India Forum Archives
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
  India and US 1.1
Posted by: Viren Nov 25 2003, 02:06 PM B Raman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 29, on invitation from Henry J Hyde, Chairman of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee, I testified at a joint hearing which two sub-committees of the Committee were holding on on terrorism in South and South-East Asia and its implications for US counter-terrorism policy. The hearing had a background. Dedicated young men and women of Indian origin have worked to see that India’s case against Pakistan for using terrorism as a weapon to achieve its strategic objective against India is heard in the Administration and the Congress. A little more than a year ago, such persons decided to devote their spare time and energy for briefing policy and law makers in the US on Pakistan’s unreliability as the so-called stalwart ally in the war against terrorism. They formed the US-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Seeking a review of the USA’s counter-terrorism policy was not their sole preoccupation. They also decided to contribute to bringing about a strategic convergence between India and the USA by working for a close networking in the political, economic, military, scientific and technological fields. Their most visible success so far has been in the field of counter-terrorism. They have not brought about a change of policy. But, they have induced second thoughts in sections of policy and law makers. There is a not-yet-adequately-articulated disquiet in growing circles in the USA that the war against jihadi terrorism has not been going well. This disquiet is presently confined to sections of the media and the Congress, the Pentagon and the intelligence community, but is not yet shared by the State Department and the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). “Is Pakistan a friend or foe?” is the theme of many articles which have been appearing with increasing frequency in the US media. Many think-tanks and academics have started focussing on Pakistan’s role. The tireless efforts of the volunteers of the USINPAC played an important role in the passage of a resolution by the House on July 16 requesting the President for a periodical report on the action taken by Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism, to dismantle terrorist infrastructure in its territory and to stop its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The fact that this important resolution has not so far found adequate support in the Senate or from the State Department should not detract from its value as the first indicator of second thoughts about the viability and wisdom of the present counter-terrorism policy. The decision to hold the joint hearing and to invite government officials as well as four non-governmental experts — three from the US and one from India — was the second indicator. If one were to go only by the testimonies of Christina Rocca, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of South Asia, and Cofer Black, the former head of the Counter-Terrorism Division of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) one would have reasons to be disappointed. Hopes that the induction of Robert Blackwell, former US Ambassador to India, and his assistant, Ashley Tellis, into the NSCS would bring about a new counter-terrorism policy devoid of such illusions about Musharraf have been belied so far. Blackwell, known in India as an articulate and outspoken critic of Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism, has been rendered silent in the NSCS. Tellis has resigned ostensibly on health grounds. India and organisations such as the USINPAC should not let themselves be discouraged by the entrenched “Musharraf can do no wrong” attitudes in the State Department and the NSCS. That attitudes still persist is all the more reason for redoubling their efforts. Dan Burton and Dana Rohrabacher, known for their pro-Pakistan attitude, managed to inject into the counter-terrorism policy hearing questions relating to a plebiscite in Jammu & Kashmir. While their efforts did not succeed, the discussions on their interventions did highlight India’s failure to emphasise to the international community that the future of PoK is the most important component of what Pakistan projects as the Kashmir dispute. This needs urgent attention. (The writer is Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai.)
Posted by: vishal Nov 25 2003, 02:26 PM
I never understood a simple thing.Why indians need to foolishly brief american administrations over issue of kashmir when we say its bilateral and west don't have any role in it? plz someone enlighten me on this. rolleyes.gif [plz don't give me that silly reason that without US india can't help itself against pak bcoz US is super-duper-hyper power....IMO its india is more powerfull than it was in 1948!] only reason that i can think of is we have lost enthusiasm in keeping our national pride alive or its convenient to bring WEST in kashmir or its a plan. plan?? cool.gif can't be....asking West to interfere,forgetting our own strength is not called plan. thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif
Posted by: Mudy Nov 25 2003, 05:03 PM
As a private citizen, Indian can convey Indian view point, which is very important. Indian Govt never does, it is sovereign nation, like Karazi did and got insulted by Congressman. It is propganda; one should explore every way to enlighten these people and suppress negative propaganda. If you get a chance, read Time magazine from May 1970 – May 1972. Read all misinformation generated by these magazines and public statements of Senators. How they retracted every statement after Jan 1972? Especially, Bush Sr.
Posted by: Kaushal Nov 25 2003, 10:47 PM
Vishal, it is very important to mount a massive PR campaign in the US. This is a war for mindshare of the US public. Currently India is losing this battle for mindshare to the Pakis. The Pakis are united and single mindedly focused on the downfall of India, and they spend massive amounts of money and energy for this purpose. Those of us who are American residents of Indian origin(PIO) have a special responsibility in this regard. The American Indian community has finally woken up to this reality. Why is such a American mindshare important. America is today the wealthiest and militarily strongest nation in the known galaxy and it can do a lot of damage to India (which it has already done). This is a strategic battle. The alternative of putting our head in the sand and praying to the supreme spirit is not an option. God helps those who help themselves.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 8 2003, 03:36 PM
Can't trust Dung newspaper, what the hack, enjoy reading ... BRUSSELS: As part of its ‘ambitious plan’ of relocating US troops, posted around the globe, to the regions closer to ‘areas of instability and trouble spots’, the US administration intends to negotiate new military bases in Pakistan, India and several other countries across the globe, a source closely linked to the Nato defence ministers’ deliberations in Brussels told The News. In their pursuit to enhance the capacity of the US troops to react more rapidly to trouble spots around the world, especially in the Middle East and South Asia, the US defence authorities have indicated the need for new military bases. In their consultations on the sidelines of the Nato defence ministers’ and foreign ministers’ meetings in Brussels, the US military leaders are reported to have revealed their intentions to negotiate new military bases in countries like Pakistan, India, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, the defence source said. The Pentagon has finalised a comprehensive strategy aimed at seeking new military bases, in the regions closer to "areas of instability", based on its plan to reshuffle tens of thousands of American troops posted around the globe. The Pentagon’s relocation plan, according to the source, is guided by the finding of the US military experts that "dangers associated with rogue nations, global terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction are less predictable and the situation warrants a substantial reshuffle of tens of thousands of American troops posted around the globe". Citing a report of United States Department of Defence, the military source in Brussels claimed United States Air Force (USAF) feels that in the changed world security milieu, it will be in the best interest of the US to establish air bases in Pakistan, India and some Central Asian states, besides availing of the possibility of having new bases in Central and Eastern European countries. American generals want "access closer to areas of instability". This strategic need of the US forces would be discussed with Pakistani and Indian leaders soon, according to the source. American military officials plan to shortly tell Pakistani and Indian leaders that they want access to Pakistani and Indian bases and military infrastructures. The American generals, according to the report, feel that having military bases in India and Pakistan is important because of their strategic location. Linkage with Afghanistan and access to frequently travelled Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) linking the Middle East and East Asia, makes Pakistan and India attractive for American generals preparing for the so-called "relocation plan", the report argues. But, according to the source, the Indian government has expressed its trepidation for talks on such an issue even before Washington’s plan to initiate structured dialogue was put to action. The Pakistani government, however, had developed a perception that presence of American forces on four bases of Pakistan until last year could not reduce security threat posed by India; hence any decision to cooperate with the US would depend on the prevailing threat perception. After series of very meaningful contacts with New Delhi and Kabul telling that no threat should be posed to Pakistan’s border security and noting that ceasefire between India and Pakistan is in place, Washington is all set to negotiate with Pakistan the issue of getting new basis. A high-level US team will visit Pakistan shortly to discus the issue of military bases. Such delegations will also undertake visits to several other Asian and European capitals after President Bush is briefed on Rumsfeld’s discussions on the matter with his defence counterparts in the last week’s Nato meeting and Secretary of State Colin Powell’s consultations with Nato foreign ministers in Brussels, the source said. Presently, the main US military postings are in Germany, South Korea and Japan. The Pentagon has already told countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany on the possibility of moving some United States forces long based in those countries, the source said. "These troops will be transformed into highly-mobile forces before their repositioning around a larger number of new bases," the source said. The initiative to establish a network of military bases in Asian countries has been described by the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a "readjustment to fit the 21st century". Under this readjustment plan, the movement of around 100,000 US troops in the Western Pacific, South Korea and Japan is under active consideration of the US defence authorities, the source said. Nato member states are aware that the US acknowledges the key role played by four Pakistani air bases during the war in Afghanistan. Despite some operational activities having been shifted to the US built airbase outside Afghan city of Kandahar, Pakistan still continues providing support in the US-led war against terrorism. Newly obtained bases in the Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan are also being considered as important elements in the planning of the most substantial international readjustment of the US troops since the end of World War II. Pakistan is regarded by Nato allies as a country always willing to play a role in the war against terrorism. However, at one stage in 2002 when Pakistan faced a fresh spate of confrontation from India, Pakistan had to send a signal to Washington that in view of the fresh escalation the bases in Jacobabad and Pasni would be needed to put Pakistan Air Force in the high state of preparedness. Even in the circumstances when the threat perception was indicated as very high, Pakistan had allowed the US to continue using the two other air bases- Dalbandin airfield, 170 miles southwest of Quetta and the smaller Shamsi airstrip. Dalbandin had been under the use of US special operations helicopters flying to Afghanistan as forward refuelling base whereas Shamsi airstrip was reportedly used for some highly specialised operations, the source indicated.
Posted by: Kaushal Dec 10 2003, 09:16 PM
The US has shut out a number of countries from participating in contracts in Iraq. Among the countries excluded are India and Canada. The non alignment czars are still in control in Delhi and at the time the Indian parliament condemned the American invasion ( i still dont understand what prompted them to do that) of Iraq I had predicted it would have consequences. I was right. We can expect the chill in Indo US relations to continue for the foreseeable future. I am still at a loss to understand why we (indians ) and the americans define the Indo-US relations in terms of third party issues instead of restricting the dialog to bilateral issues. The Indo US relationship is stuck in a time warp governed by outmoded thinking such as isssues of reciprocity. But there can be no reciprocity, based on assumptions that the 2 countries are of roughly equal status, between a superpower like the US and a third world impoverished country like India.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 11 2003, 10:45 AM
The non alignment czars are still in control in Delhi and at the time the Indian parliament condemned the American invasion
I think main factor was Nov election as opposition want to make this as election issue to cover up under development. We would have seen unlimited regular bandh on daily basis etc. One way politically at this time India is stable which is good for economy. When oppostion gets involved in foreign policies, it actually harm. Other factor one can see, Indian leadership want to tell US that Indian life is not cheap and it is not one way street.
Posted by: Viren Dec 11 2003, 11:01 AM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Dec 11 2003, 12:16 AM)
The US has shut out a number of countries from participating in contracts in Iraq.
It's Bush just being Bush. Offered carrots to virtually everyone - no one took the bait. Not even the 'front-lying' ally with who he is pretty 'tight'. Elections around the corner - so watch for more of this foreign policy shennanigans orchestrated for interior consumption.
Posted by: vishal Dec 11 2003, 11:19 AM
QUOTE (Kaushal @ Dec 11 2003, 09:46 AM)
The US has shut out a number of countries from participating in contracts in Iraq. Among the countries excluded are India and Canada. The non alignment czars are still in control in Delhi and at the time the Indian parliament condemned the American invasion ( i still dont understand what prompted them to do that) of Iraq I had predicted it would have consequences. I was right. We can expect the chill in Indo US relations to continue for the foreseeable future. I am still at a loss to understand why we (indians ) and the americans define the Indo-US relations in terms of third party issues instead of restricting the dialog to bilateral issues. The Indo US relationship is stil stuck in a time warp governed by outmoded thinking such as isssues of reciprocity. But there can be no reciprocity, based on assumptions that the 2 countries are of roughly equal status, between a superpower like the US and a third world impoverished country like India.
Though if you don't know why India did that then let me repeat again : 1)Its in India's benefit to support multilateralism in long term perpective. 2)We showed right thing to US that Saddam was better friend than Bush of india at time of needs(you remember kargil war and situation before 9/11 between US-india.Stand of US was absolutely bizzare. 3)India gave apportunity to US to help them in afganistan which they never appreciated.And turned their face back from promises Collin powell made after 9/11 about pakistani terrorism in kashmir.They never kept their words. 4)Even if US is superpower does not mean become terrified and bilndly help their hegemony.We should take decisions based on our interests and not on the basis of what think-tanks in washington says/comments as pressure tactics. That decision we took at that time has proved tobe absolutely successfull today and more beneficial than sending troops and supporting that 1)we have better relations today between russia-china and india. 2)relations with arab world are smooth. 3)as far as economic benefits from iraq contracts to our economy is concerned then let me clear that that benefits will never help our economy in long term. Its better if we concentrate on making fundamentals of our economy stronger and reform. 4)as far as help in weapons and technology from US is concerned then what is use of ARROW missile even if we get that today?(suppose we had supported iraq war) That will not translate into any war or escalation with pak. And instead of licking US's face for weapons its better to invest more in R&D. there are many more things to say on both sides but let it be.... is this enough? blink.gif
Posted by: rhytha Dec 11 2003, 11:38 AM
Vishal i think you need to read a lot regarding indian foreign policy and in generl how foreing policy works between countries. rolleyes.gif I think you yourself are deeply rooted in cold-war mechanics wink.gif No offense tongue.gif
Posted by: vishal Dec 14 2003, 07:12 AM
ZEE NEWS in his analysis of saddam's capture raised questions over the simplicity of arrests based on situational evidances and its benefits to BUSH's political situation in USA. And when they were near to end that news part,A PHONE CALL FROM AMERICAN EMBASSY(David Kennedy) came to zee news and did some mutter-butter. USA embassy took note of something truth coming out in indian media. rolleyes.gif Note : no other news channel got such phone call from american embassy.So its verified that its not any statement but clarification from theri side.
Posted by: vishal Dec 14 2003, 07:15 AM
Zee news also raised question over "saddam is found but where are WMDS?" ROTFL.gif in their analysis. fuck.gif thumbup.gif While Aajtak and STAR NEWS explained to kind viewers the old days of saddam when he did attrocities on iraqis but didnnot analysed this arrest from strategic point of view. Thanks to zee news. smile.gif
Posted by: Sudhir Dec 15 2003, 02:06 AM
Vishal: I guess anyone who believes that US went into Iraq for WMD is naieve enough to believe in Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. biggrin.gif Nevertheless, great going US. The tyrant is gone for good. Hopefuly, US troops will be back home soon with their families. BTW, anyone notice that it just about a week ago that US basically told rest of world to take a hike in terms of access to business contracts in Iraq. This was after months and months of cajoling other nations to participate in Iraq. Isn't the timing a bit fishy? blink.gif
Posted by: Gill Dec 15 2003, 05:36 AM
I remember reading in one of Indian newspapers on, that US and Saddam were making a deal. I remembered this news item when I saw the tape of Saddam being checked by a doctor. Notice carefully, Saddam speaks to the doctor, then touches his beard on the right side, the beard moves, is it fake? See the tape. The whole sorrounding of Saddam in the tape and the news of his capture and the manner in which he is captured is puzzling. Could someone tell me at exactly what time he was captured according to Iraq time? As for Mr. Bush, we bagged one, time to bag another in Islamabad, then to N.Korea, we got another 4 years to do it hahaha Gill cool.gif
Posted by: vishal Dec 15 2003, 12:03 PM
why india condemned attack on mushy? is it effect of powell's phone call last night? what is going on in back-side? by the way,bhutan launched attack on militants camps and india has assured help. specool.gif devilsmiley.gif i hope bhutani forces will be given all help including joint operation. while i am unhappy about why indian army did not allowed media cameras to do live telecast of it? mad.gif guitar.gif
Posted by: vishal Dec 15 2003, 12:07 PM
There are 2 possibilities about attack on mushy in my mind. 1) he arranged it. 2)attack took just after news of saddam's arrest was released by iraqi kurds. but actually he was arrested around half-day before(is it?) and was in US custody for medical its possible that this news reached to jehadis in pak at same time last,they attacked mushy to show their anger.
Posted by: Viren Dec 15 2003, 01:23 PM
why india condemned attack on mushy? is it effect of powell's phone call last night?
Aare bhai, it's just courtsey - I'm sure all those MEA guys who issued the statement were chuckling in the back room. Probabily they even had some guys pick some straws/sticks as to who the unfortunate one would be announcing this condemnation tongue.gif vishal
1) he arranged it.
There is no #2. Sadam was arrested around late afternoon US EST time (8:30ish Bhagdad time) - news hit the newswire after atleast about 12 hours - you know with all that confirmation, check for lice and cavity etc. My guess is that Pukis operation was already underway and didn't have time to check for this breaking story. Result: Mushy's 15 minutes of fame were stolen by Saddam. Watch for some heads to roll in Puki army for picking the wrong day/time pakee.gif Gill,
As for Mr. Bush, we bagged one, time to bag another in Islamabad, then to N.Korea, we got another 4 years to do it hahaha
Next stop I guess would be Islamabad or Riyadh or Damascus. NK is a bit too hot at the moment to handle. I guess Democrats (Dean/Clark/Liberman etc) might as well call it a day and go home. cool.gif BTW, heard on the radio that Sadam was living in the hole with salamis (pork blink.gif ?), 7-Up much for his decision to boycott American products laugh.gif
Posted by: Mudy Dec 15 2003, 01:35 PM Secretary of State Colin Powell had successful surgery Monday to remove his cancerous prostate, the State Department announced ... Powell, 66, was expected to remain at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington for several days after the operation, Boucher said
Posted by: Kaushal Dec 21 2003, 11:03 PM DAILY TIMES (Pakistani Newspaper), December 22, 2003 Indian-Americans no longer ‘on the political sidelines’ WASHINGTON: The Indian-American community, unlike its Pakistani counterpart, is no longer “sitting on the political sidelines,” but is organising, lobbying Capitol Hill, collecting campaign funds and receiving attention from US politicians. According to a report in the Washington Times Saturday, Sanjay Puri, executive director of the Virginia-based US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC), claims that “Howard Dean was the first to send us a position paper” and that “we sent Dean’s comments out to our members. It was written up in the Indian press. He was very good on Kashmir and immigration. I’m told (that) after we sent it out to our members, his Web site got a lot of hits and donations from Indian Americans.” The Pakistani-American community has done little in the past year to match or emulate the Indian effort. During the time here of former ambassador, a sustained effort was in evidence to encourage the community to come forward and to press it into the service of Pakistan’s causes. A number of “hits,” including the successful passage of the Brownback amendment, resulted from this close collaboration that existed between the two. However, since the arrival of the new team at the Pakistan embassy in August last, this effort has flagged. Community leaders complain that they are seldom, if ever, taken into confidence by embassy officials or galvanised into using their influence to promote the national cause. The attitude of the official is “cold and bureaucratic.” The Indian-Americans, on the other hand, have been most active and have established excellent relationships with various influential American lobbying groups, especially the pro-Israeli lobby. Puri told the Washington Times that while Indian-American doctors, professionals and business owners have been asked for money by politicians for years, they rarely asked a candidate’s position on issues of interest to the Indian community while making the donation. Set up 14 months ago, USINPAC has 27,000 members among the estimated two million Indian Americans living in the United States, an affluent and educated population that is growing by 10 percent a year. Puri said 40,000 Indian physicians are practising medicine in the United States and some 60 percent of the small hotels in the United States are owned by Indians. In addition, Indian information technology (IT) specialists, who have created more than 1,000 IT businesses and hundreds of thousands of IT jobs in the United States, are “everywhere” in the US computer industry. “The Indian population will double by the next census,” he said. “And we are slowly taking over - in a good way - the hospitality industry. Indians are hard-working people, fulfilling the American dream.” Puri, speaking of his model, said, “The Jewish lobbying groups work hard. They participate. They show up. They are a successful model. We’ll do the same. Our community is on the move, so far untapped, but we are working our way toward recognition.” The report said “USINPAC has become a force to reckon with.” The Indian caucus in the House of Representatives has more than 175 members. USINPAC held a very successful Capitol Hill reception on 19 July, with several Jewish lobbying organisations, to raise awareness of international terrorism. “We have a consensus on terrorism, whether it is at the World Trade Centre, the Parliament in Delhi, or on the streets of Jerusalem. Terrorism has to be addressed and stopped,” Puri said. Sen Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, met USINPAC last year and asked the organisation to identify Indian Americans qualified for federal judgeships. Indian Americans should “continue to get involved in the process, continue to break down barriers and reach out to political leaders in both political parties,” he told the group at a meeting on Capitol Hill. USINPAC also takes credit on its web site for helping defeat the candidacy of Rep. Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, who in January sought the chairmanship of the House International Relations Committee subcommittee on South Asia. “Burton has long tried to damage US-India relations,” the Web site contends. Asked by the newspaper if the organisation has the breakdown of Hindu and Muslim membership and how that might affect the issues USINPAC tackles, Puri is said to have “bristled,” saying, “We are a political organisation, not a religious organisation. Our members are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Jain.” An Indian embassy official told the Washington Times that while the embassy sometimes helps educate USINPAC about issues by providing information that is not always readily available or public, USINPAC should not be seen as an arm of the government or embassy. “They are independent. We do not jointly coordinate activities,” he said. Puri said the community was moving towards the Republican party. —Khalid Hasan -- Powered by PanWebMailer :::: ::::
Posted by: O Vijay Dec 22 2003, 11:36 AM
Not related to India, but it is interesting to read George Soros' views regarding the direction of the American foreign policy.
The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. The supremacist ideology postulates that just because we are stronger than others, we know better and have right on our side. The very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy (the President's annual laying out to Congress of the country's security objectives) reads, "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success. Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it. The Bush doctrine, first enunciated in a presidential speech at West Point in June of 2002, and incorporated into the National Security Strategy three months later, is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. To be sure, the Bush doctrine is not stated so starkly; it is shrouded in doublespeak. The doublespeak is needed because of the contradiction between the Bush Administration's concept of freedom and democracy and the actual principles and requirements of freedom and democracy. Talk of spreading democracy looms large in the National Security Strategy. But when President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population. It is ironic that the government of the most successful open society in the world should have fallen into the hands of people who ignore the first principles of open society. At home Attorney General John Ashcroft has used the war on terrorism to curtail civil liberties. Abroad the United States is trying to impose its views and interests through the use of military force. The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.
Posted by: Mudy Dec 26 2003, 09:41 PM by Dr. Subhash Kapila Introductory Background: The United States today faces serious predicaments in Iraq, months after a spectacular victory hastened by American’s pulverising firepower and aerial bombardments. The United States may have won the war but it has failed in forcing Iraq into submission. It seems that the United States was mislead by the so-called Iraqi political leaders in exile in USA and the West that the Americans would be welcomed as liberators. Going by the daily mounting losses of US troops lives and attacks on US forces, the opposite seems to be true. The United States today is facing an insurgency in Iraq of increasing proportions and presenting predicaments both political and military. United States' success in Iraq or otherwise, would have a serious impact on American’s prestige in the Middle East and Islamic world. It would also have an impact on the credibility of the new ‘National Security Strategy’ of the United States in terms of pre-emptive strategies and counter-proliferation operations and so also regime change strategies. But first a look at the current Iraqi situation. Iraq Situation- The Defining Characteristics: The United States success in terms of its main war aim against Iraq in terms of regime change has not ensured a peaceful post-Saddam Iraq. Nor does it seem that the capture of President Saddam would put an end to the Iraqi insurgency against the United States. The defining characteristic of the political and military situation in Iraq today are as follows: * Iraq as a whole is agitated and restive today leading to a growing insurgency against the United States. * While the Sunni Muslims are predominant in the anti-US insurgency campaign, the Shia majority is equally resentful of US military occupation of Iraq. * The Iraqi leaders comprising the Interim Council put in place by the United States have no leaders of stature or charisma to lead the Iraqi masses. They are perceived as American toadies. * The United States may have militarily occupied Iraq, but it cannot be said that the Americans have effective control over Iraq. * The United States continues to exclude the involvement of the United Nations and major Western countries from Iraq’s political and military stabilisation. The next question that arises is as to who constitutes the core of the Iraqi anti-US insurgency campaign. Iraqi anti-US Insurgency- The Core: Media analysis and some US officials tend to suggest that the rising anti-US insurgency in Iraq is fuelled by a growing influx of Islamic Jehadi fighters from all over the Islamic World, and mainly from the ‘madrassas’ of Pakistan. Objective analysis of events would suggest otherwise when the following factors are taken into account: * Iraq unlike its other Islamic neighbours was a moderate Islamic state and probably the only secular state in its region. * Iraq was therefore not a magnet for Islamic Jehadis as the “Mecca of Islamic Jehad” like Pakistan was. * If Islamic Jehadis were so fervent to espouse the Iraq, cause then concurrent with the United States military subjugation of Iraq the world would have many more 9/11 type of incidents. * The myth of Pan-Islamic and Pan-Arab unity was shattered by Gulf War I in 1991. Therefore, it would be fair to state that the core of the anti-US insurgency in Iraq comprises mainly of Iraqis themselves, and this on analysis arises from the following factors: * The Iraqi Republican Guards and the Iraqi Army regulars were not a rag-tag army. They had been in a constant state of war ever since the Iraq-Iran war, and combat hardened. * Their perceived disintegration in the closing stages of the battle for Baghdad may have been deceptive. The course of current insurgency seems to substantiate on old military dictum pertaining especially that: “ Those who fight and run away, live to fight another day.” * The Iraqi armed forces could also be said to be politicised in that Baathist ideology was their mainstay. * The US military occupation of Iraq not only bruised the Iraqi armed forces military ego, but more importantly robbed them of their economic livelihood, their perks and their standing. It would be fair to state that it is these scattered elements of the Iraqi armed forces who constitute the core of the anti-US Iraqi insurgency. Also, it is important to remember that while Iraq armed forces may have been forced to scatter in face of superior US military force, the Baathist political cells in Iraqi communities continue to exist. These Baathist political cells could assist coalescing of Iraqi armed forces elements into an anti-US insurgency campaign. Iraq was a militarily mobilised state for more than two decades. The militias and other Para-military entities could also be said to reinforce the core of the anti-US insurgency. They all stood armed and military-trained. The US discoveries of caches of arms and explosives all over Iraq suggest that this was a part of an organised effort of national resistance to any possible US military occupation of Iraq. Lastly, and more importantly, the continual military bombings of Iraq by US military air strikes ever since Gulf War I seem to have stiffened anti-US stances of a majority of the Iraqi population. More than any Islamic Jehadi fervour, it is Iraqi nationalism that seems to be fuelling the anti-US Iraqi insurgency campaign. United States Should Have Followed the “MacArthur Model” in Iraq: The United States had a shining precedent in the “MacArthur Model” of converting an implacable enemy into an ally of long duration. General MacArthur performed this miracle in Japan and it could have been replicated in Iraq. Some essential features which could have been incorporated in Iraqi governance in the post-Saddam phase could have been: * Civil administrative structure including police could have been retained. * The Iraqi military machine could have been rehabilitated minus the Iraqi military hierarchy. * Having implemented the above, the United States could have then proceeded forwards de-Baathisation and de-weaponisation. * Such a process would have also ensured that the United States presence in Iraq would not have been perceived as an occupation force. United States Cannot Afford to Fail in Iraq: The United States can ill-afford to fail in Iraq for the following reasons: * Iraq’s geo-strategic location dictates that United States recognise that for the stability of the Gulf Region, Iraq is a willing strategic asset of the United States. * The above out-weighs any economic consideration of US control of Iraq’s oil reserves. * Iraq has a long history of taking unkindly to any military subjugation. * The United States needs to re-define the contours of its present control over Iraq, making it more participative indigenously. A continual anti-US insurgency in Iraq could bleed the United States, especially when the stakes for the United States continue to rise every day. Concluding Observations: To the world at large, the United States charges of Iraq WMD programme and Al Qaeda linkages were not convincing. The United States military actions against Iraq predicated on these two assumptions seem to have failed as no credible evidence has surfaced even in the post-Saddam phase. What was clear to the world was that the United States in the pursuance of its national security interests perceived that it had imperatives for a regime change in Iraq. The natural corollary to the above would be that the United States succeeds in providing Iraq for a better stable and credible governance model than Saddam’s. This can only be possible by the willing participation of the Iraqi masses and under international participation in Iraq’s reconstruction. To achieve the above, the United States to get out of its present predicaments need to: * Modify its existing governance model of Iraq. * Shed its policies of exclusivity over control of Iraq and its reconstruction by bringing in the United States and other advanced countries participation. A stable Iraq ensures in stable Gulf Region and a stable Gulf Region is an imperative for America’s national security interests. Iraq therefore needs to be handled with care by the United States.
Posted by: Viren Dec 29 2003, 08:43 AM
QUOTE (O Vijay @ Dec 22 2003, 02:36 PM)
Not related to India, but it is interesting to read George Soros' views regarding the direction of the American foreign policy.
Vijay: George Soros has very recently donated couple million $$ for some internet based organization (forget the name) that is working to get Bush out of the White House next Nov.
Posted by: rhytha Jan 3 2004, 10:53 AM
The full article is 7 pages long.(some one can post it in full) Summary: Pundits claim that U.S. foreign policy is too focused on unilateral preemption. But George W. Bush's vision -- enshrined in his 2002 National Security Strategy -- is far broader and deeper than that. The president has promoted bold and effective policies to combat terrorism, intervened decisively to prevent regional conflicts, and embraced other major powers such as Russia, China, and India. Above all, he has committed the United States to a strategy of partnerships, which affirms the vital role of international alliances while advancing American interests and principles. Colin L. Powell is the U.S. Secretary of State.
Posted by: rhytha Jan 3 2004, 10:58 AM
Does anyone have "Clash of Civilization" by Samuel Huntington, i mean as a download smile.gif
Posted by: Viren Jan 6 2004, 05:17 PM
Received via email:
The governments of India and the United States are discussing the expansion of space cooperation. Current cooperation between the two countries includes the exchange of data from weather satellites and joint projects in atmospheric science. Enhanced cooperation in these and other areas of space science and applications, such as earth observation, disaster management, search and rescue, tele-medicine, tele-education, satellite communications, satellite navigation, and general aerospace is desired. An additional objective is expanded trade and greater space commerce between Indian and U.S. industry. To address those issues, both governments have agreed to hold a joint conference in Bangalore, India, 22-25 June 2004. This event will be the first serious bilateral engagement about space cooperation between India and the United States although the history of cooperation in space activities between the two countries dates back 40 years. The launching of NASA-supplied Nike-Apache scientific sounding rockets from the Indian Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launch Site in November 1963 was the first in a series of cooperative launchings that extended for about a decade. The objectives of the conference are to: Review and evaluate the status of research and existing Indo/U.S. cooperative projects in the areas of space science and applications; Expand current projects and identify new areas of cooperation of mutual interest; Examine the unique challenges and opportunities for greater trade and industrial cooperation in the aerospace industry; and Work out a road map and framework for future civil, commercial, and academic collaboration. For the Draft Program Outline visit
Posted by: rhytha Jan 11 2004, 10:41 AM
We rule the world. biggrin.gif Why the Americans need India so desperately Prosenjit Datta Last evening, I received a singular lesson in Indo-American relations. And why the two countries are coming closer despite minor irritants like Pakistan and Iraq. The lesson was delivered by a young American who wished to remain unnamed. The setting was one of those boring parties that features businessmen, journalists and members of the diplomatic corps of various countries. The immediate provocation that sparked off this most interesting conversation was my stray remark - naïve as I see it now - that America, being the most powerful country in the world today, did not need anyone's help to do whatever it wished. Or, at least, that Americans needed help from other countries far less than the latter did from them.I was gently contradicted by this young American gentleman. "Oh, but you are so wrong," he said. "Sure, we Americans do not need much help from other countries - but we just cannot do without the help of India."I must confess that left me completely stumped. "Why does the US need India? Is it because we are both democracies and we both want to fight terrorism?" I asked. "Of course not. There are far more important reasons than that," he remarked. "It is because of your sheer numbers. Why, even George Bush remarked to former ambassador Blackwill once that what he liked about India was that it had a 'billion people.... Isn't that something?' ""So that is the reason - India is a big market for the Americans, is that it?" I asked. "Oh, you are not really an attractive market. There are dozens of other markets which have better potential," he said.By now I was getting thoroughly puzzled. So I waited for him to explain further."You see, we need you at the time of birth," he said. "We are facing a terrible shortage of nurses back home - we need almost 500,000 of them in a hurry and fewer and fewer people are joining the nursing courses in the US. It is a terrible job - low wages, bad working hours, not many prospects of going up in life. And, therefore, we need nurses from India."And then we need teachers," he continued. "Now you Indians produce vast hordes of graduated.gifs and post-graduated.gifs who have no jobs. They jump at the thought of becoming teachers in our public schools. Now not too many people in America want to become teachers in these schools, what with the shootings and the bad behaviour of our kids. So we are looking at Indians to fill up the positions in at least the worst public schools in our country.""Then there is research on all these subjects - genetics, software, telecommunication, pharmaceuticals - where we Americans want to maintain our lead in the world. But because of our primary education system, we just aren't producing enough brilliant people. But your IITs churn out brains by the thousands. And we need them to do our research for us."By now he was warming up to the subject. And I was more than happy to listen to his logic. "We will also shortly need you for our armed forces. As Iraq and Afghanistan showed us, even with our technological superiority in warfare, we still end up losing some American lives in battle," he said."But India doesn't want to fight American wars. I thought our prime minister had made that amply clear when the US asked for troops for Iraq," I argued."Oh, India can stay out if it wishes. But suppose we give out visas and green cards to people who want to join the American armed forces, I am sure we will get millions of Indians applying overnight. In fact, I have already proposed the idea to some higher ups," he said somewhat smugly."And then we need you people to man all those irate calls that we get from people who have bought American products. Why do you think so many of these call centre jobs are being shifted to India these days?" he said."I thought that was because of the cost differential," I pointed out. "That is only a small part. The real reason was that we were simply too sick of fielding all those calls from cranky customers who think that just because they have bought a product, it gives them the right to also expect service," he said.I must confess I had never thought of that aspect."And then we will need more doctors and nurses from India to look after our ageing baby boomers. We will need Indians to run our retirement homes. And we will need them to take care of hazardous things like flights to space," he said."So what will the Americans do?" I asked."Oh, we will continue to do the really important thing - run the world."
