policy recommendations to strengthen the non-military tools of U.S. power. All of this work is based on the premise that the United States can best promote its security interests abroad by supporting the essential needs of citizens around the world, especially in poor and unstable countries.

Yet the ability of the U.S. government to improve the lives of others in countries with varying degrees of instability does not match its ability to wage decisive combat operations. There is a fundamental mismatch between the civilian and military aspects of American power-a mismatch that undermines the pursuit of U.S. foreign policy, particularly the effective implementation of foreign assistance programs across the spectrum of conflict. This must be corrected to achieve near-term successes in immediate crises facing the United States, such as in Afghanistan today, as well as to ensure the long-term viability of U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad.

With the assistance of the Institute for State Effectiveness, the Center for American Progress sponsored a simulation exercise to assess the impact of various foreign assistance reforms on the ability of the U.S. government to stabilize countries in crisis, choosing Afghanistan as the crucible because of the immediate need for the United States to confront the crisis now confronting policymakers there. Approximately 20 experts with significant experience in development assistance around the world and in Afghanistan were invited to participate. The exercise was designed to test the hypothesis that reforming key aspects of America’s foreign assistance architecture would significantly improve the government’s ability to foster a stable environment in Afghanistan.

Going into the exercise, we presumed that if this specific conclusion proved correct in Afghanistan, then we could reasonably infer that such improvements might help the U.S. government to perform stabilization missions effectively in other conflict environments as well. Coming out of the three-day simulation exercise at the Airlie Center in Warrenton, Virginia, we realized that our original premise-that robust foreign assistance reforms outlined in our Sustainable Security analyses would secure U.S. foreign policy objectives abroad-was not sufficient to bring about success in Afghanistan. In fact, even more sweeping reforms were required to stabilize and then turn around the security situation in Afghanistan.

Major results

The results of the exercise yielded five major conclusions for foreign assistance reform generally and for U.S. policy toward Afghanistan in particular:

  • Integrated planning and programming in Washington and abroad is essential. U.S. foreign assistance mechanisms must be flexible and robust enough to have an immediate and enduring strategic impact abroad.
  • Counterinsurgency and development strategies must be intertwined. U.S. development assistance must be focused first in the most militarily secure areas of the country to build momentum and demonstrate success to other areas of the country still struggling with basic security problems.
  • Catalytic development of local development assistance capabilities is paramount. U.S. policies must build local capacity and demonstrable domestic solutions rather than building dependence on external support from abroad.
  • Development professionals matter. Hire enough development professionals to put them everywhere they are needed.
  • “Maximalist” measures are insufficient. Strengthening foreign assistance will require more reform than we thought.

In the pages that follow, the simulation exercises conducted over three days will be detailed alongside the conclusions drawn from them. A complete breakdown of the simulation model employed in the exercise and the list of participants and their roles in the exercise over the course of those three days is available online at the Sustainable Security page on the Center for American Progress Web site. Together, this report demonstrates that success in Afghanistan (and by inference success in other unstable trouble spots abroad) will require the Obama administration to retool its foreign assistance programs quickly and efficiently in the coming months and years. U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives will be much better served because of the effort.


The Dossier Difficulty

January 22, 2009

  Before Pakistan got the Mumbai Dossier from India the general perception was that the Mumbai attack was a meticulously planned operation and that none except professionals had anything to do with it. After all ten persons attacking multiple targets to bring a massive city to a halt and put a country into a tailspin had to be very special people trained and launched by even more special people. So when the Indian finger pointed in the only direction it can point to –Pakistan and its military and  ISI—there were some takers.

 

  After the Mumbai dossier has been made public people are confused. The dossier details a badly botched operation that succeeded only because of the incompetence and many lapses of the Indians themselves. The attackers look like complete nincompoops. They were carrying pickle, shaving cream and other toiletries all made in Pakistan. Even the dinghy engine had the Pakistani manufacturers name in plain view. These people called numbers in Pakistan to get instructions at every single step lest they be confused with anyone except a Pakistani. One attacker miraculously survived to tell the tale and has been accepted as a Pakistani after an investigation. Pakistan is following up on the information provided by this survivor even though he obviously gave it under extreme interrogation.

 

  The dossier raises several questions. What was the aim of the attack—hostage taking, suicide bombing or random killing? The attackers seem to have done a bit of all these without any conclusive results. What was the purpose of the operation? Mayhem or terror or economic destruction or some kind of message to meet their demands—again they failed on many counts. Why leave a clear trail pointing at Pakistan with planted items? No explanation answers this question except that they wanted India-Pakistan relations put on the previous hostility track and perhaps lead to a conflict situation. Is it in Pakistan’s interest to do any of these things? Obviously not—Pakistan would not want a problem with India because of the threat across its western borders and the fact that Pakistan has been totally committed to the composite dialogue with India. Who would want deterioration in the India-Pakistan situation? Non-state actors within India and Pakistan using local infrastructures.

 

  The situation calls for a joint investigation and a resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan. The pre-condition can be that the purpose will be to find the planners, perpetrators and their collaborators so that they can be brought to justice. Blame, pressure and threats will not bring closure—it can create complications and lead to unpredictable consequences. The world has accepted that Pakistan as a state is not involved. Pakistan has offered joint investigation. Pakistan is also investigating and taking action. India needs to reciprocate.

 


How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe

January 12, 2009

Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state’s legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions

Avi Shlaim
The only way to make sense of Israel’s senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders”. I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel’s vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration’s complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza’s prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.

Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion’s share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel’s settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel’s propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.

Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.

The war unleashed by Israel on Gaza on 27 December was the culmination of a series of clashes and confrontations with the Hamas government. In a broader sense, however, it is a war between Israel and the Palestinian people, because the people had elected the party to power. The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel’s terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

The timing of the war was determined by political expediency. A general election is scheduled for 10 February and, in the lead-up to the election, all the main contenders are looking for an opportunity to prove their toughness. The army top brass had been champing at the bit to deliver a crushing blow to Hamas in order to remove the stain left on their reputation by the failure of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006. Israel’s cynical leaders could also count on apathy and impotence of the pro-western Arab regimes and on blind support from President Bush in the twilight of his term in the White House. Bush readily obliged by putting all the blame for the crisis on Hamas, vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and issuing Israel with a free pass to mount a ground invasion of Gaza.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted – a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath. The resort to brute military force is accompanied, as always, by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness. In Hebrew this is known as the syndrome of bokhim ve-yorim, “crying and shooting”.

To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak – terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel’s entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

The brutality of Israel’s soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel’s objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel’s forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel’s spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

A wide gap separates the reality of Israel’s actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen. It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It di d so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel’s objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers. And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel’s insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash. After eight days of bombing, with a death toll of more than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis, the gung-ho cabinet ordered a land invasion of Gaza the consequences of which are incalculable.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel’s concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel’s record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with “an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders”. A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism – the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel’s real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

• Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein’s Life in War and Peace.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine


War will not bring peace

January 6, 2009

Deborah Storie

‘WHAT is Kevin Rudd like?” “What type of man is he?” “Will he win the election?” Afghan friends and colleagues assailed me with these questions when I returned to Afghanistan in October last year. Their obsession with our federal election bemused me. Ten years ago they didn’t know when Australian elections were or that Australia had a prime minister.

My friends explained: “Your next prime minister is very important to us. We need to know whether he will be someone else who believes that guns are the answer to everything. You see if he is different, and if the next American president is different, if they are people of peace, then maybe there is hope for us.”

Fifteen months later, Kevin Rudd, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President-elect Barack Obama insist that scaling up the military intervention will make Afghanistan and the world safer. But war can resolve neither Afghanistan’s conflicts nor the spectre of global terrorism. More troops and more guns will only plunge Afghanistan further into violence.

At the 2020 Summit, public psychologist Kate Barrelle explained how military interventions and economic sanctions can enforce compliance by “putting a lid on” resistance. The longer that lid remains in place, the more resentment wells up beneath it. When military or economic force increases, the pressure erupts in spurts of violence, such as increasing numbers of suicide bombers. Eventually, the lid gives and widespread violence explodes.

