English Translation of Zaid Hamid Interview from Azan TV

Translation and introduction by GrandeStrategy Staff Rough translation of an interview with Zaid Hamid, a hugely popular Pakistani thinker / analyst / television personality/ Muslim leader and former Mujahideen in Afghanistan who is not particularly known outside Pakistan because his work has been largely in the Urdu language. He is leading a movement that looks to establish an independent and Islamic Pakistan and one of the key people who could be instrumental in establishing an enlightened Islamic state in Pakistan. Transcript is from an exclusive interview on Azaan TV with Zaid Hamid on views related to security threats to Muslims and Pakistanis.

An interview with Zaid Hamid 

Many questions, a few gave me list to ask, can’t cover everyone, but whoever we can.. Firstly, people have many problems with your religious background (aqeeda), and with respect to affililiations, What would you have to say to these issues? Zaid: Adeel, ma’shallah, we have been in the media for over 2 – 2 ½ years. Over 2 ½ hundred programs, and also lectures, meetings, etc in large numbers, and in all this, our enemies have never said that we have said anything against the Quran and Sunnah. This is the biggest challenge, our biggest argument. In fact, in all our messages, we talk of love of the Prophet (peace be upon him), love of Pakistan, love of Muslim Ummah, Pakistan’s defense… exposing the kufar.. challenging the kufar head on, and whatever axis there is of the Muslims.. whether our social / political / judicial system, liberate Muslim lands, by Allah’s Mercy, we are attempting to work for it.. We don’t understand why some people would say (n’auzu b’illah) that we are working for the agencies, we are Qadiani, that we don’t believe in the end of the line of prophets, we want to know what we have said that would lead to such conclusions. By the Grace of Allah, our message is expanding, and people from around the world are listening and accepting our ideas… The people who speak against us are faceless and nameless, when people are asked they say that they read this on the web.. and to this day, no one has come out to say this. Such people do not meet the requirements of Shariah (in their allegations) nor do they accept the requirements of the legal system of the country. No one to this day has come up and said these to us directly.. And we know who these people are.. since we have been exposing kufar.. we have figured out the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the Zionists in this government, Kufar’s exploitative interest based system, who are fighting against Allah and his Prophet (peace be upon him) and media’s corrupt elements, we have attacked them all, won’t these people counter attack against us? Quaid-e-Azam was called Kufar-e-Azam, Allama Iqbal was called Kafir and Quadiani. In the history of Islam, all the great scholars and ulema, where attacked by the establishment’s minions.. we never believed we will not be attacked for our mission. We however don’t want to answer them at their level because our mission is too important to be sullied by such insinuations. There is a sentence in Persian – dogs barking does not lower the earning of the beggar. In the Quran it is said beautifully that they want to hide the light of Allah by their disinformation, but Allah will complete his work, no matter. Adeel: People know you for your defiant stand. What was the reason for starting your work? Zaid: Practically, to be honest, there was no specific reason. In 1986 I was almost 22 years of age. I was doing my engineering in my third semester in Karachi University and Allah sent me to Afghanistan, and that was a critical time for Afghanistan. And then one goes to Jihad with all the passion, and Jihad becomes you life. After that you do not need a university or academy to learn.. Jihad becomes the university, where you learn everything, where you become part of global geopolitics, you learn economics, you learn all dimensions of humanity, you learn the spirit of nations, you see the rise and destruction of civilization, you learn to read history, you learn tactics and strategy and operational details.. you live through it, it is not theoretical academy. People call me a doctor out of love, but I am not a doctor. I have spent time in the battlefield. Of life’s 6 years I spent. And from there we analyzed what mistakes we made. What people hear in the air, we spent time in. Names of mujahideen that people hear in books, we have spent time in the battlefield with them. Then the rest of the life we spent thinking and analyzing what we did wrong, why Afghanistan slipped out of our hands, why our Jihad was unsuccessful, we were successful in removing the Soviets, but were not able to build an Islamic state there, what mistakes we made, what examples in history there is.. Who were the traitors, who where the heroes, and to what extent the sacrifices of our martyrs reached.. by 2000 we started a defense consulting / think tank, and our purpose was to make Pakistan aware of the dangers. And 9/11 happened in 2001. Our work became very relevant. In media you have seen us 2 ½ years ago, but our work started about 9 years ago, and if we go back further, we have been involved since 1986. I am not a doctor, a PhD, but it is all acquired through sweat and blood on the battlefields. Adeel: Afghanistan’s history, their tribes, and how in the past they have defeated previous super powers, would you tell us something about this? Zaid: … Geography is a romantic destination.. if you look since Alexander the Great, Afghanistan was one place where his losses were greater than anywhere else put together. And in the years to come, the only time in history Afghans were only defeated once. The Afghans were not a people to be defeated by the sword, and the only time they defeated was because the Sahaba (early Muslims) came not only with a sword but with the idea of Islam, and they accepted Islam. And since then they have been Muslims. And they are a martial race and brave people and with Islam they were doubly strengthened. After this, here there are not only Pashtuns but Tajiks, Uzbecks, Aimuks, Hazaras… but the common bond was Islam, and this is why the powerful dynasties and this is why that all the campaigns by Muslims to India has been through Khyber and Kandahar other than Muhammad Bin Qasim’s. Here, all conquerors where (to Afghanistan) Muslim, and they where accepted because they where Muslim. Mughals who entered accepted because they where Muslim, and others such as Mahmood of Ghaznavi or Shahabuddin Ghauri, where all Muslims. In contemporary history, the Great Game being played by the British and the Russians in the 19th century, the Russians where conquering Muslim lands and coming South, and the British where moving from India towards Central Asia, Afghanistan became a buffer state. Nevertheless, the English tried to conquer Afghanistan. First in 1820s, 30s, 80s and later. Practically they where defeated every time. One example being a (British) column from Jalalabad of 40,000, only had 1 person return. The folklore in Afghanistan talks about these stories. Later, the Soviet invasion was the next major battle, there where other local internal battles in between. But the major next invasion was by the Soviets. And this united the people again, and were defeated in 10 years. And now the US is trying. It is their history that Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires. It is always the beginning of their end. NATO and Americans will face the same end. Time cannot be determined, 10 or 20 years, or whenever, but it will happen. Time can vary. The US economy is also being destroyed at home. The Soviet Union was defeated because they could not sustain the economy and the US could face a similar economic defeat. They are not being able to contain, with the present troops and resource levels. So either this will be their graveyard or if they are smart they can cut their losses and run. Adeel: The decision made by General Musharaf to join the War on Terror that we become America’s front line state, the people who supported this decision say that if we had not supported, we would have been sent to the stone age. And also, India would have given America bases and we would have been isolated. What would you say about this? Zaid: We have a program on the WOT, in our website brasstacks.pk, we have dvds, cds available and books on this issue, we analyzed these issues then and that our leadership was weak in its decisions and could not take the pressure of the Americans, they had given the same argument that the US would send us to the stone age and that the Taliban don’t listen to us anyways, why should we fight for no reason against the US, let us send these people to Afghanistan, the Afghanis will deal with them themselves, because history shows that whoever goes there is defeated.. all these arguments where given by the ruler then, and in their opinion there was some weight. But the point is, after 9/11 like a mad bull the US was ready to destroy the world, and the world was with the US, in all that whirlwind, the decisions by the rulers made, if we look back now, those rulers should have at least gotten better terms and conditions and define the war on terror, what the relationship between the two countries would be, if the Afghan Taliban are the enemy or if Al Qaeda is the enemy. The Afghan Taliban never attacked any other country, the Americans used to engage in negotiations with them for pipelines to Central Asia. When these negotiations broke down, that was why they wanted to remove the Taliban, and turned Taliban into the enemy, when there was no case against the Taliban in the entire world.. Because of the Taliban, Indian elements where eliminated from Afghanistan, there was no issues in Balochistan, Tehrik-e-Taliban was not present, they eliminated drugs and poppies, so Pakistan did not protect its interest. And with the Northern Alliance government in Afghanistan, pro-Indian elements have come to power. Let us forget what happened then and consider now, why continue the same mistakes today? The point is, now there is a so called democratic state, why are we still supporting NATO and the US, so that we can finish the Afghan Taliban, whiping out the Afghan Taliban means eliminating the majority of people of Afghanistan, how is this possible? What 500,000 Soviet troops couldn’t do, how can NATO and the US do this with 100,000 troops? And why should they? If they couldn’t catch Ossama in 9 years.. And we know why they came here, when they came here there was no lawlessness and civil war, their definition of the problem is take nuclear weapons from Muslim states, divide Pakistan, create an independent Balochistan and prepare Tehrik-e-Taliban to conduct terror inside Pakistan, so that the whole of Pakistan faces suicide attacks and then they can argue that Pakistan is a dysfunctional state and snatch its nuclear weapons. That is the definition of the problem from them. Our parliament of 2 and half years and before that Musharaf never defined the terrorism issue, Indians want to define it with Kashmir, Israel wants to define it according to the Palestinian movement, Russia wants to define it with the Chechens, when did fighting for freedom of their land become the definition of terrorism? If fighting against the Russian occupation was legitimate, why is fighting against the US forces not justified? Both according to International law and according to Shariah, there is no difference between the two. If we called the Soviet occupation haram, how can the US occupation be halal? Adeel: The Americans say that they are peacekeeping troops, they haven’t invaded Afghanistan. Zaid: What peacekeeping force are they? They are an occupation force, they call themselves an occupation force. And by whose permission have these “peacekeepers” come here? Enter Pakistan, occupy Pakistan and call it peacekeeping? Create destruction all over the world and call it peacekeeping? Point is, if they so want peacekeepers, Americans and NATO should leave Afghanistan and allow Muslim countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, Bangladesh, Indonesia, 10-15 Muslim states can provide peacekeeping troops to Afghanistan. If we send 40-50,000 troops, Afghan Taliban, I can guarantee you will not fire one shot at the peacekeepers. And we would gather the Afghan Muslims together and tell them to sit down and resolve their issues. Since no one Muslim country but 15-20 Muslim countries will send troops, no one will feel that someone is trying to take over their country. Muslims can solve their own problems. We do not need NATO and the US here. And if the world needs a guarantee that there will be no terrorism originating from here, then this Muslim peacekeeping force would provide such a guarantee. Drugs would stop in Afghanistan, Indian elements would be eliminated, Balochistan Liberation Army will come to an end and the Weapons supply of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan would come to an end. The world would find peace. Let us not forget the words of Allama Iqbal (great Muslim philosopher / poet of the 20th century), that Afghanistan is such a land that if there is war there, there will be war everywhere in Asia, and if there is peace there, there will be peace everywhere. It is necessary for Americans and NATO to get out of Afghanistan, and it is necessary to end war there. If they are talking about peacekeepers, Americans are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem. The day they leave, that day the war will end. These people are not sincere, they are dishonest, hypocritical. Their diplomacy is based on Machiavelli, just as the Indian diplomacy is based on Chankia, which is the equivalent of if you want to defeat your enemy, get close to him, and while hugging him stab him in the back. And then cry over his dead body, that my friend is murdered. That is the extent of their fraud and lies. Nixon talked of a statement by Ayub Khan in his memoirs (In the Arena), when the Shah of Iran was murdered and died alone in Syria, being abandoned by his American friends, in his funeral not one American came, Nixon recalled the words of Ayub Khan, that the enmity of America is bad, but her friendship is suicide. If Pakistan has become friends with America today, it has been its suicide, as we can see it today. Its time we revise and redefine this relationship (with America). American war in Afghanistan is not our war, and we have to disengage from this war. Our war has started in our cities, by the rogue elements prepared by America, but the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmathyar are our friends, not our enemies. Adeel: If we ponder upon the Muslim world, those elements that are today attacking the Pakistan Army like the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, etc, if you read about them on the internet, on websites and statements that periodically show up, the argument they present is that America is a Kufar (non Muslim) power and Pakistan Army is its front line ally and the supply line and support is coming through here. And the friend of our enemy is also our enemy and unless Pakistan Army cuts off its support, we are going to continue our attacks. So what would you say about their arguments? What message would you want to send them? Zaid: Is this line of thinking shared by Mullah Omar, Jallaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmathyar? Why is it that to this day Mullah Omar, Jallaluddin Haqqani and Gulbuddin Hekmathyar have not given a Fatwa (ruling) to destroy Pakistan? And then, how can they give such a justification? This is rubbish. They have killed women and children. Committed heinous crimes against the civilian population. What Shariah is this? Destroying schools, where is this from? Taking out dead people from their graves and hanging them, what is this? They should stop this nonsense, we have understood their game. Ignorant, uncivilized and ill-mannered people. Who in the name of deen (religion) and Shariah (Islamic Law) they are giving the justification that Pakistan has become a Kafir state. They are people who give Fatwas (rulings) of kufar (non Muslims). Asthagfirullah al azeem (I seek refuge with the Almighty) they are the people who are hurting the Muslim world most. That since Pakistan is now kufar, killing and taking life and goods, women and children is now allowed. Shameless and ill mannered people who are selling their religion in what manner. TTP are rebels (against) the Muslim Ummah (world). 
They are completely separate and different from Gulbuddin Hekmathyar, Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani. They have no connection or relationship with the (real) mujahideen. Any party that is trying to destroy or harm Pakistan today, attacking its homes, killing its civilians, with over 80 suicide attacks only in the year 2007, killing over 10,000 civilians, how can they justify their blood? They are the criminal and the lying. Are the Kharijites (hated Muslim rebels, responsible for the collapse of the first Muslim state). Adeel: If we look at the war against the Soviets, we see that the Afghan Mujahideen had international support, support from Pakistan, the US was also behind them, the media portrayed them as heroes. They had one enemy, the Soviet Union. And they also received technology like the Stinger missiles, etc. It took them 10 years to defeat the Soviet Union. If we see the struggle today, how are they surviving and dealing with all the pressure? Zaid: One thing we have to realize is that the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets is propagated to have been funded by the CIA, but whatever the CIA gave, Muslims and Chinese gave 10 times more. Very large shipments of Chinese weapons where sent. Also, the entire Muslim world called for Jihad. From Philippines to North Africa and European.. wherever there were Muslims, they where represented in Afghanistan, and when Muslims would come, they would not come empty handed. There are many wealthy Muslims that are present. Billions of dollars where funneled in to support the resistance against the Soviets. In 1986, Stingers came in, and because of them, the length of the Jihad was reduced, but even if they did not come, we would have defeated the soviets by 1994-95 (rather than 1989), the costs would have been higher for us. Not a single American died, but 1,500,000 Muslims were martyred. It was not an American Jihad, it was our Muslim Ummah’s Jihad. And because of this, in the entire Muslim world, resistance movements started. Do people not note that Kashmir movement gets momentum in 1988 from Afghanistan? Moro resistance in Philippines starts in a similar time frame? Palestinian Intefada, Algeria, Chechen movement, Bosnia’s Jihad, all this was started from the education and training they received in Afghanistan and returned home with it. So the Afghan Jihad was a Jihad of the Muslim world. Our interests had converged with the US against the Soviets. Because they themselves couldn’t fight, they wanted Muslims to fight on their behalf.. if we take arms from the US and destroy India, we are not fighting America’s war, we can get the arms from anywhere. If you look at the anthems of the children, conceptually everyone was clear, nobody took Americans as friends, only allies of convenience. People would talk about capturing Moscow today and capturing Washington DC tomorrow. Conceptually there was no confusion. 
The Afghan nation did not see the US as a friend. Secondly, because media is owned by them, 96% of the media is controlled by the Western world, practically they can make anyone good and anyone evil.. the WMDs in Iraq, ultimately we realized it was all fake, the 9/11 drama we all know is fake, this is a media game, disinformation spread is incredible, Dajjal’s (anti-Christ’s) this weapon is very powerful. So it looks like if the world, if the CIA is not going to support the Jihad will end, but even today the Muslim world is supporting the Afghan Jihad. Even today the Chinese axis is supporting them (the Taliban). The Russians are supporting them. Iran is sending equipment and weapons. See, who are the people that have something to lose with NATO and the US being in Afghanistan? Are the Chinese happy? No. The Russians? No. Is Iran happy? No. Pakistan is officially not supporting them. The Muslim world is officially not supporting them. But can you stop the Muslims of the world? No. And this is what is happening. The Muslim world, as before, is supporting the Afghan Jihad today and will continue to do so. And as the Russians got beaten, what do you know what ways are open to Russia to now arm the Taliban against the US and NATO. Afghanistan is the world’s most lawless country. The Americans and NATO, beyond some large cities and highways, practically control nothing. It is the easiest thing in this planet to send weapons to Afghanistan. They talk of Pakistan doing more. Looking at it from a military point of view, to have a resistance movement, you need three things, base areas, infinite supply of weapons, and fighters. All this was taking place at a massive scale in Pakistan during the Soviet era. The entire tribal areas there were training camps all over. And a training camp is not something you can build in your home. It needs some acres of land. To this day, the Americans have not blamed Pakistan for sending truckloads of weapons to Afghanistan. Or that Pakistan has set up large training camps. And, any massive movement of people going from here to there (in Afghanistan). Nothing like this is happening. Even if there is some tribal area in this, it cannot be more than 5%. 95% of the war is being fought in Afghanistan. In the Soviet era, practically 90% of the war effort organization was with us, and going into Afghanistan there would only be operations. The base areas where not inside, but outside in Pakistan. 
But now the process has reversed exactly. Since now Americans have very few soldiers in Afghanistan, and the whole countryside is under Taliban, they have no need to have base areas in Pakistan. Afghan Taliban, Gulbuddin Hekmathyar are all inside Afghanistan. To the extent that now they are doing operations in the North, in Kunduz and Mazar-e-Sharif. Those areas traditionally considered non-Taliban areas. And the supply lines are open to them. And the weapons are coming from Russia, China, Iran, and money is coming from every direction. The world’s big drug dealers. The world’s big weapons dealers. The roads of the world are open. To believe that if the CIA won’t support the Mujahideen that they will collapse, this is against history. CIA had not done any great service before, it was the Muslims, who are still supporting them.

(partial script, rest of the interview coming soon)

Pakistan snubs US over new Taliban offensive

Pakistan’s army launched major anti-militant offensives last year Pakistan’s army has said it will launch no new offensives on militants in 2010, as the US defence secretary arrived for talks on combating Taliban fighters. Army spokesman Athar Abbas told the BBC the “overstretched” military had no plans for any fresh anti-militant operations over the next 12 months. Our correspondent says the comments are a clear snub to Washington. The US would like Pakistan to expand an offensive against militants launching cross-border attacks in Afghanistan. Defence Secretary Robert Gates arrived in Pakistan on Thursday for his first visit since US President Barack Obama took office last year. ‘Embarrassing’ The one-day trip comes at a crucial time in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, with the US planning to commit 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. You can’t ignore one part of this cancer and pretend it won’t impact closer to home Robert Gates US Defence Secretary US diplomats in Pakistan visa row Row over UK terror spending ‘cut’ The militant nexus Mr Gates was expected to tell Pakistan that it could do more against top Taliban leaders operating in its territory, some of whom are alleged to have close links to Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service. The Pakistani army launched major ground offensives in 2009 in the north-west against Pakistani Taliban strongholds in the Swat region, last April, and in South Waziristan, last October. The militants have hit back with a wave of suicide bombings and attacks that have killed hundreds of people across Pakistan. In the capital, Islamabad, on Thursday, Maj Gen Abbas, head of public relations for the Pakistan army, told the BBC: “We are not going to conduct any major new operations against the militants over the next 12 months. “The Pakistan army is overstretched and it is not in a position to open any new fronts. Obviously, we will continue our present operations in Waziristan and Swat.” ‘Trust deficit’ The BBC’s Syed Shoaib Hasan in Islamabad says the comments are a clear brush-off to top US officials. Our correspondent adds they are embarrassing for Pakistan’s shaky coalition government, and likely to further destabilise already-low ties with its US ally. He says it also threatens to render ineffective an expanded coalition troop deployment in Afghanistan, as the Taliban over the border would be relieved of any pressure from the Pakistan army. Before arriving in Islamabad, Mr Gates told reporters travelling with him from India: “You can’t ignore one part of this cancer and pretend that it won’t have some impact closer to home.” His visit comes amidst a slight cooling in relations between the two allies. In an article published in a Pakistani newspaper on Thursday, Mr Gates referred to a “trust deficit”. As well as talking with his counterpart, Ahmed Mukhtar, the US defence secretary is expected to meet Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and President Asif Zardari. Talks were also expected to focus on US drone strikes against militants near the Afghan border. Hundreds of people have died in the attacks, which have stoked deep resentment of the US among many Pakistanis. But he adds that Mr Gates will argue that drone strikes are the only effective measure against the Taliban. Pakistan has been an important US partner in South Asia since the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

Press Conference with Secretary Gates from India

[Sec. Def. Gates cites the C-130Js that India has purchased for one of the reasons for the CISMA signing, as it would utilize all the technical add-ons built into the plane.  As it is, the airdrop vehicle is intended to correct one of India's shortcomings from the Kargil Gambit, the ability to resupply fogged-in forces without proper visual or radar-beacon guidance.  The primary effect of these agreements will be to make India's attacks upon Pakistani forces even more accurate than they proved to be at Kargil.  This is an anti-Pakistan agreement.

Gates stresses the "syndicate" nature of the "al Qaida"-Taliban-Lashkar e-Taiba alliance, saying that all must be eliminated.  Everything happens "under the umbrella of 'al Qaida'," the "syndicate," better known as "the Database."  "Al Qaida" is exactly what its creators intended it to be, since it was incubated in the sick minds at the CIA  and then nurtured in the Pakistani nurseries created by CIA hands.  The "syndicate" nature of the organization comes from the drug gangs and criminal networks indoctrinated into the organization by the CIA moles undermining Pakistani society.]

SEC. GATES: Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I’ve just come from a meeting with the Minister of Defense and last night met with the External Affairs Minister and the Prime Minister. These discussions just two months after Prime Minister Singh’s trip to Washington were an opportunity to continue strengthening ties that are indispensable to the future peace and prosperity of both our nations.

The emergence of India as a global power and the development of the U.S.-India relationship is one of the great success stories of the last two decades. The last time I came to New Delhi was as part of the Bush administration. Now as a member of the Obama administration I am struck by how much our commitment to India over the last two years has grown, demonstrating that our shared values transcend any changes in our respective governments.

On defense matters I continue to be impressed by our increased cooperation, cooperation that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. Whether the issue is joint training exercises or counter-terrorism efforts, the United States and India have a tremendous amount to learn from one another and continue to look for areas to expand our engagement, maritime security being one.

These efforts are bolstered by our military exchanges. For example, one of my military assistants with me on this trip was an exchange officer in India in the 1990s.

During the meetings we also talked about larger regional and strategic issues including China. I appreciated the insights I heard, especially with regard to Afghanistan. As you know, last month President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan that recognizes the importance of getting the mission there right. More than anything, the President’s strategy represents a long term commitment to the Afghan people and to the people of all South Asia.

I expressed my appreciation for India’s contributions to the mission and my belief that India’s ongoing economic development support in Afghanistan is vital.

The scale of what we are trying to do requires many nations working in concert. Going forward, India can be an anchor for regional and global security.

Although my visit has focused on deepening our long term defense relationship, this is only one part of a larger strategic partnership that involves all elements of our governments and many convergent interests. And as our nations grow even closer in the coming years and decades, I am confident that together we will be able to meet any and all challenges.

As President Obama has said, this will be a defining partnership for the 21st Century.

Thank you, and I’ll take some questions.

Q     Mr. Gates. My question is about the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum that you have signed. How different is it from the existing Defense Framework Agreement that you had? And will it include weapon systems, nuclear weapon systems and cyber security as well?

SEC. GATES: The communications, part of the growth in the relationship between the United States and India has been the sale of high technology weapons and military equipment. Associated with that, with those sales, are additional agreements associated with protecting the technology within that equipment or those weapons.

For example, the Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement is an agreement that would allow the highest in U.S. cryptologic information to be provided along with the C-130Js that India has bought.

The agreement that has to do with basic exchange cooperation in the geospatial area is about providing the aircraft that India has bought with the highest technology possible in terms of navigational capability, not to mention targeting.

So these agreements, which we believe are preponderantly in India’s benefit because they give high tech systems additional high tech capabilities, are enablers, if you will, to the very highest quality equipment in the Indian armed forces.

I think we have not done an adequate job on the American side in spelling out for our Indian partners the benefits to India of signing these agreements. The agreement that you mentioned, the Communication Interoperability and Security agreement, is an agreement we have with dozens of our closest allies including some here in Asia. And so this is not an out of the ordinary request, it is not an unreasonable request, and really at the end of the day is focused on protecting the technology of both India and the United States. I’m not aware that the agreements bring any specific new weaponry to the systems that we’ve sold. My sense is that it’s principally about giving them additional capabilities.

Q     Mr. Secretary, are you satisfied with the status of relief efforts in Haiti a week after the earthquake? And is there something else additional that you would like to see the United States military doing?

SEC. GATES: Well I think as long as more than two million people in Haiti are still struggling to get food and water and fuel and medical care, it would probably be a mistake for anyone to say they’re satisfied with the level of effort. That said, I think that the United States in particular has, it is hard for me to see what more the United States could make available or how we could make it available faster in trying to deal with the tragedy there.

The Coast Guard was on site literally within hours of the earthquake providing limited support, and with each passing hour more and more American forces and ships and capability have flowed into the area.

Getting around the city has been a challenge, and the hope is that today and tomorrow that will begin to ease, but you cannot fully meet the needs of over two million people just using helicopters. Although there has been significant relief brought on a local basis and a number of landing zones established where security was able to be provided and the orderly distribution of food.

We are looking at a variety of other capabilities. I signed deployment orders this morning that would begin to move ships such as a port clearance ship with cranes that could within a week or two perhaps begin to get the port back into operation. We’re trying to look at what other alternative routes there might be to bet bulk food and bulk supplies in there.

So I think the commanders on the field, working with the government of Haiti under the auspices of the UN and MINUSTAH, everything I hear is that the three have established a good working relationship in terms of establishing priorities for what actually flows into the country. I think that supplies are beginning to get out to the people. There is a concern that if you are unable to get significant supplies out that in their desperation people will turn to crime and violence. We have not seen much of that yet, happily, and my hope is that as we get these trucks out on the roads with supplies and people see patrols, that that will help prevent any significant violence from taking place. But I would say given the magnitude of the disaster that has taken place, I think that Americans in particular can be very proud of what, not only what their government has done, but what so many of the non-governmental organizations and doctors organizations and others have done in terms of trying to bring relief there.

Q     Secretary Gates, you’re fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and Taliban camps on the eastern side of the Duran Line still exist. And for all the sound and fury, they continue to flourish. Have you spoken to Pakistan about it? Because this appears to be a critical problem that your country is facing.

The other point is in your meetings with the Indian government, have you ever suggested that perhaps Indian military cooperation with Afghanistan could be stepped up?

SEC. GATES: First of all I think it’s important to recognize the magnitude of the threat that the entire region faces. Secretary Clinton and I discussed this in our testimony before the American Congress early in December.

What we have in the area of the Afghan-Pakistan border is first of all, al-Qaida. It’s its primary home and safe haven. You also have the Taliban who are active in Afghanistan. You also have the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan that are focused on Pakistan. You also have Lashkar-e-Taiba, LET, that is focused on Pakistan but also on India. And what we see is that the success of any one of these groups leads to new capabilities and new reputation for all. A victory for one is a victory for all.

What I see happening is these groups operating under the umbrella of al-Qaida in the Northwest Frontier Province, probably in North Waziristan, is orchestrating attacks using one element in Afghanistan, using another element of the Taliban in Pakistan to attack targets in Pakistan to try to destabilize Pakistan, and again, working with al-Qaida, Lashkar-e-Taiba, planning attacks in India.

I believe this operation under the umbrella of al-Qaida, working with all of these different groups, is intended to destabilize not just Afghanistan or not just Pakistan, but potentially the whole region by provoking a conflict perhaps between India and Pakistan through some provocative act or terrorist act, or provoking instability in Pakistan itself through terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

So I think it’s a very complicated situation. I think it’s very dangerous for the region as a whole. I also think it’s dangerous to single out any one of these groups and say if we could beat that group that will solve the problem.  Because they are, in effect, a syndicate of terrorist operators intending to destabilize this entire region. That’s why it is so important for all of us to be engaged, to understand the magnitude of this threat and to be engaged in trying to reduce the threat, and wherever possible eliminate it. And it does require a high level of cooperation among us all.

Q     I wonder if you could talk a little bit about your discussions with India on China, whether there is a joint cyber threat that both India and the U.S. face from elements within China, and what you see as India’s role in sort of a counterweight to China in Asia.

SEC. GATES: We didn’t talk about China at length. We did talk in more generic terms about a common interest in security of the Indian Ocean and security of the global commons, and the global commons meaning the air, sea, space, and if you’re talking about the internet, the ether, I suppose.

There was a discussion about China’s military modernization program and what it meant and what the intentions of that military buildup were. And a desire, I won’t speak for the Indian side, but certainly a desire on our part to engage China in a more routine, in-depth dialogue about our strategic intentions and plans so as to avoid any miscalculations or misunderstandings down the road. As I’ve long said, I was involved with the strategic arms talks with the Soviet Union for many many years. I’m not sure those talks ever actually reduced any arms, but the dialogue over a long period of time with great candor about nuclear capabilities, thinking about nuclear options, thinking about how each side looked at nuclear weapons and at their military modernizations, I think played a significant role over time in preventing miscalculations and mistakes in the relationship between these two super powers during the Cold War. I think that kind of a dialogue with China would be most productive and frankly in the best interests of global stability.

Q     With regard to the Logistics Support Agreement, there seems to be some reluctance on the part of India to go ahead with it. During the course of your meeting with the top Indian leadership have you been able to convince them of the benefits of this agreement?

SEC. GATES: The Logistics Support Agreement was the third of the agreements that we talked about, and it is, and what I promised the Prime Minister last night was that we would do a better job of putting on paper and using concrete examples of the benefits to India of all of these agreements.

No agreement between sovereign states and especially I would say sovereign democracies is going to be worth the paper it’s written on if it isn’t of real advantage to both sides. I think what we need to do is be more concrete and more persuasive about the benefits to India of these three agreements.

These three agreements have been laying around for quite a while at this point. This is not some new requirement that has just emerged. The Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, was first put on the table in 2002. I remember discussing it with the Defense Minister here during my last visit in 2008. So this is not a new requirement that has just come up, but has been known for quite some time.

I just think we need to – these agreements I see as enablers to allow a defense trade and a defense cooperation relationship to expand significantly, because it will lead to greater interoperability and a greater capability of our forces to work together, whether they’re working together to provide Indian Ocean security, whether they’re working together in a humanitarian assistance, disaster relief activity or any number of other military operations, these agreements will provide additional technology to India and additional benefits that I think will then enable the broader defense relationship between the two countries.

Q     Mr. Secretary, on the flight over you talked about India’s restraint after the Mumbai attacks. Referring to your comments a moment ago about the syndicate of terror groups, do you think that another Lashkar-e-Taiba attack on India is likely in the near future? And have you been trying to convey to India a request for further restraint in the event of such an attack?

SEC. GATES: I think there is very close cooperation not only between the United States and India, but other powers as well, to provide any warning information to India that any of us acquire about whatever planning might be going on.

We did actually, I’m sorry, what was the last part of your question?

Q     If you were conveying any request for –

SEC. GATES: Oh. I think that the, as you say, I told all of the Indian leaders that I met with that I thought that India had responded with great restraint and statesmanship after the first Mumbai attack. The ability of any state to continue that, were it to be attacked again, I think is in question. I think I have to leave the answer to that question to the Indian government and its officials, but I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that Indian patience would be limited were there to be further attacks.

Q     Secretary Gates, I’d just like to take on from what my colleague Srinjoy asked. It was the second part of his question.

Is potential Indian military cooperation in Afghanistan that involves either training and/or deployment, could that really upset U.S. plans in the region?

SEC. GATES: I think that, frankly, the kind of support and extraordinary support that India is providing in Afghanistan now is really ideal. It is significant support. It’s about $1.3 billion in development assistance. I think it plays an important role. And let’s be honest with one another here. There are real suspicions in both India and Pakistan about what the other is doing in Afghanistan. So I think focusing, each country focusing its efforts on development, on humanitarian assistance, perhaps in some limited areas of training, but with full transparency toward each other in what they’re doing, would help allay these suspicions and frankly, create opportunities to provide greater help for the Afghan government.

Q     Secretary Gates, did the Indians ask you to press Pakistan more to crack down on the extremist groups on its borders? And did you talk to the Indians about that and your concerns about the Pakistani lack of will in some areas?

SEC. GATES: What we talked about at some length was the syndicate of different terrorist groups that I talked about at the outset and how they put all of the countries here in the region – Afghanistan, Pakistan, India – at risk because of their activities. And as we’ve talked about, clearly one of the subjects of discussion for my next visit is how to allay their concerns so that they can focus on what has become, in my view, a real existential threat to Pakistan which is these different terrorist groups operating within its territory.

Thank you all.

Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal

Ashley J. TellisCARNEGIE ENDOWMENT REPORT, JUNE 2006

Resources

• Full Text (PDF)

Among the most serious criticisms leveled at the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation initiative agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is that it would enable India to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal. This criticism rests upon two crucial assumptions:

• that New Delhi in fact seeks the largest nuclear weapons inventory its capacity and resources permit; and,
• the Indian desire for a larger nuclear arsenal has been stymied thus far by a shortage of natural uranium.

Atoms for War? US-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal by Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggests both these assumptions are deeply flawed. The study concludes that:

• India is currently separating far less weapons grade plutonium annually than it has the capability to produce. The evidence, which suggests that the Government of India is in no hurry to build the biggest nuclear stockpile it could construct based on material factors alone, undermines the assumption that India wishes to build the biggest nuclear arsenal it possibly can;
• Further, India’s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. The research in this report concludes that: India already has the indigenous reserves of natural uranium necessary to undergird the largest possible nuclear arsenal it may desire and, consequently, the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation initiative will not materially contribute towards New Delhi’s strategic capacities in any consequential way either directly or by freeing up its internal resources; that the current shortage of natural uranium in India caused by constrictions in its mining and milling capacity is a transient problem that is in the process of being redressed. The U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement proposed by President Bush does not in any way affect the Government of India’s ability to upgrade its uranium mines and milling facilities—as it is currently doing. As such, the short-term shortage does not offer a viable basis either for Congress to extort any concessions from India in regards to its weapons program or for supporting the petty canard that imported natural uranium will lead to a substantial increase in the size of India’s nuclear weapons program.

---

The following is a summary by Ashley J. Tellis. Click on the icon above for the full text of the report.

Among the most serious criticisms leveled at the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation initiative agreed to by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is that it would enable India to rapidly expand its nuclear arsenal. This criticism rests upon two crucial assumptions: that New Delhi in fact seeks the largest nuclear weapons inventory its capacity and resources permit; and, the Indian desire for a larger nuclear arsenal has been stymied thus far by a shortage of natural uranium.

Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal by Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, suggests that both these assumptions are deeply flawed. To begin with, the study concludes that India is currently separating about 24-40 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium annually, far less than it has the capability to produce. This evidence, which suggests that the Government of India is in no hurry to build the biggest nuclear stockpile it could construct based on material factors alone, undermines the assumption that India wishes to build the biggest nuclear arsenal it possibly can.

Further, India’s capacity to produce a huge nuclear arsenal is not affected by prospective U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation. A few facts underscore this conclusion clearly. India is widely acknowledged to possess reserves of 78,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The forthcoming Carnegie study concludes that the total inventory of natural uranium required to sustain all the reactors associated with the current power program (both those operational and those under construction) and the weapons program over the entire notional lifetime of these plants runs into some 14,640-14,790 MTU—or, in other words, requirements that are well within even the most conservative valuations of India’s reasonably assured uranium reserves. If the eight reactors that India has retained outside of safeguards were to allocate 1/4 of their cores for the production of weapons-grade materials—the most realistic possibility for the technical reasons discussed at length in the forthcoming report—the total amount of natural uranium required to run these facilities for the remaining duration of their notional lives would be somewhere between 19,965-29,124 MTU. If this total is added to the entire natural uranium fuel load required to run India’s two research reactors dedicated to the production of weapons-grade plutonium over their entire life cycle—some 938-1088 MTU—the total amount of natural uranium required by India’s dedicated weapons reactors and all its unsafeguarded PHWRs does not exceed 20,903-30,212 MTU over the remaining lifetime of these facilities. Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in this way would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135-13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023-2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal.

The research in this report concludes that the total amount of natural uranium required to fuel all Indian reactors, on the assumption that eight of them would be used for producing weapons-grade materials in 1/4 of their cores, would be crudely speaking somewhere between 26,381 and 35,690 MTU over the remaining lives of all these facilities—a requirement that lies well within India’s assured uranium reserves howsoever these are disaggregated. In sum, India has the indigenous reserves of natural uranium necessary to undergird the largest possible nuclear arsenal it may desire and, consequently, the U.S.-Indian civilian nuclear cooperation initiative will not materially contribute towards New Delhi’s strategic capacities in any consequential way either directly or by freeing up its internal resources.

This conclusion notwithstanding, India does face a current shortage of natural uranium caused by constrictions in its mining and milling capacity. This deficit, however, represents a transient problem that is in the process of being redressed. It should be borne in mind that the U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation agreement proposed by President Bush does not in any way affect the Government of India’s ability to upgrade its uranium mines and milling facilities—as it is currently doing. All this implies that the shortages of uranium fuel experienced by India presently are a near-term aberration, and not an enduring limitation resulting from the dearth of physical resources. As such, they do not offer a viable basis either for Congress to extort any concessions from India in regards to its weapons program or for supporting the petty canard that imported natural uranium will lead to a substantial increase in the size of India’s nuclear weapons program.

Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate specializing in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is co-author of Strategic Asia 2005-06: Military Modernization in an Era of Uncertainty.

Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. President George W. Bush and India’s Prime MinisterManmohan Singh exchange handshakes in New Delhi on March 2, 2006.

The Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement, known also as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between theUnited States of America and the Republic of India. The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005 joint statement by Indian Prime MinisterManmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.^[1] This U.S.-India deal took more than three years to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, including amendment of U.S. domestic law, a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, an India-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India’s first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as “civil” and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of “sensitive” equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved,^[2] and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.^[3] Once India brings this agreement into force, inspections will begin in a phased manner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.^[4]

The nuclear deal was widely seen^{[by whom?]} as a legacy-building effort by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh.^{[citation needed]} But while the deal had to pass muster with the U.S. Congress twice (once when the Hyde Act was passed in late 2006 to amend U.S. domestic law and then when the final deal-related package was approved in October 2008), Singh blocked the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal. The deal proved very contentious in India and threatened at one time to topple Singh’s government, which survived a confidence vote in Parliament in July 2008 by roping in a regional party as a coalition partner in place of the leftist bloc that had bolted.

On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,^[5] after which the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.^[6] The 45-nation NSG granted the waiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.^[7] The implementation of this waiver makes India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.^[8]

The US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28 September 2008.^[9] Two days later, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country to have such an agreement with India.^[10] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate also approved the civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States.^[11][12] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.^[13] The agreement was signed by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on 10 October.^[14][15]

Overview

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India^[16] and in particular to negotiate a 123 Agreement to operationalize the 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the United States. The Hyde Act cannot be binding on India’s sovereign decisions although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. reactions. As per the Vienna convention, an international treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal law such as the Hyde Act.^[17][18][19]

The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinet ministers. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.^[20]

After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27, 2007,^[21] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from the communist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.^[22] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275–256 votes in the backdrop of defections from both camps to the opposite camps.^[23] The deal also had faced opposition from non-proliferation activists, anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.^[24][25] A deal which is inconsistent with the Hyde Act and does not place restrictions on India has also faced opposition in the U.S. House.^[26][27] In February 2008 U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be “consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act”.^[28] The bill was signed on October 8, 2008

[edit]Background

Parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a recognized right of access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and an obligation to cooperate on civilian nuclear technology. Separately, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed on guidelines for nuclear exports, including reactors and fuel. Those guidelines condition such exports on comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are designed to verify that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful use to weapons programs. Though neither India, Israel, nor Pakistan have signed the NPT, India argues that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. ^[29] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary “no first use policy”.

In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called “peaceful nuclear explosion” and explicitly not for “offensive” first strike military purposes but which could be used as a “peaceful deterrence”).^{[citation needed]} Led by the U.S., other states have set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.^[30]Consequently, India was left outside the international nuclear order, which forced India to develop its own resources for each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation, including next generation reactors such as fast breeder reactors and a thorium breeder reactor^[31][32] known as the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor. In addition to impelling India to achieve success in developing these new reactor technologies, the sanctions also provided India with the impetus to continue developing its own nuclear weapons technology with a specific goal of achieving self-sufficiency for all key components for weapons design, testing and production.

Given that India is estimated to possess reserves of about 80,000-112,369 tons of uranium,^[33] India has more than enough fissile material to supply its nuclear weapons program, even if it restricted Plutonium production to only 8 of the country’s 17 current reactors, and then further restricted Plutonium production to only 1/4 of the fuel core of these reactors.^[34] According to the calculations of one of the key advisers to the US Nuclear deal negotiating team, Ashley Tellis:^[34]

Operating India’s eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative] regime would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policy maker, has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely approximates such numbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New Delhi has the capability to produce a gigantic nuclear arsenal while subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its known uranium reserves.

However, because the amount of nuclear fuel required for the electricity generation sector is far greater than that required to maintain a nuclear weapons program, and since India’s estimated reserve of uranium represents only 1% of the world’s known uranium reserves, the NSG’s uranium export restrictions mainly affected Indian nuclear power generation capacity. Specifically, the NSG sanctions challenge India’s long term plans to expand and fuel its civilian nuclear power generation capacity from its current output of about 4GWe (GigaWatt electricity) to a power output of 20GWe by 2020; assuming the planned expansion used conventional Uranium/Plutonium fueled heavy water and light water nuclear power plants.

Consequently, India’s nuclear isolation constrained expansion of its civil nuclear program, but left India relatively immune to foreign reactions to a prospective nuclear test. Partly for this reason, but mainly due to continued unchecked covert nuclear and missile proliferation activities between Pakistan, China ^[35][36] and North Korea,^[37][38] India conducted five more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.

India was subject to international sanctions after its May 1998 nuclear tests. However, due to the size of the Indian economy and its relatively large domestic sector, these sanctions had little impact on India, with Indian GDP growth increasing from 4.8% in 1997–1998 (prior to sanctions) to 6.6% (during sanctions) in 1998–1999.^[39] Consequently, at the end of 2001, the Bush Administration decided to drop all sanctions on India.^[40] Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear weapons tests in 1998,^{[41][verification needed]} it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.

What CISMA and Other Security Agreements Really Mean To India and Everyone

EUMA Nuclear inspections define Bharat’s new

“client state” status

Posted on July 25, 2009 by Moin Ansari

Bharat’s worst fears have become its worst nighmare. The Hillary celebration party is as much fun as a wake. This was a bad week not only for Bharati Prime Minister Manmohan Singh but also for Bharat. Amid all the pomp and cermony of Hillary Clinton’s seminal trip to  India, the truth about the Delhi-Washington strategic relationship came out into the open. There was a poison pill in the Nuclear deal signed between Premier SIngh and Secretary of State Clinton. Nuclear End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA). The EUMA agreement allows US inspectors into high-end defense installations and places the use of US-sourced technology in a restrictive framework.

As part of the 123 Nuclear agreement and as part of the sale of Defenes agreements, the United States had been pressing India to sign several agreements related to defense cooperation. Some of these are:

1. End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA).
2. Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CIS MoA).
3. Mutual Logistic Support Agreement (MLSA).

All these agreements contain a series of restrictive clauses and impose instrusive inspections and servere limitations on the use of the equipment. The 123 Nuclear deal was supposed to be the capstone of Sonai Gandhi’s government studded with token minorities. The US has is using its allies in the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) to impose conditions on the Indian Government which in effect would curtail Delhi’s and its independence and what it considers to be its soverign right to conduct any additional nuclear tests. The NSG curtials the Indian right to conduct any future tests, imposes restriction on the transfer of nuclear technology to India and asks it suppot the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (without actually signing it).

This places Dr. Manmohan Singh in a precarious position. Already he faces severe opposition from the left and survived only after the BJP surreptously suported it, even though publicly the BJP had opposed the Indian National Congress government.

Unless India does not get a clean waiver with the Nuclear Supply Group, the government should not take forward the nuclear deal, said BJP president Rajnath Singh here.Speaking on a wide range of issues on his maiden interaction with the media after a BJP government returned to power in Himachal, about 8 months ago, Singh said, “The apprehensions expressed by the opposition to the nuclear deal were coming true in negotiations being carried out.” News reports about BJP opposition to the 123 deal

Sharad Yadav of the Janata Dal (United), M. Thambi Durai of the AIADMK, and Bhartuhari Mahtab of the Biju Janata Dal also joined the Opposition chorus, leading the government to promise a statement before the rising of the House. The Hindu

The bugbear of India becoming a client state (rather than an equal partner) in an imperialistic American design was resurrected as the central theme as both joined hands in Parliament to pillory the government. For New Delhi, a week that wasn’t By Santwana Bhattacharya

Although the agreed language deviates in some aspects from the standard EUMA text applicable to client States, the United States managed to get India to accept the core conditions. Rediff

US has signed end user agreement with 82 countries and doubts were raised by the opposition parties that the EUMA will also legitimize US to inspect even those defense equipment which are supplied by third countries for example Israel can also be inspected by the US. ThaiIndian

Basudeb Acharia of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Gurudas Dasgupta of the CPI, Mulayam Singh of the Samajwadi Party, and Lalu Prasad of the Rashtriya Janata Dal joined Mr. Sinha in describing the EUMA as “against the country’s interests” and a “Himalayan blunder,” while accusing the government of keeping Parliament and the country in the dark.The Hindu

Navy chief Admiral Suresh Mehta had publicly described EUMA as ‘intrusive.’ Speaking at an April 2008 conference organised by the London-based International Strategic Studies Institute in New Delhi, Admiral Mehta said: ‘There are certain things we can’t agree to. As a sovereign nation, we can’t accept intrusiveness into our system, so there is some fundamental difficulty.‘ Rediff

Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses L.K. Advani (Lok Sabha) and Arun Jaitley (Rajya Sabha) immediately cried foul and termed the agreement “disastrous.” The Hindu

India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in a March 2008 report criticized the end-use monitoring clauses in the contract for the USS Trenton/INS Jalashwa...The CAG report stated: ‘Restrictive clauses raise doubts about the real advantages from this deal… For example, (there are) restrictions on the offensive deployment of the ship and permission to the (US) government to conduct an inspection and inventory of all articles transferred under the end-use monitoring clause of the LOA (Letter of Offer and Acceptance issued by the US government).’ Note that the contract contains even ‘restrictions on the offensive deployment of the ship.’ Rediff

Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) said the agreement was part of a pattern — the virtual shelving of the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline, indications of India supporting the U.S. rather than the developing countries in the Doha Round, and other signs of “compromising” its economic and political sovereignty. The Hindu

But the Opposition, joined by the SP, staged a walkout in protest.

Leader of Opposition L K Advani, who led the walkout in Lok Sabha, said the Opposition was dissatisfied with the government statement and the decision would “send a wrong message”.

To the discomfiture of the government, UPA constituent DMK sympathised with Opposition apprehensions and Tiruchi Siva, its member in Rajya Sabha, sought clarifications. Indian Express

When the statement was made, however, it was a bare listing of the agreements signed during the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.The Hindu

Rupee News had clearly identified the fine prints in the Nuclear Agreement would in the end place the entire Bharati Nuclear program under US inspection regime. This is exaclty what has happened. While the Delhi government is trying to put a positive spin on the capitulation to US diktats, the Bharati opposition is not so thrilled by the the febrile declarations, fulminations and disquisitions of the coalition government.

Is the US India 123 Nuclear deal in trouble again?

US-Indian 123 nuclear deal puts planet at risk By Jimmy Carter.

There is a new Sheriff in town in Washington, and the past practices of the Republican Administration are not so popular in the Democratic majority. Why the US gave up India as a strategic partner. In another sign of the the fraying Indo-US relations, the Obama Administration has backed the G-8 (United States, Britain, France, Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan) demand not to sell Nuclear enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) items to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Only three countries have not signed the NPT. The three countries are Israel, Bharat and Pakistan. Israel gets all the nuclear materials she needs from a variety of sources and has built up an arsenal of more than 250 bombs. Pakistan has a totally indigenous program which is not dependent on any imported nuclear material from any country. Therefore the only target of the G-8 Memorandum is Bharat. Delhi is directly affected by the G-8 ruling.

“It is a trap, and it prevents India from any future nuclear test. We firmly believe that India has walked into the nonproliferation trap that the U.S. has set for us,” said Yashwant Sinha, a member of Parliament from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.

The lack of a statement from Delhi on the subject leaves analysts to fear the worst. The Delhi diplomats have been so surprised by the US reversal that they do not know what to say and how to put a spin on the subject. They should have expected this. In fact Rupee News already predicted this several weeks agon in a series of articles listed here.

• Indian gloating on Nuclear deal challenged by China-Pakistan nexus.
• Pakistan already has a Nuclear Deal with China! India tried to raise expectations to portend failure!
• http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/09/india-trapped-in-nuclear-proliferation-treatyban-on-future-tests/
• http://rupeenews.com/2008/08/29/indian-123-nuclear-deal-fails-despite-pppp-capitulationto-us/
• India trapped in Nuclear 123 Treaty: Ban on future tests

The 123 agreement was the singular foreign policy achievement, some would say the singular achievement of the Congress government. Now that symbol of American-Bharati cooperation is not only tarnished, it is sinking into a black hole.

Against this background, the Indian government ought to have taken Parliament into confidence on the EUMA rather than place on record just the two sentences on the agreement found in Krishna’s statement on Clinton’s visit.

[*] The MLSA envisages exchange of services and logistics. If it gets signed, the Indian and American militaries will provide logistic support, berthing and refueling facilities to each other’s warships and aircraft on a barter or equal-value exchange basis. But given that the Indian military, including the navy, has no deployments or operations outside the region, the MSLA, in effect, would be a one-sided arrangement.

[†] The purchase of the USS Trenton was severely criticized by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which in its report raised several questions, including why the ship was bought when the US Navy itself had concluded in 2003 that the ship was not suitable for modernization ought to be decommissioned in 2006. The report pointed out gas leaks on board other Trenton-type ships in which three American sailors lost their lives. Rediff.http://news.rediff.com/special/2009/jul/22/end-use-monitoring-agreement-a-factsheet.htm

There is a lot of opposition to the EUMA. The fine print of the Hyde Amendment is a minefield for those moving forward on the Indo-US Nuclear deal. The Hyde Amendment is a piece of legislation that Congress passed in December 2006, called the Henry J Hyde Act, which imposes numerous conditions upon India, including an end to nuclear cooperation with the US if India conducts a nuclear test. A Democratic Administration could impose the Hyde Amendment on the 123 deal and cause havoc with the Bush-India deal. The Bush Administration had made the Nuclear deal a cornerstone of its Pro-India and Anti-China policy. Those were the days of building India as a counterweight to China.

India agreed during US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s visit to the end-user agreement that will allow the US to monitor the end use of the arms and sensitive technologies sold to India and ensure that they are not diverted to other countries..  Time of India

The agreement attracted criticism from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Left parties that alleged it undermined India’s sovereignty by allegedly opening up its defence arsenal to intrusive inspections by the US

Many think that Premier Manmohan Singh has dropped the ball. Rupee News had predicted the unraveling of the 123 deal on September 9th, 2008. This is what we wrote. India trapped in Nuclear 123 Treaty: Ban on future tests

The Indian left is right!  Panglossian elitist triumphalism has inebriated the elitist ruling class into thinking that 123 will instantly propel them into the 23rd century with some sort of magical competitive advantage- blinding the penury stricken pullulating millions into embracing an inequitable deal which seriously impinges on Indian sovereignty & exacerbates the arms race in the Subcontinent, and only fills the coffers of the corrupt & multinationals. Every time the elite has tried to leapfrog the competition, it has had to face unsurmountable impediments.

Although Mr. Krishna departed from practice in the Lok Sabha and tried to answer the questions raised, all the unsatisfied parties — the BJP, the CPI(M), the CPI, the SP, and the AIADMK — walked out, with members in the Rajya Sabha following suit a little later.

Outside the House, the BJP’s Sushma Swaraj repeated the demand that the agreement be abrogated.

Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari was dismissive of the Opposition for displaying a lack of confidence in India’s ability to engage with the world. The Hindu. “India’s sovereignty compromised” New Delhi Bureau

India is now fully ensnarled with all the provisions of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without actually signing the treaty. India cannot conduct another test, and almost all of its facilities are under IAEA or other monitoring. If the contract is broken, the US has the ability and the legal wherewithal to retrieve all facilities, and technology. The US will not transfer sensitive and dual use technology to India. The agreement forces India to conform to the Hyde Laws which are NPT in another form:

To make the matters worse, India’s Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon admitted that the joint statement was poorly drafted.

Second, the End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) that was signed on the United State’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India. The agreement meant that US has the rights to monitor the weapons that it supplies to India. Besides the opposition parties there is a section within the Congress party which believes that India has compromised its sovereignty by finalizing the EUMA.

One of the silent critics of this seems to be the No.2 in the government Pranab Mukherjee, the present Finance Minister and the former Foreign Minister. The part of the problem with Dr.Singh’s foreign policy is his inexperience in Foreign Policy and secondly, the inexperience of the S.M.Krishna, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka to Foreign Policy. International Reporter

The barrage of criticism within Bharat was incessant and never ending.

NEW DELHI: A government statement on the End-Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) between India and the United States in Parliament on Tuesday failed to satisfy Opposition parties, leading to a walkout after they charged the government with compromising sovereignty by allowing “intrusive” inspections of sensitive defence installations.

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna made identical statements in both Houses, saying the agreement “systematises ad hoc arrangements for individual defence procurements from the U.S. entered into by previous governments.” The EUMA would “henceforth be referred to in letters of acceptance for Indian procurement of U.S. defence technology and equipment.” The Hindu. “India’s sovereignty compromised” New Delhi Bureau

CISMA–US/INDIA Crytography Merger

This is a very dangerous agreement for India to sign, as are the two extra military agreements.  If India wants to remain partially independent from the Empire then Mr. Singh must not sign away India’ right to keep secrets from its new Big Brother.

more about “CISMA–US/INDIA Crytography Merger“, posted with vodpod

“The Jordan Valley is Ours”–IDF Storm Troopers Will Not leave

New Israeli demand complicates US peace mission

By AMY TEIBEL

The Associated Press
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 4:10 AM

JERUSALEM — Washington’s Middle East envoy faced a new obstacle Thursday as he launched his latest attempt to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks: Israel wants to keep troops on the West Bank’s border with Jordan even if a deal is reached.

Palestinians rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand, made just before U.S. envoy George Mitchell arrived in Israel on Wednesday. Mitchell has been laboring without success for a year to get both sides back to the negotiating table, and Netanyahu’s new demand made his mission even more formidable.

Netanyahu said Israel must maintain a presence “on the eastern side of a prospective Palestinian state” to keep militants from using the territory to launch rockets at Israel’s heartland.

The eastern side of such a state would be the part of the Jordan Valley that lies in the West Bank.

Saeb Erekat, a confidant of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called the demand “absolutely unacceptable.”

“The borders of the state of Palestine will be Jordan,” Erekat told Israel Radio. “The Jordan Valley is ours, is Palestine. Why do they insist on being on our territory?”

FBI Continues To Evade Congressional Restraints To Obtain What It Wants

[The FBI has been abusing the special powers created to fight terrorism since 911.  Provisions intended only to find terrorists have been used in drug and money-laundering cases, by pretending that it is all one and the same.  SEE: WATCH: DoJ Official Blows Cover Off PATRIOT Act]

FBI tactics in terror probes ‘troubling,’ inspector general says

The bureau’s independent watchdog says top agency officials approved a possibly illegal method of obtaining phone records during the Bush administration.

By Josh Meyer

Reporting from Washington – The FBI used a variety of controversial and possibly illegal methods to obtain phone records in terrorism investigations, according to a sharply critical report issued Wednesday by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

The report by the department’s independent watchdog office said the tactics were used by the FBI from 2002 to 2006 and approved by officials at the highest levels of the bureau, including at least four top counter-terrorism officials.

In an apparent effort to cut corners, the FBI informally — and improperly — used emergency “exigent letters” to phone service providers to obtain at least 2,000 phone records, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said in the 289-page report.

The report described some of the methods as “troubling” and “startling,” including claiming fake emergencies and sending requests via e-mail and Post-it notes. The report said the techniques amounted to an “egregious breakdown” of the FBI’s oversight of the program. After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress made it easier for FBI agents to get phone records in certain emergency circumstances when trying to thwart terrorist plots and attacks.

The report also asserted that FBI officials compounded the misconduct by trying to issue national security letters after the fact.

“While the FBI has taken action to end the use of exigent letters and other informal requests for telephone records, we believe that the FBI and the Justice Department need to examine this report carefully and take additional corrective action to ensure that the FBI obtains such records in accord with the law and Department of Justice policies,” Fine’s report said.

The report was the inspector general’s third on what he found to be the FBI’s improper collection of phone records in recent years. It provided new details about the program, including how widespread it became and how much controversy it generated within the bureau.

The report confirmed instances in which FBI agents conducting leak investigations obtained billing records and other calling information for reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post without getting the required authorization from the attorney general.

In response, the FBI issued a statement saying that its agents were working under great stress in trying to run down numerous leads and thwart potential terrorist attacks and that they did not intentionally violate the law. The practice was “limited and discontinued,” and the records in question involved only billing records as opposed to access to what was actually discussed in the calls, the FBI said.

“The OIG report finds no intentional attempts to obtain records that counter-terrorism personnel knew they were not legally entitled to obtain,” said Michael P. Kortan, the FBI’s assistant director for public affairs. “No FBI employee obtained telephone records for reasons other than a legitimate investigative interest.”

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was unaware of the widespread use of the exigent letters until late 2006, when it was uncovered by the inspector general investigation, and he has since taken steps to correct the problem, according to the report and Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mueller acknowledged that there were “substantial weaknesses, substantial management and performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records.” But he added that better internal controls and changes in policy and training have substantially minimized the possibility of similar errors in the future.

Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said during the hearing that “no one is above the law — no senator and no member of the FBI, and there has to be accountability for what happened here.”

“This was authorized at high levels within the FBI and continued for years,” Leahy added.

“We’ll look at the conduct and assign discipline as warranted,” Mueller said.

josh.meyer@latimes.com

Netanyahu Prepares for Latest Lebanon Invasion to Feed Zionist Bloodlust

[This is not your typical idle Israeli threat; the "Jewish State" cannot survive without constant conflict.  SEE: Hariri Fearful of Possible Israeli Military Operation Against Lebanon

Within the fascist "Iron Walls" of that shitty little state that calls itself "Israel," bloodthirsty colonists scream for more, and "Bibbi" prepares to turn Lebanon into the latest "Colosseum" for the panting onlookers cheering from their stolen hilltops.

The "god" of Israel must have a new feast of blood.  That "god" is not the same God of Jesus or Mohammed.]

Israel Warns of ‘Ever-Growing’ Hizbullah Arsenal, Vows to ‘Stop’ Rocket Shipments from Syria, Iran

Israel has warned of the growing Hizbullah arsenal, expressing fears that the Shiite group is still seeking to avenge the assassination of its former military commander Imad Moughniyeh in Damascus two years ago.

Hizbullah says Moughniyeh’s murder was orchestrated by Israel.

While Israeli Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin described Hizbullah as “Iran’s spearhead in south Lebanon,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel “cannot afford” to have rockets across from the center of the Jewish state.

Yadlin argued that Hizbullah recognizes that war with Israel does not enjoy popular support today on the Lebanese street, but is “trying to carry out a high-profile assassination” as revenge for Moughniyeh’s death in Damascus in 2008.

Hizbullah, Yadlin said, was different in this regard from other key international terrorist networks, such as al-Qaida and Islamic Jihad, which are focusing their energy on attacks that would result in mass deaths of Israelis.

Netanyahu, for his part, said the threat to Israel from Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon meant that any Palestinian state would be “demilitarized.”

He said the experience of rocket attacks from the Lebanese and Gaza borders means Israel must be able to prevent such weapons from being brought into a Palestinian entity in the West Bank.

“We cannot afford to have that across from the center of our country,” Netanyahu told foreign reporters in Jerusalem.

“We are surrounded by an ever-growing arsenal of rockets placed in the Iranian-supported enclaves to the north and to the south,” he said, referring to Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.

Palestinians want to create an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem with no Israeli presence, be it military or civilian.

Under the current situation, Israel is in overall control of the West Bank and its borders, though the Palestinian Authority patrols main population centers.

Netanyahu pointed to the defensive systems Israel is developing to destroy incoming rockets, but he admitted that they are “prohibitively expensive.”

He accused Syria and Iran without naming them of providing Hizbullah with arms and vowed to curb this.

“Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza get their rockets from neighboring countries, and that must be stopped,” he warned.

Pacts for the gullible

Thursday, January 21, 2010 By Zafar Hilaly

After grabbing the larger part of Kashmir by force Nehru, in mid-November 1949, out of the blue offered to conclude a no-war pact with Pakistan. Taken aback somewhat, Liaquat Ali Khan recovered his composure to tell Nehru that rather than a no-war declaration the best way of removing both the causes and the fear of war was to settle major outstanding disputes between the two countries. Even if disputes could not be settled, Liaquat Ali Khan added; let us agree on a procedure for settling them so that both countries would have entered into firm commitments which in due course would definitely lead to a settlement. Nehru was not interested. President Ahmadinejad too must have needed a diversion to take his mind off his plateful of worries at home when he suggested to Mr Zardari last week that Iran and Pakistan enter into a mutual defence pact. Considering that the threat Iran faces is from America with which Pakistan is locked in alliance, such a pact is deader than a dodo. The Iranians should have thought of such an alliance earlier, that is, prior to the proxy war in which the two countries engaged over Afghanistan following the Soviet retreat in 1989. Rafsanjani, then president, scoffed at Benazir’s Bhutto’s offer, conveyed by me in 1995, to unite our policies on Afghanistan. As a result, the fratricidal inter-Mujahideen war continued until the Taliban emerged from the turmoil and, with the help of Pakistan, gained control of Kabul. The rest, as they say, is history. We now have yet another weird pact in which Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan have pledged not to allow their respective territories to be used in activities detrimental to each other’s interests, precisely when all of them are up to their necks, wittingly or unwittingly, in doing so. Iran, for example, has its own proxies in Afghanistan, including elements of the Karzai regime, such as Ismail Khan, who are paid to advance Iranian interests. Iran’s arming of the Northern Alliance forces is well known, so too the latter’s agenda, in particular their arming of militants for operations against Pakistan. Besides, Iran and the Taliban are, and have remained, deeply antagonistic to each other. Neither it seems has made any move to heal their breech; not even a common enemy in the shape of the Americans has helped to bring them together. How equable relations will ever exist between Iran and an Afghanistan in which the shia averse Taliban also have more than a slice of power is difficult to envisage. Of course, Iran has a legitimate right to complain that Pakistan’s virtually unpoliced border with Iran is a veritable thoroughfare for all kinds of criminals and spies, and so too the Afghan border with Balochistan whence, it is said, much of the American infiltration occurs which is directed against Iran; and, in the case of India, in stoking the fires of revolt in Baluchistan. Two former Russian KGB agents described in vivid detail to Sandra Johnson in Moscow their many journeys across the border accompanying Indians and arms supplied by India to Baloch rebels. Although this portion of the border is virtually indefensible nevertheless Iran blames Pakistan, which technically is indeed responsible for thwarting intrusions of its territories by foreigners keen to attack Iran. As for Afghanistan, under Karzai Kabul has encouraged India to set up an elaborate intelligence operation directed against Pakistan. Seldom, if ever, have there been a greater number of Indian intelligence operatives in Afghanistan earning their keep by funding terror attacks on Pakistan and secessionist armies such as that of the Bugti scions of Balochistan. All of which makes a mockery of Manmohan Singh’s claim that India is opposed to such activities. Indeed, if India takes it upon itself to bomb what it considers are terrorist training facilities in Pakistan following another terror attack on India by groups seemingly operating out of Pakistan all Indian Consulates and sub offices in Afghanistan, ipso facto, become legitimate targets for similar raids for identical reasons by our own air force. Were this to happen Afghanistan would be as much to blame as India. It is surprising that the Americans who, for all practical purposes, call the shots in Afghanistan have also encouraged India to establish her presence in the country. It was a callow move. It has ensured that Pakistan’s cooperation in the war against the Taliban will never be robust. Among those who matter it has generated a great deal of suspicion and more resentment than can possibly be off set by the gains that accrue to Washington. The fact remains that an unfriendly regime in Kabul dressed up to appear cooperative on America’s urging fools no one. Mr Zardari can have Karzai over as much as he likes and take him to play polo but it will have no effect. To well over half of Afghanistan and all of Pakistan Karzai is and remains an artful American stooge As for Pakistan, large areas of our tribal areas are not in government control. Moreover, in North Waziristan, the Haqqani army holds sway and it is no secret that it uses the area as a base to wage war against the Afghan regime and the Americans. Taking them on, even if the willingness to do so were present, would require a vast redeployment of forces from the Indian border which seems unlikely given Delhi’s aggressive intent. Besides, by taking on the Afghan Taliban Pakistan would signal to the Pukhtoons of Afghanistan and Pakistan that an American-imposed minority dispensation composing Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc., is not only what Pakistan prefers but will fight for; a ridiculous proposition considering that Pakistan is a multi-ethnic state with 30 million Pakhtuns. In an identical quandary in Sri Lanka India abjured helping the legitimate government of Sri Lanka in overcoming Tamil secessionists. Demanding of Pakistan what India refused is typical of the intellectual duplicity for which India is deservedly notorious. Unfortunately, the murderous Jaishes and Lashkars are also embedded in parts of Pakistan. Although at one time nourished and mentored by the Pakistani establishment they now consider Islamabad as hostile as America or India. And it would surprise no one if they launched yet another murderous attack against innocent Indians or, for that matter, Pakistanis who are a much easier target. Stopping them is no doubt Pakistan’s responsibility just as foiling their attacks would be that of India in cooperation with Pakistan or on its own. But, like that of Mumbai, the responsibility for an attack would be blamed by Delhi exclusively on Pakistan. By refusing to discuss how best these extremists can be prevented from attacking their targets India does Pakistan no favour, but nor does India help itself. The logic of India’s continued stiff arming of Pakistan escapes everyone except the hawks in Delhi. Rather than enter into agreements that are really of no value except to deceive a gullible public into believing that matters will soon be well, all three countries, and India, would do much better to address their respective differences with each other bilaterally. Only when these have been resolved and a plan of action/ cooperation agreed will it be possible to conclude an agreement of the kind hyped in Islamabad earlier this week. Besides, no arrangement without an effective joint monitoring/investigative mechanism amounts to much. If the countries are simply to conclude yet another pious declaration the exercise is of little value. We already have enough of such declarations beginning with the UN Charter which also forbids the use of the territory of one state to attack another. As for the Afghan foreign minister’s plea in Islamabad that Afghanistan be kept out of the quarrel between India and Pakistan, he should perhaps address it to his own president and the Americans who, knowing full well what India would do once it had a foothold in Afghanistan, nevertheless let India in. A great deal of friendship is mere feigning which is what transpired in Islamabad earlier this week. All three foreign ministers would have been more gainfully employed elsewhere. The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

Ron Paul: Take-out the CIA

Ron Paul: After ‘CIA coup,’ agency ‘runs military’

By Raw Story

US House Rep. Ron Paul says the CIA has has in effect carried out a “coup” against the US government, and the intelligence agency needs to be “taken out.”

Speaking to an audience of like-minded libertarians at a Campaign for Liberty regional conference in Atlanta this past weekend, the Texas Republican said:

There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.

Paul’s comments, made last weekend, were met with a loud round of applause, but they didn’t gather attention until bloggers noticed a clip of the event at YouTube.

Paul appeared to be referring to news reports that the CIA is deeply involved in air strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A suicide bombing late last year against Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan took the lives of seven of CIA operatives, including twocontracted from Blackwater. The event highlighted the CIA’s deep involvement in the war effort.

Paul’s reference to the CIA being “in the drug business” refers to long-running allegations that the CIA has funded some of its covert operations with proceeds from drug-running. That claim was most famously made in a 1996 investigative report from the San Jose Mercury-News, which alleged that cocaine from the Contra-Sandinista civil war in Nicaragua was making its way to the streets of L.A. via the CIA.

The following video was uploaded to the Web by user TNSONSOFLIBERTY, Jan, 15, 2010.

more about “Ron Paul: After ‘CIA coup,’ agency ‘r…“, posted with vodpod

A two-front threat emerging for Pakistan

[It should be pointed-out, that although Pakistan would not survive a two-front war against India and the United States, it is highly unlikely that the Imperialist forces would gamble open exposure of their avaricious plans.  Whatever happens, it is likely to occur on a covert level.  Pakistan's only chance for survival against the coming storm is to expose to the whole world the terrorism that has been sponsored and nurtured in Pakistan by the United States and India.  Instead of boycotting the London Conference on Afghanistan, Pakistan's leaders must go there and turn the forum in the direction of truth.]

By: Shireeen M Mazari
The Nation.
ISLAMABAD – A nightmare security scenario for Pakistan seems to be emerging – that of a two-front military conflict. Pakistan is already facing an internal militancy aided and abetted from Afghanistan and is threatened with all manner of likely US boots actually coming into Pakistan. Already, the drone attacks on Pakistani soil have increased. For all these reasons, Pakistan has moved a large chunk of its forces away from its Eastern border with India and along the LoC, and moved them to the Western front along the international border with Afghanistan as well as into FATA.

Now India has upped the military ante against Pakistan after meetings between Indian officials and America’s Holbrooke and Gates. Hence we are seeing the unprovoked Indian military firing at Pakistani forces across the international border, the working boundary and across the LoC, which has resulted in death and injury for Pakistani soldiers. What can possibly be the Indian intent at this time to undertake such military adventurism? Had it been given some go-ahead by the Americans.

This new military provocation comes when there seems to have been a decision made by the British and Americans to give India a major military role in Afghanistan. The two allies are all set to spring this nasty decision onto Pakistan at the international conference on Afghanistan in London at the end of this month when it will be proposed that India train the Afghan National Army – something it is already doing at a small level covertly and on that pretext already has its operatives in Afghanistan. It is these operatives who are conducting the aid and assistance to militants within Pakistan.

In view of these developments, what are the immediate options for Pakistan which will protect its interests as well as signal an effective message to both the US and India?

First and most immediate, Pakistan needs to move its troops back to its Eastern front and cease operations in FATA. We need to distinguish between our militancy problem, which is certainly threatening and very real, but has multiple dimensions, and the misguided US ‘War on Terror’. On the Western front, it needs to realign its forces along the Chaman border area with Afghanistan where it is expected US boots may enter Pakistan on the ground.

Second, it needs to tell the US in no uncertain terms that it will not tolerate these Indian military incitements and may well up the ante also choosing its own time, place and type of response.

Third, Pakistan needs to categorically refuse to participate in the London Conference if the plan to train the Afghan National Army by India is even discussed informally. In fact, under the circumstances, if India participates in the Conference, Pakistan should consider the option of boycotting it. Let us see how far the US and UK get in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s active cooperation!

Fourth, it is time to demand that Indian operatives move out of Afghanistan and Indian consulates in Afghanistan along the border area with Pakistan be closed.

The fact that the Indian aggression has come immediately in the aftermath of the discussions between the Indians and visiting Americans including Defence Secretary Gates, and following on the heels of the visit to Kabul by India’s DG MI, shows only too clearly the Indo-US nexus in terms of presenting Pakistan with a possible two-front threat.

The NBC Leak on India-Pakistan Nuclear Weapons Status

A section of the US military establishment appears to have deliberately leaked provocative views on Pakistan”s nuclear capabilities to the media.

A section of the US military establishment appears to have deliberately leaked provocative views on Pakistan`s nuclear capabilities to the media. The view is that Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal is vastly superior to India`s. On 7 June 2000, NBC reported that US intelligence and military agencies have now revised earlier estimates of India`s and Pakistan`s nuclear capabilities. They estimate that not only does Pakistan have upto five times more nuclear warheads than India but it also has far more accurate and effective delivery systems. NBC reported that after both countries conducted nuclear tests in May 1998, Pakistan had between 10 and 15 nuclear weapons in its arsenal while India had between 25 and 100. However, now they suggest they may have overstated India`s `home-grown` arsenal and understated Pakistan`s programme, which has been beefed up with `generous Chinese assistance`. According to one official, Pakistan is more likely to have `those numbers of 25 to 100 nuclear warheads than the Indians.` The NBC news report quotes General Anthony Zinni of the US central command who is familiar with the region and who has met with Pakistan`s military commanders, including General Pervez Musharraf. According to him, there is a considerable amount of uncertainty on the long-term assumption that Pakistan`s nuclear capability is inferior to India`s. The report further states that a recent US defence department analysis of India`s capability and readiness suggests that New Delhi is now `aware of its shortcomings` and is seeking to address the problem. It refers to the minimum deterrent force `comprised of a triad of nuclear delivery systems – air, mobile land-based launches and sea-based platforms` and adds `the air component of its triad is the only one that may be in place already`. The report states that India has fewer aircraft capable of carrying nuclear warheads than Pakistan and has no missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads.

New Delhi has twice tested the intermediate range Agni missile, which might eventually provide for delivering nuclear payloads. However, according to analysts, the Agni will not be fielded with nuclear warheads for another 10 years and India appears to have just begun work on missile warheads and miniaturization of weapons. While on the other hand, Islamabad`s F-16s and its French Mirage fighter bombers, according to these analysts, are `superior at penetrating enemy airspace` to India`s Soviet-designed MIGs and Sukhois. Besides, Pakistan is now estimated to possess 30 nuclear capable missiles – the Chinese-made M-11 short range missiles and its Pakistani variant, the Tarmuk, as well as the North Korean Nodong intermediate range missile, which the Pakistanis call the Ghauri.  Earlier, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington Maleeha Lodhi, in a speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars warned that her country was left with no other options but to build a `nuclear force` as India embarks on a huge conventional arms build-up. She said: `We will not be foolish enough to be dragged into matching India`s huge and growing military expenditures. Instead, Pakistan will have to enhance its reliance on its nuclear and missile capabilities to ensure against the threat of conventional aggression or attack by India.`

The official Pakistani reaction to the NBC report was predictable. Its foreign office spokeman stated that the report is far from the truth and that their nuclear capability is “modest” as compared to the Indian nuclear establishment. On 8 June 2000, the Pakistani Foreign Office stated that the US intelligence report carries dangerous implications as it tends to justify the ambitious Indian programme for nuclear and conventional build-up. Pakistan states that in comparison to a few Pakistani nuclear facilities, India has a vast nuclear programme comprising dozens of nuclear installations, a large missile and space programme and an Air Force which is five times larger. India, on the other hand, has not given out any official reaction to the report. The Vajpayee government appears committed to sign the CTBT, a position again reiterated by defence minister George Fernandes recently in Japan. But the RSS and its front organisations, who have been sceptical about the CTBT, are now  expected to step up pressure to engage Pakistan in a nuclear arms race. BJP vice-president J.P. Mathur, reacting to the report, said, “India should be prepared to meet the challenge and we should not restrict ourselves to any agreement.”

Indian Supremacists Reveal the Insanity in Their Delusions

Pentagon Overview of China’s Missile Forces, 2006
China’s Missile Inventory	Launcher	Missiles	Estimated Range
DF-5/CSS-4 ICBM	20	20	8,460+ km
DF-4/CSS-3 ICBM	10-14	20-24	5,470+ km
DF-3/CSS-2 IRBM	6-10	14-18	2,790+ km
DF-21/CSS-5 MRBM Mod 1/2	34-38	19-50	1,770+ km
JL-1 SLBM	10-14	10-14	1,770+ km
DF-15/CSS-6 SRBM	70-80	275-315	600 km
DF-11/CSS-7 SRBM	100-120	435-475	300 km
JL-2 SLBM	DEVELOPMENTAL		8,000+ km
DF-31 ICBM*	DEVELOPMENTAL		7,250+ km
DF-31A ICBM	DEVELOPMENTAL		11,270+ km
Total	250-296	793-916
* China defines the DF-31 as a long-range ballistic missile, not an intercontinental ballistic missile.DF stands for Dong Feng which means “east wave.” The U.S. designation CSS stands for Chinese Surface-to-Surface. Color codes: Red (nuclear), Blue (possibly nuclear), Black (not nuclear). Source: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2006, May 23, 2006, p. 50. Colors and notes added. Table reproduced and further analyzed in Hans M. Kristensen, et al., Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning, Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council, November 2006, p. 38.

This new cruise missile (named Ra’ad) was test fired on 25th August for the first time from a ROSE-I upgraded Mirage-IIIEA. http://www.PakDef.info

more about “Pakistani air launched cruise missile…“, posted with vodpod

India’s new war doctrine

Mohammad Jamil

India is preparing for a possible ‘two-front war’ with China and Pakistan, Indian newspaper reported on Wednesday. According to newspaper’s report, Indian Army is now revising its five-year-old doctrine to effectively meet the challenges of war with China and Pakistan,

deal with asymmetric and fourth-generation warfare, and enhance strategic reach and joint operations with IAF and Navy. Work on the new war doctrine – to reflect the reconfiguration of threat perceptions and security challenges – is already underway under the aegis of Shimla-based Army Training Command. The head of the command Lt General AS Lamba went so far as to say that a massive thrust in Rawalpindi to quiet Pakistanis within 48 hours of the start of the assault. “The armed forces have to substantially enhance their strategic reach and out-of-area capabilities to protect India’s geo-political interests stretching from Persian Gulf to Malacca Strait. This would enable us to protect our island territories; as also give assistance to the littoral states in the Indian Ocean Region,” said General Kapoor.

In beginning November, Pakistan’s defence analysts had reported about India’s planning for so-called ‘Cold Start’ strategy and preparing for a limited war against Pakistan. General Kapoor’s statement on 24th November 2009 confirmed the hegemonic thrust of India’s nuclear doctrine. Indian Army Chief had indicated that India was setting the stage for a limited war against Pakistan since long. Despite the fact that efforts are afoot to downplay India-China border dispute and rivalry, there is a consensus among defence analysts that Arunachal is a flashpoint like or even more than Taiwan. Bharat Verma, editor Indian Defence Review, in his article titled ‘Unmasking China’ in July/September 2009 issue, had presaged that there could be a war during the month of October 2009 between India and China, which luckily did not happen.

China claims some 90000 square kilometer of Arunachal Pradesh, which was once a part of Tibet. But India takes the plea that it is part of India, which it inherited from the British Raj. The first Chinese Premier Zhou En Lai had written to Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejecting latter’s contention that the border was based on 1914 treaty of Simla Convention, adding that Chinese government had not accepted McMohan Line as legal. It appears that Asia is going to be the next theatre of war, thanks to the US and the West’s machinations and India’s ambitions to be a regional power with their support. Recent events in Tibet and Xinjiang however have sparked regional concerns. Bharat Verma, editor of the Indian Defence Review, in an interview with Times of India had claimed that “China would attack India before 2012 to divert the attention of its own people from unprecedented internal dissent, growing unemployment and financial problems that are threatening the hold of Communists in that country”.

In fact, the global financial meltdown and recession have impacted China least, as it has recorded more than 7% growth as compared to 2 to 3% of the most stable economies of the world. Anyhow India’s talk of possibility of war with China is to attract attention of the US and the West with a view to having further concessions and help to strengthen India’s armed forces. Chinese leadership remains well composed as usual and does not intend to create war frenzy. In 1962, when India tried to flex its muscles, Chinese troops had advanced to 48 kilometers in Assam plains and also occupied Indian forces’ strategic posts in Ladakh. The border clashes with China were a direct consequence of the Tibetan problem that cropped up when the Dalai Lama had fled to India. Since then it has become a flashpoint that could spark a war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

Over the years, both countries held series of negotiations to resolve the territorial dispute but to no avail. But after British Foreign Office clarification on 29th October 2008 admitting that Tibet was part of China, India should have reviewed its policy of claim on Arunachal. Britain should also give its version on Kashmir dispute, as this dispute also owes its origin to British Raj. It should support the United Nations Security Resolution giving the people of Kashmir the right to join Pakistan or India through the UN supervised plebiscite, international community.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that Pakistan’s stability has always been the cornerstone of China’s foreign policy. China and Pakistan signed a deal in 2006 to upgrade the Karakoram Highway, which runs from the trading city of Kashgar in China’s far western Xinjiang region to Gilgit in Pakistan and on to Islamabad. Chinese President Hu Jintao had rejected the Indian protest over Chinese help to Pakistan and vowed that China would continue to support projects in Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas.

On the other hand, Chinese government had strongly protested over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, and had expressed its anger over the planned visit of Dalai Lama to Arunachal Pradesh. China had however warned that there should no political speeches, and Dalai Lama avoided any political statement during the trip, as he did not like to exacerbate the tension between China and India.A few months ago, according to Indian press reports China’s soldiers, helicopters and even fighter jets have been intruding in the disputed territory to slowly and steadily retrieve the area. Though Chinese media has never created hype about its territorial dispute with India, yet recently Chinese diplomats, intellectuals and leaders of the public opinion assert claims over Arunachal Pradesh. In May 2009, international media had carried reports that India has significantly upgraded its military prowess along the border it shares with China, deploying two army divisions along with a squadron of top-of-the-line Sukhoi Su-30MKI warplanes at a critical base in the north-east. Three Awacs command-and-control aircraft was also deployed to boost India’s ability to track troop and equipment movements on the Chinese side of the border.

Whereas the US seems to have invoked its policy of containing China and to create a situation to stymie its progress, Beijing is also making preparations to meet any eventuality, and building up its military strength to project power not only regionally but also to contend the US as a major player in global politics. Nevertheless, Chinese leaders hope that frictions can be contained and overwhelmed by the two nation’s shared interest in prosperity. Chinese leadership also understands that economic power is the most important and most essential factor in comprehensive national power, which is why China has all along focused on increasing its economic strength, keeping in mind that its military strength depends on the former.

Indian leadership should not exacerbate the tensions in Asia, and should understand the consequences of saber-rattling and ultimate war with two atomic states. It should also understand that during peace time, army generals should not come out with aggressive statements because that can be construed as declaration of war.

The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan

[For those foolish individuals who think that nuclear war between these bitter enemies is survivable, I give the following food for thought.  Even if half of India's 1.1 billion people survive, most of them would die of radiation or starvation within a year.  SEE: India’s new war doctrine]

The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan

NRDC’s nuclear experts think about the unthinkable, using state-of-the-art nuclear war simulation software to assess the crisis in South Asia.

The months-long military standoff between India and Pakistan intensified several weeks ago when suspected Islamic militants killed more than 30 people at an Indian base in the disputed territory of Kashmir. As U.S. diplomatic pressure to avert war intensifies, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is going to India and Pakistan this week to discuss with his South Asian counterparts the results of a classified Pentagon study that concludes that a nuclear war between these countries could result in 12 million deaths.

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) has conducted its own analysis of the consequences of nuclear war in South Asia. Prior to this most recent crisis we calculated two nuclear scenarios. The first assumes 10 Hiroshima-sized explosions with no fallout; the second assumes 24 nuclear explosions with significant radioactive fallout. Below is a discussion of the two scenarios in detail and an exploration of several additional issues regarding nuclear war in South Asia.

Indian and Pakistani Nuclear Forces

It is difficult to determine the actual size and composition of India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals, but NRDC estimates that both countries have a total of 50 to 75 weapons. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we believe India has about 30 to 35 nuclear warheads, slightly fewer than Pakistan, which may have as many as 48.

Both countries have fission weapons, similar to the early designs developed by the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s. NRDC estimates their explosive yields are 5 to 25 kilotons (1 kiloton is equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT). By comparison, the yield of the weapon the United States exploded over Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, while the bomb exploded over Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. According to a recent NRDC discussion with a senior Pakistani military official, Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons are mounted on missiles. India’s nuclear weapons are reportedly gravity bombs deployed on fighter aircraft.

NRDC’s Nuclear Program initially developed the software used to calculate the consequences of a South Asian nuclear war to examine and analyze the U.S. nuclear war planning process. We combined Department of Energy and Department of Defense computer codes with meteorological and demographic data to model what would happen in various kinds of attacks using different types of weapons. Our June 2001 report, “The U.S. Nuclear War Plan: A Time for Change,” is available at http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/index.asp.

Scenario: 10 Bombs on 10 South Asian Cities

For our first scenario we used casualty data from the Hiroshima bomb to estimate what would happen if bombs exploded over 10 large South Asian cities: five in India and five in Pakistan. (The results were published in “The Risks and Consequences of Nuclear War in South Asia,” by NRDC physicist Matthew McKinzie and Princeton scientists Zia Mian, A. H. Nayyar and M. V. Ramana, a chapter in Smitu Kothari and Zia Mian (editors), “Out of the Nuclear Shadow” (Dehli: Lokayan and Rainbow Publishers, 2001).)

The 15-kiloton yield of the Hiroshima weapon is approximately the size of the weapons now in the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals. The deaths and severe injuries experienced at Hiroshima were mainly a function of how far people were from ground zero. Other factors included whether people were in buildings or outdoors, the structural characteristics of the buildings themselves, and the age and health of the victims at the time of the attack. The closer to ground zero, the higher fatality rate. Further away there were fewer fatalities and larger numbers of injuries. The table below summarizes the first nuclear war scenario by superimposing the Hiroshima data onto five Indian and five Pakistan cities with densely concentrated populations.

Estimated nuclear casualties for attacks on 10 large Indian and Pakistani cities
City Name	Total Population Within 5 Kilometers of Ground Zero	Number of Persons Killed	Number of Persons Severely Injured	Number of Persons Slightly Injured
India
Bangalore	3,077,937	314,978	175,136	411,336
Bombay	3,143,284	477,713	228,648	476,633
Calcutta	3,520,344	357,202	198,218	466,336
Madras	3,252,628	364,291	196,226	448,948
New Delhi	1,638,744	176,518	94,231	217,853
Total India	14,632,937	1,690,702	892,459	2,021,106
Pakistan
Faisalabad	2,376,478	336,239	174,351	373,967
Islamabad	798,583	154,067	66,744	129,935
Karachi	1,962,458	239,643	126,810	283,290
Lahore	2,682,092	258,139	149,649	354,095
Rawalpindi	1,589,828	183,791	96,846	220,585
Total Pakistan	9,409,439	1,171,879	614,400	1,361,872
India and Pakistan
Total	24,042,376	2,862,581	1,506,859	3,382,978

As in the case of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in this scenario the 10 bombs over Indian and Pakistani cities would be exploded in the air, which maximized blast damage and fire but creates no fallout. On August 6, 1945, the United States exploded an untested uranium-235 gun-assembly bomb, nicknamed “Little Boy,” 1,900 feet above Hiroshima. The city was home to an estimated 350,000 people; about 140,000 died by the end of the year. Three days later, at 11:02 am, the United States exploded a plutonium implosion bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” 1,650 feet above Nagasaki. About 70,000 of the estimated 270,000 residents died by the end of the year.

Ten Hiroshima-size explosions over 10 major cities in India and Pakistan would kill as many as three to four times more people per bomb than in Japan because of the higher urban densities in Indian and Pakistani cities.

Scenario: 24 Ground Bursts

In January, NRDC calculated the consequences of a much more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. It first appeared as a sidebar in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek (“A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes”). This scenario calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground — unlike the Hiroshima airburst — resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout.

Exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, the United States detonated “Little Boy” weapon above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet. At this height, the radioactive particles produced in the explosion were small and light enough to rise into the upper atmosphere, where they were carried by the prevailing winds. Days to weeks later, after the radioactive bomb debris became less “hot,” these tiny particles descended to earth as a measurable radioactive residue, but not at levels of contamination that would cause immediate radiation sickness or death.

Unfortunately, it is easier to fuse a nuclear weapon to detonate on impact than it is to detonate it in the air — and that means fallout. If the nuclear explosion takes place at or near the surface of the earth, the nuclear fireball would gouge out material and mix it with the radioactive bomb debris, producing heavier radioactive particles. These heavier particles would begin to drift back to earth within minutes or hours after the explosion, producing potentially lethal levels of nuclear fallout out to tens or hundreds of kilometers from the ground zero. The precise levels depend on the explosive yield of the weapon and the prevailing winds.

For the second scenario, we calculated the fallout patterns and casualties for a hypothetical nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan in which each country targeted major cities. We chose target cities throughout Pakistan and in northwestern India to take into account the limited range of Pakistani missiles or aircraft. The target cities, listed in the table below, include the capitals of Islamabad and New Dehli, and large cities, such as Karachi and Bombay. In this scenario, we assumed that a dozen, 25-kiloton warheads would be detonated as ground bursts in Pakistan and another dozen in India, producing substantial fallout.

The devastation that would result from fallout would exceed that of blast and fire. NRDC’s second scenario would produce far more horrific results than the first scenario because there would be more weapons, higher yields, and extensive fallout. In some large cities, we assumed more than one bomb would be used.

15 Indian and Pakistani cities attacked with 24 nuclear warheads
Country	City	City Population	Number of Attacking Bombs
Pakistan	Islamabad (national capital)	100-250 thousand	1
Pakistan	Karachi (provincial capital)	> 5 million	3
Pakistan	Lahore (provincial capital)	1-5 million	2
Pakistan	Peshawar (provincial capital)	0.5-1 million	1
Pakistan	Quetta (provincial capital)	250-500 thousand	1
Pakistan	Faisalabad	1-5 million	2
Pakistan	Hyderabad	0.5-1 million	1
Pakistan	Rawalpindi	0.5-1 million	1
India	New Dehli (national capital)	250-500 thousand	1
India	Bombay (provincial capital)	> 5 million	3
India	Delhi (provincial capital)	> 5 million	3
India	Jaipur (provincial capital)	1-5 million	2
India	Bhopal (provincial capital)	1-5 million	1
India	Ahmadabad	1-5 million	1
India	Pune	1-5 million	1

NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem or more in the first two days after the attack. Another 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 rem, causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death, especially for the very young, old or infirm. NRDC calculates that as many as 30 million people would be threatened by the fallout from the attack, roughly divided between the two countries.

Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. NRDC estimates that 8.1 million people live within this radius of destruction.

Most Indians (99 percent of the population) and Pakistanis (93 percent of the population) would survive the second scenario. Their respective military forces would be still be intact to continue and even escalate the conflict.

Thinking the Unthinkable

After India and Pakistan held nuclear tests in 1998, experts have debated whether their nuclear weapons contribute to stability in South Asia. Experts who argue that the nuclear standoff promotes stability have pointed to the U.S.-Soviet Union Cold War as an example of how deterrence ensures military restraint.

NRDC disagrees. There are major differences between the Cold War and the current South Asian crisis. Unlike the U.S.-Soviet experience, these two countries have a deep-seated hatred of one another and have fought three wars since both countries became independent. At least part of the current crisis may be seen as Hindu nationalism versus Muslim fundamentalism.

A second difference is India and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals are much smaller than those of the United States and Russia. The U.S. and Russian arsenals truly represent the capability to destroy each other’s society beyond recovery. While the two South Asia scenarios we have described produce unimaginable loss of life and destruction, they do not reach the level of “mutual assured destruction” that stood as the ultimate deterrent during the Cold War.

The two South Asian scenarios assume nuclear attacks against cities. During the early Cold War period this was the deterrent strategy of the United States and the Soviet Union. But as both countries introduced technological improvements into their arsenals, they pursued other strategies, targeting each other’s nuclear forces, conventional military forces, industry and leadership. India and Pakistan may include these types of targets in their current military planning. For example, attacking large dams with nuclear weapons could result in massive disruption, economic consequences and casualties. Concentrations of military forces and facilities may provide tempting targets as well.

Hariri Fearful of Possible Israeli Military Operation Against Lebanon

Prime Minister Saad Hariri expressed his fear from a possible “Israeli operation” against Lebanon, hinting at the excessive Israeli violations of the Lebanese airspace lately.
In an interview published Wednesday by the French newspaper Le Monde, Hariri said: “We fear an Israeli operation. Last week, 25 overflights for the Israeli fighter jets were recorded in one day.”

“Does Israel consider, by bombarding the south of the country, that it’s not aggressing against all of Lebanon? Or when it hits Dahyieh?” added Hariri.

Hariri, who started an official visit to France Wednesday, added: “What have the Israelis done in 2006? All of the bridges in Lebanon were destroyed. Isn’t that an aggression against Lebanon?”

Commenting on the theory saying that Israel waged the war in 2006 in response to an attack carried out by Hizbullah, Hariri said: “Is this enough to destroy Lebanon?”

“Israel can find any alibi, not to mention it doesn’t need alibis and it is not doing anything for the sake of the peace process.”

“We fear that they create a new conflict as they had done in the past,” added Hariri.