Wikileaks and India
Julian Assange says that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is wrong to have questioned the authenticity of the WikiLeaks cable that stormed the Indian parliament last week. A cable in 2008 sent from a US diplomat in Delhi says that the Congress bought MPs ahead of its crucial vote of confidence. The Left had pulled out of the government over the nuclear deal with the US.
Assange says the PM's statements "seem like a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by suggesting that governments around the world do not accept the material and it is not verified."
It is not correct to say that all these cables are mere opinions by US diplomats...that is not true. These are official correspondence sent by Ambassadors, sent in their official capacity back to Washington. Their motivations are to improve their career prospects generally. So they want Washington to understand that they are engaged in the country. They are getting good sources of information and they are reporting back.
it is very hard to understand why the US Embassy official would lie about that to Washington.
Hillary Clinton last year December spoke to the Indian government last year, perhaps to Prime Minister Singh or that level to forewarn that this material would be coming out. There is no doubt that these are bonafide reports sent by the American Ambassador back to Washington and these should be seen in that context.
A series of cables sent in September 2005 suggest that India's decision to vote with America against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been coached by the US.
And then in April 2008, a cable reveals that an official in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), anxious about displeasing the Americans, informed them first about a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sent by Charge d'Affaires Steven White, the cable stresses this point.
"The official said she was providing the Embassy with this information prior to the MEA informing even other agencies within the Indian government, and before the information was to become public...Our interlocutor did not explain why the Indian government is accepting Ahmadinejad at this time, but, in giving us the forewarning, was clearly aware of U.S. sensitivities over such a visit".
In Post's estimation, the reason for agreeing to an Ahmadinejad visit at this time is to appease the UPA government's domestic Left and Muslim constituencies, i.e., asserting the independence of India's foreign policy, as well as its healthy relations with Muslim neighbors, at a time when the Communists are scoring points with the electorate by criticizing the government for becoming too close to America (and Israel) at the expense of Indian sovereignty."
"These new cables only substantiate what we have been saying all along about the yaari dosti with America...it's shameful that India can't make its own independent decisions," said Left leader Brinda Karat.
A cable dated January 14, 2008 from David Mulford, then US Ambassador to New Delhi, said, "We note that under the NDA government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee it was easier to meet Indian officials and get business done, even in the paranoid Ministry of Home Affairs, but the Congress government has reverted to type, indulging in the sorts of Brezhnev-era controls on its people, of which Indira Gandhi would have approved of. The Nehru dynasty needs to become more like the Tata dynasty."
The Prime Minister questioned the authenticity of the cables, but the issue embarrassed the government in Parliament, and added to the perception the government is currently trying to fight - as an establishment that's permissive of front-row corruption.
Story first published:
Monday, March 21, 2011
Think About it
The Jahrkhand High court has accepted a complaint regarding mis use of funds during National Games for buying sporting equipments at exorbitant prices.
The doctor who gave Post Mortem Report on Batcha's deat,a close associate of Raja in 2g scam had submitted his resignation on thierd March 2011. Batcha allegedly committed suicide on 13th March 2011.
The date of submission of the doctor's resignation has raised quite a few eye brows and his resignation has not been accepted.
The interesting part is that it is possible that pre- resignation was written on the date of Batcha's death itself.
Considering the circumstances any kind of foul play can not be over looked.
The Doctor wanted to join Politics after resignation.
The autopsy report and in-depth honest investigation may lead to more astonishing revelations.
Batcha was likely to turn the approver in the case. So his suicide theory seems strange and un beleivable.
One wonders how many more scandals will surface in coming times.
It would appear that the Congress has lost its credibility totally and is most untrusted party today.
Whether we shall be fortunate to see it fall or whether we shall be further victimised by its return to power,that is highly unlikely, is a mtter of speculation for the time being
The doctor who gave Post Mortem Report on Batcha's deat,a close associate of Raja in 2g scam had submitted his resignation on thierd March 2011. Batcha allegedly committed suicide on 13th March 2011.
The date of submission of the doctor's resignation has raised quite a few eye brows and his resignation has not been accepted.
The interesting part is that it is possible that pre- resignation was written on the date of Batcha's death itself.
Considering the circumstances any kind of foul play can not be over looked.
The Doctor wanted to join Politics after resignation.
The autopsy report and in-depth honest investigation may lead to more astonishing revelations.
Batcha was likely to turn the approver in the case. So his suicide theory seems strange and un beleivable.
One wonders how many more scandals will surface in coming times.
It would appear that the Congress has lost its credibility totally and is most untrusted party today.
Whether we shall be fortunate to see it fall or whether we shall be further victimised by its return to power,that is highly unlikely, is a mtter of speculation for the time being
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Monday, January 19, 2009
Pakistani writes to his then president from Sharjah
Dear President Musharraf,
I AM one of those Pakistanis who love Pakistan and as such consider myself one of a minority. I do not expect you to pay any heed to this letter of mine nevertheless whatever is going on has forced me to pen a few words to you.
Mr. President, with a literacy rate of less than 60%, we are a nation at the lowest rung of the international literacy ladder. Before holding the latest fateful elections you ought to have known that our votes belong to people who promise us , ‘bread, clothes and shelter’, good jobs or to those whom we fear. Some of us vote just because we consider elections and rallies, a welcome break in the monotony of deprivation, a sort of prolonged party. We do not vote because we love Pakistan and wish the best for it. We think as families, clans, regions and ethnic groups. We could not quite place you in any of these groups so we could not possibly vote for you. Moreover, you did not make the usual speeches and promises to feed us, clothe us and house us.
Mr. President, you are a man of honour and character. We do not appreciate such men. You were trying to force us into loving Pakistan while we are fond of loving ourselves. What kind of a naïve person are you?
Mr. President, please resign. We do not deserve you. Facing the impeachment is another naivety you will commit as the people who have already bought our votes will spend some more and buy some more. They will make it sure that you regret the vision of a strong Pakistan. True, we will call you a coward for opting to resign/flee instead of challenging the charges against you but then what else do you expect from us? We love mistaking dignified silence as cowardly paralysis or proof of guilt.
In short, Mr. President, let us destroy Pakistan because it’s something we love doing and will never quit doing!! Save yourself instead of trying to save Pakistan!!!!''
- Saima Noreen, Sharjah
I AM one of those Pakistanis who love Pakistan and as such consider myself one of a minority. I do not expect you to pay any heed to this letter of mine nevertheless whatever is going on has forced me to pen a few words to you.
Mr. President, with a literacy rate of less than 60%, we are a nation at the lowest rung of the international literacy ladder. Before holding the latest fateful elections you ought to have known that our votes belong to people who promise us , ‘bread, clothes and shelter’, good jobs or to those whom we fear. Some of us vote just because we consider elections and rallies, a welcome break in the monotony of deprivation, a sort of prolonged party. We do not vote because we love Pakistan and wish the best for it. We think as families, clans, regions and ethnic groups. We could not quite place you in any of these groups so we could not possibly vote for you. Moreover, you did not make the usual speeches and promises to feed us, clothe us and house us.
Mr. President, you are a man of honour and character. We do not appreciate such men. You were trying to force us into loving Pakistan while we are fond of loving ourselves. What kind of a naïve person are you?
Mr. President, please resign. We do not deserve you. Facing the impeachment is another naivety you will commit as the people who have already bought our votes will spend some more and buy some more. They will make it sure that you regret the vision of a strong Pakistan. True, we will call you a coward for opting to resign/flee instead of challenging the charges against you but then what else do you expect from us? We love mistaking dignified silence as cowardly paralysis or proof of guilt.
In short, Mr. President, let us destroy Pakistan because it’s something we love doing and will never quit doing!! Save yourself instead of trying to save Pakistan!!!!''
- Saima Noreen, Sharjah
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
India-Pakistan 2025
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms
This may bring some consolation to many of us...
THE PENTAGON PREPARES
FOR ASIAN WARS
This article written by prominent academic and activist, Walden Bello, is reproduced for study and discussion. Its contents provide a warning that the anti-imperialist struggle embraces peace, as well as trade, the environment and human rights - and that the focus of that straggle is primarily US imperialism.
"Planning for a war with China appears to be quite advanced at the Pentagon. A war in which the US moves to defeat an "unstable" China on an adventurist course that includes occupying more of the Philippines' sea territory and 'intervening in a riot-wracked Indonesia" is one of the scenarios anticipated in a restricted US Department of Defence study entitled 'Asia 2025'.
The study conducted at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, in the summer of 1999, provided one of the key inputs to the recently released Pentagon global strategy document, Joint Vision 2020, which foresees more and more of US military concern shifting to Asia from Europe owing to the rise of China, which it identifies as a "peer competitor".
Participants in the Asia 2025 study included a high level team of defence specialists from the US Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, as well as well known defence analysts Graham Fuller of Rand Corporation, the US Air Force think tank, Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University and Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.
In each of the five possible scenarios identified by the study, one of the key" recurring geopolitical developments" is the emergence of China as "a force for instability and constant competitor". Another is the rise of India as a regional power that could be a" potential parmer of choice for the United States".
India's potential role as a partner might lead the US to "rethink its strict anti-proliferation policy, as some states that acquire nuclear weapons may actually contribute to American national goals".
As a result of these developments, the US Defence Department faces several key "recurring challenges". One is the necessity of shifting the focus of strategic planning and military resources from Europe to Asia. Another is embarking on a "substantial" strengthening of US military presence in the region which, in contrast to Europe, is said to be marked by a lack of bases, poor infrastructure, inadequate force structure and long distances.
Two Chinese "Operas"
Five possible scenarios are detailed in the report. In the "Unstable China" scenario, foreign adven-turism is an attempt to whip up nationalist sentiments to regain government legitimacy that is being frittered away by a slow-motion economic crash that triggers growing urban and rural unrest.
With the defeat of these Chinese incursions in South East Asia by US naval intervention, Chinese politics enters a tailspin that is accelerated by a "de facto' coup by the military in 2010 that launches China on a new round of expansionism, this time directed at seizing "energy assets" in Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Kazakstan, which ends with Russia and China on the brink of nuclear war.
The Pentagon is also preparing for a "Strong China" scenario. Here, China consolidates its dominance in continental Asia, and carrying out extensive economic penetration of the Russian Far East and Siberia. Continental consolidation is accompanied by a maritime strategy aimed at breaking the US-Japan maritime dominance.
This involves "nibbling away" at the South China Sea islands, Southeast Asia, buying off a weak India, neutralising a unified Korea, isolating Japan, and assuming defacto control of Taiwan.
Through a versatile and sophisticated combination of military threats, selective military action, and opportunistic diplomacy, China is able to achieve the "permanent strategic subservience" of Japan and an end to the US military alliances and presence in Asia.
The end result is an Asia that China dominates but does not conquer or occupy, much along the lines of the pre-colonial system of imperial suzerainty over tributary states, which the report characterises as China's" only positive historic model".
One senses that in the minds of the Pentagon's analysts, this might be the most likely scenario that could transpire, and the most difficult one for Washington since it would involve pitting the US against a foe that makes very calculated moves that do not box it in a position that exposes it to a hardline military reaction, where Washington has the advantage.
The Rise of India
This is the reason why what happens in South Asia is critical to the Pentagon analysts, since India can either be a counterweight to or ally of China.
In the "New South Asian Order", the chronic state of economic and political crisis in Pakistan deepens into anarchy while political and economic reform-strengthens India Islamic forces infiltrate Kashmir, and in a chain reaction of events, India uses conventional strikes against Pakistan's nuclear missiles, provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike by Pakistan.
The US moves in, taking sides by launching conventional strikes against the remaining Pakistani nuclear positions, and warning China to stay out of the conflict.
In a parallel process, the Tallban fail to establish their hegemony in Afghanistan, resulting in its descent into chaos, provoking Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan to move in to annex territory controlled by their ethnic groups. Iran emerges as a key player and this is partly due to the fact that its" moderation and democratisation" have led to an improvement in its relations with the United States.
Pakistan disintegrates alter the war with India, and the Indian Army "moves in to restore order and establish control ". An Indian Confederation emerges that becomes a regional hegemon (a dominant power- ED) that solidifies its ties with Into and the other Gulf States.
China is a big loser from this event. However, it turns its attention to penetrating the Russian Far East, the Indochina peninsula, and other rimlands.
A new regional alliance emerges; its key actors being the US, India and Iran.
"The Asian energy security environment changes fundamentally" , notes the report. "The United States finds unexpected partners, to wit, in India and Iran." "Together, India and Iran take on enhanced SLOC (seal lanes of communications) protection responsibilities, potentially reducing US responsibilities in the Gulf and Indian Ocean".
There are two other scenarios played out in the report, one entitled "Asia re-aligns", the other "The New Sino-Indian Co."
Reading the Pentagon report raises the issue of how the US Defence Department views the Clinton administration's approach towards China, which stresses "engaging that country to allow US
Financial and industrial firms to reap opportunities from exploitation of the China market. The administration, backed by corporate power, and the financial lobby, is also a big force supporting China's entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO), hoping that the application of WTO rules will push China to end its protectionist trade and investment structure and weaken the currently strong state regulation of the operations of the transn tional corporations.
One suspects from 'Asia 2025' that people at the Pentagon are not happy with the current policy, which might be viewed as a way that the country they identify as the US strategic rival could strengthen itself both economically and strategically using investment and trade.
This line of thinking would most likely see China as the net gainer in a stronger economic relationship with the United States. If this is the likely outcome, then the policy is mistaken. One does not strengthen a strategic rival; one cuts it off at the pass.
In short, it is likely that the conflict between "engagement" and "containment" as the strategic approach towards China will come to a head, perhaps in the near future.
What are we in Asia to make of all this ? The lesson is clear: with the consistent identification of China as the US rival in all scenarios, the study speaks volumes about the Pentagon's grim determination to counter any significant threat to US strategic hegemony in Asia."
And What are we in New Zealand to Make of All This?
Considering the fact that the US arms industry is a major part of the US economy, and the United States is an imperialist power, planning for war is inevitable. Part of their war preparations is the domination of its allies, politically, economically and culturally. US influence in NZ is already excessive.
The New Zealand people have paid a very heavy price for involvement in US military adventures, and through the presence of corporations such as Telecom, and Tranzrail. We can expect renewed efforts by US imperialism to deceive New Zealand, once again, in providing the foot soldiers - for the benefit of US Corporate profits. #
This may bring some consolation to many of us...
THE PENTAGON PREPARES
FOR ASIAN WARS
This article written by prominent academic and activist, Walden Bello, is reproduced for study and discussion. Its contents provide a warning that the anti-imperialist struggle embraces peace, as well as trade, the environment and human rights - and that the focus of that straggle is primarily US imperialism.
"Planning for a war with China appears to be quite advanced at the Pentagon. A war in which the US moves to defeat an "unstable" China on an adventurist course that includes occupying more of the Philippines' sea territory and 'intervening in a riot-wracked Indonesia" is one of the scenarios anticipated in a restricted US Department of Defence study entitled 'Asia 2025'.
The study conducted at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, in the summer of 1999, provided one of the key inputs to the recently released Pentagon global strategy document, Joint Vision 2020, which foresees more and more of US military concern shifting to Asia from Europe owing to the rise of China, which it identifies as a "peer competitor".
Participants in the Asia 2025 study included a high level team of defence specialists from the US Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, as well as well known defence analysts Graham Fuller of Rand Corporation, the US Air Force think tank, Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University and Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute.
In each of the five possible scenarios identified by the study, one of the key" recurring geopolitical developments" is the emergence of China as "a force for instability and constant competitor". Another is the rise of India as a regional power that could be a" potential parmer of choice for the United States".
India's potential role as a partner might lead the US to "rethink its strict anti-proliferation policy, as some states that acquire nuclear weapons may actually contribute to American national goals".
As a result of these developments, the US Defence Department faces several key "recurring challenges". One is the necessity of shifting the focus of strategic planning and military resources from Europe to Asia. Another is embarking on a "substantial" strengthening of US military presence in the region which, in contrast to Europe, is said to be marked by a lack of bases, poor infrastructure, inadequate force structure and long distances.
Two Chinese "Operas"
Five possible scenarios are detailed in the report. In the "Unstable China" scenario, foreign adven-turism is an attempt to whip up nationalist sentiments to regain government legitimacy that is being frittered away by a slow-motion economic crash that triggers growing urban and rural unrest.
With the defeat of these Chinese incursions in South East Asia by US naval intervention, Chinese politics enters a tailspin that is accelerated by a "de facto' coup by the military in 2010 that launches China on a new round of expansionism, this time directed at seizing "energy assets" in Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Kazakstan, which ends with Russia and China on the brink of nuclear war.
The Pentagon is also preparing for a "Strong China" scenario. Here, China consolidates its dominance in continental Asia, and carrying out extensive economic penetration of the Russian Far East and Siberia. Continental consolidation is accompanied by a maritime strategy aimed at breaking the US-Japan maritime dominance.
