German police clash with thousands blocking nuclear train

30 11 2011

German police clash with thousands blocking nuclear train

DANNENBERG: German police battled thousands of anti-nuclear protestors Sunday, many chained to railroad tracks, who have caused delays as they try to block a train carrying radioactive waste.

The convoy taking the German waste on a 1,200-kilometre (750-mile) journey from a reprocessing centre in northwestern France to a storage facility in northern Germany was stopped for 18 hours, including overnight, amid mass demonstrations.

Thousands of activists swarmed the tracks along the route near the train’s final destination in Dannenberg and boasted that the odyssey’s duration had now topped the 92-hour record set during a shipment one year ago.

Police said they detained about 1,300 people, including some who had chained themselves to the railway, requiring tricky and time-consuming operations to free them before the train could slowly rumble on.

Some 150 people were injured in clashes, most of them demonstrators, according to security forces quoted by German news agency DPA.

The waste, produced in German reactors several years ago and then sent to France for reprocessing, began its journey in a yard operated by French nuclear company Areva in Valognes, Normandy Wednesday.

The protestors argue that the shipment by train of spent fuel rods is hazardous and note that Germany, like the rest of Europe, has no permanent storage site for the waste, which will remain dangerous for thousands of years.

They are also angry that a pledged German phase-out of nuclear power, hastily agreed this year in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan, will take another decade to implement.

“It’s like a friend telling you that he will stop smoking in 10 years,” said Jochen Stay, spokesman for the anti-nuclear body Ausgestrahlt (Radiated), which has mobilised protesters against the shipment. “You are not going to congratulate them just yet.”

At the train’s final destination of Dannenberg, the 11 containers of waste are due to be unloaded onto trucks for the final 20-kilometre leg of the journey by road to the Gorleben storage facility on the River Elbe.

Organisers said about 23,000 protestors had gathered in Dannenberg, while police put the number at 8,000. About 20,000 police have been deployed along the train’s German route.

The demonstrators had travelled from across Germany as well as from Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy, organisers said.

The train’s disputed load represents “44 times Fukushima”, according to ecology group Greenpeace, which said a single container could unleash “four times the radioactivity released” by the stricken Japanese nuclear reactor. The bulk of the protests have been peaceful. (AFP)





The great game is to avoid war in Iran

30 11 2011

The great game is to avoid war in Iran

No other sphere of Russia’s foreign policy is subject to such wide-ranging scrutiny as Moscow’s policy towards Iran.

The great game is to avoid war in Iran

Source: Drawing by Andrey Popov

Conservative American analysts in think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation often view Russia as a tacit ally of Iran, turning a blind eye to its dangerous nuclear programme and ignoring the Iranian regime’s aggressive form of Islamist fundamentalism.

 

Israeli government officials, when visiting Moscow, persistently point to the divergence of Russia’s national interests with those of Iran, citing Russia’s own troubles with Islamist fundamentalism in the North Caucasus and, earlier, in Central Asia and Afghanistan. Obviously pursuing their country’s national interest, those Israeli officials believe in the possibility of a return to the very cold peace that existed between the Soviet Union and Iran in the Eighties, when Moscow was very wary of the effect of Ayatollah Khomeini’s teachings on its Muslim minorities.

So what is the Russian authorities’ attitude now? And where does Russia’s national interest in the Iranian question lie? The truth is that the Kremlin has been sending out a whole array of signals on the issue, some of which are contradictory. On the one hand, Russia stopped selling or transiting any kind of weapons to Iran, fulfilling UN resolution 1929, which was adopted in June 2010. This meant cancelling the contract to ship S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, which could have helped the Iranians to challenge Israel’s superiority in the air. On the other hand, Russia finished the construction of the nuclear power station in Bushehr. Where is the logic?

Actually, the logic is very simple: Russia is concerned about Iran’s nuclear programme. It has no sympathy for Islamist fundamentalism but, considering Iran is right next to Russia’s border and to the borders of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic with a several million-strong Azeri minority in Iran, it is extremely keen to avoid a war breaking out on its doorstep. It is not too difficult to guess in which direction the Azeri minority would flee from Iran in the event of it being turned into a war zone. Azeris are already the biggest Muslim minority in Russia.

Hence Russia’s strong desire to see Iran at peace with other countries and to have a peaceful nuclear programme. Incidentally, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, obliges nuclear powers to help non-nuclear countries to develop the peaceful use of atomic energy. The balancing act between Iran and the West, which Russia has to perform, however, is becoming more and more difficult. It should be said that Iran has shown remarkable restraint in its reaction to a number of regional wars in which Russia has been a party in recent years. Unlike certain Western circles, Iran never provided help to anti-Russian mudjaheddin in Afghanistan or to the Chechen rebels, and it stayed largely neutral in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, despite an obvious temptation to show solidarity with its 
Muslim brothers.

Tehran’s restraint in Russia- related issues is ever more laudable, since Iran historically has had little positive sentiment about Russia. Modern Azerbaijan had for centuries been a part of the Iranian empire, and Georgia was in its zone of influence until the Russian tsars wrestled the territories away from Iran in the early 19th century. In his childhood, Ayatollah Khomeini was a witness to the joint Soviet-British occupation of Iran in 1941. But despite the troubled history, Iran’s rhetoric on Russia is in most cases less critical than that of some members of the EU .

The recent Western interventions in Iraq, and even more recently in Libya, make Russia suspicious of what lies behind Western hostility towards Iran. Iranian restraint in Afghanistan and the Caucasus makes Russians somewhat sceptical about the information on Iran’s support for extremists in the Middle East – a region which is becoming more and more distanced and estranged from Russia. Hence Russia’s unwillingness to see Iran condemned and punished by the West according to the Iraqi or Libyan scenario.

Dmitry Babich is a political analyst at RIA Novosti.





Pakistan shuts-down border

30 11 2011





‘Unprovoked’: DGMO gives details of aerial assault

30 11 2011

‘Unprovoked’: DGMO gives details of aerial assault

The two helicopters had pulled back midway through giving the impression the attack had ended, but returned for another attack that night. PHOTO : FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Nato attack on two military check posts in the Mohmand Agency early Saturday morning was an “unprovoked act of blatant aggression,” said the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Major General Ishfaq Nadeem on Tuesday, adding that all options remained open to the  government and the military. “The final decision rests with the prime minister.We are considering a range of options,” he told journalists at a briefing, adding that the military will have its input into the decisions taken.  A review of the incident is under way at the GHQ, he said.

The DGMO said he was not authorised to comment on what specific counter measures were being considered to cope with such situations in the future and added these would be finalised after the completion of the continuing investigation into the incident.

He went into comprehensive detail about the sequence of events known so far, explaining that a check post code-named Volcano first came under attack at around 15 to 30 minutes after midnight. A nearby check post, code-named Boulder, responded with 12.7 mm anti-aircraft weapons and mortars after the Volcano check post came under attack from gunship helicopters.

Subsequently, check post Boulder also came under attack and all communication was lost with both check posts. But before communication was lost, company commander Major Mujahid headed for Volcano and Boulder to investigate and was killed as the helicopters re-engaged. Amongst the 24 men killed that night was also Captain Usman who leaves behind a widow and a 3-month-old baby daughter.

The DGMO said the two posts were located at a place from where there has been no cross-border infiltration, though militant attacks from the other side had been continuing. Settled villages were two-three kilometres away from the posts and the posts themselves were about 300-400 metres inside Pakistan borders.

The two check posts, he maintained, could not be mistaken for militant sanctuaries because the other side had been provided all available information about the number of Pakistani posts and their locations. The men at the posts were uniformed and the posts were well-defined. The DGMO further said the Pakistan Army believed that Nato was monitoring the transmissions that night and knew they had hit Volcano checkpost.

The posts were being manned by the experienced and battle-hardened 7-AK battalion which was equipped with both line and wireless communications equipment, but armed for dealing only with militant activity but not repelling an aerial assault. “The troops are geared for fighting terrorists and not border security,” he said.

The Pakistan Army maintains an 8,200 man presence in Mohmand Agency following military operations to clear the region of militants, with 29 border checkposts in along the border while there are only 14 on the Afghan side, manned predominantly by Afghan police. A total of 820 check posts are maintained in the tribal belt along the border.

By 1 a.m. all channels of communications with the other side were activated and the helicopters were pulled back. But as Pakistani troops moved from one post to the other to assess the damage and aid the injured, the helicopters reappeared and pinned them down. Some 26 artillery airbursts were fired by the Pakistani side and the engagement lasted until 0215.

Answering a question, he said the civil authorities including the president, the prime minister and the foreign and defence ministers were informed in the “morning” about the incident which began around midnight and lasted for two hours.

The reason for the implied delay in informing the civil authorities, he said, was because a complete picture had not emerged until daybreak.

It was clear from General Nadeem’s briefing that there was misleading information being provided to the Pakistan military from the start. Just before the attack, a Pakistani officer at the regional tactical center was informed by an American sergeant that their special forces had received indirect fire from Gora Pai, located some 15 kilometres away from Volcano post. And after 7 minutes, a woman officer informed him that the fire had, in fact, come from Volcano, which had been hit in retaliation.

The DGMO was dismissive of previous joint inquiries conducted into three earlier incidents. “There have been joint inquiries and they all came to naught. They give a version not based on facts as we know them,” he said, adding that Pakistan did not initiate firing at any point that night.

The DGMO listed the standard operating procedures that exists in the border coordination mechanism that entails sharing information on impending operations in advance, particularly if these operations come within two kilometers of the border; to immediately communicate if one side comes under fire with the responsibility to take action from the country from where the attack originated; and cessation of fire when communication established. “All SOPs were violated that night,” said General Nadeem.

He further elaborated that while the helicopters intruded into Pakistani airspace on an intermittent basis, supporting jets did not enter Pakistani airspace.

The central question remains why the Pakistan Air Force did not respond immediately to the attack. General Nadeem said there was “a haze” at the time, adding Pakistan Air Force interceptors did not scramble when the two helicopters from the other side violated the border, because initially it seemed the violation was only marginal.

Furthermore, according to him, the two helicopters had pulled back midway through giving the impression the attack had ended, but returned for another attack.

AVM (retd) Shahzad Chaudhry told Express Tribune that “the air force could have scrambled but you have to decide if you want a shooting war with America. With only 200-300 meters between the border, our jets would have entered Afghanistan. It is the consequences you have to live with.”

(Read: A grave crisis in Pakistan-US relations)

Published in The Express Tribune





India tastes a big slice of Afghan pie

30 11 2011

India tastes a big slice of Afghan pie

ARCHIS MOHAN
Hamid Karzai

New Delhi, Nov. 28: The Hamid Karzai government today awarded an Indian consortium mining rights to develop three of the four blocks of Afghanistan’s huge Hajigak iron ore deposits, signalling a greater role for Delhi in the war-torn country.

Till now, India has mainly focused its aid to Afghanistan in developing smaller infrastructure projects like culverts and roads.

Sources said the contract awarded to the Afghan Iron and Steel Consortium (AFISCO), led by state-run steel maker SAIL, had the potential to become the landlocked country’s single-biggest foreign investment project.

In a statement, Afghanistan’s ministry of mines said the development of the blocks was “expected to bring billions of dollars in mining investment and thousands of new jobs to Afghanistan”.

The statement said the companies had also “pledged substantial support for railway, power, and other infrastructure development within the country, as well as major support for education and training programmes”.

The Hajigak blocks, in the mountainous Bamyan province 130km west of Kabul, are one of Asia’s largest iron ore deposits that are yet to be mined. According to a 1960 estimate, the blocks hold an estimated 1.8 billion tonnes of iron ore.

The contract came within a month after Delhi and Kabul signed a strategic partnership agreement on Indian investments in the Afghan mining sector. According to the announcement, the consortium has been awarded the rights to blocks B, C, and D, with block A going to Canadian firm Kilo Gold Company.

Sources said the Indian consortium — which also includes the National Mineral Development Corporation, Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, JSW Steel Limited, Jindal Steel Power Limited and JSW Ispat Steel Limited — could invest $6 billion in the mines, construct a steel plant and a railway network.

The development, unlikely to be welcomed in Islamabad which resents closer Delhi-Kabul ties, signals a much greater role for India in Afghanistan in the years to come, particularly after the scheduled departure of Nato forces by 2014.

However, it would also mean more Indians will have to be sent to Afghanistan at a time violence in the region has peaked.

Over the past couple of years, Delhi had looked to scale down its investments in Afghanistan because of terror attacks that targeted Indian interests. India has already pledged $2 billion in Afghan infrastructure and development projects, including erecting a new parliament building.





BBC taken off air in Pakistan by cable operators

30 11 2011

[You can see Secret Pakistan at YouTube.  I have watched most of it and it is a typical BBC hit piece, done to smear Pakistan as being to blame for everything America has done wrong in Afghanistan.  Part II is more chest-thumping over the alleged "bin Laden raid."  BBC and Reuters always handle the character assassination work for the Empire.  This is nothing new.  It is good to see them lose their foothold in Pakistan.]

BBC taken off air in Pakistan by cable operators

The operators named BBC News as one of the channels to be closed down.

Popular British news channel, BBC World News was taken off air by a number of Pakistani cable television operators late on Tuesday after proclaiming to ‘ban’ the channel for airing anti-Pakistan programming following a NATO air strike on a Pakistani border check post that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The All Pakistan Cable Operators Association (APCOA), a body of cable tv operators, held a press briefing in Lahore where they demanded the country’s primary electronic media regulator, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to revoke landing rights to BBC.

APCOA chairman, Kamran Arain said “we want to send them a strong message to stop this. If they don’t stop this, then it is our right to stop them,” referring to pulling the channel off from their cable networks.

The operators say that the move is in response to a documentary broadcast by the channel, entitled Secret Pakistan.

Other foreign TV channels found guilty of broadcasting “anti-Pakistan” content will also be blocked, they threatened.

The BBC said it was deeply concerned by the move, and called for its channel to be speedily reinstated.

“We condemn any action that threatens our editorial independence and prevents audiences from accessing our impartial international news service,” a BBC spokesperson said.

“We would urge that BBC World News and other international news services are reinstated as soon as possible.”

However, the channel was off air soon after the APCOA press conference was over.

@KurtAchin, Voice of America’s Bureau chief stationed in Islamabad tweeted:

“BBC signal just disappeared in my Islamabad office, following Pakistani cable operators to cut signal over “anti-Pakistan” programming”.

@norbalm, a Karachi based Security Risk Manager tweeted:

“BBC and FOXNEWS off on Worldcall in Karachi now

Another tweeter, @evo8X8 k wrote:

“my cable operator takes CNN, BBC, & FOX now off… enter AL-JAZEERA”

Though some suggested that it was not a uniform ban with

@asmiather tweeted:

“well on my cable even Fox news is coming so is BBC & sky news & RT @SaadParacha: @FoxNews is on”

The source of the ban

A two-part BBC documentary, “Secret Pakistan“, questioned the country’s commitment to tackling Taliban militancy. It furthered festering Pakistani anger towards the west after a NATO air stirke on a Pakistani border check post killed 24 soldiers.

It argued that some in Pakistan were playing a double game, quoting US intelligence officials as saying that they acted as America’s ally in public while secretly training and arming the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The decision to block BBC World News and other international news channels comes after a media uproar in Pakistan over a Nato air strike that killed 24 Pakistani troops near the Afghan border at the weekend.

Read more: natoattack

 





On the 64th Anniversary of UN Resolution 181 Lebanon’s Palestinians Continue Their Descent

29 11 2011

On the 64th Anniversary of UN Resolution 181 Lebanon’s Palestinians Continue Their Descent

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

by FRANKLIN LAMB

Embassy of Palestine, Tripoli, Libya

Every year on November 29, approximately a quarter million Palestinian refugees who were forced into Lebanon, along with those in more than 130 countries where they have sought refuge following their ethnic cleansing from their land, commemorate the infamous United Nations Resolution 181.

Between Nov. 29, 1947, and Jan. 1, 1949, Zionist terrorists depopulated and destroyed more than 530 Palestinian villages and towns, killing more than 13,000 Palestinians and expelling 750,000,  approximately half the population.

UN General Assembly resolution 181, adopted on November 29, 1947, purported to divide Palestine between the indigenous inhabitants and European colonists who arrived seeking to occupy and exploit Palestine and create an exclusive Jewish homeland.

Under the UN plan, European Jews were granted more than fifty six per cent of historical Palestine while the native Palestinians, who owned ninety three per cent of the territory, were offered less than forty four percent of their own land.

The partition vote was based on a UN Special Committee (UNSCOP) recommendation to divide the country into three parts: a Palestinian state with a population of 735,000, of which 725,000 were Palestinians and 10,000 Jews; a new Jewish state comprised of 499,000 Jews and 407,000 Palestinians, creating a new state with roughly less than sixty per cent Jewish majority.

Zionist leaders have never concealed their intentions especially when holding political gatherings. In addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut (the Eretz Israel Workers Party) days after the UN vote to partition Palestine, David Ben-Gurion expressed apprehension and told the party leadership:

“…the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment will be about one million, including almost 40 per cent non-Jews. Such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority… There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 per cent.”

Ben Gurion, told Zionist leaders in  December of 1947, “I don’t care if half the Jews in Europe have to die so the other half come to Palestine,” and ” Chaim Weizmann would later say: ‘With regard to the Arab question – the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.’”

To ensure an absolute Jewish majority, the Zionists’ “Transfer [Expulsion] Committee” waged a terror campaign to cleanse their part of the non-Jewish population. The “War [Expulsion] Committee” under the leadership of Ben Gurion, assigned ethnic cleansing language to its military operations, from Hebrew names such as Matateh (broom),Tihur (cleansing), Biur (a Passover quasi-religious expression meaning “to cleanse the leaven”) and Niku (cleaning up).

Following Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1948, it accelerated the land grab strategy to secure an absolute Jewish majority. The Zionists assailed, depopulated, and occupied an additional thirty per cent of the land which had been designated for the future Palestinian state under the UN plan.

Since 1967, Israeli Occupation Forces have demolished more than 24,000 Palestinian homes, while more than 600,000 Jews currently are colonizing the West Bank and Jerusalem. Also since 1967, the Israeli military has detained more than 700,000 Palestinians – 20 per cent of the population – according to statistics released at the First International Conference on the Rights of Palestinian Prisoners and Detainees held in Geneva in March 2011.  Approximately 5,700 Palestinians are currently being detained in prisons within Israel, a direct violation of international law. In addition, the siege on Gaza and the Apartheid Wall in the West Bank and Jerusalem have severely restricted or denied Palestinians’ freedom of movement.

Sixty four years since the November 29, 1947 UN Resolution 181, and after twenty years of negotiating with Israel, the international community allows the status quo while Israel encroaches on the remaining twenty two per cent with ever more illegal Jewish only settlements.

Sixty four years later in Lebanon, where 129,000 Palestinian refugees fled during the 1947-48 Nakba, approximately 250,000 remain in Lebanon with approximately 130,000 squeezed into twelve fetid refugee camps. Each new study of Palestine refugees in Lebanon documents a steepening, descending economic, social, and humanitarian slope as this largest and oldest refugee population skids and descends into more degradation.   Today in Lebanon, Palestinian refugees continue to live in conditions more inhumane than anywhere on earth including, the six decades of suffering endured by their sisters and brothers, under the Zionist occupation of their own country, Palestine.

Six decades since UN GA Resolution 181, Lebanon continues to forbid, impliedly on penalty of arrest and imprisonment, Palestinian refugees from working in more than 50 jobs and professions. This prohibition is in direct contravention of a large and condemnatory body of international law, specifically, numerous UN Resolutions, multilateral agreements, international customary law and even the Lebanese Constitution, as well as the UN Declaration of Universal Rights, which some of Lebanon’s leaders helped draft in 1949,

Since 2001, the government of Lebanon has also outlawed Palestinian refugees who lost their homes to Zionist colonialists, from purchasing even a sliver of property for a one room shack or tent home, even though most Palestinians might be willing to agree that their ownership of Lebanese real estate would vest only until such time as they are able to return to Palestine.

For this failure to uphold the law, Lebanon increasingly faces the prospects of international sanctions as well as civil unrest. What Palestinian refugees in Lebanon seek and have  the right to enjoy, just as every refugee in any country, is to live in dignity, to be able to apply for a job and to care of their families. Living in dignity includes the right to live outside the teeming, squalid camps and to purchase better housing if they are able.

An additional troubling violation of the rights of Palestinians in Lebanon is the fact that increasingly, the Lebanese Armed Forces are sealing off the Palestinian refugee camps which increase the perception and reality of illegal governmental harassment and yet more pressure on the everyday lives of these unwanted guests.

Today, 64 years after UNGA Resolution 181, virtually every political party and every religious authority in Lebanon boldly and regularly pays insincere lip service to the “sacred cause of Palestine”, as “the bloodstream issue for every Arab and every Muslim.” Each avers that in Lebanon “our brothers must live in dignity until they are able to return to Palestine” and that “for us Lebanese, as their hosts, to refuse them fewer human rights than even their Zionist oppressors allow them violates our religious duty for which certainly Allah (Christians typically insert “Jesus” or “God Almighty”) will justly condemn us to Hell on judgment day”.

Lebanese political parties and movements that have  truly sacrificed for Palestine and seek to liberate it and  Lebanese political parties whose militias have massacred Palestinian civilians, women, children and the elderly in refugee camps, have a special obligation to act now and give meaning to their words.

And most certainly those Lebanese politicians whose words and ubiquitous photo-shopped posters identifying with the cause of Palestine but who, in the service of foreign governments, have conducted massacres in Palestinian camps mislabeling them “camp wars” should do immediate penitence and use their political power and politically acquired financial wealth to do justice.

Neither Lebanese politicians, political parties, nor religious enterprises have a legitimate excuse not to devote an afternoon in Parliament, currently in session, and rid the country of its self-imposed debasement by repealing the racist 2001 law forbidding home ownership for Palestinian refugees.  As part of the same Parliamentary action Palestinians must be granted the same right to work that every other refugees enjoys in Lebanon and which is mandated by international law, religious doctrine and belief, and common morality to which all people of good will are committed.

To do less, condemns all of us and makes a mockery of Lebanon as a supposedly civilized society.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Libya and Lebanon and reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com





US and Pakistan Enter the Danger Zone

29 11 2011

US and Pakistan Enter the Danger Zone

By M K Bhadrakumar

The air strike by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) at the Pakistani military post at Salala in the Mohmand Agency on the Afghan-Pakistan border Friday night is destined to become a milestone in the chronicle of the Afghan war.

Within hours of the incident, Pakistan’s relations with the US began nose-diving and it continues to plunge. NATO breached the ”red line”.

What is absolutely stunning about the statement issued by Pakistan’s Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DDC), which met Saturday at Islamabad under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani is that it did not bother to call for an inquiry by the US or NATO into the air strike that resulted in the death of 28 Pakistani soldiers.

Exactly what happened in the fateful night of Friday – whether the NATO blundered into a mindless retaliatory (or pre-emptive) act or ventured into a calculated act of high provocation – will remain a mystery. Maybe it is no more important to know, since blood has been drawn and innocence lost, which now becomes the central point.

At any rate, the DDC simply proceeded on the basis that this was a calculated air strike – and by no means an accidental occurrence. Again, the DDC statement implies that in the Pakistan military’s estimation, the NATO attack emanated from a US decision. Pakistan lodged a strong protest at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels but that was more for purpose of ‘record’, while the “operative” part is directed at Washington.

The GHQ in Rawalpindi would have made the assessment within hours of the Salala incident that the US is directly culpable. The GHQ obviously advised the DDC accordingly and recommended the range of measures Pakistan should take by way of what Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani publicly called an “effective response.”

The DDC took the following decisions: a) to close NATO’s transit routes through Pakistani territory with immediate effect; b) to ask the US to vacate Shamsi airbase within 15 days; c) to “revisit and undertake a complete review” of all “programs, activities and cooperative arrangements” with US, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), including in “diplomatic, political and intelligence” areas; d) to announce shortly a whole range of further measures apropos Pakistan’s future cooperation with US, NATO and ISAF.

No more doublespeak
The response stops short of declaring the termination of Pakistan’s participation in the US-led war in Afghanistan (which, incidentally, is the demand by Pakistani politician Imran Khan who is considered to be close to the Pakistani military circles). In essence, however, Pakistan is within inches of doing that.

The closure of the US-NATO transit routes through Pakistan territory may not immediately affect the coalition forces in Afghanistan, as it has built up reserve stocks that could last several weeks. But the depletion of the reserves would cause anxiety if the Pakistani embargo is prolonged, which cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the Pakistani move is going to affect the NATO operations in Afghanistan, since around half the supplies for US-NATO troops still go via Pakistan. An alternative for the US and NATO will be to rely more on the transit routes of the Northern Distribution Network [NDN]. But the US and NATO’s dependence on the NDN always carried a political price tag – Russia’s cooperation.

Moscow is agitated about the US regional policies. The NATO intervention in Libya caused friction, which deepened the Russian angst over the US’s perceived lack of seriousness to regard it as equal partner and its cherry-picking or “selective partnership”.

Then, there are other specific issues that agitate Moscow: US’s push for “regime change” in Syria, the US and NATO appearance in the Black Sea region, continued deployment of US missile defense system, and the push for US military bases in Afghanistan. In addition, Moscow has already begun circling wagons over the US “New Silk Road” initiative and its thrust into Central Asia.

The future of the US-Russia reset remains uncertain. Washington barely disguises its visceral dislike of the prospect of Vladimir Putin’s return to the Kremlin following the presidential election in March next year. Short of bravado, the US and NATO should not brag that they have the NDN option up their sleeve in lieu of the Pakistani transit routes. The Pakistani military knows this, too.

Equally, the closure of the Shamsi airbase can hurt the US drone operations. Pakistan has so far turned a blind eye to the drone attacks, even conniving with them. Shamsi, despite the US’s insistence that drone operations were conducted from bases in Afghanistan, surely had a significant role in terms of intelligence back-up and logistical support.

By demanding that the US vacate Shamsi, Pakistan is possibly shifting its stance on the drone attacks; its doublespeak may be ending. Pakistan is ”strengthening” its air defense on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Future US drone operations may have to be conducted factoring in the possibility that Pakistan might regard them as violations of its air space. The US is on slippery ground under international law and the United Nations Charter.

A Persian response
The big issue is how Pakistan proposes to continue with its cooperation with the US-NATO operations. Public opinion is leaning heavily toward dissociating with the US-led war. The government’s announcement on the course of relations with the US/NATO/ISAF can be expected as early as next week. The future of the war hangs by a thread.

Unlike during previous phases of US-Pakistan tensions Washington lacks a “Pakistan hand” to constructively engage Islamabad. The late Richard Holbrooke, former special AfPak envoy, has become distant memory and special representative Marc Grossman has not been able to step into his shoes.

Admiral Mike Mullen has retired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and is now a ‘burnt-out case’ embroiled in controversies with the Pakistani military. Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus isn’t terribly popular in Islamabad after his stint leading the US Central Command, while his predecessor as spy chief and now Defense Secretary Leon Panetta always remained a distant figure.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a charming politician, but certainly not cut out for the role of networking with the Pakistani generals at the operational level. She could perhaps offer a healing touch once the bleeding wound is cleansed of dirt, stitched up and bandaged. And US President Barack Obama, of course, never cared to establish personal chemistry with a Pakistani leader, as he would with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Now, who could do that in Washington? The horrible truth is – no one. It is a shocking state of affairs for a superpower with over 100,000 troops deployed out there in the tangled mountains in Pakistan’s vicinity. There has been a colossal breakdown of diplomacy at the political, military and intelligence level.

Washington trusted former Pakistani ambassador Hussein Haqqani almost as its own special envoy to Islamabad, but he has been summarily replaced under strange circumstances – probably, for the very same reason. At the end of the day, an intriguing question keeps popping up: Can it be that Pakistan is simply not interested anymore in dialoguing with the Obama administration?

The heart of the matter is that the Pakistani citadel has pulled back the bridges leading to it from across the surrounding crocodile-infested moat. This hunkering down is going to be Obama’s key problem. Pakistan is boycotting the Bonn Conference II on December 2. This hunkering down should worry the US more than any Pakistani military response to the NATO strike.

The US would know from the Iranian experience that it has no answer for the sort of strategic defiance that an unfriendly nation resolute in its will to resist can put up against an ‘enemy’ it genuinely considers ‘satanic’.

The Pakistani military leadership is traditionally cautious and it is not going to give a military response to the US’s provocation. (Indeed, the Taliban are always there to keep bleeding the US and NATO troops.)

Washington may have seriously erred if the intention Friday night was to draw out the Pakistani military into a retaliatory mode and then to hit it with a sledgehammer and make it crawl on its knees pleading mercy. Things aren’t going to work that way. Pakistan is going to give a “Persian” response.

The regional situation works in Pakistan’s favor. The recent Istanbul conference (November 2) showed up Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran sharing a platform of opposition to the US bases in Afghanistan in the post-2014 period.

The Obama administration’s grandiose scheme to transform the 89-year period ahead as ‘America’s Pacific Century’ makes Pakistan a hugely important partner for China. At the very minimum, Russia has stakes in encouraging Pakistan’s strategic autonomy. So does Iran.

None of these major regional powers wants the deployment of the US missile defense system in the Hindu Kush and Pakistan is bent on exorcising the region of the military presence of the US and its allies. That is also the real meaning of Pakistan’s induction as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is on the cards.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.





Turkmen President Orders Man To Choose Prison, or Surrender Dog for Execution

29 11 2011

[The moral is--don't walk your pets on the main streets of Turkmenistan.]

Man forced to choose prison or death of pet dog

For residents of Ashgabat, capital of one of the world’s most bizarre dictatorships, taking the dog for a walk has become a dangerous pastime. Earlier this month, a pet-lover was walking his dog through the streets of Turkmenistan’s capital late one evening, when he was suddenly surrounded by police, pushed to the ground, and dragged off to the local police station.

According to police, the cortège of the country’s leader, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, had been speeding along a nearby boulevard, which in Turkmenistan means that the streets are cleared of cars and people for several blocks around. The unfortunate dog-walker had strayed into a restricted area, and the police soon told him that an order had come from the top – either they could shoot the dog, or the man would have to go to prison for two weeks. Unable to pronounce the death sentence on his pet, the man agreed to prison.

The story, which was recounted on an independent website run by Turkmen émigrés, is hard to verify, as there are no free media in the country. But the incident would fit with an apparent pathological hatred of household pets on the part of Mr Berdymukhamedov, detailed in an American diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks last year.

The cable recounted an incident where a cat ran in front of the presidential motorcade. The President was so angry that a top military official was fired. The Turkmen press has also reported an extermination drive to remove stray dogs and cats from the capital on his orders.

 





To get around Pak blockade, US eyes other supply routes

29 11 2011

“the average cost of hauling a 20-foot container on NDN truck and rail routes between April and September was $12,367. The cost was about $6,700 per container on the Pakistan route.”

[The closing of Pakistani transit for NATO will cause the price of every container shipped to double, over the NDN.  In the face of our collapsing economy, has the Pentagon shot itself in the foot, by allowing itself the satisfaction of a two-hour air assault upon a Pakistani check post, even a C-130 gunship was called in at one point?  This was a helluva costly way to make a point (SEE: This is a clear-cut case of the Pentagon sabotaging the White House).]

To get around Pak blockade, US eyes other supply routes

Uttara Choudhury 

New York: Supply trucks for US-led forces in Afghanistan lined Pakistani roads near the border, after Islamabad retaliated against US strikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers by sealing its Afghan border. The Pentagon said on Monday that the blockade had not unduly impacted the US war effort.

US military officials said they had enough stockpiles in Afghanistan to maintain operational capability if Pakistan opted to keep the border crossings into Afghanistan closed. The US military is also looking at alternative supply routes that don’t rely on Pakistan.

“There are other supply routes,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters on Monday. “The war effort continues.”

On the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, NATO supply trucks idle after Pakistan sealed the border. Shahid Shinwari/Reuters

According to a Bloomberg report, US-led forces in Afghanistan get 35 percent of “non-lethal” supplies like food and fuel via Pakistan supply routes. Alternative routes are being investigated in Russia and Central Asia, according to US General William Fraser.

The US military and its allies may have to rely more heavily on the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a key gateway for military equipment. The NDN comprises rail and truck routes cutting across several countries in Europe and Central Asia. It already accounts for about 40 percent of US cargo deliveries into Afghanistan and 52 percent of all coalition cargo, according to US Transportation Command officials.

The US has also been exploring other Europe-based ways to get deliveries to Afghanistan. Earlier this year, “US cargo planes delivered weapons and other supplies from Romania to test whether an airport near the Black Sea could serve as another piece in solving the logistical puzzle of getting gear into Afghanistan,” reported Stars and Stripes.

Although alternatives supply routes exist, they come at double the cost. The US Transportation Command’s back of the envelope calculation showed that in 2011, the average cost of hauling a 20-foot container on NDN truck and rail routes between April and September was $12,367. The cost was about $6,700 per container on the Pakistan route.





India’s Sneaky Plan To Ignore Iran Sanctions, Activate Chabahar, Take Advantage of Pakistan’s MFN Designation

29 11 2011

[Since India considers itself a new superpower it thinks that it can do whatever it wants.]

Iran, India Move on Chabahar Transportation Project

TEHRAN (FNA)- Senior Indian officials arrived in Tehran to finalize a joint working group on the Chabahar Port project, which includes construction of a strategic railway.

Iran’s Southeastern Chabahar Port, which is New Delhi’s strategic link to Afghanistan-Pakistan region, is just 72 km West of Pakistan’s Gwadar port which is being built by China. 

Making investments in the Chabahar Port on the Sistan-Balouchestan province in Iran will give leverage to India in the region and by making it as an important transit link it will give India an access to Afghanistan, Central Asia and Eurasia thereby reducing the landlocked Kabul’s utter dependence on Pakistan. The Chabahar Port project is set to bypass Islamabad. 

India’s shipping secretary K Mohandas is in Tehran push the plans ahead. The Mohandas-led delegation is the first such high-level team visiting Iran over the port in a while. His visit will conclude on November 30. 

Iran believes that this port collaboration between Delhi and Tehran is the “minimum” that is necessary between the two countries for the development of the people and the region. 

Chabahar could be a “multimodal link” port as the Chabahar-Bam link will help in establishing link to Russia via Iran. 

Iran, India Move on Chabahar Transportation Project

TEHRAN (FNA)- Senior Indian officials arrived in Tehran to finalize a joint working group on the Chabahar Port project, which includes construction of a strategic railway.

Iran’s Southeastern Chabahar Port, which is New Delhi’s strategic link to Afghanistan-Pakistan region, is just 72 km West of Pakistan’s Gwadar port which is being built by China. 

Making investments in the Chabahar Port on the Sistan-Balouchestan province in Iran will give leverage to India in the region and by making it as an important transit link it will give India an access to Afghanistan, Central Asia and Eurasia thereby reducing the landlocked Kabul’s utter dependence on Pakistan. The Chabahar Port project is set to bypass Islamabad. 

India’s shipping secretary K Mohandas is in Tehran push the plans ahead. The Mohandas-led delegation is the first such high-level team visiting Iran over the port in a while. His visit will conclude on November 30. 

Iran believes that this port collaboration between Delhi and Tehran is the “minimum” that is necessary between the two countries for the development of the people and the region. 

Chabahar could be a “multimodal link” port as the Chabahar-Bam link will help in establishing link to Russia via Iran. 





“Al-CIA-da” Fills Void Left By CIA Network Elimination In Lebanon, Fires Katyusha Rockets Into Israel

29 11 2011

[Hezbollah cleans-out the nest of CIA spies, after first cleaning-out the Mossad network--all that is left for the spooks to do is to activate one of their "al-Qaeda-linked" terrorist outfits to fire into Israel.]

Group linked to al-Qaeda takes responsibility for rocket fire

YNET

The Abdullah Azzam Brigades have taken responsibility for the launch of rockets from southern Lebanon towards Israel. The group are recognized as an off-shoot of al-Qaeda in Lebanon.

In a statement the organization said: “The Rocket unit of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades bombed the settlements of the Zionist enemy in northern Palestine. The rockets hit their targets.” (Roi Kais)





Mumbai attacks: India names judicial panel for joint probe with Pakistan

29 11 2011

Mumbai attacks: India names judicial panel for joint probe with Pakistan

Three years after the siege which rocked Mumbai, Pakistan and India will cooperate with each other to record statements of prosecution witnesses. PHOTO: FILE

LAHORE: Three years after the siege that rocked Mumbai, India has finally nominated a judicial commission to work with the Pakistan government to investigate the attacks on its financial capital.

Indo-Pak officials will for the first time cooperate with each other to interrogate Ajmal Kasab and record statements of prosecution witnesses residing in India, The Express Tribune has learnt. M Azhar Chaudhry, nominated as special prosecutor by the Pakistan government for the Mumbai terror case, will head a three-member team of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The team will leave shortly for India accompanied by defence counsels of the men nominated in the Mumbai assault case in Pakistan, revealed interior ministry sources declining to be identified.

The FIA will submit a letter by the Indian government before Justice Shahid Rafique, judge of an anti-terrorism court hearing the case in Rawalpindi, on Tuesday (today). In compliance with the anti-terrorism court’s order, a judicial officer at Mumbai will be nominated to record statements of prosecution witnesses or those imprisoned in India , states the letter issued by the Indian home affairs ministry and forwarded to the FIA through Pakistan’s High Commission in India.

Ajmal Kasab, the lone gunman caught alive after the attack, is imprisoned in a high-security cell in Mumbai. Chaudhry told The Express Tribune he had attributed the delay in the conclusion of the trial – more than 14 months – to the Indian government during the last hearing of the case. “The Indian government has been slow to nominate a judicial commission and to send copies of documentary evidence to FIA despite repeated requests.”

The judicial commission is expected to take statements from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate RV Sawant Waghule and Investigating Officer Ramesh Mahale, who recorded Kasab’s confessional statement. It is also likely to record the statement of the doctor who carried out the post-mortem of the terrorists killed during the siege, sources revealed.

Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna, on the eve of the third anniversary of 26/11, had said India is waiting for Pakistan to act “decisively” after providing it with evidence against perpetrators in Pakistan.

The Indian foreign minister had said, “The use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy has no place in today’s world and is self-destructive. I think the evidence provided by the ministry of home affairs would be sufficient for any normal civilian court to prosecute the people involved in the conspiracy and the perpetrators of this crime.”

On Friday, Interior Minister Rehman Malik had asked India to provide “credible evidence” against the perpetrators. He said Pakistan did take action against Hafiz Saeed and others based on information provided by India but the suspects were released by the courts because it did not count as legal evidence. “Pakistan is ready to take action on information shared by India, provided it is acceptable in court.”

Published in The Express Tribune





Pakistan to boycott Bonn conference over Nato attack

29 11 2011

Pakistan to boycott Bonn conference over Nato attack

A meeting of the federal cabinet in progress. — Photo by APP

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan decided Tuesday to boycott a key international conference on Afghanistan next month, ramping up its protest over lethal cross-border Nato air strikes that have plunged US ties into deep crisis.

The decision was taken at a cabinet meeting in Lahore, just days after Islamabad confirmed it was mulling its attendance in the German city of Bonn, where Pakistan’s participation was considered vital.

“The cabinet has decided not to attend the Bonn meeting,” a government official told AFP on condition of anonymity.

The prime minister’s office said the cabinet agreed that “unilateral action” such as Saturday’s strike in the tribal district of Mohmand and the May 2 US killing of Osama bin Laden near the capital was “unacceptable”.

US-led investigators have been given until December 23 to probe the attacks, threatening to prolong significantly Pakistan’s blockade on Nato supplies into Afghanistan implemented in retaliation for the killings.

The US military appointed Brigadier General Stephen Clark, a one-star air force general based in Florida, to lead the investigation into the attack.

The team, set to include a Nato representative, is yet to arrive in Afghanistan but an initial military assessment team went to the border at the weekend after Saturday’s catastrophic strike killing 24 Pakistani troops.

The Afghan and Pakistani governments are also being invited to take part.





Russia Dispatching Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier In Flotilla of Warships to Syrian Base

29 11 2011

Russia Sending Warships to Syrian Base

Reuters

Russia is sending a flotilla of warships to its naval base in Syria in a show of force that suggests Moscow is willing to defend its interests in the strife-torn country as international pressure mounts on President Bashar Assad’s government.

Russia, which has a naval maintenance base in Syria and whose weapons trade with Damascus is worth millions of dollars annually, joined China last month to veto a Western-backed UN Security Council resolution condemning Assad’s government.

The Izvestia newspaper reported on Monday, citing retired Admiral Viktor Kravchenko, that Russia plans to send its Admiral Kuznetsov flagship aircraft carrier, along with a patrol ship, an anti-submarine craft and other vessels.

“Having any military force apart from NATO is very beneficial for the region because it prevents the outbreak of armed conflict,” Kravchenko, who was navy chief of staff from 1998 to 2005, was quoted as saying by Izvestia.

A navy spokesman quoted by the newspaper confirmed that the Russian warships would head to the maintenance base Russia keeps on the Syrian coast near Tartus, but said the trip had nothing to do with the uprising against Assad.

The paper said the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier would be armed with at least eight Sukhoi-33 fighters, several MiG-29K fighters and two helicopters.

It will also have cruise and surface to air missiles, the paper said.

A navy spokesman was not available to comment.

Yegor Engelhart, an analyst with Moscow-based defense think tank CAST, said Moscow did not want its position to be ignored while the Assad government was under pressure.

“At the very least, Moscow wants to show that it is willing to defend its interests in Syria,” he said.

Russian officials say the naval base at Tartus, Syria, is used for repairs to ships from its Black Sea fleet, and Izvestia said about 600 Russian Defense Ministry employees worked there. There are currently no Russian ships there, the paper said.

Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council, abstained from voting on a resolution that paved the way for Western military intervention in Libya but later criticized the mission saying NATO overstepped its mandate and interfered in a civil war.

Russia said it lost of tens of billions of dollars in potential arms deals with Moammar Gadhafi’s fall and is loath to lose another customer in the region. Syria accounted for 7 percent of Russia’s total of $10 billion in arms deliveries abroad in 2010, according to CAST.

Moscow has traditionally used what influence it still has in the Middle East as a lever in diplomatic maneuvering with Europe and in particular the United States, Moscow’s Cold War foe.

Arab League sanctions and French calls for the establishment of humanitarian zones in Syria have increased international pressure on Assad to end bloodshed that the United Nations says has left 3,500 people dead during nine months of protests against his rule.





Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes

29 11 2011

[The rapidly unfolding situation is starting to tilt the scales in Russia's favor.  Without secure routes in the north or Pakistan to push around anymore, a Russia embargo on overflights or rail shipments would really put NATO over a barrel.  Perhaps then, Obama would play nice with Iran, in order to open the Indian/Iranian route to Charhabar.  This is the path Obama should be considering, one which heals the last thirty years of cold war with Iran.  If every major power in the neighborhood has its own nuclear weapons then so should Iran.  How ridiculous is it that Obama and Hillary are trying to sell their Silk Roads plan without Iran, a primary component of the original Silk Route?  We are witnessing another grand testing of wills between Russia and the West, another Georgian war type of event.  

Danger, Will Robinson!]

Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes

WSJournal

By ALAN CULLISON

MOSCOW—Russia said it may not let NATO use its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan if the alliance doesn’t seriously consider its objections to a U.S.-led missile shield for Europe, Russia’s ambassador to NATO said Monday.

Russia has stepped up its objections to the antimissile system in Europe, threatening last week to deploy its own ballistic missiles on the border of the European Union to counter the move. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization says the shield is meant to thwart an attack from a rogue state such as Iran, that it poses no threat to Russia, and that the alliance will go ahead with the plan despite Moscow’s objections.

If NATO doesn’t give a serious response, “we have to address matters in relations in other areas,” Russian news services reported Dmitri Rogozin, ambassador to NATO, as saying. He added that Russia’s cooperation on Afghanistan may be an area for review, the news services reported.

Threats to the NATO supply line through Russia come at an awkward time for the alliance. NATO has become increasingly reliant on the Russian route as problems in Pakistan—its primary supply route—have escalated. Over the weekend, Pakistan closed its border to trucks delivering supplies in response to coalition airstrikes Saturday that killed 25 Pakistani soldiers.

NATO began shipping its supplies through Russia in 2009, after the so-called reset in relations between Moscow and the U.S., allowing the alliance a safer route for supplies into Afghanistan. But U.S.-Russian relations have been strained lately by the approach of elections in both countries. In the past week, the Kremlin has sharply stepped up its anti-Western rhetoric ahead of parliamentary elections on Dec. 4.

Ivan Safranchuk, deputy director of the Moscow-based Institute of Contemporary International Studies, said Russia is unlikely to cut off the flow of NATO supplies to Afghanistan as an immediate response to missile-defense decisions. But Russia does want its objections to the missile shield to be taken more seriously, he said.

“If the U.S. is not responsive, then a cutoff could be a reality at some point,” Mr. Safranchuk said. “Russia would like the U.S. to be more serious about Russian concerns.”

Write to Alan Cullison at alan.cullison@wsj.com





This is a clear-cut case of the Pentagon sabotaging the White House

28 11 2011

This is a clear-cut case of the Pentagon sabotaging the White House

Peter Chamberlin
Nangarhar is the secured province that is being turned over to Afghan forces, where the border incident has erupted.  The attack upon Pakistan was intended as a demonstration for the world to see the dangers of an early Afghan transition and withdrawal.  What else could explain this Afghan unit gaining command over Nangarhar Province on the same day that calls for air support inside Pakistan have become necessary?  This is a clear-cut case of the Pentagon sabotaging the White House.  It is also the first sign of what post-reconciliation ISAF actions will look like, under a Northern Alliance-dominated Afghan regime.  Since the murder of Rabbani, Afghan security officials have been screaming in unison for this day to come–

“The Taliban can only be defeated by attacking them in Pakistan.”

According to former head of Afghanistan’s secret service, Amrullah Saleh, “You poison the soil where that grass is, then you eliminate it forever.”  This is what has happened on Pakistan’s side of the Durand Line, the Pakistani Taliban from Mohmand (who have relocated to Afghanistan) have poisoned the Pakistani soil  by firing upon Afghan forces from points near outpost Salala’s coordinates, in order to bring the two sides together inside Pakistan.  This is not the first time that the Pakistani Taliban have used this tactic to bring the Afghan and Pakistani forces together.  They used it preceding the “Battle of Wanat” and once again in the “Gora Prai” border post assault.  In the Gora Prai video below you can see the individual militants being killed. 

The Gora Prai video is from a single Predator; it pales in comparison to the latest assault which allegedly involved repeated runs of aircraft and helicopters, over a period of several hours. 

The following was sent to me by a friend from Peshawar.  It is self-explanatory.   

“Another pack of Lies By NATO

 Today’s papers carry the news that the NATO Chief has said that the  attack on Pakistani soldiers was un-intentional. Very generous of him!!
 Yesterday, I talked to Lt Col ZZZZZZ from Peshawar. He had just visited CMH Peshawar to meet the wounded in Salah Post by the US/ATO raid on night of 26 November. This is what he told me.
 There were 14 wounded lying in the surgical ward suffering a variety of wounds. He talked to every one of them and asked them what had happened. The crux of the account of the soldiers and officers was that at about 11pm on 26th Nov a light aircraft came from across the border, flew over the post and fired flares and returned. About half an hour later armed helicopters and light aircraft came . They again fired flares and began firing at the men. They remained in the area for about 5 – 6 hours. During this time, the helicopter firing at individual personnel at will. The post had only one 12.7 anti-aircraft gun which opened fire. The gunner was shot. The major on the post took up the gun and began firing at the helicopters. He was fired at again. While changing position he was hit by a rocket or missile. His body was blasted to pieces. Only his name-plate was found.
Every one of the men on the post was killed or wounded. They seemed to be in no hurry and going after each individual separately. Having finished the entire post, they peaceably went back without any casualty on their part.
 And the NATO Chief has the effrontery to say that it was un-intentional.
 Now my question is, if for 5 to 6 hours this enemy action was taking place and our ground troops were under such deliberate enemy fire, where was the Army’s reaction and where was the PAF during all this time?I cannot believe that the Corps HQ or the PAF Northern Command in Peshawar did not know what was going on,on the front. If so, both should be disbanded for deliberate incompetence.”

The biggest question is–Why did the joint military commands allow the attack to happen, or make no effort to end it?

If the dust was allowed to settle on this confrontation, then it would surely reveal that it was the TTP bringing Afghan and Pakistani forces into conflict, which they would be inclined to do, considering the level of penetration of the Pakistani Taliban by British, Afghan, and American secret services (SEE: Dissecting the Anti-Pakistan Psyop).  Through these separate assets, plus those of India and the Mossad, the Pakistani Taliban have always danced to the same tune as the CIA.  This does not necessarily mean that Hakeemullah Mehsud (and Baitullah before him), Faqir Mohammed and Fazlullah are conscious American assets, but that they might as well be.  If they are so foolish as to be led around by the nose by spook money, doing the Empire’s bidding, then they are nothing more than petty mercenaries, pretending to be revolutionary jihadis. 

This attack can be compared to the Mumbai attack, in that Pakistani jihadis have taken actions which were intended to bring Pakistan into conflict with one of its neighbors.   The last time it was India’s turn.  Indian leaders kept a cool head, at that time, avoiding another major war with Pakistan, to suit American interests.  Will Afghan leaders use their heads, to see this blow-up as their own warning to turn back from the pied piper’s road to oblivion, before it is too late for us all?

therearenosunglasses@hotmail.com

Nangarhar ready for security transfer

by Abdul Moeed Hashmi on 28 November, 2011 – 18:36

JALALABAD (PAN): Officials and tribal elders on Monday said the eastern province of Nangarhar was ready for security transition, stressing the need for increasing the strength of Afghan security forces.

Afghan forces will take over the security responsibility in 18 more areas in the second phase of transition. The forces will take full control of Balkh, Daikundi, Takhar, Samangan, Kabul and Nimroz provinces.

The cities included in the second phase of transition include Jalalabad, Chaghcharan, Shiberghan, Faizabad, Ghazni, Maidan Shahr and Qala-i-Naw. Helmand districts Nawa, Nad Ali and Marja are also to change hands.

In Nangarhar, Jalalabad, the provincial capital, Kama, Behsud, Khewa and Surkhrod districts would be handed to Afghan forces. Surkhrod district chief, Syed Ali Akbar Sadat, said they were ready for the handover, but the inadequate police strength posed a problem.

Governor Gul Agha Sherzai had discussed the issue with civil and military officials, his spokesman Ahmad Zia Abdulzai said, adding the provincial capital is ready for the transfer.

“Foreign soldiers disrespect our traditions and we no longer need them,” Wilayat Khan, a tribal elder from Behsud, told Pajhwok Afghan News. The district had only 50 policemen, he said, asking the government to increase their number.

frm/mud





Censored! There are no poor people in Saudi Arabia

28 11 2011
Two young Saudi bloggers were sent to jail for fifteen days after uploading a ten-minute documentary on poverty in Riyadh, the capital of one of the richest petro-states in the Gulf.
Firas Buqna and Hussam Al-Darwish posted the video on YouTube on October 10. The fifth episode of their Web TV show “Mal’oub Alen” (“we’re being duped” in Arabic) touched on the living conditions of people in the poor neighbourhood of Al Jaradiya, on the outskirts of Riyadh.

 

In the report, Buqna is shocked by the relative poverty of the neighbourhood, where he comes across children “who are barefoot and don’t own any shoes.” Of the three neighbourhood residents that Buqna interviews, one “earns only 1,300 dollars (945 euros) to support his two wives and 11 children. Another resident supports 20 people with just 666 dollars (484 euros) a month.
Buqna and Al-Darwish denounce the stereotype of the wealthy, SUV-driving Saudi, explaining that 89% of the country’s citizens live in debt. The bloggers question why residents of such a wealthy country are slipping through the net and living in poverty. They point out that over the past 27 years Saudi Arabia has donated 56 billion euros to developing countries, while 22% the the country’s own citizens were reportedly living in relative poverty in 2009 (local media put the number at 30% in 2008).
The young bloggers’ video did not go down well with authorities. Six days after they posted the video online, Buqna and Al-Darwish were arrested and interrogated by the police. They were released two weeks later, on October 31. The exact reasons behind their arrest remain unclear.
However, the controversy generated by their arrest has drawn over a million viewers to their online video.

“Poverty is an open secret in Saudi Arabia”

Rachid M. (not his real name) is a blogger; he lives in eastern Saudi Arabia.

There are more and more poor people in Saudi Arabia, and the middle class has all but disappeared. It’s an open secret in the kingdom.
I don’t live in Riyadh and have never visited the neighbourhood of Al Jaradiya, but in the east of the country where I live, there are far poorer neighbourhoods than what Firas Buqna showed in his video. The fact that there are a lot of oil wells in the area changes nothing. Comparing the poorest areas of Saudi Arabia with Somalia, as Buqna does at the beginning of his documentary, makes sense. There are people who live in terrible conditions, on the streets or under makeshift tents.
Poverty was officially recognised for the first time during a visit by Ali Al-Namia, the former minister of social affairs, in the neighbourhood of Al Shamishi in Riyadh in November 2002. He went with King Abdullah, who was still crown prince at the time. The footage was aired on state television. At the time, authorities decided to create a national solidarity fund. But that wasn’t enough to stop poverty from spreading. Wealth is very badly distributed in our country, and corruption is also rife [in 2010, Saudi Arabia ranked 50th in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index list].
Official media outlets have addressed the problem in a very superficial way. They present poverty as if it affected only an isolated few and not entire swaths of the population, in one of the richest oil nations of the world.
Poor families do get government aid, but they receive symbolic amounts which absolutely don’t allow these people to meet all their needs. Not to mention the maze of bureaucratic red tape they have to go through to receive this aid. What’s more, this aid is granted only to people who have no other source of income. Low-income working families aren’t entitled to it.
“We think they were arrested because they caricatured a commonly-used phrase that honours the King”
There are several reasons for which the two bloggers may have been arrested. According to another famous blogger, nicknamed Saudi Jeans, authorities may not have liked the fact that their video was picked up by a foreign-based opposition TV network. Others think authorities were angered by the videos’ direct, defiant tone. But most people think that what got them into trouble was the fact that they caricatured a commonly-used phrase that honours the King (‘We are fine, we hope you are too’ in Arabic). The beginning of the video shows several wealthy Saudis in a large, elegant car saying ‘We are fine ,’ then a small boy from the neighbourhood of Al Jaradiya saying ‘We are not fine’.
Others think the motive of their arrest was to scare young Saudis, who increasingly use social media and new technologies to express themselves and voice criticism of the government and the country, sometimes beyond the limits imposed by authorities.”

Firas Buqna posted this photo of himself on Twitter after he was freed from prison.





Salala Ghar Mountain Outpost

28 11 2011

View Larger Map




At Tahrir Square, they chant ‘Erha’–(Leave)

28 11 2011

Egypt goes to polls today

At Tahrir, they chant ‘Erha’

M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

Protestors hold a large national flag with Arabic writing that reads,
APProtestors hold a large national flag with Arabic writing that reads, “Jan. 25 revolution, Egypt,” in Tahrir Square in Cairo, on November 25, 2011.

If the popular upsurge in Cairo sweeps away the military establishment, the U.S.’ strategy to harness the Arab Spring will have to be reworked all over again.

The events unfolding in Tahrir Square in Cairo are epochal. A cross section of the Egyptian society — youth, intellectuals, workers, Islamists — has converged on Tahrir. Their demand resonates in a single word: “Erha! (Leave!”). It is a call to the remnants of the authoritarian system of the Hosni Mubarak era to quit, so that Egypt’s incomplete revolution of February can be successfully rounded off. A bloody crackdown seems no more sustainable.

The protestors are demanding that the military should return to the barracks from where they marched out into the civilian world nearly six decades ago in 1952 under the charismatic leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser. However, as of now, the military continues to probe where the fault lines run within the opposite camp. The political discourse principally dwells on the supremacy of elected civilian governments in a democratic environment. In a manner of speaking, it is a strain of the regional malady of a civil-military “imbalance” that has its roots in the political culture that Turkey spawned. The Egyptian military demands a “Turkish model” of democratic governance. Surely, Turkey cannot influence the course of events in Egypt, which is an ancient nation that is disdainful of Ottoman claims to grandeur. All the same, the “Turkish model” bears some scrutiny in the emergent context in Egypt.

Turkish model

The “Turkish model” rejected the concept of civilian supremacy in a democracy. The civilian governments exercised no control over the military, while the latter claimed to be the Praetorian Guards of the state founded by Kemal Ataturk. The military incessantly invoked Ataturk’s legacy to insert itself into the making of national policy and repeatedly intervene to change elected governments it didn’t like. The present government headed by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, who is an immensely popular figure, has asserted civilian supremacy and much depends on how he follows through by rewriting the Turkish constitution and making the democratisation of the Turkish state a fait accompli. The Turks accept that the answer to their country’s problems may lie in having more democracy and the unparalleled economic prosperity also gives them a belief in the brave new world.

Suffice to say, Turkey’s democratisation process is happening within a certain uniquely “Anatolian” environment, so to speak. A major factor has been that Mr. Erdogan’s reform programme was necessitated by the accession requirements for European Union membership and, thus, it bore the imprimatur of the western liberal democracies (which also raised its comfort level for Turkey’s western-minded elites). An engrossing detail of much consequence has been the stance taken by the United States, which was largely helpful. Washington could have incited the pashas to shake off the harness that Mr. Erdogan put around their necks. But it didn’t.

How this intriguing performance can quite repeat ditto over Egypt is the big question. The mass upsurge in Tahrir demanding vacation of the political space by the Egyptian military junta puts the Barack Obama administration in a tight spot. The U.S. wields enormous clout over the Egyptian top brass, given the $1.5-billion military aid that it provided annually to Cairo ever since the Camp David accord and the umbilical cords that tie the Egyptian military establishment to its U.S. (and Israeli) counterparts.

The top echelons of the Egyptian armed forces are weaned in the American military academies and have vested interests in the perpetuation of the close links with the Pentagon. (Like the Turkish pashas, Egyptian generals also maintain a lavish lifestyle, which they won’t easily give up.) Clearly, Washington has good enough reasons to trust the Egyptian military leadership to continue with the same old regional policies that Cairo dutifully pursued under Hosni Mubarak.

On the contrary, the political forces clamouring from the barricades in Tahrir stand beyond the pale of U.S. influence. The spectre that haunts the U.S. is that in a free election, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood may win the most seats in a new parliament. Although there are low-key contacts between the U.S. and the Muslim Brothers, a “constructive engagement” is yet to mature and Washington cannot but be concerned about the policy orientations of any civilian government that emerges in Cairo in the present circumstances. Thus, Washington took a safe stance of calling on both sides — military junta and the unarmed protestors — to show “restraint.”

Autocratic regimes

A host of contrarian trends comes into play. Arguably, the U.S. comprehends that the legitimacy question involving the Middle Eastern autocratic regimes lies at the core of the region’s instability. The U.S. is also capable of the requisite pragmatism to deal with the forces of Islamism if that serves its geopolitical interests. A lot of ground has been covered in the recent period in building contacts with various Islamist groups in the Middle East. In Tunisia, the U.S. acquiesced with the ascendancy of Ennahda. Washington didn’t lose sleep over the Islamist elements within the Libyan opposition; it trusted Doha to duly “handle” them (which it is doing). Nor is the U.S. perturbed that the intelligence agencies of close allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are actively financing and assisting violent Islamist elements in their campaign to overthrow the Syrian regime. Even in Afghanistan, if only the Pakistani ally could put together the broth, U.S. officials would readily sup with the Haqqanis.

Broadly speaking, the Islamist forces in the Middle East are home-grown movements with popular base and it is only through an inclusive approach of accommodating them can political stability be ensured on an enduring basis. Thus, the U.S. is showing political realism selectively by exploring the possibilities that may exist in trying over time to influence (or corrupt — depending on one’s point of view) the ideology-based Islamist groups and get them to abandon the straight path rooted in the dogmas of justice and resistance. The U.S’ Persian Gulf allies have shown remarkable genius to bring money power into play in the politics of Islamism in the Middle East — especially Qatar, which is today punching far above its weight in Libya and Syria. Ironically, it is here that the Islamists of Turkey may offer a role model in the politics of Islamism — how to gracefully succumb to the persuasions of “green money.”

Tehran issue

On the other hand, the U.S. also needs to weigh in certain compelling, near-term considerations affecting the geopolitics of the region: the likely policies of a future democratic regime in Cairo on the Egypt-Israel peace accords and the security cooperation between the two countries; Cairo’s dealings with Hamas and other “non-state actors” and its stance on the Palestine problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict; and, the likelihood of a warming up of ties between Cairo and Tehran. The last one is particularly crucial since the containment of Iran lies at the core of the U.S’s Middle East strategy, whereas the prevailing Egyptian popular opinion (Islamist and secular alike) happens to be to seek to normalise ties with Iran. The Egyptian Islamists and secularists also lack the appetite for playing sectarian Sunni-Shi’ite politics, which, in turn, would present a level playing field for Iran in Cairo under a democratic dispensation.

Most important, Egypt is the “brain” of Arabism and what happens in Cairo in the coming days — with the revolutionary fervour resurging, reclaiming lost territory and restoring primacy in the political discourse — is going to impact profoundly on the politics of the entire region. Actually, Turkey has been a mere pretender to claim the status of a role model in the Arab world. The plain truth is that Egypt never vacated its leadership even in the darkest years since the Camp David accords and that is also how the Arab world is watching the events unfolding in Tahrir — be it in the borderlands of Yemen or Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. In sum, the U.S. strategy to harness the Arab Spring within a new political framework aimed at perpetuating the western regional hegemony in the Middle East in a manner that doesn’t appear to be overbearing needs to be reworked all over again if the popular upsurge in Cairo sweeps away the Egyptian military junta.

On the Middle Eastern landscape, an epochal break with the past through a popular upsurge happened only once in the recent decades — in Iran in 1978. And the results were disastrous for the U.S’s geostrategy. Unsurprisingly, there is great uneasiness in Washington. But Tahrir offers a brilliant opportunity for the Barack Obama administration to showcase its regional policy. On the Arab street, all eyes are trained on Washington.

The odds are that Mr. Obama is tempted to grasp the nettle and take up the challenging offer by the Muslim Brothers to be held accountable and wedded to democratic intentions and religious tolerance. Of course, it needs a leap of faith on Mr. Obama’s part, But more than that, as a politician seeking re-election himself, his main worry narrows down to how the Israeli Lobby and the Republicans would forgive him for being party to the rise of the Muslim Brothers to power in Egypt.

(The writer is a former diplomat.)








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers