LONDON: Referring to the meeting between the two ministers in New York September last, Shah Mahmood Qureshi clarified: “I gave him (S M Krishna) a very crisp proposal, a roadmap for the future. He said he would get back to me, but he has not got back to me. That means he has nothing to offer.” He persisted: “It seems that the Indian polity is divided, India is confused.”
The war of words between India and Pakistan has escalated with external affairs minister S M Krishna on Friday attempting damage control after his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi’s accusations against India a day earlier. Both ministers were in London to attend the Afghanistan Conference.
Qureshi had also stated that the MEA was divided on Pakistan. Krishna retorted: “I don’t know what makes him say that the MEA speaks in two voices. I think there is total unity of thinking in the ministry and unity of approach.”
LONDON: A one-day international conference on Afghanistan on Thursday rejected India’s argument that there were no degrees of Talibanism. British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, hosting the conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, announced in his opening address the establishment of a $500 million ‘trust fund’ to buy “peace and integration” with warriors who are engaged in violence for economic rather than ideological reasons. A whopping $140 million has been pledged already for this year.
During his pre-conference discussion with the British foreign secretary David Miliband, external affairs minister S M Krishna had specifically said, “There should be no distinction between a good Taliban and a bad Taliban.” But this clearly fell on deaf ears. It was also unclear whether remnants of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, once cultivated by India, would be accommodated in any way. There was also no reference to the erstwhile foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, who put up a spirited fight in the first round of the recent controversial presidential election and exposed fraud before withdrawing from the contest.
Krishna was allocated a seat in the second of three rows of attendees at the conference which in itself reflected India’s peripheral role in Afghan affairs in the eyes of the international community. This, despite India being the biggest regional aid-giver to Afghanistan, with a commitment of $1.3 million. Earlier in the week, Turkey, an ally of Pakistan, did not even bother to invite India to a confabulation on Afghanistan.
Krishna was among more than 70 foreign ministers and officials of international organisations who attended the convention at the 185-year-old Lancaster House, a coveted venue for summits and high level interactions.
Pakistan supports a differentiation between Taliban segments, including being generally soft towards the Afghan Taliban, which was sponsored by the Pakistani Army’s Inter-Services Intelligence. In an interview to a British daily on Thursday, foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claimed: “Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation.”
As a goodwill gesture, the conference was preceded by a lifting of United Nations sanctions on five leaders of the obscurantist Taliban regime, which was ousted by armed forces led by the United States after the 9/11 attack on New York by the Afghanistan-based Al Qaida. Among the beneficiaries is a former foreign minister Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil.
However, Brown warned, “But those insurgents who refuse to accept the conditions for reintegration, we have no choice but to pursue them militarily.” It is widely believed that hardcore elements among the extremists will not accept the amnesty.
In keeping with United States President Barack Obama’s plan to start withdrawing American troops in a little over 18 months, Brown also declared that to fill the breach the strength of the Afghan army would be increased to 134,000 by October of this year and to 171,600 by October 2011. Corresponding enlargements would also occur in respect of the Afghan police. The template for Afghanistan is similar to the one utilised in Iraq, that of handover of responsibilities province by province to national security forces. Times of India. World rejects India’s Taliban stand
This is the only city I’ve been to in Northeast China where they don’t clean the snow off of the sidewalks. Going outside is now an adventure and a test of balance. While little old ladies in high heels were perfectly capable of running full speed down these sidewalks, I fell over at least once a day moving at a snails pace.
by: Andy Worthington, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
(Photo: loungerie; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
A major new report on secret detention policies around the world, conducted by four independent UN human rights experts, concludes that, “On a global scale, secret detention in connection with counter-terrorist policies remains a serious problem,” and, “If resorted to in a widespread and systematic manner, secret detention might reach the threshold of a crime against humanity.”
The 226-page report, published on Wednesday in an advance unedited version, is the culmination of a year-long joint study by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. It will be presented to the UN Human Rights Council in March.
In an introduction, the UN experts established that:
a person is kept in secret detention if State authorities acting in their official capacity, or persons acting under the orders thereof, with the authorization, consent, support or acquiescence of the State, or in any other situation where the action or omission of the detaining person is attributable to the State, deprive persons of their liberty; where the person is not permitted any contact with the outside world (“incommunicado detention”); and when the detaining or otherwise competent authority denies, refuses to confirm or deny or actively conceals the fact that the person is deprived of his/her liberty, hidden from the outside world, including, for example, family, independent lawyers or non-governmental organizations, or refuses to provide or actively conceals information about the fate or whereabouts of the detainee.
After running through the historical background to secret detention – both in a legal context, and through numerous examples from the 20th century – the report focused primarily on secret detention in the last nine years, providing a detailed account of US policies in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and also running through the practice of secret detention in 25 other countries, including Algeria, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Libya, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
These sections contain valuable summaries, explaining how, in many cases, terrorism is used as a cover for secret detention policies of a political nature. However, the heart of the report is a detailed analysis of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” policies.
Of particular concern to the authors of the joint study – beyond the overall illegality of the entire project conceived and executed by the Bush administration – is the fate of dozens of men held in secret prisons run by the CIA, or transferred by the CIA to prisons in other countries. Based on figures disclosed in one of the Office of Legal Counsel’s notorious “torture memos,” written in May 2005 by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Bradbury, the CIA had, by May 2005, “taken custody of 94 prisoners [redacted] and ha[d] employed enhanced techniques to varying degrees in the interrogations of 28 of these detainees.”
The 28 men subjected to “enhanced techniques” are clearly the “high-value detainees” – including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abu Zubaydah – who were transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006, but no official account has ever explained what happened to the other 14 high-value detainees, or, indeed, to the majority of the other 66 men.
The report also established that, at a minimum, many dozens of other prisoners were rendered to prisons in other countries.
In tracking these men, the report traced the development of the US secret detention program, drawing on new research into flight records to demonstrate that rendition flights, carefully disguised in the records, flew to Poland, Romania and Lithuania. The report also touched on the existence of a secret facility within Guantánamo, exposed by Scott Horton for Harper’s Magazine last week, which prompted the experts to note that they were “very concerned about the possibility that three Guantánamo detainees (Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani) might have died during interrogations at this facility, instead of in their own cells, on 9 June 2006.”
Also mentioned are two little-reported facilities in the Balkans – Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo and Eagle Base in Tuzla, Bosnia-Herzegovina – and a claim that Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean (a British territory leased to the US) was used in 2005-06 to hold Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a joint Syrian-Spanish national.
Accounting for other prisoners, the report focused on a number of secret prisons in Afghanistan – in particular, the “Dark Prison,” the “Salt Pit” and a secret facility within Bagram airbase. Of the 94 men mentioned by Stephen Bradbury – minus the 14 transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006 – the report established that eight were released, that 23 others were transferred to Guantánamo (mostly in 2004), that four escaped from Bagram in July 2005, that four others are still in Bagram (three of whom are awaiting a US appeals court ruling on their successful habeas corpus petition last March) and that five others were returned to Libya in 2006.
These five include Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the CIA’s most notorious “ghost prisoner,” who falsely confessed, under torture in Egypt, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which were subsequently used to justify the invasion of Iraq. After multiple renditions to other countries, al-Libi’s return to Libya came to a dark end last May, when he died under mysterious circumstances.
Discussing the other prisoners, whose current whereabouts are unexplained, the experts noted, “It is probable that some of these men have been returned to their home countries, and that others are still held in Bagram.” As I explained in an article last week, following the publication of the first ever list of prisoners held in Bagram, it appears that a handful of these men may indeed be in Bagram, but not all of them, and it is, therefore, imperative that the publication of this list leads to pressure on the Obama administration to reveal details of all the “disappeared” detainees.
The report also examined the cases of 35 men rendered by the CIA to Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Morocco, between 2001 and 2004. As with the “ghost prisoners” in Afghanistan, many of these men later surfaced in Guantánamo, or were freed, but the whereabouts of others – particularly those in Syria, and, probably, other completely unknown men rendered to Egypt – are unknown, even though some of the prisoners rendered to Syria were flown there as long ago as 2002, and, in at least two cases, were only teenagers at the time.
There are also sections on secret detention in Ethiopia, Djibouti and Uzbekistan, and the experts also criticized other countries for their involvement in the program, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Kenya and the UK. According to Reuters, throughout the report, 66 countries in total are implicated in one way or another in secret detention practices – either independently, or as part of the US-led war on terror.
In concluding their review of US detention policies since 9/11, the experts welcomed President Obama’s commitment to revoke and repudiate many of the Bush administration’s policies, including the closure of all CIA black sites, but requested clarification “as to whether detainees were held in CIA ‘black sites’ in Iraq and Afghanistan or elsewhere when President Obama took office, and, if so, what happened to the detainees who were held at that time.” They were also “concerned that the Executive Order which instructed the CIA ‘to close any detention facilities that it currently operates’ does not extend to the facilities where the CIA detains individuals on ‘a short-term transitory basis,’” and, in the light of suggestions by Scott Horton that the secret facility at Guantánamo may have been run by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), noted that the order “does not seem to extend to detention facilities operated by” JSOC.
These were not their only concerns. Although they welcomed the implementation in August 2009 of a new policy whereby the International Committee of the Red Cross must be notified of all prisoners’ names within two weeks of capture, they noted that “there is no legal justification for this two-week period of secret detention,” because the Geneva Conventions allow only a week, and also because of their fears that some prisoners are being held who were not captured on the battlefield, and who may, as I noted in an article in September, in fact be prisoners who have been rendered to facilities outside of the military’s control (at Bagram in Afghanistan and Camp Nama in Iraq). The experts explained that they had “noted with concern news reports which quoted current government officials saying that ‘the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention.’”
The experts’ final concern was with Bagram’s new review system for prisoners. They noted that the decision to replace the existing system, which the judge in the habeas cases last March described as a process that “falls well short of what the Supreme Court found inadequate at Guantanamo,” was still inadequate. As they explained:
[T]he new review system fails to address the fact that detainees in an active war zone should be held according to the Geneva Conventions, screened close to the time and place of capture if there is any doubt about their status, and not be subjected to reviews at some point after their capture to determine whether they should continue to be held.
They were also “concerned that the system appears to specifically aim to prevent US courts from having access to foreign detainees captured in other countries and rendered to Bagram,” and, despite welcoming the release of the names of 645 prisoners at Bagram, urged the US government “to provide information on the citizenship, length of detention and place of capture of all detainees currently held within Bagram Air Base.”
While the report spreads its net wide, the US administration’s response to its findings about the Bush administration’s legacy of “disappeared” prisoners, and its focus on the gray areas of Obama’s current policies, is particularly anticipated. So far, however, there has been silence from US officials, and only the British, moaning about “unsubstantiated and irresponsible” claims, have so far dared to challenge their well-chronicled complicity in the secret detention policies underpinning the whole of the war on terror, which do not appear to have been thoroughly banished, one year after Barack Obama took office.
Protesters outside the inquiry dressed (left to right) as Tony Blair, George W. Bush and Gordon Brown. AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis
“Criticism of Israel is old fashioned anti-Semitism,” Stephen Harper, prime minister of Canada.
“A greater transparency about involving legal advice would have prevented the issue being left entirely to the Attorney General,” ,” – Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the only top British civil official who resigned in protest to London’s support for Dubya Bush’s war on Iraq in 2003.
What is wrong with Brits these days, eh! Though their elites played a major role (Balfour Declaration) in getting rid of millions of Jews from the West to a far-away Muslim Arab land in the Middle East – now some of them in the legal business are hunting for the mass-murderers, but ‘respectable” Israeli politicians and military leaders for being involved in the genocide of Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese.
A ’secret’ Iraq Inquiry on the role of Tony Blair’s government in Washington’s attack on Iraq based on Mossad/CIA fasle evidence of Iraqi WMDs – was announced by the British pro-Israel prime minister Gordon Brown on June 15, 2009. Later, however, under criticism by parliamentarians , the British government agreed to make the inquiry public. Gordon Brown himself chose a panel of five to conduct the inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot. Therefore, the inquiry is sometimes called “Chilcot Inquiry”. The other four members are; Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Prashar. Both Lawrence Freedman and Martin Gilbert are welknown pro-Israel Zionist Jews. In raelity, like Barack Obama administeration, Gordon Brown’ government is also dominated by members of Friends of Israel, a British Zionist lobby group – which hold major power in both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
In his testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, former British prime minister showed no remorse for collaborating with Bush which resulted in the murder of over million of Iraqi Muslims and Christians civilians for the security of Israel. Now the same Israeli poodle says that Islamic Iran is a bigger threat than (Iraq) in 2003. Contrary to Tony Blair’s hatred towards the Muslims, the former British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, exposed Tony Blair’s lies in front of the inquiry on January 21, 2010 by saying: “I would not have written cosy letters to the US President promising that Britain would be there when America went to war (against Saddam Hussein).” Jack Straw is also against military action against Islamic Iran on Iraq-WMD style Israeli Hasbara evidence.
