International Terrorism Monitor--- Paper No. 533
B. Raman
Some years ago, when Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the blue-eyed warrior against terrorism of the then President George Bush, was the President of Pakistan, its police had arrested an individual on a charge of belonging to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation. When he was produced before an Anti-Terrorism Court, it asked the Government lawyer to produce a copy of the notification under which Al Qaeda had been declared a terrorist organisation. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had overlooked declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.He promised that a notification would be issued shortly and wanted that the arrested person should continue to remain in custody till then. The court did not accept the plea. It ordered his release. It held that even if it was a fact that he belonged to Al Qaeda, he had not committed an offence because Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organisation under Pakistani laws.
2. Some years later, in December 2008 to be precise, the Pakistani Govt. placed Prof. Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political front of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), under house arrest in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist strike of November 26. The action was taken following the decision of the anti-terrorism Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council to include the JUD and the LET as associates of Al Qaeda and the LET.
3. Sayeed went to the Lahore High Court to challenge his house arrest. The Government lawyer told the court that the action of the Sanctions Committee obliged the Government to act against him. When the court did not agree with that contention and asked the lawyer whether the Government had any independent evidence of its own, the lawyer met the three judges privately and showed them what he claimed was independent evidence of the LET's links with Al Qaeda. The judges wanted to see a copy of the Government notification under which Al Qaeda was declared a terrorist organisation.
4. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the Government had not yet declared Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. The court told him that if that was so, the LET's having links with Al Qaeda is no offence under the law.
5. The court, which ordered the release of Sayeed on June 2, 2009, released on June 6, 2009, the details of the grounds on which it ordered his release. One of the grounds says: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation." The court added: "Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
6. Thus, eight years after 9/11, Pakistan is yet to declare Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.Osama bin Laden may be an illegal immigrant for having crossed over into Pakistan from Tora Bora without a valid visa, but he is not a terrorist under Pakistani laws. Is this sheer, shocking negligence or is there something more sinister to it? Does one require any more evidence to show that Pakistan's so-called war against terrorism is a farce?
7. Annexed is a copy of a report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on the details of the grounds cited by the court for Sayyed's release,
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
ANNEXURE
(Report carried by the "Daily Times" of Lahore on June 7, 2009)
LHC full bench issues detailed judgement in Hafiz Saeed case
Bench observes detention decision lacks solid evidence
* Bench says Pakistani laws silent on Al Qaeda being terrorist organisation
* Points out negligence in detention orders
Staff Report
LAHORE: A full bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) on Saturday released a 20-page detailed judgment in the detention case of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Dawa leader Col (r) Nazir Ahmad.
The bench held that the government’s decision to detain the Dawa leaders was not based on solid evidence and the material provided by the government against them was incorrect and even prepared after their detention. The bench observed that the government had no evidence that Saeed and Nazir had any link with Al Qaeda or were involved in anti-state activities, except the ‘bald allegations’ leveled by the Indian lobby that they were involved in the Mumbai attacks.
The bench on June 2, through a short order, while accepting a habeas corpus petition, had declared the detention of both Dawa leaders illegal and had ordered their release.
The bench held the material against the petitioners was mostly based on intelligence reports, which had been obtained after four months of their detention. Moreover, these reports were found to be incorrect as nothing apprehended in the reports actually took place, it held.
The bench observed that several intelligence reports were obtained during the period when the petition was pending, apparently to cover the lacunae, but there was no solid evidence or source to supplement the reports. About the Dawa leaders’ involvement in the Mumbai attacks, the bench observed that not a single document had been brought on the record that Dawa or the petitioners were involved in the said incident.
On the government’s point of view that the leaders were detained on the United Nations’ directions, the bench observed that in the Memoona Saeed vs Government of Punjab case, it had already been held that there was no evidence that Dawa had links with Al Qaeda.
Silent laws: The bench held that the security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan were silent on Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation.
The bench held, “Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement.”
The bench observed that it was mandatory for the detaining authority to provide grounds of detention, but it violated the provisions of the constitution by depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to assail their detention before a competent forum and also to know the allegations against them.
The bench held that this violation of law alone was sufficient to declare the detention of the petitioners illegal.
Negligence: The bench pointed out the negligence of the detaining authorities in issuing the detention orders. It remarked that even the second order passed by the home secretary did not contain that it was an extension of the earlier order, but from the language, it seemed to be a fresh order. This showed that the executive authorities had passed the detention orders in a careless manner, and did not even know that the detainee was already in custody. On the question of the review board’s authority to extend the detention, the bench held that the status of the board was of a recommending body.
The bare perusal of Article 8 of the Constitution revealed that a sitting judge of the LHC, nominated by the chief justice, was a member of the board but even then the LHC had set aside the order of the review board in different reported judgments. The bench remarked that even the apex court had already declared that the order of the review board was quasi-judicial and was amenable in writ jurisdiction. On the question of maintainability of the petition, the bench held that it was maintainable, as prima facie the government had no sufficient grounds to detain the petitioners as a preventive measure. The bench comprised of Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Justice Hasnat Ahmad Khan and Justice Zubdatul Hussain.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
DALAI LAMA KEEPS UP THE TIBETAN HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN
B. Raman
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has kept up his campaign against China on the question of the alleged violation of the human rights of the Tibetans in China by the Chinese authorities. Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, His Holiness has undertaken a visit to Denmark, Iceland, Holland and France at the invitation of his supporters and admirers in these countries. This was his first visit ever to Iceland. He had visited the other three countries before.
2. Keeping in view the Chinese sensitivities, the local authorities projected his visit as private, but many local Government leaders associated themselves with private functions organised in honour of His Holiness. Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller of Denmark met His Holiness privately at Copenhagen on May 29, 2009. Reacting to this, a statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: "This has ruined the friendly, cooperative atmosphere between China and Denmark. China expresses strong dissatisfaction and protest over this." Explaining the meeting, the Danish Foreign Minister said: "The meeting with the Dalai Lama does not change Denmark's policy or our wish to build an ever closer relationship with China."
3. From Denmark, His Holiness went to Iceland on June 2 and 3, 2009. His engagements included a public talk on “Compassion, Values and Happiness”, a visit to the Parliament House where he met the Speaker Mrs Asta Ragnheidur Johannesdottir and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and private meetings with the Ministers of Environment, Health, and Industry.
4. In Holland, His Holiness met the members of the Dutch Parliament on June 5, 2009 and called on the international community to make an independent assessment of the situation in Tibet and put pressure on China to end the "oppression". The Agence France Presse (AFP) quoted him as saying: "Please, international community, judge whether there is a problem or not. Go there and investigate. In case the majority of people genuinely are happy, then our information is wrong ... and we will have to apologise to the Chinese Government. If, on the other hand, there is real resentment to China's ... oppression, then tell the Chinese Government they should accept the reality and should start a realistic approach. Force is not a solution. My faith in the Chinese Government is becoming thinner and thinner and thinner, but to the Chinese people: we have never been shaken in our faith. Tibet's future lay within the People's Republic of China but with cultural and religious autonomy. We are not seeking separation."
5. While the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende avoided any meeting with His Holiness, His Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen met him privately at an inter-faith dialogue on June 5, 2009, at The Hague. The previous day, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the office of His Holiness released the following statement issued by him: " On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square students' democracy movement, along with others who take an interest in Chinese affairs, I respectfully honour those who died expressing the popular demand for the Government to be more accountable to its people. The students involved in the Tiananmen Square movement were neither anti-communist nor anti-socialist. Their speaking out in defence of the Chinese people's constitutional rights, in favour of democracy, and taking a stand against corruption, truly conformed to the underlying beliefs of the Chinese Communist Government. This was confidently stated by the then party chief Zhao Ziyang. Therefore, the forthcoming 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China presents a great opportunity to review the events of June 4, 1989. Great changes have taken place in the People's Republic of China since 1989. Today, it is a global economic power poised to become a superpower. It is my hope that the Chinese leaders have the courage and far-sightedness to embrace more truly egalitarian principles and pursue a policy of greater accommodation and tolerance of diverse views. A policy of openness and realism can lead to greater trust and harmony within China and enhance its international standing as a truly great nation."
6. His Holiness arrived in Paris on June 6, 2009, to receive the award of the honorary citizen of Paris. He told the media on his arrival: "China has imposed a death sentence on Tibet. Since March 2008 I have the feeling that a very old nation and its heritage and culture have received a death sentence. The Chinese Government makes a hard line policy, but the Chinese people are ignorant of the situation. The international community must go there to investigate, without restrictions." Lionnel Luca, President of the French Parliament's 170-strong Tibet Studies Group, who met His Holiness after his arrival, said: "He seemed to us very pessimistic. For the first time he told us that the March 2008 events were a provocation by the Chinese authorities. The Dalai Lama accused the Chinese state of sending its agents to smash up shops in an effort to blacken the name of Tibetan protest movements. "Luca belongs to the ruling party of President Nicloas Sarkozy.
7. In addition to statements by the Chinese Foreign Ministry condemning His Holiness' visit to these countries, the Government-controlled Chinese media also encouraged a discussion on the Dalai Lama in the discussion groups of their web sites. The following are typical of some of the comments in a discussion group of the "People's Daily":
"In Kashmir there is a permanent riot by Muslim against Hindu."
"Best to think beyond just one country"s border to embrace the entire world and recognize that we all breathe the same air. "
"Tibet is Chinese and Chinese are Tibetans."
"The Chinese Govt should not let this puppet of West & India Dalai Lama let down the great Chinese Government. Dalai Lama has been bought for a few dollars by the Western & Indian govts. Why does not India give freedom to Kashmir and wants Tibet to have its freedom? Why these double standards? Kashmir is an independant state occupied by Indians while Tibet is an integral part of China."
"China has little respect for any culture but its own. Look at their history of assimilation, repression of freedoms, and religious distrust. Another example is the closing of websites for the purpose of denying their own people from growth and exploration. Tibetans have been reduced to the situation in Dharmsala by the Chinese Government."
"Dalai says, "go to Tibet and see the hell on earth for yourselves". Why not go to Dharmasala and see what a pig sty the Tibetans have made of this once pastoral mountain retreat? The garbage is piled up as high on street corners and the Dalai Lama's own pile of words that trash out others. What a monk? Did he ever take vows? Rememeber proper speech, conduct, livlihood and so forth?"
"China alway has to be mindful that Western countries attempting to use human rights, freedom of expression and other tricks to create internal chaos inside China. It is easier to use Dalai Lama as a tool for this purpose. Never let your guard down China, overseas Chinese will back you all the way. "
"Why would any country want to keep a region that does not actually want to be part of that country? Why do you fear secession so much? Is China not big enough to cope with a few more neighbours? "
" The US fought a civil war to keep the South from secession. China is not the only country to want to keep the country from splitting apart. "
" Why do you assume that the Dalai and his gang speak for a whole region? And what would the Dalai and his gang take Tibet back to if allowed to separate? What do you really "know" about the true nature and intentions of the Dalai and his groupies? What do you really "know" about what life was like in Tibet under the Dalai (for the masses not for a few parasites)? "
"I have had the most success in trying to expose the ugly side and intentions of the so-called Dalai by showing the accounts of the hard-core Nazis who went on their expedition to Tibet in 1938 (some of whom, like Dr. Bruno Berger, became lifelong friends of the Dalai) and praised the system of Tibet under the Dalai as the kind of system of barbarism and cruelty that they believed in and sought to build in Germany and throughout the world."
"Most Tibetans would rather be Chinese than going back to backward, impoverished serfdom under the Dalai Lama with no modern roads and communications. It's the Dalai Lama's followers and ignorant racist Americans who are spewing all the lies and anti-Chinese hatred. "
"Sources of some of the facts on the Dalai? National Geographic Special and History Channel Special on The Nazi Expedition to Tibet; "Himmler"s Crusade" by Christopher Hale; "The CIA"s Secret War in Tibet" by Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison"
"Please take a note. With the previous riots done by the Dalai Lama’s cliques and supported by the UN countries and the U.S., now it is time for China to make a comeback by promoting a campaign for the charity in the name of Tibet’s progress by stating in all Chinese cities, the Dalai Lama and his buffoon flock aren’t the legitimate people to represent the Tibet majority of people, and at the same time to show that Chinese people are committed to the cause of Tibet."
"If the truth on Tibet was as this newspaper continually rants then there would be no need for the ranting. The fact is that this newspaper carries on an endless and constant series of attacks on the Dalai Lama and Tibet secessionists without EVER printing the opposing view, as does its master the CPC. That tells me that not even the people writing here on this topic believe what they say, they are merely trying to shout the loudest and hope it is accepted as the "truth".
"The best way to see the truth is to master the Chinese language. By doing that you will be able to read the historical records dated back to the nationalist regime, the Qing Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty and others. Then you will know that China"s sovereignty over Tibet and the theocratic system in Tibet isn't something cooked up by People"s Republic Government in the last 60 years."
"What you said is really trivial. Who cares? But we must continue to search for facts ourselves. The insurmountable obstacle to a better understanding of China is often in our own hearts. It is time to drop the prejudice, and see China ourselves."
"Please read what the Western Shugden Society says about Dalai Lama. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/index.php"
"Please educate the whole world about the truth of old Tibet and the progress of Tibet over the last 50 years. China under CPC has not only united the country physically but spiritually as well. Tibetans look just like the rest of Chinese. Tibetans are so nice, gentle, calm and full of life. China and every Chinese will not tolerate any foreign country interfere with Chinese internal affairs. As a 4th generation overseas Chinese descendent in USA, I love you China, Tibet, President Hu."
" Dalai Lama is really boring. He excommunicated all the Shugden Monks, Monasteries and any private individuals for making fun of his ridiculous position that has caused him to commit Political Suicide. Keep up the education and make Barack Obama aware of this Wolf in Sheep Clothing and tell Pelosi to stick with her Catholic roots. She is acting like a school girl."
"I remember when President Jiang Zemin came to the United States some ten years ago. He told questioning students at Harvard University that the Chinese Liberation of Tibet was similar to the United States liberation of the slaves in the South during our civil war. Since then I have looked into the history of Tibet, and have been horrified at the crimes against the Tibetan people perpetrated during the feudal system ruled by the Tibetan Buddhists. Shame on them and shame on the Dalai Lama."
"I think as long as we can remind ourselves to remain objective, and read about China from different sources of information, it is not too difficult to see China in the proper perspective. By doing so, it will become difficult for people like Dalai Lama and his supporters to mislead us. I believed in what Dalai Lama and his supporters said for a while, and later on I found that their stories do not add up."
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
His Holiness the Dalai Lama has kept up his campaign against China on the question of the alleged violation of the human rights of the Tibetans in China by the Chinese authorities. Coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, His Holiness has undertaken a visit to Denmark, Iceland, Holland and France at the invitation of his supporters and admirers in these countries. This was his first visit ever to Iceland. He had visited the other three countries before.
2. Keeping in view the Chinese sensitivities, the local authorities projected his visit as private, but many local Government leaders associated themselves with private functions organised in honour of His Holiness. Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Foreign Minister Per Stig Moller of Denmark met His Holiness privately at Copenhagen on May 29, 2009. Reacting to this, a statement by the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: "This has ruined the friendly, cooperative atmosphere between China and Denmark. China expresses strong dissatisfaction and protest over this." Explaining the meeting, the Danish Foreign Minister said: "The meeting with the Dalai Lama does not change Denmark's policy or our wish to build an ever closer relationship with China."
3. From Denmark, His Holiness went to Iceland on June 2 and 3, 2009. His engagements included a public talk on “Compassion, Values and Happiness”, a visit to the Parliament House where he met the Speaker Mrs Asta Ragnheidur Johannesdottir and the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee and private meetings with the Ministers of Environment, Health, and Industry.
4. In Holland, His Holiness met the members of the Dutch Parliament on June 5, 2009 and called on the international community to make an independent assessment of the situation in Tibet and put pressure on China to end the "oppression". The Agence France Presse (AFP) quoted him as saying: "Please, international community, judge whether there is a problem or not. Go there and investigate. In case the majority of people genuinely are happy, then our information is wrong ... and we will have to apologise to the Chinese Government. If, on the other hand, there is real resentment to China's ... oppression, then tell the Chinese Government they should accept the reality and should start a realistic approach. Force is not a solution. My faith in the Chinese Government is becoming thinner and thinner and thinner, but to the Chinese people: we have never been shaken in our faith. Tibet's future lay within the People's Republic of China but with cultural and religious autonomy. We are not seeking separation."
5. While the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende avoided any meeting with His Holiness, His Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen met him privately at an inter-faith dialogue on June 5, 2009, at The Hague. The previous day, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the office of His Holiness released the following statement issued by him: " On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square students' democracy movement, along with others who take an interest in Chinese affairs, I respectfully honour those who died expressing the popular demand for the Government to be more accountable to its people. The students involved in the Tiananmen Square movement were neither anti-communist nor anti-socialist. Their speaking out in defence of the Chinese people's constitutional rights, in favour of democracy, and taking a stand against corruption, truly conformed to the underlying beliefs of the Chinese Communist Government. This was confidently stated by the then party chief Zhao Ziyang. Therefore, the forthcoming 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China presents a great opportunity to review the events of June 4, 1989. Great changes have taken place in the People's Republic of China since 1989. Today, it is a global economic power poised to become a superpower. It is my hope that the Chinese leaders have the courage and far-sightedness to embrace more truly egalitarian principles and pursue a policy of greater accommodation and tolerance of diverse views. A policy of openness and realism can lead to greater trust and harmony within China and enhance its international standing as a truly great nation."
6. His Holiness arrived in Paris on June 6, 2009, to receive the award of the honorary citizen of Paris. He told the media on his arrival: "China has imposed a death sentence on Tibet. Since March 2008 I have the feeling that a very old nation and its heritage and culture have received a death sentence. The Chinese Government makes a hard line policy, but the Chinese people are ignorant of the situation. The international community must go there to investigate, without restrictions." Lionnel Luca, President of the French Parliament's 170-strong Tibet Studies Group, who met His Holiness after his arrival, said: "He seemed to us very pessimistic. For the first time he told us that the March 2008 events were a provocation by the Chinese authorities. The Dalai Lama accused the Chinese state of sending its agents to smash up shops in an effort to blacken the name of Tibetan protest movements. "Luca belongs to the ruling party of President Nicloas Sarkozy.
7. In addition to statements by the Chinese Foreign Ministry condemning His Holiness' visit to these countries, the Government-controlled Chinese media also encouraged a discussion on the Dalai Lama in the discussion groups of their web sites. The following are typical of some of the comments in a discussion group of the "People's Daily":
"In Kashmir there is a permanent riot by Muslim against Hindu."
"Best to think beyond just one country"s border to embrace the entire world and recognize that we all breathe the same air. "
"Tibet is Chinese and Chinese are Tibetans."
"The Chinese Govt should not let this puppet of West & India Dalai Lama let down the great Chinese Government. Dalai Lama has been bought for a few dollars by the Western & Indian govts. Why does not India give freedom to Kashmir and wants Tibet to have its freedom? Why these double standards? Kashmir is an independant state occupied by Indians while Tibet is an integral part of China."
"China has little respect for any culture but its own. Look at their history of assimilation, repression of freedoms, and religious distrust. Another example is the closing of websites for the purpose of denying their own people from growth and exploration. Tibetans have been reduced to the situation in Dharmsala by the Chinese Government."
"Dalai says, "go to Tibet and see the hell on earth for yourselves". Why not go to Dharmasala and see what a pig sty the Tibetans have made of this once pastoral mountain retreat? The garbage is piled up as high on street corners and the Dalai Lama's own pile of words that trash out others. What a monk? Did he ever take vows? Rememeber proper speech, conduct, livlihood and so forth?"
"China alway has to be mindful that Western countries attempting to use human rights, freedom of expression and other tricks to create internal chaos inside China. It is easier to use Dalai Lama as a tool for this purpose. Never let your guard down China, overseas Chinese will back you all the way. "
"Why would any country want to keep a region that does not actually want to be part of that country? Why do you fear secession so much? Is China not big enough to cope with a few more neighbours? "
" The US fought a civil war to keep the South from secession. China is not the only country to want to keep the country from splitting apart. "
" Why do you assume that the Dalai and his gang speak for a whole region? And what would the Dalai and his gang take Tibet back to if allowed to separate? What do you really "know" about the true nature and intentions of the Dalai and his groupies? What do you really "know" about what life was like in Tibet under the Dalai (for the masses not for a few parasites)? "
"I have had the most success in trying to expose the ugly side and intentions of the so-called Dalai by showing the accounts of the hard-core Nazis who went on their expedition to Tibet in 1938 (some of whom, like Dr. Bruno Berger, became lifelong friends of the Dalai) and praised the system of Tibet under the Dalai as the kind of system of barbarism and cruelty that they believed in and sought to build in Germany and throughout the world."
"Most Tibetans would rather be Chinese than going back to backward, impoverished serfdom under the Dalai Lama with no modern roads and communications. It's the Dalai Lama's followers and ignorant racist Americans who are spewing all the lies and anti-Chinese hatred. "
"Sources of some of the facts on the Dalai? National Geographic Special and History Channel Special on The Nazi Expedition to Tibet; "Himmler"s Crusade" by Christopher Hale; "The CIA"s Secret War in Tibet" by Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison"
"Please take a note. With the previous riots done by the Dalai Lama’s cliques and supported by the UN countries and the U.S., now it is time for China to make a comeback by promoting a campaign for the charity in the name of Tibet’s progress by stating in all Chinese cities, the Dalai Lama and his buffoon flock aren’t the legitimate people to represent the Tibet majority of people, and at the same time to show that Chinese people are committed to the cause of Tibet."
"If the truth on Tibet was as this newspaper continually rants then there would be no need for the ranting. The fact is that this newspaper carries on an endless and constant series of attacks on the Dalai Lama and Tibet secessionists without EVER printing the opposing view, as does its master the CPC. That tells me that not even the people writing here on this topic believe what they say, they are merely trying to shout the loudest and hope it is accepted as the "truth".
"The best way to see the truth is to master the Chinese language. By doing that you will be able to read the historical records dated back to the nationalist regime, the Qing Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty and others. Then you will know that China"s sovereignty over Tibet and the theocratic system in Tibet isn't something cooked up by People"s Republic Government in the last 60 years."
"What you said is really trivial. Who cares? But we must continue to search for facts ourselves. The insurmountable obstacle to a better understanding of China is often in our own hearts. It is time to drop the prejudice, and see China ourselves."
"Please read what the Western Shugden Society says about Dalai Lama. http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/index.php"
"Please educate the whole world about the truth of old Tibet and the progress of Tibet over the last 50 years. China under CPC has not only united the country physically but spiritually as well. Tibetans look just like the rest of Chinese. Tibetans are so nice, gentle, calm and full of life. China and every Chinese will not tolerate any foreign country interfere with Chinese internal affairs. As a 4th generation overseas Chinese descendent in USA, I love you China, Tibet, President Hu."
" Dalai Lama is really boring. He excommunicated all the Shugden Monks, Monasteries and any private individuals for making fun of his ridiculous position that has caused him to commit Political Suicide. Keep up the education and make Barack Obama aware of this Wolf in Sheep Clothing and tell Pelosi to stick with her Catholic roots. She is acting like a school girl."
"I remember when President Jiang Zemin came to the United States some ten years ago. He told questioning students at Harvard University that the Chinese Liberation of Tibet was similar to the United States liberation of the slaves in the South during our civil war. Since then I have looked into the history of Tibet, and have been horrified at the crimes against the Tibetan people perpetrated during the feudal system ruled by the Tibetan Buddhists. Shame on them and shame on the Dalai Lama."
"I think as long as we can remind ourselves to remain objective, and read about China from different sources of information, it is not too difficult to see China in the proper perspective. By doing so, it will become difficult for people like Dalai Lama and his supporters to mislead us. I believed in what Dalai Lama and his supporters said for a while, and later on I found that their stories do not add up."
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
MUMBAI 26/11: STONEWALLING
B. Raman
We have had enquiries in the past into national security lapses and disasters such as our humiliation at the hands of China in 1962, intelligence failures during the Indo-Pak war of 1965 and the revolt in Mizoram in 1966, the security failures resulting in the assassinations of Indira Gandhi in October, 1984 and Rajiv Gandhi in May, 1991, and our being taken by surprise by the Pakistan Army in the Kargil heights in 1999.
2. The report of the enquiry into the Chinese occupation of our territory was never released to the public, but we do know that many of the actions taken by the Government of India post-1962 for revamping our national security management were the result of the deficiencies identified during the enquiry. Similarly, the report of the enquiries into the lapses during the 1965 war and the Mizo uprising was not released to the public, but we do know that the creation of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) was a result of these enquiries. The reports of the other enquiries were released to the public by the Governments of Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee. Whatever be the merits of the follow-up action, no attempt was made by any of those governments to cover up the failures and deficiencies.
3. Since 2000 the world has seen a series of major terrorist strikes--- the attack on the US naval ship USS Cole off Aden in October, 2000, 9/11 in the US, the explosion in Bali in October 2002, the Madrid explosions in March 2004 and the London explosions in July, 2005. Each and every one of those terrorist strikes was followed by a detailed enquiry ordered by the Government in power in order to identify deficiencies and faults, which enabled the terrorists to succeed. No attempt was made by any of those Governments to cover up the sins of omission and commission, which made those terrorist strikes possible. Follow-up action was taken to see that similar acts of negligence were not repeated in future and that identified deficiencies were rectified. The conclusions of the enquiries were made known to the public and were discussed by their respective legislatures.
4. On February 27, 2008, Mas Selamat Kastari, said to be a leader of the Singapore branch of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), escaped from a high security detention centre of Singapore. The escape of this dreaded terrorist created alarm and concern in Singapore about the state of their security agencies. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave his word of honour to the Parliament and the public that he would see that a thorough enquiry would be held to find out how he escaped, to identify the acts of negligence and take necessary follow-up action. He promised that there would be no cover-up and that the enquiry report would be released to the public and discussed in Parliament. He kept his word of honour.
5. Between November 26 and 28, 2008, Mumbai witnessed what has been described by many international terrorism experts as the most daring terrorist strike anywhere in the world since the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US. Nearly 170 persons, the majority of them civilians, including some foreigners of different nationalities and some brave police officers, were killed. The terrorists had virtual control of two leading hotels of Mumbai and a Jewish religious-cum-cultural centre for three days.
6. The terrorist strike, which was seen by the entire world on TV, caused such an alarm that some leading think-tanks of the world such as the Rand Corporation have already brought out detailed studies on the incident. The Homeland Security Committees of the US Congress held detailed sessions on the incident for which they invited leading experts to give their assessment of the incident.
7. The conclusion of some of these studies was that India neither had the required preventive capability nor the retaliatory capability to deal satisfactorily with incidents of this nature and hence, one cannot rule out repeats of Mumbai style attacks.
8. The terrorist strike took place in our territory. Our people were killed. An attempt was made tro shake the confidence of foreigners ---- especially businessmen--- about the security of life and property in India. We should have been the most concerned to find out what happened so that we can see that this does not happen again.
9. One would have expected the Governments of India and Maharashtra to order a joint comprehensive and independent enquiry similar to the enquiries held in our own country in the past and similar to those held in other countries since 2000 to identify the sins of commission and omission and the weak points in our counter-terrorism management and to take follow-up action. Unfortunately, the Government of India focused largely on Pakistan's involvement in the strike and avoided any independent enquiry into its own responsibility and that of the Government of Maharashtra, which made the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Lashkar-e-Toiba succeed in such a spectacular manner.
10. The Government of India was successful in its cover-up exercise because neither the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership nor the other opposition parties, whose responsibility it was to see that there was no cover-up, failed to exercise this responsibility. By their confused inaction, the BJP and other opposition parties played into the hands of the Government and unwittingly facilitated its cover-up exercise. Nobody asked questions about our own failures at New Delhi as well as in Mumbai.
11. While the Government of India successfully avoided any enquiry, the Government of Maharashtra did order an enquiry into the role of the Mumbai police. It set up a two-member enquiry commiittee consisting of R.D.Pradhan, an officer of the IAS cadre of Maharashtra, who had served as the Union Home Secretary, and V.Balachandran, an officer of the IPS cadre of Maharashtra, who had served for two decades in the R&AW and retired in June, 1995, as a Special Secretary. The enquiry committee has completed its work and submitted its report to the Government. The Government of Maharashtra has reportedly promised to lay the report on the table of the State Assembly along with an action taken report.
12. This was what the Vajpayee Government did in respect of the enquiry report by the Kargil Review Committee, headed by K.Subramanyam, the strategic analyst, who was at that time Convenor of the National Security Advisory Board. While there was a wide dissemination of the report and its critical findings, the only substantial discussion of the report was in the media. As a follow-up, the Government also set up a number of Special Task Forces to look into various aspects of national security management such as internal security, border security management, higher defence management and the revamping of the intelligence set-up. An exercise for strengthening national security management on the basis of the recommendations of these task forces was undertaken. Details of the recommendations of all the task forces except the one on the intelligence set-up were released to the public.
13. Anybody who had watched the TV during those three horrible days and read everything that was available to read about the terrorist strike would have noticed that there were apparent lapses which made the strike possible. According to sections of the New Delhi-based national newspapers, intelligence was available, but not complete and continuous. Two reports in September, none in October and one just before the strike. The follow-up action even on the available intelligence was ill-co-ordinated. Emergency response after the strike left much to be desired. There were complaints about inadequate and unsatisfactory protective equipment. The quality of the perational leadership at the counter-terrorism nodal points was criticised. There was an inadequate culture of joint action by various agencies responsible for counter-terrorism.
14. In his statement to the Lok Sabha after taking over as the Home Minister after the Mumbai attack, Shri P.Chidambaram admitted that the responsibility for follow-up action on even the available intelligence was diffused. It must be said to his credit that even though a formal enquiry of an independent nature was not held, he apparently made his own in-house enquiry to determine the deficiencies and correct them. He has tightened up our internal security management system and has been taking active interest in ensuring that the system would function as it should. The fact that an independent enquiry was not held does not mean that a comprehensive in-house exercise was not undertaken to identify and correct deficiencies.
15. But the public of this country and its legislators have a right to know what went wrong and why. The national security management system is funded by the tax-payers' money. When a terrorist strike takes place, it is their lives and those of their relatives that are affected. By denying the public knowledge of the acts of commission and omission, the political leadership is denying the public and the opposition an opportunity to judge whether the tax-payers' money allocated for counter-terrorism is being spent efficiently. The successful functioning of the national security management system depends not only on the quality of the various components of the system, but also on the co-operation which it is able to get from the public. The readiness of the public to co-operate will depend on the system's credibility in the eyes of the public. If the public is kept in the dark, how can it have the required confidence in the system? Today's terrorism is trans-national. Our ability to deal with it depends not only on our capabilities, but also on the co-operation received from other countries. If the others find that we do not have the moral courage to look into our deficiencies and admit them, what incentive they will have to improve their co-operation with us?
16. In the light of this, we should have followed the example of other countries and held a comprehensive and independent enquiry, different from an in-house enquiry. One was surprised to note that Shri Chidambaram firmly rejected on June 5, 2009, the demand of Shri L.K.Advani, the leader of the opposition, for such an enquiry. In an interview to some journalists, he gave the following reasons for his rejecting the demand: Firstly, the demand is belated as it came six months after the terrorist attack. Secondly, the Vajpayee Government did not hold an enquiry into the hijacking of an aircraft of the Indian Airlines by some terrorists to Kandahar in December 1999 and into the attempted attack on the Indian Parliament in December, 2001.
17. The attack on the Parliament was not an instance of security failure. It was an instance of security success. That was why the terrorists did not succeed. Kandahar was an instance of failure by the then Government. An enquiry should have been held, but the fact that no enquiry was held by the BJP-led Government should not be cited as a ground for not holding an independent enquiry into the Mumbai attack.
18. Shri Chidambaram is right in pointing out the belated nature of the BJP demand, but this should not be allowed to stand in the way of a comprehensive and independent enquiry, which would be in the national interest. I have been pointing out since 2004 that one of the reasons for things going wrong in counter-terrorism management in our country is the lack of activism by the relatives of the victims of terrorist strikes. It was the activism of the relatives of the victims which ensured a thorough enquiry in the US, the UK and other countries. One saw on the TV the way the relatives of the victims by rotation attended the hearings of the Congressional committees on the 9/11 strikes and the interest which they took in ensuring that the recommendations of the National Commission were implemented. Unfortunately, in our country, that kind of activism is not there. The Governments are consequently able to get away with their stonewalling.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
We have had enquiries in the past into national security lapses and disasters such as our humiliation at the hands of China in 1962, intelligence failures during the Indo-Pak war of 1965 and the revolt in Mizoram in 1966, the security failures resulting in the assassinations of Indira Gandhi in October, 1984 and Rajiv Gandhi in May, 1991, and our being taken by surprise by the Pakistan Army in the Kargil heights in 1999.
2. The report of the enquiry into the Chinese occupation of our territory was never released to the public, but we do know that many of the actions taken by the Government of India post-1962 for revamping our national security management were the result of the deficiencies identified during the enquiry. Similarly, the report of the enquiries into the lapses during the 1965 war and the Mizo uprising was not released to the public, but we do know that the creation of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) was a result of these enquiries. The reports of the other enquiries were released to the public by the Governments of Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee. Whatever be the merits of the follow-up action, no attempt was made by any of those governments to cover up the failures and deficiencies.
3. Since 2000 the world has seen a series of major terrorist strikes--- the attack on the US naval ship USS Cole off Aden in October, 2000, 9/11 in the US, the explosion in Bali in October 2002, the Madrid explosions in March 2004 and the London explosions in July, 2005. Each and every one of those terrorist strikes was followed by a detailed enquiry ordered by the Government in power in order to identify deficiencies and faults, which enabled the terrorists to succeed. No attempt was made by any of those Governments to cover up the sins of omission and commission, which made those terrorist strikes possible. Follow-up action was taken to see that similar acts of negligence were not repeated in future and that identified deficiencies were rectified. The conclusions of the enquiries were made known to the public and were discussed by their respective legislatures.
4. On February 27, 2008, Mas Selamat Kastari, said to be a leader of the Singapore branch of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), escaped from a high security detention centre of Singapore. The escape of this dreaded terrorist created alarm and concern in Singapore about the state of their security agencies. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave his word of honour to the Parliament and the public that he would see that a thorough enquiry would be held to find out how he escaped, to identify the acts of negligence and take necessary follow-up action. He promised that there would be no cover-up and that the enquiry report would be released to the public and discussed in Parliament. He kept his word of honour.
5. Between November 26 and 28, 2008, Mumbai witnessed what has been described by many international terrorism experts as the most daring terrorist strike anywhere in the world since the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US. Nearly 170 persons, the majority of them civilians, including some foreigners of different nationalities and some brave police officers, were killed. The terrorists had virtual control of two leading hotels of Mumbai and a Jewish religious-cum-cultural centre for three days.
6. The terrorist strike, which was seen by the entire world on TV, caused such an alarm that some leading think-tanks of the world such as the Rand Corporation have already brought out detailed studies on the incident. The Homeland Security Committees of the US Congress held detailed sessions on the incident for which they invited leading experts to give their assessment of the incident.
7. The conclusion of some of these studies was that India neither had the required preventive capability nor the retaliatory capability to deal satisfactorily with incidents of this nature and hence, one cannot rule out repeats of Mumbai style attacks.
8. The terrorist strike took place in our territory. Our people were killed. An attempt was made tro shake the confidence of foreigners ---- especially businessmen--- about the security of life and property in India. We should have been the most concerned to find out what happened so that we can see that this does not happen again.
9. One would have expected the Governments of India and Maharashtra to order a joint comprehensive and independent enquiry similar to the enquiries held in our own country in the past and similar to those held in other countries since 2000 to identify the sins of commission and omission and the weak points in our counter-terrorism management and to take follow-up action. Unfortunately, the Government of India focused largely on Pakistan's involvement in the strike and avoided any independent enquiry into its own responsibility and that of the Government of Maharashtra, which made the Inter-Services Intelligence and the Lashkar-e-Toiba succeed in such a spectacular manner.
10. The Government of India was successful in its cover-up exercise because neither the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership nor the other opposition parties, whose responsibility it was to see that there was no cover-up, failed to exercise this responsibility. By their confused inaction, the BJP and other opposition parties played into the hands of the Government and unwittingly facilitated its cover-up exercise. Nobody asked questions about our own failures at New Delhi as well as in Mumbai.
11. While the Government of India successfully avoided any enquiry, the Government of Maharashtra did order an enquiry into the role of the Mumbai police. It set up a two-member enquiry commiittee consisting of R.D.Pradhan, an officer of the IAS cadre of Maharashtra, who had served as the Union Home Secretary, and V.Balachandran, an officer of the IPS cadre of Maharashtra, who had served for two decades in the R&AW and retired in June, 1995, as a Special Secretary. The enquiry committee has completed its work and submitted its report to the Government. The Government of Maharashtra has reportedly promised to lay the report on the table of the State Assembly along with an action taken report.
12. This was what the Vajpayee Government did in respect of the enquiry report by the Kargil Review Committee, headed by K.Subramanyam, the strategic analyst, who was at that time Convenor of the National Security Advisory Board. While there was a wide dissemination of the report and its critical findings, the only substantial discussion of the report was in the media. As a follow-up, the Government also set up a number of Special Task Forces to look into various aspects of national security management such as internal security, border security management, higher defence management and the revamping of the intelligence set-up. An exercise for strengthening national security management on the basis of the recommendations of these task forces was undertaken. Details of the recommendations of all the task forces except the one on the intelligence set-up were released to the public.
13. Anybody who had watched the TV during those three horrible days and read everything that was available to read about the terrorist strike would have noticed that there were apparent lapses which made the strike possible. According to sections of the New Delhi-based national newspapers, intelligence was available, but not complete and continuous. Two reports in September, none in October and one just before the strike. The follow-up action even on the available intelligence was ill-co-ordinated. Emergency response after the strike left much to be desired. There were complaints about inadequate and unsatisfactory protective equipment. The quality of the perational leadership at the counter-terrorism nodal points was criticised. There was an inadequate culture of joint action by various agencies responsible for counter-terrorism.
14. In his statement to the Lok Sabha after taking over as the Home Minister after the Mumbai attack, Shri P.Chidambaram admitted that the responsibility for follow-up action on even the available intelligence was diffused. It must be said to his credit that even though a formal enquiry of an independent nature was not held, he apparently made his own in-house enquiry to determine the deficiencies and correct them. He has tightened up our internal security management system and has been taking active interest in ensuring that the system would function as it should. The fact that an independent enquiry was not held does not mean that a comprehensive in-house exercise was not undertaken to identify and correct deficiencies.
15. But the public of this country and its legislators have a right to know what went wrong and why. The national security management system is funded by the tax-payers' money. When a terrorist strike takes place, it is their lives and those of their relatives that are affected. By denying the public knowledge of the acts of commission and omission, the political leadership is denying the public and the opposition an opportunity to judge whether the tax-payers' money allocated for counter-terrorism is being spent efficiently. The successful functioning of the national security management system depends not only on the quality of the various components of the system, but also on the co-operation which it is able to get from the public. The readiness of the public to co-operate will depend on the system's credibility in the eyes of the public. If the public is kept in the dark, how can it have the required confidence in the system? Today's terrorism is trans-national. Our ability to deal with it depends not only on our capabilities, but also on the co-operation received from other countries. If the others find that we do not have the moral courage to look into our deficiencies and admit them, what incentive they will have to improve their co-operation with us?
16. In the light of this, we should have followed the example of other countries and held a comprehensive and independent enquiry, different from an in-house enquiry. One was surprised to note that Shri Chidambaram firmly rejected on June 5, 2009, the demand of Shri L.K.Advani, the leader of the opposition, for such an enquiry. In an interview to some journalists, he gave the following reasons for his rejecting the demand: Firstly, the demand is belated as it came six months after the terrorist attack. Secondly, the Vajpayee Government did not hold an enquiry into the hijacking of an aircraft of the Indian Airlines by some terrorists to Kandahar in December 1999 and into the attempted attack on the Indian Parliament in December, 2001.
17. The attack on the Parliament was not an instance of security failure. It was an instance of security success. That was why the terrorists did not succeed. Kandahar was an instance of failure by the then Government. An enquiry should have been held, but the fact that no enquiry was held by the BJP-led Government should not be cited as a ground for not holding an independent enquiry into the Mumbai attack.
18. Shri Chidambaram is right in pointing out the belated nature of the BJP demand, but this should not be allowed to stand in the way of a comprehensive and independent enquiry, which would be in the national interest. I have been pointing out since 2004 that one of the reasons for things going wrong in counter-terrorism management in our country is the lack of activism by the relatives of the victims of terrorist strikes. It was the activism of the relatives of the victims which ensured a thorough enquiry in the US, the UK and other countries. One saw on the TV the way the relatives of the victims by rotation attended the hearings of the Congressional committees on the 9/11 strikes and the interest which they took in ensuring that the recommendations of the National Commission were implemented. Unfortunately, in our country, that kind of activism is not there. The Governments are consequently able to get away with their stonewalling.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Saturday, June 6, 2009
ANTI-TALIBAN OPERATION PROJECTED AS ANTI-PASHTUN
B.RAMAN
The Pakistani military operation against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its affiliates in the Swat Valley and the adjoining areas of the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is increasingly being seen by sections of the local population as an anti-Pashtun operation forced on the Pakistani Army by the US.
2.Tribal sources report that pamphlets and posters accusing the Army of waging a war against the Pashtuns under the pretext of a war against the Taliban have started appearing in the interior areas of the NWFP. US analysts are being accused of over-projecting the alleged threat from the Pakistani Taliban in order to force the Pakistani Army to mount a full-scale military operation in the Swat Valley and the neighbouring areas. Well-informed sources in the NWFP say that it is also being alleged that some American experts deliberately exaggerated
the number of the Taliban volunteers who entered the Buner District some weeks ago in order to create a scare that the Taliban was marching towards Islamabad.
3. The large-scale exodus of internally-displaced persons (IDPs) ------estimated at a little over 2.5 million--- from the areas where the Pakistan Army has mounted a military operation against the Taliban, the failure of the Federal Government to make satisfactory arrangements for looking after them, the opposition to them from the local population in Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab and the reported plans of the Army to create a cantonment in Swat are leading to a fresh polarisation between
the Pashtuns and the non-Pashtuns. According to these sources, the Pashtun refugees have started blaming the US for all their troubles.
4.The Pakistan Army, which has claimed to have freed large parts of the Swat Valley from the control of the Taliban, has intriguingly refused to allow the Pashtun refugees from the Valley to move back to their villages from the camps for IDPs. No satisfactory explanation for this has been given. While the Army has allowed the IDPs from the Buner District to go back to their homes, it is not allowing the IDPs from the Swat Valley
to go back to their villages. This is adding to the resentment of the Pashtuns.
5. One possible reason for the Army's refusal is that it does not want the IDPs to move back till the semblance of a civil administration is restored in the valley. These sources say that the Army does not want to take up the responsibility for looking after the re-settlement of the returning IDPs when its hands are full with the military operations against the Taliban.
6. Maj.Gen.Athar Abbas, a spokesman of the Army, told a media briefing on June 6,2009, as follows: “The Army would stay in the area till a sense of security among the people is revived, a credible defence system by the law enforcement agencies, including police, is put in place and the possibility of the terrorists hiding in mountains coming back to launch a second phase of insurgency is obviated. This would not take less than a year.”
7. The visit of Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, to Pakistan from June 3 to 5, was projected as a humanitarian mission to monitor arrangements for looking after the IDPs and assess their requirements. The US has already contributed US $ 120 million for this purpose. The Obama Administration has promised to give US $ 200 million more after Congressional approval.
8.The UN authorities have reportedly estimated the total requirements at present as US $ 543 million of which the US has already given US $ 120 million and others US $ 137 million.
9. While there are already pledges amounting to more than 60 per cent of the requirements, there is no relief and rehabilitation
infrastructure on the ground to handle the disbursement of this amount. Apart from the UN High Commission For Refugees, no other international organisation is well-placed to co-ordinate. In the absence of a national and an international humanitarian relief architecture, jihadi and anti-US organisations such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), with well-tested and devoted cadres to handle humanitarian relief, have moved in.
10.In addition to organising the humanitarian relief with greater efficiency than the Government, they are also indulging in anti-Government and anti-US propaganda. Al Qaeda, which sees a new opportunity in the humanitarian situation created by
the military operations, has left it to the JUD to handle ground relief operations, but it has started adding to the anger of the IDPs by blaming the US for their plight.
11. Apart from some high-profile, photo-opp visits to some camps of the IDPs, Holbrooke seems to have devoted little time to working out the requirements for a humanitarian relief infrastructure on the ground. He is essentially a diplomat par excellence. Humanitarian relief is not his strong point. There is a need for the US to appoint a humanitarian relief co-ordinator, who can assist Holbrooke. (6-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The Pakistani military operation against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its affiliates in the Swat Valley and the adjoining areas of the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is increasingly being seen by sections of the local population as an anti-Pashtun operation forced on the Pakistani Army by the US.
2.Tribal sources report that pamphlets and posters accusing the Army of waging a war against the Pashtuns under the pretext of a war against the Taliban have started appearing in the interior areas of the NWFP. US analysts are being accused of over-projecting the alleged threat from the Pakistani Taliban in order to force the Pakistani Army to mount a full-scale military operation in the Swat Valley and the neighbouring areas. Well-informed sources in the NWFP say that it is also being alleged that some American experts deliberately exaggerated
the number of the Taliban volunteers who entered the Buner District some weeks ago in order to create a scare that the Taliban was marching towards Islamabad.
3. The large-scale exodus of internally-displaced persons (IDPs) ------estimated at a little over 2.5 million--- from the areas where the Pakistan Army has mounted a military operation against the Taliban, the failure of the Federal Government to make satisfactory arrangements for looking after them, the opposition to them from the local population in Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab and the reported plans of the Army to create a cantonment in Swat are leading to a fresh polarisation between
the Pashtuns and the non-Pashtuns. According to these sources, the Pashtun refugees have started blaming the US for all their troubles.
4.The Pakistan Army, which has claimed to have freed large parts of the Swat Valley from the control of the Taliban, has intriguingly refused to allow the Pashtun refugees from the Valley to move back to their villages from the camps for IDPs. No satisfactory explanation for this has been given. While the Army has allowed the IDPs from the Buner District to go back to their homes, it is not allowing the IDPs from the Swat Valley
to go back to their villages. This is adding to the resentment of the Pashtuns.
5. One possible reason for the Army's refusal is that it does not want the IDPs to move back till the semblance of a civil administration is restored in the valley. These sources say that the Army does not want to take up the responsibility for looking after the re-settlement of the returning IDPs when its hands are full with the military operations against the Taliban.
6. Maj.Gen.Athar Abbas, a spokesman of the Army, told a media briefing on June 6,2009, as follows: “The Army would stay in the area till a sense of security among the people is revived, a credible defence system by the law enforcement agencies, including police, is put in place and the possibility of the terrorists hiding in mountains coming back to launch a second phase of insurgency is obviated. This would not take less than a year.”
7. The visit of Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, to Pakistan from June 3 to 5, was projected as a humanitarian mission to monitor arrangements for looking after the IDPs and assess their requirements. The US has already contributed US $ 120 million for this purpose. The Obama Administration has promised to give US $ 200 million more after Congressional approval.
8.The UN authorities have reportedly estimated the total requirements at present as US $ 543 million of which the US has already given US $ 120 million and others US $ 137 million.
9. While there are already pledges amounting to more than 60 per cent of the requirements, there is no relief and rehabilitation
infrastructure on the ground to handle the disbursement of this amount. Apart from the UN High Commission For Refugees, no other international organisation is well-placed to co-ordinate. In the absence of a national and an international humanitarian relief architecture, jihadi and anti-US organisations such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), with well-tested and devoted cadres to handle humanitarian relief, have moved in.
10.In addition to organising the humanitarian relief with greater efficiency than the Government, they are also indulging in anti-Government and anti-US propaganda. Al Qaeda, which sees a new opportunity in the humanitarian situation created by
the military operations, has left it to the JUD to handle ground relief operations, but it has started adding to the anger of the IDPs by blaming the US for their plight.
11. Apart from some high-profile, photo-opp visits to some camps of the IDPs, Holbrooke seems to have devoted little time to working out the requirements for a humanitarian relief infrastructure on the ground. He is essentially a diplomat par excellence. Humanitarian relief is not his strong point. There is a need for the US to appoint a humanitarian relief co-ordinator, who can assist Holbrooke. (6-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, June 4, 2009
OBAMA'S CAIRO MESSAGE: LIMITED AUDIENCE,LIMITED IMPACT
B.RAMAN
President Barack Obama’s address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs.
2. The Arabs constitute a minority in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims living in countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia constitute the majority. The issues, which agitate them, are different from the issues which agitate the Arab world. Osama bin Laden understands this better than Obama and his advisers. That was why in his audio message released through Al Jazeera a day before Obama’s Cairo address, bin Laden focused on issues of immediate concern to the non-Arab Muslims in the Af-Pak region such as the large-scale displacement of Pashtuns from the tribal areas of Pakistan. By focusing on their plight and by holding the Americans responsible for it, he sought to make it certain that the anti-American anger in the Af-Pak region will increase rather than decrease.
3. Outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, the attitude of the Muslims towards the US is characterized by feelings of hostility or anger or skepticism. There is hardly any feeling of empathy or warmth. There are various reasons for the negative feelings towards the US. Some are country-specific, some are region specific and some are ethnicity specific. The negative feelings of the Arabs towards the US may be due to the Palestine issue and the perceived US support for Israel, but Palestine and Israel are not such burning issues in the non-Arab Islamic world.
4.Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.
5. If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader .Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates.
6. There are two ways of judging the impact----- what has been and what will be the impact on those Muslims, who have taken to terrorism against the US and other countries of the world and what will be the impact on ordinary Muslims, who stay away from the so-called global jihad, but at the same time do not nurse any feelings of empathy for the US?
7. The impact on the world of global jihad will be very little. Their views towards the US have been formed as a result of years of brainwashing in extremist mosques and madrasas. They are not going to change as a result of a beautifully-drafted speech beautifully delivered before an audience carefully assembled by the so-called apostates. They will continue to fight against the US, which will have to defeat them in the battle-field. bin Laden’s projection of the US President as Bush in Obama’s clothing will make a greater impact on the minds of the jihadis than the words and phrases of Obama.
8. The jihadi behaviour till now was influenced by the visuals, which came out of Iraq and Afghanistan. As the impact of those visuals decreases, Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations are trying to exploit the visuals of the plight of nearly three million internally displaced Pashtuns, driven out of their homes by a Pakistani war ordered by the US as bin Laden projected it in his message.
9. The impact on the ordinary Muslims outside pockets of urban elite will not be significant. Ordinary Muslims are not so naïve as to be impressed by a couple of quotations from the Holy Koran. Muslims outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are not enamoured of democracy. They have nothing against authoritarian rulers, provided they care for the ordinary Muslims. Mubarak is not an example of a caring ruler. Among Muslim rulers blessed and supported by the US, there is hardly anyone whom one can call caring for the common Muslims. The ordinary Muslims will judge the US by the company it keeps in the Islamic world than by the speeches of Obama.
10. Obama’s speech may help him back home by pushing up his popularity. Americans love such orations. It may not help the US much in the Islamic world. The use of soft power to counter pernicious ideologies coming out of the Islamic world is important. They have to be countered in a more subtle and sophisticated manner through personal interactions, dialogue in small groups, radio and TV programmes, Internet chats etc. A Cairo-style address is not suited for this purpose.
11. A mix of Wahabism and Deobandism of the Pakistani brand is the driving force of the global jihad and of the hostility towards the US. Deoband is in India. The Indian brand of Deobandism was benign and continues to be benign The Pakistani brand is venomous and behind much of the negative ideas influencing the attitudes and conduct of millions of Muslims. Unless the pernicious Wahabi-Deobandi ideas emanating from Pakistan are countered in an intelligent manner, the divide between the Muslims and the non-Muslims will continue to widen. How to do so? That is the question that should occupy the minds of US policy-makers. (5-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
President Barack Obama’s address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs.
2. The Arabs constitute a minority in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims living in countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia constitute the majority. The issues, which agitate them, are different from the issues which agitate the Arab world. Osama bin Laden understands this better than Obama and his advisers. That was why in his audio message released through Al Jazeera a day before Obama’s Cairo address, bin Laden focused on issues of immediate concern to the non-Arab Muslims in the Af-Pak region such as the large-scale displacement of Pashtuns from the tribal areas of Pakistan. By focusing on their plight and by holding the Americans responsible for it, he sought to make it certain that the anti-American anger in the Af-Pak region will increase rather than decrease.
3. Outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, the attitude of the Muslims towards the US is characterized by feelings of hostility or anger or skepticism. There is hardly any feeling of empathy or warmth. There are various reasons for the negative feelings towards the US. Some are country-specific, some are region specific and some are ethnicity specific. The negative feelings of the Arabs towards the US may be due to the Palestine issue and the perceived US support for Israel, but Palestine and Israel are not such burning issues in the non-Arab Islamic world.
4.Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.
5. If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader .Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates.
6. There are two ways of judging the impact----- what has been and what will be the impact on those Muslims, who have taken to terrorism against the US and other countries of the world and what will be the impact on ordinary Muslims, who stay away from the so-called global jihad, but at the same time do not nurse any feelings of empathy for the US?
7. The impact on the world of global jihad will be very little. Their views towards the US have been formed as a result of years of brainwashing in extremist mosques and madrasas. They are not going to change as a result of a beautifully-drafted speech beautifully delivered before an audience carefully assembled by the so-called apostates. They will continue to fight against the US, which will have to defeat them in the battle-field. bin Laden’s projection of the US President as Bush in Obama’s clothing will make a greater impact on the minds of the jihadis than the words and phrases of Obama.
8. The jihadi behaviour till now was influenced by the visuals, which came out of Iraq and Afghanistan. As the impact of those visuals decreases, Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations are trying to exploit the visuals of the plight of nearly three million internally displaced Pashtuns, driven out of their homes by a Pakistani war ordered by the US as bin Laden projected it in his message.
9. The impact on the ordinary Muslims outside pockets of urban elite will not be significant. Ordinary Muslims are not so naïve as to be impressed by a couple of quotations from the Holy Koran. Muslims outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are not enamoured of democracy. They have nothing against authoritarian rulers, provided they care for the ordinary Muslims. Mubarak is not an example of a caring ruler. Among Muslim rulers blessed and supported by the US, there is hardly anyone whom one can call caring for the common Muslims. The ordinary Muslims will judge the US by the company it keeps in the Islamic world than by the speeches of Obama.
10. Obama’s speech may help him back home by pushing up his popularity. Americans love such orations. It may not help the US much in the Islamic world. The use of soft power to counter pernicious ideologies coming out of the Islamic world is important. They have to be countered in a more subtle and sophisticated manner through personal interactions, dialogue in small groups, radio and TV programmes, Internet chats etc. A Cairo-style address is not suited for this purpose.
11. A mix of Wahabism and Deobandism of the Pakistani brand is the driving force of the global jihad and of the hostility towards the US. Deoband is in India. The Indian brand of Deobandism was benign and continues to be benign The Pakistani brand is venomous and behind much of the negative ideas influencing the attitudes and conduct of millions of Muslims. Unless the pernicious Wahabi-Deobandi ideas emanating from Pakistan are countered in an intelligent manner, the divide between the Muslims and the non-Muslims will continue to widen. How to do so? That is the question that should occupy the minds of US policy-makers. (5-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
MUCH ADO ABOUT AN AMERICAN SECURITY ADVISORY
B.RAMAN
There has been unnecessary excitement and unwarranted indignation over an advisory issued by the security officer of the US Embassy in New Delhi about the security precautions to be followed by American citizens travelling to India or living in India.
2.The advisory, which is available for US nationals on the notice boards of the US diplomatic and consular missions in India as well on the web sites of the US missions in India says as follows in a notice dated June 2,2009: "The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all U.S. citizens resident in or traveling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India. As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities. Americans should consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues.'
3. A similar advisory was issued by the security officer (warden) of the US Embassy on May 26,2009, regarding the dangers of unrest in Punjab following the alleged murder of a Sikh leader by some Sikhs in a Vienna gurudwara. It read as follows: "U.S. citizens are advised of the continuing tensions and civil unrest in the Indian state of Punjab. The killing of a Sikh leader in Austria May 24 sparked violent protests in many areas, particularly around Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Phagwara and Hoshiarpur. There have been no reports of foreigners being targeted, but due to the intensity of the protests, Americans could be at risk. The concern will be heightened when and if the body of the slain cleric is returned to India - possibly during the week of May 26-31. All U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Punjab should exercise caution, maintain a low profile, avoid all demonstrations, monitor local media for security updates, and anticipate major transportation disruptions."
4. Such advisories are routine and are issued by the security officers of all important missions to their nationals travelling to or residing in India. This is part of their responsibility towards the personal security of their nationals in India. The Israeli missions periodically issue such cautionary advice to their nationals in India----particularly to those planning to visit Goa. After the Mumbai terrorist attack of November,2008,in which many foreigners of different nationalities were killed by 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the frequency of such advisories has increased.
5. There are two kinds of advisories---- an advisory against travel to a country and an advisory about security precautions to be observed ina country. The advisory against travel to a country is issued by the Foreign Office of a country on the basis of the advice from the intelligence agencies. The advisory about security precautions to be observed in a country are routinely issued by the security officers of the diplomatic missions.
6. The advisory to which objection has reportedly been taken by P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister of the Government of India, has been routinely issued by the officer in charge of security in the US Embassy. There is nothing objectionable in the advisory and there is no ground for our protesting against it.
7. In fact, the security officers of all Western companies in India issue such advisories regarding security precautions to their foreign staff working in India. This is the right thing to do.
8. Every diplomatic mission is expected to keep advising its citizens about likely threats to their security. If our diplomatic and consular missions in Australia are working as they should be, by now they should have issued a security advisory to all Indian students in Australia in the wake of the violent attacks on some Indian students. Threats to personal security need not arise only from terrorists. they could also arise from others. If the Indian missions in Australia have not yet done it, it would reflect poorly on them. The Australian Government cannot object if they issue such an advisory.
9. We are making a laughing stock of ourselves by creating a rumpus over the US advisory and by projecting it as a negative reflection on India and as an insult to India by equating India with Pakistan. (4-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
There has been unnecessary excitement and unwarranted indignation over an advisory issued by the security officer of the US Embassy in New Delhi about the security precautions to be followed by American citizens travelling to India or living in India.
2.The advisory, which is available for US nationals on the notice boards of the US diplomatic and consular missions in India as well on the web sites of the US missions in India says as follows in a notice dated June 2,2009: "The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all U.S. citizens resident in or traveling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India. As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities. Americans should consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues.'
3. A similar advisory was issued by the security officer (warden) of the US Embassy on May 26,2009, regarding the dangers of unrest in Punjab following the alleged murder of a Sikh leader by some Sikhs in a Vienna gurudwara. It read as follows: "U.S. citizens are advised of the continuing tensions and civil unrest in the Indian state of Punjab. The killing of a Sikh leader in Austria May 24 sparked violent protests in many areas, particularly around Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Phagwara and Hoshiarpur. There have been no reports of foreigners being targeted, but due to the intensity of the protests, Americans could be at risk. The concern will be heightened when and if the body of the slain cleric is returned to India - possibly during the week of May 26-31. All U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Punjab should exercise caution, maintain a low profile, avoid all demonstrations, monitor local media for security updates, and anticipate major transportation disruptions."
4. Such advisories are routine and are issued by the security officers of all important missions to their nationals travelling to or residing in India. This is part of their responsibility towards the personal security of their nationals in India. The Israeli missions periodically issue such cautionary advice to their nationals in India----particularly to those planning to visit Goa. After the Mumbai terrorist attack of November,2008,in which many foreigners of different nationalities were killed by 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the frequency of such advisories has increased.
5. There are two kinds of advisories---- an advisory against travel to a country and an advisory about security precautions to be observed ina country. The advisory against travel to a country is issued by the Foreign Office of a country on the basis of the advice from the intelligence agencies. The advisory about security precautions to be observed in a country are routinely issued by the security officers of the diplomatic missions.
6. The advisory to which objection has reportedly been taken by P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister of the Government of India, has been routinely issued by the officer in charge of security in the US Embassy. There is nothing objectionable in the advisory and there is no ground for our protesting against it.
7. In fact, the security officers of all Western companies in India issue such advisories regarding security precautions to their foreign staff working in India. This is the right thing to do.
8. Every diplomatic mission is expected to keep advising its citizens about likely threats to their security. If our diplomatic and consular missions in Australia are working as they should be, by now they should have issued a security advisory to all Indian students in Australia in the wake of the violent attacks on some Indian students. Threats to personal security need not arise only from terrorists. they could also arise from others. If the Indian missions in Australia have not yet done it, it would reflect poorly on them. The Australian Government cannot object if they issue such an advisory.
9. We are making a laughing stock of ourselves by creating a rumpus over the US advisory and by projecting it as a negative reflection on India and as an insult to India by equating India with Pakistan. (4-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
WHY HILLARY CLINTON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST CHINA?
B. Raman
A significant development in the US-China relations has not received the attention it deserves. After having kept quiet on the issue of the human rights of the Tibetans during her visit to China in February, 2009, which was analysed and interpreted by many in a manner unfavourable to the Barack Obama Administration, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has come out strongly in articulating the US position on the Tiananmen Square massacre by the Chinese security forces 20 years ago and on the way the Chinese authorities have sought to suppress the truth from coming out.
2. In a statement issued at Washington DC on June 3, 2009, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the massacre, Hillary Clinton said: China should publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago. China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part. The anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day". China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." "China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform."
3. This is the toughest statement on China to have come out of the Obama Administration since he assumed office on January 20, 2009. One was expecting a statement of pro forma criticism without unnecessarily needling China. Instead, she has come out with a really strong statement which would be welcomed by the human rights organisations of the world. The statement came in the wake of the bonhomie that prevailed during the just concluded visit to Beijing by Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, to discuss bilateral economic relations. His discussions with the Chinese authorities were reported to have proceeded smoothly.
4. What then made Hillary Clinton come out with this statement, which is unusually strong for the Obama Administration? Two interpretations are possible. The first is that stung by criticism of what was seen by many as its soft line towards China, the Administration felt it necessary to correct this impression by articulating its position on the Tiananmen Square massacre in strong language. The second interpretation is that the strong line reflects a certain annoyance of the Obama Administration over China's reluctance or failure or both to exercise sufficient pressure on North Korea not to carry out its nuclear test of last month and its repeated firings of missiles.
5. In the past, there was considerable satisfaction in the US over China's role as a facilitator of the six-power talks on North Korea's denuclearisation. China is the only country in a position to exercise meaningful pressure on North Korea to give up the nuclear path. The indications are that apart from facilitating the talks, China did very little by way of exercising pressure on North Korea to co-operate with the international community. China strongly deplored the nuclear test, but beyond that it has done very little to make North Korea change its policy.
6. Is the strong statement on the Tiananmen Square massacre a veiled message to Beijing that if it does not exercise enough pressure on North Korea, that could have an impact on its improving relations with the US?
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com) Back to the top
A significant development in the US-China relations has not received the attention it deserves. After having kept quiet on the issue of the human rights of the Tibetans during her visit to China in February, 2009, which was analysed and interpreted by many in a manner unfavourable to the Barack Obama Administration, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has come out strongly in articulating the US position on the Tiananmen Square massacre by the Chinese security forces 20 years ago and on the way the Chinese authorities have sought to suppress the truth from coming out.
2. In a statement issued at Washington DC on June 3, 2009, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the massacre, Hillary Clinton said: China should publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago. China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part. The anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day". China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." "China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform."
3. This is the toughest statement on China to have come out of the Obama Administration since he assumed office on January 20, 2009. One was expecting a statement of pro forma criticism without unnecessarily needling China. Instead, she has come out with a really strong statement which would be welcomed by the human rights organisations of the world. The statement came in the wake of the bonhomie that prevailed during the just concluded visit to Beijing by Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, to discuss bilateral economic relations. His discussions with the Chinese authorities were reported to have proceeded smoothly.
4. What then made Hillary Clinton come out with this statement, which is unusually strong for the Obama Administration? Two interpretations are possible. The first is that stung by criticism of what was seen by many as its soft line towards China, the Administration felt it necessary to correct this impression by articulating its position on the Tiananmen Square massacre in strong language. The second interpretation is that the strong line reflects a certain annoyance of the Obama Administration over China's reluctance or failure or both to exercise sufficient pressure on North Korea not to carry out its nuclear test of last month and its repeated firings of missiles.
5. In the past, there was considerable satisfaction in the US over China's role as a facilitator of the six-power talks on North Korea's denuclearisation. China is the only country in a position to exercise meaningful pressure on North Korea to give up the nuclear path. The indications are that apart from facilitating the talks, China did very little by way of exercising pressure on North Korea to co-operate with the international community. China strongly deplored the nuclear test, but beyond that it has done very little to make North Korea change its policy.
6. Is the strong statement on the Tiananmen Square massacre a veiled message to Beijing that if it does not exercise enough pressure on North Korea, that could have an impact on its improving relations with the US?
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com) Back to the top
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)