NEPAL: Militarising or Demilitarising?

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Rita Manchanda

KATHMANDU, Nov 5 (IPS) – Fighting a decade long ‘People’s War’ for the revolutionary transformation of a feudal monarchy meant that the Maoists had to militarise Nepali society, including women and youth.

However, even after the Communist Party of Nepal -Maoist (CPN-M) was popularly elected to power, following the April elections to the constituent assembly, it seems reluctant to disband the paramilitary Youth Communist League (YCL).

Indeed Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who has been under pressure to dismantle the YCL, has instead applauded its contributions. In his first statement elaborating his government’s policies, he said: ‘’Had there been no organisation like the YCL, the peace process and the new political process would have been impossible.”

The CPN-M’s communist partner in the coalition government, the Nepal Communist Party-UML (United Marxist Leninist ) or NCP-UML, needed little prodding to launch its own clone, the Youth Force (YF).

Not to be left behind, all the leading political parties, that till recently had been berating the YCL for ”taking the law into their own hands”, are now scrambling to form their own groups.

The leaders of the centrist Nepali Congress, which has long dominated Nepal’s democratic politics, may decry the YCL, but have been encouraging the formation of the Tarun Dasta out of its youth wing in the districts.

The result has been violent clashes among the various youth forces, but most especially between the YCL and the YF. In September traffic was disrupted on the major Dharan- Danuta highway for nearly a week and a curfew had to be imposed on Dankuta Bazzar to contain violence between the two forces over road tax collection.

Even the current agitation around efforts to regulate Nepal’s famous Casinos, has a turf war angle, with leaders of the YF saying they are competing for space with the dominant TCL cadres.

With tensions growing, on Nov 2, the two communist ruling partners constituted a high level coordination committee to iron out differences. A major item on the agenda is to look into the reasons for the clashes between the YCL and YF and how to prevent them.

But it is unlikely that there will be any roll back to establishing the youth orgnaisations, going by the sporadic and contradictory statements made by political authorities about disbanding these forces that seem to be above the law.

”You’d expect that post conflict peace building would see demilitarisation,” said Prof. Sridhar Khatri of South Asia Policy Studies, a respected think tank. ”Instead, what we’re seeing is a new militarisation. We should focus on strengthening the rule of law, not undermining it.”

YCL emerged as an ubiquitous force during the political uncertainty of the 2006-8 transition that brought the Maoists into the democratic mainstream and made Nepal a republic. It was created in November 2006 after the signing of the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement which entailed confinement in cantonments of the Maoists’ Peoples Liberation Army (PLA).

But several PLA commanders and commissars were transferred to the YCL, including its head Ganesh Man Pun. According to Pun, the YCL has a strength of 500,000 members and 6,000 ‘whole timers’.

YCL has been spearheading social service activities. These cover traffic management, garbage clearance, tree planting, delivering social justice, carrying out anti-corruption drives, collecting taxes and ‘donations’, apprehending criminal offenders and seizing ‘royal’ properties.

While Maoist minister Hsila Yami, praised the YCL cadres for assisting her in implementing change against a status quo bureaucracy, the Kathmandu-centric media was full of YCL’s abuses such as kidnapping, intimidation and physical assault of opponents. The U.N. Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHR) in Nepal has lent its voice against YCL excesses.

During the elections political parties had accused the YCL of using muscle power to disrupt meetings and intimidate voters. The Kathmandu elite was convinced that the Maoists’ landslide victory in the elections was a ‘stolen victory’.

This persisting belief may explain why political parties are creating their own youth squads. Defending the YF, UML’s Raghuji Pant said: ‘’It’s to make sure that they (YCL) won’t rig and win the next elections”.

Mahesh Basnet, the head of YF asserted: ‘’We are not like YCL. We will operate within the law. We will act as a deterrent to the terror and intimidation of the YCL”.

Nepal’s Human Rights Commission has appealed to the major political parties to ”immediately stop violating of human rights by taking the law into their own hands”.
However, far from curtailing their activities, Home Minister Bamdev Gautam has asked youth organisations to help nab criminals and restore law and order.

Dhirendra Raj Pandey, a key civil society player in the 2006 people’s democratic upsurge, finds this trend totally unacceptable. ”I didn’t expect this irrationality from the political parties. When they should be institutionalising democratic structures they are setting up these armed youth forces.”

OBAMA:DANGERS OF INDO-PAK RE-HYPHENATION

Global Geopolitics Net Sites
Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

The Presidential campaign is over. The transition drill has begun. Senator Barrack Obama will take over as the President only on January 20 next, but his immense work as the President-elect would have already begun from the moment he left the dais after making the victory speech to his followers and supporters.

2.The Americans call it the period of transition. It is during this period that the President-elect chooses his team of Cabinet members and senior officials, decides on his policy priorities and works out his goals during the first 100 days of his administration and thereafter. Those, who would constitute the hard core of his transition team, would start co-ordinating with the outgoing Bush administration.

3. Senior officials of the US Secret Service, which protects the President and the Vice-President, would have already called on him and set in place the arrangements for his security. Other officials of the Bush Administration would be calling on him and his close advisers to keep them briefed on the actions of the outgoing administration.
[Read more...]

RIGHTS-COLOMBIA: Extrajudicial Killings Under Scrutiny

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Thursday, October 30, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Constanza Vieira

BOGOTA, Oct 30 (IPS) – The dismissal of 20 officers and seven noncommissioned officers for extrajudicial executions of civilians presented as battlefield casualties ”is a triumph for human rights organisations and for Colombian society as a whole,” said Reynaldo Villalba of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective.

Villalba urged the Attorney General’s Office to carry out an in-depth investigation, ”not only of the fired officers but especially of those who were not fired, who remain hidden and are responsible for these policies.”

The three generals, 11 colonels, four majors, one captain, one lieutenant, six sergeants and one corporal who were sacked were posted in the northern departments (provinces) of Santander, Norte de Santander, Arauca and Antioquia.

The second and seventh army divisions both lost their commanders, Generals
José Joaquín Cortés (Santander, Norte de Santander and Arauca) and Roberto Pico (Antioquia).

The third general who was cashiered is Paulino Coronado, commander of the 30th Brigade. The scandal was triggered by the discovery of bodies of missing men in the remote district of Ocaña in Norte de Santander, which is in his jurisdiction.
[Read more...]

SRI LANKA: Tamil Rebels Defy Siege With Aerial Bombings

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Wednesday, October 29, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

IPS Correspondents

COLOMBO, Oct 29 (IPS) – Aerial bombings carried out on the capital and a northern military base, late Tuesday night, have signalled that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) remains a fighting force — despite being besieged in its headquarters of Kilinochchi by the Sri Lankan army.

The raids, carried out using light aircraft, resulted in what officials described as ‘minor damage’ to the Kelani-Tissa power plant and came shortly after a similar attack on a military camp in Mannar.

It was in March 2007 that the rebels first revealed the existence of an ‘air wing’ to its fighting force by carrying out a bombing raid on an oil storage site and a gas plant near Colombo.

Although the army is now within two km of Kilinochchi, its units have hesitated to make a final push into the town. Its overall thrust into LTTE-held territory appears to have got bogged down by the eastern monsoon rains.
[Read more...]

POLITICS: Thai Tensions Form Apt Backdrop for ASEAN Meet

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Tuesday, October 28, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Analysis by Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Oct 28 (IPS) – The decision by Thai government to shift the venue of a regional summit from Bangkok to the northern city of Chiang Mai points to an administration unsure of its place in the country’s capital.

Prime Minster Somchai Wongsawat announced the move during a weekend visit to the country’s second largest city, which nestles in the hilly region close to the Burmese border. The Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) leaders’ meeting will run there from Dec. 15-18.

‘’The main reason for the change was the government’s worry that the continuing protests led by the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) could cause trouble for the event,” the ‘Bangkok Post’ reported on Monday, quoting an unnamed foreign ministry source.

It is a decision that is winning little praise from some former diplomats, given what a change of venue implies. ‘’This is the government’s admission of its weaknesses and that it is not in control,” Kasit Piromya, a former Thai ambassador to the United States, told IPS. ‘’It is the government that runs the country, yet we see that they are not in charge.”
[Read more...]

TALIBAN’S SHADOW OVER ZARDARI’S CHINA VISIT

Global Geopolitics Net Sites – Global News Blog
Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan is leaving Islamabad on October 14,2008, on an official visit to China. Thereafter, he will be attending the Asia Europe Summit, whis is being hosted by China this year before returning home. He is to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the margins of the summit for bilateral discussions during which he is expected to take up, inter alia, Pakistani allegations of a decrease in the supply of water from the Chenab river by India. There have been complaints in Pakistan that its farmers have been affected because of the alleged diversion of the waters by India to fill up the reservoir of the Baglihar hydel power station in Jammu & Kashmir, which was inaugurated by Manmohan Singh last week.

2.The fact that Zardari’s first bilateral visit as the President has been to China has been highlighted by spokesmen of both the countries as indicative of the continuing importance attached by Pakistan to its relations with China. Zardari has said that he intended visiting China every three months to learn from the Chinese development experience.

3.Pakistan’s efforts to have the two Chinese engineers kidnapped by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on August 29,2008, released before Zardari’s visit have not succeeded. These engineers are believed to be in the custody of the TTP in the Swat Valley of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). They were working in a project of a Chinese mobile telephone company in the Dir District of the NWFP. The TTP has been demanding, inter alia, the release of its members in the custody of the Pakistani authorities. The Pakistani authorities have not agreed to this. Nor have they been able to mount an operation to rescue them. This incident, coming in the wake three other instances last year of targeted attacks on Chinese nationals working in Pakistan, have added to the concerns of the Chinese authorities regarding the security of their personnel working in Pakistan. This is one of the subjects, which the Chinese are expected to take up with Zardari.

4.Of major interest to Pakistan is the possibility of Chinese assistance in helping Pakistan acquire a waiver of the restrictions on nuclear trade with it by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), similar to the waiver granted to India by the NSG at the instance of the US on September 5,2008. Before the visit of President Hu Jintao to India and Pakistan in November 2006, the then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had taken up with China the question of Chinese assistance for the construction of more nuclear power stations in Pakistan.

5. China has already supplied one 300 MW nuclear power station to Pakistan named Chashma I. This is already functioning. A second power station named Chashma II, also of 300 MW, is presently under construction. The NSG restrictions did not apply to them. It has reportedly agreed in principle to supply two more to be named Chashma III and Chashma IV, provided the NSG grants a waiver to Pakistan from the restrictions. Zardari is expected to discuss with the Chinese the adoption of the same procedure as was followed by the US and India, with China taking the initiative for getting a waiver from the NSG. The problem will be whether the US would be willing to support a waiver in view of Pakistan’s continuing unwillingness to allow the interrogation of Dr.A.Q.Khan, its nuclear scientist involved in nuclear proliferation to North Korea, iran and Libya, by a team of investigators of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Vienna.

6. The other major issue that would come up for discussion relates to the Gwadar commercial port on the Makran Coast in Balochistan constructed by China and already handed over to Pakistan. Musharraf was keen that the Chinese should construct a petrochemical complex at Gwadar and a gas pipeline and a railway line connecting Gwadar with the Xinjiang province of China. The idea was this would enable China to use the port for its external trade from western China and also get some of its gas tankers to Gwadar and from there have the gas taken by the proposed pipeline to Xinjiang.

7. It is more than a year since the Gwadar port was commissioned by Musharraf. Its performance has been disappointing. It has been reported that only one ocean-going ship used it during its first year. The poor security situation in the area due to the activities of the Baloch freedom-fighters of the Baloch Liberation Army and the failure of the Pakistani engineers to construct in time the road and other infrastructure connecting Gwadar with the rest of Pakistan have come in the way of the port taking off. The expectations that some of the ocean-going trade could be diverted from Karachi to Gwadar have been belied so far. Shippers and businessmen continue to prefer Karachi in spite of the delays in cargo handling there because of the better security situation there and the better infrastructure connecting Karachi with the rest of the country.

8.Till now, the Chinese have not shown much enthusiasm for the proposals for the construction of a petrochemical complex, a pipeline and a railway line. One reason for their lack of enthusiasm is the poor security situation in Balochistan. Another reason is the poor security situation in Xinjiang due to the activities of the Uighur militants. Till the security situation improves in Xinjiang, the Chinese are reported to be not too keen to encourage too much trans-border movement with Pakistan. Moreover, it has been reported that the Chinese have not been convinced of the economic viability of these proposals. In the meanwhile, Pakistan has been trying to make the Chinese take interest in the extension of the proposed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline to Xinjiang, if India continues to drag its feet on the project. (14-10-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

.

SEVEN YEARS OF OP ENDURING FREEDOM: NO LIGHT YET

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR— PAPER NO.455

Global Geopolitics Viewpoints
Sunday, October 12, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

A bleeding stalemate on the ground in Afghanistan, a bleeding Pakistan tottering towards a possible collapse of the State and a total policy confusion in the corridors of power in Washington DC and other NATO capitals.

2. That has been the outcome of seven years of Operation Enduring Freedom, which was launched by the US on October 7,2001, in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist strikes by Al Qaeda in the US.

3.In Afghanistan, the US and the other NATO forces and the Afghan National Army (ANA) control Kabul, the Capital, and other major towns and the Neo Taliban, resurrected from the pre-10/7 Taliban , controls the rural areas. Neither is in a position to dislodge the other from the areas controlled by it, but each is able to inflict bloody casualties on the other— the US and other NATO forces through the use of heavy artillery and air strikes and the Taliban through weapons of Pakistani origin and through the inexhaustible flow of suicide terrorists.

4.In Pakistan, a Pakistan-version of the Taliban called the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has arisen post-2002 and has been operating in tandem with the remnants of Al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden and his No.2 Ayman al-Zawahiri, who are now reported to be based in the North Waziristan area of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). It is a coalition of jihadis, which has been operating in the FATA and in the Swat Valley of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP)—- Afghan Pashtuns, Pakistani Pashtuns and Punjabis, Uzbeks of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), Chechens of the 1980s vintage who had deserted from the Soviet Army, Uighurs of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in the Xinjiang province of China and Muslims of different ethnicities from the Muslim immigrant diaspora in the West—-jihadis of Pakistani origin from the UK, Spain and Denmark, Turks and Uighurs from Germany and some others.

5. The post-2002 Pakistani version of the Taliban has proved to be even more deadly than its Afghan counterpart. The Pakistani Taliban carried out 56 attacks of suicide terrorism in the tribal and non tribal areas in 2007 and it has already carried out 40 so far this year. The number is just one-third of what the Afghan Taliban has carried out, but strategically more significant and deadly—– attacking carefully chosen military and intelligence targets in heavily-protected cities and cantonments—-even in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, where the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Army are located.

6. In the “News” of October 10, 2008, Dr Muzaffar Iqbal, a Pakistani analyst, wrote: “With an average of three suicide attacks per week in which at least thirty persons die, there will be 1,560 dead Pakistanis within a year. Add to this approximately 15 “extremists” being killed daily in the northern region, and we have a total of 7,035 dead. Further: for every hamlet, village, and hideout bombed, and with every “extremist” killed, we have an average of ten families displaced. So within a year, northern Pakistan will be a huge graveyard and there will be several thousand internally displaced persons living in makeshift camps in the rest of the country. In addition, there will be thousands of emotionally and mentally unstable persons available to anyone who can convince them that life is not worth living anymore, so come on and die for this or that cause. The net result will be an escalation of violence in all parts of the country and the spiral of violence and death reaching all corners of the country. How did we get here? ”

7. A more difficult question engaging the attention of military commanders and policy-makers of the NATO countries is—- is a mid-course correction necessary and how to carry it out? Senior military officers of the NATO have started telling their policy-makers that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Better make a deal with the Taliban to bring the war to an honourable end where there will be neither winners nor losers. However, they are not yet saying that the war against the Taliban in Pakistan is unwinnable. They think that if the Pakistan Army steadily maintains its present offensive in the tribal belt with discreet air support from US Drones (pilotless planes), the TTP can still be defeated.

8. It is a policy nightmare. What one has been seeing in the Pashtun tribal belt on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border is three wars in one—- against the Afghan Neo Taliban, against the Pakistani Taliban and against Al Qaeda. The war against the Afghan Taliban is not vital for the security of the West and for preventing new terrorist strikes in the West. No Afghan Pashtun has ever travelled outside his country to indulge in an act of terrorism in foreign territory. The Afghan Pashtuns, who never indulged in suicide terrorism in the past, look upon their present fight against the US and other NATO forces and their wave of suicide terrorism as part of their resistance struggle against the occupation of their country by foreign forces. They are just not interested in another 9/11 in the US homeland or another Madrid or London or Bali or Mumbai.

9. The war against Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban is vital for the security of the rest of the world, including the US, other NATO countries, India, China, Russia and the Central Asian Republics. The tribals, whom the Pakistani Army used in Jammu & Kashmir in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999, were brought from the FATA. Many of the jihadis, who had indulged in acts of terrorism in different parts of the world after 2001, were trained in the training camps of Al Qaeda and its allies in the FATA. If the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda are not defeated, the world will have to live constantly under the fear of another 9/11 or another Madrid or London or Bali or Mumbai.

10. Is it possible to reach a separate peace with the Afghan Taliban, while continuing the war against Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban? The US is in the forefront of the war against the Afghan Taliban. It can take a decision, whether to continue fighting or whether to reach a peace and, if so, under what terms.The outcome of the war against Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban depends more on the sincerity and willingness of the Pakistani security forces to fight the war to the finish, with US assistance. It is the Pakistan Army, which has to be in the forefront of this war. It has been fighting sporadically and with varying spells of intensity, but the determination to win the war is not there.

11. Just as US officers have come to the conclusion that the war against the Afghan Taliban is unwinnable and hence calls for a mix of the military and political approaches, the Pakistani officers too are coming to the conclusion that the war against the TTP is unwinnable on the ground and hence a different approach is called for in order to protect their population and security forces from the wave of suicide terrorism.

12. Is it possible to make peace with the Taliban on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border without weakening the war against the FATA-based Al Qaeda? With whome to negotiate? On the Afghan side, there are two vintages of the Taliban—the pre 10/7 vintage, which consists essentially of the political advisers of Mulla Mohammad Omar, the Amir, before 10/7 and the post-2002 vintage which consists of the remnants of the pre-10/7 commanders such as Jalalludin Haqqani and his son Serjuddin and the new commanders who have come to the fore in the recent fighting. The recent interactions between the representatives of the Government of Hamid Karzai and the Taliban under the auspices of the King of Saudi Arabia in Saudi Arabia during September were essentially with the Taliban of the pre-10/7 vintage.

13. Among those who reportedly attended the dinner were Mullah Muhammad Ghaus, a former Foreign Minister under the Taliban Government, Abdel Hakim Mujahed, former unofficial Taliban representative in the United Nations, Abdul Salaam Hashimi, former director of finance of the Hizb-e-Islami of Gulbuddin Heckmatyar, Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, a former Deputy Minister, Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, another former Foreign Minister, and Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaif, former Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan. The influence of these leaders on Mulla Omar was limited even before 10/7. Before 10/7, the Saudi Intelligence had repeatedly tried through them to persuade Mulla Omar to hand over bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in order to avoid an American military strike. They could not succeed. Some of them were either captured by the Americans or surrendered to them after the war began and were in US custody for some months before they were released. They are, therefore, viewed with suspicion by the Taliban commanders.

14. Moreover, the US and other NATO forces may want a political face-saving because they are not doing well in the fighting, but why should the Taliban Commanders want one when they think they are winning? The same is the situation on the Pakistan side of the border. The TTP thinks it is doing well against the Pakistani security forces. Why should it agree to a compromise without achieving its objective?

15.Gen . David Petraeus, who was till recently the Commander of the US forces in Iraq, is shortly taking over as the Commander of the US Central Command. In that capacity, he will be responsible for the strategy in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. In Iraq, he successfully drove a wedge between the secular Iraqi resistance fighters and the Wahabised Arab terrorists of Al Qaeda. There is a talk that he might try a similar approach in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region by driving a wedge between the Taliban on both sides of the border and the Al Qaeda remnants. He succeeded in Iraq because the former Baathists of Saddam Hussein’s Army, who constituted the resistance fighters, were secular and did not like the Wahabised Al Qaeda. But, in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, Wahabism provides the binding ties which strongly unite the Talibans with Al Qaeda. They all feel that the future of Islam is going to be decided in the fight against the US-led NATO forces. They have two common objectives— the defeat and withdrawal of the NATO forces and the proclamation of an Islamic sharia-based rule in the entire region. So long as these objectives unite them, the Talibans are unlikely to agree to separate peace with the NATO forces. Media reports of a split between the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda have not been substantiated.

16. Unless and until the US is able to hunt down and kill at least bin Laden, Zawahiri and Mulla Omar, there is unlikely to be a change in the ground situation. Instead of nursing illusions of engineering a split between Al Qaeda and the Taliban and negotiating a separate peace with the Taliban, the US should focus on eliminating the Al Qaeda leadership. That was the main objective of Op Enduring Freedom and that should continue to be its main objective. (11-10-08)

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

PRESIDENT ZARDARI—FORWARD & BACKWARD

Global Geopolitics Viewpoints
October 9, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

An ability for fresh thinking on Pakistan’s relations with India and an inability to initiate a change of policy in line with the new thinking have been the defining characteristics of Asif Ali Zardari ever since he took over the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27,2007.

2. The first sign of his ability for fresh thinking came in an interview given by him to Karan Thapar, the TV journalist, (reported on March 1,2008), in which he spoke of the need to break with Pakistan’s past policy of linking the issue of bilateral trade with India with the Kashmir issue so that the continuing deadlock over the Kashmir issue did not come in the way of the normalisation of the trade relations between the two countries. The business class in Pakistan has long been in favour of delinking the trade issue from the Kashmir issue. During the second tenure of Benazir as the Prime Minister (1993-96), this had also been recommended by a committee of officials of Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce, but it recommendations remained a non-starter due to strong opposition not only from the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) of Nawaz Sharif, but also from the Pakistan Foreign Office.

3. Zardari’s interview was followed by the usual criticism from the political class. An attempt was made to create an impression as if he was planning to dilute the traditional Pakistani stand on the Kashmir issue. As a result, his remarks on the subject were portrayed by his own party as misinterpreted and any intention to break with the past policy was vehemently denied.

4. The second sign of his ability for fresh thinking came with regard to any role for India on the Afghanistan issue. The policy till now has been to question the legitimacy of any Indian interests in Afghanistan, to project the growing Indian economic and other non-military assistance to Afghanistan as directed against Pakistan, to oppose India’s request for rights of transit trade with Afghanistan through Pakistan and to rule out any role for India in any multilateral talks on Afghanistan.

5. In comments made by him before his election as the President, he spoke of the desirability of a regional conference on Afghanistan to restore peace in that country and, in that context, mentioned India as one of the possible participants in such a conference if it materialises. His references to Afghanistan came in the context of what he projects as the need for a multi-pronged policy in the fight against jihadi terrorism of the Taliban-Al Qaeda kind emanating from this region.

6. A careful study of his statements and remarks on Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism would indicate the following nuances:

* He agrees on the need for close counter-terrorism co-operation with the US, but wants this co-operation to be recrafted and re-projected in such a manner as not to aggravate the growing wave of jihadi terrorism in Pakistani territory—whether by Pakistani or foreign groups.
* He understands the need for effective action against jihadi terrorism in Pakistani territory, but wants such action to be seen by his people as the outcome of Pakistani initiatives through Pakistani forces and capabilities and not as at the behest of the US with the help of US assistance and with US operational co-operation. He does not want Pakistani action against its own terrorists to be perceived by its people as influenced by the US and as part of any regional initiative. In his perception, the jihadi terrorism in Pakistani territory is a Pakistani problem and not a regional or international problem.
* At the same time, he views the continuing terrorism of the Taliban and Al Qaeda against the US and other NATO forces in Afghan territory as not just an Afghan problem, but as also a regional and even an international problem. It is also his view that without the restoration of peace in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s own counter-terrorism efforts in its territory will not succeed. It is in that context that he talks of a regional conference on Afghanistan to discuss various options and is prepared to consider the participation of India in such a conference.

7. Surprisingly, his remarks on possible Indian participation in a regional conference on Afghanistan did not create in Pakistan the kind of criticism that his remarks on Kashmir did. At the same time, they were not welcomed either. His ideas have remained without a follow-up—either positive or negative.

8. The latest sign of his ability for fresh thinking was seen in a report carried by the “Wall Street Journal” (October 5,2008) on a discussion which he had with one of its journalists. He made a number of positive observations on relations with India during the discussion. To quote from the report carried by the paper:

* “‘India has never been a threat to Pakistan. I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad.”
* “He spoke of the militant groups operating in Kashmir as ‘terrorists’.”
* “Replying to a question, Zardari said he had no objection to the India-US nuclear cooperation pact so long as Pakistan is treated ‘at par’.'Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies,’ he asked.”
* “While seeking better ties with New Delhi he noted, ‘There is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbours first.’He imagines Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India’s huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones.”

9.In response to criticism from the PML and some sections of the ruling coalition, the Ministry of Information, apparently with his approval, stepped in the next day and ruled out any change in Pakistan’s policy towards India on the Kashmir issue. A statement issued by Sherry Rehman, the Minister For Information, said: “Pakistan is committed to the Kashmiri people’s right for self-determination. The President had made it very clear that the just cause of Kashmir and its struggle for self-determination has been a consistent central position of the (ruling) Pakistan People’s Party for the last 40 years. There has been no change in this policy.The President has never called the legitimate struggle of Kashmiris an expression of terrorism, nor has he downplayed the sufferings of the Kashmiris. All his statements on India should be viewed in the context of Pakistan’s current bilateral relations with that country. The Government is firmly committed to extending moral and diplomatic support to the just cause of Kashmiris for their right of self-determination”.

10. What to make of this flip-flop? It would be incorrect to interpret it as indicative of his insincerity. What it does indicate is that while his instincts in relation to India seem to be refreshingly different from those of his predecessors—-even from those of Benazir who instigated terrorism in Kashmir when she was the Prime Minister—- his grasp of the ground realities in Pakistan is weak. The ground realities are determined by four entrenched mindsets, which have always been opposing any fresh thinking on the relations with India. These entrenched mindsets are those of the Army, the intelligence community, the Foreign Office and sections of the political class with a close nexus to the Army and the intelligence community.

11. Unless these entrenched mindsets are made to change, new thinking alone, however welcome, will remain just loud-thinking without any follow-up action. To be able to translate any new thinking into action, Zardari has tro stabilise his position as the President, acquire a popular image and acquire the ability to enforce his will on these entrenched mindsets. No previous political leader of Pakistan was able to acquire such an ability and had to ultimately bow to pressure from the Army, the intelligence community and the Foreign Office.

12. In India too, we have had such entrenched mindsets in the Army, the intelligence community and the Foreign Office. It goes to the credit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he has gradually been able to bring about a change in these mindsets whether in relation to India’s ties with Pakistan or the US—-though not yet in relation to China.

13. Zardari has been the President hardly for a month and it is too early to say whether he would be able to bring about such a change in the mindsets. India has to keep patience with him without expecting quick policy changes. At the same time, it should not lower its guard till the ultimate reality emerges—- is it refreshingly new or more of the same as seen in the past?

14. The current position in Pakistan is complicated by the emergence of a fourth important power —- Al Qaeda. The future of Pakistan is going to be determined by a configuration of four As—Allah, the Army, America and Al Qaeda. The outcome of the fight between the Army and America on the one side and Al Qaeda on the other will determine whether Zardari’s tenure will see a change for the better or the worse in Pakistan.(9-10-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

RIGHTS: Fighting the ‘War on Terror’

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – Global Politics Online – IPS
Monday, September 08, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Julio Godoy

PARIS, Sep 8 (IPS) – The ”war on terror” in the aftermath of the attacks of Sep. 11, 2001 has undermined human rights globally, according to activists and experts who attended a UN conference in Paris.

”Immediately after Sep. 11 we saw a dramatic change in government policies with regard to terrorism, suspected terrorism, and the monitoring of citizens, with the underlying assumption that human rights norms as established in conventions and treaties no longer apply,” Joanne Mariner, director of the terrorism and counter-terrorism programme at Human Rights Watch said at the conference in Paris last week.

The trend has worsened over the last seven years, Mariner said.

Some 2,000 human rights experts and activists attended the annual United Nations Department of Public Information Non-Governmental Organisations Conference.

The UN DPI/NGO conference on ‘Reaffirming Human Rights for All: The Universal Declaration at 60′ was held at the headquarters of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The conference this year commemorated the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in Paris in December 1948.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a video message that the delegates were gathered ”to commemorate one of humankind’s greatest achievements.”

But it was not a celebratory mood at the conference. The meeting was dominated by the sense that human rights have been globally weakened by the war between ”terrorism and counter-terrorism” both at the national and the international level.

Mariner told a conference roundtable on Human Rights and Human security that the U.S. suppression of rights was only part of a global trend. ”Nearly 80 countries have adopted counter-terrorism legislation since September 2001,” Mariner said.

”There is a global pattern to suppress the rights and freedoms of individuals through new laws. These laws cut back on individual rights and human rights norms, and have greatly increased government powers to investigate, detain, and imprison people with minimum judicial oversight, minimum transparency, and very little procedural safeguards.”

Mariner and other participants blamed some UN institutions for cooperating with this suppression of human rights. ”Within the UN, the balance of power on the question of human rights has tilted in favour of the Security Council and the bodies it has created specifically to deal with the issue of terrorism,” Mariner said.

The UN Security Council, Mariner said, has been passing resolution after resolution on terrorism, all of which have a marked ”legislative character”, requiring states to pass ever new laws against suspected terrorism, to spot the flow of money, on migration, and to incarcerate suspects.

Workshops at the conference covered issues such as ‘Addressing Gross Human Rights Violations: Prevention and Accountability’, ‘Dealing with the Past in Post-Conflict Societies: Community-Based Responses to Genocide and Mass Violence’, and ‘The Right to Know, the Right to Truth: How Archives and Records help Combat Impunity’.

Daniel Bekele, head of policy research and advocacy at Action Aid Ethiopia, and a former prisoner of conscience in his country, said African civil society activism has been growing over the past few years. ”But, at the same time, a significant number of countries on the continent have been abusing their muscle to silence civil society organisations, in particular those who work on human rights issues. The pretext is the protection of national, regional or sometimes even international security concerns.”

The conference also explored education as a human right. Ahead of the International Year of Human Rights Learning to be launched Dec. 10, and as a complement to the World Programme for Human Rights Education (2005-2009), the conference considered ways of advancing education, learning and dialogue about human rights as a way of life.

The conference considered practical measures to integrate human rights education and learning into the programmes and activities of governments, civil society, media and the Internet, faith-based organisations, academics and the private sector, with a view to developing a learning process at the community level worldwide.

EUROPE: Divisions Rise Over Ex-Soviet Countries

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – Global Politics Online – IPS
Monday, September 08, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Analysis by David Cronin

BRUSSELS, Sep 8 (IPS) – Few, if any, regions present a greater challenge for the European Union’s foreign policy than the former Soviet Union.

Despite a history of differing approaches between the EU’s 27 countries towards Moscow, the Union succeeded in projecting a unified image at an ‘emergency’ summit held to discuss Russia’s conflict with Georgia over the past week. All of the bloc’s heads of state and government agreed to suspend talks on deepening ties with Russia until its troops are withdrawn from areas they occupied on Georgian territory during August.

As Antonio Missiroli from the European Policy Centre, a Brussels think-tank, noted, the consensus achieved at the summit ”was certainly not a foregone conclusion, in the light of the diversity of statements and reactions coming from European capitals in the preceding days.” Whereas Italy, Germany and Greece had been wary of appearing antagonistic towards Russia, Britain, the Baltic states and Poland had been intimating that they favoured a tougher line.

Since the summit concluded, however, a less unified position has developed on relations with Russia’s neighbour Ukraine.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who leads the EU’s rotating presidency, will lead the Union’s delegation at a formal meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev, Sep. 9.

There, the EU side is likely to offer to conclude an ‘association agreement’ with Ukraine that could mark a considerably narrower strengthening of relations than many of Yushchenko’s political allies covet. While key figures behind the ‘Orange Revolution’ that led to Yushchenko eventually winning the presidency in 2005 (following a stand-off with a pro-Moscow rival) have been advocating that Ukraine should be allowed full membership of the EU, it is likely that the Union will keep Ukraine at arm’s length for the foreseeable future.

A draft declaration prepared by Brussels-based diplomats ahead of the EU-Ukraine summit says that an association agreement would leave open the possibility of further developments in the relationship between the two sides. A similarly non-committal formula was used back in 1963, when the then European Community was assessing its contractual ties with Turkey. Since then the Turks have joined a customs union with the EU and have opened talks aimed at ensuring Turkey’s eventual entry to the Union. Yet, because the prospect of Turkish membership is deeply unpopular in such countries as France and Austria, it continues to appear distant.

In one camp, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Britain, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are broadly positive towards embracing Ukraine. In the other, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Austria are reluctant to do so. One particularly sensitive issue is migration. Although Ukraine is seeking new rules that would make it easier for its citizens to obtain visas in order to travel to the EU, the Benelux countries and Spain are fearful that this could lead to them receiving higher numbers of Ukrainian workers.

Both Georgia and Ukraine are seeking to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, a military alliance set up in the aftermath of the Second World War. For most of its existence NATO has been hostile to Russia, and while the two sides have more recently joined together in a so-called Partnership for Peace, their ties have been to a large extent frozen as a result of the current conflict in Georgia.

While many European members of NATO have been supportive of Georgia and Ukraine’s attempts to join, France and Germany opposed them at a meeting of the alliance’s leaders in Bucharest earlier this year.

Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice-president, spoke in favour of the NATO membership bid when he visited both Georgia and Ukraine in recent days. In response, Russia’s foreign ministry accused him of encouraging Georgia’s ”dangerous ambitions.” The conflict in Georgia was sparked by a military onslaught authorised by Georgia’s President Mikheil Saakashvili against the breakaway province of South Ossetia Aug. 7.

Elena Prokhorova, an analyst specialising in EU-Russia relations, said that the conflict in Georgia underscores the need for fresh thinking about how the continent’s security can be handled. Even though there has been an upsurge in anti-western rhetoric in Moscow, the country’s President Dmitry Medvedev has previously implied that he would be willing to explore the potential of his country signing up to a pan-European security structure.

”Europe should wake up to the fact that its relations with the big eastern neighbour are unlikely to be normal unless Russia’s security fears, as paranoid as they may seem, are seriously addressed,” said Prokhorova. ”Ideally, either NATO should cease to exist as a military alliance, or Russia should join it.”

Michael Emerson, a former EU ambassador to Moscow who now works for the Centre for European Studies in Brussels, said that while Russia may convey the impression that it would be able to cripple the Union’s economy by refusing to supply it with oil and gas, the reality is that Russia could not survive without export earnings from the west.

”In the end, Russia and Russians will have to decide where and what they want to be in Europe and the world,” he added. ”The present leadership seems satisfied with its macho foreign policy but is on track for branding itself in the eyes of the west as a duplicitous bully and semi-pariah state. There can be no illusions about an easy or early change.”