US courts India in the Indian Ocean

http://opinion-maker.org/2010/05/emerging-threat-to-world-indo-israeli-nexus/

http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=803

US courts India in the Indian Ocean
By Balaji Chandramohan

At the end of the 10-day joint naval exercise Malabar 10, conducted between India and the United States in the Arabian Sea, it became clear the two countries would further cooperate in the Indian Ocean to counter the rise of China in the years to come. The naval war games were held from April 23 to May 2, with these being the 14th in a series of exercises that began in 1992 after the end of the Cold War.

Unlike last year, this month's exercise was a bilateral rather than a multilateral affair. Countries that participated in the 2009 exercise were absent, including Singapore, Japan and Australia, leading to speculation these nations didn't want to antagonize Beijing. The absence of the Quadrilateral Initiative (known as "Quad" or the "axis of democracy") provides a glaring observation in the Malabar 10 exercise.

The Malabar 10 could be the start of a new great game between India and China in the Indian Ocean, with the United States acting as a leveler.

Nothing better illustrates the significance of this year's Malabar exercise than the visit of US Navy Chief Admiral Gary Roughead to India ahead of the event. Speaking at a round-table conference held on April 12 organized by the National Maritime Foundation, a naval think-tank based in India, Roughead said that America's leaders at the highest level had declared that the US and India would be strategic partners for the 21st century.

"I'm here to say that the United States Navy in particular is a committed friend to India for the long term."

During the 10-day naval exercise, India's Western Fleet participated in drills with the US's Seventh Fleet. Though the scale of operations was lower this year compared to previous years, Task Force 70 of the Seventh Fleet based in Yokosuka, Japan, brought the cruiser USS Shiloh, the destroyers USS Chafee and USS Lassen and the frigate USS Curts.

In addition, the US deployed a Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, the USS Annapol. From the Indian side, the guided missile destroyer INS Mysore and three frigates - INS Godavari, INS Brahmaputra and INS Tabar - were also a part of the operations.

Some of the key focuses of the operations were on anti-submarine warfare, surface firings and maritime interdiction operations, apart from humanitarian assistance and disaster-relief efforts.

There are several main reasons that might explain the increase in India-US naval cooperation. First, the Barack Obama administration does not believe unilateral solutions are available to deal with regional security challenges. Second, India's importance in Washington's eyes as a potential strategic partner has steadily increased because of Delhi's growing economic and military capabilities as well as its strong democratic credentials. Third, both the US and India are concerned about the rising power of China in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond.

Although the US and India want and actively seek strong cooperative relations with Beijing, both are conscious of potential conflicts of interest in bilateral relations with Beijing. This recognition has cumulatively served to bolster US-Indian ties. Washington also now believes that US-Indian political and military cooperation is necessary to counter the very real challenges of international piracy and Islamist terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

From the US's point of view there is a fear that China might intervene forcefully in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Nearly 44 of the 51 small islands and reefs are claimed by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei. The conflict stems from overlapping sovereignty claims to various Spratly Islands, which potentially could produce natural resources such as oil, natural gas and seafood. China's aggressive stance is motivated by its need to meet growing energy demands that outstrip its supply capability. The US might be forced to "intervene" and would need a partner in India.

India would not suffer any sleepless nights if the US was ready to counter China's "string of pearls" strategy in the Indian Ocean, which includes courting allies in South Asia and littoral states by providing funds and building ports. This strategy is intent on making sure the Indian Ocean is not India's ocean.

The US's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) acknowledged India's rise as a military power in the Asia-Pacific and the dominant role its navy could play in years to come. The QDR also mentioned that the US Navy would be deployed in forward positions in the years to come.

Interestingly, the present chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, explained the importance of the navy in the QDR, the first time a naval officer has been chairman since the 1996 QDR.

The wheel has come full circle since the first Malabar exercise in 1992. At that time, Washington had "won" the Cold War against the Soviet Union through a "containment strategy" propagated by American diplomat George Kennan. The US wanted to court India, which had been an ally of the Soviet Union.

The US's geostrategy is also partially based on the concept of the 20th-century Dutch-American geostrategist and the "godfather" of the containment strategy, Nicholas John Spykman. He said that "whoever controlled the Rimland rules Eurasia; whoever rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world". Typically, the Rimland refers to the maritime fringes of the Eurasian continent.

Spykman emphasized that the US needed partners in the Rimland to counter the rise of the Heartland (Soviet Union) and the Middle Kingdom (China). This is the reason the US continues to court India through the Malabar exercises.

Balaji Chandramohan handles the Asia-Pacific Bureau of World News Forecast, a United States-based news website for the past three years. He is a member of think-tanks such as the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses, United Service Institute, Australian Institute of International Studies and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

China in the catbird seat on Iran

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/may/china-america-and-a-new-world-order

China in the catbird seat on Iran
By Peter Lee

There were two major nuclear non-proliferation conferences in April, one in Washington and one in Tehran. China attended both.

The Barack Obama administration was highly gratified that Chinese President Hu Jintao attended the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington. But China also sent an assistant foreign minister to the Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, where he pleased his hosts by reiterating a call for continued negotiation and diplomacy to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis.

After months of anxiety and uncertainty China finds itself in the catbird seat - and in a position to profit if President Obama's nuclear diplomacy succeeds or, as appears more likely, it fails. To a certain extent, both China and Israel have a shared interest in forestalling a win-win resolution of the Iran nuclear crisis.

If the 30-year-old enmity between Washington and Tehran persists, Israel gets to preserve its special relationship as America's embattled and indispensable ally in the Middle East - and China can continue to enjoy its privileged position as Iran's only genuine superpower friend.

All China needs to do is balance its endorsement of Obama's ambitions for a world free of nuclear weapons with nuanced support of Iran's interests and the principle of multilateralism. China's current position on Iran comes close to recapitulating its strategy to establish itself as the key intermediary with an isolated North Korea, albeit on a bigger, more remote, and much riskier stage.

China has been able to accomplish this with considerable subtlety, even as the Obama administration has seen its bold outreach to the Muslim world deteriorate into an Israel-driven exercise in geopolitical kabuki. In late May, the Chinese leadership decided it did not want to exacerbate its fraught relations with the United States - already frayed over climate change, currency, and Google - for the dubious cause of the Iranian nuclear program.

In exchange for a public US reaffirmation of the one-China policy, which Beijing will find useful as it confronts a new generation of opponents in Tibet and Taiwan (and a private undertaking not to designate China as a currency manipulator for the time being), China agreed to participate in the Nuclear Security Summit and join the current round of Iranian sanction-writing at the UN Security Council.

An Iranian emissary immediately jetted to Beijing for discussions.

Judging from subsequent developments, the upshot was that Iran got the message that it would have to rely on its good works and not just the shield of a Chinese veto threat to avoid UN sanctions. In a subsequent charm offensive, Iranian representatives reasserted their allegiance to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), emphasized their willingness to negotiate, and attempted to resuscitate the moribund project to fuel the Tehran research reactor with Western assistance.

Complicating efforts to present him as a defiant pariah, Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke at the 2010 NPT Revision Conference in New York on May 3, calling for the fulfillment of the NPT's largely unmet promise of disarmament by the main nuclear powers.

Beyond the core group of anti-Iran hardliners, these efforts may have had more impact than the Obama administration is willing to admit.

Faced with Tehran's continual offers to negotiate the terms of the exchange of its low-enriched-uranium for fuel plates fabricated in France for the Tehran Research Reactor, the Western declaration that the Iranians have offered "nothing new" is starting to sound a little threadbare. [1]

The hardliners may be forced to invoke the dreaded Western "impatience" - that dishonest emotion most famously deployed to short-circuit the unproductive inspections inside Iraq and jump-start the disastrous 2003 invasion - in order to rush sanctions through the UN Security Council and enable the harsher follow-on national sanctions that will permanently preempt the negotiation track.

Little wonder that French President Nicolas Sarkozy - the most enthusiastic member of the anti-Iran axis - used his trip to China to declare that the time for sanctions was, basically, now.

"The whole question is to examine at what point the absence of constructive dialogue must lead to sanctions in order to enhance constructive dialogue. Everyone is convinced that moment is approaching," said Sarkozy. [2]

Until now, Iran's most effective tactic has been to attack the Obama policy at its most vulnerable point: Israel.

Israel's sizable undeclared arsenal of nuclear warheads has always been an irritant in America's Middle Eastern diplomacy and its efforts to block Iran's nuclear program. The double standards dilemma has been most acute for President Obama, who designed his geopolitical strategy (and collected a Nobel Peace Prize) around the idea of reducing the threat of nuclear weapons through a combination of enhanced nuclear security, vigorous non-proliferation, and great-power nuclear disarmament under US leadership - anchored by universal adherence to the NPT.

From an NPT perspective, Israel doesn't compare favorably to Iran.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT and an active, if unhappy and not particularly candid, participant in the IAEA safeguards program. Its current inventory of nuclear material amounts to less than 2 tons of radioactive dirt, 11 pounds (4.99 kilograms) of uranium enriched to just below the 20% threshold (equivalent to less than three pounds of highly enriched uranium if fully enriched), and 0 pounds of bomb-grade material.

Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. It joined the IAEA, but does not participate in any safeguards program, apparently regarding its membership primarily as a useful opportunity to pitch negative intelligence concerning Islamic nuclear ambitions over the Intelligence Directorate's transom. It maintains an undeclared arsenal of at least 100 warheads - perhaps as many as 400. [3]

To build this arsenal, Israel evaded export controls, allegedly diverting heavy water supplied by Norway for peaceful uses to its weapons program and illegally obtaining hundreds of US krytons (high speed switches). [4]

And Israel has proliferated. It provided technical assistance to the apartheid regime of South Africa that resulted in the construction of six nuclear warheads that could be dropped on South Africa's many regional antagonists. It was alleged but never officially confirmed that the Israeli government had also agreed to supply six specially fitted ballistic missiles to carry the warheads, and that South Africa's sole nuclear test was a joint South African/Israeli affair. [5]

Perhaps recalling its own experience, as late as May 2009 Israel contemptuously asserted that the NPT "has failed to prevent any country that wanted to from obtaining nuclear weapons". [6]

In 2009, Obama apparently hoped to square the circle by managing rapprochement with Iran through public and secret outreach and progress on fueling the Tehran research reactor, and subsequently placing pressure on Israel to enter into the global non-proliferation regime.

Israel received its public wake-up call in May 2009, when Assistant US Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller called on Israel by name to join the NPT while neglecting the obligatory condemnation of Iran. In September 2009, the waning days of Mohamed ElBaradei's tenure as IAEA director general, Israel's critics at the IAEA were finally able to push through a resolution calling on Israel to join the NPT and enter into a safeguards agreement.

Thanks to a fortuitous combination of Iran's domestic political and leadership crisis, US paranoia, and its own assiduous lobbying, the Tehran research reactor deal foundered and Israel was able to reverse the political tide by early 2010.

Obama was forced to divert his attention from Iran diplomacy to appease pro-Israel critics in the public sphere, congress, his own party, and even his own administration by repeatedly affirming the special character of the US-Israeli relationship while absorbing high profile insults such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to attend the Nuclear Security Summit.

At present, the promise of meaningful outreach to the Islamic world mediated by reliable allies such as Egypt seems unlikely to be honored in the breach. Egypt is expected to insist at the May 2010 NPT conference that negotiations including Israel begin to make the Middle East into a nuclear-weapons free zone. As Haaretz reports, the Western powers are willing to support the conference - as long as there are no negotiations and nothing happens:

One Western envoy said Egypt's insistence on a conference with a negotiating mandate was the main "sticking point," while another expressed the hope that Egypt would compromise during intensive negotiations on the issue in the coming weeks. One Western diplomat said the Israelis were "understandably reluctant" to take part, even if the conference's outcome would be merely symbolic. [7]

A measure of Obama's difficulties can also be seen in the release of the long-gestating Nuclear Posture Review on April 10. Intended to serve as the blueprint for the president's post-nuclear weapons world, the document bullet-pointed US doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons, with this new and memorable addition:

The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. [8]

The anonymous author of this clause - which reads suspiciously as it was tacked on at the last minute - wins no points for style or logic.

Since the overall doctrine permits use of nuclear weapons "only ... in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners", the final clause - with the bizarre permissive for "threatening" - looks like a carve-out, reserving the right to mete out additional nuclear punishment to nations that don't meet US standards of NPT good citizenship.

Elsewhere in the document Iran and North Korea are specifically called out as targets under this policy. But not Israel, Pakistan, or India, three nations that have nuclear weapons today but are not members of the NPT. This leaves the perhaps inadvertent impression that the safest course for a prospective nuclear weapons state is to run away from the NPT as fast as its proliferating legs will carry it.

China was quick to pounce.

On April 22, Xu Guangyu, a retired PLA general who frequently presents the modern, rational face of the Chinese military to the Western media, published a description of China's nuclear doctrine in Liberation Daily entitled "Deterrence Not Threats". [9]

As Xu spun the article in a follow-up phone call with Reuters [10], the piece was intended to reassure the United States, India, and Japan that China's relatively modest nuclear arsenal was designed purely to serve as a deterrent, to be used only in a second strike in the event of a nuclear attack against China.

All well and good, but the title of the article itself indicated that China was also needling the United States on the contradictions inherent in its pursuit of a universal NPT regime but selective sanctions against Iran and North Korea only.

In contrast to the US NPR, Xu described China's nuclear posture as no-first-use under any circumstances and, instead of a carve-out, added a reaffirmation that stood in marked contrast to the US declaration of its right to threaten refractory non-nuclear NPT states:

"China ... unconditionally promises that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear state or region."

Meanwhile, barely a day goes by without China calling for continued negotiations and diplomacy to resolve the Iran crisis, thereby burnishing its credentials as the champion protecting the developing world against selective US nuclear enforcement and making the sanctions job more difficult.

It remains to be seen if Iran's fractured leadership can summon the political will to make the concessions at this critical time that could defang the sanctions drive: suspend enrichment and accept the one year lag between shipping out its uranium and receiving the fuel plates for the Tehran research reactor back from France.

Even if they do, it is an open question as to whether the Obama administration could summon the political will to accept Iranian concessions, instead of pursuing the policy apparently supported by Israel and France: going ahead with sanctions that can only be removed after the satisfactory completion of unlimited adversarial inspections.

On one level, the arguments are about very little.

Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have no appetite for a third land war in Asia. There is also little advantage for Iran in defying the West and occupying the center of the US nuclear bull's eye for the sake of its nascent nuclear weapons capability. As for Israel, as the Indian precedent demonstrates, the United States and its allies are perfectly happy to negotiate and impose exceptions for friendly nuclear powers on the non-proliferation regime.

Presumably Israel would find little to be ashamed of and much to be proud of if portions of its nuclear industry were revealed to the gaze of the IAEA. One suspects that Israel is less concerned with the privacy of its nukes than the unwelcome possibility that it might have to treat Iran as a legitimate rival in the competition for America's attention and support in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, to date Israel has been successful in its adamant refusal to smooth the way for Obama's Iran diplomacy by publicly entertaining the possibility of Israeli participation in the non-proliferation regime. Defense Minister Ehud Barak marked the conclusion of the Nuclear Security Summit - at which Israel was represented only by a minor government functionary instead of a head of state - by declaring, "To our friends and our allies we say 'there is no room to pressure Israel into signing the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty'." [11]

Indeed, the sequence originally envisioned by the Obama administration appears to have been reversed.

It looks as if the price for Israel's participation in the non-proliferation regime - perhaps signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or joining the Fissile Material Cut Off initiative, if not immediately adhering to the NPT/IAEA safeguards regime - is "crippling sanctions" against Iran up front. Perhaps the sanctions should be properly understood as "crippling" because they would cripple US-Iran rapprochement rather than the Iranian nuclear program.

If the sanctions process rolls on to its logical conclusion of unproductive confrontation, China can look forward to serving as Iran's primary superpower ally - and benefit as Obama's attempt to provide renewed American leadership in the Middle East dissolves into the old division and rancor instead.

At the same time Beijing can present itself to Washington as a supporter of the new US nuclear security doctrine and mediator in the festering Iran mess - with the threat that it can abate its enthusiasm if US China-bashing gets out of hand.

That's called being in the catbird seat.

Notes
1. Iran wants to reopen talks about a nuclear fuel swap, Guardian, April 20, 2010.
2. Sarkozy stresses Iran sanctions, Aljazeera.net, April 28, 2010.
3. Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists.
4. Nuclear Weapons Program, Federation of American Scientists.
5. Nuclear Weapons Program, Federation of American Scientists.
6. 'Making Israel sign nuclear treaty won't be miracle cure for world ills', Haaretz.com, May 7, 2009.
7. Egypt seeks UN pressure on Israel over nuclear arms, Haaretz.com, April 20, 2010.
8. Nuclear Posture Review Report, US Department of Defense, April 2010
9. http://news.mod.gov.cn/headlines/2010-04/20/content_4148091.htm (in Chinese)
10. China military paper spells out nuclear arms stance, Reuters, April 22, 2010.
11. Israel Still Not Prepared to Join NPT, Global Security Newswire, April 15, 2010.


Peter Lee writes on East and South Asian affairs and their intersection with US foreign policy.

The Pentagon's game plan

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23214

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LE06Ak02.html

The Pentagon's game plan
By Jack A Smith

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/the-curious-timing-of-the-terrorist-attacks-its-almost-like-theyre-on-our-side/


There's more war in America's future - a great deal more, judging by the Barack Obama administration's reports, pronouncements and actions in recent months.

These documents and deeds include the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Ballistic Missile Defense Report, the nuclear security summit in New York and the May 3-28 United Nations nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, as well as the continuing wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, and the 2011 Pentagon war budget request.

The United States government presides as a military colossus of unrivalled dimension, but the QDR, which was published in February, suggests Washington views America as being constantly under the threat of attack from a multitude of fearsome forces bent on its destruction. As such, trillions more dollars must be invested in present and future wars - ostensibly to make safe the besieged homeland.

The NPR says the long-range US goal is a "nuclear-free" world, but despite token reductions in its arsenal of such weapons, the Pentagon is strengthening its nuclear force and bolstering it with a devastating "conventional deterrent" intended to strike any target in the world within one hour. In addition this document, published in April, retains "hair-trigger" nuclear launch readiness, refuses to declare its nuclear force is for deterrence only (suggesting offensive use) and for the first time authorizes a nuclear attack, if necessary, on a non-nuclear state (Iran).

Meanwhile, Obama is vigorously expanding the George W Bush administration's wars, and enhancing and deploying America's unparalleled military power.

The Obama administration's one positive achievement in terms of militarism and war was the April 9 signing in Prague of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that reduces deployed strategic nuclear weapons to 1,550 warheads each. It was a step forward, but all agree it was extremely modest, and it does not even faintly diminish the danger of nuclear war.

The QDR is a 128-page Defense Department report mandated by congress to be compiled every four years to put forward a 20-year projection of US military planning. A 20-member civilian panel, selected by the Pentagon and congress, analyzes the document and suggests changes in order to provide an "independent" perspective. Eleven of the members, including the panel’s co-chairmen - former defense secretary William Perry and former national security adviser Stephen Hadley - are employed by the defense industry.

Although the Pentagon is working on preparations for a possible World War III and beyond, the new report is largely focused on the relatively near future and only generalizes about the longer term. Of the QDR's many priorities three stand out.

The first priority is to "prevail in today's wars" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and wherever else Washington's post-9/11 military intrusions penetrate in coming years. Introducing the report February 1, Bush-Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued this significant statement: "Success in wars to come will depend on success in these wars in progress." The "wars to come" were not identified. Further, the QDR states that military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is "only the first step toward achieving our strategic objectives".

Second, while in the past the US concentrated on the ability to fight two big wars simultaneously, the QDR suggests that's not enough. Now, the Obama administration posits the "need for a robust force capable of protecting US interests against a multiplicity of threats, including two capable nation-state aggressors."

Now it's two-plus wars - the plus being the obligation to "conduct large-scale counter-insurgency, stability and counter-terrorism operations in a wide range of environments", mainly in small, poor countries like Afghanistan. Other "plus" targets include "non-state actors" such as al-Qaeda, "failed states" such as Somali, and medium-size but well-defended states that do not bend the knee to Uncle Sam, such as Iran or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and some day perhaps Venezuela.

Third, it's fairly obvious from the QDR, though not acknowledged, that the Obama government believes China and Russia are the two possible "nation-state aggressors" against which Washington must prepare to "defend" itself. Neither Beijing nor Moscow has taken any action to justify the Pentagon's assumption that they will ever be suicidal enough to attack the far more powerful United States.

After all, the US, with 4.54% of the world's population, invests more on war and war preparations than the rest of the world combined. Obama's 2010 Pentagon budget is US$680 billion, but the real total is double that when all Washington's national security expenditures in other departmental budgets are also included, such as the cost of nuclear weapons, the 16 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security and interest on war debts, among other programs.

Annual war-related expenditures are well over $1 trillion. In calling for a discretionary freeze on government programs in January's state of the union address, Obama specifically exempted Pentagon/national security expenditures from the freeze. Obama is a big war spender. His $708 billion Pentagon allotment for fiscal 2011 (not counting a pending $33 billion Congress will approve for the Afghan "surge") exceeds Bush's highest budget of $651 billion for fiscal 2009.

At present, US military power permeates the entire world. As the QDR notes: "The United States is a global power with global responsibilities. Including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, approximately 400,000 US military personnel are forward-stationed or rotationally deployed around the world."

The Pentagon presides over 1,000 overseas military bases (including those in the war zones), great fleets in every ocean, a globe-spanning air force, military satellites in space and nuclear missiles on hair trigger alert pre-targeted on "enemy" or potential "enemy" cities and military facilities. A reading of the QDR shows none of this will change except for upgrading, enlarging (the Pentagon just added six new bases in Colombia) and adding new systems such as Prompt Global Strike, an important new offensive weapon system, which we shall discuss below.

The phrase "full spectrum military dominance" - an expression concocted by the neo-conservatives in the 1990s that was adopted by the Bush administration to define its aggressive military strategy - was cleverly not included in the 2010 QDR, but retaining and augmenting dominance remains the Pentagon's prime preoccupation.

The QDR is peppered with expressions such as "America’s interests and role in the world require armed forces with unmatched capabilities" and calls for "the continued dominance of America’s Armed Forces in large-scale force-on-force warfare". Gates went further in his February 1 press conference: "The United States needs a broad portfolio of military capabilities, with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflicts." Obama bragged recently that he commanded "the finest military in the history of the world".

Evidently, the Pentagon is planning to engage in numerous future wars interrupted by brief periods of peace while preparing for the next war. Given that the only entity expressing an interest in attacking the United States is al-Qaeda - a non-government paramilitary organization of extreme religious fanatics with about a thousand reliable active members around the world - it is obvious that America's unprecedented military might is actually intended for another purpose.

In our view that "other purpose" is geopolitical - to strengthen even further the Pentagon's military machine to assure that the United States retains its position as the dominant global hegemon at a time of acute indebtedness, the severe erosion of its manufacturing base, near gridlock in domestic politics, and the swift rise to global prominence of several other nations and blocs.

The QDR touches on this with admirable delicacy: "The distribution of global political, economic and military power is shifting and becoming more diffuse. The rise of China, the world’s most populous country, and India, the world’s largest democracy, will continue to reshape the international system. While the United States will remain the most powerful actor, it must increasingly cooperate with key allies and partners to build and sustain peace and security. Whether and how rising powers fully integrate into the global system will be among this century’s defining questions, and are thus central to America’s interests."

At the moment, the QDR indicates Washington is worried about foreign "anti-access" strategies that limit its "power projection capabilities" in various parts of the world. What this means is that certain countries such as China and Russia are developing sophisticated new weapons that match those of the US, thus "impeding" the deployment of American forces to wherever the Pentagon desires. For instance:

China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft and counter-space systems. China has shared only limited information about the pace, scope and ultimate aims of its military modernization programs, raising a number of legitimate questions regarding its long-term intentions.

To counter this trend in China and elsewhere, the Pentagon is planning, at a huge and unannounced cost, the following enhancements: "Expand future long-range strike capabilities; Exploit advantages in subsurface operations; Increase the resiliency of US forward posture and base infrastructure; Assure access to space and the use of space assets; Enhance the robustness of key ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) capabilities; Defeat enemy sensors and engagement systems; and Enhance the presence and responsiveness of US forces abroad."

In addition, the US not only targets China with nuclear missiles and bombs, it is surrounding the country (and Russia as well, of course) with anti-ballistic missiles. The purpose is plain: In case the US finds it "necessary" to launch ballistic missiles toward China, the ABMs will be able to destroy its limited retaliatory capacity.

According to an article in the February 22 issue of China Daily, the country's English-language newspaper: "Washington appears determined to surround China with US-built anti-missile systems, military scholars have observed ... Air force colonel Dai Xu, a renowned military strategist, wrote in an article released this month that 'China is in a crescent-shaped ring of encirclement. The ring begins in Japan, stretches through nations in the South China Sea to India, and ends in Afghanistan'."

Compared to the Bush administration's 2006 QDR, there has been a conscious effort to tone down the anti-China rhetoric in the current document. But it is entirely clear that China is number one in the QDR's references to "potentially hostile nation states".

According to the February 18 Defense News, a publication that serves the military-industrial complex, "Analysts say the QDR attempts to address the threat posed by China without further enraging Beijing. 'If you look at the list of further enhancements to US forces and capabilities ... those are primarily capabilities needed for defeating China, not Iran, North Korea or Hezbollah,' said Roger Cliff, a China military specialist at Rand. 'So even though not a lot of time is spent naming China ... analysis of the China threat is nonetheless driving a lot of the modernization programs described in the QDR'."

Incidentally, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, this year's Chinese defense budget, for a country four times larger than the United States, is $78 billion, compared to the $664 billion for the Pentagon (without all the national security extras harbored in other department budgets). China possesses 100-200 nuclear warheads compared to America's 9,326 (when both deployed and stored weapons are included). China is contemplating the construction of an aircraft carrier; the US Navy floats 11 of them. China has no military bases abroad.

In our view, China appears to be constructing weapons for defense, not offense against the US - and its foreign policy is based on refusing to be pushed around by Washington while doing everything possible to avoid a serious confrontation.

Russia as well is treated better in the new QDR than in 2006, but it is included with China in most cases. Despite Moscow's huge nuclear deterrent and abundant oil and gas supplies, it's only "potential enemy" number two in terms of the big powers. Washington feels more threatened by Beijing. This is largely because of China's size, rapid development, fairly successful state-guided capitalist economy directed by the Communist Party, and the fact that it is on the road to becoming the world's economic leader, surpassing the US in 20 to 40 years.

It seems fairly obvious, but hardly mentioned publicly, that this is an extremely dangerous situation. China does not seek to dominate the world, nor will it allow itself to be dominated. Beijing supports the concept of a multipolar world order, with a number of countries and blocs playing roles. At issue, perhaps, is who will be first among equals.

Washington prefers the situation that has existed these 20 years after the implosion of the Soviet Union and much of the socialist world left the United States as the remaining military superpower and boss of the expanded capitalist bloc. During this time Washington has functioned as the unipolar world hegemon and doesn't want to relinquish the title.

This is all changing now as other countries rise, led by China, and the US appears to be in gradual decline. How the transition to multi-polarity is handled over the next couple of decades may determine whether or not a disastrous war will be avoided.

Israel, Iran Targeted at Nuke Non-Proliferation Meet

http://tarafits.blogspot.com/2010/05/nuclear-armed-bullies-and-npt-review.html

by Thalif Deen

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/is-war-brewing-in-the-middle-e.php

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/mearsheimer300410.html

UNITED NATIONS - A month-long Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) began Monday with a predictable target: Israel.

A demonstrator holds a sign during an anti-nuclear weapons protest rally and march in New York May 3, 2010. REUTERS/Chip East

As the only Middle Eastern country armed with nuclear weapons, Israel has been treated as a political sacred cow, one whose weapons programs have not been publicly challenged either by the United States or Western powers.

But on Monday an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states - 118 out of 192 - wanted the defiant Jewish state to come clean with its nuclear weapons program and sign the NPT, which is aimed at halting the spread of these devastating armaments.

Speaking on behalf of the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the fact that Israel has refused to sign and ratify the NPT has resulted in the continued exposure of non-nuclear weapon states of the region to nuclear threats by the only country possessing these weapons of mass destruction.

Israel, he warned, has also unleashed risks associated with the operation of "unsafeguarded nuclear facilities and activities of unknown safety standards".

Worse still, Israel has also implicitly triggered the threat of a nuclear arms race of "a catastrophic regional and international potential" thereby jeopardizing the NPT regime in its entirety, said Natalegawa, echoing the views of the largest single political coalition at the United Nations.

"This situation is unsustainable," as it also jeopardizes the implementation of the 1995 resolution calling for the creation of a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, Natalegawa warned....http://www.cnas.org/node/4362

The month-long conference, which runs through May 28, will take stock of the successes and failures of an international treaty aimed at halting the spread of nuclear weapons - and perhaps ultimately eliminating all nuclear weapons from the world's military arsenals.

The treaty, which was open for signature back in July 1968, has come under review every five years. http://orientalreview.org/2010/05/02/vitaly-naumkin-there-can-be-no-peace-with-the-occupation/

Today, 189 countries have acceded to the treaty, including the five declared nuclear powers, which are also the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia.

The three undeclared nuclear powers are India, Pakistan and Israel, which are not parties to the NPT. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.

The 2000 NPT Review Conference reaffirmed the necessity of Israel's accession to the NPT, and the placement of all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

But so far, Israel has refused to accede to that request....

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m65872&hd=&size=1&l=e

Speaking at the opening session Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who declared that disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are among his "top priorities", singled out only two countries by name: Iran and North Korea.

He urged Tehran "to comply fully with Security Council resolutions and cooperate fully with the IAEA" and called upon North Korea to help achieve a "verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula".

But he stopped short of making any references to Israel, India or Pakistan.

Still, he said, "I urge those countries that are currently outside the treaty regime to accede to it as soon as possible," without identifying the three countries by name.

Taking a righteous stand on nuclear weapons, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the only head of state at the conference, said the sole function of nuclear weapons is to annihilate all living beings and destroy the environment.

The resulting radiation, he pointed out, would affect the coming generations and its negative impacts would continue for centuries.

"The nuclear bomb is a fire against humanity rather than a weapon for defence," he said.

"The possession of nuclear bombs is not a source of pride; it is rather disgusting and shameful," said Ahmadinejad, whose country is accused of trying to develop nuclear weapons: a charge he has flatly denied.

"And even more shameful is the threat to use or to use such weapons, which is not even comparable to any crime committed throughout the history," he declared.

Ahmadinejad did not spare Israel, accusing it of stockpiling hundreds of nuclear warheads. He accused the Jewish state of having waged many wars in the region and continuing to threaten the people and nations of the region "with terror and invasion".

But he also pointed out that Israel "enjoys the unconditional support of the U.S. government and its allies, and receives, as well, the necessary assistance to develop its nuclear weapons program".

He criticized the IAEA because it has failed both on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation.

In response, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton charged that Iran was "do[ing] whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability".

Tehran "has defied the Security Council and the IAEA and placed the future of the nonproliferation regime in jeopardy," Clinton said.

Meanwhile, at last month's nuclear security summit in Washington DC, U.S. President Barack Obama was asked about Israel's nuclear weapons program.

But he diplomatically sidestepped the question when he pointedly told reporters: "As far as Israel goes, I'm not going to comment on their (nuclear weapons) program".

"What I'm going to point to is the fact that consistently we have urged all countries to become members of the NPT. So there's no contradiction there," he said. "And so whether we're talking about Israel or any other country, we think that becoming part of the NPT is important."

"And that, by the way, is not a new position. That's been a consistent position of the United States government even prior to my administration," Obama added.

EVERY country should be treated the same according to their record. Why does the U.S. constantly badger Iran, but not Israel? Who has Iran attacked recently? Why are they treated so horribly? Israel attacked a United States Navy Ship. The U.S. shot down a civilian Iranian airliner. Israel is arguably committing genocide against the Palestinian people. The U.S. illegally invaded Iraq, and really Afghanistan, and illegally occupy both countries. Israel illegally occupies land seized in the 1967 and 1973 wars. Which country's citizens attacked the U.S. on 9-11? The U.S. and Britain caused the overthrow of a legally elected government in Iran, and installed the puppet Shah over oil. The U.S. is the only country to ever USE an atomic weapon against humans, and continue to use depleted uranium for bullets. How can all of this go unchallenged on the world stage?

Final Solution’ Frenzy – Part Four: Final Solution for Pakistan

Tariq Saeedi With Sergi Pyatakov in Moscow, Mark Davidson in Washington, Qasim Jan in Kandahar and Rupa Kival in New Delhi 1 May 2010 (nCa) --- The components of the ‘Final Solution’ for Pakistan are known, and almost ready. The exact shape those components will take when put together is not so clear. The expected outcome is recognizable; the degree to which the actual outcome would resemble the expectations is still in the dark. This report is based on our legwork in the field and the expert opinion of our consultants in Moscow, Washington and New Delhi. There is unanimity in the field findings and the expert opinion that the United States could be on the verge of doing something drastic and desperate in the region. The main frustration for the American policymakers is that when they move with their own plans, everything else also moves, not necessarily in the same direction. The inability to anticipate the complex dynamics has rendered many of their moves not only ineffective but counterproductive. One of the important new developments is that India, till now an enthusiastic partner of Gates-Vickers duo in destabilizing Pakistan, is fast losing appetite for such adventures. There are three main pillars of the ‘Final Solution’: 1. Cut the western half of Balochistan from the rest of Pakistan and declare it ‘international strategic corridor’; 2. Topple the sitting government in Iran; and 3. Create an Ismaili state, joining the Gorno-Badakhshan oblast of Tajikistan, Badakhshan province of Afghanistan, and Gilgit-Baltistan province of Pakistan. The benefits that the Americans expect to derive from this triple-decker ambition would be discussed in one of the later reports. In the present report we shall deal with the components of the ‘Final Solution’ as they relate to Pakistan. The mock operations in Helmand and Kandahar The DoD-CIA and their embedded journalists painstakingly spun a tale that Helmand was a stronghold of Taliban. That was their justification for Operation Moshtarak. In fact, half of Helmand was already in the hands of the US forces. The other half, sparingly populated, was not important for the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. As the operation Moshtarak unfolded, we were in touch with our sources in Helmand. We know from first-hand accounts that: The operation was conducted mainly by the US forces although the reporting gave the impression that the NATO was equally in the forefront. One of the main reasons given for the operation was that Taliban were benefiting from poppy crops and they must be denied this source of income. We know for sure that not a single poppy bulb was destroyed during the operation. The village elders that were shown meeting the US force commanders were the middlemen for poppy, and the Americans fully knew it. We are still in touch with our Helmand sources and we know that the Americans don’t dare go far beyond their camps. Roughly five percent of the US forces were busy in keeping an eye on the newly trained Afghan police because the policemen had the tendency to desert and join the enemy whenever they found a chance. After the mock operation in Helmand, the US forces are now planning a bigger offensive in Kandahar, an area that is billed ad nauseam as the spiritual capital of the Taliban. Based solely on the media hype and DoD-CIA statements, one gets the impression that not even a mosquito can fly in Kandahar without the consent of Taliban. The actual fact is that the Kandahar airport is the busiest single-runway airport in the world. More than 700 American and NATO flights land or take off every day at Kandahar airfield. Had Taliban been in control of the whole of Kandahar, it would not have been possible for so many American and NATO warplanes to land and take off in that province. Also, there are two American bases in Kandahar. Therefore, the impression that Helmand and Kandahar were, or are, out of bounds for Americans and NATO is based on manufactured ‘truth.’ In search of an explanation for the American fascination with Helmand and Kandahar and the operations that are not what they are said to be, we consulted some experts in Moscow and Washington. Oleg in Moscow and Simon in Washington (not their real names) are military strategists with access to information not available to the media or public. Oleg said, “One way to understand the operations in Helmand and Kandahar is to see where the operation begins and where it ends. At the end of the operation, do you find more American forces near the border with Pakistan?” Simon in Washington agreed. “Yes, the objective is apparently to put large number of troops along the border with Pakistan,” he said. When asked for the reasons for this move, Simon said, “The bipartisan thinking here is that Pakistan is the problem. ----- If you find a boulder in your path, either you remove it or you try to go around it. The inclination here is to go around this boulder.” This cryptic remark of Simon reminded us of a Russian expert we sometimes consult for our investigative reports. The keywords in his remark were ‘boulder’ and ‘go around.’ In what way is Pakistan a boulder and how would one ‘go around’ it, we asked. Simon said, “Everyone in Washington considers China the main threat. If unchecked for another decade or so, China would be a superpower, probably replacing the USA as the only superpower of any consequence. It is not possible to contain China without cutting a free path across Pakistan and Afghanistan, right up to the borders of China.” “Cutting a path through Pakistan? Are you talking of Greater Balochistan?” we asked. “Yes,” Simon said, “But now it is not Greater Balochistan, at least for now. The gossip here is that the hawks in the establishment would now be content with half of the Pakistani Balochistan. They call it international strategic corridor.” We returned to Oleg in Moscow to ask whether the American forces that would end up near the borders of Pakistan on completion of Kandahar operation would be enough to sever half of Balochistan from the rest of Pakistan. “First, you have to see what is happening in Helmand where the operation Moshtarak has been completed already. Whatever they do in Helmand would be repeated on larger scale in Kandahar,” said Oleg. We already had this information. Soon after the completion of operation Moshtarak, the American forces started building forward bases and depots at four points in Helmand, the first of them at Gereshk and the last at a location southward of Malik Rokand, practically at the border with Pakistan. We told this to Oleg. He said, “You see, this is systematic deployment of forces at the Pakistan border, with a semi-permanent logistics support system for prolonged presence.” Some new questions arose: Would the American forces, at some convenient time, try to rush into Pakistan in order to create the ‘international strategic corridor’ they want? What will be the size and geographical scope of such a corridor? What would be the likely strength of US troops at the border of Pakistan at the end of the planned operation in Kandahar? Would the US troops at Pakistan border be enough for cutting off half of Balochistan considering that Pakistan is likely to offer some tough resistance? The other jaw of pincer “The pincer must have two jaws,” said Simon. He explained, “The US Navy would be in a position after July 2010 to station some landing ships, probably four, near the territorial waters of Pakistan. They would be able to land and support more than 30000 troops, complete with transport units and fighting gear, anywhere at the Pakistan coastline between Pasni and Gawadar. There would be aircraft carriers with more than enough warplanes to overwhelm the Pakistan Airforce. This is the other jaw of the pincer.” The picture thus emerging was that after July 2010, the US would have substantial number of troops at the border of Pakistan with Afghanistan. This is the area where the Chagai district of Pakistani Balochistan meets the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar in Afghanistan. The total number of these troops, Oleg in Moscow estimated, would be more than 35000. Simultaneously, as Simon told us, there would be some 30000 soldiers and marines waiting to land at the beaches of Balochistan. This makes military sense, especially in the face of the fact that the part of Balochistan that lies between these two pressure points does not have any significant presence or support system of Pakistan army. International strategic corridor The international strategic corridor, the clipped version of the former plan to create Greater Balochistan, was of great interest from the point of view of our report. To get a clutch-hold on this question we consulted Oleg. We asked him that as a military strategist how he would draw such a corridor on the map. “First, you need to define our military goals and then you look at the terrain. Match the two in the most efficient manner,” said Oleg. He said that Chagai district of Pakistan Balochistan runs for about 500 km along the border with Afghanistan. This, he said, represents nearly 30% of the total Pak-Afghan border and the easiest terrain from the military point of view. “If I were to draw such a border, I would take Nushki as the starting point and draw a north-south line, connecting it with Ras Malan. All the area west of the line up to Iranian border would be the strategic corridor,” said Oleg. We took this hypothetical corridor to Simon and asked for his comments. Simon said, “Yes, this is about the size of the thing. DoD-CIA brains are also thinking along the same lines.” Trigger point Theoretically it looks neat and orderly to draw a corridor on the map and cut it off from a sovereign country on the military strength alone. However, in real life one needs some excuse, even the size of a fig leaf, to undertake such an enterprise. We asked Oleg and Simon as to what could be the trigger point for the American forces to justify such an audacious undertaking. Oleg said, “The excuses are not hard to fine. There can be the civil war in Pakistan, which they are trying hard to start. There can also be a political assassination in Pakistan to start unrest at such a scale that the USA would be able to convince the international community that ‘humanitarian’ intervention had become necessary.” Simon in Washington added, “An international incident can easily be linked to Pakistan and that would be a good enough reason for invasion. It can be as big as assassination of Obama and as small as bombing of a refinery in the UK. In fact, the latest amendment to the NATO charter seems designed to add this kind of hair trigger in the NATO mechanism. Justification, in any case, is no big deal when you don’t really need to justify it to anyone.” Simon said that the recent history was full of false flag operations. He cited the 1954 firebomb and unrest in Alexandria (Egypt) by Israel, to make Egypt look unstable and delay the withdrawal of British troops from Suez Canal, the CIA murder of Mehdi Ben Barka of Morocco to foil communists from coming to power, the murder of Patrice Lumumba by CIA in 1965, the JFK plan to shoot down American civilian plane and blame it on Cuba as some of the examples. Self financed war and civilian surge A chance remark by Oleg opened a new path for investigation. He said, “Goals are layered in the military strategy. If you go for a single goal and you fail in that, you are a skunk. However, if you go out there with seven goals and achieve just two, there are ways to make you look good despite overall failure.” We started thinking of what other goals could be found in the US intention of cutting off half of Balochistan from the rest of Pakistan in addition to the obvious advantage of getting a direct supply route to Afghanistan, easy access to Central Asia, and curtailment of China. Although these are three major goals, each one of them enough to justify an ambitious expedition, and all of them would be achieved if the US manages to create its international strategic corridor, could there be something else that we had missed? While we were pondering this question, our sources in Helmand told that the Americans were planning a major ‘civilian surge.’ The sources told us that thousands of civilian professionals were being trained in the US in conditions resembling the terrain, town and country life, and unrest in Afghanistan. We asked Oleg if the civilian surge in Afghanistan could have any connections with the international strategic corridor the American might try to create before the end of this year. “Look at the corridor area and see if there is anything of economic or strategic importance,” he said. Sure enough, as if our eyes had opened for the first time, we saw on the map Saindak and Reko Dig mines, rich in gold, silver and other precious metals and minerals. There is also a mountain in the area that is of interest to Americans because they believe it houses some of the atomic facilities of Pakistan. We took this hunch to Simon. He took a few days to get back. In our next session Simon told that about 38 mining engineers and nine nuclear scientists were among the professionals who were being trained under the civilian surge programme and they would be ready to arrive in Afghanistan near the end of July 2010. Simon conjectured that the mining engineers could be used to assess the potential of Saindak and Reko Dig mines. The general estimates are that these mines hold more than US $ 200 billion worth of wealth. If the civilian surge engineers can confirm these estimates, it would be all the more reason to create the international strategic corridor and get hold of these assets. After all, it could be the ticket to make this war pay its own expenses, and give some profit at the side. Nuclear bonus Simon also said that a certain mountain in the general area of the anticipated corridor was of great interest to Washington bigwigs. It is a mountain where some in Washington believe that Pakistan maintains some of its nuclear facilities. “If this mountain falls in our hands, it would be a definite way to not only to be sure of the exact nuclear capability and expertise of Pakistan, but also to cut it back to an acceptable level,” said Simon. “It would be a big bonus for Americans,” said Oleg. Gawadar and Pasni Ports Both Simon and Oleg pointed out that one must not underestimate the importance of Gawadar and Pasni ports, both of them in the expected area of the international strategic corridor. The ports, and the infrastructure, transportation and communication network connected to them, could of immense value to the USA. Role of India The creation of an international strategic corridor – a euphemism for the downsized independent Balochistan – is a big American enterprise and there are several sidekicks on the show, most notably India. India, till now, was an enthusiastic player, in the hope that it would get to police Afghanistan after the Americans leave. However, it appears that the Indian appetite for meddling in Pakistan and Afghanistan has dampened of late. We are not sure whether it is a simulated effect or the real thing. Because of the recent reshuffling in the Indian power agencies, our ability to understand the Indian plans and mindset has been reduced to a third hand access, that too not very reliable. What we have been able to gather is that the Indian intelligence community is split between hawks and realists – doves are not employable in this profession. Hawks want to keep pushing on the current plans and realists are advocating a wait and see policy. Nonetheless, we found that India has increased its support for the movement to create an independent Ismaili state in the northern areas, now re-designated Gilgit-Baltistan province. The supposed leadership of the movement is sitting in India. We also learned that the takeover of the Swat valley by the so-called Pakistani Taliban was a dry run to cut off Pakistan from northern areas when a real attempt is made to create the Ismaili state. Our sources in Afghanistan also told that India recently staged fights in some provinces of Afghanistan not far from the Central Asian states to convince them of the usefulness of allowing Indian military bases on their soil. Their main aim was to intimidate Tajikistan where India has vacated a base it once had. The recent skirmishes in Badghis and Fariab provinces were in this category. We also found that the Indian embassy in Kabul has thwarted negotiations between Brahmdagh Bugti, the grandson of late Akbar Bugti, and the Pakistan authorities. A Baloch, who is a lawyer by profession, was acting as middleman in these talks. Pakistan Media One sidekick is India, the other is the Pakistani electronic media, especially the 150 or so TV hosts who prefer to call themselves ‘anchors.’ We talked to an American diplomat whose job requires frequent interaction with the Pakistani media. This report will not assign a pseudonym, or declare the gender of the American diplomat because that was the condition of cooperation. We will not tell whether the diplomat is still in Pakistan or has moved out. “Pakistani TV journalists are some of the easiest to buy or manipulate,” said the American diplomat. “Their price is ridiculously small. A drink, a lunch with a second or first secretary in a place where they can be seen by their admirers, invitations to official receptions, or at most, a trip to the states, is all you need to buy their loyalty,” said the diplomat. “My dog is usually fussier,” the diplomat added in disgust. “There was a drive,” the diplomat explained, “very obvious and crude, in some selected countries, to make the educated people feel ashamed of being Muslims.” “The Pakistani TV journalists swallowed it hook, line and sinker,” said the diplomat. “Except for an incorruptible handful, they are a sorry lot,” the American diplomat said with an undisguised revulsion.

“Panjshiri Mafia,” Afghanistan’s Massoud Legacy

Edward Girardet

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_13-6-2002_pg3_5

http://www.rawa.org/massoud.htm

http://www.rawa.org/massoud_ussr.htm

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/04/29/us-military-escalates-its-dirty-war-in-afghanistan.html

The real issue at hand is that the Panjshiris fail to see the need to share their power with anyone else. They perceive themselves as the country’s natural born leaders, gained by their ability to resist both the Soviets and the Taliban, with an undisputed right to represent Afghanistan, largely to the detriment of other tribal or ethnic groups

The powerful Panjshiris are seeking to impose their dominance at the Loya Jirga, but they risk losing everything unless they make a greater effort to support a truly broad-based Afghan administration.

The 70-mile-long Panjshir valley remains littered with military wreckage from the Soviet occupation of the1980s when the Red Army repeatedly tried — and failed — to quash the region’s armed resistance led by guerrilla leader Ahmed Shah Massoud.

The Northern Alliance commander — who was assassinated last September 9, two days prior to the Al Qaeda attacks in the US, by suspected members of the militant Islamic group and now lies buried on a hill overlooking
the Panjshir River — also represented the main opposition to the Taliban.

As with the Soviets, Massoud succeeded in preventing them from taking the Panjshir — and thus acquiring direct access to the north-east of the country — as part of their strategy to control the entire country.
Over a dozen years after Moscow’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the symbolism of the shattered Red Army tanks and armored personnel carriers lying by the roadside or half-submerged in the river as it churns its way down from the snow-capped Hindu Kush mountains is more than one of victory over a 20th century Super Power. It is one of resilience, obstinacy, and, increasingly, arrogance. And it is this arrogance that is causing one of the greatest problems for Afghanistan today.

Representing a population of less than 300,000 both inside and outside the valley, the Panjshiris are asserting a disproportionate and often heavy-handed control over Kabul. The Panjshiris currently control three key ministries — defense, interior, and foreign affairs — and are now seeking to impose their dominance at the Loya Jirga.

They are doing this through a combination of bribes and intimidation, including physical threats, of the delegates, who, for the first time, seem to represent the Afghan grassroots over the interests of the warlords.

The real issue at hand is that the Panjshiris fail to see the need to share their power with anyone else. They perceive themselves as the country’s natural born leaders, gained by their ability to resist both the Soviets and the Taleban, with an undisputed right to represent Afghanistan, largely to the detriment of other tribal or ethnic groups.
Defense Minister Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was appointed head of the Northern Alliance following Massoud’s death, recently maintained that the Panjshiris had assumed control in Kabul because there was no one else proficient enough to run the key ministries.

While claiming to support any government named by the Loya Jirga, he also said that he would not relinquish control until peace and security were “fully restored” and “acceptable”. To do so otherwise, he maintained, would be “irresponsible”.

Another problem is that, since Massoud’s death, there is no single leader amongst the Panjshiris capable of making decisions as a group. As a result, each faction, whether headed by Fahim or Interior Minister Yunus Qanuni, is doing its utmost to retain power.

This is compounded by the lack of any clearly stated policy by the United States. “The message that needs to be communicated is that the Americans will not tolerate any form of government that does not fully represent a broad-based consensus,” said one senior UN official.

The US is regarded as the only power in the position to assert firm influence over the Panjshiris. In addition, he maintained, the international donors need to impose conditional aid based on how the country’s leadership perform over the next 18 months.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, Massoud and his men, primarily Panjshiris but also other northern Tajiks, represented one of Afghanistan’s most effective fighting forces. They were revered by Afghans throughout much of the country, and became the favourites of many journalists and aid workers.

I first came across Massoud in the summer of 1981. I had trekked several hundred miles by foot across north-eastern Afghanistan to report on this “extraordinary” guerrilla commander, an Afghan “Che Guevera” who was not only good at fighting but also cared for the civilian population.
As the Soviet war dragged on, Massoud’s reputation grew. I met with him on various occasions throughout the 1980s and 1990s. There was no doubt that he was an impressive man with strong leadership qualities coupled with a vision for an independent and moderate Afghanistan uniting all ethnic and tribal groups.

Not only did he succeed in leading his valley against the Soviet empire, but he later developed his Shura-e-Nezar (Supervisory Council of the North — soon to be labeled the Northern Alliance) into the only force capable of staving off the Taleban.

And the Panjshiris knew it. With Massoud their hero, they walked tall wherever they went, instantly recognizable by their longish hair, camouflaged uniforms and woolen Chitrali caps. When the Soviets finally left in February 1989 and the communist regime in Kabul fell more than two years later, the Panjshiris were among the first to enter the capital.
They immediately began to dominate the city by packing the government with their own people, competent or not. Corruption abounded and their disdain for other ethnic groups, particularly the Pashtuns, became more pronounced. Massoud’s insistence on holding the capital in 1994 during the bitter factional fighting with other former mujahed fronts, such as Guldbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e-Islami, resulted in the destruction of much of the city and the loss of over 50,000 lives. His forces also brutally put down Hazara opposition to his authority.

As a politician, Massoud failed badly. He had genuinely sought to bring together Afghanistan’s diverse ethnic and tribal groups as part of a new government of unity, but there was too much distrust and the Pashtuns considered him too powerful. By the time the Taleban took control in 1996, Massoud and his Panjshiris — once the heroes of the Jihad — had become overwhelmingly unpopular both in Kabul and many other parts of the country.

Massoud was fully aware of his shortcomings. He was also informed of the abuses committed by his Panjshiri supporters. Prior to his assassination, Massoud warned his commanders to never again commit the mistakes of the early 1990s. This was reiterated during the Bonn talks in December 2001. The only way for a new government to succeed, he had stressed, was through equitable power sharing among all groups.

The reality today, however, is far different. Since re-taking Kabul last November, the Panjshiris have once again sought to control as much as possible. Known as the “Panjshiri Mafia”, they immediately took the main ministries and are now involved in mafia-style rackets ranging from imposing their own taxi cartels to beating up competitive Pashtun merchants.

For a faction that claims to represent Afghanistan as a whole, the Panjshiris have promoted Massoud’s image to one of almost mythical proportions. His portrait appears in virtually every shop, tea house and mosque in Kabul and the northern areas. It is also featured in every police or army facility. All of this does not go down well with Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, who do not regard Massoud as their leader.
“If the Panjshiris were really interested in projecting a unified image, they should include other heroes such as Abdul Haq,” said Anders Fange, a senior UN official with many years experience in Afghanistan, referring to the renowned Pashtun resistance commander who was killed by the Taleban in eastern Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001.

Perhaps most critical of all, the Panjshiris run the Amniyat, the National Security Directorate, or secret police, which, as with the Soviet-backed KHAD of the 1980s, is much feared and largely run by armed thugs. In a move that may totally torpedo the credibility of the Loya Jirga, UN special representative Lakhdar IBrahimi and the assembly commission made a last minute decision on Sunday to grant the Amniyat full access to the proceedings.

This unexpected move came despite warnings by various advisors, including senior UN, aid agency and peacekeeping representatives, to keep the Amniyat out. According to one UN official, who requested anonymity, the secret police can now be expected to step up its pressure in favor of the Panjshiris, whose current support within the Loya Jirga, UN estimates believe, stands at barely 20 per cent.

Regardless what happens at the Loya Jirga, the Panjshiris are clearly determined to hold on to their influence. But their arrogance may also prove to be their downfall. Unless they make a greater effort to support a truly broad-based Afghan administration, they risk losing everything.
They may end up with another war on their hands, but this time as an unpopular minority faction with no international sympathy or support.

Geneva-based Edward Girardet is director of Media Action International and editor of the Essential Field Guide to Afghanistan. He is currently writing a book on 23 years of reporting the wars in Afghanistan