The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or a “limited” punitive bombing against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “Global Security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Moreover, 21st Century military technology is at an advanced stage of development combining an array of sophisticated weapons systems. We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. The future of humanity is at stake.

The present situation is one of advanced war planning by a formidable military force using nuclear warheads. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously. Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: [The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

Military action is waged in the name of the “Global War on Terrorism” and Global Security. It has a stated “humanitarian” “pro-democracy” mandate. The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon since 2005.
If such a war were to be launched, the entire Middle East Central Asia region would flare up. Humanity would be precipitated into a World War III Scenario. World War III is not front-page news. The mainstream media has excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war plans.
The onslaught of World War III, were it to be carried out, would be casually described as a “no-fly zone”, an operation under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) with minimal “collateral damage” or a “limited” punitive bombing against specific military targets, all of which purport to support “Global Security” as well as “democracy” and human rights in the targeted country.

Public opinion is largely unaware of the grave implications of these war plans, which contemplate the use of nuclear weapons, ironically in retaliation to Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Moreover, 21st Century military technology is at an advanced stage of development combining an array of sophisticated weapons systems. We are at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in World history. The future of humanity is at stake.

The present situation is one of advanced war planning by a formidable military force using nuclear warheads. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest.

The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the World simultaneously.
Militarization at the global level is instrumented through the US military’s Unified Command structure: the entire planet is divided up into geographic Combatant Commands under the control of the Pentagon. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consists of a sequence of war theaters: [The] five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.
Military action is waged in the name of the “Global War on Terrorism” and Global Security. It has a stated “humanitarian” “pro-democracy” mandate.

It is predicated on the notion that the West’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons are (in contrast to those [nonexistent] of the Islamic Republic), according to expert scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground.”
Irresponsible politicians are unaware of the implications of their actions. They believe their own war propaganda: nuclear weapons are heralded as an instrument of peace and democracy.

War is heralded as a peace-keeping making operation carried out with the support of the “international community”.

The victims of war are described as the perpetrators. Iran and Syria constitute a threat to Global Security thereby justifying pre-emptive military action.

Global warfare
The concept of the “Long War” has characterised US military doctrine since the end of World War II.
The broader objective of global military dominance in support of an imperial project was first formulated under the Truman administration in the late 1940s at the outset of the Cold War.
We are dealing with a global military agenda, namely “Global Warfare”. The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon’s agenda was predicated on “waging a war without borders”.

The PNAC’s declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” in different regions of the World as well perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a Worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”. (Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defences. pdf, September 2000)
This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his predecessor in the White House, who has recently been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for “Crimes against the Peace”.

In the present context, the US military and intelligence actions have been undertaken in different part of the World. Ongoing war plans within the broader Middle East Central Asian region would involve coordinated actions against Iran, Syria and Pakistan leading to an extended regional war theatre. The three existing and distinct war theatres (Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) would merge into a broad regional war extending from the Lebanese-Syrian East Mediterranean coastline to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Western China (See map below). Israel, Lebanon and Turkey would be engulfed in the conflict.

It is important to address the history of this military agenda including the slated role of Israel.
The main coalition partners, including the US, UK, Israel and Turkey have been in “an advanced stage of readiness” since 2005. The Combatant Command structure of a military operation against Iran is centralized and controlled by the Pentagon.

In 2005, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” This Combatant Command integration also included coordination with America’s allies including NATO, Israel and a number of frontline Arab states, which are members of NATO’s Mediterranean dialogue.

To implement USSTRATCOM’s mandate, a new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.

JFCCSGS was granted the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack against Iran in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons not only against “rogue states” (i.e. Iran) but also against China and Russia. The operational implementation of the “Global Strike” was labelled CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,” CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

Say no to WW III
The antiwar movement is in crisis: civil society organizations are misinformed, manipulated or co-opted. A large segment of “progressive” opinion is supportive of NATO’s R2P “humanitarian” mandate to extent that these war plans are being carried out with the “rubber stamp” of civil society.
There is a definite need to rebuild the antiwar movement on entirely new premises.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network, across the land, nationally and internationally, which challenges the structures of power and authority. People must mobilize not only against the military agenda, the authority of the state and its officials must also be challenged.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled: “We must fight against evil in all its forms as a means to preserving the Western way of life.”

Breaking the “big lie” which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.
It should be understood that whatever its justification, War is a “Crime against the Peace” under Nuremburg.

George W. Bush and Anthony L. Blair have been condemned by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal for waging a criminal war of aggression against Iraq.
War crimes, however, are not limited to the former US president and British Prime Minister. There are, so to speak, “New War Criminals on the Block” including the president of the United States of America Barack Hussein Obama, among others.

The acting heads of state and heads of government which support US-NATO-Israel wars of aggression under an R2P pretext are war criminals under international law. This proposition, which consists in unseating the war criminals in high office, is central to the waging of an effective antiwar movement.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, address the issue of war crimes, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a global war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

Nuclear waragainst Iran
Below are excerpts from my January 2006 article (emphasis added) which outlines the process of military deployment including the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. To read the complete article click here: Nuclear War against Iran. A more detailed analysis is contained in my book entitled Towards a World War III Scenario (see ordering details below):

“Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military manoeuvres in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments [late 2005], CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets.” Goss reportedly asked “for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation.” (DDP, 30 December 2005).
In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the

Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March [2006]:
All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran…. The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran’s nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel’s War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005).

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage [December 2005], as to the nature of NATO’s involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

“Shock and Awe”
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear centre in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theatre, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities … or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq. (See Globalsecurity.org at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

In November [2005], US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a “global strike plan” entitled “Global Lightening”. The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a “fictitious enemy”.
Following the “Global Lightening” exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness.

Consensus for nuclear war
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union. There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin.

Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building “a consensus” both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states [i.e. Arab League] are now tacit partners in the US/Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel’s top military brass met at NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. [Arabic league and Israel work hand in glove] A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and “anti-terror manoeuvres” together with several Arab countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a “threat to World Peace”. The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/anti-globalization agenda.

The “surgical strikes” are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: “Safe for civilians”
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration’s doctrine of “pre-emptive” nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or “low yield” “mini-nukes”, with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered “safe for civilians” because the explosion is underground.

The following article published in January 2006 outlined the main features of this diabolical military agenda. In recent developments, following the threats by Britain and Israel, we have reached a major turning point.

Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A pre-emptive nuclear attack [against Iran] using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for “overseeing a global strike plan” consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated to play the role of “a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defence; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence….”

In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created. JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against “rogue states” but also against China and Russia.

Concept Plan (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.

The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as “an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,’ (Ibid).

CONPLAN 8022 is ‘the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.’

‘It’s specifically focused on these new types of threats—Iran, North Korea—proliferators and potentially terrorists too,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing that says that they can’t use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.’(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)

The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran. The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defence, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022. CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. It does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops. CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posts a small-scale operation and no “boots on the ground.” The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces—air, ground, sea—and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations….The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2011
Source: Weekly Holiday

The current wave of global protests was traced back by the magazine to protests in Iran two years ago: “Iran prefigured what was going to happen in the Arab world. And then what happened in the Arab world did influence Occupy Wall Street, and Occupy Oakland, and the protests in Greece and Madrid.”

Stengel said that the global protesters are all connected by technology:
“They all talked about how they had been influenced by other protests and how social media brought all of them closer. It’s really an extraordinary combination of demography and technology that brought about this change.”