This involves "nibbling away" at the South China Sea islands, Southeast Asia, buying off a weak India, neutralising a unified Korea, isolating Japan, and assuming defacto control of Taiwan.
Through a versatile and sophisticated combination of military threats, selective military action, and opportunistic diplomacy, China is able to achieve the "permanent strategic subservience" of Japan and an end to the US military alliances and presence in Asia.
The end result is an Asia that China dominates but does not conquer or occupy, much along the lines of the pre-colonial system of imperial suzerainty over tributary states, which the report characterises as China's" only positive historic model".
One senses that in the minds of the Pentagon's analysts, this might be the most likely scenario that could transpire, and the most difficult one for Washington since it would involve pitting the US against a foe that makes very calculated moves that do not box it in a position that exposes it to a hardline military reaction, where Washington has the advantage.
The Rise of India
This is the reason why what happens in South Asia is critical to the Pentagon analysts, since India can either be a counterweight to or ally of China.
In the "New South Asian Order", the chronic state of economic and political crisis in Pakistan deepens into anarchy while political and economic reform-strengthens India Islamic forces infiltrate Kashmir, and in a chain reaction of events, India uses conventional strikes against Pakistan's nuclear missiles, provoking a retaliatory nuclear strike by Pakistan.
The US moves in, taking sides by launching conventional strikes against the remaining Pakistani nuclear positions, and warning China to stay out of the conflict.
In a parallel process, the Tallban fail to establish their hegemony in Afghanistan, resulting in its descent into chaos, provoking Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan to move in to annex territory controlled by their ethnic groups. Iran emerges as a key player and this is partly due to the fact that its" moderation and democratisation" have led to an improvement in its relations with the United States.
Pakistan disintegrates alter the war with India, and the Indian Army "moves in to restore order and establish control ". An Indian Confederation emerges that becomes a regional hegemon (a dominant power- ED) that solidifies its ties with Into and the other Gulf States.
China is a big loser from this event. However, it turns its attention to penetrating the Russian Far East, the Indochina peninsula, and other rimlands.
A new regional alliance emerges; its key actors being the US, India and Iran.
"The Asian energy security environment changes fundamentally" , notes the report. "The United States finds unexpected partners, to wit, in India and Iran." "Together, India and Iran take on enhanced SLOC (seal lanes of communications) protection responsibilities, potentially reducing US responsibilities in the Gulf and Indian Ocean".
There are two other scenarios played out in the report, one entitled "Asia re-aligns", the other "The New Sino-Indian Co."
Reading the Pentagon report raises the issue of how the US Defence Department views the Clinton administration's approach towards China, which stresses "engaging that country to allow US
Financial and industrial firms to reap opportunities from exploitation of the China market. The administration, backed by corporate power, and the financial lobby, is also a big force supporting China's entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO), hoping that the application of WTO rules will push China to end its protectionist trade and investment structure and weaken the currently strong state regulation of the operations of the transn tional corporations.
One suspects from 'Asia 2025' that people at the Pentagon are not happy with the current policy, which might be viewed as a way that the country they identify as the US strategic rival could strengthen itself both economically and strategically using investment and trade.
This line of thinking would most likely see China as the net gainer in a stronger economic relationship with the United States. If this is the likely outcome, then the policy is mistaken. One does not strengthen a strategic rival; one cuts it off at the pass.
In short, it is likely that the conflict between "engagement" and "containment" as the strategic approach towards China will come to a head, perhaps in the near future.
What are we in Asia to make of all this ? The lesson is clear: with the consistent identification of China as the US rival in all scenarios, the study speaks volumes about the Pentagon's grim determination to counter any significant threat to US strategic hegemony in Asia."
And What are we in New Zealand to Make of All This?
Considering the fact that the US arms industry is a major part of the US economy, and the United States is an imperialist power, planning for war is inevitable. Part of their war preparations is the domination of its allies, politically, economically and culturally. US influence in NZ is already excessive.
The New Zealand people have paid a very heavy price for involvement in US military adventures, and through the presence of corporations such as Telecom, and Tranzrail. We can expect renewed efforts by US imperialism to deceive New Zealand, once again, in providing the foot soldiers - for the benefit of US Corporate profits. #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)