The title says it all. In its quest to pursue its global aims, China is keeping India tied to the pole by needling her in a geopolitical bind while maintaining a straight face. The discussions in various posts over the last week brought out Chinese dynamics in Pakistan, Burma and Nepal. This post also brings in the Sri Lankan narrative. Apparently, the two regional heavy weights are busy shadow boxing in South Asia with India kind of getting bitten by a China phobia. In strategic circles, Chindia is a four-letter word.

60 years on, there is nothing to show for these border disputes. Dutifully, the Indians, Pakistanis and the Chinese glare at each other – over colonial border issues. These border issues are less thanperipheral to our nations. We have allowed the past to hold our future as a hostage.

The pace with which China is getting actively involved in economic and military activity in the sub continent is a reminder that the Dragon wants to spread its signature across the continent and the Indian Ocean. The philosophy of five fingers and a string of pearls has long been nursed by Indian analysts. Despite volumes of literature being churned out on the subject, there is no tangible action institutionally to tackle the troubles spawned out by this Chinese maneuvering. Of late though, there is a growing awareness of this Chinese influence as India tries to catch up in Nepal, Burma, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. This though appears to be too little too late, especially when we have handed over the initiative in each of these countries to China. Then there is the added problems of the “all weather friend” attached to China in all these countries operating counter to Indian interests. The previous posts on Pakistan,  Bangladesh, Nepal, and Burma are indicative of the space we have lost to China in South Asia including the Indian Ocean.

A recent issue of  The Economist quotes Brajesh Mishra,  former Indian national security advisor: Its (China’s) main agenda is to keep India preoccupied with events in South Asia so it is constrained from playing a more important role in Asian and global affairs’. But with or without China, India does embroil herself with her South Asian neighbours. Recent history indicates disputes with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. A greater game is unfolding through a China Pakistan ploy to destabilise India as per K Subrahmanyam. “Both countries are interested in fragmenting India. Both have tried to encourage extremist and secessionist groups within the country in J&K, the North-east and the Maoist areas. It is therefore natural for China and Pakistan to attempt to ensure that US President Barack Obama‘s forthcoming visit to India does not take the Indo-US relationship further forward”. China wants to duplicate the Indo-US nuclear deal by offering two more reactors to Pakistan in defiance of the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines.

Then there is the feedback from these countries being subjected to this regional rivalry. This media report in Sri Lanka on the eve of visit of the Army Chief General VKSingh is largely reflective of how this shadow boxing is perceived in the region:

“China two weeks ago officially became the world’s second biggest economy, overtaking Japan. India last week announced an 8.8 percent economic growth in the last three months and is expected to reach 9 percent by the end of the year. Indian economic growth could touch 10 per cent in the next couple of years and may even beat China in the next four years, Dr. Kaushik Basu Chief Economic Advisor of the Indian Finance Ministry was quoted in The Hindu, last week.

These spurts in economic growth have made the once poverty stricken Asian giants to be considered the two leading economic superpowers of the 21st Century — if not in military terms — influencing and dominating countries near and far reminiscent of the Western colonial empires such as Britain, France and Germany did in the 18th  and 19th Centuries.”

While the official circles discredit the “encirclement theory” by the Chinese, there is a growing realization in the strategic community of growing Chinese influence in the region. Reports of growing military and specifically naval cooperation with Burma as exemplified last month by port calls in Burma by Chinese war ships indicate an enhanced presence in the Indian Ocean region by the Chinese Navy. Hambantota is also a cause for concern. General Singh’s visit comes  ahead of trips to Colombo by defence secretary Pradeep Kumar and foreign minister S.M. Krishna . This signals Indian keenness to regain lost ground in Sri Lanka – a ground lost due to ethnic characteristic of Sri Lanka’s war on LTTE in the face of domestic opposition.

The Sino Indian rivalry is, apparently, largely driven by the PLA where in the opaque but not monolithic CMC considers India as a potential threat to it’s interests in the Indian Ocean region. Needling India on Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh ties down India and suits domestic nationalistic fervor while pleasing Pakistan. Amongst all the theories doing rounds, this appears most plausible as it keeps India in check militarily while allowing China to continue with unbridled trade with India and through the Indian Ocean. As per Chinese experts, India intrudes into many of the issues the military sees as important: Tibet, Pakistan, Myanmar and naval security. The latter is rising Chinese strategic concern, writes Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation, because Beijing faces “an unprecedented reliance on the seas for China’s economic well-being”.

The Economist in an article titled “A Himalayan Rivalry” last month articulates the mulltidimensional and complex contours of relationship between the two neighbours. Of interest, apart from the routine boundary and water disputes, is the theory of India being persued by America as a bulwark against China. This worries Chinese the most and so they too have gone on supporting all India neighbours economically and militarily to complete the strategic encirclement of India.

While some experts rubbish this theory, there is a lot of substance in the argument as evident from Chinese actions in the region. The theory of encirclement can be played in a variety of ways depending on who is looking. While India feels encircled by China, China feels encircled by America. This aspect was covered in an earlier article on Encirclement. Then there are the growing Chinese worries of increased American influence in Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia to counter Chinese interests.

Pertinent amongst the Chinese fears are America’s historical records, since World War II, of strangulating it’s rival’s energy needs – be it Japan or Iraq. China fears a similar fate and thus has resolved its Malacca dilemmas through Pakistan and Burma. China’s economic rise as the world’s largest cheap labour platform has necessitated a vast expansion of its imports of raw materials from all corners of the globe. More than half its vital oil and gas is imported, mostly from the Middle East and Africa. For this reason, China is determined to secure its sea routes across the Indian Ocean through the South China Sea by building a blue water navy. The US is just as determined to prevent this happening, and to maintain its own naval predominance. However these indirectly or directly impige on Indian interests in the region and thus the cycle of animosity and jostling for influence intensifies.

China appears to be acting out of insistence of its military to keep India engaged regionally while it tackles the American influence in the region. My vote is in favour of a China attempting to de isolate itself from a larger encirclement while encircling India – a game that will never end. As Subrahmanyam says”

Times have changed, as has the international strategic milieu. Even while retaining Russia as a friend in the Asian context, India has to develop a new balance of power equation to deal with the challenge from China and Pakistan not merely to our external security but to our national development as a pluralistic, secular and democratic nation.

India too has its ancient strategic wisdom, preached in the Panchatantra, Hitopadesa andArthasastra, encompassing sama (cooperation), dhana (buying up), bedha (causing division) and dhanda (use of force). It is time to invoke that ancient wisdom and devise an appropriate international strategy to counter the Chinese-Pakistani challenge.

This Indian ability to call the China Pakistan bluff through artful statecraft  is critical to the present regional equation.

Related Articles

Q+A: What’s behind India and China’s diplomatic spats (reuters.com)

India’s PM says China’s territorial ambition must be challenged (telegraph.co.uk)

 India PM warns China wants foothold in South Asia (reuters.com)

India’s deals with Sri Lanka heighten stakes in ‘Great Game’ with Beijing (guardian.co.uk)

 India monitoring China’s intention in Indian Ocean, says Krishna (thehindu.com)

 The Quartet of Powers – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – had been discussing a draft statement inviting the two sides to talks intended to conclude a treaty in one year.  The Quartet said in June that peace talks would be expected to conclude in 24 months, but the new draft says 12 months. The Palestinian Authority government intends to have established all the attributes of statehood by mid-2011. Diplomats say the idea that a unilateral declaration of statehood could win support if talks do not start or collapse in the next 12 months is gaining interest.

Background

Netanyahu  benefits from a move to direct talks, countering the notion abroad that he is not a genuine peace-seeker while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, by contrast, has a lot to lose politically. His political future is at stake if he does not get the opposite number to agree.

Confidence amongst Palestinians or Israelis on direct talks leading to a peace treaty soon, or that one would be quickly implemented if it were ever agreed, is low. In Israel’s coalition, the focus is on the 26 September settlement moratorium deadline. The majority of hawks in Netanyahu’s inner cabinet are opposed to extending the settlement freeze, but a minority seek some compromise that Abbas could swallow. One idea is to allow building in big established settlements that Israel expects to keep in a peace deal but not in those it would hand over in a land swap with the Palestinians.

The quartet statement says that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should “lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation [...] and results in” a state at peace with Israel, as per Reuters.

The White House has staked considerable political capital on the negotiations, which are the result of intense pressure exerted on both sides.

For the Cameras

Netanyahu

 He was entering direct peace negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to reach an “historic compromise” that would enable both peoples to live in peace for generations ( 01 September).

“President Abbas, you are my “partner in peace”. It is up to us to overcome the agonising conflict between our peoples and to forge a new beginning.”

Mahmoud Abbas Bowing to domestic pressure he has threatened to end the talks if the settlement deadline of 26 September is not abrogated. Palestinians want a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. As per a CNN commentary, however, he has expressed his confidence that the talks would result in a meaningful action plan acceptable to both the sides. Let us see. He needs better interpreters! (Pun intended).

On the Agenda

At stake are four basic issues viz, the two state solution, the Israeli settlements, Jerusalem and the Refugees. Hamas are the detractors and have condemned the process and therefore could become a major stumbling block in the negotiations.

Two-State Solution Obama wants to create a Palestine state based on West Bank and Gaza alogside Israel. Netanyahu wants the Palestinian state  demilitarised lest they become “Iranian-sponsored terror enclaves.” The Palestinians, while not objecting to this demand have kept it open for the negotiations.

As per Reuters, the issue has been severely complicated by the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are run by different Palestinian parties, which are virulently opposed to each other. Hamas Islamists, who govern Gaza, denounce the notion of direct talks and do not recognise Israel’s right to exist. Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for an attack, which killed four Israelis in West Bank, calling it a “heroic operation”. While Netanyahu has not blinked yet these attacks could tilt the negotiations in favour of detractors of talks in Israel.

Israeli settlements Mahmoud Abbas has called for a total freeze on the expansion of settlements built by Israel on land it captured in the 1967 war. That would be in line with a commitment Israel made under a 2003 US-backed peace ‘road map’. Netanyahu imposed a 10-month halt to new housing starts in West Bank settlements that expires on 26 September. He did not apply the measure to East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan in 1967, and has not committed to extending the West Bank moratorium. Palestinians say all settlements should be evacuated, and along with the World Court and major powers, consider them illegal. Israel has said it intends to keep several major settlements in any future peace deal, a move that could result in territorial swaps with the Palestinians.

Jerusalem Palestinians want East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City and its sites sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, to be the capital of the state they aim to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Netanyahu has said Jerusalem would remain Israel’s “indivisible and eternal” capital. Israel’s claim to the eastern part of Jerusalem is not recognised internationally.

Refugees Palestinian negotiators have signalled they would accept “a just and agreed-upon” solution for refugees who fled or were forced to leave in the war of Israel’s creation in 1948. Israel says any resettlement of Palestinian refugees must occur outside of its borders.

Early Prognosis

The scars are deep, mistrust complete and the domestic pressures intense to holding any meaningful give and take at this stage. Whether Netanyahu will be able to stop the construction in the West Bank settlements will primarily decide the fate of the talks as September 26 does not give him enough levey to dither further. He will have to take a call on that count. It is no gainsaying the fact that Obama has a lot at stake here in the field of foreign policy and would have pressurised the two privately to at least agree to talk directly at regular intervals. If anything these talks could deliver agenda for further talks and to that extent would not be termed as failure.

Netanyahu’s coalition could very well abandon him if he agrees to extend the soon-to-be-expired ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Abbas, meanwhile, lacks the formal support of any faction of his government heading into the negotiations. Abbas, plagued by the Hamas, has a problem with the back door and has to find a solution. Netanyahu knows this and is likely to play hard ball initially for his domestic audience. While Abbas and Netanyahu are risking their governments, there is a ray of hope that signs of momentum will compel the critics to squelch their opposition.

Coming into the talks, NY Times on 21 August had articulated that, “There is little confidence — close to none — on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.” Now that Michelle is on board and Obama has rolled up his sleeves – there is every reason to believe that there will be some headway. Quoting from the same post

Haim Assa, who served as a close political consultant to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s and continues to advise centrist Israeli leaders, said that even though the talks were between the Israelis and Palestinians, the power of success was with the Americans.

“The main player is the United States,” he said. “All the cards are in its hands. When the U.S. leaves Iraq it will want to put together a coalition of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. These talks are central to that happening. If they push and take it seriously, they can do it.”

The two heads of states are on their way back after what they publically called  ”cordial and constructive” talks where they decided to work on the “framework of further Negotiations”. The two are meeting again after two weeks. Speculations on the private component of the talks between the two heads of states fighting for their country’s honour and their own survival may not be constructive right now.

While Obama is “cautiously hopeful” to find a solution, he has put the entire weight of his government behind success of the talks in some measure palatable to the Israelis and the Muslim World. It is here that he wants to redeem some lost ground on Bush’s War on Terror being called the War on Islam.

Can Obama risk considering a one state solution based on secular values and principles? Can he convince the two to beat de Klerk and  Mandela? The questions are many and there is always more than one way – the other way. Risking the untrodden utopian path may finally be the best solution. The challenges are too many and the detractors infinite – one mistake and this fragile effort may blow into a naught.

Going into the peace talks early in his presidency he has the advantage of time to see the process through. For now, he has his eye on the ball – let us see if he can putt well!

Related Articles

• Mideast Experts Fear Peace Talks Are Too Ambitious (nytimes.com)
• Hamas Among Intractable Issues in Mideast Talks (abcnews.go.com)

The elections in Myanmar raise a bundle of questions about the need for such elections, the compulsions of the Junta to announce them when they already yield all the power in Myanmar and the validity of such elections when NLD has boycotted them. Where is the catch and what does the future hold for Myanmar under such a dubious elections arrangement?

I do not wish this post to be a primer on the current situation in Myanmar but discuss the larger implications in pre and post poll Myanmar and how it is likely to shape events in Asia. To begin with,

Myanmar has been under military rule for half a century. The challenges of the forthcoming elections should not undermine the fact that Myanmar now is at least headed in the right direction. The elections and the constitution the military will introduce will define the future political scene and provide a direction towards managing the long-overdue social, economic and political reforms in Myanmar.

 Jim Della-Giacoma of the International Crisis Group has observed that:-

The election will create political institutions that Myanmar has not had for decades – a presidential system, two houses of parliament, 14 regional governments and assemblies. All the same, a quarter of those sitting in parliament will be from the military. And it is likely that many civilians in the house will be their cronies. Still, “it will be the most wide-ranging transformation in a generation and offers an opportunity for a change in the future direction of the country”.

The army chief will be the most powerful man in the country, able to appoint key ministers and assume power “in times of emergency”. The military will hold 25 percent of seats in the new parliament, and hold veto power over parliamentary decisions. It is clear that the top leaders, Generals Than Shwe and Maung Aye, will step aside after the elections, making way for a younger generation of military officers. Although the old guard may continue to wield significant influence behind the scenes, the reins of power will be in new hands, and the new political structures make it unlikely that any single individual will be able to dominate decision-making in the way that Than Shwe has in recent years.  

All or Nothing?

Considering these factors, however flawed the Junta might be in the conduct of elections, the elections provide possibility of a dispensation likely to deliver on some semblance of democracy after 50 year of military rule. The very fact that the Junta, whether under internal pressure to perform or under international sanction regime has buckled this far, should be the take off point for a possible future in the country. The accusations that the military has already taken upon itself, by manipulating the rules, to prop up their cronies in the elections should not undermine the fact that these cronies still have to win the elections. The possibility of a NLD win here appeared bright as they did in the previous elections two decades ago. The transition from 50 years of military rule to a free democracy is not possible without a transitory phase. Those fighting for the utopia have to comprehend that in “full democracy or nothing” argument, they are more likely to get nothing.

Journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, writing in the Hindu newspaper, has drawn attention to the seeming blunder the NLD has committed in boycotting the poll:

‘‘A boycott will be effective only if the NLD can mobilize enough support on the streets and if the military fears the adverse impact this would have on its international standing. Neither of these conditions hold. The SPDC [State Peace and Development Council] has already hit rock bottom in the global popularity stakes and the opposition’s chances of paralyzing Yangon, Mandalay and the new capital of Naypyitaw are low indeed. Given how well-entrenched the military is and given Southeast Asia region’s preference for ‘order’, a ‘guided democracy’ is the best that can be hoped for under the present circumstances. But even this would be a huge improvement over the current stalemate and would open up political spaces that Daw Suu Kyi and the NLD could slowly utilize.”

In this context it is important to note that during the past two decades, not a single one of the NLD’s political goals have been met – political dialogue with the military for national reconciliation, honoring the 1990 election result, the release of all political prisoners, withdrawing the military from politics, etc. If this cumulative failure is behind the party’s boycott decision, a firm adherence to the political integrity of the NLD leadership, particularly Suu Kyi, has led to the party’s demise, at least for now. (Himal South Asia)

What are the possible scenarios that can unfold after the elections?

Business as Usual

For one, the Junta manages to retain power through its cronies and it is business as usual. There would be the two houses with 25 and 33 percent uniformed participation and the rest who might just change from uniforms to civil dresses. The state heads will be nominated by the “elected” government and in all possibility we may see a larger Junta participation here too. Largely it will “legalise” the existing form of governance. Civilians backed, or at least vetted, by the junta will probably be given some government positions, but analysts say the power-hungry and staunchly nationalist military will still control the major policy and budgetary decisions.

An important question here is that in such dispensations will the sanctions remain? The West is only drawing Myanmar closer to China by these sanctions. The oil pipe line and overcoming the Malacca dilemma apart from other military cooperation are worrisome for the West. The West therefore may loosen the slack once a “democratic” dispensation takes shape in Myanmar.

Hybrid Government

The Junta may genuinely restrict themselves to the stated percentages and allow the democratic process to take its course within the ambit of the 2008 constitutional referendum. In this case also it will retain the power to run the government albeit with greater freedom of action to democratic forces. It would thus represent a hybrid government on the lines of Pakistan where the military will still call the shots.

Future elections, constitutional amendments and shifts in the power structure or patronage systems could lead to the emergence of splinter groups or factions within the military; some may favor offering roles to experienced, educated civilians deemed capable of handling key areas, in particular, the economy.

That the constitution retains the power to bring military back in power may tempt the new generation of military leaders to take greater risks in experimenting with democracy.

The Inferno

There is remote possibility of the ethnic groups going up in arms on the eve of the elections which might scuttle the entire process and result in the military seizing power once again. Remote but possible. This is likely to end the debate and we shall see a Myanmar still continuing the same way.

Long Term Perspective

In the long term, Myanmar could undergo a gradual transition of power to a civilian government, free of military control. This would be an evolutionary process rather than a military-inspired shift.

The newly elected legislature in 2010 will have a five-year term, and it is possible that during that period some space may develop between the state and its citizens that would allow greater freedom and a relaxation of the stringent rules of enforcement and censorship that are an aspect of life in contemporary Myanmar. Over the medium term, it may be possible to see a more balanced approach to foreign policy as the internal tensions between the military and civilian Burmese are assuaged, and perhaps even the constitution amended. This might allow more civilian influence on foreign policy. This is a slight and somewhat distant ray of hope for positive.

Conclusion

In summary, to quote David I Steinberg, the international globalized economic system will play little role in influencing Myanmar’s internal politics.

Although the state’s natural resources are attractive to multinational corporations, Myanmar’s decentralized economy would allow the state to continue even if these resources were to erode. Myanmar’s orientation is not a product of its participation in the international economy, but rather is a product of its history – its colonial past and the perceived dangers and insults of that period, the past predatory roles of its neighbors, ethnic strife, and the glorification of the Burmese military tradition to which the present tatmadaw (the military) lays claim. The regime is able to force compliance while titularly espousing a particularistic brand of “democracy” (akin to Suharto’s Indonesia) in which multiple political parties affect only the periphery of power and policy, but under strong, iron bands formed by the Myanmar military.

This analysis is not an end but the beginning of an investigation into the enigma called Myanmar. There is a lot of ground yet to be covered especially the role of ethnic groups, the provincial structures and the outside influences. For the time being the world and Myanmar need to evolve more options for workable democratic set up in Myanmar….without Nuclear Weapons.

The American and Pakistani world turned on its head with WikiLeaks this monday. This is just the tip of the iceberg says WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange. This has started an intense debate across the globe on whether the leaks are a way to correct the wrongs or a grave danger to National security.

It depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. For America it is embarrasing, for Pakistan a vehement no no and Afghanistan is shocked at the revelations. The New York Times reported on Sunday that military field documents included in the leak by wikiLeaks.org suggest that Pakistan, an ally of the United States in the war against terror, has been running something of a “double game”, allowing “representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.”

Washington is blindly paying Pakistan massive amounts of money for access to Afghanistan even as Islamabad uses its spy agency, ISI, to plot the death of American and NATO troops, allied Indian personnel, and undermines US policy. The website charged that Washington needed to deal with Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. “There should be serious action taken against the ISI, who has a direct connection with the terrorists,”. “These reports show that the U.S. was already aware of the ISI connection with the al Qaeda terrorist network. The United States is overdue on the ISI issue and now the United States should answer.”

The Afghan Response

“The Afghan government is shocked with the report that has opened the reality of the Afghan war,” said Siamak Herawi, a government spokesman. Herawi focused on the allegation that Pakistan was secretly supporting al Qaeda and asserted that Washington needs to deal with ISI. “There should be serious action taken against the ISI, who has a direct connection with the terrorists,” he said. “These reports show that the U.S. was already aware of the ISI connection with the al Qaeda terrorist network. The United States is overdue on the ISI issue, and now the United States should answer.”

The Pakistani First Take

General Hamid Gul, known as the father of Taliban and former head of ISI rubbished the reports and said that there was no truth in these motivated reports.

General Hamid Gul

Incidently General Gul figures prominently in alleged ISI role in supporting various Taliban networks in Afghanistan supporting the larger Pakistani cause. On the official side Pakistan has termed the reports baseless and has argued that Pakistan has no links with al Qaida.

“Pakistan’s government under the democratically elected leadership of President Zardari and Prime Minister [Yousuf Raza] Gilani is following a clearly laid out strategy of fighting and marginalizing terrorists, and our military and intelligence services are effectively executing that policy,” a statement of the Pakistan ambassador to USA stated. “If someone has any evidence, it should be brought to us, and we will take action,” the report said. “The Pakistani military, especially the ISI, has sacrificed more than any other forces in the war on terrorism.”

The US Stance

US strategic circles, senators and Pentagon are busy extinguishing the fire the leaks have generated. There are views from both side of the fence, arguments and counterarguments go to prove only one thing – the American house in Afghanistan is not in order.

The most interesting revelation comes from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton,”These leaked documents, while troubling, appear to support what I was asserting for years: The war in Afghanistan was not going well, and we needed a real strategy for success. For nearly a decade under the previous administration, our brave war fighters were under-resourced and lacked the direction of a clear strategy. Under the new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around. These leaked reports pre-date our new strategy in Afghanistan and should not be used as a measure of success or a determining factor in our continued mission there.”

Ike Skelton

On Pakistan’s support to Afghan Taliban he articulated that there was a forward movement,”While we still have concerns about Pakistan’s efforts against the Afghan Taliban, there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort.” Clearly an attempt to pre-date and pass off the blame to the Bush administration.

In addition, these leaks have sparked off a debate about the impact of such leaks on National Security and whether they should be allowed.

First Take

Considering that these reports covered the period between 2004 and 2009 and that they are just the tip f the iceberg, establishment of ISI and Pakistani role in playing a double game in Afghanistan stands established without doubt. No Afghan watcher had any doubts about Pakistan’s dubious role in Afghanistan but this confirms our worst fears. A CIA – ISI nexus to subvert the Afghanistan based geopolitical process for marginal strategic gains by both sides. These leaks have substantiated what a lot of people have suspected about many situations.

For instance, this allegation that the Pakistani intelligence service – the Inter-Services Intelligence – has been supporting the Taliban fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It has been known for a long time that Pakistan sees huge importance in having a government that supports it in Afghanistan. They fear India on the other side of the border and therefore they want a friendly government on the other side of the country.

The coat of arms of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan.

The U.S. war in Afghanistan has been drawing comparisons to the Vietnam War for many years, and WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 government documents about the war in Afghanistan will give more credence to that comparison. Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower responsible for leaking the U.S. government’s top-secret study on the Vietnam War in 1971, says that like the Pentagon Papers, these documents will not justify the ongoing war.

“I think what the Pentagon Papers showed with 7,000 pages was that there was a lack of any good reason for doing what we were doing,” Ellsberg told CNN. “My strong expectation is these 92,000 pages will not convey any good reason for the dying and killing and the enormous money we’re spending over there in a time we cannot afford it.” These are things that have been discussed before. These are things that have been suspected; now there is some factual evidence about them. What they’ve been able to do – and this is just the tip of the iceberg because nobody has had time top go through all 92,000 of them – is to make a comparison with some of these individual documents and then the information and reporting that came out in the subsequent days after those documents were filed.

WikLeaks Take

What they’re able to show is that there is sometimes a discrepancy, or there is sometimes some very revealing information. So it’s in those small details that you really see how the war is being played out. That’s what WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange wants to do. He wants to put that out in the public domain. It is too early to determine the full impact of the leaks, we expect more fireworks.

Today, the government of Venezuela casted Colombian diplomats out, put out a military alert on its 1,200 mile border with Colombia, and cut off both trade and diplomatic relations with Colombia. Venezuela, after hearing Colombia declare hundreds of Colombian insurgents with their leaders were based in Venezuela, denied the country was sheltering the rebels.

In a situation that quickly deterioated, Venezuela accused Colombia of consorting with the American military. Colombia fired back with a claim of absolute evidence that proves rebels are based in Venezuela because of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe’s intense military operations against the rebels. The Colombian government declared that it would take the evidence to the OAS (Organization of American States).

The Colombian government identified the rebel presence as FARC, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionanas de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Venezuela in the past has tolerated FARC far more than the governments of Colombia and other countries. The list of groups and nations the Chávez government in Venezuela tolerates include Iran which is under fire from the U.N for pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

To add to the animosity between the two South American governments, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez in the past had a tattered diplomatic relationship with the Colombian government under the U Party’s leaders Juan Manuel Santos and Uribe. When the 2010 Colombian elections came pitting Santos against Green Party’s Antanas Mockus, Chávez publicly announced he would be more willing to cooperate with a “Monkus government” than a “Santos government”. Now that former defense minister Santos has won the presidential elections, Chavez seems to be sticking with his preferences of nation friends.

From Left To Right: Colombian presidential election winner Juan Manuel Santos and current Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Although alike in their origin from Gran Colombia and in its flags, both Venezuela and Colombia have been hostile towards each other for many years but today’s situation is described as “a new low” for the status of the relations between the two countries.

Seeing the new level of hostility, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, worrying there might be a military conflict between Venezuela and Colombia, has called for an immediate meeting of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) to address the grave situation.

Venezuela additionally threatened the U.S it would cut off oil supply to America if the U.S entered an armed conflict in support of Colombia.

(Cover Picture: AFP/GETTY)

Speculation about Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak lying in his deathbed seems to have been put down by Thursday’s televised speech orated by Mubarak himself on the anniversary of the 1952 Egyptian Revolution. Appearing to be healthy despite his gallbladder surgery back in March, Hosni addressed the nation on the importance of economic growth and “many goals we aim for today, tomorrow, and after tomorrow”.

Ruling in a state of national emergency since the 1981 assassination of President Anwar El-Sadat, former Vice President Hosni Mubarak has been Egypt’s successor-President for 28 years and built up Egypt to what it is today complete with certain human rights, economic benefits, and technological advances. As he grew older, the subject of President Mubarak’s health was plagued with rumors about secretly-covered illnesses in 2003, 2005, and 2008. After Mubarak turned 82 last May, people started to expect the President to suddenly keel over and die.

Mubarak’s health is of much concern to those following politics in the Middle East. President Mubarak has been an active player in the political field of the Middle East and has handled matters concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict and the presence of the U.S military in Iraq ever since Day 1 of the War on Terrorism. He especially plays a crucial part in negotiating terms between Israelis and Palestinians alongside the country of Jordan. If his health does deteriorate, political stability will perhaps also tip over in both Egypt and the Middle East.

Possibly to show he’s not likely to die anytime soon, President Mubarak’s official itinerary is full of scheduled visits to other African and Arab nations. He heartily welcomed presidents of other nations including Turkey this week not in his deathbed but robustly standing up. According to a letter to the editor of the Washington Times, Director Karim Haggag of the Egyptian Press and Information Office stated, “this is hardly the schedule of an ailing head of state”.

Gamal Mubarak, 40, eldest son of Hosni Mubarak.

If in the event Mubarak does die, human rights and its activists in Egypt who have faced questionable treatment at the hands of the Mubarak government will perhaps be facing an even more questionable future. Although multi-candidate elections are coming up in 2011, Mubarak has continuously been training his eldest son for quite some time now to take over as successor by bringing him along on his trips to visit other heads of state and placing his son in an important, government position.

To many, Mubarak training his son as the “heir apparent” is quite ironic seeing that the 1952 revolution took place to overthrow a monarchy.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Mubarak’s main rival plans to run for the presidency in the 2011 elections if the conditions “are fair.”

The Green Party of Ohio will be having a state wide convention on Saturday, July 24th., Room 100 in the Northwood Bldg., 2231 North High St. Columbus Ohio. 10 am to 4pm.

 
Press Conference will be  at 10:30 a.m.

For the first time in history Ohio voters had the option of requesting a Green Party ballot in a primary election and over a thousand Ohio voters rejected the two corporate parties and voted Green.

 This was an important step forward on a long road towards true political change but there are many more steps that we must take if we are to build a political tool for concrete and meaningful social change. So we, the newly elected Central Committee of the Ohio Green Party, are calling out to all those who voted Green in the May 4th primary, and anyone else who wants to get involved (regardless of party affiliation) to join us in Columbus on July 24, 10am to 4pm.

You may RSVP or find more information on our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136837586336385

At the meeting, the Green Party of Ohio’s Candidates will be present:

• Dennis Spisak – Governor
• Anita Rios – Lt. Governor
• Dennis Lambert – 89th Ohio State House Representative
• Rich Stevenson US Rep District 1

(Cover Picture: Green Party of Ohio)

- Public Event Page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=136837586336385

- Article Contributed By: Vaughn W. Stull

One would think the North Korean soccer team have it badly back in their country after disastrously losing their match with Portugal by 7 points during the World Cup until one sees a former official of North Korea was executed without much hesitation by his own government. Assumedly, the hermit-like North Korean government executed a former official today. A South Korean newspaper, the Dong-a Ilbo (East Asia Daily), reported the execution citing a “credible” source in the Chinese government that apparently knows what goes on in the chambers of the North Korean government.

Korea’s National Intelligence Agency will be verifying if this report is true.

The man executed for supposedly failing his Stalinist government was Kwon Ho Ung (shown above, right), the former lead representative of North Korean delegations and also the Senior Cabinet Councilor for North-South Korean high level talks. Kwon Ho Ung had worked diligently from 2004 to 2007 on important matters with the South Korean government. It is puzzling that Kwon Ho Ung would be executed as there doesn’t seem to be any fault with his work. Analysts have speculated that Ung may have been executed because North Korean leaders may have blamed Ung’s inability to prevent the current, tense situation between North and South Korea in his years of work.

Whatever the reason, Ung’s supposed execution has not relieved the escalating tension between North Korea and its counterpart. The problem started when a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, was mysteriously sunk off the maritime border between North and South Korea back in March. Attempts to rescue the remaining 46 crew members failed resulting in sorrows for 46 families. A South Korean investigation with international specialists concluded that Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo.

The 38th parallel (Credit: Phungster)

Denying the allegations, North Korea shut off its border to South Korea. South Korea froze all financial assets for its communist counterpart and began to shove 20th century propaganda into North Korean ears by setting up megaphones and speakers along the 38th parallel which provoked the North Korean government into threatning military action.

The situation drew in the Korean peninsula’s neighbors and allies including China, Japan, Russia, and the United States of America. Growing tensions was further boosted by the latest indictment of South Korean double-agents, Park Chae Seo and his associate, a ROK (Republic of Korea) Army general, who spied for North Korea since 2003. The U.S and South Korea agreed to hold military exercises next week on both land and the Yellow Sea which has caused some anxiety to both Chinese and North Korean governments.

If Kwon Ho Ung was indeed executed, this would not be the first, albeit subtle, execution of North Korean officials carried out by their own government. Two decades ago, North Korea publicly executed an official in its Agricultural Ministry after a nationwide famine occured. More recently, the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) executed two chief economic officers for tripping up the North Korean currency which led to inflation and a more unhealthy economy.

(Cover Picture: Life)

Understanding what really happened after July 5, 1977:

It was 4^th July 1977 , Lieutenant General Iqbal Khan told his headquarters staff that finally at last Mr Z.A Bhutto and the opposition alliance PNA had reached an amicable peace settlement. My father, a newly promoted brigadier, was one of this staff.

On 5^th July 1977 General Zia , the army chief handpicked by Prime Minister Z.A Bhutto against the very advice of the military’s Military Secretary Branch delivered the fatal blow, not only to democracy but to Pakistan’s future. Martial Law was imposed on 5^th July 1977.

While Ayub Khan although a usurper had separated the military from politics Zias system of things imposed the military over politics. That system unfortunately carries on till to date. Zias worse action was turning Pakistan into a US Saudi military base against USSR. This he did not because the USSR was a threat to Pakistan but because Zias military dictatorship was under threat from Pakistans masses and political forces.

The use of non state actors as state proxies was firmly adopted by Zia as a cheap tool of foreign policy and this policy was reversed by none including the so called very secular Benazir or the not so liberal Nawaz Sharif. Foreign policy, at least the India and Afghanistan policies, became an exclusive affair of Pakistan’s military establishment. No civilian has reversed this policy to date. The political fabric of the country was deeply and fatally infiltrated and all politicians became tools of blackmail by the state security apparatus. Benazir Bhutto although a popular leader was compromised in such a way that when she came into power in 1988 and 1993 she dared not interfering with the military establishment  regarding Pakistan’s policy with India or Afghanistan.

A military relationship with the USA and Saudi Arabia was established which bypassed Pakistan’s political organs as well as the US Congress or Senate and the Department of Defence, CIA. State Department bureaucrats established a direct hotline with Pakistan’s military establishment. This relationship survived despite the Clinton administration and remains to date.

Sectarian and ethnic divisions were encouraged, thus the Sipah I Sahaba, MQM, the baradari culture were created in Punjab thanks to the 1985 non party elections.

The results of an attack on a Shia funeral in Pakistan.

The judiciary was successfully coerced into submission and dissenting judges removed by blackmail and persecution. This has remained a fact despite the Iftikhar Chaudhry phenomena which was a case of clash of egos rather than clash of principles as the valiant judge took a stand when pushed against the wall and over a matter of personal survival having earlier supported the same dictator in distorting Pakistans constitution.

Religious intolerance was fine tuned with the Ahmadis and Shias targeted . A strict bar on promotion of Ahmadi officers beyond colonel level was imposed in the military which continued from 1977 to 1992.

Hadood laws were introduced and done in words of a direct participant IG Ch Sardar Ali so that Saudis could be pleased and milked into giving Pakistan financial aid.

The sad part is that most of Zias actions were not reversed.

Benazir came into power in 1988 and 1993 under a secret agreement and abdicated control over major part of Pakistans foreign and security policy to the Pakistani military establishment.In 2008 also the PPP was allowed into power by NRO under a shady secret deal and to date the PPP has no control over Pakistans foreign or security policy despite being the de jure ruler party of Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif came near ZAB in being a strong political leader when he sacked a naval and a military chief but was chastised by years in exile and a compromised return to Pakistan under a secret protocol ? The new Nawaz Sharif is a weaker Nawaz Sharif represented by a more pragmatic Shahbaz Sharif in power whose first rule of business is ask the military before doing anything.

Benazir Bhutto.

Thus while Zias mortal remains were burnt over the Hindu Shamshan Ghat over Basti Lal Kamal on that historic 17^th August 1988 his system remains in force with a Pakistan ruled by politicians in name and a foreign and security policy firmly in the hands of Pakistans military establishment. This ideally suits the USA , the Saudis and Pakistan’s military establishment.

The gist of the problem is that Pakistans civilian political leadership has no clue or control over what is Pakistan doing in Afghanistan, Kashmir or Balochistan and FATA. This explains why USA has secret agreements with Pakistan’s military. It’s safe, it’s practical and it’s a one window operation!

The weak link in this whole chain is misuse of Islam by Pakistan’s civil and military elite since 1947 .The bluff was called in 2001 and Pakistan is now in grip of a civil war since 2003 with no end in sight. A war which has the potential of destroying Pakistan unless good captains can deal successfully with the immensely adverse wind and waves. The fatal question is can such an anachronistic arrangement last despite being supported by so called demi Gods like USA and Saudi Arabia?

The answer is No, as proven from Pakistans ongoing civil war since 2003 in the killing fields of Afghanistan, FATA and now Data Darbar.

This coming week, Thongloun Sisoulith (pictured left above) will be visiting Washington D.C as the deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Laos making his visit one of the first from the Southeastern Asian country since the Cold War era.

Laos and the United States have had rocky relationships after the Vietnam War. The Cold War conflict between the U.S and Minh’s communist troops had spread to parts of Laos when the U.S began funding an ethnic group called the Hmong to form resistance against communist forces. The Laotian government will be sending their delegation to the U.S in response to the Secretary of State inviting Laotian officials to the U.S.

This week, Al Franken, a U.S senator visited Laos primarily to see what conditions the Hmong people were in. Back in the ’70′s, the Hmong people were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency in order to fight against Pathet Lao, a communist statesman who took over the government in Laos. Consequently, the Pathet-government targeted numerous Hmong people in retribution. Retribution often was comprised of introductions to “re-education” camps and slave labor.

The Laotian government of course was embittered by further Hmong resistance which was secretly supported by the U.S government. Since then, tens of thousands have tried to escape from their ancestral homes to Western and neighboring nations. Relationships between Laos and the United States took a turn when the Clinton administration admitted to supporting the Secret War in Laos in 1997.

However this did not warm the relationship between the Laotian-communist government and the Hmong people.

Recently, more than 4,500 Hmong were deported from Thailand last year as the Thai government ruled that the Hmong were not political refugees in contrary to some of the nations’ stance on the Hmong people being political refugees.

Senator Franken reported that the Hmong people he visited seemed to be “in fine condition” but also said that the Laotian government said the ‘refugees’ Franken visited wanted to stay in Laos despite invitations of resettlement from the Canadian, Dutch, American, and Australian governments; very peculiar considering their fear of reprisals and their many relatives and ancestors had fled from Laos or hid among the mountains.

Senator Al Franken

Senator Franken stated that he will “request” that Secretary Clinton try to strike up a deal with the coming Laotian officials to release 158 Hmong refugees.

Unlike the 4,000 Hmong controversially repatriated from Thailand last December, the United Nations actually had the time to determine these 158 individuals were political refugees.