Posted by: Peregrine Jan 12 2004, 04:15 PM President George W Bush has announced the US and India will increase co-operation on civilian nuclear and space programmes, and high-technology trade. Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, the US president said he had also agreed to expand a dialogue with India on missile defence. He said the agreements with the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will strengthen ties between them. India has an advanced hi-tech industry and is a regional Internet leader. Asian bond "Co-operation in these areas will deepen the ties of commerce and friendship between our two nations, and will increase stability in Asia and beyond," Mr Bush said. He told delegates at the summit the two nations will take "a series of reciprocal steps," including expanded engagement on nuclear regulatory and safety issues, missile defence, and will seek ways to enhance co-operation in peaceful uses of space technology. Mr Bush called the expanded co-operation "an important milestone in transforming the relationship between the United States and India. "That relationship is based increasingly on common values and common interests," he said. "We are working together to promote global peace and prosperity." Mr Bush added India and the US had become "partners in the war on terrorism" and in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The moves between the countries are in contrast to India's public criticism of the American-led invasion of Iraq last year. It previously demanded that any rebuilding of the country should be carried out under the direction of the UN and refused to send troops to support the coalition. Cheers
Posted by: Kaushal Jan 12 2004, 11:45 PM
One must be forgiven , if there is skepticism on the indian side to these proposals. There is very little technology transfer involved here. As mentioned in another post, the litmus test for Indians is whether the US will prove to be a reliable supplier of technology. If past history is any guide such has not been the case . Again there is very little technology transfer that is being contemplated. What the US envisages is a regulatory role in India where they can keep an eye on india's fissile material. Compare this article and the preceding one with the following(posted by acharya in the other forum). US technology for Indian Defence Technology-transfer is crucial to Indo-US defence relationship. The following extract is from a study on ‘Indo-US Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions' by Juli A. MacDonald. Prepared by the US-based Information Assurance Technology Analysis Centre (IATAC) the study is based on interviews taken in India and the United States . It gives an insight into the mindset of the two countries about their regional and strategic aspirations and obstacles coming in the way of a long-standing defence partnership. The study was sponsored by the Director, Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defence , US and was released in October 2002. The Indian View Nearly all Indian interviewees viewed technology transfer as an important component, if not the essential component, of a closer US-India military relationship. Indians' concerns about husbanding and applying technology arise from India 's historical experience of repeatedly being defeated by foreign invaders with superior technology. Indians refuse to repeat this lesson of history. Consequently, one cannot overstate the sincerity and occasional vehemence with which Indian military and non-military authorities at all levels advance the case for technology transfer's cen­ trality in both near and long-term military cooperation strategies. The necessity of the US' adopting a more liberal, less restrictive technology transfer regime towards India — and for the US not to impede the transfer to India of critical military equipment and militarily-relevant technologies from third parties, Israel for example — emerged from the interviews with Indians in virtually every context. While, the Americans viewed Indian demands for more access to US technology as a kind of boring mantra, Indians see it as an issue of many parts and relevant to a wide range of different practical and symbolic security contexts. Many Indians mentioned the Americans' reluctance to engage in focussed technology transfer as a potential ‘deal killer' in the effort to construct an enduring strategic relationship. For Indians, technology transfer from the US is military coopera­ tion's touchstone. The message from the Indians at all levels was nearly uniform: Technology transfer must be the engine of the relationship and the ‘acid test' of US commitment. Everything else revolves around a strong US commitment to share its technologies so that India can advance. First, for Indians, technology transfer will confirm that the Americans understand India 's growing strategic importance as a regional and global actor; that they are prepared to think of India as a strategic partner and participant across a range of converging interests; and that they are prepared to help India with technology to lift its share of the load. For example, a retired admiral reasoned that the US Navy would benefit directly from technology transfer to India because it would enable India to extend its patrolling capability further outside of its EEZ, making the Indian Navy a more capable and robust partner and an asset to US interests. The interviews suggest that American policymakers and military officers believe that a programme of service-level cooperation will build trust and confidence between the two militaries, which will ultimately lead to technology transfer aimed at making th e Indian military a more capable partner in Asia. For most American interviewees, technology transfer is viewed as the product of a long process of building a transpar­ent military-to-military relationship. Indian priorities are reversed. The Indians want some of the technological rewards of a strategic relationship upfront as a signal that the Americans are serious. They do not want to endure three to five years of service-level cooperation before they reap the real be nefits of cooperation — technology transfer — for three reasons. First, they do not believe the US is a reliable partner or supplier; consequently, they oper­ ate with the assumption that the relationship probably never will reach the desired endpoint of cooperation if they quietly accept the Americans' engagement model and timetable. The Indians want the US committed by tying it down politically and economically with technology transfer deals. A highly placed brigadier used a metaphor to contrast the two approaches. An American male wants to get married but he does not see any reason to open a joint checking account until after the wedding. He is uncomfortable with that level of commitment until he is absolutely sure the relationship will be consummated. An Indian woman, on the other hand, insists on opening a joint checking account before getting married because she wants proof that her lover is absolutely com mitted to the relationship before she can make a decision about marriage. Two Indian policymakers summarised different aspects of this view­: Technology is not important for the sake of technology but as a symbol of the US mindset and acceptance of the military relationship. If the US is willing to accept the risks of giving India technology, it means that the US accepts India 's role in the region as source of stability that supports US interest. The real barometer of the US mindset will be access to dual use technology. If the US is willing to share dual use technologies, then it suggests that the US regards India as a partner that shares strategic concerns and burdens. If the US denies access to dual use technology, then it gives the impression that India is not accepted or trusted. Second, technology transfer signals that Americans are ready to treat India as a preferred friend, not as a suspect former ally of the Soviet Union — a characterisation most Indian officers qualify or reject — or as some kind of rogue regime deserving sanctions for simply exercising the kind of national security prudence that America overlooks among its allies. According to a retired brigadier, “ An equal partnership means that India is treated the same way that the US government treats other US allies, particularly when it comes to technology transfer. For example, India should be subject to the same technology restrictions as Turkey , Greece , or Israel . This means that the US must rescind the sanction regime that was put in place after the 1974 nuclear tests. The remnants of this sanction regime make the Indians feel like outcasts in the US universe. When the US treats India like a ‘ Brahmin' and not an ‘outcast,' then India will be more amenable to an open relationship. Outcasts are different from competitors. The US needs universal treatment for its friends.” Third, Indians believe that technology transfer will lead to their ultimate objective of connecting the Indian and American Defence Industrial Bases (DIB) in ways that will promote joint development and eventually prompt US companies to invest in India 's DIB. This, they believe, will create important political constituencies in both countries dedicated to strengthening the strategic relationship. A retired air commodore, who participated in early talks between the Indians and Americans in the early 1990s, described the importance of the links between the DIBs as the relationship's ‘centre of gravity'. He said, “ The centrepiece of the relationship must be building DIB cooperation, which will lay the foundation for a larger relationship by linking the military and economic relationship. The centre of gravity, therefore, will be the defence industry, not the service-to-service ties. The defence industry offers innumerable opportunities, par ticularly with the opening of the Indian DIB to foreigners, such as space coopera­tion, co-development, and joint science and technology projects.” In this sense, Indians see technology transfer as a means of ‘enabling' India to d evelop indigenous capabilities while simultaneously promoting interoperability. One Indian brigadier explained, “ The Indians want to be enabled to stand on their own by developing indigenous capabilities. For example, the US played an integral role in enabling India to feed itself by introducing Green Revolution technologies that allowed India to increase its food production indigenously. Today in a security context, the US can enable India to protect itself by providing sensor technology that the Indian military can use to monitor and trace Pakistani activities along the LOC.” Indians explicitly linked technology cooperation (or technology transfer) to suc­cess at other levels of military cooperation (eg, service-to-service cooperation and strategic dialogue). One retired Lt. General expressed this widely held view: “ Service-to-service cooperation might reach a dead end if the Indian MOD faces roadblocks on its requests for items on the Munitions List (ML). The Indians want something concrete in return for their many trips to Hawaii . The Indians want to see results. The MEA will be watching how the US State Department approaches the ML items for India . The slow approval process will not be a problem in the immediate short-term because both political systems are working through a back­ log that has been sitting in the system for years. But problems might become apparent when new requests are made.” As noted above, one cannot overstate the intensity with which Indians put tech­ nology transfer and technology cooperation at the centre of the Indo-US relationship t hat they would like to emerge. That said, Indian thinking on technology transfer, as on many other issues, is often contradictory. For example, several interviewees doub ted America 's reliability as a supplier; and they fear that building a dependence on the U S could make the Indian military vulnerable to US sanctions or other politically driven defence supply disruptions. These voices usually argue that technology transfer is only necessary to permit India to eventually build indigenous capabilities sufficient to insulate it from the unpredictability of the US politics. Another reservation, articulated by several retired Indian generals, is that technol­ogy may undermine the fighting spirit of the Indian soldier. One retired Lt. General explained these concerns, which seem to exist primarily in the Indian Army, “ As a manpower rich military, the Indian Army's strength is based on a strong ‘infantry ethos.' Indian soldiers will follow their leaders anywhere and the army l eadership worries that the integration of new technology might erode this ethos if the soldier is empowered in new ways.” At the same time, Indian military officers concede that the military cannot stop technology from changing the way they conduct war. For example, their problems during the recent Kargil operation demonstrated their need to be able to conduct war at night. This conclusion is driving the army's requests to the US , for night vision equipment, thermal imagery, and helicopters capable of flying at night. Yet cautionary voices among them warn that high-tech systems cannot be integrated with existing Indian systems easily and will require significant changes to the military's current doctrine and organisational structure. These Indians describe the military as ‘confused about what it needs' and unprepared for the challenges that will result from attempting to integrate the systems they seek to obtain. A retired Indian air commodore notes for example that, “ The Indian Air Force would like access to an Airborne Warning and Control' System (AWACS), which it considers a potent force multiplier. But many years and consid­erable resources are required to integrate an AWACS into IAF operations.” A tiny minority of Indian interviewees argued that India does not need U S tech­ nology at all, and in some ways it would be better off without it. This minority view claims that India can obtain the capabilities that the military needs from what they consider to be more reliable sources, including Russia , France , Israel , and Germany ; or India will develop the capabilities that they need indigenously. Although they admit US assistance would accelerate the process of modernising Indian military capabili­ ties, it is not essential, or even desirable. In fact, a handful of Indians claim that the lack of access to US technology has been advantageous because de privation has forced Indians to innovate on their own. According to a retired Lt. General, “ Indian interests in building a relationship with the United States are not only about technology. In fact, India has managed well over the years without US technology. Sanctions have not hindered Indian development. Instead, they have given Indians confidence in their own abilities.” Indo-U.S. Military Relationship: Expectations and Perceptions Juli A. MacDonald, IATAC,
Posted by: Mudy Jan 12 2004, 11:51 PM
A tiny minority of Indian interviewees argued that India does not need U S tech­ nology at all, and in some ways it would be better off without it. This minority view claims that India can obtain the capabilities that the military needs from what they consider to be more reliable sources, including Russia , France , Israel , and Germany ; or India will develop the capabilities that they need indigenously. Although they admit US assistance would accelerate the process of modernising Indian military capabili­ ties, it is not essential, or even desirable. In fact, a handful of Indians claim that the lack of access to US technology has been advantageous because de privation has forced Indians to innovate on their own. According to a retired Lt. General, “ Indian interests in building a relationship with the United States are not only about technology. In fact, India has managed well over the years without US technology. Sanctions have not hindered Indian development. Instead, they have given Indians confidence in their own abilities.”
It is not tiny minority but MAJORITY feel this way.
Posted by: Kaushal Jan 13 2004, 08:37 AM
Text of announcement by ABV (simultaneously announced by POTUS in Mexico) IANS[ TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 04:08:42 PM ] NEW DELHI: The following is the text of the statement made by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee here on Tuesday on the strategic partnership with the US: In November 2001, President Bush and I committed our countries to a strategic partnership. Since then, our two countries have strengthened bilateral cooperation significantly in several areas. Today we announced the next steps in implementing our shared vision. India and the United States of America agree to expand cooperation in three specific areas: civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programmes, and high technology trade. In addition, we agree to expand our dialogue on missile defence. Cooperation in these areas will deepen the ties of commerce and friendship between our two nations and will increase stability in Asia and beyond. The proposed cooperation will progress through a series of reciprocal steps that will build on each other. It will include expanded engagement on nuclear regulatory and safety issues and missile defence, ways to enhance cooperation in peaceful uses of space technology, and steps to create the appropriate environment for successful high technology commerce. In order to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, relevant laws, regulations and procedures will be strengthened and measures to increase bilateral and international cooperation in this area will be employed. These cooperative efforts will be undertaken in accordance with our respective national laws and international obligations. The expanded cooperation launched today is an important milestone in transforming the relationship between India and the United States of America. That relationship is based increasingly on common values and common interests. We are working together to promote global peace and prosperity. We are partners in the war of terrorism and we are partners in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The vision of the India-US strategic partnership that President Bush and I share is now becoming a reality.
Posted by: Mudy Jan 13 2004, 02:20 PM,0008.htm Former US senator Larry Pressler said on Tuesday that Washington must upgrade relations with India vis-a-vis China and make it the centre-piece of US foreign policy in South Asia. ''India should be the centre-piece of US foreign policy in this part of the world. We should upgrade our relations with India vis-a-vis China,'' Pressler told a news conference in Kolkata. He said the fact that democracy was deep-rooted in India and the country enjoyed a synergetic relations with the US should bring the two countries closer together in working for peace and stability in South Asia. Author of the famous Pressler Amendment that barred Pakistan from receiving US aid, the former republican senator warned that with India, Pakistan and China possessing the nuclear bomb, all the three countries will have to be careful not to make "mistakes". ''It is troubling to note that we forget about the nuclear bomb and concern ourselves with terrorism. A nuclear accident is much worse than the damage from any terrorist act that India has faced,'' he said. Lauding recent efforts by both India and Pakistan in building confidence between the two countries, he said that while the talks led by Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf had been a beginning, it was upto the political establishment of the two countries to take it forward. ''I dream of the day when both Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,'' he said ROTFL.gif I hope it stay as dream
Posted by: Mudy Jan 13 2004, 03:01 PM
IT to fight "terror" Correspondents in New Delhi JANUARY 14, 2004 FORTY experts from the United States and India met this week to explore ways to use science and technology to fight terrorism, the US Embassy said. The scientists and policy analysts talked about cyber-terrorism, bio-terrorism, threats to nuclear facilities and other topics, the embassy said in a statement. They discussed ways to deter, monitor and respond to terrorist actions, and were planning further meetings, the embassy said. The conference, held Monday through Wednesday in western India's Goa state, was closed to the public and media. The embassy said a report from the conference would later be published in India, the United States and other countries affected by terrorism. Robert O Blake, Jr, the US Embassy's charge d'affaires, participated in the meeting, as did India's President APJ Abdul Kalam — who helped develop India's rocket and space program, and advised the government on its developing and testing of nuclear weapons. "The stakes in combatting the terrorist threat have never been higher," Mr Blake said. "Science and technology have the potential to help us develop the new ways to prevent terrorist attacks." He didn't elaborate. The meeting was made public just after US President George W. Bush on Monday announced plans to expand dialogue with India on missile defense, cooperation on nonmilitary nuclear activities and high-technology trade. India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced the same plans in a government statement released Tuesday. Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank, who uses only one name, said the plans were the "next steps in the strategic partnership" between the two countries. "We have really started exchanging views on a whole set of global issues," Shashank said on SAB TV's "Court Martial" program. The workshop was organised by India's National Institute of Advanced Studies and the US National Academy of Sciences' Committee on International Security and Arms Control. Part of the funding came from the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum and the US Office of Naval Research, the embassy said. The Associated Press
Posted by: SSridhar Jan 13 2004, 06:18 PM
As part of the collaboration in nuclear & space programmes, US is suggesting tightening of Indian laws on export controls. India has always had exemplary controls in place and if anybody needs tightening, it is the US and its Western allies. AQ Khan stole evrything from them, many of these countries acquiesced in TSP's and Saddam's projects etc..I wonder what Washington is upto now ? It appears to me that having secured TSP's nukes recently and having stated openly that US was interested in securing Indian nukes, this is a sugar-coated attempt at precisely that. Having reached where we are today in both these fields with hard-work and sweat, I am pretty sure that the Indian scientists & bureaucracy will not let US control our assets and research institutions.
Posted by: Kaushal Jan 14 2004, 01:13 AM
You re right Sridhar. Not only that, India will not insist on taking credit for something she is already doing and let the GOTUS claim a victory to the American people saying that they had a hand in convincing india to tighten controls.We all know the real truth, but there is little harmin playing this charade and let Uncle claim a victory. Of course the US wants more than that. They want to get their tentacles around the vast indian program. But india will not budge on the basic issues of independence of the nuclear deterrent, including the processing and accounting of fissile material. IOW the 'cease, cap and roll back ' part of the US goals will not happen. The US now understands that and is no longer insisting on that overtly and in public. of course we do not know what passes behind closed doors, but any GOI would be foolhardy to acquiesce to such a restraint. see for instance Dr.Seema Gahlaut's article in BRM for a historical perspective on control regimes attempted by the US and specifically directed against india.
The one thing both sides agree on is export controls – that nuclear and related technology and materials should not be traded or transferred to those that might use them for weapons purposes. Although it has been a target of these regimes, and has had substantial capacity to export, India has never done so. This is despite its excellent relations with "rogue" states like Libya and Iran. It also has a fairly well developed system of regulations and procedures for controlling dangerous exports. Similarly, the United States was required to take back the spent fuel from Tarapur and has not done so even now. India has stuck to its side of the bargain and not claimed it. It also maintains IAEA safeguards on all imported facilities. The significance of all this is that India can be expected to abide by its commitments, so re-transfers to third parties and diversions from civilian to weapons facilities will not be the problem once it signs an agreement.
Posted by: Kaushal Jan 14 2004, 08:26 AM
The CPM's reaction is hardly a surprise. I have yet to hear them disapprove of the Chinese churlishness in collaborating with the US on anti-India initiiatives after POK II. THE INDIAN EXPRESS, JANUARY 14, 2003 CPM rubbishes Indo-US N-programme Press Trust of India New Delhi, January 14: Describing India's decision to discuss cooperation with the US on its nuclear missile defence system as “most objectionable", CPI (M) on Wednesday demanded that the Vajpayee government desist from making New Delhi a “party" to Washington's strategic plans. "Even when other major countries of the world refused to subscribe to the new missile defence system (of the US), the Vajpayee government showed inordinate keenness to be part of the new ballistic missile defence system", the party politburo said in a statement here. It said the Atal Behari Vajpayee-led government was “the first one to endorse US President George W Bush's strategic version of nuclear security and the NMD system in may 2001". The announcement by the US and India to expand strategic partnership in the realm of nuclear, space and high technology was "one more step taken by the Vajpayee government to make India part of the US global strategic plans", the CPI (M) said. The announcement showed that American concerns regarding nuclear proliferation predominate while there are no concrete measures for India accessing high technology. "The BJP-led government has been set on course of acquiescing in the US drive for global hegemony and new militarisation in turn or the US acceptance of India's nuclear weapon status", the party said, demanding the Government desist from “making India party to American strategic plans".
Posted by: Mudy Jan 14 2004, 07:19 PM
But the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is linked to Hindu extremist groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Bajrang Dal and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which mount hate campaigns and sometimes-violent attacks against religious minorities and demand that Hinduism dominate society and politics.
= Southern Baptist
The RSS was founded by admirers of fascism and Nazism, produced Gandhi's murderers and is now perhaps the world's largest paramilitary organization, with millions of members
. Congress-I, CPI propoganda
The BJP functions as Hindu nationalism's political wing. Prime Minister Vajpayee publicly praises the RSS and, in August, shared a podium and sang songs with RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan. Other top officials, including Home Affairs Minister Advani, are RSS associates.
So what
The main target of the "Hindutva" or "Hinduization" campaign are the Muslim and Christian communities. Some 2,000 Muslims were massacred in the state of Gujarat in 2002, after Muslim mobs were reported to have set fire to a train carrying Hindu nationalists, killing 58 persons.
Woman and children are Hindu nationalist because they are born as Hindu
Attacks against Christians have also escalated. They gained international attention in 1999, when Australian Graham Staines, who had worked with lepers for more than 30 years, was, along with his two young sons, burned alive by a Hindu extremist mob.
Culprit is punished
Priests are murdered, nuns raped, churches ransacked and cemeteries desecrated, with more than 100 such incidents reported annually, provoking Pope John Paul II this summer to make a rare public denunciation of this religious oppression.
Done by Muslim
In Orissa last month, Hindu militants burned down one church, broke into another, raped a nun, demonstrated near the district governor's house and burned Bibles.
To expand its support and hold its political coalition together, the national BJP moderates its stance, but then it courts extremists to appeal to its base. Meanwhile, it is Hinduizing the school curriculum, undercutting minority rights and supporting laws forbidding lower castes to change their religion to escape their low status under Hinduism.
teach according to western theories, AAryan were from Europe and Sanskrit is from Spain
India continues to have proud democratic institutions, but the growth of often-violent Hindu nationalism threatens its tolerant traditions and pluralistic democracy
. It seem A Roy, Cook, Prafool etc gave him this material and ofcourse dear Pakistan Embassy in DC
Posted by: Viren Jan 20 2004, 08:22 AM
Subscription site..pasting in full.
QUOTE,,SB107453845434405352,00.html?mod=politics%5Fprimary%5Fhs THE WALLSTREET JOURNAL ONLINE, JANUARY 19, 2004 India and U.S. to Improve Ties Countries Take Steps Toward Cooperation On Defense, Technology By JAY SOLOMON Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NEW DELHI -- India and the U.S. are taking the initial steps toward closer cooperation on strategic issues ranging from defense to high technology, as the interests of the world's two most-populous democracies increasingly converge. Last week, President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced a formal pact to significantly increase cooperation on civilian nuclear and space initiatives, as well as to pursue high-technology trade between the two governments. These steps ultimately could lead to India partnering with Washington in the development of a missile-defense system. Such an agreement would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, U.S. and Indian diplomats say. In 1998, the Clinton administration slapped limited trade sanctions on India for its secretive testing of three nuclear devices that year. Washington has continued to limit New Delhi's ability to purchase so-called dual-use technologies from the U.S. that could be used to produce weapons systems. Already, India and the U.S. have significantly increased military-to-military cooperation in the past year. Joint naval and air force exercises are becoming regular practice. Washington also sees India becoming a big buyer of U.S.-made arms. In the past two years, India has purchased roughly $200 million of American arms and is in negotiations to purchase P3 Orion maritime-patrol aircraft from the U.S. The deal, valued at about $1 billion, could be the biggest arms deal ever between the two nations. Still, diplomats from the two countries caution against interpreting these recent developments as presaging a formal military alliance. In the post-Cold War world, they say, the nations increasingly share common security concerns, such as the threat from terrorist groups operating in South and Central Asia. But they also say India is almost certain to maintain its tradition of charting an independent path in geopolitical affairs, especially as it continues to emerge as a global economic player. "We are not military allies" with the U.S., a senior Indian official says. "But we are engaging in areas that were taboo until quite recently. These trend lines for the future are important." Under the strategic-partnership initiative outlined last week, India is required to put in place stringent export controls to guard against the spread of nuclear and missile technologies. The Bush administration has voiced growing concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction out of South Asia following recent allegations by the U.S. and others that Pakistan had shared nuclear technologies with Iran, North Korea and Libya -- a charge Islamabad denies. India, too, denies it has shared any such technologies with other countries. Still, U.S. officials say that once India meets these export requirements, it can begin gaining significant access to technologies relating to everything from civilian nuclear power to commercial satellites. A number of U.S. strategists and lawmakers also see New Delhi and Washington cooperating to develop a missile-defense system. They cite the common democratic systems of the U.S. and India as forming the base for a strategic partnership. U.S. and Indian relations were virtually frozen during the Cold War, when New Delhi was aligned with the Soviet Union. In the past two years, the countries' navies have conducted joint patrols of the Indian Ocean. More recently, their special forces trained together in the Himalayan province of Jammu and Kashmir. Next month, U.S. and Indian fighter planes will perform joint exercises off India's western coast. Despite these advances, many Indian officials and strategists are cautious about the prospects for the bilateral relationship. India historically has been a leader in the developing world of promoting a "nonaligned" foreign-policy stance, which essentially calls for countries to remain independent of the U.S. and other global powers. Strategists in New Delhi voice concern that under any U.S.-India strategic partnership, Washington could seek to crimp India's pursuit of a strong military. They also voice concern that India risks ceding its independent foreign policy to Washington if it enters any formal partnerships. "India runs the risk of becoming hostage to the U.S.," says Bharat Karnad, a strategic analyst at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. Write to Jay Solomon at Updated January 19, 2004 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: rajesh_g Jan 21 2004, 07:20 PM Transcript of the State of the Union address by President Bush.
Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world.
New Delhi, Srinagar, Akshardham ? blink.gif But then maybe we are not part of the "civilized world" ?? unsure.gif
Posted by: Mudy Jan 21 2004, 08:21 PM
New Delhi, Srinagar, Akshardham ? But then maybe we are not part of the "civilized world" ??
Nah, These attackes were orchestrate by Pakistan, Strongest and cloest ally on War on Terrorism. How can they say??? argue.gif
Posted by: Viren Jan 21 2004, 09:14 PM
Bush said
America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.
Has any Indian leader said anything comparable in past?
Posted by: Mudy Jan 22 2004, 06:56 PM by Dr. Subhash Kapila Introductory Background: The main thrust in the last paper by this author, SAAG Paper No, 893 dated 13-01-2004: “India-Pakistan Peace Process and the Islamabad Accord” was that: * Islamabad Accord between India and Pakistan emerged after every strong pressure by the United States on both to climb down from their respective positions so assiduously maintained over the preceding years . * United States strong pressures at that stage was determined by United States strategic stake in Pakistan centred and specific on General Musharraf’s survival as military ruler of Pakistan. It was not determined by long-range peace dividends in South Asia. * India gained no strategic advantages from the Islamabad Accord. * Islamabad Accord was only a declaration of intent and not a structure for peace in South Asia. * Peace and peace-dividends in South Asia cannot emerge as a result of external impositions and pressures. Consequent to the actual publication of this paper on 13th January 2004 the news media carried statements of the US Secretary of State, Colin Powel claiming that the Indo-Pak thaw was due to US efforts. More specifically he stated: * “ We have been working with the Indians and the Pakistanis for almost two years. And so I think a lot of these seeds that were planted are now germinating and you’ll (see) us harvesting crops." * "Musharraf was doing a “good job” and that “ I would be greatly concerned because I don’t know what might come after him. He is a good friend and partner of the USA. We support him. He has been an ally in the war on terror.” The above assertions substantiate the points made in my earlier paper and summarised above. The United States does not seem to have drawn lessons from its Dayton Accord or its various peace initiatives in West Asia that extra-regional peace-brokering or accord impositions do not work where historically the national psyches of the adversaries stand deeply wounded. The healing balms emerge naturally when it dawns on either of the adversaries (normally the most intransigent and usually the smaller nation) that strategic realities have made the costs of confrontation too high. United States premises for peace brokering between India and Pakistan rest on shaky foundations and this paper attempts to analyse this. Personality Based Peace Accord- An Unsure Premise: The United States has brokered this peace accord by focusing on the two personalities of General Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee, prompted by the following considerations: * General Musharraf continuance in power was perceived as critical to American strategic interests. Being in a United States strategic bind, currently, he could be pressurized to announce (not binding) token concessions to control Pak state-sponsored terrorism against India. * Prime Minister Vajpayee could be prevailed upon to commence a dialogue with Pakistan by exploiting his penchant for peace and an urge to go down in history as a statesman. Electoral considerations of the Vajpayee Govt for forthcoming General Elections may have been another factor that could have been exploited by USA. On both counts, the United States seems to be building its efforts on shaky foundations as the following factors would indicate * General Musharraf’s longevity in power in Pakistan is a question mark and consequently his strategic utility to the United States. * United States gambling on General Musharraf-specific in its strategic formulations is reminiscent of the United States Shah of Iran-specific formulations in Iran, prior to his downfall. United States continues to be strategically plagued by that loss. Gambling on Musharraf could generate like-wise results. * General Musharraf may have sold himself to the United States (Pakistanis perceptions) for his personal survival, but the same cannot be said of the Pak Army- Mullah (religious leaders) nexus. In fact General Musharraf may be providing the “cassus-belli” to this nexus for his displacement. * Prime Minister Vajpayee seems all set to return to power. What if he doesn’t? Will the next political leader of the NDA Alliance or the leader of the new political dispensation feel inclined to deliver on the accord, because in any case there is no legislative basis for the accord? * Does Prime Minister Vajpayee in fact have the unstinting support of the senior political leadership of the BJP and the people of India? They would welcome peace with Pakistan, but they would argue whether it has to be brought about through General Musharraf, the prime initiator of the Kargil War. Many in India would feel that the martyrs of Kargil are being betrayed. Space inhibits discussion of many more facets of this point. Suffice it to say that personality-based peace accord without convincing mandates on both sides do not augur well in terms of success. The United States seems to have not fully taken these points into account. The Next Major Islamic Jehadi Strike on India-Possible Indian Reactions: Peace accord or no peace accord, what would be the possible Indian reactions in the event of the next major Islamic Jehadi strike on India on the pattern (or even on a larger scale) of the attack on Parliament in December 2001. General Musharraf states that he would not allow Pakistani territory or territory under control of Pakistan to be used for terrorism against India. How about Pakistan Islamic Jehadis, facilitated by ISI, using a third country as a launch pad for damaging strikes against India. The Government of India of any political dispensation, would be overwhelmed by Indian public pressures to strike immediately against Pakistan, the United States notwithstanding. India cannot afford the luxury of coercive diplomacy as a prelude. The United States would not have the luxury of time for bringing pressures for restraint on India, like it did during OP PRAKARAM. And further, Prime Minister Vajpayee’s successors may not be inclined to accept US pressures. Such a scenario arises from the following Indian perceptions of the United States global war on terrorism: * The so-called US global war on terrorism was confined to serve US strategic interests. * Country-specific threats of terrorism and proxy war have to be dealt with by countries concerned without any US help. * The United States is insensitive to India’s terrorism threat perceptions as it would not permit this consideration to sub-sume US strategic interests vis-à-vis Pakistan. The United States instead of brokering peace-accords should be concentrating on eliminating South Asia’s and global terrorist threats from the nurseries in Pakistan. United States Right Pressure at the Wrong Time: Peace is a laudable aspiration and a desirable objective and more so in South Asia. But the question is whether the present juncture was the right time for USA to apply pressures on Pakistan, especially? In the opinion of this author the United States has chosen the right pressures but at the wrong time. If the United States had applied similar pressures on General Musharraf immediately following 9/11 (2001) South Asia today would have had a more peaceful environment and a lasting one. General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army would have buckled to US pressure to stop proxy war against India, conscious that their national interests and survival lay with USA. Today, the picture is the other way around. General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army are acutely aware that it is United States' national and strategic interests that are in the hands of General Musharraf and the Pakistan Army. They are cashing-in on this at the expense of US long term interests in the region. The above factor is a crucial determinant in United States current policies in South Asia and distorts and divorces it from a more realistic appreciation of the strategic realities of the Indian sub-continent. It also alienates Indian public opinion from the United States with consequent impact on any US-generated peace-brokering between India and Pakistan. United States Peace Efforts Success Rests On Economic Integration As A Pre-Requisite Not Political Brokering: United States peace brokering between India and Pakistan even in the Track II diplomacy of the Neemrana Process over the last decade was never successful. Besides its obvious limitation of being centred on former bureaucrats and generals as inter-locuters it had caught the wrong end of the stick. Political brokering of finding solutions to the Jammu and Kashmir issue or espousing unacceptable proposals like the Chenab Formula were not the answers. Peace in the Indian sub-continent can be brought about more enduringly by the United States by applying pressures for economic integration for which many natural compulsions exist and in which the lives of millions on both sides could be uplifted. Such a process would generate a very large peace constituency in Pakistan where economy health and education in the last 56 years have stood sacrificed to Pakistan’s exorbitant defence expenditures arising from its confrontation with India. Economic integration between India and Pakistan would not only generate millions of jobs in these two countries, but also consequently generate thousands of jobs in USA. That would be the real and lasting peace dividend that USA must work for. United States Testing of Pakistan’s Sincerity in the Peace Accord: The United States has confined itself only to pressurizing General Musharraf to come out with statements of intent that may please India. But the United States has used no pressures to test Pakistan’s sincerity in the peace accord. Intensity of infiltration of Pakistani terrorists into India is not an accurate indicator as it depends on the season, Indian security forces forces commitments etc. As a first test of Pakistani sincerity , the United States should pressurize Pakistan to hand over to India, the 20 terrorist/gangsters being demanded by India for a couple of years. Many of these were involved in the Bombay blasts of the 1990s- a crime no less heinous than 9/11. It would also be a test of United States sincerity and impartiality in brokering peace between India and Pakistan. Concluding Observations: The noted United States academic Hans J Morgenthau in one of his works on the “ Future of Diplomacy” had made two important observations which are aptly applicable to the United States peace brokering efforts between India and Pakistan. These two which need to be quoted are: * Never allow a weak ally to make ‘Decisions’ for you * The Armed Forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master. The United States approaches towards peace brokering between India and Pakistan are being determined by the Pakistan Army which has become the master of Pakistan’s foreign policy and the United States is allowing one of its weakest and unreliable allies i.e. Pakistan (a failed state till 9/11) to determine its decisions regarding peace in the Indian sub-continent. Hence United States premises for peace between India and Pakistan are wrong. Henry Kissinger in an article “ Reflections on American Diplomacy” stated: “ our policy is therefore geared with emergencies; it finds difficulties in developing the long range program that might forestall them”. The United States current emergency of eliminating the Al Qaeda, brings the Pakistan Army and General Musharraf’s significance in salience. But can that be made a basis for long term peace between India and Pakistan. The answer is a resounding NO because the underlying United States premises are wrong. Some would be tempted to question, then what are the right premises for the United States to help bring peace between India and Pakistan. This author considers the following as the right premises for the United States in bringing peace between India and Pakistan: * Economic integration of India and Pakistan be made as a pre-requisite for the pathways to peace and not political brokering. The latter is contentious, acrimonious and politically exploitable in domestic politics on both sides. * Economic regeneration of Pakistan, its consequent well being and improved two-way flow of peoples will generate a sizeable peace constituency in Pakistan. * United States should allow a “natural balance of power” to emerge in South Asia. Since 1947, the United States has tinkered to create an artificial balance of power through Pakistan, unrelated to the prevailing strategic realities. A “natural balance of power” in South Asia would generate a "natural peace" in the region. *United States should shed any predilections of its policy planners to view Pakistan as some sort of future insurance for arresting /impeding India’s emergence as a major global power in the future. As this author has written earlier in one of his previous papers, it would be unrealistic for the United States to expect that India should curtail its growing political, military and economic power to offset Pakistan’s fears and concerns. It is for the United States to educate and prevail upon Pakistan that it has to accept and adapt to its strategic asymmetries with India and also to trust that India has no intentions to break up Pakistan. This then could lead to intra regional yearnings to work for enduring peace in South Asia. India is not the obstacle to peace in South Asia. It is Pakistan which is. Therefore changes have to come in Pakistan and the United States can help in bringing them about. (The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email drsubhashkapila
Posted by: k.ram Jan 23 2004, 09:45 AM AMERICAN ANGLE The Natural Allies It rankles me to admit but the Bush Administration has been good for India. Yes, the same people who launch pre-emptive strikes, order invasions and plan regime change as easily as a dinner menu... SEEMA SIROHI It rankles me to admit but the Bush Administration has been good for India. Yes, the same people who launch pre-emptive strikes, order invasions and plan regime change as easily as a dinner menu have made a difference in the eternally finger-pointing, chronically troubled relationship with India. That they had a BJP-led government in New Delhi greatly helped matters. The BJP carries less baggage about the United States compared to the Congress party . In three years, the Bush boys and the BJP brigade can point to a list of positives instead of the usual downers that have dominated Indo-US relations in the past. Today, you have to look hard to spot the problems and as they say in Washington, the two countries are on the same page. Last week, Indo-US relations hit another high with an agreement for cooperation in forbidden areas -- civilian nuclear and space programmes, high technology trade and missile defence. The announcement gave concrete shape to the strategic partnership envisioned by President Bush and Prime Minister Vajapyee in 2001 when the two leaders waxed eloquent about being "natural allies" and such. It put some content into grandiose words that come pouring out of speech writers at any hint of a photo-op. The talk now centres around "transforming the relationship," common values and shared interests. Significantly, the Bush-Vajpayee statement says "we are partners in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them." What a difference a few years make. Rewind to the complete freeze in relations in 1998 when India conducted its second round of nuclear tests and shook the world. The Clinton Administration hit the roof, imposed strict sanctions, denied visas to Indian scientists, seized all defence-related Indian equipment and daily berated New Delhi for its egregious ambition. Today, the two countries are poised for a deeper embrace in the very area that forced them apart -- nuclear. No, Washington is not about to aid India’s nuclear weapons development but only help improve safety of the civilian nuclear reactors. Under the Bush Administration, joint military exercises with India have become routine -- in fact so regular that they don’t arouse much excitement anymore. Vajpayee began courting the Americans right from the word go -- no sooner had the Bush Administration announced its plans for a National Missile Defence programme that New Delhi was out there supporting it even before the old European allies did. The alacrity with which India lined up was surprising not only to many Indians but also to the White House. The gesture was noted with gratitude. The US National Security Strategy unveiled in September 2002 identified "India’s potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the 21st century." It announced that relations between the two countries would now be looked at differently, not through the prism of the Cold War, nuclear non-proliferation and regional power games but through the barometer of a new reality. "The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well." Among common interests, it listed the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea lanes of the Indian Ocean, fighting terrorism and creating a strategically stable Asia. Fast forward to the Iraq war when Bush requested and Vajpayee seriously considered sending Indian troops. Ultimately, Vajpayee declined in the face of domestic political considerations but it was a giant U-turn for India to even contemplate the notion. Despite acute disappointment, the Bush Administration was able to continue working on other tracks and the result is the latest "strategic partnership" announced on Jan. 12 by the two leaders. With this agreement, India has quietly shifted to the "other" camp -- of those who prevent irresponsible countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Its long-held demand for complete disarmament stands abandoned. I suppose the BJP buried the disarmament policy deep into the grounds of Pokhran where it burst the bombs in 1998. But Bush and Vajpayee are reaping the fruits of the tree planted by the Clinton Administration. Credit must be given to President Bill Clinton and more specifically to his deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, who began the first real dialogue with India after the nuclear tests. Former foreign minister Jaswant Singh and Talbott listened to each other rather than lecture each other. Let it be said that Americans are just as good at delivering sermons -- a complaint they have made ad nauseam about Indians in the past. The fact the two men became lifelong friends is a measure of their commitment to the process and the goal of understanding each other. The dialogue resulted in Clinton’s path-breaking visit to India, a visit that had him dancing with Rajasthani women and MP‘s scrambling to shake his hand. His personal charm was at maximum wattage. Well, it took a while -- more than 50 years to be precise -- for the two democracies to get to this point. The next 50 years may bring them even closer. As for me -- it is a relief not to have to look for hidden agendas and conspiracies. That’s old news now.
Posted by: SSRamachandran Jan 23 2004, 10:06 AM
Viren ... Not to start an arguement , but has india ever been as powerful as the US in the past ? Even though India is growing OP-Parakram is a good example of how india cannot put it's money where it's mouth is. I hope this will change in an other 10 to 15 years. unsure.gif
Posted by: Mudy Jan 24 2004, 06:29 PM Summary: Pundits claim that U.S. foreign policy is too focused on unilateral preemption. But George W. Bush's vision -- enshrined in his 2002 National Security Strategy -- is far broader and deeper than that. The president has promoted bold and effective policies to combat terrorism, intervened decisively to prevent regional conflicts, and embraced other major powers such as Russia, China, and India. Above all, he has committed the United States to a strategy of partnerships, which affirms the vital role of international alliances while advancing American interests and principles. Colin L. Powell is the U.S. Secretary of State. ... Whereas Russia is still developing its democracy, India's democracy dates from its independence in 1947. With recent economic reforms setting institutional roots, India is developing into a mature market economy. As Indians themselves are the first to admit, however, their country still faces many challenges. Illiteracy, poverty, environmental degradation, and inadequate infrastructure all hamper progress. We want to help India overcome these challenges, and we want to help ourselves through a closer association with one of the world's venerable cultures. We have therefore worked to deepen our relationship with India. The two largest democracies on earth are no longer estranged. At the same time, we have also been able to advance our relations with Pakistan -- a country with domestic challenges of its own. India and Pakistan still dispute who should control Kashmir. During 2002, a major war between them -- perhaps involving nuclear weapons -- seemed distinctly possible. So, working with partners in Europe and Asia, we mobilized to help end the crisis. We have since been trying to turn our parallel improvement of relations with India and Pakistan into a triangle of conflict resolution. We do not impose ourselves as a mediator. But we do try to use the trust we have established with both sides to urge them toward conciliation by peaceful means. ...
