B.RAMAN
Former President Bill Clinton paid a surprise one-day visit to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, on August 4,2009, and met among others
President Kim Jong-il.
2. The visit had an ostensibly humanitarian purpose---namely, to seek the release of Laura King and Euna Lee, two women journalists of
the US, who had been convicted by a North Korean court and sentenced to a long period of imprisonment on a charge of illegally entering
North Korea in March. The fact that Kim Jong-il issued a State pardon of the convicted journalists shortly after Clinton's meeting with him, thereby enabling Clinton to leave for the US the same night with the pardoned journalists indicated that North Korea had most probably agreed to the pardon even before Clinton's arrival and that Clinton went to Pyongyang not to seek their release, but to accept them.
3. Even though the US does not have diplomatic relations with North Korea, US officials had been visiting North Korea in the past. Madeleine
Albright, the US Secretary of State during Clinton's second term as the President, had visited Pyongyang. US diplomats associated with the six-party talks on North Korean denuclearisation had also been visiting Pyongyang off and on.
4. However, Clinton's visit has a special significance which none of the previous visits of other American emissaries had. This significance arises not merely from the fact that he is a former President of the US, but also from the fact that he is reputed to be playing an important role in advising the administration of President Barack Obama on important foreign policy matters.
5. The humanitarian purpose of the visit, which even hardline anti-Pyongyang hawks in the US cannot criticise, conceals an underlying political purpose---- namely, to begin an exploration of new diplomatic options for pressurising or persuading North Korea to agree to denuclearisation. The developments after North Korea carried out its nuclear test of May 25,2009, and the intransigence of North Korea have clearly brought out two things: firstly, China's unwillingness or inability to exercise pressure on North Korea beyond a limit. Secondly, the six-power talks on the denuclearisation issue on which the US had put all its eggs till now appeared to have run out of steam.
6. Instead of continuing to depend on China to bring about a moderation of North Korean policies, the Obama Adminstration would appear to have decided to try a direct diplomatic approach by using the Clinton visit to see whether other options---more productive than the six-power talks-- are available.
7. Three things are certain. Firstly, it was a political visit under a humanitarian cover. Secondly, the visit must have been undertaken with the knowledge and prior approval of Obama. Thirdly, when Clinton met Kim they must have discussed not only the release of the two journalists but also political issues of concern to the two countries such as US concerns over North Korea's nuclearisation and North Korea's concerns over a US-Japan-South Korea threat to its security.
8. The fact that Clinton was in Pyongyang only for a few hours would indicate that any discussions of a political significance would have been of a general, ice-breaking nature without going into details.
9. Kim's decision to receive Clinton and to respond positively to the request for the release of the journalists would clearly show that his hold over power is as strong as ever despite recent reports of a decline in his health.
10. Will the visit turn out to be of only one-shot significance relating to the release of the journalists or will there be a political follow-up? One has to wait and see.
11. Certain other questions of considerable interest are: How was the ground prepared for the visit? Did China play a role? If not, who
did? Why have the relatives of the released journalists thanked Clinton as well as Al Gore, his Vice-President, for making the release possible? Were Japan and South Korea kept in the picture? (5-8-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
INDIA-CHINA TRUST DEFICIT
B.RAMAN
These are the comments made by me in response to an E-mailed query from a South-East Asian journalist on the next round of border talks between India and China to be held shortly:
The deadlock in the border talks seems to continue over the issue of Arunachal Pradesh, which the Chinese call Southern Tibet. The Chinese are reported to be demanding that at least the Tawang Tract of Arunachal Pradesh, if not the whole of it, should be transferred to China. They are apparently adamant that there will be no border settlement without the transfer of at least Tawang to China.
2.Their claims to Tawang are based on the fact that the monastery at Tawang, according to them, has had historic relations with the monastery at Lhasa and that one of the previous Dalai Lamas was born in Tawang. India's position has been that any border settlement should not involve the transfer of populated areas. Tawang is a populated town. Its residents are Indian citizens. The Chinese had originally agreed to the principle that there should be no transfer of populated areas, but now they are reportedly insisting that this principle cannot apply to Tawang.
3. The atmosphere over the border issue has become somewhat tense recently following media reports that the Government of India had sanctioned the raising of two more Mountain Divisions for deployment in Arunachal Pradesh and that some planes of the Indian Air Foce had been deployed for the defence of Arunachal Pradesh. The Government of India has also embarked on a crash programme for the development of the road infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
4. All these measures, which are of a purely defensive nature, were decided upon by the Government of India in reaction to the development of the road infrastructure in Tibet, the construction of the railway line to Lhasa and reports that China plans to extend this railway line from Lhasa to the Indian border and to connect its road network in Tibet with the Nepalese road network.
5.Till four years ago, the Government of India had given low priority to the development of road and other military-related infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh in order to avoid bilateral tensions on this issue when the border talks were going on. But reports that China was strengthening its military-related infrastructure in Tibet led to a decision to take defensive measures in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
6. An increase in the number of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this area also contributed to this decision.
7. In recent weeks, sections of the Chinese media, with the Global Times of the People's Daily group at the forefront, have started an angry campaign against India on this issue. They have not only been critical of alleged Indian actions in Arunachal Pradesh, but also very sarcastic about India's aspirations of becoming a major power. This sarcasm has annoyed Indian public opinion.
8.India has bilateral disputes with Pakistan as well as China. However, large sections of the civil societies in India and Pakistan are well disposed towards each other and want close relations. This is particularly true of the younger generation in India and Pakistan. This enables the political leaders of the two countries to make political gestures to each other.
9. In the case of China, large sections of the Indian civil society in all age groups---except in the leftist parties--- are suspicious of the Chinese military intentions and would not approve of any concessions or gestures of a political nature to Beijing. In China, the older generation has nostalgic memories of the good old days of Sino-Indian friendship, but the younger generation, which is very nationalistic, does not think well of India and is very critical of it. This suspicious attitude of the two civil societies would come in the way of any gestures or concessions by either side on the border issue for the present.
10. Despite this, the political leaders of India and China have shown wisdom in not allowing the border dispute to affect bilateral relations in other fields. Bilateral trade continues to gallop. China has overtaken the US as India's second largest trading partner. Chinese companies are winning an increasing number of construction contracts in India. An increasing number of Chinese students are coming to India for improving their English. The Chinese are less and less suspicious of Indian IT companies doing business in China as possible surrogates of the Indian intelligence. The Indians are less and less suspicious of Chinese construction companies winning contracts in India as possible surrogates of the Chinese intelligence. More and more Indian students are going to China to study medicine. There is a steadily developing military-to-military relationship with two joint counter-terrorism exercises, exchange of port visits by naval ships etc
11. Despite this increasing comfort level , there is still a trust deficit. Suspicions of each other's intentions and motives in matters such as China's military and nuclear related relationship with Pakistan and India's strategic relationship with the US and Japan continue to cast a shadow on the political relations and come in the way of a mutually acceptable border compromise.
( 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)
These are the comments made by me in response to an E-mailed query from a South-East Asian journalist on the next round of border talks between India and China to be held shortly:
The deadlock in the border talks seems to continue over the issue of Arunachal Pradesh, which the Chinese call Southern Tibet. The Chinese are reported to be demanding that at least the Tawang Tract of Arunachal Pradesh, if not the whole of it, should be transferred to China. They are apparently adamant that there will be no border settlement without the transfer of at least Tawang to China.
2.Their claims to Tawang are based on the fact that the monastery at Tawang, according to them, has had historic relations with the monastery at Lhasa and that one of the previous Dalai Lamas was born in Tawang. India's position has been that any border settlement should not involve the transfer of populated areas. Tawang is a populated town. Its residents are Indian citizens. The Chinese had originally agreed to the principle that there should be no transfer of populated areas, but now they are reportedly insisting that this principle cannot apply to Tawang.
3. The atmosphere over the border issue has become somewhat tense recently following media reports that the Government of India had sanctioned the raising of two more Mountain Divisions for deployment in Arunachal Pradesh and that some planes of the Indian Air Foce had been deployed for the defence of Arunachal Pradesh. The Government of India has also embarked on a crash programme for the development of the road infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
4. All these measures, which are of a purely defensive nature, were decided upon by the Government of India in reaction to the development of the road infrastructure in Tibet, the construction of the railway line to Lhasa and reports that China plans to extend this railway line from Lhasa to the Indian border and to connect its road network in Tibet with the Nepalese road network.
5.Till four years ago, the Government of India had given low priority to the development of road and other military-related infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh in order to avoid bilateral tensions on this issue when the border talks were going on. But reports that China was strengthening its military-related infrastructure in Tibet led to a decision to take defensive measures in the Arunachal Pradesh area.
6. An increase in the number of Chinese troop intrusions into the Indian territory in this area also contributed to this decision.
7. In recent weeks, sections of the Chinese media, with the Global Times of the People's Daily group at the forefront, have started an angry campaign against India on this issue. They have not only been critical of alleged Indian actions in Arunachal Pradesh, but also very sarcastic about India's aspirations of becoming a major power. This sarcasm has annoyed Indian public opinion.
8.India has bilateral disputes with Pakistan as well as China. However, large sections of the civil societies in India and Pakistan are well disposed towards each other and want close relations. This is particularly true of the younger generation in India and Pakistan. This enables the political leaders of the two countries to make political gestures to each other.
9. In the case of China, large sections of the Indian civil society in all age groups---except in the leftist parties--- are suspicious of the Chinese military intentions and would not approve of any concessions or gestures of a political nature to Beijing. In China, the older generation has nostalgic memories of the good old days of Sino-Indian friendship, but the younger generation, which is very nationalistic, does not think well of India and is very critical of it. This suspicious attitude of the two civil societies would come in the way of any gestures or concessions by either side on the border issue for the present.
10. Despite this, the political leaders of India and China have shown wisdom in not allowing the border dispute to affect bilateral relations in other fields. Bilateral trade continues to gallop. China has overtaken the US as India's second largest trading partner. Chinese companies are winning an increasing number of construction contracts in India. An increasing number of Chinese students are coming to India for improving their English. The Chinese are less and less suspicious of Indian IT companies doing business in China as possible surrogates of the Indian intelligence. The Indians are less and less suspicious of Chinese construction companies winning contracts in India as possible surrogates of the Chinese intelligence. More and more Indian students are going to China to study medicine. There is a steadily developing military-to-military relationship with two joint counter-terrorism exercises, exchange of port visits by naval ships etc
11. Despite this increasing comfort level , there is still a trust deficit. Suspicions of each other's intentions and motives in matters such as China's military and nuclear related relationship with Pakistan and India's strategic relationship with the US and Japan continue to cast a shadow on the political relations and come in the way of a mutually acceptable border compromise.
( 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)
Monday, August 3, 2009
PRO-AL QAEDA ELEMENTS REGROUPING FOR FRESH STRIKES
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO. 545
B.RAMAN
Though there have been no reports of any violent incidents in the Xinjiang province of China for over three weeks now, the Chinese
authorities are taking no chances with internal security and law and order in the province.
2. The army units, which were inducted into the province after the violent disturbances from July 5 to 8,2009, in which over 190 persons, the majority of them Hans, were killed, continue to be in over-all charge of security and law and order. In recent days, President Hu Jintao has been travelling in the Yunnan province which has sizable Tibetan and Uighur populations and a number of other non-Han minority tribal communities. The Chinese media has projected the purpose of his visit to Yunnan as to study the economic situation there and the action taken by the local authorities to deal with the difficulties of the people.
3. While this may be so, there is a strong possibility that another purpose could have been to re-assure the non-Han minorities that Beijing was sympathetic to their problems. Last year, before the Olympics, there was an explosion in a bus in Kunming, the capital of the Yunnan province. Even though the Chinese authorities did not give any details of the subsequent investigation, the suspicion was focused on the local Tibetan and Uighur population. There are no indications that Hu went to Xinjiang from Yunnan.
4.The Chinese have been shaken by the recent disturbances in Urumqi, but they are not prepared to concede that the Uighur anger was triggered off by their discriminatory policies towards the non-Han minorities. They see no need for any change in their policy relating to the ethnic minorities. In other words, they see no need for re-visiting their present policy of encouraging the Hans to settle in the minority areas in large numbers. They believe that the Hans have the right to settle down and live in any part of the Chinese territory, including in the areas which are looked upon by the minorities as their traditional homeland, just as the Tibetans, the Uighurs and other non-Han minorities have the right to settle down and live in any part of China. They do not accept the argument that the Hans moving into non-Han areas amounts to a Han colonisation of these areas. They have thus totally ruled out any change in their present policies, which are viewed by the minorities as meant to change the demographic composition of the non-Han areas.
5. There are strong indicators from independent sources in the Uighur diaspora in Pakistan that the disturbances in Xinjiang in the first week of July were initially externally-instigated by the Munich-based and US-funded World Uighur Congress (WUC) headed by the US-based Rebiya Kadeer and subsequently exploited by the North Waziristan (in Pakistan) based Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan (IMET), which operates in tandem with Al Qaeda as a member of its International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish
People formed in 1998.
6. The Chinese have been greatly concerned over threats purported to have been disseminated by the IMET through the Internet calling for opportunistic acts of reprisal against Han Chinese wherever found. The Chinese diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Turkey have cautioned their citizens working in these countries to cut down their movements to the absolute minimum that is necessary. The Chinese Foreign Office has also issued advisories to its citizens to avoid traveling to Turkey for some time till the anti-Chinese anger in Turkey subsides.
7.The Chinese concerns over the security situation in Tibet and Xinjiang have been increased by the forthcoming 60th anniversary of the October Revolution, which they plan to observe in a big way all over China . While there are no reports at present of the likelihood of any fresh violence in the Tibetan areas, Chinese security authorities do not rule out the possibility of fresh acts of violence by the Uighurs in China itself as well as in other countries. They have stepped up preventive arrests in Xinjiang. Nearly 1900 Uighur suspects are estimated to be in preventive custody in jails in Xinjiang itself as well as in Sichuan.
8. The Chinese are closely monitoring the movements of Rebiya Kadeer, who has gone to Australia after a visit to Japan and is expected to go to Turkey. Despite strong opposition from Beijing, the authorities in Japan and Australia issued her a visa. The Chinese have been gratified by media reports that India declined her request for a visa.
9. Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan have been closely monitoring the activities of various pro-Al Qaeda groups operating in Xinjiang, the Central Asian Republics (CARs), Chechnya and Dagestan in Russia. Recent reports indicate that the Uzbecks, Chechens and Uighurs trained in Al Qaeda training camps in North Waziristan have started moving towards their home bases in order to step up their jihad against the Governments of these countries and to disrupt the movement of logistic supplies to the US and other NATO troops through their territory.
10. It is the assessment of well-informed Pakistani Police sources in the Pashtun areas that during the last two weeks there has been a decrease in the activities of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan because trained TTP elements have been moving into Afghanistan to help the Afghan Taliban in its operations against the US-UK offensive in the
Helmand province of Afghanistan. The TTP cadres are going in replacement of the Uighurs, Uzbeks and Chechens who are being moved towards Central Asia, Xinjiang and Chechnya. This also suits the Pakistan Army since it relieves pressure on it.
11.An upsurge in acts of terrorism in this region is apprehended. Russia cannot afford to be complacent over the situation in Chechnya and Dagestan. As the fighting in Afghanistan escalates, reprisal attacks by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organisations in areas such as South-East, South and Central Asia and in the Muslim majority regions of Russia is a possibility to be reckoned with. (4-8-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associate with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
Though there have been no reports of any violent incidents in the Xinjiang province of China for over three weeks now, the Chinese
authorities are taking no chances with internal security and law and order in the province.
2. The army units, which were inducted into the province after the violent disturbances from July 5 to 8,2009, in which over 190 persons, the majority of them Hans, were killed, continue to be in over-all charge of security and law and order. In recent days, President Hu Jintao has been travelling in the Yunnan province which has sizable Tibetan and Uighur populations and a number of other non-Han minority tribal communities. The Chinese media has projected the purpose of his visit to Yunnan as to study the economic situation there and the action taken by the local authorities to deal with the difficulties of the people.
3. While this may be so, there is a strong possibility that another purpose could have been to re-assure the non-Han minorities that Beijing was sympathetic to their problems. Last year, before the Olympics, there was an explosion in a bus in Kunming, the capital of the Yunnan province. Even though the Chinese authorities did not give any details of the subsequent investigation, the suspicion was focused on the local Tibetan and Uighur population. There are no indications that Hu went to Xinjiang from Yunnan.
4.The Chinese have been shaken by the recent disturbances in Urumqi, but they are not prepared to concede that the Uighur anger was triggered off by their discriminatory policies towards the non-Han minorities. They see no need for any change in their policy relating to the ethnic minorities. In other words, they see no need for re-visiting their present policy of encouraging the Hans to settle in the minority areas in large numbers. They believe that the Hans have the right to settle down and live in any part of the Chinese territory, including in the areas which are looked upon by the minorities as their traditional homeland, just as the Tibetans, the Uighurs and other non-Han minorities have the right to settle down and live in any part of China. They do not accept the argument that the Hans moving into non-Han areas amounts to a Han colonisation of these areas. They have thus totally ruled out any change in their present policies, which are viewed by the minorities as meant to change the demographic composition of the non-Han areas.
5. There are strong indicators from independent sources in the Uighur diaspora in Pakistan that the disturbances in Xinjiang in the first week of July were initially externally-instigated by the Munich-based and US-funded World Uighur Congress (WUC) headed by the US-based Rebiya Kadeer and subsequently exploited by the North Waziristan (in Pakistan) based Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan (IMET), which operates in tandem with Al Qaeda as a member of its International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish
People formed in 1998.
6. The Chinese have been greatly concerned over threats purported to have been disseminated by the IMET through the Internet calling for opportunistic acts of reprisal against Han Chinese wherever found. The Chinese diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Turkey have cautioned their citizens working in these countries to cut down their movements to the absolute minimum that is necessary. The Chinese Foreign Office has also issued advisories to its citizens to avoid traveling to Turkey for some time till the anti-Chinese anger in Turkey subsides.
7.The Chinese concerns over the security situation in Tibet and Xinjiang have been increased by the forthcoming 60th anniversary of the October Revolution, which they plan to observe in a big way all over China . While there are no reports at present of the likelihood of any fresh violence in the Tibetan areas, Chinese security authorities do not rule out the possibility of fresh acts of violence by the Uighurs in China itself as well as in other countries. They have stepped up preventive arrests in Xinjiang. Nearly 1900 Uighur suspects are estimated to be in preventive custody in jails in Xinjiang itself as well as in Sichuan.
8. The Chinese are closely monitoring the movements of Rebiya Kadeer, who has gone to Australia after a visit to Japan and is expected to go to Turkey. Despite strong opposition from Beijing, the authorities in Japan and Australia issued her a visa. The Chinese have been gratified by media reports that India declined her request for a visa.
9. Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan have been closely monitoring the activities of various pro-Al Qaeda groups operating in Xinjiang, the Central Asian Republics (CARs), Chechnya and Dagestan in Russia. Recent reports indicate that the Uzbecks, Chechens and Uighurs trained in Al Qaeda training camps in North Waziristan have started moving towards their home bases in order to step up their jihad against the Governments of these countries and to disrupt the movement of logistic supplies to the US and other NATO troops through their territory.
10. It is the assessment of well-informed Pakistani Police sources in the Pashtun areas that during the last two weeks there has been a decrease in the activities of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan because trained TTP elements have been moving into Afghanistan to help the Afghan Taliban in its operations against the US-UK offensive in the
Helmand province of Afghanistan. The TTP cadres are going in replacement of the Uighurs, Uzbeks and Chechens who are being moved towards Central Asia, Xinjiang and Chechnya. This also suits the Pakistan Army since it relieves pressure on it.
11.An upsurge in acts of terrorism in this region is apprehended. Russia cannot afford to be complacent over the situation in Chechnya and Dagestan. As the fighting in Afghanistan escalates, reprisal attacks by Al Qaeda and pro-Al Qaeda organisations in areas such as South-East, South and Central Asia and in the Muslim majority regions of Russia is a possibility to be reckoned with. (4-8-09)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India,New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associate with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ROBIN RAPHEL: OLD ANTI-INDIA HAND TO JOIN HOLBROOKE'S TEAM ?
B.RAMAN
The “News”, the Pakistani daily, has reported on August 3,2009, that the Barack Obama Administration has decided to appoint Robin Raphel, who was a Counselor for Political Affairs in the US Embassy in New Delhi from 1991 to 1993 and subsequently became the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs in the Bill Clinton Administration, as a member of the team of Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative to the Af-Pak region.
2.According to the paper, she will be based in Pakistan and will co-ordinate the implementation of the plan for non-military assistance to Pakistan. She is expected to arrive in Pakistan on August 14,2009. Her bio-data as taken from the Wikipedia is annexed.
3. During her posting in the US Embassy in New Delhi, she was actively interacting with the various anti-India groups in Jammu & Kashmir and it was reportedly on her advice that the Hurriyat, as an umbrella organization of these groups, became very active.
4.After Bill Clinton assumed office as the President in January,1993, she joined the State Department as the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asian Affairs under Warren Christopher, who was the Secretary of State. It used to be said that she knew the Clintons from her younger days and this gave her easy access to the President despite her junior position in the State Department. She exploited this to prevent Pakistan being declared as a State sponsor of terrorism after the Mumbai blasts of March,1993.
5. It was during her tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State that the Clinton Administration declared Jammu & Kashmir as a “disputed territory” and started calling for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This refrain has once again been taken up by the Obama Administration.
6. Towards the end of 1993 , during a non-attributable discussion with some Indian journalists in Washington DC she reportedly defended this formulation and contended that the US considered the Kashmiri territory transferred by Pakistan to China in 1963 when Ayub Khan was the President also as disputed territory, whose future was yet to be decided.
7. The “Times of India” prominently carried this story on the front page without identifying the official of the State Department who had talked to the Indian journalists on the Kashmir issue. Enquiries made by the Government of India identified the official as Robin Raphel.
8. It was during her stewardship of the South Asian Affairs portfolio in the State Department that the Taliban under Mulla Mohammad Omar came into existence in 1994 with the joint support of the Pakistan and US Governments. The Taliban was prepared to support the construction of an oil and gas pipeline by UNOCAL, an American oil company, from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan and she had met Mulla Mohammad Omar in this connection. This period also saw Osama bin Laden shift from Khartoum to Jalalabad in 1996 without any objection from the US. The Taliban later shifted him to Kandahar.
9. Even after she left the State Department and joined the faculty of the National Defence University, she reportedly maintained active contacts with anti-India elements in J&K.
10. The “News” has correctly described her as “one known to be Pakistan’s friend”.
11.She is.
12. The text of the “News” report is also annexed. (3-8-2009)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE I
BIO OF ROBIN RAPHEL FROM WIKIPEDIA
Robin L. Raphel is a career diplomat who served as Ambassador to Tunisia and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs during the Clinton administration. In this capacity she managed U.S. relations with the newly formed Taliban government in Afghanistan. She also served as a member of the Iraq Reconstruction Team during the Bush administration.
She began her career as a lecturer in history at Damavand College in Tehran, Iran. She first worked for the United States Government as an economic analyst for the CIA from 1973 to 1975. She then moved to Islamabad, Pakistan where she worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development as an economic/financial analyst. She then joined the State Department.
Upon her return to Washington, DC in 1978, Ambassador Raphel worked in the Office of Investment Affairs in the Economic and Business Bureau; on the Israel Desk; Staff Aide for the Assistant Secretary for the Near East and South Asian Affairs Bureau; and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. In 1984 she was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in London where she covered Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, and Africa.
She served as Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria (1988-1991), and at the U.S.Embassy in New Delhi (1991-1993). In August 1993, she was named the first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs. She retired
from the State Department in 2005 after 30 years of service.
Ambassador Raphel received a B.A. in history and economics from the University of Washington. She pursued graduate studies in history at Cambridge University and earned an M.A. in economics from the University of Maryland. Her foreign languages are French and Urdu. She was at one time married to the late ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel, but they divorced prior to his death in 1988.
She is currently the Senior Vice President at Cassidy & Associates, a firm that works on consultancy in international relations. She was responsible for the lobbying for Pakistan in the State Department and the firm had a $1.2 million contract with the Govt of Pakistan. This contract was withdrawn by the firm due to the martial law in Pakistan. ( My comment: Not martial law, but the state of emergency)
ANNEXURE II
REPORT CARRIED BY THE “NEWS” OF PAKISTAN ON AUGUST 3,2009
Robin Raphel gets key job in Pakistan
Monday, August 03, 2009
By Qudssia Akhlaque
ISLAMABAD: The Obama administration in an astute move has decided to appoint former US assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Robin Raphel, an old South Asia hand and one known to be Pakistan’s friend, as coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan, it was learnt.
Appointed as a key member of Obama’s Pakistan team, Ambassador Raphel’s mandate will be to coordinate the effort to determine, in consultation with the Pakistani authorities, how best to allocate the increased US funding for non-military assistance, informed diplomatic sources in Washington and Islamabad told The News.
Raphel will be a new member of the US special envoy Richard Holbrooke’s expanding team and she will be based in Pakistan.
Holbrooke was appointed Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan by the Obama administration in January to coordinate US government’s efforts in the region. Raphel will be reporting to Holbrooke in Washington, and at Islamabad to the US ambassador. A formal announcement about her appointment is expected shortly.
In her new position she is expected to cohesively carry together the different strands of non-military US engagement with Pakistan — economic, development, political and civilian security. Ambassador Raphel will be “also overseeing the ramp up of US civilian assistance effort in anticipation of the final passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill 2009,” an insider explained.
The passage of the Kerry-Lugar bill means approval of tripling of civilian US aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion per annum for each of the next five years in a key part of a strategy to combat extremism with economic and social development. The $1.5 billion in annual funding includes money for schools, judicial system, parliament and law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan.
As Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs during the Clinton administration in the 90s, Raphel had a similar role within the region. She particularly played an important part in managing US relations with the newly formed Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Ambassador Robin Raphel is currently the senior vice-president of a Washington-based lobbying consulting firm Cassidy & Associates that provides counselling to multinational corporations, foreign countries and other organisations to advocate their US-based interests in Washington, and US corporations to meet business challenges abroad.
Raphel will be coming here on August 14 for initially a couple of weeks for consultations with the top political leadership after which she will go back to Washington, sources told The News. She will then return around mid September and be stationed here for one whole year.
This is not the first time that Raphel will be based in Pakistan. In mid 70s she was here in Islamabad working as an Economic and financial analyst for the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Ambassador Robin Raphel is generally considered to be very sympathetic towards Pakistan and enjoys goodwill in the country’s civilian as well as military circles. Even after her retirement from the State Department in 2005 after 30 years of service, Ambassador Raphel has been in touch with Pakistan through participation in seminars and conferences.
More recently she was responsible for lobbying for Pakistan in the State Department and her firm had a $1.2 million contract with the government of Pakistan. However, this contract was abruptly terminated by the firm following the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by President Gen (retd.) Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007.
The “News”, the Pakistani daily, has reported on August 3,2009, that the Barack Obama Administration has decided to appoint Robin Raphel, who was a Counselor for Political Affairs in the US Embassy in New Delhi from 1991 to 1993 and subsequently became the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs in the Bill Clinton Administration, as a member of the team of Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative to the Af-Pak region.
2.According to the paper, she will be based in Pakistan and will co-ordinate the implementation of the plan for non-military assistance to Pakistan. She is expected to arrive in Pakistan on August 14,2009. Her bio-data as taken from the Wikipedia is annexed.
3. During her posting in the US Embassy in New Delhi, she was actively interacting with the various anti-India groups in Jammu & Kashmir and it was reportedly on her advice that the Hurriyat, as an umbrella organization of these groups, became very active.
4.After Bill Clinton assumed office as the President in January,1993, she joined the State Department as the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asian Affairs under Warren Christopher, who was the Secretary of State. It used to be said that she knew the Clintons from her younger days and this gave her easy access to the President despite her junior position in the State Department. She exploited this to prevent Pakistan being declared as a State sponsor of terrorism after the Mumbai blasts of March,1993.
5. It was during her tenure as the Assistant Secretary of State that the Clinton Administration declared Jammu & Kashmir as a “disputed territory” and started calling for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This refrain has once again been taken up by the Obama Administration.
6. Towards the end of 1993 , during a non-attributable discussion with some Indian journalists in Washington DC she reportedly defended this formulation and contended that the US considered the Kashmiri territory transferred by Pakistan to China in 1963 when Ayub Khan was the President also as disputed territory, whose future was yet to be decided.
7. The “Times of India” prominently carried this story on the front page without identifying the official of the State Department who had talked to the Indian journalists on the Kashmir issue. Enquiries made by the Government of India identified the official as Robin Raphel.
8. It was during her stewardship of the South Asian Affairs portfolio in the State Department that the Taliban under Mulla Mohammad Omar came into existence in 1994 with the joint support of the Pakistan and US Governments. The Taliban was prepared to support the construction of an oil and gas pipeline by UNOCAL, an American oil company, from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan and she had met Mulla Mohammad Omar in this connection. This period also saw Osama bin Laden shift from Khartoum to Jalalabad in 1996 without any objection from the US. The Taliban later shifted him to Kandahar.
9. Even after she left the State Department and joined the faculty of the National Defence University, she reportedly maintained active contacts with anti-India elements in J&K.
10. The “News” has correctly described her as “one known to be Pakistan’s friend”.
11.She is.
12. The text of the “News” report is also annexed. (3-8-2009)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE I
BIO OF ROBIN RAPHEL FROM WIKIPEDIA
Robin L. Raphel is a career diplomat who served as Ambassador to Tunisia and Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs during the Clinton administration. In this capacity she managed U.S. relations with the newly formed Taliban government in Afghanistan. She also served as a member of the Iraq Reconstruction Team during the Bush administration.
She began her career as a lecturer in history at Damavand College in Tehran, Iran. She first worked for the United States Government as an economic analyst for the CIA from 1973 to 1975. She then moved to Islamabad, Pakistan where she worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development as an economic/financial analyst. She then joined the State Department.
Upon her return to Washington, DC in 1978, Ambassador Raphel worked in the Office of Investment Affairs in the Economic and Business Bureau; on the Israel Desk; Staff Aide for the Assistant Secretary for the Near East and South Asian Affairs Bureau; and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. In 1984 she was assigned to the U.S. Embassy in London where she covered Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, and Africa.
She served as Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria (1988-1991), and at the U.S.Embassy in New Delhi (1991-1993). In August 1993, she was named the first Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs. She retired
from the State Department in 2005 after 30 years of service.
Ambassador Raphel received a B.A. in history and economics from the University of Washington. She pursued graduate studies in history at Cambridge University and earned an M.A. in economics from the University of Maryland. Her foreign languages are French and Urdu. She was at one time married to the late ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel, but they divorced prior to his death in 1988.
She is currently the Senior Vice President at Cassidy & Associates, a firm that works on consultancy in international relations. She was responsible for the lobbying for Pakistan in the State Department and the firm had a $1.2 million contract with the Govt of Pakistan. This contract was withdrawn by the firm due to the martial law in Pakistan. ( My comment: Not martial law, but the state of emergency)
ANNEXURE II
REPORT CARRIED BY THE “NEWS” OF PAKISTAN ON AUGUST 3,2009
Robin Raphel gets key job in Pakistan
Monday, August 03, 2009
By Qudssia Akhlaque
ISLAMABAD: The Obama administration in an astute move has decided to appoint former US assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Robin Raphel, an old South Asia hand and one known to be Pakistan’s friend, as coordinator for non-military assistance to Pakistan, it was learnt.
Appointed as a key member of Obama’s Pakistan team, Ambassador Raphel’s mandate will be to coordinate the effort to determine, in consultation with the Pakistani authorities, how best to allocate the increased US funding for non-military assistance, informed diplomatic sources in Washington and Islamabad told The News.
Raphel will be a new member of the US special envoy Richard Holbrooke’s expanding team and she will be based in Pakistan.
Holbrooke was appointed Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan by the Obama administration in January to coordinate US government’s efforts in the region. Raphel will be reporting to Holbrooke in Washington, and at Islamabad to the US ambassador. A formal announcement about her appointment is expected shortly.
In her new position she is expected to cohesively carry together the different strands of non-military US engagement with Pakistan — economic, development, political and civilian security. Ambassador Raphel will be “also overseeing the ramp up of US civilian assistance effort in anticipation of the final passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill 2009,” an insider explained.
The passage of the Kerry-Lugar bill means approval of tripling of civilian US aid to Pakistan to about $1.5 billion per annum for each of the next five years in a key part of a strategy to combat extremism with economic and social development. The $1.5 billion in annual funding includes money for schools, judicial system, parliament and law-enforcement agencies in Pakistan.
As Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs during the Clinton administration in the 90s, Raphel had a similar role within the region. She particularly played an important part in managing US relations with the newly formed Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Ambassador Robin Raphel is currently the senior vice-president of a Washington-based lobbying consulting firm Cassidy & Associates that provides counselling to multinational corporations, foreign countries and other organisations to advocate their US-based interests in Washington, and US corporations to meet business challenges abroad.
Raphel will be coming here on August 14 for initially a couple of weeks for consultations with the top political leadership after which she will go back to Washington, sources told The News. She will then return around mid September and be stationed here for one whole year.
This is not the first time that Raphel will be based in Pakistan. In mid 70s she was here in Islamabad working as an Economic and financial analyst for the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Ambassador Robin Raphel is generally considered to be very sympathetic towards Pakistan and enjoys goodwill in the country’s civilian as well as military circles. Even after her retirement from the State Department in 2005 after 30 years of service, Ambassador Raphel has been in touch with Pakistan through participation in seminars and conferences.
More recently she was responsible for lobbying for Pakistan in the State Department and her firm had a $1.2 million contract with the government of Pakistan. However, this contract was abruptly terminated by the firm following the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by President Gen (retd.) Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
MYANMAR: ANOTHER IRAQ OR ANOTHER IRAN?
B.RAMAN
Is the military junta in Myanmar trying to acquire a military nuclear capability with North Korean assistance? Or is North Korea trying to shift some of its nuclear facilities to Myanmar to protect them from a possible attack by the US? If either of this scenario is true, is China, which has a strong and active presence in North Korea as well as Myanmar, aware of it? Has it taken up the matter with the two Governments? Has it alerted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?
2. These questions, among others, come to one’s mind in the wake of a flurry of reports regarding an alleged nuclear relationship between Myanmar and North Korea. These reports hit the international media coinciding with the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which was held at Phuket in Thailand on July 23, 2009.
3.The meeting was attended among others by Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who had proceeded to Thailand after a high-profile visit to India. She told a Thai TV channel in an interview on July 21,2009: “ We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology from North Korea to Myanmar.” She subsequently reverted to the subject at Phuket where she spoke to the media of “ concerns being expressed about co-operation between North Korea and Burma in the pursuit of offensive weapons, perhaps even including nuclear weapons at some point.”
4.She was not categorical on the question of a possible nuclear relationship between North Korea and Myanmar, but she was on the question of a conventional military relationship between the two countries. Her concerns seemed to be that this might be expanded to cover the military nuclear field, if this has not already happened or is not already happening.
5. To what extent her concerns were well-founded? Was the reference to this issue by her meant to exercise political pressure on Myanmar and North Korea, both of which attended the ARF meeting---- Myanmar at the level of its Foreign Minister and North Korea at the level of an official of its Foreign Office? Was she merely trying to step up the pressure on Myanmar on the question of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy and on North Korea on the question of its denuclearization by using the nuclear co-operation allegations or was there something more to it?
6. The press release issued by the ASEAN Secretariat on the ARF meeting and the media briefing did not contain any reference to the nuclear allegation. Did she raise it at the ARF Foreign Ministers’ meeting or was it confined to her interactions with the media? It is not clear.
7. Even though Mrs. Clinton confined her remarks only to the alleged co-operation between North Korea and Myanmar and did not refer to the on-going civil nuclear co-operation between Myanmar and Russia, Moscow on its own referred to this subject in response to her remarks in Thailand.
8.The RIA Novosti news agency of Russia disseminated the following report on July 21: “ Nuclear cooperation between Russia and Myanmar is not in conflict with the Non-proliferation Treaty or IAEA requirements, and will move ahead, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Tuesday. Andrei Nesterenko's comment came in response to U.S. concerns over the cooperation. However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier on Tuesday that Washington was taking concerns about military cooperation between nuclear-armed North Korea and Myanmar "very seriously," but made no mention of Russia. "Our cooperation with Myanmar is absolutely legitimate and in full compliance with our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty and IAEA requirements," Nesterenko said. He added that the IAEA had no problem with Myanmar over its non-proliferation commitments. Russia signed an agreement in 2007 on the construction of a nuclear research center in Myanmar, and it will stand by this agreement, Nesterenko said. The center will include a 10 MW light-water research reactor.”
9.Reports of Myanmar’s interest in developing a nuclear research capability started circulating after the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998. Before 1998, it had an Atomic Energy Committee, which used to be headed by one of its Ministers in charge of Industries. The military junta introduced an Atomic Energy Law on June 8,1998, within a fortnight of Pakistan’s Chagai nuclear tests.
10. The interest of the Myanmar military junta in acquiring civil nuclear expertise with Russian assistance came to be known in February,2001. It has had a long history of conventional military relationship with Russia. This relationship was subsequently expanded to cover the civil nuclear field.
11.In September 2001, the Government of Myanmar reportedly informed the IAEA of its plans to acquire a nuclear research reactor. This was followed by a visit to Myanmar by a team of IAEA experts to study whether Myanmar had the required capability to run a research reactor safely. The team reportedly concluded that Myanmar did not have the required safety standards. Despite its negative report, the Government decided to go ahead with its exploratory talks with Russia on this subject. Moscow, which must have been aware of the negative findings of the IAEA team, had no hesitation in responding positively to the approach for help from the Myanmar Junta.
12. When the US troops occupied Afghanistan post-9/11 after expelling the Taliban from power, they reportedly found evidence of contacts between some retired and serving nuclear scientists of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden. They short-listed four names--- retired scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Ahmed Chaudhry and Abdul Majid and serving scientists Sulaiman Assad and Mohammad Mukhtar.
13. At the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) took into custody the two retired scientists who where interrogated by the FBI. They reportedly admitted having met bin Laden at Kandahar before 9/11, but asserted that their meeting with him was in connection with the work of a humanitarian relief organization which they had founded after retirement. They were released as no evidence of their involvement in any activity relating to the supply of nuclear material or expertise to Al Qaeda was found. However, as a safety measure, the ISI, at the request of the FBI, imposed restrictions on their movement outside their home town. The FBI got the bank accounts of their supposedly humanitarian relief organization frozen by taking up the matter with the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.
14.Sulaiman Assad and Mohammad Mukhtar managed to flee to Myanmar before they could be detained for questioning by the ISI. There was uncorroborated speculation that the ISI did not want them to be questioned by the FBI as they had knowledge of the proliferation activities of Pakistan, particularly about its nuclear and missile supply relationship with North Korea. It was alleged by some in Pakistan that the Myanmar military junta gave them sanctuary at the request of the ISI. There has been no further reliable news about them.
15.In an article published by the “Wall Street Journal” on January 3,2002, Bertil Lintner, its then staff reporter, stated as follows: “Myanmar is embarking on a nuclear-research project with the help of Russian and, possibly, Pakistani scientists. Diplomats say the development has upset China, which has heavily courted Myanmar in recent years and resents Moscow for muscling in on its turf. Believed by Western diplomats to be the brainchild of Science and Technology Minister U Thaung, the project was initiated by Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry, which in February announced plans to build a 10-megawatt research reactor in central Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. In July, Myanmar Foreign Minister Win Aung, accompanied by the military-ruled country's ministers of defense, energy, industry and railways, traveled to Moscow to finalize the deal. Western diplomats in Myanmar say the groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled to take place at a secret location near the town of Magway in January. The equipment and reactor will be delivered in 2003. Russian diplomats say more than 300 Myanmar nationals have received nuclear technical training in Russia during the past year.”
16.On January 22,2002, Khin Maung Win, Myanmar’s Deputy Foreign Minister, announced that the Myanmar Government was planning to build a nuclear research reactor and had entered into talks with Russia on this subject. In his statement, he also said that his Government had informed the IAEA of its intention to construct the reactor which would be used "for peaceful purposes".
17.His statement further said: "The Myanmar Government is striving to acquire modern technology in all fields, including maritime, aerospace, medical and nuclear. It is in the light of these considerations that Myanmar made enquiries for the possibility of setting up a nuclear research reactor. A proposal
has since been received from the Russian Federation. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Myanmar signed in 1992, it had the right to pursue the peaceful use and application of nuclear technology. All our neighbouring countries, with the exception of Laos, are already reaping the benefits from nuclear research reactors operating in their countries. In this age of globalization it is imperative that developing countries such as Myanmar actively seek to narrow the development gap so as not to be marginalized."
18.Khin Maung Win denied media reports that Myanmar had secretly brought two Pakistani nuclear scientists into the country to help it fulfil its nuclear ambitions. He said: “ The Myanmar Government categorically states once again that no nuclear scientists from Pakistan have been given sanctuary in
Myanmar. However, Myanmar scientists had been trained by the IAEA in the application of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.”
19. The same day, the US reacted by warning Myanmar that it must honor its obligations under the NPT. An unidentified official of the State Department was quoted by the media as saying: "We expect the Government of Burma to live up to its obligations and to not pursue production of weapons grade fissile material."
20. There was no further development with regard to the Russian project for five years. This was attributed to the difficulties faced by the Junta in raising the money for it and the Russian reluctance to finalise the deal till Myanmar reached a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It was only by April 2007 that the Junta found the money. It is not clear whether the Junta signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. In May, the conclusion of a contract between the Governments of Myanmar and Russia was announced.
21. On May 16,2007, the US expressed concern over the agreement between Myanmar and Russia. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had "no idea" what Russia's motivation was for the agreement. "Burma has neither the regulatory nor the legal framework or safeguard provisions or other kinds of things that you would expect or want to see for a country to be able to handle successfully a nuclear program of this type.It's not a good idea."
22.Casey further said that Myanmar did not have a nuclear regulatory commission or safeguards in place to prevent accidents, environmental damage or proliferation. According to him, one risk was that nuclear fuel could be diverted, stolen or otherwise removed because of a lack of accounting or other procedures in place to prevent this.
23.He added: “"There certainly would have to be a heck of a lot more work done by the Burmese before I think we would feel comfortable that they could safely deal with having a nuclear facility of this type on their soil."
24. Myanmar is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and , according to some reports, has since signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. However, it has not yet accepted the Additional Protocol, which would allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog to conduct more intrusive monitoring of any nuclear operations.
25.Myanmar broke off diplomatic relations with Pyongyang in 1983, after alleged North Korean agents bombed the Martyr's mausoleum in Yangon in an attempt to assassinate the visiting South Korean President, Chun Doo-hwan. The explosion killed more than 20 persons, including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, and the South Korean Ambassador to Myanmar. The relations were re-established only in April 2007 after a gap of 24 years.
26.The re-establishment of diplomatic ties led to the beginning of a military-supply relationship between the two countries and the exchange of visits of military delegations. In 2007 and 2008, there were reports of the receipt of a number of military consignments by Myanmar from North Korea by sea----mostly consisting of conventional infantry weapons. Following the resumption of diplomatic relations, the Myanmar military junta also started allowing North Korean transport planes going to Pakistan and Iran to re-fuel in the Yangon airport.
27.North Korean engineers were reported to have helped Myanmar military engineers in the construction of a number of tunnels in the newly-constructed capital at Naypyidaw. They were also reported to be helping the Myanmar engineers in the construction of similar tunnels at a place called Yadanapon, where the junta is planning to have its summer capital. It was presumed by analysts that the North Korean assistance in tunnel construction had the purpose of providing shelter to the members of the Junta and other senior military officers in case of an attack by the US Air Force. It was the fear of an US attack which made the Junta shift the capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw and it was the same fear which motivated it to seek North Korean assistance in tunnel construction.
28. What set off an alarm was reports from Myanmar political exiles that North Koreans were helping in tunnel construction not only in the capital and the proposed summer capital, but also in certain other remote areas. Myanmar political exiles close to Aung San Suu Kyi have been linking the construction of tunnels at a place called Naung Laing in North Myanmar to possible North Korean assistance in the construction of a secret nuclear facility. What kind of a facility it could be is not clear. Western and Australian analysts and journalists seem to be particularly relying on claims made by two defectors. One claims to have been an officer in the Myanmar army who was allegedly sent to Moscow for two years’ training. The other claims to have been a former executive in a company called Htoo Trading, which, according to him, handled nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea. There has so far been no independent corroboration of their claims.
29.The suspicions regarding a possible nuclear supply relationship have been strengthened following a recent incident in which a North Korean ship called Nam Kam 1, which was reportedly bound for a Myanmar port turned back on being shadowed by US vessels. It is not clear what prevented the US vessels from surrounding and searching it. Without searching it, it seems to have been presumed that the cargo on board the ship must have been nuclear-related.
30.Political exiles can be sometimes good sources and sometimes unreliable and even dangerous. The information about Iran’s clandestine uranium enrichment plant initially came from political exiles, who were found to have been accurate. The false information about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear arsenal came from political exiles who made a fortune from the US intelligence by planting a series of false reports. In the 1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Indian Prime Minister, Indian analysts had over-estimated Chinese military deployments in Tibet on the basis of reports from Tibetan political exiles. These reports were subsequently found to have been highly exaggerated.
31.One has, therefore, to be cautious in assessing the reports, claims and allegations from political exiles and Army defectors from Myanmar. Their reports must be carefully verified. All one can say with some confidence at present is: firstly, that the Myanmar military junta’s interest in acquiring a civil nuclear capability dates back to 1998 when India and Pakistan carried out their nuclear tests; secondly, that since 2001 Myanmar has been in negotiations with Russia for the acquisition of a research reactor; thirdly, that there has been a long delay in the implementation of this project due to Myanmar’s lack of funds and the time taken to negotiate a safeguards agreement with the IAEA; and fourthly, that there has been an increase in North Korea’s military supply relationship with Myanmar since the two countries re-established diplomatic relations in April,2007.
32.Has the military supply relationship been expanded now to cover nuclear supply relationship? The evidence on this not yet strong enough to permit a categorical answer. (2-8-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Is the military junta in Myanmar trying to acquire a military nuclear capability with North Korean assistance? Or is North Korea trying to shift some of its nuclear facilities to Myanmar to protect them from a possible attack by the US? If either of this scenario is true, is China, which has a strong and active presence in North Korea as well as Myanmar, aware of it? Has it taken up the matter with the two Governments? Has it alerted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?
2. These questions, among others, come to one’s mind in the wake of a flurry of reports regarding an alleged nuclear relationship between Myanmar and North Korea. These reports hit the international media coinciding with the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which was held at Phuket in Thailand on July 23, 2009.
3.The meeting was attended among others by Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, who had proceeded to Thailand after a high-profile visit to India. She told a Thai TV channel in an interview on July 21,2009: “ We worry about the transfer of nuclear technology from North Korea to Myanmar.” She subsequently reverted to the subject at Phuket where she spoke to the media of “ concerns being expressed about co-operation between North Korea and Burma in the pursuit of offensive weapons, perhaps even including nuclear weapons at some point.”
4.She was not categorical on the question of a possible nuclear relationship between North Korea and Myanmar, but she was on the question of a conventional military relationship between the two countries. Her concerns seemed to be that this might be expanded to cover the military nuclear field, if this has not already happened or is not already happening.
5. To what extent her concerns were well-founded? Was the reference to this issue by her meant to exercise political pressure on Myanmar and North Korea, both of which attended the ARF meeting---- Myanmar at the level of its Foreign Minister and North Korea at the level of an official of its Foreign Office? Was she merely trying to step up the pressure on Myanmar on the question of the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and restoration of democracy and on North Korea on the question of its denuclearization by using the nuclear co-operation allegations or was there something more to it?
6. The press release issued by the ASEAN Secretariat on the ARF meeting and the media briefing did not contain any reference to the nuclear allegation. Did she raise it at the ARF Foreign Ministers’ meeting or was it confined to her interactions with the media? It is not clear.
7. Even though Mrs. Clinton confined her remarks only to the alleged co-operation between North Korea and Myanmar and did not refer to the on-going civil nuclear co-operation between Myanmar and Russia, Moscow on its own referred to this subject in response to her remarks in Thailand.
8.The RIA Novosti news agency of Russia disseminated the following report on July 21: “ Nuclear cooperation between Russia and Myanmar is not in conflict with the Non-proliferation Treaty or IAEA requirements, and will move ahead, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Tuesday. Andrei Nesterenko's comment came in response to U.S. concerns over the cooperation. However, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier on Tuesday that Washington was taking concerns about military cooperation between nuclear-armed North Korea and Myanmar "very seriously," but made no mention of Russia. "Our cooperation with Myanmar is absolutely legitimate and in full compliance with our obligations under the Non-proliferation Treaty and IAEA requirements," Nesterenko said. He added that the IAEA had no problem with Myanmar over its non-proliferation commitments. Russia signed an agreement in 2007 on the construction of a nuclear research center in Myanmar, and it will stand by this agreement, Nesterenko said. The center will include a 10 MW light-water research reactor.”
9.Reports of Myanmar’s interest in developing a nuclear research capability started circulating after the nuclear tests carried out by India and Pakistan in May 1998. Before 1998, it had an Atomic Energy Committee, which used to be headed by one of its Ministers in charge of Industries. The military junta introduced an Atomic Energy Law on June 8,1998, within a fortnight of Pakistan’s Chagai nuclear tests.
10. The interest of the Myanmar military junta in acquiring civil nuclear expertise with Russian assistance came to be known in February,2001. It has had a long history of conventional military relationship with Russia. This relationship was subsequently expanded to cover the civil nuclear field.
11.In September 2001, the Government of Myanmar reportedly informed the IAEA of its plans to acquire a nuclear research reactor. This was followed by a visit to Myanmar by a team of IAEA experts to study whether Myanmar had the required capability to run a research reactor safely. The team reportedly concluded that Myanmar did not have the required safety standards. Despite its negative report, the Government decided to go ahead with its exploratory talks with Russia on this subject. Moscow, which must have been aware of the negative findings of the IAEA team, had no hesitation in responding positively to the approach for help from the Myanmar Junta.
12. When the US troops occupied Afghanistan post-9/11 after expelling the Taliban from power, they reportedly found evidence of contacts between some retired and serving nuclear scientists of Pakistan and Osama bin Laden. They short-listed four names--- retired scientists Sultan Bashiruddin Ahmed Chaudhry and Abdul Majid and serving scientists Sulaiman Assad and Mohammad Mukhtar.
13. At the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) took into custody the two retired scientists who where interrogated by the FBI. They reportedly admitted having met bin Laden at Kandahar before 9/11, but asserted that their meeting with him was in connection with the work of a humanitarian relief organization which they had founded after retirement. They were released as no evidence of their involvement in any activity relating to the supply of nuclear material or expertise to Al Qaeda was found. However, as a safety measure, the ISI, at the request of the FBI, imposed restrictions on their movement outside their home town. The FBI got the bank accounts of their supposedly humanitarian relief organization frozen by taking up the matter with the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.
14.Sulaiman Assad and Mohammad Mukhtar managed to flee to Myanmar before they could be detained for questioning by the ISI. There was uncorroborated speculation that the ISI did not want them to be questioned by the FBI as they had knowledge of the proliferation activities of Pakistan, particularly about its nuclear and missile supply relationship with North Korea. It was alleged by some in Pakistan that the Myanmar military junta gave them sanctuary at the request of the ISI. There has been no further reliable news about them.
15.In an article published by the “Wall Street Journal” on January 3,2002, Bertil Lintner, its then staff reporter, stated as follows: “Myanmar is embarking on a nuclear-research project with the help of Russian and, possibly, Pakistani scientists. Diplomats say the development has upset China, which has heavily courted Myanmar in recent years and resents Moscow for muscling in on its turf. Believed by Western diplomats to be the brainchild of Science and Technology Minister U Thaung, the project was initiated by Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry, which in February announced plans to build a 10-megawatt research reactor in central Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. In July, Myanmar Foreign Minister Win Aung, accompanied by the military-ruled country's ministers of defense, energy, industry and railways, traveled to Moscow to finalize the deal. Western diplomats in Myanmar say the groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled to take place at a secret location near the town of Magway in January. The equipment and reactor will be delivered in 2003. Russian diplomats say more than 300 Myanmar nationals have received nuclear technical training in Russia during the past year.”
16.On January 22,2002, Khin Maung Win, Myanmar’s Deputy Foreign Minister, announced that the Myanmar Government was planning to build a nuclear research reactor and had entered into talks with Russia on this subject. In his statement, he also said that his Government had informed the IAEA of its intention to construct the reactor which would be used "for peaceful purposes".
17.His statement further said: "The Myanmar Government is striving to acquire modern technology in all fields, including maritime, aerospace, medical and nuclear. It is in the light of these considerations that Myanmar made enquiries for the possibility of setting up a nuclear research reactor. A proposal
has since been received from the Russian Federation. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Myanmar signed in 1992, it had the right to pursue the peaceful use and application of nuclear technology. All our neighbouring countries, with the exception of Laos, are already reaping the benefits from nuclear research reactors operating in their countries. In this age of globalization it is imperative that developing countries such as Myanmar actively seek to narrow the development gap so as not to be marginalized."
18.Khin Maung Win denied media reports that Myanmar had secretly brought two Pakistani nuclear scientists into the country to help it fulfil its nuclear ambitions. He said: “ The Myanmar Government categorically states once again that no nuclear scientists from Pakistan have been given sanctuary in
Myanmar. However, Myanmar scientists had been trained by the IAEA in the application of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.”
19. The same day, the US reacted by warning Myanmar that it must honor its obligations under the NPT. An unidentified official of the State Department was quoted by the media as saying: "We expect the Government of Burma to live up to its obligations and to not pursue production of weapons grade fissile material."
20. There was no further development with regard to the Russian project for five years. This was attributed to the difficulties faced by the Junta in raising the money for it and the Russian reluctance to finalise the deal till Myanmar reached a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. It was only by April 2007 that the Junta found the money. It is not clear whether the Junta signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. In May, the conclusion of a contract between the Governments of Myanmar and Russia was announced.
21. On May 16,2007, the US expressed concern over the agreement between Myanmar and Russia. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had "no idea" what Russia's motivation was for the agreement. "Burma has neither the regulatory nor the legal framework or safeguard provisions or other kinds of things that you would expect or want to see for a country to be able to handle successfully a nuclear program of this type.It's not a good idea."
22.Casey further said that Myanmar did not have a nuclear regulatory commission or safeguards in place to prevent accidents, environmental damage or proliferation. According to him, one risk was that nuclear fuel could be diverted, stolen or otherwise removed because of a lack of accounting or other procedures in place to prevent this.
23.He added: “"There certainly would have to be a heck of a lot more work done by the Burmese before I think we would feel comfortable that they could safely deal with having a nuclear facility of this type on their soil."
24. Myanmar is a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and , according to some reports, has since signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. However, it has not yet accepted the Additional Protocol, which would allow the U.N. nuclear watchdog to conduct more intrusive monitoring of any nuclear operations.
25.Myanmar broke off diplomatic relations with Pyongyang in 1983, after alleged North Korean agents bombed the Martyr's mausoleum in Yangon in an attempt to assassinate the visiting South Korean President, Chun Doo-hwan. The explosion killed more than 20 persons, including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, and the South Korean Ambassador to Myanmar. The relations were re-established only in April 2007 after a gap of 24 years.
26.The re-establishment of diplomatic ties led to the beginning of a military-supply relationship between the two countries and the exchange of visits of military delegations. In 2007 and 2008, there were reports of the receipt of a number of military consignments by Myanmar from North Korea by sea----mostly consisting of conventional infantry weapons. Following the resumption of diplomatic relations, the Myanmar military junta also started allowing North Korean transport planes going to Pakistan and Iran to re-fuel in the Yangon airport.
27.North Korean engineers were reported to have helped Myanmar military engineers in the construction of a number of tunnels in the newly-constructed capital at Naypyidaw. They were also reported to be helping the Myanmar engineers in the construction of similar tunnels at a place called Yadanapon, where the junta is planning to have its summer capital. It was presumed by analysts that the North Korean assistance in tunnel construction had the purpose of providing shelter to the members of the Junta and other senior military officers in case of an attack by the US Air Force. It was the fear of an US attack which made the Junta shift the capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw and it was the same fear which motivated it to seek North Korean assistance in tunnel construction.
28. What set off an alarm was reports from Myanmar political exiles that North Koreans were helping in tunnel construction not only in the capital and the proposed summer capital, but also in certain other remote areas. Myanmar political exiles close to Aung San Suu Kyi have been linking the construction of tunnels at a place called Naung Laing in North Myanmar to possible North Korean assistance in the construction of a secret nuclear facility. What kind of a facility it could be is not clear. Western and Australian analysts and journalists seem to be particularly relying on claims made by two defectors. One claims to have been an officer in the Myanmar army who was allegedly sent to Moscow for two years’ training. The other claims to have been a former executive in a company called Htoo Trading, which, according to him, handled nuclear contracts with Russia and North Korea. There has so far been no independent corroboration of their claims.
29.The suspicions regarding a possible nuclear supply relationship have been strengthened following a recent incident in which a North Korean ship called Nam Kam 1, which was reportedly bound for a Myanmar port turned back on being shadowed by US vessels. It is not clear what prevented the US vessels from surrounding and searching it. Without searching it, it seems to have been presumed that the cargo on board the ship must have been nuclear-related.
30.Political exiles can be sometimes good sources and sometimes unreliable and even dangerous. The information about Iran’s clandestine uranium enrichment plant initially came from political exiles, who were found to have been accurate. The false information about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear arsenal came from political exiles who made a fortune from the US intelligence by planting a series of false reports. In the 1980s, when Rajiv Gandhi was the Indian Prime Minister, Indian analysts had over-estimated Chinese military deployments in Tibet on the basis of reports from Tibetan political exiles. These reports were subsequently found to have been highly exaggerated.
31.One has, therefore, to be cautious in assessing the reports, claims and allegations from political exiles and Army defectors from Myanmar. Their reports must be carefully verified. All one can say with some confidence at present is: firstly, that the Myanmar military junta’s interest in acquiring a civil nuclear capability dates back to 1998 when India and Pakistan carried out their nuclear tests; secondly, that since 2001 Myanmar has been in negotiations with Russia for the acquisition of a research reactor; thirdly, that there has been a long delay in the implementation of this project due to Myanmar’s lack of funds and the time taken to negotiate a safeguards agreement with the IAEA; and fourthly, that there has been an increase in North Korea’s military supply relationship with Myanmar since the two countries re-established diplomatic relations in April,2007.
32.Has the military supply relationship been expanded now to cover nuclear supply relationship? The evidence on this not yet strong enough to permit a categorical answer. (2-8-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, July 31, 2009
CHINESE FEAR OF AVIATION TERRORISM BY PRO-AL QAEDA UIGHURS
B.RAMAN
On March 7,2008, the Chinese authorities had claimed to have foiled an attempt by three Uighurs to blow up a plane of the China Southern Airlines flying from Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, to Beijing. The persons involved had allegedly managed to smuggle inside the aircraft gasoline concealed inside a can of soft drinks. The plot was foiled by alert security guards on board the plane and two of the suspects were arrested on board the plane. A third was arrested subsequently.
2.The Chairman of China Southern Airlines Liu Chaoyong said that a female passenger came out of the rest room and passed by a flight attendant who detected a suspicious smell. Then she smelt the scent of perfume and gasoline in front of the rest room. The attendant immediately searched the rest room and found an inflammable substance inside the garbage bin of the rest room. The attendant notified the airplane security guard immediately. Based upon how the female passenger spoke and acted, they realized that the male passenger next to her was a companion. The two individuals were arrested. The plane crew then moved the suspicious substance into the special container bin for handling such materials. The plane made an unscheduled stop at the Lanzhou airport. The two suspects were taken away by the police. Liu Chaoyong said that the preliminary analysis was that the two individuals intended to hide the inflammable material and then take action at the appropriate moment. ( Please refer
to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers27/paper2654.html )
3. Since then, the Chinese authorities have been greatly concerned over the dangers of an act of aviation terrorism by Uighur jihadis belonging to the pro-Al Qaeda Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan (IMET). Apart from conventional acts of hijacking an aircraft, their concerns are focused on acts such as causing an explosion in mid-air with explosive material smuggled into an aircraft and a 9/11 style attack on a ground target with a hijacked aircraft. Possible responses to such scenarios have formed an important part of counter-terrorism exercises in China.
4. These concerns, which are not only continuing, but have also been aggravated after the violent incidents in Urumqi from July 5 to 8,2009, were reflected in the third joint Sino-Russian counter-terrorism exercise code-named "Peace Mission 2009" held for five days from July 22,2009, in the Sino-Russian border region. The actual exercise was preceded by a strategic preparatory meeting held at Khabarovsk in Russia on July 22. This was followed by the actual exercise held at the Taonan tactical training base of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in northeast China's Jilin Province. It comes under the Shenyang Military Command.
5. Whereas in the previous two exercises held in 2005 and 2007, army units of the two countries played a prominent role, in the latest exercise Air Force units of the two countries played a prominent role The greater prominence given to the role of the Air Force in counter-terrorism resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of military personnel involved in the exercise. This came down from about 10,000 from each side in the previous two exercises to about 1300 from each side in the latest exercise.
6.Russia deployed 22 aircraft ---- including Su-27 fighters, Su-24 and Su-25 attacker aircraft--- and several helicopters in the exercise.. They arrived at a military airport in Qiqihar in the Heilongjiang Province. The PLA deployed more than 40 aircraft including attackers, fighter-bombers, armed helicopters and transporters. Interestingly, the Russians and the Chinese also deployed surface-to-air missile units. The deployment of the SAM units indicated that their operating instructions against aviation terrorism envisaged the shooting down of a hijacked aircraft if there was a danger of a 9/11 type incident.
7. Briefings and comments by Chinese experts to their media, which was allowed to watch the exercise, indicated that their concerns mainly focused on the dangers of an act of aviation terrorism by the Uighurs. Even though the exercise was planned long before the recent Urumqi disturbances, these disturbances found mention in the briefings and comments.
8.In a curtain-raiser despatch of July 20,2009, the Xinhua news agency quoted Major General Wang Haiyun, a former Chinese Military Attache to Russia and an expert in international strategy, as saying as follows: "Russia, a large country with many ethnic groups and complex political situations, is facing similar challenges. To some extent, the July 5 Xinjiang riot pushed forward anti-terrorism cooperation between China and Russia. Russia and China should also cooperate more vigorously to defend themselves and prevent terrorism from spreading from Afghanistan to Central Asia."
9.In an interview to the "China Daily" (July 31,2009) after the conclusion of the exercise, Major General Meng Guoping, who is the Deputy Director of the War Operations Department under the General Staff Department of the PLA, said: ."Rules of engagement for anti-terrorism combat operations are being formulated by the Chinese army to deal with the growing terrorist threat facing the nation. The move would mark the first time since its founding 82 years ago that the 2.3-million-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA) would have separate regulations for anti-terrorism operations. The army is drafting an Ordinance for Anti-terrorism Combat Operations based on its experience in anti-terror missions over the past few years. The army will also publish its first set of combat guidelines on anti-terror operations for the whole armed forces. The guidelines will regulate the anti-terror mission's responsibility, composition, command and logistics support. The PLA has included anti-terror combat training in its elite armed forces divisions since last year and each army division has set up its task force for emergency response."
10.The same paper quoted Song Xiaojun, a leading military expert based in Beijing, as saying as follows: "Extremists, separatists and terrorists have been collaborating to target China and turning more violent, almost to the point of forming an anti-Chinese government rebellion. The "three forces" defined in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ) Shanghai Treaty, namely extremism, separatism and terrorism, were said to be behind the deadly riot in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region on July 5, during which 197 Han people and Uighurs died. China gave legal rights to its army to combat terrorism when it implemented the Emergency Response Law in August 2007."
11. An interesting feature of the just-concluded exercise was the virtual absence of any role for the police and other civilian counter-terrorism agencies, if China has any. China treats counter-terrorism, even against its own nationals taking to violence amounting to terrorism, as a military and not a police operation. The result is the relative inexperience of the Police in dealing with terrorism-like situations and other law and order disturbances involving the use of violence by protesters. Any such disturbances tend to be looked upon by the Police as terrorism. They easily lose their cool and over-react, using disproportionate force. This is what happened at Urumqi recently.
12. India has already held two joint counter-terrorism exercises with the Chinese armed forces---- the first in Yunnan and the second in Karnataka. The police has a very important role to play in our counter-terrorism operations away from the border. We must take care that our security forces do not get infected with the ruthless Chinese ways of dealing with their own people under the name of counter-terrorism.
(31-7-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
On March 7,2008, the Chinese authorities had claimed to have foiled an attempt by three Uighurs to blow up a plane of the China Southern Airlines flying from Urumqi, the capital of the Xinjiang province, to Beijing. The persons involved had allegedly managed to smuggle inside the aircraft gasoline concealed inside a can of soft drinks. The plot was foiled by alert security guards on board the plane and two of the suspects were arrested on board the plane. A third was arrested subsequently.
2.The Chairman of China Southern Airlines Liu Chaoyong said that a female passenger came out of the rest room and passed by a flight attendant who detected a suspicious smell. Then she smelt the scent of perfume and gasoline in front of the rest room. The attendant immediately searched the rest room and found an inflammable substance inside the garbage bin of the rest room. The attendant notified the airplane security guard immediately. Based upon how the female passenger spoke and acted, they realized that the male passenger next to her was a companion. The two individuals were arrested. The plane crew then moved the suspicious substance into the special container bin for handling such materials. The plane made an unscheduled stop at the Lanzhou airport. The two suspects were taken away by the police. Liu Chaoyong said that the preliminary analysis was that the two individuals intended to hide the inflammable material and then take action at the appropriate moment. ( Please refer
to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers27/paper2654.html )
3. Since then, the Chinese authorities have been greatly concerned over the dangers of an act of aviation terrorism by Uighur jihadis belonging to the pro-Al Qaeda Islamic Movement of Eastern Turkestan (IMET). Apart from conventional acts of hijacking an aircraft, their concerns are focused on acts such as causing an explosion in mid-air with explosive material smuggled into an aircraft and a 9/11 style attack on a ground target with a hijacked aircraft. Possible responses to such scenarios have formed an important part of counter-terrorism exercises in China.
4. These concerns, which are not only continuing, but have also been aggravated after the violent incidents in Urumqi from July 5 to 8,2009, were reflected in the third joint Sino-Russian counter-terrorism exercise code-named "Peace Mission 2009" held for five days from July 22,2009, in the Sino-Russian border region. The actual exercise was preceded by a strategic preparatory meeting held at Khabarovsk in Russia on July 22. This was followed by the actual exercise held at the Taonan tactical training base of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) in northeast China's Jilin Province. It comes under the Shenyang Military Command.
5. Whereas in the previous two exercises held in 2005 and 2007, army units of the two countries played a prominent role, in the latest exercise Air Force units of the two countries played a prominent role The greater prominence given to the role of the Air Force in counter-terrorism resulted in a drastic reduction in the number of military personnel involved in the exercise. This came down from about 10,000 from each side in the previous two exercises to about 1300 from each side in the latest exercise.
6.Russia deployed 22 aircraft ---- including Su-27 fighters, Su-24 and Su-25 attacker aircraft--- and several helicopters in the exercise.. They arrived at a military airport in Qiqihar in the Heilongjiang Province. The PLA deployed more than 40 aircraft including attackers, fighter-bombers, armed helicopters and transporters. Interestingly, the Russians and the Chinese also deployed surface-to-air missile units. The deployment of the SAM units indicated that their operating instructions against aviation terrorism envisaged the shooting down of a hijacked aircraft if there was a danger of a 9/11 type incident.
7. Briefings and comments by Chinese experts to their media, which was allowed to watch the exercise, indicated that their concerns mainly focused on the dangers of an act of aviation terrorism by the Uighurs. Even though the exercise was planned long before the recent Urumqi disturbances, these disturbances found mention in the briefings and comments.
8.In a curtain-raiser despatch of July 20,2009, the Xinhua news agency quoted Major General Wang Haiyun, a former Chinese Military Attache to Russia and an expert in international strategy, as saying as follows: "Russia, a large country with many ethnic groups and complex political situations, is facing similar challenges. To some extent, the July 5 Xinjiang riot pushed forward anti-terrorism cooperation between China and Russia. Russia and China should also cooperate more vigorously to defend themselves and prevent terrorism from spreading from Afghanistan to Central Asia."
9.In an interview to the "China Daily" (July 31,2009) after the conclusion of the exercise, Major General Meng Guoping, who is the Deputy Director of the War Operations Department under the General Staff Department of the PLA, said: ."Rules of engagement for anti-terrorism combat operations are being formulated by the Chinese army to deal with the growing terrorist threat facing the nation. The move would mark the first time since its founding 82 years ago that the 2.3-million-strong People's Liberation Army (PLA) would have separate regulations for anti-terrorism operations. The army is drafting an Ordinance for Anti-terrorism Combat Operations based on its experience in anti-terror missions over the past few years. The army will also publish its first set of combat guidelines on anti-terror operations for the whole armed forces. The guidelines will regulate the anti-terror mission's responsibility, composition, command and logistics support. The PLA has included anti-terror combat training in its elite armed forces divisions since last year and each army division has set up its task force for emergency response."
10.The same paper quoted Song Xiaojun, a leading military expert based in Beijing, as saying as follows: "Extremists, separatists and terrorists have been collaborating to target China and turning more violent, almost to the point of forming an anti-Chinese government rebellion. The "three forces" defined in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation ) Shanghai Treaty, namely extremism, separatism and terrorism, were said to be behind the deadly riot in the Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region on July 5, during which 197 Han people and Uighurs died. China gave legal rights to its army to combat terrorism when it implemented the Emergency Response Law in August 2007."
11. An interesting feature of the just-concluded exercise was the virtual absence of any role for the police and other civilian counter-terrorism agencies, if China has any. China treats counter-terrorism, even against its own nationals taking to violence amounting to terrorism, as a military and not a police operation. The result is the relative inexperience of the Police in dealing with terrorism-like situations and other law and order disturbances involving the use of violence by protesters. Any such disturbances tend to be looked upon by the Police as terrorism. They easily lose their cool and over-react, using disproportionate force. This is what happened at Urumqi recently.
12. India has already held two joint counter-terrorism exercises with the Chinese armed forces---- the first in Yunnan and the second in Karnataka. The police has a very important role to play in our counter-terrorism operations away from the border. We must take care that our security forces do not get infected with the ruthless Chinese ways of dealing with their own people under the name of counter-terrorism.
(31-7-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
WILL THE PM EMULATE REAGAN?
B.RAMAN
The explanation of the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, in the Lok Sabha on July 29,2009, on the statement issued by him jointly with Yousef Raza Gilani, the Pakistani Prime Minister, at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on July 17,2009, skillfully sought to control the damage done by the ill-advised and ill-drafted joint statement.
2. It was ill-advised because it has enabled Pakistan to claim to the international community that our PM was satisfied with the action taken by it against some Pakistan-based members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) for their involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26-29,2008, in the hope that this would result in a relaxation of the international pressure to act against the LET.
3. The international pressure on Pakistan to act against the LET has been there since the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13,2001. It was because of this pressure that Pervez Musharraf, the then Pakistani President, banned the LET through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The ban is still in force, but has not been implemented effectively by either the previous Government of Musharraf or by the present Government of Asif Ali Zardari.
4. There was intensified international pressure on Pakistan after Mumbai 26/11 because among those killed were 25 foreign civilians. It was this pressure and not the bilateral diplomacy of the Government of India, which made Pakistan register an offence against five members of the LET and investigate their involvement and place Prof.Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the LET, under house arrest.
5. As a result of the ill-warranted certificate of good neighbourly co-operation given by Dr.Manmohan Singh to Pakistan, there are already signs of this pressure being relaxed. This would be evident from the absence of forceful international reaction to the farce of the legal proceedings against Sayeed, which has resulted in his being released from house arrest.
6. The joint statement was also ill-advised because it has unwittingly conveyed an impression to Pakistan’s political leadership and military-intelligence establishment that a terrorism fatigue has set in among our political leadership and that continued use of terrorism by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against Indian civilians and economic infrastructure could ultimately make India amenable to a change of the status quo in Jammu & Kashmir.
7. The Prime Minister is right in wanting peace and good-neighbourly relations with Pakistan, but unwise in giving an impression to Pakistani leaders that he is over-keen for peace with Pakistan and that he does not have the stomach for a prolonged confrontation with Pakistan on the terrorism issue----whether the confrontation is political, economic, military or covert. That was the impression which Gilani and his advisers would have got at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the Prime Minister’s well-drafted statement in the Lok sabha has not been able to dissipate that impression.
8.The Prime Minister made use of the dossier given by Pakistan before Sharm-el-Sheikh on the investigation made by it so far against the LET in two ways. He tried to project this dossier as justifying the action taken by him at Sharm-el-Sheikh. He also tried to score a debating point against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led opposition coalition by claiming that his Government through pressure had been able to make Pakistan concede the LET involvement whereas the BJP-led Government was not able to do this.
9. If the BJP members had carefully studied and mastered facts and figures, they could have effectively countered the PM’s claim of credit by pointing out the following:
• There have been four acts of mass casualty terrorism since 1981. All the four were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi.
• There have been three instances of targeted attacks on foreigners since 1991----two in J&K and one in Mumbai. All the three were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power.
• There have been seven acts of ISI-sponsored aircraft hijackings since 1971. Six of them were carried out when the Congress (I) and one when the BJP was in power.
• There has been one instance of an Air India plane being blown up in mid-air killing over 250 persons. This took place when the Congress (I) was in power.
• The LET was banned by the Musharraf Government as a terrorist organization through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The Manmohan Singh Government has not been able to get the JUD banned by the Zardari Government even eight months after the Mumbai attack.
• Indira Gandhi was assassinated when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated when an ally of the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi and another ally in Chennai.
• The Indian Mujahideen came into existence when the Congress (I) was in power.
• The first commando-style complex terrorist attack in Indian territory by a group of terrorists, all hailing from Pakistan, has taken place when the Congress (I) is in power.
10. Despite the Congress (I)’s better counter-terrorism expertise and experience, it has not been able to deal effectively with jihadi terrorism.The BJP leaders were not able to bring this out.
11. The PM used the dossier against the LET received from Pakistan in justification of his action at Sharm-el-Sheikh. A close examination of the dossier as published in the media and a study of the various statements made since February,2009, by Rehman Mallik, the Pakistani Interior Minister, would bring out the following:
• The Pakistani authorities continue to make a distinction between the LET and the JUD, projecting the LET as a defunct organization in view of the January 15,2002, ban still in force and the JUD as a legitimate organization despite the declaration of the anti-terrorism committee of the UN Security Council calling it as a terrorist organization. Their action has been confined to those who hold position in the LET and not to those who hold position in the JUD.
• Till now, their action has been focused on the logistics cell of the LET in Karachi and not against the planning and training cell of the LET based in Muridke in Punjab and in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.
• They continue to project the Mumbai attack as the outcome of a multi-national conspiracy involving elements in Pakistan, India, Europe, the US and Russia.
• They have been trying to claim that the role of the Indian elements has not been fully investigated by the Mumbai Police.
12. There are certain other disturbing indicators. Firstly, while releasing Sayeed from house arrest, the three-member bench of the Lahore High Court observed on June 6,2009, that there is no evidence to show that the JUD is a terrorist organization and that Sayeed had any role in the Mumbai conspiracy. Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury and two other judges of the Supreme Court when the Government’s farcical appeal against his release came up before the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court judges even said that Indian evidence is not reliable. With such pronouncements already made by judges of superior courts, will the Anti-Terrorism court, which is subordinate to them, be able to give a different ruling holding the five LET members prosecuted as guilty?
13. As a result of the pressure from the Governments of countries whose nationals were killed in Mumbai, Pakistan has embarked on an elaborate exercise of seeming co-operation with India in the investigation. Such instances of even seeming co-operation were not there in the past. But the sincerity of this co-operation is yet to be established.
14. We should have waited till this sincerity was established. What was the need for the indecent hurry shown by Dr.Manmohan Singh at Sharm-el-Sheikh for fresh talks with Pakistan?
15.If we had waited for a few months more till a clearer picture emerged from the proceedings of the Anti-Terrorism Court, will the heavens have fallen on our heads? A convincing answer to this has not been forthcoming from the Prime Minister.
16. The Prime Minister used former President Ronald Reagan of the US as a prop by quoting his remark: “Trust, but verify”. Yes, he had said it. In 1986 some US soldiers were killed by an explosion in a West Berlin discotheque. The US investigators established that the terrorists had come from Libya. After verification, he ordered the US Air Force to bomb the training centre in Libya.
17. Indian investigators have clearly verified and established that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were trained in the POK.
18.Will the Prime Minister emulate Reagan? (30-7-09)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The explanation of the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, in the Lok Sabha on July 29,2009, on the statement issued by him jointly with Yousef Raza Gilani, the Pakistani Prime Minister, at Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on July 17,2009, skillfully sought to control the damage done by the ill-advised and ill-drafted joint statement.
2. It was ill-advised because it has enabled Pakistan to claim to the international community that our PM was satisfied with the action taken by it against some Pakistan-based members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) for their involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26-29,2008, in the hope that this would result in a relaxation of the international pressure to act against the LET.
3. The international pressure on Pakistan to act against the LET has been there since the attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13,2001. It was because of this pressure that Pervez Musharraf, the then Pakistani President, banned the LET through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The ban is still in force, but has not been implemented effectively by either the previous Government of Musharraf or by the present Government of Asif Ali Zardari.
4. There was intensified international pressure on Pakistan after Mumbai 26/11 because among those killed were 25 foreign civilians. It was this pressure and not the bilateral diplomacy of the Government of India, which made Pakistan register an offence against five members of the LET and investigate their involvement and place Prof.Hafeez Mohammad Sayeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the political wing of the LET, under house arrest.
5. As a result of the ill-warranted certificate of good neighbourly co-operation given by Dr.Manmohan Singh to Pakistan, there are already signs of this pressure being relaxed. This would be evident from the absence of forceful international reaction to the farce of the legal proceedings against Sayeed, which has resulted in his being released from house arrest.
6. The joint statement was also ill-advised because it has unwittingly conveyed an impression to Pakistan’s political leadership and military-intelligence establishment that a terrorism fatigue has set in among our political leadership and that continued use of terrorism by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against Indian civilians and economic infrastructure could ultimately make India amenable to a change of the status quo in Jammu & Kashmir.
7. The Prime Minister is right in wanting peace and good-neighbourly relations with Pakistan, but unwise in giving an impression to Pakistani leaders that he is over-keen for peace with Pakistan and that he does not have the stomach for a prolonged confrontation with Pakistan on the terrorism issue----whether the confrontation is political, economic, military or covert. That was the impression which Gilani and his advisers would have got at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the Prime Minister’s well-drafted statement in the Lok sabha has not been able to dissipate that impression.
8.The Prime Minister made use of the dossier given by Pakistan before Sharm-el-Sheikh on the investigation made by it so far against the LET in two ways. He tried to project this dossier as justifying the action taken by him at Sharm-el-Sheikh. He also tried to score a debating point against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led opposition coalition by claiming that his Government through pressure had been able to make Pakistan concede the LET involvement whereas the BJP-led Government was not able to do this.
9. If the BJP members had carefully studied and mastered facts and figures, they could have effectively countered the PM’s claim of credit by pointing out the following:
• There have been four acts of mass casualty terrorism since 1981. All the four were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi.
• There have been three instances of targeted attacks on foreigners since 1991----two in J&K and one in Mumbai. All the three were carried out when the Congress (I) was in power.
• There have been seven acts of ISI-sponsored aircraft hijackings since 1971. Six of them were carried out when the Congress (I) and one when the BJP was in power.
• There has been one instance of an Air India plane being blown up in mid-air killing over 250 persons. This took place when the Congress (I) was in power.
• The LET was banned by the Musharraf Government as a terrorist organization through a gazette notification on January 15,2002. The Manmohan Singh Government has not been able to get the JUD banned by the Zardari Government even eight months after the Mumbai attack.
• Indira Gandhi was assassinated when the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated when an ally of the Congress (I) was in power in New Delhi and another ally in Chennai.
• The Indian Mujahideen came into existence when the Congress (I) was in power.
• The first commando-style complex terrorist attack in Indian territory by a group of terrorists, all hailing from Pakistan, has taken place when the Congress (I) is in power.
10. Despite the Congress (I)’s better counter-terrorism expertise and experience, it has not been able to deal effectively with jihadi terrorism.The BJP leaders were not able to bring this out.
11. The PM used the dossier against the LET received from Pakistan in justification of his action at Sharm-el-Sheikh. A close examination of the dossier as published in the media and a study of the various statements made since February,2009, by Rehman Mallik, the Pakistani Interior Minister, would bring out the following:
• The Pakistani authorities continue to make a distinction between the LET and the JUD, projecting the LET as a defunct organization in view of the January 15,2002, ban still in force and the JUD as a legitimate organization despite the declaration of the anti-terrorism committee of the UN Security Council calling it as a terrorist organization. Their action has been confined to those who hold position in the LET and not to those who hold position in the JUD.
• Till now, their action has been focused on the logistics cell of the LET in Karachi and not against the planning and training cell of the LET based in Muridke in Punjab and in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir.
• They continue to project the Mumbai attack as the outcome of a multi-national conspiracy involving elements in Pakistan, India, Europe, the US and Russia.
• They have been trying to claim that the role of the Indian elements has not been fully investigated by the Mumbai Police.
12. There are certain other disturbing indicators. Firstly, while releasing Sayeed from house arrest, the three-member bench of the Lahore High Court observed on June 6,2009, that there is no evidence to show that the JUD is a terrorist organization and that Sayeed had any role in the Mumbai conspiracy. Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury and two other judges of the Supreme Court when the Government’s farcical appeal against his release came up before the Supreme Court. The Lahore High Court judges even said that Indian evidence is not reliable. With such pronouncements already made by judges of superior courts, will the Anti-Terrorism court, which is subordinate to them, be able to give a different ruling holding the five LET members prosecuted as guilty?
13. As a result of the pressure from the Governments of countries whose nationals were killed in Mumbai, Pakistan has embarked on an elaborate exercise of seeming co-operation with India in the investigation. Such instances of even seeming co-operation were not there in the past. But the sincerity of this co-operation is yet to be established.
14. We should have waited till this sincerity was established. What was the need for the indecent hurry shown by Dr.Manmohan Singh at Sharm-el-Sheikh for fresh talks with Pakistan?
15.If we had waited for a few months more till a clearer picture emerged from the proceedings of the Anti-Terrorism Court, will the heavens have fallen on our heads? A convincing answer to this has not been forthcoming from the Prime Minister.
16. The Prime Minister used former President Ronald Reagan of the US as a prop by quoting his remark: “Trust, but verify”. Yes, he had said it. In 1986 some US soldiers were killed by an explosion in a West Berlin discotheque. The US investigators established that the terrorists had come from Libya. After verification, he ordered the US Air Force to bomb the training centre in Libya.
17. Indian investigators have clearly verified and established that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai were trained in the POK.
18.Will the Prime Minister emulate Reagan? (30-7-09)
( 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 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)