Skip to content

Archive

Tag: US

By Mohan Guruswamy

Ironically enough the downslide in India-China relations began in just days before November 2006 visit of Hu Jintao, supposedly intended to showcase an upswing in the relations. It began when the then Chinese Ambassador to India, Sun Yuxi, made a rather indiscreet and untimely comment to a TV news channel that the status of Arunachal Pradesh was still an unresolved issue between the two countries. Whether Sun Yuxi made this comment as mere restatement of the old Chinese position for the record or to deliberately stir the pot will be debated for a long time. Sun Yuxi himself told me that he did not intend it to stir things up and that the partly American owned TV channel deliberately played it up to blight the improving ties. Sun Yuxi also, quite significantly, added that while he might have been indiscreet, his statement won him a great deal of support from groups in China who favor a hard-line with India, ever since it began to draw closer to the USA. Many in China believe that India is now part of an US attempt to encircle it and even Prakash Karat of our CPM has echoed this view. The result of the Sun Yuxi statement was that what had become a mere border alignment issue was once again transformed into a territorial issue.

The thaw in our ties was initiated when Deng Xiaoping made an offer to Rajiv Gandhi in December 1988 to settle the border dispute on an as is where is basis. The politically beleaguered Rajiv Gandhi felt that he did have the political capital for a deal to essentially forego claims on Aksai Chin in exchange for an alignment generally corresponding McMahon Line. The two leaders then agreed to keep the issue frozen for settlement “at some future time”.

Following this and the agreements consequent to the visits of Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee, it was generally believed in India that the Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh was now in the past. While releasing my book “India China Relations: The Border Issue and Beyond” earlier this year, in response to a pointed question from a journalist, the then Foreign Secretary strongly hinted that a settlement along the status quo might now be more acceptable to the Indian leadership.

As if the border row wasn’t enough to heat up relations, other issues too have cropped up. There is the question of the Dalai Lama’s continued residence in India which surfaced even as the waters of distrust began receding. China’s inability to deal with the increasing Tibetan restiveness also makes it angrily point a finger at India. When in India the Dalai Lama is restricted to just performing his ecclesiastical duties which include tending to the spiritual needs of a large Indian flock adhering to the Tibetan school of Mahayana Buddhism. The Chinese have now taken umbrage over his visit to the ancient monastery at Tawang. Let alone the Dalai Lama’s visit, they were even critical of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to the state last month. In the recent days the situation has been further vitiated by stories, many of them false, in the Indian media.

The global economic crisis has exacerbated problems within China’s rapidly growing economy. With US markets’ rapidly shrinking it needs to find markets elsewhere to sustain its export led growth model. The rapidly growing Sino-Indian trade, but increasingly tilted in China’s favor mostly due to an undervalued Yuan, is yet another festering issue. China derives much of its export prowess due to its undervalued Yuan and exploitative labor practices. The economic profligacy of the USA and China’s somewhat naïve hoarding of trillions of dollars as reserves makes it the USA’s co-equal in causing the global economic mayhem. There is no sign that China has derived lessons from this and will revalue the Yuan.

The misuse of business visas by Chinese construction companies to bring in tens of thousands of workers into India is now another issue. On the other hand the issue of visas on a separate sheet of paper to Indian residents of J&K and Arunachal Pradesh in a bid to highlight their disputed status is seen as deliberately provocative by India. Providing a backdrop to all this is the China’s rather duplicitous role at the Vienna conference to ratify the IAEA’s exemption for India from the stringent provisions instituted after our 1974 nuclear test; and its opposition to the expansion of the UN Security Council’s permanent membership and by extension India’s entry into it.

In the recent days several new publications and books have exposed how extensively China assisted in the development of Pakistan’s nuclear program and their delivery systems. Since Pakistan’s nuclear program is entirely India centric, this is in itself is quite revealing about the intensity of Chinese hostility then towards India. The Chinese have been insisting that it was in the past and China is now committed to improving ties with India. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating and China, despite its much vaunted policy culinary abilities, has not yet put it on the table!

(Mohan Guruswamy is a well known commentator and is the author of the recently published “Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch-up with China?”)

  • Share/Bookmark

Post-modern warfare is a new term used to justify the new type of warfare, whereby it is fought with precision weapons with minimal collateral damage and extensively improved types of immediate information (speed of sending info), surveillance and of equipment for locating targets. This new type of warfare has been possible due to the new military technology available, the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) and the information technology.

Now you may ask yourself What is the difference between post-modern warfare and the traditional war? Who is responsible for its development and creation? And most important, other than its lesser implications on collateral damage comparing to traditional warfare, how valid or legal is it for it to be practised on sovereign nation-states?

To answer the two first questions pose no difficulty, while the last question can be found to be very debatable. To start off, post-modern warfare development and the ideas can be traced back a fairly long time ago. The usages of catapult and far distant weapons that can fire their weapons against the army are examples of weapons that shield the people who are firing them from getting killed or hurt. The usage of these weapons was to destroy the enemy with getting the least damage to one self. Although these weapons were not as precise and mobile as todays, lets say airplanes and ships; they were a sort of a foundation for this new age in warfare. Like John Donne a metaphysical poet mentioned sometime during the 1500s giving recognition to the catapult and long-distance artillery saying that we are moving into a new era of warfare which can bring less bloodshed to future wars.

Skipping forward a few hundred years we can see as the technology in the military developed. At the beginning of the 1970s the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) which still operates today is observed to developing a technology for the use in military that aims at decreasing casualties or death to people. It seeks to control what ever it is attacking.

This new type of warfare has been made possible thanks to the RMA, the programme created for the sole purpose of returning war to the West to its position as the prolongation of politics by other means. As the two superpowers during the Cold War were competing, the only way they could confront each other was with nuclear weapons which they couldnt use. This created a stalemate and opened up for developing of conventional or non-nuclear weapons that the other side did not have. The advantage of these weapons was that they actually could be used. These weapons could be applied only in certain ways and with some restrictions. They had to be politically and morally approved and accepted by different charters and human rights laws and declarations.

Also, in order for this new type of weaponry to be accepted they need to be more effective and efficient in comparison to the traditional warfare before the post-modern one. The necessity to avoid human losses of the people who are actually firing these weapons was one of the factors to its efficiencies. Retaining these people as far away from the battlefield frontiers to decrease, if not fully eliminate, the risk to them. Decreasing collateral or civilian damage by providing better accuracy or precision on the target is usually second on the priority list. This all means war that has to be fought needed to be as bloodless, risk-free and precise as possible.

The US military is seen as having a much greater technological advancement than any other nation in the modern world and is the founder of these great new technologies. Always one step ahead of the rest, the US military lies overwhelmingly militarily-technologically advance than any other nation. That is why its running a monopoly in this new technology for military! As the only one with this capacity of waging war in this way it could give you the expression of them being the World Police. Other people disagree with the image of the US as the World Police claiming US foreign policy is aimed at helping nations in need and restoring their government to follow the democratic polices. There are now self-interests in any countries they are involved in.

Their claim that through these less bloody actions of post-modern warfare (more victims but less severe) peace can be brought about in the world where conflicts arise. How authentic is this statement actually, considering what the US has done in Serbia (Kosovo), Iraq and Afghanistan? But disregarding their aims are we aware and how can we justify or validate these sorts of actions. Yes, the US military and NATO have not lost many men in their military actions on these countries (trhough waging post-modern warfar, i.e. warfare from a distance), however, their bombs, such as cluster bombs have caused severe damages to both military and civilian targets, letting these conflict stricken countries endure collateral damage.

No matter what type of warfare we embark ourselves on, none of them can settle anything considerable. Through any form of force used in this magnitude, they cant solve problems. This is especially true when the force that uses post-modern warfare use it illegally, that is to say, rather than bringing peace, hidden agendas occupy their calculation (e.g. oil in Iraq, having control of Kosovo for having military bases in Eastern Europe). Force should be used only as a last resort, but it doesnt promise to settle anything, a last resort is the last plan, meaning the least best or in other words the worst idea of them all. The war or force that can resolve problems like in the former Yugoslavia or Iraq, or any country for that fact, is of utopian idea; the war where no casualties exist and can be resolved is unlikely to happen any time soon or even ever.

Author: Darko PerunEzineArticles.com
Article Source: EzineArticles.comezinearticles.com

  • Share/Bookmark

Moscow: Russia has completed the first stage of pre-delivery trials of the Akula-II class ‘Nerpa’ nuclear-powered attack submarine, which is likely to be operational with the Indian Navy much before New Delhi’s indigenous ‘INS Arihant’.

The ‘Nerpa’ submarine will join the Navy by the year-end with the first set of sea trials being completed successfully according to schedule, an official of the Amur Shipyard was quoted as saying by the ‘RIA Novosti’ Monday.

But top officials in both Moscow and New Delhi are tight-lipped about the armaments the submarine will carry.

While ‘INS Arihant’ is being armed with 700-km range K-15 nuclear-tipped missiles, it is not known if Nerpa will have Indian or Russian nuclear missiles.
‘Nerpa’, the Akula-II class submarine, has a displacement of 12,000 tonnes and is far bigger than ‘INS Arihant’, which has just 6,000 tonnage capacity.

India joined an elite club of nations, including the US, Russia, China, France and the UK to produce nuclear under-sea vessels with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur inaugurating the sub for extensive sea trials on Sunday.

The new trials for Nerpa are taking place as it was hit by a major mishap on November 8 in the Sea of Japan when accidental triggering of the fire suppression system led to release of highly toxic gas, killing 20 crew members and civilian technical staff. It resumed sea trials on July 10 following extensive repairs.

Nerpa is the latest nuclear submarine in the Russian Navy’s armada. Though ‘INS Arihant’ has some features like the Russian sub, but according to NATO sources the Akula-class vessel is one of the most potent undersea weapons in the world, far superior than the Chinese subs.

After the sea trials, Indian Navy men would be trained on Nerpa, which can come in handy for personnel posted on board the ‘Arihant’.

“The (Nerpa) sub is back at the in Bolshoi Kamen (port) in the Maritime Territory, and it is getting ready for the second stage of the scheduled trials,” the shipyard official said.

Some special equipment for performance checking and adjustment work will be installed on board the submarine, before it begins the second and final stage of pre-delivery trials.

Source: PTI

  • Share/Bookmark

The Makings of a Police State-Part II at RevolutionRadio.orgrevolutionradio.org.

Sibel Edmonds
123RealChange.com123realchange.blogspot.com

The Discretion Factor & TSA Black Hole

Around 1:00 p.m. on March 9, 2009 I stood in front of the US Air ticket counter in Ft Myers, Florida, and sighed with relief. I had just checked in two suitcases and had an hour and fifteen minutes before boarding my plane to Washington, DC. I was relieved because it is no simple task to make it this far with a teething seven month old baby, two suitcases, a carry on bag, and a diaper bag. However, I was counting my chickens too early.

I joined a fairly long line at the entrance of the TSA security screening station, and did a quick inventory of preparations needed to make it to the other side: My infant girl was securely nestled against my chest inside her baby carrier; I had no liquids in the diaper bag or elsewhere, and that included the bottled water I would need to fix her formula later while on the plane (I had enough time to purchase the water on the other side); I was wearing fairly easy to remove trainers, knowing the difficulty of removing shoes while carrying my infant and holding my boarding passes and drivers license…Basically, based on the Transportation Security Agency’s (TSA) posted rules, I was all set, or so I thought. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

Ramtanu Maitra

29 Sep 2008

In recent weeks, particularly following the removal of Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s former President and Chief of Army Staff, on 18 August, Washington has begun to train its guns on Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which is on the border with Afghanistan.

On 3 September, US troops raided a known habitat of Taliban leaders in South Waziristan, without seeking permission from Islamabad. The USA’s unilateral violation of Pakistani territory created a furore in Islamabad, but it is evident that Washington has come to the dangerous conclusion that the Durand Line – the international border that separates Pakistan from Afghanistan, and was drawn on sand more than century ago by a British clerk – does not hold any longer. In order to secure Afghanistan, and tame the insurgents there, Washington has decided that US troops have no choice but to take the bull by the horns and move into the FATA physically, to eliminate the Taliban leaders.

Beside the furore that the raid has caused, it is evident that the Americans do not really understand what they are taking on. It is not that the US troops are not militarily competent to deal with the enemy, no matter what the strength of that enemy could be; the real issue here is that Washington refuses to acknowledge who its actual enemies are.

On the ground, the FATA is controlled by the tribal groups, who have remained non-integrated as a result of the British policy of divide and rule, and by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), a section of which works hand-in-glove with MI6.

In other words, the enemy is the British controllers, not the local tribesmen. In a recent article, the senior Indian journalist Bhaskar Menon pointed out that relations between the ISI and the British intelligence community have been close for decades, and have extended into a variety of areas.

Britain’s post-World War II role as the patron of the Muslim Brotherhood (inherited from Nazi Germany), developed into a low-profile alliance with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to guide the most effective anti-communist movement in the Islamic world.

“The Brotherhood has provided the leadership of every major ‘Islamic’ terrorist organization, including the Taliban and al- Qaeda,” Menon noted (17 September 2008, www.vijayvaani.comwww.vijayvaani.com).

Following the US incursion into the FATA, Pakistan’s newly appointed President Asif Ali Zardari travelled to London to seek the British Prime Minister’s support against the US-led border violation. While it is true that the FATA is basically controlled from London, with the help of the MI6 and the ISI, it is nonetheless strange, but at the same time revealing, that Zardari, who “got” his job by ousting Musharraf with the help of the United States, ran to London, and not to Washington, to seek help.  continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

By Ramtanu Maitra 30 March, 2005

The United States is beefing up its military presence in Afghanistan, at the same time encircling Iran. Washington will set up nine new bases in Afghanistan in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia.

Reports also make it clear that the decision to set up new US military bases was made during Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s visit to Kabul last December. Subsequently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accepted the Pentagon diktat. Not that Karzai had a choice: US intelligence is of the view that he will not be able to hold on to his throne beyond June unless the US Army can speed up training of a large number of Afghan army recruits and protect Kabul. Even today, the inner core of Karzai’s security is run by the US State Department with personnel provided by private US contractors.

Admittedly, Afghanistan is far from stable, even after four years of US presence. Still, the establishment of a rash of bases would seem to be overkill. Indeed, according to observers, the base expansion could be part of a US global military plan calling for small but flexible bases that make it easy to ferry supplies and can be used in due time as a springboard to assert a presence far beyond Afghanistan.

Afghanistan under control?

On February 23, according to the official Bakhter News Agency, 196 American military instructors arrived in Kabul. These instructors are scheduled to be in Afghanistan until the end of 2006. According to General H Head, commander of the US Phoenix Joint Working Force, the objective of the team is to expedite the educational and training programs of Afghan army personnel. The plan to protect Karzai and the new-found “democracy” in Afghanistan rests on the creation of a well-trained 70,000-man Afghan National Army (ANA) by the end of 2006. As of now, 20,000 ANA personnel help out 17,000-plus US troops and some 5,000-plus North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops currently based in Afghanistan.

In addition, on February 28, in a move to bring a large number of militiamen into the ANA quickly, Karzai appointed General Abdur Rashid Dostum, a regional Uzbek-Afghan warlord of disrepute, as his personal military chief of staff. The list of what is wrong with Dostum is too long for this article, but he is important to Karzai and the Pentagon.

Dostum has at least 30,000 militiamen, members of his Jumbush-e-Milli, under him. A quick change of their uniforms would increase the ANA by 30,000 at a minimal cost. Moreover, Dostum’s men do not need military training (what they do need is some understanding of and respect for law and order). Another important factor that comes into play with this union is the Pentagon-Karzai plan to counter the other major north Afghan ethnic grouping, the Tajik-Afghans. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

By Ramtanu Maitra Jul 23, 2005

Fresh from its perceived success in Kyrgyzstan, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an American non-governmental organization, has a new mission in Nepal, where King Gyanendra has assumed autocratic powers.
According to reports from South Asia, this was disclosed to Nepalese politicians by US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca during her recent visit to Nepal. Although the entry of the Washington-based NED is officially to help stabilize and promote democracy in Nepal, its past record makes some in India wonder what the consequences will be for India’s turbulent northeast and for India’s relations with China.

Beijing has even more reason to concern itself with the NED’s presence in Nepal, next door to sensitive Tibet. The NED makes no bones of its concerns about Uighur Chinese, and is known to have earlier funded anti-China forces in Tibet.roadmap

India is by no means wholly ill-disposed toward the NED. In fact, the American outfit has some strong promoters there. During the 2000 visit to India by president Bill Clinton, a proposal was made to jointly set up an Asian center for democracy. The Asian Center for Democratic Governance is to be based in New Delhi, and jointly set up by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the NED. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark

By Ramtanu Maitra February 24, 2005

New Delhi is in the process of drafting a proposal to the United Nations seeking a global ban on small-arms sales to non-state actors. India is being swamped with small arms from all directions, but the most dangerous developments are taking place in the country’s restless northeast. There, small arms are streaming in from Southeast Asia by the boatload and via jungle trails through Myanmar.

The worsening security situations in neighboring Bangladesh and Nepal, where violence and arms are proliferating at an exponential rate, add urgency to Delhi’s concern. There is no indication that the leadership in either Dhaka or Kathmandu can control the threat.

In the present South Asian regional context, New Delhi considers the strengthening of its economic and political relations with Southeast Asia of vital importance. Besides the economic factor, which is of driving importance, India’s emergence as a major economic and military power in recent years makes it incumbent on leadership in New Delhi to cultivate a regional presence.Small Arms traffic

Essential security issue

The proposal for an international ban on small-arms trafficking is being developed jointly by the Indian Home Ministry and External Affairs Ministry. According to reports from a senior Home Ministry official who recently toured the northeast to evaluate the scope of operations and extent of control exerted by insurgents: “If a global ban is achieved, it would help to improve the security situation in the country.”

Indeed, a host of poorly governed nations adjacent to India in the east along with subversion by various anti-India guerrilla forces in the northeast have combined to put India’s security situation under extreme stress. Secessionists, Indian Maoists (also known as Naxalites) and the mafia are the primary purchasers of small weapons, ranging from Kalashnikov assault rifles to sophisticated M-16s. A few Western European countries and collapsed communist regimes of Eastern Europe, some Indian officials point out, have been selling arms to these violent groups, overtly or covertly, and earning huge profits. The arms sales channels are well established and serve ever-widening conflict zones in India’s northeast. It is also common knowledge by now that insurgents and armed opposition groups in South Asia and Southeast Asia have access to top arms smuggling kingpins in Thailand, Hong Kong and Singapore. continue reading…

  • Share/Bookmark