Editorial

Focus on America's Objectives

As this Issue goes to press, there is light at the end of the tunnel in North Korea. The six nations (including the US) have concluded a deal by which the nuclear weapons programme of North Korea would be dismantled in exchange for free energy and lifting of sanctions and embargos. There is real hope that Iran may not be invaded by the US after all; a similar deal could also be reached with Iran. In North Korea, America had to agree to very nearly the same terms as in the agreement signed by President Clinton. Tearing up of that agreement by President Bush had two effects: 1) it made North Korea a nuclear weapon state; 2) it alarmed the countries of Asia about America's neo-con policies. The difficult discussions which took place over a long time between the six nations established that henceforth the main arbiter in the Pacific region would be China, not America. There is a lesson in it for America: unilateral action can create a crisis but it is multilateral diplomacy that resolves problems. But there is no sign that this lesson has been learnt.

The Greater Middle East (GME) Imbroglio

America is aggressively active in two regions - the Middle East and South Asia. In the first its strategic partner is Israel and in the second India. The think tanks and the media in the US are so thoroughly under the control of its 'partners' that the strategic perceptions in the USA in both regions are dominated by the 'partners'. But neither India nor Israel is anti-Iran per se. Iran has been the friend of both the countries in the past and it is the wish of both that a settlement rather than air strikes should resolve the Iran imbroglio. The first signs of a rapprochement were seen on 10 March 2007 during the peace conference called by Iraq in which both Iran and the US participated. This was the first high level direct meeting between the two countries in years. Interestingly, it was the Iranian Foreign Ministry which went out of its way to praise the Baghdad talks as a first step to restore security in Iraq. The ministry's spokesman, Mohamed Ali Hosseini sensibly proposed, "Leaving security affairs to the Iraqi government, arranging a timetable for the departure of foreign forces, and taking an impartial approach to all terrorist groups can bring peace and security." A deal on the lines of North Korea may be hammered out with Iran over the coming months. However, there can be a lots of slips between the proverbial 'cup and the lip'. No one is breathing easy yet.

After having lost its way in Iraq, the USA is desperately in need of a victory in Afghanistan. A 'surge' of sorts is in the works in Afghanistan and an American General has been appointed as the commander of NATO forces in that country. The target of the blame game is Pakistan at a time when General Musharraf's control over power is slipping. He has been in power for eight years but he still wants another five. But no one - absolutely no one - in Pakistan wants that. He should have seen the writing on the wall and should have been working for a smooth transfer of power to a successor but he says he would not 'cut and run'. Since he is perceived to be an American puppet, his efforts to perpetuate himself in power would backfire on America. Benazir Bhutto is so obviously eager for the role of 'prime puppet' that she also invites public scorn. No wonder that the national elections in 2007 are being compared with the 1971 Elections that led to the invasion of Pakistan by India. General Musharraf is being compared with General Yahya Khan, the Pakistani President in 1971 who was also known for weaknesses in personal character and for boldness and bluster in conduct. And General Yahya Khan was later declared a 'usurper' by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

The 1973 Constitution of Pakistan passed by the Parliament after the military defeat in 1971 and the loss of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) prescribes the death sentence for a 'usurper' vide its Article 6. General Musharraf is fortunate for having secured legitimacy in power for the first three years of his rule by a verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the next five years through a deal with an alliance of the religious right. He reneged on the deal when he refused to relinquish the office of the Army Chief at the end of 2003.Now he has also fallen foul with the judiciary after suspending the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unless General Musharraf is removed or resigns, and allows the Constitution to prevail, Pakistan would slide into chaos that even the military may find hard to control.

As the American puppets get into ever deeper trouble all over the GME, it is important to understand what America wants and why 'puppets' cannot deliver. The latter is clear; unpopular leaders - elected or otherwise - that appear to be working for the agenda of a hostile foreign power are resisted not respected and obeyed. But the American objectives in the GME are shrouded, to some extent, in political mist. It was widely expected that the Bush Administration would take notice of the Baker-Hamilton Report and give diplomacy a chance to resolve the hiatus in Iraq. But the US President ordered a 'surge' instead. However, participation in the 10 March 2007 Baghdad Conference does indicate a change. But this change may be tactical merely to deal with the military situation in Afghanistan and the political situation in Iraq that has resulted from a belated but welcome assertion of sovereignty by the Iraqi government. At the same time, America has deployed four Carrier Groups in readiness to invade Iran; they are not standing down any time soon.

As if all that was not enough to make Pakistan nervous, the Indian media and diplomats keep urging the US to forget Iran and Iraq and invade Pakistan instead. The US Congress having passed the bill to require certification by the President before any aid is given or weapon sold that Pakistan is secular, democratic and eagerly waging war on the majority of its citizens - who are Muslims - may well prove to be the last straw that begins the unravelling of Pakistan. At this moment, Pakistan needs friends, not threats. Concern was expressed for Pakistan's predicament very far from its borders - in Canada. In a column by Anatol Lieven in the Edmonton Journal, 9 March 2007, (reproduced in this Issue) he worries that the US may either start attacking targets in Pakistan itself, which would anger the nation already tired of General Musharraf and totally undermine his legitimacy; or Pakistan is forced to engage the Taliban in combat which would result in a civil war in Pakistan itself. Anatol Lieven says that the 'Survival of the State of Pakistan' must be given priority.

The American Objectives

The big question is: would a change in strategy in Iraq mark a watershed that starts a roll back of American presence in the GME or would the war continue to spread but be conducted by different means and methods? I am of the view that it is the latter. However, the public opinion in America may force the option of open war to be put on the back burner. Whatever be the case, it is important to know the objectives of the US in GME. This Issue makes an effort to identify the American objectives. An article by William Rivers Pitt on 'Project for the New American Century' (PNAC) - a baby of the US Enterprise Institute - outlines the objectives and the strategic doctrine for this project. The 'Project for the New American Century' has been embraced by the Bush Administration in its entirety and defines its policy. However, the unclassified details as generally available do not reveal all. The map of the 'reconstructed' GME (Middle East plus Pakistan and Afghanistan) in the article by Ralph Peters titled 'Blood Borders' (reproduced on the back cover) gives a better clue to the American aims.

America wants to split or reduce in size the largest and the most cohesive states that are also the most powerful - Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - by sectarian and ethnic strife. If that be the objective, what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what may be planned for Iran makes sense. Contrary to what is being said, the objective is not to bring democracy or peace; it is to create and/or a civil insurrection that destroys the cohesion of the society to make the maintenance of the integrity of these states well nigh impossible. The USA gives weapons and money, and uses all the instruments of its soft power - diplomacy and propaganda - to aid and assist ethnic and sectarian groups in the GME. The Americans are not fighting terrorism; they are encouraging terrorism but of the 'right' sort i.e. ethnic and sectarian. Russia Leads the Way There was something wrong with the phrase 'war on terror' from the time it began to be used by the US media. It was not just in phraseology but also in its purpose. A Russian, General Leonid Ivashov, who was the head of the Russian Army at the time of 9/11, describes eloquently and authoritatively what that might be. In a report (in this Issue) titled 'Axis for Peace', General Leonid Ivashov says, "…this 'war on terror' is actually an open war to impose globalization, perpetuate instability and create conditions for the success of the agenda of 'domination' of the world". It is in this context, he says, that 'the new geo-strategic map of the world is being drawn, that the resources of the planet are being re-distributed, that borders are disappearing, that international law is being torn to pieces, that cultural identities are being erased, that spiritual life becomes impoverished... The analysis of the globalization process, the military and political doctrines of the United States and other countries, shows that terrorism actually helps the US in its world dominance and the submissiveness of states to a global oligarchy'. General Ivashov said "Terrorism is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a uni-polar world with one world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that is the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its godfather". General Ivashov's clear statement should be a warning to unsuspecting Arabs and Muslims. The 'war on terror' is being fought in their lands not because the USA is afraid of 'Muslim Extremism'; in fact the existence or allegation of 'extremism' provides them the excuse and the instruments for hegemony over them, the occupation of their land, and control over their wealth and resources. Resistance of occupation is not just right but it is also honourable. Yet it is called 'terrorism' and used as an excuse to violate the borders of sovereign states to operate clandestinely in their land, bribing some, butchering others and blighting whole countries.

The Russian President - Vladimir Putin - made a forthright statement at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy on February 10, 2007. He said, "The US has overstepped its borders in every way. We must build a new world order to ensure security and prosperity for all". The speech and its impact are reviewed in an article (in this Issue) under the title 'Russian Bear Growls at U.S. Hypocrisy' by an Indian diplomat - K Gajendra Singh. The main theme of his speech is that the 'uni-polar' that America seeks is a scheme for world domination that is the main cause of war and instability in the world. Following the speech, President Putin made the first ever visit to Saudi Arabia and other Arab-Muslim countries to underline to the Arabs and the Muslims that it is they who face the most imminent threats and it is they who have the need and the ability to help make this world multi-polar. It is too early to say if this diplomatic flurry would be followed up by tangible effort and plans to make multi-polar world a reality. The only proposal on the table is one by General Ivashov who said that the SCO (Shanghai Co-operation Organisation) should become a military alliance and become another pole of a multi-polar world.

A Defence Pact between Turkey, Iran, Pakistan & Saudi Arabia

I believe that security concerns of Russia and China are somewhat different; the SCO at present is unable to furnish a cohesive purpose that underpins a 'natural alliance'. A beginning would have to be made by the four targets of the US for break up - Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - who do have a powerful purpose (to defend themselves) and natural cohesion founded on Islamic solidarity. If they signed a 'mutual defence' pact and invited all the countries of the GME and Central Asia to join, it would provide a broad base of common purpose. This mutual defence pact, geographically linked to the SCO already, could be politically and strategically linked through common members. Central Asian Republics and Pakistan should be members of both the alliances thus providing not just a geo-political link but also provide real security to the area most threatened by the PNAC. The Twin Alliance would have all the pre-requisites of inherent strength and high purpose to make it a pole in the Multi- Polar world.

India, Pakistan & Afghanistan

There is good cause to worry about Afghan-Pakistan relations. No one is interested in the primitive land-locked country of Afghanistan except for Pakistan and India - Pakistan because of its desire that Afghanistan should be a bridge to fellow Muslim States of Central Asia that have recently become sovereign; India because it MUST do everything to frustrate Pakistan - a space that it covets for itself to include in its empire. The people of Afghanistan have always been divided on the issue of Pakistan. The majority - who are Pashtun - see Pakistan as a country with which they share history, culture and religion; they would like Pakistan and Afghanistan to be one country. The other group see that there is money to be made by a policy of hostility towards Pakistan. Afghanistan is ruled today by this latter group. It blackmails Pakistan by 'threatening' to make trouble in Pashtu speaking areas and gets much more from those who actually want to do Pakistan harm. Hamid Karzai's business is a roaring success. It has no interest in peace in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran because if there was peace, Afghanistan would be broke.

India is the highest bidder for the services of Afghans; it is using them for sustaining the insurgency in Pakistani Baluchistan. However, the aim of India being to build an empire, its preferred instrument for 'regional hegemony' is economic imperialism. That is why India, a country of 1,200 million people, is always seeking to make a 'common market' of South Asia even though all its South Asian neighbours together are no more than 400 million people. India devotes more time and effort to undermining its neighbours instead of developing its own society and economy. India could rival China if it developed its internal market but it chooses to concentrate on bringing all the South Asian countries of the former British Empire under its tutelage and control. Pakistan being the largest and the most reluctant to be its vassal is seen by India as the chief obstacle to its ambitions. An armchair strategist looking at a map would see that if Iran and Afghanistan were unfriendly to Pakistan, it would help India squeeze Pakistan. Also that if Pakistan was weakened by internal strife or split in consequence, it would help India become a significant player in Central Asia. India's friendship with Iran is on the back burner because of 'temporary difficulties' but its courting of Afghanistan is at an all time high and India gives every encouragement and support to ethnic parties and lobbies inside Pakistan. One can see that the USA and India have common goals and strategy, which make them 'natural allies'.

Afghanistan & America

The Afghan Governments have always found it difficult to impose and collect taxes. They rely on donations from afar or blackmail of those nearby. After the USSR was defeated in Afghanistan and it disintegrated, there is no scope for getting anything from countries in its North. That leaves Iran and Pakistan as neighbours who can be milked. The Afghans fought the Soviets successfully with the help from Pakistan and Iran. But the war also brought them into contact with the USA that had more money and was more generous. Their prayers were answered. What the Americans do not appear to realise is that the Afghans are not fighting them to leave; they are fighting them to stay. Each side wants to prove itself to be better able to control the country. The truth is that if the Afghans are committed to anything it is to their faith - Islam. That is why the rulers that have Islam as the basis of their legitimacy have a much better chance of control over Afghanistan. General Musharraf is seen by the Afghans to be seeking American largesse with as much relish as Hamid Karzai. They have no respect for him or for Pakistan; they feel no hesitation in courting India to get more money. But there is respect for 'defiant' and 'oil rich' Iran.

In an article in this Issue by John Chuckman - "Afghanistan is no one's war" - the tough condition under which NATO soldiers have to fight is highlighted. The absence of clear objectives is obvious. The small number of troops deployed in that rugged country with poor infrastructure and logistics can achieve no worthwhile military objectives. All that America does is to breathe even harder down the sore Pakistani neck to 'do more'. Since the Afghans do not want America to leave, Pakistan is comfortable with American presence in Afghanistan. However, the neo-cons and armchair strategists of America will not let America see that 'negotiated peace' with the Taliban, as proposed by Pakistan, is the only viable option. That war ravaged country needs help and assistance not bombs. If America had showered the Afghans with Dollars rather than bombs, Afghanistan would be its best friend in the world. The US military occupation is intolerable but American presence is welcome. That is evident and yet elusive because the Americans listen to India which keeps on and on saying that Pakistan is the 'epicentre' of terrorism. The deliberately vague American phraseology of terror also helps India. The big question is: why does this "natural ally" and "strategic partner" of the US with the second largest army in the world does not send its troops to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan? India, Pakistan & Bangladesh The imperial castes that rule India stay fixed in their gaze on the 'global scene' but the millions of the poorest and the most wretched people on earth - the low castes and religious minorities in India - could well be on another planet. 

This Issue has a number of articles that help to get to know India. It is not intended here to outline the gist of these articles which are all short and crisp. The important point is that Dalits (20 %) Tribal Peoples (10%), the Sikhs and Christians (5%) and the Muslims (15 %) - all together 50 % - are clearly not Hindus. The low castes have been demonised, isolated, impoverished for three thousand years; the Muslims, Sikhs and Christians have become the prime victims of the Brahman imperium only since the partition in 1947. The 'battle-cry' of religious right led by the BJP has been to undo the partition for 'religious' reasons. They used the emotive phrase, "vivisection of mother India" for the Partition. They wanted and hoped to consolidate the 85% against the 15% Muslims. The present ruling coalition led by the Congress Party also reviles Pakistan and the Partition but it also wants to regain solid support of the Muslims that kept it in power for more than four decades. In order to that, it wants to give the Muslims a 'leg up' by extending 'Reservation' to them as well. It has since been revealed in a Government Survey Report that the Muslims are the poorest, the least educated and socially least mobile people in India. The Muslims find such proposals attractive but the Untouchable castes, which have 'enjoyed' Reservation since 1950 are not so sure. The main political issue in India today is: what is better for the non-Hindus? Reservation or Separate Electorate? With Separate Electorate, the non- Hindus would be the majority in many states of India. In contrast, the Reservation policy underlines their poverty and low status, and the 'generosity' of the higher castes. The Brahman spin machine is very clever; it almost cheated the Muslim majority areas of sovereign freedom in 1947. Now the very same spin machine, apparently to alleviate the condition of Muslims, is precluding an alliance of the non-Hindus to deny them Separate Electorate and power - including the power to opt for sovereign freedom if they found that they could not live with under devious apartheid of Hinduism. The insecurity and anxieties of Bangladesh have been multiplying ever since it was 'liberated' by the Indian Army in 1971. The people of Bangladesh now know that India invaded East Pakistan in 1971 to cut Pakistan to size, discredit its polity and to make Bangladesh a vassal state with limited sovereignty. No country despises India more than Bangladesh. This Issue includes an article by Barrister MBI Munshi which highlights the distortion of history that is used as a methodology of subversion to create instability in the vital coastal region of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Like its strategic partner (USA), India is opposed to self determination in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab (Khalistan) and the seven states of Assam that are internationally recognised to be a different peoples, but it eagerly supports the right of self determination of very small immigrant communities (like in CHT) in Muslim countries. How long would India get away with trouble making for its neighbours by such distortions? When will India be held to account? When would the captive peoples within the belly of India be disgorged?