INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO. 627
B.RAMAN
At least 11 persons are reported to have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a rented building of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) of Pakistan in the residential Model Town area of Lahore on the morning of March 8,2010. The large quantity of explosive used brought down the entire building.
2. This is the first terrorist attack in Lahore this year. Last year, there were five as follows:
15 October: Terrorists attacked offices of law enforcement agencies.
12 June: A prominent anti-Taliban cleric killed by a suicide bomber at his religious school
27 May: A car bomb attack on police buildings killed 23 persons.
30 March: Gunmen attacked a police academy, killing eight people
3 March: Gunmen killed six police guards in an ambush of the Sri Lankan cricket team
3. The latest attack has taken place after an interval of about five months. There are two possibilities--- either it was carried out by the Terhrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to demonstrate that it still had the capability to attack targets in the non-tribal areas despite the losses suffered by it since the beginning of this year----including the reported but unconfirmed death of its Amir Hakimullah Mehsud after he was injured in a missile strike by a Drone (unmanned) plane of the US in January--- or it was carried out by the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) in retaliation for the reported death of its leader Qari Mohammad Zafar in a US Drone strike in North Waziristan on February 24,2010. The greater possibility is that the latest attack was carried out by a bomber of the LEJ, which has been operating jointly with the TTP and Al Qaeda and which has the capability for spectacular strikes in Lahore.
4. Police and FIA-connected targets and a target of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have been attacked in Lahore since the beginning of last year because of the terrorists' calculation that instability in Lahore could make the Army and the FIA go slow in their operations against the TTP and the Punjabi Taliban. The targeting of the FIA and the ISI in recent months is due to their being perceived by the TTP and the LEJ as working in close co-operation with the US intelligence agencies in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The FIA has also been in receipt of increasing assistance from the US for strengthening its counter-terrorism capability.
5. The Lahore attack came a day after sections of the Pakistani media had claimed that the Pakistani intelligence agencies had managed to arrest Adam Gadahn, the American convert to Islam, who heads the As-Sahab, the propaganda wing of Al Qaeda from a hide-out in a Pashtun inhabited area of Karachi where a large number of Mehsuds from South Waziristan live. Western sources have expressed skepticism about the correctness of the Pakistani claim.
6. If the Pakistani claim proves to be correct, this is a significant breakthrough in the fight against Al Qaeda. If the Pakistani authorities allow the US agencies to interrogate him, they could have fairly correct information regarding the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. As mentioned by me in my note of February 22,2010 titled "Are Bin Laden & Zawahiri in Karachi?" available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers37/paper3681.html, "sources in Mr.Altaf Hussain's organisation are now alleging that not only leaders of the Afghan Taliban, but also many absconding elements of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden, and his No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri, have shifted to Karachi from North Waziristan to escape the intensified Drone (unmanned planes) attacks by the USA's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and that they have been given shelter by their Pashtun sympathisers in Karachi. They further allege that the Pakistani authorities and some of the political leaders are aware of this."
7. There is no reason to believe that the Lahore attack might have been connected with Gadahn's claimed capture, but retaliatory attacks in Karachi, Rawalpindi and Lahore are likely if it turns out that he has in fact been captured. Whether Gadahn has been captured in Karachi or not, there is a need for an intensified hunt to smoke out Al Qaeda leaders and members from Karachi. After Tora Bora in 2001-02, many of them including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and bin Laden himself had taken shelter in Karachi, but they ran away from Karachi after Ramzi Binalshib was captured.
8. If the capture of Gadahn in Karachi proves to be correct, there is bound to be panic in the terrorist hide-outs in Karachi and the others taking shelter there might flee back to the tribal areas or might try to escape to Yemen. Strong surveillance to prevent this is necessary. (8-3-10)
( 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, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
CHINA PUTS GOOGLE & OBAMA IN THEIR PLACE
B.RAMAN
The Chinese Government has quietly put Google and President Barack Obama in their place.
2. In January this year, Google had expressed its intention to review its presence in China if the Chinese Government continued to insist that its search engines should black out items and web sites of political dissidents. It also protested against the alleged snooping of the e-mail addresses of Tibetan and other separatist elements using the Google mail service by the Chinese authorities.
3. The Chinese authorities, while regretting the decision of Google, had pointed out that the restrictions imposed in the interest of national security by the Chinese Government were in force even when Google entered the Chinese market. They looked upon the move of Google for a so-called review as politically motivated without any legal justification and made it clear that Google was welcome to continue to function in China provided it observed the Chinese regulations relating to the Internet. They rejected with indignation Google’s allegations of cyber snooping by Beijing.
4. Members of the Obama Administration, including Mrs.Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State, came out in support of Google, but this did not have any effect on Beijing. Since then there has been a stalemate with neither Google nor the Chinese Government making any further move in the matter.
5. In the latest development, the Chinese authorities have strongly denied that any talks on the issues raised by Google were going on with its officials. They have bluntly made it clear that while they would be happy if Google decided to continue in China and observe its Internet regulations, they would be equally happy to facilitate its exit from the Chinese market if it wanted to quit.
6.The “China Daily” reported as follows on March 6,2010: “China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology refuted that China has been involved in any negotiations with Google since the US search engine threatened on January 21 to pull back from the country."We have yet to have any direct contacts or negotiations with them on this topic," said Miao Wei, vice-minister of the MIIT, at the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress. Google had never filed reports over alleged Internet regulations and cyber attacks to the ministry or requested for negotiations, said Miao. It had also never informed the ministry that it was planning to withdraw from China. He said China respects Google's right to decide whether to continue its business in the country. "If Google decides to continue its business in China and abides by China's laws, it's welcome to stay," Miao said. "If the company chooses to withdraw from the Chinese market, it must go through certain procedures according to the law and regulations and deal with customers' problems that may arise." Miao also said he didn't think the Google incident should affect relations between China and the US."It's not a huge problem that should impact the relationship of two countries," he said. He said China doesn't want to see an Internet technical incident upgraded to a political dispute.He also said China welcomes Google to provide further information about the hacker attacks it claimed. "We will definitely investigate on the issue, because we are the victims of hackers too."Google had studied China's laws and regulations before it entered the Chinese market in 2007 and had pledged in written form to abide by the laws and regulations.”
7.The Chinese have similarly put Obama in his place over his decisions to sell a fresh package of arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the White House last month. The Chinese had initially reacted strongly against these decisions and announced the postponement of exchanges of military level visits between the two countries over the Taiwan issue. They had also threatened to impose sanctions against US companies selling military equipment to Taiwan under the proposed package. They have since played down these threats and permitted the US naval ship USS Nimitz to visit Hong Kong.
8. On Tibet, they had strongly criticised the Mr.Obama's meeting with His Holiness, but refrained from openly threatening any retaliatory action. However, Chinese officials were spreading word that President Hu Jintao may not attend the Nuclear Security Summit to be held in the US next month to which Obama attaches considerable importance to express Beijing's unhappiness over the sale of arms to Taiwan and over the meeting with His Holiness.
9.Chinese sources see a link between the speculation about a likely boycott of the nuclear security summit by Mr.Hu Jintao and Mr.Obama's decision to send Mr.James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State, and Mr.Jeffrey Bader , a White House aide, to Beijing last week reportedly to remove misunderstandings arising from the decisions to sell more arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness. The visiting US officials were reported to have reassured their Chinese interlocutors that Mr.Obama's decisions did not mean any change in the US position on the one-China policy and that Tibet was an integral part of China
10. Commenting on the visit of the two officials to Beijing, Mr.Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said on March 4,2010, that the US and China "agreed on the high importance each attaches to the relationships and their commitment to building a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship." He added that the US responded to China's concerns on Taiwan "by reiterating that it has followed a consistent approach, pursued by both administrations of both political parties, on a 'One China' policy."
11. Briefing the media in Beijing, Qin Gang, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that the US had agreed to "take China's position seriously, honor China's core interests and major concerns" and to act to improve relations. Mr. Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, also commented on the relations with the US while briefing the media on March 7,2010, on China’s foreign policy in the margins of the annual session of the National People’s Congress, the Chinese Parliament, being held since March 5,2010. He urged the US to take seriously China's position and respect China's core interests and major concerns with credible steps.
12. He added: "The United States should properly handle relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return the China-US relationship to the track of stable development. The China-US relationship had a good start after President Obama took office last year. However, the US arms sales to Taiwan and the US leader’s meeting with the Dalai Lama caused a serious disturbance to the China-US ties and posed difficulty to the cooperation between the two countries. Such a situation is not in the interest of either side, and the responsibility for the difficulty in Sino-US relations does not lie with China."
13. Referring to the talks with the two visiting US officials, he said: “"The Chinese side stated in full its principled position on China-US relations and on major issues, including Taiwan and Tibet related issues. We pointed out that the relevant moves taken by the US side had seriously violated the principles set out in the three China-US joint communiques and the China-US joint statement. The moves undermined China's core interests and the overall interests of China-US relations, and China is firmly opposed to these moves."
14. While the US has thus taken the initiative to cool the bilateral tensions by reassuring Beijing that there has been no change in its one-China policy and on Tibet being an integral part of China, it is not yet clear whether the Chinese are sufficiently satisfied by the US assurances and whether President Hu will attend the nuclear security summit. (8-3-10)
( 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 Chinese Government has quietly put Google and President Barack Obama in their place.
2. In January this year, Google had expressed its intention to review its presence in China if the Chinese Government continued to insist that its search engines should black out items and web sites of political dissidents. It also protested against the alleged snooping of the e-mail addresses of Tibetan and other separatist elements using the Google mail service by the Chinese authorities.
3. The Chinese authorities, while regretting the decision of Google, had pointed out that the restrictions imposed in the interest of national security by the Chinese Government were in force even when Google entered the Chinese market. They looked upon the move of Google for a so-called review as politically motivated without any legal justification and made it clear that Google was welcome to continue to function in China provided it observed the Chinese regulations relating to the Internet. They rejected with indignation Google’s allegations of cyber snooping by Beijing.
4. Members of the Obama Administration, including Mrs.Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State, came out in support of Google, but this did not have any effect on Beijing. Since then there has been a stalemate with neither Google nor the Chinese Government making any further move in the matter.
5. In the latest development, the Chinese authorities have strongly denied that any talks on the issues raised by Google were going on with its officials. They have bluntly made it clear that while they would be happy if Google decided to continue in China and observe its Internet regulations, they would be equally happy to facilitate its exit from the Chinese market if it wanted to quit.
6.The “China Daily” reported as follows on March 6,2010: “China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology refuted that China has been involved in any negotiations with Google since the US search engine threatened on January 21 to pull back from the country."We have yet to have any direct contacts or negotiations with them on this topic," said Miao Wei, vice-minister of the MIIT, at the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress. Google had never filed reports over alleged Internet regulations and cyber attacks to the ministry or requested for negotiations, said Miao. It had also never informed the ministry that it was planning to withdraw from China. He said China respects Google's right to decide whether to continue its business in the country. "If Google decides to continue its business in China and abides by China's laws, it's welcome to stay," Miao said. "If the company chooses to withdraw from the Chinese market, it must go through certain procedures according to the law and regulations and deal with customers' problems that may arise." Miao also said he didn't think the Google incident should affect relations between China and the US."It's not a huge problem that should impact the relationship of two countries," he said. He said China doesn't want to see an Internet technical incident upgraded to a political dispute.He also said China welcomes Google to provide further information about the hacker attacks it claimed. "We will definitely investigate on the issue, because we are the victims of hackers too."Google had studied China's laws and regulations before it entered the Chinese market in 2007 and had pledged in written form to abide by the laws and regulations.”
7.The Chinese have similarly put Obama in his place over his decisions to sell a fresh package of arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness the Dalai Lama in the White House last month. The Chinese had initially reacted strongly against these decisions and announced the postponement of exchanges of military level visits between the two countries over the Taiwan issue. They had also threatened to impose sanctions against US companies selling military equipment to Taiwan under the proposed package. They have since played down these threats and permitted the US naval ship USS Nimitz to visit Hong Kong.
8. On Tibet, they had strongly criticised the Mr.Obama's meeting with His Holiness, but refrained from openly threatening any retaliatory action. However, Chinese officials were spreading word that President Hu Jintao may not attend the Nuclear Security Summit to be held in the US next month to which Obama attaches considerable importance to express Beijing's unhappiness over the sale of arms to Taiwan and over the meeting with His Holiness.
9.Chinese sources see a link between the speculation about a likely boycott of the nuclear security summit by Mr.Hu Jintao and Mr.Obama's decision to send Mr.James Steinberg, Deputy Secretary of State, and Mr.Jeffrey Bader , a White House aide, to Beijing last week reportedly to remove misunderstandings arising from the decisions to sell more arms to Taiwan and to receive His Holiness. The visiting US officials were reported to have reassured their Chinese interlocutors that Mr.Obama's decisions did not mean any change in the US position on the one-China policy and that Tibet was an integral part of China
10. Commenting on the visit of the two officials to Beijing, Mr.Philip Crowley, a State Department spokesman, said on March 4,2010, that the US and China "agreed on the high importance each attaches to the relationships and their commitment to building a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship." He added that the US responded to China's concerns on Taiwan "by reiterating that it has followed a consistent approach, pursued by both administrations of both political parties, on a 'One China' policy."
11. Briefing the media in Beijing, Qin Gang, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that the US had agreed to "take China's position seriously, honor China's core interests and major concerns" and to act to improve relations. Mr. Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, also commented on the relations with the US while briefing the media on March 7,2010, on China’s foreign policy in the margins of the annual session of the National People’s Congress, the Chinese Parliament, being held since March 5,2010. He urged the US to take seriously China's position and respect China's core interests and major concerns with credible steps.
12. He added: "The United States should properly handle relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return the China-US relationship to the track of stable development. The China-US relationship had a good start after President Obama took office last year. However, the US arms sales to Taiwan and the US leader’s meeting with the Dalai Lama caused a serious disturbance to the China-US ties and posed difficulty to the cooperation between the two countries. Such a situation is not in the interest of either side, and the responsibility for the difficulty in Sino-US relations does not lie with China."
13. Referring to the talks with the two visiting US officials, he said: “"The Chinese side stated in full its principled position on China-US relations and on major issues, including Taiwan and Tibet related issues. We pointed out that the relevant moves taken by the US side had seriously violated the principles set out in the three China-US joint communiques and the China-US joint statement. The moves undermined China's core interests and the overall interests of China-US relations, and China is firmly opposed to these moves."
14. While the US has thus taken the initiative to cool the bilateral tensions by reassuring Beijing that there has been no change in its one-China policy and on Tibet being an integral part of China, it is not yet clear whether the Chinese are sufficiently satisfied by the US assurances and whether President Hu will attend the nuclear security summit. (8-3-10)
( 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 )
Saturday, March 6, 2010
CHINA IN MALDIVES
B.RAMAN
The Government-controlled Xinhua news agency of China has disseminated the following report on March 6,2010:
"China UnionPay (CUP) began cash withdrawal services for card holders in 95 percent of automatic teller machines in the Maldives, after launching a partnership with the island nation's biggest bank Friday (March 5).Following cooperation between the CUP and the Bank of Maldives, CUP card payment services will expand to 90 percent of point-of-sale (POS) terminals in Maldives. The move aims to better serve card users as China has become the Maldives' fastest growing tourist source country since 2008, with visitors hitting 40,000 a year, said Cai Jianbo, CUP first executive Vice-President. The international network of the CUP reaches 84 countries and regions. CUP launched a card payment service in Brunei on Tuesday." ((7-3-2010)
( 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 note on Sino-Maldives Relations disseminated by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on August 19,2009 )
Sino-Maldives relations
Political Relations
Maldivesis called "Liushan Guo" or "Liuyang Guo" in Chinese history. In Yongle 10th year (1412) and Xuande 5th year (1430) of the Ming Dynasty, leading a fleet of merchant ships, Zheng He reached Maldives twice. Since Yongle 14th year, King of Maldives Yusof sent his envoys three times to China. In Foreign Splendors written by Zheng He and his entourage Ma Huan and Maritime Marvels by Fei Xin were true and detailed records of Maldives' geographical position, climate, products and customs. In Male Museum are China's porcelain and coins unearthed there on display, a witness to China's friendly contacts and trade relations with Maldives in history. Due to the imperialist invasion afterward, Sino-Maldives relations were suspended for several centuries.
In the early 1960s, Chinese and Maldives ambassadors to Sri Lanka started visiting each other. China supported Maldives in its struggle for national independence by ridding itself of the British colonial rule. On October 14, 1972, China and Maldives established diplomatic relations, and Chinese ambassador to Sri Lanka was concurrently accredited to Maldives. In 1980, Maldives Foreign Minister Jamil officially paid a friendly visit to China. In 1984, Maldives President Gayoom paid a state visit to China. In 1993, Foreign Minister Jameel visited China again. In 2000, Maldives State Minister of Defence and National Security Sattar visited China and in 2001, Foreign Minister Jameel, Speaker Hameed and Brigadier Zahir, General Chief of Staff for National Security Force visited China one after another.
On the other hand, Chinese Vice-Premier cum Foreign Minister Huang Hua, Vice-Premier cum Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, Vice-Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the NPC Chen Muhua, and Chairman of the CCPCC Li Ruihuan, General Chief of Staff of the PLA Fu Quanyou and Premier Zhu Rongji visited Maldives respectively in 1981, 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2001. On the occasion of 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Sino-Maldives diplomatic relations in 2002, President Jiang Zemin and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan exchanged congratulatory messages respectively with President Gayoom and Foreign Minister Jameel. On May 26, 2009, Maldives opens its Chinese embassy in Beijing. Mr. Ahmed Latheef becomes Maldives' first Ambassador to China.
Economic and Trade Relations and Economic-Technological Cooperation
In 1981,China and Maldives started their economic and technological cooperation. In 1982, they restored direct trade. In 2002, Sino-Maldives trade volume totaled US$2.977 million, of which China's exports accounted for US$2.975 million and its imports US$2,000.
Since 1972, China has provided Maldives with aid totaling RMB74.7875 million. Starting form 1985, Chinese companies began entering project-contracting market in Maldives. By the end of 2001, the accumulated volume for their contracted projects in Maldives had reached US$46.37 million, with their turnover reaching US$40 million.
Sino-Maldives economic cooperation and trade volume are very insignificant. Hong Kong and Singapore serve as transit ports fro most of China's exports to Maldives. China's major products to Maldives are rice and consumer goods.
China and Maldives have seen infrequent contacts and cooperation in other fields. Between 20 and 30 September 2002, at the invitation of the Central Military Commission, Maldives State Minister of Defence and National Security paid a friendly visit to China, which was the first official contact between the Chinese and Maldives armies.
On May 18, 1998, the governments of Maldivesand SAR Hong Kong of China signed the transit agreement for civil flights.
The Government-controlled Xinhua news agency of China has disseminated the following report on March 6,2010:
"China UnionPay (CUP) began cash withdrawal services for card holders in 95 percent of automatic teller machines in the Maldives, after launching a partnership with the island nation's biggest bank Friday (March 5).Following cooperation between the CUP and the Bank of Maldives, CUP card payment services will expand to 90 percent of point-of-sale (POS) terminals in Maldives. The move aims to better serve card users as China has become the Maldives' fastest growing tourist source country since 2008, with visitors hitting 40,000 a year, said Cai Jianbo, CUP first executive Vice-President. The international network of the CUP reaches 84 countries and regions. CUP launched a card payment service in Brunei on Tuesday." ((7-3-2010)
( 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 note on Sino-Maldives Relations disseminated by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on August 19,2009 )
Sino-Maldives relations
Political Relations
Maldivesis called "Liushan Guo" or "Liuyang Guo" in Chinese history. In Yongle 10th year (1412) and Xuande 5th year (1430) of the Ming Dynasty, leading a fleet of merchant ships, Zheng He reached Maldives twice. Since Yongle 14th year, King of Maldives Yusof sent his envoys three times to China. In Foreign Splendors written by Zheng He and his entourage Ma Huan and Maritime Marvels by Fei Xin were true and detailed records of Maldives' geographical position, climate, products and customs. In Male Museum are China's porcelain and coins unearthed there on display, a witness to China's friendly contacts and trade relations with Maldives in history. Due to the imperialist invasion afterward, Sino-Maldives relations were suspended for several centuries.
In the early 1960s, Chinese and Maldives ambassadors to Sri Lanka started visiting each other. China supported Maldives in its struggle for national independence by ridding itself of the British colonial rule. On October 14, 1972, China and Maldives established diplomatic relations, and Chinese ambassador to Sri Lanka was concurrently accredited to Maldives. In 1980, Maldives Foreign Minister Jamil officially paid a friendly visit to China. In 1984, Maldives President Gayoom paid a state visit to China. In 1993, Foreign Minister Jameel visited China again. In 2000, Maldives State Minister of Defence and National Security Sattar visited China and in 2001, Foreign Minister Jameel, Speaker Hameed and Brigadier Zahir, General Chief of Staff for National Security Force visited China one after another.
On the other hand, Chinese Vice-Premier cum Foreign Minister Huang Hua, Vice-Premier cum Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, Vice-Chairperson of the Standing Committee of the NPC Chen Muhua, and Chairman of the CCPCC Li Ruihuan, General Chief of Staff of the PLA Fu Quanyou and Premier Zhu Rongji visited Maldives respectively in 1981, 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2001. On the occasion of 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Sino-Maldives diplomatic relations in 2002, President Jiang Zemin and Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan exchanged congratulatory messages respectively with President Gayoom and Foreign Minister Jameel. On May 26, 2009, Maldives opens its Chinese embassy in Beijing. Mr. Ahmed Latheef becomes Maldives' first Ambassador to China.
Economic and Trade Relations and Economic-Technological Cooperation
In 1981,China and Maldives started their economic and technological cooperation. In 1982, they restored direct trade. In 2002, Sino-Maldives trade volume totaled US$2.977 million, of which China's exports accounted for US$2.975 million and its imports US$2,000.