Posted by: Mudy Jan 24 2004, 07:12 PM STEPHEN R. SHALOM
Posted by: k.ram Jan 25 2004, 08:50 PM
India rises as strategic US ally Monday India celebrates Republic Day - and worries neighbors, especially Pakistan. By Scott Baldauf | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor NEW DELHI – Every Republic Day, India struts its military stuff, dragging out the latest ballistic missiles and tanks and parading the finest soldiers on the subcontinent. But Monday, on this year's anniversary, India has a bit more to strut about. Just five years after US-imposed sanctions turned India and Pakistan into virtual pariah states for their nuclear-weapons tests in 1998, India has emerged as America's "strategic partner" in South Asia. Far more than its alliance with Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants, America's new relationship with India is a broad security, political, technological, and economic arrangement on par with America's relationship with Europe or NATO. The US is even talking about sharing roles in joint space missions. In speeches over the last week, President Bush, Colin Powell, and other US officials have lauded India's new position in the world and growing economic importance on the global stage. Separately, US officials have talked of India's common interests in protecting sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the Straits of Malacca, an area that India already patrols with its blue-water navy. Call it the outsourcing of global security, with India once again getting the job. "If you're looking at the security of the oil lanes or the sea lanes of Southeast Asia or the relationship with China, there's a natural convergence of interests from the US and India on all this," says K. Santhanam, director of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, a government think tank in New Delhi. It's a situation that has many of India's neighbors, primarily its nuclear rival Pakistan, wringing their hands. After Sept. 11, Pakistan reaffirmed its longstanding alliance with the US by severing ties with Afghanistan's Taliban regime. As a result, the US is giving some economic incentives to Pakistan, but the arrangement falls short of America's accelerating relationship with India. That's partly due to the same trade opportunities and shared values that the Clinton administration saw when it began to strengthen US ties with India - a move stunted by the 1998 nuclear tests. The war on terror has also stretched the American military thin with two ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and delegating the safety of South Asia to a strategic partner certainly makes sense. And for India, it's a welcome recognition that India is a global player. In the past year, the US and India have conducted some 17 different exercises together. In addition, the US has sold $200 million in major weapons systems to India. Using America's Q-37 fire-locating radar, Indian artillery units in the northern state of Kashmir can now locate and destroy Pakistani artillery units on the other side of the cease-fire line before the Pakistanis have a chance to move. Upcoming arms sales could include P-3 Orion aircraft, a maritime-based plane used for surveillance, and some of the equipment used by American special forces soldiers, such as rifles, parachutes, light-weight bulletproof jackets, and night-vision goggles. Yet while the countries' military and strategic relationship has improved dramatically since nuclear sanctions were lifted against India in late 2001, India still turns to other nations for big-ticket items. This was underlined last week when India announced the purchase of a Russian aircraft carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, for $1.5 billion. "If you want to talk of a real strategic partnership, give us an aircraft carrier," says Bharat Verma, editor of the Indian Defense Review, a military affairs journal based in New Delhi. For Mr. Verma and other military analysts, the limits of US friendship are seen in America's unwillingness to transfer its technology to its friends. By not giving India the blueprints for how to reproduce state-of-the-art weapons systems, America keeps countries like India dependent on it for supplies and spare parts. "We don't like to be in a situation where our strategic autonomy is dependent on somebody else's supplier," Verma says. "That's why we ask for the transfer of technology. Today, the Russians are transferring. The French are transferring. The British are transferring. But the Americans are not." The US has other concerns as well, although these are not discussed as openly. While the US and India may have common interests in some areas, such as combating terrorism or protecting oil shipments, their interests may diverge on lower-level issues, such as India's relations with its neighbors. "The bottom line is that India is too independent an actor in South Asia and does not want the United States to dictate the terms under which it will deal with its neighbors," says Sumit Ganguly, chair of the Indian Culture and Civilization department at Indiana University in Bloomington. "This really sticks in the craw of Washington, D.C., and most importantly the State Department striped-pants set." India's current leaders like to talk about "soft power" and diplomacy, but India's neighbors point to a number of interventions over the past three decades. In 1971, India sent troops into neighboring East Pakistan to halt a massacre by the Pakistani army and to support the creation of a new nation, Bangladesh, under the separatist leadership of Mujibur Rahman. In the early 1980s, India allowed the violent separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), to set up training camps in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu. This support was later cut off, leading the Tamil Tigers to assassinate Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1992. In 1990, India was accused of allowing separatist guerrillas from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) in Pakistan's Sindh state to set up training camps in India and launch a reign of terror in the crucial port city of Karachi. India denied giving support, but MQM official Javed Langhri reportedly visited India in 1992, and other MQM leaders publicly sought India's moral support during a decade of government crackdowns. "There is little question that India did support the LTTE in Sri Lanka, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh, and very possibly the MQM in the Sindh," says Mr. Ganguly. "Of course, the neighbors routinely whine to Washington about real and utterly imagined grievances, thereby reinforcing the images of the striped-pants set."
Posted by: Mudy Feb 3 2004, 01:43 PM
Posted by: Mudy Feb 4 2004, 02:01 PM
received by email Most of the American media agencies and their “professionally biased” authors always repeat two errors about India (obviously intentional): 1. Place India and Pakistan on the same pedestal with "equal-equal" or parity syndrome. 2. Refer to India as “Hindu India” Senator Richard Lugar repeats the same error in his recent article published in the Washington Times. The following letter (written by Dr. Beheruz Sethna and forwarded by Ram Narayanan) provides a good statistical answer to this “American virus". It won’t be bad idea to repeat (send) this letter to the senator and the Washington Times. Just to let them know how misinformed they are:, ----- Letter by Dr.Beheruz Sethna ----- Dear Sen. Lugar and the Washington Times: Re: Opportunity in South Asia, by Richard Lugar; The Washington Times, January 26, 2004 In the above referenced article by Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he makes some good points. However, I wish to point out both to the respected Senator and The Washington Times, the logical fallacy of continuing to put India and Pakistan on the same pedestal. The Senator did not specifically say that, but the article implies that these two countries are essentially on the same footing. I respectfully disagree. These are vastly different countries and the tendency of many (even many sound thinkers such as yourselves) in leadership positions to regard them as comparable, is simply not grounded in reality. At the very start, the article refers to "predominantly Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan." Let's look at the facts. Pakistan is 97% Muslim (all data in this paragraph are from I believe that such a high percentage accurately qualifies it to be labeled as "predominantly Muslim Pakistan" or as "Muslim Pakistan." No quarrel there. Now, India is 81% Hindu. Is it appropriate to refer to it in the American media as "predominantly Hindu India?" Certainly, Hindus are in the clear majority, so I am not talking about the statistical accuracy of that statement. Yet, is it an appropriate designation? If you say Yes, let me share with you another country's statistics. Approximately 84% of the United States population is Christian! Does the same logic apply here? Does the Senator and the media continuously refer to the United States as "the predominantly Christian United States?" Regardless of the statistical truth of the predominance of people of the Christian faith, it is politically feasible to refer constantly, to the U.S., as "the predominantly Christian United States?" Is it desirable to do so? So, why should the same logic not apply to characterization of India (which is actually 3% less Hindu than the U.S. is Christian?). Let us consider another comparison. How logical is it to continue to treat two countries as being similar to each other as the article seems to indicate? The GDP of Pakistan is approximately one-ninth that of India. One-ninth. To get a feel for what that means, let us look at countries which have approximately one-ninth the GDP of the United States. The GDP of Brazil is approximately one-eighth that of the U.S. and the GDP of South Korea is one-eleventh that of the U.S. Source of GDP data: Would you continue to regard Brazil and South Korea as being in the same category as the United States? Would you treat either of them on par with the U.S. in your speeches, articles, and arguments? Or would you think that that which applies to the United States does not necessarily apply to Brazil and South Korea? If an author in another country made a claim that what's good for South Korea (or Brazil) is good for the United States and vice versa, or expressed the opinion that these two countries should get their act together - each being essentially in the same boat, how would such an article be perceived? How would we react to a plan for the future of those two countries, written along the same lines as the article in the Washington Times that mirrors the "equal" treatment of the United States and South Korea? Please think about these comparisons and characterizations of India the next time an article is written on India vis-à-vis Pakistan. Further, India has the fourth largest economy in the world ( The U.S., China, Japan, and India are the top four. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Russia are all behind India. Pakistan is an "economic basket case" (Richard Rapaport in the San Francisco Chronicle, Nov 13, 2001, Tilting Again) that is being propped up only with U.S. taxpayers' money. In addition, India is a vibrant democracy with a free press, a pluralistic society, which had nuclear weapons for almost a quarter of a century before Pakistan did, and never once used or threatened to use them. Pakistan is a military dictatorship with essentially state-controlled media, a state that has actively encouraged religious fundamentalism, a country that has threatened to use nuclear weapons as a first nuclear strike strategy, has been very active in nuclear proliferation, and has repeatedly lied about such illegal trade in nuclear technology. Hello; does anyone see some difference between the two? Are India and Pakistan in the same category? Is the U.S. in the same category as South Korea or Brazil? Sincerely, ----------------------- End of the letter Following is the earlier message from Ram Narayanan, that explains this “virus that overlays the executive and the legislative branch in the United States” This article by Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am told, is the text of the prepared opening statement delivered on January 28, 2004 at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on India-Pakistan rapprochement. It troubles me not because I found any factual errors as such in it, but because of its tendency to place India and Pakistan on the same pedestal - the "equal-equal" or parity syndrome carried too far. Unfortunately, that is a virus that overlays the executive branch in the United States and has now spread by constant association to the legislative branch. Mindsets change either very slowly or as a result of momentous events. Eventually, the only way to tackle this situation is for India to raise the quotient of its comprehensive national strength (which already is seven or eight times that of Pakistan) to such a high level (an eminently achievable task) that the United States will look silly in even trying to push the parity argument. Also, on the non-proliferation issue, it's uttterly ridiculous to put Pakistan and India in the same box. The record speaks for itself so loudly! Then again, describing India as "predominantly Hindu" in the context of Kashmir being described as "Muslim majority" while not factually wrong is politically inappropriate. India is a multi-religious secular democracy. America probably has a much larger percentage of Christians as compared to the percentage of Hindus in India. No one refers to pluralistic democracies in religious terms. Would Senator Lugar or other members of the legislative branch or the media constantly harp on the theme that the United States is a "predominantly Christian United States"? India has more Muslims than Pakistan. Equally important, does Senator Lugar wish to equate America's relations with a country ruled by a uniformed General with what President Bush and others acknowledge to be the most populous democracy in the world?
Posted by: Mudy Feb 9 2004, 04:27 PM,001600320002.htm S Rajagopalan Washington, February 9 Senator John Kerry, the Democratic front-runner in the US presidential race, may not be great news for India, at least in one important area: New Delhi’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. Kerry has definitive views on the subject. India, he concedes, has good credentials to enter the exclusive club, but goes on to suggest that it must first address the issue of signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). His rationale is that all five permanent members of the council — the US, UK, Russia, France and China — are nuclear powers and parties to the NPT. Kerry, currently tightening his grip on the Democratic nomination for the November race by winning 10 of the 12 state primaries and caucuses, has set forth his views vis-a-vis India in response to a questionnaire from the Washington-based Indian American Centre for Political Awareness (IACPA). “While I think that in many ways India would be a good candidate for Security Council membership, there is one notable problem: India is not a party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. All the nuclear powers on the Council not only directly shape the NPT but are parties that abide by it. This may be the most serious issue with respect to India’s candidacy for Council membership and one that must be addressed by India,” he says. He has an important rider on another issue as well: a free trade agreement between India and the US. While professing that he is open to the basic concept, he stresses that agreements of the type should include internationally-recognised core labour standards and environmental protections. Kerry is otherwise positive on Indo-US ties, making it clear that he wants to build on the emerging cooperative relationship between the two countries. On bilateral ties in relation to the war on terror, he notes: “I strongly believe that we must continue to work together to bolster our joint capacities.” The fourth-term Senator from Massachusetts and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, Kerry says that he would like to see Indo-US relationship grow in every aspect, including defence. He strongly favours continuance of the joint military exercises. On the question of US defence sales, however, he feels decisions must be made “in the specific context of the needs of the recipient nation, the weapons and systems under consideration, and the interests of the United States at the time of the purchase”. Kerry is a co-sponsor of the federal legislation against hate crimes, which has been an issue of acute concern to Indian Americans, notably the Sikhs, in recent times. Commenting on the subject, Kerry said that, as President, he will ensure proper enforcement of the legislation.
Posted by: acharya Feb 12 2004, 04:11 PM The purportedly "scientific" application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one's enemies "Worldview Warfare" and The Science of Coercion by Christopher SimpsonExcerpts from The Science of Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1994 23 November 2003 The URL of this article is: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- During the second half of the 1930s, the Rockefeller Foundation underwrote much of the most innovative communication research then under way in the United States. There was virtually no federal support for the social sciences at the time, and corporate backing for the field usually remained limited to proprietary marketing studies. The foundation's administrators believed, however, that mass media constituted a uniquely powerful force in modem society, reports Brett Gary, 28 and financed a new project on content analysis for Harold Lasswell at the Library of Congress, Hadley Cantril's Public Opinion Research Project at Princeton University, the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly at Princeton, Douglas Waples' newspaper and reading studies at the University of Chicago, Paul Lazarsfeld's Office of Radio Research at Columbia University, and other important programs. As war approached, the Rockefeller Foundation clearly favored efforts designed to find a "democratic prophylaxis" that could immunize the United States' large immigrant population from the effects of Soviet and Axis propaganda. In 1939, the foundation organized a series of secret seminars with men it regarded as leading communication scholars to enlist them in an effort to consolidate public opinion in the United States in favor of war against Nazi Germany -- a controversial proposition opposed by many conservatives, religious leaders, and liberals at the time -- and to articulate a reasonably clear-cut set of ideological and methodological preconceptions for the emerging field of communication research. 29 Harold Lasswell, who had the ear of foundation administrator John Marshall at these gatherings, over the next two years won support for a theory that seemed to resolve the conflict between the democratic values that are said to guide U.S. society, on the one hand, and the manipulation and deceit that often lay at the heart of projects intended to engineer mass consent, on the other. Briefly, the elite of U.S. society ("those who have money to support research," as Lasswell bluntly put it) should systematically manipulate mass sentiment in order to preserve democracy from threats posed by authoritarian societies such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. One Rockefeller seminar participant, Donald Slesinger (former dean of the social science at the University of Chicago), blasted Lasswell's claims as using a democratic guise to tacitly accept the objectives and methods of a new form of authoritarianism. "We [the Rockefeller seminar] have been willing, without thought, to sacrifice both truth and human individuality in order to bring about given mass responses to war stimuli," Slesinger contended. "We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships- by-force through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation. 30 Slesinger's view enjoyed some support from other participants and from Rockefeller Foundation officers such as Joseph Willits, who criticized what he described as authoritarian or even fascist aspects of Lasswell's arguments. Despite this resistance, the social polarization created by the approaching war strongly favored Lasswell, and in the end he enjoyed substantial new funding and an expanded staff courtesy of the foundation. Slesinger, on the other hand, drifted away from the Rockefeller seminars and appears to have rapidly lost influence within the community of academic communication specialists. World War II spurred the emergence of psychological warfare as a particularly promising new form of applied communication research. The personal, social, and scientific networks established in U.S. social sciences during World War II, particularly among communication researchers and social psychologists, later played a central role in the evolution (or "social construction") of U.S. sociology after the war. A detailed discussion of U.S. psychological operations during World War 11 is of course outside the scope of this book. There is a large literature on the subject, which is discussed briefly in the Bibliographic Essay at the end of this text. A few points are worth mentioning, however, to introduce some of the personalities and concepts that would later play a prominent role in psychological operations and communication studies after 1945. The phrase "psychological warfare" is reported to have first entered English in 1941 as a translated mutation of the Nazi term Weltanschauungskrieg (literally, worldview warfare), meaning the purportedly scientific application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one's enemies. 31 William "Wild Bill" Donovan, then director of the newly established U.S. intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services (OSS), viewed an understanding of Nazi psychological tactics as a vital source of ideas for "Americanized" versions of many of the same stratagems. Use of the new term quickly became widespread throughout the U.S. intelligence community. For Donovan psychological warfare was destined to become a full arm of the U.S. military, equal in status to the army, navy, and air force. 32 Donovan was among the first in the United States to articulate a more or less unified theory of psychological warfare. As he saw it, the "engineering of consent" techniques used in peacetime propaganda campaigns could be quite effectively adapted to open warfare. Pro-Allied propaganda was essential to reorganizing the U.S. economy for war and for creating public support at home for intervention in Europe, Donovan believed. Fifth-column movements could be employed abroad as sources of intelligence and as morale-builders for populations under Axis control. He saw "special operations -- meaning sabotage, subversion, commando raids, and guerrilla movements -- as useful for softening up targets prior to conventional military assaults. "Donovan's concept of psychological warfare was all-encompassing," writes Colonel Alfred Paddock, who has specialized in this subject for the U.S. Army War College. "Donovan's visionary dream was to unify these functions in support of conventional (military) unit operations, thereby forging a 'new instrument of war.'" 33 Donovan, a prominent Wall Street lawyer and personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt, convinced FDR to establish a central, civilian intelligence agency that would gather foreign intelligence, coordinate analysis of information relevant to the war, and conduct propaganda and covert operations both at home and abroad. In July 1941 FDR created the aptly named Office of the Coordinator of Information, placing Donovan in charge. 34 But that ambitious plan soon foundered on the rocks of Washington's bureaucratic rivalries. By early 1942 the White House split the "white" (official) propaganda functions into a new agency, which eventually became the Office of War Information (OWI), while Donovan reorganized the intelligence, covert action, and "black" (unacknowledgeable) propaganda functions under deeper secrecy as the OSS. Officially, the new OSS was subordinate to the military leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the relationship between the military and the civilian OSS was never smooth. Donovan frequently used his personal relationship with FDR to sidestep the military's efforts to restrict the OSS's growing influence. 35 Similar innovations soon spread through other military branches, usually initiated by creative outsiders from the worlds of journalism or commerce who saw "psychological" techniques as a means to sidestep entrenched military bureaucracies and enhance military performance. Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, a longtime Wall Street colleague of Donovan, established a small, highly secret Psychologic Branch within the War Department General Staff G-2 (Intelligence) organization. (McCloy is probably better known today for his later work as U.S. high commissioner of Germany, chairman of the Chase Bank, member of the Warren Commission, and related posts). 36 McCloy's Psychologic Branch was reorganized several times, briefly folded in the OSS, shifted back to military control, and renamed at least twice. The Joint Chiefs meanwhile established a series of high-level interagency committees intended to coordinate U.S. psychological operations in the field, including those of the relatively small Psychological Warfare Branches attached to the headquarters staffs of U.S. military commanders in each theater of war. If this administrative structure was not confusing enough, the psychological warfare branch attached to Eisenhower's command in Europe soon grew into a Psychological Warfare Division totaling about 460 men and women. 37 These projects helped define U.S. social science and mass communication studies long after the war had drawn to a close. Virtually all of the scientific community that was to emerge during the 1950s as leaders in the field of mass communication research spent the war years performing applied studies on U.S. and foreign propaganda, Allied troop morale, public opinion (both domestically and internationally), clandestine OSS operations, or the then emerging technique of deriving useful intelligence from analysis of newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, and postal censorship intercepts. The day-to-day war work of U.S. psychological warfare specialists varied considerably. DeWitt Poole -- a State Department expert in anticommunist propaganda who had founded Public Opinion Quarterly while on sabbatical at Princeton before the war-became the chief of the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS. There he led OSS efforts to recruit suitable agents from immigrant communities inside the United States, to monitor civilian morale, and to analyze foreign- language publications for nuggets of intelligence. Sociologists and Anthropologists such as Alexander Leighton and Margaret Mead concentrated on identifying schisms in Japanese culture suitable for exploitation in U.S. radio broadcasts in Asia, while Samuel Stouffer's Research Branch of the U.S. Army specialized in ideological indoctrination of U.S. troops. Hadley Cantril meanwhile adapted survey research techniques to the task of clandestine intelligence collection, including preparations for the U.S. landing in North Africa. 38 There were six main U.S. centers of psychological warfare and related studies during the conflict. Several of these centers went through name changes and reorganizations in the course of the war, but they can be summarized as follows: (1) Samuel Stouffer's Research Branch of the U.S. Army's Division of Morale; (2) the Office of War Information (OWI) led by Elmer Davis and its surveys division under Elmo Wilson; (3) the Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) of the U.S. Army, commanded by Brigadier General Robert McClure; (4) the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) led by William Donovan; (5) Rensis Likert's Division of Program Surveys at the Department of Agriculture, which provided field research personnel in the United States for the army, OWI, Treasury Department, and other government agencies; and (6) Harold Lasswell's War Communication Division at the Library of Congress. Dozens of prominent social scientists participated in the war through these organizations, in some cases serving in two or more groups in the course of the conflict. The OWI, for example, employed Elmo Roper (of the Roper survey organization), Leonard Doob (Yale), Wilbur Schramm (University of Illinois and Stanford), Alexander Leighton (Cornell), Leo Lowenthal (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of California), Hans Speier (RAND Corp.), Nathan Leites (RAND), Edward Barrett (Columbia), and Clyde Kluckhohn (Harvard), among others. 39 (The institutions in parentheses simply indicate the affiliations for which these scholars may be best known.) OWI simultaneously extended contracts for communications research and consulting to Paul Lazarsfeld, Hadley Cantril, Frank Stanton, George Gallup, and to Rensis Likert's team at the Agriculture Department. 40 OWI contracting also provided much of the financial backbone for the then newly founded National Opinion Research Center. 41 In addition to his OWI work, Nathan Leites also served as Lasswell's senior research assistant at the Library of Congress project, as did Heinz Eulau (Stanford). 42 Other prominent contributors to the Lasswell project included Irving Janis (Yale) and the young Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT), who, with Leites, had already begun systematic content analysis of communist publications long before the war was over. 43 Lasswell's Library of Congress project is widely remembered today as the foundation of genuinely systematic content analysis in the United States. 44 At the Army's Psychological Warfare Division, some prominent staffers were William S. Paley (CBS), C. D. Jackson (Time/Life), W. Phillips Davison (RAND and Columbia), Saul Padover (New School for Social Research), John W. Riley (Rutgers), Morris Janowitz (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of Michigan), Daniel Lerner (MIT and Stanford), Edward Shils (University of Chicago), and New York attorney Murray Gurfein (later co-author with Janowitz), among others. 45 Of these, Davison, Padover, Janowitz, and Gurfein were OSS officers assigned to the Psychological Warfare Division to make use of their expertise in communication and German social psychology. 46 Other prominent OSS officers who later contributed to the social sciences include Howard Becker (University of Wisconsin), Alex Inkeles (Harvard), Walter Langer (University of Wisconsin), Douglas Cater (Aspen Institute), and of course Herbert Marcuse (Institut fur Sozialforschung and New School). 47 0SS wartime contracting outside the government included arrangements for paid social science research by Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia, Princeton, Yale's Institute of Human Relations, and the National Opinion Research Center, which was then at the University of Denver. 48 Roughly similar lists of social scientists and scholarly contractors can be discovered at each of the government's centers of wartime communications and public opinion research. 49 The practical significance of these social linkages has been explored by social psychologist John A. Clausen, who is a veteran of Samuel Stouffer's Research Branch. Clausen made a systematic study during the early 1980s of the postwar careers of his former colleagues who had gone into the fields of public opinion research, sociology, and psychology. 50 Some twenty-five of twenty-seven veterans who could be located responded to his questionnaire; of these, twenty-four reported that their wartime work had had "lasting implications" and "a major influence on [their] subsequent career." Clausen quotes the reply of psychologist Nathan Maccoby (Stanford): "The Research Branch not only established one of the best old-boy (or girl) networks ever, but an alumnus of the Branch had an open door to most relevant jobs and career lines. We were a lucky bunch." Nearly three-fifths of the respondents indicated that the Research Branch experience "had a major influence on the direction or character of their work in the decade after the war," Clausen continues, "and all but three of the remainder indicated a substantial influence.... [F]ully three-fourths reported the Branch experience to have been a very important influence on their careers as a whole." 51 Respondents stressed two reasons for this enduring impact. First, the wartime experience permitted young scholars to closely work with recognized leaders in the field -- Samuel Stouffer, Leonard Cottrell, Carl Hovland, and others-as well as with civilian consultants such as Paul Lazarsfeld, Louis Guttman, and Robert Merton. In effect, the Army's Research Branch created an extraordinary postgraduate school with obvious scholarly benefits for both "students" and the seasoned "professors." Second, the common experience created a network of professional contacts that almost all respondents to the survey found to be very valuable in their subsequent careers. They tapped these contacts later for professional opportunities and for project funding, according to Clausen. "Perhaps most intriguing" in this regard, Clausen writes, was the number of our members who became foundation executives. Charles Dollard became president of Carnegie. Donald Young shifted from the presidency of SSRC [Social Science Research Council] to that of Russell Sage, where he ultimately recruited Leonard Cottrell. Leland DeVinney went from Harvard to the Rockefeller Foundation. William McPeak ... helped set up the Ford Foundation and became its vice president. W. Parker Mauldin became vice president of the Population Council. The late Lyle Spencer [of Science Research Associates] . . . endowed a foundation that currently supports a substantial body of social science research. 52 There was a somewhat similar sociometric effect among veterans of OWI propaganda projects. OWI's overseas director Edward Barrett points out that old-boy networks rooted in common wartime experiences in psychological warfare extended well beyond the social sciences. "Among OWI alumni," he wrote in 1953, are the publishers of Time, Look, Fortune, and several dailies; editors of such magazines as Holiday, Coronet, Parade, and the Saturday Review, editors of the Denver Post. New Orleans Times-Picayune, and others; the heads of the Viking Press, Harper & Brothers, and Farrar, Straus and Young; two Hollywood Oscar winners; a two-time Pulitzer prizewinner; the board chairman of CBS and a dozen key network executives; President Eisenhower's chief speech writer; the editor of Reader's Digest international editions; at least six partners of large advertising agencies; and a dozen noted social scientists. 53 Barrett himself went on to become chief of the U.S. government's overt psychological warfare effort from 1950 to 1952 and later dean of the Columbia graduated.gif School of Journalism and founder of the Columbia Journalism Review. 54 It is wise to be cautious in evaluating the political significance of these networks, of course. Obviously Herbert Marcuse drew quite different political conclusions from his experience than did, say, Harold Lasswell, and it is well known that even some of the once closely knit staff of the Institut fur Sozialforschung who emigrated to the United States eventually clashed bitterly over political issues during the cold war. 55 Nevertheless, the common experience of wartime psychological warfare work became one step in a process through which various leaders in the social sciences engaged one another in tacit alliances to promote their particular interpretations of society. Their wartime experiences contributed substantially to the construction of a remarkably tight circle of men and women who shared several important conceptions about mass communication research. They regarded mass communication as a tool for social management and as a weapon in social conflict, and they expressed common assumptions concerning the usefulness of quantitative research-particularly experimental and quasi- experimental effects research, opinion surveys, and quantitative content analysisas a means of illuminating what communication "is" and improving its application to social management. They also demonstrated common attitudes toward at least some of the ethical questions intrinsic to performing applied social research on behalf of a government. The Clausen study strongly suggests that at Stouffer's Research Branch, at least, World War II psychological warfare work established social networks that opened doors to crucial postwar contacts inside the government, funding agencies, and professional circles. Barrett's comments concerning the Psychological Warfare Division suggest a similar pattern there. As will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter, the various studies prepared by these scientists during the war -- always at government expense and frequently involving unprecedented access to human research subjects -- also created vast new data bases of social information that would become the raw material from which a number of influential postwar social science careers would be built. The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies Turning to a consideration of CIA-sponsored psychological warfare studies, one finds a wealth of evidence showing that projects secretly funded by the CIA played a prominent role in U.S. mass communication studies during the middle and late 1950s. The secrecy that surrounds any CIA operation makes complete documentation impossible, but the fragmentary information that is now available permits identification of several important examples. The first is the work of Albert Hadley Cantril (better known as Hadley Cantril), a noted "founding father" of modem mass communication studies. Cantril was associate director of the famous Princeton Radio Project from 1937 to 1939, a founder and longtime director of Princeton's Office of Public Opinion Research, and a founder of the Princeton Listening Center, which eventually evolved into the CIA-financed Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Cantril's work at Princeton is widely recognized as "the first time that academic social science took survey research seriously, and it was the first attempt to collect and collate systematically survey findings." 70 Cantril's The Psychology of Radio, written with Gordon Allport, is often cited as a seminal study in mass communication theory and research, and his surveys of public opinion in European and Third World countries defined the subfield of international public opinion studies for more than two decades. Cantril's work during the first decade after World War II focused on elaborating Lippmann's concept of the stereotypethe "pictures in our heads," as Lippmann put it, through which people are said to deal with the world outside their immediate experience. Cantril specialized in international surveys intended to determine how factors such as class, nationalism, and ethnicity affected the stereotypes present in a given population, and how those stereotypes in turn affected national behavior in various countries, particularly toward the United States. 71 Cantril's work, while often revealing the "human face" of disaffected groups, began with the premise that the United States' goals and actions abroad were fundamentally good for the world at large. If U.S. acts were not viewed in that light by foreign audiences, the problem was that they had misunderstood our good intentions, not that Western behavior might be fundamentally flawed. Cantril's career had been closely bound up with U.S. intelligence and clandestine psychological operations since at least the late 1930s. The Office of Public Opinion Research, for example, enjoyed confidential contracts from the Roosevelt administration for research into U.S. public opinion on the eve of World War 11. Cantril went on to serve as the senior public opinion specialist of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (an early U.S. intelligence agency led by Nelson Rockefeller and focusing on Latin America), of the World War II Office of War Information, and, in a later period, as an adviser to President Eisenhower on the psychological aspects of foreign policy. During the Kennedy administration, Cantril helped reorganize the U.S. Information Agency. 72 According to the New York Times, the CIA provided Cantril and his colleague Lloyd Free with $1 million in 1956 to gather intelligence on popular attitudes in countries of interest to the agency. 73 The Rockefeller Foundation appears to have laundered the money for Cantril, because Cantril repeatedly claimed in print that the monies had come from that source. 74 However, the Times and Cantril's longtime partner, Lloyd Free, confirmed after Cantril's death that the true source of the funds had been the CIA. 75 Cantril's first target was a study of the political potential of "protest" voters in France and Italy, who were regarded as hostile to U.S. foreign Policy. 76 That was followed by a 1958 tour of the Soviet Union under private, academic cover, to gather information on the social psychology of the Soviet population and on "mass" relationships with the Soviet elite. Cantril's report on this topic went directly to then president Eisenhower; its thrust was that treating the Soviets firmly, but with greater respect -- rather than openly ridiculing them, as had been Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' practice -- could help improve East-West relations. 77 Later Cantril missions included studies of Castro's supporters in Cuba and reports on the social psychology of a series of countries that could serve as a checklist of CIA interventions of the period: Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, and others. 78 An important focus of Cantril's work under the CIA's contract were surveys of U.S. domestic public opinion on foreign policy and domestic political issues -- a use of government funds many observers would argue was illegal. 79 There, Cantril introduced an important methodological innovation by breaking out political opinions by respondents' demographic characteristics and their place on a U.S. ideological spectrum he had devised -- a forerunner of the political opinion analysis techniques that would revolutionize U.S. election campaigns during the 1980s. 80 A second-and perhaps more important -- example of the CIA's role in U.S. mass communication studies during the 1950s was the work of the Center for International Studies (CENIS) at MIT. The CIA became the principal funder of this institution throughout the 1950s, although neither the CENIS nor the CIA is known to have publicly provided details on their relationship. It has been widely reported, however, that the CIA financed the initial establishment of the CENIS; that the agency underwrote publication of certain CENIS studies in both classified and nonclassified editions; that CENIS served as a conduit for CIA funds for researchers at other institutions, particularly the Center for Russian Research at Harvard; that the director of CENIS, Max Millikan, had served as assistant director of the CIA immediately prior to his assumption of the CENIS post; and that Millikan served as a "consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency," as State Department records put it, during his tenure as director of CENIS. 81 In 1966, CENIS scholar Ithiel de Sola Pool acknowledged that CENIS "has in the past had contracts with the CIA," though he insisted the CIA severed its links with CENIS following a bitter scandal in the early 1960s. 82 CENIS emerged as one of me most important centers of communication studies midway through the 1950s, and it maintained that role for the remainder of the decade. According to CENIS's official account, the funding for its communications research was provided by a four- year, $850,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, which was distributed under the guidance of an appointed planning committee made up of Hans Speier (chair), Jerome Bruner, Wallace Carroll, Harold Lasswell, Paul Lazarsfeld, Edward Shils, and Ithiel de Sola Pool (secretary). 83 It is not known whether Ford's funds were in fact CIA monies. The Ford Foundation's archives make clear, however, that the foundation was at that time underwriting the costs of the CIA's principal propaganda project aimed at intellectuals, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, with a grant of $500,000 made at CIA request, and that the Ford Foundation's director, John McCloy (who will be remembered here for his World War II psychological warfare work), had established a regular liaison with the CIA for the specific purpose of managing Ford Foundation cover for CIA projects. 84 Of the men on CENIS's communication studies planning committee, Edward Shils was simultaneously a leading spokesman for the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom Project; Hans Speier was the RAND Corporation's director of social science research; and Wallace Carroll was a journalist specializing in national security issues who had produced a series of classified reports on clandestine warfare against the Soviet Union for U.S. military intelligence agencies. 85 In short, CENIS communication studies were from their inception closely bound up with both overt and covert aspects of U.S. national security strategy of the day. The CENIS program generated the large majority of articles on psychological warfare published by leading academic journals during the second half of the 1950s. CENIS's dominance in psychological warfare studies during this period was perhaps best illustrated by two special issues of POQ published in the spring of 1956 and the fall of 1958. Each was edited by CENIS scholars-by Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla and by Daniel Lerner, respectively -- and each was responsible for the preponderance of POQ articles concerning psychological warfare published that year. The collective titles for the special issues were "Studies in Political Communications" and "Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas." 86 CENIS scholars and members of the CENIS planning committee such as Harold Ina", Y. B. Damle, Claire Zimmerman, Raymond Bauer, and Suzanne Keller 87 and each of the special issue editors" provided most of the content. They drew other articles from studies that CENIS had contracted out to outside academics, such as a content analysis of U.S. and Soviet propaganda publications by Ivor Wayne of BSSR and a study of nationalism among the Egyptian elite by Patricia Kendall of BASR that was based on data gathered during the earlier Voice of America studies in the Mideast. 89 The purported dangers to the United States of "modernization" or economic development in the Third World emerged as the most important theme of CENIS studies in international communication as the decade of the 1950s drew to a close. Practically without exception, CENIS studies coincided with those issues and geographic areas regarded as problems by U.S. intelligence agencies: "agitators" in Indonesia, student radicals in Chile, "change-prone" individuals in Puerto Rico, and the social impact of economic development in the Middle East. 90 CENIS also studied desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, as an example of "modernization." 91 In these reports, CENIS authors viewed social change in developing countries principally as a management problem for the United States. Daniel Lerner contended that "urbanization, industrialization, secularization [and] communications" were elements of a typology of modernization that could be measured and shaped in order to secure a desirable outcome from the point of view of the U.S. government. "How can these modernizing societies-in-a-hurry maintain stability?" Lerner asked. "Whence will come the compulsions toward responsible formation and expression of opinion on which a free participant society depends?" 92 In The Passing of Traditional Society and other texts, Lerner contended that public "'participation' [in power] through opinion is spreading before genuine political and economic participation" in societies in developing countries 93 -- a clear echo of Lippmann's earlier thesis. This created a substantial mass of people who were relatively informed through the mass media, yet who were socially and economically disenfranchised, and thus easily swayed by the appeals of radical nationalists, Communists, and other "extremists." As in Lippmann's analysis, mass communication played an important role in the creation of this explosive situation, as Lerner saw it, and in elite management of it. He proposed a strategy modeled in large part on the campaign in the Philippines that combined "white" and "black" propaganda, economic development aid, and U.S.