The military intervention might have worked had it moved immediately from deposing the Taliban to disarmament and then rapidly scaled down. It didn’t. NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan now numbers 47,600 troops, including 1090 Australians. With special forces and private security companies there are 70,000 troops in a country of about 32 million — one foreign soldier for every 460 Afghans.

The Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan Relief reports that non-government organisations cannot work in many regions where military units are active. Many rural communities consider international troops a major threat to their safety. And then there are the guns. Interceptions of “illegal munitions” receive international media coverage

as “bad guns”. We only hear about “legal” weapons when “terrorists” destroy military consignments en route to Afghanistan.

According to the Kabul Times, private security firms imported more than 800,000 guns last year — one for every 40 Afghans. The Afghan Government’s attempts to stem this influx were overruled. These are “good guns”. Instead of disarming Afghanistan, we’ve super-armed it.

Some aid and development workers refuse to travel in military planes, patronise coffee shops that have armed guards or travel under “armed protection”. This is partially self-interest — keeping such company is dangerous — and partially a principled refusal to support a security industry that generates and depends on fear. War economies thrive when fear erodes the foundations of peace.

Pedestrians lower their heads when they pass armed men in uniform: police, soldiers, guards. “Lambs by day,” they say. “Wolves by night.” Experience has taught them what empirical studies show: the availability of firearms and their presence in public directly correlates with the prevalence of violence.

In 2007, about 70 Afghan nationals were reported kidnapped in Kabul each month. Each morning, a family sends its four children in four directions to attend four schools. Why? “We don’t want to lose them all at once.”

I walked to the Kabul office one morning when two boys passed slowly on a bike. They asked each other, “Dakheli ya khareji?” (“A local or a foreigner?”) I responded, “Khareji ya dakheli, chi farq mekuna?” (“Foreigner or local, what difference does it make?”) They laughed. “If you had been a foreigner, we’d have thrown you into danger.” I played along with the joke, “And may peace be upon you, too!”

The overwhelming majority of Australian soldiers deployed in Afghanistan are brave men and women willing to die for the sake of others. Our desire to honour our soldiers does not oblige us to continue a counter-productive military campaign.

As an Afghan acquaintance confided, “Your governments think they are ‘stamping out terrorism’ … They keep a score card and think they are winning because they count more dead Talibs than dead Americans. That’s not how it works. But, if arithmetic is all your governments understand, tell them to look beyond their tally cards and see the trouble multiplying on the ground. For every Talib you kill, you make 10 more. For every mother you hurt, a thousand Talibs are born. You are breeding terror, not stamping it out.”

Our motives and what the war costs us are not the main issues. The human consequences are much more important. Local capacities for peace and non-military alternatives need to be taken seriously.

This will necessarily involve conversation, respectful dialogue — and drinking tea.

What type of man is Kevin Rudd? Does he believe that guns are the answer to everything? A year ago, I told my Afghan friends: “I will vote for Kevin Rudd. I hope that he and his government will be different.”

Rudd understands that he can best promote human rights in China within the context of respectful relationships. The same applies in Afghanistan. Rudd is rightly committed to promoting nuclear disarmament. The human suffering caused by small arms should prompt Rudd to extend his commitment to promote demilitarisation more generally. I would like to tell my Afghan friends that our still-quite-new Prime Minister is a man of peace. But I still don’t know.

Deborah Storie, the deputy chair of TEAR Australia, lived and worked in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1998 and still visits and works in the country regularly.

 


Pakistan’s present and future war

January 5, 2009

Saturday, January 03, 2009
By Samson Simon Sharaf
 
India has carried out a revaluation of its strategic options with Pakistan, and the coming years could witness an all-out strategy of coercion by it, a strategy so effectively applied by Israel in the Middle East. India’s biggest advantage in conceptual and technical military cooperation with Israel lies in the fact that its technology is largely indigenous and facilitates material transfer with no end-user problems. Pakistan is already engaged in a war of attrition and the future will be a serious test of its strategy of defiance and ability to ride out the crises as a cohesive nation state.

India’s quest for security and response to perceived external threats is shaped and complicated by its past. India desires to exist as a great power with a capability of bullying its neighbours and turning them into vassal states. Pakistan has been the major impediment towards this India’s quest for great-power status. Wary of the freedom struggle in Kashmir, an exaggerated threat of Islamic militants and fear of another Two Nation Theory from within, Indian strategists have been toying with the idea of using a small but lethal rapid-reaction force for a limited duration inside Pakistan. However, India cannot accomplish what it has failed to do in the past six decades, unless the breeze blows in its favour.

In the post-9/11 scenario, India sees an opportunity and is acting as a neo-realist to minimise the importance of Pakistan through high-profile coercion in line with international perceptions. In this India is even ready to forego its traditional mantra of keeping the great powers out of the region and to align with them for short-term gains. In the final analysis, India wishes to frame a politically discredited, ethnically fragmented, economically fragile and morally weak Pakistan. This can only happen if the role of the armed forces in Pakistan’s policymaking is reduced, Punjab divided and the rallying call of Kashmir taken care of for good.

The Indian military structure is geared towards such a capability with active assistance from Russia and Israel, and now the USA and UK. Having allied itself closely with Israel, India will now seek a continuous harassment through heightened military coercion, control of river waters, diplomatic isolation and covert interference. Mumbai and any such incidents in future will continue to provide reason for such intimidation, all in concert with the US and western strategic objectives in the region.

Interestingly, much of the blame for having landed in the box and then pushed into a vulnerable position must also be shared by the Pakistani establishments of the past decade. Pakistan’s declared nuclear capability was meant to deter all types of conflicts and pave the way for sustained economic growth, international stature, and a political solution of the Kashmir dispute, Through Kargil, Pakistan led India and the world to believe that notwithstanding a nuclear shadow, a limited military conflict in an existing conflict zone was still possible. Kargil, and later 9/11, changed international perceptions on an armed freedom struggle in Kashmir as well as Pakistan’s relevance to the new form of threat: non-state actors. Seen in the backdrop of 9/11, it was the second effect that finally resulted in disownership of the freedom fighters in Kashmir by Pakistan while also resigning the Kashmir question to the impossibility of backdoor diplomacy.

The nuclear capability of Pakistan provides a very small window of opportunity to India to carry out a physical offensive action across the LoC or the international border. This action could be a raid in the form of hot pursuit through ground or helicopter-borne troops, precision air strikes with or without stand-off; remote-controlled targeting through a guided-missile attack, and in the worst case, an attempt to seize objectives close to the international border with little military but considerable political significance. India had a fully developed chemical weapons programme even before it signed the chemical weapons convention as a country not possessing chemical weapons. But it declared its arsenal soon after signing the convention and is not averse to using quickly diffusing chemical weapons. After 9/11, India has held war games and fine-tuned these concepts and implemented some in a very limited manner during the escalation on the LoC.

Hot pursuit, as the name suggests, is only possible in an already hot theatre like the LoC. These are launched through ground troops or heliborne forces. Such an option has little probability because of the bilateral ceasefire. But such an option, however remote, cannot be ruled out.

With the active assistance of Israel, some Indian aircrafts have acquired a beyond-visual-range, precision stand-off capability, something witnessed during the Kargil conflict. India may use its air force remaining inside its own territory and launch laser-guided munitions diagonally inside Pakistan. However, the selected targets should be within 20 kilometres of the LoC or the international border.

Precision strikes imply that Indian aircrafts will physically violate Pakistan’s airspace and launch precision surgical strikes against selected targets from a very high altitude, or conventional bombing runs, or use heliborne troops. In such a situation, these aircrafts will be vulnerable to Pakistani air defence and the PAF.

In the cold start strategy, India positions forces with offensive capabilities in military garrisons close to the international border, equipped, trained and tasked to capture some nodal points along the international border, before the Pakistani forces can react. India may not succeed in such an operation without a massive air cover. In Indian strategic calculus, the timing and lightening speed of such operations will solicit immense international pressure on Pakistan so as to curtail Pakistan’s conventional and nuclear response.

Notwithstanding such options hinging on military and diplomatic brinkmanship, India will benefit from the use of Israeli armed and surveillance drones operated by Israeli crews from inside India. Historical precedents for such cooperation already exist.

The whole body of war fighting reasoning in such limited conflicts warrants a level of rationality and comprehension of a common strategic language between the belligerents. This is technically impossible. Different actors would draw varying conclusions from an animated Graduated Escalation Ladder (GEL) always vulnerable to a Fire Break Point that could result in uncontrolled conventional and nuclear escalation. It is, therefore, most important that the decision to graduate a conflict rest solely with the political leaders of the country, wherein a common strategic parlance could be evolved with more ease.

Taking a leaf from the Israeli opaqueness in its nuclear doctrine, India over time has applied a conceptual innovation in her nuclear strategy. The Indian revision in the nuclear doctrine implies the ambiguity in the “no first use clause” through a declared no first use and pre-emptive retaliation to create a perception that it is making a coercive transaction from doctrine of limited conventional war to an opaque level of conflict in which the nuclear weapons remain in a very high state of alert. The implication is that India may flirt with the concept of a limited strategic coercion in the shadow of a very high non-degradable nuclear alert beyond Pakistan’s capability to neutralise. It is also my opinion that, as of now, after having signed the Nuclear Deal with USA, India benefits from an extended US nuclear umbrella, and strategic and diplomatic support.

There are reliable reports from Afghanistan that Indian contractors are busy building billets and accommodation in Kabul and Bagram to station two Indian divisions in the area. At the same time, bids have been invited by the US Corps of Engineers to construct a divisional size cantonment in Kandahar. Hypothetically, troops in the garb of protection for Indian investments will actually seal off Afghanistan’s Pakhtun regions from the North. Then the US, NATO and Indian troops will go for an all-out counter insurgency operation in the cordoned off Pakhtun areas. The effects of spill-over into Pakistan would be pronounced and the Durand Line would become a figment of imagination. Premised on the romantic notion of Pakhtun nationalism, the doors to Pakhtunkhwa would be opened. The USA would then select the shortest route to Afghanistan through the Arabian Sea and Balochistan.

Whatever the concept, scope and objective of such limited escalations, India, with its newfound allies, has decided to maintain a constant vigil and coercion of Pakistan over a prolonged period of time but well below a Fire Break Point. The obvious targets, in tandem, with its allies, will be addressed through diverse instruments like control of rivers, economics, diplomacy, international pressure, internal law and order, military intimidation and even insurgency. A trillion-dollar question is: will the USA be ready to occupy Balochistan for a secure supply corridor?

The war has already begun. The question is. When did it begin?

The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistani army. Email: nicco1988@hotmail.com
 
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=155246


Surgical strike syndrome

January 5, 2009

Saturday, January 03, 2009
Ikramullah Bhatti

A surgical strike, mostly through air power, is a military attack to cause damage to only the intended target, with no, or minimal, collateral damage. Weapons used for this purpose are invariably precision-guided. Examples of surgical strikes are the Israeli bombing of PLO targets in Tunis in 1985 and Israel’s 1981 Operation Babylon against Iraq. A third example is the bombing of Libyan targets by US in 1986.

A surgical strike is generally the option of the stronger side. Any unilateral military action can invoke retaliation which could lead to a full-fledged war. Only the stronger side would be ready and willing to take this risk.

When Israel attacked the PLO in Tunis in 1985, the UN Security Council passed a resolution US abstention condemning the action. Even the US expressed its disapproval but abstained. In any case, Israel could get away with it.

Though it was not a classic surgical strike, the botched US rescue attempt in Tehran in 1980 was launched to rescue US nationals. However, the hidden objective of President Carter was to ensure the release under his administration and eventually win the Democratic nomination for the presidential election. Iran released the held personnel immediately after Ronald Reagan took office.

The last requisite for surgical strikes is there is little possibility of retaliation, or for the retaliation to be bearable. In addition to likely international criticism, the victim country is bound to react to such an attack. This reaction would understandably depend on its politico-military capability and readiness for a response. Therefore, besides a diplomatic campaign, the victim country could opt to launch reciprocal attacks. These attacks will have to take place only minutes later, or there would be international intervention and the victim country would be prevented from resorting to this course of action. Hence, a retaliation would almost be certain. Furthermore, military activity may not end here and there would be a serious danger of a snowball phenomenon leading to a limited or even all-out war. A surgical strike would, therefore, become an option for a country when it has evaluated and discounted this requisite.

In the India-Pakistan context, it was in the third week of December that the readiness and willingness of the Indian air force for surgical strikes became apparent. Realising the seriousness of the situation the PAF immediately deployed its defensive elements at strategic locations and started 24-hour patrolling of the designated areas. This was further backed up by a declaration by the Pakistani government that an attack of this nature will be taken as an act of war and that Pakistan would respond and without delay. Meanwhile, the government’s crackdown was already going on against the organisation declared terrorist by the UN. This crackdown has resulted in the arrest of several individuals and the closing down of numerous premises. By these three actions Pakistan was able to not only neutralise the legitimacy of the Indian cause for the attack but it also clearly indicated to the Indians that such an adventure would be very expensive. Therefore, a clear message was sent out by Pakistan to the west that it was seriously responding to the UN’s call but no Indian adventurism would be accepted. Seeing this, the tone and tenor of the Indian leadership and their media has undergone a positive change. India is also accepting foreign envoys to discuss and resolve the situation. An Indian surgical strike has thus become less likely.

While it is airpower that is employed for surgical strikes, such an attack could be best countered by air power. The PAF would thus be responsible for defence against such an Indian attack. The PAF has always fought against India outnumbered by the IAF. Nevertheless, the PAF always enjoyed a technological or qualitative advantage over the IAF. This edge has, however, eroded due to sanctions on Pakistan in different periods of time. On the other hand, the planners of the PAF have earnestly worked and, despite limited resources, the PAF has upgraded all its aircraft, weapon and sensors. It does have some weaknesses which are in the process of being addressed. On exhaustion of other options, disputes between nations are being settled today not by occupying territory but by inflicting pain. Appreciating the significance of air power as the weapon of first choice in present-day warfare, the government has been providing requisite resources for the accomplishment of the PAF’s development programmes. If the government maintains this support, the PAF is poised to regain its qualitative pre-eminence in the near future.

Though its likelihood has reduced to an extent, a surgical strike in the Indo-Pakistani scenario remains a clear and present danger. Nonetheless, India can opt to resort to it anytime because in the Indo-Pakistani scenario there will never be dearth of reasons and justifications. The Pakistani government and the PAF have sent out clear messages demonstrating their resolve to fight terrorism and their intent to defend Pakistan at the same time. Now it is up to India and the western world to understand and act.

The writer is a former air vice-marshal of the PAF. Email: ikram_bhatti@ yahoo.com


SCENARIOS-Assessing risks of India, Pakistan confrontation

January 1, 2009

By Simon Cameron-Moore and Alistair Scrutton

ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI, Dec 29 (Reuters) – Since militants killed 179 people in an assault on Mumbai, India has withstood internal pressure to unleash a military attack on Pakistan soil.

Internal dynamics and diplomatic responses are still evolving since the Nov. 26-29 attack. With relations fraught between rivals who have fought three wars, here is a look at some scenarios that could unfold.

WAR

Highly improbable. No one, except the militants, would want it. Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee says India is keeping all options open, comments the Indian media have widely interpreted to mean that a military response is still possible. But he has also said that war “is no solution” and accused Pakistan of creating “war hysteria” to deflect blame.

Tensions flared when Pakistan accused Indian warplanes of air space violations on Dec. 13 and said its own fighter jets were scrambled. India denies any incursion. Pakistan has cancelled army leave and shifted some troops from its western border with Afghanistan to the eastern border with India.

The two countries went to the brink of war in 2002 after Pakistani jihadi groups attacked the Indian parliament in 2001, but ultimately the risk of nuclear conflict made it a crazy option. Any kind of Indian military action is likely to provoke retaliation, either from jihadis or worse the Pakistani military. India’s strength lies in its ability to win global diplomatic support to pressure Pakistan to clean its house of jihadis.

Pressure on New Delhi to pursue a military option would rise if India was attacked again.

PEACE PROCESS

India has imposed a “pause” on a peace process begun in 2004, which had brought better ties, and also cancelled a cricket tour to Pakistan next month. India wants Pakistan to crack down on groups analysts say have been favoured by the Pakistani military’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Pakistan denies any links to the Mumbai attacks, blaming “non-state actors”, and says India has provided no evidence for it to investigate. India says it has given Pakistan specific details, including an account by the lone surviving gunman.

A crackdown like one by then military ruler General Pervez Musharraf in 2002, which was widely regarded as a sham, will satisfy neither New Delhi nor Washington.

In what was seen in India as a tit-for-tat move, Pakistan media reported that several Indian nationals had been held after a bombing in the city of Lahore. India then warned its citizens it would be unsafe to travel to or remain in Pakistan.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration is expected to encourage settlement of the Kashmir dispute, a step seen as part of the process to stabilise Afghanistan.

India probably realises it’s better to engage Pakistan than ignore it in the long-run, and it would like to help civilian leaders establish authority over the generals.

U.S. pressure to move more swiftly in peace talks won’t cut much ice with India, so long as it feels uncomfortable about the durability of Pakistan’s democracy. In the short-run the Indian government has an election to fight by May, and will need to show its public results before it resumes the peace process.

NO WAR, NO PEACE

If, analysts say, the Pakistani military refuses to abandon old jihadi assets, there will be no war and no peace. Instead there’s a real danger both sides could use non-state proxies to destabilise each others’ borders. It would be a return to the pre-2002 era, and the world will be haunted by periodic crises between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

That, in turn, will complicate the West’s efforts to stabilise Afghanistan. Some jihadi groups that had been fighting Indian rule in Kashmir have built ties with al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s ethnic Pashtun tribal belt on the Afghan border, which the Pakistan army is struggling to control.

If these groups are allowed to thrive they will continue to provide gateways for alienated young Muslims to join a global jihad against their own governments.

REPERCUSSIONS FOR INDIA

The Indian government faces widespread voter anger at the security and intelligence failures that led to Mumbai. The opposition BJP has made it a major campaign issue and many analysts expect an election backlash against the ruling Congress party. But recent state poll wins by Congress, as well as the high-profile appointment of former Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram as the new home minister, have helped take the wind out of the BJP’s sails.

The BJP has also been criticised in some quarters for being opportunistic in making terrorism an election issue.

The government has rushed through a tough anti-terrorism law, seen as a bid to allay public anger.

REPERCUSSIONS FOR PAKISTAN

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s offer on Nov. 28 to send the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency to New Delhi following a request from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went down badly in some quarters of the military. But since then there has been no indication the civilian government and military leadership are out of step, even if they disagree on whether the militants should be protected or dumped.

If the crisis worsened, it might bring any differences into the open, risky for a young civilian government dependent on army support for Pakistan’s transition to democracy.

Pakistan already reels from an Islamist insurgency in the northwest. A crackdown on militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad based in the central province of Punjab could end up driving more of their fighters into the arms of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the northwest. That would reinforce the insurgency in Afghanistan and pose more dangers for Pakistan. (Editing by Matthias Williams and Alex Richardson)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved


India: Let Kashmir go

December 30, 2008

Resolving the disputed territory would benefit all.

By Bennett Ramberg

Los Angeles – It now appears unlikely that India will respond to last month’s attacks on Mumbai (Bombay) – its “9/11″ – with a military strike on Pakistan, the terrorists’ haven. With three major wars behind them, neither rival wants a repeat.

Unfortunately, the possibility of war may intensify in years to come if India ramps up its “Cold Start” military doctrine.

Cold Start transforms New Delhi’s traditional focus on defense and lumbering mobilization of hundreds of thousands of troops to one that prizes nimble strikes against its neighbor within hours of crisis onset. The strategy assumes that occupation of limited Pakistani territory would be the bargaining chip to force Islamabad to heel. It also assumes that it could do this without crossing the nuclear threshold – not an easy feat where rivalries run deep.

India has war-gamed this strategy since 2004. Adoption still must overcome equipment and personnel deficiencies and interservice rivalries, but work continues.

Rather than intimidate Pakistan to constrain militants or suffer the consequences, Cold Start may do just the opposite by inadvertently putting militants in the driver’s seat. Previously, terrorist provocations would be met with action only after deliberation and delay. Under Cold Start, response would be much more immediate, effectively empowering radicals to hold the subcontinent hostage to their crisis-initiating whims.

To avoid that outcome, the time has come for India to short circuit the most critical incendiary, the disputed area of Kashmir. Despite some recent Islamic militant clamor to dominate the entire subcontinent, Kashmir remains the eye of the Indo-Pakistani vortex.

Removing its centrality will help pull the rug from under terrorist groups that have used the dispute to target both the region and the heart of India. Failure will only heighten the probability that Cold Start might someday precipitate a nuclear conflict.

Recent history shows that it’s not a far-fetched specter. On Dec. 13, 2001, five Pakistani gunmen dressed in commando fatigues and driving a diplomatic car entered the VIP gate of India’s Parliament’s compound armed with AK-47 rifles, grenades, and other explosives. Their audacious objective: decapitate the Indian government.

An alert guard foiled their plans, and the ensuing shoot-out left 13 people dead, including the assassins.

India demanded that Pakistan ban the responsible terrorist groups and arrest their leaders. To press Islamabad, it mobilized half a million men. But the intended impact stumbled as India’s Army took three weeks to get to the border. This allowed Pakistan sufficient time to ratchet up defenses.

Tension then bounced down and up. They relaxed with President Musharraf’s Jan. 12, 2002, televised address to the nation declaring his intention to crack down on the militants. But the May 2002 attack on an Indian base in Jammu that killed the wives and children of Indian servicemen renewed the drumbeat for war.

By July 2002, intense American diplomatic pressure, coupled with subtle Pakistan nuclear threats, caused the belligerents to stand their armies down, leaving a sour taste for many Indians: Pakistan remained unpunished.

For some defense planners, Cold Start offered the answer in future crisis. Now Mumbai gives the strategy renewed stimulus. But resolution of Kashmir is where momentum should be building.

In recent years, India has sought to relax tensions by promoting confidence-building measures – a bus line and commercial truck service between Srinagar and Muzzafarrabad, regular meetings between Indian and Pakistani local commanders, a crisis hot line, dialogue with moderate Kashmiri separatists, and improvement in the region’s economic and human rights. These steps have tempered conflict but not Kashmiri objection to Indian rule.

New Delhi’s reluctance to let Kashmiris define their future – options include independence, division along communal lines, comanagement by both India and Pakistan, a UN trusteeship – butts against recent history demonstrating that “letting go” more than holding on benefits politically divided states. Witness the pacific and beneficial demise of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Serbia/Montenegro.

India’s future rests not on maturing Cold Start but becoming a 21st century economic power house. Hanging on to Kashmir does nothing to promote that goal. Letting go not only will benefit New Delhi’s modernization by reducing the heavy military burden bad relations with Pakistan engenders, it also will allow Islamabad to redirect its military resources to the tribal areas benefiting Washington’s position in Afghanistan.

By rattling South Asian relations, Mumbai’s tragedy can give momentum to resolving one of the 20th century’s most confounding impasses. A fast diplomatic start, not Cold Start, would benefit all.

• Bennett Ramberg served in the State Department during the George H.W. Bush administration. He is the author of three books and editor of three others on international politics.


Elements of an Inside Job in Mumbai Attacks

December 23, 2008

Jeremy R. Hammond
Foreign Policy Journal
December 21, 2008

Indian police last week arrested Hassan Ali Khan, who was wanted for investigations into money laundering and other illicit activities, and who is also said to have ties to Dawood Ibrahim, the underworld kingpin who evidence indicates was the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month.

Another character linked to the CIA whose name is now beginning to figure into the web of connections between the Mumbai attacks, criminal organizations, and intelligence agencies is Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, of Iran-Contra infamy. Khashoggi has been implicated in arms deals with drug traffickers and terrorist groups, including within India.

Ibrahim is a native of India who rose through the ranks of the criminal underworld in Bombay (now Mumbai).

According to media reports in India, he got his start as an undercover informant for the police at a young age and thus has an intimate knowledge of Indian law enforcement and intelligence, and is alleged to have fostered close ties with individuals within the political system.

Another known associate of Ibrahim’s in Mumbai, Mohammed Ali, is suspected of assisting the terrorists, who were met by an individual in Uran before continuing on to Mumbai, where inflatable rubber dinghies had been arranged to take them ashore by the same individual. Numerous earlier press accounts indicated that the dinghies, along with other logistical assistance, were provided by an associate of Ibrahim’s.

The Times of India, for instance, reported on November 28 that according to police sources the Mumbai attack “was enabled by the Dawood Ibrahim gang”, and that “It would not have been possible to carry out a terror operation on this scale without a collaborative local network and this was provided by the D Gang. As the terrorists had entered via the sea, the needle of suspicion is clearly pointing at Mohammed Ali, the new poinstman of Dawood.”

Yet Indian news reports indicate that officials have been slow to act against Hassan Ali Khan, and Mohammed Ali continues smuggling operations out of Mumbai for Ibrahim’s crime syndicate, D-Company, completely unmolested by Indian investigators and law enforcement.

As the November 28 Times of India article observed, Ali “is known to indulge in smuggling of diesel, petroleum, naptha, drugs and arms with impunity and it appears that the terrorists had used his networks to enter the city by the sea route…. Despite having a detailed dossier on him, the authorities have not taken any action against him. What is more worrying is that Ali is believed to have also penetrated naval intelligence.”.

Again, on December 11, Times of India reported that “Mumbai police has still not called Ali for questioning”, adding that “Ali is also known to have the backing of two powerful politicians of south Mumbai and that could be the reason why he is still untouched.”

In addition to links to Ibrahim, both men are also alleged, like Ibrahim himself, to have ties to political officials in India, and there are numerous other indications emerging that the attacks were assisted by elements within India being protected by the political establishment.

Hassan Ali Khan
India’s Daily News & Analysis reported last week that it appears Hassan Ali Khan “was part of a multi-crore [Indian numerical unit equivalent to ten-millions] hawala syndicate racket and may have joined hands with the organized crime operated by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. He is also suspected to have funded terror organizations.”

India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED) “had also told the Bombay High Court that there were indications that Ali was part of a strong international crime syndicate with money flowing in from ‘proceeds of heinous crimes like terrorism, arms trade, gun running, corruption and organized forgery’.”

A series of news reports from March 2007 in the Times of India revealed that Khan was being investigated for money laundering and other illicit activities. A laptop recovered from his home showed that he had accounts at a Swiss bank. Khan had reportedly tried to take advantage of tax waivers granted on investments originating outside India in countries with double taxation avoidance agreements with India. The funds were also be used to invest in the stock market.

Khan would send funds abroad through illegal channels and re-route them into India through shell companies in countries with such a tax arrangement with India. According to the Times of India, “Khan has no known sources of income in India but owns stud farms and often travels abroad.” His wealth is estimated to be in the billions, and he owns property in Mumbai and Pune.

Investigators from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) “had crucial input from the Intelligence Bureau, which was concerned about this unaccounted money having implications for national security.”

One of the countries used to route money back into India was Mauritius, an island chain off the east coast of Africa near Madagascar and a former British colony. The UK still maintains a military presence there. It expelled the inhabitants of the island of Diego Garcia in order to turn it into a military base, which has also been used by the US for its own military operations.

According to reports, prior to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, a team had been sent ahead and checked into the Taj Mahal hotel, one of the key targets of the attacks, and established a control room where they had food, weapons, and other supplies waiting in anticipation of the siege of the hotel by police and special forces. An identification card from Mauritius was used to check into the room.

Hassan Ali Khan has an interest in horse-racing and trades in thoroughbreds. The Times of India reported that “he had attracted attention on the Pune racing turf where he surfaced about five years ago as a small-time punter who suddenly became one of the biggest players. His contacts, by default, were with some of the top industrialists who have an interest in horse-trading.”

Last February, the Hindustan Times reported that the Swiss bank involved in the money transfers, USB (United Bank of Switzerland) AG, was reluctant to assist Indian investigators, and the investigation had been stalled as a result. The ED had advised the Indian government not to approve a plan by UBS AG to buy Standard Chartered Bank, an Indian mutual fund business, because of its lack of cooperation in tracking Khan’s money transfers. According to the ED, Khan had $8 billion in the bank’s accounts.

Adnan Khashoggi

The Hindustan Times also revealed that there was evidence that Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi of Iran-Contra infamy had transferred $300 million to Khan from a Chase Manhattan bank account in New York. It added that Khashoggi’s “arms supplies to Tamil terrorists, the LTTE, were revealed during an investigation into the 1991 assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.”

Khashoggi acted as a middle-man during the Iran-Contra affair, brokering an arrangement for Israel to sell US arms from its own stockpiles to Iran. The CIA then channeled money from the sales to the Contras in support of their terrorist war against the democratically-elected government of Nicaragua. The World Court later condemned the United States for the “unlawful use of force” – a euphemism for international terrorism or the even greater crime of a war of aggression.

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen recently reported that, according to Asian intelligence sources, Khashoggi was also involved with the CIA in an effort to support Bosnian Muslims that “brought [Dawood] Ibrahim and [Osama] Bin Laden into the same big CIA tent, along with Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, a key Iran-contra figure in George H. W. Bush’s global arms smuggling venture while he served as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. There have been reports that Ibrahim considers Khashoggi to be a hero figure.”

In 1991, a Defense Intelligence Agency report listed Khashoggi as “An international arms trafficker who allegedly has sold arms to the Colombian drug traffickers, especially to the Medellin Cartel.”

The DIA report also listed Washington’s man in Columbia, Alvaro Uribe Velez, as “A Colombian politician and senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medillin Cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the US…. Uribe has worked for the Medillin Cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria.”

Uribe is now the President of Colombia, which receives enormous amounts of US financing and military support, surpassed perhaps only by US support for Israel, Egypt, and now Iraq.

Manuel Noriega was another infamous narcotics trafficker and CIA asset, as well as a graduate of the School of Americas (SOA), which has since changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). The SOA was responsible for training numerous Latin American dictators and military commanders who were responsible for torturing, murdering, or otherwise “disappearing” countless political opponents and other individuals.

Colombia is also another case where the government has been caught red-handed staging false-flag terrorist attacks. In the late 1970s, a series of bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations against leftist targets was carried out by a terrorist group known as the American Anti-Communist Alliance (AAA or Triple-A). Documents available online at the George Washington University National Security Archives confirm that Triple-A “was secretly created and staffed by members of Colombian military intelligence in a plan authorized by then-army commander Gen. Jorge Robledo Pulido.”

John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, wrote in his follow-up book The Secret History of the American Empire that a second lieutenant in the US army sent to Colombia to establish a “United States-commanded Southern Unified Army” told him, “Everything we do in Colombia just makes it more attractive for the drug business. Why do you think the situation keeps getting worse there? Because we want it to, we’re behind the drug trafficking. The CIA is–just like it was in Asia’s Golden Triangle.”

One might add the “Golden Crescent” to that list. As Foreign Policy Journal previously reported, Dawood Ibrahim “is known to be a major drug trafficker responsible for shipping narcotics into the United Kingdom and Western Europe.” While most Afghan opium is smuggled to Europe over land through Iran and Turkey, much of the amount that goes to Pakistan seems to be taken either by plane or by ship directly to the Europe, principally the UK..

And while Western media accounts typically tend to characterize today’s opium trade as being under the control of the Taliban, the fact is that the estimated amount of funds going to the Taliban and all other anti-government elements combined is less than 14 percent of the total estimated export value, and US intelligence agencies are aware of the involvement of high-level officials within the Afghanistan government in the drug trade, such as Rashid Abdul Dostum, former Chief of Staff to the Commander-in-Chief of the Afghan Armed Forces. Dostum was also among the warlords of the Northern Alliance the CIA doled out suitcases of cash to during the initial phase of the US war to overthrow the Taliban.

Viktor Ivanov, the director of Russia’s federal anti-narcotics service, said in an interview recently that “The gathered inputs testify that infamous regional drug baron Dawood Ibrahim had provided his logistics network for preparing and carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks by the militants.” He added that “The super profits of the narco-mafia through Afghan heroin trafficking have become a powerful source of financing organized crime and terrorist networks, destabilizing the political systems, including in Central Asia and Caucasus.”
A Protected Man in India

The $300 million transfer to Hassan Ali Khan from Adnan Khashoggi was “only the tip of the iceberg”, an official from ED told the Hindustan Times. There was also evidence of another $290 million, for instance, in two shell companies in the British Virgin Islands. This was among the evidence obtained from the laptop computer seized from Khan’s home in Pune.

In addition to the money transfers, the ED was investigating Khan’s possession of three Indian passports. He held passports issued from Pune, Patna, and Mumbai, and had also applied for additional passports from Guwahati and Chandigarh. He and his wife had applied for citizenship in Switzerland.

But it wasn’t only the Swiss bank’s apparent unwillingness to cooperate with Indian investigators that was slowing progress in the inquiry into Khan’s dealings. The Times of India reported in February that although the Prevention of Money Laundering Act provided for his arrest, the ED had yet to do so. The ED was “acting cautiously in this case, sources said.” The paper added that “It is shocking that Khan could have concealed all that money without Indian agencies getting to know of it.”

The report says that “The lack of evidence on the transactions seems to have prevented ED from arresting Khan”, while at the same time noting that “The alleged presence of names of Indian politicians also found from Khan’s initial questioning by the income tax and ED officials immediately after the raid last year, don’t figure anywhere in the submissions made by the ED to the HC [High Court]. The Income tax department has failed to get information from the ED on the sources of the $8 bn, despite asking for it again and again.”

In September, the Times of India reported that the intelligence community was “seething with anger for being blamed by politicians for its ‘failure’ to prevent” a series of bombings across the country. A senior intelligence official responded to the charges by telling the Times of India that it was the politicians who were at fault, and connected Khan to investigations of terrorism.

“Take the case of Hassan Ali, the Pune-based businessman,” he said. “He was under the scanner of several Central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and other bodies. Finally it was found that he had handled hawala transactions valued at a mind-numbing Rs 35,000 crore through Swiss banks.”

Hawala is an informal money transfer system that is an alternative to formal banking institutions. Often, relatively little money actually exchanges hands between hawala brokers, who operate on an honor system. An amount deposited with one broker is not actually moved to another broker on the receiving end. Rather, that amount is simply taken from the receiving broker’s own reserves. The only funds that actually need be transferred are those used to offset imbalances between brokers, and there is no record of the transaction between the sender of the funds and the beneficiary.

The hawala system is thus ideal for moving illicit funds and for money laundering. According to a World Bank report, “The bulk of drug-related financial flows within Afghanistan, and also to and from neighboring countries (primarily Pakistan), occur through the ubiquitous hawala (informal financial transfer) system.”

The report also notes that “Dubai appears to be a central clearing point for international hawala activities, and various cities in Pakistan also are major transaction centers.” Dubai is a central location for the financial operations of Dawood Ibrahim’s D-Company.

The September article from the Times of India continued, “The bank accounts were traced and he [Khan] was brought in for interrogation. How was it possible for a businessman to have access to so much cash, was the question on everyone’s mind. The probe was stymied midway by vested interests with political clout. Ali has done the vanishing act. His wife and brother-in-law too are missing. ‘Why was he allowed to go scot free?’ asked an IPS [Indian Police Service] officer.

“Sources said there was no evidence of any concrete link between Ali and terror funds. ‘Nevertheless, why was he taken off the hook? In any other country, he would have been put through the grind given the volume of his transactions. But in India he has been treated with kid gloves because of the political backing that he enjoys,’ another official said.

.”
Mohammed Ali

The Times of India also noted that “Dawood Ibrahim’s key contact person is Mohammed Ali, who is known to control smuggling operations in city docks. ‘Any consignment can be taken out or brought into the country by Ali’s huge gang. A detailed dossier on his activities, which has serious security implications for the country, has been sent to the Union home department. But there has been no response so far,’ an official said.”

Mohammed Ali also seems to be a protected person in India. Just days after the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the Times of India stated that Mumbai residents “now know their government has done nothing at all to protect the country’s financial capital”, and again noted that “The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has sent a detailed dossier about the activities of one Mohammed Ali, who is the uncrowned king of the docks. A close aide of Karachi-based terrorist Dawood Ibrahim, Ali smuggles petrol, diesel, drugs, arms and other contraband with impunity.”

“There are strong indications,” the Times of India added, “that the D-gang actively collaborated with the terrorists in these attacks. And yet, the government is reluctant to move against Ali and his gang because he enjoys the patronage of a powerful politician, known to be a business partner of Dawood.”

The article adds, however, that “Any terror operations needs vast funds, via the hawala route. But the authorities are still to crack down on hawala operators. Recently, they picked up Hasan Ali, a racehorse owner in Pune.
“A joint probe by the IB [Intelligence Bureau], enforcement directorate [ED] and directorate of revenue intelligence revealed that Hasan Ali had handled hawala transactions worth a whopping Rs 35,000 crore, much of it belonging to two Maharashtra politicians.”

A police officer told the Times of India at the time, before his recent arrest and while he was still missing, “I will not be surprised if Hasan Ali has been done away with. He is the man who knows too much.”

Hemant Karkare and False Flag Terror

Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare, who also formerly an officer in India’s Research Analysis Wing (RAW) intelligence agency, had been in the spotlight for leading the investigation into a series of bombings in the town of Malegaon that was originally blamed on Pakistani-based Muslim terrorists. But Karkare’s probe revealed that the perpetrators were in fact Hindu extremists. Included in the arrests was a serving army officer, Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit.

The revelations of false-flag terrorism being carried out by home-grown elements sent shock waves through the political establishment.

As the Independent reported on November 23, just days before the attacks on Mumbai, “Bomb attacks are not uncommon in India – there has been a flurry in recent months – but police usually blame them on Muslim extremists, often said to have links to militant groups based in either Pakistan or Bangladesh. As a result, the recent cracking of the alleged Hindu cell has forced India to face some difficult issues. A country that prides itself on purported religious and cultural toleration – an ambition that in reality often falls short – has been made to ask itself how this cell could operate for so long. India’s military, which prides itself on its professionalism, has been forced to order an embarrassing inquiry.

“The near-daily drip of revelations from police has also caused red faces for India’s main political opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), ahead of state polls and a general election scheduled for early next year. The BJP and its prime ministerial candidate, Lal Krishna Advani, have long accused the Congress Party-led government of being soft on terrorism that involved Muslims. However, the BJP has refused to call for a clampdown on Hindu groups, and last week Mr Advani even criticized the police over the way they questioned one of the alleged cell members…”

Karkare was put under immense political pressure and was heavily criticized by Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) leaders and members of the BJP. He had received a number of death threats as a result of his investigation, including a threatening call just one day prior to the attacks in Mumbai last month.

Karkare was killed during those attacks. Rumors with far-reaching implications began to spread immediately that he had been deliberately targeted.

Images of Karkare putting on an ill-fitted bullet proof vest just before his death were widely shown on Indian television. Indian Express noted, “His last visuals as seen on TV showed him working with his men near the VT station [Victoria Terminus, the former name of the Chatrapati Shivaji central train station], the target of one of the attacks, although it is perplexing at this point in time why such a senior officer ended up getting exposed to a brazen terrorist attack. Initially, he was shown wearing a shoddy helmet normally seen used by constables during riots. A little later, a policeman lowers a flimsy bulletproof vest over his shoulders, one that was obviously of little protection when those fatal shots were fired at him.”

According to the Pakistan Daily Mail, Karkare and several of his colleagues “had received information that their colleague Sadanand Dutt had been injured in the gunfire at the Cama and Albless Hospital for women and children.” As they were driving their truck to the scene, according to the only police officer to survive that attack, Arun Jadhav, “two terrorists stepped out from behind a tree and opened fire with automatic rifles”.

The Daily Mail article implicated Hindutva elements and Indian intelligence in terrorist attacks, stating that Bal Thakeray, the leader of Shiv Sena, a Hindu nationalist party, has “publicly pronounced in the past to setup Hindu suicide squads to target Muslims in India and Pakistan”, and claiming that “The terrorist activities and training needs of these groups are closely coordinated by the Indian intelligence agencies, particularly RAW”, which “trained the Tamil separatists groups of Sri Lanka such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) to start [a] militant secessionist movement based on terrorism in the Sri Lanka’s Jaffna peninsula.”

A government investigation into the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the Jain Commission, in fact confirmed that “The LTTE was getting its supplies, including arms, ammunition, explosives, fuel and other essential items for its war in northern Sri Lanka against the Indian Peace Keeping Force from Tamil Nadu. That too with the support of the Tamil Nadu government and the connivance of the law enforcement authorities.”
As noted previously, the investigation found that Adnan Khoshoggi had dealt arms to the LTTE. The commission’s report also noted that LTTE’s involvement in arms smuggling and other illicit activities “were tolerated” and that a number of murders demonstrated the “impunity with which the LTTE could operate in India.”

Earlier this week, Amin Solkar, a lawyer in Mumbai, pressed the High Court to launch an independent investigation into the circumstances under which Karkare was killed. According to India Today, “The Muslims in Malegaon have always claimed Karkare was killed by Hindutva militants and not by Qasab.”

“Qasab” is an alternate spelling for “Kasab”, a reference to Azam Amir Kasab, the only terrorist from last month’s attacks to be captured alive. A transcript of his confession to interrogators was leaked to the media and contains the following statements: “When we were coming out of the hospital premises, we suddenly saw one police vehicle passing in front of us. Therefore, we took shelter behind a bush.

“Another vehicle passed in front of us and stopped at some distance. One police officer got down from the said vehicle and started firing at us. One bullet hit my hand and my AK-47 dropped down. I bent to pick it up when second bullet hit me on the same hand. I got injured. Ismail opened fire at the officers who were in said vehicle. They got injured and firing from their side stopped.” Kasab and his companion, Ismail, then removed the bodies of three dead officers and apprehended the vehicle.

Assuming this incident is the one in which Karakare and his colleagues were killed, this characterization of events seems to cast doubt on the theory that the officials were deliberately targeted for assassination, set up and ambushed. But the Joint Commissioner of Police Rakesh Maria, who is in charge of the investigation into the attacks, Rakesh Maria, has rejected the authenticity of the confession document.

Pakistan’s The News reported earlier this week that “A Pakistani lawyer C M Farooque claimed that many people, including Ajmal Kasab, were arrested before 2006 from Kathmandu by the Indian agencies with the help of Nepalese forces.” Farooque said he was contacted by Kasab’s parents and had filed a petition with the Nepalese Supreme Court with regard to the disappeared individuals last February. “The people arrested in Nepal,” the report added, “had gone there on legal visa for business but Indian agencies were in the habit of capturing Pakistanis from Nepal and afterwards implicated them in the Mumbai-like incidents to malign Pakistan.”

Kasab is from the Punjab province of Pakistan. Rakesh Maria said last week that “He expressed his desire to write a letter to his parents. He wants to write the letter saying he was misled by the group.”

More questions about the death of Hemant Karkare were raised this week by Union Minority Affairs Minister A. R. Antulay, who also implied that he may have been deliberately targeted with the involvement of others. “Superficially speaking they [the terrorists] had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something I do not know,” he told reporters.

“Karkare found that there are non-Muslims involved in the acts [of] terrorism during his investigations in some cases. Any person going to the roots of terror has always been the target.” He added that “There is more than what meets the eye” with regard to Karkare’s killing.

After coming under fire for his remarks, he responded by asking, “How come instead of going to Hotel Taj or Oberai or even the Nariman House, he went to such a place where there was nothing compared to what happened in the three places?” He asked, “Why all the three (Hemant Karakre, Vijay Salaskar and Ashok Kamte) went together. It is beyond my comprehension.”

He later defended his remarks further, asking, “Who had sent them to Cama Hospital? What were they told that made them leave for the same spot in the same vehicle?” He added, “I repeat what I had said. I had not said who had killed them but only questioned who had sent them there in that direction.”

Rajiv Pratap Rudy, spokesman for the BJP party called the remarks “obnoxious” and called for a “clarification from the Prime Minister” whether this was a private view or one held by his government. Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said, “we do not accept the innuendo and the aspersions cast” by Antulay’s remarks. “This should be the end of the matter. The Congress does not agree with Antulay’s statement.”

Others were more inclined to take the remarks seriously. Union Minister Vilas Paswan noted that Antulay was from Maharashtra and suggested he must therefore have “more information”.

Vijay Salaskar, who, as previously noted, was killed along with Karkare, “had closely investigated the entrenched links between a prominent gutka [a betel-nut and tobacco based product] manufacturer and the Dawood gang,” The Times of India reported in an editorial piece. “He had unearthed a mass of evidence about the manufacturer’s visit to Dubai, where he met Hamid Antulay, a nephew of Dawood, and then went on a false Pakistani passport to Karachi where he met the don and his brother Anees. The purpose of the visit was to settle a business dispute with a rival.

“Salaskar found out that the manufacturer was Dawood’s partner in the gutka business, alongside a leading politician who dabbles in real estate development. Despite Salaskar’s best efforts, he was never allowed even to summon the manufacturer for questioning.”

The editorial continued, “The details of Dawood’s vast business transactions and the man fronting it are available with the Central government. But there is inaction. Is it any wonder the security agencies are deeply cynical about enforcing law and order and protecting the country? Is it any wonder the people are enraged?”

On December 6, Maharashtra’s former revenue minister Narayan Rane alleged in a press conference that the terrorists who had attacked Mumbai the week before received “logistical and financial” support from a number of politicians. According to the Press Trust of India, Rane also alleged that former chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh had links with a person connected with fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim.”

Indians Arrested in Connection with Attacks

Two Indians were also arrested in connection with the recent Mumbai attacks. One of the men, Tauseef Rahman, reportedly bought SIM cards that were used by the terrorists, which were purchased in Calcutta according to a report from the Associated Press. The other, Mukhtar Ahmed, was an undercover operative of for a special counter-insurgency unit of the Calcutta police force.

Another Indian citizen, Faheem Ansari, was arrested in February and is now being questioned about his possible involvement. According to the AP, he was found “carrying hand-drawn sketches of hotels, the train terminal and other sites that were later attacked”. According to lead investigator Rakesh Maria, “Ansari was trained by Lashkar and sent to do reconnaissance.”

India’s top law enforcement official, Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram, apologized for failing to stop the attacks, saying “There have been lapses. I would be less than truthful if I said there had been no lapses.”
In fact, as previously reported by Foreign Policy Journal, Indian intelligence had numerous warnings of an imminent attack, both from its own sources and from the US. The warnings were specific, including that it would come from the sea. Mumbai, and even the Taj Mahal hotel, were identified as specific targets.