The tradition of selecting a person, or a thing for the year end cover has been upset, in the case of The Protester, by a concept. The distinction has been held by presidents, political leaders, innovators, captains of industry and even the infamous. The title went to Adolf Hitler in 1938, Joseph Stalin in 1943 and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

What happened in 2011 was simply unpredictable. Out of nowhere, in the words of Stengal, came “these people, who risked their lives, risked their livelihoods to go out there and brought about change that nobody had expected. It’s a transformational change and I think it is changing the world for the better.” The deputy editor of the magazine explained on another TV channel CNN that the essence of the protest movement from Tehrir Square in Cairo to Wall Street in New York is to decisively tip over the status quo, which discommodes the 99%. In the Arab world, the protester wants political change. He toppled governments. In the West, the protester wants change in the financial system. He is being heard, in G-20 and particularly by the Eurozone leaders. A Robin Hood Tax (tax on all heavy financial transacts) to go to the underprivileged is being contemplated in Europe, although for the time being the remedies put in place to meet the Eurozone crisis continue to maintain the rules of the status quo that burdens the 99%, and protects if not enriches the 1%.

A “protester” explained on the CNN that while the bond of new technology of protests around the world maintain peaceful assembly and mass demonstration as the bastion of the global thrust for change, the movement is taking many forms and adopting varied tactics, learning from different country experiences. A common feature is forging activist-level unity without relation to or reliance on established political parties’ infrastructure or leadership. The protests, thus, are larger than political inclinations and are likely to remain potent even after partisan capture of power in the course of “transformational change.”

Where are we in this wind of change sweeping the world?
In neighbouring India, while the marginalised and the oppressed under neo-apartheid have taken to sustained low-key insurgency and remain excluded from the mainstream of Indian polity, the large middle-class that forms the pillar of progress under status quo has of late been shaken up by neo-Gandhian protests, albeit of indigenous character but of the same genre as the global wave in so far as its tremor runs across the board encompassing party political divisions.

In Bangladesh, 99% suffer burdens and grievances of horrendous enormity. But the marginalised folks are weighted down by adversities of day to day existence. The middle class remains opinionated and divided by polarisation of two mainstream political parties with dynastic leadership pyramid, and the young appear confounded by misinformation, disinformation, failures in public services, and constant political bluff. No one is articulating common protests, nor is anyone listening, as confrontational politics is being ruthlessly pursued by mainstream leaders with the sole purpose of capture and retention of power. Yet crises, both political and economic are piling up to a point of explosion. To give a mild sample of how the scenario appears to the eye of an expatriate Bangladesh watcher I am quoting below, somewhat abridged, excerpts from a commentary by Mahin Khan on an UK online publication called The Monitor.

“The Awami League seems to have a passion for creating unnecessary disruption, taking one troubling decision after another, bitterly dividing the country. The reverberations of these political misjudgements are also felt within the Bengali Diasporas abroad, including in Britain.

“Days ago, the parliament, due to the clout of its unprecedented government majority (87%), passed a highly controversial bill to divide the capital, Dhaka, into two administrative regions – Dhaka South and North. This major historic bill was only tabled a week ago, yet it took mere minutes to pass.
“Earlier this year, the AL led government passed a bill to overturn a 15 year old system that entailed a non-partisan caretaker government to oversee general elections. The system, established in the mid-90s, was designed to prevent fraud and rigged elections. While Hasina claimed the move would consolidate the nation as a democracy, many have regarded her actions as politically motivated, designed to secure her party’s place in power.

“Through its modes of governance and decisions, the AL led government of Bangladesh has created one problem after another. The flawed International War Crimes Tribunal (ICT) spells another step in the wrong direction. Following the ICT’s spokesman expressing his satisfaction with the current proceedings, Stephen J Rapp, visiting US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes, called a press conference where he categorically expressed his disappointment at the Bangladesh Government’s reluctance to implement a series of his recommendations. In increasingly ridiculous developments, AL MP Shawkat Momen Shahjahan, accused one of the most well known and senior commanders of the liberation war, Kader Siddiqui, of being a war criminal and demanded that he should be tried under the ICT. Kader Siddiqui, nicknamed Bagha (Tiger) Siddiqui for the ferociousness of his force in 1971, is the only civilian recipient of the gallantry award for his role in the liberation war.

“The cycle of political retribution and violence is no stranger to this young country, yet its leaders appear unwilling to learn. With the ICT trials targeting only political opponents under the cover of a flawed legal process, the AL Government is in danger of repeating history – one that has been going on for over 36 years. Unfortunately, political vengeance is a recurrent presence in Bangladesh, and should the fires be stoked any further, the danger of a civil confrontation draws ever nearer. Hasina’s government would do well to steer clear of the paths taken by her predecessors, for the good of her party and her country. As it stands, her decisions paint a road map for political disaster.”

Author: Sadeq Khan
Source: Weekly Holiday

Yet, seemingly caught by total surprise, it took about a week for President Mubarak to mobilize a counter-attack and hit back at nearly a million anti-regime activists who were hell bent on ensuring Mubarak’s immediate removal from power.

The spark

The latest events mirrored the uprising as being a classical Marxist class conflict; the rural Egyptians siding with Mubarak while the urban elites bidding to maximize their economic, social and political interests by resorting to unconstitutional methods to change the nation’s political structure and its leadership. For both camps, it’s still proving as tough as growing grapes in the desert.

For a layman, however, the story unfolded like movie sequels. The Egyptian revolt erupted following the recent uprisings in Tunisia where a 23-year-old authoritarian ruler, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, fled in a huff to Saudi Arabia after a month-long street agitations. As copy-cat street demonstrations followed in Yemen, where demonstrators demanded the ouster of President Ali Abdullah Saleh after his 32-year long iron-fisted rule, tweeter-savvy, urban Egyptians followed suit.

To appease the crowd, Mubarak came out on nationwide TV, asking his government to resign and to offer a reform package that could address the needs of the Egyptian people. A clever manipulator and a ruthless ruler of the largest Arab-Islamic nation since 1981 (Egypt has 81 million population), Mubarak first appointed a new Vice President and a Prime Minister, both with military background. The military having been pacified, he then made an assuring public declaration that he would not seek a re-election in the upcoming Presidential poll in September 2011 and, reforms would take place as per the demonstrators’ desire.

Military factor

Beneath the surface, it was the Egyptian military which swayed the balance. Like Pakistan, Egyptian military is deeply embedded in the national political manoeuvrings, thanks to the 1952 military - led revolution which ended the Egyptian monarchism and bestowed the nation with a chain of military leaders since; from Gamel Abdul Nasser through Anwar Sadat to Husni Mubarak. Mubarak deployed the army last Friday after police forces were accused of using excessive force on protesters.

The army played it with cool nerve so far, insisting it would not attack peaceful demonstrations. But, following the televised speech on Tuesday, the former air force General ordered the military to urge the demonstrators to return home. Aware that the demonstrators have external backing and may not yield, he then resorted to mobilizing counter-demonstration by his party loyalists.

“Your message is received … (your) demands became known,” a Defence Ministry spokesman said on state-run television, adding, “We are here and awake to protect the country for you … not by power but by the love to Egypt. It is time to go back to normal life.”

That call for return to normalcy fell in deaf ears; leading to Mubarak loyalists’ gathering around Tehran’s Tahrir square since Wednesday noon. Armed with machetes and Molotov cocktails, they charged through the anti-government demonstrators, overturned military vehicles and blasted volleys of cocktails to scare the gathering mass. Reportedly, one anti- government demonstrator was killed and nearly 400 injured in the ensuing pandemonium, but the showdown has had the desired effect of changing the dynamic of an uprising which many thought would snow ball across the region.

Social factor

Observable in this anti-climax of a much vaunted revolution was the faces and the facades of the demonstrators in both camps. The anti-government activists were urban, educated and blue-coloured. Most of them, unlike ordinary Egyptians, spoke English with neatly-polished accents. Many even sported foreign passports. The pro-government demonstrators, who lurched into the fray in their thousands on February 1, were ordinary Egyptians. They were more bothered about the widespread instability and its impact, and wanted the 30-year-long ruler to have an honourable exit from power. “Mubarak had accepted their demand. What else they want?” yelled one of Mubarak loyalists.

That does not mean the game is up for either side. Also unknown is what might follow. What, however, seems certain is that further instigation from external powers to keep the uprising on the boil is bound to recoil to the detriment of the greater Egyptian-Arab interests, as well as the overall geopolitical interest of leading Western nations; which are given into the habit of using rulers from Arab-Islamic nations as puppets when needed, only to dispense them away like tissue papers once the core interest changes.

That is precisely why all the externally-instigated uprisings recoiled detrimentally in the Arab world. The anti-Shah uprising in 1979 turned Iran into an Islamic Republic. In 2002, George Bush’s famous Beirut spring—that the political status quo could not and should not be maintained in the Middle East—proved so futile in Lebanon that it had resulted in the brutal assassination of another pro-Western leader, Rafic Hariri of Lebanon, in February 2005. Subsequently, it also sparked Hezbollah’s pre-eminence in Lebanon, prompting Israel to wage another war against Lebanon in 2006 in which, for the first time, Israeli military was disgracefully routed by few thousand Hezbollah guerrillas.

Those lessons seemed lost when the West began to insist on bringing democracy in the Palestine long before the Palestinian people could be liberated first, leading to Hamas winning the January 2006 election and becoming the lawful rulers of Gaza. Earlier, the Algerian civil war started when the Western nations prodded the military to take over power following winning of an election in 1991 by Islamic forces. An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Algerians have perished in that civil conflict ever since.

Limited choice

Until the election to office of President Barack Obama in late 2008, the US had no standing in the Arab streets. That pauperized perception will take time to bounce back. Two recent polls indicated nearly 80% of Egyptian population dislikes the US while 59% preferred the Islamists to the so called modernizers who are supported only by 27% of Egyptians. The ongoing ‘twitter revolution’ in Egypt, — which is credited for having kicked off by the Tunisian uprising and the twitter activism among the Egyptian youths it had unleashed—is backed by this tiny minority.

Such a reality proves another of Mubarak’s assertion that, in Egypt, the choice is between him and the Islamic Brotherhood, there being no other organized political group. Even the Kifaya movement of the past has been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood. Its leader, until recently, was Abdel Wahhab al-Messiri, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Muhammad el-Baradei, newly-injected leader of the reformist movement and the former head of the IAEA, is, on the other hand, blamed by many as being a US agent and a stranger to the nation of Egypt.

One wonders what kind of democracy is the West seeking in Egypt where no democratic institutions and parties were allowed to flourish. The Time magazine also raised the same concerns lately. “Democracy movements are attractive to Washington when they target a regime such as Iran’s, but in allied autocracies, they’re a problem. There’s no way for Egypt to be democratic and exclude the Islamists from political participation. The same is true for most other parts of the Arab world — a lesson the U.S. ought to have learned in Iraq, where Islamists have dominated all the democratically elected governments that followed Saddam Hussein’s ouster,” the Time observed.

Vanguard nation

Egypt is a vanguard Arab nation. Since the 1970s, it started gradual liberalization of its economy amidst enormous hardship caused by successive wars with Israel in which its military played a central role among other Arab armies. President Sadat’s signing of a peace deal with Israel in 1979 led to his assassination in 1981 and brought to power then Vice President, Hosni Mubarak. In the 1990s, Mubarak was forced to speed up privatisation process when a daunting foreign debt crisis sparked by international lending organizations made privatisation a pre-condition for aid.

An agrarian economy until recently, the Egyptian economy is bereft of much resources. As a trusted US ally, Mubarak managed over $1 billion in US aid per year since the end of the Cold War. Meanwhile, a middle class resurgence, spearheaded by privatization-induced business elites, occurred, resulting 20 per cent of the seats of the People’s Assembly, the lower chamber of the Egyptian parliament, going to business elites in the 2005 election. The power thus got shared between and among the elites while the military buttressed it from the barracks.

Reforms undertaken

Yet, the vagueness of the Western cry for reform never ebbed, compelling Mubarak to embark upon the much needed political reforms. In a speech on Feb. 26, 2005, he pronounced that Article 76 of the Constitution would be amended to allow multi-candidate presidential elections. The amendment was approved in a national referendum on May 25, 2005. The establishment of a Higher Elections Commission under the chairmanship of the Minister of Justice followed.

The oppositions’ demand for reform too remains vexing, vacuous and largely unspecified. Contrary to public perceptions, it’s not the lack of political or economic reforms that had sealed Mubarak’s fate. In preceding years, global economic crisis posed an enormous challenge to the Egyptian economy; the GDP growth reducing to 4.5% in 2009 (totalling $470 billion) and further slowing down export and manufacturing. In desperation, Mubarak injected into the economy a $2.7 billion stimulus package, which did little to mitigate the slowdown. By late 2010, unemployment reached 10%. Meanwhile, a number of terror attacks reduced income from tourism which constitutes over 12% of the GDP.

If the crisis lingers, a potential closure of the Suez Canal, a vital artery between Europe and Asia accounting for about 10% of global sea-borne trade, will shoot oil price past $100 mark it is now, due to the week-long agitation in Egypt. That will add more burden to the moribund Egyptian economy. Unlike many Arab nations, Egypt is a net oil importer.

External pressures

The crisis also poisoned anew the US-Arab relations; at a time when President Obama had just begun to recuperate from a staggering slump in popular rating. The Daily Telegraph of UK claimed the Egyptian revolt was prepared with the US secret support. The paper said the US had prepared Egyptian oppositions for three years to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak, adding, “The Washington Administration publicly poses as Mubarak’s ally, while secretly providing support for the opposition forces.” The paper quoted US diplomats’ reports from Cairo, made public by the WikiLeaks website.

That may or may not be true, notwithstanding that the CIA has had, until recently, the notorious reputation of acting as the government within a government. In the Arab capitals, however, Obama’s latest call to Mubarak to undertake reform ‘now’ did not go down well. Egyptian foreign ministry has told the US and other foreign powers last Wednesday that their pressure for reforms tantamount to interfering in Egypt’s internal affairs.

As the saga lingered, Saudi King and other Arab monarchs had reportedly told Mubarak to suppress the uprising without any hesitation to quarantine its spreading in other vulnerable Muslim nations.

Author: M. Shahidul Islam
Source: Weekly Holiday

My introduction to international politics was 1971, as a schoolgirl in Calcutta. Many images from that year are still etched in my mind, but the culminating one was the photo on Ramna racecourse of two men sitting at a table — the smart, turbaned Sikh, ‘our’ war-hero, Jagjit Singh Aurora, and the large man in a beret, A A K Niazi, commander of the other side, signing the instrument of surrender. Nearly a generation later, a chance interview for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) with Lt Gen. Aurora took me back to 1971. The interview was not about 1971, but about injustices suffered by Sikhs at the hands of the state General Aurora had served. I thought he was a bigger hero for what he had to say then. That view was reinforced as I read — with incredulity — the disparaging remarks by other Indian officers about him, and each other, in their books. If this is what happened to the winning commander, I wondered what had happened to the other man in the photo.
The result was a revelation.

It turns out that General Niazi has been my ‘enemy’ since the Second World War. As Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army fought on the Burma front in 1943-45 in their quest for India’s freedom, Niazi was fighting on the other side, for the British Indian Army, under the overall command of General (later Field Marshal) William Joseph Slim. Slim and his 14th Army halted the advance of the INA and the Japanese at the Imphal campaign and turned the course of the war.

