Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terrorism. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner

Has the Obama Administration Miscalculated in Pakistan?
By Dilip Hiro

Washington often acts as if Pakistan were its client state, with no other possible patron but the United States. It assumes that Pakistani leaders, having made all the usual declarations about upholding the “sacred sovereignty” of their country, will end up yielding to periodic American demands, including those for a free hand in staging drone attacks in its tribal lands bordering Afghanistan. This is a flawed assessment of Washington’s long, tortuous relationship with Islamabad.

A recurring feature of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has been its failure to properly measure the strengths (as well as weaknesses) of its challengers, major or minor, as well as its friends, steadfast or fickle. To earlier examples of this phenomenon, one may now add Pakistan.

That country has an active partnership with another major power, potentially a viable substitute for the U.S. should relations with the Obama administration continue to deteriorate. The Islamabad-Washington relationship has swung from close alliance in the Afghan anti-Soviet jihad years of the 1980s to unmistaken alienation in the early 1990s, when Pakistan was on the U.S. watch list as a state supporting international terrorism. Relations between Islamabad and Beijing, on the other hand, have been consistently cordial for almost three decades. Pakistan’s Chinese alliance, noted fitfully by the U.S., is one of its most potent weapons in any future showdown with the Obama administration.

Playing the China Card

Another factor, also poorly assessed, affects an ongoing war. While, in the 1980s, Pakistan acted as the crucial conduit for U.S. aid and weapons to jihadists in Afghanistan, today it could be an obstacle to the delivery of supplies to America’s military in Afghanistan. It potentially wields a powerful instrument when it comes to the efficiency with which the U.S. and its NATO allies fight the Taliban. It controls the supply lines to the combat forces in that landlocked country.

Taken together, these two factors make Pakistan a far more formidable and independent force than U.S. policymakers concede publicly or even privately.

The Supply Line as Jugular

Angered at the potential duplicity of Pakistan in having provided a haven to Osama bin Laden for years, the Obama administration seems to be losing sight of the strength of the cards Islamabad holds in its hand.

To supply the 100,000 American troops now in Afghanistan, as well as 50,000 troops from other NATO nations and more than 100,000 employees of private contractors, the Pentagon must have unfettered access to that country through its neighbors. Among the six countries adjoining Afghanistan, only three have seaports, with those of China far too distant to be of practical use. Of the remaining two, Iran -- Washington’s number one enemy in the region -- is out. That places Pakistan in a unique position.

Currently about three-quarters of the supplies for the 400-plus U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan -- from gigantic Bagram Air Base to tiny patrol outposts -- go overland via Pakistan or through its air space. These shipments include almost all the lethal cargo and most of the fuel needed by U.S.-led NATO forces. On their arrival at Karachi, the only major Pakistani seaport, these supplies are transferred to trucks, which travel a long route to crossing points on the Afghan border. Of these, two are key: Torkham and Chaman.

Torkham, approached through the famed Khyber Pass, leads directly to Kabul, the Afghan capital, and Bagram Air Base, the largest U.S. military facility in the country. Approached through the Bolan Pass in the southwestern Pakistani province of Baluchistan, Chaman provides a direct route to Kandahar Air Base, the largest U.S. military camp in southern Afghanistan.

Operated by some 4,000 Pakistani drivers and their helpers, nearly 300 trucks and oil tankers pass through Torkham and another 200 through Chaman daily. Increasing attacks on these convoys by Taliban-allied militants in Pakistan starting in 2007 led the Pentagon into a desperate search for alternative supply routes.

After Empire by Dilip HiroWith the help of NATO member Latvia, as well as Russia, and Uzbekistan, Pentagon planners succeeded in setting up the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). It is a 3,220-mile railroad link between the Latvian port of Riga and the Uzbek border city of Termez. It is, in turn, connected by a bridge over the Oxus River to the Afghan town of Hairatan. The Uzbek government, however, allows only non-lethal goods to cross its territory. In addition, the Termez-Hairatan route can handle no more than 130 tons of cargo a day. The expense of shipping goods over such a long distance puts a crimp in the Pentagon’s $120 billion annual budget for the Afghan War, and couldn’t possibly replace the Pakistani supply routes.

There is also the Manas Transit Center leased by the U.S. from the government of Kyrgyzstan in December 2001. Due to its proximity to Bagram Air Base, its main functions are transiting coalition forces in and out of Afghanistan, and storing jet fuel for mid-air refueling of U.S. and NATO planes in Afghanistan.

The indispensability of Pakistan’s land routes to the Pentagon has given its government significant leverage in countering excessive diplomatic pressure from or continued violations of its sovereignty by Washington. Last September, for instance, after a NATO helicopter gunship crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan in hot pursuit of insurgents and killed three paramilitaries of the Pakistani Frontier Corps in the tribal agency of Kurram, Islamabad responded quickly.

It closed the Khyber Pass route to NATO trucks and oil tankers, which stranded many vehicles en route, giving Pakistani militants an opportunity to torch them. And they did. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a written apology to his Pakistani counterpart General Ashhaq Parvez Kayani, conveying his “most sincere condolences for the regrettable loss of your soldiers killed and wounded on 30 September.” Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, issued an apology for the “terrible accident,” explaining that the helicopter crew had mistaken the Pakistani paratroopers for insurgents. Yet Pakistan waited eight days before reopening the Torkham border post.

Pakistan’s Other Cards: Oil, Terrorism, and China

In this region of rugged terrain, mountain passes play a crucial geopolitical role. When China and Pakistan began negotiating the demarcation of their frontier after the 1962 Sino-Indian War (itself rooted in a border dispute), Beijing insisted on having the Khunjerab Pass in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Islamabad obliged. As a result, the 2,000-square-mile territory it ceded to China as part of the Sino-Pakistan Border and Trade Agreement in March 1963 included that mountain pass.

That agreement, in turn, led to the building of the 800-mile-long Karkoram Highway linking Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang Region and the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, now a household name in America. That road sealed a strategic partnership between Beijing and Islamabad that has strong geopolitical, military, and economic components.

Both countries share the common aim of frustrating India’s aspiration to become the regional superpower of South Asia. In addition, the Chinese government views Pakistan as a crucial ally in its efforts to acquire energy security in the coming decades.

Given Pakistan’s hostility toward India since its establishment in 1947, Beijing made an effort to strengthen that country militarily and economically following its 1962 war with India. After Delhi exploded a “nuclear device” in 1974, China actively aided Islamabad’s nuclear-weapons program. In March 1984, its nuclear testing site at Lop Nor became the venue for a successful explosion of a nuclear bomb assembled by Pakistan. Later, it passed on crucial missile technology to Islamabad.

During this period, China emerged as the main supplier of military hardware to Pakistan. Today, nearly four-fifths of Pakistan’s main battle tanks, three-fifths of its warplanes, and three-quarters of its patrol boats and missile crafts are Chinese-made. Given its limited resources, Islamabad cannot afford to buy expensive American or Western arms and has therefore opted for cheaper, less advanced Chinese weapons in greater numbers. Moreover, Pakistan and China have an ongoing co-production project involving the manufacture of JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, similar to America’s versatile F-16.

As a consequence, over the past decades a pro-China lobby has emerged in the Pakistani officer corps. It was therefore not surprising when, in the wake of the American raid in Abbottabad, Pakistani military officials let it be known that they might allow the Chinese to examine the rotor of the stealth version of the damaged Black Hawk helicopter left behind by the U.S. Navy SEALS. That threat, though reportedly not carried out, was a clear signal to the U.S.: if it persisted in violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and applying too much pressure, the Pakistanis might choose to align even more closely with Washington’s rival in Asia, the People’s Republic of China. To underline the point, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani traveled to Beijing two weeks after the Abbottabad air raid.

Gilani’s three-day visit involved the signing of several Sino-Pakistani agreements on trade, finance, science, and technology. The highpoint was his meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao. Following that summit, an official spokesperson announced Beijing’s decision to urge Chinese enterprises to strengthen their economic ties with Pakistan by expanding investments there.

Among numerous Sino-Pakistani projects in the pipeline is the building of a railroad between Havelian in Pakistan and Kashgar in China, a plan approved by the two governments in July 2010. This is expected to be the first phase of a far more ambitious undertaking to connect Kashgar with the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

A small fishing village on the Arabian Sea coastline of Baluchistan, Gwadar was transformed into a modern seaport in 2008 by the China Harbor Engineering Company Group, a subsidiary of the China Communications Construction Company Group, a giant state-owned corporation. The port is only 330 miles from the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which flows much of China’s supplies of Middle Eastern oil. In the wake of the Gilani visit, China has reportedly agreed to take over future operation of the port.

More than a decade ago, China’s leaders decided to reduce the proportion of its oil imports transported by tanker because of the vulnerability of the shipping lanes from the Persian Gulf and East Africa to its ports. These pass through the narrow Malacca Strait, which is guarded by the U.S. Navy. In addition, the 3,500-mile-long journey -- to be undertaken by 60% of China’s petroleum imports -- is expensive. By having a significant part of its imported oil shipped to Gwadar and then via rail to Kashgar, China would reduce its shipping costs while securing most of its petroleum imports.

At home, the Chinese government remains wary of the Islamist terrorism practiced by Muslim Uighurs agitating for an independent East Turkestan in Xinjiang. Some of them have links to al-Qaeda. Islamabad has long been aware of this. In October 2003, the Pakistani military killed Hasan Mahsum, leader of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, and in August 2004, the Pakistani and Chinese armies conducted a joint anti-terrorism exercise in Xinjiang.

Almost seven years later, Beijing coupled its satisfaction over the death of Osama bin Laden with praise for Islamabad for pursuing what it termed a “vigorous” policy in combatting terrorism. In stark contrast to the recent blast of criticism from Washington about Pakistan’s role in the war on terrorism, coupled with congressional threats to drastically reduce American aid, China laid out a red carpet for Gilani on his visit.

Referring to the “economic losses” Pakistan had suffered in its ongoing counter-terrorism campaigns, the Chinese government called upon the international community to support the Pakistani regime in its attempts to “restore national stability and development in its economy.”

The Chinese response to bin Laden’s killing and its immediate aftermath in Pakistan should be a reminder to the Obama administration: in its dealings with Pakistan in pursuit of its Afghan goals, it has a weaker hand than it imagines. Someday, Pakistan may block those supply lines and play the China card to Washington's dismay.

Dilip Hiro is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World (Nation Books). His upcoming book on jihadists in South Asia will be published by Yale University Press later in the year.

Copyright 2011 Dilip Hiro


Copied from: Tomgram: Dilip Hiro, Pakistan's Other Partner | TomDispatch

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Indian Militancy and its Blame Game

in response to a few indians who claim india to have never played a role in insurgency???

see
"The Indian diplomat G. Parathasarathy admitted supporting terrorism in Sri Lanka. He synically recorded his confession “We have learnt our lesson” for backing the terrorist and that “India paid it price for backing the LTTE“. India has not paid a price for the atrocities committed by the LTTE. It needs to pay the price and call the dogs of war off. India is not doing that."
http://rupeenews.com/2008/07/26/india-admits-to-supporting-ltte-terroists-in-sri-lanka-pakistan-to-continue-to-help-lanka-crush-the-tamil-tigers/

and this
"In one of the biggest defeats of Indian foreign policy since it was thrown out of Sri Lanka, the Indian Intelligence services that supported the Indian based Tamil Tigers face imminent annihilation. President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka has reasons to be optimistic. The international rules of the game have changed. India in the 80s wanted to impose a Cypriot like bifurcation of Sri Lanka an Indian beached for the Tamils which would allow India influence to extend to Colombo. Nothing less than total capitulation to New Delhi was acceptable. In 2008 China is building a port in Sri Lanka. Pakistan is supply arms to the legal government of Sri Lanka that happens to be Sinhalese. These arms have had a tremendous impact on the Sri Lankan civil war, and Pakistanis will stand on the podium along with the Sri Lankan brothers and sisters to celebrate the victory of the unification of the island and defeat of Indian imperialism"

http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ZURL=%2FWorld%2BPolitics%2Farticles%2F1466%2F911%2Btragedy%2Beverday%2BLanka%2BPakistan%2BGifts%2BIndian&URL=http%3A%2F%2Frupeenews.com%2F2008%2F06%2F18%2Fltte-was-created-by-india%2F



for those who say india have never been pakistan centric??? see
"PAKISTAN FACES A 911 every day. In the 80s, RAW, and KGB destroyed Bori Bazaar and 300 died. This week dozens were killed in the heart of the caiptal. “911″ was a tectonic event for the United States and rest of the world. The event showed the world the horrors of terror. Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangaldesh, Sikkim, China and Bhutan have been facing “911″ since 1947–the targets of Indian agression and its hegemony designs. Pakistan is portrayed the epicenter of terror, while the real terror central is New Delhi. New Dlehi has used strong arm tactics to incorporate Hydrabad, and 560 other independent states into itself. It has forced Sikkim into its union and threatens and bullies Bhutan and Bangladesh. It has unleased a full fledged civil war on Sri Lanka-supporting, arming and training the Tamil Tigers (the LTTE) and sending them to bifurcate the Buddhist island paradise called Lanka. India used the Mukti Bahni to force Dhaka away from Islamabad, and then used the Rakhi Bahni to impose a “president for life” on Bangladesh. The patriotic Bangladeshis killed Shiakh Mujibur Rehman and aboshied the “treaty of freindship” which would have incorporated Bangladesh as a province of India."
http://www.zimbio.com/World+Politics/articles/1466/911+tragedy+everday+Lanka+Pakistan+Gifts+Indian

bloody indians shld stop polluting Pakistan's image and look into ur own backyard... dude actually India has dug its own grave... they supported militants n insurgents for so long n most of them have now turned against them...
see
"Unfortunately for India, the controversial Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of July 1987 proved to be as much of a failure as India’s policy of direct intervention. The result was India’s massively assisted LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) turned on its benefactor and declared war against the Indian forces in Sri Lanka. All in all, this Indian adventure killed 60,000 men, women and children and forced the Indians to withdraw their forces without successfully completing their mission. The price has been steep for both India and Sri Lanka and even today Sri Lanka is paying the price for this Indian-initiated and RAW inspired polarised conflict. The extent of RAW’s role in this affair has been painstakingly documented by Gunaratna in his book on the Indian intervention."
http://rupeenews.com/2008/06/26/raw-the-rascal/

Currently there are militants movements going on throughout india. India has around 600 districts out of which more than 200 districts have their sepratist movements. Every year thousand of people die in india in result of clashes between these movements and indian government. None of these movement has any link to PAkistan.

india has so many terrorist movements in their homeland and still they are blaming on Pakistan without having any evidence.

india shys away from the responsibility by blaming pakistan... since this seems an easier option :)

has the indian economic growth been able to provide enough food and shelter to the ppl of india??? A Big NO!!! indian poor is poorer than pakistani poor... go check any stats...

it is just the matter of time now... indian militants will soon fight each other like hell.... they'll kill each other soon, pakistani agencies need not do anything against them...

Thursday, August 14, 2008

War on Terror, its root cause as per Gillani's point of view

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said the war on terrorism and extremism is the war of survival for Pakistan, adding, ‘We will fight this war to ensure the writ of the government.’
...
Poverty is the main cause behind terrorism and the government has hammered out policy to cut down this menace to nothing, he observed.

ARY OneWorld Leading News Protal of Pakistan (Urdu - English), Watch Live ARY News


i disagree with both of his stmts.... nothing will happen to pakistan if pakistan stops attacking the bearded pakhtoons just because they do not want american or anyone else's occupation on their land... poverty is not the cause... its foreign occupation on their land... deprivation of rights... suppression of their breed... even if do not do anything for their poverty but u leave their area for them n let them live with their traditions... they'll do no harm to u...

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Israeli Terror

Dozens of Palestinians were arrested before dawn Thursday in an Israeli military incursion in the northern Gaza Strip, witnesses said. Israeli troops used loudspeakers to order residents of the Beit Hanun area aged 16 to 60 to gather in a square, and then took away about 60 of them, a witness said. The Palestinian Ramattan news agency said one of its cameramen was among those arrested. Witnesses said armoured military bulldozers destroyed farmland during the incursion. Meanwhile, a 29-year-old Palestinian civilian died of his wounds Thursday, one day after he was hit by Israeli gunfire in southern Gaza, the head of Gaza emergency services said.
- DAWN - Latest Stories; May 29, 2008
Blogged with the Flock Browser

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War

a 2003 article available on Reclaim Democracy.org

By Devin Nordberg
September 13, 2003

"It's not about oil. It's not about oil."

But we're taking their oil. And not just to finance reconstruction.

Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Iraqi occupation, made that clear back in July when he declared that Iraq needs to accept foreign investment and privatization of its oil before a permanent government is put in charge of the country. In other words, democracy is welcome only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them.

You'd think that such a blatant rejection of democracy and obvious grab at Iraq's oil would attract more notice. Bremer made it clear that corporations take priority over people in Iraq, and that the Bush Administration's occupation will continue that.

The Bush occupation of Iraq has an eerie similarity to another intervention in the Middle East that occurred 50 years ago — the CIA-British coup that ousted Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the infamous Shah of Iran.

So when Arab nations greet our rhetoric of creating democracy with suspicion or outright derision, we've earned it. Iranians struggled successfully for democracy and U.S. politicians promptly crushed their dream.

Then as now, the United States and Great Britain used violence to prevent Iraq and Iran from controlling their own oil.

This set of priorities contrasts sharply to the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when Americans sat down with Japanese scholars and collaboratively designed and implemented one of the most progressive, democratic constitutions in the world*. We can take pride for having helped Japan evolve into a peaceful, stable, and prosperous country that is one of our closest allies. Today, Iranian and Iraqi people resent our support of their previous corrupt regimes and, understandably, don't trust our intentions now.

The differences between American occupations of 1945 Japan and 2003 Iraq reflect the rise of corporate power here and abroad, and within the Bush administration in particular. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is already cashing in on Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts that it obtained from the U.S. government. The oil companies that donated so heavily to the Bush campaign will reap huge profits if they are allowed to take over oil production in Iraq. The weapons makers profit from Bush's policies as well, and even telecommunications companies stand to benefit, since Bremer intends to give foreign corporations license to operate mobile phone networks in Iraq.

It's no surprise that Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld have been advocating an invasion of Iraq since at least 1998 through the Project for a New American Century. It could be argued that Saddam Hussein has been a marked man since he nationalized Iraqi oil back in 1973, but that's another story.

Meanwhile, the American occupation of Iraq increasingly resembles the cycle of violence between Palestinians and Israelis: American soldiers are ambushed and killed, and the U.S. military retaliates by rounding up and imprisoning Iraqi "suspects," including civilians, women, and children as young as 11. More Iraqi violence results, and the cycle continues. Iraqis have little hope that American troops will withdraw anytime soon and have not been treated with dignity or human rights by their occupiers.

How did the American ideals of liberty and justice become hollow slogans for presidents to use to justify military attacks abroad? Ever since Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, it has become steadily more powerful. Corporations should not be allowed to influence foreign policy.

Yet the Bush administration's foreign policy, like domestic policy, often seems to come directly from corporate board rooms. For example, Executive Order 13303 grants complete legal immunity to transnational oil companies operating in Iraq. While U.S. soldiers attempt to establish law and order in Iraq, Bush has put oil companies above the law.

The time to end the occupation of Iraq is overdue. We should pull our troops out before more of them die, hand the temporary administration of Iraq over to the United Nations, let the U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq, fund the rebuilding of Iraq through the U.N., and allow Iraqis to choose their own government.

The best way for us to fight terrorism is to advance justice; and justice will not be possible as long as corporations are prioritized over people.

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War - Reclaim Democracy.org
Blogged with the Flock Browser