WAR 5/15th ***THE***PERFECT***STORM***

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Russia 'to oppose use of force against Syria'

President Medvedev comes out against any UN move to
authorise use of force, saying Syria must settle own affairs.


Last Modified: 18 May 2011 12:55
http://english.aljazeera.net//news/europe/2011/05/201151812340492298.html​

Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, has said Russia would not support any United Nations resolutions on the use of force against the Syrian government.

"As for a resolution on Syria, I will not support such a resolution even if my friends and acquaintances ask me about it," Medvedev told reporters during a rare news conference on Wednesday, arguing Syria must be allowed to settle its domestic affairs.

He did not specify what he meant, adding that such resolutions were open to interpretation.

In March, Medvedev ordered Russia to abstain from the UN Security Council resolution on Libya that essentially authorised military action.

He later accused the West of exceeding the UN’s mandate and of becoming entangled in a military operation in Libya.

Last month, Moscow clashed with the Western powers at the UN when it blocked a proposed Security Council statement condemning the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown on opposition protests.

Swiss sanctions

His comments came as Switzerland announced new sanctions against Syria on Wednesday, saying that it was following the European Union's lead in imposing an embargo on arms and equipment used for internal repression.

"The new edict on measures against Syria includes an embargo on military assets and equipment that could be used for internal repression," the Swiss economic ministry said in a statement.

"It also includes financial sanctions and travel restrictions on 13 people from the Damascus regime," it added.

The ministry said that through the new sanctions, "Switzerland is joining sanctions announced on May 9, 2011 by the European Union against Syria.

"These restrictive measures were decreed due to the violent repression that the Syrian army and security forces have exerted over about two months to suppress the peaceful demonstrations of the population."

EU heavyweight Germany, meanwhile, is pushing for further sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president.

"Our demands are clear. Violence and repression against peaceful demonstrators must be stopped immediately," Guido Westerwelle, Germany’s foreign minister, said.

"Germany supports a tightening of sanctions. In our opinion it is needed and unavoidable that also President Assad is included in the next round of sanctions. He must also held to responsibility through sanctions."

The United States and European Union, which have slapped sanctions on members of Assad's inner circle, had warned on Tuesday that further measures were being considered against the regime.

But Syrian authorities so far have appeared impervious to outside pressure. Assad's authoritarian government has sought to crush the greatest challenge to nearly five decades of rule with a brutal crackdown that has
left more than 850 people dead and at least 8,000 arrested, according to rights groups.

Some of those released have said they were tortured and others have been forced to sign pledges not to take part in further protests.




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Special Forces -- Down Mexico Way?


Posted: 05/18/11 11:22 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/special-forces-down-mexico-drug-wars_b_863540.html​

Washington is abuzz with talk that drastic steps may be in the offing to deal with the 'narco-state' across the Rio Grande. Heady with the dramatic success at Abbottabad, our warrior monks are casting their eyes on new threats and new glories. Go south = young heroes. Spiraling violence threatens to spill across the border. A government whose writ doesn't run across whole province. Drug traffickers run amuck. The spectre of alliances with Islamic terrorists. Intervention could be necessary.

Before embarking on another adventure abroad, it is prudent to reflect for a moment. Here is one huge but hidden piece of information. We are the source of Mexico's violent narco-culture. It is the addictions of millions that create a craving demand that indisputably is going to be met by someone -- whatever the risks, whatever the consequences. Mexico used to be the toll gate through which cocaine and marijuana passed into the U.S. from South America. Decline of the Medellin and Cali clans opened new opportunities for the middle men to expand operations and to get their hands on riches previously only imaginable by Wall Street racketeers.

For a long time, the Mexican government's attitude was benign neglect. Recall the scene in the Godfather -- "selling it across the border doesn't bother me; they're just gringos over there anyway."

 Then there is a falling out among drug families. Break-up of the Guzman/Sinaloa cartel leads to the eruption of violent turf battles and rampant corruption spreads as police and even military units are bought off wholesale. Greedy crime families started planting and processing their own stuff in Mexico. Then they add custom designed drugs to their inventory. They put on the payroll every sociopath and psycho they can lay hands on. They start hitting on Mexican kids to boost the home market. Washington imposes the Merida Accord on President Felipe Calderon in 2006 and the newly anxious Mexican authorities accede. We welcome Mexico as a co-belligerent in the 'war on drugs' -- you're either with us or against us. They try their best but find themselves outgunned politically, ethically and literally by the narco gangs. So for now they help; but the costs mount. Tomorrow they equivocate. Criminality mounts. Border cities like Juarez and Laredo become fiefs of the Zetas cartel. So, the Panetta/Petraeus team considers plans to send in the drones and Special Ops.

Before we start the hunt for our next Moby Dick, we may find it prudent to consider alternatives. One alternative: invite the Mexicans to send special teams (Spanish speaking only) schooled in detoxification/rehabilitation techniques to transform American drug addicts into responsible citizens who are adapted to a slower paced, more family oriented, caring America that the enlightened Mexicans promote. We are a failed state in this respect. Lack of social cohesion, a cult of hedonism, unaccountable leadership, educational lapses -- all point to the need for external assistance from the world community with Mexico as its lead altruistic agent. On strictly humanitarian grounds.

Yes, there are the sensitivities of a highly independent minded American people who have never taken to foreign rule. But we probably could count on the Mexicans leaving once the job is done and the danger eliminated. Perhaps they will want to keep a few large bases for social activism to deal with any recrudescence of the drug plague. They would be restricted to the outskirts of our major cities, though.

Don't like those Latino foreigners taking over American towns and cities? Here's alternative two. Legalize drugs, cut the ground from under the drug cartels and use the tax revenue to hire a few hundred thousand laid-off teachers. If your preference does not incline in that direction, the money could be used to underwrite the next "War on something or other."

Mexico's drug cartels get 80% of their revenue from the marijuana trade. Legalize pot and their influence is cut by a corresponding 80%. There is no medical case for treating marijuana as more dangerous than alcohol. There is a ton of medical evidence that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana -- in the short-term and over a lifetime. The social consequences of alcohol are even more pernicious.

It is the potent combination of studied ignorance and latent Puritan attitudes that prevent us from acting accordingly. It's little different than the 1920s when the blue stockings and evangelicals denounced the jazz saxophone as the devil's instrument that led innocent young women into a life of sin and eternal damnation. Anyone who is around today's liberated young women will offer a retrospective toast to the jazz saxophone. They may well feel the same way about legalized marijuana and the sharp reduction in alcohol related deaths among the young that would result.

It strikes me that there is a correlation between attitudes toward marijuana and attitudes toward "counter insurgency." We Americans are a 'can do' and 'pro-active' people. Pot is a 'why bother' and 'pro-passive' substance. Hence the apprehension that marijuana's supplanting of alcohol as the national intoxicant carries risk of jeopardizing our ability to hit and fast and hard when necessary. The image of mellowed-out citizens recumbent on cushions as opposed to the vibrant image of raucous inebriates jumping into their cars to hurtle down the turnpike at 120mph makes us shudder at the implications. Casualties from the 'pro-active' speed-fiends? Unavoidable collateral damage incurred in keeping the high spiritedness of those who will protect the United States from foreign enemies.

This goes back to the 1960s. Peaceniks were in the vanguard of the pot culture. Alcoholics were gung-ho for the war. As President Obama might say, "it is time to put behind us the stale debates of that bygone era; to reject the harsh language of the culture wars. Let us together learn to inhale and shoot straight at the same time -- going forward."



=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Guatemala massacre points to influence of Mexican drug gang

Guatemala has declared a state of emergency after the murder of 27 people in the northern
part of the country. The Zetas of Mexico are accused of the worst massacre since the end of the country's civil war.

Elyssa Pachico, Guest blogger / May 18, 2011
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Amer...eds/world+(Christian+Science+Monitor+|+World)​

A massacre in northern Guatemala, which has left at least 27 people dead, is another reminder of the growing influence exerted by powerful Mexican drug gang, the Zetas, in Central America.

The Zetas may have first entered Guatemala at the invitation of two drug bosses, Otoniel Turcios and Hearst Walter Overdick. But instead of partnering with local Guatemalan smugglers, the Mexicans became intent on displacing them.

The Zetas cemented their presence in Guatemala in 2008, when they ambushed and killed local crimelord Juan Jose Leon. Dislodging the Leon clan gave the Zetas power over key trafficking routes in the northern departments of Zacapa, Alta Verapaz, and Peten. It was in the latter that the recent massacre took place. In Peten, the government has now declared a "state of siege" similar to the security surge that failed to drive Zetas from Alta Verapaz at the end of last year.

As proved by the Peten killings, the Zetas' presence in Guatemala has drawn attention because of their willingness to use brutality. In contrast to the other Mexican cartel with sizeable presence in Central America, that of Sinaloa, the Zetas have frequently used extreme violence to establish control over a territory. While the Sinaloans have attempted to maintain their operations in Guatemala's western Huehuetenango department by buying the silence of authorities and negotiating deals with local traffickers, the Zetas have proven themselves more disposed to fight and kill their rivals.

IN PICTURES: Mexico's drug war

In other Northern Triangle countries, the Zetas have been more accomodating to local gangs, although no less ambitious in expanding their operations. As recently noted by El Salvador President Mauricio Funes, the Zetas have made contact with gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and the Barrio 18 (18), which echoes statements made by the president and the defense minister in 2010.

In El Salvador, the Zetas use gangs as drug peddlers and hired assasins, not for the purpose of trafficking cocaine via international routes. However, there is evidence that MS-13 is interested in deepening their relationship with the Zetas, with some cells reportedly soliciting training in combat from the Mexicans.


Like Guatemala, where the Zetas have recruited from the army's special forces unit, the Kaibiles, the Mexican group has also reportedly attempted to recruit members of the security forces in El Salvador, according to officials. In July 2010, a former Salvadorean police officer was killed in a shootout with the Mexican army in Nuevo Leon, one of nine police agents who may have found work with the Zetas in Mexico, reports El Salvadorean paper El Diario de Hoy.

In Honduras, the Zetas are based in the departments of Olancho and Cortes, managing air and sea routes for the trafficking of cocaine. Here, there is also evidence of the Zetas using local gangs as hired guns: in February 2010, Honduran intelligence officials said they intercepted a note in which Barrio 18 discussed receiving payment from the Zetas, in exchange for killing the security minister. The Mexican gang has also been able to establish control over human smuggling and arms trafficking routes in the country, according to one report.

Elsewhere in Central America, there is little evidence of the Zetas wielding the same kind of power and influence as they do in the Northern Triangle. In Costa Rica, where the murder rate has doubled since 2000, reaching 11 homicides per 100,000 residents last year, the increased violenced is blamed on drug trafficking. But while the Sinaloa Cartel is known to have a powerful presence here, the Zetas are not yet believed to have arrived. Similarly, in Nicaragua, the Zetas are not thought to maintain personnel inside the country.




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Eight dead in shootout in Mexico scrap metal workshop

May 18, 2011, 14:48 GMT
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...ad-in-shootout-in-Mexico-scrap-metal-workshop​

Mexico City - Eight workers died and two were injured in a shootout in a scrap metal workshop in the southeastern Mexican state of Tabasco, police said Wednesday.

The attack took place late Tuesday in the town of Cardenas, when about 15 assailants in SUVs started shooting, also killing the workshop owner, the daily Tabasco Hoy reported.

The motive and the identities of the attackers remained unknown. Police and the military were looking for them but there were no arrests so far, the reports said.

More than 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the past four years in incidents linked to organized crime.




=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Mexican authorities find 513 migrants in two trailers

May 18, 2011
http://www.newkerala.com/news/world/fullnews-211933.html​

MEXICO CITY : Mexico's Interior Ministry (Segob) on Tuesday announced that 513 migrants from different parts of Central America, the Caribbean, and Asia were rescued in the morning and had been released to the National Migration Institute (INM).

The migrants were rescued from two tractor trailers at the Tuxtla-La Angostura intersection in the southern state of Chiapas by a joint mission carried out by state and federal agents who closely collaborate with INM. The rescued migrants were traveling in 'inhumane' conditions, Segob said, adding that x-ray equipment was vital in the detection of the migrants.

According to the Attorney General of the State of Chiapas, each of the 513 migrants are believed to have paid around $7,000 to be smuggled into the United States.

Among the rescued, there were 32 women and four children, the report said, stating that most of them were from Central America.

The first trailer was carrying 240 people - 211 from Guatemala, 19 from El Salvador, 6 from Ecuador, 3 from China, and one from Japan. The second trailer was carrying 273 people - 199 from Guatemala, 28 from El Salvador, 26 from Ecuador, 12 from India, 6 from Nepal, one from Honduras, and another from the Dominican Republic.

The trailers' drivers were identified as Jesus Margarito Perez, of Comitan, Chiapas, and Armando Perez Hernandez, of San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas. They are currently under custody were they have been questioned by public prosecutors.

INM said it had contacted consulates and embassies to determine the migrants' nationalities, as they are currently awaiting their return to their home country.
[/size]



=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=

Fifty migrants rescued after getting lost in Mexican desert

May 16, 2011, 19:48 GMT
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...-rescued-after-getting-lost-in-Mexican-desert​

Mexico City - A group of 50 Mexican migrants who were trying to reach the United States illegally were rescued after getting lost in the Sonora desert amid high temperatures, Mexico's migration authorities said Monday.

The group, which included seven women and one minor, were found at a site known as El Huerfano, near the border, when they were found by officers of Mexico's Migrant Protection Group.

'They were given water and food and they were medically evaluated, since temperatures in the area were of almost 40 degrees (Celsius),' the National Migration Institute said.

The migrants were all healthy, however, and they opted to return to their homes in various parts of central and southern Mexico.



=

 

[The Flying Dutchman]

=



Since no one else will - BUMP

 

[Be Well]

Here's another bump. I think nothing but major something-or-other will change the course of "into the abyss". Maybe the abyss will have to be visited for the decks to get cleared of the truly demoniac who want to destroy the world.

Our government (and who the heck knows about Mexico, I don't) gets enriched from the narco cartels via banks/money laundering. So they want the borders open; probably for other reasons as well such as change the demographics in the US, destabilize etc. Our own government is destroying us. And the freaking usurper in the White House is doing everything he can to get radical Islamists in charge in every country in the middle east.

 

[Norma]

Here is another bumb.

 

[Kent]

A weak POTUS sending special forces to Mexico to fight the narcos, didn't they make a movie about this?

Hint: one of the best lines in the move CIA director Ryan needing a chopper speaking to a black market seller "Will you take a company check"

 

[Magdalen]

The word "rescued" was used 5 times in two very brief reports about those trying to illegally enter the United States. The question that leaps to mind - "From what were they being 'rescued'?" Their own stupidity (Did they think $7,000 would buy them a first class plane ticket to LAX? Is a jaunt into the high desert to be cavalierly attempted?)? Why does the "reporter" say they were lost? They knew perfectly well where they were going (north), and just because a "reporter" would be lost in the high desert, doesn't mean everyone would be. Does someone who's perfectly healthy or determined in their course really need to be 'rescued', if they're willing to put up with the hardship of their chosen path? There certainly weren't any quotes from the trailer cargo or desert walkers to make any kind of judgment. Why, oh why, can't those supposedly reporting the news do just that, make a report without pushing an agenda or trying to mold opinion. They found a bunch of people crammed in a trailer. They found a bunch of people in the high desert. They were from different parts of Latin America. They're being sent home. There, done.

magdalen

 

[Housecarl]

OBAMA SIDES WITH PALESTINE
Started by zealotbat‎, Today 10:13 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?383970-OBAMA-SIDES-WITH-PALESTINE


Go to first new post Obama Wants Billion-Dollar Egypt Bailout
Started by Kent‎, Today 03:58 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?383953-Obama-Wants-Billion-Dollar-Egypt-Bailout

------------------

Posted for fair use......
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...mas_prescription_for_mideast_peace_democracy/

Obama's prescription for Mideast peace, democracy
By The Associated Press
May 19, 2011

Key elements of President Barack Obama's approach to the Middle East, as outlined in his speech Thursday:

ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE -- Two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace. Obama said the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be based on the 1967 borders that existed before the Six Day War when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. The president allowed for "mutually agreed swaps" of territory. Palestinians would have to agree that their state would not be militarized and would have to show that reconciliation with Hamas, a group declared a terrorist organization by the U.S., does not represent a threat to Israel.

The president also rejected the Palestinians' bid to win unilateral statehood before the United Nations and he warned that "Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

Obama took no stand on the future of Israeli-controlled Jerusalem; Palestinians want East Jerusalem as their capital. He also took no position on the question of the fate of Palestinian refugees and demands that they be allowed to return to their family homes. Obama called them "two wrenching and emotional issues" that still must be resolved.

SYRIA -- President Bashar Assad, whose regime has been seeking to quell a popular uprising with brutal attacks on the citizenry, can either lead a transition to democracy or, in Obama's words, "get out of the way." The Assad regime, Obama said, must permit peaceful protests, release political prisoners and give access to human rights monitors. The administration imposed sanctions on Assad and members of his inner circle this week.

OSAMA BIN LADEN-- Bin Laden's death, Obama said, is a `huge blow" to al-Qaida. Though bin Laden won some adherents, the president said, al-Qaida has lost relevance. The people of the region, Obama added, have come to see the terrorist group's agenda "as a dead end."

YEMEN AND BAHRAIN -- Both U.S. allies. Obama reiterated U.S. demands that Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh "follow through on his commitment to transfer power." Demanded that Bahrain halt mass arrests and use of force against protesters and that the government engage in a "dialogue" with the opposition.

EGYPT AND TUNISIA -- Two countries where uprisings deposed long-standing regimes. Obama said the U.S. has asked the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to present a plan at next week's G8 summit of leading industrial nations that sets a path to stabilize and modernize the economies of both countries. The U.S. will forgive up to $1 billion in Egyptian debt and guarantee another $1 billion to finance infrastructure and new jobs. Obama said he will ask Congress to finance enterprise funds that will provide money for investment in both countries -- a request that comes as Congress seeks to cut spending.

LIBYA -- Obama said it is costly and difficult to seek to oust a regime by outside military force. But he said Libya was unique because "had we not acted along with our NATO allies and regional coalition partners, thousands would have been killed." He said time is working against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and that the opposition has organized a "legitimate and credible" Interim Council. "When Gadhafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end," Obama said.

IRAQ -- Obama put an encouraging face on changes in Iraq, saying it offers the promise of a multiethnic and multisectarian democracy. He said Iraq is "poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress."

IRAN -- Obama cast Tehran's leaders as hypocrites who support protests in other countries but repress those at home. He reiterated, but did not dwell on U.S. opposition to Iran developing a nuclear program or on U.S. accusations that Iran has supported terrorism.

WOMEN -- In a step with broad cultural implications, Obama called for universal rights for women in the Mideast, including health care, education, free speech and the right to run for public office. "The region will never reach its full potential when more than half of its population is prevented from achieving their full potential," he said.

REGION-WIDE -- The U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corp. will use $2 billion to support private investment across the Middle East and North Africa. The U.S. also will ask the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to offer similar support.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.......
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110519_5540.php

North Korean Missile Reach Will Extend to U.S.: Senior Intel Official
Thursday, May 19, 2011

By Diane Barnes

Global Security Newswir

WASHINGTON -- North Korea's ballistic missile program would eventually yield systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the United States, a senior U.S. intelligence official said on Wednesday (see GSN, April 14).

The North Korean missile threat is "very different from what we had 40 years ago with the Soviet Union and the threat of first strikes," Raymond Colston, the new national intelligence manager for Korea at the National Intelligence Director's Office, said during a Capitol Hill panel discussion of Korean Peninsula security issues.

"No one is looking at the North Koreans as building these systems to have a first-strike capability or anything like that. That's not what we're really concerned about. But they are certainly building missiles that eventually will be capable of targeting the U.S., and these missiles will be capable of having nuclear weapons."

The North has an aggressive missile development program that has included two apparent test launches of its Taepodong 2 long-range ballistic missile, in 2006 and 2009. The first flight ended in less than a minute, while the second rocket flew farther but apparently crashed down with the second and third stages failing to separate.

Pyongyang is not known to have yet developed nuclear warheads that could be loaded onto missiles. The regime, though, is believed to hold enough plutonium for six weapons and last November unveiled a uranium enrichment plant that could give it a second route for preparing weapons material.

Years of diplomatic activity under the six-party talks process have failed to persuade the regime to accept nuclear disarmament.

North Korea's proliferation of weapons systems is a "very serious concern," added the official, who spoke on the third day in his present position at the National Intelligence Director's Office.

The U.S. intelligence community, Colston said, has "reasons ... to be concerned that North Korea is a country that will sell just about anything, and we don't put past North Korea a willingness to sell even the most dangerous weapons that they might have."

The United States and other nations have sought to curb Pyongyang's ability to make money by exporting missile and weapons technology. According to an expert report submitted last week to the U.N. Security Council, North Korea has persisted in attempts to export ballistic missiles, their components and relevant technologies to entities in South Asia and the Middle East (see GSN, May 17).

Colston touted the U.S. intelligence community's record in turning up information on North Korean threats, contending it has "given the policy-makers, for the most part, the information they need."

"Overall, I think the intelligence community has done a good job of informing the policy-makers before [the North Koreans] built the Scuds, before they built the Nodong [medium-range ballistic missile], before they built some of their other missiles, when they were proliferating these missiles," he said.

"Of course, [policy-makers'] demands are incredible and you know they want us to know exactly what the North Koreans are going to do at the next step," said Colston, a veteran intelligence analyst on North Korea and Northeast Asia. "That's their right to ask us, and that's just tough to do.

"We've got a government in North Korea that most will agree is being led by a single individual who is the primary decision-maker," he said in reference to dictator Kim Jong Il. "So how do you get into the mind of a single individual and to figure out what that individual is going to do?"

Developing an understanding of North Korea's ballistic missile planning and other policies "is a challenge for us, and that's what are policy-makers are looking for," he said. "We've had some successes, but of course the policy-makers always want more."

"When you have a ballistic missile that you can put on the back of a truck, drive out to a field and raise the missile and launch it like they do, when you have that type of a missile, then knowing exactly when and where they might launch it is almost an impossible task -- very, very difficult to do."

Still, the United States is "better off" than it was 10 years ago in assessing the Stalinist state's intentions, he said. "We've made some investments that have really paid off. And the world's changing, the world's changing inside North Korea. So ... I think we're better off than we were 10 years ago," he added later, without elaborating.

Kim is believed to be preparing to cede power to his youngest son, Kim Jong Un. The change in leadership is not likely to produce a change on policy in Pyongyang, Colston suggested.

"Most of our folks, we are not expecting many real differences with the third generation," the official added.

 

[northern watch]

Barack Obama vows to seize 'historic opportunity' in Middle East

President Barack Obama has vowed to seize "a historic opportunity" in the Middle East, pledging US support for human rights in the Middle East and serving notice on leaders who have "turned to repression to remain in power".

By Toby Harnden, Washington
7:14PM BST 19 May 2011
The Telegraph Group

The wide-ranging speech from the State Department in Washington, the seat of American diplomacy, was billed by the White House as the most important one by Mr Obama since his address to the Muslim world in Cairo two years ago.

He sought for the first time to align the United States with the "Arab Spring" of uprisings across the Middle East that the White House has been reluctant to embrace fully, proclaiming that America has "a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self determination of individuals" in the region.

Mr Obama compared the upheaval in the Middle East and Africa to the American Revolution and the Civil Rights movement, stating that the US was "founded on the believe that people should govern themselves."

"Sometimes, in the course of history, the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has built up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat."

Mr Obama was more explicit about the parameters of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal that ever before. He told Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli premier, that Israel had to accept the Palestinian demand for it to accept the 1967 borders, insisting that a Jewish state "cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation" of Palestinian lands.

"Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said. "The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

The embrace of a key Palestinian demand is likely to anger Mr Netanyahu on the eve of his visit to the White House on Friday.

Mr Obama, however, stopped well short of outlining a specific American peace plan. This had been urged on him by George Mitchell, Mr Obama's Middle East envoy, who resigned last week after becoming disillusioned by White House foot-dragging.

Following the speech, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, called a meeting of senior officials to discuss the implications.

The speech began 25 minutes after it was scheduled to start. The delay was said to be due to a debate over what to include, particularly whether a reference to the 1967 borders should be made.

Hailing the "young vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi" from Tunisia who " was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart" and then set himself alight, Mr Obama stated that "it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy".

He said: "We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran."

Mr Obama also announced that he was relieving Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt while also guaranteeing a similar sum "to finance infrastructure and job creation".

At the same time there were tough words for the region's dictators. He told Syria's President Bashir Assad that his people had "shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy" and he was now faced with "a choice – he can lead that transition, or get out of the way"

But the only penalty he outlined for failing to "stop shooting demonstrators" beyond the sanctions announced on Wednesday was that Assad's "regime will continue to be challenged from within and isolated abroad".

There were stern words for traditional US allies in the Middle East, Bahrain and Yemen. "If America is to be credible, we must acknowledge that at times our friends in the region have not all reacted to the demands for change that are consistent with the principles that I have outlined today.

"That is true in Yemen, where President Saleh needs to follow through on his commitment to transfer power. And that is true, today, in Bahrain."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eize-historic-opportunity-in-Middle-East.html

Posted Under Fair Use Discussion

My Comments

There is The Perfect Storm coming. I hope everyone now is preparing for war.
This is truly unbelieveable!

A "contiguous state", Gaza and the West Bank joined is what a contiguous state means.

 

[northern watch]

Official: China Providing Pakistan 50 Fighter Jets

BEIJING May 20, 2011 (AP)

A Pakistani air force official says China has agreed to provide 50 additional fighter jets in a deal clinched during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's trip to Beijing.

The official gave no additional information about the terms of the deal for the JF-17 Thunder jets, a single-engine multirole fighter developed in cooperation between China and Pakistan.

Speaking Friday on condition of anonymity, the official did not say whether the planes were a gift from China or whether Pakistan would be paying for them.

Gilani's visit has highlighted Pakistan's warm ties with China at a time when its relations with Washington have sunk to a new low over the killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani town by American special forces.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13644847

Posted Under Fair Use Discussion

My Comments

Yes there is a Pakistan - China Alliance.

 

[Housecarl]

Official: China Providing Pakistan 50 Fighter Jets

BEIJING May 20, 2011 (AP)

A Pakistani air force official says China has agreed to provide 50 additional fighter jets in a deal clinched during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's trip to Beijing.

The official gave no additional information about the terms of the deal for the JF-17 Thunder jets, a single-engine multirole fighter developed in cooperation between China and Pakistan.

Speaking Friday on condition of anonymity, the official did not say whether the planes were a gift from China or whether Pakistan would be paying for them.

Gilani's visit has highlighted Pakistan's warm ties with China at a time when its relations with Washington have sunk to a new low over the killing of Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani town by American special forces.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=13644847

Posted Under Fair Use Discussion

My Comments

Yes there is a Pakistan - China Alliance.

Interesting. Pakistan (Pakistan Aeronautical Complex) is supposed to have a co-production/sub-assembly manufacturing deal with the PRC (Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation) to manufacture the FC-1/JF-17. I guess we know who has controlling interest in that deal without a doubt now. Also that any sales of the aircraft being discussed between Pakistan and Egypt is just Pakistan acting as a straw seller for the PRC. Never mind another play in the Great Game 3.0......

_______________

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/news/...livery_of_50_fighter_jets_to_pakistan__w.html

May 20, 2011
China to expedite delivery of 50 fighter jets to Pakistan: WSJ
Reuters

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has agreed to expedite the delivery of 50 fighter jets to Pakistan, a newspaper reported on Friday, as Islamabad tries to deepen ties with Beijing as an alternative to increasingly fragile relations with the United States.

Pakistan's already strained ties with its ally and major donor were battered after U.S. forces on May 2 killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a garrison town near Islamabad.

The fact that bin Laden was found in Abbottabad, and had been living there for years, has prompted many in Washington to call for a review of the billions of U.S. civilian and military aid that Pakistan receives.

As the pressure mounts in Washington, Pakistan's Prime Minister Yusuf Reza Gilani has courted "best friend" China, its biggest arms supplier, during a four-day visit that ends on Friday.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an unnamed high-ranking Pakistani Air Force spokesman, in Beijing with Gilani, as saying the jointly developed JF-17 jets would be in addition to another batch of the same aircraft that is currently being assembled in Pakistan.

"We're getting the 50 jets, on top of the ones we already have. Something has been agreed in Beijing, so they'll be expedited," the spokesman said without giving details.

There was no immediate confirmation of the deal from officials in China or Pakistan. The JF-17 "Thunder" program dates back to 1999 and is aimed at reducing Pakistan's dependence on Western companies for advanced fighters.

The jets are a single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft costing an estimated $15 million each. The Pakistani Air Force has ordered 150 "Thunders," which it may increase to 250. The 50 mentioned in the report are likely part of the larger order.

In February 2010, Pakistan fielded its first JF-17 squadron with 14 aircraft.

The close ties between China and Pakistan reflect long-standing shared wariness of their common neighbor, India, and a desire to hedge against U.S. influence across the region.

Premier Wen Jiabao assured Gilani on Wednesday of China's "all-weather friendship" and said Pakistan had made "huge sacrifices" in the international struggle against terrorism.

That contrasted sharply with the U.S. Congressmen's criticism of Pakistan's failure to know bin Laden's whereabouts and insinuations that its powerful military was in some way complicit in hiding the al Qaeda leader.

For its part, Pakistan is furious at the United States for violating its sovereignty by staging the secret raid that killed the world's most wanted man.

Gilani is due to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao later on Friday.

(Writing by Miral Fahmy; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use......
http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/20/more-of-the-same-for-now.html

More of the same, for now
Cyril Almeida
(20 hours ago) Today

WITH all the hand-wringing and ‘what ifs’ going around in recent days, you would think nobody has a clue how the Pak-US relationship is likely to play out in the days ahead.

Rubbish. Most of the answers can be guessed quite easily.

Will the Americans carry out another unilateral OBL-style mission to take out a highest-value target in Pakistan? Of course.

If they figure out where Mullah Omar and Ayman Al Zawahiri are, the US will take them out pretty much like how they took out OBL.

Mullah Omar is the spiritual leader of the Afghan Taliban, a part of which the Pakistani security establishment thinks will help ensure the Indians don’t encircle us through their Northern Alliance proxies.

Who really thinks the Americans are going to, in a nod to our ‘sovereignty’, plan a joint operation to take out Mullah Omar if they find he’s in Pakistan?

And Zawahiri? If the Americans didn’t trust us with the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda, why would they trust us with the brains of the outfit?

What you will get, though, is a bagful of obscure ‘high-value targets’ swooped up in joint raids, giving Pakistan some cover to
argue that it is in a partnership of equals with the US.

Will the Americans continue to funnel money towards the Pakistan military and will the Pakistan military continue to accept the money? You bet.

Listen carefully to the signals coming out of DC and you’ll pick up on concerns that Pakistan’s fiscal situation may not allow the army to continue operations against the Pakistani Taliban if the US pulls the plug on military financing.The logic is
straightforward enough. Pakistan isn’t going after the bad guys that bother the US, but at least it is going after some bad guys.

Better something than nothing, particularly since the militants here have increasingly evinced an ‘internationalist’ outlook.

As for the security establishment still pocketing fistfuls of dollars, ask yourself this, in all the orgy of petulance and anger and even self-flagellation, have you heard even an anonymously mumbled stray word suggesting the ‘humiliated’ armed forces
would reject the dollars and toys being funnelled their way?

This, after all, is the same security establishment that went into paroxysms when the Americans tried to funnel money towards the civilians via Kerry-Lugar.

So money will continue to flow and it will continue to be pocketed.

What about Afghanistan? That too will continue more or less as it has been, i.e. with a halting convergence on an end state acceptable to the Americans, the Taliban and Pakistan.

Ultimately, the situation in Afghanistan is controlled by two factors: the American willingness to continue fighting and the Taliban ability to avoid defeat. The Americans believe the Taliban ability to avoid defeat is boosted by Pakistan’s willingness to allow sanctuaries here.

But the only way Pakistan’s posture on that front will change is if the Afghan Taliban start linking up with the Pakistani Taliban and thereby pose a direct threat to Pakistan. If the Haqqanis, for example, get too cosy with the TTP, expect some kind of
pushback from the security establishment. Barring that, it will be business as usual, a test of will and strategy in Afghanistan.

What about the American covert operatives running around the country, much to the chagrin, apparently, of the ISI? The bulk of them will probably stay and get harassed by our intel guys every so often, pawns in a transactional relationship between the superpower and its recalcitrant ally.

Whatever defensiveness the Americans may have felt after Raymond Davis shot and killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight in the country’s second-largest city will have evaporated after a CIA-run operation surveilled and eventually took out OBL in Abbottabad.

You can almost imagine the conversation. Pakistani general: Get your guys out of Pakistan, our guys are good enough to obtain the intelligence you need. CIA guy: Right, like your guys were good enough in Abbottabad.

Does that mean nothing has changed? Not a chance.

On the American side, perception will slowly become reality. The American denials of Pakistani complicity aside, there are
enough doubts to affect how Americans will think of Pakistan. Given our truculent response, those perceptions will only harden.At some indeterminate point in the future, say, when another high-impact event occurs, Pakistan may not get the benefit of the doubt necessary to avoid harsh consequences.

What if there were another 9/11-type attack in the US and it is traced back to Fata? Surely, the American response towards Pakistan would be coloured by all that it has come to believe over the last decade.

Thus far the world remains convinced engagement is the best policy towards Pakistan. But what if, tired by the history of half-truths and outright lies of Pakistan, someone decides maybe what this country really needs is containment?

The attraction of containment over engagement is that it is infinitely less taxing. You just tighten or loosen the screws on the basis of the country’s behaviour, or your attitude towards it.

And to all those who may argue that containing Pakistan has never worked, an easy riposte: has engagement ever worked?

Another couple of high-impact events and Pakistan may find the distance from engagement to containment is a very short one.

Here in Pakistan, the OBL debacle will have roiled the security establishment. If you were already suspicious of American intentions, the latest events will have only hardened your suspicions.

In which case you’re likely to rummage around in your bag of policy instruments and look around for something that can help insulate you from American plots and ‘designs’. But your bag of policy instruments is virtually empty. There is ol’ faithful,
though: the jihad network.

You can’t attack America, of course. That would be madness. So you push them away and wrap yourself tighter in the cloak of jihad to take on the old enemy, India. The heroic soldier protecting the nation’s honour and dignity from being molestation.

But the would-be molesters will be far away, living comfortably inside their walled-up fortresses. You and me, the people of Pakistan? We’ll be left clinging desperately to a crumbling edifice.

The writer is a member of staff.

cyril.a@gmail.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/news/...iban_says_attacked_u_s__consulate_convoy.html

May 20, 2011
Pakistan Taliban says attacked U.S. consulate convoy
Faris Ali

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistan's Taliban said on Friday it had attacked a U.S. consulate convoy in the volatile northwestern city of Peshawar, the latest assault in a surge of violence since U.S. forces killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden this month.

Police said a car bomb had been detonated by remote control as the convoy passed, killing one Pakistani. Twelve people were wounded.

U.S. embassy spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said two U.S. nationals were among the wounded, with minor injuries. Police said the two were security guards.

The attack on the two-vehicle convoy took place on a main road in an area where many Western diplomats live and involved 50 kg (110 pounds) of explosives, police said.

"There was an attack on a two-car convoy from the consulate in Peshawar. One car was hit. We are still investigating what actually happened," said Rodriguez.

Peshawar police chief Liaqat Ali said the blast had been caused by a car bomb detonated remotely.

"It was not a suicide bombing," he told Reuters.

It was the first attack on Westerners since bin Laden's death on May 2.

Peshawar has seen many operations by Taliban militants seeking to topple the U.S.-backed Pakistani government and was home to bin Laden in the 1980s when Islamists were fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

TALIBAN TARGETS NATO DIPLOMATS

Al Qaeda and its ally, the Pakistani Taliban, have vowed to avenge the killing of bin Laden by U.S. special forces and, the group said it would target the Pakistani government and its Western allies.

"The diplomatic staff of all NATO countries are our targets," said Ehsanullah Ehsan, a Taliban spokesman, told Reuters via telephone from an undisclosed location.

"We will continue such attacks. Pakistan is our first target, and America is our second."

Many Pakistanis are frustrated with the inability of security forces to subdue the Taliban. In a separate attack on Friday, an explosion killed five people and wounded four in the tribal region of Orakzai in the northwest, officials said.

"The security after the killing of Osama has been lax instead of being tighter. We are feeling insecure," said Tahir Khan, 20, a student standing near the site of the blast in Peshawar.

One of the consulate vehicles, which police said was armored, was riddled with shrapnel. The blast forced it to slam into an electricity pole beside a pre-school.

"I had just arrived at school and was about to start my work when there was a big blast. The windows of our school were broken and I was hurt," said school administrator Zahid Zaman from a hospital bed.

The Pakistani rupee fell to an eight-month low of 86 to a dollar on Friday. Dealers said the new attack had compounded uncertainty linked to bin Laden's killing and its aftermath.

Americans have been targeted before in Pakistan.

In April of 2010, militants using a car bomb and firing weapons attacked the U.S. consulate in Peshawar. The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the operation in which eight people, including three militants, were killed. No one in the mission was hurt.

Pakistan has witnessed a jump in violence since bin Laden's death, including a twin suicide bombing last week that killed more than 80 people, most of them paramilitary recruits.

The Taliban have kept up pressure on the government with suicide attacks despite several army offensives against them.

The United States wants nuclear-armed Pakistan to be a more reliable partner in its war on militancy. Cooperation between the two allies is needed to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan.

Ties have been severely damaged since the secret raid that killed bin Laden. Pakistan is under pressure to explain how he spent what appeared to be about five years in a military town not far from the capital.

Pakistan's army was infuriated by the operation, describing it as a violation of national sovereignty.

(Additional reporting by Zeeshan Haiderin Islamabad and Izaz Mohmand, Khurram Pervez and Saad Khan in Peshawar and Saud Mehsud in Dera Ismail Khan; Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Ron Popeski)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/node/18712525

India and Pakistan
The world's most dangerous border
To reduce the risk of terror, the West must help defuse tension between India and Pakistan

May 19th 2011 | from the print edition

THE late Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, had many virtues as a diplomat, but tact was not among them. His description of his theatre of operations as “AfPak” infuriated the Pakistanis, who wanted the Americans to regard their country as a sophisticated, powerful ally worthy of attention in itself, not just as a suffix to the feuding tribesmen next door. But that was not the only reason the coinage was unwise. It encouraged the understandable American tendency—shaped by the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the war against the Taliban and now the death of Osama bin Laden—to see Pakistan in the context of the fighting on its north-west frontier, and thus to ignore the source of most of the country’s problems, including terrorism: the troubled state of relations to its east.

The border between India and Pakistan has seen a bloody partition in 1947 that killed hundreds of thousands; more than 15,000 dead in three wars and 25 years spent fighting over a glacier; 40,000-100,000 dead (depending on whom you believe) in the insurgency in the disputed province of Kashmir. And now both countries are armed with nuclear weapons.

Bloodshed over the border is not the only measure of the damage this poisoned relationship does. In India it exacerbates feuds between Muslims and Hindus. But Pakistan has been worse affected. Fear and hatred of India have distorted its world view and politics (see article). Ignoring this—as the West seems to be doing again—is a terrible mistake, especially because a settlement is not beyond reach.
Related items

Pakistan and India: A rivalry that threatens the world
May 19th 2011

Related topics

Afghanistan
Terrorism
2008 Mumbai Attacks
Indo-Pakistani conflict
War and conflict

Death and distortion

Pakistan’s obsession with India has damaged it in three ways. First, it has given its generals too much power. Pakistan’s army, at 550,000 men, is too small to match India’s 1.1m, but too big for Pakistan. The armed forces eat up 16% of the government’s budget, whereas education gets 1.2%. Because the armed forces are powerful, the government is weak; and the soldiers’ frequent interventions in Pakistani politics exacerbate this imbalance and undermine democracy.

Second, it has shaped Pakistan’s dealings in Afghanistan. In the 1990s Pakistan helped create the Taliban partly in order to undermine India’s allies in northern Afghanistan. Although it signed up to fight the Taliban after September 11th 2001, Pakistan has continued to protect some of the Taliban in order to counter India’s influence in Afghanistan.

Third, it has led Pakistan to foster Islamist terrorism—especially the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Punjab-based outfit whose purpose is to attack India. After the LeT attacked the Indian parliament in December 2001 Pakistan banned it, but it has survived—either (as the Pakistanis claim) because it has grown too successful to crush or (as the Indians suspect) because the Pakistani armed forces continue to help it covertly. Either way, India is not the only victim of this murderously stupid policy: terrorism within Pakistan is being fuelled by splinter groups from the LeT—and is going global.

As India grows in wealth and power, so do fear and obsession in Pakistan. Yet India, too, would benefit from a solution. The tension with the minnow to its west distracts it from the rise of the giant to its north, and China will surely dominate its security horizon in the 21st century. America also has much to gain from a saner subcontinent. If Pakistan’s world view were not distorted by India, it might be able to see straight on terror.

The soldiers growl

Six and a half decades of bloodshed suggest that the problem may be intractable. The hostility springs from a potent mix of religion, history and territory. Although the fighting has subsided in Kashmir, the issue remains hypersensitive: the Indian government censors publications, including The Economist, that print maps showing the current effective border. Politicians in both countries find it hard to be sensible: even those who would like a resolution are susceptible to domestic pressure—the Indians from Hindu nationalists, and the Pakistanis not just from Muslim militants but also from the generals, who regard India as a military, not a political, problem.

Nervous subcontinentals used to reassure themselves that neither side could use a nuclear weapon because the aggressor would suffer from the fallout. That may no longer hold. Since America destabilised things in 2008 by agreeing to give India civil nuclear technology, Pakistan’s determination to build up its nuclear arsenal has increased. Last month it announced that it had tested a new mobile missile with a miniaturised nuclear warhead designed to destroy invading tanks with little radiation beyond the battlefield, thus increasing the risk that a border incursion could escalate into something much more dangerous. On May 13th the head of Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence told parliament that he had already picked targets in India, and rehearsed attacks. He did not specify nuclear attacks, but did not exclude them. This is a dangerous time: Pakistan’s militants are evidently keen to show that Islamist terror will survive bin Laden’s death, and—unlike the cold war—there is scope for terrorists either to provoke a nuclear conflict or to explode a dirty nuclear device.

But while the soldiers growl, the politicians have made progress. In 2004-07 quiet talks established the framework for a settlement over Kashmir, under which Pakistan would in effect give up its claim to Indian Kashmir and India would agree to a “soft” border (one allowing a lot of freedom of movement). That deal was scuppered by the attack on Mumbai by the LeT in 2008 that killed 170 people. But both governments have shown they are willing to get back to the table, and talks are now resuming. India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, met Pakistan’s, Yusuf Raza Gilani, at a cricket match in March; and their foreign ministers are due to meet in July.

Our interactive map demonstrates how the territorial claims of India, Pakistan and China would change the shape of South Asia

The ingredients needed for progress are clear. Pakistan has to make more effort to stop a terror group scuppering talks for a second time; India, to help Pakistan give up its claim to Indian-held Kashmir, needs to pull its army out, grant plenty of autonomy and stop shooting schoolboys who lob stones at its soldiers. (Last summer 120 died in this way.) Yet the risks—for instance from another terrorist attack—are immense. After Mumbai, India’s politicians showed great restraint. It would be difficult for them to do so again.

America can help. The nuclear deal gives it extra clout with India, which it should lean on to show restraint in and flexibility on Kashmir. It should also change its approach to Pakistan. America plies Pakistan’s soldiers with military aid, and tends to talk to them rather than the politicians. Last year it pressed the government to give General Ashfaq Kayani an extension of his term as chief of army staff; and it informed Pakistan’s generals of the death of bin Laden before President Obama called President Zardari. Boosting the soldiers’ clout diminishes the chances of a political settlement with India.

By itself, a settlement with India will not make Pakistan a safe place. But it would encourage a series of changes—reining in the generals, building up democratic institutions, spending more on health and education, rejecting Islamist terrorism, rethinking its approach to Afghanistan—which could start to transform the country. Until that happens, Pakistan will remain a disappointment to itself and a danger to the world.

from the print edition | Leaders

 

[BREWER]

Posted for fair use and discussion.
http://www.debka.com/article/20955/

Netanyahu is one of 12 Mid East leaders saying no to Obama: DEBKAfile

Netanyahu is one of 12 Mid East leaders saying no to Obama:
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis May 20, 2011, 7:38 PM (GMT+02:00)
Tags: Barack Obama Binyamin Netanyahu Mahmoud Abbas Middle East
Binyamin Netanyahu locks horns with Barack Obama

By rejecting US President Barack Obama's proposal for Israel and its troops to pull back from the West Bank to behind the indefensible 1967 lines, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu lands in the company of eleven Middle East and North African rulers who spurned Washington's Middle East policy in the six months of the unfolding Arab uprising.

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was the only one to keep faith with Obama and he was pushed out for his pains.

Barack Obama's presentation of his Middle East vision Thursday, May 19 had three immediate results:

1. Every surviving regional leader was confirmed in his determination to keep his distance from US administration policies;
2. Another nail was driven in the coffin of the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process;
3. The fuel that was poured on regional tensions increased the prospects of an Israel-Palestinian or an Israeli-Arab war this year.

No Israeli politician can afford to back away from the demand that Israel retain a security presence and defensible borders along its eastern boundary and, even more so, on the West Bank in any future peace accord. This fundamental principle was not denied by opposition leaders Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz even as they poured boiling oil on the prime minister's head for getting into an argument with the US president.
But this repudiation is exactly what Obama wants.

The notion that Israel can achieve security through peace talks is a pipe dream because no Palestinian negotiator will think of seeking fewer concessions from Israel than the ones laid down by the US president. He will simply use the speech as a starting-point for the biggest squeeze Israel has ever faced.

Obama saw this maxim played out in his first two years in office: First, he said Netanyahu must freeze West Bank settlement construction. The Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, when he first heard about it, found the demand absurd – it had never been put to any former prime minister either by Washington or the Palestinians. But after Obama led the way, Abbas could demand no less. So he shrugged and turned this demand into a useful pretext in his maneuvers for wriggling out of talking to Israel.

The Israeli Prime Minister after practically begging the Palestinians to sit down and talk for two years has now put his foot down against the new Obama proposals. If he stands by this refusal, he leaves the vast region stretching across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and North Africa without a single political, military or royal ruler willing to accept Obama's new policy principles. The only possible exception may be Turkish Prime Minster Tayyip Erdogan.

The regional anti-Obama opposition falls into two camps:

The largest consists of eight former American allies, some of them ex-strategic partners, which is headed by the Saudi royal family.

A leading Saudi spokesman Nawaf Obaid brought the Riyadh-Washington rupture out in the open for the first time on May 16 in the form of a Washington Post op-ed.

"In some issues, such as counterterrorism and efforts to fight money laundering, the Saudis will continue to be a strong US partner," he wrote. "In areas in which Saudi national security or strategic interests are at stake, the kingdom will pursue its own agenda. The oil for security formula is history… The special relationship may never be the same…”

Saudi King Abdullah has already swept the half a dozen GCC (Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf) behind the separate security and strategic policies he is pursuing independently of the US and often diametrically opposed to Obama's course. He has invited Jordan, Morocco and Yemen to join the group.

The suggestion put by Jordanian monarch Abdullah II to Obama this week that the US transfer its sponsorship of the Israel-Palestinian issue to the GCC underscored the rising power of the new Gulf grouping and was firmly rejected.

The second camp consists of four anti-US Arab rulers, Syria's Bashar Assad, the Libyan Muammar Qaddaf, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and King Hamad bin Isa al Khalifa of Bahrain, who have resorted to armed violence to suppress the pro-democracy movements sponsored by President Obama.

Saudi Arabia is propping the Bahraini and Yemen regimes up with cash, arms, military assistance and intelligence. All four are determined to do whatever it takes to avoid the fate that befell Hosni Mubarak.

The only leaders who until Thursday, May 19, stood out against joining both those camps were the military council ruling Egypt and the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

The generals in Cairo nod obediently when faced with demands from Washington and do nothing.

The Palestinian leader called the Obama speech "disappointing" in that no timeline or diplomatic mechanisms were offered. The US President poured scorn on Abbas' plan to seek unilateral UN recognition of Palestinian statehood in September, hoping to shut the door on yet another ploy for avoiding peace talks with Israel. The Palestinian leader may well defy him.

Abbas, even after losing his key patron Mubarak, is still juggling several balls in the hope of pushing Israel into a corner. Netanyahu, for his part, having stayed passive in the face of the new currents blowing in from Washington and the Arab revolt, has reached crunch time with the US president without strong cards.

A falling-out between the White House and the Israeli prime minister will also box Abbas into a choice of which anti-Obama Arab camp to jump into – the group led by Saudi Arabia or the Syrian group which also includes Hamas with whom he has just signed a unity pact.

In the long run, that pact may have saddled him with undesirable options.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use......
http://www.brazzil.com/component/co...ace-the-us-as-protector-of-latin-america.html

Brazil Isn't Ready to Replace the US as Protector of Latin America

2011 - May 2011
Written by Augustus Aurelianus Severus
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 17:15

American eagle and Brazilian toucan Many modern intellectuals (leftist economists and political scientists of various nationalities) have been advocating the readiness of Latin America, under Brazil's leadership, to take the helm of the region's defense, against the so-called imperialist powers of the West, and take every step to brainwash the local members of the elite, encouraging them to embrace the anti-western position under the banner of some of the unappealing, populist strong-men plaguing the region.

Yet, while some of these advocates portray an independent political position and claim to represent neutral outsiders who understand the ills afflicting the region and seem to display good intentions for Latin America, many of them actually conceal various hidden agendas of the international neo-socialist movement which they embody!

On the other hand, the United States of America, despite of its many faults and unquestionable history of imperialist policies, have prevented the rise of tyranny at various occasions and, regardless of its recent impoverishment, remains the only power capable of safeguard Latin America against the encroaching (and camouflaged) totalitarianism of the People's Republic of China and the immeasurable peril posed by a callous, implacable Islamic World.

While Brazil has unquestionably emerged from the cavernous depths of primitivism, underdevelopment and geopolitical irrelevance, establishing the undeniable role of economic and military leader of South America, particularly after the foundation of UNASUR, one must take into account the enormous economic disparity which unfortunately prevails among the various countries of the region.

Most importantly, one cannot lose sight of the divergent (and dangerous) political schemes of some pariah nations (such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador) which pursue a blatantly totalitarian neo-socialist pathway, envisioning the creation of a future united South America under the guidance of the Stalinist Bolivarian movement, and aided by criminal groups like the Colombian FARC (which is financially supported by Venezuela and ideologically inspired by Cuba).

Moreover, despite its recent rise in wealth and industrial capabilities, Brazil is far from the point where it could realistically secure the necessary military power that would be indispensable to defend the Liberty of Latin America against so many growing threats emanating from the previously mentioned totalitarian ideological centers.

Throughout the history of our beautiful, misguided planet, since the rise of the first predominant political-military power, the various ethnic groups inhabiting its surrounding regions invariably grew resentful of ruthless exploitation, cultural imposition, and merciless abuse.

Deeply ingrained acrimony inevitably emerged and unavoidably turned into open hostility vis-à-vis the escalation of tyrannical and excessive measures whereby local elites were either eliminated or assimilated, valuable resources appropriated while the general population were oppressed and enslaved.

These vile patterns of political, social and military manipulation have been documented in a wide variety of historical documents in virtually every continent, ranging from the Toltec, Egyptian and Roman Empires into the relatively more recent Islamic Caliphates, Iberian and Northern European Kingdoms of the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Neo-Classic periods.

Yet, ever since the emergence of the liberal concepts of Individualism and Liberty within the British Empire during the seventeenth century, at the height of its Imperial expansion, the sophisticated principles of human rights emerged across intellectuals of its vast domains.

Most notably, such principles became so significant within its thirteen North American colonies that, one century later, when formal political independence was secured, these united states gradually became not only stronger and wealthier, but also a beacon of Liberty and an inspiration to revolutionaries worldwide, thereby emerging as an admired global power of a different sort, with noticeably distinct patterns of dominance.

Unlike its imperial predecessors, the United States of America has frequently avoided exerting direct administration over most regions falling under its sphere of influence, and endeavored to play the role of a benign and detached overseer, while providing significant financial and military assistance without necessarily maintaining actual troops in order to flex muscle to protect its national interests.

As outlined by the brilliant eighteenth century military strategist Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz (1780-1831) - Officer of the Prussian Army, Historian, and Military Strategist - International Politics were (previously) defined strictly as a natural extension of Military Conflicts, which was undoubtedly the case of the Spanish, Dutch and British colonial empires.

Yet, the rising American imperialists, from the outset of their active involvement in global politics, have demonstrated a remarkable ability to take such principle even further, whereby international economics and financial preponderance actually become an extension of International Politics thereby expanding the levels of their engagement to reinforce overall supremacy, while also providing collective security.

America's rising wealth and increased military power during the nineteenth century - not unlike the People Republic of China today - further ensured its acquisition of a super power status thereby setting off enormous benefits, but with the cost of unexpected bereavement, due to an intangible glamour that transformed its society into a source of either envy or reproach, and a scapegoat for several global issues.

Because it became a target of local resentment, international scrutiny and, ultimately, unprecedented hatred within radical segments of distinct totalitarian states, many Americans were suddenly unable to match their values against an unsavory, newly acquired reputation. In essence, the resulting amalgamation of various levels of international antagonism gradually depreciated America's reputation, thus triggering the onset of its current political and economic decline.

Perhaps because of their traditional self-image as "fair citizens" of a classless democracy, Americans were never intended to become any sort of imperial overlords, compelled to frequently bypass their Founding Fathers' noble principles when dealing with inherently corrupt and authoritarian rulers.

As a result, the United States of America has inevitably found itself caught up in a vicious web of international intrigue, suspicion and espionage, the resolution of which required embracing ruthless, arrogant and even sporadically cruel schemes in order to secure fundamentally indispensable political and/or military goals.

Notwithstanding its uncomfortable list of reprehensible deeds, when analyzed under the prism of historical imperialistic behavior, the United States easily emerge as the most liberal, permissive and tolerant of all historical World Powers; given that it contributed, for the most part, to the expeditious development of freer, wealthier and healthier societies within its overall economic space.

Moreover, by extending a wide network of financial and military facilities in order to enrich and protect its unexpected empire, the governing polities in Washington were required to spend incalculable sums in foreign aid, loans and investment, while also extending a vastly complex defensive umbrella throughout its protectorate, thereby automatically affording the necessary climate of peace and security for the continued socioeconomic development of its various national components.

Consequently, as it disbursed vast quantities of resources worldwide, to the point of virtually compromising the soundness of its own economy, the United States of America has successfully deterred (and at times prevented) the advance of totalitarian ideals emanating from the extremities of the political spectrum, encouraged international trade - triggering globalization into the world economy - and guaranteed our collective liberty and financial welfare.

While Brazil has the potential, and is likely to reach a comparable level of economic might in the foreseeable future (provided it promotes the education and diminishes the economic disparities of its nationals), there is no question that our brave nation is not yet poised to assume the burdens of the protector of Latin America.

Augustus Aurelianus is a dual citizen of Brazil and USA, who is a native of Rio de Janeiro but has been residing in New York City for the past few decades. He graduated in Political Sciences from CUNY (City University of New York) and is an amateur historian. His claimed expertise lies in Political Philosophy, Comparative Governments, International Imperialism and Authoritarian Governments.

 

[Be Well]

The only way for peace to happen between Pak and India is for Pak to be soundly and thoroughly defeated by India. Which I hope happens.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use......
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ME19Dg01.html

Korea
May 19, 2011
Middle East front opens for the Koreas
By Yong Kwon

It is a rare occasion to see relative calm over the Korean Peninsula; for the first time since the sinking of the South Korean corvette the Cheonan and the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island, the world's attention has shifted away from the precarious relationship between the Koreas to the chaos in the Middle East and Libya.

However, news agencies and analysts around the world appear to have missed the fact that both Koreas remain deeply involved in these areas of conflict.

If the ruling regimes in Damascus and Tripoli survive the current instability, their ties to North Korea will deepen as they join Pyongyang in the disreputable club of pariah states.

As a consequence, Israel and South Korea will bolster their nascent relationship to combat the threat posed by the unholy alliance of rogue states. In a sense, the international community faces the possibility of reviving the Cold War division between the "client states" of the former bipolar world, only with an unprecedented amount of bilateral cooperation between the respective camps and the collective potential for destruction.

The Yonghap news agency on April 10 reported that despite the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombing campaigns, nearly 200 North Koreans residing in Libya were ordered not to repatriate. [1] Yonhap, along with Donga Ilbo and other major South Korean newspapers that picked up on this information, reported that this was Pyongyang's measure to prevent the import of instability to North Korea. While this assessment corresponds with the strict control of information and censorship within North Korea, it is far from being a fully substantiated analysis.

North Korea had frequently been present in foreign conflicts either by directly providing aid or closely observing the combat activities of "fraternal" states.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Pyongyang even dispatched 20 pilots from the Korean People's Air Force to aid the Egyptian air force. This show of support was repaid by Anwar Sadat's government in 1975 with an agreement to cooperate in missile development. [2]

Based on precedence in North Korea's foreign policy behavior, Pyongyang may be eyeing for closer cooperation with post-bellum Libya by leaving essential medical personnel in the war zone. If the North Korean embassy in Tripoli was indeed damaged by a NATO air raid on May 13 as speculations suggest, it will only work to solidify the future bonds between the two states.

Since establishing official diplomatic relations with Libya in 1974, North Korea had been a huge supplier of arms to the Muammar Gaddafi regime. In addition, according to the former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) deputy director general of safeguards, Olli Heinonen, it is very likely that Tripoli had also imported materials for nuclear weapons from North Korea. [3] While this remains a mere suspicion based on a few pieces of evidence uncovered by the IAEA in 2004, considering the ties between Damascus and Pyongyang in the field of nuclear weapons development, this conclusion is not all that surprising.

The problem with alienating several states from the international community is that it erodes the effectiveness of their diplomatic isolation by dramatically reducing the cost of these states associating with each another. When the civil war in Libya ends (and the Gaddafi regime survives due to half-hearted international intervention), the embattled government in Tripoli will be forced to turn to other pariah states for trade and military cooperation.

Even though the international community appears more hesitant to sanction military intervention in Syria, the regime in Damascus also faces alienation if President Bashar al-Assad authorizes anything resembling his father's scorched-earth tactics (used against Syrian Sunnis in the city of Hama in 1982) against protesters. Syria already has a (possibly intimate) working relationship with North Korea and as a state once aligned with the Soviet Union, existing overlaps in military hardware will only facilitate future exchange of weapons technology.

The release of documents by WikiLeaks last year revealed that Iran had purchased several missiles from North Korea that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, giving Tehran the power to strike Western European cities for the first time. [4]

The purchased missiles were called BM-25 (Musudan), a North Korean variant of the Russian R-27, which were deployed with nuclear warheads onboard Yankee class submarines. Despite strict oversight by the United States, Pyongyang still managed to export missiles to not only Iran, but also Sri Lanka, Uganda, Yemen and Egypt. Nothing is stopping further exports being made to Syria and post-bellum Libya.

North Korea has been remarkably resourceful even in isolation from the international community. Even after major money laundering operations like the one carried out from Banco Delta Asia in Macau were shut down, secret bank accounts in China, Japan and Germany provided venues for capital transaction for the purchase of equipment from not only Russia but the rest of the world.

In addition to missile prototypes from Russia, computerized lathes were purchased from Switzerland, machinery from Japan, hydraulic presses from Taiwan and specialized steel from China; all key materials for constructing missiles. [5] This is only the tip of the iceberg, representing the extent of the intelligence gathered by the United States and the Russian Federation.

Adding Syria and Libya to the ever expanding area of operation for the North Korean military does not contribute to the stability of the region and exports regional tensions abroad. It is precisely this threat that will draw Israel and South Korea closer to one another.

Prompted by aggressive North Korean military provocation in 2010, in January of this year Seoul increased its defense budget by 25% and showed interest in purchasing Israeli drones, missiles and radar technology. [6] Israel and South Korea also share similar threats against rockets targeting major population centers, thus the Israeli anti-missile system "Iron Dome" may also be deployed in South Korea to reduce the North Korean deterrence capabilities. In turn, the Israeli air force is considering the purchase of South Korean made T-50 trainer jets.

The quasi-alliance made by Israel-South Korea against Libya-Iran-Syria-North Korea will not yield the Cold War stability based on the fear of mutually assured destruction; for one, North Korea's foreign policy is intrinsically built on provocations.

In the 1970s, the Japanese Red Army collaborated with leftist organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to conduct terrorist acts against Israel. Similar intercontinental collaboration may occur between North Korea and Libya, only this time, the collaborators are sovereign states with conventional militaries capable of building weapons of mass destruction and territorial sanctuaries free from international jurisdiction.

This is not to suggest that North Korean agents will go on a shooting rampage in Lod Airport, but it does mean that Israel will be forced to take a more aggressive posture to deter against possible threats to its existence and South Korea will face a North Korean nuclear weapons program bolstered by more foreign capital and technology. This adds to the dangerous calculus of states leveraging the cost-benefit analysis of reciprocation and pre-emptive strikes.

The international cooperation between opposing states was bound to occur; new infrastructure easing international transaction of goods and conventional business practices have made inter-state cooperation more viable.

As a sign of our globalized world, the conclusion of the Libyan civil war and the handling of the Syrian crisis by the international community will have direct ramifications to the security of the Middle East, North Africa and Northeast Asia. It is high time that the great powers learn to deal with these new avenues of crisis escalation as they will not disappear while technology continues to advance.

Notes
1. Jang, Yonghoon. "North, 'No Repatriation' order given to North Korean representatives in Libya." Yonhap News Agency, April 10, 2011.
2. Bermudez, Joseph S Jr. "A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK." Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Occasional Paper #2. 1999, 6.
3. "Interview with former Deputy Director General of IAEA, Olli Heinonen: North Korea exported nuclear material to Libya." Voice of America Korean, May 6, 2011.
4. Broad, William J. "Iran fortifies its arsenal with the aid of North Korea." New York Times, November 28, 2010.
5. Park, Jongsae. Wikileaks, exposure of truth behind the North's secret export of missiles. Choson Ilbo, December 8, 2010.
6. Hill, Debbie "South Korea, Israel boost defense ties." UPI, January 11, 2011.

Yong Kwon is a Washington-based analyst of international affairs.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37959&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=c47cb66f48c4664af744aa1103dbfde7

“Shaheen 1” Exercise Signals Expansion of China-Pakistan Alliance
Publication: China Brief Volume: 11 Issue: 9
May 20, 2011 06:07 PM Age: 15 hrs
By: Chris Zambelis

The recent headlines have been dominated by the progressively deteriorating relationship between the United States and Pakistan. The killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Pakistani territory in May by U.S. forces exacerbated the widening rift and further overshadowed the recent staging of a sensitive military exercise involving Pakistani and Chinese forces. It is against this backdrop that China’s strong ties with Pakistan in the diplomatic, economic, and military realms have gained salience. Indeed, the timing of Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s four-day visit to China, which commenced on May 17—the third series of meetings between Prime Minister Gilani and Chinese leaders in less than 17 months—illustrates the extent to which Islamabad counts on Beijing for support during this historic low point in U.S.-Pakistan relations (The News [Karachi], May 17). Rumors that Pakistan seriously considered allowing China to access remnants of a secret U.S. stealth helicopter that went down during the raid against Bin Laden, thus allowing China a firsthand looking into the latest stealth technology employed by the U.S. military—Pakistan has since agreed to return the remnants of the helicopter to the United States—also reflect the priority Pakistan places on proving its worth to China (ABC News, May 16).

While news of cooperation between the armed forces of longtime allies would normally come at no surprise, details surrounding “Shaheen 1” (“Eagle” in Urdu) remain scant. The exercise was composed of what both sides acknowledged to be “operational” aerial maneuvers involving the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) and the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), held over a period of a few weeks in March 2011. The exercise represented the first time PLAAF combat aircraft deployed to Pakistan and joined alongside their Pakistani counterparts in operational maneuvers in Pakistani airspace (The News, March 18). In addition to “Shaheen 1,” both countries also plan to stage joint ground maneuvers involving the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and its Pakistani counterpart in Pakistan later in 2011. The exercise also took place against the backdrop of the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Pakistan and the recognition of 2011 by both countries as the “Year of Pakistan-China Friendship” (GEO Pakistan [Islamabad], January 2).

China’s participation in “Shaheen 1” marks another milestone in its limited but expanding expeditionary military capability. Perhaps most importantly, China’s involvement in “Shaheen 1” reflects its growing eagerness to showcase its expeditionary capability in countries the United States considers strategic allies [1]. In spite of the current crisis in relations, the United States continues to count Pakistan as a vital ally. In regard to the war in Afghanistan, for instance, Pakistan is indispensable. The main supply line that sustains U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan originates in the Port of Karachi. At the same time, the central role of Pakistan in U.S. operations in Afghanistan has not precluded Beijing from extending its hand to Islamabad.

The Exercise

Designed to foster enhanced joint air capabilities and to underscore the priority both sides place on preserving bilateral military ties, the maneuvers executed during “Shaheen 1” featured combat aircraft from the PAF and PLAAF, as well as technicians and other participants (Xinhua News Agency, March 5). Specifics involving the exercise, including the types of aircraft deployed by both forces, the total number of aircraft and personnel involved, the exact nature and scope of the missions performed and the location of the maneuvers, have not been disclosed by either Pakistan or China. A press release issued by the PAF, however, did contain a photograph of Pakistani and Chinese pilots and other personnel participating in “Shaheen 1” dated March 11; 13 Pakistani and 12 Chinese officers appear in the photograph (Pakistan Air Force Press Release, March 11). Concerns that the PAF may have deployed its fleet of advanced U.S.-built F-16 Fighting Falcons alongside PLAAF combat aircraft likely raised concerns in Washington. In addition to potentially exposing sensitive U.S. technology to Beijing, the PLAAF also stands to gain great insights into the operating performance of the aircraft in relation to their own. The PAF currently boasts a fleet of 63 F-16s of different variants (45 A/Bs and 18 C/Ds) in its inventory and it recently entered into negotiations with the United States for additional planes. The PAF’s current fleet of F-16s is also scheduled to undergo comprehensive upgrades (Aviation Week, March 8). In spite of the expected concerns in the United States about the potential deployment of F-16s during “Shaheen 1,” there is no evidence to otherwise indicate that Pakistan deployed F-16s during the exercise [2].

The absence of detailed official statements by Islamabad and Beijing or other publicly available information regarding the dynamics of “Shaheen 1” did not prevent outside observers from making their own estimates about what transpired during the exercise. A number of official photographs showing Pakistani and Chinese pilots preparing for flight missions and engaging in other activities during “Shaheen 1,” which circulated on websites and online discussion forums dedicated to Pakistani defense and foreign policy issues such as Pakistan Air Force Falcons and Pakistan Defense, however, elicited extensive commentary, including among many claiming to be Pakistanis, Chinese, Indians, or in some way affiliated to (or at least knowledgeable of) Pakistani military issues [3]. Some of the photographs posted online showed Pakistani and Chinese pilots seated inside the cockpit of what appeared to be a Chinese-built Shenyang J-11BS air superiority fighter. The J-11BS is regarded as an indigenous version of Russia’s Su-30 Flanker fighter series; while relying on the Su-30’s mainframe, the aircraft is said to be equipped with Chinese-designed and manufactured engines, avionics, radar and weaponry (Aviation Week, November 5, 2006).

Political and Military Implications

In many respects, “Shaheen 1” represents a continuation of what is already a broad and multifaceted bilateral military relationship that has been cultivated over decades. While both Pakistan and China deny that the exercise was designed to “target” any third parties, aspects of the exercise, as well as its timing, illuminate the trajectory of wider trends that are having far-reaching geopolitical impacts on South and East Asia (Xinhua News Agency, March 5). In this context, the implications of “Shaheen 1” are best understood in political as well as military strategic terms.

The timing of “Shaheen 1” must be considered against the background of the current poor state of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Pakistan has watched nervously as the United States expanded its ties with India in recent years while the latter continues to make impressive inroads into Afghanistan, a country Pakistan sees as vital to its concept of strategic depth and its overall security posture relative to its rival India. Bin Laden’s presence and subsequent death in Pakistan—and the likely existence of a support network within the echelons of state power that allowed him to remain there—adds another layer of complexity to Pakistan’s predicament. Losing faith in the durability of its alliance with the United States, an increasingly insecure Pakistan feels compelled to act; Islamabad may have once calculated that navigating a fine line between Beijing and Washington represented the most prudent path to protect its national interests, but a tilt away from the United States and toward China may prove more beneficial down the line.

Continued......

 

[Housecarl]

Continued.....

The symbolism underlying Islamabad’s willingness to host Chinese combat aircraft on its territory in the current political climate was clear. Such a bold measure is indicative of China’s evolution in recent years and the confidence it has nurtured among its allies as both a reliable and credible partner. Pakistan sees China as a country that delivers on its promises, an “all-weather friend,” according to Prime Minister Gilani (Dawn [Karachi], May 10). The United States, on the other hand, is viewed as impervious to Pakistani concerns and a meddler in its affairs. For its part, China is eager to exploit the widening diplomatic chasm between the United States and Pakistan. In light of the circumstances behind the killing of Bin Laden on Pakistani soil and the concomitant threats by Washington to cut financial aid to Islamabad, China found an opportunity to offset U.S. criticism of Pakistan’s conduct. Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao seized the occasion of Gilani’s latest visit to China to acknowledge the “huge sacrifices” endured by Pakistan in “the international fight against terrorism” while adding that Pakistan’s “independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be respected” (Xinhua News Agency, May 18).

Rhetoric aside, China has backed up its words with substance. During the Pakistan-China Business Cooperation Summit held in Islamabad in December 2010, Prime Minister Jiabao declared that China would “never give up” on Pakistan; the meetings culminated in the signing of 35 agreements and memorandums of understanding regarding cooperation in numerous sectors, including energy, banking, technology, construction, defense, and security, totaling $35 billion (Daily Times [Lahore], December 19, 2010). The volume of Sino-Pakistan bilateral trade hovered close to $7 billion in 2010, an over 30 percent increase over bilateral trade in 2009; Pakistan and China are aiming to achieve bilateral trade by volume of at least $15 billion by 2015 (People’s Daily [Beijing], December 13, 2010).

While the United States remains a critical source of arms to Pakistan, especially advanced weapons platforms such as the F-16, the politics behind U.S. arms transfers to Pakistan and the strict terms that accompany the sales of weapons systems—a humiliating reality, in Pakistan’s perspective, especially in light of the perceived special treatment India receives by the United States and international community in areas related to defense—have driven it further into the arms of China. When it comes to arms exports, Pakistan is China’s biggest customer. Over 40 percent of China’s arms exports are destined for Pakistan. Moreover, China has jointly developed the JF-17 Thunder (known as FC-1 Fierce Dragon in China) multi-role fighter plane with Pakistan. A joint venture between China’s Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation (CAC) and Pakistan’s Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), the JF-17 is currently in operation and available for export (The News, February 9). China has also recently agreed to supply Pakistan with an additional 50 JF-17 fighters and to expedite their transfer to the PAF, a move aimed to demonstrate China’s capacity to fill the vacuum if the United States decides to reduce or eliminate economic and military aid—the United States has provided Pakistan with over $20 billion in economic and military aid over the last decade—to Pakistan (PakTribune [Rawalpindi], May 19; Financial Times [London], May 15). Reports that both sides plan to jointly develop a stealth variant of the JF-17 indicate that future Sino-Pakistan cooperation in this area is in the works (Nawa-i-Waqat [Lahore], April 18; Aviation Week, July 19, 2010). Sino-Pakistan cooperation in the aerospace industry is also seen by Islamabad as a counter to its rival India’s similar cooperation with Russia, as both India and Russia cooperate on a number of joint defense projects involving combat aircraft. China is also keen to keep pace with its rival India in the military sphere (Aviation Week, March 8).

As the United States continues to pressure Pakistan over its nuclear weapons arsenal, China remains a dependable source of nuclear technology. China has also agreed to build additional nuclear reactors in Pakistan. With China’s assistance, Pakistan is believed to be on the cusp of overtaking the United Kingdom as the world’s fifth-largest nuclear weapons power (Maclean’s [Toronto], April 6). A recent report in the Pakistani media also alleged that China declared in “unequivocal terms” during the recent U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings held in Washington in May that any U.S. attack on Pakistan would be “construed as an attack against China” (The News, May 19). The diplomatic, economic, and military support China has given Pakistan during the period of heightened U.S.-Pakistan tensions has not gone unnoticed in Islamabad. Leader of the opposition in Pakistan’s National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, issued the following words: “I pay tribute to China for supporting and assisting Pakistan in every difficult time. I on behalf of the parliament and the people of Pakistan pay tribute to China for supporting Pakistan at this critical time (Associated Press of Pakistan, May 9).

Conclusion

As U.S.-Pakistan relations continue to plummet, the implications of events such as “Shaheen 1” will rightfully be examined through a broader geopolitical lens, particularly in the context of their impacts on U.S.-Sino relations. China is poised to earn considerable strategic benefits by enhancing its relationship with Pakistan. At the same time, however, there are no indications to suggest that it is willing to jeopardize its relationship with the United States over Pakistan. In spite of its opposition to U.S. policy toward Taiwan and the robust U.S. military presence and U.S.-led alliance architecture in East Asia—a region China deems to be part of its rightful sphere of influence—Beijing is likely to operate a pragmatic foreign policy with respect to Pakistan so as to not overly disrupt the balance of power in South Asia and, as a result, alienate the United States. China will also continue to view Pakistan as a crucial strategic ally, and a potential lever over the United States (as well as India), strengthening the bond underpinning Sino-Pakistan relations for years ahead.

For all of its rhetoric, Pakistan lacks the leverage to outmaneuver the United States, even considering the convergence of interests between it and China on issues such as India and the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and it surely understands this. Nevertheless, Islamabad’s diplomatic campaign and other activities showcasing its potential to downgrade its relationship with Washington in favor of Beijing may earn it the attention (and concessions) it desires from the United States.

Notes:

1. In a related point, the PLAAF’s participation in Turkey’s “Anatolian Eagle 2010” aerial exercise in October 2010, an event marking the first instance of Chinese participation in joint military exercises with a NATO member shortly followed by a likewise unprecedented demonstration of Sino-Turkish military cooperation in the form of ground maneuvers in Turkey – the first instance of Chinese ground forces operating jointly with a NATO member on NATO soil – appeared to set a precedent for increased Chinese military activities involving U.S. allies on their territories. For more details, see Chris Zambelis, “Sino-Turkish Strategic Partnership: Implications of Anatolian Eagle 2010, China Brief, January 14, 2011.
2. Considering Turkey’s fleet of advanced F-16s, it is worth noting that the United States expressed similar concerns during “Anatolian Eagle 2010.”
3. For examples of the official photographs posted online of some of the purported Pakistani and Chinese participants in “Shaheen 1,” aircraft deployed during the exercise, and accompanying commentary, see “PAF-PLAAF undertaking joint Air Exercise - Shaheen-1,” Pakistan Air Force Falcons, www.paffalcons.com/news/2011/PAF-PLAAF-undertaking-joint-Air-Exercise-Shaheen-1_3182011.php (accessed May 2011); also see “PAF-PLAAF undertaking joint Air Exercise - Shaheen-1,” www.defence.pk/forums/military-phot...dertaking-joint-air-exercise-shaheen-1-a.html (accessed May 2011).

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=37954&tx_ttnews[backPid]=13&cHash=a786a3e877ffbdfec5f18901eb6cddac

Afghanistan: NATO Out, SCO In?
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 8 Issue: 98
May 20, 2011 05:52 PM Age: 16 hrs
By: Erica Marat

Next month, Afghanistan may gain observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The organization considers this to be an appropriate step forward given that the Afghan people “gradually take over the responsibility for all key areas of life in the country, including ensuring the security and socioeconomic development of the IRA [Islamic Republic of Afghanistan], [and the] emergence of a friendly Afghanistan as an independent, peaceful and prosperous state,” according to an SCO statement (http://www.sectsco.org/EN/show.asp?id=286).

The possibility of Kabul moving closer to the SCO was discussed at the Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Almaty last week. The announcement on Afghanistan’s future relations with the SCO will be made at the organization’s annual summit in Astana on June 15. To date Afghanistan has participated in SCO activities as a guest. The SCO consists of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia and India have observer status with the organization.

Starting this year, the SCO plans to apply the five-year Counter-narcotics Strategy that aims at reducing drug production in Afghanistan (www.kazinform.kz, May 14). The SCO has wanted deeper involvement in Afghanistan’s security and economy for a number of years.

After gaining observer status, Kabul might seek full membership. India, one of the SCO’s observers, has requested an upgrade to full membership (The Times of India, May 16). “The ministers rated positively the efforts of the SCO member states contributing to the cause of economic reconstruction of Afghanistan, and called on the international community to provide further assistance to the government and people of Afghanistan,” stated the joint declaration by the Council of Ministers.

According to the Russian media, NATO’s gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan starting in 2014 will create an opportunity for engagement with the SCO, which is already active in the wider Central Asian region. So far, Russia has been showing interest in adding Afghanistan to the SCO. “Recently Afghanistan has requested observer status. This issue will be discussed at the forthcoming summit,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (www.rian.ru, May 17).

To date, China’s investment in Afghanistan has been increasing. Sharing only a 46 mile border, China’s “interest in Afghanistan traces primarily to the exploitation of energy and mineral resources—valued at $1 trillion by audits,” argues Niklas Norling, the Director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the Silk Road Studies Program (World Politics Review, May 18).

The interest in boosting China-Afghanistan ties is mutual. Last week, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Zalmay Rasoul spent four days in China meeting with his counterpart Yang Jiechi and discussed Beijing’s help in developing Afghanistan’s economy. For Kabul, the SCO offers an important venue for further regional economic integration that can be achieved even in the absence of political reform. Like in African states, China has demonstrated an ability to navigate Central Asia’s corrupt political systems without applying any pressure to increase the transparency of either the political or economic conditions (www.fmprc.gov.cn, May 10).

Most economic ties within the SCO are based on the principle of bilateral relations between China and other members, and not on the principle of multilateralism. For example, China is actively developing cooperation with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in the energy sector. For Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, China has become an important exporter of consumer goods. By contrast, however, economic cooperation between Russia and China is carried out mainly outside the framework of the SCO.

Founded in 2001, the SCO celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. Starting in 2003, the SCO has held regular counterterrorism exercises with the participation of member countries to collectively combat the “three evils” of terrorism, separatism or extremism. The exercises usually involve anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 troops.

According to the SCO, the organization strives to strengthen mutual trust and good neighborly relations among member countries, to maintain peace through collective efforts and to boost security and stability. However, by joining the SCO, Afghanistan should not get its hopes too high regarding the security sector. Last year, the SCO once again confirmed that the locus of cooperation under its aegis is concentrated mostly on political and economic cooperation. The June 2010 ethnic violence in Kyrgyzstan’s south and low-intensity armed conflict in Tajikistan’s Kamarob gorge in September 2010 have once again demonstrated that the SCO, along with other regional security organizations, are not able to meet the most critical challenges the Central Asian region faces today.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME20Df02.html

South Asia
May 20, 2011
Osama as an Afghan exit strategy
By Shibil Siddiqi

The United States turned to nation-building in Afghanistan, complete with a dissimulating narrative of liberating women, and importing human rights and democracy, when it failed to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive". Now Bin Laden is dead, and there are strong indications that his killing will lead to a shift in American strategy in Afghanistan.

The US occupation of Afghanistan faces two distinct military challenges. The first is managing an essentially nationalist Taliban insurgency with Islamist overtones. The second is destroying al-Qaeda, a transnational terrorist organization, and its like-minded allies. Under the operational cover of the former, it is the latter that has informed core American interests in Afghanistan.

In a speech delivered in early 2009, US President Barack Obama reiterated that the American occupation of Afghanistan had a "clear and focussed goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan ..." American intelligence assessments have also concluded for years that al-Qaeda has only a nominal presence left in Afghanistan.

Its operatives have long since migrated to the relative security of Pakistan, and have set up more lethal franchises in Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb. Al-Qaeda's links with Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency are also tenuous at best.

Leaving Afghanistan on the basis of intelligence estimates, however, lacks both the psychological satisfaction and narrative power of exiting on the back of a job well done. The problem, from the American perspective, in acting on such assessments has been pulling off an American withdrawal that is not seen by the American public and the wider world as a strategic defeat. Such a perception would undoubtedly diminish American power.

In this context, Bin Laden's killing has provided Washington an opportune "mission accomplished" moment. The US can now begin a shift back to the old script about Bin Laden being the effective marker for success in Afghanistan, and sever its counter-terrorism objectives from the quagmire of counter-insurgency.

For it is clear that the ramped up counter-insurgency effort has, despite some tactical successes in Afghanistan's south, been a strategic failure. Far from imposing a new military reality on the ground, it has been unable even to alter the Taliban's perception that they are winning the war (simply because they are not losing it).

Another indication of a brewing change in policy was the announcement on April 28 - two days before the Bin Laden kill-mission - that the top US commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, had been appointed the head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The timing of Petreaus' appointment is highly notable, given that on April 28 the Bin Laden operation was probably in its final planning stages. Also, his CIA directorship is set to begin in September, when the American "surge" in Afghanistan is to begin its drawdown.

Fresh from the "success" of his troop surge in Iraq, perhaps Petreaus believed that Afghanistan could become his victory lap. As someone who has literally written the book on American counter-insurgency, he has been a strong proponent of such a troop-heavy approach in Afghanistan. He also proved to be a wily political operator. Utilizing skilful lobbying and public relations tactics, Petraeus deftly outmaneuvered those within the Obama administration, including most notably Vice President Joe Biden, who favored an early pullback by switching to a counter-terrorism model.

As the August deadline for a drawdown of the "surge" approaches, Petraeus has largely stuck to his guns, favoring only a token scaling-down of troop levels. However, as head of the CIA, he will ironically gain oversight of counter-terrorism operations, but will lose his clout in directing the military mission, including the pace of the American withdrawal.

The Afghanistan war is already deeply unpopular with most Americans - a significant factor with elections presidential elections slated for next year. In addition, there is already a rising chorus within Congress calling for a faster drawdown in light of Bin Laden's death, citing Afghanistan's diminished strategic value as a result of the dispersal of al-Qaeda, and the fiscal crisis in the US.

With Bin Laden in the body-bag, and without the resistance of Washington's star general, the White House will find it easier to adopt an accelerated half-life for its counter-insurgency. Already, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has expressed the view that Bin Laden's death, "opens up possibilities for dealing with the Taliban that did not exist before".

This does not mean that American military presence in Afghanistan will be reduced to zero anytime soon. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has reiterated that it will hover by Kabul's side for the long-haul, despite Bin Laden's demise and even once security responsibilities are handed over to Afghan forces in 2014.

This presents a strong likelihood of an abundance of military trainers and a rump of troops remaining in Kabul for years to come. Moreover, the US will also likely continue to conduct counter-terrorism operations using Special Forces and CIA operatives in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But there is little doubt that the American occupation of Afghanistan has effectively entered the end-game.

Indeed, the US is conscious of the opportunity-cost of its military power bogged down in Afghanistan as its global competitors, including China and Russia, continue their rise. Thus, the US has been searching for an exit strategy for a while, hinging it largely on a question of political timing rather than military exigencies. This has mostly revolved around exploiting Pakistani intelligence links to the Taliban to target their leadership and force them to come to the negotiating table.

Pakistan's cooperation with the US has been opportunistic and stuttering in this regard, in the hopes that prolonging the process will enable it to drive the direction of the negotiations. Pakistan believes that this will fulfill its own strategic paradigm of ensuring a friendly and anti-Indian regime in Kabul.

But Bin Laden's death has altered the American political calculus, delivering up fresh possibilities for crafting an exit strategy. Though it still remains an important link to the Taliban, Pakistan's leverage will diminish both as a result of political pressure over the potential complicity of its security establishment in hiding Bin Laden, as well as in the face of an as yet embryonic consensus in Washington towards a faster withdrawal from Afghanistan in light of Bin Laden's death.

The American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was always about demonstrating American power and hitting back at Bin Laden, even if other narratives had to be crafted to justify the mission's high-mindedness or strategic value. With his death in Pakistan, Bin Laden's story can now be uprooted and severed from Afghanistan. Like Bin Laden, the tale of Afghanistan's unending suffering will also be buried at sea.

Shibil Siddiqi is a Fellow with the Center for the Study of Global Power and Politics at Trent University and a contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives and ZNet. He can be reached at shibil.siddiqi@gmail.com.

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/05/21/us-hopes-to-harness-arab-revolution.html

US hopes to harness Arab revolution
Melkulangara BHADRAKUMAR | 21.05.2011 | 13:17

If one were to describe United States President Barack Obama’s long-awaited policy speech on the upheaval in the Middle East, it is best done in the hackneyed phrase – ‘old wine in new bottle’. The US hopes to harness the Arab Spring to perpetuate its geopolitical dominance in the Middle East. Obama’s speech betrays that the US’ interests invariably trump its professed ‘values’…

Obama froze the assets of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi and of Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. But what about the multi-trillion dollar worth of petrodollar loot kept in the vaults of western banks by the Arab despots? Obama sees the Middle Eastern winds for democratic reforms sweeping over only seven countries – Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iran, Yemen and Bahrain.

He saw them for sure over the Egyptian pyramids but then his eyes looked over Gaza and Lebanon and the Dead Sea and the Hashemite kingdom. Obama can next see the Arab revolutionary winds only as they begin descending on Syria. Stunningly, Obama can’t see any trace of the great Middle Eastern winds appearing on the sand dunes of the Arabian Peninsula though the Gulf of Aqaba is within his eyesight.

From Syria, Obama sees the winds making a sharp detour to the east and swiftly crossing Mesopotamia to appear, lo and behold, over Iran. And after ransacking Iran, Obama sees the Arab revolutionary winds crossing over to Bahrain – contemptuously ignoring Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. When they takeoff from Bahrain, it is to disappear into the blue sea and then make a perfunctory appearance in Yemen. With Yemen, it is all over. The Arab winds of change apparently dissipate into thin air.

The big kings and their little princes and little princesses and the sheikhs who were trembling with dark fears for the past 100 days would be feeling relieved that according to the American gospel, the Arab revolution targets only 20th century republican states – not medieval monarchies.

Shorn of the high-flown rhetoric, the sum and substance of what Obama presented can be put down as follows:

- Having been taken by surprise initially, the US will now set about tempering the democratic revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

- The bottom line in Libya is regime change.

- Bashir Al-Assad of Syria, too, must give up power. He can quit or will be ousted.

- The US will not recognise the democratic legitimacy of ‘non-state actors’ Hezbollah and Hamas.

- The US will robustly pursue its containment strategy toward Iran.

- The stabilisation of Bahrain, where US’ Fifth Fleet is anchored, is vital and that seems only possible by reconciling the Shi’ite opposition.

- The US supports the transfer of power in Yemen brokered by Saudi Arabia.

How does Obama estimate the dimensions of the Middle East upheaval? He is categorical that it is a “story of self-determination”. However, change is not necessarily imminent. In some countries, change will be swift but in some other countries it may be gradual and “it will be years before this story reaches its end”.

How does America respond? Obama said the US will continue to pursue its “set of core interests” in the Middle East, namely, countering terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, free trade regional security and Israel’s security and Arab-Israeli peace. He insists that the Arab peoples do not pose any challenge to the pursuit of America’s interests.

The add-ons in the US policies in the changed circumstances will be the following “core principles”:

- US will oppose the use of violence and repression against the people.

- US supports a set of universal rights – right to assemble and practice religion, gender equality, rule of law and representative rule – “whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran”.

- Washington’s support for political and economic reform is going to be “translated into concrete actions” by using the diplomatic, economic and strategic tools at US’ disposal.

- This includes extensive networking, use of ‘smart power’ and providing assistance to civil society groups, “including those that may not be officially sanctioned”.

Obama presented a wholesome project to restructure the US’ economic ties with the new Middle East. “The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young… ensuring financial stability; promoting reform; and integrating competitive markets with each other and the global economy.” Washington has asked World Bank and International Monetary Fund to prepare a plan at next week’s G-8 summit on what needs to be done. The US will be writing off 1 billion dollars out of Egypt’s debts and will create Enterprise Funds on the pattern of support extended to the post-Soviet Eastern European economies for their transition and integration with the western world in the 1990s. The US also proposes to launch a Trade and Investment Partnership with the countries of the Middle East “to promote integration with US and European markets, and… to construct a regional trade arrangement”.

Obama made it clear at the very outset of his speech that US has got over its initial nervousness about the ascendancy of political Islam in the Middle East. The pragmatism in the cooperative attitudes of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt must have raised the US’ comfort level. Besides, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the overall degradation and weakening of al-Qaeda further strengthen the US assessment that any transformation in the region, if Islamic, would still be only on ‘moderately Islamic’ lines. Without doubt, on the basis of this confidence, the US is pitching for the democratic transformation of the Middle Eastern political order.

The caveat lies in the US’ order of pecking. Libya and Syria are the immediate targets for ‘regime change’. Egypt is central to Israel’s security and, therefore, must be fastened again as a strategic ally. The containment of Iran remains at the core of the US’ Middle East policy. The US seems to have given up hope of rupturing Syria-Iran alliance. Evidently, US is in no hurry at all to initiate ‘regime change’ in the GCC countries in the Persian Gulf. But Obama singled out Bahrain as a special case for immediate reforms. Why Bahrain, which is so staunchly ‘pro-US’? Several factors come into play. In terms of the criticality of Bahrain’s stability for the US’ Fifth Fleet’s operations, Washington estimates that the present situation is untenable and is a recipe for big trouble and turmoil in a near future.

The Bahrain king and the crown prince are inclined toward reform and reconciliation with the Shi’ite opposition but the Prime Minister, Sheikh Selam al Khalifa (king’s uncle) blocks reforms and the Saudis not only support his hard line approach but may have deliberately created a fait accompli through their own intervention in March precipitating a violent crackdown.

Contrary to what the Saudis propagate, US seems to estimate that the Bahraini Shi’ites do not really want an Iran-type Islamic regime. The Bahraini spiritual leader Sheikh Issa Qassem has openly opted for a constitutional monarchy rather than overthrow of the king. Most certainly, Washington has taken note that Tehran understands its limitations and is scrupulously non-interfering, its rhetorical posturing notwithstanding.

Again, the smaller GCC countries also harbour some disquiet about the Saudi intervention in Bahrain. Interestingly, Obama indirectly hinted more than once about his abhorrence of the Saudi ploy to stoke the fires of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarianism in the region. The point is, Bahraini Shi’ites draw inspiration from Iraq’s religious establishment rather than from Qom. Thus, US sees that Shi’ite empowerment in Bahrain can work to its regional advantage as well.

Obama’s ‘Syria challenge’ is going to be the main story in the coming weeks. Syria is very different from Libya in social formation. Syria has a well-entrenched political system, state apparatus and ideology. The regime has the will and capacity to resist predators from abroad. Moreover, Obama can’t swallow Syria in a single bite as a regime change in Syria could alter the entire Middle Eastern scene and throw Lebanon into great disarray. If one single thing in life can bring together Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia on the same side, it is probably their singular aversion toward an overthrow of the Syrian regime by the western forces.

Unlike Gaddafi, al-Assad is a ‘popular’ regional figure, well-liked, modern, rational, sensible and well-mannered. In short, Obama is overreaching in his threat to turn Syria into another Libya. The big question is did he really mean what he said? If not, what is Plan B? Equally, he probably knew his remarks on the Israel-Palestine question did not break any new grounds. True, he spoke of a two state solution – Israel and Palestine – based on 1967 boundaries and involving swaps, but left delightfully vague his stance on the core issue of Israeli settlements, Palestinian refugees or the status of Jerusalem – and most important, how he proposes to steer a peace process in the face of Israeli obduracy, and what territories are to be ‘swapped’.

The Arab opinion cannot miss that US’ strategic commitment to Israel remains pivotal to its Middle East strategy. In sum, Obama’s speech lays out an agenda for the perpetuation of the West’s political, economic and cultural dominance in the Middle East, a region which was central to the US’s Cold War strategies and remains, if anything, more crucial than ever in the emergent world order, which is characterised by ‘multipolarity’ and Asia’s growing prominence – and within that, China’ rise as a world power.

The Arabs will see through the high-flown rhetoric and comprehend that the US is desperately trying to wrest control of their revolution…

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use....
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67862/larry-diamond/a-fourth-wave-or-false-start

A Fourth Wave or False Start?
Democracy After the Arab Spring
Larry Diamond
May 22, 2011
Summary:

This period of change in the Arab world will not be short or neatly circumscribed, but an ongoing struggle between the forces trying to define the region's future.

LARRY DIAMOND is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Director of Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, and co-editor of the Journal of Democracy.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-devolution-pakistan-5348

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)
Source URL (retrieved on May 23, 2011): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-devolution-pakistan-5348

The Devolution of Pakistan
May 23, 2011
Ahmed Rashid [2]

Chaos still reigns in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship three weeks after the cause of the latest eruption—Osama bin Laden being killed by a U.S. SEAL team and lain to rest in a watery grave.

It would appear that Pakistan would like less and less to do with the United States, even as Washington demands a tougher but better new relationship. Witness the burning of NATO oil tankers carrying fuel to U.S. forces in Afghanistan in Landi Kotal—a town on the border that is one of the most heavily guarded in the country. Allegedly the perpetrators were Taliban, but who knows if tribesmen or intelligence agents were making a statement. Fourteen innocent Pakistanis were killed when one tanker exploded.

Conveniently, the government formally closed the road a day after the attack, citing the lack of security. As if on cue, Imran Khan—the cricketer and failed politician who is known to be extremely close to the army—has now launched a nationwide movement to stop the NATO convoys forever. Do the tens of thousands of Pakistanis to whom these convoys provide employment get a say? Not on your life. U.S. and NATO forces depend on this lifeline for some 40 percent of their supplies—but that number is down from 75 percent a year ago.

A week before this attack, a recorded session of parliament that included members of the lower and upper houses heard General Javed Pasha, the chief of the Inter-services Intelligence Agency, explain what happened at Abbotabad when the U.S. Seals flew in uninterrupted by Pakistani radar, security forces or even local police and discovered bin Laden hiding out in huge house less than a mile from Pakistan’s West Point.

Pakistanis expected the army would fall on its proverbial sword, and it did (for a moment) when Pasha begged forgiveness and said he had offered his resignation but Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gailani had refused to accept it. Then Pakistanis were really shocked. Their leaders turned against America for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty (nevermind that bin Laden had violated Pakistan’s sovereignty for at least the last ten years by hiding out there). Any hopes that parliament could try to change the army’s national security agenda—premised upon no peace with India, an influential role in Afghanistan and maintaining Islamic militants as proxies to pursue foreign policy ends—were quickly dashed.

The army asked parliament to give it clear orders what to do next. However, the ruling party led by Gailani and President Asif Zardari had already factored that in. They were easily able to turn the debate around into praise for the army and hatred and blame for the United States. Who cared about bin Laden and where he was found? It was all a matter of sovereignty. At the end of the long day, and with weak-kneed resolution, the parliament and government only reinforced the army’s discredited policies. Nobody resigned, nobody expressed the humiliation, guilt or shame felt by millions of Pakistanis.

Pakistan’s foreign and counterterrorism policies continue to be run by the army, ostensibly without government objection. Zardari, like a true Pakistani politician who puts himself before anything else, was thinking not of a failed national security strategy or of Pakistan’s growing international and regional isolation or of the impact this crisis is having on an already collapsed economy—but of next year’s elections, which he believes he can win as long as he can keep the army on his side.

Just to make sure the army got the message, Zardari and parliament’s resolution went further than expected, demanding that Pakistan shoot down U.S. drones that fly over its territory in the future and that Pakistan suspend NATO supplies.

It seemed that the only sane voice in this cacophony was that of opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who told the press on May 14 that: ‘‘Security and intelligence agencies should not topple governments, fund or promote one political party over another, formulate foreign policy in place of elected governments, divide political parties (or) create an allied opposition against governments and torture journalists.’’

A few days later his brother Shabaz Sharif—Chief Minister of Punjab, the largest province in the country—decided to halt six USAID programs related to education, health and waste management. Thus the Sharifs—also like true politicians—played both sides, the public and the army. The only ones who suffered were the recipients of the cancelled programs. Shabaz Sharif now joined dozens of leading TV show hosts in saying that Pakistanis prefer ghairat (honor) to food or education or livelihoods. An outsider may well consider the country is going steadily crazy.

The Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda appear to have little sympathy for this gross interpretation of ghairat. Two suicide bombers killed 98 paramilitary troops and wounded 140—all young men in training— in Shabqadar in Khyber-Paskhtunkhwa province this monrth. The Taliban said this was the first revenge attack for the death of bin Laden. They weren’t interested in the displays of ghairat by Pakistani politicians.

Another thing: It would now appear that the only thing Pakistanis are really keen on is remaining ambiguous as to what course of action to pursue next. Unfortunately, the Americans disagree and won’t accept any further vagueness. Senator John Kerry was totally unambiguous when he visited Pakistan and said directly that “Pakistan must take concrete, precise and measurable steps to combat terrorism.’’ He went on to add that ‘”the relationship will be measured exclusively by actions and not words.’’ President Obama was even less ambiguous, saying further U.S. attacks in Pakistan to kill or capture other al-Qaeda leaders could take place.

For now, Pakistan remains at sea without a paddle. There is little sense of direction or idea of how anyone will respond to the next provocation from the U.S., India or terrorists. This is not a country in a hurry to change its mind about its strategic direction.

Links:
[1] http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&username=nationalinterest
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/ahmed-rashid

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use......
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ME24Df02.html

South Asia
May 24, 2011
Pakistan's military under al-Qaeda attack
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ISLAMABAD - The brazen al-Qaeda-linked attack on the Pakistan navy's Mehran air base in the southern port city of Karachi on Sunday night marks the violent beginning of an internal ideological struggle between Islamist elements in the Pakistani armed forces and their secular and liberal top brass.

More than 10 heavily armed militants attacked the base from three sides, blowing up several sensitive aircraft including a United States-manufactured surveillance plane. At least 20 security personnel are known to have been killed and as of late Monday morning the militants were still holding hostages in the facility.

The attack has been claimed by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistan Taliban), but Asia Times Online contacts are adamant that the operation was orchestrated by al-Qaeda to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden this month by US Special Forces and carried out by 313 Brigade - the operational arm of al-Qaeda that is headed by Ilyas Kashmiri.

Following Bin Laden's killing in the town of Abbottabad 60 kilometers north of Islamabad on May 2, Asia Times Online wrote that the reaction of the militants would be carefully planned attacks on installations of the armed forces:

This would be the beginning of real fireworks within the military establishment should mid-level cadre - rogue elements - aligned with Sunni militants instigate attacks along the lines of the militant assault on the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008 that resulted in the deaths of more than 150 people. Trouble ahead in Pakistan's new US phase , May 18.

The attack began at about 10.30pm on Sunday night when the militants, carrying guns, rocket-propelled grenades and hand grenades, stormed the base. They blew up guard rooms before heading for a hanger, where they targeted P-3 Orion aircraft with rockets, recently supplied by the US to Pakistan, on which some American officials were working.

A senior security official in Karachi told Asia Times Online that the militants showed a lot of resilience and had pinned down security forces, which have to date made three attempts to eliminate the attackers and release the hostages. Some unconfirmed reports suggested that Chinese workers were among the hostages. A navy spokesman denied this.

The first move against the militants was made on Sunday night by Sindh police and Rangers, but they were immediately repulsed. Then navy commandos entered on early Monday morning, but they took at least 12 casualties. Later, the Special Services Group of the army was deployed and it has also received some casualties.

According to eye witnesses reports, the militants acted in a calm and relaxed way, firing at intervals. They appeared to have complete knowledge of the base and frequently changed their position. Very much like the Mumbai attack, the militants were well-equipped with arms, ammunition, food and drink.

"It was shown several months ago that the Pakistan navy is vulnerable to Islamists when a marine commando unit official was arrested," the security official said. "He was a member of the Mehsud tribe from South Waziristan [tribal area] and was completely indoctrinated by militants. Naval Intelligence never shared the information with the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] or any other security agency that during interrogation he confessed that militants planned to attack installations during the visit of a foreign delegation. Now, they [intelligence] realize how the organization [navy] is riddled and vulnerable to the influence of militant organizations," the official said.

The attack is similar to other major ones in the South Asian war theater:
# Mumbai on November 26, 2008 - 10 militants went on a three-day rampage.
# Police Academy in Lahore in 2009 - least 23 people dead and hundreds injured.
# The Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore in 2009 - six policemen killed and several injured.
# General Headquarters Rawalpindi in 2009 - several hostages taken and then released.
# Parade Lane Mosque Rawalpindi in 2009 - at least 40 killed.

Pakistani security forces confirmed that at least three of these attacks were carried out by 313 Brigade led by Ilyas Kashmiri while the others were blamed on Pakistani militants trained by Kashmiri (See al-Qaeda's guerrilla chief lays out strategy Asia Times Online, October 15, 2009.)

Military out of step
After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, Pakistan's top brass took a policy turn and joined in the US's "war on terror", but a large chunk of officers took retirement and with serving colleagues they helped the Taliban. This changed the dynamics of the Afghan war theater (see Military brains plot Pakistan's downfall Asia Times Online, September 26, 2007).

This collection of former and serving officers was responsible for a number of attacks on the military, including on military headquarters in 2009 and against ex-president General Pervez Musharraf.

Now, this nexus could become active again to revive regional operations, in addition to a possible mutiny against the top military brass. (See Trouble ahead in Pakistan's new US phase May 18.)

Before the incident in Karachi, Asia Times Online was contacted by militants by telephone to confirm future attacks in the following words: "We don't want any trouble inside Pakistan or in the Pakistan army, but we do want to create an environment in which it would be conducive for pro-Islam and patriotic elements in the armed forces to dislodge incompetent and pro-American military officials."

This is the third attack on a naval installation in the past 30 days - two were launched before Bin Laden's assassination.

"The Pakistan navy constituted a high-level inquiry committee after their bases were targeted last month," a senior security official told Asia Times Online on the condition of anonymity. "The teams arrived to Karachi last month and asked for our input. They were wondering why militants were targeting the navy as they were not involved in any anti-terror operations. We told them that the navy's own staff were hand-in-glove in those two attacks," the official said.

Kashmiri's 313 Brigade, which was earlier focused on Afghanistan, has clearly now turned its sights on Pakistan, where Kashmiri is known to have powerful connections among retired and serving officials in the armed forces. More attacks are inevitable.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11 published by Pluto Press, UK. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com

Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

[doctor_fungcool]

Saudi King Abdullah vows to "help Pakistan"

Published: May 22, 2011

Saudi Arabia’s King Shah Abdullah has vowed not to leave any stone unturned to help Pakistan overcome the crises it is currently facing.

He made this statement on Sunday during a meeting with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman at the Royal Palace in Riyadh.

Sources say the JUI chief discussed regional politics and issues of bilateral interest. Rehman also expressed his grief over the killing of a Saudi diplomat in Pakistan.

Shah Abdullah assured the JUI chief that Saudi Arabia has everlasting ties with Pakistan and will try its level best to help Pakistan in any way it can.

KSA reject WikiLeaks

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has rejected a WikiLeaks cable accusing it and the UAE of financing extremism in southern Punjab.

The Saudi Arabian Foreign ministry has termed the claims baseless allegations.

The cable has revealed that financial support estimated at nearly 100 million US dollars annually was making its way to certain religious organisations in soauthern Punjab.

WikiLeaks claims the money was being transfered from organisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — with the direct support of those governments to fund extremism and terrorism.

In the cable, Principal Officer at the US Consulate in Lahore Bryan Hunt, refers to mosques and madrassahs run by Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith for receiving charity.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/173813/saudi-k...-help-Pakistan/

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/37789.htm

Renewal Of Violence Raises Questions About Capacity Of Iraq Security forces

The escalating violence in Iraq and the increasing attacks on U.S. bases in the southern part of the country coincide with the U.S. decision to withdraw its military forces from Iraq at the end of the year, as well as with the threats issued by what is known as the Islamic State of Iraq to mount attacks to avenge the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The terrorist activities in various parts of Baghdad yesterday were particularly bloody, killing and wounding 100.

Observers have linked the recent wave of terrorism to the debate over whether the Iraqi security forces, both army and police, are capable of maintaining security, as the deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces nears. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has announced that he would meet with heads of the political parties at the end of the month to determine whether to ask the U.S. to keep its forces in Iraq beyond the agreed date of withdrawal currently set at December 31, 2011.

Security expert 'Ali al-Hayder attributes the recent attempts to destabilize the internal front in Iraq to three factors: Al-Qaeda, Saddam's Ba'thists, and the intelligence organs of foreign countries which are opposed to the Arab nature of the regime, not only its democratic structure. Iraq has one million men under arms, but lacks the intelligence capabilities to identify the path of terrorism.

A parliamentary source said that al-Maliki would like the decision on the withdrawal or the extension of U.S. forces to be based on national consensus. So far, the Kurds are the only major political force which has openly advocated the extension of U.S. forces in Iraq .

Sources: Iraqhurr.org, May 22, 2011; Alsumaria.tv, May 21, 2011

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-attacks-20110523,0,1336118.story

17 Iraqis, 2 U.S. soldiers killed in wave of bombings
Attacks in central Iraq, most of them in the Baghdad area, highlight the tenuous security situation as militant groups continue to strike ahead of the planned U.S. withdrawal by year's end.

By Ned Parker and Raheem Salman, Los Angeles Times

May 23, 2011
Reporting from Baghdad—
At least 17 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday in a wave of explosions, mostly in Baghdad, including a suicide bombing attack against police, security sources and the U.S. military said.

The bloodshed highlighted the tenuous situation around Baghdad, where assassinations and other attacks still occur almost daily. It also drew attention to Sunni Arab and Shiite militants' continuing efforts to kill American troops, who are scheduled to leave at the end of the year. There has been an increase in the shelling around U.S. military bases within Baghdad's airport grounds as well as the American Embassy compound in the fortified Green Zone enclave.

* Related
* Wave of bombings in Iraq Photos: Wave of bombings in Iraq
* Two bombs kill 27 near Iraq police offices Two bombs kill 27 near Iraq police offices
* In Baghdad, weekly 'day of rage' is low-key event In Baghdad, weekly 'day of rage' is low-key event

The U.S. military declined to provide details on the attack that killed the two soldiers in central Iraq, which includes the Baghdad area. The deaths brought to at least 4,454 the number of Americans killed since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to the latest figures on the website icasualties.org, which tracks military deaths.

Eleven American troops were killed last month, the deadliest since November 2009.

On Sunday morning, a car bomb targeted a U.S. military convoy near Taji, the site of a major military installation just north of Baghdad, but it caused no damage to the American vehicles, according to an Iraqi security official. When police gathered at the blast site, a suicide bomber approached and blew himself up, killing 10 police officers and wounding 16 people, the official said.

The attack was the third major bombing against police this month, following Thursday's double bombing outside police headquarters in the northern city of Kirkuk that killed at least 27 people and a separate attack on police offices in Hillah, south of Baghdad, that left 16 dead.

The attacks were a reminder that Iraq remains without a defense or interior minister five months after a coalition government was sworn in.

The wave of explosions included a series of blasts during Baghdad's morning rush hour that left six people dead, security officials said. A car bomb in the western neighborhood of Amil killed a policeman on patrol and wounded three of his colleagues. Four civilians were killed and 15 wounded in four roadside explosions in the western Shiite neighborhood of Bayaa. A car bombing injured nine people in the eastern district of Sadr City, and a roadside bomb nearby killed a civilian.

The motorcade of a brigadier general with the Interior Ministry was hit by a bomb, killing one civilian and wounding three others. A second attack on the U.S. military was reported Sunday evening, with a security official saying a roadside bomb had struck a Humvee outside the neighborhood of Amiriya in west Baghdad.

People expressed frustration over the bombings and strikes against Iraq's police. "The security forces are targeted more because they represent the security situation and they are responsible for it," said Hassan Kabi, a Sadr City resident. "Hitting them is a message to all that the situation is not good."

ned.parker@latimes.com

Salman is a staff writer in The Times' Baghdad bureau.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use....
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n....-tells-a-muslim-brotherhood-leader-2011-05-23


'Shariah in Egypt is enough for us,' Muslim Brotherhood leader says

Monday, May 23, 2011
İPEK YEZDANİ
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News

Fears that the Muslim Brotherhood might bring an Islamic regime to Egypt are unfounded, one of the leaders of the recently legalized group said Monday, explaining that shariah is already in the Egyptian constitution.

“If you go to any court in Egypt, they implement shariah [Islamic law] first. This is more than enough for us,” Dr. Ashraf Abdel Ghaffar, one of the leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, told the Hürriyet Daily News in an interview.

If the Muslim Brotherhood came to power, however, it would only support tourism that does not come “at the cost of the beliefs of the Egyptian people,” he said.

“Egyptian people are religious people, whether Muslim or Christian; we cannot let things happen like people hanging around without clothes in a village or gambling in casinos,” Abdel Ghaffar said. “But anyone who would like to come to Egypt in order to visit the pyramids or Alexandria is more than welcome.”

There will be a complete separation between the political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and the organization itself, Abdel Ghaffar said, noting that the Freedom and Justice Party also has Christian deputy candidates and party Vice President Dr. Rafik Habib is a Christian.

“The Freedom and Justice Party will work without any interference from the movement,” he said.

Egypt will sell gas to Israel ‘if the price is right’

If the political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood comes to power in Egypt, it will sell the country’s natural gas at a much higher price than did the regime of former President Hosni Mubarak, Abdel Ghaffar signaled in his comments.

“Egypt is a rich and big country, but Mubarak made it small. We have lots of resources, including natural gas and oil. If we sell the natural gas at the normal international rate we will get an extra $3 billion every year,” he said.

Asked if they would continue to sell natural gas to Israel, he replied: “It depends on the price they will offer. You have to sell it to the one who pays the most.”

Abdel Ghaffar also said the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood has had good relations for a long time with people from Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, ever since they were members of the former Welfare Party led by the late Necmettin Erbakan.

“Turkey is a good model for us, but with some changes. The community here is different from the Egyptian community. For example you don’t have shariah in your Constitution, and no one can put it there, but in Egypt we have shariah and it will remain in our constitution,” he said.

Asked whether his group would try to engage any European institutions, such as the Council of Europe, he said: “Egypt will try to attend everything that will improve the country’s condition. Some people think if the Islamic people come to power, they will cut the relations of Egypt with the whole world, [but] this is not true at all.”

Abdel Ghaffar was arrested by the Mubarak regime in 2009 and spent one year in prison before being released in 2010. He has been living in London since that time.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers46\paper4502.html

Paper no.4502

22-May-2011

CHINA: ALL THE WAY WITH PAKISTAN

By B.Raman


China has gone all the way with Pakistan in the difficult situation being faced by Pakistan in the aftermath of the Abbottabad raid by some US naval commandos on May 2, which led to the death of Osama bin Laden.

2. This became apparent during the just concluded (May 20,2011) four-day visit of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani to Chinaduring which he met, among others, President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. The visit had been fixed weeks before the Abbottabad raid to mark the high-profile observance of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, but as it took place a few days after the raid, Pakistan’s much-doubted sincerity in fighting terrorismbecame the defining and dominating theme of the visit.

3. Even before Gilani’s departure for China, the Chinese authorities had made it clear in no uncertain terms on many occasions that they did not share the skepticism being expressed in the US regarding the sincerity of Pakistan in the so-called war against terrorism. The Chinese also refrained from subscribing to the view that to have been able to live undetected for over five years atAbbottabad, OBL must have had some local support from official circles in Pakistan. They had no hesitation in endorsing the claims made by Pakistan that its security forces had made huge sacrifices in the war against terrorism.

4. These points were reiterated with even greater force by the Chinese during their interactions with Gilani after his arrival inChina. It was apparent that the Chinese leaders have had no difficulty in accepting the claims of Pakistan that it was taken by surprise by OBL being found in Abbottabad. While refraining from any comments that could have been misinterpreted as criticism of the unilateral US raid to kill OBL, the Chinese underlined their own preference for joint operations with Pakistan in dealing with the Uighur dissidents operating on both sides of Pakistan’s border with the Chinese-controlled Xinjiang. The Chinese also refrained from any remarks that could be interpreted as an attempt to capitalize on the post-Abbottabad anti-US sentiments in Pakistan to drive a wedge between Pakistan and the US. Chinese analysts stressed the importance of continuing Pakistani counter-terrorism co-operation with the US on the one side and with China on the other.

5. During his meeting with Gilani, Hu promised to increase cooperation with Pakistan on fighting terrorism and cross-border crimes in a bid to create a sound security environment for the economic and social development of both countries. Huexpressed his appreciation of Pakistan’s contribution in the fight against terrorism, and said China would promote security dialogue and coordination with Pakistan.
He said China would join Pakistan in the fight against drug trafficking, cross-border crimes and the "three evil forces"--terrorism, extremism and splittism.

6. Pakistani journalists who had accompanied Gilani have claimed that during his meeting with Gilani, Wen said that Pakistanhad made great sacrifices in the global war against terrorism and urged the international community to understand and supportPakistan' s efforts to maintain domestic stability and advance the economic and social development. They also quoted Wen as telling Gilani that "Pakistan' s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected," and as disclosing thatChina had asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, understand its problems, address its concerns and acknowledge the sacrifices rendered by it in the war against terror. China was reported to have made this point to the US during a recent strategic dialogue between the two countries in Washington DC

7. The strong Chinese support for Pakistan on the counter-terrorism issue was also underlined in the joint statement ussued by the two countries at the end of the visit on May 20. The statement inter alia said: “China believes that Pakistan’s efforts for promoting peace and stability in South Asia need to be recognised and supported. The Chinese side recognised the tremendous efforts and great sacrifice that Pakistan has made in fighting terrorism and reiterated its respect and support for Pakistan’s efforts to advance its counter-terrorism strategy and safeguard its security.”

8. In a commentary on the visit carried on May 18, the Party-controlled “People’s Daily” said: “Due to special causes in various aspects, such as historical and tribal influences, the "three forces" headed by the "East Turkistan Islamic Movement" have existed for a long time in the tribal areas at the Pakistani-Afghan border. However, China has always respected Pakistan's sovereignty when combating the "three forces" jointly with Pakistan and understands Pakistan's enormous sacrifices and significant contributions in the forefront of the international fight against terrorism. Pakistan has also always supported China's sovereignty and territorial integrity in major issues related to the Taiwan region, Tibet Autonomous Region and the XinjiangUygur Autonomous Region.”

9. In a commentary published on May 20 in the Government-controlled “China Daily”, Han Hua, associate professor at Peking University's School of International Studies, said : “Instead of creating a gulf in relations, the death of bin Laden has offered a chance to Pakistan, the US and China to work together to combat terrorism. After all, the three countries' anti-terrorism mission is still very much on.”

10. Thus, the following points relating to the Chinese position have come out loud and clear from the visit:

* China welcomes the death of OBL as a result of the US raid.
* Despite the success of the raid which was organized unilaterally by the US, it stresses the importance of respectingPakistan’s sovereignty.
* Pakistan’s failure to detect the presence of OBL at Abbottabad does not detract from the sacrifices made by it in the war against terrorism. These sacrifices have to be recognized.
* China has no intention to capitalize on the US misgivings about Pakistan to wean Pakistan away from the US.
* Continuing counter-terrorism co-operation between Pakistan and the US would benefit the war against global terrorism which continues despite OBL’s death

11.Though India has not figured in any of the statements and reports emanating from China on Gilani’s visit, reading between the lines one could infer that Pakistan’s concerns over its ability to prevent any Indian air intrusions into Pakistan must have figured in the discussions. The reported Chinese agreement to expedite the supply of 50 JF-17 Thunder aircraft to the Pakistan Air Force during the next six months strengthens this inference.

12.The “Daily Times” of Lahore has commented on this as follows in its report: “According to official sources, these aircraft will be equipped with sophisticated avionics. Not only will the aircraft be handed over within weeks, China will also foot the bill initially. Although Pakistan and China have been jointly developing this multirole combat aircraft in the past, in the aftermath of the US operation in Abbottabad, serious questions have been raised about Pakistan’s defence capabilities. According to a strategic expert, the speedy delivery of 50 pieces of this aircraft, originally to be done over two years, is expected to allay apprehensions of not only the Pakistani public but will also send a message to the world that Pakistan’s defence is not weak. It might be remembered that not only has the Indian military chief speculated on the possibility of a US-style strike from the Indian side to take out jihadi outfits in Pakistan, there has been escalation on the Pakistan-India border near Sialkot recently. Also, observers believe that in a situation when the speculations are rife that Pakistan may not be able to resist another US attack inside its territory if it so decides, this agreement will send a clear message to the world on which side China stands.”

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/\papers45\paper4495.html

Paper no. 4495

17-May-2011

AFGHANISTAN 2011: IMPERATIVES FOR UNITED STATES TO RECAST STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations

The United States in 2001 had codenamed its military intervention in Afghanistan as Op-INFINITE JUSTICE and that seems to have been achieved with the US targeted killing of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces deep within Pakistan, his fortified hideout nestling in the midst of Pakistan Army major garrison town of Abbottabad. The United States later under Islamic pressure codenamed its military operations in Afghanistan as Op-ENDURING FREEDOM. With Osama liquidated and Pakistan Army’s perfidy now staring the United States, which was in a state of denial on the issue, the international community sincerely hopes that the United States revises its strategic blueprint on Afghanistan to ensure that ‘ENDURING FREEDOM’ in Afghanistan is crafted by the United States, insulated and ensured by United States military might.

Afghanistan finds itself in 2011 at strategic cross-roads, not of its own making but caught in a cleft-stick created by United States acts of commission and omission in American policy formulations on Afghanistan and Pakistan’s obdurate strategic obsession that Afghanistan rightly falls in Pakistan’s sphere of influence and that Afghanistan must serve Pakistani strategic interests.

Both the United States and Pakistan seem to be oblivious to the fact that Afghanistan is not the colonial preserve of either the United States or Pakistan. Afghanistan however politically and militarily turbulent today is an independent nation and deserves the right and respects due to a sovereign nation.

Afghanistan’s future cannot be decided in Washington or Islamabad. At best, Afghanistan’s future need to be decided in an equitable dialogue between Kabul and Washington since the United States has been in direct control of Afghanistan since 2001.

Ten years after the United States military intervention in end-2001 with the avowed aim of stabilization of Afghanistan by rescuing it from the clutches of Pakistan’s colonization through its proxy Taliban regime and the destruction of the global Islamic Jihadi terrorism infrastructure of Osama bi Laden and the Al Qaeda in Pakistan-Occupied Afghanistan the hapless nation of Afghanistan finds itself at square one.

The United States would not have been mired in a strategic quagmire in Afghanistan for the last ten years had it pursued relentlessly the US aims of military intervention spelt out in a Joint Session of the US Congress 0n September 21, 2001 by President Bush. Regrettably former President Bush himself reversed gears from his stated aims.

Pakistan traditionally and historically has been the Achilles Heel of United States policy formulations in the South Asian region. The international community and countries of South Asia were aghast when the United States co-opted Pakistan in its Afghanistan strategic blueprint to stabilize Afghanistan after nearly a decade of medieval Islamic brutalization by Pakistan ISI controlled Taliban regime that was placed in Kabul. Strategic amnesia seems to have colored United States thinking forgetting that Pakistan was complicit in the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s emergence and in the perpetration of 9/11.

Be as it may and there is no point in berating American follies in Afghanistan during the period 2001-2011 resulting from United States over-reliance on a duplicitous Pakistan Army/ISI and successive US Administration’s fawning of Pakistan Army Chiefs, namely, General Musharraf and General Kayani now.

What is at stake now is that with the targeted liquidation of Al Qaeda supremo last week by US Special Forces in a fortified hideout deep within Pakistan in a Pakistan Army major garrison town, how does the United States review and redefine its future strategic blueprint on Afghanistan?

Would the United States learn the correct lessons from the decade-long strategic follies of not surgically disconnecting Pakistan from its Afghanistan strategic blueprint or still persist in being adhesively stuck to its traditional mode of pandering to Pakistan Army sensitivities on Afghanistan?

Before examination of the imperatives of review of US strategic blueprint on Afghanistan post-Osama liquidation, one would like to recall two major US strategic aims spelt out by President Bush in his address to the Joint Session of the US Congress on September 21, 2001 and these were:

· United States global war on terrorism will target all countries that aid, abet or provide havens for terrorist organizations

· United States war on global terrorism will not end with the destruction of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda

The United States singularly failed on the first named strategic aim in relation to Pakistan and one cynically views the likelihood of United States achieving the second strategic aim as even with destruction of Osama the United States may hesitate/falter as it would again entail military operations within Pakistan if terrorist entities like Mullah Omar and the Lashkar-e-Toiba have to be neutralized.

United States imperatives for recasting its strategic blueprint on Afghanistan are examined under the following heads, briefly:

* Afghanistan 2011: The Contextual Security Setting
* Pakistan Army Stances on Afghanistan in End-2001
* Pakistan Army Likely Stances on Afghanistan in Post- Osama Liquidation Period
* Pakistan Prime Minister’s Harsh Attacks on the United States and Defending the Pakistan Army and its ISI
* Pakistan Prime Minister Plays the “China Card” Openly
* United States Imperatives for Recasting its Existing Strategic Blueprint on Afghanistan

Afghanistan 2011: The Contextual Security Setting

Security- wise, Afghanistan presents the following contextual security setting;

* Southern Afghanistan provinces bordering Pakistan continue to be under varying Taliban control and Taliban attacks on US &NATO Forces continue.
* Taliban is also attempting a presence in Northern Afghanistan
* Pakistan despite its repeated assertions that it has 80,000 troops deployed on the Afghan frontier is complicit or incompetent in preventing Taliban cadres to ingress into Afghanistan for attacks on US Forces
* Pakistan continues to provide havens for Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban in Quetta
* Pakistan despite forceful assertions that Osama bin Laden was not in Pakistan, was ultimately traced by US to a fortified hideout in the heart of Pakistan Army’s major garrison town deep within Pakistan where he was killed by US Special Forces last week
* Pakistan Army refuses to proceed against Mullah Omar and the ISI terrorist outfits affiliates in North Waziristan

Belatedly realizing after ten years Pakistan Army’s duplicity, Pakistan –United relations went into a denouement phase from last year. Rupture between the CIA and ISI is visible. The United States in the face of Pak Army Chief’s refusal to mount military operations in North Waziristan has resorted to intensification of drone strikes in that region despite warnings by Pak Army Chief.

The United States assertion to continue its military presence in Afghanistan till 2014 and even beyond has upset Pakistan Army strategic calculations on Afghanistan Pakistan Army has realized that despite somber media reports, US Forces are making appreciable headway against Taliban forces in Southern Afghanistan after the recent troop surges. This is again not good news for the Pak Army coupled with US drones-targeting of Pakistan Army affiliated terrorist strategic assets in North Waziristan.

In brief what continues to hold the United States and Pakistan in such a security setting is Pakistan Army’s desire not to disrupt the inflow of massive amounts of US aid and military hardware. For the United States the single military consideration is the reliance on Pakistan for its logistic lifelines to Afghanistan and the nuclear blackmail by Pakistan Army of the United States.

Politically, the United States is loathed to forsake Pakistan on over-exaggerated grounds of Pakistan’s state-failure and dangers of Pakistan nuclear weapons falling into hands of Jihadi organizations. This leads to strategic myopia in US strategic formulations not only in relation to Afghanistan, but South Asia as a whole.

Any worthwhile strategic review of United States policies on Afghanistan in the coming months would entail the United States disabusing the above perceptions from its strategic planning.

Pakistan Army Stances on Afghanistan in End-2001

A brief recapitulation is required to connect the dots of Pakistan Army stances which have a recurring repetitiveness all along in relation to its so-called support to the United States on Afghanistan as a designated Major Non-NATO Ally.

The following observations made by me in my Paper in September 2001 entitled “United States Blueprint for Operation INFINITE JUSTICE’ (SAAG Paper No 328 dt 24.9.2001 have held good in the follow-up period:

· Pakistan Army’s intelligence on Taliban and Al Qaeda would be deliberately inaccurate and misleading

· Pakistan would not rein-in inflow of Islamic Jihadists into Afghanistan

· Pakistan would surreptiously act as conduit for fuel and supplies for Taliban forces in Afghanistan

· Pakistan and its frontier areas could logically emerge as refuge for Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban cadres

Nothing more need to be stated on the sordid record of United States double-crossing by Pakistan Army Chiefs, namely General Musharraf and General Kayani thereafter.

Pakistan Army Likely Stances on Afghanistan in Post-Osama Liquidation Period

The Pakistan Army, the ISI and the Pakistan Army Chief were silent for the first 48 hours of the liquidation of Osama bin Laden by the United States in the cradle of Pakistan Army’s prestigious Pakistan Military Academy and three infantry regimental centers in Abbottabad.

Pakistan Army’s likely stances in the following period can be best assessed from answers to the following questions:

* Will the Pakistan Army discard its strategic obsession that Afghanistan needs to be under control of a Pakistan Army-friendly regime, preferably the Taliban to ensure ‘strategic depth’?
* Will the Pakistan Army dispense with the use of Islamic Jihadi terrorist organizations like the Taliban, the Lashkar-e-Toiba etc as instruments of state policy?
* Will the Pakistan Army be reckless enough to forego billions of US military aid and economic aid which sustains Pakistan? Or will it be able to persuade Saudi Arabia and China to offset US aid discontinuance?

The Pakistan Army on no account is likely to give up its obsession and strategy of viewing control over Afghanistan as a strategic imperative. Moreso sensing that US domestic political compulsions in the run-up to the next Presidential election would weaken US resolve to stay embedded in Afghanistan.

Continued.....

 

[Housecarl]

Continued.....


Tightening of screws by United States in the Post-Osama phase will not deter the Pakistan Army from its disruptive activities against the United States. On the contrary as Pakistan comes under increasing US pressures, the Pakistan Army and its ISI can be expected to ratchet-up the use for asymmetric warfare by the Afghan Taliban, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the other Jihadi outfits in North Waziristan.

Logically, Pakistan Army cannot be expected to forego billions of dollars of US aid but recklessness is the hallmark of Pakistani Generals. Pakistan seems to have done some contingency planning to offset US aid by similar aid from China and Saudi Arabia..

Additionally, the follow-up stances of the Pakistan Army will also be shaped by its readings and perceptions of United States intentions, especially the “strategic indispensability of Pakistan” in American policy formulations. This time around Pakistan Army may be overcalculating United States intentions on this count.

Pakistan Army’s follow-up stances are also going to be determined by the domestic political dynamics arising from a visible dent in Pakistan Army’s domestic image arising from the Osama liquidation and the Army’s ability to rebuild the scare of Talibanization of Pakistan for scaring the United States.

The Pakistan Army has harnessed the Prime Minister to defend on the floor of the National Assembly the services of the Pakistan Army and the ISI. In an unprecedented move the three Chiefs of the Pakistan Armed Forces along with other top brass have got themselves invited to give an in-camera briefing to the Parliamentarians on the Osama issue and the American operations deep within Pakistan last week.

Pakistan Prime Minister’s Harsh Attacks on the United States and Defending the Pakistan Army and the ISI

The Pakistani Prime Minister’s statement in the National Assembly on May 09 2011 to explain to his countrymen as to how the United States Special Forces could enter deep within Pakistani territory, carry out liquidation of Osama bin Laden in the midst of Pakistan Army’s major garrison cantonment of Abbottabad in an operation lasting forty minutes and then leave with Osama’s dead body for Afghanistan, was full of holes which defied all logical analysis.

Either the Pakistan Army hierarchy, notably the Pakistan Army Chief and his DG ISI were complicit in the US daring military operation deep within Pakistani territory to execute Osama bin Laden or the Pakistan Army is downright incompetent professionally to have been caught unawares with its pants down by the US execution operations. The latter is difficult to believe. It seems that the Pakistan Army Chief was complicit with the United States.

Pakistani Prime Minister’s statements with all its threats and dire warnings to the United States not to repeat such operations seemed to be a smokescreen to deflect Pakistani public’s criticisms on Pakistan Army’s incompetence and its ability to secure Pakistan’s frontiers.

International observers opine that the civilian political leadership in Pakistan failed to exploit the window of opportunity to tame the Pakistani Army Generals when they were reeling under Pakistani public criticism.

Contrarily, the Pakistani Prime Minister issued commendation certificates in the National Assembly defending the competence of the Pakistan Army and declaring the notorious ISI as a “National Asset”.

This indicates two things. First, that the Civilian government is still held hostage by the Pakistan Army and secondly defending the Pakistan Army and the ISI by the Prime Minister, which are under severe criticism and scrutiny by US lawmakers indicates that something is terribly amiss in Pakistan –United States relations.

Significantly, of greater import than the dire warnings and threats to the United States was that without any context the Pakistani Prime Minister played the “China Card” while contextually issuing threats to the United States. In other words the Pakistan Army through the Prime Minister was making it known on the floor of Pakistan’s Parliament that China could act as a countervailing power against any United States severe actions against Pakistan in the future.

China’s call on Pakistan’s assertions would be shortly known when the Pakistani Prime Minister visits Beijing on May 17 2011

United States Imperatives for Recasting its Strategic Blueprint on Afghanistan

The United States strategic blueprints on Afghanistan have repeatedly stood flawed in the last one decade of US involvement in Afghanistan. No efforts to set mid-course corrections were ever applied. Even the Af-Pak Strategy applied in 2009 was flawed and suffered from earlier infirmities.

Repeatedly asserted in my Papers on Afghanistan in the last ten years was the notable fact that United States Armed Forces and US Generals commanding the forces in Afghanistan were professionally competent and had the aggressive spirit not to allow Afghanistan to turn into another Vietnam for the United States.

The strategic imbroglio in Afghanistan in which the United States finds itself after a decade is the making of US Presidents and their policy establishments who “politicized” US Afghanistan military strategies to suit the sensitivities of the Pakistan Army, thereby impeding the military effectiveness of United States Forces in achieving decisive results in Afghanistan.

Should or would the United States policy establishment recast its strategic blueprint on Afghanistan after belatedly recognizing the duplicitous role the Pakistan Army has played against the United States and also taking into account the changed contextual security environment which dictate US imperatives to stay embedded in Afghanistan even beyond 2014?

Recasting a strategic blueprint on Afghanistan would need to address the following issues by the United States: (1) United States long term strategic interests in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Gulf Region (2) United States imperatives to “insulate” its recasted Afghanistan strategic blueprint from the next Presidential Election political expediencies. (3) Pakistan’s future role in the United States strategic calculus in the region ( 4 ) China-Pakistan Army military nexus and its impact on vital US strategic interests in the region.

United States long term strategic interests in Afghanistan need to be determined by US national security interests in Central Asia and the Gulf Region. A stable and secure Afghanistan in which US Forces stay embedded in Afghanistan under a Mutual Security Treaty like the ones with Japan and South Korea would ensure that the United States is not displaced strategically from the heartland of Asia. United States future strategic blueprints on Afghanistan cannot be premised on transactional relationships or spasmodic engagements.

Afghanistan requires a long term strategic commitment by the United States and any such long term strategic commitment cannot be politicized in Presidential Election year political expediencies to make political gains. The United States never allowed this in the case of Japan and South Korea, though at times the nuances may have changed. Yet the value of the strategic relationship and mutual security benefits were never devalued. The same approach needs to be adopted by the United States in relation to Afghanistan.

The United States policy establishment has a propensity born out of Cold War mindsets to accord over-exaggerated strategic importance to Pakistan in the US strategic calculus. The results have always been disastrous for the United States strategically. Thepost-2001 United States-Pakistan relationship and its sordid outcome should prompt the US policy establishment ad its strategic planners to take their blinkers off and have a renewed appraisal of Pakistan’s strategic utility in the overall US strategic calculus for the future.

It dents the power-image of the United States globally when the perception is gaining ground that Pakistan as a failing state and a rogue state has been able to “blackmail” a Superpower like the United States on the strength of its nuclear arsenal and its nuclear waywardness.

The United States has yet not become strategically aware of the intensified strategic and military nexus of China with the Pakistan Army and its impact on vital US strategic interests in the region. The public articulation of playing the ‘China Card” by the Pakistani Prime Minister in the National Assembly implicitly against the United States should be an eye-opener for the United States policy establishment and strategic planners.

The United States needs to recognize that a possible outcome of the intensified China-Pakistan strategic nexus could be in the long run prompting the displacement or exit of the United States from Central Asia and the Gulf. It would also focus on filling the strategic void in Afghanistan in the event of a US exit by a joint China-Pakistan condominium in Kabul.

Both are ominous for the United States and any future US strategic blueprint on Afghanistan has to incorporate the above named factors as “Term of Reference”. Without these, the United States is condemned to repeat history in Afghanistan and especially so if the US still persists in keeping Pakistan connected to its Afghanistan strategic blueprint.

Concluding Observations

Many in the United States strategic community today baulk from a long-term and enduring commitment by the United States in Afghanistan. They cite that hundreds of billions of dollars would be required for such a commitment. The same set however argue concurrently to give over-riding priority to retrieval of Pakistan from state failure in which the United States has sunk hundreds of billions dollars without any tangible strategic gains.

The strategic community in the United States always conveniently forgets that it were the Afghan people who spearheaded the US strategy for exit of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan and it were the Afghan people again and especially the Northern Alliance who spearheaded the US military drive to reclaim Kabul from the clutches of the Pakistan Army Occupation via its proxy Taliban regime and their Al Qaeda affiliates.

On both occasions the much US-vaunted Pakistan Army played duplicitous roles against the United States in Afghanistan. Surely in terms of relative and comparative strategic analysis, Afghanistan deserves an over-riding priority in the US strategic calculus.

The United States therefore needs to incorporate in its recasted strategic blueprint on Afghanistan the imperatives of “Enduring Freedom” for Afghanistan and ensuring that deterrence is built-in to insulate Afghanistan from Pakistan’s aggressive meddling.

As for Pakistan, would the United States have the conviction and courage to ensure that “Infinite Justice” is made to prevail and that the Pakistan Army is called to task and account for its military adventurism on both its flanks and against the United States?

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com)

 

[Housecarl]

For links in article please see source.....HC

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/0...l-economic-order-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

BRICS and the international economic order — an idea whose time has come
May 22nd, 2011

Author: Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International

In its catchy 2003 report which conjectured that the combined GDP of the BRIC economies would exceed that of the United States, Japan, Britain, France and Germany, collectively, by mid-century, Goldman Sachs projected the sizes of the Chinese, Indian, Russian and Brazilian economies to be US$ billion 4.8, 1.4, 1.2 and 0.9 respectively, in 2015.

In fact, each of the BRICs surpassed its projection in 2010. Clearly, the future is arriving sooner than was thought!

Looking at growth prospects in the decade ahead, the protracted global under-achiever is not likely to be a BRIC economy. In fact, gauging by the influential body of emerging research on growth dynamics in economies labouring under large output gaps, excess leverage-induced dislocations and declining working age population structures (which have tended to peak virtually concurrently with asset price bubbles), the US economy appears to face structural headwinds to growth that would be familiar to old policy-hands in Tokyo.

If the future is arriving sooner than anticipated, the present had arrived much earlier than is conventionally presumed. Catapulted into the limelight as a result of their economic resilience (save Russia) during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and their track record as drivers of global consumption growth in the period since, the BRICS’ coming-of-age is typically dated to their inaugural, stand-alone leaders meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia, in June 2009. Yet the rise of the BRICS phenomenon can in fact be traced to a much earlier date: September 2003. At a Doha Round ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico that year, Brazil, India, South Africa and a loosely-formed G-20 agricultural group of developing economies chose uniformly to reject a skewed negotiating draft that the United States and the European Union had jointly sprung two weeks earlier and tried to foist at the ministerial. A revised draft around which a workable multilateral consensus could be built was produced the following year, in no small measure due to the creation of an inner Non-Group-5 (NG-5) in March 2004 comprising the US, the EU, Brazil and India, along with Australia.

Parenthetically, that Doha and international climate change talks have since dissolved into acrimony can be traced primarily to the inability of both developed and developing economies to arrive at operationally meaningful North-South bargains on the conceptual principles of special and differential treatment (S&DT) and common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), respectively, within these negotiations. Hard as it is to get the balance on S&DT and CBDR right at a moment of frenetic change in the global pecking order (the BRICS’ share of global GDP valued at market exchange rates rising from 8 per cent in 2000 to a little under 20 per cent in 2010), the tendency, further, of some developed countries, notably Washington, to unilaterally and indulgently adjust the terms of the bargain mid-stream has not made matters easier.

The confluence of interest at Cancun 2003 nevertheless provides a valuable pointer, both, to the shared characteristics that bind the BRICS as well as the fundamental purposes that they seek to realise. Each BRICS country individually constitutes one among a selectively precious list of non-Western states which, with variances, can afford the luxury of exercising genuine independent-mindedness within the international system. Yet collectively they nurse a common sense of impotency and marginalisation within many of the key institutions of global economic and financial governance. Hence their individual interest in accumulating voice and leverage on those multilateral issues that impinge on their development trajectories.

Each possesses a degree of leverage that ranges from the modest to the negligible in its bilateral economic dealings with the west (as the Brazilian and Indian leaders once again discovered in their recent summit-level exchanges with Washington), yet collectively they possess the wherewithal to resist Western economic impositions within multilateral settings. Hence their grouping format loosely akin to that of a credit union where individual worthiness is enhanced by membership of the group than would otherwise be the case if preferences were simply aggregated.

Each of the BRICS individually, furthermore, shares a competitive trade and/or resource relationship with the other, yet the daylight evident within each position in relation to the other on pressing issues of common international economic interest — trade, finance, development, climate change, global economic governance — is noticeably narrower, typically, than vis-à-vis the West. Hence the co-dependency that implicitly supplies the BRICS their mortar: that if they do not hang together, they will hang separately as defections are progressively engineered within their ranks by more powerful constituents within the multilateral system. And hence also the motivation of individual BRICS states in their pursuit of mutual self-help to occasionally bear the opportunity cost of forgoing narrowly self-regarding bargains — forcefully in evidence in Brasilia’s deferring to New Delhi’s defensive agricultural interests in Geneva at the July 2008 Doha ministerial and Moscow to the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) countries at the December 2008 Copenhagen climate change talks.

Altogether, then, the BRICS constitute a supple entente of rising powers, organised as a mutual support network that is committed to assist and backstop — sans recourse to litmus tests on intra-group cooperation — each other’s rise within the international economic order.

Looking ahead, and in keeping with the limited objective of accumulating voice and leverage on those multilateral issues that impinge on their development trajectories, lessening the dependence on the US dollar as the international monetary system’s — and their — principal reserve asset over a medium-term horizon appears to be the BRICS’ key international economic policy agenda item. To this end, a number of steps, individually and/or as a group and with varying degree of urgency, are already being implemented. To date, these include:

(a) internationalisation of their currencies, notably for China and to a lesser extent India — although the high hurdle of allowing domestic currency-denominated funds raised offshore to freely enter regulated onshore financial markets remains to be tackled;

(b) intra-BRICS bilateral trade settlement in local currencies which, gauging by the typical imbalance in trade with Beijing, is likely to witness a mushrooming of BRICS-domiciled banks offering RMB trade settlement in Hong Kong;

(c) calls for expanded tranches of SDR (Special Drawing Rights) issuance by the IMF so as to facilitate BRICS central bank reserve diversification — although the likelihood of such artificial reserve asset becoming a principal one would require a degree of global policy coordination that is frankly unlikely to be forthcoming;

(d) and, finally, opposition to constraints that interfere with domestic policy space to manage volatile capital inflows that lead to the build-up of non-core, dollar-denominated liabilities within their banking systems — although the case for macro-prudential levies on such liabilities is yet to find official favour with the IMF’s Executive Board.

International financial integration remains fundamentally beneficial, reciprocally, to emerging and advanced countries. For the former, it eases financial constraints for productive investment projects at a time when such projects are essential to their development. For advanced economies, the development of long-term, fixed rate local currency debt markets in emerging economies, engendered by such integration, offers higher returns as well reduces emerging market incentives to plough their glut of savings into dollar assets.

Given however that phases of high international capital mobility have tended to serially produce financial crises, and that the leveraging-deleveraging cycle of the banking sector has been the key channel of instability, a new international monetary architecture with built-in insurance buffers to guard against sudden-stop capital flows and a principles-based insolvency mechanism to facilitate orderly default, remains essential to the case for deepening BRICS and emerging market integration within the international monetary system (IMS) . With the European Union already having proceeded down this route earlier this year (by way of the European Stability Mechanism), and with US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner having assented to a variation of such a bankruptcy mechanism in his capacity as the IMF’s deputy managing director a decade ago, it’s time to commence a debate to ensure a similar re-write of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement to statutorily incorporate such an insolvency procedure within the global financial order.

Sourabh Gupta is a Senior Research Associate at Samuels International Associates, Inc. in Washington DC, and a contributor to EAF.

 

[rodeorector]

'Shariah in Egypt is enough for us,' Muslim Brotherhood leader says.......

I thought we didn't know the outcome of the rebellion, and that the muslim brotherhood was insignificant. This sounds pretty well organized to me. It also sounds like we (and NATO) are fighting in support of the muslim brotherhood. Surely not.