In the process of inflicting military defeat upon my ancestor, Niazi’s performance was so exceptional that the British awarded him an on-the-spot Military Cross for action on the Assam-Burma front in June 1944. On another occasion they wanted to award a DSO, but he was too junior, so a Mention in Despatches was recorded. In the original record of his MC signed by his commanding officers all the way up to Slim, which I obtained from the British Ministry of Defence, the British commanders describe Niazi’s gallantry in detail: “He organized the attack with such skill that his leading platoon succeeded in achieving complete surprise over the enemy.” They speak of how he personally led his men, the ‘great skill and coolness’ under fire with which he changed tactics with changing circumstances, created diversionary attacks, extricated his wounded, defeated the enemy and withdrew his men by section, remaining personally at the rear in every case.

The British honoured Niazi for “personal leadership, bravery and complete disregard for his own personal safety.” On 15 December 1944 the Viceroy Lord Wavell flew to Imphal and in the presence of Lord Mountbatten knighted Slim and his corps commanders Stopford, Scoones and Christison. Only two ‘Indian’ officers were chosen to be decorated by the Viceroy at that ceremony — ‘Tiger’ Niazi was one of them.

In 1971 Niazi was a highly decorated Pakistani general, twice receiving the Hilal-e-Jurat. He was sent to East Pakistan in April 1971 — part of a sorry tradition in South Asia of political rulers attempting to find military solutions to political problems. By then Tikka Khan had already launched the crackdown of 25 March for which he has been known to Bengalis as the ‘butcher of Bengal’ ever since. The population of East Bengal was completely hostile and Pakistan condemned around the world.

Authoritative scholarly analyses of 1971 are rare. The best work is Richard Sisson and Leo Rose’s War and Secession.

Robert Jackson, fellow of All Soul’s College, Oxford, wrote an account shortly after the events. Most of the principal participants did not write about it, a notable exception being Gen. Niazi’s recent memoirs (1998).Some Indian officers have written books of uneven quality — they make for an embarrassing read for what the Indians have to say about one another.

However, a consistent picture emerges from the more objective accounts of the war. Sisson and Rose describe how India started assisting Bengali rebels since April, but “the Mukti Bahini had not been able to prevent the Pakistani army from regaining control over all the major urban centers on the East Pakistani-Indian border and even establishing a tenuous authority in most of the rural areas.” From July to October there was direct involvement of Indian military personnel. “…mid-October to 20 November… Indian artillery was used much more extensively in support …and Indian military forces, including tanks and air power on a few occasions, were also used…Indian units were withdrawn to Indian territory once their objectives had been brought under the control of the Mukti Bahini — though at times this was only for short periods, as, to the irritation of the Indians, the Mukti Bahini forces rarely held their ground when the Pakistani army launched a counterattack.”

Clearly, the Pakistani army regained East Pakistan for their masters in Islamabad by April-May, creating an opportunity for a political settlement, and held off both Bengali guerrillas and their Indian supporters till November, buying more time — time and opportunity that Pakistan’s rulers and politicians failed to utilise.

Contrary to Indian reports, full-scale war between India and Pakistan started in East Bengal on 21 November, making it a four-week war rather than a ‘lightning campaign’. Sisson and Rose state bluntly: “After the night of 21 November…Indian forces did not withdraw. From 21 to 25 November several Indian army divisions…launched simultaneous military actions on all of the key border regions of East Pakistan, and from all directions, with both armored and air support.” Indian officers like Sukhwant Singh and Lachhman Singh write quite openly in their books about India invading East Pakistani territory in November, which they knew was ‘an act of war’.

None of the outside scholars expected the Eastern garrison to withstand a full Indian invasion. On the contrary, Pakistan’s longstanding strategy was “the defense of the east is in the west”. Jackson writes, “Pakistani forces had largely withdrawn from scattered border-protection duties into cleverly fortified defensive positions at the major centres inside the frontiers, where they held all the major ‘place names’ against Mukti Bahini attacks, and blocked the routes of entry from India…”

Sisson and Rose point out the incongruity of Islamabad tolerating India’s invasion of East Pakistani territory in November. On 30 November Niazi received a message from General Hamid stating, “The whole nation is proud of you and you have their full support.” The same day Islamabad decided to launch an attack in the West on 2 December, later postponed to 3 December, after a two-week wait, but did not inform the Eastern command about it. According to Jackson, the Western offensive was frustrated by 10 December.

Though futile, the Western offensive allowed India to openly invade the East, with overwhelming advantages. “ …despite all these advantages, the war did not go as smoothly and easily for the Indian army…”, but Sisson and Rose come to the balanced judgment that “The Pakistanis fought hard and well; the Indian army won an impressive victory.” Even Indian officers concede the personal bravery of Niazi and the spirited fight put up by the Pakistanis in the East. That the troops fought so well against such overwhelming odds is a credit both to them, and to their commanders, for an army does not fight well in the absence of good leadership.

However, as Jackson put it, “…India’s success was inevitable from the moment the general war broke out — unless diplomatic intervention could frustrate it.” As is well known, Pakistan failed to secure military or diplomatic intervention. Sisson and Rose also say, “The outcome of the conflict on the eastern front after 6 December was not in doubt, as the Indian military had all the advantages.” On 14 December Niazi received the following message from Yahya Khan: “You have fought a heroic battle against overwhelming odds. The nation is proud of you …You have now reached a stage where further resistance is no longer humanly possible nor will it serve any useful purpose… You should now take all necessary measures to stop the fighting and preserve the lives of armed forces personnel, all those from West Pakistan and all loyal elements…” Sisson and Rose naturally describe this message as “implying that the armed forces in East Pakistan should surrender”.

No matter how traumatic the outcome of 1971 for Pakistan, the Eastern command did not create the conflict, nor were they responsible for the failure of the political and diplomatic process. Sent to do the dirty work of the political manoeuvrers, the fighting men seem to have performed remarkably well against overwhelming odds. It is shocking therefore to discover that they were not received with honour by their nation on their return. Their commander, Niazi, appears to have been singled out, along with one aide, to be punished arbitrarily with dismissal and denial of pension, without being given the basic right to defend himself through a court-martial, which he asked for.

The commission set up allegedly to examine what had happened in 1971 was too flawed in its terms of reference and report to have any international credibility. However, even its recommendations of holding public trials and courtmartials were ignored. There is much for Pakistan to come to terms with what happened in 1971. But the answers don’t lie in unthinking vilification of the fighting men who performed so well in the war against such heavy odds in defence of the national policy. Rather, in failing to honour them, the nation dishonours itself.

Author:Sarmila Bose

(Sarmila Bose is the niece of Subhas Chandra Bose or Netaji of Indian National Army fame who fought against the British supporting the Japanese. He is considered as a great hero in Bengal and India.Sarmila Bose is Assistant Editor, Ananda Bazar Patrika, India & Visiting Scholar, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University.)

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was orderly and under a UN sponsored agreement. Yet it led to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Surely the defeat in Afghanistan alone could not have caused the dissolution of an empire put together over many centuries. When the Soviet Union broke up it was still one of the two super powers with military power unparalleled in history. Afghanistan played the role of the last ounce that tipped the balance. While several generations had overextended Soviet role and power the perestroika generation discovered that the Russian standards of living was well behind that of the rest of Europe. They decided they did not want an empire; they wanted prosperity.

The defeat in Afghanistan also revealed that the military prowess of the Soviet Union was just as hollow as its prosperity. The display of its powerlessness tipped the balance. All the structural weaknesses of the state and the society which had been kept out of sight of the people to maintain a semblance of power and prosperity all showed up. At one time it appeared that it might be difficult to even hold Russia together. But wise leaders and rise in oil prices saved the day and Russia is back in robust good health as a society and a country.

The US is in a much worse position in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union was when it withdrew in 1985. The USSR was contiguous to Afghanistan and therefore had a secure LofC. The US started with the disadvantage of a very long and a very insecure LofC to the war theatre of Afghanistan. To make matters worse, the US Government and the press portrayed the war in Afghanistan as one between Islam and the West. Co-operating with the ‘US War on Terror’ was seen as collaboration. Any Muslim country that committed itself to war on the side of the US in Afghanistan was bound to be unpopular.

