B.RAMAN
The situation in Afghanistan differs in some significant aspects from the situation that had prevailed when the Soviet troops withdrew in 1988-89.
2.The Soviets had left in Najibullah a capable Pashtun leader who was a three-in-one---- a leader with good political instincts, a good military commander and a good intelligence professional who had headed the Khad, the then Afghan intelligence agency. He had the support of the Uzbeks headed by Rashid Dostum, but the Tajiks headed by the late Ahmed Shah Masood were against him and supporting the anti-Najib Pashtun Mujahideen groups.
3.In the months before the Soviet withdrawal, Moscow had transferred considerable responsibilities to Najib, who was handling the ground situation competently. He belied the expectations of the US that his Government and Army would collapse once the Soviets left. They didn't. On the contrary, he managed to consolidate his position on the ground and strengthened his links with the Awami National Party in the NWFP (now called Khyber-Pakhtoonkwa) and the Balochs under Khair Bux Marri. The ANP and the cadres of Marri became excellent providers of HUMINT for him. He not only survived, but beat back an ISI-instigated and led attempt by the Afghan Mujahideen to capture Jalalabad. The rout of the Mujahideen at Jalalabad led to the exit of Lt.Gen.Hamid Gul from the post of Director-General of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence ( ISI).
4.Najib survived for nearly four years. What ultimately led to his defeat and fall in April 1992 was his split with Dostum and the desertion of the Uzbek troops from the Afghan Army.
5.As contrasted with Najib, President Hamid Karzai has neither good political instincts nor military capability nor an aptitude for intelligence.The kind of operational responsibilities which the Soviets had entrusted to Najib, the Americans have not given to Karzai, who hardly plays any role in the command and control of the ground operations.The Soviets encouraged and trained local leadership.The US control over Afghanistan has not given scope for local leadership to assume effective command and control.
6. Mr.Karzai is inexperienced despite being in power for nearly eight years and may not be able to last long if he falls out with the Northern Alliance elements with whom his relations are even now hardly cordial.Once the Americans withdraw or considerably reduce their presence in Afghanistan, the chances of Mr. Karzai continuing to remain in power would depend upon the unity between him and the elements of the Northern Alliance. If the unity fails, the Tajiks and the Uzbeks will take over control of their respective ethnic areas as they did when the ISI-created Taliban captured Kabul in September 1996.
7. If this happens, we will revert to the de facto partition of Afghanistan that had prevailed between September 1996 and October 2001---- with the Pashtuns under the Taliban in control of the Pashtun areas and the Tajiks and Uzbeks in control of their areas. If the Tajiks and Uzbeks can retain control of Kabul this time, they will be in a slightly better position than they were between 1996 and 2001.We will face another bleeding stalemate with the Tajik-Uzbek combine and the Pashtuns having sufficient capability to make each other bleed, but not being able to prevail---one over the other.
8. The ability of one to prevail over the other would depend upon whether it is able to get air support. The Northern Alliance, which was not able to prevail over the Taliban till 9/11, managed to after 9/11 because of the US air support. The Taliban, which resisted the Northern Alliance till 9/11, collapsed thereafter because it did not have any air support. In the eventuality of another conflict between the Taliban on the one side and the Tajiks-Uzbeks on the other, the US would not give air support to the Tajiks-Uzbek combine. The Pashtuns are better fighters than the Tajiks and Uzbeks. They constitute about 20 per cent of the Pakistan Army. They can help the US in its war against Al Qaeda if they want to. The US would not like to antagonise them further than it has already done. The US would, therefore, remain neutral, making sure that no other external air power intervenes. History will repeat itself. The Tajiks and Uzbeks will look up to India, Iran and Russia for help. Iran would most probably respond positively. Russia too would, probably. India, unlike in 1997, may not be able to even if it wants because of its growing strategic dependence on the US. The scope for any role for external powers would thus be limited.
9. How the situation turns on the ground would depend on Al Qaeda now based in North Waziristan and its allies and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Neither was a player in the Af-Pak scenario before 1996. Al Qaeda has emerged as an important player after Osama bin Laden shifted to Afghanistan from the Sudan in 1996. The TTP has emerged as an important player after the Pakistani Army's commando action in the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July 2007 during which a large number of Pashtun children were killed.Neither Al Qaeda nor the TTP is playing an important role in the ground situation in Afghanistan today. Al Qaeda has left command and control completely in the hands of the Afghan Taliban. The relationship between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP is strained. The Afghan Taliban looks upon the Pakistan Army as an ally. The TTP looks upon it as an adversary. Al Qaeda looks upon the Pakistan Army as apostate because of its co-operation with the US . As a result of these factors, the support of Al Qaeda and the TTP to the Afghan Taliban may not be whole-hearted.
10. As a result, we might find a triangular confrontation on the ground if and when the US-led NATO troops leave or thin themselves down. This confrontation would involve the Afghan Taliban supported by Pakistan, the Northern Alliance remnants supported by Iran and Russia probably and by India too possibly and the Al Qaeda-TTP combine without any external support. The Pashtun support will be divided. The Afghan Pashtuns will support the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Army. The Pakistani Pashtuns of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) will support Al Qaeda and its allies and the TTP.
11. The expectations that there will be a resurgence of the independent Pashtunistan movement as a result of the developments is a pipedream. The independent Pashtunistan movement has enjoyed support only among the Pashtuns of Khyber-Paktoonkwa and not among the Pashtuns of the FATA, who do not support it even today. The Pashtun community has prospered considerably in Pakistan. There are more Pashtuns in Karachi today than in Peshawar. The Pashtuns have emerged as a dominant community in certain parts of Balochistan, including Quetta. The Pashtuns and the Punjabis are the major beneficiaries of the development of the Gwadar area. The Pashtuns of Pakistan are beneficiaries of the NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. They control the truck business and are minting millions from the Americans by monopolising the movement of logistic supplies for the NATO troops from Karachi. The Pashtuns know they might lose all these benefits if they separate from Pakistan. They will keep shouting slogans for an independent Pashtunistan from time to time to scare the Pakistanis and to add to our pipedreams, but they don't want it.
12. How then will the triangular confrontation end? The Pakistan Army will ultimately succeed in making all the Pashtuns unite in support of its agenda. If and when that happens, the Tajiks and Uzbeks will make peace with them. India's options will be very limited. All we can do is clearly identify our objective allies and stick to them as long as possible in the hope that they would emerge as important players if not the dominant player, and support our interests. Our objective allies would be the Tajiks and the Pashtun supporters of the ANP and Mr.Karzai. The Uzbeks will be unpredictable. ( 19-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyobe2@gmail.com )
Monday, July 19, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
RSS : NEEDED GREATER MATURITY
B.RAMAN
The volunteers of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), who protested outside the offices of the "Headlines Today" TV channel on July 16,2010, did not bring credit to the organisation. They were protesting against a programme telecast by the channel the previous day regarding the alleged role of some elements associated with the RSS in connection with acts of reprisal terrorism against Muslims and their places of worship. Individual members of the Hindu community have been arrested in connection with these attacks on some sections of the Muslim community and their places of worship.
2. The case is still under investigation. While the evidence available so far, as reported in the media, points towards the involvement of some members of the Hindu community suspected to be sympathetic to the RSS ideology and even some cadres of the RSS, it does not show the involvement of the RSS as an organisation in any of these incidents. Allegations of saffron terrorism or RSS-inspired terrorism are uncalled for.
3. At the same time, it is necessary for the RSS to take note of these allegations, do an in-house enquiry, weed out anyone suspected of complicity with the arrested elements and keep the public informed of the action taken by it. The RSS has thousands of dedicated cadres and sympathisers in India as well as abroad, who are doing very good work for the preservation of the Hindu religion in its homeland, where it is constantly under attack from different directions in the name of so-called secularism. The dedicated followers of the RSS in India and abroad have been in the forefront of those contributing to the welfare of the tribals in the Maoist-affected areas in Central India. When other Hindu organisations hesitate to go into the insecure tribal areas, the brave and dedicated cadres of the RSS have been going unmindful of threats to their security and helping the tribals.
4. They have also been in the forefront of those countering often foreign-funded attempts to convert large numbers of Hindus by taking advantage of feelings of anger in the deprived sections of the Hindu community in an attempt to reduce the number of Hindus in their homeland. They have also been highlighting the threatened changes in the demographic composition of sensitive areas of the country, particularly in the North-East, due to large-scale illegal immigration.
5. The Hindu religion needs a dedicated, articulate and boldly active organisation like the RSS to preserve its primacy in its homeland. It would be unfortunate if the continued capability of the RSS to serve the cause of the Hindu religion were to be affected by the alleged involvement of some persons associated with it in acts of anti-Muslim terrorism and in undemocratic and violent ways of protest as one saw outside the offices of Headlines Today.
6. Such instances will provide a handle to those in India and abroad, who are trying to project the RSS as a Hindu extremist organisation in order to weaken its service in the cause of the Hindus.
7. This may kindly be read in continuation of my article of June 18,2010, titled "Anti-Muslim Reprisal Terrorism----An Update" available at -http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3866.html
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The volunteers of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), who protested outside the offices of the "Headlines Today" TV channel on July 16,2010, did not bring credit to the organisation. They were protesting against a programme telecast by the channel the previous day regarding the alleged role of some elements associated with the RSS in connection with acts of reprisal terrorism against Muslims and their places of worship. Individual members of the Hindu community have been arrested in connection with these attacks on some sections of the Muslim community and their places of worship.
2. The case is still under investigation. While the evidence available so far, as reported in the media, points towards the involvement of some members of the Hindu community suspected to be sympathetic to the RSS ideology and even some cadres of the RSS, it does not show the involvement of the RSS as an organisation in any of these incidents. Allegations of saffron terrorism or RSS-inspired terrorism are uncalled for.
3. At the same time, it is necessary for the RSS to take note of these allegations, do an in-house enquiry, weed out anyone suspected of complicity with the arrested elements and keep the public informed of the action taken by it. The RSS has thousands of dedicated cadres and sympathisers in India as well as abroad, who are doing very good work for the preservation of the Hindu religion in its homeland, where it is constantly under attack from different directions in the name of so-called secularism. The dedicated followers of the RSS in India and abroad have been in the forefront of those contributing to the welfare of the tribals in the Maoist-affected areas in Central India. When other Hindu organisations hesitate to go into the insecure tribal areas, the brave and dedicated cadres of the RSS have been going unmindful of threats to their security and helping the tribals.
4. They have also been in the forefront of those countering often foreign-funded attempts to convert large numbers of Hindus by taking advantage of feelings of anger in the deprived sections of the Hindu community in an attempt to reduce the number of Hindus in their homeland. They have also been highlighting the threatened changes in the demographic composition of sensitive areas of the country, particularly in the North-East, due to large-scale illegal immigration.
5. The Hindu religion needs a dedicated, articulate and boldly active organisation like the RSS to preserve its primacy in its homeland. It would be unfortunate if the continued capability of the RSS to serve the cause of the Hindu religion were to be affected by the alleged involvement of some persons associated with it in acts of anti-Muslim terrorism and in undemocratic and violent ways of protest as one saw outside the offices of Headlines Today.
6. Such instances will provide a handle to those in India and abroad, who are trying to project the RSS as a Hindu extremist organisation in order to weaken its service in the cause of the Hindus.
7. This may kindly be read in continuation of my article of June 18,2010, titled "Anti-Muslim Reprisal Terrorism----An Update" available at -http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3866.html
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, July 16, 2010
PAKISTAN: INDIA'S OPTIONS
B.RAMAN
Remember Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, who was the Foreign Minister of Pakistan under Yahya Khan? Remember his antics, crude exhibitionism and unparliamentary remarks about Indira Gandhi in the months before the Indo-Pakistan war of December 1971? Remember the way he used to conduct himself in the UN Security Council when it debated the growing tension between India and Pakistan? Remember Benazir Bhutto, his daughter, who was the then Prime Minister,conducting herself hysterically in public in 1989? Remember her going to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, stand before a crowd near the Line of Control, face Indian territory and shout hysterically "azadi,azadi"? Remember the unparliamentary remarks which she used to make about Narasimha Rao, our then Prime Minister?
2. Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao ignored with contempt the behaviour of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir and continued doing what they thought was necessary in India' national interest. We should similarly ignore with contempt the behaviour of Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and his unparliamentary remarks about Mr.S.M.Krishna, our Foreign Minister, while briefing Pakistani media personnel on July 16 about his talks with our Foreign Minister the previous day.
3. The Government of India, Mr.Krishna himself and Mrs.Nirupama Rao, our Foreign Secretary, need to be complimented for conducting themselves with great personal dignity befitting us as a responsible and mature nation with a mature political leadership in power and for refusing to let themselves be provoked and react in kind against Mr.Qureshi. One of the objectives of Mr.Qureshi was to create doubts in the minds of the Indian public about the credibility and professional competence of Mr.Krishna. Another was to create a crisis atmosphere in the hope of thereby making the West and the Islamic world exercise pressure on India. The Bharatiya Janata Party and some of its leaders and spokesmen are unwittingly walking into the Pakistani trap by their campaign against Mr.Krishna at a time when the political class should stand united behind him.
4. When Z.A.Bhutto and his daughter indulged in anti-India antics and exhibitionism there was no global TV. We had to read about them in the print media and wait for the visuals which arrived days later. There were no live transmissions, no live debates. Only we in India followed closely the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir? Most of the rest of the world did not. The international community did not have an idea of the kind of Foreign Minister or Prime Minister Pakistan had.
5. Things are different today. Thanks to the global TV networks, the whole world had an opportunity of watching alive the antics and exhibitionism of Mr.Qureshi and the measured and cultured response of Mr.Krishna and Mrs.Nirupama Rao.It will redound to our credit and make the international community understand----if it has not already understood it--- the kind of Pakistani leadership and the kind of Pakistani Muslim mentality we have to contend with.
6. India's negotiating stance of "action against anti-India terrorism first, rest later" and the growing international understanding of India's stance after 26/11 have unsettled Pakistan. Mr.Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism did not reflect any embarrassment or nervousness over the reported admissions of David Coleman Headley, the head of the sleeper cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri in Chicago, to Indian interrogators about the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the command and control of the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Such embarrassments are flea-bites for Pakistan and its ISI.
7. Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism reflected his anger and petulance over his failure to bully Mr.Krishna and the Government of India into changing their negotiating stance and accepting the Pakistani position of "talk on all or talk on nothing" ---just as the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir reflected their anger and petulance due to their failure to bully Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao into accepting the Pakistani viewpoint. We should ignore the antics and exhibitionism of Qureshi and look ahead.
8. What now are the options before India? The BJP has demanded that we call off the talks with Pakistan. This will be an unintelligent option. A time could come when have to act on our own against the anti-Indian terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory----either through direct military or through covert action. We have to convince the international community that we tried all other options to make Pakistan see reason and that only when those options failed, we were forced to resort to military or covert action. There are any number of Governmental statements and doctrines in various countries regarding the circumstances under which covert action would be justified. The most important of these are a speech given by George Shultz, the US Secretary of State under the then President Ronald Reagan, and an introduction to a report on terrorism written by Mr.George Bush, the Vice-President of Reagan and Chairman of the presidential Task Force Against Terrorism. They said that covert action against a State-sponsor of terrorism would be justified WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS FAIL.
9. Negotiation is one of the options that has to be tried. You cannot go straightaway into the covert action mode without trying out the negotiation mode. Negotiations could have one of two outcomes. Either Pakistan sees reason and acts against anti-India terrorism thereby obviating the need for covert action or continues to avoid action thereby justifying our resort to covert action. It is, therefore, important that we continue with our negotiations with Pakistan in the hope of establishing normal relations while at the same time reviving and strengthening our covert action capability for likely use if all other options fail.
10. Should we continue to negotiate with Qureshi as if nothing has happened after his insulting behaviour towards our Foreign Minister? Will it not be a poor reflection on us as a nation and as a people and further encourage such behaviour by Pakistan? We should not. At the same time, we cannot refuse to negotiate so long as he is the Pakistani Foreign Minister. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani has the right to have whomever he wants as his Foreign Minister, whether we like him or not.
11. So, the only option available to us to keep the negotiations going while at the same time protecting our national dignity is by confining our future negotiations to the interactions between our Home Ministry and the Pakistani Interior Ministry. We should withdraw the invitation to Mr.Qureshi to visit New Delhi which was issued before he indulged in his antics and exhibitionism and instead invite Mr.Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, for continuing his talks with our Home Minister. ( 17-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Remember Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, who was the Foreign Minister of Pakistan under Yahya Khan? Remember his antics, crude exhibitionism and unparliamentary remarks about Indira Gandhi in the months before the Indo-Pakistan war of December 1971? Remember the way he used to conduct himself in the UN Security Council when it debated the growing tension between India and Pakistan? Remember Benazir Bhutto, his daughter, who was the then Prime Minister,conducting herself hysterically in public in 1989? Remember her going to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, stand before a crowd near the Line of Control, face Indian territory and shout hysterically "azadi,azadi"? Remember the unparliamentary remarks which she used to make about Narasimha Rao, our then Prime Minister?
2. Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao ignored with contempt the behaviour of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir and continued doing what they thought was necessary in India' national interest. We should similarly ignore with contempt the behaviour of Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and his unparliamentary remarks about Mr.S.M.Krishna, our Foreign Minister, while briefing Pakistani media personnel on July 16 about his talks with our Foreign Minister the previous day.
3. The Government of India, Mr.Krishna himself and Mrs.Nirupama Rao, our Foreign Secretary, need to be complimented for conducting themselves with great personal dignity befitting us as a responsible and mature nation with a mature political leadership in power and for refusing to let themselves be provoked and react in kind against Mr.Qureshi. One of the objectives of Mr.Qureshi was to create doubts in the minds of the Indian public about the credibility and professional competence of Mr.Krishna. Another was to create a crisis atmosphere in the hope of thereby making the West and the Islamic world exercise pressure on India. The Bharatiya Janata Party and some of its leaders and spokesmen are unwittingly walking into the Pakistani trap by their campaign against Mr.Krishna at a time when the political class should stand united behind him.
4. When Z.A.Bhutto and his daughter indulged in anti-India antics and exhibitionism there was no global TV. We had to read about them in the print media and wait for the visuals which arrived days later. There were no live transmissions, no live debates. Only we in India followed closely the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir? Most of the rest of the world did not. The international community did not have an idea of the kind of Foreign Minister or Prime Minister Pakistan had.
5. Things are different today. Thanks to the global TV networks, the whole world had an opportunity of watching alive the antics and exhibitionism of Mr.Qureshi and the measured and cultured response of Mr.Krishna and Mrs.Nirupama Rao.It will redound to our credit and make the international community understand----if it has not already understood it--- the kind of Pakistani leadership and the kind of Pakistani Muslim mentality we have to contend with.
6. India's negotiating stance of "action against anti-India terrorism first, rest later" and the growing international understanding of India's stance after 26/11 have unsettled Pakistan. Mr.Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism did not reflect any embarrassment or nervousness over the reported admissions of David Coleman Headley, the head of the sleeper cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri in Chicago, to Indian interrogators about the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in the command and control of the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai. Such embarrassments are flea-bites for Pakistan and its ISI.
7. Qureshi's antics and exhibitionism reflected his anger and petulance over his failure to bully Mr.Krishna and the Government of India into changing their negotiating stance and accepting the Pakistani position of "talk on all or talk on nothing" ---just as the antics and exhibitionism of Z.A.Bhutto and Benazir reflected their anger and petulance due to their failure to bully Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao into accepting the Pakistani viewpoint. We should ignore the antics and exhibitionism of Qureshi and look ahead.
8. What now are the options before India? The BJP has demanded that we call off the talks with Pakistan. This will be an unintelligent option. A time could come when have to act on our own against the anti-Indian terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory----either through direct military or through covert action. We have to convince the international community that we tried all other options to make Pakistan see reason and that only when those options failed, we were forced to resort to military or covert action. There are any number of Governmental statements and doctrines in various countries regarding the circumstances under which covert action would be justified. The most important of these are a speech given by George Shultz, the US Secretary of State under the then President Ronald Reagan, and an introduction to a report on terrorism written by Mr.George Bush, the Vice-President of Reagan and Chairman of the presidential Task Force Against Terrorism. They said that covert action against a State-sponsor of terrorism would be justified WHEN ALL OTHER OPTIONS FAIL.
9. Negotiation is one of the options that has to be tried. You cannot go straightaway into the covert action mode without trying out the negotiation mode. Negotiations could have one of two outcomes. Either Pakistan sees reason and acts against anti-India terrorism thereby obviating the need for covert action or continues to avoid action thereby justifying our resort to covert action. It is, therefore, important that we continue with our negotiations with Pakistan in the hope of establishing normal relations while at the same time reviving and strengthening our covert action capability for likely use if all other options fail.
10. Should we continue to negotiate with Qureshi as if nothing has happened after his insulting behaviour towards our Foreign Minister? Will it not be a poor reflection on us as a nation and as a people and further encourage such behaviour by Pakistan? We should not. At the same time, we cannot refuse to negotiate so long as he is the Pakistani Foreign Minister. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani has the right to have whomever he wants as his Foreign Minister, whether we like him or not.
11. So, the only option available to us to keep the negotiations going while at the same time protecting our national dignity is by confining our future negotiations to the interactions between our Home Ministry and the Pakistani Interior Ministry. We should withdraw the invitation to Mr.Qureshi to visit New Delhi which was issued before he indulged in his antics and exhibitionism and instead invite Mr.Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, for continuing his talks with our Home Minister. ( 17-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, July 15, 2010
ISLAMABAD: AN ILL-PREPARED MEETING
B.RAMAN
Mr.S.M.Krishna, India's Minister For External Affairs, and his Pakistani counterpart Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, had discussions lasting about six hours at Islamabad on July 15, 2010. In between, Mr.Krishna called on President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani. Those , who were hoping that the meeting between the Foreign Ministers would be as free of acrimony as the meeting (June 25 and 26) between Mr.P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, and Mr.Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, and the one (June 24) between the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries would have reasons to be disappointed. The acrimony, hardly concealed, was there for all to see on their TV as they watched the joint press conference addressed by the two Foreign Ministers at the end of their discussions and their interactions with their respective media thereafter.
2. The objective of the meeting as agreed to by Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh and the Pakistani Prime Minister at their meeting at Thimpu in the margins of the SAARC summit ( April 28-29) was to create an atmosphere of trust between the two countries to facilitate the resumption of a formal dialogue on various pending issues. The proposed objective of the meeting as laid down by the two Prime Ministers was strategic, positive and forward-looking and not tactical and negative impeding a forward movement in bilateral relations.
3. One got the impression that instead the two Foreign Ministers had focussed totally on tactical issues without doing a brain-storming on various actions that could be taken to build trust. At the press conference, Mr.Krishna rightly emphasised that Pakistani action against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strike in Mumbai would be an important confidence-building measure. Mr.Qureshi, on his part, expressed the keenness of the Pakistani Government to implement the various confidence-building measures relating to Jammu & Kashmir, which had been agreed to by the previous Pakistani Governments in their interactions with the Govt. of India----such as promoting trade across the Line of Control.
4. He made a distinction between these confidence-building measures and measures of a political nature to settle the Kashmir dispute without disturbing the territorial status quo. Though he did not refer to Gen.Pervez Musharraf by name, it was evident he was referring to the measures of a political nature on which the two Governments had agreed through back-channel discussions when the General was in power. The present Pakistani Government had refused to honour agreements of a political nature agreed to by Gen.Musharraf during the back channel discussions. It was apparent from Mr.Qureshi's observations that his Government has remained firm on this refusal.
5. A forward-looking trust-building exercise should have focussed on many other issues of strategic interest such as the re-opening of the Indian Consulate in Karachi which was ordered to be closed down by Mrs.Benazir Bhutto when she was the Prime Minister in 1994, the opening of a Pakistani Consulate in Mumbai, which is a long-pending Pakistani request, increase in the number of journalists allowed to function from the two capitals, liaison arrangements between the intelligence and investigation agencies of the two countries, implementing measures for mutual legal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of crime, promotion of trade, removal of Pakistani restrictions on transit trade between India and Afghanistan, expansion of the contacts between the two Armies which are now restricted to the hot line between the Directors-General of Military Operations of the two countries and arrangements for a periodic dialogue between the Home/Interior Ministries of the two countries. If these measures are agreed to, this could have a cascading effect in building mutual trust.
6. From the press conference, one had an impression that none of these positive measures had been discussed in detail by the two Foreign Ministers. Instead the focus of the discussions seemed to have been largely on issues which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries. It was the realisation that the time is not yet ripe for tackling those issues that had made the two Prime Ministers agree upon an initial trust-building exercise as a starting block. Instead of initiating a process of trust-building, the meeting seems to have added to the existing wall of mistrust.
7. It was obvious that neither country had made proper preparations for the meeting. Since our Prime Minister reportedly attached considerable importance to this trust-building exercise,, one would have expected that before Mr.Krishna's visit to Islamabad he would have discussed a possible strategy for the meeting with the leaders of the opposition in order to evolve a political consensus and at a special meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) chaired by him to evolve an intere-departmental consensus on the strategy. It was evident that no such preparatory exercise for political and inter-departmental consensus-building in New Delhi before embarking on the trust-building exercise in Islamabad was undertaken.
8. Fortunately, there was no break-down at Islamabad. The Pakistani Foreign Minister is to visit to New Delhi next December to continue the discussions. In between, Dr.Manmohan Singh might meet Mr.Gilani again in New York in September if they decide to attend the inaugural session of the UN General Assembly. Before the September meeting, the Prime Minister should undertake a brain-storming with the opposition leaders and in the NSC on how to handle our relations with Pakistan----strategically as well as tactically. ( 16-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Mr.S.M.Krishna, India's Minister For External Affairs, and his Pakistani counterpart Mr. Shah Mehmood Qureshi, had discussions lasting about six hours at Islamabad on July 15, 2010. In between, Mr.Krishna called on President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani. Those , who were hoping that the meeting between the Foreign Ministers would be as free of acrimony as the meeting (June 25 and 26) between Mr.P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, and Mr.Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, and the one (June 24) between the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries would have reasons to be disappointed. The acrimony, hardly concealed, was there for all to see on their TV as they watched the joint press conference addressed by the two Foreign Ministers at the end of their discussions and their interactions with their respective media thereafter.
2. The objective of the meeting as agreed to by Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh and the Pakistani Prime Minister at their meeting at Thimpu in the margins of the SAARC summit ( April 28-29) was to create an atmosphere of trust between the two countries to facilitate the resumption of a formal dialogue on various pending issues. The proposed objective of the meeting as laid down by the two Prime Ministers was strategic, positive and forward-looking and not tactical and negative impeding a forward movement in bilateral relations.
3. One got the impression that instead the two Foreign Ministers had focussed totally on tactical issues without doing a brain-storming on various actions that could be taken to build trust. At the press conference, Mr.Krishna rightly emphasised that Pakistani action against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strike in Mumbai would be an important confidence-building measure. Mr.Qureshi, on his part, expressed the keenness of the Pakistani Government to implement the various confidence-building measures relating to Jammu & Kashmir, which had been agreed to by the previous Pakistani Governments in their interactions with the Govt. of India----such as promoting trade across the Line of Control.
4. He made a distinction between these confidence-building measures and measures of a political nature to settle the Kashmir dispute without disturbing the territorial status quo. Though he did not refer to Gen.Pervez Musharraf by name, it was evident he was referring to the measures of a political nature on which the two Governments had agreed through back-channel discussions when the General was in power. The present Pakistani Government had refused to honour agreements of a political nature agreed to by Gen.Musharraf during the back channel discussions. It was apparent from Mr.Qureshi's observations that his Government has remained firm on this refusal.
5. A forward-looking trust-building exercise should have focussed on many other issues of strategic interest such as the re-opening of the Indian Consulate in Karachi which was ordered to be closed down by Mrs.Benazir Bhutto when she was the Prime Minister in 1994, the opening of a Pakistani Consulate in Mumbai, which is a long-pending Pakistani request, increase in the number of journalists allowed to function from the two capitals, liaison arrangements between the intelligence and investigation agencies of the two countries, implementing measures for mutual legal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of crime, promotion of trade, removal of Pakistani restrictions on transit trade between India and Afghanistan, expansion of the contacts between the two Armies which are now restricted to the hot line between the Directors-General of Military Operations of the two countries and arrangements for a periodic dialogue between the Home/Interior Ministries of the two countries. If these measures are agreed to, this could have a cascading effect in building mutual trust.
6. From the press conference, one had an impression that none of these positive measures had been discussed in detail by the two Foreign Ministers. Instead the focus of the discussions seemed to have been largely on issues which have bedevilled the relations between the two countries. It was the realisation that the time is not yet ripe for tackling those issues that had made the two Prime Ministers agree upon an initial trust-building exercise as a starting block. Instead of initiating a process of trust-building, the meeting seems to have added to the existing wall of mistrust.
7. It was obvious that neither country had made proper preparations for the meeting. Since our Prime Minister reportedly attached considerable importance to this trust-building exercise,, one would have expected that before Mr.Krishna's visit to Islamabad he would have discussed a possible strategy for the meeting with the leaders of the opposition in order to evolve a political consensus and at a special meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) chaired by him to evolve an intere-departmental consensus on the strategy. It was evident that no such preparatory exercise for political and inter-departmental consensus-building in New Delhi before embarking on the trust-building exercise in Islamabad was undertaken.
8. Fortunately, there was no break-down at Islamabad. The Pakistani Foreign Minister is to visit to New Delhi next December to continue the discussions. In between, Dr.Manmohan Singh might meet Mr.Gilani again in New York in September if they decide to attend the inaugural session of the UN General Assembly. Before the September meeting, the Prime Minister should undertake a brain-storming with the opposition leaders and in the NSC on how to handle our relations with Pakistan----strategically as well as tactically. ( 16-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
“CHINESE SOVEREIGN WATERS”, “WATERS OF CHINA’S INTERESTS”, “PSYCHOLOGICAL TERRITORIAL SEAS”
B.RAMAN
Despite media reports originating from South Korea that the proposed US-South Korea joint naval exercise as a warning signal to North Korea may not be held as originally scheduled in the Yellow Sea and may instead be held in the middle of this month off South Korea’s southern or eastern coast, Chinese media and blogs have kept up their criticism of the move for holding the exercise in the Yellow Sea and the proposed participation of the nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier “USS George Washington” in it. They project it as a threat to China and as presaging a conflict between an emerging naval power seeking its due place and rights in the Western Pacific and a hegemonic naval power trying to counter it.
2.Some of the concepts/ideas figuring in the articles such as “China’s sovereign waters”, “waters of China’s interests” and “psychological territorial seas” need close study and analysis by our naval experts. They should also note that China has been increasingly assertive in support of its territorial and marine resources claims in the South China Sea and has expanded its definition of core interests to cover the South China Sea too, causing misgivings in the region. An article in the “China Daily” of July 13,2010, by an academic said: “Its (China’s) territorial sovereignty, strategic resources and trade routes comprise its core interests, and like any other country China will never compromise them. Rapid economic development and rising national strength have given China the chance to make it clear to the international community that it will never compromise its core interests. By adding the South China Sea to its core interests, China has shown its determination to secure its maritime resources and strategic waters. Its South China Sea strategy should thus be seen as a move to make up for its past ignorance about sea power and not as an aggressive expansionist measure.”
3.Extracts of interest from the articles are given below:
(1). From an article titled “US—South Korean Maritime War Games Needlessly Provocative” by Prof.Shen Dingli, Director of the Centre For American Studies at Fudan University, in the “Global Times” of July 13,2010: “The US and South Korea are implementing joint military exercises this month in the Yellow Sea, with the possibility of deploying the US aircraft carrier George Washington. The running of such exercises so close to China's waters has left China strongly, and rightfully, dissatisfied. The US and South Korea may argue that the exercise is not in China's territorial waters, so China has no right to comment. However, even if the joint exercises are not in Chinese sovereign waters, they may take place in the waters of China's interests as the international waters at Yellow Sea near China's exclusive economic zone are extremely important to China's interests. ….Military exercises aimed at provoking other countries in the waters of important Chinese interests can only be seen as a threat, and China should strongly oppose them….China's strong reaction is also part of its defensive diplomacy, which aims at dissolving the tension before it escalates into a serious crisis. China may not have the military strength to forcibly prevent such exercises now, but it may do so in response to such provocative actions in the future. “
(2). From an editorial of the “Global Times” titled “Watch out for China-US tension at sea” published on July 12,2010: “The eventuality that Beijing has to prepare for is close at hand. The delayed US-South Korean naval exercise in the Yellow Sea is now slated for mid-July. According to media reports, a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier has left its Japanese base and is headed for the drill area. In their recent responses, several high-ranking Chinese navy officials have made it plain that China will not stay in "hands-off" mode as the drill gets underway. For, that will make the US believe that China's defense circle on the sea is small, and, therefore, US fleets will be able to freely cruise over the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea in the future. Military experts have warned that if the joint drill really takes place off the western coast of South Korea, Chinese airplanes and warships will very likely go all the way out to closely watch the war game maneuvers. Within such proximity on not-so-clearly-marked international waters, any move that is considered hostile to the other side can willy-nilly trigger a rash reaction, which might escalate into the unexpected or the unforeseen. One false move, one wrong interpretation, is all it would take for the best-planned exercises to go awry. Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, says he is most worried about another collision crisis like the one over the South China Sea in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet crashed into a US spy plane. The impact of a crisis on that scale would be tremendous, making any dispute over trade or the yuan's value between the two in recent years pale in comparison. Anti-US sentiment will be re-ignited among Chinese people despite the recent affirmations of warmth in the relationship, and a significant fan following in China for the charismatic US president Barack Obama. With the growth of China's economic power, the country will definitely extend its defense capability to the high seas. The US, far from trying to contain this assertiveness, should face up to the reality, and facilitate the Chinese navy to be peacefully integrated into the international system. This is China's legitimate due, which it cannot be denied for long. By the same token, China needs to be patient. The island chains in the western Pacific cannot block China from entering the open waters. But the country should move forward one step at a time, to show its confidence and to emphasize its goal of keeping peace. The US has long been a naval superpower, and will be understandably uneasy about accepting the fact that China is a growing power and can no longer keep silent when US warships enter China's sphere of influence. Since both sides lack experience of contact over the seas, the two countries should learn to get along with each other. First, the US must allow China space to explore. Second, the two navies need to increase exchanges to prevent further misunderstanding. Tension is mounting over the US-South Korean joint exercise. Beijing and Washington still have time, and leeway, to desist from moving toward a possible conflict on the Yellow Sea. “
(3).From a commentary titled “ Navies Play Crucial Role in Sino-US Ties” carried by the “People’s Daily” online on July 12: “ The navies of the United States and China will play a critical role in determining whether the two countries can avoid major conflict, said Wang Jisi, a Chinese expert in a report in the Global Times on Monday. This could be right. The two navies will not contribute to the increase of bilateral trade volume or the number of tourists, but it is easy for them to wreck bilateral ties. Many Chinese scholars hold the opinions that in the coming years, the western Pacific, a not too wide water area, will become a sensitive belt to test the relationships of China, world's largest rising country, and the United States, the world's largest hegemonic power. Major conflicts will most likely originate in this area. Over the past month or so, news that a U.S. aircraft carrier would enter the Yellow Sea to hold a military drill, which caused uproar in China, proved this. Bilateral trade vigor and the momentum of learning each other's languages make the two countries sometimes look like allies. And the wisdom of the two governments has downplayed the ideological and institutional differences between two countries, but there is still strong distrust in military matters, in particular with regard to the navies. Despite this, neither of the two navies is ready to retreat from their great strategies. The United States wants to maintain its hegemony in the western Pacific while China's navy extends eastward to "blue water." With the extension of psychological territorial seas, following the growth of national power, the two countries are gradually contiguous to each other in the western Pacific. In fact, China has no mind to meet the challenge although Chinese do not like U.S. maritime hegemony. But could the United States understand China? The United States had confrontations or conflicts at sea with several great rising powers in the history, so it is applying its experience to China. Some think- tank reports in the United States show the country's research and judgment on China, which over-exaggerates China's strategy against the United States. China and the United States must gradually increase strategic mutual trust, so China needs to make the steady progress in its strategy transparent, while the United States, with an absolute advantage in strategy, naturally assumes greater responsibility in enhancing mutual trust. The United States should have a greater breadth of mind to accept the Chinese navy's rights to widen its activity sphere, which is different from a challenge to the U.S. navy. While on China's side, it needs to actively understand the United States and reduce provocation, which is China's wisdom. Building strategic mutual trust is a slow process. China and the United States need to accelerate the establishment of a mechanism to avoid frictions. In a word, don't let the curse of a "conflict between a rising power and a hegemonic power," come true. “
(4).From an article titled “Exercise Restraint” carried by the “China Daily” on July 13: “The pending joint naval exercise by the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) on the Yellow Sea is gradually drawing widespread public ire in China. The drill is a threat to China's security and risks escalating tensions in the Korean Peninsula. The joint military exercise is reportedly intended to deter the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the wake of the Cheonan incident. The ROK's military made this point again July 6 when it announced that the drill, originally scheduled for June, would be postponed after likely UN action against the DPRK over its alleged sinking of the warship March 26. A presidential statement released by the UN Security Council on June 9 called for peaceful settlement of the dispute and the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the DPRK and the ROK. Instead of resorting to any drastic moves, concerned parties must exercise restraint and calm in light of the UN statement. The public outcry in China will turn stronger if the US decides that its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington is to participate in the exercise. The vessel's likely presence, whose combat radius can reach the nation's eastern coast, is nothing but a provocative action aimed at China's doorstep. Washington's persistent reconnaissance and surveillance on China's mainland have long brewed indignation among the Chinese. Its joint naval exercise with the ROK would only fan more antagonistic sentiment against Uncle Sam. Admittedly, even Washington would not like to see such an outcome. The US move will be a new roadblock to the resumption of normal military ties between Beijing and Washington.”
(5). From an article titled “Modernising Navy For Self-Defence” by Gong Jianhua, an Associate Professor at the School of Politics and Public Administration, Guangdong Ocean University, carried by the “China Daily” on July 13: “ Reports in some foreign media outlets that Beijing considers South China Sea a part of its "core interests" have caused concern among some countries. This has happened because they have grossly misunderstood China's actions. China is a large country with huge marine resources, but it does not have enough power to protect them. It is strengthening its marine strategy and its navy to protect its core national interests and not to pose a threat to any country. The People's Republic of China has never infringed upon any country's marine rights. On the contrary, other countries have violated its marine rights and interests repeatedly. History shows no country can be a great power without a strong naval force. And no country in modern times has faced greater threats from the sea as China. It is thus logical for it to develop and modernize its marine force. China's sea-related problems are three-fold. First, China has very complicated and intractable problems with its waters-sharing neighbors. Longstanding disputes over China's core interests in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea come to the fore from time to time. The subjects of these disputes range from sovereign control of islands to delimitation of exclusive economic zones. For example, the dispute over the South China Sea involves conflicting claims of several parties in the region and interference of outside powers. Second, China has some inherent internal weaknesses and faces outside threats to its marine interests. Internally, the country is yet to build a sound naval force, and its ocean strategy lags far behind its economic and political strategies. Externally, it has lost valuable resources when other powers have seized its islands and exploited its waters. It faces threats to its sea lanes, too. By misinterpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and basing their actions on the so-called principles of "adjacency, prescription and security", some countries have violated its rights over islands, reefs and territorial waters. Third, these disputes are seriously depleting China's strategic resources. For example, it is impossible to resolve the disputes over the South China Sea to the mutual benefit of all because of the huge differences in the political stances, sincerity and tactics of the other parties. China has to use an enormous part of its economic and diplomatic resources in its efforts to settle such issues with every country that has a stake in the region. Seas have played a very important role in the development of a country. And their importance has multiplied manifold in the era of globalization. In order to secure its maritime resources, waterways and national security, a country has to defend its sea rights and interests. The disputes over rights and interests in the East China Sea, Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea are the remnants of the history of invasions of China from across the seas and colonial rule. But China's claims are based fully on historical facts. Its territorial sovereignty, strategic resources and trade routes comprise its core interests, and like any other country China will never compromise them. Rapid economic development and rising national strength have given China the chance to make it clear to the international community that it will never compromise its core interests. By adding the South China Sea to its core interests, China has shown its determination to secure its maritime resources and strategic waters. Its South China Sea strategy should thus be seen as a move to make up for its past ignorance about sea power and not as an aggressive expansionist measure. China's foreign policy has always depended on a "soft, gentle" approach, and it has practiced the doctrine of "setting aside disputes and working for joint development" of the seas with neighboring countries. Its new naval development strategy is a continuation of this approach and aimed exclusively at "offshore defense". While securing its core interests, China will continue to cultivate friendly ties with neighbors, increase regional cooperation and seek common development. It has no intention of posing a threat to other countries. But it has to change its backward marine strategy to suit the changing times. Its strategic initiatives should not be misunderstood by other countries - something that the West often does. The West, because of its tainted glasses, sees China's military modernization as military expansionism with potential strategic aggression. What Western politicians and media do not understand is China's need to safeguard its security to ensure sound economic and social development. It's a matter of perspective that the West considers a dragon as a symbol of "evil" when in China it signifies "luck". To safeguard its core interests, China should increase bilateral and multilateral exchanges with the countries that have a stake in the region, and actively publicize its commitment in building a "harmonious world". It should clarify its stance and eliminate fuzzy statements; hold all-round talks with other countries and strengthen political, economic and military mutual trust to help them understand that it is modernizing its navy for self-defense and is committed to traveling the road of peace to secure its core interests.”
(6).From an article titled “Seoul says drill location undecided” by Li Jing in the “Global Times” of July 13: “South Korea is mulling moving the venue of a joint military drill with the US rather than in the Yellow Sea, local media reported Monday (July 12). Won Tae-jae, spokesman of the Ministry of Defense, said Monday in Seoul that South Korea and the US are "fine-tuning the timetable, scale and location" of the maneuvers, adding that both sides will soon announce the details. Arirang News cited a government source as saying Sunday that it is yet to be decided where the naval drill will take place, adding that it could be held off either coast, since the country is a peninsula. The drill, originally scheduled for June, was postponed until after the UN Security Council (US) issued a statement Friday on the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, condemning the attack but not identifying who was to blame. Beijing has strongly opposed the drill in which US carriers may engage because the location of the maneuver is close to its territorial waters. "Wherever the drill takes place, Washington has once again tested its influence in the region and strengthened its alliance with Seoul," Yin Zhuo, a Chinese military strategist, told the Global Times. Jin Linbo, a deputy at the Asia-Pacific Research Center of the China Institute of International Studies, pointed out that after the US statement, almost all parties concerned have softened their tones. "Washington will decide the location of the drill after assessing its relations with Beijing, including those high-level military exchanges scheduled this year. If the US feels the need to pressure China, the drill may still take place in the Yellow Sea," Jin said. Lee Su-seok, a senior analyst at the Institute for National Security Strategy in Seoul, told the JoongAng Daily that South Korea needs to work harder to avoid political disputes with China. "You can give China some options, like inviting Chinese officials to view the drill or keeping them updated about the drill's progress and activities to some degree," he said. The Chosun Ilbo reported Monday that the White House, the Pentagon and the US State Department are weighing the pros and cons of allowing the aircraft carrier George Washington to engage in the drill. "The George Washington will not enter Korean waters for a few days," Chosun Ilbo quoted a military source as saying, implying that it could remain in the open sea. Meanwhile, North Korean and US military representatives will meet Tuesday to discuss the Cheonan incident, the US-led UN Command in South Korea said Monday. The colonel-level meeting will discuss arrangements for future talks at general-level on the incident. It will be the first such meeting since the warship sank in March.” (14-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Despite media reports originating from South Korea that the proposed US-South Korea joint naval exercise as a warning signal to North Korea may not be held as originally scheduled in the Yellow Sea and may instead be held in the middle of this month off South Korea’s southern or eastern coast, Chinese media and blogs have kept up their criticism of the move for holding the exercise in the Yellow Sea and the proposed participation of the nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier “USS George Washington” in it. They project it as a threat to China and as presaging a conflict between an emerging naval power seeking its due place and rights in the Western Pacific and a hegemonic naval power trying to counter it.
2.Some of the concepts/ideas figuring in the articles such as “China’s sovereign waters”, “waters of China’s interests” and “psychological territorial seas” need close study and analysis by our naval experts. They should also note that China has been increasingly assertive in support of its territorial and marine resources claims in the South China Sea and has expanded its definition of core interests to cover the South China Sea too, causing misgivings in the region. An article in the “China Daily” of July 13,2010, by an academic said: “Its (China’s) territorial sovereignty, strategic resources and trade routes comprise its core interests, and like any other country China will never compromise them. Rapid economic development and rising national strength have given China the chance to make it clear to the international community that it will never compromise its core interests. By adding the South China Sea to its core interests, China has shown its determination to secure its maritime resources and strategic waters. Its South China Sea strategy should thus be seen as a move to make up for its past ignorance about sea power and not as an aggressive expansionist measure.”
3.Extracts of interest from the articles are given below:
(1). From an article titled “US—South Korean Maritime War Games Needlessly Provocative” by Prof.Shen Dingli, Director of the Centre For American Studies at Fudan University, in the “Global Times” of July 13,2010: “The US and South Korea are implementing joint military exercises this month in the Yellow Sea, with the possibility of deploying the US aircraft carrier George Washington. The running of such exercises so close to China's waters has left China strongly, and rightfully, dissatisfied. The US and South Korea may argue that the exercise is not in China's territorial waters, so China has no right to comment. However, even if the joint exercises are not in Chinese sovereign waters, they may take place in the waters of China's interests as the international waters at Yellow Sea near China's exclusive economic zone are extremely important to China's interests. ….Military exercises aimed at provoking other countries in the waters of important Chinese interests can only be seen as a threat, and China should strongly oppose them….China's strong reaction is also part of its defensive diplomacy, which aims at dissolving the tension before it escalates into a serious crisis. China may not have the military strength to forcibly prevent such exercises now, but it may do so in response to such provocative actions in the future. “
(2). From an editorial of the “Global Times” titled “Watch out for China-US tension at sea” published on July 12,2010: “The eventuality that Beijing has to prepare for is close at hand. The delayed US-South Korean naval exercise in the Yellow Sea is now slated for mid-July. According to media reports, a nuclear-powered US aircraft carrier has left its Japanese base and is headed for the drill area. In their recent responses, several high-ranking Chinese navy officials have made it plain that China will not stay in "hands-off" mode as the drill gets underway. For, that will make the US believe that China's defense circle on the sea is small, and, therefore, US fleets will be able to freely cruise over the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea in the future. Military experts have warned that if the joint drill really takes place off the western coast of South Korea, Chinese airplanes and warships will very likely go all the way out to closely watch the war game maneuvers. Within such proximity on not-so-clearly-marked international waters, any move that is considered hostile to the other side can willy-nilly trigger a rash reaction, which might escalate into the unexpected or the unforeseen. One false move, one wrong interpretation, is all it would take for the best-planned exercises to go awry. Wang Jisi, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, says he is most worried about another collision crisis like the one over the South China Sea in 2001, when a Chinese fighter jet crashed into a US spy plane. The impact of a crisis on that scale would be tremendous, making any dispute over trade or the yuan's value between the two in recent years pale in comparison. Anti-US sentiment will be re-ignited among Chinese people despite the recent affirmations of warmth in the relationship, and a significant fan following in China for the charismatic US president Barack Obama. With the growth of China's economic power, the country will definitely extend its defense capability to the high seas. The US, far from trying to contain this assertiveness, should face up to the reality, and facilitate the Chinese navy to be peacefully integrated into the international system. This is China's legitimate due, which it cannot be denied for long. By the same token, China needs to be patient. The island chains in the western Pacific cannot block China from entering the open waters. But the country should move forward one step at a time, to show its confidence and to emphasize its goal of keeping peace. The US has long been a naval superpower, and will be understandably uneasy about accepting the fact that China is a growing power and can no longer keep silent when US warships enter China's sphere of influence. Since both sides lack experience of contact over the seas, the two countries should learn to get along with each other. First, the US must allow China space to explore. Second, the two navies need to increase exchanges to prevent further misunderstanding. Tension is mounting over the US-South Korean joint exercise. Beijing and Washington still have time, and leeway, to desist from moving toward a possible conflict on the Yellow Sea. “
(3).From a commentary titled “ Navies Play Crucial Role in Sino-US Ties” carried by the “People’s Daily” online on July 12: “ The navies of the United States and China will play a critical role in determining whether the two countries can avoid major conflict, said Wang Jisi, a Chinese expert in a report in the Global Times on Monday. This could be right. The two navies will not contribute to the increase of bilateral trade volume or the number of tourists, but it is easy for them to wreck bilateral ties. Many Chinese scholars hold the opinions that in the coming years, the western Pacific, a not too wide water area, will become a sensitive belt to test the relationships of China, world's largest rising country, and the United States, the world's largest hegemonic power. Major conflicts will most likely originate in this area. Over the past month or so, news that a U.S. aircraft carrier would enter the Yellow Sea to hold a military drill, which caused uproar in China, proved this. Bilateral trade vigor and the momentum of learning each other's languages make the two countries sometimes look like allies. And the wisdom of the two governments has downplayed the ideological and institutional differences between two countries, but there is still strong distrust in military matters, in particular with regard to the navies. Despite this, neither of the two navies is ready to retreat from their great strategies. The United States wants to maintain its hegemony in the western Pacific while China's navy extends eastward to "blue water." With the extension of psychological territorial seas, following the growth of national power, the two countries are gradually contiguous to each other in the western Pacific. In fact, China has no mind to meet the challenge although Chinese do not like U.S. maritime hegemony. But could the United States understand China? The United States had confrontations or conflicts at sea with several great rising powers in the history, so it is applying its experience to China. Some think- tank reports in the United States show the country's research and judgment on China, which over-exaggerates China's strategy against the United States. China and the United States must gradually increase strategic mutual trust, so China needs to make the steady progress in its strategy transparent, while the United States, with an absolute advantage in strategy, naturally assumes greater responsibility in enhancing mutual trust. The United States should have a greater breadth of mind to accept the Chinese navy's rights to widen its activity sphere, which is different from a challenge to the U.S. navy. While on China's side, it needs to actively understand the United States and reduce provocation, which is China's wisdom. Building strategic mutual trust is a slow process. China and the United States need to accelerate the establishment of a mechanism to avoid frictions. In a word, don't let the curse of a "conflict between a rising power and a hegemonic power," come true. “
(4).From an article titled “Exercise Restraint” carried by the “China Daily” on July 13: “The pending joint naval exercise by the United States and the Republic of Korea (ROK) on the Yellow Sea is gradually drawing widespread public ire in China. The drill is a threat to China's security and risks escalating tensions in the Korean Peninsula. The joint military exercise is reportedly intended to deter the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the wake of the Cheonan incident. The ROK's military made this point again July 6 when it announced that the drill, originally scheduled for June, would be postponed after likely UN action against the DPRK over its alleged sinking of the warship March 26. A presidential statement released by the UN Security Council on June 9 called for peaceful settlement of the dispute and the resumption of direct dialogue and negotiation between the DPRK and the ROK. Instead of resorting to any drastic moves, concerned parties must exercise restraint and calm in light of the UN statement. The public outcry in China will turn stronger if the US decides that its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington is to participate in the exercise. The vessel's likely presence, whose combat radius can reach the nation's eastern coast, is nothing but a provocative action aimed at China's doorstep. Washington's persistent reconnaissance and surveillance on China's mainland have long brewed indignation among the Chinese. Its joint naval exercise with the ROK would only fan more antagonistic sentiment against Uncle Sam. Admittedly, even Washington would not like to see such an outcome. The US move will be a new roadblock to the resumption of normal military ties between Beijing and Washington.”
(5). From an article titled “Modernising Navy For Self-Defence” by Gong Jianhua, an Associate Professor at the School of Politics and Public Administration, Guangdong Ocean University, carried by the “China Daily” on July 13: “ Reports in some foreign media outlets that Beijing considers South China Sea a part of its "core interests" have caused concern among some countries. This has happened because they have grossly misunderstood China's actions. China is a large country with huge marine resources, but it does not have enough power to protect them. It is strengthening its marine strategy and its navy to protect its core national interests and not to pose a threat to any country. The People's Republic of China has never infringed upon any country's marine rights. On the contrary, other countries have violated its marine rights and interests repeatedly. History shows no country can be a great power without a strong naval force. And no country in modern times has faced greater threats from the sea as China. It is thus logical for it to develop and modernize its marine force. China's sea-related problems are three-fold. First, China has very complicated and intractable problems with its waters-sharing neighbors. Longstanding disputes over China's core interests in the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea come to the fore from time to time. The subjects of these disputes range from sovereign control of islands to delimitation of exclusive economic zones. For example, the dispute over the South China Sea involves conflicting claims of several parties in the region and interference of outside powers. Second, China has some inherent internal weaknesses and faces outside threats to its marine interests. Internally, the country is yet to build a sound naval force, and its ocean strategy lags far behind its economic and political strategies. Externally, it has lost valuable resources when other powers have seized its islands and exploited its waters. It faces threats to its sea lanes, too. By misinterpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and basing their actions on the so-called principles of "adjacency, prescription and security", some countries have violated its rights over islands, reefs and territorial waters. Third, these disputes are seriously depleting China's strategic resources. For example, it is impossible to resolve the disputes over the South China Sea to the mutual benefit of all because of the huge differences in the political stances, sincerity and tactics of the other parties. China has to use an enormous part of its economic and diplomatic resources in its efforts to settle such issues with every country that has a stake in the region. Seas have played a very important role in the development of a country. And their importance has multiplied manifold in the era of globalization. In order to secure its maritime resources, waterways and national security, a country has to defend its sea rights and interests. The disputes over rights and interests in the East China Sea, Taiwan Straits and the South China Sea are the remnants of the history of invasions of China from across the seas and colonial rule. But China's claims are based fully on historical facts. Its territorial sovereignty, strategic resources and trade routes comprise its core interests, and like any other country China will never compromise them. Rapid economic development and rising national strength have given China the chance to make it clear to the international community that it will never compromise its core interests. By adding the South China Sea to its core interests, China has shown its determination to secure its maritime resources and strategic waters. Its South China Sea strategy should thus be seen as a move to make up for its past ignorance about sea power and not as an aggressive expansionist measure. China's foreign policy has always depended on a "soft, gentle" approach, and it has practiced the doctrine of "setting aside disputes and working for joint development" of the seas with neighboring countries. Its new naval development strategy is a continuation of this approach and aimed exclusively at "offshore defense". While securing its core interests, China will continue to cultivate friendly ties with neighbors, increase regional cooperation and seek common development. It has no intention of posing a threat to other countries. But it has to change its backward marine strategy to suit the changing times. Its strategic initiatives should not be misunderstood by other countries - something that the West often does. The West, because of its tainted glasses, sees China's military modernization as military expansionism with potential strategic aggression. What Western politicians and media do not understand is China's need to safeguard its security to ensure sound economic and social development. It's a matter of perspective that the West considers a dragon as a symbol of "evil" when in China it signifies "luck". To safeguard its core interests, China should increase bilateral and multilateral exchanges with the countries that have a stake in the region, and actively publicize its commitment in building a "harmonious world". It should clarify its stance and eliminate fuzzy statements; hold all-round talks with other countries and strengthen political, economic and military mutual trust to help them understand that it is modernizing its navy for self-defense and is committed to traveling the road of peace to secure its core interests.”
(6).From an article titled “Seoul says drill location undecided” by Li Jing in the “Global Times” of July 13: “South Korea is mulling moving the venue of a joint military drill with the US rather than in the Yellow Sea, local media reported Monday (July 12). Won Tae-jae, spokesman of the Ministry of Defense, said Monday in Seoul that South Korea and the US are "fine-tuning the timetable, scale and location" of the maneuvers, adding that both sides will soon announce the details. Arirang News cited a government source as saying Sunday that it is yet to be decided where the naval drill will take place, adding that it could be held off either coast, since the country is a peninsula. The drill, originally scheduled for June, was postponed until after the UN Security Council (US) issued a statement Friday on the sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan, condemning the attack but not identifying who was to blame. Beijing has strongly opposed the drill in which US carriers may engage because the location of the maneuver is close to its territorial waters. "Wherever the drill takes place, Washington has once again tested its influence in the region and strengthened its alliance with Seoul," Yin Zhuo, a Chinese military strategist, told the Global Times. Jin Linbo, a deputy at the Asia-Pacific Research Center of the China Institute of International Studies, pointed out that after the US statement, almost all parties concerned have softened their tones. "Washington will decide the location of the drill after assessing its relations with Beijing, including those high-level military exchanges scheduled this year. If the US feels the need to pressure China, the drill may still take place in the Yellow Sea," Jin said. Lee Su-seok, a senior analyst at the Institute for National Security Strategy in Seoul, told the JoongAng Daily that South Korea needs to work harder to avoid political disputes with China. "You can give China some options, like inviting Chinese officials to view the drill or keeping them updated about the drill's progress and activities to some degree," he said. The Chosun Ilbo reported Monday that the White House, the Pentagon and the US State Department are weighing the pros and cons of allowing the aircraft carrier George Washington to engage in the drill. "The George Washington will not enter Korean waters for a few days," Chosun Ilbo quoted a military source as saying, implying that it could remain in the open sea. Meanwhile, North Korean and US military representatives will meet Tuesday to discuss the Cheonan incident, the US-led UN Command in South Korea said Monday. The colonel-level meeting will discuss arrangements for future talks at general-level on the incident. It will be the first such meeting since the warship sank in March.” (14-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
INDIA-PAKISTAN: HOW TO CHANGE THE REFLEXES?
B.RAMAN
The three-day visit of Mr.S.M.Krishna, our Minister for External Affairs, to Pakistan from July 15,2010, has come in the wake of the visit of Mrs.Nirupama Rao, the Foreign Secretary( June 24), and Mr.P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister ( June 25 and 26). Mrs.Rao's visit was used to prepare the ground for the two ministerial visits to follow. Mr.Chidambaram's visit ---mainly to attend the SAARC Home Ministers' conference, but utilised for bilateral interactions too---- kept the focus on Pakistani action against anti-India terrorism in general and against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) who were involved in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai in particular.( http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3891.html and http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3893.html)
2. Mr.Chidambaram and his Pakistani counterpart Mr.Rehman Malik avoided acrimony and kept the accusatory reflexes, which usually distort Indo-Pakistan interactions, under control. The visit provided an opportunity for a courtesy meeting between the heads of the Intelligence Bureaus of the two countries, which had a common origin under the British rule and closely resemble each other in their structure and methods of functioning. The two are essentially organisations of police professionals who are experts in the collection and analysis of intelligence relating to internal security.
3.The last meeting between senior officers of the two Intelligence Bureaus was when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister between 1984 and 1989. He and the late Zia-ul-Haq, the then ruler of Pakistan, had set up a mechanism for regular half-yearly meetings between the Home/Interior Secretaries of the two countries to discuss trans-border terrorism and security. Senior officers of the two IBs were among the officials in the two delegations. This mechanism fell into disuse after the outbreak of Pakistani-backed insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir in 1989.
4. Mr.Chidambaram's discussions with Mr.Malik, as reported in the media, focussed on tactical issues relating to co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of the LET conspirators. Matters of a strategic significance such as the utility of the revival of the pre-1989 mechanism for half-yearly meetings, structured interactions between the Home/Interior Ministries of the two countries and mutual legal assistance between the investigating agencies of the two countries did not appear to have been discussed. There was not even an invitation by Mr.Chidambaram to Mr.Malik and his intelligence chief to visit India. It was a one-shot visit with one-shot discussions, which did not try to create the traditions for such visits and discussions on a regular basis.
5. Unless we create such traditions, the political leaders and officials of the two countries will find it difficult to rid themselve of the constant air of suspicion which enveloppes the bilateral relations like a winter fog in New Delhi and to slowly rid themselves of the accusatory reflexes, which come in the way of a professional approach to security-related problems.
6. What stands in the way of normal relations between India and Pakistan as two neighbouring States with a common border is not just the Kashmir issue or Pakistan's use of terrorism against India. It is the negative reflexes created in our minds by the riots which accompanied the Partition in 1947, by the Indian anger against Pakistan for its repeated use of terrorist or insurgent surrogates against India in the North-East, Punjab and J&K and by the Pakistani anger against India for the Indian role in assisting the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. Unless the two countries rid themselves of these negative reflexes and develop a new mindset marked by at least partly positive rather than overwhelmingly negative perceptions of each other, nothing is going to help in bringing them together.
7. Back-channel discussions, academic interactions, be-good-to-each-other meetings will not help so long as the reflexes are overwhelmingly and compulsively negative. Turning the negative into the positive has to be a gradual process. The starting block of such a process has to be a realisation at the decision-making levels in the two countries that we have far too long been negative in our thinking and perceptions.
8. The realisation alone will not be sufficient. It has to be followed by painstaking efforts for setting up institutional networking at various levels---MEA-MEA, MHA-MHA,MOD-MOD,Army-Army, Intelligence-Intelligence, Police-Police--- so that the policy-makers of the two countries are able to pick each other's brains through personal interactions and are able to judge each other in flesh and blood instead of through source and media reports.
9. How to rid ourselves of these reflexes and how to make a beginning in setting up such networking? That should be the question to which Mr.Krishna and Mr.Shah Mehmood Qureshi, his Pakistani counterpart, should address themselves when they meet during the next three days. They could consider setting up a joint 3 plus 3 (Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Home Minister) group or council to meet regularly to discuss the strategic aspects of the bilateral relations. This could be the substitute for the Composite Dialogue Process which has run out of steam.Instead, if they spend the time throwing the Indian dossiers on terrorism and Pakistani dossiers on Kashmir and river waters at each other they will be missing an opportunity for creating a possible and much-needed turning point in Indo-Pakistan relations.
10. To repeat one of my recent observations, Indo-Pakistan relations have become like an old gramaphone record of our grandparents' vintage in which the needle has got stuck. It is time to look for a new and better record. (14-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The three-day visit of Mr.S.M.Krishna, our Minister for External Affairs, to Pakistan from July 15,2010, has come in the wake of the visit of Mrs.Nirupama Rao, the Foreign Secretary( June 24), and Mr.P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister ( June 25 and 26). Mrs.Rao's visit was used to prepare the ground for the two ministerial visits to follow. Mr.Chidambaram's visit ---mainly to attend the SAARC Home Ministers' conference, but utilised for bilateral interactions too---- kept the focus on Pakistani action against anti-India terrorism in general and against the Pakistan-based conspirators of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) who were involved in the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai in particular.( http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3891.html and http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3893.html)
2. Mr.Chidambaram and his Pakistani counterpart Mr.Rehman Malik avoided acrimony and kept the accusatory reflexes, which usually distort Indo-Pakistan interactions, under control. The visit provided an opportunity for a courtesy meeting between the heads of the Intelligence Bureaus of the two countries, which had a common origin under the British rule and closely resemble each other in their structure and methods of functioning. The two are essentially organisations of police professionals who are experts in the collection and analysis of intelligence relating to internal security.
3.The last meeting between senior officers of the two Intelligence Bureaus was when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister between 1984 and 1989. He and the late Zia-ul-Haq, the then ruler of Pakistan, had set up a mechanism for regular half-yearly meetings between the Home/Interior Secretaries of the two countries to discuss trans-border terrorism and security. Senior officers of the two IBs were among the officials in the two delegations. This mechanism fell into disuse after the outbreak of Pakistani-backed insurgency in Jammu & Kashmir in 1989.
4. Mr.Chidambaram's discussions with Mr.Malik, as reported in the media, focussed on tactical issues relating to co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of the LET conspirators. Matters of a strategic significance such as the utility of the revival of the pre-1989 mechanism for half-yearly meetings, structured interactions between the Home/Interior Ministries of the two countries and mutual legal assistance between the investigating agencies of the two countries did not appear to have been discussed. There was not even an invitation by Mr.Chidambaram to Mr.Malik and his intelligence chief to visit India. It was a one-shot visit with one-shot discussions, which did not try to create the traditions for such visits and discussions on a regular basis.
5. Unless we create such traditions, the political leaders and officials of the two countries will find it difficult to rid themselve of the constant air of suspicion which enveloppes the bilateral relations like a winter fog in New Delhi and to slowly rid themselves of the accusatory reflexes, which come in the way of a professional approach to security-related problems.
6. What stands in the way of normal relations between India and Pakistan as two neighbouring States with a common border is not just the Kashmir issue or Pakistan's use of terrorism against India. It is the negative reflexes created in our minds by the riots which accompanied the Partition in 1947, by the Indian anger against Pakistan for its repeated use of terrorist or insurgent surrogates against India in the North-East, Punjab and J&K and by the Pakistani anger against India for the Indian role in assisting the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. Unless the two countries rid themselves of these negative reflexes and develop a new mindset marked by at least partly positive rather than overwhelmingly negative perceptions of each other, nothing is going to help in bringing them together.
7. Back-channel discussions, academic interactions, be-good-to-each-other meetings will not help so long as the reflexes are overwhelmingly and compulsively negative. Turning the negative into the positive has to be a gradual process. The starting block of such a process has to be a realisation at the decision-making levels in the two countries that we have far too long been negative in our thinking and perceptions.
8. The realisation alone will not be sufficient. It has to be followed by painstaking efforts for setting up institutional networking at various levels---MEA-MEA, MHA-MHA,MOD-MOD,Army-Army, Intelligence-Intelligence, Police-Police--- so that the policy-makers of the two countries are able to pick each other's brains through personal interactions and are able to judge each other in flesh and blood instead of through source and media reports.
9. How to rid ourselves of these reflexes and how to make a beginning in setting up such networking? That should be the question to which Mr.Krishna and Mr.Shah Mehmood Qureshi, his Pakistani counterpart, should address themselves when they meet during the next three days. They could consider setting up a joint 3 plus 3 (Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Home Minister) group or council to meet regularly to discuss the strategic aspects of the bilateral relations. This could be the substitute for the Composite Dialogue Process which has run out of steam.Instead, if they spend the time throwing the Indian dossiers on terrorism and Pakistani dossiers on Kashmir and river waters at each other they will be missing an opportunity for creating a possible and much-needed turning point in Indo-Pakistan relations.
10. To repeat one of my recent observations, Indo-Pakistan relations have become like an old gramaphone record of our grandparents' vintage in which the needle has got stuck. It is time to look for a new and better record. (14-7-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
KAMPALA BLASTS: INDIAN CASUALTIES?
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO. 666
B.RAMAN
Seventy-four persons, 60 of them reportedly Ugandan nationals, were killed and 70 others injured on July 11,2010, in two explosions suspected to have been carried out by Al-Shabaab, the Somali wing of Al Qaeda, at a local rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant at Kampala, the Ugandan capital. The explosions took place near large numbers of football enthusiasts watching on TV the final match of the World Cup football in South Africa between Spain and Holland.
2. Citing local officials, the British Broadcasting Corporation has stated that among the casualties were Ethiopian, Eritrean, Indian and Congolese nationals . It has not indicated how many Indian nationals were involved and whether there were fatalities among them.
3. In a statement issued from Mogadishu, the Somali capital, a spokesman of Al- Shabaab, who gave his name as Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage claimed that his organisation had carried out the two explosions. There were some doubts whether these were timed or suicide explosions , but an Ugandan official said that the head of a person believed to be a Somali was found at the site of one of the blasts, thereby indicating that at least one, if not both the blasts, was carried out by a suicide bomber.
4. The Al-Shabaab spokesman has been quoted by news agencies as saying as follows:"Al-Shabaab was behind the two bomb blasts in Uganda.We thank the mujahideen that carried out the attack. We are sending a message to Uganda and Burundi, if they do not take out their Amisom [African Union Mission in Somalia] troops from Somalia, blasts will continue and it will happen in Bujumbura, the Burundi capital, too." These were thus reprisal attacks by Al-Shabaab against Uganda for participating in the African contingent helping the Somali authorities in their operations against Al-Shabaab and other jihadi elements in Somalia.
5. The Amir of Al-Shabaab, Mohamed Abdi Godane, had warned in an audio message earlier this month that Uganda and Burundi would be targeted. The main wing of Al Qaeda based in North Waziristan in Pakistan, the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al-Shabaab based in Somalia have continued to maintain a capability for planning and carrying out reprisal acts of terrorism in different parts of the world despite US claims of having eliminated many senior leaders of Al Qaeda through its Drone (pilotless plane) strikes in North and South Waziristan.
6.The deaths in the Drone strikes of many Al Qaeda leaders such as its No.3 Sai’d al-Masri (al-Masri means the Egyptian) also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid in May,2010 and Saleh-al-Somali from Somalia on December 8,2009, have not weakened the capability of Al Qaeda to plan and mount terrorist strikes---some successfuly, some unsuccessfully. The successful ones have been in the Af-Pak area, Somalia and Uganda and the unsuccessful ones in the UK, the US and Norway.
7.In supplementary indictments filed recently by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, US, they have alleged that before his death Saleh al-Somali was involved along with Rashid Rauf, a Mirpuri from Birmingham, who was also killed in a Drone strike, and Adnan El-Shukrijumah, an absconding US national of Saudi origin,in organizing a conspiracy by Afghan immigrant Najibullah Zazi and others to bomb New York City subways last September.
8. Along with Saudis, Egyptians and Yemenis, the Somalis have been among the important components of Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden had earlier used them for the terrorist strikes outside the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998,and in Mombasa in October 2002. The Somalis of Al-Shabaab have now operated successfully in Kampala. The Yemeni and Somali wing of Al Qaeda have exhibited a certain operational autonomy which enables them to mount terrorist strikes on their own without having to depend on the main wing of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. While Al-Shabaab has extended its operations to Africa, the AQAP has been trying to extend its reach to South-East Asia as indicated by the recent detentions of two Singapore nationals with suspected contacts with the AQAP.
9.This may please be read in continuation of my earlier article of December 4,2009, titled "The Somali Front of the Global Jihad" available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3534.html. It is annexed for easy reference. (13-7-10)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
THE SOMALI FRONT OF THE GLOBAL JIHAD
B.RAMAN
Al Qaeda looks upon its continuing jihad against the so-called Crusaders --- thereby meaning essentially the US, Israel and their supporters--- as a global intifada waged on many fronts and through many means. In this global jihad, Afghanistan, Somalia and Algeria are seen as battle fronts, which will determine the ultimate outcome. Afghanistan is seen as the core of the battle, Somalia as its southern front and Algeria as the Western front.
2. In a message disseminated on December 20, 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No.2 to Osama bin Laden in Al Qaeda, said: “Brothers in Islam and Jihad in Somalia: know that you are on the southern garrison of Islam, so don’t allow Islam to be attacked from your flank, and know that we are with you, and that the entire Muslim Ummah is with you. So don’t lose heart, or fall into despair, for you must dominate if you are true in faith. And know that you are fending off the same Crusade which is fighting your brothers in Islam in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. So be resolute, be patient and be optimistic, for by Allah beside whom there is no other God, even if your enemies possess thousands of tons of iron and explosives, in their chests lie the hearts of mice. So be severe against them like Muhammad was. "
3. To keep the jihad going in Somalia is one of its important objectives. For this purpose, it uses not only recruits from the impoverished local population, but also from the Somali diaspora in the West----including the US--- as well as jihad-hardened cadres sent from the battle fronts in the Af-Pak region. The Tablighi Jamaat (TJ) of Pakistan has had a long history of contacts with the Muslim population in Somalia and East African countries just as it has with the Muslim population of Chechnya and Dagestan. Though the TJ itself does not indulge in acts of terrorism, it plays an important role in facilitating the ideological motivation of the population on behalf of Al Qaeda.
4. In September 2009, Al Shabaab, meaning “The Lads”, an organization of Somali youths, was reported to have disseminated through Islamic web sites usually identified with Al Qaeda a 48-minute video documentary in which it proclaimed its allegiance to Osama bin Laden. It derives its name “The Lads” from the fact that it used to be the youth wing of a fundamentalist organization called the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which had established control over some parts of Somalia and was ultimately crushed by invading Ethiopian troops in 2006. While the elders of the UIC disappeared after being defeated by the better trained and better armed Ethiopian troops allegedly inspired and aided by the US, the Al Shabaab replaced the UIC as a born-again jihadi organization, which was determined to continue the jihad against the troops of the African Union, which had replaced the Ethiopian troops, and of the UN-backed local Government, which it viewed as apostate.
5. Though Somalis had participated in acts of suicide terrorism on behalf of Al Qaeda in other countries, suicide terrorism was unknown in Somalia itself till Al Shabaab made its appearance in 2006. Even though it proclaimed its loyalty to bin Laden only in September, 2009, it had carried out a number of acts of suicide terrorism against local Government targets as well as the peace-keeping troops of the African Union ever since the AU troops took over their peace-keeping responsibility in Somalia. Al Shabaab has been waging a two-front jihad---- against the AU troops and the local Government being protected by the AU troops. The first act of suicide terrorism took place on September 18, 2006. Since then, there have been 13 suicide attacks--- two in 2006, four in 2007, two in 2008 and five this year.
