B.RAMAN
The Pakistani military operation against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its affiliates in the Swat Valley and the adjoining areas of the Malakand Division of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is increasingly being seen by sections of the local population as an anti-Pashtun operation forced on the Pakistani Army by the US.
2.Tribal sources report that pamphlets and posters accusing the Army of waging a war against the Pashtuns under the pretext of a war against the Taliban have started appearing in the interior areas of the NWFP. US analysts are being accused of over-projecting the alleged threat from the Pakistani Taliban in order to force the Pakistani Army to mount a full-scale military operation in the Swat Valley and the neighbouring areas. Well-informed sources in the NWFP say that it is also being alleged that some American experts deliberately exaggerated
the number of the Taliban volunteers who entered the Buner District some weeks ago in order to create a scare that the Taliban was marching towards Islamabad.
3. The large-scale exodus of internally-displaced persons (IDPs) ------estimated at a little over 2.5 million--- from the areas where the Pakistan Army has mounted a military operation against the Taliban, the failure of the Federal Government to make satisfactory arrangements for looking after them, the opposition to them from the local population in Sindh, Balochistan and the Punjab and the reported plans of the Army to create a cantonment in Swat are leading to a fresh polarisation between
the Pashtuns and the non-Pashtuns. According to these sources, the Pashtun refugees have started blaming the US for all their troubles.
4.The Pakistan Army, which has claimed to have freed large parts of the Swat Valley from the control of the Taliban, has intriguingly refused to allow the Pashtun refugees from the Valley to move back to their villages from the camps for IDPs. No satisfactory explanation for this has been given. While the Army has allowed the IDPs from the Buner District to go back to their homes, it is not allowing the IDPs from the Swat Valley
to go back to their villages. This is adding to the resentment of the Pashtuns.
5. One possible reason for the Army's refusal is that it does not want the IDPs to move back till the semblance of a civil administration is restored in the valley. These sources say that the Army does not want to take up the responsibility for looking after the re-settlement of the returning IDPs when its hands are full with the military operations against the Taliban.
6. Maj.Gen.Athar Abbas, a spokesman of the Army, told a media briefing on June 6,2009, as follows: “The Army would stay in the area till a sense of security among the people is revived, a credible defence system by the law enforcement agencies, including police, is put in place and the possibility of the terrorists hiding in mountains coming back to launch a second phase of insurgency is obviated. This would not take less than a year.”
7. The visit of Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, to Pakistan from June 3 to 5, was projected as a humanitarian mission to monitor arrangements for looking after the IDPs and assess their requirements. The US has already contributed US $ 120 million for this purpose. The Obama Administration has promised to give US $ 200 million more after Congressional approval.
8.The UN authorities have reportedly estimated the total requirements at present as US $ 543 million of which the US has already given US $ 120 million and others US $ 137 million.
9. While there are already pledges amounting to more than 60 per cent of the requirements, there is no relief and rehabilitation
infrastructure on the ground to handle the disbursement of this amount. Apart from the UN High Commission For Refugees, no other international organisation is well-placed to co-ordinate. In the absence of a national and an international humanitarian relief architecture, jihadi and anti-US organisations such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political wing of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), with well-tested and devoted cadres to handle humanitarian relief, have moved in.
10.In addition to organising the humanitarian relief with greater efficiency than the Government, they are also indulging in anti-Government and anti-US propaganda. Al Qaeda, which sees a new opportunity in the humanitarian situation created by
the military operations, has left it to the JUD to handle ground relief operations, but it has started adding to the anger of the IDPs by blaming the US for their plight.
11. Apart from some high-profile, photo-opp visits to some camps of the IDPs, Holbrooke seems to have devoted little time to working out the requirements for a humanitarian relief infrastructure on the ground. He is essentially a diplomat par excellence. Humanitarian relief is not his strong point. There is a need for the US to appoint a humanitarian relief co-ordinator, who can assist Holbrooke. (6-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
OBAMA'S CAIRO MESSAGE: LIMITED AUDIENCE,LIMITED IMPACT
B.RAMAN
President Barack Obama’s address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs.
2. The Arabs constitute a minority in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims living in countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia constitute the majority. The issues, which agitate them, are different from the issues which agitate the Arab world. Osama bin Laden understands this better than Obama and his advisers. That was why in his audio message released through Al Jazeera a day before Obama’s Cairo address, bin Laden focused on issues of immediate concern to the non-Arab Muslims in the Af-Pak region such as the large-scale displacement of Pashtuns from the tribal areas of Pakistan. By focusing on their plight and by holding the Americans responsible for it, he sought to make it certain that the anti-American anger in the Af-Pak region will increase rather than decrease.
3. Outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, the attitude of the Muslims towards the US is characterized by feelings of hostility or anger or skepticism. There is hardly any feeling of empathy or warmth. There are various reasons for the negative feelings towards the US. Some are country-specific, some are region specific and some are ethnicity specific. The negative feelings of the Arabs towards the US may be due to the Palestine issue and the perceived US support for Israel, but Palestine and Israel are not such burning issues in the non-Arab Islamic world.
4.Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.
5. If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader .Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates.
6. There are two ways of judging the impact----- what has been and what will be the impact on those Muslims, who have taken to terrorism against the US and other countries of the world and what will be the impact on ordinary Muslims, who stay away from the so-called global jihad, but at the same time do not nurse any feelings of empathy for the US?
7. The impact on the world of global jihad will be very little. Their views towards the US have been formed as a result of years of brainwashing in extremist mosques and madrasas. They are not going to change as a result of a beautifully-drafted speech beautifully delivered before an audience carefully assembled by the so-called apostates. They will continue to fight against the US, which will have to defeat them in the battle-field. bin Laden’s projection of the US President as Bush in Obama’s clothing will make a greater impact on the minds of the jihadis than the words and phrases of Obama.
8. The jihadi behaviour till now was influenced by the visuals, which came out of Iraq and Afghanistan. As the impact of those visuals decreases, Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations are trying to exploit the visuals of the plight of nearly three million internally displaced Pashtuns, driven out of their homes by a Pakistani war ordered by the US as bin Laden projected it in his message.
9. The impact on the ordinary Muslims outside pockets of urban elite will not be significant. Ordinary Muslims are not so naïve as to be impressed by a couple of quotations from the Holy Koran. Muslims outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are not enamoured of democracy. They have nothing against authoritarian rulers, provided they care for the ordinary Muslims. Mubarak is not an example of a caring ruler. Among Muslim rulers blessed and supported by the US, there is hardly anyone whom one can call caring for the common Muslims. The ordinary Muslims will judge the US by the company it keeps in the Islamic world than by the speeches of Obama.