Oliver Miles, former Ambassador to Libya, writing in the Independent on November 22, 2009 – raised the doubts that the presence of two pro-Israeli members on the 5-member Iraq Inquiry would most probably hide the pro-Israel Jewish Lobby’s role in Britain’s joining the invasion of Iraq. The Jewish-owned TIME magazine called Oliver Miles’ comment as “disgraceful”. On January 28, 2010 – BBC was quoted Martin Gilbert, whom it described as a “proud practicing Jew and Zionist” saying he feels “deep unease” at Oliver Miles comments.
Professor William A. Cook (University of La Verne, southern California) in his book Zionist control of Britain\’s government: 1940-2009 traces the history of how Britain became a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG). Reviewing the book Gilad Atzmon (Israel-born UK Jewish citizen)made the comment: “After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they (Zionists) are used to being untouchable”.
It’s obvious that Iraq Inquiry would be as much of an official cover-up of Israeli involvement as was the case in the US’s 9-11 Commission. Both involved Zionist Jews as members. For example, 9-11 Commission member, Philip Zelikow, who told an audience at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002:
“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.” ~ Rehmat’s World
A new search engine and social network provider called Goojje has appeared online in China. The site contains very similar branding to Google, and the final syllable “jje” sounds similar to the Mandarin word for older sister (jiejie). Goojie’s search results appear to be filtered for sensitive content in accordance with Chinese regulations. Google has recently objected to those restrictions, but the new site appears to be urging it to remain in China. Google said on 12 January that hackers had tried to infiltrate its software coding and the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists, in a “highly sophisticated” attack. The California-based firm – which launched in China in 2006 – said it would remain in China only if the government relaxed censorship. According to the Reuters news agency, Goojje has a message on its site which reads: “Sister was very happy when brother gave up the thought of leaving and stayed for sister”. While Goojje sounds like “sister”, the word Google sounds similar to the Mandarin word gege, which means “big brother”. Google has declined to comment.
Chinese legal experts call for ban on eating cats and dogs | World news | guardian.co.uk
Chinese legal experts are proposing a ban on eating dogs and cats in a contentious move to end a culinary tradition dating back thousands of years.
The recommendation will be submitted to higher authorities in April as part of a draft bill to tackle animal abuse.
In ancient times, dog meat was considered a medicinal tonic. Today, it is commonly available throughout the country, but particularly in the north where dog stew is popular for its supposed warming qualities.
In recent years, however, such traditions are increasingly criticised by an affluent, pet-loving, urban middle class. Online petitions against dog and cat consumption have attracted tens of thousands of signatures. Videos showing the maltreatment of farmed dogs have spurred protests at markets where the animals are bought and sold.
But the drafters of the new proposal want far more drastic measures, which would oblige law enforcement authorities to close down thousands of dog restaurants and butchers which supply the meat.
According to the draft, illegal sale or consumption of pets would incur a maximum penalty of 15 days in prison for individuals or a 500,000 yuan fine for businesses. Public security bureaus would be obliged to respond to hotline calls from the public about violations.
“We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems,” said Chang Jiwen, a law professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who heads the drafting team.
He said recent murders and thefts related to the dog meat trade showed that it had become a source of tension, while the economic impact of a ban would be small because an increasingly affluent population was less dependent on dog and cat meat.
The proposal reflects changing public opinion and international input. Drafters at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences have been consulting for more than a year with Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the US-based International Fund for Animal Welfare.
But the plan for a dog meat ban has stirred up fierce debate between animal welfare groups and defenders of traditional values.
“I support this proposal. Whether you judge this as a question of food security or emotions, there is absolutely no necessity in China for people to eat dogs and cats,” said Zeng Li, the founder of the Lucky Cats shelter in Beijing. “We need something more than moral pressure. Beijing’s dog restaurants get their meat mainly from vagrant and stolen dogs. In the suburbs, dogs are hung and slaughtered in front of buyers.”
Online critics said it was hypocritical to protect only dogs and cats, and that the government should focus on human welfare before protecting animals.
“This is absurd. Why only dogs and cats? How about pigs, cows and sheep,” wrote a poster going by the name Mummy on the Xhinua news agency website.
“I hope the experts went to see what laid-off workers and people in rural areas have to eat. They should pay more concern to problems that people really care about,” said another contributor under the name Starfish.
Even before the pet meat ban, the draft bill had already provoked controversy. Initial plans for a comprehensive animal welfare law had to be dropped in the face of criticism that human living conditions ought to be the priority at this stage in China’s development.
The focus has now been narrowed to prevention of animal abuse, which is defined as inflicting unnecessary pain and brutality. Even so, it is far from certain that the draft will be adopted by the government or the National People’s Congress.
Finding an airline to Shanghai does not seem to be a problem, considering the fact that it is one of China’s major travel hubs, and whatever your nationality, there’s likely to be at least one carrier in your country that operates the route. As the most sophisticatedly developed and at the same time one of the most interesting cities in China, Shanghai draws both business and experiential travelers, who keep coming in mind-boggling numbers despite the worldwide economic crisis.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was going to be away for the next couple of days, so I’ll give you the updates right now. I’ll try to simplify some of our discussions yesterday.
Firstly, in case you missed the dialogue on the question of whether inflation is good for stocks, as I mentioned, equities and commodities can indeed be good inflation hedges. In fact, as I mentioned in Decoding the so-called stock market rally/economic outlook contradiction, the rally of 2009 was, in part, an inflation trade which would have more than compensated for many years of inflation. Incidentally, one of the reasons for the equity rally I stated as being the pressure release on equities as a manifestation of an exploding monetary base in the banking system. Which, of course, makes Obama’s comments all the more poignant. This is more than just your run-of-the-mill anti-Obama sell-off. He’s effectively attempting to put a political plug on the Wall Street bank-monetary-base-to-risk-asset inflation valve in an attempt to get the inflation transmission-mechanism functioning more properly on Main Street. Hence the equity market sell-off had some conviction to it.
But when considering the cost of inflation or whether it is “good” for stocks or not we have to consider:
a) generally speaking the level of price inflation which results 4% is manageable 8% – less so. The piece I wrote on Friday was referring to how a higher inflation than we are accustomed to (what we are likely to get if the Fed is “successful” in promoting Money Supply traction) will be much more destructive to society and the economy and ultimately even real asset appreciation than we have been used to.
b) we need to differentiate between what is good for the economy versus what is good for equities/commodities and when independence between the two collapses.
c) the difference between the various economies, say, East and West, when considering inflation.
It’s the last point I wish to expand on today. Put (very) simply:
Less developed, Emerging economies with second-class infrastructure and support mechanisms (and thus higher savings rates) which run large surpluses would regard inflation as enemy #1. These countries (like China) consequently, would currently rather err on the side of disinflation.
More developed, Western economies with first-class inftrastructure and support mechanisms (and thus lower savings rates and record levels of consumer indebtedness) with run large deficits would regard deflation as enemy #1. These countries (like US, UK) consequently, would currently rather err on the side of inflation.
This would explain extremely responsive and proactive restrictive monetary policy (and associated rhetoric) by PRoC even while recorded CPI remains below trend while Bernanke has explicitly stated that The Fed would leave policy extremely accomodative for an extended period and would economic factors such as employment to gauge their more retroactive exit policy.
We’ve seen how equity markets react to restrictive Chinese monetary policy, so we need to monitor carefully the rhetoric as well as the inflation measures in China over the next few months. If inflation risks prove to be benign and China’s management of inflation expectations proves to be effective, there is no reason why equity markets continue to function with a normal level of volatility. However, tightening will get quite aggressive quite quickly at the first sign of a problematic inflation trajectory and, as we have seen already. While good for volatility, this could be at the expense of equity prices.
Reuters discusses China’s cultural outreach to Africa:
While China’s economic influence is now mighty and its cheap goods can be bought everywhere from Lagos to tiny tribal villages in remotest Ethiopia, Africans, especially young ones, still admire and try to copy U.S. culture.
Middle class teenagers in Nairobi dress like suburban kids from Atlanta, posters of Obama adorn minibus windows in Kinshasa, American hip-hop is everywhere.
China now seems to have realised this.
Here in Addis Ababa this week China and Ethiopia signed an agreement to work on a “cultural exchange program” from 2010 to 2013. Ethiopia’s state news agency said the countries will dispatch “art troupes, artists, writers and art exhibitions” to each other. It will be interesting to see how mutual the traffic is.
Sean Brooks explores relations between Egypt and Sudan.
Over at Foreign Policy, Kayzan Farzan says politicians are backing away from a proposed anti-gay law in Uganda. “Friction over the bill,” Farzan writes, “has led to a proxy battle over the U.S.’ cultural influence in the region.”
Kal looks at dialogues between Islamic scholars and Salafists in Mauritania. At Al Jazeera, Mohamed Vall addresses the same topic.
Chris Blattman passes on some “undiplomatic” remarks on the UN from James O.C. Jonah, former Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs under Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
Louisa Lombard analyzes an encounter between an American gold mining company and the government of the Central African Republic.
Texas in Africa fills us in on Africa’s efforts in the Haiti crisis.
And here’s a blog I just came across: Roving Bandit, on South Sudan.
Science is defined to be knowledge of something. The most primitive science that has existed since the era of Greece, among others philosophy, mathematics, astronomy.
Philosophy includes concepts such as schools of natural Egosentris, Geosentris, or Heliosentris. Final views expressed SOCRATES. In mathematics, PHYTAGORAS find the definition of the relationship Right triangle.
Greek civilization and then move to the Islamic environment 8H-century in the eraByzantine Kingdom. Islamic scientists contributed to the incised Basic Medical ie Ibnu Sina alias Aavicenna, Astronomy such Umar Khayam. At that time in Cina science and technology have also been initiated. The discovery paper as stationery in China, the development of China’s Great Wall of China shows that when the State was in the shape of the empire’s civilized progress. If there’s no one Hadith the Prophet “Insist Science Into the Chinese State“.
Knowledge and then turned to Christian hands after the Crusades. The emergence of the Renaissance movement in France that spread to the Continent to produce works of art or a new political philosophy and the birth era of industrialization. The spirit of the Renaissance and Humanism is the concept “COBAR DERUM” or “Enjoy Life“.
In the UK the Industrial Revolution which arises from the concept originated Mercantilism (Home Industry). The Industrial Revolution is the application of technological innovation by scientists in the 18th century. The discovery of steam engine by James Watt, Aircraft by Wilbur Wright brothers, Machine Print by Johann Gutenberg, and other innovations.
In America, a Thomas Alva Edison succeeded in creating light after hundreds of experiments, Alexander Graham Bell created the Telephone and Telegraph. Albert Einstein did research on uranium as a raw material Atomic Bomb. Unfortunately research is misused for the purposes of World War II. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the U.S. bombed open our eyes that science should be directed to humanitarian or conservation of the earth and the atmosphere.
In a Hadith the Prophet of Islam: “Science without religion Blind, Religion Without Science Lame” Saheeh, suggests that pursuing knowledge is emphasized in Islam, both of Religious Science and other sciences. Looking for science can be done formally or informally. School is a science that links the most dominant and is now an integral part of our society.
I used to work in retail. Sadly, I got fired for asking for a more transparent salary system. That’s so Liberating Truth Style. Haha. This is one of the reason that made me start this blog.
Anyway, I would like to give you guys a breakdown of an Ah Tiong Shopper, in the fashion retail, through my observation.
1. She walks in, with full knowledge that she cannot afford or is unwilling to afford the kind of money to buy the merchandise. Some just come in to try for fun and make a nuisance. They don’t realize that they are making a fool of themselves.
2. She usually walks in with a guy or an older man. Only a few shops independently – I really respect such Chinese women who have the means to dress themselves up independently.
3. She asks you whether there is a discount, even when she knows that merchandises are NETT PRICE. No discount/ promotion is pasted anywhere. They expect you, the retail assistant, to give them a discount. – We ain’t the bosses.
4. She takes super long to consider buying and likes to yak about how she can afford it, even when she’s not buying. I’ve spent 2 days serving the same China shopper wanting to buy that particular item. It was absurd but they do it all the time. Some even throw tantrums. =,= gawd. it’s abusingly painful.
5. And when she really buys, you can consider yourself fking lucky. Half the time, it’s because she has sajiaoed enough to the man that the man buys it for her. That’s how cheap this tiong shoppers are and the stories you read on Lianhe Wanbao are true. But who cares, you still close that sale anyway.
Here’s a story about the B*TCH tiong I served…
There’s this old lady who brings different girls to the store I used to work at. Who knows what is the profession of such girls? And most of the time, they don’t buy anything. One of the girl this time was a knnbccb She walks in arrogantly and went through the racks aggressively. When she found a piece she wants, she ordered me like a servant. There’s no respect @ all. I mean I think that is just TIONG to do so.
She insisted me to let her try a few pieces, WITHOUT looking at the price. From one look, I knew that she is not buying. Fine, I mean that’s my job. I just let her try. =) So after trying, then she asks me for the price. I told her it is 800bucks… she just shove everything in my face. Any human being will be pissed. Summore it’s a tiong and I really hate tiongs (anyway, in my own definitation, a tiong is an uncouth and rude Chinese national who has a very low EQ and sense of moral values.) Look at how I write IT. No offense but sometimes, they treat their fellow human being like dogs. And what are we always taught? To treat people how we want to be treated. There you go. IT.
The next moment, it walked off with the old lady and her friend, without any gratitude or saying thank you.
FYI, this is not a hate post. It’s just experience about how crude can these Tiongs get and SGP is letting them flood into our country like some refugee camp.
Found some important news in the Iranian press today that needs additional discussion.
Iran, Pakistan to sign gas pipeline deal ‘next week’
Press TV,
Thursday, 21st January, 2010.
Pakistani Federal Minister for Petroleum Naveed Qamar has declared that Iran and Pakistan have finalized an agreement to build a natural gas pipeline.
Qamar said the federal government is taking serious measures to combat the current energy crisis in the country.
He noted that the two countries will sign an accord on the pipeline next week, Dawn newspaper reported on Wednesday.
The Pakistani minister’s remarks come as the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke had earlier urged Islamabad to avoid the deal with Iran.
Holbrooke said the US would help Pakistan secure liquefied natural gas supplies, should it abandon the planned gas deal with Iran.
———————–
As I have repeated on this blog several times, an Iran-Pakistan pipeline deal is of key importance for countries in the region. Firstly, such a deal greatly increases Pakistan’s energy security and represents an opportunity for the country to overcome its domestic energy shortages. This deal is a great political and economic boon for Iran and will vastly increase their regional influence. The pipeline can be extended into China, who has expressed great interest in such a deal. For China, a natural gas pipeline from Iran via Pakistan means increased energy security via reduced reliance on vulnerable sea transports from the Middle East and Africa. It also means co-dependence on Iran and Pakistan for its energy needs and a key interest in the political security of those nations.
For these reasons, such a pipeline does not fit in with the long-term geopolitical strategy of the U.S. and will be heavily opposed. Consequently, expect significantly increased actions by the U.S. against Pakistan and Iran to disrupt this deal over the coming months. Efforts to destabilize Pakistan will likely significantly increase. Mostly this will be more of the same – internal disruption via mobilization of insurgent groups against the Pakistani government. We will see many more (1) al-Qaeda-like terrorist attacks that destabilize the country and promote civil war conditions, (2) agitation against the Pakistani government amongst militant Islamic groups such as when the CIA run al-Qaeda, blamed the Pakistani government for crimes it committed, (3) predator drone attacks which do nothing but stir up resistance and recruit people for the Taliban. Imperial overstretch means that conventional war (i.e. boots on the ground) is probably not possible between the U.S. and Pakistan. Therefore, be on the lookout for any attempts to play India off against Pakistan. Though any such action would have an incredibly slim chance of success and in the short term would actually stabilize Pakistan by galvanizing Pakistani patriotism, such an action could feasibly be attempted in order to use India as a stooge to diminish the strength of the Pakistani military. While this would inevitably create resistance to India amongst the various Islamic and tribal factions, a diminished military would increase the possibility over time that the various tribal and Islamic groups may try to seize power in Pakistan and end up Balkanizing the nation.
The U.S. does seem to want to avoid a conventional war with Iran, so I am predicting covert, rather than overt actions in that country (though Israel can always throw a spanner in the works at any time by unilaterally bombing Iran). The strategy regarding Iran will be to resurrect the Mousavi faction. Due to the inherent risk of blowback in Iraq, these actions will be less extreme compared to what can be done in Pakistan. I would expect to see increased efforts in Iran to get rid of the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime in order to kill the pipeline deal. There will be: (1) more disruption from the Mousavi faction (he might even be killed to spark mass unrest), (2) more cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan like last October’s suicide bombing of Revolutionary Guard commanders by U.S. funded group, Jundullah, (3) more internal terrorism from MKO etc during protests. Basically, anything to elicit a violent domestic response and cause further destabilization that does not provoke an Iranian response in Iraq.
If any significant escalation in covert activity within these two countries eventuates in the next few months, we will know who the real culprits are and the reasons behind their attacks.
Yinchuan khí hậu khó ở, gợi nhớ Ai Cập 3 năm trước tôi đi, cũng tháng 3 thế này. Cũng gió sa mạc, nắng sa mạc, cháy khô da mà lạnh cắt thịt.
Yinchuan sáng và tối lạnh cóng. Vừa vào khách sạn tắm rửa xong chạy ra nhìn xuống balcon, nắng ở đâu kéo về chói chang khiến tôi chả dám ra đường.
Còn ở đâu nữa, khu đồi cát cách đó không xa. Vùng này cận Mông Cổ, cũng chung một thứ bệnh khá đau đầu là bệnh sa mạc đang ăn dần vào đất ở. Nên nắng và gió và, cũng giống giống nhau…
Yinchuan là thủ phủ của The Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China, nghĩ ra cái tên tiếng Việt chưa ra, tôi không giỏi cả 3 thứ tiếng Anh Việt Hoa nên thôi, cứ ghi như trong sách tôi đọc, để chú ý một số thứ khác mà tôi cũng ít dịp được đọc từ nhiều nguồn tư liệu, mà do mình đến tận nơi.
Cứ đinh ninh rằng ông lãnh đạo Giang có chính sách từ nhiều năm trước sau một lần công du đến vùng Tây Bắc này, là sẽ dồn ngân sách khẩn trương để cân chỉnh điều tiết kinh tế, bảo vệ môi trường, bảo tồn văn hoá…
Tôi hí hửng đến đây.
Bước xuống đường, là bước xuống đời luôn. Nơi tôi ở là khách sạn gọi là 4 sao, tên Kaida International. Tôi cho rằng nó chỉ tầm 2-3 sao rồi họ tự đẩy lên thôi, chứ vào nhà tắm bước ra là biết ngay mấy sao ấy mà.
Thì nơi này là mặt tiền trung tâm, vị trí đắt địa cũng cỡ khu Đồng Khởi bên Saigon mình.
Nhưng bước ra đường là thấy rùng mình. Ôi lem nhem đường sá, bảng hiệu nhà cửa xô lệch, xe bus xe taxi chạy loạn vô tội vạ không theo lane line như mấy thành phố vừa đi qua.
Có nhiều chùa chiềng và có nhiều nhà thờ, đền thờ Hồi Giáo.
Dân ở đây phần lớn là theo đạo Hồi. Đạo không ăn thịt heo (lợn). Không ăn lừa ngựa dê chó. Các con vật khác muốn mổ xẻ thì phải tuân theo luật giết thú ăn thịt rất nghiêm nhặt của người trong đạo.
Dân Hoa đến đây sống lập nghiệp, ăn tùm lum thú hết, con gì cũng ăn. Lại thờ Đạo Phật.
Nhìn họ sống gần nhau, cứ rùng mình sợ chiến tranh đến nơi, cảm giác lạ lắm.
Ở Guangzhou cũng nguy hiểm chứ, nhưng cái nguy hiểm giành giật đâm chém vì tiền bạc sao không thấy ghê, mà cái u uẩn của hiềm thù tôn giáo, tôi thấy nghẹt thở thật sự.
Không dám chụp hình. Có quá nhiều ông đạo Hồi chống nạng thương phế binh. Chân cụt đến trên gối, mặt mũi lăm le cái gì mình không biết.
Có tiếng nổ đì đoàng cứ hơn nửa tiếng là mấy phát. Lúc ở khách sạn online với bạn Măng già, tôi còn định bảo này ku, bên này vui lắm, mấy ổng cho đốt pháo hay pháo hoa gì mà tớ nghe lốp bốp vui tai lắm í.
Đi một vòng quan sát phố phường về khách sạn, nghĩ chắc không ở lâu được. Mà thật, về là cãi nhau một trận với bọn nhân viên lễ tân.
Hồi sáng check in, chúng bảo mỗi ngày 200 yuan, phải ứng 400 thì mới được ở. Ở China người ta không bao giờ giữ hộ chiếu của khách, chỉ giữ tiền đặt cọc 2 ngày trước thôi.
Khi tôi về, cô nàng nào mới toanh, hình như được cử đến để nói tiếng Anh với tôi, chứ cái bọn còn lại, cứ phone lên phòng tôi, tôi alô hỏi gì, thì im thin thít rồi tịt.
Cô nàng mới này thu hết nước bọt, trán vã mồ hôi, rặn được mấy câu tôi hiểu là nàng đòi thêm tiền vì ngày hôm sau giá tiền là 300 yuan, giá 200 là sales off cho ngày đầu thôi.
Tôi bảo tôi chỉ ở một ngày.
Nàng bảo thế thì ngày của chị đã chấm dứt.
Tôi trợn mắt, tôi check in lúc 5g sáng vì tàu đến giờ đó.
Nàng bảo, vậy thì 12 giờ trưa là phải out.
Tôi cãi, thế sao lúc check in tôi hỏi lễ tân bảo là 12giờ mai mới out? Nàng bảo luật ở đây là vậy, không nói nhiều.
Tôi chán. Lên dọn đồ mới bực. Quần áo mình mới đổ ra giặt còn ướt long tong…
Hành lý thêm một túi to đồ ướt. Tôi vội lao ra taxi về sân ga.
Dạo quanh ráng kiếm khách sạn khác, thấy rùng mình. Họ ăn ở bẩn không thể vào được. Tôi bỏ chạy thật rồi.
Chao ôi, không một bóng du khách.
Không có một dòng chữ tiếng Anh nào để gọi là mình bớt đau. Họ làm cho người không nói tiếng Hoa cảm thấy nhục ghê gớm thế này thì làm sao phát triển du lịch được đây. Đó là chưa kể cảm giác bất an. Mà khỏi, nghĩ lại thấy mình gan. Tiếng súng đì đoàng mà dám bảo đó là pháo hoa…
Tẩu vi thượng sách.
Ra ga tàu, kiếm tàu đi Beijing. Không dám nghĩ đến vùng tự trị nữa. Bên Mông cũng tự trị, để về uống thêm 3 thang thuốc liều đã.
Không có vé Beijing, tôi bảo thế thì Shanghai, đi gấp trong ngày.
Họ huy động cả một đội nhân viên đến đàm phán vì không ai biết tiếng Anh. Tôi lục tung hành lý kiếm cái bản đồ Tung Của. Mất đâu rồi, vỗ trán nhớ ra mình lo cãi nhau rồi để trên quầy tiếp tân khách sạn rồi.
Mất bản đồ là coi như mất cái… tiền đồ, sẽ đen như mực, đen hơn cái của chị Dậu là chắc.
Khổ ghê lắm, không ai biết tôi mua được cái bản đồ đó tôi mừng thế nào. Vì nó có cả tiếng Anh. Hầu hết bản đồ bên này là toàn tiếng đó, tôi thua!
May mà mình chọn nơi đến là Shanghai, ít có ai không nghe ra chữ Shanghai.
Họ giúp tôi mua nhanh vé tàu, tôi lao vào nhà chờ. Thà nằm chết trong nhà chờ còn hơn là lang thang bên ngoài đường sá Yinchuan.
Nhà chờ, toàn dân nội địa. Có một ông đạo Hồi, đội mũ trắng, mắt lăm lăm lườm lườm tôi từ trên xuống dưới rồi đảo lại 3 lần. Tôi đảo mắt theo ông, nhìn kỹ mình. Đâu có gì hở hớ đâu kìa? Sao ông ta nhìn mình như muốn giết ấy!
Lên tàu rồi, thoát ông ấy rồi. Vội lục cuốn sách viết về vùng này, về đạo Hồi ở đây.
Té ra, hiểu. Đàn bà đứng tuổi, choàng khăn đen. Sồn thì khăn trắng.
Trẻ măng, 9, 10 X mới choàng khăn xanh lá cây. Màu xanh là khẳng định tớ còn cái kia chưa dùng đấy!
Khăn tôi thì xanh màu lá lúa. Chết mày rồi con, nhí nhảnh nhở! Mày tưởng mày còn đấy! Choàng khăn xanh. Sướng…
Hú cái hồn. Nhớ lại tiếng “pháo” đì đoàng. Nghĩ đến nơi sắp đến, đường xa lắm. Từ bắc đến nam chứ ít à. Nghĩ đến bài hát Bến Thượng Hải mà đi taxi hay được nghe:
Another discussion of the Google issue de jour, this one an attempt to clarify the question as to who attempted to hack Google. While I hope that this post makes sense by itself, it will be somewhat clearer if you first read my earlier posting, “If Google leaves China, Human Rights and Access to Information will both be net losers”. Here I want to discuss, at some length, the following three questions:
1) What do we know for certain?
2) If not the Chinese government, then who?
3) Why I think the Chinese government either did it or wants the world to believe that it did.
I myself am inclined to believe it was the Chinese government, or at least that the government wants it believed that it was, for reasons discussed below. But I also believe that there are many other possibilities, and that at bottom, the issue is rather a silly one.
1) First, what do we know for certain? A brief answer here: almost nothing is certain. I accept that there was an incident, or a series or incidents, and these became linked in the media to many other similar incidents in an attempt to make meaning, and to draw audiences. From there everything gets rather murky.
Even Google’s motives in raising the issue now are disputed. Particularly here in China, netizens seem mostly to believe that the issue is simply one of Google’s frustration at its local market share, that it is prepared to leave because it was not a winner. This is a very interesting shift in attitudes between Chinese and American people. After many decades of doing outrageous things for the flimsiest of idealistic or ideological reasons, Chinese now see economic explanations as dominate ones. Americans, after decades of criticizing this Chinese behavior, now believe that Google acted not out of self-interest but out of altruism. One would think that at least Google shareholders would want a slightly stronger explanation, given the potential size of the China market. Weird!
So, accepting Google’s explanations, what do we know about the possible perpetrators? Again, nothing is certain. This, of course, does not prevent the media from not only speculating, but of presenting speculations as certainties. A number of businesses whose business it is to profit from analyzing or preventing such intrusions contributed their opinions, in some cases, conflicting ones.[i]
Media criticisms of China commonly show some common characteristics, one of which is that the articles, while often being carefully nuanced themselves, rapidly cascade toward certainty as they build upon each other. It is also common now that headlines or article headers proclaim certainty while the content often indicates considerable qualification.
John Markoff’s recent piece in the NYT is almost a classroom example for this sort of process.[ii] The article title fairly screams: “Evidence Found for Chinese Attack on Google” Most readers would, like myself I think, immediately assume a smoking gun. This is the only part of the piece that everybody will read, after that most readers are not going to go much further. Thus we have it, the Chinese government did it!
However, the article itself tells us only that the perpetrators are likely Chinese speakers because the malicious code was in the Chinese language and copied from a source that appeared, it is said, only in a Chinese technical journal. Now we have narrowed the suspects down to no more than several billion people distributed through China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc., right down, I must assume to The New York Times own staff.
Does this in fact prove that the Chinese government did it? The expert being interviewed himself uses numerous qualifiers and finally concludes: “Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the best one.” Oh good, that is plenty of evidence upon which to base an international incident with unspeakably large potential consequences.
Markoff’s article title could be used to illustrate a few other Western concepts, such as Orientalism, the process of ascribing characteristics to an entire people based on ultimately racist assumptions about them. The term “Chinese” here clearly means The Chinese Government, the evidence suggests Some Chinese Speakers. This argument, of course, may seem a trivially academic one, but bear with me; I am going to build upon it below….
2) If Not the Chinese government, then who?
In my opinion, and like everybody else involved in this incident, I am expressing primarily my opinion; there is as yet no evidence that it was the Chinese government which might stand up in a court of law.
Markoff’s expert wound up appealing to a medieval argument for good reason; that is about the best that we can do. There are so many ways to loop Internet attacks through the web itself that certainty is finally impossible without something other than electronic evidence.
This attack began, it seems, most directly from a computer based in Taiwan, and then it has been followed back to mainland computers. This is an awfully simple route. Hackers and spammers in the private black-hat sector routinely use a lot more stages than that. Given purported Chinese control of some critical American sites, it would not have been impossible to pass the attack through pentagon computers, for example. This is of course, not evidence, merely a sort of quirk in the event.
Why is China inevitably involved in significant hacking events if Chinese are not the perpetrators? This question is pretty easy to answer. The Chinese computer system, despite all the media images of highly polished robot-like oriental geeks manning high-tech intrusions posts, is a mess. Once in Wenzhou I sat for an hour and watched 111 attempts to place a virus on my computer, all of which triggered my protective software and told me where the attempts were coming from—from the campus where I was working, even from which computer.
I patiently assembled a list and took it to the tech office. The Director grimaced and apologized. They knew about those computers, and many more—they were indeed sending out viruses around the clock. Some had been doing so for years. But they did not know where the machines themselves were. He had no record of when and where machines were added, their system had grown so swiftly and often by ad hoc illicit additions, that his office knew very little and was helpless to stop them. He did not have his systems mapped! And was unable to do so. Like most Chinese I.T. directors, he had given up.
Multiply that example by every campus, corporation, and private computer network in China, and it becomes obvious that China may be the world’s most fertile ground for hackers.
If it was the Chinese government acting directly, and there is a strong argument so far not trotted out for it being the ultimate but not the immediate culprit, I think it would have been far more sophisticated, and far more deniable. Google has said that the attack, while prolonged, was easily turned back. I once asked a no more than moderately knowledgeable le employee of a private security firm how difficult would it be, if you knew the location, to access something in the Google cloud? The reply was, “Like opening your closet door and rummaging through your clothes.”
The argument that it was the Chinese government has rested, by and large, on the position that only the Chinese government might have done it, or had motive to do it. To me, this is only a step above arguing that Fu Manchu has exited from some fiendish Limehouse device, possibly cryogenic or time-traveling, and is back in the game.
There are, however, a number of other possible perps, in addition to the Chinese government or Fu Manchu. One possible perp is any one of a number of young Chinese hacker-nationalists popularly known as “Angry Youth.” These folks, many acting privately and out of what they think of as good nationalist reasons, are actually to the right of the Chinese government now, or would it be to their left?
Anyway, like many American congressmen, they think that the government is just not doing enough to stand up to the bad guys, in this case, the former Western imperialists. Mao once proclaimed, a bit prematurely, “Now the East Wind prevails over the West Wind.” The Angry Youth now respond, “Cool, time to get some back!”
However flawed their motives may seem to us, they think of themselves as acting righteously and spontaneously in the government’s interests—the 21st century equivalent of the Boxers, judged to be a patriotic group here. Perhaps Boxers—“The Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists,” is too much “back in the day,” so let’s call them “Mousers”.
Do any of the Angry Youth have the ability? Oh yeah, unquestionably. They include distributed groups of well-trained and equipped I.T. specialists. They can read, and write, technical articles, like the one discussed above with the smoking code in it. They have been cyberjousting with the Iranian hackers who recently took down Baidu for god’s sake.[iii] Google has apparently been searching for government moles in its staff in Beijing, but I trust that they were thoughtful enough to look for Angry Youth as well.
Other suspects? Not quite endless, but numerous indeed. There are many reasons for wanting to identify lists of dissidents in China, some of which might seem positive to those bent on regime change. The CIA, for example. The hacker mirror image of Angry Youth, dissident youth. Fa Lun Gong, which once took over Chinese Central Television for most of a day operating, apparently, from a “former” American air base and listening post in Taiwan. Taiwan itself. And this only assumes the motive of wanting to identify dissidents for positive reasons.
If we add a second-level motivation of wanting to discredit the Chinese government, we have all the above plus yet additional figures.
What about blackmail purposes?
What about commercial rivalries? Baidu! Microsoft! Yahoo! If Google leaves, these latter two become players.
Obviously, some of these are far-fetched indeed, but none can be discounted without consideration, and Occam’s razor will not really sort them out for us.
3) Why I think the Chinese government either did it or wants the world to believe that it did.
It is not possible for me to sort out these two arguments and choose one, but both rest on a simple premise. The Chinese government knew who the dissidents were and was undoubtedly doing its best to monitor them. (It has been interesting to me that so many dissidents have come forward voluntarily to proclaim their involvement in this matter; things have really changed here, an important fact to remember in these circumstances…) The Chinese government also, undoubtedly does its best to monitor G-mail out of the mainland we must assume, given its proclivity for wanting to know every damned thing about every damned thing.
Moreover, we cannot rule out that some of these folks are serious dissidents, even terrorists, the sort of folk we would lock up in a moment if they were Muslims in the U.S.
And while we are on this issue, I am relieved to see that the President announced, again, that he is in favor of the “freedom of the internet.”[iv]
(Barack, if you are reading this, would you mind emailing me your blackberry number? I am going to pass through American customs in about 36 hours, and I understand that they have the right to open my computer and look through it, and I have a bunch of stuff I have downloaded in there, and might want to give you a call if there are any problems! And I read that the FBI recently has been conducting illegal searches on email—including that of some journalists— without bothering to don their usual fig leaf of referring to open terrorism cases. And can I call you and talk to you about that Patriot Act thing???)
By its lights the Chinese government feels it has the moral authority, and knows it has the legal authority, to monitor dissidents. And its lights are often not that different than my government’s lights.
So given this level of interest in dissidents and its vast facilities—including a labor force recently estimated at 30,000 internet monitors, how can the government not know who did attack Google, even if it did not do so? There are several possible answers here:
It does know. It knows because it used off-the-books private Chinese citizens, whether “Angry Youth” or mercenary hackers to do so, permitting it now to deny its agency. If the simplistic Occam’s razor actually has any merit at all, this is the answer right here. Why should the government have exposed itself—and ineptly so—by using its own people and its own machines?
The Chinese government knows, but does not bust the perps because it wants to let the world believe that it did do it…
What could more discourage dissidents than the image of an omnipotent Chinese government capable even of hacking into Google, the state-of-the-art Western corporation which, incidentally, has bet the farm on the inviolability of its servers and its cloud? If the dissidents’ email is not safe, neither is your correspondence with your tax attorney, your accountant, or those cute notes to Snookums. Better cancel that G-mail account!
Uber-Summary: Google, Chinese government, and American government: Step away from those microphones and that mouse! Get a grip! Even, you know, compromise! This is too important to stomp around in like Bruce Willis or Jet Li. Remember some other issues here: Rogue states with nuclear weapons; Global Warming; International trade, etc., etc., etc.
From Hong Kong, 1/21/2010
Chairman Mouse
[i] See: McAfee Cites Microsoft Flaw in Cyberattacks
By VINDU GOEL
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/mcafee-cites-microsoft-flaw-in-cyberattacks/ See also: Tania Branigan in Beijing and Kevin Anderson, guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.20 GMT Google attacks traced back to China, says US internet security firm Verisign’s iDefense Labs says IP addresses of attack ‘correspond to single foreign entity consisting either of agents of Chinese state or proxies thereof’
Doorway to the Fasting Palace at the Temple of Heaven Park in Beijing. It is also called the Palace of Abstinence, and that name suits it better. This is because the Emperor did not come here to fast. Rather, he would come here to purify himself before participating in ceremonies by staying off meat, liquor and women.
It’s tremendously easy to circumvent internet censorship in China. If anybody wants to access a blocked website, it can be done. One method I use is a proxy server, which is free. The other is a virtual private network (VPN), which costs a little money (maybe $1 a week to subscribe to.) Both essentially give me an American IP address, and encode my internet, so the firewall can’t pick out any information that it should block. I’m actually using a free VPN as I write this, called Hotspot Shield, however it is constantly popping up ads, for everything from toothpaste to porn, and I would not recommend it to anybody.
What the Golden Shield Project, or “Great Firewall,” does, however, is create a huge inconvenience, and the average internet user in China can generally find what they’re looking for on Chinese websites much more easily than foreign ones. For example, there is a Chinese equivalent to Facebook (http://www.renren.com) and numerous blog-hosting websites (http://www.sina.com.cn, for one), which follow Chinese law and censor themselves. An internet user here has no reason to go through the inconvenience of reading or setting up a Blogger or WordPress blog, unless they have something sensitive to say.
The genius of the system is not that its bullet-proof – far from it. It’s effective because it sets up enough roadblocks that if somebody wishes to access censored material, they must go through one of the above methods to do so. Most internet users simply aren’t bothered to jump through a few hoops to do that.
Of course, its effectiveness also goes hand-in-hand with a few other things, such as the government’s control of the education system and media. For instance, few people born after 1980 have heard about the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown, as it isn’t a part of any Chinese history class and never mentioned in the media. Why would they search for something they’ve never heard of? Similarly, a certain view of Tibetan history is taught that is almost uniformly believed in China (China as liberators of the Tibetan serfs), and the Dalai Lama’s portrayal in the Chinese media is essentially the opposite to that found in the western media.
This kind of brings us back to Google. If it leaves, it’s leaving essentially the entire Chinese market behind. Few Chinese users will take the time and effort to continue to use Google if search results are constantly blocked for not abiding by Chinese law. Users will turn to the Chinese Baidu, or maybe Microsoft’s Bing will step in and fill the void. On the other hand, if Google backtracks now, and agrees to re-censor its search results, it would be a huge embarrassment for the company. From a business perspective, Google will probably be the loser.
Africa Is A Country points us to an interesting essay on the portrayal of Nigerians in District 9.
The middle classes in Africa (via Texas in Africa and Scarlett Lion).
Reuters on economic and political ties between Africa and Asia.
Sean Brooks parses the effects of a (possible) end to hostilities between Chad and Sudan.
Is there an end coming to the Sudan/Chad proxy war? Perhaps, and that may be a good thing in the long run, but in the short run the people of North Darfur are bearing the brunt of changing calculations by the ruling regimes in Khartoum and N’djamena. The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) last week issued an urgent warning about attacks on civilians by the Chadian opposition forces operating in North Darfur. These troubling developments may be in response to the much rumored rapprochement between Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and Chadian President Idris Deby.
Speaking of Darfur, Rob Crilly has a nice takedown of Bernard-Henri Levy on the subject.
Unless you go to a large, chain store, prices in China are a little more fluid. If you can bargain well, items may be cheaper. If you’re a foreigner, items may be more expensive. Well, actually, that’s always the case.
I took some American friends shopping this week. They were leaving China after about 8 months here, so they wanted to buy gifts for family and friends back home. Their Chinese is limited, so I gave them a hand. We went to a market that has a lot of jia de, or fake, jade and jewelery, and hand-made crafts, such as kites. I thought I was doing great, saving 70 RMB in one shop, almost 100 RMB at another. But later my girlfriend still told me that we over-paid (and in her typical evil way, laughed at me in front of my friends.)
So, I’ve developed some rules for shopping at markets.
If you buy a lot at one time, you can get a larger discount on individual prices.
Ask for a price, then immediately offer 15% of that price. If they counter with an offer, then great. If not…
Don’t be afraid to walk out of the store. In a market, there are dozens of similar stores selling the same crap. Sometimes they follow after you and agree to the price.
Just don’t care. You’re bargaining over mere dollars. You wouldn’t give a damn back home, so just have fun, and if you don’t get the price you want, then go somewhere else.
Sino india India which has openly signed a number of mutual agreements with China, calling the latter a strategic partner, has been playing a double game with Beijing by acting upon a secret strategy.
Although Sino-Indian differences have always existed due to Indian presumption that peace-loving China is its adversary, yet the same has entered into the alarming situation when on December 29, 2009, Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor openly revealed that Indian Army “is now revising its five-year-old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.” While New Delhi is no is match to Beijing in conventional and nuclear weapons, but this statement clearly shows that Indian rulers are ready to go even to the extent of war especially against China. However, with the statement of Kapoor, Sino-Indian rift which has been in its embryonic stage has come on the surface.
Last year, Indian leaders and media seriously reacted to an article of a Chinese think-tank, Zhan Lue who suggested the disintegration of India. As a matter of fact, it was the only personal opinion of a Chinese think-tank, having no official backing, but Indian high officials took it as the state voice of Beijing. In this respect, on August 11, India Today cited Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta disclosing: “China is likely to be more assertive on its claims, especially on its immediate neighbours…matching division should be changed to technological advancement on the Indian military side. We should reduce the Chinese footprints on the Indian Ocean.”
While criticising the article, former officer of the Indian intelligence agency, RAW RSN Singh remarked, “This kind of a report never comes without state approval. But India is fully prepared, if the Chinese think of any misadventure, they will be in for a shock.”
In fact, under the pretext of Chinese threat to the Indian Union, New Delhi has itself been planning to destablise, and even to disintegrate China. In this regard, on March 10, 2008 when anti-government violent protests by Buddhist monks erupted in Tibet’s capital, Lhasa including nearby provinces, India, backed the same, though outwardly denied. Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet who has lived in exile in India along with his 120,000 followers since a failed revolt against Chinese rule in 1959 has been tacitly encouraged by New Delhi—enabling him to mobilize armed groups and international support to create instability in the neighboring provinces of China. For this purpose, India has clandestinely established secret camps where Dalai Lama’s militants are being imparted armed training. In this respect, Indian RAW has sent a number of agents who have joined the ranks and files of the Tibetan insurgents of China, and they create unrest from time to time.
New Delhi shows that despite Sino-Indian border dispute, she does not favour an independenceBorder Disputes of Tibet and avoids any propaganda against Beijing. But Indian stand was indirectly expressed by its leaders and media. For example, the former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha had said, “We want good relations with China, but if we reach a point of conflict over Tibet, we should be prepared for that eventuality.”
The state-run China Daily, on July 27, 2006, denounced the Lama as a “splittist” and pointed out that he has “collaborated with the Indian military and American CIA to organise Indian Tibetan special border troops to fight their way back into Tibet.”
It is notable that in order to conceal its covert activities, India has always blamed China for backing Maoist uprising. In this context, instead of addressing the root causes of the Maoist uprising, Indian government has recently intensified its blame game against China, alleging for supplying arms to these insurgents.
While everyone knows that in more than seven states, India itself faces separatist movements which are the result of acute poverty and social injustices. Particularly, Maoist movement has been raging in the form of peasant uprising in West Bengal. And its leader, Mupala Luxman Rao in 1969, protested against big Hindu landlords who left no stone unturned in molesting the poor people through their mal-treatment such as forced labour, minimum wages, unlawful torture and even killings. Now this movement which is indigenous has expanded to Indian other regions including Maharashtra. At present, it is a popular insurgency by the downtrodden who have massive support of people for their ideology.
In this regard, on October 31, 2009, The New York Times wrote, “India’s Maoist rebels are now present in 20 states and have killed more than 900 Indian security officers…India’s rapid economic growth has made it an emerging global power but also deepened stark inequalities in society.” However, by neglecting all these ground realties, and accusing Beijing, New Delhi has been advancing towards a self-destructive path. Taking cognizance of Kapoor’s threat against China and Pakistan, on January 2, Pakistan’s Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (JCSC) Chairman Gen. Tariq Majid has rightly indicated, “The Indian Army Chief’s statement exhibits a lack of strategic acumen. He further said that such a path could “fix India on a self-destructive mechanism.”
India’s misperceptions about Beijing in connection with Maoist movement could also be judged from the fact that it has also been accusing the latter for supporting Maoist insurgency in Nepal. Recently, India has also blamed China for backing a Maoist study center so as to cause uprising in Nepal. While these Indian allegations were already proved untrue when in the recent past, Maoist political party won the overwhelming majority in country’s first genuine elections.
As regards Indian new military build up against China, on May 31 last year, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 kilometers, south of the Chinese border-Aksai Chin area. India has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads between the Sino-Indian border.
In this connection, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops—raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC).
With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008, India conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an under sea platform after completing its project in connection with air, land and sea ballistic systems.
In the recent past, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta revealed that New Delhi “will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines”. Mehta also accused Beijing and explained that the “Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea” and “wish to enter the Indian Ocean”. However, under the pretension of China factor, New Delhi and Israel with the tactical support of the sole superpower are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.
It is of particular attention that in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then Defense Minister George Fernandes had declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.” India which successfully tested missile, Agni-111 in May 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China.
America which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to make India a mini-super power of Asia by containing China and destablising Pakistan as well as Iran. Pakistan’s province, Balochistan where China has invested billion of dollars to develop Gwadar seaport irritates both Washington and New Delhi.
However, Beijing and Islamabad cannot neglect their common defence when their adversaries are following a covert strategy. In this connection, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari had decided to visit China after every three months to further cement ties between both the old friends. Both the countries have signed eleven agreements to enhance bilateral cooperation in diverse sectors. So Sino-India rift is also part of the greater cold war between the US and China. Besides, Indian reservations regarding China’s infrastructural projects in Azad Kashmir are unjustified and discriminative.
Indian game plan against Beijing could also be assessed from the fact that on the one hand, New Delhi is grabbing waters of neighboring countries by building dams, while India is challenging the Chinese plans to build a dam on the river Yarlung Tsangpo in the upper reaches of Tibetan plateau, reiterating that it would adversely affect navigation in the Brahmaputra River.
Returning to our earlier discussion India which has wide-ranging agreements with Beijing, apparently emphasises mutual cooperation, but has been acting upon anti-China secret diplomacy. Hence, Sino-Indian rift has widened in the recent times.
I dug up a list of things that people are often surprised about when they first come to China, so I thought it would be fun to upload a few each day. The list is huge.
Don’t freak out when
…you blow your nose and your tissue is black. Of course, coal is used here in huge quantities. Weifang is actually not bad in this regard. We don’t have a lot of heavy industry here and the sky is pretty blue on most days, like today. However, I recently traveled to the western part of Shandong and did experience this first hand. I’ve heard Jinan, an hour west by train, is pretty bad sometimes.
people randomly and constantly shout out to you, “Hello!” then giggle. This happens every day and I don’t understand it, personally. It seems that it’s mostly young kids that do it, or males in their early 20s in a group. I just ignore it for the most part. I’m sure it’s part curiosity, part nervousness, and I’m sure part of it is genuine friendliness.
your empty beer glass while eating is suddenly refilled to the brim. The host is just being nice and wants to toast you… repeatedly. Fortunately, even I can out-drink many Chinese guys. Unfortunately, the beer is like water… one bottle means three bathroom trips.
people want their photos taken with you. Once in Beijing, a woman tried to give me her baby to hold for a photo. Surely, they’re tourists themselves, who have probably never met a foreigner. I often wonder about how many village homes my picture is now hanging up in.
people spit. When you hear that throat clearing sound, it’s time to duck and cover.
The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), created in 1968, has assumed a significant status in the formulation of India’s domestic and foreign policies, particularly the later. Working directly under the Prime Minister, it has over the years become and effective instrument of India’s national power. In consonance with Kautilya’s precepts, RAW’s doctrine is based on the principle of waging a continuous series of battles of intrigues and secret wars.
RAW, ever since its creation, has always been a vital, though unobtrusive, actor in Indian policy-making apparatus. But it is the massive international dimensions of RAW operations that merit a closer examination. To the credit of this organization, it has in very short span of time mastered the art of spy warfare. Credit must go to Indira Gandhi who in the late 1970s gave it a changed and much more dynamic role. To suit her much publicized Indira Doctrine, (actually India Doctrine) Mrs. Gandhi specifically asked RAW to create a powerful organ within the organization which could undertake covert operations in neighboring countries. It is this capability that makes RAW a more fearsome agency than its superior KGB, CIA, MI-6, BND and the Mossad.
Its internal role is confined only in monitoring events having bearing on the external threat. RAW’s boss works directly under the Prime Minister. An Additional Secretary to the Government of India, under the Director RAW, is responsible for the Office of Special Operations (OSO), intelligence collected from different countries, internal security (under the Director General of Security), the electronic/technica l section and general administration. The Additional Secretary as well as the Director General of Security is also under the Director of RAW. DG Security has two important sections: the Aviation Research Center (ARC) and the Special Services Bureau (SSB). The joint Director has specified desks with different regional divisions/areas (countries):
Area one. Pakistan: Area two, China and South East Asia: Area three, the Middle East and Africa: and Area four, other countries.
Aviation Research Center (ARC) is responsible for interception, monitoring and jamming of target country’s communication systems. It has the most sophisticated electronic equipment and also a substantial number of aircraft equipped with state-of- the art eavesdropping devices. ARC was strengthened in mid-1987 by the addition of three new aircraft, the Gulf Stream-3. These aircraft can reportedly fly at an altitude of 52,000 ft and has an operating range of 5000 kms. ARC also controls a number of radar stations located close to India’s borders. Its aircraft also carry out oblique reconnaissance, along the border with Bangladesh, China, Nepal and Pakistan.
RAW having been given a virtual carte blanche to conduct destabilization operations in neighboring countries inimical to India to seriously undertook restructuring of its organization accordingly. RAW was given a list of seven countries (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Pakistan and Maldives) whom India considered its principal regional protagonists. It very soon systematically and brilliantly crafted covert operations in all these countries to coerce, destabilize and subvert them in consonance with the foreign policy objectives of the Indian Government.
RAW’s operations against the regional countries were conducted with great professional skill and expertise. Central to the operations was the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It used and targeted political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness and criminal elements within these states to foment subversion, terrorism and sabotage. Having thus created the conducive environments, RAW stage-managed future events in these countries in such a way that military intervention appears a natural concomitant of the events. In most cases, RAW’s hand remained hidden, but more often that not target countries soon began unearthing those “hidden hand”. A brief expose of RAW’s operations in neighboring countries would reveal the full expanse of its regional ambitions to suit India Doctrine ( Open Secrets. India’s Intelligence Unveiled by M K Dhar. Manas Publications, New Delhi, 2005 ).
Bangladesh
Indian intelligence agencies were involved in erstwhile East Pakistan,now Bangladesh since early 1960s. Its operatives were in touch with Sheikh Mujib for quite some time. Sheikh Mujib went to Agartala in 1965. The famous Agartala case was unearthed in 1967. In fact, the main purpose of raising RAW in 1968 was to organise covert operations in Bangladesh. As early as in 1968, RAW was given a green signal to begin mobilising all its resources for the impending surgical intervention in erstwhile East Pakistan. When in July 1971 General Manekshaw told Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that the army would not be ready till December to intervene in Bangladesh, she quickly turned to RAW for help. RAW was ready. Its officers used Bengali refugees to set up Mukti Bahini. Using this outfit as a cover, Indian military sneakeddeep into Bangladesh. The story of Mukti Bahini and RAW’s role in its creation and training is now well-known. RAW never concealed its Bangladesh operations. Interested readers may have details in Asoka Raina’s Inside RAW: the story of India’s secret service published by Vikas Publishing House of New Delhi.
The Indians played upon Bengali sentiments in the aftermath of the 1965 Pakistan-India war through RAW so that when opportunity struck the Indians were well-prepared. It was RAW that gradually converted Sheikh Mujibur Rehman from being a staunch supporter of Pakistan as a student leader to envisaging himself as the possible ‘Father’ of a new nation – Bangladesh. Indian sources, including journalists, have put on record how much before 1971 RAW had established the network of a separatist movement through ‘cells’ within East Pakistan and military training camps in Indian territory adjoining East Pakistan. The Mukti Bahini were all in place organisationally to take advantage of the political trouble in 1971 and carry out acts of sabotage against communication lines so that Indian forces simply marched in at the ‘right’ time. RAW agents provided valuable information as well as acting as an advance guard for conducting unconventional guerrilla acts against the Pakistani defence forces. A Bengali, who was a Mukti Bahini activist, Zainal Abedin, has written a revealing book which includes his personal experience in Indian training camps, entitled RAW and Bangladesh. It was the post-fall of Dhaka period which exposed the Indians’ true intentions and made Abedin realise that It was evident from the conduct of the Indian Army that they treated Bangladesh as a colony … It is now evident that India had helped the creation of Bangladesh with the aim that it would be a step forward towards the reunification of India.
Because Mujib returned, Indian forces could not remain in Bangladesh permanently and so it fell on RAW to initiate other fronts to undermine the sovereignty of Bangladesh. RAW has since been seeking to create Indian dominance culturally, ideologically and economically in Bangladesh.
In addition, RAW has also created another insurgency force: The Shanti Bahini (Fighters for Peace). This force comprises the Chittagong Hill Tracts Hindu and Buddhists tribesmen (the Chakmas) and the intention is to bleed the Bengali military and keep the border area tense. The Chakmas used to embarrass the Bangladesh government especially when the latter protested over Indian policy on the sharing of waters’ issue (http://www. defencejournal. com/jan99/ rawfacts. htm).
RAW’s involvement in Chittagong Hill Ttacts : some admissions
The Chakma guerrillas had closely assisted RAW operatives. They were assisted during and after the liberation War. The Chakmas, after the change of govt in 1975, contacted the RAW. The Chakmas offered to infiltrate among the Mizo rebels and pass on information to the Indian govt in lieu of assylum. This offer was accepted ( Inside RAW : The Story of India’s Secret Service, Asoka Raina, Vikas Publishers, New Delhi, 1981, pp.86-87 ).
In 1975, the RAW was instructed to assist the Chakma rebels with arms, supplies , bases and training. Training was conducted in the border camps in Tripura but specialized training was imparted at Chakrata near Dehra Doon. Shantu Larma’s Shanti Bahini members were flown to Chakrata and then sent back to Tripura to infiltrate into Chittagong Hill Tracts. A RAW office and its operatives at Agartala monitored the progress of the trainees. In 1976, the Shanti Bahini launched its first attack on the Bangladesh force. A new insurgency had been born and India’s secret war in the hills of Bangladesh had begun ( South Asia’s Fractured Frontier, Binalaksmi Nepram, Mittal Pablishers, New Delhi, 2002, pp-153 ).
The RAW was involved in training rebels of Chakma tribes and Shanti Bahini to carry out subversive activities in Bangladesh ( RAW’s role in Furthering India’s Foreign Policy, The New Nation, Dhaka, 31 August 1994 ).
The Indian intelligence had collaborated the armed rebels of Chittagong Hill Tracts to destabilise the region ( Indo-Bangladesh Relation, Motiur Rahman, daily Prothom Alo, 10 December 2002).
The creation of Bangladesh was masterminded by RAW in complicity with KGB under the covert clauses of Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation (adopted as 25-year Indo-Bangladesh Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation in 1972).RAW retained a keen interest in Bangladesh even after its independence. Mr. Subramaniam Swamy, Janata Dal MP, a close associate of Morarji Desai said that Rameswar Nath Kao, former Chief of RAW, and Shankaran Nair upset about Sheikh Mujib’s assassination chalked a plot to kill General Ziaur Rahman. However, when Morarji Desai came into power in 1977 he was indignant at RAW’s role in Bangladesh and ordered operations in Bangladesh to be called off; but by then RAW had already gone too far. General Zia continued to be in power for quite some time but he was assassinated after Indira Gandhi returned to power, though she denied her involvement in his assassination ( Weekly Sunday, Calcutta,18 September, 1988 ).
It has also unleashed a well-organized plan of psychological warfare, creation of polarisation among the armed forces, propaganda by false allegations of use of Bangladesh territory by ISI, creation of dissension’s among the political parties and religious sects, control of media, denial of river waters, and propping up a host of disputes in order to keep Bangladesh under a constant political and socio-economic pressure ( “RAW and Bangladesh” by Mohammad Zainal Abedin, November 1995, RAW In Bangladesh: Portrait of an Aggressive Intelligence, by Abu Rushd, Dhaka ).
RAW and Ford Foundation
Jaideep Saikia, an outward analyst, but virtually an Indian intelligence operative, hailing from Assam, abruptly tunes to India’s anti-Bangladesh campaign that the demography of Assam is being rapidly changed due to the alleged infiltration of the Bangladeshi Muslims into Northeast India, particularly in Assam in his recent book, “Terror sans frontiers: Islamist militancy in Northeast India”.
Educated, better to say trained, in school at the Rashtriya Indian Military College in Dehra Dun, Saikia recently researched on so-called Islamic Militancy in North East India under the aegis of a Ford Foundation fellowship, which was awarded for the year 2003. The research was conducted at the Program in ‘Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security’(ACDIS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It is an astonishing and utter folly how ‘For Foundation’ could sponsor and allow Saikia to use his fellowship on such an issue, which is not only controversial, but also baseless and false and a part of India’s anti-Bangladesh media campaign.
Saikia’s effort cannot be termed as research work, as this type of stories is written almost daily in India. India’s electronic and print media, including websites, are poured with such fabricated anti-Bangladesh items. It is assumed that Indian intelligence outfit RAW(Research & Analysis Wing) managed and possibly financed ‘Ford Foundation’ to award fellowship to Saikia, which he used not only to defame Bangladesh, but also to prepare a ground for India to invade Bangladesh.
Without deep and careful study it can easily be questioned, how Saikia, being a researcher could write, like his all other fellow-Indians, an essay having minimal statistics and historical facts, which he on the other hand, distorted in every possible ways. He tuning to his mentors in New Delhi chorused that Bangladeshis deliberately infiltrate into Assam to change the demography of the state either to form a new Muslim state out of Assam or merge the Muslim majority areas of the state with Bangladesh. To justify his claim, Saikia says, “The Muslims now constitute more than 70 per cent of the population of Dhubri district of Assam. But Saikia did not mention from which source he collected this religion-based demographic information, as the Indian census of 2001, did not enumerate its citizens on the basis of religion.
Secondly, he should know that at least five districts of Assam adjoining Sylhet had Muslim majority in 1947, when the subcontinent was partitioned. These districts were Goalpara, Hilakandi, Cacher, Dhubri and Karimganj subdivision of Sylhet. For this reason, the Muslims constitute about 30 per cent of the population of Assam. So whatever might be the percentage of the Muslims in any district of Assam it cannot be termed as a threat to Assam or India.
Thirdly, Assam or any other state is not richer than Bangladesh, rather many states of India, not to speak of Assam lag far behind Bangladesh to a great extent. So why should the Bangladeshis leave for a poorer region to lead a poorest life.It is to be mentioned that Assam Gano Parishad, (AGP) is the prophet of anti-immigration crusade in Assam. But during its 2-term rules, AGP government under Prafulla Kumar Mahanto could identify few Muslims as illegal infiltrators in Assam. Even the current Congress Chief Minister Tarun Gagoi and Former Chief Minister late Hiteshar Saikia officially acknowledged that there is no illegal infiltration of the Muslims in Assam.
Meanwhile, the Ahoms, including the mainstream secessionist outfit ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam), comprehended the design of RAW to divide the people of Assam into several antagonistic groups and crush them using one against the other mainly to frustrate the freedom struggle of Assam.
Realising the duplicity of Indian government, ULFA in July 1992 publicly declared the Bengali speaking migrants, which also include the Muslims, as friends. In a publication addressed to the ‘East Bengal migrants’ ULFA stated: “East Bengal migrants are considered Assamese. Without these exploited lot, ULFA cannot be successful. These are people who are educationally, economically backward. They cannot be our enemies.
These hardworking people are ULFA’s protection shield. Their contribution to the national income is immense. They can produce essential things from a small piece of land, sell without any profit, work hard for the betterment of Assam, sacrificing them for the future of the state. They are our real well wishers, our friends, better than the Indians. (’The Revolution Comes Full Circle: Bibhu Prasad Routray.)
In the same publication, ULFA went on to define the term ‘Bidekhi’(foreigner). “Those who do not regard this state as their own, accept it as their motherland, are not ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of this country, are aliens, ‘Bidekhis for us.” Saikia should have read this statement of ULFA. He should also know that the Bengali Muslims accepted Assamese as their mother tongue and identify them as Ahoms not as Bengalis. The new generations of the Muslim Ahoms even do not know Bengali. They are not antagonistic to the interest of Assam. All these factors prompted ULFA not to brand the Muslims as foreigners.
Being failed to brand the Muslims as infiltrators or outsiders, very recently India floated another allegations that Bangladesh designs to secede the Muslim majority districts of Assam either to merge with her territory or create an independent Muslim state in Assam. Virtually, the campaign is made to create anti-Muslim sentiment among the Ahoms so that the unity among communities becomes far a cry.
Saikia and other Indians not only floated the allegation of infiltration of the Bangladeshi Muslims to Assam, but also allege that Bangladesh in one of the mentors of the decades old secessionist militancy in Northeast. According to the allegation, which Saikia also did not forget to forefront in his book, Bangladesh provides shelter, training and even arms to different militant groups of the region, particularly ULFA, ATTF (All Tripura Tiger Forces), etc.
But being an Ahom and above all a researcher, Saikia should know that secessionist insurgency in Northeast when India got its independence from Britain in 1947, well before the birth of Bangladesh. People of this region do not feel them as Indians. They are fighting to end what they call, “Indian occupation.” Previously India blamed China, Burma (Now Myanmar), Pakistan and even America. But they shortened their list over the years and ascribe the allegation on Bangladesh and Pakistan. Some of the Indians now consider Bangladesh more dangerous for northeast than Pakistan. This allegation against Bangladesh was brought to the forefront, because it will be easier to squeeze weaker Bangladesh than any other country that India blames
But India could never prove any of her allegations against Bangladesh. India officially challenged that there are 195 camps or training centres of the Northeast insurgents in Bangladesh and supplied a list mentioning their whereabouts. According to the list, training centres and camps are situated in hospitals, police stations, residential colonies, government offices, playgrounds, etc. Bangladesh repeatedly requested India to come and show on-spot the existence of these camps and centres. But India never accepted the offer, as Indian policymakers know that there is not even single such centre or camp of the northeast militants, not to speak of 195.
Still the propagandists in New Delhi deliberately continue their fabricated allegations against Bangladesh, whose brief ulterior reasons I have mentioned earlier. I really feel pity for Saikia as well as Ford Foundation for being used as the tools of RAW. How Ford Foundation could accept such a baseless research work which goes against a country, which is a main target of Indian expansionist design. I would request Ford Foundation to send a ‘fact finding mission’ to Assam and Bangladesh as well to inspect the ground realities. Such mission will surely find that all the allegations that Saikia mentioned against Bangladesh in his so-called research work are the products of exaggeration and misinformation. Ford Foundation, to uphold its neutrality and worldwide reputation and acceptability, should consider my suggestion and act accordingly( http://banglades h-web.com/ view.php? hidDate=2005- 04-26&hidType=HIG&hidRecord=000000000 0000000042370)
August 17 Blasts: Is there external linkage?
The controversy over Tarique Zia’s seemingly misquoted comment in the BBC interview that al-Qaeda ‘may’ have been involved in the August 17 serial blasts notwithstanding, despondency is bound to set in as the investigators have not yet unearthed any significant leads to the attacks’ masterminds (and their political goals) despite over 300 arrestees’ testimony having been recorded and a slew of clues found.
Such uncertainty does give rise to an obvious concern: Is there an external link to the blasts and, if so, who could have pulled the strings from behind the nation’s borders, and why?
A study of the post-blast behaviour of the Indian media and the intelligence apparatuses can go a long way toward understanding why terrorist incidents in Bangladesh seem to matter so much to our neighbour. Since the attacks, the Indian media has launched a virtual crusade against Bangladesh, spearheaded by the Telegraph that wrote, ‘Delhi should urge major donors to impose economic sanctions on Bangladesh.’ The paper also reported that Indian security agencies had advised the central government to ‘force Khaleda Zia to clamp down on Islamic fundamentalist outfits’.
The government of Bangladesh did respond earnestly to such pressures and diatribes and conducted a virtual witch-hunt in the preceding weeks against Islamists of suspicious hues, although the end result of the ongoing manhunt seems destined to be as much a failure as the previous ones.
Meanwhile, a just concluded study of Bangladesh’s post-blast security situation by major Indian intelligence outfits pointed the finger of suspicion for the August 17 blasts at familiar groups like the Jagrata Muslim Janata and the Jamaatul Mujahideen, which are, says the study, ‘banned, and are known to have fanned anti-Indian sentiments’. Coincidentally, the police in Dhaka say the same thing but cannot trace the attacks’ elusive masterminds.
The masterminds of a series of such attacks over the years not having been traced, one cannot resist the temptation of being suspicious about the latest attacks’ genesis and the ultimate motivation of the masterminds.
The Indian intelligence bodies’ study, however, has made some interesting observations. ‘There were 370 explosions in 63 of Bangladesh’s 64 districts. The kind of explosives used and the impact of each blast were similar to that on August 13 at a Muslim shrine in Akhaura in which one person was killed and 30 others were injured…There are insinuations that an earlier blast in August 2004 was suspected to have been inspired by India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). It is possible that efforts will be on to malign India again by pointing fingers at Delhi,’ the study opined.
In conclusion, the study noted that ‘the outfits were emboldened because of the lack of tangible action by the Khaleda government… The blasts are intended to be a message to Dhaka and to discourage the government from succumbing to international pressure to clamp down on the outfits.’
Reportedly a separate detailed study, circulated among the top echelons of the Indian security establishment, says, ‘Delhi should actively consider economic measures against Bangladesh.’
The tirades of the Indian media and comments of the intelligence agencies aside, everyone knows that the Jamaatul Mujahideen had left leaflets on the sites of bombing and many of the arrestees have reportedly confessed to having carried out the attacks at its behest. Yet BNP Deputy Minister Ruhul Quddus Talukder (also an MP) had a different view of the events. He had said earlier, ‘I don’t think they (the JM) have such a strong network. Awami League must have done this, using fake leaflets, to blacken Bangladesh’s image internationally.’ Does the Minister know something that others don’t?
RAW: An Instrument of Indian Expansionism (2)
A somewhat similar claim came from Mufti Fazlul Haq Amini, chairman of the Amini faction of the Islami Oikya Jote and a constituent member of the ruling four-party alliance. He said on August 19, ‘Swearing upon Allah, I say the 14-party alliance of Awami League and left parties launched the bomb attacks in a planned way to uproot the Islamic forces, but Islamic forces can never be eliminated.’
To confound confusion further, both India and Israel were whisked into the scene by the Jamaat-e-Islami’s Amir and Industries Minister Matiur Rahman Nizami. He blamed India’s external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), and Israel’s Mossad for ‘playing an important role’ in the August 17 attacks. He added, ‘They are the patrons of the serial blasts as they don’t want good relations between Bangladesh and China. That’s why the incident occurred when Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was on a visit to Beijing.’
Juxtapose the above with the embedded Indian concerns over Bangladesh’s political developments over the years. The copy of a 2004 RAW report obtained by this author reads, ‘Pakistani intelligence officers in Dhaka are becoming increasingly active in espionage against India. In 2002, three modules (sic) being run by them from Dhaka, and using some Bangladeshi operatives, were busted. A large number of secret documents and photographs of sensitive defence locations were recovered from one Ziauddin Ahmed Biswas (resident of Murshidabad in West Bengal), arrested on November 17, 2002. Later, the arrest (December 2002 in Lucknow, UP) of Bangladeshi national, Mohammad Mamunur Rasheed, led to the recovery of fake travel documents and also incriminating documents indicating a plan to recruit Indian Muslim youths for training in Bangladesh and Pakistan for subversive activities within India.’
Another RAW report of 2004 implicates the Dhaka regime more directly. It says, ‘It is hardly any secret that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan has close links with Bangladesh’s Directorate- General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) and operates openly and freely in that country. It (ISI) not only helps coordinate the activities of al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islamic militant groups through the DGFI, but backs a Bangladeshi Taliban group named HUJI that runs six training camps for ULFA terrorists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.’
A West Bengal intelligence outfit goes a step further: ‘While ULFA training camps have been organised by the sector headquarters of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), training camps of the CNLF have been organised partly by 103 and 105 infantry brigades of the Bangladesh Army at Khagrachhari and Rangamati,’ the report claims.
From hindsight, the pattern of such accusations seems a corollary to many such reports circulated in the past. For instance, prominent security experts of India have been crying wolf since the late 1990s (long before the incidents of 9/11 that acted as a harbinger to the global hunts for Islamist terrorists) that activities in Bangladesh posed a serious danger to India’s security and national interests.
Particularly, Assam Governor Lt Gen (retd) SK Sinha wrote in his report to the central government in March 1998, ‘The long cherished design of Greater Bangladesh, making inroads into the strategic land link of Assam with the rest of India, can lead to severing the entire land mass of the North East from the rest of the country.’ In another report submitted to the President of India in November 1998, Sinha wrote, ‘Continued silent demographic invasion of the North East poses a great threat both to the identity of the Assamese people and to our national security.’ Influenced by such reports, India decided to fence the entire Indo-Bangladesh border at a cost of over $500 million and nearly 70% of border fencing was completed by mid-2005. The Indian Border Security Force also killed more than 500 innocent Bangladeshis over the years since General Sinha filed his first report.
India now claims that since 1990, Assam has seen the birth of 9 Muslim militant outfits owing allegiance to Harkat ul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba, the groups that run ferocious operations against Indian forces in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Indian intelligence outfits believe the groups have their rear bases inside Bangladesh. Is India looking for a pretext to launch pre-emptive military assaults on Bangladesh at some point in the future, based on such reports? Policy-makers in Dhaka must mull over this prospect seriously.
Coming to the August 17 blasts in particular, one wonders why the Islamists, whose ‘profound’ aim is to create a ‘Greater Bangladesh’ by creating demographic imbalance in the neighbouring Indian states of Assam and Tripura in particular (according to Indian reports), should resort to blasting of ‘innocuous’ bombs inside Bangladesh and leave behind signatures for identification? How is the mission of creating a greater Bangladesh served by such blasts?
Isn’t it more plausible that, in the absence of any verifiable and authentic conclusion, the blasts have occurred to prove to the world that Bangladesh is infested with Islamist Jihadis determined to take on India by using Bangladesh as a launching pad? At the least, such a hypothesis does mesh well with the embedded Indian perceptions of Bangladesh, as has been learnt from the intelligence reports quoted above.
It is under such contexts that one must compare the Indian mindset with the comments made by some Bangladeshi politicians after the August 17 blasts (quoted above), and try to guess the ‘untold’ reasons behind the authorities’ inability to reach any conclusion with respect to the attacks’ masterminds. Meanwhile, with each passing day, the tone of reports in the media of the two neighbours will keep confounding the conundrum instead of decoding the hidden secrets(http: //www.weeklyholi day.net/front. html#top) .
Sikkim and Bhutan
Sikkim was the easiest and most docile prey for RAW. Indira Gandhi annexed the Kingdom of Sikkim in mid-1970s, to be an integral part of India. The deposed King Chogyal Tenzig Wangehuck was closely followed by RAW’s agents until his death in 1992. Bhutan, like Nepal and Sikkim, is a land-locked country, totally dependent on India. RAW has developed links with members of the royal family as well as top bureaucrats to implements its policies. It has cultivated its agents amongst Nepalese settlers and is in a position to create difficulties for the Government of Bhutan. In fact, the King of Bhutan has been reduced to the position of merely acquiescing into New Delhi’s decisions and go by its dictates in the international arena.
Sri Lanka
Post- independence Sri Lanka, inspire of having a multi-sectoral population was a peaceful country till 1971 and was following
independent foreign policy. During 1971 Indo-Pakistan war despite of heavy pressure from India, Sri Lanka allowed Pakistan’s civil and military aircraft and ships to stage through its air and sea ports with unhindered re-fueling facilities. It also had permitted Israel to establish a nominal presence of its intelligence training set up. It permitted the installation of high powered transmitter by Voice of America (VOA) on its territory, which was resented by India.
It was because of these ‘irritants’ in the Indo-Sri Lanka relations that Mrs Indira Gandhi planned to bring Sri Lanka into the fold of the so-called Indira Doctrine (India Doctrine) Kao was told by Gandhi to repeat their Bangladesh success. RAW went looking for militants it could train to destabilize the regime. Camps were set up in Tamil Nadu and old RAW guerrillas trainers were dug out of retirement. RAW began arming the Tamil Tigers and training them at centers such as Gunda and Gorakhpur. As a sequel to this ploy, Sri Lanka was forced into Indianpower- web when Indo-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 was singed and Indian Peace-Keeping- Force (IPKF) landed in Sri Lanka.
Up to the mid-seventies the Sri Lankan government had kept India happy by following policies which followed the Indian line – domestically and externally. The trouble began in 1977 when the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) lost power to the Jayewardene- led United National Party in elections. He moved towards a more cooperative policy with the United States and Sri Lanka chose to oppose the Indian demand for the withdrawal of all foreign naval forces from the Indian Ocean. Mrs. Gandhi had already been irked by Sri Lanka’s support to Pakistan during the 1971 war when it allowed landing and fuelling facilities to Pakistan’s East-West commercial flights. So RAW saw a perfect opportunity to exploit within the prevailing dispute between the Sinhalese majority (74 percent) and Tamil minority (14 percent) over distribution of economic and social spoils of independence. Before the two sides could work out a compromise, India, through its RAW, managed to polarise the two sides as well as militarise this essentially political conflict. On the Mukti Bahini model, RAW built up terrorist training camps in India for a number of Tamil terrorist organisations, while India suddenly began orchestrating a public campaign feigning concern because of the links the Tamils had with the 50 million Indian Tamils of Tamil Nadu state – which was separated from Sri Lanka by the Palk Straits. It was only a matter of time before the militants trained in India began sidelining the moderate Tamils and instead demanding complete independence – Ealam. Ironically, the presence of Tamil training camps in Tamil Nadu often created a law and order situation when large arms were captured by the state police. The surprise for the state government came when New Delhi ordered that such captured material be returned.
According to Rohan Gunaratna, in his book Indian Intervention in Sri Lanka, RAW waged a secret war in India beginning 1983 so that when the Sri Lankan armed forces launched a major offensive against the Tamil militancy in 1987, the Indian government had already ensured that the Tamils were well supplied and were able to conduct terrorist acts that brought the war closer to Colombo. Tamil Nadu had become the sanctuary for the Tamil terrorists in their hit-and-run tactics. Already, a year prior to this offensive, that is by 1986, there were over 20,000 Indian trained and financed Tamils and India forced Sri Lanka through this militant pressure to alter its foreign policy. But even more crucial, India by now was systematically destabilising Sri Lanka. Being unable to resist the temptation to now intervene directly, India used the Sri Lankan offensive against the Tamil terrorists to force Sri Lanka to accept India’s armed intervention ostensibly to save ‘ innocent Tamil civilians’. Unfortunately for India, the controversial Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of July 1987 proved to be as much of a failure as India’s policy of direct intervention. The result was India’s massively assisted LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) turned on its benefactor and declared war against the Indian forces in Sri Lanka. All in all, this Indian adventure killed 60,000 men, women and children and forced the Indians to withdraw their forces without successfully completing their mission. The price has been steep for both India and Sri Lanka and even today Sri Lanka is paying the price for this Indian-initiated and RAW inspired polarised conflict. The extent of RAW’s role in this affair has been painstakingly documented by Gunaratna in his book on the Indian intervention( http://www. defencejournal. com/jan99/ rawfacts. htm)
The Ministry of External Affairs was also upset at RAW’s role in Sri Lanka as they felt that RAW was still continuing negotiations with the Tamil Tiger leader Parabhakran in contravention to the Indian government’s foreign policy. According to R Swaminathan, (former Special Secretary of RAW) it was this outfit which was used as the intermediary between Rajib Gandhi and Tamil leader Parabhakaran. The former Indian High Commissioner in Sri Lanka, J.N. Dixit even accused RAW of having given Rs. five corore to the LTTE. At a later stage, RAW built up the EPRLF and ENDLF to fight against the LTTE which turned the situation in Sri Lanka highly volatile and uncertain later on.(Rohan Gunaratna and J N Dixit ).
Maldives
Under a well-orchestrated RAW plan, on November 30 1988 a 300 to 400-strong well trained force of mercenaries, armed with automatic weapons, initially said to be of unknown origin, infiltrated in boats and stormed the capital of Maldives. They resorted to indiscriminate shooting and took high-level government officials as hostages. At the Presidential Palace, the small contingent of loyal national guards offered stiff resistance, which enabled President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom to shift to a safe place from where he issued urgent appeals for help from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Britain and the United States.
The Indian Prime Ministe Rajiv Gandhi reacted promptly and about 1600 combat troops belonging to 50 Independent Para-Brigade in conjunction with Indian Naval units landed at Male under the code-name Operation Cactus. A number of IAF transport aircraft, escorted by fighters, were used for landing personnel, heavy equipment and supplies. Within hours of landing, the Indian troops flushed out the attackers form the streets and hideouts. Some of them surrendered to Indian troops, and many were captured by Indian Naval units while trying to escape along with their hostages in a Maldivian ship, Progress Light. Most of the 30 hostages including Ahmed Majtaba, Maldives Minister of Transport, were released. The Indian Government announced the success of the Operation Cactus and complimented the armed forces for a good job done.
The Indian Defense Minister while addressing IAF personnel at Bangalore claimed that the country’s prestige has gone high because of the peace-keeping role played by the Indian forces in Maldives. The International Community in general and the South Asian states in particular, however, viewed with suspicious the over-all concept and motives of the operation. The western media described it as a display of newly-acquired military muscle by India and its growing role as a regional police. Although the apparent identification of the two Maldivian nationals could be a sufficient reason, at its face value, to link it with the previous such attempts by the mercenaries, yet other converging factors, indicative of involvement of external hand, could hardly be ignored. Sailing of the mercenaries from Manar and Kankasanturai in Sri Lanka, which were in complete control of IPKF, and the timing and speed of the Indian intervention proved their involvement beyond any doubt.
Nepal
Ever since the partition of the sub-continent India has been openly meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs by contriving internal strife and conflicts through RAW to destabilize the successive legitimate governments and prop up puppet regimes which would be more amenable Indian machinations. Armed insurrections were sponsored and abetted by RAW and later requests for military assistance to control these were managed through pro-India leaders. India has been aiding and inciting the Nepalese dissidents to collaborate with the Nepali Congress. For this they were supplied arms whenever the King or the Nepalese Government appeared to be drifting away from the Indian dictates and impinging on Indian hegemonic designs in the region. In fact, under the garb of the so-called democratization measures, the Maoists were actively encouraged to collect arms to resort to open rebellion against the legitimate Nepalese governments. The contrived rebellions provided India an opportunity to intervene militarily in Nepal, ostensibly to control the insurrections which were masterminded by the RAW itself. It was an active replay of the Indian performance in Sri Lanka and Maldives a few years earlier. RAW is particularly aiding the people of the Indian-origin and has been providing them with arms and ammunition.
RAW’s gameplan for Sikkimization of Nepal
An interesting new insight has been provided into the current thinking of the Maoist leadership by Baburam Bhattarai, one of its leading lights, via a write-up which seeks to explain what he terms as a “gameplan” for Nepal’s “Sikkimization” and its nexus with the rationale of the “People’s War”.
Beginning with the “so-called” India Today’s “Nepal gameplan” report, a product of RAW (India’s external, super secret intelligence agency), the Maoist stalwart (who incidentally holds a Ph.D degree from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi) concludes with an appeal to all “patriotic” forces “to come together and, through a united front, confront all external expansionist forces” operating against Nepal.
The said write-up appears in the latest issue of Maoist-friendly vernacular weekly Jana Ahwan. Bhattarai says that against the chain of events starting with the “neo-colonialist 1950 Treaty and including the Kosi-Gandak- Mahakali agreements, the Kalapani problem, the Laxmanpur barrage and the recent bill to amend the citizenship act”, it is abundantly clear that the “process for the Sikkimization of Nepal has accelerated and has greatly advanced.” He also makes the point that the RAW-inspired India Today “Nepal Gameplan” report makes it obvious how deeply RAW, and other Indian intelligence agencies, have penetrated Nepal.
He then rhetorically asks: “If the intelligence agency of a country which does not border Nepal and whose political, economic, cultural relations and interest in Nepal is negligible in comparison with India’s has as extensive and high level connections as is made out, how much more profound would the hold of India’s intelligence agencies be, considering that Nepal is surrounded on three sides by an India which has immeasurably greater political, economic, and cultural stakes in Nepal than any other country in the world.”
To underscore that salient point, the erudite Maoist leader says that if penetration by the intelligence agency of a country whose embassy has just 25 staffers is as extensive as claimed, how much greater would that be by intelligence agencies of a country whose embassy has 300 personnel?
Recalling events leading to the “merger” of Sikkim with India, including propaganda about “China” and a “CIA” threat, Bhattarai says it is not difficult to understand the motivation behind the hue and cry about alleged ISI activities today. He then angrily refutes allegations made in a report said to be provided to the Nepal police by the Indian Embassy (disclosed in Himal magazine, 1-7 Asar, 2057 issue) charging that Timila Yami, sister of Yisila Yami (Bhattarai’s wife) has been used by the ISI for contacts with Nepalese Maoists.
Moving on, Bhattarai claims that the ruling class in India has sought support from “Hindu fascists” as it is reeling against the impact of “national liberation movements from Kashmir to Tamilandu, from Punjab to Nagaland” and the struggle against “Indian expansionism in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan” in South Asia. In particular, he claims the Indian ruling class has become unbalanced seeing the impact of the People’s War in Nepal which aims not only at “class liberation” but also at “national liberation.”
What is particularly sad, he maintains, is that Nepal’s mainstream political parties and other political forces have fallen into the Indian “trap” vis-a-vis the Maoists’ struggle. Significantly, he also declares that, today, forces supportive of and against “Indian expansionism” in Nepal can be found in “the palace, Congress, RPP, UML and even in other small groupings.”
Equally meaningful is Bhattarai’s reference to an observation by nominated Upper House member Ramesh Nath Pandey who has been quoted (vide Kantipur, 16 Jestha 2057) as having said: “In my opinion, Maoists will not precipitate a national calamity; rather, it should be preserved for safeguarding the nation in case of a calamity.”
RAW has also infiltrated the ethnic Nepali refugees whohave been extradited by Bhutan and have taken refuge in the eastern Nepal. RAW can exploit its links with these refugees in either thatare against the Indian interest. Besides the Nepalese economy istotally controlled by the Indian money lenders, financiers andbusiness mafia ( RAW’s Machination In South Asia by Shastra Dutta Pant, Kathmandu, 2003).
RAW: An Instrument of Indian Expansionism (3)
Afghanistan
Since December 1979, throughout Afghan War, KGB, KHAD (WAD) (former Afghan intelligence outfit) and RAW stepped up their efforts to concentrate on influencing and covert exploitation of the tribes on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanista n border. There was intimate co-ordination between the three intelligence agencies not only in Afghanistan but in destabilization of Pakistan through subversion and sabotage plan related to Afghan refugees and mujahideen, the tribal belt and inside Pakistan. They jointly organized spotting and recruitment of hostile tribesmen and their training in guerrilla warfare, infiltration, subversion, sabotage and establishment of saboteur force/terrorist organizations in the pro-Afghan tribes of Pakistan in order to carry out bomb explosions in Afghan refugee camps in NWFP and Baluchistan to threaten and pressurize them to return to Afghanistan. They also carried out bomb blasts in populated areas deep inside Pakistan to create panic and hatred in the minds of locals against Afghan refugee mujahideen for pressurizing Pakistan to change its policies on Afghanistan.
Pakistan
Pakistan’s size, strength and potential have always overawed the Indians. It, therefore, always considers her main opponent in her expansionist doctrine. India’s animosity towards Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable. India’s war with Pakistan in 1965 over Kashmir and in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh are just two examples.
Raw considers Sindh as Pakistan’s soft under-belly. It has, therefore, made it the prime target for sabotage and subversion. RAW has enrolled and extensive network of agents and anti-government elements, and is convinced that with a little push restless Sindh will revolt. Taking fullest advantage of the agitation in Sindh in 1983 and the ethnic riots, which have continued till today, RAW has deeply penetrated and cultivated dissidents and secessionists, thereby creating hard-liners unlikely to allow peace to return to Sindh. Raw is also involved similarly in Balochistan.
RAW has an extensive network of agents and anti-government elements within Pakistan, including dissident elements.Pakistan’s size, strength, and potential have always overawed India.It has always considered Pakistan to be the main opponent to its expansionist doctrine.India’s animosity toward Pakistan is psychologically and ideologically deep-rooted and unassailable.
India’s 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan over Kashmir, which resulted in the dismemberment of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, is just two examples.Pakistan remains RAW’s primary concern.It runs thousands of agents and spends millions of rupees in its operations against Pakistan.It has made a three-pronged attack against Pakistan in an attempt to destabilize it,Propaganda, Espionage, and Subversion. RAW is totally committed on all these three fronts and is engaged in launching covert operations in consonance with India’s hostile foreign policy.All aspects of Pakistani activities, economic, military, industrial and cultural receive a close scrutiny of RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished or at least continued in a motivated manner its assigned objectives.The Indian government spelling out the task for RAW in this regard has stated,’Pakistan should be so destabilized internally that it could not support the ‘Kashmir cause even morally, diplomatically or politically’.
Whenever and wherever there is a kidnapping, a bank robbery, a financial scandal, a bomb blast, or what have you, the I.S.I. is deemed to have.Ashok A Biswas, a Delhi-based research scholar, in his recently compiled study RAW – An Unobstructive Instrument of India’s Foreign Policy, (as quoted by Pakistan Observer in ‘A RAW deal for South Asia, 03 May, 1998) states that ‘the aim of RAW is to keep internal disturbances flaring up and the ISI preoccupied so that Pakistan can lend no worthwhile resistance to Indian designs in the region.’ He concludes, ‘RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its task of destabilizing target states through unbridled export for terrorism had a hand in it.Reference: ( “R.A.W.: Global and Regional Ambitions” edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005).
RAW is also being blamed for confusing the ground situation is Kashmir so as to keep the world attention away from the gross human rights violations by India in India occupied Kashmir. ISI being almost 20 years older than RAW and having acquired much higher standard of efficiency in its functioning , has become the prime target of RAW’s designs, ISI is considered to be a stumbling block in RAW’s operations, and has, therefore, been made a target of all kinds of massive misinformation and propaganda campaign. The tirade against ISI continues unabated. The idea is to keep ISI on the defensive by fictionalising and alleging its hand is supporting Kashmiri Mujahideen and Sikhs in Punjab. RAW’S fixation against ISI has taken the shape of ISI-phobia, as in India everyone traces down the origin of all happenings and shortcomings to the ISI . Be it an abduction at Banglaore or a student’s kidnapping at Cochin, be it a bank robbery at Calcutta or a financial scandal in Bombay, be it a bomb blast at Bombay or Bangladesh, they find an ISI hand in it ( RAW :Global and Regional Ambitions” Edited by Rashid Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Saleem, Published by Islamabad Policy Research Institute, Asia Printers, Islamabad, 2005 ).
RAW over the years has admirably fulfilled its tasks of destabilising target states through unbridled export of terrorism. The India Doctrine spelt out a difficult and onerous role for RAW. It goes to its credit that it has accomplished its assigned objectives due to the endemic weakness in the state apparatus of those nations and failure of their leaders.
No offense but sometimes, they treat their fellow human being like dogs. And what are we always taught? To treat people how we want to be treated. There you go. IT.
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Doorway to the Fasting Palace at the Temple of Heaven Park in Beijing. It is also called the Palace of Abstinence, and that name suits it better. This is because the Emperor did not come here to fast. Rather, he would come here to purify himself before participating in ceremonies by staying off meat, liquor and women.