B.RAMAN
"US was against Iran gov 30 years & now that they are killing PPL, they r supporting the Iranian gov!what a shame! "
So says a message from Iran.
Another says:" They call homes and a tape says you were in the protests,don't repeat otherwise you will be arrested. Tell people don't afraid."
A third message says: "Moussavi asks people to confront military with flowers not guns - we want peace. "
Yet another asks: "Will this be the Berlin Wall coming down or just another Tianenmen Sq.? I wonder to myself."
Messages in plenty keep coming out of Iran----despite the action taken by the security agencies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to block access to the outside world through the Internet and telephone to its poitical dissidents, who have mounted a determined campaign against what they describe as the fraudulent re-election of Ahmadinejad.
The Iranian authorities have sought to impose an iron curtain across the country to prevent news of the widespread demonstrations against the allegedly rigged elections from reaching the outside world. They have not been able to.
The dissidents have till now succeeded in keeping touch with each other and with the outside world. The messages sent across are very brief and in telegraphic language.
They give an idea of the anger which has been sweeping across the country. But they do not enable one to quantify the extent and spread of the anger. The demonstrations held in Tehran and outside by the reformists have been impressive. Their tactics recall those adopted by the anti-Shah demonstrators of 1978-79.
The word of mouth calls for demonstrating, which one saw in 1978-79, have been supplemented by mobilisation through the Internet.
There is a difference. The demonstrations of 1978-79 were guided and orchestrated from outside by a group of political and student exiles based in the West. The demonstrations of today are spontaneous.
There is so far no evidence to show any orchestration of the demonstrations by the exiles abroad. Nor is there any evidence to show orchestration by Mir Hossein Mousavi and other defeated candidates, though they have been joining them.
The demonstrators are anxious not to give an opportunity to Ahmadinejad's security agencies to discredit them by projecting them as acting at the behest of foreign agencies and elements.
While keeping the outside world informed, they are taking care not to give the impression of seeking outside support. They want to keep up the spontaneous nature of the demonstrations and to maintain their momentum in order to exercise pressure on the Government for the annulment of the election results and for a fresh election.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has evidently been on the defensive. After having initially given the impression of endorsing the legitimacy of the election results, he has now been trying to project a seemingly neutral position. He has asked the supporters of the reformist groups to let the Guardians Council decide on their objections.
The Council has suggested a selective recount in constituencies including some in the home province of Mousavi to check whether there were any mistakes or irregularities. The dissidents are not prepared to accept this. They are sticking to their demand for a fresh poll.
Whether they succeed or not would depend on whether they are able to maintain the momentum, peaceful nature and spontaneity of their demonstrations.
The Government of Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than an outbreak of violence or indications of instigation from outside.
The administration of President Barack Obama has been well-advised to avoid any comments, which could be projected as instigation. Congressional leaders in the US and other Western leaders should emulate this example.
Keep quiet and watch should be their policy for the present. (17-6-09)
(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 )
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
AHMADINEJAD OR OBAMA---WHO WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH?
B.RAMAN
The surprise re-election of incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the first round itself of the Iranian Presidential elections on June 12,2009, has been questioned by his opponents in the reformist camp, who had backed his leading opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi. According to the results announced by the Interior Ministry, Ahmadinejad secured 62.6 per cent of the votes polled and Mousavi only 33.8 per cent.
2.Reliable reports from Iran during the election campaign did not speak of any pro-Ahmadinejad wave. On the contrary, there were reports of unusual support for Mousavi, the reformist candidate, who had promised a change from the confrontationist policies of the incumbent President.
3. The unusually large turn-out of 85 per cent of the eligible voters strengthened the impression of an anti-Ahmadinejad wave and gave rise to expectations of a possible Mousavi victory in the first round itself. The announcement by the Interior Ministry that Ahmadinejad has been voted back with a huge majority has stunned his opponents, who suspect widespread rigging by the official machinery to ensure the continuance in power of Ahmadinejad.
4. There have been reports of sporadic violent incidents by the angry members of the reformist groups who have questioned the validity of the results. Over 100 leading members and cadres of the reformist groups are reported to have been arrested.
5. Opponents of Ahmadinejad can challenge his election before the Guardian Council before Sunday, but the Council, which has traditionally been against the reformists, is unlikely to set the election aside. The endorsement of the election results by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, makes it unlikely that the challenges of the opposition will be accepted.
6. With the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei , Ahmadinejad should have no difficulty in putting down any street violence if it persists. The reformists too may like to avoid a confrontational situation over the disputed election.
7. From the initial pronouncements of Ahmadinejad, who has hailed his re-election as an epic moment, it is apparent that he is not embarrassed by the opposition allegations of rigging and is confident of the legitimacy of his re-election ultimately prevailing.
8. The country most concerned by the re-election of Ahmadinejad would be Israel. There is unlikely to be any change in his hardline, virulent stand against Israel and the Jewish people and he will continue with his policy of seeking to undermine the Jewish State. He will press ahead with Iran’s nuclear programme by expanding its capacity for uranium enrichment by installing more centrifuges under the pretext of producing low-grade enriched uranium for the production of electricity.
9. At a time, when Israel is confused and disheartened by the less than enthusiastic support for its security concerns from the Barack Obama Administration, the re-election of Ahmadinejad would add to its fears regarding the security of the country and its citizens living in the midst of a hostile Islamic world.
10. What gave confidence and optimism to Israel in the past was the steadfast support from a succession of American Presidents. Right from the birth of the State of Israel, successive US Presidents had not hesitated to strongly endorse and support the security concerns of Israel. For the first time, the US has a President, who has been showing a worrisome insensitivity to the concerns of Israel and the Jewish people and has been trying to project a picture of neutrality in the confrontation between the Jewish people and the Arabs and Iranians, in the belief, which could prove to be mistaken, that he could thereby win the hearts and minds of the Arabs and other Muslims.
11. At a time when large sections of the people of Israel feel increasingly that their basic interests have been betrayed by Obama, the re-election of Ahmadinejad, who had in the past vowed to work against the existence of Israel, would add to Israeli fears of an existential threat to the Jewish State and strengthen its determination to act against Iran before it acquires a military nuclear capability.
12.Presuming that the large number of votes that Ahmadinejad reportedly obtained were genuine and not rigged, the rallying of so many voters behind him could be attributed only partially to their support for his pro-poor economic policies. Another major reason ought to have been their endorsement of his hardline policy towards Israel and the US and his determination to press ahead with Iran’s nuclear programme. It is a strong nationalistic vote meant to support the foreign and nuclear policies hitherto followed by Ahmadinejad.
13. The US would have hoped for the victory of the reformists. These hopes have been belied and the US would have to make do with Ahmadinejad. Iran is not North Korea. North Korea has only the nuclear and missile cards against the US. Iran has many--- its oil, the support enjoyed by it in the Islamic world, its perceived indispensability for peace and stability in Iraq and a similar role that it could play in Afghanistan. With so many cards in its hands, Obama will find Iran a tough nut to crack.
14. The US has had the Israeli card against Iran. Teheran was always nervous about the possibility of the US encouraging Israel to put Iran in its place if the worst comes to the worst. Obama has thrown away that card much to the relief of Iran.
15. If Iran spurns Obama’s overtures to it and follows on its nuclear and anti-Israel path, Obama has not kept for himself a fall-back option. In his anxiety to project a “good guy” image of himself right across the Islamic world, including Iran, Obama has unwittingly encouraged hardline elements such as Ahmadinejad, who have no genuine love for the US and who will lose no opportunity to make the interests of the Islamic world prevail over those of the international community.
16. The US may have to pay a heavy price for Obama’s policy U-turns in the Arab world and towards Iran.
17. Who will have the last laugh---- Obama or the likes of Ahmadinejad, Kim-Jong-il, Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Afghan Taliban, or Osama bin Laden? One wishes it will be Obama, but one apprehends it may not be him (14-6-09)
(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 surprise re-election of incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the first round itself of the Iranian Presidential elections on June 12,2009, has been questioned by his opponents in the reformist camp, who had backed his leading opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi. According to the results announced by the Interior Ministry, Ahmadinejad secured 62.6 per cent of the votes polled and Mousavi only 33.8 per cent.