Pakistan, which had been a US ally of long standing, was faced with Hobson’s choice. Its troops fight alongside the US whose US drones and helicopters have killed thousands of Pakistanis. The US objectives are murkier than ever. The benign view is that the USA does not know who the enemy is. A more realistic view is that different power centres have different enemies and in the peculiar situation of Pakistan all of those are able to strike at their favourite targets usually unsuccessfully. Pakistan has two power centres – the military and the political class. The political class want money and support for their unpopular rule; the military wants to see the war end early. All the factions of the political class want US support. Until now the US was satisfied with the situation in Pakistan as it did not have to commit it to any side. But obsequiousness to the US has now begun to affect the prospects of success in Afghanistan where the Taliban keep extending their control despite the cruelty of their methods. Clearly, fear has proved to be a more powerful weapon than the battle for hearts and minds.

A review of the objectives and strategy is going on in Pakistan as well. Although Pakistan’s objectives continue to be early withdrawal of US and NATO forces; it fears that the longer the ‘targets’ are present the Afghans would keep shooting at them. Judging by its conduct in the past, the USA might turn on Pakistan at any time. Some in the US see Pakistan’s fear as ‘helpful’ because it precludes Pakistan denying the US vital land access to Afghanistan. But such views sustain suspicion, undermine military operations and make it impossible to evolve common objectives and strategies. The only country which is gleeful about the present situation in Afghanistan is India. Under American protection, India can engage in clandestine operations against Pakistan – particularly in Baluchistan – with impunity. Pakistanis view the situation with concern and suspect that it is the US that drives its joint efforts with India and Karzai’s Afghanistan against Pakistan.

The lingering air of suspicion in US Pakistan relations has undermined America’s efforts to leave the Bush era behind and build bridges with the Muslim World. During his election campaign and his first year in office President Obama showed awareness that he must convince the Muslim World that America is not its enemy. His efforts appeared genuine in intent and honest in content. But the ease with which Israel and its lobbies in the US were able to frustrate him on the minor issue of moratorium on new settlements in occupied Palestinian territories has not only discredited President Obama but also dwarfed the institution of the US President. His supporters are unhappy that he has not pursued his agenda with resolve. In any case his strategy in Afghanistan was founded on a misconception from the outset. The ‘surge’ to win a few battles spectacularly did not work. Afghan resistance which controls 75% of the territory does not appear to be eager to rush to the negotiating table. Any agreement with Hamid Karzai would not be worth the paper it is written on. As things stands now whenever the American leave they would leave it in the control of war lords and there will be a repeat of what happened after the Soviet Union withdrew.

The question is why should the Americans care and what can they do even if they did care. The conventional wisdom is that the US merely wants to ensure that Al-Qaeda did not find a safe haven in Afghanistan once again. That objective has been achieved. The USA has no way of ensuring they do not return but the neighbours of Afghanistan have the will and the ability to ensure that. America can and should work with them. But if America’s real aim is something else it would soon be evident as India takes its seat as a member of the UN Security Council for two years. Actually it is no secret what India wants. It wants the USA to remain entangled in Afghanistan and be viewed by the Muslim World as an enemy. If the Obama Administration adopted the Indian recommendation that would have huge implications for the United States as well as the wider world.

America has two choices in Afghanistan. One is to accept what Pakistan’s military has been saying for a long time i.e. it is the best interest of America to withdraw early and work for a peace agreement with the neighbours of Afghanistan and the war lords Taliban as well as non-Taliban. The other option is to dig in for a long haul in Afghanistan with defeat and ignominious withdrawal a certainty.

Polls in the USA are predicting that the elections in the US due to be held in November may result in the Democratic Party losing control of the Congress. That would set President Obama on course for being another one tern President. The nightmare of America would not end with that. By present trends, the Republican who would win the presidential election would be so right wing and belligerent that he/she could strike many more Muslim countries. The Republican successor of Obama would be real wrecker – a Boris Yeltsin who got his instructions from Tel Aviv. That would be a dream come true for those who aspire for Armageddon in their life time.

It may be already too late for the Democratic Party to win the mid term elections. But it is still possible for President Obama to win a second term if he presented clear choices to the American people who are sick and tired of war. He must stand out as the candidate for peace. To be that he must deliver on complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of his first term in office. US military victory is well nigh impossible but a defeat would be deadlier for Pakistan than Afghanistan which is already devastated by three decades of war. If the Americans accepted the recommendation of Pakistan, our country would have a stake in its success. Pakistan and the USA working together for America to maintain a benign civil presence in the region is an objective all Pakistanis can be comfortable with. But that entails a huge challenge.

The challenge is two-fold. On the one hand it would entail a public information effort to drive home the point that the Taliban had control over more than 75 % of the territory including Kabul and Kandhar but their legitimacy was based on ‘conquest’ alone. If the Americans left Afghanistan without an agreement with the ‘resistance’ the Taliban prospects of ever gain power would evaporate. They might be able to conquer somewhat less of Afghanistan at huge cost but they would still be without legitimacy and international recognition. As a land locked state put together by conquest would a pariah state. A landlocked pariah state can play no role other than being a menace to its people and the region. The Americans are offering the resistance a negotiated peace. That would give them international recognition and legitimacy. If they did not accept the offer Afghanistan would indeed be a menace for all its neighbours. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been the supporter and well wishers of the resistance in Afghanistan. But if it did not accept the advice of its sincere friends, Afghanistan would be on its own condemned to perpetual civil war.

The other challenge comes from the ineffectiveness of the corrupt governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America now has two unpopular governments – Zaradri and Karzai regimes - that it cannot dump or support wholeheartedly. There is still hope in Pakistan where the robustness of its judiciary and the military may prevent excessive damage to other institutions of the state. But one hesitates to make a recommendation for Afghanistan. The Soviet Union resorted to assassination of its erstwhile lackeys - Hafizullah Amin Babrak Karmal - in similar circumstances. What would the US do?

A wrong decision in Afghanistan may not just result in Obama becoming another one term President. He may be followed by Netanyahu as President albeit with a different name; Sarah Palin or Joe Lieberman would do just as well as wreckers of the world. ++

Author: Usman Khalid

(The writer served as Brigadier in the Pakistan Army. He is the Chairman of London Institute of South Asia)

All these days I used to envy those who can clearly see the wonders of this world without any external, optical aid. But recently I have started to think otherwise. Maybe it’s not only me after all.

I admit I can’t see without specs, but still I am not blind. I see when I need to — even if that is through my specs.

But the nation to which I belong seems to be completely blind and does not see anything happening around it. I wonder, how can we, as a nation, be so blind and yet we are not worried about our loss of sight!

If we had been able to see, then how could we have let all these glitches and gremlins happen around us — and yet, we remain silent?

About four years back on 28 October 2006, we saw on the TV screen our fellow humans being beaten to death in broad daylight like snakes by some elements carrying the badge of ‘humans’ in the most brutal fashion that we ordinary people dread to imagine! Many of us will admit that we “saw” that. Yes, we did, but if we really did, how could we have voted for the killers of that day to rule our nation in just two years’ time at end of 2008? Yet we claim we can see! Or, did we really vote for them? Was the election really fair? Was the counting done in the normal way we count votes? No doubt, these are extremely perplexing and bewildering questions.

And what do we see today? Through which eyes do we see the killing of the upazila Chairman Mr. Sanauallah Noor Babu in Natore? Wasn’t it equally brutal as the incident of 28 October 2006? Are we becoming immune to such atrocities? Are we losing our essential human sensitivity and human values, let alone religious and moral teachings?