Since 1972, China has provided Maldives with aid totaling RMB74.7875 million. Starting form 1985, Chinese companies began entering project-contracting market in Maldives. By the end of 2001, the accumulated volume for their contracted projects in Maldives had reached US$46.37 million, with their turnover reaching US$40 million.
Sino-Maldives economic cooperation and trade volume are very insignificant. Hong Kong and Singapore serve as transit ports fro most of China's exports to Maldives. China's major products to Maldives are rice and consumer goods.
China and Maldives have seen infrequent contacts and cooperation in other fields. Between 20 and 30 September 2002, at the invitation of the Central Military Commission, Maldives State Minister of Defence and National Security paid a friendly visit to China, which was the first official contact between the Chinese and Maldives armies.
On May 18, 1998, the governments of Maldivesand SAR Hong Kong of China signed the transit agreement for civil flights.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
FRESH FEARS OF MARITIME TERRORISM
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO.626
B.RAMAN
The years following the Al Qaeda attack on the US naval ship USS Cole in Aden in October,2000, saw an increase in fears of sea-borne terrorism either on coastal targets or on sea-moving targets such as oil/gas tankers, container ships etc. There were also fears of a possible Al Qaeda-inspired attack to block maritime choke-points such as the Malacca Strait.
2. These fears were caused by the flow of human intelligence as well as by the interrogation of arrested suspects. These fears reached the zenith in the months following the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Consequently, there was increased international and regional co-operation in the form of exchange of intelligence and assessments, joint or co-ordinated naval patrolling, joint naval exercises, intensified action against piracy in the Malacca Strait etc.
3. Post-2005, these fears got diluted partly due to the absence of any terrorist attack from the sea, partly due to the preoccupation of Al Qaeda and its allies with land-based operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly due to the effective action taken against piracy in the Malacca Strait region.
4.In recent months, there has been a revival of the fears about a possible maritime terrorist strike due to the following reasons: Firstly, an increase in incidents of piracy by Somali/Yemeni pirates and the inability of the international community to deal effectively with the problem till now; secondly, an increase in the activities of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia, both of which have a large number of sea-faring men who might be prepared to help Al Qaeda in sea-borne attacks; thirdly, the successful sea-borne terrorist strikes mounted by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) on land-based targets in Mumbai from November 26 to 29,2008, and the failure of the Indian Navy and other Navies operating in the seas of the region to detect the plans of the LET and the movement of the LET boat carrying the terrorists from Karachi to Mumbai; and fourthly, the strengthening of physical security for land-based targets, which has necessitated the terrorists once again turning their attention to sea-based targets.
5. The enormous publicity, which the LET got for its sea-borne attack in Mumbai, demonstrated the propaganda value of sea-borne attacks, where the surprise element is more. It is to be expected that not only Al Qaeda, but also other Al Qaeda allied elements such as those of the Jemmah Islamiyah and the Yemeni and Somali members of Al Qaeda might once again be tempted to think in terms of acts of maritime terrorism to prove that their capabilities are intact.
6. It is in this context that one has to see reports from Singapore that an unidentified terrorist g.roup is planning attacks against oil tankers in the Malacca Strait.The Singapore Shipping Association has been quoted as saying on March 2,2010, that it had received an advisory from the Singapore Navy Information Fusion Centre about "an indication that a terrorist group is planning attacks on oil tankers in the Malacca Strait." It added: "This does not preclude possible attacks on other large vessels with dangerous cargo." The Navy Centre's advisory reportedly said:"The terrorists' intent is probably to achieve widespread publicity and showcase that it remains a viable group." It reminded shipping operators that the militants could use smaller vessels such as dinghies and speedboats to attack oil tankers. It recommended that ships should "strengthen their onboard security measures and adopt community reporting to increase awareness and strengthen the safety of all seafarers," according to the Association.
7. It is necessay for the Indian counter-terrorism agencies too and the Indian Navy and Coast Guard to re-focus on the likelihood of fresh sea-borne terrorist strikes against Indian targets either on land or on the high seas in the waters to the west of India. Protection of sealanes against pirates and terrorists acting separatrely of each other or in tandem and prevention and countering of acts of maritime terrorism require close regional co-operation with the navies of countries such as the US, Japan, China,Pakistan,Sri Lanka, the ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Australia. Such co-operation should address issues such as intelligence collection and sharing, joint or co-ordinated operations, mutual assistance on the high seas, joint exercises etc. It is important for India to take the initiative in this matter.
8. The two joint counter-terrorism exercises between India and China held so far were land-based. The first was held in Yunnan and the second in Karnataka. The next Sino-Indian joint exercise should focus on co-ordinated action and mutual assistance against maritime terrorism with the involvement of the navies of not only India and China, but also the US, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia. We should not allow the continuing differences with China over the border dispute to come in the way of evolving a co-operative mechanism against maritime terrorism and piracy.
9. Our adversarial relationship with Pakistan would not permit us to think in terms of joint maritime counter-terrorism exercises with Pakistan, but intelligence-sharing arrangements should be possible and advisable despite the continuing serious differences between the two countries on the issue of Pakistani inaction against terrorism.We must develop slowly habits of mutual assistance with Pakistan----in the field of investigation of terrorism-related cases and prevention of maritime terrorist incidents.( 5-3-10)
( 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 )
B.RAMAN
The years following the Al Qaeda attack on the US naval ship USS Cole in Aden in October,2000, saw an increase in fears of sea-borne terrorism either on coastal targets or on sea-moving targets such as oil/gas tankers, container ships etc. There were also fears of a possible Al Qaeda-inspired attack to block maritime choke-points such as the Malacca Strait.
2. These fears were caused by the flow of human intelligence as well as by the interrogation of arrested suspects. These fears reached the zenith in the months following the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Consequently, there was increased international and regional co-operation in the form of exchange of intelligence and assessments, joint or co-ordinated naval patrolling, joint naval exercises, intensified action against piracy in the Malacca Strait etc.
3. Post-2005, these fears got diluted partly due to the absence of any terrorist attack from the sea, partly due to the preoccupation of Al Qaeda and its allies with land-based operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly due to the effective action taken against piracy in the Malacca Strait region.
4.In recent months, there has been a revival of the fears about a possible maritime terrorist strike due to the following reasons: Firstly, an increase in incidents of piracy by Somali/Yemeni pirates and the inability of the international community to deal effectively with the problem till now; secondly, an increase in the activities of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Somalia, both of which have a large number of sea-faring men who might be prepared to help Al Qaeda in sea-borne attacks; thirdly, the successful sea-borne terrorist strikes mounted by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) on land-based targets in Mumbai from November 26 to 29,2008, and the failure of the Indian Navy and other Navies operating in the seas of the region to detect the plans of the LET and the movement of the LET boat carrying the terrorists from Karachi to Mumbai; and fourthly, the strengthening of physical security for land-based targets, which has necessitated the terrorists once again turning their attention to sea-based targets.
5. The enormous publicity, which the LET got for its sea-borne attack in Mumbai, demonstrated the propaganda value of sea-borne attacks, where the surprise element is more. It is to be expected that not only Al Qaeda, but also other Al Qaeda allied elements such as those of the Jemmah Islamiyah and the Yemeni and Somali members of Al Qaeda might once again be tempted to think in terms of acts of maritime terrorism to prove that their capabilities are intact.
6. It is in this context that one has to see reports from Singapore that an unidentified terrorist g.roup is planning attacks against oil tankers in the Malacca Strait.The Singapore Shipping Association has been quoted as saying on March 2,2010, that it had received an advisory from the Singapore Navy Information Fusion Centre about "an indication that a terrorist group is planning attacks on oil tankers in the Malacca Strait." It added: "This does not preclude possible attacks on other large vessels with dangerous cargo." The Navy Centre's advisory reportedly said:"The terrorists' intent is probably to achieve widespread publicity and showcase that it remains a viable group." It reminded shipping operators that the militants could use smaller vessels such as dinghies and speedboats to attack oil tankers. It recommended that ships should "strengthen their onboard security measures and adopt community reporting to increase awareness and strengthen the safety of all seafarers," according to the Association.
7. It is necessay for the Indian counter-terrorism agencies too and the Indian Navy and Coast Guard to re-focus on the likelihood of fresh sea-borne terrorist strikes against Indian targets either on land or on the high seas in the waters to the west of India. Protection of sealanes against pirates and terrorists acting separatrely of each other or in tandem and prevention and countering of acts of maritime terrorism require close regional co-operation with the navies of countries such as the US, Japan, China,Pakistan,Sri Lanka, the ASEAN and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and Australia. Such co-operation should address issues such as intelligence collection and sharing, joint or co-ordinated operations, mutual assistance on the high seas, joint exercises etc. It is important for India to take the initiative in this matter.
8. The two joint counter-terrorism exercises between India and China held so far were land-based. The first was held in Yunnan and the second in Karnataka. The next Sino-Indian joint exercise should focus on co-ordinated action and mutual assistance against maritime terrorism with the involvement of the navies of not only India and China, but also the US, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and Australia. We should not allow the continuing differences with China over the border dispute to come in the way of evolving a co-operative mechanism against maritime terrorism and piracy.
9. Our adversarial relationship with Pakistan would not permit us to think in terms of joint maritime counter-terrorism exercises with Pakistan, but intelligence-sharing arrangements should be possible and advisable despite the continuing serious differences between the two countries on the issue of Pakistani inaction against terrorism.We must develop slowly habits of mutual assistance with Pakistan----in the field of investigation of terrorism-related cases and prevention of maritime terrorist incidents.( 5-3-10)
( 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, March 3, 2010
WHAT NEXT IN PAKISTAN'S PASHTUN BELT?
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO.625
B.RAMAN
The Pakistan Army and the US intelligence are making headway in the battle against jihadi terrorism --- the indigenous as well as the global varieties--- in Pakistan's Pashtun tribal belt in the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
2. They are working in tandem in some places such as the Swat Valley of the Malakand Division and South Waziristan in the FATA and separately of each other in co-ordinated, but not joint operations in other areas such as the Bajaur and the North Waziristan Agencies of the FATA. While the Pakistan Army has been exclusively handling the ground situation in the Bajaur Agency with very little US involvement, the US has been keeping up relentless pressure on the terrorists in North Waziristan and occasionally in South Waziristan through its Drone (pilotless planes) strikes.
3.There is a gentlemen's agreement between Islamabad and Washington that the former will keep making proforma protests against the Drone strikes without trying to stop them. If Pakistan protests really and vehemently, the US will have to stop them. The US is able to continue them because the Pakistani protests are a charade. Pakistan knows it is benefiting from the Drone strikes and wants them to continue. Fears that disproportionate civilian casualties might add to anti-American feelings have been belied. Civilian casualties there have been, but they are not as heavy as made out by some US analysts. Even the Pakistani civil society and the local tribal population no longer protest against the civilian casualties. They have realised that by eliminating the jihadi terrorist leaders of not only Al Qaeda, but also indigenous organisations such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and trans-border organisations such as the anti-Chinese Islamic Movement of East Turkestan (IMET) the US has given them some relief from the intimidation and terror imposed on the local population by these terrorist groups.
4. There are signs of a jihadi fatigue in the Pakistani Pashtun belt. This fatigue should account for the remarkable decline in public protests over the Drone strikes. It has also contributed to the increasing flow of valuable intelligence to the US agencies. Almost all the successful US Drone strikes were intelligence-driven. Initially, the intelligence came overwhelmingly from technical sources. Now, they are coming more and more from human sources. When there is popular fatigue with the terrorists, intelligence flow improves. We are witnessing this in the tribal belt.
5. The remarkable successes of the US intelligence in North Waziristan have been accompanied by the headway made by the Pakistani security forces in the Swat Valley, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency. These operations cannot be described as successful in terms of identified terrorist leaders neutralised by the Pakistan Army. Many of the terrorist leaders operating in these areas have escaped capture by the Pakistan Army. Their trained followers have dispersed and peeled off. They have retained a capability for re-grouping and striking back at a later stage if the Army pressure eases.
6. Despite this, the Pakistan Army operations have been successful in the sense that it has been able to re-establish territorial control over Swat, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency and deny the use of this territory to the terrorists. Is this territorial control ephemeral or will it be enduring? The training and equipment given by the US to Pakistani para-military forces such as the Frontier Corps have improved their morale and made them fight better to wrest control of the territory from the terrorists, but their ability to hold on to the "newly liberated" territory in the face of a renewed assault is yet to be tested.
7. Any comprehensive operation in this area has to have three components---liberate, hold on to it and develop. Only the first component is now being attempted by the Army with US assistance. US policy-makers and Pakistani civilian leaders are yet to pay attention to the other two components. Holding on to the "liberated" territory demands massive investments for a crash development of roads and other means of communications. One sees no signs of any such investments and related activity. It also demands a robust civilian governing machinery which enforces the civilian authority, brings the liberated areas into the national political mainstream from which the entire FATA had remained excluded ever since Pakistan became independent in 1947 and undertakes massive economic development programmes.
8. The elected civilian Government in Islamabad has shown very little interest in the civilian follow-up to the military actions. It has left all the initiatives in the FATA in the hands of the Army. There is hardly any thinking or discussion in Islamabad or the rest of the country on how to increase the extent and effectiveness of the civilian governing machinery in the tribal belt. The civilian leaders have no interest in the tasks of governance in the tribal areas. Even US policy-makers and experts have shown not much inteterest in following up on the military successes by undertaking a programme for changing the political and economic landscape of the tribal areas.
9. This total lack of interest in "what next" could facilitate re-grouping and a come-back by the terrorists and insurgents. (4-3-10)
( 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
The Pakistan Army and the US intelligence are making headway in the battle against jihadi terrorism --- the indigenous as well as the global varieties--- in Pakistan's Pashtun tribal belt in the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
2. They are working in tandem in some places such as the Swat Valley of the Malakand Division and South Waziristan in the FATA and separately of each other in co-ordinated, but not joint operations in other areas such as the Bajaur and the North Waziristan Agencies of the FATA. While the Pakistan Army has been exclusively handling the ground situation in the Bajaur Agency with very little US involvement, the US has been keeping up relentless pressure on the terrorists in North Waziristan and occasionally in South Waziristan through its Drone (pilotless planes) strikes.
3.There is a gentlemen's agreement between Islamabad and Washington that the former will keep making proforma protests against the Drone strikes without trying to stop them. If Pakistan protests really and vehemently, the US will have to stop them. The US is able to continue them because the Pakistani protests are a charade. Pakistan knows it is benefiting from the Drone strikes and wants them to continue. Fears that disproportionate civilian casualties might add to anti-American feelings have been belied. Civilian casualties there have been, but they are not as heavy as made out by some US analysts. Even the Pakistani civil society and the local tribal population no longer protest against the civilian casualties. They have realised that by eliminating the jihadi terrorist leaders of not only Al Qaeda, but also indigenous organisations such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and trans-border organisations such as the anti-Chinese Islamic Movement of East Turkestan (IMET) the US has given them some relief from the intimidation and terror imposed on the local population by these terrorist groups.
4. There are signs of a jihadi fatigue in the Pakistani Pashtun belt. This fatigue should account for the remarkable decline in public protests over the Drone strikes. It has also contributed to the increasing flow of valuable intelligence to the US agencies. Almost all the successful US Drone strikes were intelligence-driven. Initially, the intelligence came overwhelmingly from technical sources. Now, they are coming more and more from human sources. When there is popular fatigue with the terrorists, intelligence flow improves. We are witnessing this in the tribal belt.
5. The remarkable successes of the US intelligence in North Waziristan have been accompanied by the headway made by the Pakistani security forces in the Swat Valley, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency. These operations cannot be described as successful in terms of identified terrorist leaders neutralised by the Pakistan Army. Many of the terrorist leaders operating in these areas have escaped capture by the Pakistan Army. Their trained followers have dispersed and peeled off. They have retained a capability for re-grouping and striking back at a later stage if the Army pressure eases.
6. Despite this, the Pakistan Army operations have been successful in the sense that it has been able to re-establish territorial control over Swat, South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency and deny the use of this territory to the terrorists. Is this territorial control ephemeral or will it be enduring? The training and equipment given by the US to Pakistani para-military forces such as the Frontier Corps have improved their morale and made them fight better to wrest control of the territory from the terrorists, but their ability to hold on to the "newly liberated" territory in the face of a renewed assault is yet to be tested.
7. Any comprehensive operation in this area has to have three components---liberate, hold on to it and develop. Only the first component is now being attempted by the Army with US assistance. US policy-makers and Pakistani civilian leaders are yet to pay attention to the other two components. Holding on to the "liberated" territory demands massive investments for a crash development of roads and other means of communications. One sees no signs of any such investments and related activity. It also demands a robust civilian governing machinery which enforces the civilian authority, brings the liberated areas into the national political mainstream from which the entire FATA had remained excluded ever since Pakistan became independent in 1947 and undertakes massive economic development programmes.
8. The elected civilian Government in Islamabad has shown very little interest in the civilian follow-up to the military actions. It has left all the initiatives in the FATA in the hands of the Army. There is hardly any thinking or discussion in Islamabad or the rest of the country on how to increase the extent and effectiveness of the civilian governing machinery in the tribal belt. The civilian leaders have no interest in the tasks of governance in the tribal areas. Even US policy-makers and experts have shown not much inteterest in following up on the military successes by undertaking a programme for changing the political and economic landscape of the tribal areas.
9. This total lack of interest in "what next" could facilitate re-grouping and a come-back by the terrorists and insurgents. (4-3-10)
( 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 )
INDIA, PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN & THE US
B.RAMAN
Here are my answers to four questions e-mailed to me on March 3,2010, by a correspondent of the "Washington Post":
Question: Is the Indian government growing increasingly frustrated over the Obama administration's policy of reconciliation with the so called good Taliban? And why or how will this impact India and U.S. relations? What position does this put India in?
Answer:"Frustrated" is not the word. India is increasingly concerned over the US belief that there are good fundamentalists and bad fundamentalists and that it can do business with the good fundamentalists and bring them into the mainstream. India looks upon the "war" against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as directed not only against these organisations, but also against their ideology of religious obscurantism by projecting before the Afghan people the ideas of a secular and liberal democratic society.If it makes a deal with the so-called good Taliban even if they do not give up their medieval ideas, the US will be admitting beforehand that it has lost the ideological battle. It will not be good for Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. And it will not be good for India, which has the second largest Muslim community in the world.
Question: Is India worried that Pakistan is getting too strong b/c the U.S. is courting Pakistan in its fight? And why is this a concern to India ie - despite Mumbai, despite everything, is there a growing feeling in Delhi that Pakistan will hoodwink the world?
Answer:India is worried over the US readiness to close its eyes to Pakistan's use of terrorism against India so long as Pakistan acts against terrorism directed against the US and helps the US in preventing another 9/11 in the US homeland. Pakistan is confident that so long as it helps the US against the Taliban and Al Qaeda it does not have to fear any adverse consequences from its continued use of terrorism against India. It is this confidence which should explain its inaction against the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other Punjabi terrorist organisations whose activities are directed against India.Pakistan has been hoodwinking the US not today, but for the last 30 years ever since it started using terrorism against India.It will continue to hoodwink the world brazenly so long it has the confidence that no action will be taken against it.
Question:Is Afghanistan the new Kashmir, a place india and Pakistan are fighting it out?
Answer:In Kashmir, India is resisting Pakistani attempts since 1989 to annex Indian territory through a proxy war using terrorist organisations trained in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, India has been resisting Pakistani efforts to exclude it from playing its due role as a historic ally of Afghanistan and as a well-wisher of the Afghan people who has been trying to help them convert their country into a modern democratic state. In Kashmir, it is a confrontation over territory which belongs to India. In Afghanistan it is a political and ideological confrontation.
Question: How big is India's intelligence presense in Afghanistan - is it robust? Is it as big as Pakistan claims? Does anyone know?
Answer: I would not know whether India has an intelligence presence in Afghanistan and, if so, how big is it. (3-3-10)
( 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 )
Here are my answers to four questions e-mailed to me on March 3,2010, by a correspondent of the "Washington Post":
Question: Is the Indian government growing increasingly frustrated over the Obama administration's policy of reconciliation with the so called good Taliban? And why or how will this impact India and U.S. relations? What position does this put India in?
Answer:"Frustrated" is not the word. India is increasingly concerned over the US belief that there are good fundamentalists and bad fundamentalists and that it can do business with the good fundamentalists and bring them into the mainstream. India looks upon the "war" against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as directed not only against these organisations, but also against their ideology of religious obscurantism by projecting before the Afghan people the ideas of a secular and liberal democratic society.If it makes a deal with the so-called good Taliban even if they do not give up their medieval ideas, the US will be admitting beforehand that it has lost the ideological battle. It will not be good for Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. And it will not be good for India, which has the second largest Muslim community in the world.
Question: Is India worried that Pakistan is getting too strong b/c the U.S. is courting Pakistan in its fight? And why is this a concern to India ie - despite Mumbai, despite everything, is there a growing feeling in Delhi that Pakistan will hoodwink the world?
Answer:India is worried over the US readiness to close its eyes to Pakistan's use of terrorism against India so long as Pakistan acts against terrorism directed against the US and helps the US in preventing another 9/11 in the US homeland. Pakistan is confident that so long as it helps the US against the Taliban and Al Qaeda it does not have to fear any adverse consequences from its continued use of terrorism against India. It is this confidence which should explain its inaction against the Lashkar-e-Toiba and other Punjabi terrorist organisations whose activities are directed against India.Pakistan has been hoodwinking the US not today, but for the last 30 years ever since it started using terrorism against India.It will continue to hoodwink the world brazenly so long it has the confidence that no action will be taken against it.
Question:Is Afghanistan the new Kashmir, a place india and Pakistan are fighting it out?
Answer:In Kashmir, India is resisting Pakistani attempts since 1989 to annex Indian territory through a proxy war using terrorist organisations trained in Pakistan. In Afghanistan, India has been resisting Pakistani efforts to exclude it from playing its due role as a historic ally of Afghanistan and as a well-wisher of the Afghan people who has been trying to help them convert their country into a modern democratic state. In Kashmir, it is a confrontation over territory which belongs to India. In Afghanistan it is a political and ideological confrontation.
Question: How big is India's intelligence presense in Afghanistan - is it robust? Is it as big as Pakistan claims? Does anyone know?
Answer: I would not know whether India has an intelligence presence in Afghanistan and, if so, how big is it. (3-3-10)
( 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 )
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
INDIAN EGGS IN SAUDI BASKET
B.RAMAN
The Indian interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia dates back to the period from 1980 to 84 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister. As she was generally in the habit of doing, she initially sent a senior official of the Indian intelligence community on a secret visit to Saudi Arabia to test the waters for making an overture to the then ruling family. R.N.Kao, who was then the Senior Adviser to her, did the spade work in paving the way for a visit by her to Saudi Arabia. The then Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia played a significant role in convincing her about the positive feelings for India in the Saudi ruling family. These preliminary steps culminated in a successful visit by her to Saudi Arabia in 1982.
2. Her interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia had four objectives---- to strengthen India's energy security, to use the good offices of Saudi Arabia to persuade Pakistan to stop supporting the Khalistan movement, to remove suspicions in the Islamic world in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular about India's Afghan policy which was widely perceived in the West and the Islamic world as supporting the Soviet interests in Afghanistan and to retain the continued support of the Indian Muslim community for the Congress (I).
3. The high expectations aroused by her visit did not materialise. Saudi Arabia was not able to or was not in a position to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistan movement. While the economic ties between the two countries continued to grow in fits and starts, there were no political or long-term strategic dividends from the visit. Even hopes that the visit could pave the way for a formal liaison relationship between the intelligence agencies of the two countries resulting in intelligence-sharing arrangements were belied.
4. Among the reasons for the disappointing sequel were---firstly, Indira Gandhi's preoccupation with countering the Khalistan movement which ultimately led to her assassination in October,1984, and, secondly, the emergence of Pakistan as a frontline state in the jihad against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the consequent reluctance of Saudi Arabia and the US to exercise pressure on Pakistan to make it stop supporting the Khalistan movement.
5. Under Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao as Prime Ministers, the exercise to upgrade our relations with Saudi Arabia was given a low priority. Both of them realised that India had to fight Khalistani terrorism and Pakistani sponsorship of it in its own way and through its own means and that it would be futile to expect the US or Saudi Arabia or any other country to exercise pressure on Pakistan. How to make the Pakistani use of Khalistani terrorism prohibitively costly to Islamabad? That became the main objective of Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao.
6. Any scope for a new look at India's relations with Saudi Arabia was considerably reduced by the success of the Afghan Mujahideen supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in overthrowing the India-friendly Government of Najibullah in Kabul and capturing power in 1992, the emergence of the Taliban in 1994 and its capture of power in Kabul in 1996, the Saudi support for the Taliban Government and the Saudi sympathies for the Pakistan-backed jihadi terrorist organisations in Jammu & Kashmir post-1989.
7. Faced with these developments, India started exploring new diplomatic and operational options --- with some success. Iran played a central role in the Indian search for new options. Among these options, one could mention India enlisting the support of Iran to defeat the move of the Benazir Bhutto Government to have India condemned in the UN Human Rights Commission on the Kashmir issue in 1994 and the covert alliance with Iran and Russia to help the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. India's relations with Iran reached the height of their development under Narasimha Rao. Iran became the toast of the Indian diplomacy in the Islamic world just as Saudi Arabia seems to be becoming of the Manmohan Singh Government's diplomacy. Narasimha Rao braved the displeasure of the US Government in developing India's relations with Iran and of the Arab world in developing relations with Israel. Iran and Israel became the two fulcra around which Indian overt and covert diplomacy to counter Pakistan turned.
8. The Manmohan Singh Government's renewed interest in developing closer relations with Saudi Arabia could be traced to his visit to Washington in July, 2005, during which the civilian nuclear co-operation agreement with the US was signed. New Delhi had to pay an unadmitted price for this agreement----downgrading its relations with Iran. The Indian vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the low priority given by India to its participation in the project for the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan were the outcome of Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to the US and the new strategic co-operation with the US. New Delhi, which had consistently resisted US pressure on its Iran policy, became increasingly amenable to pressure from Washington. Result: Iran quietly retaliated on energy co-operation with India.
9. The need to find alternate sources for India's increasing energy requirements in the face of the post-2005 unhelpful attitude of Iran once again made New Delhi turn to Saudi Arabia for its energy security. Our relations with Saudi Arabia have acquired a Pakistani dimension after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Despite the terrorist strikes, the continuing Pakistani support to organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) put the Manmohan Singh Government in a dilemma---to retaliate or not to retaliate. Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. Even though in response to public anger and political pressure from sections of his own party and other political parties, he suspended the composite dialogue with Pakistan and wriggled out of the agreement reached by him with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July last, he has not given up his hopes of reaching some sort of an agreement with Pakistan which would make Pakistan discontinue the use of terrorism against India in Indian and Afghan territories as a prelude to the resumption of the composite dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir and other issues.
10. Just as Indira Gandhi sought to use ----unsuccessfully---the help of Saudi Arabia to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistanis, Dr.Manmohan Singh has sought the good offices of the Saudi King to make Pakistan stop supporting anti-India terrorism so that "he could walk the extra mile" with Pakistan as he put it. We are in for disappointment if we believe that Saudi Arabia will exercise pressure on Pakistan, another Sunni state, to stop supporting anti-India Sunni/Wahabi terrorist groups. There is a convergence between the views of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the issue of jihadi Sunni terrorism directed against India. Both condemn jihadi Sunni terrorism in the Indian territory outside Jammu & Kashmir, but both look upon what is going on in J&K as a "freedom struggle". In the unlikely event of Saudi Arabia interceding with Pakistan to give satisfaction to India on the question of terrorism in hinterland India outside Kashmir, it would expect India to give satisfaction to Pakistan on Kashmir. Would Dr.Manmohan Singh be prepared to do it?
11. Some of the recent statements of Dr.Manmohan Singh in Saudi Arabia are likely to be misinterpreted by Islamabad as indicating the beginning of a battle fatigue in New Delhi. It would make Pakistan even more determined than hitherto to keep up the pressure on India through terrorism to force a change in the status quo. Even if Saudi Arabia sincerely tries to exercise pressure on Pakistan on the terrorism issue, Pakistan is unlikely to give in at a time when it thinks that battle fatigue is setting in. It is one thing to strengthen our energy security by developing our relations with Saudi Arabia , but it is another to put our eggs in the Saudi basket in matters relating to our core concerns about Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism and Kashmir.
12. India is a frontline State in the battle against global Sunni/Wahabi jihadi terrorism. It has to fight the battle on its own, through its own means with the help of like-minded States. Saudi Arabia is definitely not a like-minded State in this regard. Another worrisome aspect of the recent visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) of Dr.Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia is his support to the Arab point of view on a peace settlement with Israel without consideration to the core concerns and sensitivities of Israel, which has been a steadfast well-wisher of India and has been quietly playing a helpful role in our attempts to modernise our Armed Forces to counter the modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces.
13.Just as Dr.Manmohan Singh paid a price in terms of Iran in his keenness to get closer to the US, he seems to be prepared to pay a price in terms of Israel in his keenness to get closer to Saudi Arabia. We supported the Arabs right or wrong to the detriment of Israel before 1967. What did we get in return? It will be very unfortunate if we revert to our pre-1967 policies in our keenness to cultivate Saudi Arabia. (3-3-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institutue For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The Indian interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia dates back to the period from 1980 to 84 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister. As she was generally in the habit of doing, she initially sent a senior official of the Indian intelligence community on a secret visit to Saudi Arabia to test the waters for making an overture to the then ruling family. R.N.Kao, who was then the Senior Adviser to her, did the spade work in paving the way for a visit by her to Saudi Arabia. The then Indian Ambassador to Saudi Arabia played a significant role in convincing her about the positive feelings for India in the Saudi ruling family. These preliminary steps culminated in a successful visit by her to Saudi Arabia in 1982.
2. Her interest in closer relations with Saudi Arabia had four objectives---- to strengthen India's energy security, to use the good offices of Saudi Arabia to persuade Pakistan to stop supporting the Khalistan movement, to remove suspicions in the Islamic world in general and in Saudi Arabia in particular about India's Afghan policy which was widely perceived in the West and the Islamic world as supporting the Soviet interests in Afghanistan and to retain the continued support of the Indian Muslim community for the Congress (I).
3. The high expectations aroused by her visit did not materialise. Saudi Arabia was not able to or was not in a position to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistan movement. While the economic ties between the two countries continued to grow in fits and starts, there were no political or long-term strategic dividends from the visit. Even hopes that the visit could pave the way for a formal liaison relationship between the intelligence agencies of the two countries resulting in intelligence-sharing arrangements were belied.
4. Among the reasons for the disappointing sequel were---firstly, Indira Gandhi's preoccupation with countering the Khalistan movement which ultimately led to her assassination in October,1984, and, secondly, the emergence of Pakistan as a frontline state in the jihad against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan and the consequent reluctance of Saudi Arabia and the US to exercise pressure on Pakistan to make it stop supporting the Khalistan movement.
5. Under Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao as Prime Ministers, the exercise to upgrade our relations with Saudi Arabia was given a low priority. Both of them realised that India had to fight Khalistani terrorism and Pakistani sponsorship of it in its own way and through its own means and that it would be futile to expect the US or Saudi Arabia or any other country to exercise pressure on Pakistan. How to make the Pakistani use of Khalistani terrorism prohibitively costly to Islamabad? That became the main objective of Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao.
6. Any scope for a new look at India's relations with Saudi Arabia was considerably reduced by the success of the Afghan Mujahideen supported by the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in overthrowing the India-friendly Government of Najibullah in Kabul and capturing power in 1992, the emergence of the Taliban in 1994 and its capture of power in Kabul in 1996, the Saudi support for the Taliban Government and the Saudi sympathies for the Pakistan-backed jihadi terrorist organisations in Jammu & Kashmir post-1989.
7. Faced with these developments, India started exploring new diplomatic and operational options --- with some success. Iran played a central role in the Indian search for new options. Among these options, one could mention India enlisting the support of Iran to defeat the move of the Benazir Bhutto Government to have India condemned in the UN Human Rights Commission on the Kashmir issue in 1994 and the covert alliance with Iran and Russia to help the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. India's relations with Iran reached the height of their development under Narasimha Rao. Iran became the toast of the Indian diplomacy in the Islamic world just as Saudi Arabia seems to be becoming of the Manmohan Singh Government's diplomacy. Narasimha Rao braved the displeasure of the US Government in developing India's relations with Iran and of the Arab world in developing relations with Israel. Iran and Israel became the two fulcra around which Indian overt and covert diplomacy to counter Pakistan turned.
8. The Manmohan Singh Government's renewed interest in developing closer relations with Saudi Arabia could be traced to his visit to Washington in July, 2005, during which the civilian nuclear co-operation agreement with the US was signed. New Delhi had to pay an unadmitted price for this agreement----downgrading its relations with Iran. The Indian vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and the low priority given by India to its participation in the project for the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan were the outcome of Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to the US and the new strategic co-operation with the US. New Delhi, which had consistently resisted US pressure on its Iran policy, became increasingly amenable to pressure from Washington. Result: Iran quietly retaliated on energy co-operation with India.
9. The need to find alternate sources for India's increasing energy requirements in the face of the post-2005 unhelpful attitude of Iran once again made New Delhi turn to Saudi Arabia for its energy security. Our relations with Saudi Arabia have acquired a Pakistani dimension after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Despite the terrorist strikes, the continuing Pakistani support to organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) put the Manmohan Singh Government in a dilemma---to retaliate or not to retaliate. Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a man of confrontation. Even though in response to public anger and political pressure from sections of his own party and other political parties, he suspended the composite dialogue with Pakistan and wriggled out of the agreement reached by him with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July last, he has not given up his hopes of reaching some sort of an agreement with Pakistan which would make Pakistan discontinue the use of terrorism against India in Indian and Afghan territories as a prelude to the resumption of the composite dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir and other issues.
10. Just as Indira Gandhi sought to use ----unsuccessfully---the help of Saudi Arabia to make Pakistan stop supporting the Khalistanis, Dr.Manmohan Singh has sought the good offices of the Saudi King to make Pakistan stop supporting anti-India terrorism so that "he could walk the extra mile" with Pakistan as he put it. We are in for disappointment if we believe that Saudi Arabia will exercise pressure on Pakistan, another Sunni state, to stop supporting anti-India Sunni/Wahabi terrorist groups. There is a convergence between the views of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the issue of jihadi Sunni terrorism directed against India. Both condemn jihadi Sunni terrorism in the Indian territory outside Jammu & Kashmir, but both look upon what is going on in J&K as a "freedom struggle". In the unlikely event of Saudi Arabia interceding with Pakistan to give satisfaction to India on the question of terrorism in hinterland India outside Kashmir, it would expect India to give satisfaction to Pakistan on Kashmir. Would Dr.Manmohan Singh be prepared to do it?
11. Some of the recent statements of Dr.Manmohan Singh in Saudi Arabia are likely to be misinterpreted by Islamabad as indicating the beginning of a battle fatigue in New Delhi. It would make Pakistan even more determined than hitherto to keep up the pressure on India through terrorism to force a change in the status quo. Even if Saudi Arabia sincerely tries to exercise pressure on Pakistan on the terrorism issue, Pakistan is unlikely to give in at a time when it thinks that battle fatigue is setting in. It is one thing to strengthen our energy security by developing our relations with Saudi Arabia , but it is another to put our eggs in the Saudi basket in matters relating to our core concerns about Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism and Kashmir.
12. India is a frontline State in the battle against global Sunni/Wahabi jihadi terrorism. It has to fight the battle on its own, through its own means with the help of like-minded States. Saudi Arabia is definitely not a like-minded State in this regard. Another worrisome aspect of the recent visit (February 27 to March 1, 2010) of Dr.Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia is his support to the Arab point of view on a peace settlement with Israel without consideration to the core concerns and sensitivities of Israel, which has been a steadfast well-wisher of India and has been quietly playing a helpful role in our attempts to modernise our Armed Forces to counter the modernisation of the Chinese Armed Forces.
13.Just as Dr.Manmohan Singh paid a price in terms of Iran in his keenness to get closer to the US, he seems to be prepared to pay a price in terms of Israel in his keenness to get closer to Saudi Arabia. We supported the Arabs right or wrong to the detriment of Israel before 1967. What did we get in return? It will be very unfortunate if we revert to our pre-1967 policies in our keenness to cultivate Saudi Arabia. (3-3-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institutue For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)