10. Obama’s speech may help him back home by pushing up his popularity. Americans love such orations. It may not help the US much in the Islamic world. The use of soft power to counter pernicious ideologies coming out of the Islamic world is important. They have to be countered in a more subtle and sophisticated manner through personal interactions, dialogue in small groups, radio and TV programmes, Internet chats etc. A Cairo-style address is not suited for this purpose.
11. A mix of Wahabism and Deobandism of the Pakistani brand is the driving force of the global jihad and of the hostility towards the US. Deoband is in India. The Indian brand of Deobandism was benign and continues to be benign The Pakistani brand is venomous and behind much of the negative ideas influencing the attitudes and conduct of millions of Muslims. Unless the pernicious Wahabi-Deobandi ideas emanating from Pakistan are countered in an intelligent manner, the divide between the Muslims and the non-Muslims will continue to widen. How to do so? That is the question that should occupy the minds of US policy-makers. (5-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
President Barack Obama’s address at the Cairo University on June 4,2009, which was billed in advance by his staff as a historic message of goodwill and reconciliation to the Islamic world, had a limited audience. Though projected as an address to the Islamic world, it was largely an address to the Arab world and focused largely on issues of interest to the Arabs.
2. The Arabs constitute a minority in the Islamic world. Non-Arab Muslims living in countries such as India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia constitute the majority. The issues, which agitate them, are different from the issues which agitate the Arab world. Osama bin Laden understands this better than Obama and his advisers. That was why in his audio message released through Al Jazeera a day before Obama’s Cairo address, bin Laden focused on issues of immediate concern to the non-Arab Muslims in the Af-Pak region such as the large-scale displacement of Pashtuns from the tribal areas of Pakistan. By focusing on their plight and by holding the Americans responsible for it, he sought to make it certain that the anti-American anger in the Af-Pak region will increase rather than decrease.
3. Outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia, the attitude of the Muslims towards the US is characterized by feelings of hostility or anger or skepticism. There is hardly any feeling of empathy or warmth. There are various reasons for the negative feelings towards the US. Some are country-specific, some are region specific and some are ethnicity specific. The negative feelings of the Arabs towards the US may be due to the Palestine issue and the perceived US support for Israel, but Palestine and Israel are not such burning issues in the non-Arab Islamic world.
4.Obama’s address seemed to have been constructed around the belief that the Muslims constitute a monolithic community and that their actions are motivated by certain issues of common concern to all the Muslims of the world. This is a wrong belief. The Muslims are not a monolithic community and there is no common thread uniting the anger motivating the Muslims in different countries and different regions. There are Muslims and Muslims and issues and issues.
5. If Obama wanted to address the Muslims of the world, Cairo was the wrong place from which to seek to do so. There was a time when Egypt was seen as the beacon of the Arab world. It is no longer so. Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations project Egypt and its leaders as apostate. President Hosni Mubarak is a very unpopular Arab leader .Obama going to Cairo to deliver the address is seen by large sections of pro-Al Qaeda and pro-Taliban leaders as a leader of the American infidels traveling to the country of apostates to deliver an address to the Muslims from a platform provided by the apostates.
6. There are two ways of judging the impact----- what has been and what will be the impact on those Muslims, who have taken to terrorism against the US and other countries of the world and what will be the impact on ordinary Muslims, who stay away from the so-called global jihad, but at the same time do not nurse any feelings of empathy for the US?
7. The impact on the world of global jihad will be very little. Their views towards the US have been formed as a result of years of brainwashing in extremist mosques and madrasas. They are not going to change as a result of a beautifully-drafted speech beautifully delivered before an audience carefully assembled by the so-called apostates. They will continue to fight against the US, which will have to defeat them in the battle-field. bin Laden’s projection of the US President as Bush in Obama’s clothing will make a greater impact on the minds of the jihadis than the words and phrases of Obama.
8. The jihadi behaviour till now was influenced by the visuals, which came out of Iraq and Afghanistan. As the impact of those visuals decreases, Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organizations are trying to exploit the visuals of the plight of nearly three million internally displaced Pashtuns, driven out of their homes by a Pakistani war ordered by the US as bin Laden projected it in his message.
9. The impact on the ordinary Muslims outside pockets of urban elite will not be significant. Ordinary Muslims are not so naïve as to be impressed by a couple of quotations from the Holy Koran. Muslims outside India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia are not enamoured of democracy. They have nothing against authoritarian rulers, provided they care for the ordinary Muslims. Mubarak is not an example of a caring ruler. Among Muslim rulers blessed and supported by the US, there is hardly anyone whom one can call caring for the common Muslims. The ordinary Muslims will judge the US by the company it keeps in the Islamic world than by the speeches of Obama.
10. Obama’s speech may help him back home by pushing up his popularity. Americans love such orations. It may not help the US much in the Islamic world. The use of soft power to counter pernicious ideologies coming out of the Islamic world is important. They have to be countered in a more subtle and sophisticated manner through personal interactions, dialogue in small groups, radio and TV programmes, Internet chats etc. A Cairo-style address is not suited for this purpose.
11. A mix of Wahabism and Deobandism of the Pakistani brand is the driving force of the global jihad and of the hostility towards the US. Deoband is in India. The Indian brand of Deobandism was benign and continues to be benign The Pakistani brand is venomous and behind much of the negative ideas influencing the attitudes and conduct of millions of Muslims. Unless the pernicious Wahabi-Deobandi ideas emanating from Pakistan are countered in an intelligent manner, the divide between the Muslims and the non-Muslims will continue to widen. How to do so? That is the question that should occupy the minds of US policy-makers. (5-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
MUCH ADO ABOUT AN AMERICAN SECURITY ADVISORY
B.RAMAN
There has been unnecessary excitement and unwarranted indignation over an advisory issued by the security officer of the US Embassy in New Delhi about the security precautions to be followed by American citizens travelling to India or living in India.
2.The advisory, which is available for US nationals on the notice boards of the US diplomatic and consular missions in India as well on the web sites of the US missions in India says as follows in a notice dated June 2,2009: "The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all U.S. citizens resident in or traveling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India. As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities. Americans should consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues.'
3. A similar advisory was issued by the security officer (warden) of the US Embassy on May 26,2009, regarding the dangers of unrest in Punjab following the alleged murder of a Sikh leader by some Sikhs in a Vienna gurudwara. It read as follows: "U.S. citizens are advised of the continuing tensions and civil unrest in the Indian state of Punjab. The killing of a Sikh leader in Austria May 24 sparked violent protests in many areas, particularly around Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Phagwara and Hoshiarpur. There have been no reports of foreigners being targeted, but due to the intensity of the protests, Americans could be at risk. The concern will be heightened when and if the body of the slain cleric is returned to India - possibly during the week of May 26-31. All U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Punjab should exercise caution, maintain a low profile, avoid all demonstrations, monitor local media for security updates, and anticipate major transportation disruptions."