2.Reliable reports from Iran during the election campaign did not speak of any pro-Ahmadinejad wave. On the contrary, there were reports of unusual support for Mousavi, the reformist candidate, who had promised a change from the confrontationist policies of the incumbent President.
3. The unusually large turn-out of 85 per cent of the eligible voters strengthened the impression of an anti-Ahmadinejad wave and gave rise to expectations of a possible Mousavi victory in the first round itself. The announcement by the Interior Ministry that Ahmadinejad has been voted back with a huge majority has stunned his opponents, who suspect widespread rigging by the official machinery to ensure the continuance in power of Ahmadinejad.
4. There have been reports of sporadic violent incidents by the angry members of the reformist groups who have questioned the validity of the results. Over 100 leading members and cadres of the reformist groups are reported to have been arrested.
5. Opponents of Ahmadinejad can challenge his election before the Guardian Council before Sunday, but the Council, which has traditionally been against the reformists, is unlikely to set the election aside. The endorsement of the election results by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country’s supreme leader, makes it unlikely that the challenges of the opposition will be accepted.
6. With the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei , Ahmadinejad should have no difficulty in putting down any street violence if it persists. The reformists too may like to avoid a confrontational situation over the disputed election.
7. From the initial pronouncements of Ahmadinejad, who has hailed his re-election as an epic moment, it is apparent that he is not embarrassed by the opposition allegations of rigging and is confident of the legitimacy of his re-election ultimately prevailing.
8. The country most concerned by the re-election of Ahmadinejad would be Israel. There is unlikely to be any change in his hardline, virulent stand against Israel and the Jewish people and he will continue with his policy of seeking to undermine the Jewish State. He will press ahead with Iran’s nuclear programme by expanding its capacity for uranium enrichment by installing more centrifuges under the pretext of producing low-grade enriched uranium for the production of electricity.
9. At a time, when Israel is confused and disheartened by the less than enthusiastic support for its security concerns from the Barack Obama Administration, the re-election of Ahmadinejad would add to its fears regarding the security of the country and its citizens living in the midst of a hostile Islamic world.
10. What gave confidence and optimism to Israel in the past was the steadfast support from a succession of American Presidents. Right from the birth of the State of Israel, successive US Presidents had not hesitated to strongly endorse and support the security concerns of Israel. For the first time, the US has a President, who has been showing a worrisome insensitivity to the concerns of Israel and the Jewish people and has been trying to project a picture of neutrality in the confrontation between the Jewish people and the Arabs and Iranians, in the belief, which could prove to be mistaken, that he could thereby win the hearts and minds of the Arabs and other Muslims.
11. At a time when large sections of the people of Israel feel increasingly that their basic interests have been betrayed by Obama, the re-election of Ahmadinejad, who had in the past vowed to work against the existence of Israel, would add to Israeli fears of an existential threat to the Jewish State and strengthen its determination to act against Iran before it acquires a military nuclear capability.
12.Presuming that the large number of votes that Ahmadinejad reportedly obtained were genuine and not rigged, the rallying of so many voters behind him could be attributed only partially to their support for his pro-poor economic policies. Another major reason ought to have been their endorsement of his hardline policy towards Israel and the US and his determination to press ahead with Iran’s nuclear programme. It is a strong nationalistic vote meant to support the foreign and nuclear policies hitherto followed by Ahmadinejad.
13. The US would have hoped for the victory of the reformists. These hopes have been belied and the US would have to make do with Ahmadinejad. Iran is not North Korea. North Korea has only the nuclear and missile cards against the US. Iran has many--- its oil, the support enjoyed by it in the Islamic world, its perceived indispensability for peace and stability in Iraq and a similar role that it could play in Afghanistan. With so many cards in its hands, Obama will find Iran a tough nut to crack.
14. The US has had the Israeli card against Iran. Teheran was always nervous about the possibility of the US encouraging Israel to put Iran in its place if the worst comes to the worst. Obama has thrown away that card much to the relief of Iran.
15. If Iran spurns Obama’s overtures to it and follows on its nuclear and anti-Israel path, Obama has not kept for himself a fall-back option. In his anxiety to project a “good guy” image of himself right across the Islamic world, including Iran, Obama has unwittingly encouraged hardline elements such as Ahmadinejad, who have no genuine love for the US and who will lose no opportunity to make the interests of the Islamic world prevail over those of the international community.
16. The US may have to pay a heavy price for Obama’s policy U-turns in the Arab world and towards Iran.
17. Who will have the last laugh---- Obama or the likes of Ahmadinejad, Kim-Jong-il, Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir of the Afghan Taliban, or Osama bin Laden? One wishes it will be Obama, but one apprehends it may not be him (14-6-09)
(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 )
Saturday, June 13, 2009
WHAT SHOULD BE OUR POLICY PRIORITIES IN THE YEARS TO COME?
B.RAMAN
( My views as given in my reply to a question received from a foreign-based analyst who is studying likely Indian policies after the recent elections in India )
(a).Our relations with Pakistan should have the topmost priority
because of their impact on our internal security situation. How to
convince Pakistan that it will never be able to change the status quo in J&K by using terrorism against us? Is it possible to have a mix of incentives and disincentives in our relations with Pakistan? Incentives if it acts against anti-India terrorists and disincentives if it does not do so? Our present policy towards Pakistan has neither incentives nor disincentives. These are the questions that should engage our policy-makers.
(b).Our relations with China should have the second priority. A
military confrontation with China would be unwise. China has prepared itself quietly without publicity for over four decades for such a confrontation by developing the infrastructure and its military capability in Tibet. Only during the last two years have we woken up to the need for strengthening our infrastructure and military capability in Arunachal Pradesh. We need at least another six to eight years for strengthening our position. While preparing ourselves quietly without publicity, we should strengthen our economic relations with China hoping that the economic linkages and the Chinese interest in sustaining those linkages would moderate its present rigid stand on Arunachal Pradesh. How to get around China's present policy of denying India its deserved pre-eminent position as an Asian power on par with China? Unless we catch up with China economically, we will not be able to do this. Political power flows out of economic power. In the 1950s, when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister, political power also grew out of moral power. Moral power no longer counts. Now power grows out of one's money-purse. China realised this three decades ago. Its foreign exchange reserves and its investments in US Treasury Bonds speak for it as eloquently as its Armed Forces. We were late in realising the importance of economic power and continue to be tardy in pursuing it. In my assessment, we are at least a decade behind China in our economic power.
(c). Our relations with the US should have the third priority. The
Obama Administration has been a disappointment. As pointed out by Robert Blackwill, the former US Ambassador to India, it has been looking at India through Pakistani eyes. At the same time, I would add as my personal view that it has been consciously avoiding looking at Pakistan through Indian eyes. It has been interested only in providing more and more incentives to Pakistan with no disincentives. Its only interest in India is in having political influence to be able to prevent us from retaliating against Pakistan for its acts of terrorism in Indian territory. This policy will act as a speed-breaker in taking any new initiatives for further strengthening Indo-US relations. Despite this, we should be open to all new ideas coming from the US provided those ideas are not detrimental to our national interests.
(d).Our relations with Russia should have the fourth priority. Its
predecessor State (the USSR) had stood by India in thick and thin, in the best of times and in the worst of times. Russia might be able to moderate Chinese policies towards India. It is still a dependable supplier of arms and ammunition and nuclear power stations, though it is becoming increasingly money-minded.
(e).Our relations with Bangladesh and Nepal are important because they too have an impact on our internal security. Now that Prabakaran and the LTTE are gone, we should get rid of our inhibitions in playing a more active role in Sri Lanka as we were doing before the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.We have excellent relations with Bhutan and the Maldives. These need to be nursed and sustained with great sensitivity.