-trained and financed counterinsurgency operations to manage these problems in a manner that was "responsible" from the point of view of the industrialized world. This "development theory," which combined propaganda, counter- insurgency warfare, and selective economic development of targeted regions, was rapidly integrated into U.S. psychological warfare practice worldwide as the decade drew to a close. Classified U.S. programs employing "Green Beret" Special Forces troops trained in what was termed "nation building" and counterinsurgency began in the mountainous areas of Cambodia and Laos. 94 Similar projects intended to win the hearts and minds of Vietnam's peasant population through propaganda, creation of "strategic hamlets," and similar forms of controlled social development under the umbrella of U.S. Special Forces troops can also be traced in part to Lerner's work, which was in time elaborated by Wilbur Schramm, Lucian Pye, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and others. 95 Lerner himself became a fixture at Pentagon-sponsored conferences on U.S. psychological warfare in the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s, lecturing widely on the usefulness of social science data for the design of what has since come to be called U.S. -sponsored low-intensity warfare abroad. 96 The Special Operations Research Office's 1962 volume The U.S. Army's Limited-War Mission and Social Science Research and the well-publicized controversy surrounding Project Camelot 97 show that the brutal U.S. counterinsurgency wars of the period grew out of earlier psychological warfare projects, and that their tactics were shaped in important part by the rising school of development theory. 98 Further, the promises integral to that theory -- namely, that U. S. efforts to control development in the Third World, if skillfully handled, could benefit the targets of that intervention while simultaneously advancing U.S. interests -- were often publicized by the USIA, by the Army's mass media, at various academic conferences, and in other propaganda outlets. In other words, as the government tested in the field the tactics advocated by Lerner, Pool, and others, the rationalizations offered by these same scholars became propaganda themes the government promoted to counter opposition to U.S. intervention abroad. 99 The important point with regard to CENIS is the continuing, inbred relationship among a handful of leading mass communication scholars and the U.S. military and intelligence community. Substantially the same group of theoreticians who articulated the early cold war version of psychological warfare in the 1950s reappeared in the 1960s to articulate the Vietnam era adaptation of the same concepts. More than a half-dozen noted academics followed this track: Daniel Lerner, Harold Lasswell, Wilbur Schramm, John W. Riley, W. Phillips Davison, Leonard. Cottrell, and Ithiel de Sola Pool, among others. 100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Excerpts from The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson (Oxford University Press, 1994) "Worldview Warfare" and World War II (pp.22-30) The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies (pp. 79-85) Footnotes: 28. Brett Gary, "Mass Communications Research, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Imperatives of War 1939-1945," Research Reports from the Rockefeller Archive Center (North Tarrytown, NY, Spring 1991), p. 3; and Brett Gary, "American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda," Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Gary's work is the first thorough study, so far as I am aware, of the important role of the Rockefeller Foundation in crystallizing paradigms for communication studies. 29. John Marshall (ed.), "Needed Research in Communication" (1940), folder 2677, box 224, Rockefeller Archives, Pocantico Hills, NY, cited in Gary, American Liberalism. 30. Gary, "American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda." 31. Ladislas Farago, German Psychological Warfare (New York: Putnam, 1941). For a history of the origin of the term, see William Daugherty, "Changing Concepts," in Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. 12. 32. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 5-8, 23-37. 33. Ibid., p. 6. 34. Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), The Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkeley, 1976), pp. 42-63. There is a large literature on the OSS. For a reliable overview of the agency's activities, including basic data on its establishment and leadership, see Richard Harris Smith, OSS (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972). 35. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 7-14; and Edward Lilly, "The Psychological Strategy Board and Its Predecessors: Foreign Policy Coordination 1938-1953," in Gaetano Vincitorio (ed.), Studies in Modern History (New York: St. Johns University Press, 1968), p. 346. 36. Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992). 37. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 8-18; for an extended discussion, see Daniel Lerner, Sykewar: Psychological Warfare Against Germany, D-Day to VE-Day (New York: George Stewart, 1948). 38. On Poole's role in the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly, see Harwood Childs, "The First Editor Looks Back," POQ, 21, no. I (Spring 1957): 7-13. On Poole's work at the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS, see (Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkley, 1976), chapter 2. On Leighton, see Alexander Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World (New York: Dutton, 1949). On Mead, see Carleton Mabee, "Margaret Mead and Behavioral Scientists in World War II: Problems of Responsibility, Truth and Effectiveness," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 23 (January 1987Y On Stouffer, see now 49 Mom On Cantril, see Hadley Cantril, "Evaluating the Probable Reactions to the Landing in North Africa in 1942: A Case Study," POQ, 29, no. 3 (Fall 1965): 400-410. 39. On Roper and on Elmo Wilson, also of the Roper organization, see Jean Converse, Survey Research in the United States (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1987), pp. 171-72. On Doob and Leites, see Daniel Lerner (ed.), Propaganda in War and Crisis (New York: George Stewart, 1951), pp. vii-viii. On Kluckhohn, Leighton, Lowenthal, and Schramm, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xiii-xiv. On Speier, Contemporary Authors, Vol. 21-24, p. 829. On Barrett, Edward Barrett, Truth Is Our Weapon (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), pp. 31-32. After his death, the Associated Press identified Barrett as a former member of the OSS, though Barrett omitted that information from biographical statements published during his lifetime; see "Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review," Washington Post, October 26, 1989. For more on the OWI, see also Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information 1942-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978); and Leonard Doob, "Utilization of Social Scientists in the Overseas Branch of the Office of War Information," American Political Science Review, 41, no. 4 (August 1947): 49-67. 40. Converse, Survey Research in the United States, pp. 163, 172. 41. Ibid., p. 309. 42. On Leites and Eulau, see Wilbur Schramm, "The Beginnings of Communication Study in the United States," in Everett Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.), The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985), p. 205; and Harold Lasswell and Nathan Leites, Language of Politics (New York: George Stewart, 1949), p. 298. 43. Nathan Leites and Ithiel de Sola Pool, "The Response of Communist Propaganda," in Lasswell and Leites, Language of Politics, pp. 153, 334. 44. Roger Wimmer and Joseph Dominick, Mass Media Research (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987Y p. 165. 45. On Paley, Jackson, Padover, Riley, Janowitz, Lerner, and Gurfein, see Lerner, Sykewar, pp. 439-43. On Davison, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. xii. On Shils, see Lerner, Propaganda in War, p. viii. 46. On Davison and Padover, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xii-xiii. On Gurfein and Janowitz, see Smith, OSS, pp. 86, 217. 47. On Langer, Cater, and Marcuse, see Smith, OSS, pp. 17, 23, 25, 217. On Barrett, see -Edward I Barren Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review." On Becker and Inkeles, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xi-xii. For a fascinating early memoir of the role of psychology and social psychology in OSS training and operations, see William Morgan, The OSS and I (New York: Norton, 1957). 48. Robin Winks, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New York: Morrow, 1987), pp. 43-44, 79. 49. On Samuel Stouffer's Morale Branch, see Samuel Stouffer, Arthur Lumsdaine, Marion Lumsdaine, Robin Williams, M. Brewster Smith, Irving Janis, Shirley Star, and Leonard Cottrell, The American Soldier (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 149Y pp. 3-53; and John Clausen, "Research on the American Soldier as a Career Contingency," Social Psychology Quarterly 47, no. 2 (1984): 207-13. On the OSS, see Barry Katz, Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1952-1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989): and Bernard David Rifkind, "OSS and Franco-American Relations 1942-1945" Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1983, pp. 318-36. On psychological operations in the Pacific theater, see Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World. 50. Clausen, "Research on the American Soldier." 51. Ibid., p. 210. 52. Ibid., p. 212. 53. Barrett, Truth, p. 31fn. 54. "Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review." 55. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973); and Katz, Foreign Intelligence, pp. 29ff. ... 70. Information on Cantril in this paragraph is from "Cantril, [Albert] Hadley," National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. 55, pp. 211-12. 71. See, for example, William Buchanan and Hadley Cantril, How Nations See Each Other (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972), pp. 91-101; or Hadley Cantril, The Politics of Despair (New York: Basic Books, 1958). 72. "Cantril, [Albert] Hadley. See also collection of Psychological Strategy Board correspondence with Cantril, including Cantril's oblique reference to what appears to be clandestine CIA sponsorship and editing of his pamphlet The Goals of the Individual and the Hopes of Humanity (1951; published by Institute for Associated Research, Hanover, NH) in Cantril note of October 22, 195 1; in Hadley Cantril correspondence, Psychological Strategy Board, Truman Library, Independence, MO. 73. John M. Crewdson and Joseph Treaster, "Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA" New York Times, December 26, 1977. 74. Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967), pp. 131-32, 145. 75. Crewdson and Treaster, "Worldwide Propaganda Network." 76. Hadley Cantril and David Rodnick, Understanding the French Left (Princeton: Institute for International Social Research, 1956). 77. Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 134-43. 78. Cantril, The Politics of Despair; Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 1-5, 144. 79. Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967). On the question of legality, note that the CIA's charter bars the agency from "police, subpoena, lawenforcement powers or internal security functions," a phrase that most observers contend prohibits the CIA from collecting intelligence on U.S. citizens inside the United States. On this point, see Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA (New York: Pocket Books, 1979), pp. 315-17, 367-70, concerning the CIA's Operation Chaos. 80. For an example of a similar, later technique, see "Redefining the American Electorate," Washington Post, October 1, 1987, p. At 2, with data provided by the Times Mirror-Gallup Organization. 81. On CIA funding of CENIS, see Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Dell, 1974), p. 181; and David Wise and Thomas Ross, The Invisible Government (New York: Vintage, 1974), p. 244. On CIA funding of studies, see Marchetti and Marks, The CIA, p. 18 1. For an example of a major study reported to have been underwritten by the CIA, see W. W. Rostow and Alfred Levin, The Dynamics of Soviet Society (New York: Norton, 1952). On CENIS as a conduit of CIA funds, see Wise and Ross, The Invisible Government, p. 244. On Millikan's role, see U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, "Problems of Development and Internal Defense" (Country Team Seminar, June 11, 1962). 82. Ithiel de Sola Pool, "The Necessity for Social Scientists Doing Research for Governments," Background 10, no. 2 (August 1966): 114-15. 83. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for International Studies, A Plan for Research in International Communications World Politics, 6, no. 3 (April 1954): 358-77; MIT, CENIS, The Center for International Studies: A Description (Cambridge: MIT, July 1955). 84. Don Price Oral History, pp. 61-70, and Don Price memo, May 21, 1954 (appendix to oral history), Ford Foundation Archives, New York. The archival evidence concerning this aspect of the Ford Foundation's relationship with the CIA was first brought to light by Kai Bird. 85. On Shils, see Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy (New York: Free Press, 1989), pp. 98-209 passim. On Speier, see, Hans Speier, "Psychological Warfare Reconsidered," RAND paper no. 196, February 5, 1951; Hans Speier, "International Political Communication: Elite and Mass," World Politics (April 1952 [RAND paper no. P-270], Hans Speier and W. Phillips Davison, "Psychological Aspects of Foreign Policy," RAND paper no. P-615, December 15, 1954. Speier's other contemporary work that has since come to light includes several studies of Soviet response to West German rearmament, Soviet political tactics involving nuclear threats, a report on the American Soldier series, and a commentary on political applications of game theory. Speier died February 17, 1990, in Sarasota, Florida; see "Hans Speier, Sociologist," Washington Post, March 2, 1990. On Carroll, see Wallace Carroll, The Army's Role in Current Psychological Warfare (top secret, declassified following author's mandatory review request), February 24, 1949, box 10, tab 61, entry 154, RG 319, U.S. National Archives, Washington, DC; Wallace Carroll, "It Takes a Russian to Beat a Russian," Life, December 19, 1949, pp. 80-86; "CIA Trained Tibetans in Colorado, New Book Says," New York Times, April 19, 1973. 86. Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla (eds.), "A Special Issue on Studies in Political Communication," 20, no. I (Spring 1956); Daniel Lerner (ed.), "Special Issue: Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas," 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958). 87. In 20, no. I (Spring 1956): Harold Isaacs, "Scratches on Our Minds," p. 197; Y. B. Damle, "Communication of Modem Ideas and Knowledge in [East] Indian Villages," p. 257; Claire Zimmerman and Raymond Bauer, "The Effect of an Audience upon What Is Remembered," p. 238; Suzanne Keller, "Diplomacy and Communication," p. 176; and Harold Isaacs, "World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations: A Note on Little Rock," 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958): 364. 88. Ithiel de Sola Pool, Suzanne Keller, and Raymond Bauer, "The Influence of Foreign Travel on Political Attitudes of U.S. Businessmen," p. 161; Frank Bonilla, "When Is Petition 'Pressure'?" p. 39; Daniel Lerner, "French Business Leaders Look at EDC," p. 212 -- all in 20, no. 1 (Spring 1956); and Daniel Lerner, "Editors Introduction," p. 217; Ithiel de Sola Pool and Kali Prasad, "Indian Student Images of Foreign People," p. 292; Frank Bonilla, "Elites and Public Opinion in Areas of High Social Stratification," p. 349; all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958). 89. Ivor Wayne, "American and Soviet Themes and Values: A Content Analysis of Themes in Popular Picture Magazines," p. 314; Patricia Kendall, "The Ambivalent Character of Nationalism among Egyptian Professionals," p. 277 -- all in 20, no. I (Spring 1956). 90. Guy Pauker, "Indonesian Images of Their National Self," p. 305; Lucian Pye, "Administrators, Agitators and Brokers," p. 342; Alain Girard, "The First Opinion Research in Uruguay and Chile," p. 251; Kurt Back, "The ChangeProne Person in Puerto Rico," p. 330; Robert Carlson, "To Talk with Kings," p. 224; Herbert Hyman et al., "The Values of Turkish College Youth," p. 275; Raymond Gastil, "Middle Class Impediments to Iranian Modernization," p. 325; Gorden Hirabayashi and M. Fathalla El Kbatib, "Communication and Political Awareness in the Villages of Egypt," p. 357; A. J. Meyer, "Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in the Middle East," p. 391; Richard Robinson, "Turkey's Agrarian Revolution and the Problem of Urbanization," p. 397; Lincoln Armstrong and Rashid Bashshur, "Ecological Patterns and Value Orientations in Lebanon," p. 406 -- all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958). 91. Isaacs, "World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations," p. 364. 92. Lerner, "Editor's Introduction," pp. 218, 219, 221. 93. Lerner and Pevsner, The Passing of Traditional Society, p. 396. Emphasis added. 94. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army's Limited-War Mission, pp. 59-63, 69-77; Blum, The CIA, pp. 133-62. 95. On communications theorists' contributions to counterinsurgency, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army's Limited-War Mission, pp. 159-69 (Pye) and 199ff (Pool). See also Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Social Science Research and National Security (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution [Office of Naval Research Project], 1963), pp. 1-25 (Pool), 46-74 (Schramm), 148-66 (Pye). 96. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army's Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53. 97. The Camelot Affair precipitated the first genuinely public discussion of the collision between the professed humanitarian values of modem social science and the actual ends to which it had been put in the world political arena. In 1964, the U.S. Army hired private U.S. social scientists to conduct a series of long-term inquiries into the social structures, political and economic resources, ethnic rivalries, communication infrastructures, and similar basic data concerning developing countries considered likely to see strong revolutionary movements during the 1960s. The project exploded when nationalist and left-wing forces in Chile and other targeted countries protested, labeling Camelot a de facto espionage operation. Camelot contractors, notably sociologist Jesse Bernard of American University, replied that the criticism was "laughable" because Camelot's had been "designed as a scientific research project" in which me countries selected for study made "no difference." The argument escalated from there. See House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Behavioral Sciences and the National Security, Report No. 4, 89th Cong. 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965); Jesse Bernard, "Conflict as Research and Research as Conflict," in Irving Louis Horowitz, The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974), p. 129n. 98. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army's Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53. 99. For example, Executive Office of the President, "NSAM No. 308: A Program to Promote Publicly U.S. Policies in Vietnam" (June 22, 1964); McGeorge Bundy, "NSAM No. 328: Military Actions in Vietnam" (April 6, 1965); "NSAM No. 329: Establishment of a Task Force on Southeast Asian Economic and Social Development" (April 9, 1965); and "NSAM No. 330: Expanded Psychological Operations in Vietnam" (April 9, 1965); each was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller General. 100. On Lerner, Riley, Davison, Cottrell, and Pool, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army's LimitedWar Mission, pp. xvi, 151-59, 199-202, 282-86. On Pool, Davison, and Schramm, see Pool, Social Science Research and National Security, pp. 1-74. On Lasswell, see Harold Lasswell, World Revolutionary Elites: Studies in Coercive Ideological Movements (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright C. Simpson 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.
Posted by: acharya Feb 12 2004, 05:08 PM
Spying, Secrecy and the University The CIA is Back on Campus By DAVID N. GIBBS A final danger is that academic collaboration with the CIA will present a conflict of interest, and this danger is especially serious for social scientists who specialize in the study of international relations. The CIA is after all a major player in many of the international conflicts that social scientists must study. Working for the CIA--especially if it is done clandestinely--can compromise researchers' independence. This objective was recently suggested by CIA official John Phillips, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. His choice of words is revealing: "We don't want to turn [academics] into spies... We want to capture them intellectually."25 Phillips' comments referred to academics in the "hard" sciences, but there is no reason to assume that the Agency's objectives are any different in the social sciences. The possibility that academics have been intellectually captured by an agency of the state is disturbing. However, this process was well established during the Cold War. Consider the case of Professor Conyers Reed, who served as president of the American Historical Association. In his 1949 presidential address, Professor Reed made the following statements: Discipline is the essential prerequisite of every effective army whether it marches under the Stars and Stripes or under the Hammer and Sickle... Total war, whether it be hot or cold, enlists everyone and calls upon everyone to assume his part. The historian is no freer from this obligation than the physicist... This sounds like the advocacy of one form of social control as against another. In short, it is.26 The attitudes expressed above are surely remarkable for a prominent academic working in a democratic society.
Posted by: Mudy Feb 12 2004, 07:20 PM
Daniel Lerner contended that "urbanization, industrialization, secularization [and] communications" were elements of a typology of modernization that could be measured and shaped in order to secure a desirable outcome from the point of view of the U.S. government
Very well seen in today's India. Western media is shaping young kids mind. JNU with its weird defination of secularism. What they are doing is slowly changing thinking? But recently it was just opposite in India. P-Secs are labeled as jokers, India refused to join Iraq vacation. Only India Inc which is twisting arm with its own interest.
Posted by: Mudy Feb 13 2004, 01:38 PM Guest Column-by Gaurang Bhatt The whitewash of the Hutton report in UK and the David Kay testimony confirmed to the world what it long suspected, that the unprovoked attack on Iraq was meant to get its oil, enrich cronies and create enough deficits to gut Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. This has led to alienation of some allies and much of the international community. It has further inflamed hatred in the Islamic world already burning due to the occupation and oppression of Palestine. The A.Q.Khan Affair and the Farce: The latest farce is being played out in Pakistan, where Dr. A.Q. Khan publicly proclaimed that he was solely responsible for spread of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea and made similar offers to Syria and Iraq without any knowledge of the ruling military elite. This is not believed anywhere in the rest of the world including even those in the regular pay of American intelligence. Chartered planes and military transports took off from Pakistani airports and landed in North Korea and were photographed by American satellites and yet the Bush administration glibly accepts these concocted fables as truth to save face, so as not to jeopardize Musharraf or his co-operation. He runs with the hare and hunts with the hound. Only the American public, the single largest collection of gullible ones in the world will buy this pig in a poke, as they bought the story that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 and aligned with Al Qaeda. Consistency with and credibility of the Bush Security Doctrine requires a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. Instead it is given a free pass without even forcing it to sign the NPT or terminating its nuclear program. Why then is America behaving seemingly contrary to its own interests and policy by going along with these blatant lies and whitewash? The answer is a paranoid fear of Musharraf’s threat of apres moi deluge. (If I go, there will be a deluge). There is another strategy that Pakistan may help to broker a peace agreement and coalition government with the Taliban to save the Karzai regime and allow America, a face saving withdrawal if necessary before the American elections. Thus a nation is betrayed by the selfish ambitions of its leaders. Mockery of the policy of spreading democracy: American action is bound to reaffirm the earlier signal, that the only way to counter American bullying is to have nuclear weapons and thus bring America to heel because of its paranoid fears. The support of Pakistan’s military coup leader with his manipulation of its constitution, courts and election process together with support of monarchies and cruel dictatorships in Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Azerbaijan and Central Asia make a complete mockery of much and repeatedly proclaimed policy of spreading democracy. Not only has America alienated its allies, engendered antipathy in other nations and hatred in the Islamic world, but also it is now becoming the laughing stock of the entire world after this Pakistani debacle. What is worse? - It has become the most important cause of increased recruitment in Islamic terrorist factions as the recent increasing insurgent attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq and repeated cancellations of international flights and Ricin attacks bear out. All this is happening in spite of enormous increases in defense and homeland security spending. Impact on US Domestic Policy: Fortunately for Bush, the antipathy of the Democratic Leadership Council and the party establishment and the collaboration of the partisan media derailed the populist Dean bid for the presidency leaving the uncharismatic Kerry as the likely opponent. He is equally bought by, paid for and beholden to the same plutarchs as the Republicans. The disenchanted young, liberals and many intellectuals and minorities will stay home and not vote, thus ensuring a Bush victory based on the southern bible belt and the mountain states, a repeat of 2000 election, unless some Afghan or Iraqi catastrophe throws a spanner in Karl Rove’s well-oiled machine. Why this invasion of Iraq? The real reasons for the invasion of Iraq was to demonstrate American power, try out the newly acquired military technology, enrich corporate cronies and acquire Iraqi oil assets and thus intimidate Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, while obtaining a permanent military presence in the region to serve as a stranglehold on the oil jugulars of Europe, Japan, China and India or other future counterbalancing powers. The strategy was a continuation of previous success in marginalizing Russia by the destabilization of its economy and eliminating its influence in Central Asia and South Caucasus. The weaning away of Kazakhstan, Kyrghizstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, began the second stage of this grand plan and the recent legitimization of the dynasty in Azerbaijan and forced resignation of Shevernadze in Georgia with installation of a new government, has completed the plan. In the meantime America has cultivated reliable oil suppliers in Mexico, West Africa (Nigeria, Gabon, Guinea) and is in the process of changing the regime in Venezuela and stabilizing Colombia. Qaddafi has been brought to heel and is likely to be an alternative source of oil in the future. The aimed for plan in Iraq, is to follow their visceral penchant for the tried and successful policy of installing an un-elected puppet government by favorably packed caucuses and hunker down in protected enclaves of sizeable military forces to exploit favorable oil concessions. The major flies in the ointment are continuing unacceptable US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and the looming perpetual budget, trade and current account deficits, presently financed by East Asian mercantilism and need to provide jobs to restless masses. These could derail the hopes of re-election of Bush Jr. despite his profligate and irresponsible spending, which with collaboration by the Federal Reserve has created a second bubble. The partisan largesse to large corporations transferring production to cheaper workers in less developed countries overseas, where there are no environmental constraints, has led to a jobless recovery adding to the misery index and generating an insecure malaise in the population. The smart remedy to divert the public from fiscal and economic worries is to draw their attention to a bigger worry, is a ruse just like home remedies that use counter-irritants like hot-packs or ice to muddle the injury messages from a limb or joint to the brain by confusing its attention with new iatrogenic nerve impulses. The specter of terrorism has served that purpose. While the Bush administration should be given credit for prevention of recurrence of another domestic catastrophe, the draconian measures used at times, have significantly altered the domestic climate and infringed on some guarantees of the Constitution. This has raised the ire of true liberals and conservatives. If the desired strategy is unsuccessful, other contingency options have to be thought of. The unrelenting guerrilla war in the Sunni triangle, the quarrels amongst the Kurds and Arabs in the north and the recently developing opposition in the Shia South, could all further unravel the grand plan of Rove and Bush. Indonesia is facing a rebellion in its Aceh province. Saudi Arabia is mired in domestic unrest and terrorism. Pakistan is a failing state. Iran due to oppressive tyranny of its clerics is an economic basket case ripe for another revolution. Various rebel and extremist fractions are bubbling under the surface in Central Asia and South Caucasus. Further active fomenting of separatist factions in Iraq or abandonment of it to permit a Civil War and fragmentation would destabilize the Turkish-Kurdish border and similar unrest could develop at Iran’s borders with Kurds and Azerbaijan. The last resort for America is to hunker down with Iraqi oil, ignore the unrest and foment more unrest in the other oil producers. This ability to bring the whole world economic edifice tumbling down without personal damage, as Joshua did to the walls of Jericho by blowing the trumpets in the biblical story, is the Joshua Option. This is one better than Israel’s Samson option which destroys the oil producers but also finishes Israel. It would lead to chaos that would make the dollar strong, bring the world to its knees and leave America relatively unscathed. It could then indulge in a satisfactory smirk and tell everyone else,” We told you so” and boast that it is the only one that can be a stabilizing force, the world over. The China Factor: The coming election in Taiwan may discredit the referendum seeking, independence minded Presidential candidate. The Taiwan capitalists have already been stalemated by the fear of loss of their over hundred billion capital tied up on the mainland. France, Germany and Netherlands are planning to lift the arms and high technology embargo on China despite US opposition. China has already increased its saber rattling against Taiwan by increased deployment of offensive missiles across the Taiwan Straits. It is waiting for an opportunity to see America further bogged down in the mire of spread out global conflicts, beyond its manpower and financial capabilities. A shrewd China may cease the opportunity to re-unite Taiwan, but it will be forced to sell itself into concubinage for oil, like it did once before for opium. Conclusion: The fragile rapprochement between India and Pakistan will unravel and depending on how pre-occupied America and China are, and how much it can shake off its intimidation and hesitancy by a backbone transplant, a final showdown is likely to occur on the subcontinent with resultant devastation. There is an equally strong likelihood that it will sputter on in its indecisive Hindu Trishanku state, just as it stuck to its Hindu rate of growth during its pseudo-socialist Avtaar and continues its current subservient incarnation. Japan will suffer the oil shortages that led to Pearl Harbor but this time will react like a Geisha instead of like a Samurai previously. Russia will reassert its hegemony over the CIS. A United Europe will become the handmaiden of America once again due to oil starvation of its economy. And history will repeat itself in reverse, from farce to tragedy.
Posted by: Mudy Feb 15 2004, 11:03 PM by B.Raman, CAMP HERZLLIYA, ISRAEL
Posted by: Mudy Feb 15 2004, 11:08 PM biggrin.gif by Hari Sud
Posted by: Kaushal Feb 18 2004, 07:44 AM
As always a perceptive article that is right on the money by Gaurang Bhatt in
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Feb 18 2004, 10:03 AM
The recent events suggest that Kerry does stand a chance. Bush is not at all assured of a second term automatically, though he may still get it. The indications are that he is indeed spending indiscriminately and within the US government there seems to be a sense of disapproval amongst the federal employees due to his schemes of salary disbursement and question high salaries in certain divisions. The general prognosis of this is going to be a difficulty in getting reliable news. Given that the US media is carefully modulated by the Gov we are not going to hear too much of the crap happening in Iraq. Further Afghanistan will be completely taken out of the radar, because Dubya may want to showcase it as a great example of his success in the WOT. We may hence not even know much if a mess is playing out in Afg. Finally, a new development has happened- Haiti. A coup seems to be underway. Given that the US has traditionally interfered in Haiti right from when it obtained freedom from the white powers and became the first independent black nation. It has subtly tried to undermine and smear the African religion of Voodoo and replace it with various Christian denominations. It the coup is by pro-US agents then we may see nothing, if it is the other way around then the US may be obliged to act in its backyard. (remember the Aristide affair?)
Posted by: Mudy Feb 18 2004, 10:43 AM
France want foreign peacekeepers in Haiti (France former colony) and US is against. US is banking on political settlement. ''There is frankly no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence,'' Powell said US is playing game here. SOME UNDESIRABLES ''We also have some individuals coming back into the country who had formerly been excluded from civil life in Haiti for very good reasons -- they're murderers and thugs, and we can't expect anyone to deal with these kinds of individuals,'' Powell said. He was referring to members and paramilitary supporters of the brutal military dictatorship that toppled Aristide from 1991 to 1994, when U.S. troops invaded the Caribbean country, who are backing the anti-Aristide gangs in the current revolt.
Posted by: Viren Feb 23 2004, 02:43 PM
Came in via email........ --------------------------------- CATO Institute is a major think tank in Washington DC. CATO has prepared a "Handbook for Congress" containing policy recommendations for the 108th (the present) Congress. It was published last year. Section 55 deals with "Policy toward India and Pakistan." Following are the highlights of its recommendations: The U.S. government should: ** focus on democratic India as a leading diplomatic and economic partner of the United States in South Asia and as a strategic counterbalance to China, ** reassess economic and military ties with Pakistan as part of a policy of U.S. "constructive disengagement" from that unstable military dictatorship, ** reject plans to establish a long-term military presence in Pakistan, ** treat India as a central player in the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism and the radical Islamic forces in South Asia, ** refrain from pressing India not ohmy.gif to use its military force against terrorism emanating from Pakistan, and ** resist calls for an activist U.S. diplomatic role in mediating the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The full chapter can be read at:
Posted by: rajesh_g Feb 25 2004, 05:21 PM How religion defines America By Dr Richard Land Southern Baptist Convention Unlike some other Western countries, the United States remains an overwhelmingly religious society. The BBC programme What the World Thinks of God examines the modern world's relationship with God. Among those taking part is Dr Richard Land who explains how profoundly religion influences American society and politics. The USA is a very religious society. Evidence abounds demonstrating Americans' deep and abiding religious convictions. A Gallup Poll released in November 2003 found that six out of ten Americans said that religion was "very important" in their lives. FAITH IN AMERICA Protestant (White Evangelical) 30% Roman Catholics 25% Protestant (Liberal) 20% Protestant (African-American) 8% Jewish 2% Other 15% Source: City University of New York (2001) In contrast, in Canada and the United Kingdom, two societies often perceived as quite similar to the United States, only 28% and 17% respectively described religion as similarly important in their lives. A survey done in 2001 by the City University of New York graduated.gif Center found that 85% of Americans identify with some religious faith. The same study concluded that by most standards the United States was a more professingly religious country than any European nations except Ireland and Poland. Conservative belief Most Americans believe in the literal truth of Old Testament stories The religious convictions of Americans tend toward the conservative end of the spectrum. An ABC news poll, done in February 2004, found that approximately 60% of Americans believe that the Genesis creation account, Noah's ark and a global flood, and Moses' parting of the Red Sea are "literally true." Belief in the literal veracity of these biblical accounts was highest among the fastest growing segment of American faith, evangelical Protestantism (nearly 90% acceptance). How does such robust religious faith impact and influence American government and the nation's domestic and foreign policies? Religious vote An ABC news exit poll taken on Election Day 2000 found that among the 42% of voters who attended religious services at least once a week, 58% voted for Bush. Conversely, Gore won 61% among the 14% of Americans who reported they never attended religious services. Perhaps 40% of President Bush's total raw vote was provided by self-identified "evangelical" Christians Dr Richard Land It is difficult to imagine the United States electing a candidate with the beliefs and policies of a George W. Bush, or for that matter a Ronald Reagan, without the strong role an increasingly conservative faith plays in tens of millions of Americans' lives. Some estimates conclude that perhaps 40% of President Bush's total raw vote was provided by self-identified "evangelical" Christians. Religion and society How does this deep and abiding religious belief impact American society? According to an ICM poll in January 2004, Americans believe in the supernatural (91%), an afterlife (74%), "belief in a God/higher power makes you a better human being" (82%), God or a higher power judged their actions (76%), and perhaps most tellingly "would die for their God/beliefs" (71%). In 1880 Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov that "If God does not exist, then everything is permissible." The history of his native Russia, wracked by the atrocities of atheistic communism for most of the 20th century, serves as a most graphic example of the truth of his conclusion. Nazism, above all detested religion because it called for allegiance to something greater than the state, namely God. President Bush at the opening of a Bible fellowship centre in Texas When 71% of Americans say they would die for their faith, they are pledging allegiance to a loyalty beyond their loyalty to their country and are saying the exact polar opposite of "my country, right or wrong." It is very important at this point to make a critical distinction: to be willing to die for one's faith is utterly different than to kill for it. The overwhelming majority of Americans, religious and otherwise, would never feel that it is morally acceptable to kill, or even discriminate against, someone because they were of a differing faith or no faith. As an evangelical Christian, I would not only die for my faith, I would die for any person's right to live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciences. My personal commitment to the soul liberty of every human being is as deep as my commitment to Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord. Like virtually all Americans of faith, I believe that a person's relationship to his or her God is a sacred matter which no other human being or group of human beings (government or religious communion) has the right to forcibly interfere with or seek to coerce. As an evangelical Christian I believe in the right to share my faith and to seek to persuade others, as they have an equal right to seek to persuade me, but force or coercion - never!
Posted by: Kaushal Feb 26 2004, 07:05 PM
Tom Friedman needs no convincing on the benefits of globalization. It should be dawning on everybody that globalization is a 2 way street. THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED COLUMNIST What Goes Around . . . By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: February 26, 2004 BANGALORE, India I've been in India for only a few days and I am already thinking about reincarnation. In my next life, I want to be a demagogue. Yes, I want to be able to huff and puff about complex issues — like outsourcing of jobs to India — without any reference to reality. Unfortunately, in this life, I'm stuck in the body of a reporter/columnist. So when I came to the 24/7 Customer call center in Bangalore to observe hundreds of Indian young people doing service jobs via long distance — answering the phones for U.S. firms, providing technical support for U.S. computer giants or selling credit cards for global banks — I was prepared to denounce the whole thing. "How can it be good for America to have all these Indians doing our white-collar jobs?" I asked 24/7's founder, S. Nagarajan. Well, he answered patiently, "look around this office." All the computers are from Compaq. The basic software is from Microsoft. The phones are from Lucent. The air-conditioning is by Carrier, and even the bottled water is by Coke, because when it comes to drinking water in India, people want a trusted brand. On top of all this, says Mr. Nagarajan, 90 percent of the shares in 24/7 are owned by U.S. investors. This explains why, although the U.S. has lost some service jobs to India, total exports from U.S. companies to India have grown from $2.5 billion in 1990 to $4.1 billion in 2002. What goes around comes around, and also benefits Americans. Consider one of the newest products to be outsourced to India: animation. Yes, a lot of your Saturday morning cartoons are drawn by Indian animators like JadooWorks, founded three years ago here in Bangalore. India, though, did not take these basic animation jobs from Americans. For 20 years they had been outsourced by U.S. movie companies, first to Japan and then to the Philippines, Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The sophisticated, and more lucrative, preproduction, finishing and marketing of the animated films, though, always remained in America. Indian animation companies took the business away from the other Asians by proving to be more adept at both the hand-drawing of characters and the digital painting of each frame by computer — at a lower price. Indian artists had two advantages, explained Ashish Kulkarni, C.O.O. of JadooWorks. "They spoke English, so they could take instruction from the American directors easily, and they were comfortable doing coloring digitally." India has an abundance of traditional artists, who were able to make the transition easily to computerized digital painting. Most of these artists are the children of Hindu temple sculptors and painters. Explained Mr. Kulkarni: "We train them to transform their traditional skills to animation in a digital format." But to keep up their traditional Indian painting skills, JadooWorks has a room set aside — because the two skills reinforce each other. In short, thanks to globalization, a whole new generation of Indian traditional artists can keep up their craft rather than drive taxis to earn a living. But here's where the story really gets interesting. JadooWorks has decided to produce its own animated epic about the childhood of Krishna. To write the script, though, it wanted the best storyteller it could find and outsourced the project to an Emmy Award-winning U.S. animation writer, Jeffrey Scott — for an Indian epic! "We are also doing all the voices with American actors in Los Angeles," says Mr. Kulkarni. And the music is being written in London. JadooWorks also creates computer games for the global market but outsources all the design concepts to U.S. and British game designers. All the computers and animation software at JadooWorks have also been imported from America (H.P. and I.B.M.) or Canada, and half the staff walk around in American-branded clothing. "It's unfair that you want all your products marketed globally," argues Mr. Kulkarni, "but you don't want any jobs to go." He's right. Which is why we must design the right public policies to keep America competitive in an increasingly networked world, where every company — Indian or American — will seek to assemble the best skills from around the globe. And we must cushion those Americans hurt by the outsourcing of their jobs. But let's not be stupid and just start throwing up protectionist walls, in reaction to what seems to be happening on the surface. Because beneath the surface, what's going around is also coming around. Even an Indian cartoon company isn't just taking American jobs, it's also making them. -- Powered by PanWebMailer :::: ::::
Posted by: rajesh_g Feb 27 2004, 11:34 AM
I wish Ram Madhav had directly targetted State Department mullahs.. Good reply, in general.. RSS slams 'Globo-cop' Bush NILANJANA BHADURI JHA/TIMESOFINDIA.COM [ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2004 05:06:20 PM ] NEW DELHI: Look who’s bashing George Bush now. It’s the RSS, slamming the US for playing “Globo-cop.” The Sangh picked up from where Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee left it this week at a BJP minorities meet. Vajpayee’s oblique reference was clearly aimed at Iraq-sympathisers in the largely Muslim gathering. The RSS has been provoked by the US State Department’s annual human rights report, which has described Indian democracy as “flawed”. RSS spokesman Ram Madhav on Thursday described it as an “insult to the democratic people of our country” and “a direct interference in the internal matters of India.”. The Sangh has asked the Indian government to lodge “strong protests with the US for infringing on the sovereignty of our country.” US President George Bush, bound for another election, came in for some hammering: “It will be the saddest day for India if it were to seek lessons on democracy, communal harmony, social justice etc from a country which is run by a person who assumed Presidency despite losing public vote...a democracy that was made to hang precariously for one full month because of its inability to decide who actually won.” There is more. The RSS also described American democracy as one where “Presidents lose elections if their wives do not make up properly for campaigns.” And, “a nation that imprisons hundreds for years without trial using draconian laws, a nation that harasses its own minorities like ISKON, OSHO...and a nation that runs amok over countries like Iraq.” Whereas Indian democracy, said the Sangh , was a vibrant one “where even strong and mighty bite the dust and governments change at the drop of a hat through a perfect democratic coup of the people of India without a single drop of blood flowing.” On Wednesday, Vajpayee had not taken names when he said: “One power is trying to take over the world, we should not allow that to happen.”
Posted by: Mudy Feb 29 2004, 09:37 AM Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-12, 2004. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Next, I'd like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. Is your overall opinion of [see below] very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?" Favorable Unfavorable % % Australia 2/9-12/04 88 7 Great Britain 2/9-12/04 87 10 3/14-15/03 86 9 2/3-6/03 89 6 Canada 2/9-12/04 87 11 Japan 2/9-12/04 75 20 Germany 2/9-12/04 69 26 3/14-15/03 49 44 2/3-6/03 71 21 Mexico 2/9-12/04 68 27 Brazil 2/9-12/04 66 21 India 2/9-12/04 61 29 Israel 2/9-12/04 59 35 Russia 2/9-12/04 59 35 3/14-15/03 41 52 2/3-6/03 63 26 Egypt 2/9-12/04 58 32 France 2/9-12/04 47 49 3/14-15/03 34 64 2/3-6/03 59 33 China 2/9-12/04 41 54 Pakistan 2/9-12/04 28 64 Afghanistan 2/9-12/04 28 65 Saudi Arabia 2/9-12/04 28 66 Cuba 2/9-12/04 28 67 Libya 2/9-12/04 25 63 Iraq 2/9-12/04 21 74 3/14-15/03 5 93 2/3-6/03 5 90 Iran 2/9-12/04 17 77 3/14-15/03 13 79 2/3-6/03 13 77 The Palestinian Authority 2/9-12/04 15 76 North Korea 2/9-12/04 12 83 3/14-15/03 8 86 2/3-6/03 12 80
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Feb 29 2004, 10:23 AM
The results are interesting. In the collective American mind the world is broadly divided into 3 categories: 1)The anglosphere: "our people" the most favorable group. 2) The Non-enemies/passing friends: The middle group including everything from Germany (same ethnicity, but non-English speaking) to Israel. With India falling in this category. 3) The enemies: The rest of them all. I believe this public perception is largely reflected in American foreign policy. However there are at least two prominent exceptions. 1) TSP- By the public American perception TSP is an enemy. Most of us who have lived in the US may have seen that the average American more often than not clearly understands TSP to be trouble monger. But the American foreign policy projects TSP as a stalwart ally cum bed mate. The only possible way I can interpret this is that it is an ally against India. India falling in the middle category of non-enemies and with no really point of quarrel with the US cannot be easily demonized. However, it is definitely a competitor to the US and needs to be contained. I believe it is no longer a Cold War hangover for Russia is already in the middle and not last category suggesting that the effects of the CW are wearing out. 2) Israel. The general American population sees Israel as only a lukewarm friend. This is generally reflected in the ongoing difficulties in Jewish-Christian relationships. However, the foreign policy projects Israel as a stalwart ally. The reason is same as TSP- a handle to control the ME.
Posted by: rajesh_g Mar 1 2004, 12:47 PM
Attn : State Department.. tongue.gif Racial biases exist across US society: China By Indo-Asian News Service Beijing, Mar 1 (IANS) Racial discrimination in the US has permeated every level of society, according to a report by a Chinese state body released Monday. The Information Office of the State Council of China says blacks and coloured people received twice or three times more severe penalties than whites for the same crimes, and black people who received the death penalty for killing whites were four times more than white people for killing blacks, reported Xinhua. In state prisons nationwide, about 47 percent of the inmates were black people, and 16 percent were people of Latin American ancestry, it says. The poverty and joblessness rates of US blacks remained high, it says. According to statistics of the US Department of Labour, white people's unemployment rate in the US was 5.2 percent in November 2003, while the rate was as high as 10.2 percent for the blacks, almost twice that of the whites. The poverty rate of blacks was 24.1 percent in 2002, up 1.4 percent over the 22.7 percent rate in 2001, the US Census Bureau is quoted as saying. The Chinese government body's report says 20.2 percent of the blacks were without health insurance, and the average annual income median of black families was 40 percent less than the ordinary median of white families. Racial discrimination exists in the US real estate market, too. In 2002, the US federal government received a total of 25,246 discrimination accusations in the housing market, 72 percent of which were from the families of black people, disabled people or those families with children, it says. Apartheid recurs at school, says the report, noting that more than one-third of American students of African origin are studying in schools where over 90 percent of students are non-white people. Since 1988, many schools abandoned the compulsory racial integration in classes due to a series of court verdicts and changes in federal policies, it says. Less proportion of coloured races can go to universities than white people. Forty percent of black people and 34 percent of Hispanic Americans from 18 to 24 years can go to university, while 46 percent of white people can go to university, said a report of the American Council on Education in October 2003. The US discrimination toward immigrants seems to be increasing. A report shows that 1,200 immigrants were detained in the US with no indictment, and at least 484 people are still in custody. To date, the US government still refuses to reveal the identity of these people, says the report. Immigrant children are maltreated. The record quotes a report from Amnesty International as saying at least 5,000 children going to the US to find relatives, or avoid abuse and mistreatment, wars and recruiting by domestic rebels were put into custody in the US.
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 1 2004, 07:03 PM
30 Little Turtles By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: February 29, 2004 - BANGALORE, India Indians are so hospitable. I got an ovation the other day from a roomful of Indian 20-year-olds just for reading perfectly the following paragraph: "A bottle of bottled water held 30 little turtles. It didn't matter that each turtle had to rattle a metal ladle in order to get a little bit of noodles, a total turtle delicacy. The problem was that there were many turtle battles for less than oodles of noodles." I was sitting in on an "accent neutralization" class at the Indian call center 24/7 Customer. The instructor was teaching the would-be Indian call center operators to suppress their native Indian accents and speak with a Canadian one — she teaches British and U.S. accents as well, but these youths will be serving the Canadian market. Since I'm originally from Minnesota, near Canada, and still speak like someone out of the movie "Fargo," I gave these young Indians an authentic rendition of "30 Little Turtles," which is designed to teach them the proper Canadian pronunciations. Hence the rousing applause. Watching these incredibly enthusiastic young Indians preparing for their call center jobs — earnestly trying to soften their t's and roll their r's — is an uplifting experience, especially when you hear from their friends already working these jobs how they have transformed their lives. Most of them still live at home and turn over part of their salaries to their parents, so the whole family benefits. Many have credit cards and have become real consumers, including of U.S. goods, for the first time. All of them seem to have gained self-confidence and self-worth. A lot of these Indian young men and women have college degrees, but would never get a local job that starts at $200 to $300 a month were it not for the call centers. Some do "outbound" calls, selling things from credit cards to phone services to Americans and Europeans. Others deal with "inbound" calls — everything from tracing lost luggage for U.S. airline passengers to solving computer problems for U.S. customers. The calls are transferred here by satellite or fiber optic cable. I was most taken by a young Indian engineer doing tech support for a U.S. software giant, who spoke with pride about how cool it is to tell his friends that he just spent the day helping Americans navigate their software. A majority of these call center workers are young women, who not only have been liberated by earning a decent local wage (and therefore have more choice in whom they marry), but are using the job to get M.B.A.'s and other degrees on the side. I gathered a group together, and here's what they sound like: M. Dinesh, who does tech support, says his day is made when some American calls in with a problem and is actually happy to hear an Indian voice: "They say you people are really good at what you do. I am glad I reached an Indian." Kiran Menon, when asked who his role model was, shot back: "Bill Gates — [I dream of] starting my own company and making it that big." I asked C. M. Meghna what she got most out of the work: "Self-confidence," she said, "a lot of self-confidence, when people come to you with a problem and you can solve it — and having a lot of independence." Because the call center teams work through India's night — which corresponds to America's day — "your biological clock goes haywire," she added. "Besides that, it's great." There is nothing more positive than the self-confidence, dignity and optimism that comes from a society knowing it is producing wealth by tapping its own brains — men's and women's — as opposed to one just tapping its own oil, let alone one that is so lost it can find dignity only through suicide and "martyrdom." Indeed, listening to these Indian young people, I had a déjà vu. Five months ago, I was in Ramallah, on the West Bank, talking to three young Palestinian men, also in their 20's, one of whom was studying engineering. Their hero was Yasir Arafat. They talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and they each nodded when one of them said they were all "suicide bombers in waiting." What am I saying here? That it's more important for young Indians to have jobs than Americans? Never. But I am saying that there is more to outsourcing than just economics. There's also geopolitics. It is inevitable in a networked world that our economy is going to shed certain low-wage, low-prestige jobs. To the extent that they go to places like India or Pakistan — where they are viewed as high-wage, high-prestige jobs — we make not only a more prosperous world, but a safer world for our own 20-year-olds.
Posted by: Nalwa Mar 1 2004, 08:26 PM
Reading the article above by Friedman makes my blood boil. I know this guy is well meaning, and generally not anti-India, but his condesencion just shines through. When these american's wax eloquent about off-shore jobs and make it sound like they are doing us a favour - tab khoon khaul jaata hai. furious.gif you want the whole world to buy your products and services and have evangalized about free trade for decades. You think that we should keep buying, not selling? If american companies (which by the way derive as much as 50% of their revenues and profit from overseas sales) want to sell to the world, they have to manufacture products and services in the most competitive place. For Software and other services that happens to be India these days. You are not doing us any favor. Our kids are not going to become terrorists if they don't have call center jobs mad.gif That would be the ficking Islamics. As in America's " favourite allies" Pukistan, Saudi, Egypt and now Palestenians
Posted by: vishal Mar 2 2004, 01:28 PM
QUOTE (Mudy @ Feb 13 2004, 07:50 AM)
Daniel Lerner contended that "urbanization, industrialization, secularization [and] communications" were elements of a typology of modernization that could be measured and shaped in order to secure a desirable outcome from the point of view of the U.S. government
Very well seen in today's India. Western media is shaping young kids mind. JNU with its weird defination of secularism. What they are doing is slowly changing thinking? But recently it was just opposite in India. P-Secs are labeled as jokers, India refused to join Iraq vacation. Only India Inc which is twisting arm with its own interest.
our agencies know this or not?! unsure.gif
Posted by: Mudy Mar 2 2004, 04:31 PM
our agencies know this or not?!
They do, but p-sec politicians are problem here. Wilson John President George W. Bush is a desperate man today. He wants Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. More than 12000 US troops, including a 1400-men strong elite commando unit known as Task Force 121, are in Pakistan and Afghanistan hunting for Laden. Supporting them is a 70,000-strong contingent from President Pervez Musharraf’s Army. There are several thousand more intelligence operatives, from the FBI, the CIA and ISI combing the region for a single man. At no time has the world’s super power launched such a massive manhunt for a single individual. .....
Posted by: Viren Mar 3 2004, 09:03 AM
received from Dear Friends: Of the three Senators who attended the Pakistani function in New York mentioned in the newspaper (see below), Harkins is a known quantity. He has been a Pakistani supporter for a long time. It looks like his present term as Senator goes up to 2008. To send an e-mail to Senator Harkin, please click: Fax: (202) 224-9369 From the report it does not look like Senator Corzine supported the Pakistani position. However, he should be asked to clarify his position. To send an e-mail to Senator Corzine, click: Fax: (202) 228-2197 Senator Schumer is noted for his prejudice against Indian Americans. But until this time I do not recall him having said anything against India's vital interests. He is now reported to have said that "he believed in the principle of self-determination to resolve the Kashmir problem. At the same time, he called for an end to violence in the territory". He needs to be firmly told that there is no question of self-determination for a part of India just as there cannot be any self-determination for the Southern States of the United States which wanted to break away in 1860. His re-election is coming this year - November 2004. Indian Americans need to engage him to find out if he really made or believes in the unacceptable statement that's attributed to him and then decide whether they should fund him or vote for him. According to a report in the Buffalo News of February 26, promising an aggressive campaign for a race he calls "winnable," New York State Assemblyman Howard Mills of Orange County has declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat held by Schumer. The report cited Mills' ability to raise money and said he will have enough to compete with Schumer's $20 million campaign treasury. To write to Senator Schumer, click: Fax: (202) 228-3027 If you wish to establish contact with New York State Assemblyman Howard Mills to educate him on US-India relations, please click: Ph: (518) 455-5991 Fax: (518) 455-5929
QUOTE THE NATION (PAKISTANI NEWSPAPER), FEBRUARY 29, 2004 Three US Senators back Pak stand on Kashmir FROM IFTIKHAR ALI NEW YORK - Three US Senators belonging the opposition Democratic party Friday night pledged to defend Pakistan's interests in Congress, and called for settling the Kashmir dispute by allowing the people of the state to speak for themselves. In their speeches at a dinner hosted by the Pakistani community and while talking to Pakistani journalists, they also praised President Pervez Musharraf for joining the war on terrorism and for the 'good job' he was doing at home. 'There is a general desire to keep President Musharraf in power,' Sen. Chuck Schummar of Brooklyn New York said. Sen. Tom Harkins of Iowa was the most vocal on Kashmir. Amidst applause, he called for a UN-supervised free and fair plebiscite following the withdrawal of all military troops from the state. Such a course, he said, was the most democratic way to resolve the long-standing dispute. Senator. Jon Corzine of New Jersey called for a just solution of the Kashmir dispute, based on 'people's choice'. Senator. Schummar welcomed the start of a dialogue between Pakistan and India and said he believed in the principle of self-determination to resolve the Kashmir problem. At the same time, he called for an end to violence in the territory. Senators Harkin and Corzine urged Washington to play the role of an 'honest broker' in resolving the differences between India and Pakistan. The well-attended dinner at a local hotel was arranged by a committee representing the Pakistanis settled in and around New York area to raise funds for the Democratic party candidates in the November elections. This is probably the first time that the Pakistanis have been able to attract to their function three senior senators who seemed impressed by the turnout. Among the guests was Pakistan's Consul General in New York Haroon Shaukat and some prominent politicians. Shafqat Tanveer, an accountant by profession, helped by Shahid Khan and Dr. Salman Zafar, worked hard to organise the impressive function. In fact, he was the moving spirit behind the move. Shahid Khan and Dr. Salman Zafar made moving presentations about the way Pakistanis were harassed after the 9/11 attacks in total violation of their rights, despite the fact that Islamabad has always sided with the United States. They told them how much Pakistan had suffered on account of its pro-American policies. The Senators warmly praised the contribution made by the Pakistani immigrants to the advancement of their adopted country- the United States. They expressed deep sorrow over the hardships the Pakistanis had faced and pledged to amend the tough Patriotic Act, under which Muslim people were persecuted, as also the immigration policy. Both the legislations were enacted by the Bush administration, which came under strong attack at the function. The three senators said that immigrants were an asset to the United States and no one should be discriminated on the basis of his colour and ethnicity. The senators made it a point to say that going after the terrorists should not be taken as a conflict between the West and Islam. 'This is a war against those spreading chaos,' Sen. Corzine said. They urged the Pakistanis to support the Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry in his bid to oust President Bush. They said Mr. Kerry would ensure justice for all and make the promotion of democracy and human rights around the world as his priorities. When a journalist drew attention to the ongoing media campaign against Pakistan on the nuclear question, Senator Corzine, while expressing his regrets, said some people were using it as a 'political tool' to suit their ends. But Mr. Schummar said the sale of nuclear weapons' technology was a 'bad thing.' Stating that he had great respect for Pakistan and its founder, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Senator Harkin said he would soon be visiting the country. If the democrats were voted to power, he would make spreading of education in Pakistan as a top priority to fulfil the dream of the Quaid.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 3 2004, 01:58 PM
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 7 2004, 08:07 AM
Whether condescending or not, I have to agree with Tom Friedman in his remarks on what makes America so unique. I have been living here (in India now for a few weeks) and it is clear that there are many qualities that Americans have that Indians would do well to emulate. This does not mean discarding everything that we now have, but learning from others where appropriate. Innovativeness, thinking out of the box, courageous decision making and even simple things like discipline in driving ... Indians have a long way to go before they can compete at world class levels. THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED COLUMNIST The Secret of Our Sauce By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: March 7, 2004 BANGALORE, India Yamini Narayanan is an Indian-born 35-year-old with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma. After graduation, she worked for a U.S. computer company in Virginia and recently moved back to Bangalore with her husband to be closer to family. When I asked her how she felt about the outsourcing of jobs from her adopted country, America, to her native country, India, she responded with a revealing story: "I just read about a guy in America who lost his job to India and he made a T-shirt that said, `I lost my job to India and all I got was this [lousy] T-shirt.' And he made all kinds of money." Only in America, she said, shaking her head, would someone figure out how to profit from his own unemployment. And that, she insisted, was the reason America need not fear outsourcing to India: America is so much more innovative a place than any other country. There is a reason the "next big thing" almost always comes out of America, said Mrs. Narayanan. When she and her husband came back to live in Bangalore and enrolled their son in a good private school, he found himself totally stifled because of the emphasis on rote learning — rather than the independent thinking he was exposed to in his U.S. school. They had to take him out and look for another, more avant-garde private school. "America allows you to explore your mind," she said. The whole concept of outsourcing was actually invented in America, added her husband, Sean, because no one else figured it out. The Narayanans are worth listening to at this time of rising insecurity over white-collar job losses to India. America is the greatest engine of innovation that has ever existed, and it can't be duplicated anytime soon, because it is the product of a multitude of factors: extreme freedom of thought, an emphasis on independent thinking, a steady immigration of new minds, a risk-taking culture with no stigma attached to trying and failing, a noncorrupt bureaucracy, and financial markets and a venture capital system that are unrivaled at taking new ideas and turning them into global products. "You have this whole ecosystem [that constitutes] a unique crucible for innovation," said Nandan Nilekani, the C.E.O. of Infosys, India's I.B.M. "I was in Europe the other day and they were commiserating about the 400,000 [European] knowledge workers who have gone to live in the U.S. because of the innovative environment there. The whole process where people get an idea and put together a team, raise the capital, create a product and mainstream it — that can only be done in the U.S. It can't be done sitting in India. The Indian part of the equation [is to help] these innovative companies bring their products to the market quicker, cheaper and better, which increases the innovative cycle there. It is a complimentarity we need to enhance." That is so right. As Robert Hof, a tech writer for Business Week, noted, U.S. tech workers "must keep creating leading edge technologies that make their companies more productive — especially innovations that spark entirely new markets." The same tech innovations that produced outsourcing, he noted, also produced eBay,, Google and thousands of new jobs along with them. This is America's real edge. Sure Bangalore has a lot of engineering schools, but the local government is rife with corruption; half the city has no sidewalks; there are constant electricity blackouts; the rivers are choked with pollution; the public school system is dysfunctional; beggars dart in and out of the traffic, which is in constant gridlock; and the whole infrastructure is falling apart. The big high-tech firms here reside on beautiful, walled campuses, because they maintain their own water, electricity and communications systems. They thrive by defying their political-economic environment, not by emerging from it. What would Indian techies give for just one day of America's rule of law; its dependable, regulated financial markets; its efficient, noncorrupt bureaucracy; and its best public schools and universities? They'd give a lot. These institutions, which nurture innovation, are our real crown jewels that must be protected — not the 1 percent of jobs that might be outsourced. But it is precisely these crown jewels that can be squandered if we become lazy, or engage in mindless protectionism, or persist in radical tax cutting that can only erode the strength and quality of our government and educational institutions. Our competitors know the secret of our sauce. But do we?
Posted by: Nalwa Mar 7 2004, 10:02 AM
I agree that Indians have much to learn from the Americans. Friedman is not a hypocrite like Lou Dobbs is. I only hope that the so called "opinion leaders" of the U.S would stop being dishonest about India, outsourcing and where they stand on free- trade. Many of them are basically indulging in hate mongering, leading to a reinforcement of mutual hate, when mutual ccoperation is the order of the day. I would be as upset if Indian opinion leaders (excluding the Kaangress Islami cool.gif ) started saying that we will not buy any american products because that will destroy Indian industry .
Posted by: Mudy Mar 8 2004, 08:38 PM
Posted by: acharya Mar 15 2004, 11:05 AM
Why is he meeting with Sonia Gandhi first. Has anyone noticed that Bush has called leading head of state in his crawford spot and also Mushy into camp david but the only missing person is the head of the largest democracy. Putin Chirac Blair Ziang Zemin Saudi King Japan PM German head of state Mushy to Camp David India is missing Powell arrives New Delhi, March 15. (PTI): US Secretary of State Colin Powell arrived here tonight on a two-day visit for talks during which India is likely to convey its concerns over nuclear proliferation in its neighbourhood. Powell, who arrived by a special US Air Force plane, was received by US Ambassador David Mulford and protocol officer M P Singh at Delhi airport. New Delhi's concerns have been reinforced following the admission by Pakistan's top nuclear scientist A Q Khan of illegally exporting sensitive technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Powell will start his engagements tomorrow with a meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi and then have wide-ranging discussions with External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha. He will have meetings with his old friend and Finance Minister Jaswant Singh and National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra before calling on Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the evening. Powell will visit Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he will meet President Pervez Musharraf and other leaders. Undoubtedly, the focus of his visit will be on bilateral issues that will include advancing the next steps in strategic partnership agreed to by US President George W Bush and Vajpayee in January this year.
Posted by: k.ram Mar 15 2004, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (acharya @ Mar 15 2004, 11:35 PM)
Why is he meeting with Sonia Gandhi first. Has anyone noticed that Bush has called leading head of state in his crawford spot and also Mushy into camp david but the only missing person is the head of the largest democracy.
I would urge everyone to read the book "The book on Bush - How George W. Bush (mis) leads America" to get some answers to the questions acharya raises... The authors are Eric Alterman and Mark Green.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 15 2004, 07:07 PM
Why is he meeting with Sonia Gandhi first.
Sonia may have requested for meeting to show Indian that how important she is. Powell will check from her if she can support sending troops to Iraq, if her party comes to power. If she say "Yes" Powell will check Vajpayee also. If he say "No" Powell will tell Vajpayee that we will expose you with Iraq like documents before election. Jai Powell.
Posted by: Viren Mar 17 2004, 08:30 AM
Posted by: Viren Mar 18 2004, 10:44 AM
INDIA ABROAD print edition, March 19, 2004 pages A1 and A7 COLD WARRIOR PERLE SINGS INDIA'S TUNE Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC
Richard Perle, one of the most powerful neo-conservatives in the country, was once a Cold War gladiator with an acute distrust of India. Today, Perle, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and chairman of the Defense Policy Board until last year, says he strongly endorses the strategic partnership the United States is seeking with India. In an interaction with India Abroad after he delivered his take on the security and stability in South Asia at an AEI forum, he disputed the contention that his earlier view on India was driven by a blind ideological perception that made him even block the sale of dual-use technologies like a super computer to India, and to strongly push for a strategic alliance with Pakistan, during his stint in the Reagan administration. Perle told India Abroad that he was no longer in favor of restrictions on the transfer of technology to India. "On the contrary, it's a positive development that we are working together and I think in some important respects, changes in Indian thinking have opened the way to that." "I thought they (Pakistan) were rather practical and pragmatic at the time," Perle said. "India was in a relationship with the Soviet Union that, of course, caused us concern. That situation is now changed and I certainly wouldn't apply the criteria that were appropriate then in this different situation." Further, Perle believes the transfer of high technology and cooperation in missile defense are imperative for closer ties with this fellow democracy. At one time Perle, assistant secretary of defense for International Security Policy and chairman of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization High Level Defense Group, was in the forefront of opposing dual-use technology to India and torpedoed a closer relationship with New Delhi. He noted that over three years ago, at a meeting in Munich of defense experts, "I recall listening to the Indian defense minister denouncing the idea of American strategic defense. "I put the question to him, [that] if we had a strategic defense that would intercept a Pakistani missile into India, would you object to that? I think India has now begun to change its mind about ballistic missile defense, and that's a very positive development that we can work together on. "Indeed if we had a missile defense that was comprehensive in scope, it could be helpful to both India and Pakistan in relieving the tensions that may exist from time to time that there might be a resort to nuclear missiles. "So it's a new era, and a new relationship and I am no more ideological about it today than I was during the Cold War," he argued. Perle recounted his conversation a few years ago with then external affairs minister Jaswant Singh during the latter's first visit to the United States. "I didn't quite know what to say to him, so I blurted out that I was pleased to meet him and we couldn't have possibly had a constructive conversation during the Cold War. I said, 'we would have had to listen to your insufferable claims of India's moral superiority, and you would have had to listen to our hectoring about your nuclear program.' But all of that is behind us now and so we can begin to think about a new relationship." The new-found cordiality with India did not mean the U.S. had to choose between India and Pakistan, Perle said, arguing that such a choice would be "invariably damaging both to American interests and the interests of the contending parties when we are drawn in a way that inhibits constructive relationships with both parties to a conflict." Perle, who is close to defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and deputy defense secretary Wolfowitz and thus tends to reflect the Pentagon line, aimed a salvo at the State Department when he said, "It should not be beyond the ingenuity of American policy to craft good and constructive relationships with both India and Pakistan." "I think we treated both India and Pakistan rather badly during the period in which they were acquiring their nuclear weapons." "It does seem to me that the policy of sanctioning both India and Pakistan [in the wake of their nuclear tests in May 1998] was ineffective. It simply didn't inhibit the nuclear programs either. What it did was alienate the United States from both." "It significantly diminished our influence," Perle said, "particularly where I think it was then most important with Pakistan and with the military. The fact that a generation of Pakistani military officers did not come to the United States for training, I think, was a real loss for whatever effort we might be able to make to encourage the direction in Pakistan that would be in the interest of the United States, and I believe, India." Asked if Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf could be considered a reliable ally, he argued that "if you look at the short-term situation, Pakistan is in possession of a sizable nuclear arsenal -- not one or two weapons but many weapons -- and with an Islamist movement of regrettable fervor. So there is a real problem there. "And for the moment, we have considered it essential to have someone with whom we can work, in Pakistan, and that's President Musharraf. That shouldn't be a cause of disapproval from the Indian government. "I accept fully the point that the fragility of a relationship based on a single individual is a matter of real concern. "The efforts to assassinate him -- we have all seen that and I expect those efforts will continue. "[So] whether he is the man to lead Pakistan in the new directions -- I'm not sure -- I think only time will tell. [But] with his educational background and his obvious intelligence, I would hope that Musharraf would turn out to be more than a short-term expedient in the sense that he now appears to be helping the United States in various ways, including, although it may not be perfect and comprehensive, in the war on terror." Alluding to India's complaints about double standards in the US-led war on terror, Perle said, "If we are going to win the war on terror, the integrity of our attitude toward terror must be unquestionable and absolute. And that means condemning it wherever we find it. We can't turn a blind eye to acts of terror in Kashmir." "It's going to take us some time to develop that sense of integrity because we have for too long been too close to too many dictators and we have too often turned a blind eye to terror that didn't affect us directly." "We can no longer afford that policy," Perle declared. "We have to be, in my view, quite absolute about our opposition to terror wherever we find it."
Posted by: Viren Mar 18 2004, 10:45 AM
INDIA ABROAD print edition, March 19, 2004 page A22 INTERVIEW WITH ASHLEY TELLIS The strategic expert speaks to National Affairs Editor Aziz Haniffa in a rare interview Ashley Tellis, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and one of the foremost strategic experts in the United States, is working on a book on South Asia missile defense.
After several years as Chief South Asia policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, Mumbai-born Tellis became senior advisor to U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill in New Delhi. He followed Blackwill to the National Security Council as special assistant to the President and senior director for Strategic Planning and Southwest Asia, before quitting for health reasons. He later joined Carnegie, which gave him the choice of setting his hours and freedom to research on whatever he desired. In an exclusive interview to India Abroad, Tellis talks about Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, the envisaged US-India strategic relationship and the powerful nonproliferation lobby in Administration circles and in Congress that might still scuttle India-US defense cooperation. Could some protocols in President Bush's nonproliferation initiative, which include an emphasis on treaties, have an adverse implication on India especially since New Delhi has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty? Not really. The effect of the proposals by the President are going to be marginal where India is concerned because his proposals are premised on the notion that the NPT regime in a sense will continue, and whatever he spoke about deals with how do you tighten and strengthen the regime that exists. India, by definition because it is not an NPT signatory, is outside the regime. So whatever has been proposed has no direct implication for India. You don't see it having any negative impact on the envisaged US-India strategic relationship given that the Administration has conditioned the next step of this partnership on several caveats, particularly stringent export controls? There are three areas with some sort of an intersection. First, the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative): Whether India can be brought on board. Second, additional protocol: Whether India is willing to sign it. But this is contingent on resolving the larger issue: which is, do the additional protocols work if India is not willing to sign the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency's) full safeguards. That is the question there. The third issue: What can be done cooperatively in terms of India's membership on the Special Committee. All the three are tangential because the structure of the President's proposals are premised on tightening the NPT regime and India is not part of that regime. This means that even though the President's proposals were triggered by [Pakistan's nuclear scientist] AQ Khan's shenanigans, it doesn't impact on Pakistan at all either. Exactly. That is the whole point. The three outliers -- India, Pakistan and Israel -- are affected only marginally by the President's proposal. Hypothetically, if Pakistan signs the NPT and if the U.S. offers it some recognition as a nuclear weapons state outside the NPT's specific parameters, won't that be a strategic ploy by Islamabad? It would. But how would they sign the NPT? They cannot sign the NPT as a nuclear weapons state. The only way they can sign it is as a non-nuclear weapons state and we would be delighted if they did that. But I don't foresee that happening at all. At the moment, that is impossible. Hell will freeze over if Pakistan does anything like that. In terms of the US-India strategic relationship, are you gung-ho about it from your perspective as a strategic affairs expert who has followed each and every step of this process? The commitment was made by President Bush and Prime Minister [A B Vajpayee] over two years ago and only now the President is talking about the next steps. Even on the day he announces these next steps, there's the senior State Department official holding a press briefing and conditioning these next steps with caveat after caveat. It seems as if it's still at square one. In fact, a senior Indian diplomatic official told me if the Indian foreign secretary made such statements as the U.S. official did the same day the President made this announcement, he would have been fired. I don't quite see it that way. The NSSP (Next Steps in the Strategic Partnership) as they are calling it is part of a process and it's an important part of the process because it opens the door to very substantial forms of cooperation and so it's not something to be scoffed at. [Mark] Grossman [Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs -- the U.S. equivalent of India's foreign secretary] kind of downplayed because the Administration is trying to walk a tight line between doing what is necessary to strengthen the relationship with India, while simultaneously not giving people in the U.S. room for concern. You mean the nonproliferation ayatollahs? Correct. The way I read his remarks is an attempt to walk that tightrope. The agreement will take care of what is required for India and the U.S. to do. But his remarks were aimed at calming the waters because there are lots of people concerned that the US-India relationship is moving in a direction, which would in a sense, undercut the global regime. Where do you see these Cold War warriors more in? Is it in the Pentagon or elsewhere? Are they insistent this strategic partnership not move forward unless India provides iron-clad guarantees that any dual-use technology transferred to India is not diverted either internally -- to military programs -- or externally? Isn't this a little disingenuous considering India's impeccable track record? This resistance is not in the Pentagon any more. The Pentagon has been one of the strongest advocates of US-India cooperation. I don't want to point fingers at people, but the point is they are around and they are a very powerful constituency because in some sense they have a certain world view on nonproliferation, which is a universalist understanding, whereas the Administration is trying to move toward a more discriminate understanding where there are real problems. India certainly is not among those real problems. So, can one create a set of understandings that allows for at least some limited cooperation with India, while the future of the nonproliferation regime in a sense works itself out? Not everyone agrees with this approach. There are lots of people who are wedded to the universalist approach. Besides in Administration circles, I'm sure they are all over in Congress too? Of course! They are all over the place. The agreement stands on its own and nothing that Grossman said can change what the agreement involves. In that sense the code is protected. But what he [Grossman] was trying to do was calm the people down in the U.S. who might get alarmed about the nature of the new relationship and might work to undermine it. In that sense, what he did was probably overstate the fact that there was going to be no dramatic change immediately. Does this mean overall you are overly optimistic? Oh yes, very much so. If we can satisfy the requirements of the agreement -- whatever time it takes and it's hard to judge how long it will take -- but if the requirements can be satisfied by both sides, the US-India relationship will be on a fundamentally different plane than it was two years ago. Would that open the floodgates for dual-use technology to India? Absolutely. Absolutely. How enthused were you over the expansion of the trinity of issues to a quartet, involving discussions now in missile defense? Very much! There are two people who actually are owed that. Douglas Faith [undersecretary of defense policy] in the Department of Defense and Ambassador Blackwill. They were the two people who drove that fourth element of the quartet and I am absolutely delighted. It is a very good way in which we have to proceed because we are moving in that direction -- from an offense-dominant regime to a defense-dominant regime. What role did Ambassador Blackwill play? Was he working this issue in Delhi? Absolutely. He felt this was important as this was the President's priority. When the President came into office, missile defense was very much part of his strategic vision. The Ambassador saw this as being naturally an opportunity to promote that strategic vision in Asia. You don't see this, as some have argued, leading to a growing arms race in the region? No, not really. Do you see any conflict in the U.S. saying it would enter into discussions of such cooperation with Pakistan too? Not at all! It's definitely a conversation we need to have with both sides. There is no doubt about it, because you can't do these things unilaterally.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 20 2004, 12:33 PM
Box India by vAjaratnAyana Posted on March 20, 2004 1:33 AM EST Accessed 36 Times If we look at this carefully I see a pattern (may be I am a conspiracy theorist, but I believe I am right): India: 1) BJP comes to power 2) Bombs are bursted and India finally shows its muscle. 3) Pakistan trashed at Kargil by Indian army followed, by ignomious retreat of TSP. Signal sent to the world that India is no longer shackled by the terrorist state in the open battle field. 4) TSP steps up terrorism, Nepal plane hijacking etc 5) 9-11: USA learns first hand what terrorism is all about and losses some enthusiasm in covert support for terrorism 6) Op-Parakram, India send the signal to the world that it is not afraid of nuclear war with Pakistan. Nuclear war unlikely destroy India, but TSP will be gone. 7) Hindu consciousness rising in the Indian masses and historical memories of Islamic atrocities building up. 8) Indian economy shows some improvement, signaling additions to its military muscle. USA: 1) Issues sanctions for the bombs, but notes that they cannot curb India. 2)The complex of events mentioned above make Pakistan less likely to balance India on its own on the battlefield. US 0-sum game is in peril with India threatening to become a regional power. US foreign policy 1) There has always been a gulf between the way American people act and the way their governments' foreign policy plays out. 2) The American people are largely inward-looking and prefer going about their lives in a private way, often evincing little interest in geopolitics 3) They can be easily swayed by the mass media and easily accept demonizations of distant peoples by the mass media. Observations: USA will go to any length to protect Pakistan 1) USA payed a deaf ear to India during the Mumbai blasts 2) USA allowed BCCI to penetrate its banking systems and allowed CIA aided drug trafficking rings to pay the army of Islamists 3) After 9-11 USA was talking of bombing Iraq, create the axes of Evil, but overlooked the origin of evil where the 3 axes of evil intersected. In essence it meant that the US was really casual about 9-11: see Rumsfeld's statement that we can bomb Iraq because it is rich in targets. Why not bomb Pakistan, which is also rich in targets? 4) USA overlooked the testing of bombs for North Korea by TSP 5) USA censored those sections of the 9-11 report that contained references to TSP. 6) USA overlooked the obvious Xerox Khan drama, while on the contrary it claimed to invade Iraq for the non-existent weapons of mass deception. 7) Finally, USA granted TSP, a specially ally status and monetary support. See Subrahmanyam article Why does USA act thus is an obvious question to any discerning observer? We all know that they know the real truth about TSP. Hypothesis 1: Top US officials across the political spectrum and CIA have deep ties with Islamists and fear such information spilling to the public. Counter: While it true that have such ties, there is no big fear of this spilling out because the US public can be easily duped as noted above. If they really could get away after 9-11 without much action against the real perpetrators, then other things like Xerox Khan do not matter. In general the discerning part of the American public anyhow knows that TSP is responsible for a lot of trouble. Hypothesis 2: The Anglosphere has still not forgotten the insult to its supremacy arising from India's freedom, survival and now growth. The Anglosphere brooks no challenge from the teeming black masses of Asia. So contain India is the name of the game. Step 1: Make India dependent on the anglospheric economies: outsourcing. 2: Denude Hindu culture that forms the identity of India: Call centers and penetration of Hindu mind with American/western archetypes. 3: Build up dalit, Moslem and socialist challenges to Hindu dharma 4: Occupy Pakistan and make it a special ally. Now India cannot attack Pakistan anymore. 5: Force Indian government to make the border porous in the guise of people to people contact; allow Moslems to seep in, to instigate their native brethern to conduct Jihadi activities. 6: Christian missionary assault mainly on the north east but also in the main land. Thus with these pressure points the new round of colonialism is underway.
Posted by: vishal Mar 21 2004, 01:26 AM
This theory is good.I thought same thing some time ago.And at that time i also thought CIA and these anglo peeps played role in 9/11. Reason : how pentagon RADARs failed?
Posted by: Sunder Mar 22 2004, 08:26 AM A few years ago, a young Indian man named Navroze Mody was beaten to death by eleven white racists shouting 'Dot-head!' as he was walking to catch a train in Hoboken, New Jersey. His crime? He was Indian. A couple of years back, an Indian father of three, Charanjit Singh Aujla, was shot to death by plainclothes sheriff's deputies in Jackson, Mississippi. They claimed that he, a person with no prior criminal record, had pulled a gun on them as he thought they were trying to rob the liquor store that he managed. His crime? He was Indian. None of the people in the civil rights cottage industry in India, such as the ever vigilant Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International, or Teesta Setalvad, or Shabana Azmi, or SAHMAT or Communalism Combat raised a little finger in the defense of Navroze Mody or Charanjit Singh Aujla. Nor did the great protectors of minority rights such as FOIL (Forum for Indian Leftists) mavens Vijay Prashad and Biju Mathew. I suppose you can't blame the US Indian Marxist cohort: they prefer more glamorous issues, like the Guinean Amadou Diallo being shot by New York City police. No time for Indians, plenty of time for African Muslims. What was the original sin of Mody and Aujla? They did not follow Semitic faiths. If Aujla had been, say, Mohammed Akram Aujla, FOIL, ActionAid, Human Rights Watch, and other lords of poverty would have been all over his case, and would have gone to the US Supreme Court shouting from the rooftops about the human rights of minorities. If he had been Christopher Ignacius Aujla, the US Council on International Religious Freedom and John Dayal and Jaichand somebody (that's his real name, I get mail from him) would have sued the US government for ill treatment of a minority. On second thoughts, scratch that. All these worthies, who are in cahoots, would have hushed up the incident, just as the church hid decades worth of pedophilia. In any case, the CIRF's purpose is not to worry about religious freedom, it is to make money for clever religious entrepreneurs. An even more appalling incident took place in February. A crippled, elderly, Sikh priest was brutally and deliberately murdered by agents of the US government. Yes, I say this, because at the very least, it is criminal negligence, and more likely culpable homicide on the part of prison authorities. This man, who did not speak English well, was brutalized in a jail in Fresno, California, and the jailers watched him starve to death, with no compunctions. They gave him no medical attention or even food for two months while he starved. So 72-year-old Khem Singh died in prison of slow starvation partly because his religious beliefs were violated: a strict vegetarian, he was given meat to eat. Which meant he ate nothing at all. It was an egregious violation of his human rights as well as his religious rights, in the land that prides itself on the rights of its residents. I am reminded of Kala Pani, about the brutal prison camp in the Andamans, where the British imperialists broke brave men: a gulag, a Devil's Island. Remember this was a frail old man, a man of God, who was only 110 pounds to begin with, and not quite able to deal with the culture of this land, thrown in jail on what were probably trumped up charges, which shocked and deeply depressed him. Perhaps he just wanted to die, because of all this. And he was terrorised and injured by a prison guard who slammed a cell door on his hand, so he never even left his cell to eat. Casual racism, bigotry and brutality. This is the America of chain gangs, Jim Crow, Bull Connor, and Mississippi Burning. The details are absolutely shocking; the LA Times has reported this in full, but Indian newsmen are busy with more important news, such as cricket in Pakistan. The Singh case reminds me of two incidents. One, the Achille Lauro hijacking, where Palestinian terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound Jewish man, Larry Klinghoffer, and threw him overboard. The second, when a missionary, Graham Staines, was killed in India. In the Klinghoffer case, there was universal condemnation of the fact that a terrorist had murdered a defenseless old man. In the Staines case, much was made of the fact that he was a preacher. Khem Singh was both a defenseless old man and a preacher. The case is also far more egregious, because it was not random individuals who were responsible. It was duly appointed law enforcement officers of the California correctional system who were the violators of human and religious rights. This is a serious blot on the American legal system and its moral standing, and I wish the Indian government would take up the legal issue. However, we know full well that the Indian government will not do this, and so it is up to individual Indians, especially NRIs, to take it up. I hope the Indian Diaspora will pursue the legal issues, for this is a test case for the rights of non white, non Christians in the US in the post 9/11 scenario, and the limits to government-sanctioned cruelty. It might get to the US Supreme Court eventually. Alternatively, Bush II or Kerry I may build concentration camps for some US residents, like they did for Japanese Americans during World War II. A few friends of mine have been galvanised by the Singh case, and are in the process of collecting data about similar cases of human and religious rights violations in a few countries such as the US, EU nations, China, Australia, and so forth. If you have specific and verifiable details, including reliable media reports, about such cases, feel free to send them to my email id below. As expected, FOIL and other Marxist Indians are quite blasé about this murder. All the 'secular progressives' afflicted by 'South Asianitis' have also been astonishingly quiet about it. These are the hypocrites who screamed loudly when the white missionary was killed. See my earlier column, Death of a Missionary. But since this priest was merely a Sikh, he doesn't count. Because Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Jains are children of some lesser god. Only the Semitic types (in the Indian context, these are Christians, Muslims and Marxists) are human, only they have human rights, only they have the right to worship. Yes, it's true, it's written in their books, by God (and Marx). Personally. Didn't you know? What Nehruvian Stalinists have institutionalised in India is nothing but apartheid. Just as in South Africa the numerically larger black population was brutalized and exploited by a small white population, the fascist Marxists of India, in cahoots with Christian and Muslim collaborators, engage in systematic and endemic discrimination and oppression of Indic religionists. And the latter are led to believe they deserve it, too. This is one of the greatest perversions that has been visited upon India in the recent past. Subramanian Swamy, whom I am not a great admirer of, nevertheless wrote an intriguing piece in the Chennai newspaper called The Hindu of March 18th, explaining why the 'secularism' of Jawaharlal Nehru is a travesty because it is totally discriminatory against the native culture of the land. Just like apartheid. Like the empty nihilism of the Dravida Kazhagam, this Nehruvian 'secularism' is a monstrosity, as it creates a spiritual vacuum which will be filled with something, perhaps a religious abomination: people are worshipping E V Ramaswamy Naicker, Jayalalithaa, C N Annadurai, M G Ramachandran, et al. 'Secularism' is creating a backlash where all Semitic types are now viewed with suspicion, deservedly or not. The effects of this grand apartheid can be seen all over the place: the victims of Muslim aggression in Maraad, Kerala, are forgotten. Nobody publishes the stories of the widowed women or their fatherless children. The reports that I read suggest that the cover-up, led by a Muslim League minister in the Congress government, has been quite successful in thwarting an official CBI enquiry into the massacre. Everybody is losing interest, after all it is only inferior beings, Hindus, who were killed. Nameless, faceless creatures. But Bilkis Bano from Gujarat, also a victim, now that's a different matter. She's a Muslim, so she has a name, she is interviewed in the media, she has batteries of lawyers, she gets many column inches in the papers. Or take the Best Bakery case. This will be tried over and over again. This asymmetry is utterly shameful, and inappropriate in a society that aspires to be just. It is clear that some Indians are more equal than others. Where are the court cases about Maraad? There are none. What about the court cases about the Godhra massacre? Once again, everyone is losing interest. After all, the victims were just Hindus. The Muslims have their poster boy, the fellow whose image, allegedly begging for his life, was flashed around the world. But there were no images of grieving relatives of the 59 Hindus burned alive, nor of their charred bodies: ah, we mustn't show Hindu victims, because Hindus by definition can only be victimizers. Soon there will be a film that 'proves' that Hindu pilgrim women and children set fire to the train from inside and committed suicide to make the Muslims of Godhra look bad just because they had gathered in a two thousand strong mob at 7 am, armed with Molotov cocktails. The USCIRF and their JNU friend, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, have a stick to beat India with for, oh, the next fifty years. Everyone is happy, all's well with the world. Business as usual, apartheid rules. But I beg you, gentle reader, to shed a tear for a little Sikh man named Khem Singh, 72 years old, crippled, starving to death in a strange and brutal place. Imagine now, God forbid, something like this happening to a loved one of yours. I cannot help thinking of my father first coming to America, smaller than I remembered him, unsure of himself, clutching his briefcase when I met him at the airport in Boston, intimidated by the strange surroundings, even though he was a professor of English and American literature. Khem Singh too was someone's father, someone's husband, some mother's son. I once wrote about Jallianwallah Bagh. 1,650 bullets, 1,579 casualties. The savagery of the white man and of the imperial West. Khem Singh's case is in its small way, another Jallianwallah Bagh. The marchers at Martin Luther King's last public meeting, in Memphis in 1968, bore signs that said, simply, "I am a man." Khem Singh was a man. He had rights too. Khem Singh didn't deserve to die like this. No, not in the land of free and the home of the brave. Comments welcome at Postscript Thanks to reader Deb for bringing Khem Singh's case to my attention. A reader wondered if I had joined the ranks of the Old Left, for I criticised America. No, I am thinking of India's interests, and these do diverge from America's quite a bit: witness the recent 'non NATO ally' designation of General Musharraf. Many of India's interests do converge with the US's, for instance regarding China. This is where the Old Left and I differ: they only think of China's interests, being Chinese patriots.
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 26 2004, 05:24 PM
The triangular relationship is getting more complicated by the day. It remains to be seen whether the US is playing India for a sucker or whether it is genuinelty seeking a wider relationship with India. Colin Powell is merely the point man in the US strategy. It is the US state department that is riddled with a congenital anti Indian bias. INDIA REPORT March 25, 2004 An exclusive report from Washington, D.C. on political, trade and defense issues affecting India. U.S.-INDIA STRATEGIC TIES MOVE FORWARD DESPITE BUMPS IN THE ROAD Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent visit to India nudged along the deepening U.S.-India strategic cooperation despite some bumps in the road. Powell’s quick trip to India earlier this month focused in part on the evolving bilateral strategic relationship -- which is underpinning what Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) contends is the "dramatic deepening" of U.S. ties with India in the last few years. "India’s economic expansion, together with the end of the Cold War and the linkages created by the Indian-American community, was the foundation for the expanded U.S.-Indian relations," Schaffer told a recent congressional hearing. However, in recent years, she noted, "the most dynamic aspect of government-to-government relations has been in the security area." Powell was somewhat sidetracked during his trip to India in his effort to promote strategic ties by the politically contentious issue of outsourcing -- and the U.S. effort to alleviate domestic criticism of India by getting New Delhi to further liberalize its market -- as well as by continued Indian grumblings over Washington’s relations with Islamabad. POWELL DISCUSSES STRATEGIC COOPERATION ACCORD However, Powell did manage to discuss the recent bilateral strategic agreement to promote cooperation in civil nuclear energy, space initiatives, high-technology trade, and missile defense. Although few details were raised, the two sides agreed to follow-up talks in these ‘quad’ areas in the coming months. In January, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee unveiled the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), with Powell’s trip seen as a high-profile follow-up to this so-called "glidepath" accord -- which gives India access to previous off-limits American high technology, but on condition that India move to address U.S. concerns over tighter non-proliferation laws and export controls. The initiative is designed to "cement strategic ties with the world’s largest democracy," said Christina Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs earlier this month. INDIA VIEWED IN WIDER CONTEXT Schaffer believes a key to the U.S.-India strategic relationship will be for Washington to view New Delhi’s importance in a wider Asian context -- in what she calls a "a new regional security paradigm." "In the past, South Asia has been looked at as a set of problems and relationships separate from the two areas of major U.S. concern that flank the region, the Middle East and East Asia. I believe that the time has come to look at the region as part of a broader Asia/Middle East security continuum. The dramatic deepening of U.S. ties with India in this administration and the last one reflect in part our recognition that as Asia changes, we need to be involved in the entire region," she said. "Increasingly, Indian and U.S. interests in Asian regional security are converging," Schaffer added. "Current U.S. policy has responded effectively to these changing circumstances. Our dialogue with India has expanded beyond the traditional focus on South Asian problems. I believe this trend needs to be encouraged. The U.S. and India should be systematically comparing notes on trends in East Asia and the Middle East. And as the U.S. considers its security interests in Asia, it needs to get rid of the traditional ‘curry curtain’ that has placed South and East Asia in separate mental categories. With much of the world’s oil supply moving through the Indian Ocean, with India’s increasing interest in the security of the area to its east, and with our own unique global role, we need to factor India explicitly into the way we look at Asia." U.S. WANTS INDIA IN WMD INTERDICTION EFFORT In this regard, the U.S. is looking for India to become an active member of an aggressive international anti-proliferation interdiction effort. In one of the most noteworthy moments of his visit, Powell raised the possibility of India playing the role of a "regional policeman" under the so-called Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to stop the proliferation of nuclear material and other sensitive equipment transported by air, sea or land that could be used for weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The PSI, launched last year, seeks to coordinate the actions of individual states in interdicting shipments of weapons, weapons components, and weapons production equipment. Over a dozen nations have signed up for the PSI -- but the Bush Administration is very eager for India to also join, especially given the potential for suspicious shipping around its waters. The U.S. has also more aggressively pushed the PSI in the wake of the revelations regarding a nuclear weapons supply network run by leading Pakistani scientist Dr. A.Q. Khan. SUSPECT SHIPS Powell and his Indian Counterpart Yashwant Sinha said that officials from both countries will soon begin discussions on how the Indian Navy and Air Force could help the U.S. and its allies stop and search "suspected ships" on the Indian Ocean. "The U.S. will like to see India participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative and we had good discussions on how to involve India in the treaty," Powell said. "We are going to increase dialogue on the PSI." The U.S. and Indian navies have already stepped up cooperation in the last couple of years, including staging joint anti-piracy patrols in Southeast Asia, and exercises that involve anti-piracy and counter-terrorism actions at sea. According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), Indian waters had the fourth highest number of piracy attacks last year, behind only Indonesia, neighboring Bangladesh, and Nigeria. The IMB also identified the Indian ports of Chennai and Cochin as among those key ports and anchorages that are increasingly prone to pirate attacks. There has also been increased concern over the potential nexus between piracy and terrorism. "This vulnerability to piracy is an open invitation to terrorists looking for an easy yet spectacular target," noted Dana Dillon, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "The newest terrorist target may be global shipping." On a recent visit to India, U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, Adm. Walter Doran, called for an Asia-Pacific regional security program that enlisted various nations’ navies to monitor merchant shipping, searching for piracy, terrorists, and illegal drugs. Such a system would feed information about vessels, crews, cargoes, routes and other intelligence, along with real-time surveillance and data, to an operations center. "We need the same situational awareness on the sea as we have in the sky," said Doran. POWELL SIDETRACKED BY OUTSOURCING ISSUE Despite some gentle efforts to move the strategic relationship forward, Powell’s trip got somewhat bogged down in tricky economic matters. Indeed, discussion of the outsourcing trade issue was largely unavoidable, given the fears the trade spat could damage the wider U.S. relationship with India. Outsourcing -- which generally refers to the export of white-collar jobs in information technology and other professional fields such as accounting and banking services -- is a fast-growing trend, blamed for the loss of thousands of well-paid technology jobs in the U.S. On the other side of the equation, outsourcing has given India’s economy a significant boost, including creating thousands of jobs as American companies take advantage of India’s high IT skills in what India calls Business Process Operations, or BPOs. In this U.S. election year, American companies ‘outsourcing’ services to India is certainly becoming a hot-button political issue. Once seen as a relatively minor irritant in U.S.-India relations, there is now a fear that the outsourcing ‘backlash’ could have a major detrimental impact on bilateral ties. EFFORTS TO DIFFUSE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS Given this concern, there are calls for the issue to be better managed by both nations, including the need to stress the benefits of outsourcing for the U.S., not just India. In addition, Powell suggested that India lower barriers to U.S. trade and investment as a strategy to help defuse U.S. anger -- and legislative action -- over outsourcing. "Outsourcing is a reality in the 21st century global environment -- both outsourcing and insourcing," he said. "We believe reforms and openness benefit both countries. We didn’t suggest opening up as a quid pro quo." However, following India’s latest tariff reductions, the average Indian tariff rate is already about 20 percent, noted Anupam Srivastava, executive director of the India Initiative at the University of Georgia, and of the South Asia Program of the University’s Center for International Trade and Security. "This is a considerable movement forward by India when compared with its average rate of 35 percent in 2000," he pointed out. "It compares more favorably with China’s average figure of around 15 percent and closer to the average tariffs within the advanced industrialized countries of 10 percent." Overall, Srivastava believes that during Powell’s trip the U.S. and India minimized their differences over outsourcing, "with the Indian side informing that the neo-protectionist backlash in U.S. states violates the principle of free trade, and the latter assuring that the federal government will not make imprudent policies despite their electoral appeal in an election year." U.S. CAN USE INDIA’S HIGH-TECH PROWESS India’s high-tech prowess -- embraced by American firms wanting to outsource services -- could also indirectly boost strategic cooperation, suggests James Jay Carafano at the Heritage Foundation, who urged the U.S. to work closely with India on cyber security. "Given the complex and demanding requirements of responding to a determined, protracted, and potentially catastrophic terrorist threat, the fundamental requirement of an effective national response system may be to adopt a ‘system-of-systems,’ or network-centric, approach to emergency preparedness," he told an IT conference in Mumbai earlier this year. "Countries with sophisticated IT industries, such as the United States and India, should enter into a serious dialogue to determine what a future homeland security technology development regime might look like. "It would require, among other things, a technology clearinghouse so that partners know what technologies are available for transfer; a method of setting standards so that technologies are understandable; interoperable and transferable means for industry-to-industry dialogue; predictable export control requirements; and acquisition mechanisms such as joint development programs, licensing agreements, and something comparable to the foreign military sales program," Carafano added. "Working jointly on system-of-systems technologies for homeland security could provide the right set of options and opportunities to enhance the security of all free nations. The terrorist threat against the free world is serious and enduring. We need to jointly develop the means and the technologies needed to meet this threat." INDIA UPSET OVER U.S. TIES WITH PAKISTAN On top of trade relations, another problem that somewhat clouded Powell’s visit and threatens to impede the progress on U.S.-Indian strategic ties is New Delhi’s ongoing concern over Washington’s relations with Islamabad. India is upset that Powell left and then told Pakistan that the U.S. would grant it Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) status. This has "revived Indian concerns about the United States being a reliable ally," Srivastava warned. One U.S. military analyst noted that although the MNNA status is largely symbolic, it allows easier military cooperation and puts Pakistan into elite company. "It will be used by the United States as incentive to coax increased cooperation from Islamabad in the ongoing fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the Pakistani-Afghan border region. It will also serve to shore up the Musharraf regime’s domestic standing. This is a high-profile alliance that enables much greater military cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. The first concrete result will likely be the long-delayed sale of U.S. F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, and the relationship will evolve over time into routine arms and technology transfers -- something Pakistan has been clamoring for in order to maintain the balance of power in South Asia." India is certainly less than happy with Washington’s relationship with Musharraf -- with this having a potential negative impact on U.S.-India strategic cooperation. "For now, New Delhi will carefully calibrate its end of obligations within the NSSP, but not link it to this U.S.-Pakistani development. But that situation might change if Pakistan is able to procure major defense items that are unsuitable for counter-terrorism operations along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and would instead be deployed along its borders with India," warned Srivastava. "Any such move that significantly changes the conventional force balance with India, as happened during the 1980s, would make New Delhi far more assertive and circumspect in its dealings with both Pakistan and the United States." U.S. TRIES TO ALLAY INDIAN CONCERNS New U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford was forced into the fray over the MNNA issue this week. Mulford said that the decision to afford major non-NATO ally status to Pakistan was aimed at facilitating cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Mulford stressed that the U.S. will continue to build strong bilateral relationships with India and Pakistan, noting that each of these relationships stands on its own merits. U.S. DEFENSE TIES WITH INDIA HAVE MORE POTENTIAL Furthermore, Mulford stressed that the core of the U.S.-India relationship is the strategic partnership -- with other U.S. observers also noting that despite Pakistan’s MNNA status, the U.S. defense relationship with India holds much more promise in Washington’s eyes. Indeed, the recent NSSP accord illustrates the U.S.’s feelings over the potential of security ties with India. It gives India long-sought-after access to previously off-limits technology, with the U.S. lifting its ban on sales of civil nuclear and space program equipment and other ‘dual-use’ high-tech products that Washington imposed after India tested nuclear bombs in 1998. India also sees the new agreement as a sign of new-found -- and long overdue -- U.S. trust. New Delhi has complained in recent years that stingy access to advanced American technology has been one of the main obstacles to further advancing relations. "… It is a statement by Washington and New Delhi that they intend to build a long-term strategic relationship," declared a Financial Times editorial. "Aside from its economic and trade potential -- already characterized by a rich interchange between the two nations’ high-technology industries -- such a relationship would address mutual ambitions. India wants recognition as (at least) a regional power, with a place at the international ‘top table,’ eventually to be crowned by permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. increasingly sees India as a geopolitical counterweight to China in Asia." U.S. observers also counter Indian concerns over Pakistan’s MNNA status by noting major advances in the U.S.-India defense relationship in the last couple of years. Joint military exercises have become commonplace, while defense trade also now looks more promising. It is estimated that over the past two years, India has purchased approximately $200 million of American arms, including sophisticated counter-battery radars. The two nations also hope to complete a $1 billion deal that would see India buy P-3 Orion maritime-patrol aircraft from the U.S. Only those Major Defense Equipment (MDE) items above $14 million now require congressional notice -- putting India in the same category with American treaty allies such as South Korea and Japan regarding military sales. The recent strategic quad agreement also paves the way for an expansion of missile defense cooperation. Indeed, just last month discussions between defense officials took place in India to exchange views about missile defense technologies. India has expressed particular interest in acquiring the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) system. The increasing attractiveness of India as a defense market for U.S. firms was highlighted by a 15-member U.S. mission sent to a major Indian defense exposition in February. India’s fiscal 2004 defense budget of $13.3 billion -- a 12 percent increase over the previous year -- is also viewed as a commitment to spending money on military modernization. Wider collaboration in defense R&D is now also possible following the recent signing of an information exchange agreement by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his counterpart George Fernandes. STRATEGIC EXPECTATION TO BE TESTED Overall, the growing expectations on both sides regarding the U.S.-India strategic relationship are likely to be tested in the coming months. "A key next step in pursuing NSSP would be for each side to clearly articulate its own requirements and expectations for reciprocal movement in the four designated areas," said Srivastava. -- Powered by PanWebMailer :::: ::::
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 26 2004, 05:34 PM
Raja Mohan, the veteran Hindu correspondent on Strategic matters, takes a more skeptical stance By C. Raja Mohan New Delhi needs to develop a credible strategy to influence the American domestic debate on the implications of designating Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. THE TIMING and the style of the announcement by the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, last week to designate Pakistan a "major non-NATO ally" have broken the principle of "no-surprises" that has operated between New Delhi and Washington in the recent period. While this has upset India and undermined the mutual trust and confidence developed so painstakingly over some years, New Delhi's focus must remain riveted on the nature of the political bargain between Washington and Islamabad that underlies the American decision and its consequences for regional stability. The U.S. President, George W. Bush, finds himself in an early and unexpected tight race for the White House with Senator John Kerry. With the rationale for the Iraq war now being closely questioned and the failure to finish the hunt for Al-Qaeda becoming an issue, Mr. Bush desperately needs a big "success" in Afghanistan. This political gift in an election year can only come from Pervez Musharraf, the President of Pakistan. The General has agreed to mount unprecedented military operations in the South Waziristan tribal agency bordering Afghanistan. In return for extending the American war on terrorism on to Pakistan's soil, Gen. Musharraf would naturally want favours. As he plans to shed his uniform at the end of the year and still remain in effective control of Pakistan, Gen. Musharraf needs to shore up his position in the armed forces. The U.S., we can infer, has chosen to reward Gen. Musharraf personally and also show the Pakistani Army the benefits of pursuing American political objectives in Afghanistan. Is this a temporary marriage of convenience, or a lasting arrangement? Would it involve substantive transfers of military equipment to Pakistan? How would it influence the Indian security calculus? The answers to these questions cannot be derived from the formal statements being issued by U.S. officials. They will depend on further bargaining between Washington and Islamabad and how the hunt for Al-Qaeda unfolds. Pakistan can be expected to string out these operations and extract maximum possible gains from the Bush administration, whose need to showcase the capture of a major Al-Qaeda leader would only increase with every passing week. There is no doubt that a new phase has just begun in the complex triangular relationship among Washington, Islamabad and New Delhi. India has three important interests to protect at this time. The first is to limit American arms sales to Pakistan to a modest level. The second is to ensure that Pakistan is not emboldened by the new alliance with the U.S. to revive its support to cross-border terrorism once summer begins in Jammu and Kashmir. The third is to ensure forward movement on the priority items in the bilateral agenda with Washington. On the question of U.S. arms sales to Islamabad, India knows it cannot prevent all external inputs into the natural cycle of military modernisation that must soon take place in Pakistan. India is also aware that given the current nuclear balance in the subcontinent, minor variations in the conventional military balance do not have the kind of impact they used to in the past. India also has reason to be confident that its economic resources today outstrip those of Pakistan by a big margin and it can more than match American arms supplies to Pakistan. Within this broad framework, however, India has every reason to argue in Washington that while it is prepared to live with a modest military modernisation of Pakistan, it will not accept arms transfers that threaten its security. India will also have to underline the dangers of emphasising military assistance to Pakistan at a time when the crying need in that country is for rapid economic modernisation and massive social sector reforms. More important for India is the impact of designating Pakistan a major non-NATO ally on the current delicately poised peace process in the subcontinent. Given the desperate American need for Pakistani cooperation in the war against Al-Qaeda, it is not inconceivable that the U.S. will lose its stomach for pressing Pakistan against supporting cross-border terrorism in India. The U.S. might continue to verbally support the notion that there can be no double standards in the war against terrorism. But it is entirely possible that the Pakistani military establishment might miscalculate that the alliance with the U.S. gives it the room to renew its support to terrorism on some pretext or the other. That will be catastrophic for the peace process now under way between India and Pakistan. In his remarks to the India Today Conclave in the capital a few days ago, Gen. Musharraf suggested that the pause in Pakistani support to terrorism is a tactical one. His attempts to break out of the broad framework that was agreed during the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit to Islamabad in January have already drawn strong comments from the Indian side. Gen. Musharraf's obsessive emphasis on Kashmir as the "core issue" with India and the renewed attempt to make the State a tripartite issue are in clear violation of the joint statement issued in Islamabad. Equally disconcerting is the hint in Gen. Musharraf's statement that things could slide back to square one in Jammu and Kashmir if Pakistan does not gain satisfaction from the talks with India scheduled from May/June. An assessment, mistaken or otherwise, in Pakistan that the external environment for the peace process has shifted in favour of Islamabad, could turn out to be disastrous. It is in that context the American move to designate Pakistan a major non-NATO ally is singularly ill timed. For years now, the U.S. has sought to promote a peace process between India and Pakistan. Just when it seemed poised for a take-off, the Bush administration has taken a step that could undermine it. India can and must warn the U.S. about the dangers of its new policy towards the region. Whether its arguments are heard in Washington or not, India will now have to fully prepare itself for a possible disruption of the peace process after the summer months. It will have to develop the necessary military options to deal with renewed terrorism from Pakistan. After years of deep distrust about the American approach to problems between India and Pakistan, New Delhi was just beginning to feel comfortable with the notion that the U.S. could in fact be a facilitator in this incipient peace process. If it appears to tilt in favour of Pakistan one more time, the U.S. will have squandered all leverage in India as an honest broker. Finally, the U.S. has compounded the problem by offering India, as an after thought, the similar status of a "major non-NATO ally.". New Delhi would not want to compete with Pakistan for political equivalence in Washington. India has its own agenda of bilateral relations with the U.S. But American assertions that it will pursue independent relations with India and Pakistan and that they do not constitute a zero sum game are beginning to draw a yawn in New Delhi. There is growing unease in the South Block that the agenda already agreed with the White House is beginning to lose steam. American bureaucracy is dragging its feet in the implementation of the "next steps in strategic partnership" that were outlined with some fanfare in January by Mr. Bush and Mr. Vajpayee. Under this agreement, the U.S. was to ease Indian access to high technologies in return for the Indian commitment to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. While the U.S. seems eager to forgive Pakistan's transgressions on the non-proliferation front and bestow it with favours, it finds many excuses in not moving forward on the promise of liberalising the transfer of advanced technologies to India. Concerns about regional stability and the alleged implications for Indo-Pakistan military balance are being used in Washington to slow down bilateral cooperation in missile defence that had been agreed in the past. Demonstrating quick and tangible progress on the bilateral agenda has now become more urgent than ever for the U.S. to retain some political credibility in New Delhi. Despite its preoccupation with the elections, the Government must find ways to push this three-point agenda in the coming weeks with Washington. Given the uncomfortable timing of the U.S. decision to formally revive the alliance with Pakistan, the Government will be tempted to posture for domestic consumption. That will not help manage the potentially significant consequences of the American move. New Delhi needs to clearly signal its concerns to the Bush administration and develop a credible strategy to influence the American domestic debate on the implications of designating Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. © Copyright 2000 - 2003 The Hindu
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Mar 26 2004, 07:30 PM
I feel we have entered interesting time, but it has always been my contention that the US has never changed its stance vis-a-vis India in a significant way. The hostility was never plainly overt, but always covert. The way covert hostility plays out may be different in each epoch. I go by the simple axiom: strengthening a Moslem state on the borders of India, or supporting Moslem identities within India are bad for India. As long as India is a polytheisitic pagan nation Islam is is bound to trigger violence against India. US has also messed with the North-East promoting a Christian identity. At the heart of everything there is the religio-cultural divide that holds US and India apart. The day the decision making US elite move towards a genuine pagan culture we will see a true symbiosis. Till then we can seem more of what we have been seeing. I heard from my contacts that recently there was movie of Jesus that made a big bang in the US. The bottom line I got from it was that the US still has a prominent Christian core. I have for long held the view that we need movies in India like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shihab-ad-din, Alla-ad-din Khalji, Muhmmad ibn Tughlaq and Silsila-i-Timuria. These should be free of song and dance sections- pure action packed films with high class special effect, showing, as is, what was recorded by the MOslems about their favorite Islamic heroes. The day that happens India is truely a free country. Instead we play those ghastly cricket matches. Does US play Basket ball with bin Ladin?
Posted by: Nalwa Mar 26 2004, 08:12 PM
HH, you are right. We should make those movies, but we will not because we dont want to offend muslis Do you think that in an Industry and Country where the brave Sunny Deol is less popular than Shah-rukh khan, because he acts in patriotic movies which show Pukistan in a bad light -we will have the bal*s to make movies which depict true history?? Rabh di kasam, that will be the day
Posted by: Gargi Mar 26 2004, 11:56 PM
I have for long held the view that we need movies in India like Mahmud Ghaznavi, Shihab-ad-din, Alla-ad-din Khalji, Muhmmad ibn Tughlaq and Silsila-i-Timuria
Don't under estimate Bollywood, they will make them God, as they did with Tipu Sultan. Don't forget Bollywood is dominated by muslims, liberals and mixed breed, where they can depict semi dressed girls in Gurkul (Mohabateein) but will never show them in any Madarassa. Every prosititute will be named as Gita or Sita or Radha. You will not find Fatima or other names in that list.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 27 2004, 10:12 AM
Old wine in old bottles By Harold A. Gould "THE MORE things change, the more they remain the same." This is the oldest political cliche in the books. Yet when it comes to U.S. diplomacy in South Asia, it is clearly the most accurate. It always seems that just at the moment when a real turning point has been reached in relations between India and the United States, the `Pakistan obsession' rears its ugly head and shatters the dream. It is threatening to happen again, for the umpteenth time. The designation of Pakistan as a "major non-NATO ally" has obviously been cooked up by the neo-cons in the White House and their unreconstructed Cold Warrior cohorts lodged in the bowels of the State and Defence departments who simply never have got the point about South Asia — that addressing security threats in the region by putting guns in the hands of Pakistani military dictators destroys any chance of securing rapprochement and peace between India and Pakistan. For in the end, somewhere down this road, it reinforces the power of the wrong political elements in Pakistan: the Punjabi-dominated military, bureaucratic and oligopolistic elites who deplore democracy, hate India, and yearn for the chance to act out their political obsessions on the battlefield. Ahhh, the proponents of making Pakistan a de facto NATO ally are saying: This time the situation is different. Has not General a.k.a. President Pervez Musharraf changed his ways? In the aftermath of the assassination attempts on him, ordained by the very Islamic fanatics whose favour until recently he and his predecessors so zealously curried, has not General Musharraf veered back toward the political centre, sent his army into the Waziristan sanctuaries whose existence he and the Inter-Services Intelligence winked at for such a long while, and even responded to the peace-dialogue initiated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee? All of these things are true, up to a point, and indeed are to be encouraged. It was not infusions of the U.S. military wherewithal that prompted this, however. It was the terrorist backlash that finally got General Musharraf's attention. India certainly saw signs that things in the Subcontinent might at last change for the better, and acted. The Indian Prime Minister deserves great credit for seizing the moment and encouraging the development of a deliberative structure within which long-standing hopes might be transformed into substantive reality. Behind these initiatives has lain a deep-seated confidence held by perceptive observers of South Asian affairs that if outside powers bent on pursuing their self-centred global strategic agendas left these two countries to their own devices, India and Pakistan might indeed successfully resolve their outstanding differences and bring peace and stability to the region. In the past, all hope of conflict resolution was repeatedly shattered by misguided U.S. foreign policy. Incorporating Pakistan into the anti-communist crusade tipped the scales toward the military as the country's dominant political force in the 1950s when the choice between democracy and dictatorship hung in the balance. Subsequent decades of U.S. military assistance to Pakistan nurtured General Ayub Khan's hegemonic dreams in the 1960s, and induced him to attack India in 1965. It emboldened General Yahya Khan to perpetrate genocide on his own people in the 1970s in order to accommodate Henry Kissinger's `opening to China.' It fed General Zia ul Haq's megalomania from the 1980s into the early 1990s in order to rent out Pakistan as a staging area for the Afghan war. It was the infrastructural lubricant which enabled General Musharraf to once more impose `one-man democracy' on his country following Kargil in the early 1990s. In all these instances, the U.S. traded short-term gains for long-term consequences. In the end, these short-term gains always proved marginal in any event. The long-term consequences always proved to range from nil to disastrous. Twice they resulted in war between India and Pakistan. During the Afghan war, they admittedly helped to defeat the Soviet invasion, but the methods employed unleashed the Taliban and Al Qaeda in its wake. Now, it is the war on terrorism which has generated the latest version of the old ways, and regrettably will most probably yield many of the same old long-range consequences. Promising a new round of military assistance to Pakistan's ruling elites is already being explained away as necessary in the short run to keep General Musharraf in the anti-terrorist campaign. No one can quarrel with the basic premise that offering inducements and encouragement to the Pakistanis to stay the course is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But the question is why this way, when all indications based on past experience indicate that it is the wrong way, and even more to the point, the unnecessary way. The answer is that the Cold War style of doing business in South Asia persists in the American political psyche. It evokes knee-jerk responses every time a new crisis arises. By the time he reached New Delhi, Colin Powell was already in an obfuscation mode. He knew, but declined to mention, that Pakistan was, as in the Cold War and the Afghan war, going to be offered the status of `loyal ally' all over again in the latest version of American apocalyptic foreign policy. His unwillingness to be truthful about this, while he and Mr. Vajpayee were sharing the podium in New Delhi, is stark testimony to the fact that the U.S. is well aware of the eventual negative consequences this manoeuvre will have for U.S.-Indian relations, and almost inevitably will have in the long run for regional peace and stability. Once again, the U.S. has opted for short-term gains over long-term consequences! Even if that means jeopardising the much-touted "new strategic relationship" with India. If the new alliance materialises, and if it leads to the importing of new and improved F-16s, and perhaps a fleet of Abrams tanks, it almost certainly will lead as well to a revitalisation of the Pakistani military elite, and with it to a reigniting of their anti-Indian obsessions, to sabre-rattling and diplomatic intransigence, and to a mortal wounding of the regional peace process. All of which is so tragically unnecessary in the present context. Gen. Musharraf and his supporters are politically desperate men. Now that their purported Islamist surrogates have irrevocably turned against them, and are out for Gen. Musharraf's scalp, the U.S. has no need to dole out blood money and military largesse to lure Pakistan's President into the American camp. They have no place else to go if they want to politically, indeed even physically, survive. This fact has given the U.S. an unprecedented opportunity to use its influence to try and achieve the long-needed and long-awaited higher good for South Asia. That is, not to encourage another arms race behind the facade of the war on terror which down the road can only lead to another nuclear-tipped confrontation between India and Pakistan. Instead, Secretary Powell should have come to South Asia with a plan for steering Pakistan out of the morass of militarism, politically expedient anti-Indian jingoism, and enervating authoritarianism in which it has been mired for half a century. He could have suggested that the U.S. adopt an actively cooperative role in supporting Mr. Vajpayee's recent initiatives to which Pakistan, in fact, has shown some receptivity. He could sprinkle it with a pinch of military assistance sufficient to meet the needs of a limited campaign against Osama's montane bailiwick. This could have been, and still can be, accomplished so easily in the face of the forces now playing on Gen. Musharraf,
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Mar 27 2004, 02:54 PM
Got this by email Note Gould thinks that the neo-cons are responsible for the latest Pakiophilous move. This is important to note for it means that we have no real allies in the US. The only way to achieve peace in South Asia is to eliminate the terrorist entities called Pakistan and Bangladesh. But Americans hardly want genuine peace in their competitor's homes. I perceive that the US may have even subverted a part of the Indian leadership into accepting these ridiculous peace talks with TSP.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 27 2004, 04:27 PM
HH, I think US was trying to meddle in India and J&K and Pakistan. GOI played there own card by offer ring peace talk and now MMNA is US new card. One should keep in mind US was and will never want stronger India without US influence. Peace talk will be meaningful only after Lok Sabha election
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 28 2004, 05:39 AM
Harold Gould is one of the few knowledgeable and sympathetic observers of india in the US. If somebody has his uptodate email I would appreciate it.
Posted by: Mudy Mar 28 2004, 11:10 AM
K, I did some google search and found following email contact 2002
Harold Gould is a Visiting Scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia. He can be reached at:
Harold A. Gould is visiting scholar in the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Virginia. He can be reached at:
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Mar 29 2004, 12:43 AM
Posted by: Viren Mar 30 2004, 08:51 AM
INDIA TODAY MAGAZINE, APRIL 05. 2004 Subscription site - posting in full diplomacy INDO-US RELATIONS The Stealth Bombshell
India is caught off guard by Powell making Pakistan a military ally and a clumsy salvage operation makes things worse. Is it time to look beyond the veneer of the India-US strategic partnership? By Indrani Bagchi Colin Powell finally got through to Yashwant Sinha on Sunday night. The telephone connection in his constituency, Hazaribagh, is dodgy at the best of times. And for the past few days, the foreign minister was avoiding having to talk to the US secretary of state. The March 21 call was in the nature of an apology. But Powell messed things up by telling Sinha that the decision to give Islamabad the upgraded status of a "major non-NATO ally (MNNA)" was taken in Islamabad, so he couldn't tell Sinha beforehand. The explanation could have been credible if Powell hadn't already said that the decision had been "months and months" in the making. The announcement was a bigger blow to India particularly after National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra cautioned Powell against pulling off any "military surprises" in Islamabad. In election season, it was a breach of trust the NDA Government could have done without, forced now to answer doubts about India's "strategic partnership". That Delhi was livid with Powell's stealth job in Pakistan was clear from the initial, almost apoplectic silence. Caught in a uniquely embarrassing position, it was about 24 hours before the Foreign Office issued a tightly worded statement, committing only India's "disappointment" on record. In Washington, Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, suggested to Indian Ambassador Lalit Mansingh that MNNA could be offered to India. Worse, White House announced it on Monday. It was a piece of patronising diplomacy which the mea summarily rejected saying it was "not under consideration". On Thursday night, with the news breaking about their ears, the US Embassy sent its deputy chief, Bob Blake, to Sujata Mehta, joint secretary concerned in the mea, to explain the US decision. It cut no ice, particularly as it transpired that the US Embassy in Delhi had also been sacrificed by Powell and his team-Roosevelt House was completely out of the loop. US officials said wryly, "We screwed up." Mounting a salvage operation, they dismissed the White House statement as "freelancing" and new US Ambassador to India David Mulford tried to say, "Our relations with India and Pakistan stand on their own merits." No good. "Significant implications for Indo-US relations" is how mea sees it. As MNNA, Pakistan can access "war reserve stockpiles, training, US funds for defence equipment". Powell added, "It gives Pakistan access to more material than they might otherwise have access to." Add to this a $3 billion aid package. India feels its security interests are hit as it is the sole target of any infusion of military aid to Pakistan. The MNNA effect will be most acutely felt in Indo-Pak relations and any "facilitation" or "crisis management" role the US fancies for itself. Powell had claimed credit in getting India and Pakistan to talk in January. There will be an erosion in that "leverage" the US claims it now enjoys with Delhi. Powell tried to clarify that the importance of MNNA is "more symbolic than practical" but spinoffs to that political message are already evident. The Commonwealth has taken the cue and will readmit Pakistan. The EU is likely to clear a political agreement with Pakistan, and countries like Singapore which opposed Pakistan's entry into the ASEAN Regional Forum will lie low. Pakistan's political rehabilitation, say India's Foreign Office pundits, has an adverse effect on any peace process with India, rendering Pakistan more "rigid" in its approach. US officials are telling anyone who will listen that Powell's offer to Pakistan was the "India-US shining, Pakistan whining" effect to assuage Pakistani fears that the US would remain engaged even if Osama bin Laden were captured. Indian officials say they have travelled this road before and are not impressed. The State Department's undercutting of the embassy in Delhi will undermine its credibility within the Indian system. While Robert Blackwill ruled the roost here, his personal clout with the top brass in Washington meant that on many issues India and US could bypass the "hyphenation ayatollahs" of the South Asia bureau of the State Department. With Mulford still finding his feet in Delhi, Powell's latest act suggests to Washington watchers in Delhi that the bureaucracy is regaining control of the relationship. Powell had his best visit yet to India last week. But the MNNA overshadowed all that he said on terrorism and proliferation in Delhi. The Government believes the State Department's Christina Rocca and Armitage may have been responsible for the radio silence in India. It adds to existing suspicions about Rocca, while Indian officials say Armitage's U-turn from a pro-India to pro-Pakistan position "has been sharper than Musharraf's after 9/11". The biggest casualty has been a fragile trust achieved with years of painstaking diplomacy between India and the US. The new development also comes at a time when the "transformed Indo-US relations" are on a rocky road, caught between the US' election compulsions and Pakistan's Osama carrot. Even the hyped "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership" is feeling the heat. Washington's blind eye to Pakistani nuclear proliferation is a huge damper and many believe an "Osama-for-A.Q. Khan" deal has been cut. Of course, the bottom line is the US just doesn't have enough of a stake in India. Neither strategic nor economic-the figures either way don't swing policy. There is a long-term partnership, but it runs the risk of being overtaken by immediate concerns because Pakistan remains an integral part of the India-US dynamic. It was proved beyond doubt as Powell testified to the Congress that the US strategy towards India was premised on getting Al-Qaida in Pakistan. Powell had said that "achieving new relations with Pakistan meant moving to shape our relations with India" and that "Pakistan was deeply suspicious of India's intentions". Nevertheless, a salvage operation is under way. Officials on both sides are anxious to put this disastrous episode behind them and there is a huge scramble for "deliverables" to sweeten the Pakistan pill. Mulford indicated an economic deal might be in the offing, but it is likely the movement will be in the area of civilian nuclear technology. That ought to mean something. But will it be enough?
Posted by: Mudy Mar 30 2004, 12:03 PM
Article by our IF member thumbup.gif So, Powell slapped us – Now what? By Arindam Banerji Here’s how it went down. At the heels of the huge AQ Khan drama, that revealed yet again that Pakistan had been leaking nuclear weapons design and uranium enrichment technologies, to such admirable countries as Libya, Iran and North Korea, Powell visited the sub-continent. Powell as usual, mouthed some nice sounding weasel words about India-Us are strategic partners, blah, blah, blah…made some meaningless remarks about nuclear policing, with the unsaid by-line that such policing would never apply to rogue states that played nice with the US. Some random finger-wagging at India for not opening up its markets was indulged in, while heavy agricultural subsidies that pamper US farmers was quietly hidden under the nearest carpet. Then he left for Pakistan (via Afghanistan). Not much was said about the whole AQ Khan issue, which after all only threatened the safety of most civilized nations and lot of pats on the back were, however, given to the on-going brutal killing of tribals in Waziristan. Discuss: Musharraf definitely involved in nuke proliferation Then, he dropped the bomb – Powell declared that Pakistan is now going to get a Major Non-NATO ally (MNNA). Not really a big deal until you look closely at the details: First issue, what exactly does Pakistan get from MNNA? Well, as Wilson of Pioneer tells us, "According to sources in the defense ministry, Pakistan might immediately receive P3C Orion long-range reconnaissance aircraft, Harpoon missiles, helicopters and radar systems. They also admit that it may not be long before Pakistan receives F-16 fighter jets that it has been demanding for almost a decade". More importantly, this bypasses most approval processes, speeds up delivery and allows Pakistan access to these materials at low-costs, under hugely generous loan programs. Second Issue: Not directly related to the MNNA announcement, but the same day the US announced a $460M loan forgiveness for Pakistan. So, was this a slap really? Yes, kinda-sorta. In international diplomacy, if you call a nation a "strategic partner" and you’re going to do something that adversely affects its strategic interests, you inform them in advance. This is done, even if you do not intend to change your decision – it's plain courtesy. The US does show this courtesy to some of its other "partners", as TOI tells us: "Well before the US named Argentina as an MNNA in 1997, the Clinton administration had extensive discussions with Britain , with whom Argentina had fought a brief war over the Malvinas Islands in 1982…Even though that war had occurred 15 years earlier, the US took pains to assure the British that the easier access to American war material that Argentina’s MNAA status entailed would not be allowed to affect the ‘balance’ between Buenos Aires and London". But, there’s more to this than just boorish behavior with Indian "partners". First, the defensive weapons that Pakistan could get through the MNNA represent a potential strategic threat to India. The F-16s, even though they appear so, are really quite well balanced with IAF’s numeric advantage as the technological prowess of the Su-30MKIs. What worries me much more are the radar systems, P3Cs, Harpoon missiles and the depleted uranium weapons. They force India into achieving higher levels of technology, readiness and armaments, as well as somewhat reduces the effectiveness of our offensive capabilities. Although, it is difficult yet, to predict exactly what technologies Pakistan will get, it is abundantly clear that retaliation for terrorist attacks, even in limited form, just became more difficult. Discuss: US being foolish by trusting Pak The psychological hoopla of getting new F-16s (if that happens) will wear out quickly, but the ability to predict, track and target Indian attacks, is certainly a damper. So, is the ability of depleted uranium rounds to pierce all most all Indian armor. Second, inadvertently or on purpose, with this MNNA declaration and the subsequent aid announcements, Uncle Sam has just strengthened the hand of Pakistan in the upcoming Kashmir negotiations. The balance used to be - Pakistan holds the gun of terrorism to our head, while India dangles the goodies of better trade/economy and the impact of a lost arms race to Pakistan. What the US has done, is to strengthen the Pakistani economy significantly by strengthening their economy and also changed the odds visibly in the arms race equation. Overall, India clearly had the upper hand, and I’m not a big fan of India negotiating from anything, other than a position of overwhelming strength. Actually, Pakistan is already back to its old tricks, as IntelligenceOnline reports based upon Army intelligence intercepts: Following the US decision to make Pakistan a major non-NATO, the Indian Army and security forces have seen a perceptible heightening of terrorist preparations to infiltrate into Jammu and Kashmir once the snows melt, and officials say that General Pervez Musharraf is going back on his peace commitments to India Finally, there is a much more direct impact of this slap, and we only see it, when we analyze the total Baksheesh that Uncle Sam is giving Pakistan this year, as in: Purpose of monies given Sum of money Debt forgiven (source: Wall Street Journal) $460M Direct aid apportioned for helping in war on terror (source: NYT) $700M Price-gouging rates for airbase and airspace rental (source: Jang at $100M per month) $1.2B Potential further aid/year if $3B aid package for 5 years is approved (source: NYT) $600M Total amount of extortion money Pakistan receives for supporting terrorism $2.96B Of, course for a country with a GDP of $64B and a growth at about 5%, this means about 4.63% (3.7% of GDP if you assume 50% price gouging) of GDP growth. If you take this away and realize that Saudi Arabia is hesitant to renew the $1B (1.5% of Pakistan’s GDP) of free oil-aid that it gives to Pakistan in the future, Pakistan’s economy would essentially be in a recession without this baksheesh program. While, that total in itself is interesting, it says nothing about the direct impact of the money on India. So, thanks to a friend from Bharat Rakshak, let us do a little more mathematics. Assuming, that Pakistan spends about half of what it is charging the US forces, then the total amount of amount of extortion profit from the US is about $2.4B. Let’s say 10% of this $2.4B goes into funding paramilitary-style terrorism, and 70-90% of that is spent on buying RDX, communication equipment, salaries for terrorists and insurance payouts for the dead scum. This leaves about $24M for buying guns, bullets and spending money for the act itself. This probably leaves about $6M for buying guns and bullets and buys us about 100,000 AK-47s (at about $40 a pop). We already know, based upon the proud announcements of Pakistani terrorists, that only 1 in 10 terrorists makes it across the border, 1 in 4 carry out attacks and each attack kills on the average 1 person (including multiple kill attacks). Thus, about 2400 people will die and data available from terrorist attacks over the years, such as SATP, tells us that 1800 of these deaths will be civilians, the rest being security forces. In other words, Uncle Sam’s baksheesh could indirectly fund the terrorism infrastructure, logistics, equipment and operational expenses for killing about 1800 Indian civilians in Kashmir, North East and probably other parts of India this year. Let me repeat that – funding the death of at least 1800 Indian civilians – nice impact, huh! In the end, we have to remember that every-time Uncle Sam writes a blank check to Pakistan with a wink and a nod, a huge number of people die. Pakistan always presumes such support to be a blessing for continuing its poor behavior. This happened in 1971 in Bangladesh when an on-going genocide was supported with arms worth millions from the US. Happened again in Afghanistan after the Russians left, when the Americans turned a blind eye towards Pakistani proliferation and terrorism, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. Poor Pakistani behavior is again being supported with arms and big dollars – this time with devastating effect on Indian civilians and Afghans. The question is not whether a large number of people die this time, too. The question is where? But, Hai-Ram!! - why would the US do any of this to us? Multiple reasons, but to summarize: The Pakistani army is slowly but surely surrendering the sovereignty of that nation to the US. Keeping the Pakistani army happy allows this process to continue unabated It is always helpful to play the equal-equal game with India – this forces India to protest and negotiate something away, every time Pakistan gets something dangerous from the US According to B. Raman, Pakistan is supposed to be actively helping the US in keeping tabs on Iran Rewarding the Pakistani army draws them in further with the US, thus naturally diminishing the control that China has over Pakistan Significant portions of US oil interests in the Central Asian Republics would be in the form of pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan – control over Pakistan gives the US complete air-access to Central Asian Republics (also available thru Iraq, now) And of course, Eye-Rak. It turns out that Pakistan may well be ready to send 500 troops to Iraq, thus, once again agreeing to do Uncle Sam’s dirty work (based on some reports in Pakistani papers) But, none of this behavior should surprise us – after all the US has been following this pattern consistently slapping us on strategic issues, ever since the end of the cold war. Two days after Pakistani terrorists killed 25 Indians in Nadimarg, US declared a $1B loan forgiveness for Pakistan. Implication – We don’t mind you killing the Indians, as long as you give us a few Al-Qaeda once in a while A day after the CIA came out with a scathing report on Pakistan’s involvement on nuclear proliferation, Powell was in front of the Congress asking for $700M for Pakistan. Implication – We don’t mind you endangering the safety of the whole world, as long as you give us a few Al-Qaeda right before the November elections Days after the perhaps the worst attack on our democracy – the Dec 13 attacks on the Indian parliament, the US started arm-twisting India not to retaliate in any form. Implication – Terrorism against India and Indians is NOT punishable, but terrorism against Americans certainly is From all sources, that I have in the ruling circles at Delhi, the US has been pushing India very hard to give concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir, as a reward for stopping terrorism Implication – It is OK for the US, K to not negotiate with terrorists, let alone reward them, but India must reward the terrorists A complete free pass to airlift some of the worst terrorists from Kunduz, who had been fully surrounded by the Northern Alliance. Implication – These same terrorists now get to kill again, most probably in India In spite of fool-proof evidence of Pakistani complicity in the 1993 Bombay blasts, the US surprisingly "lost" the evidence that was sent to them. Implication – Pakistani terrorism did not have to be criticized in public, yet again Tacit support for Indian secessionists like Nabi Fai, who according to the Kashmir Telegraph, is involved in pumping terrorism dollars into Kashmir. Implication – Yet another stick to beat India with This list goes on and on – so there’s nothing new in this slap. The only question that remains is how should India react? Yes, increasing the size of our economy would help, but we cannot yet extract the kind of respect that the Chinese could when they were our size a few years ago. So, changing some of our existing mindsets would be a good start, such as … Quit whining: No matter what else India does, she needs to quit whining and complaining. The worst thing we could do is to complain and moan about unfairness. India must get out of this mindset of complaining to Uncle Sam on every issue. After the Dec 13 attack on our parliament, apart from huffing and puffing on the borders, the only thing that India really did do, was to complain to Bush. Even today, we shriek and complain, every time Pakistan commits an atrocity against Indians. Uncle Sam is not responsible for the well being of Indians or Indian national interests. Pakistan is our problem and not America's. What is stopping us from raising our defense budget to 3.5% of GDP, spending a $1B/year on destabilization operations within Pakistan or working aggressively to redirect more of the Pakistani religious anger against the US, as opposed to India? We go and snitch to the US about Pakistan; they happily start dictating terms to both countries and then predictably, we start complaining about it. So, would it not be much better to quit the whining and moaning in the first place – this will not give the US, the opportunities to mess with us, every-time something happens. Forget this strategic partner BS: Viewing the India-US relationship, through the scope of Pakistan may appear short sighted, but it is difficult not to do so, when our strategic partner is busily arming and funding a country that spends 40% of its annual budget in killing or preparing to kill Indians. Yes, it is true, that there is huge overlap of economic interests between the US and India, and people-to-people relationships are also excellent. But, extending this to strategic relationships has no basis in facts. US intentions on Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and Iran, are radically different from Indian strategic interests. Pakistan is a convenient and malleable strategic "pet" for Uncle Sam; no matter how dirty the work or how illegal it is, Pakistan will be happy to do it, for just a few dollars. Pakistan has demonstrated this again and again, in providing bases for spying on the then USSR, in the Russian war, in the war on the Taliban, in monitoring Iranian activities, in attacks on Waziristan’s tribals and now, even probably in Iraq. India has never been easy to manage or coerce, even for our own leaders, let alone some foreign government. As long as the convenient option of Pakistan exists, discussing India-US strategic relations should be pursued only after a good beer bash, not before. Rising powers do tend to get undercut: Existing world and regional powers, whoever they maybe, do not like new up starts that threaten to challenge their positions. India needs to understand, that as it rises as an economic and regional power, it is in the national interests of larger powers, to have sticks they can use to beat up on India. Pakistan is one such stick, and has been for quite a few decades. This is not going to change any time soon. In fact, using Pakistan to rattle India, scathing HR reports of religious discrimination or ridiculous travel advisories have all been used against us in the very recent past. In short, there will always be sticks like Pakistan to use against us - the question now is, what are we going to do about it? For starters, our strategic approach with our neighbors and major powers needs to take this reality into account – playing ostrich with this fact is not going to do us any good. When we hand out big deals or provide access to markets, we need to take this into consideration, much more aggressively than we do today. If we do not do this, we can well expect countries that do not like our leadership at confabs like Cancun to decry imaginary "human rights violations in Indian occupied Kashmir" or increasingly downplay heinous terrorist attacks against India (or portray them as internally motivated). What better stick to reduce Indian eminence and Indian rise to power? How better to keep the Indian MEA busy putting out random fires and in general off-balance? In short, expect India to fight off such sticks - this is the law of the international jungle. Learn to use International media: Indian use of media on a global scale is very limited. The Chinese understand this and to an extent, even the Pakistanis do a better job of this, than we do. As an example, consider how much influence Pakistan now has on our Indian entertainment industry or the ability of BBC and Alex Perry, to perpetuate grossly distorted views about India. For some strange reason, however, many of the leaders in our current government and people I would call nationalist thought leaders, have a strange disdain for global and English language media - so, in stead of co-opting and redirecting this influence, we end up ignoring it. In stead, I would recommend, that Indian government play a much larger strategic role in getting Indian media companies, especially those that have Indian interests at heart, to go global. If Al-Jazeera can have such a large regional mind-share, why can’t Indian media companies. This has to be a strategic goal for India. None of this soft-state image, nonsense:India has established itself a soft-state, backing down on critical national interest issues - the IC-814 affair, inaction after the Dec 13 attacks or even the unanswered Bangladesh 16-3 killings of BSF soldiers are just some recent examples. This is where India has to take measured action to demonstrate that it is at least somewhat unpredictable and irrational. This does not mean nuclear war against Pakistan or arraying ships against the US seventh fleet - but, a few quick slaps to Bangladesh on its next mis-adventure may not be bad. Rising powers must understand how to play "Bad Boy" tricks - being boy scouts and rise to eminence are mutually exclusive. A perfect example of our irrational moral rectitude is the dismantling of the RAW infrastructure within Pakistan, as a gesture of asinine goodwill or lack of direct Indian support for Baloch and Sindhi nationalists. Options do exist-just exercise some of them: India does have strategic options, but we must learn to exercise some of them, such as: giving preference to Airbus over Boeing in acquisitions far more direct involvement with France and China increasing our defense budget to 3.5% increasing destabilization operations within Pakistan better co-ordination of media operations on a global scale using access to markets or access to Indian leadership as a tool to distinguish between friends and foes Agreed, none of these are simple to implement or easily completed, but we must get off our behind and start taking some resolute actions. Yeah, yeah - we should do everything possible to increase our economic relations with the US, but we also need to look beyond that. Changing mindsets would be a good place to start in this direction… The writer can be contacted at
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Mar 30 2004, 01:57 PM
This name Arindam sounds familiar... may be read some other piece of his. So he is a member of IF? This is a good piece from him. Welcome to the world of realpolitik- you have no friends there and you must learn from history
Posted by: Kaushal Mar 30 2004, 05:48 PM
Arindam is a regular contributor to BR and Rediff. Mudy,we should have a local meeting of IF including him.
Posted by: Viren Mar 31 2004, 07:39 AM
Posted by: Mudy Mar 31 2004, 08:19 AM
Kaushal, Yes, we should have Bay Area IF meeting, let me know your availability.
Posted by: Mudy Apr 1 2004, 10:02 PM
Posted by: Mudy Apr 2 2004, 11:32 AM
Move to stop non-NATO status for Pakistan Published 4/1/2004 4:31 PM WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) -- Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress that would make it difficult for President Bush to formally designate Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. Backed by Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., the legislation already enjoys the support of the powerful Indian lobby on the Hill. India, Pakistan's neighbor and chief rival, has objected to the U.S. offer, saying it would hurt recent moves to improve relations between New Dehli and Islamabad, which have fought three wars in the last 56 years. "And I would urge our colleagues to take a look and see if they'd be willing to co-sponsor that bill," said Ackerman in a recent appeal to other lawmakers. Secretary of State Colin Powell announced the U.S. intention to include Pakistan in this elite club when he visited the country two weeks ago during an extended tour of the South Asian and Middle Eastern regions. Ackerman said he understood the U.S. need for Pakistan's assistance in the war against terror but Washington should not ignore that Pakistani scientists had recently confessed selling nuclear secrets and materials to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Posted by: G.Subramaniam Apr 4 2004, 06:30 PM newshopper India is Not a Country to be Picked as a US Strategic Partner By John Laxmi THE RAGING debate on outsourcing of high-tech jobs to India misses the most important point: national interests and security. The problem with outsourcing is not with the efficient invisible hand guiding the economic decisions of individual corporations or governmental units. The American economy is resilient and will eventually replace these jobs with new and better ones. That is not the main issue. The main issue here is the particular type of functions being outsourced predominantly to one specific country (India), which makes this a phenomenon of national importance, even national security to the United States. Outsourcing could become a blind race to the bottom, one that could potentially compromise American interests. First, some important disclosures: I have significant investments in the stocks of GE, Intel and IBM, companies benefiting from 'outsourcing' high-paying technical jobs from the US to countries like China and India. Two of my siblings are senior professionals in large American corporations, directly engaged in outsourcing of technology jobs to India. I live in New Jersey and shop at Walmart and Dollar Stores without bothering to see where the merchandise is produced. I am a free-market supporter, a former investment banker and teach a course on bond markets at New York University. My teaching job at NYU is not threatened by outsourcing. I am an American who leans towards the Republican party on economic issues. All this should make me a wholehearted supporter of Outsourcing. Right? Not quite. Our national interests must be aligned and synchronized with countries which supply products and services to us. After all, we don't outsource medical services to Cuba. On principle, without regard to economic costs, we boycotted South Africa during its apartheid years. Recently, we refused to use our tax dollars to outsource Iraq reconstruction contracts to French, German or Russian firms. We didn't buy oil from Libya. Our oil dependence on sheikdoms turned out to be a disaster. In the same vein, as we careen forward on the freeway to creative destruction, we must take a closer look at India, the nation contending to supply us with everything from call centers to computer security. Superficial observers like Tom Friedman of The New York Times gush about young Indian women newly 'empowered' by call center jobs. Indian women, in jeans and eating pizzas, are supposed to make us feel good. Sure. But, a closer examination reveals the potential perils of appointing India as the sole supplier of vital software and services to our business and government. First, let's deal with the cost saving arguments. The cost advantages claimed are neither permanent nor fair. The Indian government lavishes generous tax-breaks on outsourcing and IT industries, (zero income tax on most IT outsourcing operations) tax-breaks of a magnitude neither deserved nor needed by the IT industry. These tax subsidies from the Indian government come at the expense of the most basic governmental services critically needed by the two-thirds of India that is mired in shameful poverty, samples of which can be readily seen in the silicon gullies in Bangalore, just a few miles from the glittering offices of Infosys and Intel. In Chennai, another major Indian OutSourCity, no drinking water is available even to vast sections of the middle class. More importantly, these cost advantages are not guaranteed to last. India's labor is free and mobile; American and foreign purchasers of this labor compete in a free market, which means there is no ceiling to Indian wages except those set by world markets. You might ask: What's wrong with exploiting these cost savings as long as they last; we can always move these operations to other countries or even back to the United States when cost advantages narrow? These types of service jobs, even those involving call centers, cannot be shuffled around. Indeed, the types of jobs going overseas are not limited to simple coding but increasingly involve higher-level design and development tasks. These skills, especially those customized for specific customer applications, are not likely to be readily available in Indonesia, Philippines or elsewhere once these jobs become entrenched in India. This means that the current outsourcing stampede could make American government and businesses permanently beholden to critical technology services and support from India, just as we have become dependent on energy from the Middle East. But, you say, India is not Saudi Arabia or China. India is a democracy. Indians speak English; they eat pizza and wear jeans. Once we get past these superficialities, however, we find that India is not a country we would readily pick as our strategic business partner. Although India has been coddling up to the West in recent years, Indians have long been inimical to Western ideas, technology, liberal principles and modernity. Allying itself with the Soviet Union, India labeled itself the leader of the so-called nonaligned movement, and habitually hectored the US at the United Nations. India continues to tolerate large-scale piracy of intellectual property, from books to movies to high technology products. India is praised for its English-style laws, but the Indian government blatantly reneged on its contract with the largest power plant built by American investors. The Indian government has failed to distribute equitably among its own citizens the large extortive penalty collected from Union Carbide for the Bhopal accident. In the 1970s, India drove IBM and Coke out of the country for refusing to pay political ransom. If you dismiss all this as irrelevant baggage from India's past, the current Indian government shows no clear principles either. The leading party in India's governing NDA coalition is the Bharatiya Janata Party, which rose to power by blatantly exploiting and advocating virulent and fanatical Hindu-first sentiments. The people of India are poised to give this party a larger mandate at national elections scheduled this month. Having started a non-winnable nuclear-race in the sub-continent with Pakistan, India continues to refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Indian politicians are trying shake down Coke and Pepsi through 'investigations' of contamination in beverages marketed by these American corporations in India. Just last year, when the US sought international support for action against Saddam Hussein, India went AWOL, hiding behind domestic politics. The Indian parliament went so far as to pass a resolution condemning the US-led action in Iraq. Even after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Indian government would not offer even token support to the Coalition's peace-keeping efforts in Iraq. India is much more closely aligned with the French and the Germans than you'd guess. This is the India that we are outsourcing our guts, lungs and brains to. Whether we are buying oil or software, the principle remains the same. We must make sure our suppliers' interests are closely aligned with ours. Let's not kid ourselves. If we went looking for business partners, India would not be the ideal choice. As critical functions of the American economy are outsourced to this antagonistic nation, Americans will grit their teeth, and bear the costs and consequences of keeping global markets free. But, as citizens of the only nation championing democracy and free markets, should Americans just shut their mouths and march to the unemployment office? I think not. We must make vigorous investment in our own educational system and keep our borders open to immigrants to restore critical skills and capabilities. Meanwhile, we can do more. We could demand that our government ask India to change and reform its ways. First, we should demand that India must send a meaningful contingent of troops to help the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan, meaningful in size and commensurate with the global power Indians think India is becoming. Second, the US government should demand that the Indian government must source preferentially from American contractors and manufacturers for the ambitious infrastructure building effort under way in India. India's roads, ports, power and water facilities are woefully underdeveloped. American technology and know-how can help speed India's development process while strengthening the commercial ties between the two countries. Third, the US must demand that the Indian government level the playing field between American and Indian technology firms. This means India must phase out its tax subsidies to the IT industry and agree to subjecting Indian firms to the same consumer protection laws and other legal liabilities governing American firms in like businesses. Finally, the US must demand that the Indian government will sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty if Pakistan agrees to sign the treaty, paving the way for a more peaceful subcontinent. A peaceful Indian subcontinent, aligned closely with American interests, is vital if we are going to rely increasingly on Indians providing services to the American economy. The writer teaches a course on bond markets at New York University. He is also a board member of the South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA)
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Apr 4 2004, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (G.Subramaniam @ Apr 4 2004, 08:30 PM)
India is Not a Country to be Picked as a US Strategic Partner By John Laxmi The writer teaches a course on bond markets at New York University. He is also a board member of the South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA)
Is this article not a wonderful example of how many ready 5th columnists are available for any filthy job that needs to be done for the white mas'sas The chant gaura~ngAya namo namaH arose over and over again!
Posted by: Peregrine Apr 8 2004, 02:49 PM WASHINGTON : The United States has asked over a dozen countries, including India , Pakistan and France , to join a new international military force to protect the United Nations in Iraq , according to American and European officials. The proposal is critical to persuading the UN to return to Iraq after two massive suicide attacks against its Baghdad headquarters last year in which its top official there was killed, they were quoted by Washington Post. The US has approached France , which led opposition to the war in Iraq , as well as India , Pakitan and other nations which were reluctant to join the US-led coalition that invaded Iraq , officials said. The list includes a “good global mix”, said a state department official familiar with the proposed force. However, no Arab countries or neighbours of Iraq are on the list. Turkey is also notably absent. The Kurds in the north strongly object to Turkish troops entering Iraq . The new force, said the Post, is considered essential to the fragile political transition. The Bush Administration is relying on the UN to return to Iraq to organise the elections as well as the polls by year end in places where even the current coalition is not deployed, US officials said. “Potentially there could be a lot more places that forces would have to go,” said a senior state department official. “None of us has done this before,” he said. Cheers
Posted by: Viren Apr 8 2004, 03:31 PM
QUOTE (Peregrine @ Apr 8 2004, 05:49 PM)
The United States has asked over a dozen countries, including India , Pakistan and France , to join a new international military force to protect the United Nations in Iraq , according to American and European officials.
rolleyes.gif Of the three listed, the newly designated MuNNA should oblige dry.gif They have the (i) expertise (East Pakistan, Gilgit, Balouch, POK, Afghan and more recently in Wana) and (ii) motivation - 5 billion plus Plus proliferator Mush can make Bush kush by "finding" WMD in Eeyrak wink.gif
Posted by: Hauma Hamiddha Apr 8 2004, 03:57 PM
What uncle is doing is like crapping on the street and asking others to clean up the filth. The problems is some of the stench from the filth could blow our way especially given that we are arch-infidels
Posted by: Mudy Apr 10 2004, 11:34 PM Targeting Terrorism Forget Europe. How About These Allies? By Thomas P.M. Barnett Sunday, April 11, 2004; Page B05 Terrorists buy a national election in Spain for the price of 10 backpack bombs and remove a "crucial" pillar of the Western coalition in Iraq. Predictably, op-ed columnists and talking heads raise the cry for the Bush administration to "save the Western alliance." This is a knee-jerk response that reflects historical habit more than strategic logic. Clinging to the Western alliance isn't the way to win the global war on terrorism. In fact, it's a backward-looking approach that's certain to doom our efforts in this conflict. Combating transnational terrorism in the era of globalization will be a decades-long task, and anything that long and complex requires a genuinely grand strategy, something this country has lacked since the end of the Cold War. Grand strategy is about figuring out what kind of global future is worth creating, understanding which states have the incentive to build that future, and concluding the bargains necessary to keep them on board for the duration. The Bush administration has declared its intention to "transform" the Middle East, but beyond merely stating that goal and offering regimes there a "to-do" list for democracy, it remains unclear what constitutes the finish line in this global war on terrorism. Defining happy endings is important, because it can help America understand who its true allies in this great historical struggle should be -- not globalization's old core of Europe but its new pillars in Asia and elsewhere. During the Cold War, the United States was able to enlist the long-term support of Western Europe because those nations felt most under the gun from the Soviet bloc's military threat. All they had to do was to peer behind the Iron Curtain to envision the future they wanted at all costs to avoid. Europe today faces no such threat. All the Islamic terrorists demand is that Europe remain on the sidelines while they wage "holy war" against American "imperialism" in the Persian Gulf. Al Qaeda wants to drive the West out of the Middle East so that it can drive the Middle East out of the modern world. Osama bin Laden has seen our future and prefers Islam's past, and many in Old Europe are willing to agree to his offer of civilizational apartheid, preferring to concentrate on inwardly perfecting the European Union, where they have their hands full merely integrating the former East Bloc states. And if Turkey remains "too different" for that club, you can imagine how any effort to connect Iraq to the West seems like a bridge too far. Instead of focusing on what it will take to keep Old Europe enlisted in the effort to transform the Middle East, what the United States really needs to concentrate on is developing an entirely new alliance with such emerging powers as China, India and Russia. We can bend over backward trying to keep Spain's 1,300 soldiers in Iraq, or we can figure out what it will take to get these emerging pillars of globalization to contribute far bigger numbers to the effort. It might seem counterintuitive to enlist nations wanting in the democracy department to promote it in the Middle East. But democracy is a long-term goal at best, when what the region needs right now are states willing to export security in the form of peacekeepers. That is true not just for the Middle East, but everywhere else that we'll be fighting terrorism in this global war. Globalization's steady advance across the planet marks the battle lines in the war on terrorism. Show me regions deeply embedded in the global economy or moving rapidly toward its rule-bound embrace, and I will show you all the states that should logically be counted among our strongest allies. That "functioning core" of globalization includes North America, much of South America, the European Union, Russia, Japan and Asia's emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa -- representing more than 4 billion people in a global population of 6.4 billion. Are all of these states democratic today? Hardly. But connecting up to the global economy is how you grow a middle class, and that's the main ingredient needed for a stable democracy over the long haul. Conversely, show me the regions most disconnected from the global economy, and I will show you those regimes that should be overwhelmingly targeted for reform or, yes, even periodic violent dismantling. These countries lie chiefly within the Caribbean Rim, Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, Central Asia and Southeast Asia. A wide swath of the world, to be sure, but that's hardly a "global" war. Terrorism thrives where globalization has yet to extend itself in any meaningful way, because countries that lack widespread economic interactions with the outside world (beyond just pumping oil) are either failed states or brutally repressive regimes, both of which generate desperate young men seeking political change through violence. You want to dry up global terror? Make globalization truly global. But realistic grand strategy likewise demands that we be clear about which of our "allies" not only support globalization's advance but can also handle the clash of civilizations it will trigger. The Bush administration's "big bang" strategy in the Middle East started with removing Saddam Hussein from power, but it will pick up speed only after the United States and its allies successfully reconnect Iraqi society to the world outside. That ambitious effort naturally attracts regional Islamic jihadists committed to fighting "American imperialism," which, absent allies with staying power, our occupation would soon come to resemble. So who's going to stay with us through the tough times ahead? Here's a hint: If 10 well-placed bombs can flip a country's national election, that country probably isn't cut out for the job of waging a global war on terrorism. A country also probably isn't cut out for the job if its society is generations past remembering what religious fervor feels like, if its military hasn't suffered significant (or any) combat losses since World War II, and if its government hasn't been accused of significant human rights violations in recent memory. Messy wars require allies who don't mind getting dirty. Last year , India almost sent 17,000 peacekeeping troops to Iraq. Imagine what a different coalition we'd have there today if we had been able to close that strategic deal. What would it have taken on our part? Probably a much closer security relationship with New Delhi at Pakistan's expense. But since Pakistan is home to many al Qaeda forces still eluding capture, the United States chooses to designate this desperately failed state its new "major non-NATO ally," while rising economic powerhouse India remains -- what? Chopped liver? An international occupation force in Iraq that included the vigorous participation of the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians would speak to a global future worth creating, not just some transatlantic partnership overtaken by events. Let me give you three crucial reasons why. First, new core powers are the most willing to wage war to protect the global economy because they have the most to lose by its collapse. Old Europe would still have itself to rely on; North America constitutes an economic universe all its own. But China, India and Russia desperately need access to the global economy, because each is making up for a lot of past disconnectedness. Second, such new core powers show a real passion for doing what it takes to further globalization's advance. Note the emergence of the so-called Group of 20-plus in the current Doha Round of World Trade Organization negotiations. These new core powers (e.g., India, China, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea) are aggressively working to conclude new trade bargains between globalization's old core powers (the United States, Europe, Japan) and those regions currently sitting outside the global economy, noses pressed to the glass. Third, primarily because their rapidly growing economies are the most dependent on future access to the energy resources in the Middle East, the new core states of developing Asia will clearly be most interested in making sure that the Middle East does not fall into the sort of extreme disconnectedness desired by the bin Ladens of that region. When the United States enlists the active support of a China, India or Russia, it gains military partners who won't run at the first sight of blood, argue incessantly over the constitutional rights of "enemy combatants" or see their governments collapse every time the terrorists land a lucky strike back home. Yes, we will occasionally have to hold our noses over China's human rights record, Vladimir Putin's rough manipulation of the Russian media or New Delhi's tendency to look the other way on certain forms of internal sectarian violence. But favoring order over justice makes sense at this point in history, at least when it comes to picking strategic partners. Anyway, these states are rapidly integrating with the global economy, inevitably generating the middle class that creates pressure for greater political freedom far faster than any externally imposed sanctions can produce it. Such support will clearly have costs. But we won't know what they are until we make a serious effort to find out what these nations would need from an alliance. One thing is certain: Like our oldest European allies, these governments would want a clear sense of where the United States thinks it is going in this global conflict. The Middle East will continue to serve as the world's wellspring of terrorism until it fully participates in the global economy, and that means moving beyond just the oil trade that keeps elites rich and the masses marginalized. With the hydrogen economy looming on the strategic horizon, the alternative is clear: condemning roughly a billion Muslims to a life of disconnectedness that benefits only the dictators of the region. The grand strategy of connecting the disconnected means you cannot simply throw up firewalls between your "good life" and all that "chaos" over there, as many Europeans and not just a few Americans might prefer. The United States would find far more realistic partners in China, India and Russia, because none of those states is foolish enough to believe that its future strategic security can be bought by distancing itself from the Middle East's chronic conflicts. Until Washington effectively enlists globalization's new core powers in the war on terrorism, our historic reliance on Old Europe will remain our Achilles' heel, easily exploited by an al Qaeda whose strategic vision currently exceeds our own. Author's e-mail: Thomas Barnett served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century," to be published this month by G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Posted by: Ram Apr 11 2004, 08:56 PM
Folks, Here is the response I sent to the author of the WP article. Dear Mr. Barnett, I really commend the suggestions you make in following piece by you in the WP Indeed a countries like India and Russia, and China to a large extent do have the incentive to fight the scourge of global Islamic terrorism because these states, particularly India bear the brunt of this evil phenomenon. However, I do have to take issue with some points you make. For US and India to be truly meaningful allies, India's and USA's notions of what constitutes the 'global war on terror' must intersect. For any objective, dispassionate observer, it is as obvious as daylight that it is not only the mid-east that is the epi-center of Islamic terror, but Pakistan well and truly figures at the top. Now granted, the terror emanating from Pakistan is India-centric, at least since 9/11/01 when Pakistan's dictator opportunistically dumped the Taliban which was a creation of Pakistan and sustained by Pakistan and decided to side with the USA. This was very a wily decision, and executed with extreme dexterity in that Pakistan made subtle distinctions, and accepted by USA, that those terrorists like Al Quaida who threaten western interests are to be hunted down, while the same variety used by Pakistan against India in Kashmir and elsewhere are fighting India's so called 'oppressive' rule in Kashmir. Thus, USA has formulated the thesis that terrorism against USA, the west, and Israel is unadulterated evil, but terrorism against India by its front-line ally Pakistan is the result of 'root causes', namely, the so called 'dispute over Kashmir'. What a disgusting double standard, bordering on colonial and racist perceptions of the non-western world. Pakistan's decision to side with USA was not based on any enlightened desire to join the civilized comity of nations, but rather it was taken to improve its military position visa vi India. I wonder how much you know about the politics of the Indian subcontinent, but the Pakistani elite, led by its military, to this day continue to live under the delusion that they are the rightful inheritors of the 'glorious' Islamic Mogul rulers who ruled parts of the Indian Subcontinent prior to the arrival of the British empire, and any means including the use of Islamic terrorism as an instrument of state policy to see the Pakistani flag fly over New Delhi, and thereby to re-establish the dominance of Muslims, is worthy in the pursuance of this 'noble' goal. In this, the desire to see the annihilation of Israel by sections of the Arab elite is no different from what Pakistan wants to do to India. Sadly, I must say that USA feeding Pakistan with billions of $s of economic and military aid even as its terrorism against India continues unabated makes a mockery of this so called 'global war on terror'. And sir, I must with all due respect tell you, that USA's courting of the biggest sponsor of terrorism as a non-NATO ally is tantamount to USA indirectly sponsoring terrorism against India. There is simply no other way one can describe the USA-Pakistan alliance. Period. Even in your parlance, Pakistan's behavior against India does not constitute 'global terrorism'. In your entire peace, your ire is directed only against the terrorism unleashed on the USA, but I see very muted criticism of Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India. I do not want to make light of the tragedy of 9/11/01, but India has seen far worse in the decades old terrorist proxy war that Pakistan has unleashed on India. There is simply a grotesque incongruence in USA claiming to fight a global war on terror, but has enlisted the biggest sponsor of terrorism as a front-line ally and a non-NATO ally. It almost feels as though USA is 'managing' the Pakistani terror machine in way that the terrorists' wrath is directed solely against India, and away from the west and Israel. In closing, I would say that while your suggestion that USA and India form an alliance to combat global terror is welcome, but unless and until USA and India are on the same side as to what constitutes terrorism, this talk of alliance is only gallons of hot air. On the contrary, as USA solidifies its alliance with Pakistan, pumping in economic and military aid, I see India US relations going down hill, even worse than what they were during the cold war era. The ball is in USA's court, either it has a genuine alliance with India based on common values, and a shared interest in defeating the evil phenomenon of Islamic terrorism, or as is the case now, it chooses Pakistan with all the pitfalls identified by you. There is simply no middle ground. Pakistan is a terrorist state, lock stock, and barrel. Cheers
Posted by: Viren Apr 11 2004, 09:03 PM
Thomas Barnett served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2003 and is the author of "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century," to be published this month by G.P. Putnam's Sons.
There was few excerpts of Barnett's "New Map" on US Naval Military website about a year ago in which he states about Pakistan:
PAKISTAN There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing). • Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust. • Clearly infested with Al Qaeda. • Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U.S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.
Posted by: Mudy Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM
April 12,2004 - Hardball - MSNBC transcript Discussion was on Iraq. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about how you see it on the ground in terms of nation building. I guess the most famous case of a country being built by other country—I guess we were to some extent built by the English, I guess you could say, hundreds of years ago—is India, where you have a really steadfast democracy and a lot of sort of Anglo-traditions left over from the Raj. argue.gif And I suppose—but that took 100 or so years of British people actually living there, loving India, getting along with the Indians at a distance, but definitely inputting their political input on the country. devilsmiley.gif How can we build a culture of democracy in a couple years? TRAUB: Well, first of all, the India example, I think that‘s very well chosen. But the problem is, nobody is willing to be that patient anymore, because it is their country and they‘re not willing to let somebody else come in and run it for a couple generations until they‘re ready to take over all those nice railroads. And so part of the difficulty is, how do you help these guys train police, train judges, train civil administrators, and so forth, while at the same time making them understand it is their country? That‘s a very hard thing to do. And come July 1, whoever it is we hand this government off to, we‘re going to have that problem. So we‘re going to have to be there in very big numbers, both in terms of a military and a civilian operation. And I think one of the reasons why maybe it is a good idea...
Posted by: Mudy Apr 14 2004, 11:32 AM by B.Raman. ( Based on my impressions during a visit to Washington DC from March 29 to April 4,2004, to attend a conference on Indo-US Strategic Co-operation and a study of subsequent developments
Posted by: Mudy Apr 14 2004, 11:55 AM B.Raman.
4. There is a convergence of perceptions between India and the US that Musharraf has not done or is not trying to do all that needs to be done to eradicate the dregs of Al Qaeda and the Taliban still operating from Pakistani territory. The divergence relates to their respective perceptions of the sincerity of his oft-proclaimed determination to root out this cancer 5. While many of us in India feel strongly that his commitment to the war against terrorism is half-hearted and that he is playing a tactical game to retain the increasing support of the US Administration for his continued rule without impairing Pakistan's ability to make strategic use of the various terrorist groups to serve its national interests vis-a-vis India and Afghanistan, many in the US policy-influencing circles are convinced that he is trying to do all that he could in the prevailing circumstances without endangering his own administration. 6. There is recognition that Musharraf's democracy in olive green (OG) is not the best option the US has for prevailing over the new brand of international jihadi terrorism spreading from this region, but, at the same time, there is a conviction that this is the only option it has, however imperfect, and that it would be ill-advised to discard it unless and until a better option is available.
22. In the US Administration in Washington DC, there is hardly anyone who advocates punitive action against Pakistan. The debate is not on whether the time has come to punish Pakistan, but how to make Pakistan behave better and co-operate more actively. Rice's emphasis on the need for a carrots and sticks policy towards Pakistan ---with more carrots than sticks-- is widely shared in the Adminstration. 23. Even Richard Clarke was and is against a punitive policy towards Pakistan. He writes in his book: " Few issues demand attention and resources more than Pakistan. Once an example of an Islamic democracy with a high-tech future, Pakistan could become what bin Laden dreams of---an Islamic nation controlled by radicals, with popular support for fundamentalism and terrorism, armed with nuclear weapons. Such a State could use those nuclear weapons in a war of hatred with neighbouring India or it could provide them to terrorists. For now, under General Musharraf, the nuclear weapons are reportedly under tight control. Musharraf, however, needs help to turn the popular attitude in his country from supporting al Qaeda's view of the future to supporting a modern, democratic, peaceful view of the future. Although the US increased assistance to Pakistan in 2001, it is inadequate to make the difference needed, to turn the tide in Pakistan and return it to stability."
26.Unfortunately, the present Government in New Delhi has done a tremendous disservice to the nation and its people by slowing down and toning down its campaign to highlight to the world the role of Pakistan in continuing to foment international jihadi terrorism, its continuing collusion with the dregs of the Taliban and its half-hearted measures against those of Al Qaeda. 27. In the name of improving the atmospherics in Indo-Pakistan relations, our important objective of making the international community continue to exercise pressure on Pakistan on the issue of the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory directed against India has been diluted, if not given a go-by. 28.Any hopes entertained by us that Musharraf would reciprocate this misplaced and totally uncalled for gesture by restraining terrorism in J&K are already in the process of being belied. He continues to pursue as resolutely as ever his policy of using terrorism against India and projecting the terrorists as freedom-fighters. A similar resolve to pursue our war against jihadi terrorism sponsored by and from Pakistan till it is defeated is lacking in us
Posted by: Viren Apr 20 2004, 09:10 PM
Came via email: ------------------- The contents of this article of Bharat Karnad in the ASIAN AGE is troubling? EXCERPTS: ***US establishing a military presence in Pakistan, virtually controlling the Pakistani air space out of its main base in Jacobabad, and wresting control from a harried and pressured General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan Army of the most critical part of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal — the nuclear component of the nuclear weapons. The awarding of "major non-NATO ally" status to that country, in the event, is a sop to dampen the growing resentment within the Pakistani establishment. ***Pakistani government has, however, been permitted to ballyhoo the fiction of readily available nuclear weapons for the purposes of dealing with the "threat" from India. ***it would not do to broadcast this last development because it will lose Washington powerful leverage with the Indian government. Better, from the American (and, in the circumstances, also the Pakistani) point of view, to reinforce the mindless Indian fixation with the "nuclear threat" from Pakistan to keep India alarmed, distracted and contained to South Asia — something that was originally achieved by China’s assisting Pakistan to go nuclear and the US government’s providing it protection against its own strong non-proliferation laws. ***A part of the US agenda to effectively nuclear disarm the subcontinent has been achieved vis-à-vis Pakistan. Washington is now turning its attention to New Delhi with the intent of peacefully pre-empting the Indian nuclear deterrent. A partial victory has already been scored. Ashley Tellis, formerly senior adviser to the US ambassador in India, has revealed the deal cut in the 19 rounds of the Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks held post-Pokharan-II, whereby India agreed not to resume nuclear testing, change the present "de-alerted, de-mated" nuclear posture, or develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in return for promises of transfer of high-technology, like civilian advanced reactors, and technological collaboration in space. Senior Bush administration officials admit that the "glide path" is a diplomatic ploy and no real high-value technology will be in the pipeline, at least not until Washington gains real confidence in India, which may be the same as New Delhi’s doing what it is asked to do by the US. ***But there’s one "high tech" project the US is very keen India join, namely, missile defence. It is a device to hasten the de-nuclearisation of India. How so? New Delhi’s rapturous welcome of the anti-ballistic missile defence concept mooted by President Bush provided the opening. ***an interim missile defence solution is on offer — theatre missile defence (TMD) based on the Aegis radar on board US Navy destroyers, presumably patrolling off the Indian coast. The Aegis is expected to give real time warnings of missile launches from Pakistan and even China whereupon the inordinately expensive Arrow interdictor missiles (Israeli Arrow or the American PAC-3) that India will be persuaded to buy at great cost, can be fired. Assuming the radar, sensors and the communications interlinks work as they are supposed to, the question to ask is: will Indian military personnel be manning the Aegis radar and its links to Indian nuclear operations complex? Of course, not. In which case, will not India’s security become hostage to US interests in Pakistan and the region as a whole? ***whether it is the Aegis TMD or the NMD India will subscribe to, the United States will notch up a singular counter-proliferation success. What the US could not wangle in the Commission on Disarmament in Geneva over forty-odd years of arm-twisting in the negotiations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — India’s right to a meaningful nuclear deterrent in line with those of the so-called NPT-recognised nuclear states — will be peacefully ceded by New Delhi. India will end up becoming an American client-state, like Pakistan. ***Washington will argue that insofar as the Pakistani nuclear threat has been negated, there is little need for India to continue having a nuclear arsenal of its own, let alone to augment it in any way. This is how the logic of New Delhi’s oft-expressed fear of Islamabad starting a nuclear affray, is going to be turned against India. I have no doubt India's seasoned diplomats will tread their way most carefully in future discussions with the United States - and not walk into a trap. India MUST be recognized as a nuclear power in its own right de facto if not de jure. There should be no question of India ever having to surrender its independent nuclear deterrent as long as China is not willing to de-nuclearize and China will not agree to de-nuclearize unless the other 4 powers agree to de-nuclearize. xxx ASIAN AGE, APRIL 21, 2004 After Pak, India - By Bharat Karnad India-Pakistan talks on nuclear confidence and security building measures (CSBMs) are to begin on May 25. To understand what is at stake and what can reasonably be agreed upon by the two countries, there is first the need to be clear about the interests and intentions of the third player in this fandango — the United States. Nothing spooks the US more than nuclear weapons in the hands of other than the five so-called Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)-recognised nuclear weapon states. The mere suspicion that Saddam Hussein was angling for an atom bomb led to Iraq’s being Bushwhacked. The strategy of pre-emption and preventive war, articulated by US President George W. Bush, has provided justification for this action. According to it, any and all threats to the US, however remote, are to be nipped in the bud by whatever means, including war. And weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), especially of the nuclear variety, are perceived by Washington as posing the greatest threat to US security and world order. Over the years, Republican and Democratic Party administrations alike have supported strong counter-proliferation measures when more peaceable ones have not worked. But the American fear of proliferation, whatever the rhetoric, turned serious only after the trauma of 9/11. How else to explain Washington’s turning a Nelson’s eye over the previous two decades to China’s supplying nuclear weapon design and production technology and missile wherewithal (directly and via North Korea) to Pakistan, and to Islamabad’s barely-disguised build-up of the Kahuta centrifuges? It served the US interests to have Pakistan as a "frontline state" helping the US discomfit the Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan and later fight Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cohort there, whence its nuclear transgressions were forgiven, that is until now. Pakistan has been "outed" as a nuclear rogue supplier for a reason. The conjunction between the Islamabad-run nuclear "grey" market and the Al Qaeda brand of uncompromising terrorism has conjured up the spectre of jihadis exploding smuggled "radiological dispersion devices" or, worse, "suitcase bombs", in the heart of Manhattan. The Russian secretary for national security, General Alexander Lebed, visiting Washington in 1997, revealed that 132 of these bombs are missing from a total of some 300-odd in the ex-Soviet inventory. It was too real a danger for the George W. Bush administration to ignore. This, as much as the fight against the Al Qaeda, has led to the US establishing a military presence in Pakistan, virtually controlling the Pakistani air space out of its main base in Jacobabad, and wresting control from a harried and pressured General Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistan Army of the most critical part of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal — the nuclear component of the nuclear weapons. The awarding of "major non-NATO ally" status to that country, in the event, is a sop to dampen the growing resentment within the Pakistani establishment. Islamabad acquiesced in this arrangement because it was confronted with Hobson’s choice: either allow its nuclear weapons to be neutered in this way, or face the prospect of the Pakistani weapons being publicly and forcefully eliminated. General Musharraf chose the former course. A careful content analysis of various statements by General Musharraf and Abdul Sattar in the aftermath of 9/11, when he was foreign minister, carried out by this writer — which because of space constraints cannot be detailed here — and other supporting evidence, like the movement of US and Israeli (and even Indian) Special Forces at the time, substantiates this thesis. Pakistani government has, however, been permitted to ballyhoo the fiction of readily available nuclear weapons for the purposes of dealing with the "threat" from India. Besides, it would not do to broadcast this last development because it will lose Washington powerful leverage with the Indian government. Better, from the American (and, in the circumstances, also the Pakistani) point of view, to reinforce the mindless Indian fixation with the "nuclear threat" from Pakistan to keep India alarmed, distracted and contained to South Asia — something that was originally achieved by China’s assisting Pakistan to go nuclear and the US government’s providing it protection against its own strong non-proliferation laws. A part of the US agenda to effectively nuclear disarm the subcontinent has been achieved vis-à-vis Pakistan. Washington is now turning its attention to New Delhi with the intent of peacefully pre-empting the Indian nuclear deterrent. A partial victory has already been scored. Ashley Tellis, formerly senior adviser to the US ambassador in India, has revealed the deal cut in the 19 rounds of the Strobe Talbott-Jaswant Singh talks held post-Pokharan-II, whereby India agreed not to resume nuclear testing, change the present "de-alerted, de-mated" nuclear posture, or develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in return for promises of transfer of high-technology, like civilian advanced reactors, and technological collaboration in space. Senior Bush administration officials admit that the "glide path" is a diplomatic ploy and no real high-value technology will be in the pipeline, at least not until Washington gains real confidence in India, which may be the same as New Delhi’s doing what it is asked to do by the US. But there’s one "high tech" project the US is very keen India join, namely, missile defence. It is a device to hasten the de-nuclearisation of India. How so? New Delhi’s rapturous welcome of the anti-ballistic missile defence concept mooted by President Bush provided the opening. It did not help that India’s interest in missile defence is Pakistan-oriented (as is much of its military effort), evident from the Indian interest in the short-range Russian S-300 and the Israeli Arrow anti-ballistic missile systems for point and small area air defence. A constituency for plugging into the US missile defence within the civilian, defence science and military bureaucracies is sought to be created. A number of Indian teams have already been conducted around the Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico where the prototypes of the National Missile Defence (NMD) radar, sensors, "kill" vehicles, etc., are being designed and tested. A favourable consensus is also sought to be generated amongst the intelligentsia through friendly press commentaries. However, NMD is some ways off, if ever, from getting off the ground. So, an interim missile defence solution is on offer — theatre missile defence (TMD) based on the Aegis radar on board US Navy destroyers, presumably patrolling off the Indian coast. The Aegis is expected to give real time warnings of missile launches from Pakistan and even China whereupon the inordinately expensive Arrow interdictor missiles (Israeli Arrow or the American PAC-3) that India will be persuaded to buy at great cost, can be fired. Assuming the radar, sensors and the communications interlinks work as they are supposed to, the question to ask is: will Indian military personnel be manning the Aegis radar and its links to Indian nuclear operations complex? Of course, not. In which case, will not India’s security become hostage to US interests in Pakistan and the region as a whole? The problem will be exacerbated if the comprehensive missile defence becomes feasible. Then there will be even greater American pressure to buy into this supposedly impenetrable missile defence cover. But whether it is the Aegis TMD or the NMD India will subscribe to, the United States will notch up a singular counter-proliferation success. What the US could not wangle in the Commission on Disarmament in Geneva over forty-odd years of arm-twisting in the negotiations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — India’s right to a meaningful nuclear deterrent in line with those of the so-called NPT-recognised nuclear states — will be peacefully ceded by New Delhi. India will end up becoming an American client-state, like Pakistan. There is an implicit guarantee, moreover, that with the US military ensconced inside Pakistan (and with or without the American control of the latter’s nuclear assets), Islamabad will be unable to activate its nuclear weapons in a crisis or start a conventional war or do anything that makes crossing the nuclear threshold by either Pakistan or India possible. By factoring India’s access to US missile defence into this equation, Washington will argue that insofar as the Pakistani nuclear threat has been negated, there is little need for India to continue having a nuclear arsenal of its own, let alone to augment it in any way. This is how the logic of New Delhi’s oft-expressed fear of Islamabad starting a nuclear affray, is going to be turned against India. Tomorrow: How to maintain nuclear peace Bharat Karnad is Research Professor at the Centre for Policy Research and author of Nuclear Weapons & Indian Security
Posted by: Ram Apr 25 2004, 06:05 AM
Friends, I don't agree with every detail that Bharat Karnard lays out, but right from the day Paki terrorists were chosen as a front-line ally by USA, I knew that the decision was not merely to capture a few Al Quaida thugs as US govt will have India believe and repeated ad nauseum by dim nit-wits in the Indian media like Shekar Gupta etc. The fact is that US alliance with Pakis is purely an India containment one. Then came the bombshell that so obviously buttresses this claim. Once again, as Bharat Karnard says, the reason why US is going soft on the Paki nuke proliferation is not because their terrorist puppy Musa will be overthrown and other lies that are peddled by USA, but it is to use the boogey of Paki nuke blackmail to India, the 'south Asia is a nuke flashpoint' mantra to maintain pressure on India and roll back its nukes. I mean the intellectual sophistry of the non-proliferation Ayatollahs in dragging India into the sordid Paki nuke proliferation scandal is simply astounding. Given USA's might and media monopoly, these lies repeated ad nauseum that somehow Indian nuke programme is in the same league as Paki nukes and proliferation will now become part of public discourse. Cheers Ram
Posted by: Kaushal May 5 2004, 10:20 PM
This list is a useful one. For one it points out the extent to which the Pakis have infiltrated the Pugwashconference, which used to be mainly an intellectual club of Peacenikkers in the US. I see some names from India too. Most of them are Congresswallahs or those who indulge in chamchagiri with the Congress. But keep this at the back of your mind as yet another avenue for the US to influence india to do its bidding. Pugwash Meeting no. 282 schedule | participants | papers | workshop report 2nd Pugwash Workshop on South Asian Security (in collaboration with GIPRI) Geneva, Switzerland, 16-18 May 2003 Participants * = mailing address [Affiliations listed are for information only. All participants to Pugwash meetings take part in their personal capacity.] Dr. Samina Ahmed, Project Director Afghanistan/South Asia, International Crisis Group (ICG), Islamabad, Pakistan [formerly: Research Fellow, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Senior Research Analyst, Institute of Regional Studies, Islamabad] E-mail: Prof. Mohammad Hamid Ansari, Visiting Professor, Academy of Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India [formerly: Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, India; Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations; Ambassador to UAE, Australia, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia] E-mail: Mr. Abdul Basit, Counsellor (Disarmament), Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland [formerly: Director (Disarmament), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad] E-mail: Amb. Josef Bucher, Special Representative on Conflict Issues, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Bern, Switzerland E-mail: Mr. Pran Chopra, Member, Advisory Council, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, India [formerly: Visiting Professor, Centre for Policy Research; Editorial Director, Press Foundation of Asia, Manila; Chief Editor, The Statesman Group, Calcutta, New Delhi] E-mail: Prof. Paolo Cotta-Ramusino, Secretary-General, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs; Professor of Mathematical Physics, University of Milan, Italy; Director, Program on Disarmament and International Security, Landau Network - Centro Volta, Como, Italy [formerly: Secretary General, Union of Italian Scientists for Disarmament (USPID)] E-mail: Amb. J.N. Dixit, former Foreign Secretary to the Government of India, as well as former Ambassador of India to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc. Currently Professor in several universities in India, as well as concurrent positions in various think tanks in both multinational corporations and academic institutions E-mail: (and) Lt. Gen. (ret) Asad Durrani, recently Ambassador of Pakistan to Saudi Arabia [formerly: Director General, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); Commandant, National Defence College; Ambassador to Germany] E-mail: (and) Mdm. Claire Galez, Director, Centre for South Asian Studies (CSAS), Geneva, Switzerland E-mail: Dr. Jozef Goldblat (Sweden/Switzerland), Vice President, Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland; Consultant, United Nations, Geneva [formerly: Director, Arms Control & Disarmament Programme, SIPRI (1969-89)] E-mail: Mr. Ejaz Haider, Foreign/Op-Ed Editor, The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan ; News Editor, The Friday Times [formerly : Visiting Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution (Nov 2002-March 2003); Ford Scholar, Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security (ACDIS), Univ. Of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (1997] E-mail:; Dr. Rodney W. Jones, President, Policy Architects International, Reston, VA, USA, Gen. (ret) Jehangir Karamat, former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Army Staff, Pakistan Office: IPRI, Islamabad, Pakistan, E-mail: E-mail: Maj.-Gen. (ret) Afsar Karim, Editor, AAKROSH-Asian Journal on Terrorism and Internal Conflicts [formerly: Major-General in the Indian Army; Member, National Security Advisory Board; Editor, Indian Defence Review Quarterly] E-mail: Mr. Farooq M. Kathwari, Chairman, President and CEO, Ethan Allen Inc., Danbury, CT, USA; Chairman, Kashmir Study Group E-mail: Mr. Pratap Kaul, Retired Ambassador of India to the USA, and retired Cabinet Secretary to the Government of India [also formerly: Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance; Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Gov't of India] Amb. Aziz Ahmad Khan, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad, Pakistan E-mail: Mr. Salman Khurshid, Member Working Committee in charge of Northern East States, Indian National Congress, New Delhi, India; President, Delhi Public School Society [formerly: Minister of State, External Affairs, Government of India; Liu Po Shan Lecturer in Law, Oxford University] E-mail: Prof. Maurizio Martellini, Secretary General, Landau Network-Centro Volta (LNCV), Como, Italy; Professor of Physics, University of Insubria, Como, Italy E-mail: Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Talat Masood, Columnist and Commentator on national, regional and global issues, Islamabad, Pakistan [formerly: retired Lt. General; Secretary, Defence Production, Ministry of Defence; Chairman and Chief Executive, Pakistan Ordnance Factories; Chairman, allied companies; Member, Public Account committee] E-mail: Dr. C. Raja Mohan, Strategic Affairs Editor, The Hindu, New Delhi, India; Convenor, Indian Pugwash Society [formerly: Senior Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi (1983-92)] Prof. Abdul Nayyar, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan; on leave from the Physics Department, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad E-mail: Dr. Nicole Perret, Département fédéral de la défense, de la population et des sports, Bern, Switzerland, E-mail: Prof. Ramamurti Rajaraman, Professor of Theoretical Physics, School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India [formerly on the faculty at: The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; Delhi University; Cornell University, Ithaca] E-mail: / Adm. Laxminarayan Ramdas, Chair, Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace & Democracy, Maharashtra, India [formerly: Chief of the Naval Staff, India (1990-93)] E-mail: Hon. Maharajakrishna Rasgotra, President, ORF Institute of Asian Studies, New Delhi, India; Honorary Advisor, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation; Co-Chairman, Indo-French Forum; Member, India-Sri Lanka Foundation [formerly: Member, Government of India's National Security Advisory Board (2002-2001); Visiting Professor, JNU, and Regents' Professor, UCLA (1987); Foreign Secretary to the Government of India (1982-85); Ambassador of India to France (1979-82), the Netherlands (1977-79), Nepal (1973-76); High Commissioner of India to the UK (1988-90); Deputy Chief of Mission, Indian Embassy, Washington DC (1969-72)] E-mail: Mr. Abbas Rashid, Coordinator, Society for the Advancement of Education, Lahore, Pakistan; Columnist, Daily Times, Lahore [formerly: Instructor in International Relations, Civil Services Academy (Federal Government); Contributing Editor, The Muslim (national daily newspaper); Acting Editor, The Frontier Post (National daily newspaper)] E-mail: Brig. Naeem Salik, Director, Arms Control & Disarmament Affairs, Strategic Plans Division, Joint Staff Headquarters, Rawalpindi, Pakistan; Visiting Professor, Defence & Strategic Studies Department, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad E-mail: Hon. Abdul Sattar, Member, Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Palais des Nations, Geneva [former Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Islamabad] E-mail: Amb. Prakash Shah, Member, Indo-Japan Eminent Persons Group; Director, Pathfinders International, Watertown, MA, USA; Advisor, Dodsal Group, Dubai [formerly: Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, New York & Geneva; Ambassador to the Committee on Disarmament, Geneva; Ambassador of India to Japan; Special Envoy of the UN Secretary general for Iraq] E-mail: Dr. Toufiq Siddiqi, President, Global Environment & Energy in the 21st Century (GEE-21), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA; Affiliate graduated.gif Faculty, Geography Department, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu [formerly: Regional Adviser on Energy, United Nations ESCAP; Senior Fellow, East-West Center, Honolulu] E-mail: Dr. Waheguru Pal S. Sidhu, Professor of International Relations, Delhi University, New Delhi, India; Joint Co-editor, International Peacekeeping (since January 2001); Member, Editorial Board, Global Governance (since January 2001); Core Group Member, Mountbatten Centre International Missile Forum [formerly: Senior Associate, International Peace Academy (IPA), New York, NY; Consultant, United Nations Panel of Governmental Experts on Missiles (2001-2002); MacArthur Research Fellow, St. Anthony's College, Oxford (1999-2000); Warren Weaver Fellowship for International Security, Rockefeller Foundation, New York (1997-1998); Research Associate, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (1996-1997)] E-mail: Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, Director, Centre for Strategic and International Studies ; Member, Pugwash Council; Member, Indian Pugwash Society [formerly : Director, Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi ; Director (Operations), Air Headquarters, New Delhi; Member, National Security Advisory Board] E-mail: (and) Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh (India), Senior Research Fellow, Center for Pacific Asia Studies (CPAS), Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: Prof. Jean-Pierre Stroot (Belgium/Switzerland), retired Physicist ; Geneva Pugwash Office; President of the Board of the Geneva International Peace Research Institute (GIPRI), Geneva, Switzerland [formerly: Director of Research, IISN, Belgium; Research Associate, CERN] E-mail: H.E. Mr. Shaukat Umer, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Pakistan, Geneva, Switzerland, E-mail: Amb. Philippe Welti, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Berne, Switzerland ============= Claudia Vaughn, Pugwash Conferences, via della Lungara 10, I-00165 Rome, Italy, Tel. (++39-06) 687-2606, Fax: (++39-06) 687-8376, Mobile: (++39-333) 456-6661, E-mail:
Posted by: Kaushal May 8 2004, 10:39 PM,~Pak.~as~nuke~weapon~states Washington, May 9. (PTI): The United States had taken steps to strengthen its ties with India and Pakistan to advance its regional goals and these moves should not be seen as US accepting the South Asian nations as nuclear weapon States under the Non Proliferation Treaty, a senior State Department official has said. "We have taken steps recently with both countries (India and Pakistan) to strengthen relations in order to advance our regional goals, enhance the fight against terrorism, and to secure cooperation from both countries on export controls. "These steps should not, however, be taken to suggest that we have 'accepted' the status of either country as a nuclear weapon state under the NPT. We have not," US Assistant Secretary of State for Non-proliferation, John S Wolf, said at the third session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty in New York. He said the US would not reward either country for their decisions to acquire nuclear weapons or for the 1998 tests. "Our focus in South Asia has been and remains on preventing actions that would undermine the global non-proliferation regime and regional stability - be it through nuclear testing, deployment, nuclear use, or proliferation to other countries," Wolf said. "We hope that India, Israel, and Pakistan would eventually join the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon States, he said, adding India and Pakistan remained ineligible under the US law and policy for any significant assistance to their nuclear programs. Wolf said the US also urged Pakistan to continue to take steps necessary to end the activities of the dangerous nuclear proliferation network spawned by A Q Khan. "It is up to Pakistan and numerous other countries in which this multinational network operated to take the necessary measures to shut down the network and to implement comprehensive measures to prevent any recurrence. Wolf said US believes Khan's network took advantage of weak laws, and weak enforcement. "We urge the countries involved to review and strengthen their export controls and their capabilities to administer new controls," he said. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Reggie May 13 2004, 11:35 AM
To all NRIs in the USA. If you choose to respond to any western media trying to list the causes of NDA downfall, lay this guilt trip on them. One of the reasons NDA was defeated because the Indians felt that inspite of ABV's pro-USA policies, the Americans never really helped India fight its war against terrorism. Indians also perceived that Vajpayee govt. was short shrifted by the Americans by pouring billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan and by elevating Pakistan's status to MNNATO ally. Remind them that America must show sensitivity to India's geo-political strategic conerns otherwise they will drive a billion Indians towards seeking partnership with the Russians and the Chinese. Hammer this point.
Posted by: Viren May 13 2004, 08:08 PM
Shock and awe on Delhi's Embassy Row CHIDANAND RAJGHATTA,curpg-2.cms NEW DELHI: The awesome majesty of India’s parliamentary democracy that has thrown up a Congress-led government has astonished foreign governments. As the BJP’s defeat became evident Thursday morning, an official at the embassy of a major western power scrambled to retrieve a document buried under a pile of papers by his desk. The title of the 13-page document -- Security, Defence and Foreign Policy: The Congress Agenda. It wasn’t just the pollsters, pundits and BJP folks who were fooled by the Indian electorate. Papers prepared by an embassy for high-level meetings several weeks from now referred to ''Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.'' Most foreign embassies took it for granted that there would be no change at the helm. ''I don’t think anyone among a billion people anticipated this would happen,'' said an official of the embassy. The surprise was evident at the US embassy where resident diplomats had tracked the opinion and exit polls closely, and believed, like everyone else, that the NDA had its nose ahead in the race. But despite the general perception that Washington was cosier with the NDA government, there was no great turbulence either at the prospect of a Congress-led and Left-backed government. This is because of the institutional structure and strength of the two democracies. High-level US cabinet officials – such as Colin Powell -- visiting New Delhi typically called on Sonia Gandhi as leader of the Opposition, just as Indian leaders met with the House and Senate Minority leaders in Washington. However, diplomats carefully parsed the Congress foreign policy agenda looking for signs of departure from the NDA line. The Congress document has expressed concern about the NDA government’s policies towards the United States, saying, ''they have been characterized by lack of transparency.'' ''Till this day, the country has never been taken into confidence about the outcome of several rounds of discussion between Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott. Sadly, a great country like India has been reduced to having a subordinate relationship with the USA where the USA takes India for granted,'' the document says. While this might suggest some near-term hardening of position towards Washington, the reading in the US diplomatic community is that the Congress foreign policy is now driven by younger elements – like Salman Khursheed and Jairam Ramesh – and professional diplomats, like former foreign secretary J N Dixit, who are more pragmatic than the old leftist-socialist folk. The Congress foreign policy agenda itself is believed to have imprint of Dixit, whose name is being mentioned for the post of National Security Advisor. ________________________________________________________________ The TIMES OF INDIA article above had not quoted in full the paragraph relating to USA in the Indian Congress Party's document. The full quote follows: >> Of equal concern has been the BJP/NDA Government’s policies towards the USA. They have been charcterised by a lack of transparency. Till this day, the country has never been taken into confidence about the outcome of several rounds of discussions which Shri Jaswant Singh as Minister of External Affairs had with Mr. Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State of the USA. Sadly, a great country like India has been reduced to having a subordinate relationship with the USA where the USA takes India for granted. This is the result of the BJP/NDA Government’s willingness to adjust the US priorities and policies without giving due attention to India’s own vital foreign policy and national security interests. The declaration of Pakistan as a non-NATO ally by the USA recently exposed the BJP’s claim of a “paradigm shift” in Indo-US relations. This declaration caught the Government of India by surprise. The subsequent protests by the Government of India have been very weak and have lacked credibility and conviction. The BJP/NDA Government has failed to take the country into confidence about the national security implications of the new tie-up between Pakistan and the USA. It has also failed to dispel the widely-held fears that India has accepted the mediator role for the USA in Indo-Pakistan relations. << The text of the document titled "Security, Defence and Foreign Policy: The Congress Agenda" can be read at:
Posted by: Viren May 15 2004, 04:59 PM
The sharpest discontinuity is likely to come in relations with the US and possibly with US allies such as Israel. India has become a leading customer for Israeli weapons technology. With Mr Vajpayee in office, the Bush administration hoped that India might be persuaded to send peacekeepers to Iraq — a remarkable shift from the Cold War, when India proudly led the Non-Aligned Movement and seized every opportunity to tweak American leadership. The Congress-led coalition is expected to swing back to traditional anti-Americanism, sounding off against the US at the UN and perhaps challenging US influence in the Middle East by launching its own peace initiative. All of which would test the Bush administration’s reserves of forbearance and tact. But then again, who knows? India’s democracy excels at defying expert predictions.
Posted by: acharya May 18 2004, 10:26 AM
Bush receives Sri Sri in White House Aziz Haniffa in Washington, DC | May 17, 2004 16:23 IST Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living Foundation and the International Association of Human Values, was on May 7 received by US President George W Bush in the Oval Office of the White House and implored to "please keep us in your prayers." Sri Sri Ravi Shankar is the first Indian spiritual leader to be received in the Oval Office by a president of the United States. The seer was visiting the White House for discussions with senior officials of the Bush Administration's Faith-Based Initiative, when officials asked him if he would like to meet with Bush. Almost immediately they arranged for an Oval Office meeting between the two. Bush embraced Sri Sri Ravi Shankar soon as he entered the Oval Office, and said, 'I am very glad you are here and please keep us in your prayers." He then asked the guru if he could take a picture with him, and called for the White House photographer to do the needful. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar later participated in a prayer meeting presided over by Bush, at the White House East, which was followed by a reception for several participants belonging to various faiths. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who as part of his world tour has just returned from Mexico and is scheduled to go to Brazil to address that country's Parliament, told this was his first visit to the US Congress and the White House. "My message to them has been the uplifting of human values," he said. He said he had briefed lawmakers and the White House about "our stress relief program with prisoners and the people in Iraq. The prison program is one of the main programs were are doing. "I have already sent some doctors from India to Iraq, with ayurvedic medicines, and they are helping the people to overcome the trauma because the people there cannot sleep, are in constant anxiety and the conditions are terrible and women and children are suffering. So we are doing a big campaign for them." "I am also working with Kashmiri migrants," Ravi Shankar told "We have about a three-and-a-half lakh Kashmir Pandits still in refugee camps for 14 years, and nobody has cared for them. Now, I am taking up their cause and trying to rehabilitate them, trying to put them back in Kashmir." Sri Sri Ravi Shankar was also feted on Capitol Hill at a reception hosted by influential Republican Representative David Dreier of California, who chairs the powerful House Rules Committee. Among lawmakers present were the co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian American Representatives Joseph Crowley (New York Democrat) and Joe Wilson (South Carolina Republican); founder and former co-chair of the India Caucus Frank Pallone (New Jersey Democrat); unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich of Ohio; Earl Blumenauer (Oregon Democrat); James Walsh (New York Republican); and Diane Watson (California Democrat), among others. Dreier, who recently made his first visit to India along with Staff Director of the Rules Committee Billy Pitts, said, "He is obviously a great spiritual leader and we are all so pleased that we can welcome him. We've had some wonderful meetings, it's a great honor and privilege for me to be here and to welcome him to the US Capitol." "This is something we need to pursue so that there is in this world that is shrinking, an understanding of differences that exist," he said. Several influential Jewish Americans, including the hierarchy of the American Jewish Committee, were presented at the reception as were several Indian-American community leaders and senior Indian embassy officials.
Posted by: Mudy May 18 2004, 10:54 AM
It is equivalent to Vivekananda visit to US. He is doing good work in Jammu refugee camp.

<< Home

November 2003 / December 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / May 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / March 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 /

Powered by Blogger