4. Such advisories are routine and are issued by the security officers of all important missions to their nationals travelling to or residing in India. This is part of their responsibility towards the personal security of their nationals in India. The Israeli missions periodically issue such cautionary advice to their nationals in India----particularly to those planning to visit Goa. After the Mumbai terrorist attack of November,2008,in which many foreigners of different nationalities were killed by 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the frequency of such advisories has increased.
5. There are two kinds of advisories---- an advisory against travel to a country and an advisory about security precautions to be observed ina country. The advisory against travel to a country is issued by the Foreign Office of a country on the basis of the advice from the intelligence agencies. The advisory about security precautions to be observed in a country are routinely issued by the security officers of the diplomatic missions.
6. The advisory to which objection has reportedly been taken by P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister of the Government of India, has been routinely issued by the officer in charge of security in the US Embassy. There is nothing objectionable in the advisory and there is no ground for our protesting against it.
7. In fact, the security officers of all Western companies in India issue such advisories regarding security precautions to their foreign staff working in India. This is the right thing to do.
8. Every diplomatic mission is expected to keep advising its citizens about likely threats to their security. If our diplomatic and consular missions in Australia are working as they should be, by now they should have issued a security advisory to all Indian students in Australia in the wake of the violent attacks on some Indian students. Threats to personal security need not arise only from terrorists. they could also arise from others. If the Indian missions in Australia have not yet done it, it would reflect poorly on them. The Australian Government cannot object if they issue such an advisory.
9. We are making a laughing stock of ourselves by creating a rumpus over the US advisory and by projecting it as a negative reflection on India and as an insult to India by equating India with Pakistan. (4-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
There has been unnecessary excitement and unwarranted indignation over an advisory issued by the security officer of the US Embassy in New Delhi about the security precautions to be followed by American citizens travelling to India or living in India.
2.The advisory, which is available for US nationals on the notice boards of the US diplomatic and consular missions in India as well on the web sites of the US missions in India says as follows in a notice dated June 2,2009: "The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all U.S. citizens resident in or traveling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India. As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, U.S. citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile. Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities. Americans should consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues.'
3. A similar advisory was issued by the security officer (warden) of the US Embassy on May 26,2009, regarding the dangers of unrest in Punjab following the alleged murder of a Sikh leader by some Sikhs in a Vienna gurudwara. It read as follows: "U.S. citizens are advised of the continuing tensions and civil unrest in the Indian state of Punjab. The killing of a Sikh leader in Austria May 24 sparked violent protests in many areas, particularly around Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Phagwara and Hoshiarpur. There have been no reports of foreigners being targeted, but due to the intensity of the protests, Americans could be at risk. The concern will be heightened when and if the body of the slain cleric is returned to India - possibly during the week of May 26-31. All U.S. citizens residing or traveling in Punjab should exercise caution, maintain a low profile, avoid all demonstrations, monitor local media for security updates, and anticipate major transportation disruptions."
4. Such advisories are routine and are issued by the security officers of all important missions to their nationals travelling to or residing in India. This is part of their responsibility towards the personal security of their nationals in India. The Israeli missions periodically issue such cautionary advice to their nationals in India----particularly to those planning to visit Goa. After the Mumbai terrorist attack of November,2008,in which many foreigners of different nationalities were killed by 10 terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the frequency of such advisories has increased.
5. There are two kinds of advisories---- an advisory against travel to a country and an advisory about security precautions to be observed ina country. The advisory against travel to a country is issued by the Foreign Office of a country on the basis of the advice from the intelligence agencies. The advisory about security precautions to be observed in a country are routinely issued by the security officers of the diplomatic missions.
6. The advisory to which objection has reportedly been taken by P.Chidambaram, the Home Minister of the Government of India, has been routinely issued by the officer in charge of security in the US Embassy. There is nothing objectionable in the advisory and there is no ground for our protesting against it.
7. In fact, the security officers of all Western companies in India issue such advisories regarding security precautions to their foreign staff working in India. This is the right thing to do.
8. Every diplomatic mission is expected to keep advising its citizens about likely threats to their security. If our diplomatic and consular missions in Australia are working as they should be, by now they should have issued a security advisory to all Indian students in Australia in the wake of the violent attacks on some Indian students. Threats to personal security need not arise only from terrorists. they could also arise from others. If the Indian missions in Australia have not yet done it, it would reflect poorly on them. The Australian Government cannot object if they issue such an advisory.
9. We are making a laughing stock of ourselves by creating a rumpus over the US advisory and by projecting it as a negative reflection on India and as an insult to India by equating India with Pakistan. (4-6-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
WHY HILLARY CLINTON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST CHINA?
B. Raman
A significant development in the US-China relations has not received the attention it deserves. After having kept quiet on the issue of the human rights of the Tibetans during her visit to China in February, 2009, which was analysed and interpreted by many in a manner unfavourable to the Barack Obama Administration, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has come out strongly in articulating the US position on the Tiananmen Square massacre by the Chinese security forces 20 years ago and on the way the Chinese authorities have sought to suppress the truth from coming out.
2. In a statement issued at Washington DC on June 3, 2009, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the massacre, Hillary Clinton said: China should publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago. China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part. The anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day". China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." "China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform."
3. This is the toughest statement on China to have come out of the Obama Administration since he assumed office on January 20, 2009. One was expecting a statement of pro forma criticism without unnecessarily needling China. Instead, she has come out with a really strong statement which would be welcomed by the human rights organisations of the world. The statement came in the wake of the bonhomie that prevailed during the just concluded visit to Beijing by Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, to discuss bilateral economic relations. His discussions with the Chinese authorities were reported to have proceeded smoothly.
4. What then made Hillary Clinton come out with this statement, which is unusually strong for the Obama Administration? Two interpretations are possible. The first is that stung by criticism of what was seen by many as its soft line towards China, the Administration felt it necessary to correct this impression by articulating its position on the Tiananmen Square massacre in strong language. The second interpretation is that the strong line reflects a certain annoyance of the Obama Administration over China's reluctance or failure or both to exercise sufficient pressure on North Korea not to carry out its nuclear test of last month and its repeated firings of missiles.
5. In the past, there was considerable satisfaction in the US over China's role as a facilitator of the six-power talks on North Korea's denuclearisation. China is the only country in a position to exercise meaningful pressure on North Korea to give up the nuclear path. The indications are that apart from facilitating the talks, China did very little by way of exercising pressure on North Korea to co-operate with the international community. China strongly deplored the nuclear test, but beyond that it has done very little to make North Korea change its policy.
6. Is the strong statement on the Tiananmen Square massacre a veiled message to Beijing that if it does not exercise enough pressure on North Korea, that could have an impact on its improving relations with the US?
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com) Back to the top
A significant development in the US-China relations has not received the attention it deserves. After having kept quiet on the issue of the human rights of the Tibetans during her visit to China in February, 2009, which was analysed and interpreted by many in a manner unfavourable to the Barack Obama Administration, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has come out strongly in articulating the US position on the Tiananmen Square massacre by the Chinese security forces 20 years ago and on the way the Chinese authorities have sought to suppress the truth from coming out.
2. In a statement issued at Washington DC on June 3, 2009, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the massacre, Hillary Clinton said: China should publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago. China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part. The anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day". China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal." "China can honour the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognised human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform."
3. This is the toughest statement on China to have come out of the Obama Administration since he assumed office on January 20, 2009. One was expecting a statement of pro forma criticism without unnecessarily needling China. Instead, she has come out with a really strong statement which would be welcomed by the human rights organisations of the world. The statement came in the wake of the bonhomie that prevailed during the just concluded visit to Beijing by Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary, to discuss bilateral economic relations. His discussions with the Chinese authorities were reported to have proceeded smoothly.
4. What then made Hillary Clinton come out with this statement, which is unusually strong for the Obama Administration? Two interpretations are possible. The first is that stung by criticism of what was seen by many as its soft line towards China, the Administration felt it necessary to correct this impression by articulating its position on the Tiananmen Square massacre in strong language. The second interpretation is that the strong line reflects a certain annoyance of the Obama Administration over China's reluctance or failure or both to exercise sufficient pressure on North Korea not to carry out its nuclear test of last month and its repeated firings of missiles.
5. In the past, there was considerable satisfaction in the US over China's role as a facilitator of the six-power talks on North Korea's denuclearisation. China is the only country in a position to exercise meaningful pressure on North Korea to give up the nuclear path. The indications are that apart from facilitating the talks, China did very little by way of exercising pressure on North Korea to co-operate with the international community. China strongly deplored the nuclear test, but beyond that it has done very little to make North Korea change its policy.
6. Is the strong statement on the Tiananmen Square massacre a veiled message to Beijing that if it does not exercise enough pressure on North Korea, that could have an impact on its improving relations with the US?
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com) Back to the top
IRAN SUSPECTS VIOLENCE IN ZAHIDAN IS PLANNED IN PAKISTAN
B. Raman
The Iranian authorities reportedly suspect that the May 28 explosion in the second biggest Shia mosque in Zahidan, capital of Sistan-Balochistan, the Sunni majority Baloch province of Iran, was planned by the Jundullah, a Sunni extremist organisation, from its sanctuary in Pakistan's Balochistan province. They claim that the three members of the Jundullah, who were executed in public after the suicide explosion, confessed during their interrogation that they brought the explosive device from Pakistan and gave it to the suicide bomber.
2. While the Iranian authorities accuse the Jundullah of acting at the behest of the US and Israel, other reports indicate that the Jundullah cadres are trained by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), a Sunni extremist organisation of Pakistan, in its training camps in South Waziristan in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The LEJ, whose involvement along with Al Qaeda was suspected in the huge explosion in the Marriott Hotel of Islamabad in September last year, has been operating jointly with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) headed by Baitullah Mehsud of South Waziristan.
3. The Iranian authorities, who have officially taken up with the Pakistani authorities their information about the terrorist infrastructure of the Jundullah in Pakistani territory, allege that Abdulmalek Rigi, whom they accuse of being the Amir of the Jundullah, operates from Pakistani territory.
4. Citing the Fars News Agency of Iran, the "Dawn" of Karachi reported on June 1, 2009, as follows: ' The chief of the Iranian armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, said Iran had located the base of the group and informed the Pakistani Government of Abdulmalek Rigi’s position.....So far Jundullah has claimed responsibility for a dozen terrorist operations in Iran, however according to the FNA, they have managed to escape punishment by crossing into Pakistan. Tehran has warned Islamabad that it has the power and military means to trace and hunt down terrorist groups in Pakistan if such activity is not stopped by Pakistan. Since the suicide attack, Iran has closed down its border with Pakistan." The Pakistan Foreign Office has denied the "Dawn" report about the closing of the border.
5. The " News" of June 1, 2009, carried the following report by its well-informed correspondent Amir Mir: "The rising terrorist activities of the Pakistan-based militant organisation, Jundullah (Soldiers of God) threatens not only the Pak-Iran diplomatic ties but also the future of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, which was signed on May 22 by President Asif Zardari and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran. According to well-placed diplomatic sources in Islamabad, Tehran has lodged a strong protest with Islamabad over the failure of its law enforcement agencies to dismantle the Jundullah network in Pakistan, which has claimed responsibility for the May 28 deadly suicide attack inside the Ameer al-Momenin mosque in Zahedan that killed 25 people and wounded 125 others. The sources said Iranian officials had expressed their deep concern over the failure of the Pakistani authorities to proceed against the Jundullah network in Pakistan despite having been given specific intelligence. The Pakistani Ambassador was told that the Zahedan suicide attack could have been averted had Islamabad acted in time on the Iranian intelligence information.The Iranian authorities had reportedly told the Pakistani Ambassador that the three terrorists (Haji Noti Zehi, Gholam Rasoul Shahi Zehi and Zabihollah Naroui), hanged publicly on May 30 in Zahedan for their alleged participation in the mosque bombing, had confessed to illegally bringing explosives from Pakistan into Iran and giving them to the main person behind the suicide attack. Diplomatic circles in Islamabad say Tehran's concern over the growing terrorist activities of Jundullah, across the border in Iran, could be gauged from the fact that its Ambassador to Pakistan Mashallah Shakeri had addressed an unusual press conference in Islamabad on March 20, accusing Pakistan of allowing its soil to be used against Iran and demanding concrete steps to contain its activities. While claiming that the Jundullah network was located inside the Balochistan province, Shakeri had asked Islamabad to curb its anti-Iran activities by taking a decisive action against its leadership. The Iranian Ambassador had given broad hints at that time that an Iranian diplomat, who had disappeared in Peshawar in 2008, could also have been kidnapped by Jundullah. In his reaction the same day, a Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman had stated that Islamabad was determined that the Pakistani soil would not be allowed to be used by Jundullah in any manner to destabilise the Iranian government. However, the diplomatic circles in Islamabad say the Iranian authorities had warned the Pakistani Ambassador to Tehran on May 30 that Islamabad's failure to act against the Jundullah network in Balochistan could also jeopardise the future of the recently-signed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. They pointed out that the Pakistani and the Iranian Presidents had only signed the initial agreement after 14 years of delayed negotiations and the most crucial gas sales and purchase agreement had not yet been finalised."
6. In the meanwhile, the Jundullah of Iran has disseminated the following statement: "Ayatollah Khamenaei, the supreme leader of Iran, officially interpreted the natural death of Fatema, the daughter of the holy Prophet, as martyrdom, thus justifying the actions of those who have organised Omar Denunciation Ceremonies. The ceremonies began about two months ago in Baluchistan where the majority of the people are Sunnis and resulted in widespread conflicts between Baluch Sunnis and Iranian security forces. The tension mounted when the People's Resistance Movement of Iran, Jondollah, initiated a bomb blast in a mosque that was dominated by the security forces and Iranian militia. The fanatics supported by the militia and security forces published huge posters in the streets and began denunciation speeches with mobile speakers in moving cars in different streets of Zahedan. Jondollah warned these groups to halt their offending ceremonies to one billion Moslems throughout the world but they ignored the warnings and continued displaying posters in their street gatherings. Other Baluch and Sunni leaders requested the Iranian authorities to prevent these provocative ceremonies but they did not stop. The Jondollah bombed the mosque that has become the centre of various provocations and the headquarters of these ceremonies after all other peaceful requests were exhausted. Ayatollah Khamenaei said a few weeks ago in Kurdistan that any action that may create divisions between Shias and Sunnis is treason, but now it is certain that he was behind all the offences that have been officially made against the second Caliph."
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
The Iranian authorities reportedly suspect that the May 28 explosion in the second biggest Shia mosque in Zahidan, capital of Sistan-Balochistan, the Sunni majority Baloch province of Iran, was planned by the Jundullah, a Sunni extremist organisation, from its sanctuary in Pakistan's Balochistan province. They claim that the three members of the Jundullah, who were executed in public after the suicide explosion, confessed during their interrogation that they brought the explosive device from Pakistan and gave it to the suicide bomber.
2. While the Iranian authorities accuse the Jundullah of acting at the behest of the US and Israel, other reports indicate that the Jundullah cadres are trained by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), a Sunni extremist organisation of Pakistan, in its training camps in South Waziristan in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The LEJ, whose involvement along with Al Qaeda was suspected in the huge explosion in the Marriott Hotel of Islamabad in September last year, has been operating jointly with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) headed by Baitullah Mehsud of South Waziristan.
3. The Iranian authorities, who have officially taken up with the Pakistani authorities their information about the terrorist infrastructure of the Jundullah in Pakistani territory, allege that Abdulmalek Rigi, whom they accuse of being the Amir of the Jundullah, operates from Pakistani territory.
4. Citing the Fars News Agency of Iran, the "Dawn" of Karachi reported on June 1, 2009, as follows: ' The chief of the Iranian armed forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, said Iran had located the base of the group and informed the Pakistani Government of Abdulmalek Rigi’s position.....So far Jundullah has claimed responsibility for a dozen terrorist operations in Iran, however according to the FNA, they have managed to escape punishment by crossing into Pakistan. Tehran has warned Islamabad that it has the power and military means to trace and hunt down terrorist groups in Pakistan if such activity is not stopped by Pakistan. Since the suicide attack, Iran has closed down its border with Pakistan." The Pakistan Foreign Office has denied the "Dawn" report about the closing of the border.
5. The " News" of June 1, 2009, carried the following report by its well-informed correspondent Amir Mir: "The rising terrorist activities of the Pakistan-based militant organisation, Jundullah (Soldiers of God) threatens not only the Pak-Iran diplomatic ties but also the future of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, which was signed on May 22 by President Asif Zardari and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran. According to well-placed diplomatic sources in Islamabad, Tehran has lodged a strong protest with Islamabad over the failure of its law enforcement agencies to dismantle the Jundullah network in Pakistan, which has claimed responsibility for the May 28 deadly suicide attack inside the Ameer al-Momenin mosque in Zahedan that killed 25 people and wounded 125 others. The sources said Iranian officials had expressed their deep concern over the failure of the Pakistani authorities to proceed against the Jundullah network in Pakistan despite having been given specific intelligence. The Pakistani Ambassador was told that the Zahedan suicide attack could have been averted had Islamabad acted in time on the Iranian intelligence information.The Iranian authorities had reportedly told the Pakistani Ambassador that the three terrorists (Haji Noti Zehi, Gholam Rasoul Shahi Zehi and Zabihollah Naroui), hanged publicly on May 30 in Zahedan for their alleged participation in the mosque bombing, had confessed to illegally bringing explosives from Pakistan into Iran and giving them to the main person behind the suicide attack. Diplomatic circles in Islamabad say Tehran's concern over the growing terrorist activities of Jundullah, across the border in Iran, could be gauged from the fact that its Ambassador to Pakistan Mashallah Shakeri had addressed an unusual press conference in Islamabad on March 20, accusing Pakistan of allowing its soil to be used against Iran and demanding concrete steps to contain its activities. While claiming that the Jundullah network was located inside the Balochistan province, Shakeri had asked Islamabad to curb its anti-Iran activities by taking a decisive action against its leadership. The Iranian Ambassador had given broad hints at that time that an Iranian diplomat, who had disappeared in Peshawar in 2008, could also have been kidnapped by Jundullah. In his reaction the same day, a Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman had stated that Islamabad was determined that the Pakistani soil would not be allowed to be used by Jundullah in any manner to destabilise the Iranian government. However, the diplomatic circles in Islamabad say the Iranian authorities had warned the Pakistani Ambassador to Tehran on May 30 that Islamabad's failure to act against the Jundullah network in Balochistan could also jeopardise the future of the recently-signed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project. They pointed out that the Pakistani and the Iranian Presidents had only signed the initial agreement after 14 years of delayed negotiations and the most crucial gas sales and purchase agreement had not yet been finalised."
6. In the meanwhile, the Jundullah of Iran has disseminated the following statement: "Ayatollah Khamenaei, the supreme leader of Iran, officially interpreted the natural death of Fatema, the daughter of the holy Prophet, as martyrdom, thus justifying the actions of those who have organised Omar Denunciation Ceremonies. The ceremonies began about two months ago in Baluchistan where the majority of the people are Sunnis and resulted in widespread conflicts between Baluch Sunnis and Iranian security forces. The tension mounted when the People's Resistance Movement of Iran, Jondollah, initiated a bomb blast in a mosque that was dominated by the security forces and Iranian militia. The fanatics supported by the militia and security forces published huge posters in the streets and began denunciation speeches with mobile speakers in moving cars in different streets of Zahedan. Jondollah warned these groups to halt their offending ceremonies to one billion Moslems throughout the world but they ignored the warnings and continued displaying posters in their street gatherings. Other Baluch and Sunni leaders requested the Iranian authorities to prevent these provocative ceremonies but they did not stop. The Jondollah bombed the mosque that has become the centre of various provocations and the headquarters of these ceremonies after all other peaceful requests were exhausted. Ayatollah Khamenaei said a few weeks ago in Kurdistan that any action that may create divisions between Shias and Sunnis is treason, but now it is certain that he was behind all the offences that have been officially made against the second Caliph."
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
BIN LADEN TALKS AGAIN OF AN INDIA-ISRAEL-US PLOT
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR-- PAPER NO.532
B.RAMAN
For the first time in April 2006, shortly after the visit of the then US President George Bush to India, Osama bin Laden projected the global jihad as being waged against a joint India-Israel-US plot against Islam. This theme was not repeated in his subsequent messages.
2. He has reverted to this theme in his latest audio message broadcast by Al Jazeera on June 3, 2009. The message focusses on the on-going operation of the Pakistan Army in the Swat Valley and the suffering caused by it to the people of the area, but it has been released by Al Qaeda to coincide with the arrival of President Barack Obama in Saudi Arabia from where he will be going to Egypt. Obama is expected to deliver a significant speech at the Cairo University , which is being billed in advance by US spokesmen as an important message of goodwill to the Islamic world.
3. Al Qaeda has released two messages coinciding with Obama's tour. The first by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's No.2, is totally focussed on Obama's visit. It is highly vituperative. Zawahiri, who is an Egyptian, denounces the leaders of Egypt as butchers and criminals. He uses language, which is virulently denunciatory.
4. The message of bin Laden is more balanced. He does not stoop to the level of his No.2. The main focus is not on Obama's tour, but on the on-going military operation in the Swat Valley of the North-West Frontier Province. He tries to project that Obama is no different from George Bush and that his policies towards the Muslims are full of hatred and are no different from those of Bush. He indirectly warns of the consequences of such policy. The warning is more general than specific. It cannot be interpreted as an indicator of a coming Al Qaeda strike against the US.
5. The message says: "U.S. policy in Pakistan has generated new seeds of hatred and revenge against America.Obama has ordered Zardari to prevent the people of Swat from implementing sharia law.....All this led to the displacement of about a million Muslim elders, women and children from their villages and homes. They became refugees in tents after they were honored in their own homes.This basically means that Obama and his administration put new seeds of hatred and revenge against America. The number of these seeds is the same as the number of those victims and refugees in Swat and the tribal area in northern and southern Waziristan.The American people need to prepare to only gain what those seeds bring up."
6. bin Laden has been very critical of President Asif Ali Zardari and Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). He accuses them of continuing to divert the army's main role from protecting the nation to fighting Islam and its followers and adds that the war is also hurting Pakistan's economy, endangering the country's religion and security and "fulfilling an American, Jewish and Indian plot."It further says: "Most of the Pakistani people reject this unjust war. Zardari did this in response to the ones paying him in the White House --not 10 per cent but multiple folds of that."
7.In this context, bin Laden says: "It is easy for India to subject the disassembled territories of Pakistan, one after another, for its own benefit, like the case of eastern Pakistan before, or even worse. This way, America eases its worry towards Pakistan's nuclear weapons."
8.Zawahiri's message accuses Obama of threatening to interfere in Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, "meaning he considers these weapons owned by America and under its control." What is sought to be conveyed to the Pakistani people by these two messages is that as a result of the co-operation of its rulers with the US, Pakistan stands in danger of losing its sovereignty not only over its territory, but also over its nuclear arsenal.
9. Why does bin Laden consider it necessary to place before the Pakistani people the spectre of an Indian role in the alleged US-Israeli conspiracy against Pakistan? He does not explain, but after carefully reading the message, one can see that he is hinting to the Pakistanis the danger of shifting Pakistani troops away from the Indian border, as suggested by the Obama Administration, in order to use them in the operations against the Pakistani Taliban.
10. Pro-Al Qaeda organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) are likely to interpret bin Laden's message as encouragement of another major terrorist strike in India, in the hope that the resulting fresh tension between India and Pakistan would make the Pakistan Army slow down its anti-Taliban operation.(4-6-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and,presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
For the first time in April 2006, shortly after the visit of the then US President George Bush to India, Osama bin Laden projected the global jihad as being waged against a joint India-Israel-US plot against Islam. This theme was not repeated in his subsequent messages.
2. He has reverted to this theme in his latest audio message broadcast by Al Jazeera on June 3, 2009. The message focusses on the on-going operation of the Pakistan Army in the Swat Valley and the suffering caused by it to the people of the area, but it has been released by Al Qaeda to coincide with the arrival of President Barack Obama in Saudi Arabia from where he will be going to Egypt. Obama is expected to deliver a significant speech at the Cairo University , which is being billed in advance by US spokesmen as an important message of goodwill to the Islamic world.
3. Al Qaeda has released two messages coinciding with Obama's tour. The first by Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's No.2, is totally focussed on Obama's visit. It is highly vituperative. Zawahiri, who is an Egyptian, denounces the leaders of Egypt as butchers and criminals. He uses language, which is virulently denunciatory.
4. The message of bin Laden is more balanced. He does not stoop to the level of his No.2. The main focus is not on Obama's tour, but on the on-going military operation in the Swat Valley of the North-West Frontier Province. He tries to project that Obama is no different from George Bush and that his policies towards the Muslims are full of hatred and are no different from those of Bush. He indirectly warns of the consequences of such policy. The warning is more general than specific. It cannot be interpreted as an indicator of a coming Al Qaeda strike against the US.
5. The message says: "U.S. policy in Pakistan has generated new seeds of hatred and revenge against America.Obama has ordered Zardari to prevent the people of Swat from implementing sharia law.....All this led to the displacement of about a million Muslim elders, women and children from their villages and homes. They became refugees in tents after they were honored in their own homes.This basically means that Obama and his administration put new seeds of hatred and revenge against America. The number of these seeds is the same as the number of those victims and refugees in Swat and the tribal area in northern and southern Waziristan.The American people need to prepare to only gain what those seeds bring up."
6. bin Laden has been very critical of President Asif Ali Zardari and Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). He accuses them of continuing to divert the army's main role from protecting the nation to fighting Islam and its followers and adds that the war is also hurting Pakistan's economy, endangering the country's religion and security and "fulfilling an American, Jewish and Indian plot."It further says: "Most of the Pakistani people reject this unjust war. Zardari did this in response to the ones paying him in the White House --not 10 per cent but multiple folds of that."
7.In this context, bin Laden says: "It is easy for India to subject the disassembled territories of Pakistan, one after another, for its own benefit, like the case of eastern Pakistan before, or even worse. This way, America eases its worry towards Pakistan's nuclear weapons."
8.Zawahiri's message accuses Obama of threatening to interfere in Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, "meaning he considers these weapons owned by America and under its control." What is sought to be conveyed to the Pakistani people by these two messages is that as a result of the co-operation of its rulers with the US, Pakistan stands in danger of losing its sovereignty not only over its territory, but also over its nuclear arsenal.
9. Why does bin Laden consider it necessary to place before the Pakistani people the spectre of an Indian role in the alleged US-Israeli conspiracy against Pakistan? He does not explain, but after carefully reading the message, one can see that he is hinting to the Pakistanis the danger of shifting Pakistani troops away from the Indian border, as suggested by the Obama Administration, in order to use them in the operations against the Pakistani Taliban.
10. Pro-Al Qaeda organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) are likely to interpret bin Laden's message as encouragement of another major terrorist strike in India, in the hope that the resulting fresh tension between India and Pakistan would make the Pakistan Army slow down its anti-Taliban operation.(4-6-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and,presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
SECURITY & DEVELOPMENT IN COUNTER-TERRORISM & COUNTER-INSURGENCY STRATEGIES
( Based on a talk delivered on March 28,2009, at a seminar at Guwahati organized by the Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad Institute of Asian Studies of Kolkata )
B.RAMAN
India faces three kinds of terrorism ---the indigenous by some sections of our own people, the foreign sponsored and the foreign-aided. The indigenous terrorism itself has different motives----political and religious as in the case of the terrorist groups in Jammu & Kashmir, purely religious as in the case of the jihadi terrorist groups operating outside J&K, ethnic as in the case of Assam and ideological and economic as in the case of the Maoist or Naxalite groups operating in the tribal belt of Central India.
2. Foreign-sponsored terrorism is mainly due to jihadi organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI ) and the Jaish-eMohammad (JEM) operating from Pakistani territory and the HUJI operating from Bangladesh. Their members are Pakistani or Bangladeshi nationals or other foreign Muslims and their activities in the Indian territory are sponsored by the intelligence agencies of these countries in order to serve their own purpose. The intelligence agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh have a common purpose of creating a polarization between the Muslim and Hindu communities in India. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has the additional purpose of forcing a change in the status quo in J&K through terrorism.
3. Foreign-aided terrorism refers to indigenous terrorist groups receiving assistance in the form of training, financial assistance and arms and ammunition from the terrorist organizations and the intelligence services of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Examples would be the Khalistani terrorists who used to be active in Punjab and Delhi till 1995, the Kashmiri terrorist groups, the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the so-called Indian Mujahideen (IM) and the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). Assisting them helps the purpose of creating instability in India and keeping the Indian security forces preoccupied with internal security problems.
4. There are two approaches to dealing with terrorism---- the counter-terrorist and the counter-terrorism approaches. The counter-terrorist approach deals with terrorism as a threat to national security and seeks to put out of action the terrorists, their leaders and organizations through the use of the security forces. The counter-terrorism approach treats terrorism as a phenomenon with many aspects----political, economic, social, religious etc--- in addition to having a security dimension. The counter-terrorism approach underlines that counter-terrorist methods will not be sufficient to deal with the threat effectively. In addition, the political, economic, social and other aspects have to be addressed simultaneously by the political leadership.
5. There is only one way of dealing with foreign-sponsored terrorist groups---- through counter-terrorist methods. Foreign nationals indulging in acts of terrorism in our territory have to be neutralized by the security forces without any mercy. The use of such terrorists by Pakistan and Bangladesh amounts to indirect aggression in our territory. There are two methods of dealing with foreign-sponsored terrorists-----passive defence and active defence. Passive defence refers to strengthening internal security measures in our own territory in order to make it almost impossible for Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorists to operate in our territory. Active defence refers to our right to take our counter-terrorism operations to the territories of Pakistan and Bangladesh in order to pre-empt their plans for a terrorist strike in our territory.
6. Countries facing the menace of foreign-sponsored terrorism adopt a mix of passive defence and active defence methods. India follows a policy of only passive defence. The Indian political leadership is not prepared to consider active defence. Passive defence requires effective preventive capability. Active defence requires an effective and deniable retaliatory capability. We have not built for ourselves such a retaliatory capability. After the Mumbai terrorist strike of November 26-29,2008, many foreign terrorism experts have assessed that India may continue to face such strikes because it does not have either an effective preventive or retaliatory capability. This assessment needs to be taken seriously by our political leadership and policy-makers and appropriate correctives in our strategy introduced.
7. In the case of purely indigenous terrorism, effective physical security alone will not produce enduring results unless accompanied by appropriate political action to address the anger and grievances of the community from which the terrorists have arisen. Unaddressed anger is a common root cause of all terrorism--- whether ethnic, separatist, religious, jihadi or ideological. Even in the case of the indigenous terrorists, those who take to terrorism have to face the consequences of their action. At the same time, it is important to prevent the flow of new recruits to the terrorist organizations. This can be done only by identifying the causes of anger in the community and addressing them.
8. For many years, there has been an endless debate in the community of security analysts about the linkage between security and development in any counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency strategy. Without effective security, there cannot be satisfactory development. Without satisfactory development, there cannot be effective security. Hardline security analysts----who believe in the security first approach--- even argue that if large funds are sanctioned for development in the terrorism or insurgency affected areas much of the money might leak into the coffers of the terrorists or insurgents.
9. This is an unwise approach, which would be counter-productive. Fortunately, our political leaders have rejected the arguments of such hardline security experts. They have been trying to give simultaneous attention to requirements of security and development even at the risk of some of the funds allotted for development leaking to the terrorists or insurgents.
10. At the same time, the priorities tend to be misplaced. For example, in the Naxalism affected areas we tend to focus more on development packages for the affected areas. It is important to pay equal, if not more, attention to the development of the tribal areas not affected by Naxalism in order to demonstrate to people the dividends of observing law and order and keeping away from terrorists and insurgents.
11.In the North-East, there has been peace in Nagaland and Mizoram. Arunachal Pradesh has remained unaffected by insurgency. In Tripura, there has been a decrease in insurgency. We should have undertaken a crash programme for the economic development of these areas to provide a demonstration of a peace dividend for areas which have given up insurgency or for areas, which have remained away from insurgency. But the importance of this has not been realised by our policy-makers.
12. The third type of terrorism in which Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorist organizations and intelligence services use our nationals for acts of terrorism calls for a nuanced approach. Just because some of our nationals are acting at the behest of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, we should not look upon the entire community with suspicion. Our aim should be to identify grievances---legitimate or otherwise---- in the community which are exploited by the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and try to address them.
13.There is no copybook on counter-terrorism, which can apply to all situations and to all kinds of terrorism. Our strategies should be tailor-made to suit different situations and to deal with different kinds of terrorism. There should be a fair balance between the requirements of security and development in strategies dealing with indigenous terrorism.
(The author is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
India faces three kinds of terrorism ---the indigenous by some sections of our own people, the foreign sponsored and the foreign-aided. The indigenous terrorism itself has different motives----political and religious as in the case of the terrorist groups in Jammu & Kashmir, purely religious as in the case of the jihadi terrorist groups operating outside J&K, ethnic as in the case of Assam and ideological and economic as in the case of the Maoist or Naxalite groups operating in the tribal belt of Central India.
2. Foreign-sponsored terrorism is mainly due to jihadi organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HUM), the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI ) and the Jaish-eMohammad (JEM) operating from Pakistani territory and the HUJI operating from Bangladesh. Their members are Pakistani or Bangladeshi nationals or other foreign Muslims and their activities in the Indian territory are sponsored by the intelligence agencies of these countries in order to serve their own purpose. The intelligence agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh have a common purpose of creating a polarization between the Muslim and Hindu communities in India. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has the additional purpose of forcing a change in the status quo in J&K through terrorism.
3. Foreign-aided terrorism refers to indigenous terrorist groups receiving assistance in the form of training, financial assistance and arms and ammunition from the terrorist organizations and the intelligence services of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Examples would be the Khalistani terrorists who used to be active in Punjab and Delhi till 1995, the Kashmiri terrorist groups, the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the so-called Indian Mujahideen (IM) and the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). Assisting them helps the purpose of creating instability in India and keeping the Indian security forces preoccupied with internal security problems.
4. There are two approaches to dealing with terrorism---- the counter-terrorist and the counter-terrorism approaches. The counter-terrorist approach deals with terrorism as a threat to national security and seeks to put out of action the terrorists, their leaders and organizations through the use of the security forces. The counter-terrorism approach treats terrorism as a phenomenon with many aspects----political, economic, social, religious etc--- in addition to having a security dimension. The counter-terrorism approach underlines that counter-terrorist methods will not be sufficient to deal with the threat effectively. In addition, the political, economic, social and other aspects have to be addressed simultaneously by the political leadership.
5. There is only one way of dealing with foreign-sponsored terrorist groups---- through counter-terrorist methods. Foreign nationals indulging in acts of terrorism in our territory have to be neutralized by the security forces without any mercy. The use of such terrorists by Pakistan and Bangladesh amounts to indirect aggression in our territory. There are two methods of dealing with foreign-sponsored terrorists-----passive defence and active defence. Passive defence refers to strengthening internal security measures in our own territory in order to make it almost impossible for Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorists to operate in our territory. Active defence refers to our right to take our counter-terrorism operations to the territories of Pakistan and Bangladesh in order to pre-empt their plans for a terrorist strike in our territory.
6. Countries facing the menace of foreign-sponsored terrorism adopt a mix of passive defence and active defence methods. India follows a policy of only passive defence. The Indian political leadership is not prepared to consider active defence. Passive defence requires effective preventive capability. Active defence requires an effective and deniable retaliatory capability. We have not built for ourselves such a retaliatory capability. After the Mumbai terrorist strike of November 26-29,2008, many foreign terrorism experts have assessed that India may continue to face such strikes because it does not have either an effective preventive or retaliatory capability. This assessment needs to be taken seriously by our political leadership and policy-makers and appropriate correctives in our strategy introduced.
7. In the case of purely indigenous terrorism, effective physical security alone will not produce enduring results unless accompanied by appropriate political action to address the anger and grievances of the community from which the terrorists have arisen. Unaddressed anger is a common root cause of all terrorism--- whether ethnic, separatist, religious, jihadi or ideological. Even in the case of the indigenous terrorists, those who take to terrorism have to face the consequences of their action. At the same time, it is important to prevent the flow of new recruits to the terrorist organizations. This can be done only by identifying the causes of anger in the community and addressing them.
8. For many years, there has been an endless debate in the community of security analysts about the linkage between security and development in any counter-terrorism or counter-insurgency strategy. Without effective security, there cannot be satisfactory development. Without satisfactory development, there cannot be effective security. Hardline security analysts----who believe in the security first approach--- even argue that if large funds are sanctioned for development in the terrorism or insurgency affected areas much of the money might leak into the coffers of the terrorists or insurgents.
9. This is an unwise approach, which would be counter-productive. Fortunately, our political leaders have rejected the arguments of such hardline security experts. They have been trying to give simultaneous attention to requirements of security and development even at the risk of some of the funds allotted for development leaking to the terrorists or insurgents.
10. At the same time, the priorities tend to be misplaced. For example, in the Naxalism affected areas we tend to focus more on development packages for the affected areas. It is important to pay equal, if not more, attention to the development of the tribal areas not affected by Naxalism in order to demonstrate to people the dividends of observing law and order and keeping away from terrorists and insurgents.
11.In the North-East, there has been peace in Nagaland and Mizoram. Arunachal Pradesh has remained unaffected by insurgency. In Tripura, there has been a decrease in insurgency. We should have undertaken a crash programme for the economic development of these areas to provide a demonstration of a peace dividend for areas which have given up insurgency or for areas, which have remained away from insurgency. But the importance of this has not been realised by our policy-makers.
12. The third type of terrorism in which Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorist organizations and intelligence services use our nationals for acts of terrorism calls for a nuanced approach. Just because some of our nationals are acting at the behest of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, we should not look upon the entire community with suspicion. Our aim should be to identify grievances---legitimate or otherwise---- in the community which are exploited by the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and try to address them.
13.There is no copybook on counter-terrorism, which can apply to all situations and to all kinds of terrorism. Our strategies should be tailor-made to suit different situations and to deal with different kinds of terrorism. There should be a fair balance between the requirements of security and development in strategies dealing with indigenous terrorism.
(The author is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)