(f). Our persisting internal security problems in different parts of
the country are acting as a drag on our emergence as a major economic power. The terrorist strike in Mumbai in November,2008, was a clear indication that the terrorists are targeting our economic nerve-centres and trying to shake the confidence of foreign businessmen in the security of life and property in India. The Naxalites or Maoists are increasing their activities in mineral-rich areas of Central India. Assam and other areas of the North-East are not able to make their full contribution to the emergence of India as a major power due to our inability to deal with the insurgency in places like Assam and Manipur. Unless we succeed in removing pockets of continuing alienation in J&K, we will continue to give opportunities and pretexts to outside powers to meddle in our internal affairs. Internal Security Management has not received the attention it deserves. The quality of the management depends on the quality of the political leadership and of our professional competence. Our professional competence has many weak points---intelligence collection and assessment, follow-up on the intelligence collected, rapid intervention capability, preventive physical security and retaliatory self-defence capability. After five years of confused lethargy exhibited by his predecessor, P.Chidambaram, the new Home Minister who took over after the Mumbai attack, is showing signs of greater activism and vigour, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
(g). The preparation of a long-term perspective plan for the
modernisation of our Armed Forces and for the development of
military-related technologies and production capabilities and its
vigorous implementation need attention. The US offer to sell some of its weapons and technologies to India should be examined on merits and accepted if in our interest, but the easier availability of US equipment and technologies should not slow down our development of our own capabilities. The pathetic state of Pakistan should serve as a warning of the dangers of over-dependence on the US. It cannot survive without US support and at the same time, its dependence on US support is aggravating its internal security problems due to the
mounting anti-US anger. The responsibility for the failure of
democracy to take roots in Pakistan has to be shared equally by its Army and the US.( 14-6-09)
( My views as given in my reply to a question received from a foreign-based analyst who is studying likely Indian policies after the recent elections in India )
(a).Our relations with Pakistan should have the topmost priority
because of their impact on our internal security situation. How to
convince Pakistan that it will never be able to change the status quo in J&K by using terrorism against us? Is it possible to have a mix of incentives and disincentives in our relations with Pakistan? Incentives if it acts against anti-India terrorists and disincentives if it does not do so? Our present policy towards Pakistan has neither incentives nor disincentives. These are the questions that should engage our policy-makers.
(b).Our relations with China should have the second priority. A
military confrontation with China would be unwise. China has prepared itself quietly without publicity for over four decades for such a confrontation by developing the infrastructure and its military capability in Tibet. Only during the last two years have we woken up to the need for strengthening our infrastructure and military capability in Arunachal Pradesh. We need at least another six to eight years for strengthening our position. While preparing ourselves quietly without publicity, we should strengthen our economic relations with China hoping that the economic linkages and the Chinese interest in sustaining those linkages would moderate its present rigid stand on Arunachal Pradesh. How to get around China's present policy of denying India its deserved pre-eminent position as an Asian power on par with China? Unless we catch up with China economically, we will not be able to do this. Political power flows out of economic power. In the 1950s, when Jawaharlal Nehru was the Prime Minister, political power also grew out of moral power. Moral power no longer counts. Now power grows out of one's money-purse. China realised this three decades ago. Its foreign exchange reserves and its investments in US Treasury Bonds speak for it as eloquently as its Armed Forces. We were late in realising the importance of economic power and continue to be tardy in pursuing it. In my assessment, we are at least a decade behind China in our economic power.
(c). Our relations with the US should have the third priority. The
Obama Administration has been a disappointment. As pointed out by Robert Blackwill, the former US Ambassador to India, it has been looking at India through Pakistani eyes. At the same time, I would add as my personal view that it has been consciously avoiding looking at Pakistan through Indian eyes. It has been interested only in providing more and more incentives to Pakistan with no disincentives. Its only interest in India is in having political influence to be able to prevent us from retaliating against Pakistan for its acts of terrorism in Indian territory. This policy will act as a speed-breaker in taking any new initiatives for further strengthening Indo-US relations. Despite this, we should be open to all new ideas coming from the US provided those ideas are not detrimental to our national interests.
(d).Our relations with Russia should have the fourth priority. Its
predecessor State (the USSR) had stood by India in thick and thin, in the best of times and in the worst of times. Russia might be able to moderate Chinese policies towards India. It is still a dependable supplier of arms and ammunition and nuclear power stations, though it is becoming increasingly money-minded.
(e).Our relations with Bangladesh and Nepal are important because they too have an impact on our internal security. Now that Prabakaran and the LTTE are gone, we should get rid of our inhibitions in playing a more active role in Sri Lanka as we were doing before the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.We have excellent relations with Bhutan and the Maldives. These need to be nursed and sustained with great sensitivity.
(f). Our persisting internal security problems in different parts of
the country are acting as a drag on our emergence as a major economic power. The terrorist strike in Mumbai in November,2008, was a clear indication that the terrorists are targeting our economic nerve-centres and trying to shake the confidence of foreign businessmen in the security of life and property in India. The Naxalites or Maoists are increasing their activities in mineral-rich areas of Central India. Assam and other areas of the North-East are not able to make their full contribution to the emergence of India as a major power due to our inability to deal with the insurgency in places like Assam and Manipur. Unless we succeed in removing pockets of continuing alienation in J&K, we will continue to give opportunities and pretexts to outside powers to meddle in our internal affairs. Internal Security Management has not received the attention it deserves. The quality of the management depends on the quality of the political leadership and of our professional competence. Our professional competence has many weak points---intelligence collection and assessment, follow-up on the intelligence collected, rapid intervention capability, preventive physical security and retaliatory self-defence capability. After five years of confused lethargy exhibited by his predecessor, P.Chidambaram, the new Home Minister who took over after the Mumbai attack, is showing signs of greater activism and vigour, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
(g). The preparation of a long-term perspective plan for the
modernisation of our Armed Forces and for the development of
military-related technologies and production capabilities and its
vigorous implementation need attention. The US offer to sell some of its weapons and technologies to India should be examined on merits and accepted if in our interest, but the easier availability of US equipment and technologies should not slow down our development of our own capabilities. The pathetic state of Pakistan should serve as a warning of the dangers of over-dependence on the US. It cannot survive without US support and at the same time, its dependence on US support is aggravating its internal security problems due to the
mounting anti-US anger. The responsibility for the failure of
democracy to take roots in Pakistan has to be shared equally by its Army and the US.( 14-6-09)
Friday, June 12, 2009
CHINESE MEDIA FURY OVER ARUNACHAL PRADESH
B.RAMAN
The "Global Times" is a a tabloid brought out by the "People's Daily" group, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.It largely focusses on foreign affairs and has the reputation of being very nationalistic in its views on developments abroad.While the "People's Daily" sticks to the Party and Government lines on matters relating to China's relations with other countries, the "Global Times" takes a little more liberty in its comments.
2.Before April,2009, the "Global Times" was published in the Chinese language. Since April 20, 2009, the "People's Daily" group has been bringing out an English language edition, which is also available online. This new edition attracted attention recently when it came out with an article on the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, whereas the rest of the Chinese media had ignored its 20th anniversary.
3. In an article carried on June 1,2009, it made a reference to the "June 4 incident" without referring to the Tiananmen Square, but in a subsequent write-up of June 4,2009, it specifically referred to the " Tiananmen incident" and justified the action taken by the authorities in handling the incident. The write-up even carried a photo of the Tiananmen Square. It said: “Twenty years after the June 4 Tiananmen incident, public discussion about what happened that day is almost non-existent in mainstream society on the Chinese mainland.” It referred to a visit paid by its reporter in New York to the local office of the China Democracy Party to meet some of those who are still “sticking to their old cause.” It quoted a Chinese expert as justifying the handling in the following words: " “The Chinese Government made a sober and sensible decision to overcome hard times, restore social stability, and enhance economic reform in the 1990s.”
4.The exceptional reference to the Tiananmen Square incident was seen by many as indicating an attempt by the Party to justify to foreign audiences the party and Government line on sensitive issues on which discussion is not allowed inside China. Interestingly, on June 11,2009,the "Global Times" came out with a hard-hitting editorial against India on the issue of the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh, which is not accepted by China as Indian territory. China describes Arunachal Pradesh as "southern Tibet" and has been laying claim at least to the Tawang Tract, if not to the whole territory. The long-continuing negotiations between the two countries on the border question have not made progress due to the Chinese insistence on their claim to at least Tawang, if not to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.
5. The hard-hitting editorial was provoked by some comments reportedly made by Gen.J.J.Singh, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, on the continuing high-level of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this sector and the action taken by the Government of India to protect its territory through measures such as the deployment of additional troops in Arunachal Pradesh. A copy of the editorial is annexed.
6. The editorial warned: "India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome."
7. The fact that this editorial was reproduced by the "People's Daily" the same day strongly indicated , firstly, that it could not have been carried by the "Global Times" without prior vetting by the authorities and, secondly, that the editorial was written for the benefit of not only the foreign audience, but also the domestic readers. It was an instance of a governmental view conveyed through seemingly non-governmental channels.
8. The "Global Times" did not stop with that. The next day, it carried briefly the results of an online public opinion poll carried out on June 10 by one huanqiu.com. According to it, the results showed that 90 per cent of the participants believed that India posed a big threat to China after India announced it would dispatch 60,000 troops to the border with China. About 74 per cent of the participants believed that China should not maintain friendly relations with India anymore after its military provocation. And more than 65 per cent believed India's actions were harmful to bilateral ties---- more harmful to India. It quoted Dai Xun, a military expert, as saying that India's military moves could cast a shadow over bilateral relations and could destroy the mutual trust between the two countries .
9. In a factual report on June 11,2009, the "China Daily" quoted Ye Hailin, an expert in India studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), as saying as follows: " New Delhi is strengthening its control because it knows clearly that China will not resort to military action to solve the problem. India is adopting this means to make its control over the area an accepted fact." It quoted Sun Shihai, another expert in the CASS, as saying: "It (additional deployment) is not helpful to resolve the border dispute, and could easily cause regional tension.The chance of a border conflict is not big, if India does not instigate it."
10.Since the beginning of this year, there have been fresh signs of a hardening of the Chinese stance on its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. This became evident when it opposed a proposal for a loan to India from the Asian Development Bank for a flood control project in Arunachal Pradesh. The criticism voiced in sections of the Chinese media, which do not carry anything without the prior approval of the Government and the party, of reported Indian moves for enhanced security in Arunachal Pradesh has been in unusually strong language.
11. The message, which the Chinese seem to be seeking to convey, is, firstly, that there cannot be a solution to the long-pending border dispute without a mutually satisfactory solution in the Arunachal Pradesh sector; secondly, despite the continuing differences, China will not take the initiative in making any military moves; and, thirdly, there could be a confrontational situation due to the reported additional Indian troop deployments in Arunachal Pradesh.
12. Arunachal Pradesh is Indian territory. India has the legitimate right to strengthen its capability to protect its territory through the required development of the infrastructure and troop deployments. India should go ahead with its plans in this regard. At the same time, India should refrain from projecting these moves in public as in response to a possible Chinese military threat. It will be better for all public statements in this regard to be made carefully from New Delhi and not from Arunachal Pradesh. (12-6-09)
(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)
ANNEXURE (EDITORIAL CARRIED BY GLOBAL TIMES ON JUNE 11,2009)
INDIA'S UNWISE MILITARY MOVES
In the last few days, India has dispatched roughly 60,000 troops to its border with China, the scene of enduring territorial disputes between the two countries.J.J. Singh, the Indian governor of the controversial area, said the move was intended to "meet future security challenges" from China. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed, despite cooperative India-China relations, his government would make no concessions to China on territorial disputes.The tough posture Singh's new government has taken may win some applause among India's domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.India has long held contradictory views on China. Another big Asian country, India is frustrated that China's rise has captured much of the world's attention. Proud of its "advanced political system," India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China's.India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.But India can't actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.Indian politicians these days seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan. India's growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes.But this is wishful thinking, as China won't make any compromises in its border disputes with India. And while China wishes to coexist peacefully with India, this desire isn't born out of fear.India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.Source: Global Times
The "Global Times" is a a tabloid brought out by the "People's Daily" group, which is controlled by the Communist Party of China.It largely focusses on foreign affairs and has the reputation of being very nationalistic in its views on developments abroad.While the "People's Daily" sticks to the Party and Government lines on matters relating to China's relations with other countries, the "Global Times" takes a little more liberty in its comments.
2.Before April,2009, the "Global Times" was published in the Chinese language. Since April 20, 2009, the "People's Daily" group has been bringing out an English language edition, which is also available online. This new edition attracted attention recently when it came out with an article on the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, whereas the rest of the Chinese media had ignored its 20th anniversary.
3. In an article carried on June 1,2009, it made a reference to the "June 4 incident" without referring to the Tiananmen Square, but in a subsequent write-up of June 4,2009, it specifically referred to the " Tiananmen incident" and justified the action taken by the authorities in handling the incident. The write-up even carried a photo of the Tiananmen Square. It said: “Twenty years after the June 4 Tiananmen incident, public discussion about what happened that day is almost non-existent in mainstream society on the Chinese mainland.” It referred to a visit paid by its reporter in New York to the local office of the China Democracy Party to meet some of those who are still “sticking to their old cause.” It quoted a Chinese expert as justifying the handling in the following words: " “The Chinese Government made a sober and sensible decision to overcome hard times, restore social stability, and enhance economic reform in the 1990s.”
4.The exceptional reference to the Tiananmen Square incident was seen by many as indicating an attempt by the Party to justify to foreign audiences the party and Government line on sensitive issues on which discussion is not allowed inside China. Interestingly, on June 11,2009,the "Global Times" came out with a hard-hitting editorial against India on the issue of the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh, which is not accepted by China as Indian territory. China describes Arunachal Pradesh as "southern Tibet" and has been laying claim at least to the Tawang Tract, if not to the whole territory. The long-continuing negotiations between the two countries on the border question have not made progress due to the Chinese insistence on their claim to at least Tawang, if not to the whole of Arunachal Pradesh.
5. The hard-hitting editorial was provoked by some comments reportedly made by Gen.J.J.Singh, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, on the continuing high-level of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this sector and the action taken by the Government of India to protect its territory through measures such as the deployment of additional troops in Arunachal Pradesh. A copy of the editorial is annexed.
6. The editorial warned: "India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome."
7. The fact that this editorial was reproduced by the "People's Daily" the same day strongly indicated , firstly, that it could not have been carried by the "Global Times" without prior vetting by the authorities and, secondly, that the editorial was written for the benefit of not only the foreign audience, but also the domestic readers. It was an instance of a governmental view conveyed through seemingly non-governmental channels.
8. The "Global Times" did not stop with that. The next day, it carried briefly the results of an online public opinion poll carried out on June 10 by one huanqiu.com. According to it, the results showed that 90 per cent of the participants believed that India posed a big threat to China after India announced it would dispatch 60,000 troops to the border with China. About 74 per cent of the participants believed that China should not maintain friendly relations with India anymore after its military provocation. And more than 65 per cent believed India's actions were harmful to bilateral ties---- more harmful to India. It quoted Dai Xun, a military expert, as saying that India's military moves could cast a shadow over bilateral relations and could destroy the mutual trust between the two countries .
9. In a factual report on June 11,2009, the "China Daily" quoted Ye Hailin, an expert in India studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), as saying as follows: " New Delhi is strengthening its control because it knows clearly that China will not resort to military action to solve the problem. India is adopting this means to make its control over the area an accepted fact." It quoted Sun Shihai, another expert in the CASS, as saying: "It (additional deployment) is not helpful to resolve the border dispute, and could easily cause regional tension.The chance of a border conflict is not big, if India does not instigate it."
10.Since the beginning of this year, there have been fresh signs of a hardening of the Chinese stance on its claim to Arunachal Pradesh. This became evident when it opposed a proposal for a loan to India from the Asian Development Bank for a flood control project in Arunachal Pradesh. The criticism voiced in sections of the Chinese media, which do not carry anything without the prior approval of the Government and the party, of reported Indian moves for enhanced security in Arunachal Pradesh has been in unusually strong language.
11. The message, which the Chinese seem to be seeking to convey, is, firstly, that there cannot be a solution to the long-pending border dispute without a mutually satisfactory solution in the Arunachal Pradesh sector; secondly, despite the continuing differences, China will not take the initiative in making any military moves; and, thirdly, there could be a confrontational situation due to the reported additional Indian troop deployments in Arunachal Pradesh.
12. Arunachal Pradesh is Indian territory. India has the legitimate right to strengthen its capability to protect its territory through the required development of the infrastructure and troop deployments. India should go ahead with its plans in this regard. At the same time, India should refrain from projecting these moves in public as in response to a possible Chinese military threat. It will be better for all public statements in this regard to be made carefully from New Delhi and not from Arunachal Pradesh. (12-6-09)
(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)
ANNEXURE (EDITORIAL CARRIED BY GLOBAL TIMES ON JUNE 11,2009)
INDIA'S UNWISE MILITARY MOVES
In the last few days, India has dispatched roughly 60,000 troops to its border with China, the scene of enduring territorial disputes between the two countries.J.J. Singh, the Indian governor of the controversial area, said the move was intended to "meet future security challenges" from China. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed, despite cooperative India-China relations, his government would make no concessions to China on territorial disputes.The tough posture Singh's new government has taken may win some applause among India's domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.India has long held contradictory views on China. Another big Asian country, India is frustrated that China's rise has captured much of the world's attention. Proud of its "advanced political system," India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China's.India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.But India can't actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.Indian politicians these days seem to think their country would be doing China a huge favor simply by not joining the "ring around China" established by the US and Japan. India's growing power would have a significant impact on the balance of this equation, which has led India to think that fear and gratitude for its restraint will cause China to defer to it on territorial disputes.But this is wishful thinking, as China won't make any compromises in its border disputes with India. And while China wishes to coexist peacefully with India, this desire isn't born out of fear.India's current course can only lead to a rivalry between the two countries. India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China. It should also be asking itself why it hasn't forged the stable and friendly relationship with China that China enjoys with many of India's neighbors, like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka.Any aggressive moves will certainly not aid the development of good relations with China. India should examine its attitude and preconceptions it will need to adjust if it hopes to cooperate with China and achieve a mutually beneficial outcome.Source: Global Times
Thursday, June 11, 2009
HAMBANTOTA & GWADAR---AN UPDATE
B.RAMAN
The foundation for the construction of a modern port with Chinese assistance at Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka was formally laid in October,2007. The construction actually started in January,2008.
2. It is a 15-year project to be completed in stages. The entire project is estimated to cost US $ one billion. The present Chinese commitment is for the construction of the first stage only, which is estimated to cost US $ 360 million. China has agreed to give 85 per cent of this amount at concessional interest. The balance is being contributed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
3.The first stage of the 15-year (2008-2023) project is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. This stage envisages the construction of a 1000-metre jetty, which will enable the harbour to function as an industrial port for the import and export of industrial chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. By 2023, Hambantota is projected to have a liquefied natural gas refinery, aviation fuel storage facilities, three separate docks giving the port a transshipment capacity and dry docks for ship repair and construction. The project also envisages that when completed the port will serve as a base for bunkering and refueling.
4. The draught (depth) of the new harbour will be 16 metres against 15 metres in Colombo. A 230 metre passage-entrance channel will be created at the breakwater which is 988 metres long on the west end and 311 metres long on the east end.
5.The Government hopes that as a refueling location Hambantota will have many advantages over the Colombo port or ports in South India. The construction has been undertaken by a consortium of Chinese companies headed by the China Harbour Engineering Company and the Sino Hydro Corporation.
6. The project doesn’t have a separate consultant. The Sri Lanka Port Authority (SLPA) is functioning as the client-cum-consultant while the China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd is the contractor. In September,2008,there were 328 Sri Lankans and 235 Chinese working at the site-----engineers, administrative personnel and others. The present number is not known.
7.The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo.
8. Reliable reports say that while the Sri Lankan authorities want Hambantota to emerge as a modern port with better facilities and efficiency than any of the ports in South India, they do not want the present importance of the Colombo port to be reduced. Colombo presently has the reputation of being the most modern and most efficient port in South Asia. They want this reputation to be maintained. There is no proposal at present to set up container yards and cater to container ships at Hambantota.
9. The present Chinese interest is in the use of the docking and refueling facilities that would come up in Hambantota for their commercial and naval ships. There is no proposal at present for a Chinese naval base at Hambantota.
10. The Chinese have helped Pakistan in the construction of a similar port at Gwadar on the Mekran coast in Balochistan. The first phase of the construction has already been completed and the port was commissioned when Pervez Musharraf was the President.The contract for the running of the port has been given to a Singapore company.
11. From the beginning, Gwadar was planned as a naval-cum- commercial port. Both Pakistan and China were interested in its naval potential. Pakistan wanted the naval facilities in Gwadar to give a strategic depth to its navy and reduce its dependence on the Karachi port, which is vulnerable to attack by the Indian Navy in times of war. The Chinese were interested in the use of the refueling and docking facilities of Gwadar for their naval ships visiting the Gulf area.
12. The Pakistanis had and continue to have ambitious plans for the development of Gwadar as a port to cater to the external trade of the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and the Xinjiang and the Sichuan provinces and the Tibetan region of China. They also offered to the Chinese the use of Gwadar as a transshipment point for oil and gas, which could be brought to Gwadar and from there moved by pipelines to Xinjiang. They also proposed the construction of a rail and road network between Gwadar and Xinjiang. They are also interested in the construction of a huge oil refining capability in Gwadar. Beyond agreeing to feasibility studies in respect of these proposals emanating from Pakistan, the Chinese have not made any firm commitments regarding their participation in any other project in addition to the port construction.
13. Even though it is about two years since the Gwadar port was commissioned, it has not been attracting many ocean-going ships. Most shipping companies prefer the continued use of the Karachi port despite its inefficiency. This is mainly due to the poor security situation in the Makran coast and the failure of the Pakistani authorities to develop the road and other infrastructure, which could sustain an increased level of activity at Gwadar. Even the Chinese preferred using the facilities at Karachi for the ships of their anti-piracy patrols than the facilities at Gwadar. Unless and until there is peace and stability in Afghanistan, the prospects of Gwadar emerging as the gateway for the external trade of the CARs will remain weak.
14.In contrast to Pakistan, Sri Lanka’s interest in developing Hambantota has remained purely commercial. It has very limited external trade. The Colombo port is able to meet satisfactorily its external trade needs. It does not need another port for this purpose. Its interest in Hambantota is as a source of additional foreign exchange earned by offering world class facilities and efficiency to international shipping companies. It is hoping that the present Colombo port and the new port coming up at Hambantota will give it an advantage over India, whose ports are not known for their modern facilities and efficiency.
15. The Sri Lankan Navy has a long history of cordial relations and co-operation with the Indian Navy. It fears no threat from the Indian Navy. As a result, the interest of the Sri Lankan Navy in Hambantota is minimal. But the Chinese interest is more strategic than purely commercial. It is very unlikely that Sri Lanka would allow the Chinese Navy to use Hambantota against India. But a Chinese naval presence in Hambantota would add to the concerns of the Indian Navy by increasing the vulnerability of the South to pressures from the Chinese Navy.
16. Reliable reports say that the Chinese have not so far raised the question of developing Hambantota as a naval base which they can also use to ensure the security of their oil and gas supplies. But they do not rule out the possibility of the Chinese raising it if and when negotiations are held for additional Chinese financial commitments for the subsequent stages of the project. (12-6-09)
( 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 )
The foundation for the construction of a modern port with Chinese assistance at Hambantota in southern Sri Lanka was formally laid in October,2007. The construction actually started in January,2008.
2. It is a 15-year project to be completed in stages. The entire project is estimated to cost US $ one billion. The present Chinese commitment is for the construction of the first stage only, which is estimated to cost US $ 360 million. China has agreed to give 85 per cent of this amount at concessional interest. The balance is being contributed by the Government of Sri Lanka.
3.The first stage of the 15-year (2008-2023) project is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. This stage envisages the construction of a 1000-metre jetty, which will enable the harbour to function as an industrial port for the import and export of industrial chemicals, fuel and heavy machinery. By 2023, Hambantota is projected to have a liquefied natural gas refinery, aviation fuel storage facilities, three separate docks giving the port a transshipment capacity and dry docks for ship repair and construction. The project also envisages that when completed the port will serve as a base for bunkering and refueling.
4. The draught (depth) of the new harbour will be 16 metres against 15 metres in Colombo. A 230 metre passage-entrance channel will be created at the breakwater which is 988 metres long on the west end and 311 metres long on the east end.
5.The Government hopes that as a refueling location Hambantota will have many advantages over the Colombo port or ports in South India. The construction has been undertaken by a consortium of Chinese companies headed by the China Harbour Engineering Company and the Sino Hydro Corporation.
6. The project doesn’t have a separate consultant. The Sri Lanka Port Authority (SLPA) is functioning as the client-cum-consultant while the China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd is the contractor. In September,2008,there were 328 Sri Lankans and 235 Chinese working at the site-----engineers, administrative personnel and others. The present number is not known.
7.The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo.
8. Reliable reports say that while the Sri Lankan authorities want Hambantota to emerge as a modern port with better facilities and efficiency than any of the ports in South India, they do not want the present importance of the Colombo port to be reduced. Colombo presently has the reputation of being the most modern and most efficient port in South Asia. They want this reputation to be maintained. There is no proposal at present to set up container yards and cater to container ships at Hambantota.
9. The present Chinese interest is in the use of the docking and refueling facilities that would come up in Hambantota for their commercial and naval ships. There is no proposal at present for a Chinese naval base at Hambantota.
10. The Chinese have helped Pakistan in the construction of a similar port at Gwadar on the Mekran coast in Balochistan. The first phase of the construction has already been completed and the port was commissioned when Pervez Musharraf was the President.The contract for the running of the port has been given to a Singapore company.
11. From the beginning, Gwadar was planned as a naval-cum- commercial port. Both Pakistan and China were interested in its naval potential. Pakistan wanted the naval facilities in Gwadar to give a strategic depth to its navy and reduce its dependence on the Karachi port, which is vulnerable to attack by the Indian Navy in times of war. The Chinese were interested in the use of the refueling and docking facilities of Gwadar for their naval ships visiting the Gulf area.
12. The Pakistanis had and continue to have ambitious plans for the development of Gwadar as a port to cater to the external trade of the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and the Xinjiang and the Sichuan provinces and the Tibetan region of China. They also offered to the Chinese the use of Gwadar as a transshipment point for oil and gas, which could be brought to Gwadar and from there moved by pipelines to Xinjiang. They also proposed the construction of a rail and road network between Gwadar and Xinjiang. They are also interested in the construction of a huge oil refining capability in Gwadar. Beyond agreeing to feasibility studies in respect of these proposals emanating from Pakistan, the Chinese have not made any firm commitments regarding their participation in any other project in addition to the port construction.
13. Even though it is about two years since the Gwadar port was commissioned, it has not been attracting many ocean-going ships. Most shipping companies prefer the continued use of the Karachi port despite its inefficiency. This is mainly due to the poor security situation in the Makran coast and the failure of the Pakistani authorities to develop the road and other infrastructure, which could sustain an increased level of activity at Gwadar. Even the Chinese preferred using the facilities at Karachi for the ships of their anti-piracy patrols than the facilities at Gwadar. Unless and until there is peace and stability in Afghanistan, the prospects of Gwadar emerging as the gateway for the external trade of the CARs will remain weak.
14.In contrast to Pakistan, Sri Lanka’s interest in developing Hambantota has remained purely commercial. It has very limited external trade. The Colombo port is able to meet satisfactorily its external trade needs. It does not need another port for this purpose. Its interest in Hambantota is as a source of additional foreign exchange earned by offering world class facilities and efficiency to international shipping companies. It is hoping that the present Colombo port and the new port coming up at Hambantota will give it an advantage over India, whose ports are not known for their modern facilities and efficiency.
15. The Sri Lankan Navy has a long history of cordial relations and co-operation with the Indian Navy. It fears no threat from the Indian Navy. As a result, the interest of the Sri Lankan Navy in Hambantota is minimal. But the Chinese interest is more strategic than purely commercial. It is very unlikely that Sri Lanka would allow the Chinese Navy to use Hambantota against India. But a Chinese naval presence in Hambantota would add to the concerns of the Indian Navy by increasing the vulnerability of the South to pressures from the Chinese Navy.
16. Reliable reports say that the Chinese have not so far raised the question of developing Hambantota as a naval base which they can also use to ensure the security of their oil and gas supplies. But they do not rule out the possibility of the Chinese raising it if and when negotiations are held for additional Chinese financial commitments for the subsequent stages of the project. (12-6-09)
( 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 )
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
PESHAWAR BLAST: AN ABILITY TO STRIKE AT WILL
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR—PAPER NO. 534
B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of my article of May 27,2009, titled “Sixth Major Swarm Attack Since Mumbai: Is There a Common Command & Control” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers33/paper3217.html )
--------------------------------------------
At least 16 persons, including two foreigners (a Serb and a Filippino), are reported to have been killed and over 60 others injured when a group of three terrorists forced their way into the parking lot of the Pearl Continental Hotel of Peshawar at around 10-30 PM on June 9,2009, and blew up an explosive-laden truck.
2.Two terrorists with hand-held weapons, who were believed to have been traveling in a car, engaged with the guards at the security barrier near the gate of the hotel in an exchange of fire and enabled the truck bomber drive into the parking lot. It is not known what happened to the two terrorists with hand-held weapons. They have not been captured.
3.The attack resembled the one on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September last in some aspects. The Marriott and the Pearl Continental Hotels are run by the same person. Whereas the Marriott is patronized by traveling foreign businessmen, public servants and non-governmental personalities, the Pearl Continental has a clientele restricted largely to traveling foreign public servants, in addition to Pakistani nationals.
4. As in Islamabad, in Peshawar too, the daring attack was in a high security area. At both the places, the failure of physical security was not at the hotels, but along the route on which the vehicles moved to the hotels. None of the security pickets on the route suspected anything amiss and tried to prevent the movement of the vehicles towards the hotels. Once the trucks with explosives reached the gates of the hotels very little could have been done to prevent the explosions.
5.The Peshawar hotel is located in the same area in which the Corps Commander of Peshawar lives.He enjoys the highest level of security among all Corps Commanders since he co-ordinates and supervises the military operations against Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. The Pearl Continental was considered a highly vulnerable target because it is used as a transit hotel for traveling UN employees and is also patronized by the US and other Western diplomatic and consular missions for their traveling public servants. However, the US Consulate in Peshawar has stated that no American employee was staying in the hotel at the time of the explosion. Despite this, well-informed sources In Peshawar say the staff of some of the US training teams, which have been training personnel of the Frontier Corps and other para-military forces, used to stay in the hotel in the past. The Serb killed was reportedly an employee of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Filippino, a woman, of the UN Children’s Emergency Fund. Both of them had reportedly arrived in Peshawar along with some other UN employees to work for the persons internally displaced by the military operations against the Pakistani Taliban.
6.The Marriott Hotel blast involved only a vehicular bomb, which exploded as the vehicle stopped at the security barrier before it could enter the hotel premises. At the Pearl Continental, the initial use of hand-held weapons enabled the vehicle cross the barrier and reach the parking lot. Despite this the fatalities at the Peshawar hotel were low as compared with the fatalities at the Islamabad hotel (56) because the occupancy rate in the Peshawar hotel was low due to the poor security situation in Peshawar.
7. The investigation into the Marriott Hotel blast has not made satisfactory progress. The police claimed to have arrested four “indirect” suspects in Islamabad on October 23,2008, and another four at Karachi on May 17,2009. They linked the Karachi suspects to Al Qaeda, but there has been no corroboration.
8.There has been a predictable sameness in the spins put out by the police--- initially blame the Pakistani Taliban, project the attacks as in revenge for the military operations against the Taliban, then bring in the name of Al Qaeda when some arrests are made and then silence till another attack takes place.
9. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), the anti-Shia organization, which has been collaborating with Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, is another oft-cited suspect, again without any clinching evidence so far.
10.The quick succession of successful attacks in different cities shows an ability to plan and carry out strikes without being detected, a certain precision in the planning and execution and an inexhaustible flow of suicide volunteers.
11. A worrisome thought---- what is the use of winning Swat, if Peshawar is out of control? (10-6-09)
( 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 )
B.RAMAN
( To be read in continuation of my article of May 27,2009, titled “Sixth Major Swarm Attack Since Mumbai: Is There a Common Command & Control” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers33/paper3217.html )
--------------------------------------------
At least 16 persons, including two foreigners (a Serb and a Filippino), are reported to have been killed and over 60 others injured when a group of three terrorists forced their way into the parking lot of the Pearl Continental Hotel of Peshawar at around 10-30 PM on June 9,2009, and blew up an explosive-laden truck.
2.Two terrorists with hand-held weapons, who were believed to have been traveling in a car, engaged with the guards at the security barrier near the gate of the hotel in an exchange of fire and enabled the truck bomber drive into the parking lot. It is not known what happened to the two terrorists with hand-held weapons. They have not been captured.
3.The attack resembled the one on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September last in some aspects. The Marriott and the Pearl Continental Hotels are run by the same person. Whereas the Marriott is patronized by traveling foreign businessmen, public servants and non-governmental personalities, the Pearl Continental has a clientele restricted largely to traveling foreign public servants, in addition to Pakistani nationals.
4. As in Islamabad, in Peshawar too, the daring attack was in a high security area. At both the places, the failure of physical security was not at the hotels, but along the route on which the vehicles moved to the hotels. None of the security pickets on the route suspected anything amiss and tried to prevent the movement of the vehicles towards the hotels. Once the trucks with explosives reached the gates of the hotels very little could have been done to prevent the explosions.
5.The Peshawar hotel is located in the same area in which the Corps Commander of Peshawar lives.He enjoys the highest level of security among all Corps Commanders since he co-ordinates and supervises the military operations against Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban. The Pearl Continental was considered a highly vulnerable target because it is used as a transit hotel for traveling UN employees and is also patronized by the US and other Western diplomatic and consular missions for their traveling public servants. However, the US Consulate in Peshawar has stated that no American employee was staying in the hotel at the time of the explosion. Despite this, well-informed sources In Peshawar say the staff of some of the US training teams, which have been training personnel of the Frontier Corps and other para-military forces, used to stay in the hotel in the past. The Serb killed was reportedly an employee of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Filippino, a woman, of the UN Children’s Emergency Fund. Both of them had reportedly arrived in Peshawar along with some other UN employees to work for the persons internally displaced by the military operations against the Pakistani Taliban.
6.The Marriott Hotel blast involved only a vehicular bomb, which exploded as the vehicle stopped at the security barrier before it could enter the hotel premises. At the Pearl Continental, the initial use of hand-held weapons enabled the vehicle cross the barrier and reach the parking lot. Despite this the fatalities at the Peshawar hotel were low as compared with the fatalities at the Islamabad hotel (56) because the occupancy rate in the Peshawar hotel was low due to the poor security situation in Peshawar.
7. The investigation into the Marriott Hotel blast has not made satisfactory progress. The police claimed to have arrested four “indirect” suspects in Islamabad on October 23,2008, and another four at Karachi on May 17,2009. They linked the Karachi suspects to Al Qaeda, but there has been no corroboration.
8.There has been a predictable sameness in the spins put out by the police--- initially blame the Pakistani Taliban, project the attacks as in revenge for the military operations against the Taliban, then bring in the name of Al Qaeda when some arrests are made and then silence till another attack takes place.
9. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), the anti-Shia organization, which has been collaborating with Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, is another oft-cited suspect, again without any clinching evidence so far.
10.The quick succession of successful attacks in different cities shows an ability to plan and carry out strikes without being detected, a certain precision in the planning and execution and an inexhaustible flow of suicide volunteers.
11. A worrisome thought---- what is the use of winning Swat, if Peshawar is out of control? (10-6-09)
( 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 )
Monday, June 8, 2009
OBAMA'S CAIRO MESSAGE:CHINESE MEDIA YET TO REACT SUBSTANTIVELY
B.RAMAN
Four days after President Barack Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world at the Cairo University on June 4,2009,the Government-controlled English media in China is yet to comment substantively on his address.
2. The only substantive comments so far have been on the significance of his visit to Saudi Arabia, a curtain-raiser to his visit to Egypt and on the reactions to his speech in Israel. The Chinese media also reported briefly the salient points of Osama bin Laden’s audio message to the Muslim world disseminated by the Al Jazeera before Obama arrived in Cairo.
3. The comments on the significance of Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia were contained in an analysis by Li Xuejiang, senior reporter of the People’s Daily in the US. His comments were disseminated by the Xinhua on June 4,2009, in a despatch under the title “How does Obama play “Middle East card”? The analysis said that Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt had two objectives and his halt in Saudi Arabia had “multipurposes”.
4. The article said: “This is Obama’s first-ever trip to the region since becoming President in late January, which has two obvious objectives, namely, to declare his goodwill to the Muslim world so as to help improve the image of the United States among Muslim people worldwide and to advance the Middle East peace process. President Obama has multiple purposes in his visit to Saudi Arabia. The first and foremost is to urge this oil-rich Arab nation to go on contributing in stabilizing the global oil market; the second is to discuss with it the Iran issue, which is of concern to both nations; and the third is to ask the Saudi government to persuade Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), and Prime Minister (President) Asif Ali Zardari to compromise to each other and reconcile themselves to the prospect of stabilizing the situation in Pakistan.The fourth purpose of his visit is to urge Saudi Arabia to beef up its support to the power of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and, the last but not the least is to ask the Saudi government to lead the Arab world in indicating some goodwill signs to Israel, so as to facilitate restarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.”
5. The article added: “In Egypt on Thursday, President Obama would make a speech to the Muslim people worldwide. Sources acknowledged that Obama will make the speech at elite Cairo University aiming at strengthening the US ties with the Muslim world. However, people cannot expect that his speech in Cairo would change everything and put an end once and for all to all negative impressions the unfair U.S. Middle East policies have left on people worldwide if he fails to come up with concrete policy measures.”
6. Before Obama delivered his Cairo speech, the Xinhua disseminated a collation of various key quotations of Obama relating to the Muslim world since he assumed office on January 20. It was not clear whether this collation was prepared by Xinhua itself, or whether it was merely circulating a collation prepared by the staff of Obama in Washington DC before he embarked on his tour. The collation is annexed.
7. Before Obama arrived in the Middle East, Xinhua disseminated a curtain-raiser on his visit based on an analysis of comments made by the staff of Obama and some non-Governmental analysts in the US and Egypt.The curtain-raiser said: “Analysts said the speech aims at rebuilding U.S. credibility in the Muslim world, which was tarnished during the Bush era. Though he has made a successful debut in a Muslim country two months ago, Turkey does not belong to the Arab world that represents nearly half of the Muslim countries. The NATO member, which stands across Europe and Asia and is carrying out reforms for a long-expected EU membership, is deemed by the West as part of Europe. His wide-ranging speech in the Turkish parliament focused on the cooperation of the two allies rather than a comprehensive stance on Muslim issues.”
8.It added: “The U.S. President chose Cairo as his platform to reach out to both the Muslim world and Arab world. Egypt as a country “in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs……Obama’s decision of making the speech in Cairo University rather than the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which hosted his special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and top diplomat Hillary Clinton, also implies his determination and readiness to get involved in the Muslim publics (politics?) .”
9. The Xinhua commentary on the reactions in Israel covered in a fairly detailed manner the reactions in the electronic as well as the print media. It concluded: “All of the Israeli coverage sought out what would make for good talking points at home. One that many picked up on was the way the audience applauded every time Obama referred to the Koran and Muslim values, or threw in a word in poorly pronounced Arabic. At the same time the highly-educated gathering did not clap when Obama urged them to recognize Israel and to reject Holocaust denial. These are highly sensitive issues in Israel and the opinion formers here say as a collective the Arab world must address these issues early on if it expects Israel to rejoin the peace process.”
10. The Chinese are apparently waiting to study how the Islamic world as a whole reacts to Obama’s speech before formulating their own analysis. They would be particularly interested in finding out how the Islamic elements in Pakistan—– Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and the various Islamic political parties—- react to Obama’s address. This would ultimately determine whether the speech helps in cooling down the anti-US anger in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or not. Till 9/11, the widespread anti-US feelings in the Islamic world were largely due to the Palestine issue. Since then, so many other issues have cropped up that the situation is more complicated now. It is no longer a simple question of just addressing the perceived Arab anger.
(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 )
ANNEXURE
A COLLATION OF OBAMA’S QUOTATIONS AS DISSEMINATED BY XINHUA
U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo University on Thursday.Following are some key quotations of Obama on Muslims since taking office in January.
On Jan. 20, Obama mentioned the word “Muslim” twice in his inaugural speech.
– “We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.
– “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
On Jan. 26, Obama chose the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite TV for his first television interview since taking office.
– “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, we sometimes make mistakes.”
– “(There are) respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”
On April 6, Obama made a speech at Turkish Parliament in Ankara, capital of a Muslim country.
– “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.”
– “America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaida.”
– “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.”
On June 2, the British broadcaster BBC aired an interview with Obama, who was about to fly to Middle East.
– “There are misapprehensions on the part of the West about the Muslim world, and obviously there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West.”
On June 2, the French television channels I-Tele and Canal Plus made an interview with Obama, who will visit Europe for D-day commemorations a few days later.
– “If you take the number of Muslim Americans, we would be one of the largest Muslim countries of the world.”
– “What we need is to create a better dialogue, so that the Muslim world understands better how the U.S., but how effectively the West thinks about many of these difficult issues — terrorism, democracy.”
Source:Xinhua
Four days after President Barack Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world at the Cairo University on June 4,2009,the Government-controlled English media in China is yet to comment substantively on his address.
2. The only substantive comments so far have been on the significance of his visit to Saudi Arabia, a curtain-raiser to his visit to Egypt and on the reactions to his speech in Israel. The Chinese media also reported briefly the salient points of Osama bin Laden’s audio message to the Muslim world disseminated by the Al Jazeera before Obama arrived in Cairo.
3. The comments on the significance of Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia were contained in an analysis by Li Xuejiang, senior reporter of the People’s Daily in the US. His comments were disseminated by the Xinhua on June 4,2009, in a despatch under the title “How does Obama play “Middle East card”? The analysis said that Obama’s visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt had two objectives and his halt in Saudi Arabia had “multipurposes”.
4. The article said: “This is Obama’s first-ever trip to the region since becoming President in late January, which has two obvious objectives, namely, to declare his goodwill to the Muslim world so as to help improve the image of the United States among Muslim people worldwide and to advance the Middle East peace process. President Obama has multiple purposes in his visit to Saudi Arabia. The first and foremost is to urge this oil-rich Arab nation to go on contributing in stabilizing the global oil market; the second is to discuss with it the Iran issue, which is of concern to both nations; and the third is to ask the Saudi government to persuade Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N), and Prime Minister (President) Asif Ali Zardari to compromise to each other and reconcile themselves to the prospect of stabilizing the situation in Pakistan.The fourth purpose of his visit is to urge Saudi Arabia to beef up its support to the power of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority and, the last but not the least is to ask the Saudi government to lead the Arab world in indicating some goodwill signs to Israel, so as to facilitate restarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.”
5. The article added: “In Egypt on Thursday, President Obama would make a speech to the Muslim people worldwide. Sources acknowledged that Obama will make the speech at elite Cairo University aiming at strengthening the US ties with the Muslim world. However, people cannot expect that his speech in Cairo would change everything and put an end once and for all to all negative impressions the unfair U.S. Middle East policies have left on people worldwide if he fails to come up with concrete policy measures.”
6. Before Obama delivered his Cairo speech, the Xinhua disseminated a collation of various key quotations of Obama relating to the Muslim world since he assumed office on January 20. It was not clear whether this collation was prepared by Xinhua itself, or whether it was merely circulating a collation prepared by the staff of Obama in Washington DC before he embarked on his tour. The collation is annexed.
7. Before Obama arrived in the Middle East, Xinhua disseminated a curtain-raiser on his visit based on an analysis of comments made by the staff of Obama and some non-Governmental analysts in the US and Egypt.The curtain-raiser said: “Analysts said the speech aims at rebuilding U.S. credibility in the Muslim world, which was tarnished during the Bush era. Though he has made a successful debut in a Muslim country two months ago, Turkey does not belong to the Arab world that represents nearly half of the Muslim countries. The NATO member, which stands across Europe and Asia and is carrying out reforms for a long-expected EU membership, is deemed by the West as part of Europe. His wide-ranging speech in the Turkish parliament focused on the cooperation of the two allies rather than a comprehensive stance on Muslim issues.”
8.It added: “The U.S. President chose Cairo as his platform to reach out to both the Muslim world and Arab world. Egypt as a country “in many ways represents the heart of the Arab world,” said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs……Obama’s decision of making the speech in Cairo University rather than the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, which hosted his special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell and top diplomat Hillary Clinton, also implies his determination and readiness to get involved in the Muslim publics (politics?) .”
9. The Xinhua commentary on the reactions in Israel covered in a fairly detailed manner the reactions in the electronic as well as the print media. It concluded: “All of the Israeli coverage sought out what would make for good talking points at home. One that many picked up on was the way the audience applauded every time Obama referred to the Koran and Muslim values, or threw in a word in poorly pronounced Arabic. At the same time the highly-educated gathering did not clap when Obama urged them to recognize Israel and to reject Holocaust denial. These are highly sensitive issues in Israel and the opinion formers here say as a collective the Arab world must address these issues early on if it expects Israel to rejoin the peace process.”
10. The Chinese are apparently waiting to study how the Islamic world as a whole reacts to Obama’s speech before formulating their own analysis. They would be particularly interested in finding out how the Islamic elements in Pakistan—– Al Qaeda, the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban and the various Islamic political parties—- react to Obama’s address. This would ultimately determine whether the speech helps in cooling down the anti-US anger in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region or not. Till 9/11, the widespread anti-US feelings in the Islamic world were largely due to the Palestine issue. Since then, so many other issues have cropped up that the situation is more complicated now. It is no longer a simple question of just addressing the perceived Arab anger.
(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 )
ANNEXURE
A COLLATION OF OBAMA’S QUOTATIONS AS DISSEMINATED BY XINHUA
U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo University on Thursday.Following are some key quotations of Obama on Muslims since taking office in January.
On Jan. 20, Obama mentioned the word “Muslim” twice in his inaugural speech.
– “We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.
– “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
On Jan. 26, Obama chose the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite TV for his first television interview since taking office.
– “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, we sometimes make mistakes.”
– “(There are) respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.”
On April 6, Obama made a speech at Turkish Parliament in Ankara, capital of a Muslim country.
– “The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam.”
– “America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaida.”
– “The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them.”
On June 2, the British broadcaster BBC aired an interview with Obama, who was about to fly to Middle East.
– “There are misapprehensions on the part of the West about the Muslim world, and obviously there are some big misapprehensions about the Muslim world when it comes to those of us in the West.”
On June 2, the French television channels I-Tele and Canal Plus made an interview with Obama, who will visit Europe for D-day commemorations a few days later.
– “If you take the number of Muslim Americans, we would be one of the largest Muslim countries of the world.”
– “What we need is to create a better dialogue, so that the Muslim world understands better how the U.S., but how effectively the West thinks about many of these difficult issues — terrorism, democracy.”
Source:Xinhua
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)