6. The Al Shabaab cadres, many of whom had allegedly served with the Afghan Mujahideen, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak region, look upon their jihad as similar to the jihad waged by the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet troops and those of the Government of the then President Najibullah in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
7. In a serious attack of suicide terrorism, a male suicide bomber dressed as a woman managed to find his way into a graduation ceremony of medical students in a Mogadishu hotel on December 3, 2009, and blew himself up killing 19 persons, including three Ministers of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Omar Sharmarke of the UN-backed Government. Even though no organization has so far claimed responsibility for the attack, Al Shabaab is strongly suspected by the local authorities.
8. Though there is so far no evidence of any nexus between Al Shabaab and the Somali pirates, the dangers of money earned from piracy going to the coffers of Al Qaeda and the availability in Somalia of sea-faring people who could be used by Al Qaeda for future acts of maritime terrorism cannot be ignored.
9. A Reuters report carried on December 4, 2009, by the “Daily Times” of Lahore has quoted Bethuel Kiplagat, who used to be Kenya’s special envoy to the Somalia peace process from 2003 to 2005, as saying as follows: “Suicide bombings are a worrying trend not only for Somalia but also the region. There has been a rise in fundamentalism in Somalia coming from the Middle East and Pakistan. There’s a worry Al Qaeda may be looking at Somalia as a new sanctuary.”
10. On March 16, 2009, Mohamed Mohamed of the BBC’s Somali section, reported as follows: “As well as alleged links to al-Qaeda it is said to have Arabs, Asians, other Africans and - America's FBI believes - Westerners among its ranks. These foreigners are said to be involved in training Al Sabaab recruits in various aspects of guerrilla warfare, including suicide bombings and booby traps.”
11. On February 29, 2008, the then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice designated Al Shabaab as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(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
Seventy-four persons, 60 of them reportedly Ugandan nationals, were killed and 70 others injured on July 11,2010, in two explosions suspected to have been carried out by Al-Shabaab, the Somali wing of Al Qaeda, at a local rugby club and an Ethiopian restaurant at Kampala, the Ugandan capital. The explosions took place near large numbers of football enthusiasts watching on TV the final match of the World Cup football in South Africa between Spain and Holland.
2. Citing local officials, the British Broadcasting Corporation has stated that among the casualties were Ethiopian, Eritrean, Indian and Congolese nationals . It has not indicated how many Indian nationals were involved and whether there were fatalities among them.
3. In a statement issued from Mogadishu, the Somali capital, a spokesman of Al- Shabaab, who gave his name as Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage claimed that his organisation had carried out the two explosions. There were some doubts whether these were timed or suicide explosions , but an Ugandan official said that the head of a person believed to be a Somali was found at the site of one of the blasts, thereby indicating that at least one, if not both the blasts, was carried out by a suicide bomber.
4. The Al-Shabaab spokesman has been quoted by news agencies as saying as follows:"Al-Shabaab was behind the two bomb blasts in Uganda.We thank the mujahideen that carried out the attack. We are sending a message to Uganda and Burundi, if they do not take out their Amisom [African Union Mission in Somalia] troops from Somalia, blasts will continue and it will happen in Bujumbura, the Burundi capital, too." These were thus reprisal attacks by Al-Shabaab against Uganda for participating in the African contingent helping the Somali authorities in their operations against Al-Shabaab and other jihadi elements in Somalia.
5. The Amir of Al-Shabaab, Mohamed Abdi Godane, had warned in an audio message earlier this month that Uganda and Burundi would be targeted. The main wing of Al Qaeda based in North Waziristan in Pakistan, the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al-Shabaab based in Somalia have continued to maintain a capability for planning and carrying out reprisal acts of terrorism in different parts of the world despite US claims of having eliminated many senior leaders of Al Qaeda through its Drone (pilotless plane) strikes in North and South Waziristan.
6.The deaths in the Drone strikes of many Al Qaeda leaders such as its No.3 Sai’d al-Masri (al-Masri means the Egyptian) also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid in May,2010 and Saleh-al-Somali from Somalia on December 8,2009, have not weakened the capability of Al Qaeda to plan and mount terrorist strikes---some successfuly, some unsuccessfully. The successful ones have been in the Af-Pak area, Somalia and Uganda and the unsuccessful ones in the UK, the US and Norway.
7.In supplementary indictments filed recently by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, US, they have alleged that before his death Saleh al-Somali was involved along with Rashid Rauf, a Mirpuri from Birmingham, who was also killed in a Drone strike, and Adnan El-Shukrijumah, an absconding US national of Saudi origin,in organizing a conspiracy by Afghan immigrant Najibullah Zazi and others to bomb New York City subways last September.
8. Along with Saudis, Egyptians and Yemenis, the Somalis have been among the important components of Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden had earlier used them for the terrorist strikes outside the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998,and in Mombasa in October 2002. The Somalis of Al-Shabaab have now operated successfully in Kampala. The Yemeni and Somali wing of Al Qaeda have exhibited a certain operational autonomy which enables them to mount terrorist strikes on their own without having to depend on the main wing of Al Qaeda in Pakistan. While Al-Shabaab has extended its operations to Africa, the AQAP has been trying to extend its reach to South-East Asia as indicated by the recent detentions of two Singapore nationals with suspected contacts with the AQAP.
9.This may please be read in continuation of my earlier article of December 4,2009, titled "The Somali Front of the Global Jihad" available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers36/paper3534.html. It is annexed for easy reference. (13-7-10)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd),Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
THE SOMALI FRONT OF THE GLOBAL JIHAD
B.RAMAN
Al Qaeda looks upon its continuing jihad against the so-called Crusaders --- thereby meaning essentially the US, Israel and their supporters--- as a global intifada waged on many fronts and through many means. In this global jihad, Afghanistan, Somalia and Algeria are seen as battle fronts, which will determine the ultimate outcome. Afghanistan is seen as the core of the battle, Somalia as its southern front and Algeria as the Western front.
2. In a message disseminated on December 20, 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No.2 to Osama bin Laden in Al Qaeda, said: “Brothers in Islam and Jihad in Somalia: know that you are on the southern garrison of Islam, so don’t allow Islam to be attacked from your flank, and know that we are with you, and that the entire Muslim Ummah is with you. So don’t lose heart, or fall into despair, for you must dominate if you are true in faith. And know that you are fending off the same Crusade which is fighting your brothers in Islam in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. So be resolute, be patient and be optimistic, for by Allah beside whom there is no other God, even if your enemies possess thousands of tons of iron and explosives, in their chests lie the hearts of mice. So be severe against them like Muhammad was. "
3. To keep the jihad going in Somalia is one of its important objectives. For this purpose, it uses not only recruits from the impoverished local population, but also from the Somali diaspora in the West----including the US--- as well as jihad-hardened cadres sent from the battle fronts in the Af-Pak region. The Tablighi Jamaat (TJ) of Pakistan has had a long history of contacts with the Muslim population in Somalia and East African countries just as it has with the Muslim population of Chechnya and Dagestan. Though the TJ itself does not indulge in acts of terrorism, it plays an important role in facilitating the ideological motivation of the population on behalf of Al Qaeda.
4. In September 2009, Al Shabaab, meaning “The Lads”, an organization of Somali youths, was reported to have disseminated through Islamic web sites usually identified with Al Qaeda a 48-minute video documentary in which it proclaimed its allegiance to Osama bin Laden. It derives its name “The Lads” from the fact that it used to be the youth wing of a fundamentalist organization called the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which had established control over some parts of Somalia and was ultimately crushed by invading Ethiopian troops in 2006. While the elders of the UIC disappeared after being defeated by the better trained and better armed Ethiopian troops allegedly inspired and aided by the US, the Al Shabaab replaced the UIC as a born-again jihadi organization, which was determined to continue the jihad against the troops of the African Union, which had replaced the Ethiopian troops, and of the UN-backed local Government, which it viewed as apostate.
5. Though Somalis had participated in acts of suicide terrorism on behalf of Al Qaeda in other countries, suicide terrorism was unknown in Somalia itself till Al Shabaab made its appearance in 2006. Even though it proclaimed its loyalty to bin Laden only in September, 2009, it had carried out a number of acts of suicide terrorism against local Government targets as well as the peace-keeping troops of the African Union ever since the AU troops took over their peace-keeping responsibility in Somalia. Al Shabaab has been waging a two-front jihad---- against the AU troops and the local Government being protected by the AU troops. The first act of suicide terrorism took place on September 18, 2006. Since then, there have been 13 suicide attacks--- two in 2006, four in 2007, two in 2008 and five this year.
6. The Al Shabaab cadres, many of whom had allegedly served with the Afghan Mujahideen, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the Af-Pak region, look upon their jihad as similar to the jihad waged by the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet troops and those of the Government of the then President Najibullah in the 1980s and the early 1990s.
7. In a serious attack of suicide terrorism, a male suicide bomber dressed as a woman managed to find his way into a graduation ceremony of medical students in a Mogadishu hotel on December 3, 2009, and blew himself up killing 19 persons, including three Ministers of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Omar Sharmarke of the UN-backed Government. Even though no organization has so far claimed responsibility for the attack, Al Shabaab is strongly suspected by the local authorities.
8. Though there is so far no evidence of any nexus between Al Shabaab and the Somali pirates, the dangers of money earned from piracy going to the coffers of Al Qaeda and the availability in Somalia of sea-faring people who could be used by Al Qaeda for future acts of maritime terrorism cannot be ignored.
9. A Reuters report carried on December 4, 2009, by the “Daily Times” of Lahore has quoted Bethuel Kiplagat, who used to be Kenya’s special envoy to the Somalia peace process from 2003 to 2005, as saying as follows: “Suicide bombings are a worrying trend not only for Somalia but also the region. There has been a rise in fundamentalism in Somalia coming from the Middle East and Pakistan. There’s a worry Al Qaeda may be looking at Somalia as a new sanctuary.”
10. On March 16, 2009, Mohamed Mohamed of the BBC’s Somali section, reported as follows: “As well as alleged links to al-Qaeda it is said to have Arabs, Asians, other Africans and - America's FBI believes - Westerners among its ranks. These foreigners are said to be involved in training Al Sabaab recruits in various aspects of guerrilla warfare, including suicide bombings and booby traps.”
11. On February 29, 2008, the then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice designated Al Shabaab as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
(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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)