Additionally, Rakesh Maria said his investigation was looking into the possible involvement of Riyaz Bhatkal, the leader of the Indian Mujahideen (IM), in the attacks. “We are looking at various possibilities about who could have provided vital local support and intelligence. Bhatkal being a local person is known to have links with terror outfits.”
In October, Indian Express reported that Bhatkal and a terrorist named “Shahrukh” might be the same individual. “Sources said that since his name was linked to the 1993 Mumbai blasts, Bhatkal may have used the name Shahrukh to protect his identity,” the newspaper said. One official said, “For the 1993 blasts, he arranged money from Pakistan through hawala channels. But he could not be arrested.” In addition, “Officials also suspect an underworld link to the blasts. ‘Since Bhatkal’s name came up in the Mumbai blasts, it is evident that he is an important financial link for the underworld,’ said a source.”

Whitewash of the Attacks
Foreign Policy Journal previously reported on indications that the role of Dawood Ibrahim and his network of organized crime in the attacks in Mumbai last month is being downplayed by both Pakistan and the US and assessed that this was “possibly the result of a deal taking place behind the scenes between the governments of the US, Pakistan, and India, to have others involved in the Mumbai attacks turned over while quietly diverting attention from a man who some say could reveal embarrassing secrets about the CIA’s involvement in criminal enterprises.”

What’s clear now, as further developments have come to light, is that there are also elements within India, both in the criminal underworld and the government, that are perfectly willing to see the role in the Mumbai attacks of an even larger shadowy international criminal network whitewashed; a network with links to numerous moneyed interests, including trafficking in drugs and arms, and to numerous intelligence agencies, including the ISI, the CIA, and India’s own RAW.

While Dawood Ibrahim is officially a wanted man in the US and India, and is on Interpol’s wanted list, the evidence emerging from last month’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai is yet another indication that what is commonly referred to as a “shadow government” or “deep state” extending well beyond national boundaries is really pulling the strings behind the scenes in countries around the world, while the public–such as the residents of Mumbai–and well-intentioned individuals within their democratically-elected governments are left paying the price, often in blood.


They Want A War? Let’s Give Them One

December 17, 2008

Written by www.daily.pk    
Tuesday, 16 December 2008 03:52 
Politics aside, India must be confronted now. The National Security Conference is a welcome step but the government must shun its apologetic attitude when it clearly knows that the nation stands united. We should be prepared for the worst.  Pakistani military should be re-deployed to the eastern borders immediately. Patriotic Pashtun tribesmen and military reserves should be called in to make up for the shortages on the western frontiers. If they want a war, let’s give them one.

The Mumbai fiasco is a tragedy that not only highlights the Indian establishment’s sinister agenda but also reflects how dumb their organizations are in carrying out such dirty operations against their own people. India is taking advantage of Pakistan’s internal chaos. Pakistan must now be ready for any eventuality.

Human life is sacred and the brutal acts of terrorism in Mumbai must be condemned. But as expected the Indians within hours of being struck put the entire blame on Pakistan, without even the basic preliminary investigations.

The Mumbai blasts have done the fascist Hindu extremists in India’s political-military establishment much good, beyond any expectations. The entire world’s focus has been shifted from Indian State terrorism in Kashmir to the Mumbai story, giving India a chance to play the role of a lamb, an innocent victim.

Muslims in India are conveniently being singled out as the sole source of terror even though India has numerous separatists movements spread across 200 districts of the country. Moreover, the Mumbai tragedy presents the Indian government and the military as heroes in the fight against terror.

Let it be known that before these attacks there was conclusive proof that the Indian military was being infiltrated by fascists belonging to various political-militant movements and the Congress-led government was losing ground to the reinvigorated BJP, which is a front for Hindu extremists and terrorists. But like most of their soap operas, the immature Indian media and the government failed to live up to their own ‘rising’ standards.

Any person with a reasonable intellectual level would ask a few questions to the Indian authorities:
 Why was the Indian Navy unable to track down a bunch of Pakistani boats when it arrests hundreds of Pakistani fishermen regularly?
If the ISI is capable enough to wreak such havoc on a bustling city like Mumbai, would the agency be foolish enough to send terrorists into the hot zone with mobile SIMS and identity cards?
Why take a U-turn and then state that the militants had been hiding in Mumbai for a month?  Would a Muslim ever wear the orange arm band that terrorists of the BJP do?

The Indians simply do not have the answers and their stupidity in implementing their sinister agenda is certainly exceptional.

Indian ‘black cat’ commandoes couldn’t clear the Taj Hotel for days even though only a handful of militants had taken positions inside it. On top of that, the Indians stormed a Jewish center which resulted in the hostages being killed as well. These people do not even have a basic idea on how to carry out antiterrorist operations and they have the audacity to teach Pakistan how to counter insurgencies!

Also note that the Indians did not bother to negotiate with the militants. They simply went in all guns blazing.  You know why? Because they had already committed so many blunders that they had no other option.

The Pakistani ‘democratic’ government, as usual, made foolish decisions without even consulting the Parliament or the armed forces. The decision to send the ISI chief Gen. Pasha was a childish.

Politics aside, India must be confronted now. The National Security Conference is a welcome step but the government must shun its apologetic attitude when it clearly knows that the nation stands united. Obama has endorsed Mukherjee’s threat of attacking across the border in self-defense. The U.S. government has also raised concerns that some militants could have come from Pakistan. 

We should be prepared for the worst.  Pakistani military should be re-deployed to the eastern borders immediately. Patriotic Pashtun tribesmen and military reserves should be called in to make up for the shortages on the western frontiers. This would send a clear signal to the Americans to stay clear of the area.

If they want a war, let’s give them one. H Gulzar

http://www.daily.pk/politics/politicalnews/8585-they-want-a-war-lets-give-them-one.html


The sovereignty factor

December 11, 2008

The sovereignty factor

Abbas Jafari

The momentum against Pakistan and its security apparatus has built steadily since 9/11 despite the country standing in close support of the US against the Al Qaeda-Taliban resistance to the Western presence in Afghanistan. It now appears to have peaked following the attacks on India’s mega-metropolis and commercial hub, Mumbai. Is this really justified?

Yes, claim India and some of the notable western think-tanks, for the reason of Pakistan not cooperating more fully on the issue of Taliban resurgence on its side of the Afghan-Pakistan border. And, more so with a significant number of US-NATO supply trucks being torched just days ago close to Peshawar, the capital of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

Earlier, on Pakistan protesting that ‘non-state actors’ had been behind the Mumbai carnage, the response of at least one acknowledged Washington Post analyst had been to absolve President Zardari’s fledgling democratic government for the attack, ascribing blanket blame to “elements” in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services on the evidence of their past associations.

Why so? As the “non-state actors” alleged to be operating from the territory of the Pakistan state did not have the blessing of the recently installed civilian government, which then had balked at the idea of sending the country’s top intelligence official to India to assist in enquiries hardly had it jumped to consent to this surprising summons.

That the Indian demand surfaced more a badgering exercise than any honest request for help somehow escaped consideration, and scant regard was paid to the likelihood of such an order being resented not just in Pakistan’s establishment circles, but by a general public still smarting from the drones seen to be randomly raining missiles on Pakistan’s civilian border populace.

In the prevailing circumstances, assuaging the feelings of the “outraged” Indians to the point of condoning prospective attacks by India on suspected militant havens on Pakistan territory, would inevitably be appraised a conspiracy to persecute Pakistan for its Islamic moorings, and is sure to provoke a negative read on the Western alliance’s presence in the region.

So too, the overt efforts to further demean the country on the grounds of it having become “ungovernable”. At the same time, however, establishing an international (but Muslim) work force to help Pakistan re-enforce its writ in troubled areas justifying the collective international responsibility paradigm — sovereignty notwithstanding — may not be taken entirely remiss.

Meantime, the continuous hype on the “complicity” of Pakistan’s military and its intelligence services with terrorist groups ruffles the national feathers, while the projected vista of seeing parts of the country placed in any type of “international receivership”, in the unlikely eventuality of such a ruling finding passage through the UN Security Council, is certain to alienate further.

Should then the US government continue on the path of unilateral adventures in pursuit of the “democratic ideal”, more especially in developing countries, the odds are better than even that those who had hitherto been eager to embrace the cause of America on the issue of open access to the world’s resources, would look to move in a diametrically opposed direction.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers