Sino-Japan: shelving the dispute?

May 3, 2013

TACSTRAT ANALYSIS

While China and Japan have shared a heavy history of hostility and slow progression towards mutually beneficial ventures, both the countries seem to have focused more on token gestures than concrete measures to secure healthy bilateral economic relations. By virtue of being flourishing economies, and having regional interests coinciding, it was only rational for the China and Japan to address their problems, to fix their attitudes towards each other. The zenith of Sino-Japan departure lies around the East China Sea controversy. Both states claim right to ownership of the islands on this sea. The Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands have brought China and Japan into a bitter dispute over decades.

The Diaoyu in Chinese and Senkaku in Japanese are a tiny group islands 6.3 km² in total, consisting of eight insular formations, of which the largest is 4.3 km². None of these are inhabited without any trace of human or economic activity, and five are completely barren. Yet, despite the insignificant area, and economic worth, these islands have brought Sino-Japan ties to turbulent points, owing to strategic geographical location. Midway Taiwan and Japan, these islands are key to both China’s and Japan’s national defense. If either one secures sovereignty, the owner will enjoy military security advantage with prolonged and enlarged frontier.

Hence, given the crucial nature of the land, would either one wish to resolve this issue? We know the steps towards reconciliation. A basic understanding of international law, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into effect in 1994, and some historical knowledge can allow resolve the conflict. Key questions need to be addressed. In 1895 when Japan claimed sovereignty were the Senkaku islands terra nullius? After Japan’s epic defeat in WWII were they returned to China? How should China’s and Japan’s boundaries of the East China Sea be demarcated under international law? But will either state want to cooperate with an external entity if losing out becomes a possibility?

Economically speaking, a continental shelf, or exclusive economic zone (EEZ), of 40,000 km² is attached to these islets. The claimant will have rights over all natural resources in this vicinity, and what is more tempting than the possibility of oil and gas reserves in the region? United Nations Economic Commission for Asia in a report released in 1968 suggested the possibility of large oil reserves in the Diaoyu/Senkaku waters. Given China’s and Japan’s insatiable thirst for energy and resources, the islands have become the source of possible military conflict. The potential defense and economic gains from their ownership have surfaced the ugly reality behind staged diplomacy.

Moreover, domestic and international politics for both will be impacted by the outcome, as both governments are involved in other island disputes. A loss here will damage credibility and may act as a negative domino effect on all other fronts.

Annexed in 1895 by Japan, till the 1960s and early ’70s when the promising prediction of hydrocarbon deposits was released, Japan and the US signed the Ryuku Reversion Agreement in 1971 to officially bestow ownership to Japan. This backdoor diplomacy was not welcome by China and Taiwan. While the US warned against any exploitation of resources, both countries decided to visit the island prop up their flags shortly after. Despite China labeling the territory sacred, Nixon in 1972 decided to ‘return’ South-Western Islands to Japan. US’ pro-Japan stance over the years has seen a neutral shift with their need to improve relations with China as a growing economy. A ‘hand-off’ policy introduced by America has kept the conflict from escalating, but has also promoted no resolution, but a mutual decision to shelve it for the future, unsuccessfully so.

A Japanese lighthouse, Chinese activists landing, renovating the lighthouse, Taiwanese boats to block renovation attempts; the islands seem to have attracted an entertaining saga of events from all three stakeholders. Japan’s decision to arrest the Chinese protestors from the no-man’s land generated criticism and concern from Beijing. Japan’s right wing group, responsible for the lighthouse (1978) rammed a bus into the Chinese consulate to protest their China’s claims.

Japan continues to protect the lighthouse in 2004 that has caused much unnecessary stir, as a remnant of their right to the islands. Tokyo’s move, according to Chinese Foreign Minister was “a serious provocation and violation of Chinese territorial sovereignty. To make matters worse Japan started exploring for natural gas in its self alleged EEZ, an area east of the median line between the two countries that China disputes Japan’s right to. But in 2005 Japan Petroleum Exploration Co. and Teikoku Oil Co began talks with the Japanese government to drill areas falling under disputed territories.

Japan and China with the island dispute have justified their respective claims to justify their own standpoints. For Japan, the sovereignty claim is premised on international law’s clause that terra nullis becomes a specific state’s territory. This is an established principal in international law, but the question is whether or not the islands were terra nullius in 1895. This claim has been contested by China, and no evidence so far has overridden Beijing’s concern. According to China certain surveys were carried out by them in the territory in 1885, proving that they were not unclaimed, but were discovered and incorporated in 1895.

While Japan argues that the dispute came to the front burner just because of the discovery of potential energy resources in the seabed around the islands, China emphasizes that the issue came to the front burner because of the U.S.-Japan Joint Statement and the Ryukyu Reversion Agreement, which illegally include China’s Diaoyu Islands in the territory to be returned to Japanese sovereignty. And Japan continuously refers to its reversion agreement with the United States to validate its sovereignty. So far the islands have been placed under the supervision of the United States, in accordance with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, giving some administrative rights to Japan under the 1971 agreement. China challenges the legitimacy of the San Francisco Treaty because neither China nor Taiwan were not signatories.

The multifaceted nature of the Diaoyu/Senkaku island dispute has complicated relations between all three states. The problems are not only defense or economy related, but the fragile mesh both states are entangled in with respect to domestic political landscape, and other island disputes. For Japan’s aggressive right giving the Senkaku up is not an option. And Chinese feel strongly about the territory in question, as it is ‘sacred’. Perhaps the initial motive by the governments to politicize the matter was to have a stronger case. But this can also backfire, as failure to secure the EEZ now will result in a negative domino effect, as the government who failed its people. The matter is politicized to the point that it has become personal.

Both governments have been at pains to downplay the issue, as neither can afford confrontation, but domestic and international political factors are beyond their immediate control. Extremists in both Japan and China are hurting the delicate diplomatic tango both countries had orchestrated successfully over the decades. While military conflict seems unlikely, despite the recent escalation of news suggesting a showdown, it is also equally unlikely for any form of resolution to be reached. For both states shelving the problem keeps their boat afloat and hence both are delaying the possibility of facing this issue. While political deadlock is difficult to break, two disputants could jointly exploit the economic resources following a model of cooperation that already exists in East Asia in the Republic of Korea-Japan Joint Development Area, for example.


Rev. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi

January 24, 2013

Written by BALDEV SINGH
ZoneAsia-Pk

Dear Oprah,

I am writing this letter because I think of you as an enlightened person. This letter is about the statements you made during the show you dedicated to the memory of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. During that show, you compared Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi.

In one of your statement you said something like “I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s sacrifice.” Oprah, what about those countless unknown and unsung heroes, who preceded Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. They too suffered hardships and sacrificed their lives for freedom and justice for the black people. As a matter of fact, black people revolted against slavery and started struggling for freedom the moment they were captured in Africa and the chains of slavery were put around their necks. Since that moment black people have expressed their suffering, sorrow, helplessness and burning desire for freedom and justice through their songs. That is the reason why black people have contributed so much for the creation and development of new music.

The mentality or thinking, which was responsible for slavery, made it sure that the history of slavery and their struggle for freedom and justice is not known to the world. And if this story has to be told, then it must be told the way that “mentality” wants it to be told. There are people even today who think that slavery was benign and slaves were happy and contented with their situation. These people also justify colonial rule by saying, “It was necessary to civilize the uncivilized.” On the contrary, it is our conviction that a civilized man doesn’t deny another man’s humanity. He doesn’t enslave another man or subjugates another man in any form or manner- politically, economically, socially and religiously.

Deliberate efforts have been made to blot out the history of slavery and black peoples’ struggle for freedom and their contribution to human society in all walks of life. For instance, you go to any major city in the USA, you find all sorts of museums, but you don’t find the one about slavery. The US Congress was very enthusiastic about Jewish holocaust museum in Washington D. C. However, the same Congress has been unwilling so far to establish a museum about slavery. Moreover, what about a holocaust museum of native Americans, the Indians? Whereas Jewish holocaust took place in Europe, the slavery of blacks and the genocide of the native people took place in the USA. I leave it for you to draw your own conclusion. However, I believe that it takes moral courage to look into the eyes of evil and not just empty moral rhetoric.

The emergence of independent Africa had a major positive impact on the “black civil rights movement” in the United States and the anti apartheid movement in South Africa. It boosted the morale of these movements and brought worldwide recognition to Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela. That’s why, who knows how many “great men” were lynched in the United States and how many were tortured to death in solitary cells in South Africa before Dr. Martin Luther King and Mr. Nelson Mandela, respectively.

During that show, you compared Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. I think your information about Mahatma Gandhi is probably based on the writings of European and Hindu “myth makers” (historians). Had you known the truth about Mahatma Gandhi, you wouldn’t have said that Dr. Martin Luther King was following the policy of the great Mahatma Gandhi.

I think it is disgraceful to compare Dr. Martin Luther King with Mahatma Gandhi. For example, whereas Dr. King represented the aspirations of all black people, Mahatma Gandhi represented the interest of only high caste Hindus who constituted 10-12% of the Indian population. Whereas Dr. King appealed to all Americans to rise above their prejudices of race, religion and gender to form a just society, Mahatma Gandhi was the mastermind behind the partition of India into two nations, one Hindu and the other Muslim. Here are some facts about Mahatma Gandhi.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in the state of Gujrat in Baniya caste whose occupation is business. After obtaining a law degree from England he returned to India. However, after a short stay he decided to move to South Africa where he thought he could make more money. A large number of Indians from Gujrat State were brought to South Africa as indentured servants. Being a caste conscious Hindu, he looked down upon the natives. He used to say:

I can see why a white man discriminates against an African, but why against us. We Indians have the same values, the white man has.

Besides his law practice he worked for the British army recruiting Indians during the Boer War and the Zulu rebellion. He was the commander of an ambulance corps made up of Indians.

The Bolshevik revolution of 1914 in Russia inspired worldwide nationalist movements against colonialism and dictatorships. To sabotage Indian national movement, the British colonists brought Gandhi to India. What the “myth makers” don’t tell is that the Indian National Congress Party, which was later controlled by Gandhi was set up under the patronage of the British Government and it was dominated by high caste Hindus, who constituted only 10-12% of the Indian population. Anybody who was considered a threat to the interest of the British or high caste Hindus was thrown out of the party. The high caste Hindus, who had control over the Indian economy, also wanted to usurp political power after the departure of the British. But there was one formidable obstacle in their path to achieve this objective. And that obstacle was the Muslim majority states of Punjab, Bengal, Sindh, Blouchistan and Northwest Frontier.

To exclude these Muslim dominant states from the Indian union, the Hindu leaders of Congress Party headed by Gandhi started making provocative statements to instill doubt and fear in the minds of Muslim population that their future in independent India under the control of Hindu majority was not safe. Muslim leaders started asking for constitutional guarantees to safeguard their future, which the Hindu leaders were not willing to provide.

Frustrated, Muslim leaders asked for partition of the country to create a Muslim state. They did not see the trap that “high caste Hindus” had laid for them. They fell into that trap without realizing the impact their demand would have on the future generations of people of the Indian subcontinent. The stage was set for the partition of India into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. Gandhi and his associates congratulated each other for accomplishing their objective while holding Muslims responsible for the partition of the country. This is the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi for which future generations of Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would pay dearly, God knows for how long!

The cruel and deceitful nature of Gandhi was revealed when he counseled Hindu and Sikh refugees, who came to see him in April 1947, after they were driven out of their homes following a terrible massacre of Hindus and Sikhs in the Ravalpindi area of Punjab. Gandhi asked them to go back to their homes, as he exhorted them that he wouldn’t accept the partition of the country. He kept repeating like a parrot, “I won’t allow the partition of the country. The country would be partitioned only over my dead body.” You can imagine the level of his depravity, because his Congress Party had already accepted with his blessing the partition of the country as a condition for Independence. And a few months later on August 15, 1947 the Indian union was divided in two nations, one Muslim and the other Hindu.

The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood is the biggest fabricated lie of the 20th century.

Up to the start of World War II, the British government categorically rejected the demand for the independence of India in the immediate future. However, the situation changed dramatically after the war. The war was so devastating to the British power that their government found it impossible to build the infra structure and economy of the homeland while coping with the growing national liberation movements in the colonies. The British government wisely decided to grant freedom to its colonies.

It wasn’t Gandhi’s movement which drove the British out of India, it was the impact of second world war, which made it impossible for the British to hold on to their Empire. Shortly after the independence of India, other colonies in Asia, Africa and Caribbean gained their independence peacefully. So what is so unique about India’s independence? Had there been no World War II, India would still be a British colony!

The other story that the “myth makers” do not tell is that the Independence of India was marked by one of the greatest upheavals of the 20th century. Two Indian states, Punjab and Bengal, were partitioned at the time of independence causing untold suffering and loss of life and property. In Punjab almost all the Hindu and Sikh population of about five millions were forced to leave their homes and properties on the Pakistan side where their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years. Similarly, about five million Muslims were forced to vacate their home and properties on the Indian side.

In the ensuing communal frenzy and carnage, may be as many as one million people perished and thousands of women were kidnapped and raped. About one third of the population of Punjab was engulfed in the inferno created by the independence of India. Of the total population of about five and half million Sikhs, about 40% were rendered homeless due to Independence. The population of Bengal was much higher than that of Punjab and you can imagine the human suffering there! The claim that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully is a cruel joke on Punjabis and Bengalis.

To my knowledge only in two places, the United States of America and Ireland, the force of arms drove out the British colonists. Everywhere else the British freed the colonies peacefully. On what ground it is claimed that Gandhi won freedom for India peacefully without shedding a drop of blood.

The claim that Gandhi worked for the uplift of Dalits (untouchables) is also a myth.

Gandhi was a Hindu revivalist, who upheld every aspect of Hinduism including the caste system, which is the essence of Hinduism. His writings, speeches and statements confirm this.

I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it. Harijan, 1933.

I believe in Varnashrama (caste system) which is the law of life. The law of Varna (color and / or caste) is nothing but the law of conservation of energy. Why should my son not be scavenger if I am one? Harijan, 3-6-1947.

He (Shudra, low caste) may not be called a Brahmin (uppermost caste), though he (Shudra) may have all the qualities of a Brahmin in this birth. And it is a good thing for him (Shudra) not to arrogate a Varna (caste) to which he is not born. It is a sign of true humility. Young India, 11-24-1927.

According to Hindu belief, he who practices a profession which does not belong to him by birth, does violence to himself and becomes a degraded being by not living up to the Varna (caste) of his birth. Young India, 11-14-1927.

As years go by, the conviction is daily growing upon me that Varna (caste) is the law of man’s being, and therefore, caste is necessary for Christians and Muslims as it has been necessary for Hinduism, and has been its saving grace. Speech at Trivandrum, (Collection of Speeches), Ramanath Suman (1932).

I would resist with my life the separation of “Untouchables” from the caste Hindus. The problem of the “Untouchable” community was of comparatively little importance. London Round Table Conference 1931.

I call myself a Snatana man, one who firmly believes in the caste system. Dharma Manthan, p 4.

I believe in caste division determined by birth and the very root of caste division lies in birth. Varna Vyavastha, p 76-77.

The four castes and the four stages of life are things to be attained by birth alone. Dharma Manthan, p 5.

Caste means the predetermination of a man’s profession. Caste implies that a man must practice only the profession of his ancestors for his livelihood. Varna Vyavstha, p 28, 56, 68.

Shudra only serves the higher castes as a matter of religious duty and who will never own any property. The gods will shower down flowers on him. Varna Vyavastha, p 15.

I have noticed that the very basis of our thought have been severely shaken by Western civilization which is the creation of the Satan. Dharma Manthan, p 65.

How is it possible that the Antyaja (outcastes) should have the right to enter all the existing temples? As long as the law of caste and karma has the chief place in the Hindu religion, to say that every Hindu can enter every temple is a thing that is not possible today. Gandhi Sikshan, Vol. 11, p 132.

The caste system can’t be said to be bad because it does not allow inter-dining and inter-marriages in different castes. Gandhi by Shiru, p129.

If the Shudar (low caste) leave their ancestral profession and take up others, ambition will rouse in them and their peace of mind will be spoiled. Even their family peace will be disturbed. Hind Swaraj.

The superiority of caste and race is deeply imbedded in the psyche of upper caste Hindus irrespective of their upbringing or the level of education or the place where they live. For example, in the words of a socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, “Nehru practiced both racism and casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook” (Telegraph, Calcutta, November 21, 1987).

In a revealing passage about his “making”, Nehru wrote, “Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may be, generations of Brahmins. I cannot get rid of that past inheritance” (Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography, (1936), Delhi, 1980, p 596.).

Sir V. S. Naipaul is a Nobel laureate in literature. His Brahmin ancestors were brought as indentured servants to Trinidad long time ago. He grew up in Trinidad and has spent most of his life in England. In his earlier work An Area of Darkness, 1964 he was unforgiving of India. Later the “Brahmin” in him stirred up and came out spewing hatred and venom. He condoned the massacre of thousands of Sikhs in June 1984, when Indira Gandhi ordered a military attack on the Golden Temple complex on the day when thousands of Sikh pilgrims had gathered there to celebrate the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev (A Million Mutinies Now, 1990). In 1992 he justified the destruction of a 400 hundred-year-old mosque (Babri Masjid) by Hindu mobs lead by Bhartiya Janta Party (a fascist Hindu party) because of the mistreatment of Hindus by Muslim rulers centuries back in the past. He has become the darling of Hindu fascist organizations.

Mahatma Gandhi, whose Baniya (Vaisha) caste is two steps lower than the uppermost Brahmin caste, was a vigorous defender of the caste system.

“The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. ………Caste creates a social and moral restraint……I can find no reason for their (castes) abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma (caste system). I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma. It has its limitations and defects, but there is nothing sinful about it” (Harijan, 1933).

Gandhi’s calling “Untouchables”, as Harijans is a cruel joke on the Untouchables by an insensitive and depraved man.

Harijan literally means “child of God”. However, in India this label is used for the illegitimate children of temple girls (anchoress) fathered by priests. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, vehemently opposed Gandhi’s use of Harijans for the Untouchables. Recently, Ms Mayawati, a leader of the Untouchables asked rhetorically, “If we are Harijans then what are the upper castes like Nehru, Gandhi and Patel? Are they bastards?”

That Gandhi was an “apostle of peace” is not true.

Gandhi was a “Hindu revivalist” and “Hindu politician” combined in one, who used nonviolence as a tool for political objectives. He used to coerce others to concede to his demands by threats of “going to fast unto death”. He was no pacifist as is shown by his stand on the issue of Kashmir.

“One naturally thought that he would offer a nonviolent solution to the Kashmir issue and raise his moral stature. But no! He proved to be a false prophet. Seervai has documented that nonviolence with him was a political weapon. (H. M. Seervai, Partition of India, Legend and Reality, Bombay, 1989, p 172-173). He sanctioned the use of armed forces and laid the foundation of Kashmir problem which continues to haunt the subcontinent till today” (Sangat Singh, The Sikhs in History, 4th ed., 2001, p 258.)

According to Seervai, in a meeting with Viceroy Lord Wavell on August 27 1946, Gandhi thumped the table and said, “If India wants bloodbath, she shall have it and that if bloodbath was necessary, it would come about in spite of nonviolence.” Wavell was dumbfounded at these words coming from the mouth of “apostle” of nonviolence.

Gandhi was a very cunning man. He was not satisfied with the title of “apostle of peace”, he also wanted to project himself as a holy man, which for a Hindu required the practice of celibacy. He was a married man and proclaimed to be celibate at a relatively young age under forty. However, he used to test his celibacy by asking young girls to lie over him to find out whether he was in full control of his sexual feelings. I leave up to psychologists and psychiatrists to analyze what was in Gandhi’s mind and what happened to the emotions of those poor girls! He was always surrounded by women.

So what is Gandhi’s legacy to mankind?

The obvious one is the partition of subcontinent into “Hindu India” and “Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh”. These three nations are a “living hell” for minorities. For example, India which claims with pride to be the biggest democracy in the world has killed more Indians in the last fifty years than the British colonists killed in 300 years. More than 95% of those killed by Hindu governments are Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Dalits (Untouchables). While the populations of these countries are groaning under the weight of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, ignorance and disease, India and Pakistan have built nuclear weapons. The next nuclear war will most probably be fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir in spite of the fact that neither India nor Pakistan has ever asked the Kashmiris what they want.

That Hindus are peace loving people and coexist peacefully with non-Hindus is also not true.

When Taliban destroyed Lord Buddha’s statue in Afghanistan, there were worldwide protests against this heinous crime against humanity. The most vociferous demonstrations and protests were held in India. However, how little did the Hindu mobs realize that the first damage to the statue was done by Hindu rulers of Afghanistan during the frenzy of Hindu revival? Buddhism flourished as a major religion in India for several centuries. During the Hindu revival, Buddhists were given three choices like Jews and Muslims during the Spanish Inquisition. Either convert or leave the country. Large number of Buddhists fled to neighboring countries. Those who resisted were killed, Buddhist monasteries were destroyed, monks were murdered, and nuns were raped. Buddhist literature was burned and their religious centers were converted into Hindu centers. The famous place in Bihar State where Lord Buddha is supposed to have received his light (knowledge) is still under the control of Hindus in spite of the protests of international Bhuddist community.

The “myth makers” keep repeating that Hindus have lived peacefully with Muslims, Christians and others for hundreds of years. What they don’t tell you is that during that period Muslims or the British ruled over the Indian territory. But look at the attitude of Hindus towards non-Hindus when Hindus were the rulers? During the revival of Hinduism they eradicated Buddhism from the land of its birth. All other progressive movements, which opposed the caste system were either crushed or subverted.

Immediately after independence in 1947, the so-called secular and liberal Hindu rulers lead by Jawahar Lal Nehru adopted an Indian Constitution, declaring “Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains” as Hindus with the stroke of a pen. Sikhs have been protesting against this heinous crime ever since. No Hindu leader worth the name has ever protested against this abominable injustice to the minorities. Imagine! How would the minorities react if the US Congress were to pass a law declaring all minorities as Christians?

The word Hindu is not found in any Hindu religious text or any other ancient writing. People who lived on the western side of Hindu Kush (killers of Hindus) mountains gave this name to the natives of India. The word Hindu means black, slave, robber, thief and a waylayer.

From my discussions with Americans about the caste system over the years, I have the impression that most of them think that caste system is like segregation or apartheid. Caste system may look like segregation or apartheid on the surface, but if one were to scratch the surface one would find that the Brahmnical caste system is the worst oppressive and exploitative system that exists on planet earth. Slavery and segregation in America and apartheid in South Africa have ended in a relatively short period, but the heinous caste system, which has been practiced in India for thousands of years, is still going strong. It is because the caste system was invented, taught, practiced and ordained by the Brahmnical (Hindu) religion.

Under segregation and apartheid the black people were denied their rights and had very few opportunities for advancement in comparison to white people. However, a black person under those circumstances could become a doctor, a teacher, and a minister or choose whatever occupation was available to them. Whereas the caste is stamped on you the moment you are born. There was no escape from this watertight multistory building with no stairs or ladder. You are born and die in the same caste, no matter how good or bad a person you are.

For example, a person born in a scavenger’s family would also be a scavenger in spite of his great intelligence. He couldn’t choose any other occupation. So a scavenger’s descendents remained scavengers for thousands of years. This destroyed the creativity of the Indian population. No wonder the Hindu civilization, which is as old as the Chinese civilization has made insignificant contribution to the development of human society in comparison to the Chinese civilization.

It is a mistake to think that Nazism was the product of Hitler’s sick mind. The roots of Nazism lie in the Hindu caste system. European colonists were intrigued by the Hindu caste system. They were astonished how Brahmins, who formed about 5% of India’s population, were able to exploit the rest of Indians for thousands of years by asserting their caste and racial superiority. The British used the same Brahmnical strategy, they proclaimed their racial and intellectual superiority over Indians to control their vast Empire in India. At the pinnacle of British rule, there were only about 200,000 British personnel in India. Who you think managed the Empire? They were the brown-Englishmen (subjugated Indians) who managed the Empire.

European writers like Max Muler were also fascinated by the Hindu caste system. They admired the way the Brahmins maintained the caste and racial superiority over thousands of years. Why shouldn’t the Europeans assert their racial and intellectual superiority the same way over black, brown, tan and yellow people? So people like Max Muler planted the seeds of racial superiority on the European soil. Others like him nurtured the seedlings, and the plants came into full blossom under Hitler. It is no coincidence that the Nazis used swastika, a propitious Brahmin symbol, as the emblem of the Nazi party.

I am willing to debate these issues with any one, anywhere, and on any stage.

Authors Note: An article Gandhi as a racist by Dr. Velu Anamlai (USA) published in Sikh Virsa, June 1997, was consulted for writing this letter.)


The Norway shootings and lessons for India

July 25, 2011

There are important lessons for India in the murderous violence in Norway: lessons it can ignore only at risk to its own survival.

In 2008, Hindutva leader B.L. Sharma ‘Prem’ held a secret meeting with key members of a terrorist group responsible for a nationwide bombing campaign targeting Muslims. “It has been a year since I sent some three lakh letters, distributed 20,000 maps of Akhand Bharat but these Brahmins and Banias have not done anything and neither will they [do anything],” he is recorded to have said in documents obtained by prosecutors. “It is not that physical power is the only way to make a difference,” he concluded, “but to awaken people mentally, I believe that you have to set fire to society.”

Last week, Anders Behring Breivik, armed with assault weapons and an improvised explosive device fabricated from the chemicals he used to fertilize the farm that had made him a millionaire in his mid-20s, set out to put Norway on fire.

Even though a spatial universe separated the blonde, blue-eyed Mr. Breivik from the saffron-clad neo-Sikh Mr. Sharma, their ideas rested on much the same intellectual firmament.

In much media reportage, Mr. Breivik has been characterised as a deranged loner: a Muslim-hating Christian fanatic whose ideas and actions placed him outside of society. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Breivik’s mode of praxis was, in fact, entirely consistent with the periodic acts of mass violence European fascists have carried out since World War II. More important, Mr. Breivik’s ideas, like those of Mr. Sharma, were firmly rooted in mainstream right-wing discourse.

Fascist terror

In the autumn of 1980, a wave of right-wing terrorist attacks tore through Europe. In August that year, 84 people were killed and 180 injured when a bomb ripped through the Bologna railway station. Eleven people were killed when the famous Munich Oktoberfest was targeted on September 26; four persons died when a bomb went off in front of a synagogue on the Rue Copernic in Paris on October 2.

Little attention, the scholar Bruce Hoffman noted in a 1984 paper, had been paid to right-wing terrorists by Europe’s police forces. Their eyes, firmly focussed on left-wing organisations, had characterised the right “as ‘kooks’, ‘clowns’, ‘little Fuhrers’, and, with regard to their young, ‘political punk rockers’.” Less than four months before the Oktoberfest bombing, Dr. Hoffman wrote, an official German Interior Ministry publication dismissed the threat from neo-Nazi groups, saying they were “most armed with self-made bats and chains.”

Earlier this year, the analysts who had authored the European Police organisation Europol’s Terrorism Situation Report made much the same mistake as they had before the 1984 bombings. Lack of cohesion and public threat, they claimed, “went a long way towards accounting for the diminished impact of right-wing terrorism and extremism in the European Union.”

Zero terrorist attacks might have been a persuasive empirical argument – if it was not for the fact that no EU member-state, bar Hungary, actually records acts of right-wing terrorism using those terms.

Europol’s 2010 report, in fact, presented a considerably less sanguine assessment of the situation. Noting the 2008 and 2009 arrests of British fascists for possession of explosives and toxins, the report flagged the danger from “individuals motivated by extreme right-wing views who act alone.”

The report also pointed to the heating-up of a climate of hatred: large attendances at white-supremacist rock concerts, the growing muscle of fascist groups like Blood and Honour and the English Defence League, fire-bomb attacks on members of the Roma minority in several countries, and military training to the cadre.

Yet, the authors of the 2011 Europol report saw little reason for alarm. In a thoughtful 2008 report, a consortium of Dutch organisations noted that “right-wing terrorism is not always labelled as such.” Because “right-wing movements use the local traditions, values, and characteristics to define their own identity,” the report argued, “many non-rightist citizens recognize and even sympathize with some of the organization’s political opinions”- a formulation which will be familiar to Indians, where communal violence is almost never referred to as a form of mass terrorism.

Thomas Sheehan, who surveyed the Italian neo-fascist resurgence before the 1980 bombings, arrived at much the same conclusion decades ago. “In 1976 and again in 1978,” he wrote in the New York Review of Books, “judges in Rome, Turin and Milan fell over each other in their haste to absolve neo-fascists of crimes ranging from murdering a policeman to ‘reconstituting Fascism’ [a crime under post-war Italian law]“.

“When it comes to fascist terrorism,” Mr. Sheehan wryly concluded, “Italian authorities seem to be a bit blind in the right eye.”

Political crisis

Europe’s fascist parties have little electoral muscle today but reports suggest that a substantial renaissance is under way. The resurgence is linked to a larger political crisis. In 1995, commentator Ignacio Ramonet argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union had provoked a crisis for Europe’s great parties of the right, as for its left. The right’s failure to provide coherent answers to the crisis of identity provoked by a globalising world, and its support for a new economic order which engendered mass unemployment and growing income disparities, empowered neo-fascism.

“People feel,” Mr. Ramonet wrote in a commentary in the French newspaper, Le Monde, “that they have been abandoned by governments which they see as corrupt and in the hands of big business.”

In the mid-1990s, fascist groups reached an electoral peak: Jorg Haider’s Liberals won 22 per cent of the vote in Austria; Carl Igar Hagen’s Progress Party became the second-largest party in Norway; Gianfranco Fini’s National Alliance claimed 15 per cent of the vote in Italy; while the Belgian Vlaams Blok gained 12.3 per cent in Flanders, Belgium. In France, the centrist Union for French Democracy was compelled to accept support from the National Front in five provinces.

Europe’s mainstream right-wing leadership rapidly appropriated key elements of the fascist platform, and successfully whittled away at their electoral success: but ultimately failed to address the issues Mr. Ramonet had flagged.

Now, many are turning to new splinter groups, and online mobilisation. Mr. Brevik’s comments on the website Document.no provide real insight into the frustration of the right’s rank and file. His central target was what he characterised as “cultural-Marxism”: “an anti-European hate-ideology,” he wrote in September 2009, “whose purpose is to destroy European culture, identity and Christianity in general.”

For Mr. Breivik, cultural Marxism’s central crime was to have de-masculinised European identity. In his view, “Muslim boys learn pride in their own religion, culture and cultural-conservative values at home, while Norwegian men have been feminized and taught excessive tolerance.”

He railed against the media’s supposed blackout of the supposed “100 racial / jihadi murder of Norwegians in the last 15 years.” “Many young people are apathetic as a result,” Mr. Brevik observed, “others are very racist. They repay what they perceive as racism with racism.”

Mr. Breivik, his writings suggest, would have been reluctant to describe himself as a fascist – a common feature of European far-right discourse. He wrote: “I equate multiculturalism with the other hate-ideologies: Nazism (anti-Jewish), communism (anti-individualism) and Islam (anti-Kaffir).”

These ideas, it is important to note, were echoes of ideas in mainstream European neo-conservatism. In 1978, the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, famously referred to popular fears that Britain “might be swamped by people of a different culture.” In 1989, Ms Thatcher asserted that “human rights did not begin with the French Revolution.” Instead, they “really stem from a mixture of Judaism and Christianity”- in other words, faith, not reason.

In recent years, key European politicians have also used language not dissimilar to Mr Brevik. Last year, Angela Merkel asserted that multikulti, or multiculturalism, had failed. David Cameron, too, assailed “the doctrine of state multiculturalism,” which he said had “encouraged different cultures to live separate lives.” France’s Nicolas Sarkozy was more blunt: “multiculturalism is a failure. The truth is that in our democracies, we cared too much about the identity of the migrant and not sufficiently about the identity of the country that welcomed him.”

Mr. Brevik’s grievance, like Mr. Sharma’s, was that these politicians were unwilling to act on their words – and that the people he claimed to love for cared too little to rebel.

The Norwegian terrorist’s 1,518-page pseudonymous testament, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, promises his new “Knights Templar” order will “seize political and military control of Western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda.” He threatens an apocalyptic war against “traitors” enabling a Muslim takeover of Europe: a war, he says, will claim up to “45,000 dead and 1 million wounded cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.”

For India, there are several important lessons. Like’s Europe’s mainstream right-wing parties, the BJP has condemned the terrorism of the right – but not the thought system which drives it. Its refusal to engage in serious introspection, or even to unequivocally condemn Hindutva violence, has been nothing short of disgraceful. Liberal parties, including the Congress, have been equally evasive in their critique of both Hindutva and Islamist terrorism.

Besieged as India is by multiple fundamentalisms, in the throes of a social crisis that runs far deeper than in Europe, with institutions far weaker, it must reflect carefully on Mr. Brevik’s story – or run real risks to its survival.


India’s Orwellian drift

March 3, 2011

Jawed Naqvi

DURING the early rule of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, someone in his government placed two evidently unusable anti-aircraft guns of Second World War vintage on a visually prominent rampart of Delhi’s 16th-century fort, the Purana Qila.

The idea apparently was to deter airborne terrorists from attacking an approaching national day ceremony, but the subtext was not too hidden either. It became the first step towards a national campaign to instil fear – not unlike what had happened in America – of unknown and eventually unidentifiable terrorists. It was also a way for the government to farm out its growing list of phobias among the people, making them unwitting participants in a series of misadventures under the sobriquet of fight against terror.

Only this week, a Gujarat court controversially sentenced 11 Muslims to death and handed life sentences to another 20 for their alleged role in the death of 58 Hindus in a train inferno blamed on Muslims. Some 60 of the Muslims of Godhra, where the train tragedy occurred on Feb 27, 2002, were discharged last month as conspirators by the same court. They included men the prosecution called the masterminds.

The episode was of a piece with India’s prevailing ‘a-jaw-for-a-tooth’ mindset. A key parliamentary committee this week advocated death penalty for hijackers. What seemed odd was that a communist deputy headed the group. And Sitaram Yechury is no ordinary partisan. He is a politburo member of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), the country’s largest leftist group.

Several questions arose from the committee’s decision. Take Mr Yechury’s assumption that hijackers fear death, that capital punishment would deter them. In an era of suicide bombers what could be the significance of any decision to flaunt the gallows as retribution for ideologically-driven crimes, leave alone hijacking?

Hitherto the standard test of communist partisans in India was their readiness to listen to reason, their willingness to look for deeper causes of a given malaise, their fabled scientific diligence and a keen eye for humane remedies. There was a time in India when even its bourgeois political class displayed greater sensitivity to commonplace crimes that would be bracketed after a fashion (or expediency?) as acts of terror.

Before Mr Yechury’s advent as a parliamentarian, India was handling its problems with hijackers in a uniquely Indian way – with compassion, even humour.

Dalit Buddhists, Kashmiri Muslims, Sikhs and Brahmins had all hijacked planes in India. Their motives ranged from separatist politics to a laughable quest, if hijacking allows for humour, of seeking the postponement of college exams!

Two hijackers became Congress party leaders, one of them even a minister. Both men in the 1978 incident were Brahmins. In fact, they were brothers. Armed with toy guns they told the pilot they wanted Indira Gandhi freed from prison where she languished briefly after her opponents defeated her in 1977. Should they have been hanged?

A 1993 hijacker, Satish Chandra Pandey, was an admirer of Mr Vajpayee. A stated motive for his hijacking a plane on a cold January morning was to be urged by his hero, Mr Vajpayee, to surrender, which he did. The same year, four students claiming to be armed with explosives took charge of a domestic airliner to demand postponement of their annual university exams. Other passengers overpowered them. It was India’s second hijacking in two weeks and the third that year.

The students demanded that the government allocate Rs50m ($1.6m) to their college to begin a new Master’s programme. Would Mr Yechury want them dead?

On March 27 that year, a former trucker claiming to be a member of India’s governing Congress party took over another domestic airliner with 203 people on board to voice his frustration over the state of affairs in the country. The 37-year-old unemployed hijacker, who called India’s politicians “crooks”, surrendered to the police in Amritsar after failing to get permission for the plane to land in Lahore. Put him before a firing squad?

In January 1994, a lone hijacker, claiming to be a neo-Buddhist Dalit , commandeered an Indian Airlines Bangalore-Madras A-320 Airbus. The hijacker wanted Marathwada University to be renamed after Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Try tinkering with that, Mr Yechury.

I met one officially pampered hijacker in a Srinagar jail, where he was distributing copies of his memoirs to visiting journalists while armed guards at the high security jail offered generous rounds of Pepsi Cola with freshly baked pastries to the guests.

With a little bit of luck and more help from Indian intelligence agencies that are believed to be helping him vis-à-vis one of their mysterious agendas, Hashim Qureshi harbours ambitions to become chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir.

It would be tempting to look for comparison in Mr Yechury’s approach to any more recent hijacking with the more rightwards-leaning parties of India. The surprising fact is that during the Vajpayee era, which was as right as India has been as yet, there were three occasions when the Bharatiya Janata Party appeared to prefer the standard Indian middle course. It freed seven Sikh hijackers that Indira Gandhi had extradited from Dubai. It chose to save scores of precious lives rather than to allow insane criminals to blow them up, and it welcomed back Hashim Qureshi, a mastermind of the Ganga hijack episode of 1971, from Holland. Which of these would Mr Yechury have sent to the gallows?

The fact is that the near total silence of the parliamentary Left on the increasing militarisation of the Indian state – as also its growing participation in its self-defeating prescriptions on terror – seems akin to the last scene from George Orwell’s satire on communist Russia. The pigs in Animal Farm – depicting the ruling classes in Stalin’s Moscow – were beginning to walk on their hind legs, an act of hero-worshipping those they had sworn never to imitate.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com


Never Fight a Land War in Asia

March 3, 2011

By George Friedman

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking at West Point, said last week that “Any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” In saying this, Gates was repeating a dictum laid down by Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War, who urged the United States to avoid land wars in Asia. Given that the United States has fought four major land wars in Asia since World War II – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq – none of which had ideal outcomes, it is useful to ask three questions: First, why is fighting a land war in Asia a bad idea? Second, why does the United States seem compelled to fight these wars? And third, what is the alternative that protects U.S. interests in Asia without large-scale military land wars?

The Hindrances of Overseas Wars

Let’s begin with the first question, the answer to which is rooted in demographics and space. The population of Iraq is currently about 32 million. Afghanistan has a population of less than 30 million. The U.S. military, all told, consists of about 1.5 million active-duty personnel (plus 980,000 in the reserves), of whom more than 550,000 belong to the Army and about 200,000 are part of the Marine Corps. Given this, it is important to note that the United States strains to deploy about 200,000 troops at any one time in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that many of these troops are in support rather than combat roles. The same was true in Vietnam, where the United States was challenged to field a maximum of about 550,000 troops (in a country much more populous than Iraq or Afghanistan) despite conscription and a larger standing army. Indeed, the same problem existed in World War II.

When the United States fights in the Eastern Hemisphere, it fights at great distances, and the greater the distance, the greater the logistical cost. More ships are needed to deliver the same amount of material, for example. That absorbs many troops. The logistical cost of fighting at a distance is that it diverts numbers of troops (or requires numbers of civilian personnel) disproportionate to the size of the combat force.

Regardless of the number of troops deployed, the U.S. military is always vastly outnumbered by the populations of the countries to which it is deployed. If parts of these populations resist as light-infantry guerrilla forces or employ terrorist tactics, the enemy rapidly swells to a size that can outnumber U.S. forces, as in Vietnam and Korea. At the same time, the enemy adopts strategies to take advantage of the core weakness of the United States – tactical intelligence. The resistance is fighting at home. It understands the terrain and the culture. The United States is fighting in an alien environment. It is constantly at an intelligence disadvantage. That means that the effectiveness of the native forces is multiplied by excellent intelligence, while the effectiveness of U.S. forces is divided by lack of intelligence.

The United States compensates with technology, from space-based reconnaissance and air power to counter-battery systems and advanced communications. This can make up the deficit but only by massive diversions of manpower from ground-combat operations. Maintaining a helicopter requires dozens of ground-crew personnel. Where the enemy operates with minimal technology multiplied by intelligence, the United States compensates for lack of intelligence with massive technology that further reduces available combat personnel. Between logistics and technological force multipliers, the U.S. “point of the spear” shrinks. If you add the need to train, relieve, rest and recuperate the ground-combat forces, you are left with a small percentage available to fight.

The paradox of this is that American forces will win the engagements but may still lose the war. Having identified the enemy, the United States can overwhelm it with firepower. The problem the United States has is finding the enemy and distinguishing it from the general population. As a result, the United States is well-suited for the initial phases of combat, when the task is to defeat a conventional force. But after the conventional force has been defeated, the resistance can switch to methods difficult for American intelligence to deal with. The enemy can then control the tempo of operations by declining combat where it is at a disadvantage and initiating combat when it chooses.

The example of the capitulation of Germany and Japan in World War II is frequently cited as a model of U.S. forces defeating and pacifying an opposing nation. But the Germans were not defeated primarily by U.S. ground troops. The back of the Wehrmacht was broken by the Soviets on their own soil with the logistical advantages of short supply lines. And, of course, Britain and numerous other countries were involved. It is doubtful that the Germans would have capitulated to the Americans alone. The force the United States deployed was insufficient to defeat Germany. The Germans had no appetite for continuing a resistance against the Russians and saw surrendering to the Americans and British as sanctuary from the Russians. They weren’t going to resist them. As for Japan, it was not ground forces but air power, submarine warfare and atomic bombs that finished them – and the emperor’s willingness to order a surrender. It was not land power that prevented resistance but air and sea power, plus a political compromise by MacArthur in retaining and using the emperor. Had the Japanese emperor been removed, I suspect that the occupation of Japan would have been much more costly. Neither Germany nor Japan are examples in which U.S. land forces compelled capitulation and suppressed resistance.

The problem the United States has in the Eastern Hemisphere is that the size of the force needed to occupy a country initially is much smaller than the force needed to pacify the country. The force available for pacification is much smaller than needed because the force the United States can deploy demographically without committing to total war is simply too small to do the job – and the size needed to do the job is unknown.

U.S. Global Interests

The deeper problem is this: The United States has global interests. While the Soviet Union was the primary focus of the United States during the Cold War, no power threatens to dominate Eurasia now, and therefore no threat justifies the singular focus of the United States. In time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States must still retain a strategic reserve for other unanticipated contingencies. This further reduces the available force for combat.

Some people argue that the United States is insufficiently ruthless in prosecuting war, as if it would be more successful without political restraints at home. The Soviets and the Nazis, neither noted for gentleness, were unable to destroy the partisans behind German lines or the Yugoslav resistance, in spite of brutal tactics. The guerrilla has built-in advantages in warfare for which brutality cannot compensate.

Given all this, the question is why the United States has gotten involved in wars in Eurasia four times since World War II. In each case it is obvious: for political reasons. In Korea and Vietnam, it was to demonstrate to doubting allies that the United States had the will to resist the Soviets. In Afghanistan, it was to uproot al Qaeda. In Iraq, the reasons are murkier, more complex and less convincing, but the United States ultimately went in, in my opinion, to convince the Islamic world of American will.

The United States has tried to shape events in the Eastern Hemisphere by the direct application of land power. In Korea and Vietnam, it was trying to demonstrate resolve against Soviet and Chinese power. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was trying to shape the politics of the Muslim world. The goal was understandable but the amount of ground force available was not. In Korea, it resulted in stalemate; in Vietnam, defeat. We await the outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan, but given Gates’ statement, the situation for the United States is not necessarily hopeful.

In each case, the military was given an ambiguous mission. This was because a clear outcome – defeating the enemy – was unattainable. At the same time, there were political interests in each. Having engaged, simply leaving did not seem an option. Therefore, Korea turned into an extended presence in a near-combat posture, Vietnam ended in defeat for the American side, and Iraq and Afghanistan have turned, for the time being, into an uncertain muddle that no reasonable person expects to end with the declared goals of a freed and democratic pair of countries.

Problems of Strategy

There are two problems with American strategy. The first is using the appropriate force for the political mission. This is not a question so much of the force as it is of the mission. The use of military force requires clarity of purpose; otherwise, a coherent strategy cannot emerge. Moreover, it requires an offensive mission. Defensive missions (such as Vietnam and Korea) by definition have no terminal point or any criteria for victory. Given the limited availability of ground combat forces, defensive missions allow the enemy’s level of effort to determine the size of the force inserted, and if the force is insufficient to achieve the mission, the result is indefinite deployment of scarce forces.

Then there are missions with clear goals initially but without an understanding of how to deal with Act II. Iraq suffered from an offensive intention ill suited to the enemy’s response. Having destroyed the conventional forces of Iraq, the United States was unprepared for the Iraqi response, which was guerrilla resistance on a wide scale. The same was true in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency is occupation warfare. It is the need to render a population – rather than an army – unwilling and incapable of resisting. It requires vast resources and large numbers of troops that outstrip the interest. Low-cost counter-insurgency with insufficient forces will always fail. Since the United States uses limited forces because it has to, counterinsurgency is the most dangerous kind of war for the United States. The idea has always been that the people prefer the U.S. occupation to the threats posed by their fellow countrymen and that the United States can protect those who genuinely do prefer the former. That may be the idea, but there is never enough U.S. force available.

Another model for dealing with the problem of shaping political realities can be seen in the Iran-Iraq war. In that war, the United States allowed the mutual distrust of the two countries to eliminate the threats posed by both. When the Iraqis responded by invading Kuwait, the United States responded with a massive counter with very limited ends – the reconquest of Kuwait and the withdrawal of forces. It was a land war in Asia designed to defeat a known and finite enemy army without any attempt at occupation.

The problem with all four wars is that they were not wars in a conventional sense and did not use the military as militaries are supposed to be used. The purpose of a military is to defeat enemy conventional forces. As an army of occupation against a hostile population, military forces are relatively weak. The problem for the United States is that such an army must occupy a country for a long time, and the U.S. military simply lacks the ground forces needed to occupy countries and still be available to deal with other threats.

By having an unclear mission, you have an uncertain terminal point. When does it end? You then wind up with a political problem internationally – having engaged in the war, you have allies inside and outside of the country that have fought with you and taken risks with you. Withdrawal leaves them exposed, and potential allies will be cautious in joining with you in another war. The political costs spiral and the decision to disengage is postponed. The United States winds up in the worst of all worlds. It terminates not on its own but when its position becomes untenable, as in Vietnam. This pyramids the political costs dramatically.

Wars need to be fought with ends that can be achieved by the forces available. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” I think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of war. You do not engage in war if the army you have is insufficient. When you understand the foundations of American military capability and its limits in Eurasia, Gates’ view on war in the Eastern Hemisphere is far more sound than Rumsfeld’s.

The Diplomatic Alternative

The alternative is diplomacy, not understood as an alternative to war but as another tool in statecraft alongside war. Diplomacy can find the common ground between nations. It can also be used to identify the hostility of nations and use that hostility to insulate the United States by diverting the attention of other nations from challenging the United States. That is what happened during the Iran-Iraq war. It wasn’t pretty, but neither was the alternative.

Diplomacy for the United States is about maintaining the balance of power and using and diverting conflict to manage the international system. Force is the last resort, and when it is used, it must be devastating. The argument I have made, and which I think Gates is asserting, is that at a distance, the United States cannot be devastating in wars dependent on land power. That is the weakest aspect of American international power and the one the United States has resorted to all too often since World War II, with unacceptable results. Using U.S. land power as part of a combined arms strategy is occasionally effective in defeating conventional forces, as it was with North Korea (and not China) but is inadequate to the demands of occupation warfare. It makes too few troops available for success, and it does not know how many troops might be needed.

This is not a policy failure of any particular U.S. president. George W. Bush and Barack Obama have encountered precisely the same problem, which is that the forces that have existed in Eurasia, from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Korea to the Taliban in Afghanistan, have either been too numerous or too agile (or both) for U.S. ground forces to deal with. In any war, the primary goal is not to be defeated. An elective war in which the criteria for success are unclear and for which the amount of land force is insufficient must be avoided. That is Gates’ message. It is the same one MacArthur delivered, and the one Dwight Eisenhower exercised when he refused to intervene in Vietnam on France’s behalf. As with the Monroe Doctrine, it should be elevated to a principle of U.S. foreign policy, not because it is a moral principle but because it is a very practical one.


JB Campbell: Anti-American

December 14, 2010

by J. Bruce Campbell

The leakers are being called “anti-American.”

What decent person, anywhere in the world today, is not anti-American? Is there anyone more dangerous than our typical ignorant, arrogant American “citizen,” who very likely couldn’t find America on a marked map of the world? Well, yes: the American military man, who is the most dangerous son of a bitch on the planet. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

I’m anti-American. I really wasn’t until I returned to Rhodesia in January, ’73 to join up and help in their struggle against Communist terrorists. I’d been down there in ’71 for discussions with the government on bringing Americans and others wanting to be part of a new country project based on a book by my boss, Michael Oliver, called A New Constitution for a New Country. The plan was to have a minimum of a hundred square miles with no taxes and no draft, replacing the former tax-haven in Freeport, Bahamas. Thousands of productive Americans and others were ready to relocate.

Mike’s real name was Olitsky and he was a Lithuanian Jew who’d fled into Germany to escape Stalin’s Red Army. He wound up in Dachau for four years. He introduced me to Holocaust Revisionism when I ventured to ask him about his experience. He shrugged and said, “It was a factory. We worked during the day and stayed in a dormitory at night.”

“But what about the, uh, the-”
“The what?”
“You know, the killings.”
“I never saw any of that.”

Four years in Dachau, never saw any of that. Okay. He did see the US Army “liberate” the camp in April, ’45. The SS and Alpine troops recuperating there had negotiated a surrender to the Americans, who entered the camp and started shooting the guys who thought they were surrendering. Then the Americans marched the surviving soldiers (all the prison guards had fled days earlier) up to a wall near the hospital and set up a machine gun. Three hundred forty-six German soldiers on R&R were slaughtered in a few minutes, five hundred twenty in all that morning. George Patton handled the cover-up and protected the war criminals. The army doctor on the scene, Col. Howard Buechner, described it in his book, Dachau: Hour of the Avenger. Of the 32,000 inmates freed, about 1,200 were Jews, including Mike.

My new country project discussions were with the Rhodesian minister of internal affairs, Jack Howman. He rather indignantly turned us down. Nevertheless, I did return and take part in their war against Communist terror. I suppose it was during those two years that I became reluctantly anti-American. Our country, the good old USA, supported the Communist war of terror against the Rhodesian people, black and white. Our country put Robert Mugabe in power, just as it put Nelson Mandela in power a few years later. Mandela was Member Number One of the South African Communist Party. America put every Communist party in power in every single Communist country since 1917. That includes Lenin & Trotsky, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il-sung, Ho Chi Minh, Tito, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro. Our government kept Stalin in power from 1924 until his death in ’53. It went to war in ’41 to rescue Stalin from well-deserved German destruction. Billions (trillions in today’s worthless money) were given by America to save Soviet Communism.

An itinerant writer named Robert K. Brown came to Salisbury, Rhodesia in 1974 to interview me. He said he was freelancing for Esquire Magazine and Guns Magazine. He wanted to know what would make a Californian such as I come over to this little country in southern Africa and fight terrorism? The interview eventually appeared in the first issue (Summer ’75) of a strange magazine called “Soldier of Fortune.” I took Brown up to Mt. Darwin and introduced him to my farmer friends who were on the front lines of terrorism every day and night of their lives. I asked him not to quote me because I could be prosecuted for “mercenary activities” by the State Department. He quoted the hell out of me but changed my name to “Mitchell McNair.” But the point of this is that he told me what he did for the CIA back in the ’50s… Brown was in the CIA’s Special Forces and was part of the assassination team that murdered Rafael Trujillo in ’61. But in ’58 and ’59, Brown ran guns to Fidel Castro to assist in his coup against Fulgencio Batista. Once Castro came to power, the CIA pretended to be against Castro to justify its gigantic power-grab of the government. But Castro, along with every other Communist leader in the world, was put in power by the US government. Then our government exploited the “threat” presented by Communism to justify “defense spending” and lucrative no-win wars. Today, the Chicoms, those ultimate Communists, are our business partners and we have arranged for the anti-Communist Moslems to be our new worst enemies.

Brown’s magazine was funded by the CIA and was immediately put to use in recruiting mercenaries for their ludicrous operation in Angola. I called Brown in Boulder at one point to ask why the hell he was recruiting for the foul Angolan terrorist, Holden Roberto? He said lamely, “Well, the CIA likes him.” Any questions so far?

The more I studied US history over the next few years, the more I came to hate everything this country stands for, or pretends to stand for. American history turns out to be one gigantic lie, as phony as a Hollywood movie. In fact, all we have come to believe about ourselves has pretty much come from Hollywood. This is no exaggeration. The American myth was created by a few Russian Jews who ripped off Tom Edison’s film process in New Jersey and split for the coast to avoid prosecution. Neal Gabler wrote a book entitled An Empire of Their Own, How the Jews Invented Hollywood. The inescapable fact is that not only did they invent Hollywood, but the entire myth of America as the promised land.

For Russian Jews, it was. America was the land of milk, honey and suckers by the millions. Our self-image as Americans is a Jewish image. The slaughter and rip-off and exile of American Indians to Bantustans we call “reservations” was glamorized (authorized) by Hollywood Jews. The reality of this genocide makes American condemnation of Zionist genocide of Palestinians meaningless. That is, it would be meaningless if any American politician condemned Israel, which hasn’t happened yet. If we had some bacon we could have bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs.

The whole American experience is based on mass murder and land-grabs and lies (broken treaties). Not one treaty made by the US Army with the Indians was left unbroken. Maybe the one with the Yakimas, but I’m not sure about that. Up in this country where we live, you see the slogan once in a while, “Custer Had It Coming.” When you investigate what all he did to the Lakota, Cheyenne and others, such as mass murdering women and children, for no reason other than ethnic cleansing, you have to conclude that he and his war criminals definitely had it coming.

Custer worked for Phil Sheridan and Bill Sherman, both of whom are in the War Crimes Hall of Fame. Their crimes against the Southern people and the Indian people will turn your hair white with shock. American (Yankee) war of aggression and genocide are the bases of all modern total war. The buffalo were exterminated just to cripple the Plains Indians. To punish the Nez Perce for resisting another broken treaty, the army slaughtered thousands of their Appaloosa horses. The army put the Nez Perce in boxcars in the winter of ’77 and shipped them to Ft. Leavenworth. This is the actual American way.

I’ll skip over our genocidal adventures in the Philippines and our Jewish-engineered role in the Great War and go right to the World War, or rather its aftermath in Europe. Our mopping-up method is described above with the Dachau massacre of surrendered troops. Such sadistic butchery was encouraged by a 1941 book “highly recommended” to the troops by Franklin Roosevelt, a book by an obscure Jew in advertising named Theodore Kaufman, entitled “Germany Must Perish!” It was the basis for what became known as the Morgenthau Plan for Germany, which called for the extermination of a large percentage of Germans, the forced sterilization of the rest and the destruction of all industry or its removal to the Soviet Union, flooding all mines and turning Germany into a goat pasture. Henry Morgenthau was FDR’s Jewish treasury secretary. George Patton writes in his memoirs that Eisenhower gave Morgenthau his plan, which was eventually drafted by another Jew named Weiss (Harry Dexter “White”). Upon war’s end, Eisenhower put the plan into effect with his order to starve to death all captured German PoWs. This is documented in James Bacque’s Other Losses. Over a million German prisoners died eating grass and bugs out in open fields in the American starvation program from May to December, 1945.

Then, Ike starved millions more German civilians throughout that period ’til 1947, when the Cold War started and America needed Germany to pretend to fight our erstwhile ally, Stalin. This merciless starvation program is documented also by Bacque in his Crimes & Mercies. Naïve people have doubted this crime against humanity and asked, “Why didn’t the Germans complain, if what you say is true?” Answer: For one thing, the Germans are not a complaining people, the way Jews are. This is not a good thing, but it’s the way they are. They shut up and take it. But the real point is, to whom could they complain if they were complaining people? The Americans? The British, the Soviets, the French, all of whom were participants in the American genocide program? Bacque estimates that between nine and thirteen million Germans were slaughtered in Eisenhower’s starvation and forced exposure operation in two years.

Then there was the Eisenhower program officially called by the army, Operation Keelhaul. If you still think that being an American is a good thing, consider this one… During the war, millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Cossacks and others escaped from Soviet slave-terror into Italy, Austria, Yugoslavia and other countries. Many of them were Red Army soldiers captured by the German army at Stalingrad, Leningrad, Kursk and countless other battles and sent to PoW camps in Germany and Poland and Italy. The hysterical beast, Josef Stalin, who fled Moscow at the approach of the German army, gave the order that any Red Army soldier who surrendered was to be shot when the war was over. This was well-known. Nevertheless, Dwight Eisenhower broke all international laws regarding treatment of captured enemy forces and ordered the rounding up and handing over of these men and their families. Approximately five million of them were forced into boxcars by US Army soldiers at bayonet point and sent east to Hungary, where they were taken off the trains and either shot by the tracks or sent to the Gulag Archipelago to be worked to death over the next year. This was documented also by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his monumental record of Soviet/American bestiality. I have interviewed veterans who participated in this unimaginable betrayal of humanity.

Reportedly, the only photo on Ike’s Oval Office desk was one of Josef Stalin-autographed.

In 1956, our President Eisenhower encouraged the Hungarians to rise up and kick the Soviets out of Budapest, promising them American help if they showed they deserved it. So the Hungarians rose up and seized all the Jews that Khrushchev and Stalin had installed over them, hanging and shooting many hundreds, and forced the Soviets out of Budapest. Khrushchev wrote in his memoirs that he waited a couple of weeks for Eisenhower to follow through on his promise of aid, but it never came. So he ordered the tanks back in and the wiping out of the freedom fighters.

This is the actual American way, administered by respectable political pukes such as Dwight David Eisenhower, nicknamed in the 1915 West Point yearbook as “The Terrible Swedish Jew.”

We are just now learning what the army and air force did to the Koreans during the Korean War. Millions were slaughtered. We Americans wonder why the crazy North Koreans are so paranoid and ready to fight? We wonder because we don’t know what the hell our government did to those people in the 1950s. We have no idea that our government approved the Soviet occupation of North Korea in 1945, making it Communist in ’48. Then we drew an arbitrary line across the 38th parallel and created “South Korea” and prepared to go to war against “North Korea” when everyone was ready in 1950. War made to order with unbelievable profits to the bankers and “defense contractors.” 34,000 Americans killed – for what?

Viet Nam. Did you know that Ho Chi Minh was a US intelligence agent during World War II? He made his reports to the OSS at the Texaco office in Hanoi. Did you know that the American OSS installed Ho Chi Minh in power in the northern half of Indochina in 1945? An arbitrary line was drawn across the 17th parallel in ’54 and our northern puppet started the war against our southern puppet in ’59, which we of course lost in ’75. Another war made to order with unbelievable profits to the bankers and “defense contractors.” Millions of Vietnamese slaughtered by our wonderful boys, 58,000 of whom were also slaughtered – for what?

The United Nations is a US front. It was devised by American traitors in the Council on Foreign Relations in 1945 and has always been housed in New York. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the sixteen acres in Manhattan and built the edifice in 1951. Its first crime against humanity was the creation of the Israeli nation of parasites in 1948, while the UN was still headquartered on Long Island. The UN waged war against Rhodesia and South Africa throughout the ’60s and ’70s, always subsidized by American taxpayers. Most Americans don’t know or remember that the Korean War was fought by American soldiers under the blue and white flag of the United Nations.

And now, our wonderful boys are fighting for Israel against Moslems in Iraq and Afghanistan and secretly killing thousands in Pakistan and Yemen. These wars are based on Israeli lies stemming from their massacre of 9/11. Even though the American FBI director, Mueller, admitted there was no evidence of Moslem hijackers, we invaded Afghanistan. Americans don’t know that the Taliban were our guys until they objected to a Unocal pipeline being constructed across their country. Richard Armitage told them they could either have a carpet of gold (if they went along with the pipeline) or a carpet of bombs if they didn’t cooperate. They didn’t cooperate and virtually overnight, the Americans categorized them as the enemy, showering our gold on a rival group, the Northern Alliance. Our former friends, the Taliban, are kicking our butts, which is only fair. You invade someone’s country based on your own lies, you deserve to have your butt kicked.

Football star and millionaire Pat Tillman fell for the 9/11 legend and joined the Army Rangers to hunt down Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. But then he and his brother were sent to Iraq, which puzzled them both. Why Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (but neither did Osama or Afghanistan). Pat Tillman signed his own death warrant with his questions and complaints about invading Iraq. So he was sent back to Afghanistan to be silenced. In one of the dumbest excuses for a skirmish I’ve ever heard of, he was sent forward to engage with some non-existent enemy fighters. Then he was shot at by his own guys behind him. The odd thing is that his forehead had three .22 caliber bullet holes in it. The M-4 rifle shoots a .22, of course, but it’s a high-power, high-velocity .223 that does serious damage. The fact that his forehead had three .22 holes and wasn’t obliterated means he was executed with three low-powered. 22LR bullets from a pistol. The general in charge of the official heroic lies about enemy action and then “friendly fire” was Stanley McChrystal, an infamous black ops leader of The Secret Team and organizer of many, many assassinations.

And so, I’m anti-American. I suspect that if Pat Tillman were alive he’d be just as anti-American. Real patriots can get that way quickly when they realize they’ve been hustled.

Don’t start about the Constitution. Don’t tell me that if we just stuck to the Constitution we’d be in good shape. I’ve found that people who go on about the Constitution have never read it. They don’t understand that it’s just a seven-part plan for running the government. They don’t understand that it was crafted by Freemasons using Masonic lodge rules of order as a template. They don’t know or forgot that the founders sneaked the Constitution on us when they were supposed to modify the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States.

The Bill of Rights was our friend and it was added by Patrick Henry and truly patriotic friends to protect us from the Constitutional government. But George Bush and his PATRIOT Act destroyed the Bill of Rights. Obama is a foreign-born CIA asset so he has no understanding of the Bill of Rights. Apparently both he and his strange wife lost their law licenses several years ago anyway and I suspect they missed Bill of Rights day in law school.

I’m not sure what it is about America that we’re expected to love. The government? The Federal Reserve? The IRS? Our banking system? Wall Street? How about our schools? The way we conduct our foreign policy? How about the CIA and sanctioned kidnapping, torture and false imprisonment and killing Israel’s enemies with our cowardly Predator flying death machines? Maybe the FBI, America’s number one terrorist organization?

Tell me, what is there to love? Our farms and Monsanto suicide seeds and all our fake food? Our labor unions that don’t try to protect American jobs? How about NAFTA that was jammed down our throats by Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh? You don’t remember that 1994 tag-team?

Maybe we should love Wal-Mart and all the Chinese junk inside. How about our great industries? Wait a minute-we don’t have any industries. They’re all in China.

Should we love our cities? How about the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. We really need a War on Warmongers and Profiteers. I won’t even ask if we’re supposed to love our politicians, our judges and our news media. Our ranches are nice, except the cattle are full of growth hormones and antibiotics.

Nope. Sorry. Nothing here to love, if we’re honest. Maybe if we brought our occupation forces home from the 120 countries they’re occupying, this country wouldn’t be so hateful. But there’s a gene in us that makes us extremely dangerous and destructive. We have been conditioned to view ourselves as exceptional-better than other people-and deserving of whatever other people have, such as land, gold, oil, water, whatever. You can see this gene metastasizing in the leaked videos of Americans slaughtering Iraqi civilians from our multi-million dollar attack helicopters. I say they’re ours because we’re on the hook for them.

Somebody is going to say, Well partner, you better love your right to shoot your mouth off and you can thank a veteran for that right. Uh, huh. You mean the guy over in Iraq, blowing away a family that misunderstood orders in a foreign language to stop at this goddamned roadblock (that wasn’t here yesterday)? You think I owe my free-speech right to a guy who spent the war spraying Agent Orange on foreign civilians? Do you think any of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights was reinforced by the crew of the Enola Gay? My old man was a marine in the first World War. I said to him, Man, you made the world safe for Democracy! He just looked at me, like, very funny.

It is not safe to shoot your mouth off these days and hasn’t been for a long time. The military is not making it any safer, in fact, just the opposite. The US military is breaking the law wholesale by acting as “law enforcement,” in complete violation of the law (Posse Comitatus). But shut my mouth, because there is no law anymore. We’re under the law of the gun, or Deuteronomy, which is the same thing.

Most people today are afraid even to READ my material, let alone comment on it. Let alone write something along these lines. Why do you suppose there’s so much fear in this country since 9/11? Is the military relieving this fear or reinforcing it? What about the reports that the military will be rounding up dissidents? Don’t believe them? They’re already illegally working as cops. The military does not protect ANYONE’s rights. The military kills people and destroys property. No American is safer because our military is killing Moslems in Iraq or Afghanistan-just the opposite. Not only is the military killing the world with depleted uranium munitions, but it is causing a blinding hatred of us. Just imagine armed thugs breaking into your house or your relative’s house and what it would do to your mind, assuming they didn’t blow you away because of the look of resentment on your face.

I discovered myself, years ago, that the FEMA camps are staffed by the 300th Military Police POW Command headquartered in Inkster, Michigan.

An honest American has to admit that he hates this country, not just the government. The government is a reflection of the people who pay for it. This country isn’t what you thought it was and it never has been. We’ve been conditioned to pledge allegiance to the flag and to the nation for which it stands, but what it stands for isn’t what Hollywood has had us believing since we were little kids.

All leaks are good, as long as they’re the real deal, not redacted or altered to make us support Israel. The only way we can survive is to know the truth about what government and the corporations have been secretly doing to us and others. The truth may be anti-American, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.


No method to the madness

September 27, 2010

By Yousuf Nazar

More than one trillion dollars and nine years later the alleged and self-confessed master mind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has not been convicted. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zahwari, and Mullah Omar have not been caught, dead or alive; the Talibans instead of being eliminated are set to take over Kabul again, and Pakistan which hardly had a Taliban presence on September 11, 2001 has been rocked by bomb blasts and has had its worst year of violence since 2001. And Americans still cannot see what the problem is?

But then if their policies had a bit of wisdom, we never would have had Vietnam, Cambodia would not have been ruined, Shah of Iran would never have been allowed to suppress dissent, Afghanistan would not have been abandoned after 1989, and a just settlement of the Palestine conflict would have been achieved. It is easy to forget lessons of history in the confusion and noise of day-to-day reporting and in the age of 30 second sound bites of electronic media.

And it is ok for much over-rated Newsweek and its editor to declare Pakistan as the most dangerous country and the home of Al Qaeda and confess, without much regret or shame, three years later that Al Qaeda is not really that deadly a threat.

I would like to believe this sensational bit of journalism had little to do with the fact that Newsweek magazine had been making losses for years. As of 2003, worldwide circulation was more than 4 million, including 2.7 million in the U.S; however as of 2010 it is down to 1.5 million. The financial results for 2009 as reported by the Washington Post showed that advertising revenue for Newsweek was down 37% in 2009 and the magazine division reported an operating loss for 2009 of $29.3 million compared to a loss of $16 million in 2008. During the magazine’s first quarter of 2010, it lost nearly $11 million. By May 2010, Newsweek was said to be up for sale. The magazine was sold to audio pioneer Sidney Harman for just $1 on August 2, 2010.

Fareed Zakaria, then a Newsweek columnist and editor of Newsweek International, attended a secret meeting on November 29, 2001 with a dozen policy makers, Middle East experts and members of influential policy research organizations to produce a report for President George W. Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. The meeting was held at the request of Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense. The unusual presence of journalists at such a strategy meeting was revealed in Bob Woodward’s 2006 book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III.

In the May 9, 2005, issue of Newsweek, an article by reporter Michael Isikoff stated that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay “in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur’an down a toilet. The magazine later revealed that the anonymous source behind the allegation could not confirm that the book-flushing was actually under investigation, and retracted the story under heavy criticism. But the damage had been done.

Yet, some make so much of the trash that is published in magazines like Newsweek and ignore the counsel of experienced and mature hands like Dr. Brzezinski.

The U.S. military and intelligence budgets have crossed all decent and reasonable limits. The intelligence budget alone has gone up by more than 250% since 2001 to $75 billion and the defenders of U.S. madness in Afghanistan and Pakistan do not see the irony of a mad campaign that has not achieved anything and destroyed much, including American credibility and standing in the world.

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the foremost foreign policy experts in the U.S., who started the American involvement in Afghanistan in 1978-1979 as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, warned the U.S. government about the potentially disastrous consequences of its foreign policy in a testimony before the U.S. senate foreign relations committee on February 1, 2007. “If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.”

He dismissed the fears about Al Qaeda saying: “A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD’s in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the “decisive ideological struggle” of our time.”

Dr. Brzezinski warned: ” Vague and inflammatory talk about “a new strategic context” which is based on “clarity” and which prompts “the birth pangs of a new Middle East” is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world.”

He added: “One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture. “

One consequence of the bloody military and covert operations is that the control of many aspects slips out of the hands of the politicians and away from Congressional oversight. Guantanamo Bay is one such example. Dozens were kept under detention without any trial and then released without much explanation. Abdullah Mahsud was one.. captured in December 2001 and released in May 2004.

Dissent was stifled with the neo-fascist rhetoric of “either you are with us or against us”, and thus giving the press little choice but to accept the official story line without much questioning or reasoning. The psychology of fear was used to pursue a Middle East policy that had everything to do with oil and little to do with terrorism as has been acknowledged by eminent figures such as General (rtd) Wesley Clarke, former supreme commander of NATO, Bill Clinton’s economic adviser Jeff Sachs, and the former FED chairman Alan Greenspan.

The latest casualty of the U.S. military and intelligence establishment’s what Brzezinski called a “mythical narrative” is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. She may or may not have been involved with Al Qaeda. I do not know. No court ever charged her with any terrorist act. So all that noise is irrelevant in so far it relates to her sentencing by a U.S. court for 86 years on charges of committing a crime in Afghanistan as a Pakistani citizen. If the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment wanted to delay the case and avoid provocation, which it knew it would cause in Pakistan, it could have easily delayed the trial as it did in the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for reasons that remain obscure.

I won’t speculate on the motives for carrying on this trial at this time lest some naïve or biased readers accuse me of a conspiracy theory but the repercussions are obvious. It is a clear provocation even if that was not the intent. It is mystifying that while on one hand, the U.S. gives $405 million for aid for the floods; but it increases the frequency of drone strikes which for sure are going to destroy any good will it would have hoped to generate. Are they so stupid? But then even $10 billion is a small sum in the big power games when the total cost of the War on Terror is coming to over a trillion dollars according to the official figures and more than $2 trillion according to independent U.S. economists.

I quoted Dr. Brzezinski at length to make the points that some of us make but are dismissed as anti-Americanism. I worked for an American bank for 20 years. I have nothing against Americans. But their establishment’s Middle East and Central Asian policies are wrong, short-sighted, counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating. There is no method to their madness but only one way to prevent more harm than they have already caused, belated though it might be. They should get the hell out of Afghanistan and Pakistan and stop supporting or manipulating their puppets, be it in civvies or muftis. The world would be a better place if President Obama can focus on the ailing U.S. economy, which is not only in a long term decline but is not recovering well, and put an end to all costly overt and covert misadventures overseas.


The high price of American hubris

July 16, 2010

By George F. Will
Thursday, July 15, 2010

The story mocks a cliche: As they were leaving the Garden of Eden, Adam said to Eve, “Darling, we live in an age of transition.” The first sentence of Barack Obama’s letter introducing his new strategic review says Americans have often coped with “moments of transition” such as today’s “time of sweeping change.” Such boilerplate makes one weep — and yearn for serious, meaning unsentimental, assessments of America’s foreign policy tradition.

One is at hand. Taken to heart, Peter Beinart’s “The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris” might spare the nation some tears.

In the Greek myth, Icarus is given wings in the form of feathers affixed by wax to a wooden frame. He also is given a warning: Do not fly too high lest the sun melt the wax. In the ecstasy of soaring, he forgot, and fell to his death.

Beinart discerns three varieties of highflying foreign policy hubris in the past 100 years, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, who injected the progressives’ faith in domestic policy expertise into foreign policy. He exemplified the hubris of reason, which supposedly could bring permanent, because “scientific,” peace to Europe. The political science professor told his wife they should draft a constitution for their marriage, then “make bylaws at our leisure.” As president, he created the Inquiry, a bevy of intellectuals using reason to revise the borders that history had given to Old World nations.

Colonel Edward House, Wilson’s aide, said he and the president received the Inquiry’s report on Jan. 2, 1918: “We actually got down to work at half past ten and finished remaking the map of the world, as we would have it, at half past twelve.”

Wilson said, in effect, “Stop the world, America wants to get off.” He actually said America would “in no circumstances consent to live in a world governed by intrigue and force.” And so the next war came, on Sept. 1, 1939, when dignitaries were in Geneva, birthplace and cemetery of the League of Nations, unveiling a statue of Wilson.

The First World War — a.k.a. the war to end all wars — was followed by the Second World War, and then the Cold War and the hubris of toughness. America, which Beinart says needed “a wider menu of analogies,” now saw every foreign policy challenge through the retrospective prism of Munich:

“In 1939, few American politicians believed that a Nazi takeover of Warsaw constituted a grave danger to the United States. By 1965, many believed we couldn’t live with a North Vietnamese takeover of Saigon. In the 1980s, Americans lived peacefully, albeit anxiously, with thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads pointed our way. By 2003, many Washington commentators claimed that even Iraqi biological or chemical weapons put us in mortal peril.”

The postwar belief that U.S. “credibility” was crucial, perishable and at stake in far-flung crises “meant,” Beinart says, “that unimportant places were important after all,” and turned the doctrine of containment into an uncontained, hence hubristic, impulse. As the restraining memory of Korea faded — a memory that helped President Dwight Eisenhower conduct a prudent foreign policy — the (in John Kennedy’s inaugural formulation)“trumpet” calling on America to “pay any price, bear any burden” summoned the country to worry perhaps excessively about involvement in Guatemala and the Dominican Republic.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, America’s supremacy — ideological, military and economic: the stock market doubled in value between 1992 and 1996 — fed, Beinart says, a hubris of dominance. Using only air power, America compelled Serbia to remove its soldiers from part of Serbia — the province of Kosovo. In Bosnia, America acted in response to ethnic cleansing. In Kosovo, Beinart argues, America acted to preempt ethnic cleansing: “Kosovo nudged open an intellectual door, a door George W. Bush would fling wide open four years later, when he cited ‘preemption’ to justify his invasion of Iraq.”

Events eventually pop what Beinart calls “hubris bubbles.” This may soon happen inAfghanistan, where Obama is in a tenuous, uneasy alliance with those Beinart calls “dominance conservatives.”

Generational envy has, Beinart believes, propelled some Americans’ searches for Hitlers to not appease. Boredom born of Cold War success caused them to find some. Hubris is a vice arising from ambition, which is, in moderation, a virtue. Hubris is a byproduct of success, of which America has had much. By producing folly, of which America has had too much, hubris is its own corrective. There is, however, a high tuition paid for such instruction.

georgewill@washpost.com


American World Order: The Beginning Of The End

June 30, 2010

Engr. Mansoor A Malik

The American Euphoria after the surrender of the Japanese on the US Naval Ship in the Pacific soon after the capitulation of the Germans was at its peak in the late 1940s’.The largesse of the American people and their government to re-build Europe and Asia as an aftermath of the Second World War was breathtaking and never again would the world at large ever witness such large heartedness and love for humanity. The US became the unchallenged leader of the Free World with the Dullesian (Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles) aid package flowing all over the world with or without their asking. This was America’s finest hour. Under these favorable conditions the Europeans pushed America for the creation of Israel in Palestine to appease the Zionists and putting the USA on the spot in Vietnam and Korea in the Pacific.


The Death of Jumbo

Pakistan ventured to the USA under these circumstances to re-invigorate itself and get out of the log jam of the Partition of India. This first trip to the USA of our first Prime Minister, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, soon after Pakistan came into being, however, turned out to be a fiasco. The US administration wanted our Armed Forces involved in the Korean War (1950-1953) after getting the relevant support from the Turkish Armed Forces for this war. Liaqat Ali Khan disappointed them as he referred this decision to the newly established first Democratic Parliament of Pakistan. President Eisenhower rushed his Vice-President Mr. Richard Nixon to India as an affront to Pakistan’s political leadership. Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India refused to entertain him and no hand shaking took place, even for the cameras, as India sought out its leadership role in the Non-Aligned Movement. For face saving, Mr. Nixon flew into Pakistan for a golden hand shake with its leaders and the rest is history. Pakistan was turned into the most allied ally of the USA.

The Nuclear strikes by USAF in Japan at the closing stages of the Second World War was not only a show of strength to the Soviet Union but also heralded the United States as a champion of the Western World in the global political perspective in the times to come. From the world isolation of USA in the 1920s’ and 1930s’, it thrusted itself, un-prepared, on the World Scene and stretched itself in Asia, Africa and Latin America apart from consolidating its Trans-Atlantic relationship with its distant European cousins. This half cooked policy backfired in Korea in 1950s’ and had a tragic ending in Vietnam as far as Asia was concerned in 1970s’. In the European theatre, France and Germany started to take an independent posture and the onus fell on UK to deliver Europe to its WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) cousins in Washington. Mr. Macmillan may have been an outstanding Prime Minister of UK in his time but he was no match for Addenauer and Willy Brandt of Germany and the good old fox of France, General Charles de Gaulle. These stalwarts were instrumental in pushing the dream of One Europe to be realized thru the European Union in our lifetime. This has made possible for Europe to be counted now at the global level regardless of the Spoilers role of the UK.

The whiz kids in Washington at the turn of this century, the new millennium, wanted to re-fix their Asian Imbroglio as a counter weight to the growing influence of the European Union and China. In the Middle-East, Israel, its proxy, had to be pepped up and left to it to control the region with least opposition. Therefore, after the neutralization of Egypt, Iraq had to be dealt with and Syria isolated from this new political gamble in the making. The de-stabilization of Iraq could not be intelligently simulated in the War Gaming Simulators of the USA with the result that the Asymmetrical Forces were un-leashed around Israel increasing the paranoia of this tinny witty state in the Palestinian lands. Then it was our turn in South- West Asia. Instead of sending a few American commandos to pick up handful of miscreants in Afghanistan and produce them at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a fair trial, the sovereignty of that country along with that of Pakistan was abused by first firing more than fifty Tomahawk Cruise Missiles by US Navy from our waters in Baluchistan to the Afghan camps at Khost across our border and then came the Daisy Cutters and B-52 Bombers to level off whatever was left of Afghanistan. My generation would now be left with only nostalgic memories of Nirvana about the annual Jashne-Kabul festivities that we attended in out teens in Kabul that was in the 1960s’.

The Israeli spread over from East of the Suez Canal was checked in its stride by the emerging Iranian reality and therefore, a new strategic dimension had to be added to the Middle-Eastern leg. This was achieved thru a two pronged approach by the USA. The first one involved the US-Israeli collusion in the exploitation of Economic Zones in Central Asia and the second, more intriguing one involving US-NATO-Israel-India was un-leashed in Afghanistan. This poor country which was already a melting pot of Central Asian Peoples’ became a hot bed of intrigues and counter intrigues due to varied approaches of these four entities, with each having their own axe to grind. The Afghan Resistance grew due to this lack of coherence and self centered policies of all these powerful players. The major contribution of this military campaign fell on the shoulders of USA, whereas, the political benefits were envisaged to be reaped by India as the regional power. The Indo-Israeli nexus was again playing its cards close to its chest and putting the donkey’s work on the shoulders of USA similar the one in the Iraqi campaign. If the Iraq War would cost the American tax payers one and a half trillion US dollar by the time all American soldiers go home from this theatre, it would cost half that much in the Afghan campaign. What is the Cost-Benefit Ratio of both these campaigns to the average American?

The economics of it can take its own toll, but the signs of the long term political and diplomatic ramifications to the USA as a global player, has already become visible. Israel is now openly defying the Two State Solution Policy of the USA for Palestine and the body language of America’s interlocutor in the Middle-East, Mr. John Mitchell says it all. In Afghanistan, the poorest country in Asia, the existing US policy has miserably failed. While Iraq had its historical reputation of getting its rivers turned red out of martyr’s blood after every few centuries including this one, the Afghans being ferociously independent, have never allowed the Czars of Russia, the British Empire and the Soviet Union an easy passage to their rugged country. They have stood their grounds while empires of the past have perished around them. How will America fare differently? Only time will tell.

In brief, Mansoor Malik has been Director General with over 33 year of experience in planning, establishing and managing national level, strategic, high-tech organizations. Director General, Marketing & Industrial Relations Organization (MIRO). Commandant, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Risalpur, Pakistan.

Senior Engineering Manager, PAF Project where he was responsible for the smooth induction of F-16 Aircraft Weapons System in the PAF and making them fully operational.


Profiling Pakistan-1

June 21, 2010

A Well Orchestrated Defaming Campaign

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan


Not Iraq, Lets Bomb Pakistan

“The allegations are baseless,” Pakistan and its security setup, perhaps thought this brief, succinct, and patent elucidation enough in response to the 22 pages, Matt Waldman’s research report on, “The Sun in the Sky: The relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents,” published by Crisis States Research Centre of London School of Economics (LSE) on June 13, 2010. While recognizing the fact the Taliban in Afghanistan is a reality, the report reveals that ISI indeed guides them in their strategic planning, decision making and even in the implementation phases of the insurgency. So much so that, the author is self-assured in claiming that starting from the training, the funding, arming, and even logistical support provided to Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network, is accomplished by this Pakistani intelligence agency. The astonishing research also reveals that, apart from the intelligence setup, President Zardari, otherwise considered to be a pro-US and Pro-West, has given assurances to the Taliban for Pakistani assistance.

U.S and NATO troops are embattling these insurgent Taliban ever since the former invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, following the incident of 9/11. To their hard-luck, these foreign forces could not subdue the resistance put up by Afghan Taliban and masses in spite of having superior weaponry and despotic tactics. Rather their tyrannical acts further fuelled the insurgency in that country. After having analysed, the consecutive failure of US and NATO troops, and their counter-productive results, Afghan President Mr. Hamid Karazai, decided to launch reconciliatory efforts to integrate the Taliban into the main stream of Afghan society and the Government. The process had the US backing and even met initial success too. Therefore, the issuance of this report at this critical juncture, once the reconciliation process is underway between Afghan Government and Taliban insurgents seems to have ill intentions. Since Pakistan, as a brotherly Islamic and neighbourly country is helping the Afghan Government in the process, therefore, is linked with the Taliban.

Pakistan indeed, believes that peace in this war-torn country; Afghanistan is a key to its own internal stability, therefore, decided to encourage and helped the Afghan Government to negotiate with the Taliban; the main insurgent group. In this connection, the statement of Pakistani Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervaz is on record that; “Pakistan cannot wish anything for Afghanistan which it cannot wish for itself”. There are similar sentiments of the civilian leadership and the people of Pakistan regarding Afghanistan. After many misperceptions, the Afghan President has been very realistic during his visit of Pakistan on March 11, 2010, once he said that, “No country has ever showed more hospitality to Afghanistan than Pakistan”. Declaring Pakistan and Afghanistan as the “twin brothers,” President Karzai further said that the “destiny, grieves and happiness of both the countries are shared.” On this occasion, Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani, assured the visiting President that, Pakistan would enhance its cooperation with Afghanistan to eliminate the terrorism, and bilateral ties between the two countries would be enhanced further. Similar assurances and guarantees were promised during the visit of President Zardari to Afghanistan and in his meet with President Karazai in Washington.

The report primarily focussed on the insurgent activities of Afghan Taliban under the Mullah Omar and the Jalaluddin Haqqani network, both allegedly supported by ISI. The very basis of the report by Watt Waldman, are erroneous that after 1971, disintegration, Pakistan started mobilizing and relying on Islamic groups to avert the threat from India. The fact of the matter is that creation of Islamists through Islamization and enhancement of Maddrassah culture are the outcome of US and Western efforts to counter the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan in 1980s. This has nothing to do with the defence of Pakistan. The paper indeed failed to identify the fact that, indeed, it was United States which concentrated the then Mujahedeen from all over the world all Pak-Afghan border to defeat and disintegrate the former USSR. CIA, the premier US intelligence agency, indeed, did all this.

The report betrays the readers by making reference of the US Congressional Research Service (CRS), that Pakistani intelligence agencies are aware of the Taliban leadership and maintains its active links with it. Such allegations are always made once US and West aim to pressurize Pakistan for the implementation of its own agenda. The malicious nature of the report could be well imagined from the fact that Afghan Taliban are forced to obey the Pakistani intelligence agencies because their families are in Pakistan. Whereas, a large number of Afghan leadership had their residences in Pakistan. Even President Karazai had stayed in Pakistan for a long duration and still owns a house in Pakistan.

In his research work, the author himself remained unsure, whether the interviewees; some former Taliban leaders and some current Taliban commanders in various parts of the Afghanistan are the genuine ones or presented by their intermediaries as a fake lot. The argument is further augmented by the fact that, if a researcher, who indeed was an official representative of UK Government, could find that real leadership of Taliban why cannot over 150,000 large US and NATO forces; whose UK troops are also part of, could trace them. This is not the end; there is a huge network of the CIA, FBI, MI-6, RAW and Mossad operative in and around Afghanistan. Why did they fail to trace them and taken them to the task, instead of killing the innocent Afghans, once they are busy in undertaking their religious and social ceremonies?

There is a misperception that Pakistan is maintaining its links with the Taliban in order to use them as a strategic force at the hours of need. The fact remains that Pakistani security forces, its strategic arsenals are enough to defend the country, and it has never depended on such like forces. The West and U.S indeed used them against the former Soviet Union to accomplish their own agendas. Rather Pakistani security forces are combating them all along the Pak-Afghan border and in other parts of the country, especially the FATA since 2003. Furthermore, Pakistan neither desires to use Afghan soil as its strategic depth nor has intention to use the Taliban (Afghan or Pakistani Taliban) as its strategic strength. All that Pakistan, its security forces and intelligence agencies desire is the durable peace, stability, and unity among various Afghan factions.

The Western media, think tanks and authors like Matt Waldman, must realize that Pakistan and Afghanistan are two neighbourly Islamic countries. Both countries share a lot in terms of their culture, history, traditions, and even common origin. Destined into two independent countries, they cannot be estranged spiritually and ideologically. This is evident from the fact the during Soviet invasion, over 3.5 million Afghan refugees (later rose to 5 million) were sheltered by their brethrens in Pakistan. Still Pakistan is housing over 2.5 Afghan refugees. The Sun in the Sky indeed is that, People of Pakistan and Afghanistan have indissoluble relationship. Therefore, such malevolent reports would not dent the mutual relationship of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Rather, these reports and efforts of extra regional forces and their intelligence agencies would further cement the so for vacillating relationship of the two countries.

The report indeed is an effort to defame Pakistani leadership and its premier intelligence agency; ISI, which has maintained a clean conduct throughout its material life. This spotless intelligence network indeed, neither has established inhuman camps like Guantanamo bay nor colonised its neighbours or undertook massacre during WW-I and WW-II. Moreover, it has not been created to destabilize its neighbours like the RAW or to unleash the terror like Mossad. Its efficiency and diligence, of course bothers the ill-conceived intelligence networks of the globe, the so-called scholars and think tanks, who do not believe on the reality, but desire to maintain their hegemony at all cost, which ISI dispels.

Dr Raja Muhammad Khan is Ph. D in International Relations from Karachi University. Now he is an Associate Professor with National University of Defence. Dr Khan’s focus is on South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. He is regular contributor to www.opinion-maker.org


US medical staff experimented on terror suspects: report

June 9, 2010

By Lucile Malandain (AFP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON – Medical personnel apparently experimented on terror detainees during CIA-led torture after the September 11 attacks, aiming to improve interrogation techniques, a human rights group said Monday.


Demonstrators from the group “World Can’t Wait” hold a mock waterboarding torture in Times Square

“There is evidence that they were calibrating the harm inflicted by these techniques allegedly and also looking to extend their knowledge about the effects,” said Nathaniel Raymond, from Physicians for Human Rights.

Read the rest of this entry »


Israel as a Strategic Liability?

June 8, 2010

By Anthony H. Cordesman

America’s ties to Israel are not based primarily on U.S. strategic interests. At the best of times, an Israeli government that pursues the path to peace provides some intelligence, some minor advances in military technology, and a potential source of stabilizing military power that could help Arab states like Jordan. Even then, however, any actual Israeli military intervention in an Arab state could prove as destabilizing as beneficial. The fact is that the real motives behind America’s commitment to Israel are moral and ethical. They are a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, to the entire history of Western anti-Semitism, and to the United States’ failure to help German and European Jews during the period before it entered World War II. They are a product of the fact that Israel is a democracy that shares virtually all of the same values as the United States.

The U.S. commitment to Israel is not one that will be abandoned. The United States has made this repeatedly clear since it first recognized Israel as a state, and it has steadily strengthened the scale of its commitments since 1967. The United States has provided Israel with massive amounts of economic aid and still provides enough military assistance to preserve Israel’s military superiority over its neighbors. The United States has made it clear that any U.S. support for Arab-Israeli peace efforts must be based on options that preserve Israel’s security, and its recent announcements that it will consider “extended regional deterrence” are code words for a U.S. commitment that could guard Israel, as well as its neighbors, against an Iranian nuclear threat.

Read the rest of this entry »


Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion

June 2, 2010

by George Friedman

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

Read the rest of this entry »


Threat to American economic recovery

June 1, 2010

By PAUL KRUGMAN

What’s the greatest threat to our still-fragile economic recovery? Dangers abound, of course. But what I currently find most ominous is the spread of a destructive idea: the view that now, less than a year into a weak recovery from the worst slump since World War II, is the time for policy makers to stop helping the jobless and start inflicting pain.

When the financial crisis first struck, most of the world’s policy makers responded appropriately, cutting interest rates and allowing deficits to rise. And by doing the right thing, by applying the lessons learned from the 1930s, they managed to limit the damage: It was terrible, but it wasn’t a second Great Depression.

Now, however, demands that governments switch from supporting their economies to punishing them have been proliferating in op-eds, speeches and reports from international organizations. Indeed, the idea that what depressed economies really need is even more suffering seems to be the new conventional wisdom, which John Kenneth Galbraith famously defined as “the ideas which are esteemed at any time for their acceptability.”

Read the rest of this entry »


The naivety about nukes

April 28, 2010

Elf Habib

The inefficacy of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against regional tensions is made worse when viewed against the colossal health, socio-economic and ecological hazards inherent in their manufacturing, movement, maintenance, storage and detonation

The recent Russian and US agreement to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and almost 50 world leaders striving to seek the security and safety of nuclear material at the Washington summit merit a dispassionate and impartial analysis of the obsession for nuclear weapons. The increasingly devastating power of these weapons, slicker versions and the stunning new ways of striking targets have spawned a strange lure about the formidable power and prestige associated with them. Many developing countries, unfortunately, have also been inexorably enamoured of the notion that nuclear weapons would bring them the rare and unprecedented power and influence enjoyed by the world powers.

Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 97 other followers