How do we keep our eyes open when the members of the pro-government student organization throw each other from a building? How could we remain normal when our Prime Minister’s boys torture ordinary students at public universities for their refusal to join political rallies including her birthday procession?

Can’t we see every day in the news how our fellow Bangladeshis in the border regions are being killed by the security forces of a ‘big and friendly’ neighbor? Can’t we see how our lands and waters are being used unlawfully by that neighbor? Can’t we hear how our ‘friends’ of that country are continuously branding us as ‘terrorists’ in the international forums only to keep the world in the dark about what they are doing to us?

Where is our nation going? Where are we as citizens heading? How long shall we keep quiet when our democratic and human rights are being violated, our media being silenced, and our sovereignty being slowly eroded?

If we can, then how come we as a nation are not rising to the occasion? And if we can’t do that and if we remain blind to our surroundings, then let’s be forthright and call a spade a spade. To be more precise, let us call ourselves blind! Or, has our conscience died? Has the fountain of our human compassion dried up?

To cover my myopic eyes, I use spectacles. To conceal our dried conscience, what can we use?

Author: Mrinmoyee Rahman

According to media reports Mahalingam went on morning jogging and got disappeared. As per his family members, he did not carry money or his cell phone with him and went for walk whereas the security guards on duty said that they didn’t see him leaving the campus. It is worth mentioning here that he also disappeared 10 years back when he was working at the Kalpakkam Atomic Station. On his return, after five days, Mahalingam expressed that he had gone to seek spiritual consolation.

A DNA test was performed just to ascertain the identity of the dead body. But that also raised the question: why was he cremated in such a hurry even before the results of the DNA test and the post-mortem report? The presence or absence of air in his lungs, any signs of torture on his body and the level of decomposition could have pointed to the circumstances in which he met his final end.

It is also questionable that shortly after his body was found the police announced its verdict that the scientist had committed suicide. The conclusion was premature since Mahalingam left no suicide note. Even if this version of Mahalingam’s death is accepted, the suicide of an Indian nuclear scientist who worked in a sensitive field is not an ordinary event. It points to the shaky human and personnel reliability in the Indian nuclear complex.

It must be a matter of global concern that killing of the Mahalingam is not only the first case of murder. Earlier, this year, another NPC non-technical employee Ravi Mule was found dead in the township on April 7. He too had gone for morning walk. Before that, on November 11, 2006, Director of Uttaranchal Space Application Centre, Dr Anil Kumar Tiwari, was also shot dead by an unidentified person near his residence. Police have not cracked the earlier cases and similarly are clueless in the current case of scientist. Moreover, in addition to financial corruptions, 152 theft cases of uranium have also been reported and registered with the police since 1984.

The fact of the matter is that Indian top listed companies have remained engaged in illegal importing and exporting of nuclear equipments. For example Berkeley Nucleonic Corporation (BNC), an American company was fined US $ 300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center in India and also in December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to Iran in violation of India’s commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr Surendar and Y. S. R. Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. Again, in December, 2006 a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

The above incidents confirm that the security of Indian nuclear programme is highly questionable. It is evident that the world’s most treacherous nuke proliferation is going on in India. The Hindu extremists with the help of Indian nuke scientists belonging to the Hindu fundamentalist organization Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sang (RSS) have been found involved in illegal transfer of nuclear technology to Israel and some western countries through underworld organizations to generate the funds for the completion of “Maha Baharat agenda”.

The recent release of US document on the internet is another security concern in the serious circles of the Washington. The list includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities and covering the details and location of nation’s 103 commercial nuclear power reactors. The equipment useful in preparation of nuclear device is available in the open American markets and reportedly being sold to Indian organization illegally.

The release of US nukes document, selling of equipment in local American market, theft cases of Indian Uranium, disappearance and abduction of Indian Nuke Scientist seem to be correlated to each other.

Two of India’s most important nuclear installations are located near Mumbai. Tarapur’s two 160 MW nuclear plants are already functioning near Trombay while two more 500 MW power plants are under construction near Mumbai itself. These two plants are designed to work as fuel fabrication facilities and are not safeguarded under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor effectively protected. India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and a number of other nuclear plants and uranium conversion facilities are also not part of IAEA safeguards. A fuel fabrication facility is also not far from the city and is considered unsafe by most accounts.

If one is to believe the Indian claim that ten young militants engaged more than 3000 of India’s top commandoes, intelligence and police officials for 60 hours and killed 200 people in Mumbai city, then we must seriously be worried about the safety of India’s nuclear arsenal, radioactive material, and nuclear power plants. Experts are of the view that if ten gunmen can hold a city of 15 million people, which houses a number of sensitive nuclear and radio-active plants, then how safe are India’s nukes?

Intriguing Role of Western Media
It is intriguing that not a single major American or British media outlet covered the story of the kidnapping and murder of a man that holds the key to the Indian nuclear arsenal with proper analysis. There are no scare stories on CNN, BBC, Fox etc about Indian nukes falling in the wrong hands. There are some reasons behind all this fact. One is that the Am-Brit media spent much of its energy in the last two years trying to scare the world about Pakistan’s nukes and how the Pakistanis are unable to protect them. Suddenly a major nuclear security breach in India surfaced. One of the reasons can be that the Americans have just broken all proliferation laws and decided that India is such a responsible nuclear power that it deserves to be given advanced nuclear technology.

Imagine if this incident had happened in Pakistan. The entire Am-Brit media would have been beating the drums of war, reminding the world how dangerous and unstable Pakistan is. Isn’t it deliberate that the western media is silent about the basic questions: Who kidnapped and later killed the Indian nuclear scientist and what was the purpose? What would happen if one of the 14 separatist movements or the Hindu fundamentalist groups in India had kidnapped the scientist to gain access to Indian nuclear bombs? What if the terrorists who have actually gained access to an Indian nuclear facility, killed the scientist and are now waiting to carry out a major terrorist act? What if any one of those Indian separatist groups fighting for the independence in 14 out of the 28 Indian states have used the scientist to sell information or nuclear designs to groups or countries that end up attacking the United States? These are the questions that not only need answers but also put the peace and security of the whole world at stake.

Author: M Raza Malik
Source: Kashmir Media Service

Recently on 13 October 2010 the Supreme Court Bar Association organized a seminar on ‘Human Rights: Bangladesh Perspective’ at Hotel Sonargaon which was presided over by the President of the Bar. Steven Kay QC spoke at the seminar as special guest. Mr. Steven is a leading practitioner in international criminal law and founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association. He is also the founder member of the International Criminal Law Bureau. He has appeared before the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). He was defense counsel in the first case prosecuted before the ICTY and the first war crimes trial held since Nuremberg and Tokyo.

He acted in the trial of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic first as Amicus Curiae and subsequently as assigned defense counsel. At the seminar he strappingly criticized the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 and First Amendment of the Constitution, as they are utterly inconsistent with the basic as well as fundamental principles of criminal justice. He also condemned use of the word ‘International Tribunal’ as there subsist nothing international matter in the business of the recently formed tribunal in Bangladesh under the said Act rather it exports almost all fundamental principles of criminal justice recognized in every civilized country under diverse international treaties and charters. At the seminar Mr. Steven ornately discussed in which manner the Act refused the right of an accused to be tried by a fair and impartial tribunal, the protection from self-incrimination and so on. Commenting on the First Constitutional Amendment he said that this amendment had the effect of withdrawing constitutional rights from a particular group of people within Bangladesh society who were not even convicted but at the most were only suspected of such crimes. He articulated that it was for the first time when inequality had been introduced into the Bangladesh justice system.

In this global village Bangladesh is a party to many international political organizations and is committed to fulfill their obligations.

At the Seminar Mr. Steven quoted Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, the principle of presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination. But these rights are absolutely denied to the suspects of war crimes. In fact, such farcical legal provisions are sufficient to furnish the golden opportunity to the ruling party to harass the political opponents in whimsical manner as they are without redress.

He also reminded that Bangladesh is legally bound to ensure fairness, freedom from arbitrariness, impartiality, presumption of innocence and certainty in trial. Finally, Mr. Steven said that it is apparent that the amendments made to the Constitution in 1973 are in contradiction with those principles adopted by the State of Bangladesh and should now provide an opportunity for a declaration by the Supreme Court as to the unlawfulness of those amendments.

In fact, in true sense those are now in Bangladesh working with war crimes are not well trained and acquainted with this peculiar field of law. Mr. Steven as a veteran expert having huge experiences in this arena indicated to many lacuna and loopholes in the law of the war crimes trial in Bangladesh and simultaneously suggested some measures which require to be taken to make the trial lawful as well as acceptable to the international communities.

It needs to be noted that the people of Bangladesh never desire to experience further political harassment as well as character assassination of political opponents by using the war crimes issue. No legal principle support any trial of accomplices ignoring the real culprits and that’s why the demand for trial of the 195 identified war criminals already raised from divergent corners and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association at the Seminar emphasized on the same issue. He aptly uttered that the trial of war criminals must be held in order to secure justice and uphold the rule of law. He also added that the Act of 1973 must be amended so that it conforms to international standards.

It is apparent that under present legal provision no meaningful trial of war criminals is possible at all rather the present trial may secure the ill-intention of the government to desert political opponents as alleged by different corners.

If it is the real plight then it must be noted that the eyes of people are still alert on their actions and the government must not be evaded the inevitable consequences in the next election. The seminar furnished a great opportunity for the government to consider the recommendations made by the veteran experts of war crimes to ensure fair trial and justice, and to satisfy international standards. But if the crying for justice remains unheeded then the trial in Bangladesh shall give birth one after one hated Raja Nandkumar case.

Author: Md. Nazrul Islam Khan
Source: The New Nation

The judgment did not mention whether Kosovo’s secession was legal, or whether other states could legally recognize its independence. Rather, all it did was to rule that international law does not prohibit the declaration of independence. The ICJ opinion can be summarized in three main points:

1. Kosovo’s Declaration of independence does not violate international law
2. Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244
3. Independence does not violate the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government

Although not binding, the ICJ’s advisory opinion bears significant political weight and forms a turning point in the long-debated Kosovo issue, as it can be seen from the reactions that it provoked both throughout the region, as well as globally. Reactions of the two parties concerned are indicative of their attitudes and their future intentions. Additionally, since each side is not made up of one single subject, it is crucial to examine all basic actors that exercise a larger or smaller influence within each side.

Reaction from Serbia
The advisory opinion of the ICJ came as a slap in the face to the Serbian side. Optimist statements of their leaders in the previous days notwithstanding, Serbs were very disappointed to see that their own initiative backfired, although it had initially been experienced as a victory, when pro-Albanian countries at the UN General Assembly in September 2008 failed to block the Serbian proposal from proceeding to the ICJ.
Serbian president Boris Tadić described the decision as harsh, but nevertheless tried to downplay its impact by pointing out to the rather vague distinction that ICJ itself had made between the unilateral declaration of independence and the right to secede, claiming that the Court concentrated on the technical nature of the former, while it avoided to take positions on the latter, which is of most substance. This distinction, as well as the Court’s omission to rule on the legal implication of the independence declaration (as, for example, on whether it produces statehood), has appeared in the statements of other Serb officials, too, and generated a debate about whether the question to the ICJ was properly formulated by the legal expert team. The government, on its part, reaffirmed its resolution never to recognize an independent Kosovar state and reiterated its commitment to continue fighting by political means. Furthermore, it announced an extraordinary session to examine its next steps, above all seeking the adoption of a favorable resolution at the UN General Assembly.
In conclusion, initial Serb reactions to ICJ’s decision show that no major shift is expected to take place on Serbian policy as far as the Kosovo issue is concerned.

As a consequence, many are those who fear that Serbia again risks turning isolationist and putting its European integration perspective at stake, not only because this perceived national debacle is attributed to the pro-Western block, but also because Serbian citizens largely got disillusioned by the international community, and especially Western nations, most of which stood against their country with no serious reservation.

Reaction from Kosovo
The advisory opinion of the ICJ drew immediate reactions from Kosovo and Albanian-inhabited countries. Scattered across Kosovo, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia and Montenegro, Albanians followed intently what was happening miles away in The Hague. The decision has been interpreted as a historical victory for the Albanian nation, and also an argument that will add many more recognizing states to the current list of 69. Kosovars celebrated the verdict on the streets of Pristina by hugging each other, blowing the horns of their cars and waving Kosovo’s flag, considering the decision a resounding reaffirmation of the legitimacy of their cause.

Kosovo Assembly has adopted a declaration in support of the advisory opinion, stating that the historical decision will contribute to peace and stability not only of the Republic of Kosovo, but the whole region. Considering the Court’s decision to be professional and impartial, respecting at the same time Kosovo citizen’s willingness for independence the declaration call the European Union to find a modus vivendi on Kosovo issue while demands from the reluctant countries to recognize the new state. In clear contrast to Serbian views, Kosovo officials believe that Kosovo does not constitute a precedent in any other case in the world. The Court’s opinion was closely tailored to the unique circumstances of Kosovo; it was not about other regions or states. Furthermore, as far as the statements of Kosovo officials are concerned, it has been clear that nothing in the opinion given by the Court casts any doubt on the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo, which is an established fact.

The reaction from the political parties was in the same wavelength. The IJC opinion was considered from both government and opposition parties as the best answer that has been given thus far on the Kosovo’s right as a legitimate, legal, consolidated and functional state. Generally, there was a consensus between them that the decision is righteous international historical response to historical injustice that has been made to Kosovo. In contrast to Kosovo’s officials, the Vetevendosje (self-determination) movement, a popular nationalist civil society group, does not share the same views. They accuse Kosovo government and politicians of attributing more importance to the formal attributes of Kosovo independence and less to its territorial integrity and genuine sovereignty. Vetevendosje thinks that the government’s celebratory tones are not justified by the ICJ decision since the latter did not rule on the substance of Kosovo’s independence but rather on the fact that the declaration is not illegal. More have to be done for consolidating Kosovo independence. The movement’s leader Albin Kurti protests against the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan as it does not provide sovereignty to Kosovo but a ‘deepening partition’ giving Belgrade actually the opportunity through decentralization to control every Serbian populated territory.

The proceedings themselves proved to be fascinating. While the countries that opposed the declaration of independence resorted to fairly standard arguments about the sanctity of state borders, the states that had recognised Kosovo used an array of approaches to justify Kosovo’s right to secede from Serbia. Perhaps the key argument made was that a declaration of independence has no legal meaning in itself. It is the act of recognition that counts, and this is a political decision that remains the sovereign prerogative of states. In other words, it was suggested that the court had been asked the wrong question.

Nationalism as the Root of the Conflict
The Kosovo conflict has its root causes in the clash of two distinct types of nationalism. The first is the Albanian both separate and emancipatory nationalism.
The separate nationalism is associated with the long-lasting goal of Kosovar Albanians to secede from Serbia. For Hobsbawm, this type of nationalism is characteristic of post-communist multinational/ federal states. In both of the multinational “real socialist” societies, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, it was officially claimed that the national question was successfully solved. It turned out that it was not. Old national conflicts appeared, at least temporarily, unresolved. Under the conditions of accelerated material growth and progressively improving standards of living, they assumed a latent form. They flared up soon after those societies had entered a period of serious economic and political crisis. The basis is that after democratic changes in communist federations, the formation of separate nationalism occurs in federal units when these units are based on national identities. This was a major explanation of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR.
However, we cannot neglect the earlier history of Albanian nationalism, which starts at the end of the 19th century with the formation of national states in the Balkans. This nationalism was emancipatory, in terms of freeing oneself from the Ottoman Empire, and from Serbia respectively.

Kosovo split from Serbia in 2008 after a bloody war in 1998-99 and nearly a decade of international administration.
Triggered by a brutal crackdown by Serb forces against Kosovan separatists, the war saw about 10,000 ethnic Albanians die before ending with a 78-day Nato bombing campaign. Hundreds of Serbs were killed in retaliatory attacks.
Today Kosovo, itself divided, with a Serb enclave in the north around the town of Mitrovica, said Serbia should now deal with it as a sovereign state. “This is a great day for Kosovo, and my message to the government of Serbia is ‘come and talk to us,’” the foreign minister, Skender Hyseni, said outside court.
The ruling is expected to bolster demands for recognition by territories as diverse as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
The ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact in Mitrovica, where the Serb majority has broken away and deadlock sometimes erupts into violence. The ruling will reinforce Kosovan resistance to any kind of renegotiation, particularly over the status of Serb majority areas in the north where a small area with a Serb majority has split away itself around the north of the town of Mitrovica, which has about 100,000 residents .
This is undoubtedly a victory for Kosovo – but only of sorts. It could have been told that the UDI was illegal, which would have put all those states that recognised it in a very tight spot. However, the narrowness of the opinion means that the positive effects for Kosovo in the short- to medium-term are likely to be rather more limited than one might expect. States, such as Russia and China, that oppose Kosovo’s independence on the grounds that it is an illegal act of secession can hold to this position. The court did not, after all, issue an opinion on this point. They can argue that by actually recognising Kosovo they will be legitimising what they still believes is an illegal act of secession. This will prevent Kosovo from joining the UN and other international organisations. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found.
As for the wider picture, what sort of impact does this have for other secessionist entities seeking statehood? In short, not that much. It means that any group or territory can declare independence. What matters is whether they are recognised. This has always been the hard part, and will remain so.
To conclude, partition is not perfect; it is painful and it carries risks, but the current situation is shaky. The resulting deadlock has sometimes erupted into violence with Serbs and Kosovans running their own areas. It is better to move the border than people to be trapped by it. Partition is certainly not a universal solution. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found. When everything else has failed, we need to have the courage to have responsibility for the solution

Author: Mahmud Amin

The Sheikh Hasina administration had been doing everything possible to eliminate the name of Shaheed President Ziaur Rahman, the valiant freedom fighter and the most successful Bangladesh president to date, from the country’s history. His only ‘crime’ was he had the ‘audacity’ to declare the independence of Bangladesh from the Chittagong Kalurghat Betar station on March 27, 1971 when political leaders failed to do so in time. The Awami League (AL) had to seek a verdict from a willing court to ‘punish’ Zia. One can fool one person all the time or some people sometime but not all people all the time. One cannot manufacture or dictate history; it will speak itself.

It looks like the public is paying the price for the ‘forced’ and ‘farcical’ elections on December 29, 2008 after which the AL led ‘mohajote’ was installed to power. Many nationalist observers and analysts have since been warning that Bangladesh would soon be sucked into the Indian hegemony, conforming to Nehru’s India Doctrine, which envisaged an Indian supremacy in South and Southeast Asia. The AL, its sponsored media and the pro-Indian lobbyists have engaged themselves in allaying such fears, some for protection of their crowns while others for cash rewards. National interests have hardly been of any concern to them. These elements find Indian ‘great friendship’ in the stoppage of waters at Farrakha, Tipaimukh and many other similar deadly contraptions! So what if our 52 joint rivers dry out at time of need and people keep crying Allah Megh De, Pani De in desperation? (Please read the article “India’s Dream, Bangladesh’s Disaster” by John Vidal published in NFB on July 16, 2010.) They feel nothing wrong at the regular BSF target shootings at Bangladeshis across the border, nor the Indian farmers encroaching inside our land. They do not care if we lose the South Talpatti or our maritime outlet to the sea. They think Bangladesh is out for sale and can be leased out for money, so let India use our ports and land routes for whatever purpose. They do not reason why Asian Highway had to enter Bangladesh from one side of India and exit to India again, reducing Bangladesh to a hapless transit point only. We need no military control in tribal areas in Chittagong Hill Tracts, so that India-trained miscreants and secessionists can keep it continually unstable. It is of no consequence to them if Indian goods and culture flood Bangladesh markets, even though Bangladesh can not export their goods to India for various ‘legal’ and ‘procedural’ reasons. The Hasina administration seems to move along the blue-print it was charted as a condition of its installation to authority.

The nation could not yet know the real story behind the February 25/26 BDR carnage last year, the worst since March 25/26, 1971, even though multiple connections with ruling elites were revealed. Fifty-seven senior officers, including the Director General of BDR, were massacred and their bodies brutally mutilated. Ladies and adult girls were not spared of the savagery during that period hitherto unheard in Bangladesh. Nobody would ever know why dozens of material witnesses were eliminated in the name of ‘heart attacks’ or ‘suicides’ while in custody. Perhaps as follow up of a greater plan, some of the brightest officers of the military were systematically sacked or retired and replaced with awamized officers. Yet, Sheikh Hasina does not seem to have faith in her politicized military. Otherwise, why would she engage Indian commandoes for her security and safety, if rumors were to be believed!

General Moin driven Caretaker Government instituted thousands of cases of corruption, graft and murder against political leaders, mostly belonging to Awami League and BNP, including the two former lady prime ministers. People had seen and experienced the highhandedness of those leaders over the past few decades and had no doubt about the correctness of the charges. Yet we found them coming out of the jails as puritans, and today sitting in the august national parliament and cabinet deciding the fate of Bangladesh and its dismayed sufferers. What an irony! Upon saddling in power, the Awami League took quick steps to withdraw thousands of cases against its men, thanks to an awamized and ever willing judiciary. At the same time, cases against the opposition BNP members are being strengthened with new cases being filed almost daily, particularly against the Zia family members, again thanks to a henpecked and spineless Duduk!

The current suppression and oppression to dissenting media reminds us of Sheikh Mujib’s emergency period in 1974 when all but four government-controlled newspapers were closed. The way Daily Amar Desh and its editor Mahmudur Rahman was thrashed, defying even court orders, can only be possible in a mythical ‘Mogher Mulluk’.

Awami League should in fact be thankful to the opposition BNP for not calling for any Hartal over the past 18 months. It should recall when it was in opposition in 1991-1996 and 2001-2006, how many days did it allow the BNP to run without a Hartal? Yet, it went wild to note the success of Hartal on June 27, 2010 and sent out its official and unofficial enforcement machineries to create trouble. The result was the arrest and persecution of thousands of opposition leaders and workers. The Deputy Home Minister publicly said that the opposition leaders should now ‘save their skins.’ Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, a disabled freedom fighter, the longest serving Foreign Secretary and an Ambassador to the US, was not spared of the harassment and continued to remain in custody.

Few disagree with a need of trial and punishment for the 1971 war criminals. In fact, the public in general and the freedom fighters in particular wonder why it had not taken place over the past 4 decades. However, that should not give a wholesale license to the AL to arrest, torture and harass the Islamic minded leaders on flimsy charges. Many observers suspect that it is in fact a deliberate effort by AL to keep a fictitious ‘Al-Quida/Taliban Connection’ alive in Bangladesh to solicit and maintain Indo-US-Israeli support. (Please read a letter by Shimul Chowdhury in NFB of July 16, 2010 titled “It is About Anything but the 1971 Liberation War.”)

Do all these mean that Sheikh Hasina is afraid of the BNP, the Jamaat-e-Islam and the legacy of Ziaur Rahman, or the public at large?

Author: Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA