B.RAMAN
One notices two extremes in our analyses on China. At one extreme are superlatives and a tendency to project the Chinese people and policy-makers as super human beings going from one spectacular achievement to another. At the other, are analyses marked by skepticism and cynicism and a tendency to denigrate China. We need a balanced analysis of China devoid of these extremes.
2.A balanced analysis is rendered difficult by a paucity of correct and complete information and by the Chinese success in ensuring that only stories of their successes reach the outside world, but not the stories of their failures.
3.Despite the continuing paucity, one has to note an increasing flow of information from and relating to China. This should make a balanced analysis possible.
4.To draw up a net assessment on China, we have to keep in mind two scenarios. The first is that China continues to progress politically, economically and militarily. How would this enhance China's power projection capability? What implications will this have for India? How should India protect itself from the likely consequences?
5.The second scenario is that Chinese leaders and policy-makers falter at some stage and China runs into serious difficulties. When and under what circumstances can this happen? What will be the impact on China and the region? How would this affect India? Would a faltering China turn its anger against India?
6.Transparency is still missing in China, but policy debates are a little more free now than they were in the past. By closely monitoring and analysing open source information from China, one could identify the contending ideas, but it is still difficult to attribute a name and a face to the contending ideas. Thus, we know that there are different groups in China advocating different policy options, but we do not know who are the individual policy-makers in these groups.
7.In recent months, one could discern three contending ideas behind policy-related debates. The first relates to the question as to whether the time has come for a political restructuring of China to supplement the economic re-structuring and, if so, on what lines and at what pace the political re-structuring should be undertaken. Since 2007, there was an intense debate on this issue giving rise to expectations that the Chinese Communist Party was about to embark on a major programme of political reforms. The recently held plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in October 2010, was expected by many to come out with such a programme. The plenum turned out to be an anti-climax. It merely underlined the continuing role of the Party as the guarantor of development . After the plenum, the debate on the need for political reforms seems to have slowed down. The party has apparently applied the brakes? Why?
8.The second relates to the sustainability of what China has achieved so far. Previously, the central theme of such debates used to be the need to achieve comprehensive national power or security. An additional theme noticed, of late, is the importance of sustainable political stability, sustainable economic prosperity and sustainable security. This indicates the beginnings of concerns in the minds of some policy-makers about the sustainability of China's achievements, structure and system? Why?
9.The third relates to the wisdom of the recent assertiveness in foreign policy. On the other side of the coin is unpredictability. The Chinese foreign policy used to be fairly predictable. It is no longer so. An element of unpredictability has been creeping in. India has seen it in respect of the Chinese policy on Jammu & Kashmir. The ASEAN countries in respect of the South China Sea. Japan with regard to the East China Sea. This has affected China's relations and image in the neighbourhood. Questions are being raised as to whether China has prematurely embarked on its present assertiveness before it is strong enough to do so. Lee Kuan Yew, former Singapore Prime Minister, and the present Minister Mentor to the Singapore Government, has been cited in one of the leaked Wikicables as saying that the Chinese believed that the collapse of Germany and Japan during the Second World War could be attributed to the fact that they prematurely challenged the then existing world order. Those questioning the wisdom of the policy of assertiveness seem to be worried that China might end up by committing the same mistake as Germany and Japan.
10.Assertiveness where necessary and accommodation where possible---this has become the underlying factor driving the policies of India and China towards each other. After a fumbling initial response to Chinese assertiveness, the Government of Dr.Manmohan Singh has realized that assertiveness has to be met with assertiveness and accommodation with accommodation. The Chinese assertiveness has been seen in the firmness of their positions in matters relating to Arunachal Pradesh and their relations with Pakistan. No changes in their policies on these two issues are likely in the short and medium term. Their desire for accommodation is seen in bilateral economic relations, co-operation with India in multilateral fora and their avoidance of a demonisation of India. They may feel that India is positioning itself to form part of a US arc around China, along with the US, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam, but do not say so openly. They take care not to put India and Vietnam in the same bracket as Japan and South Korea. They do not hesitate to demonise Japan and South Korea at every conceivable opportunity, but painstakingly avoid demonizing India and Vietnam. There are more instances of Indian demonisation of China than the other way round.
11.The tendency of our media and some of our analysts to constantly demonise China needs to be discouraged. It does not help. It can distort our analysis and assessment. Our political leaders and officials of our Foreign Office make a balanced projection of China and its policies towards India in their public discourse.The same cannot be said of the officers of our Armed Forces---- serving and retired. They keep creating a paranoia with regard to China. It is important to keep our eyes and ears open in the border areas and in our neighbourhood. It is equally important to keep ourselves in full strength and preparedness to face any negative turn in the bilateral relations. At the same time, it will be wise to avoid creating unnecessary or imaginary fears in the minds of the people about the intentions of China.
12.Internal security is an issue of great preoccupation for China. According to the “Global Times” of August 23,2010, “the country is facing mounting pressure during its social transition including frequent attacks on vulnerable groups, aggravating pollution, serious corruption, inequality of distribution and a widening income gap. Mounting social unrests in recent years have proved costly. In 2009, the government earmarked 514 billion yuan ($76 billion) to maintain stability, much more than the 480 billion yuan for national defense.”
13.Their internal security problems in the Han core of the country arise from issues such as the increasing inflation, unemployment, industrial unrest over wages, increasing crime etc. Their careful management of the economy should normally enable them deal with the problems, but the spectre of Han anger haunts them. They can be ruthless in dealing with the anger of the ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang as they did in 2008 and 2009, but they cannot be equally ruthless in dealing with any Han anger. One saw an example of the Chinese anxiety regarding any outbreak of Han anger from the abrupt manner in which President Hu Jintao cancelled his participation in the G-20 summit in Italy last year and airdashed back to Beijing on hearing of the Han protests in Xinjiang over the failure of the police to protect them against the Uighur attacks. The anger of the minorities would weaken their hold over peripheral China, but Han anger could weaken the hold of the Chinese Communist Party over the entire country.
14.Keeping the Hans happy, contented and increasingly prosperous is their first priority. Will the Hans be happy with economic prosperity alone? Will they demand greater political freedom? They look upon the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao , the human rights activist in jail, as part of a Western conspiracy to whet the appetite of the Hans for more political freedom. They look upon him as a Western Trojan Horse in their midst. They try to project and dismiss him as a criminal, but are worried that today’s “criminal” may turn out to be tomorrow’s liberator. They have slowed down their plans for political restructuring partly due to the fears caused by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.
15.Can China disintegrate under the weight of its internal security problems? This is unlikely. The undoubted economic prosperity and the interest of the homogenous Hans as a whole in ensuring that this prosperity is maintained guarantees against any tendency towards disintegration in the Han core of the country. The Tibetan and Uighur uprisings have shown that economic prosperity has not diluted their yearnings for freedom. So long as this urge for freedom remains alive, the danger of instability in the border areas will remain.
16.India should closely monitor and study the internal security situation in China without trying to take advantage of it. An unstable and insecure China is not in India’s interest. This should not mean that India should forsake the Tibetans. They are our objective allies. We need to nurse them and help them to keep the flame of Buddhism alive in China. We need to pay more attention to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and interact with him more frequently politically and in religious matters. An alienated Tibet will always look up to India for moral support in its hours of distress. We have a moral responsibility to be attentive to their hopes and fears. How to give back the Tibetans and His Holiness their dignity as a proud civilization without causing the disintegration of peripheral China? This is a question that should keep engaging our attention.
17.Cordial State-to-State, people-to-people, business-to-business and military-to-military relations are in the long-term interest of the two countries. State-to-State relations are improving despite the border dispute and the Chinese propensity to prop up Pakistan against India. Business-to-business relations are moving forward. Indian orders for equipment are creating more jobs in China than in the US. Chinese construction companies have won contracts worth US $ 25 billion in India---- more than in any other Asian country. The power and the telecom sectors have become the main pillars of Sino-Indian economic co-operation. It is only a question of time before the Chinese acquire a strong presence in the Indian automobile sector. The Indian business class has not been able to achieve in China what the Chinese business class has achieved in India. The hesitant attitudes of the Chinese Government are only partly to be blamed for this. The lack of initiative and aggression in our business class is an important contributory factor. The decline in our engineering skills as compared to the advance in our IT skills is another factor.
18.People-to-people and military-to-military relations are very weak, This can be attributed to the continuing trust deficit between the two civil societies and between the security machineries of the two countries. This needs to be addressed. Our business class, which has been contributing money to endowments in US universities and think-tanks, should think of Chinese universities and think-tanks too. We should invite more Chinese military officers to courses in our military institutions to which foreign officers are eligible----on a reciprocal basis. We need to invest more in creating a new pool of China scholars and researchers whose China view will not be stymied by memories of 1962. ( 15-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
NIXON'S INDIA--TELEPHONE TAPPING RUNS AMOK
B.RAMAN
Inaugurating an India Corporate Week at New Delhi on December 14,2010, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is reported to have stated as follows:"I am aware of the nervousness in the corporate sector arising out of the powers conferred upon the government authorities to tap the phones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money laundering. While these powers are needed, they have to be exercised with utmost care and under well defined rules, procedures and mechanism so that they are not misused. Legal mechanisms already in place should be stringent for more effective enforcement. I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into these issues and report back to the Cabinet within the next month."
2.The Prime Minister’s observations came in the wake of concerns recently expressed by some corporate personalities such as Ratan Tata and Deepakh Parikh, the Chairman of the mortgage giant HDFC, over the uncontrolled leakage to certain journals of the supposedly clandestine recordings and their transcripts of the telephone conversations of Ms.Niira Radia, a lobbyist reportedly working for the Tatas and one other corporate house, with people in different walks of life.
3. The episode has led to three questions---firstly, why was her telephone tapped ?; secondly, was it done in accordance with law? ; and, thirdly, how did the results of the tapping become available to some journals in a manner that sought to damage the hard-earned reputation of some leading personalities? In a court affidavit filed last week, the Government has reportedly said it had begun tapping Ms Radia's phone after an allegation that she was spying for foreign intelligence and to make enquiries regarding her business network in order to see whether she had violated laws relating to taxation.
4. The US Congress enacted provisions in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 et seq.) that established procedures for wiretapping. All wiretaps were banned except those approved by a court. Wiretaps were legally permissible for a designated list of offenses, if a court approved. A wiretap may last a maximum of 30 days and notice must be provided to the subject of the search within 90 days of any application or a successful interception. In 1986, Congress extended wiretapping protection to electronic mail in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 8 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq. The law, also known as the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to tap into private E-Mail. ( My comment: This has been taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Telephone+tapping).
5. There were similar controversies in India in the past too. In 1991, the Indian media had reported that hundreds of telephones of senior political leaders and journalists, including Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, had been tapped unauthorisedly. In 1996, there was a controversy regarding the alleged tapping of the telephone conversation of Amar Singh, the leader of the Samajwadi Party. Some months ago, one of the journals had alleged that the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US, had equipment and capability that enabled it to indulge in extensive telephone tapping.
6.Amongst those to strongly protest against such illegal telephone tapping and express concerns over methods akin to those employed by former US President Richard Nixon was Shri L.K.Advani, former Deputy Prime Minister. In a posting on April 25,2010, in his blog, he wrote as follows:
“In 1977, President Carter asked Congress to approve a plan which would make it impossible for the executive to intrude upon a citizen’s privacy without judicial authorization. This plan, Carter contended, would successfully resolve the “inherent conflict” between national security and the basic right to privacy of a citizen. Subsequently legislation has been enacted wherein all security authorities, including the FBI, have been obligated to seek prior judicial approval for any wire-taps.
”In Britain, there is no law governing wire-tapping. But several parliamentary committees have gone into the question in depth. In 1957, a three-man committee of Privy Councillors headed by Norman Birkett was set up to inquire into the “interception of communications”.
”The Birkett committee described wire-tapping, or for that matter, all forms of intercepting private communications as “inherently objectionable”, but felt that the practice may be permitted within certain clearly defined areas, and with appropriate safeguards. It laid down that wire-tapping may be allowed to the police and security agencies only for the purpose of crime investigation or to check subversive or espionage activity. Even for this field, the committee laid down rigorous guidelines. Till date, no one in Britain has ever accused their government of abusing these powers.
”What is really required in this context is to set up a parliamentary committee on the lines of the Birkett committee to examine all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and replace it by a new legislation which forbids invasion of an ordinary citizen’s privacy, but which formally recognizes the right of the State to use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime, subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards which make it impossible for Government to abuse its powers against political activists and pressmen.”
7. Shri Advani, who was outraged by the previous instances of tapping, has not been outraged by the present instance probably because it has provided him with ammunition that he could use against the Government of Manmohan Singh. His stand seems to be---- tapping is OK if it embarrasses my opponents, but is illegal if it embarrasses me. That seems to be his line. On December 14,2010, he has attacked the Prime Minister for asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of telephone tapping, saying he seemed to be more concerned about the leakage than the credibility of his Government on the issue of corruption. "He (Prime Minister Manomhan Singh) is worried about that (leakage). What is the aspect of concern? Common man's concern is about the credibility of the Government. There should be concern about this but that is not there."
8. In an article of February 2006, in the PUCL Bulletin under the title “Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy”, Shri Rajindar Sachar wrote, inter alia, as follows:
”The current slanging match between political parties arising from telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature did not act.
”It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that “Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy, and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so.
”Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
”The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for six months.
”A further direction was also given that original order would have to be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the indifference and levity being shown in political circles.”
9. From his article, it is evident that the position laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: Firstly, tapping can be authorized by the Home Secretary only in one of five specified situations; Secondly, a tapping could normally last for two months, but could be extended to about six months. There cannot be indefinite tapping nor can there be tapping off and on. Thirdly, the initial authorization of the Home Secretary has to be reviewed by a committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Telecom Secretary. If the initial order was found to be incorrect, it would be set aside and all intercepts under the incorrect order would be ordered to be destroyed.
10. The following questions arise from the tapping of the telephone conversations of Radia:
QUESTION No.1: When was the initial authorization by the Home Secretary to tap her telephone given?
QUESTION 2: What was its duration?
QUESTION 3: Did the tapping stop after the specified duration had ended or was it continued after the duration had expired? Who authorized the extension of the duration? Was a fresh complaint against her filed while seeking the extension giving a summary of the evidence collected against her, which called for a further extension?
QUESTION 4: Was a review of the initial order made by a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary? Did it conclude that the initial authorisation and the subsequent interceptions were in order and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court? If not, did it order the recordings and the transcripts to be destroyed?
11. These questions need to be gone into in detail during the enquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. One gets an impression that the entire case has been handled by the Government as well as the opposition and even the media with a certain levity to use an expression of Shri Sachar. This does not bode well for any exercise to prevent the misuse of the Government’s powers of interception of the communications of its citizens.
12. In their glee over the embarrassment caused to the Government and certain others by the unexplained leakage of the intercepts, the importance of ensuring that everything was done in accordance with the law has been overlooked. The right questions have not been asked. ( 15-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Inaugurating an India Corporate Week at New Delhi on December 14,2010, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is reported to have stated as follows:"I am aware of the nervousness in the corporate sector arising out of the powers conferred upon the government authorities to tap the phones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money laundering. While these powers are needed, they have to be exercised with utmost care and under well defined rules, procedures and mechanism so that they are not misused. Legal mechanisms already in place should be stringent for more effective enforcement. I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into these issues and report back to the Cabinet within the next month."
2.The Prime Minister’s observations came in the wake of concerns recently expressed by some corporate personalities such as Ratan Tata and Deepakh Parikh, the Chairman of the mortgage giant HDFC, over the uncontrolled leakage to certain journals of the supposedly clandestine recordings and their transcripts of the telephone conversations of Ms.Niira Radia, a lobbyist reportedly working for the Tatas and one other corporate house, with people in different walks of life.
3. The episode has led to three questions---firstly, why was her telephone tapped ?; secondly, was it done in accordance with law? ; and, thirdly, how did the results of the tapping become available to some journals in a manner that sought to damage the hard-earned reputation of some leading personalities? In a court affidavit filed last week, the Government has reportedly said it had begun tapping Ms Radia's phone after an allegation that she was spying for foreign intelligence and to make enquiries regarding her business network in order to see whether she had violated laws relating to taxation.
4. The US Congress enacted provisions in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2510 et seq.) that established procedures for wiretapping. All wiretaps were banned except those approved by a court. Wiretaps were legally permissible for a designated list of offenses, if a court approved. A wiretap may last a maximum of 30 days and notice must be provided to the subject of the search within 90 days of any application or a successful interception. In 1986, Congress extended wiretapping protection to electronic mail in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 8 U.S.C.A. § 2701 et seq. The law, also known as the Wiretap Act, makes it illegal to tap into private E-Mail. ( My comment: This has been taken from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Telephone+tapping).
5. There were similar controversies in India in the past too. In 1991, the Indian media had reported that hundreds of telephones of senior political leaders and journalists, including Chandra Sekhar, former Prime Minister, had been tapped unauthorisedly. In 1996, there was a controversy regarding the alleged tapping of the telephone conversation of Amar Singh, the leader of the Samajwadi Party. Some months ago, one of the journals had alleged that the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s equivalent of the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US, had equipment and capability that enabled it to indulge in extensive telephone tapping.
6.Amongst those to strongly protest against such illegal telephone tapping and express concerns over methods akin to those employed by former US President Richard Nixon was Shri L.K.Advani, former Deputy Prime Minister. In a posting on April 25,2010, in his blog, he wrote as follows:
“In 1977, President Carter asked Congress to approve a plan which would make it impossible for the executive to intrude upon a citizen’s privacy without judicial authorization. This plan, Carter contended, would successfully resolve the “inherent conflict” between national security and the basic right to privacy of a citizen. Subsequently legislation has been enacted wherein all security authorities, including the FBI, have been obligated to seek prior judicial approval for any wire-taps.
”In Britain, there is no law governing wire-tapping. But several parliamentary committees have gone into the question in depth. In 1957, a three-man committee of Privy Councillors headed by Norman Birkett was set up to inquire into the “interception of communications”.
”The Birkett committee described wire-tapping, or for that matter, all forms of intercepting private communications as “inherently objectionable”, but felt that the practice may be permitted within certain clearly defined areas, and with appropriate safeguards. It laid down that wire-tapping may be allowed to the police and security agencies only for the purpose of crime investigation or to check subversive or espionage activity. Even for this field, the committee laid down rigorous guidelines. Till date, no one in Britain has ever accused their government of abusing these powers.
”What is really required in this context is to set up a parliamentary committee on the lines of the Birkett committee to examine all aspects of the problem, scrap the outdated Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and replace it by a new legislation which forbids invasion of an ordinary citizen’s privacy, but which formally recognizes the right of the State to use the latest IT devices of interception to deal only with crime, subversion and espionage. The law must provide statutory safeguards which make it impossible for Government to abuse its powers against political activists and pressmen.”
7. Shri Advani, who was outraged by the previous instances of tapping, has not been outraged by the present instance probably because it has provided him with ammunition that he could use against the Government of Manmohan Singh. His stand seems to be---- tapping is OK if it embarrasses my opponents, but is illegal if it embarrasses me. That seems to be his line. On December 14,2010, he has attacked the Prime Minister for asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into the issue of telephone tapping, saying he seemed to be more concerned about the leakage than the credibility of his Government on the issue of corruption. "He (Prime Minister Manomhan Singh) is worried about that (leakage). What is the aspect of concern? Common man's concern is about the credibility of the Government. There should be concern about this but that is not there."
8. In an article of February 2006, in the PUCL Bulletin under the title “Telephone-tapping an invasion of individual’s privacy”, Shri Rajindar Sachar wrote, inter alia, as follows:
”The current slanging match between political parties arising from telephone-tapping of Amar Singh, General Secretary of S.P. has again highlighted the menace of unauthorized telephone tapping. This evil was highlighted in the press in 1991 showing hundreds of telephone tapping of top politicians (including Chandra Shekhar, former Prime Minister) and journalists. In India telephone tapping is provided under Section 5 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. But it could not survive after the Constitution and the Second Press Commission suggested some safeguards to be provided in the Act, but legislature did not act.
”It was in this background that Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) took the matter to the Supreme Court, which agreed that “Telephone-tapping is a serious invasion of an individual’s privacy, and increasingly susceptible to abuse.” More importantly it held right to privacy is a part of the right to “life” and “personal liberty” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed also under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and when a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising this fundamental rights. This Court laid down that officials could pass an order of interception only after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. It is only when any of the five situations mentioned above to the satisfaction of the competent authority require that the said authority may pass the order for interception of messages by recording reasons in writing for doing so.
”Thus the Court emphasized that the security of ones privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is basic to a free society and enforceable against the state through the Courts. Lamenting the present position and noticing that though the Act was enacted in the year 1885, and the power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5 (2) has been exercised. Though conceding that it is entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded, against arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Act.
”The Court therefore gave certain directions under which alone telephone tapping could be done. It directed that telephone tapping order will not be issued except under authorization by Home Secretary of the Central Government or of the State Government. The order should indicate the kind of communication which is to be tapped. The order passed by the Home Secretary was to cease to have effect at the end of two months from the date of authority, though it could be renewed for six months.
”A further direction was also given that original order would have to be reviewed by Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, Law Secretary and Secretary for Telephone Communication at the Central level and also a Corresponding Committee at the state level and if it considers that there has been a contravention of Act it will set aside the order and also destroy copies of interception material. In the background of Constitutional violation one is amazed at the indifference and levity being shown in political circles.”
9. From his article, it is evident that the position laid down by the Supreme Court is as follows: Firstly, tapping can be authorized by the Home Secretary only in one of five specified situations; Secondly, a tapping could normally last for two months, but could be extended to about six months. There cannot be indefinite tapping nor can there be tapping off and on. Thirdly, the initial authorization of the Home Secretary has to be reviewed by a committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Telecom Secretary. If the initial order was found to be incorrect, it would be set aside and all intercepts under the incorrect order would be ordered to be destroyed.
10. The following questions arise from the tapping of the telephone conversations of Radia:
QUESTION No.1: When was the initial authorization by the Home Secretary to tap her telephone given?
QUESTION 2: What was its duration?
QUESTION 3: Did the tapping stop after the specified duration had ended or was it continued after the duration had expired? Who authorized the extension of the duration? Was a fresh complaint against her filed while seeking the extension giving a summary of the evidence collected against her, which called for a further extension?
QUESTION 4: Was a review of the initial order made by a committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary? Did it conclude that the initial authorisation and the subsequent interceptions were in order and in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court? If not, did it order the recordings and the transcripts to be destroyed?
11. These questions need to be gone into in detail during the enquiry ordered by the Prime Minister. One gets an impression that the entire case has been handled by the Government as well as the opposition and even the media with a certain levity to use an expression of Shri Sachar. This does not bode well for any exercise to prevent the misuse of the Government’s powers of interception of the communications of its citizens.
12. In their glee over the embarrassment caused to the Government and certain others by the unexplained leakage of the intercepts, the importance of ensuring that everything was done in accordance with the law has been overlooked. The right questions have not been asked. ( 15-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Monday, December 13, 2010
US INSULT TO INDIAN DIPLOMATS AT AIRPORTS
B.RAMAN
Even in the past, there had been instances of humiliating body searches of Indian diplomats and visiting dignitaries at US airports. The controversy over this has assumed serious dimensions following two recent incidents.
2. In the first incident reported on December 4,2010, Ms Meera Shankar, the Indian Ambassador to the US, was subjected to a hands-on (pat-down) body search at an airport in Mississippi, even after her diplomatic status had been revealed. She had been picked out of a security line at the Jackson-Evers International airport reportedly because she was wearing a sari. She was taken to a separate room and searched.
3. There was a similar incident ( date not clear, but reportedly two weeks ago) in which Hardeep Puri, the Indian Ambassador to the UN based in New York, was reportedly asked to remove his turban at an airport in Houston, Texas. When he refused to do so, he was detained in a "holding room" for about 30 minutes and was allowed to leave after a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official intervened. He reportedly declined to allow the security officials to subject him to a pat-down body research.
4.A pat-down search means patting the entire body from head to foot in order to see whether there is any concealed object attached to the body. The procedures provide for a pat-down of even genitals and breasts. Under new security procedures introduced earlier this year, airline passengers are required to undergo either a full body scan by an x-ray machine or a manual pat-down search. Anyone refusing to agree to one of them cannot board an aircraft.
5. This procedure was introduced after an incident on December 25,2009, in which a Nigerian student trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen tried unsuccessfully to blow up a US plane over Detroit. He had concealed an improvised explosive device (IED) inside his underwear and taken advantage of the fact that at the Amsterdam airport where he boarded the plane there was no full body scanner at the departure gate through which he boarded. Nor was there a provision for a pat-down search.
6. The introduction of the new procedure in the US has come in for criticism from the travelling public in the US. According to the BBC, President Barack Obama has reportedly told the TSA: "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety." The BBC has also quoted Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, as stating that she would not submit to a security pat-down "if I could avoid it". She added that everyone, "including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the travelling public" and that "striking the right balance is what this is about". Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesman, has said that the US airport security agency is "desperately" working to balance travellers' privacy concerns with security needs. Transportation Security Administration head John Pistole said in an interview to ABC television that there would be no short-term changes, but added: "What I'm doing is going back and looking at, are there less invasive ways of doing the same type of screening?" These remarks by Obama,Mrs.Clinton and other officials were in response to the criticism from the US travelling public and not in response to the protests from the Government of India over the two incidents mentioned above.
7. The response to the Indian protests has been typical ---with the State Department expressing its concern over the incident relating to Meera Shankar, but US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying that the pat-down search had been "appropriate".
8.These incidents draw attention once again to the differences that continue to prevail in the US between the State Department and the Homeland Security Department over courtesies to be extended to diplomats and visiting foreign dignitaries. While the State Department opposes such courtesies being sacrificed in the interest of security, the Homeland Security Department sticks to its position that the security of all passengers is paramount and that if a diplomat is to be subjected to the same procedures as others, so be it.
9. It remains to be seen whether there will be any improvement in the position in future as a result of the Indian protests. The conflict over diplomatic courtesies between Foreign Offices and the Security agencies is a global phenomenon. In Israel, there was a similar incident in 2007, when a senior British woman diplomat was subjected to body search by the Shin Bet security guards when she went to the Prime Minister's office. An interesting article on the subject carried by the Israeli daily "Haaretz" is annexed. (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/pmo-vows-changes-after-diplomat-is-strip-searched-1.217998 )
10. Public outrage in India over the US humiliation to Indian diplomats has led to demands for a tit-for-tat policy. This could become counter-productive and lead to a messy situation. Presently, the instructions to our Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which is responsible for airport security, is to treat all foreign diplomats---junior or senior-- and visiting foreign dignitaries with courtesy. As a result, India enjoys the reputation of treating foreign diplomats and dignitaries with the courtesies they are entitled to under the Vienna Convention. If we make an exception in the case of US diplomats and authorise the CISF to subject them to body searches under the rule of reciprocity of treatment, we may find it difficult to control the CISF if they adopt these procedures in the case of diplomats of other countries too.
11.We must look for some other dignified solution in consultation with the US State Department. One understands that in London's Heathrow Airport if diplomats book the VIP lounge in advance and proceed to the aircraft directly from the lounge accompanied by a representative of the airline, they are not searched. However, if they arrive late and proceed directly to the aircraft from their car, they have to go through normal security procedures. Something on these lines could be worked out. A posting on this from a Heathrow web site is also attached. ( (14-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE I
THE ISRAELI INCIDENT
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/pmo-vows-changes-after-diplomat-is-strip-searched-1.217998
* Published 13.04.07
PMO vows changes after diplomat is strip-searched
Far-reaching changes have been promised at the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to prevent a repeat of the incident where the deputy British ambassador was strip-searched by security officers on her way to a pre-arranged meeting at the PMO last month.
By Charlotte Halle
Far-reaching changes have been promised at the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to prevent a repeat of the incident where the deputy British ambassador was strip-searched by security officers on her way to a pre-arranged meeting at the PMO last month.
The incident incensed not only diplomats at the British embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli Foreign Ministry officials, who issued a formal apology following the incident, are said to be livid that their ongoing efforts to strengthen bilateral ties could be undermined by what they regard as overly rigorous and crudely handled security checks on diplomats. One diplomatic source suggested the Foreign Ministry leaked the story to the media in an effort to pressure the PMO into making sweeping changes to security procedures following the incident.
British Deputy Head of Mission and Consul General Janet Rogan was subjected to what the British embassy called an "intrusive security check" while accompanying a delegation of British treasury officials to a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, and senior policy advisor, Shalom Turgeman. PMO spokeswoman Miri Eisin said the inquiry into the incident had resulted in changes to procedures to accommodate the "special status of diplomats" when entering the PMO. A PMO insider told Anglo File these changes would be "drastic." Rogan's complaint also resulted in a formal apology from the PMO for the "indignity" of the incident.
While no one at the Foreign Ministry disputes the gravity of the task facing the Shin Bet security service at the PMO, ministry officials are frustrated that junior officers appear not to understand the importance of treating foreign diplomats sensitively or appreciate the system of diplomatic rankings. "They didn't understand, or even know, that such a senior diplomat - who serves as charge d'affaires - should not be physically checked at all," said one ministry source.
The incident, considered particularly embarrassing for Israel due to its wide coverage in the British and American press, did not surprise seasoned Israeli diplomats. One former Israeli ambassador described incidents during his tenure at the Foreign Ministry involving diplomats and foreign officials at the highest levels who were invited to Israel on official missions and yet endured lengthy security checks here that left them "furious."
"We always complained and it never made any difference," said the former ambassador, adding that even the intervention of senior politicians on the issue appeared ineffectual. He referred to the wife of a former European premier who possessed a diplomatic passport and vowed never to set foot again in Israel after her "humiliating" interrogation before flying out of Ben-Gurion airport despite an otherwise thrilling visit here. That episode reached the ears of then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin who ordered his staff to remedy the system. "Nothing came of it. Do you really think the prime minister can work against habits [entrenched] in this system? You have to go right to the top of the security system," added the former ambassador. "I really don't know why these things happen when everything is coordinated in advance. It's astonishing. It must be someone very stupid at a low level."
Others are reluctant to blame underlings in the security system. "It's too easy to put the blame on the shoulders of young men. Those who invite the guests are responsible for preventing these kinds of problems," said one Foreign Ministry source. But with reports circulating that the prime minister has on occasion left his office to greet high-ranking guests and ease their entry through security, this solution seems far from satisfactory.
No one familiar with the topic views the current situation or the Rogan incident as a sign of deterioration in the treatment of VIPs in Israel, but rather an indication of inherent flaws in the implementation of Israel's security systems.
A cursory survey of foreign embassies conducted this week by Anglo File found several missions whose staff has experienced at most only minor problems while passing through security. One European diplomat related that his foreign minister's visit to the PMO last year went "totally smoothly." The Czech embassy stated its staff had experienced almost no security-related problems. "If there are some difficulties we understand the security reasons are more important than small problems," said press attache Robert Rehak. One senior European diplomat pointed out that while diplomats working from his embassy in Tel Aviv experienced only minor problems, those based in his country's consulate in Jerusalem who make frequent trips to Gaza are subject to much closer scrutiny when inside Israel.
A few embassies had specific complaints when contacted by Anglo File. One Asian diplomat recalled an embassy staffer who, despite carrying official documents, was questioned by security officers at Ben-Gurion airport for so long that he missed his plane. He also mentioned that breakdowns in the system that provides special permits for diplomats to meet guests at the airport have resulted in "embarrassing" starts to visits to Israel.
All the embassies contacted view Rogan's case as unusual and grave, and several diplomats referred to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which grants diplomats and their families a range of privileges and immunities (subject to the host country's laws and regulations) and compels the host country to treat diplomats with "due respect" and prevent "any attack on his person, freedom or dignity." The convention also declares the personal baggage of a diplomat exempt from inspection barring exceptional circumstances.
"There's a general feeling that some people who work on the ground here just don't know the rules. It's an annoyance in your work," said one diplomat.
Foreign Ministry Chief of Protocol Yitzhak Eldan said there have been significantly less problems for diplomats and other VIPs at the airport since two ministry staffers were assigned to a special bureau there several years ago. He added that the Vienna Convention was formulated in a different era when security threats took a different form.
A couple of foreign diplomats mentioned that security checks on diplomats in their own countries have also caused friction in recent years. "It's not just an Israeli problem, it's a global problem. Balancing the needs of security and protocol are a continuing challenge in our daily work," said one diplomatic source.
Another foreign diplomat disagrees. "The rest of the world manages to conduct its security checks without treating diplomats and others the way Israel does. Why can't Israel get a handle on it? Israel's image abroad is so poor anyway and it simply plays right into that."
Janet Rogan was unwilling to comment but is said to be have been furious about the indignity caused by both the incident and its widespread coverage. The British embassy issued a statement saying the apology issued by the PMO has been accepted and the matter is regarded as closed.
ANNEXURE II
THE PROCEDURE IN LONDON'S HEATHROW AIRPORT
"Certain very high ranking people from the UK and other countries are not always required to pass through airport security checks. This is a well known policy and is competently managed by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) under the provisions of the Diplomatic List and under existing current diplomatic treaties and agreements. The same courtesy is afforded our own Royal Family members as well as certain other high ranking British Officials when they are in other countries. The FCO oversee much of this, in co-operation with Airport Security and the Home Office. The status of the individual using our airport facilities is the important issue regarding that person’s requirement to be screened and thereafter any subsequent exemption that may recommended by the FCO or Her Majesty’s Government. All other persons travelling with the dignitary, who have no such status, are required to be screened. There are other particular types of traveller who may be exempted from search but this is extremely rare and is beyond the scope of this discussion and therefore will not be commented on here. Additionally, all persons entering the airport terminal by means other than the four VIP Suites at Heathrow must present themselves for screening. It is interesting to note that the Australian airline, QANTAS, require all passengers, irrespective of status, to pass though a security check.
It is important to mention, at this point that security staff have no statutory right to search or seizure. We must obtain consent before we commence search procedures on all who pass though our security checks. However, after such consent is given, any attempt to circumvent or otherwise interfere with the search, is a criminal offence and could render the individual liable to arrest and subsequent prosecution. You always have a choice – but if you choose not to comply with security procedures you then have to turn around and leave – it’s as simple as that!
(http://www.heathrowairportsecurity.com/Heathrow_Security/ARCHIVES/Number%20Two%20-%20the%20Middle%20Eastern%20Diplomat.pdf
Even in the past, there had been instances of humiliating body searches of Indian diplomats and visiting dignitaries at US airports. The controversy over this has assumed serious dimensions following two recent incidents.
2. In the first incident reported on December 4,2010, Ms Meera Shankar, the Indian Ambassador to the US, was subjected to a hands-on (pat-down) body search at an airport in Mississippi, even after her diplomatic status had been revealed. She had been picked out of a security line at the Jackson-Evers International airport reportedly because she was wearing a sari. She was taken to a separate room and searched.
3. There was a similar incident ( date not clear, but reportedly two weeks ago) in which Hardeep Puri, the Indian Ambassador to the UN based in New York, was reportedly asked to remove his turban at an airport in Houston, Texas. When he refused to do so, he was detained in a "holding room" for about 30 minutes and was allowed to leave after a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) official intervened. He reportedly declined to allow the security officials to subject him to a pat-down body research.
4.A pat-down search means patting the entire body from head to foot in order to see whether there is any concealed object attached to the body. The procedures provide for a pat-down of even genitals and breasts. Under new security procedures introduced earlier this year, airline passengers are required to undergo either a full body scan by an x-ray machine or a manual pat-down search. Anyone refusing to agree to one of them cannot board an aircraft.
5. This procedure was introduced after an incident on December 25,2009, in which a Nigerian student trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen tried unsuccessfully to blow up a US plane over Detroit. He had concealed an improvised explosive device (IED) inside his underwear and taken advantage of the fact that at the Amsterdam airport where he boarded the plane there was no full body scanner at the departure gate through which he boarded. Nor was there a provision for a pat-down search.
6. The introduction of the new procedure in the US has come in for criticism from the travelling public in the US. According to the BBC, President Barack Obama has reportedly told the TSA: "You have to constantly refine and measure whether what we're doing is the only way to assure the American people's safety." The BBC has also quoted Mrs.Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, as stating that she would not submit to a security pat-down "if I could avoid it". She added that everyone, "including our security experts, are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the travelling public" and that "striking the right balance is what this is about". Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesman, has said that the US airport security agency is "desperately" working to balance travellers' privacy concerns with security needs. Transportation Security Administration head John Pistole said in an interview to ABC television that there would be no short-term changes, but added: "What I'm doing is going back and looking at, are there less invasive ways of doing the same type of screening?" These remarks by Obama,Mrs.Clinton and other officials were in response to the criticism from the US travelling public and not in response to the protests from the Government of India over the two incidents mentioned above.
7. The response to the Indian protests has been typical ---with the State Department expressing its concern over the incident relating to Meera Shankar, but US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying that the pat-down search had been "appropriate".
8.These incidents draw attention once again to the differences that continue to prevail in the US between the State Department and the Homeland Security Department over courtesies to be extended to diplomats and visiting foreign dignitaries. While the State Department opposes such courtesies being sacrificed in the interest of security, the Homeland Security Department sticks to its position that the security of all passengers is paramount and that if a diplomat is to be subjected to the same procedures as others, so be it.
9. It remains to be seen whether there will be any improvement in the position in future as a result of the Indian protests. The conflict over diplomatic courtesies between Foreign Offices and the Security agencies is a global phenomenon. In Israel, there was a similar incident in 2007, when a senior British woman diplomat was subjected to body search by the Shin Bet security guards when she went to the Prime Minister's office. An interesting article on the subject carried by the Israeli daily "Haaretz" is annexed. (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/pmo-vows-changes-after-diplomat-is-strip-searched-1.217998 )
10. Public outrage in India over the US humiliation to Indian diplomats has led to demands for a tit-for-tat policy. This could become counter-productive and lead to a messy situation. Presently, the instructions to our Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), which is responsible for airport security, is to treat all foreign diplomats---junior or senior-- and visiting foreign dignitaries with courtesy. As a result, India enjoys the reputation of treating foreign diplomats and dignitaries with the courtesies they are entitled to under the Vienna Convention. If we make an exception in the case of US diplomats and authorise the CISF to subject them to body searches under the rule of reciprocity of treatment, we may find it difficult to control the CISF if they adopt these procedures in the case of diplomats of other countries too.
11.We must look for some other dignified solution in consultation with the US State Department. One understands that in London's Heathrow Airport if diplomats book the VIP lounge in advance and proceed to the aircraft directly from the lounge accompanied by a representative of the airline, they are not searched. However, if they arrive late and proceed directly to the aircraft from their car, they have to go through normal security procedures. Something on these lines could be worked out. A posting on this from a Heathrow web site is also attached. ( (14-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE I
THE ISRAELI INCIDENT
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/anglo-file/pmo-vows-changes-after-diplomat-is-strip-searched-1.217998
* Published 13.04.07
PMO vows changes after diplomat is strip-searched
Far-reaching changes have been promised at the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to prevent a repeat of the incident where the deputy British ambassador was strip-searched by security officers on her way to a pre-arranged meeting at the PMO last month.
By Charlotte Halle
Far-reaching changes have been promised at the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) to prevent a repeat of the incident where the deputy British ambassador was strip-searched by security officers on her way to a pre-arranged meeting at the PMO last month.
The incident incensed not only diplomats at the British embassy in Tel Aviv. Israeli Foreign Ministry officials, who issued a formal apology following the incident, are said to be livid that their ongoing efforts to strengthen bilateral ties could be undermined by what they regard as overly rigorous and crudely handled security checks on diplomats. One diplomatic source suggested the Foreign Ministry leaked the story to the media in an effort to pressure the PMO into making sweeping changes to security procedures following the incident.
British Deputy Head of Mission and Consul General Janet Rogan was subjected to what the British embassy called an "intrusive security check" while accompanying a delegation of British treasury officials to a meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's chief of staff, Yoram Turbowicz, and senior policy advisor, Shalom Turgeman. PMO spokeswoman Miri Eisin said the inquiry into the incident had resulted in changes to procedures to accommodate the "special status of diplomats" when entering the PMO. A PMO insider told Anglo File these changes would be "drastic." Rogan's complaint also resulted in a formal apology from the PMO for the "indignity" of the incident.
While no one at the Foreign Ministry disputes the gravity of the task facing the Shin Bet security service at the PMO, ministry officials are frustrated that junior officers appear not to understand the importance of treating foreign diplomats sensitively or appreciate the system of diplomatic rankings. "They didn't understand, or even know, that such a senior diplomat - who serves as charge d'affaires - should not be physically checked at all," said one ministry source.
The incident, considered particularly embarrassing for Israel due to its wide coverage in the British and American press, did not surprise seasoned Israeli diplomats. One former Israeli ambassador described incidents during his tenure at the Foreign Ministry involving diplomats and foreign officials at the highest levels who were invited to Israel on official missions and yet endured lengthy security checks here that left them "furious."
"We always complained and it never made any difference," said the former ambassador, adding that even the intervention of senior politicians on the issue appeared ineffectual. He referred to the wife of a former European premier who possessed a diplomatic passport and vowed never to set foot again in Israel after her "humiliating" interrogation before flying out of Ben-Gurion airport despite an otherwise thrilling visit here. That episode reached the ears of then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin who ordered his staff to remedy the system. "Nothing came of it. Do you really think the prime minister can work against habits [entrenched] in this system? You have to go right to the top of the security system," added the former ambassador. "I really don't know why these things happen when everything is coordinated in advance. It's astonishing. It must be someone very stupid at a low level."
Others are reluctant to blame underlings in the security system. "It's too easy to put the blame on the shoulders of young men. Those who invite the guests are responsible for preventing these kinds of problems," said one Foreign Ministry source. But with reports circulating that the prime minister has on occasion left his office to greet high-ranking guests and ease their entry through security, this solution seems far from satisfactory.
No one familiar with the topic views the current situation or the Rogan incident as a sign of deterioration in the treatment of VIPs in Israel, but rather an indication of inherent flaws in the implementation of Israel's security systems.
A cursory survey of foreign embassies conducted this week by Anglo File found several missions whose staff has experienced at most only minor problems while passing through security. One European diplomat related that his foreign minister's visit to the PMO last year went "totally smoothly." The Czech embassy stated its staff had experienced almost no security-related problems. "If there are some difficulties we understand the security reasons are more important than small problems," said press attache Robert Rehak. One senior European diplomat pointed out that while diplomats working from his embassy in Tel Aviv experienced only minor problems, those based in his country's consulate in Jerusalem who make frequent trips to Gaza are subject to much closer scrutiny when inside Israel.
A few embassies had specific complaints when contacted by Anglo File. One Asian diplomat recalled an embassy staffer who, despite carrying official documents, was questioned by security officers at Ben-Gurion airport for so long that he missed his plane. He also mentioned that breakdowns in the system that provides special permits for diplomats to meet guests at the airport have resulted in "embarrassing" starts to visits to Israel.
All the embassies contacted view Rogan's case as unusual and grave, and several diplomats referred to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which grants diplomats and their families a range of privileges and immunities (subject to the host country's laws and regulations) and compels the host country to treat diplomats with "due respect" and prevent "any attack on his person, freedom or dignity." The convention also declares the personal baggage of a diplomat exempt from inspection barring exceptional circumstances.
"There's a general feeling that some people who work on the ground here just don't know the rules. It's an annoyance in your work," said one diplomat.
Foreign Ministry Chief of Protocol Yitzhak Eldan said there have been significantly less problems for diplomats and other VIPs at the airport since two ministry staffers were assigned to a special bureau there several years ago. He added that the Vienna Convention was formulated in a different era when security threats took a different form.
A couple of foreign diplomats mentioned that security checks on diplomats in their own countries have also caused friction in recent years. "It's not just an Israeli problem, it's a global problem. Balancing the needs of security and protocol are a continuing challenge in our daily work," said one diplomatic source.
Another foreign diplomat disagrees. "The rest of the world manages to conduct its security checks without treating diplomats and others the way Israel does. Why can't Israel get a handle on it? Israel's image abroad is so poor anyway and it simply plays right into that."
Janet Rogan was unwilling to comment but is said to be have been furious about the indignity caused by both the incident and its widespread coverage. The British embassy issued a statement saying the apology issued by the PMO has been accepted and the matter is regarded as closed.
ANNEXURE II
THE PROCEDURE IN LONDON'S HEATHROW AIRPORT
"Certain very high ranking people from the UK and other countries are not always required to pass through airport security checks. This is a well known policy and is competently managed by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) under the provisions of the Diplomatic List and under existing current diplomatic treaties and agreements. The same courtesy is afforded our own Royal Family members as well as certain other high ranking British Officials when they are in other countries. The FCO oversee much of this, in co-operation with Airport Security and the Home Office. The status of the individual using our airport facilities is the important issue regarding that person’s requirement to be screened and thereafter any subsequent exemption that may recommended by the FCO or Her Majesty’s Government. All other persons travelling with the dignitary, who have no such status, are required to be screened. There are other particular types of traveller who may be exempted from search but this is extremely rare and is beyond the scope of this discussion and therefore will not be commented on here. Additionally, all persons entering the airport terminal by means other than the four VIP Suites at Heathrow must present themselves for screening. It is interesting to note that the Australian airline, QANTAS, require all passengers, irrespective of status, to pass though a security check.
It is important to mention, at this point that security staff have no statutory right to search or seizure. We must obtain consent before we commence search procedures on all who pass though our security checks. However, after such consent is given, any attempt to circumvent or otherwise interfere with the search, is a criminal offence and could render the individual liable to arrest and subsequent prosecution. You always have a choice – but if you choose not to comply with security procedures you then have to turn around and leave – it’s as simple as that!
(http://www.heathrowairportsecurity.com/Heathrow_Security/ARCHIVES/Number%20Two%20-%20the%20Middle%20Eastern%20Diplomat.pdf
CHINESE OVERTURES TO INDIA---DESPITE OSLO
B.RAMAN
India’s decision to attend the function at Oslo on December 10,2010, to award in absentia the Nobel peace prize to Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, presently in jail in China, has not had any impact on the plans of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to visit India from December 15 to 17.
2. Jiang Yu, a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, announced on December 12 that Wen Jiabao will pay official visits to India and Pakistan from Wednesday to Sunday and that during his visit to India Wen will attend activities marking the 60th anniversary of China-India diplomatic ties. The spokesperson added that in Pakistan, Wen will attend a China-Pakistan business summit and meet people who have contributed to the friendship of the two countries.
3. In a media briefing on December 13, Liang Wenzhao, Deputy Director of the Department of Asian Affairs of China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), said that China and India are expected to sign a series of economic and trade agreements during Wen’s visit to India. He said that the bilateral cooperation agreements would cover trade, renewable energy, infrastructure and finance. He declined to confirm the specific value of the agreements, saying they were still under negotiation and would be formally released during Wen's visit. More than 100 senior representatives from Chinese business community will be accompanying Wen.
4.Liang acknowledged that the trade imbalance had been a "factual issue" concerning the bilateral trade. He added that China had never pursued a trade surplus and that the problem was caused by the economic structures of the two nations and their export orientations. The Chinese Government had been taking measures to expand imports from India to balance bilateral trade, Liang said.
5.According to official Chinese statistics, China is India's largest trade partner with two-way trade rising from $18.7 billion in 2005 to $51.8 billion in 2008. The bilateral trade value is expected to reach $60 billion this year.
6.Liang urged Indian companies to increase investments in China and actively participate in Chinese trade fairs to promote their products, so that they could benefit from China's rocketing economic growth. China's market was always open to foreign products, including those from India, Liang said. China's markets were open to more Indian products, especially from the information technology industry.
7. As part of the preparations for Wen’s visit to Pakistan, a meeting of the Pak-China Joint Committee on Economic, Trade, Scientific and Technical Cooperation (JEC) was held in Islamabad. It was indicated after the meeting that China has agreed to extend co-operation in 36 development projects worth $13.2 billion related to industry, water, energy, agriculture, fisheries and communications. The meeting also discussed ways to increase bilateral trade which is presently estimated at US $ 6.2 billion per annum.
8. Addressing the Chinese delegation to the meeting on December 2,Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani thanked the Chinese Government for the timely assistance for the flood affected people. He was quoted as saying that Pakistan would appreciate it if the Chinese assistance programme got gelled with Pakistan’s National Strategy for the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the flood affected areas covering all the four provinces as well as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, including Gilgit Baltistan. Gao Hucheng, the leader of the Chinese delegation, reportedly said that China would like to participate in the reconstruction phase in all areas of Pakistan. According to Pakistani media reports, he particularly mentioned the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway in this regard.
9. Gilani, who visited Kabul on December 4, told Pakistani media personnel accompanying him that President Hamid Karzai has endorsed the concept of trilateral trade relations involving Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. He added that this would be discussed with Wen during his visit to Pakistan. Islamabad is keen to have similar trilateral economic relations involving Pakistan, China and Sri Lanka. This was one of the subjects reportedly discussed during President Asif Ali Zardari’s recent visit to Sri Lanka. ( 13-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary ( retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
India’s decision to attend the function at Oslo on December 10,2010, to award in absentia the Nobel peace prize to Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, presently in jail in China, has not had any impact on the plans of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to visit India from December 15 to 17.
2. Jiang Yu, a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, announced on December 12 that Wen Jiabao will pay official visits to India and Pakistan from Wednesday to Sunday and that during his visit to India Wen will attend activities marking the 60th anniversary of China-India diplomatic ties. The spokesperson added that in Pakistan, Wen will attend a China-Pakistan business summit and meet people who have contributed to the friendship of the two countries.
3. In a media briefing on December 13, Liang Wenzhao, Deputy Director of the Department of Asian Affairs of China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), said that China and India are expected to sign a series of economic and trade agreements during Wen’s visit to India. He said that the bilateral cooperation agreements would cover trade, renewable energy, infrastructure and finance. He declined to confirm the specific value of the agreements, saying they were still under negotiation and would be formally released during Wen's visit. More than 100 senior representatives from Chinese business community will be accompanying Wen.
4.Liang acknowledged that the trade imbalance had been a "factual issue" concerning the bilateral trade. He added that China had never pursued a trade surplus and that the problem was caused by the economic structures of the two nations and their export orientations. The Chinese Government had been taking measures to expand imports from India to balance bilateral trade, Liang said.
5.According to official Chinese statistics, China is India's largest trade partner with two-way trade rising from $18.7 billion in 2005 to $51.8 billion in 2008. The bilateral trade value is expected to reach $60 billion this year.
6.Liang urged Indian companies to increase investments in China and actively participate in Chinese trade fairs to promote their products, so that they could benefit from China's rocketing economic growth. China's market was always open to foreign products, including those from India, Liang said. China's markets were open to more Indian products, especially from the information technology industry.
7. As part of the preparations for Wen’s visit to Pakistan, a meeting of the Pak-China Joint Committee on Economic, Trade, Scientific and Technical Cooperation (JEC) was held in Islamabad. It was indicated after the meeting that China has agreed to extend co-operation in 36 development projects worth $13.2 billion related to industry, water, energy, agriculture, fisheries and communications. The meeting also discussed ways to increase bilateral trade which is presently estimated at US $ 6.2 billion per annum.
8. Addressing the Chinese delegation to the meeting on December 2,Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani thanked the Chinese Government for the timely assistance for the flood affected people. He was quoted as saying that Pakistan would appreciate it if the Chinese assistance programme got gelled with Pakistan’s National Strategy for the Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the flood affected areas covering all the four provinces as well as Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, including Gilgit Baltistan. Gao Hucheng, the leader of the Chinese delegation, reportedly said that China would like to participate in the reconstruction phase in all areas of Pakistan. According to Pakistani media reports, he particularly mentioned the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway in this regard.
9. Gilani, who visited Kabul on December 4, told Pakistani media personnel accompanying him that President Hamid Karzai has endorsed the concept of trilateral trade relations involving Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. He added that this would be discussed with Wen during his visit to Pakistan. Islamabad is keen to have similar trilateral economic relations involving Pakistan, China and Sri Lanka. This was one of the subjects reportedly discussed during President Asif Ali Zardari’s recent visit to Sri Lanka. ( 13-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary ( retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A PERSONAL NOTE
Am ill due to a food infection after having eaten in a New Delhi restaurant on December 10.My recovery has been somewhat slow.This could affect my output for a couple of days---B.Raman
BLASTS IN STOCKHOLM---NEED TO INVESTIGATE 313 BRIGADE
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR---PAPER NO. 698
( To be read in continuation of my articles of April 3,2010, titled WAS JIHAD JANE A RECRUIT OF LASHKAR-E-TOIBA? International Terrorism Monitor- Paper N0. 638 at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers38%5Cpaper3745.html and of May 23,2010,titled “PAKISTAN: Stoking Jihadi Anger Against US, Sweden -- International Terrorism Monitor --- Paper No. 652” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3826.html )
According to media reports, one person was killed and two others were injured in two incidents in Stockholm, the Swedish capital, on December 11,2010.A car blew up near a crowded shopping street followed by another blast nearby about a few minutes later. The Swedish press attributed the second blast to a suicide bomber, but police said no cause had yet been determined. Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, said a "terrorist attack" which could have been "truly catastrophic" had failed.
2.A local news agency, TT, said it had received a threatening e-mail in Swedish and Arabic languages shortly before the blasts, which called for "mujahideen", or Islamist fighters, to rise up in Sweden and Europe. The e-mail reportedly denounced the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed drawn by Swedish artist Lars Vilks and Sweden's military presence in Afghanistan. It warned: “"Our acts will speak for themselves. Now your children, your daughters and your sisters will die as our brothers, our sisters and our children are dying." TT said a similar message had been sent to the Swedish Security Service SAPO.
3.Unconfirmed reports in Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper said the dead man in the second blast was carrying pipe bombs, as well as a backpack full of nails. According to a police spokesperson, the car involved in the first incident had contained gas canisters and had "exploded with a series of minor explosions".
4.On March 4,2010, the USA’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had indicted Colleen La Rose also known as Jihad Jane and Fatima La Rose, on a charge of involvement in a conspiracy to kill a Swedish cartoonist who had drawn a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad in his paper. An FBI press release on the indictment said:
"The indictment charges that La Rose (an American citizen born in 1963 who resides in Montgomery County, Pa.) and five unindicted co-conspirators (located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States) recruited men on the Internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad.
"The indictment further charges that La Rose and her unindicted co-conspirators used the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate regarding their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions (through the collection of passports and through marriage) in order to wage violent jihad. The indictment further charges that La Rose stole another individual’s U.S. passport and transferred or attempted to transfer it in an effort to facilitate an act of international terrorism.
"In addition, according to the indictment, La Rose received a direct order to kill a citizen and resident of Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar [non-believer] world." The indictment further charges that La Rose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend in while carrying out her plans. According to the indictment, La Rose traveled to Europe and tracked the intended target online in an effort to complete her task."
5.In June 2008, Jihad Jane had posted a comment on YouTube saying she was “desperate to do something somehow to help” suffering Muslims. According to the FBI indictment, she appeared to have been contacted by the jihadis thereafter. The indictment charged that she received a direct order to kill a Swedish resident. She traveled to Sweden and tracked the target with the intent of carrying out the murder. The FBI identified the target as cartoonist Lars Vilks. In an e-mail message to a co-conspirator, she wrote that she would pursue her mission “till I achieve it or die trying,” according to the indictment. The indictment accused her of agreeing, in March 2009, to marry a co-conspirator from a South Asian country who was trying to obtain residency in Europe. He allegedly urged her to go to Sweden, find the Swedish man "and kill him". The indictment claimed she tried to raise money over the internet, lure others to her cause, and lied to FBI investigators.
6. According to US media reports, she was also linked to an online organization Revolutionmuslim.com -- where she was a subscriber, again using the name Jihad Jane. The site was run by an American Muslim, who had made the following posting after she was indicted: "Sisters -- please consider sending her [La Rose] a message of support and hope and let's remind her she isn't alone. It's likely she's the only Muslimah there. As always, use discretion when writing, don't ask pointed questions, and of course don't say anything that could create problems for her or yourselves."
7.The case of Jihad Jane bore a close resemblance to that of David Coleman Headley, of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) She was a volunteer for jihad who was recruited by an unidentified person in South Asia through the Internet and given the task of killing the Swedish cartoonist, just as Ilyas Kashmiri of the 313 Brigade of Pakistan, allied to Al Qaeda, had initially tasked Headley through the Internet to kill the Danish cartoonist, who had published cartoons of the Prophet in a Danish paper in 2005. Headley subsequently met Ilyas in North Waziristan. There was no indication that Jihad Jane had met her South Asian recruit to whom she got engaged without ever having met him.
8. Whoever initially recruited Headley and Jihad Jane seemed to have done so for two reasons. Firstly, both of them had typical physical features of a White American. They did not look like Muslims and could , therefore, easily evade profiling. Headley looked a typical White despite his mixed Pakistani-White origin. Jihad Jane is a typical White with no mixed blood. Secondly, both of them are US nationals with valid US passports with which they could travel easily without facing difficulties in obtaining visas and in going through immigration controls.
9. Both of them had been given double tasks. Headley was given the tasks of facilitating the operations of the LET in India and attacking the office of the Danish paper in Copenhagen with the help of sleeper cells in Europe to which Ilyas had given introduction. Headley had played an active role in helping the LET in carrying out the terrorist strikes in Mumbai between November 26 and 29,2008. Jihad Jane had the dual task of killing the Swedish cartoonist with the help of Ireland-based contacts in Europe and organising acts of terrorism in South Asia. In the evidence against her, the reference was to South Asia and not specifically to India.
10.The FBI revealed the nationalities of her seven accomplices who were picked up in Ireland, but not their identifying particulars. Of the seven arrested in Ireland two are Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian, and an American woman married to one of the two arrested Algerians. The FBI documents did not say anything about her South Asian fiancee. They were silent even about his nationality. He was described as a man who claimed that he knew how to work with bombs and explosives.
11. During four days of demonstrations in different cities of Pakistan in the third week of May last over what many Muslims regarded as a blasphemous contest on sketches of Prophet Mohammad sought to be organised by one of the users of Facebook----his controversial page which sparked the anger in Pakistan was later removed by Facebook---- religious parties and jihadi organisations associated with Al Qaeda and the Talibans directed the anger against the US and Sweden because of the alleged caricatures of the Holy Prophet, which they alleged, had inspired the person who called for the blasphemous contest on Facebook.
12.During the demonstrations, slogans were shouted against the US and Sweden, US and Swedish flags were burnt and calls were issued by religious clerics for the death of the Swedish cartoonist. A ruling by the Lahore High Court calling for blocking the site of Facebook also added to the anger of pro-Al Qaeda elements because it sought to project the US as partly responsible for the perceived insult to the Prophet. It claimed that Facebook operated from the US and was subject to US laws and regulations. The US had, therefore, a responsibility to act against it.
13. The blasts in Stockholm coming in the wake of what has been stated above indicate a possible link to the so-called 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri. In his communications with Headley, Ilyas had claimed to know people in Europe who could assist Headley in attacking the office of the Danish newspaper in Copenhagen. Who are those people? Did they have any role in the Stockholm blasts? Those are among the questions to be investigated by the police. (13-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
( To be read in continuation of my articles of April 3,2010, titled WAS JIHAD JANE A RECRUIT OF LASHKAR-E-TOIBA? International Terrorism Monitor- Paper N0. 638 at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers38%5Cpaper3745.html and of May 23,2010,titled “PAKISTAN: Stoking Jihadi Anger Against US, Sweden -- International Terrorism Monitor --- Paper No. 652” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3826.html )
According to media reports, one person was killed and two others were injured in two incidents in Stockholm, the Swedish capital, on December 11,2010.A car blew up near a crowded shopping street followed by another blast nearby about a few minutes later. The Swedish press attributed the second blast to a suicide bomber, but police said no cause had yet been determined. Carl Bildt, the Swedish Foreign Minister, said a "terrorist attack" which could have been "truly catastrophic" had failed.
2.A local news agency, TT, said it had received a threatening e-mail in Swedish and Arabic languages shortly before the blasts, which called for "mujahideen", or Islamist fighters, to rise up in Sweden and Europe. The e-mail reportedly denounced the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed drawn by Swedish artist Lars Vilks and Sweden's military presence in Afghanistan. It warned: “"Our acts will speak for themselves. Now your children, your daughters and your sisters will die as our brothers, our sisters and our children are dying." TT said a similar message had been sent to the Swedish Security Service SAPO.
3.Unconfirmed reports in Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper said the dead man in the second blast was carrying pipe bombs, as well as a backpack full of nails. According to a police spokesperson, the car involved in the first incident had contained gas canisters and had "exploded with a series of minor explosions".
4.On March 4,2010, the USA’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had indicted Colleen La Rose also known as Jihad Jane and Fatima La Rose, on a charge of involvement in a conspiracy to kill a Swedish cartoonist who had drawn a cartoon of Prophet Mohammad in his paper. An FBI press release on the indictment said:
"The indictment charges that La Rose (an American citizen born in 1963 who resides in Montgomery County, Pa.) and five unindicted co-conspirators (located in South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the United States) recruited men on the Internet to wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the Internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe in support of violent jihad.
"The indictment further charges that La Rose and her unindicted co-conspirators used the Internet to establish relationships with one another and to communicate regarding their plans, which included martyring themselves, soliciting funds for terrorists, soliciting passports and avoiding travel restrictions (through the collection of passports and through marriage) in order to wage violent jihad. The indictment further charges that La Rose stole another individual’s U.S. passport and transferred or attempted to transfer it in an effort to facilitate an act of international terrorism.
"In addition, according to the indictment, La Rose received a direct order to kill a citizen and resident of Sweden, and to do so in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar [non-believer] world." The indictment further charges that La Rose agreed to carry out her murder assignment, and that she and her co-conspirators discussed that her appearance and American citizenship would help her blend in while carrying out her plans. According to the indictment, La Rose traveled to Europe and tracked the intended target online in an effort to complete her task."
5.In June 2008, Jihad Jane had posted a comment on YouTube saying she was “desperate to do something somehow to help” suffering Muslims. According to the FBI indictment, she appeared to have been contacted by the jihadis thereafter. The indictment charged that she received a direct order to kill a Swedish resident. She traveled to Sweden and tracked the target with the intent of carrying out the murder. The FBI identified the target as cartoonist Lars Vilks. In an e-mail message to a co-conspirator, she wrote that she would pursue her mission “till I achieve it or die trying,” according to the indictment. The indictment accused her of agreeing, in March 2009, to marry a co-conspirator from a South Asian country who was trying to obtain residency in Europe. He allegedly urged her to go to Sweden, find the Swedish man "and kill him". The indictment claimed she tried to raise money over the internet, lure others to her cause, and lied to FBI investigators.
6. According to US media reports, she was also linked to an online organization Revolutionmuslim.com -- where she was a subscriber, again using the name Jihad Jane. The site was run by an American Muslim, who had made the following posting after she was indicted: "Sisters -- please consider sending her [La Rose] a message of support and hope and let's remind her she isn't alone. It's likely she's the only Muslimah there. As always, use discretion when writing, don't ask pointed questions, and of course don't say anything that could create problems for her or yourselves."
7.The case of Jihad Jane bore a close resemblance to that of David Coleman Headley, of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) She was a volunteer for jihad who was recruited by an unidentified person in South Asia through the Internet and given the task of killing the Swedish cartoonist, just as Ilyas Kashmiri of the 313 Brigade of Pakistan, allied to Al Qaeda, had initially tasked Headley through the Internet to kill the Danish cartoonist, who had published cartoons of the Prophet in a Danish paper in 2005. Headley subsequently met Ilyas in North Waziristan. There was no indication that Jihad Jane had met her South Asian recruit to whom she got engaged without ever having met him.
8. Whoever initially recruited Headley and Jihad Jane seemed to have done so for two reasons. Firstly, both of them had typical physical features of a White American. They did not look like Muslims and could , therefore, easily evade profiling. Headley looked a typical White despite his mixed Pakistani-White origin. Jihad Jane is a typical White with no mixed blood. Secondly, both of them are US nationals with valid US passports with which they could travel easily without facing difficulties in obtaining visas and in going through immigration controls.
9. Both of them had been given double tasks. Headley was given the tasks of facilitating the operations of the LET in India and attacking the office of the Danish paper in Copenhagen with the help of sleeper cells in Europe to which Ilyas had given introduction. Headley had played an active role in helping the LET in carrying out the terrorist strikes in Mumbai between November 26 and 29,2008. Jihad Jane had the dual task of killing the Swedish cartoonist with the help of Ireland-based contacts in Europe and organising acts of terrorism in South Asia. In the evidence against her, the reference was to South Asia and not specifically to India.
10.The FBI revealed the nationalities of her seven accomplices who were picked up in Ireland, but not their identifying particulars. Of the seven arrested in Ireland two are Algerians, two Libyans, a Palestinian, a Croatian, and an American woman married to one of the two arrested Algerians. The FBI documents did not say anything about her South Asian fiancee. They were silent even about his nationality. He was described as a man who claimed that he knew how to work with bombs and explosives.
11. During four days of demonstrations in different cities of Pakistan in the third week of May last over what many Muslims regarded as a blasphemous contest on sketches of Prophet Mohammad sought to be organised by one of the users of Facebook----his controversial page which sparked the anger in Pakistan was later removed by Facebook---- religious parties and jihadi organisations associated with Al Qaeda and the Talibans directed the anger against the US and Sweden because of the alleged caricatures of the Holy Prophet, which they alleged, had inspired the person who called for the blasphemous contest on Facebook.
12.During the demonstrations, slogans were shouted against the US and Sweden, US and Swedish flags were burnt and calls were issued by religious clerics for the death of the Swedish cartoonist. A ruling by the Lahore High Court calling for blocking the site of Facebook also added to the anger of pro-Al Qaeda elements because it sought to project the US as partly responsible for the perceived insult to the Prophet. It claimed that Facebook operated from the US and was subject to US laws and regulations. The US had, therefore, a responsibility to act against it.
13. The blasts in Stockholm coming in the wake of what has been stated above indicate a possible link to the so-called 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri. In his communications with Headley, Ilyas had claimed to know people in Europe who could assist Headley in attacking the office of the Danish newspaper in Copenhagen. Who are those people? Did they have any role in the Stockholm blasts? Those are among the questions to be investigated by the police. (13-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, December 9, 2010
OSLO: CHINA COMING TO TERMS WITH REALITY
B.RAMAN
After having waged a high-pressure campaign to enforce a boycott of the Oslo function on December 10 to honour in absentia Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese human rights activist who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee this year, Beijing is coming to terms with the reality that its campaign has not had the expected success and that its bullying tactics to enforce a boycott has failed except in Asia. Of the 65 countries with a diplomatic presence in Oslo, only 19 have so far agreed to join the boycott. The remaining 46 have reportedly informed the Nobel Committee that they will be attending the function.
2. Embarrassed by this, Beijing has been projecting its campaign as a success. It has claimed that over 100 countries have agreed to boycott the function. In reaching this number, it has apparently included countries with no diplomatic presence in Oslo, who have not been invited and who would not have attended anyhow.
3. Having held out threats of retaliation against countries which attend the function, the Chinese are now showing signs of lowering the rhetoric. In an article carried on December 10, the party-controlled "Global Times" has said: "Shi Yinhong, a researcher at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, said, "The 19 countries are making independent decisions on their own. It has done harm to the bilateral relations between China and Norway. But China's expressing of discontent with Norway on this specific issue does not represent the long-term direction that China will adopt toward Norway," Shi said."
4 The Chinese were till now warning of an adverse impact on China's relations with countries which attend the function. They are now practically saying: "Not necessarily". Despite the high-profile US interest in the function, the Chinese are going ahead with their plans to receive Mr.Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, in Beijing next month, thus terminating their suspension of military-military relations with the US in protest against the intended US sale of another consignment of military equipment to Taiwan.( 10-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
After having waged a high-pressure campaign to enforce a boycott of the Oslo function on December 10 to honour in absentia Liu Xiaobo, the Chinese human rights activist who has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee this year, Beijing is coming to terms with the reality that its campaign has not had the expected success and that its bullying tactics to enforce a boycott has failed except in Asia. Of the 65 countries with a diplomatic presence in Oslo, only 19 have so far agreed to join the boycott. The remaining 46 have reportedly informed the Nobel Committee that they will be attending the function.
2. Embarrassed by this, Beijing has been projecting its campaign as a success. It has claimed that over 100 countries have agreed to boycott the function. In reaching this number, it has apparently included countries with no diplomatic presence in Oslo, who have not been invited and who would not have attended anyhow.
3. Having held out threats of retaliation against countries which attend the function, the Chinese are now showing signs of lowering the rhetoric. In an article carried on December 10, the party-controlled "Global Times" has said: "Shi Yinhong, a researcher at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, said, "The 19 countries are making independent decisions on their own. It has done harm to the bilateral relations between China and Norway. But China's expressing of discontent with Norway on this specific issue does not represent the long-term direction that China will adopt toward Norway," Shi said."
4 The Chinese were till now warning of an adverse impact on China's relations with countries which attend the function. They are now practically saying: "Not necessarily". Despite the high-profile US interest in the function, the Chinese are going ahead with their plans to receive Mr.Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, in Beijing next month, thus terminating their suspension of military-military relations with the US in protest against the intended US sale of another consignment of military equipment to Taiwan.( 10-12-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)