|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on November 29th, 2008 The Article was titled: MEMO FROM ISLAMABAD By JANE PERLEZ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/world/… ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.
Multimedia
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms. “One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan,” said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning, who insisted on anonymity as per diplomatic custom. “Some people feel the United States is colluding in this.” That notion may strike Americans as strange coming from an ally of 50 years. But as the incoming Obama administration tries to coax greater cooperation from Pakistan in the fight against militancy, it can hardly be ignored. This is a country where years of weak governance have left ample room for conspiracy theories of every kind. But like much such thinking anywhere, what is said frequently reveals the tender spots of a nation’s psyche. Educated Pakistanis sometimes say that they are paranoid, but add that they believe they have good reason. Pakistan, a 61-year-old country marbled by ethnic fault lines, is a collection of just four provinces, which often seem to have little in common. Virtually every one of its borders, drawn almost arbitrarily in the last gasps of the British Empire, is disputed with its neighbors, not least Pakistan’s bitter and much larger rival, India. These facts and the insecurities that flow from them inform many of Pakistan’s disagreements with the United States, including differences over the need to rein in militancy in the form of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The new democratically elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, has visited the United States twice since assuming power three months ago. He has been generous in his praise of the Bush administration. But that stance is criticized at home as fawning and wins him little popularity among a steadfastly anti-American public. So how will the promise by President-elect Barack Obama for a new start between the United States and Pakistan be received here? How can it be begun? One possibility could be some effort to ease Pakistani anxieties, even as the United States demands more from Pakistan. That will probably mean a regional approach to what, it is increasingly apparent, are regional problems. There, Pakistani and American interests may coincide. American military commanders, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, have started to argue forcefully that the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, where the American war effort looks increasingly uncertain, must involve a wide array of neighbors. Mr. Obama has said much the same. Several times in his campaign, he laid out the crux of his thinking. Reducing tensions between Pakistan and India would allow Pakistan to focus on the real threat — the Qaeda and Taliban militants who are tearing at the very fabric of the country. “If Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” Mr. Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last year. But such an approach faces sizable obstacles, the biggest being the conflict over Kashmir. The Himalayan border area has been disputed since the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and remains divided between them. Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies have long fought a proxy war with India by sponsoring militant groups to terrorize the Indian-administered part of the territory. After the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan reined in those militants for a time, but this year the militants have renewed their incursions. Talks between the sides made some progress in recent years but have petered out. Pakistanis warn that the United States should not appear too eager to mediate. First, they caution, India has always regarded Kashmir as a bilateral question. India, they note, also faces a general election early next year, an inappropriate moment to push such an explosive issue. Second, some Pakistanis are concerned about the reliability of the United States as a fair mediator. “Given the United States’ record on the Palestinian issue, where the Palestinians had to move 10 times backwards and the Israelis moved the goal posts, the same could happen here,” said Zubair Khan, a former commerce minister who has watched Kashmir closely. It was discouraging, Mr. Khan said, that the United States ignored the importance of the huge nonviolent protests by Muslims in Kashmir against Indian rule this summer. “Anywhere else, and they would have been hailed as an Orange Revolution,” he said, referring to the wave of protests that led to a change in the Ukrainian government in 2004. Such distrust has been exacerbated by what Pakistanis see as the Bush administration’s tilt toward India. Exhibit A for the Pakistanis is India’s nuclear deal with the United States, which allows India to engage in nuclear trade even though it never joined the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan, with its recent history of spreading nuclear technology, received no comparable bargain. The nuclear deal was devised in Washington to position India as a strategic counterbalance to China. That is how it is seen in Pakistan, too, but with no enthusiasm. “The United States has changed the whole nuclear order by this deal, and in doing so is containing China, the only friend Pakistan has in the region,” said Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani Army general. Further, Pakistan is upset about the advances India is making in Afghanistan, with no checks from the United States, Mr. Masood said. India has recently made big investments in Afghanistan, where Pakistan has been competing for influence. These include a road to the Iranian border that will eventually give India access to the Iranian port of Chabahar, circumventing Pakistan. India has offered training for Afghanistan’s military, given assistance for a new Parliament building in Kabul and has re-opened consulates along the border with Pakistan. The consulates, the Pakistanis charge, are used by India as cover to lend support to a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan Province. (Baluchistan was even made an independent state on the theoretical map, which accompanied an article by Ralph Peters titled “Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look,” originally published in Armed Forces Journal.) Both India and Pakistan in fact have a long and destructive history of, gently or not, putting in the knife. Exhibit A for the Indians is the bombing in July of its embassy in Afghanistan, which American and Indian officials say can be traced to groups linked to Pakistan’s spy agency. If the Obama administration is indeed to convince Pakistanis that militancy, not the Indian Army, presents the gravest threat, it will not be easy. The commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Gen. David D. McKiernan, got a taste of the challenge this month, when he visited Islamabad and sat down with a group of about 70 members of Pakistan’s Parliament at the residence of the United States ambassador, Anne W. Patterson. Their attitude showed an almost total incomprehension of the reasons for American behavior in the region after Sept. 11, 2001. “A couple of the questions I got were, ‘Why did you Americans come to Afghanistan when it was so peaceful, before you got there?’ ” General McKiernan recalled during an appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington last week. “Another one,” he said, “was, ‘We understand that you’ve invited a thousand Indian soldiers to serve in Afghanistan by Christmas.’ ” There was no truth to the claim, he told the Pakistanis. “We have a lot of work to do,” he told his audience in Washington. Indeed, among ordinary Pakistanis, many still regard Al Qaeda more positively than the United States, polls find. Talk shows here often include arguments that the suicide bombings in Pakistan are payback for the Pakistani Army fighting an American war. Some commentators suggest that the United States is actually financing the Taliban. The point is to tie down the Pakistani Army, they say, leaving the way open for the Americans to grab Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Recently, in the officer’s mess in Bajaur, the northern tribal region where the Pakistani Army is tied down fighting the militants, one officer offered his own theory: Osama bin Laden did not exist, he told a visiting journalist. Rather, he was a creation of the Americans, who needed an excuse to invade Afghanistan and encroach on Pakistan. ———————————— actually - The Full Section of the Armed Forces Journal Map that looked at the India - Pakistan- Afghanistan - Iran part of the extended Middle East is as follows, with “BEFORE” meaning the map as it is today, and the “AFTER” meaning the resultant map if you do this in terms of “BLOOD BORDERS” that have higher promise for stability. Obviously - going from the BEFORE to the AFTER - you end up also stepping on the toes of many self-serving rulers.
November 23, 2008 What we see in above academic study is the creation of: (a) a Baluchistan carved out of Iran and Pakistan that would unite people that history, and colonial powers, did not give them their national rights - this like the clear need of a Kurdistan at the other side of Iran - on its borders with Iraq and Turkey. (b) On the Western border of Afghanistan with Iran - the whole area of Herat could be returned to Iran. This is now a quiet area in Afghanistan as the Iranians rule there anyway (c) The India - Pakistan border stays as it was settled in the cease-fire of the war of 1948 that followed the partition of 1947. (d) The most interesting changes are between Afghanistan and Pakistan in the tribal areas where the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda seem to be ruling at this time, they seem to be rather part of the Afghanistan battleground then of a Pakistan that has no control in those areas. Our website dealt with this last area in: Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 29th, 2008 by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)
This suggestion is clearly unappetizing, so we see why Ralph Peters thinks that changes are advisable and the objection to these changes by the Pakistani version of the CIA may indeed be nothing more then their wish to continue running Pakistan as a failed state. On the other hand, it might be here also something that found friends in Beijing. But why do they have also to kill Jews in this declaration of - “over our dead bodies?” Sure they can do a lot of harm, and guerilla war can be a long war - but unnerving a 1.3 billion peopled India - does not bode well for Pakistan either. From our visits to the region, we clearly believe that the partition of India in 1947 was a big mistake for the people of Pakistan. The best they could do now would be to agree to a secular confederation back into the fold of Greater India. India’s President is a Moslem - there is no reason why they could not coexist if they are ready to honor the “other.” The assault on Mumbai, a city of 18 million people, one of India’s economic centers and home of the “Bollywood” film industry, began Wednesday night when at least two dozen men armed with explosives and automatic weapons attacked 10 sites popular among tourists and the city’s business elite. They fired at random at the train station, a Jewish center, hospitals and restaurants, and took hostages at the Jewish center and at two of the city’s most famous hotels. Police said Saturday all of the gunmen had been killed or taken into custody. An unknown group calling itself Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the attacks. “Deccan” refers to the Deccan Plateau, an area that covers much of the central and southern part of India. “Mujahedeen” are holy warriors. A militant group called Indian Mujahedeen launched a bombing spree this year that has claimed more than 130 lives, striking New Delhi in September in a series of attacks that killed 21 people. The reference to holy warriors suggests the attackers are Muslims venting grievances against the Hindu majority or hoping to increase sectarian tensions. India is the world’s second-largest Muslim state; its 150 million Muslim citizens make up 15 percent of the population. They have been the target of Hindu nationalists, who have launched bloody attacks of their own. There are suspicions that radicals in Pakistan support militant Islamic groups in India to pressure the Delhi government to change its position on Kashmir — territory held by India and claimed by Pakistan since the 1947 partition. The latest attacks, which ended Saturday after Indian commandos killed three holdout gunmen at the Taj Mahal hotel before moving in to search each room, was significantly different from previous ones, prompting suspicion of foreign involvement. Most terror attacks in India are bombings in public places that focus on local targets. This carefully planned and coordinated siege — some of the attackers arrived by boat before fanning out across the city — targeted foreigners. At least 22 foreigners were killed; most of the dead were Indians, however. Heavily armed and well-trained, the terrorists sought out American, British and Israeli nationals. This suggests that the goal of the attacks was to scare foreign investors and the Indian elite: Hitting Mumbai is the equivalent of striking New York. There is a view that al-Qaida provided assistance to the attackers. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed militant groups based in India’s neighbors — usually a reference to Pakistan — and warned of “a cost” to these neighbors if they did not stop their territory being used to launch such attacks. Reportedly, three of the captured attackers were from the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group, which has been fighting for control of Kashmir with aid from Pakistani intelligence. Lashkar-e-Taiba has denied any involvement. During the siege, a militant, speaking Urdu, the main language spoken in Pakistan, called a television station to complain about abuses in Kashmir and demanded the return of Muslim lands. A confrontation between India and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear-armed, could be catastrophic. Some suggest that the attacks were designed to derail a rapprochement that had been in the making recently between the two. It is too early to blame Pakistan. There is another possible culprit: the Muslim underworld in Mumbai. In March 1993, organized crime groups in the city bombed Mumbai’s stock exchange, trains, hotels and other sites, killing 257 people and wounding more than 1,100 others. A decade later, another series of attacks killed 52 people, and in July 2006, bombings on trains and commuter rail stations killed at least 187 people. Those attacks were allegedly in retaliation for Hindu assaults on Muslims elsewhere in the country. Since May, there has been a wave of bombings across Indian cities, claiming more than 200 lives. Most look like the work of Islamic extremists, but there are also indications of retaliation — or provocations — by Hindu extremists as well. The scale of violence suggests that India faces profound and fundamental problems. Sectarian tensions are said to be responsible, but ethnic controversies, caste issues, and vast income disparities contribute as well. All nations must condemn this violence, do their utmost to help India through this trauma, and do more to fight the terrorists who have done this terrible thing. Most important, Indians must have faith in their state, to see it as impartial and capable of providing justice for all. Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 21st, 2008 THEN ESCAP URGES the SPECA CENTRAL ASIA TO STRENGTHEN TIES WITH REST OF CONTINENT FOR GREATER SECURITY. The above has clearly political implications by bundling non-Arab Islamic States. Greater cooperation between Central Asia and the rest of Asia is essential to achieve sustainable development for the whole continent, given the current climate of global financial instability and food and energy insecurity, a senior United Nations official, ESCAP’s Executive Director stressed today of all places - right in Moscow.
SPECA aims to strengthen sub-regional cooperation,
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 3rd, 2008 His Excellency Manouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2005, has come now for the third time to The Asia Society during the September - October period of the UN General Assembly In New York City. Last year I had the opportunity to ask him about about Climate Change and why Iran, with its great scientists, and people involved at the UN level, does not embark in a leadership position in the area of renewable energy rather then striving for nuclear energy incurring only indignities. Others asked him about Iran’s stand on Israel. This year - none of the above. One question from the floor asked about Israel - but was answered in the general line of the presentation - without the question been tackled at all. The Moderator was illustrious US Career Ambassador Frank G. Wisner, who served as impeccable host, presenting lots of compliments to his guest and making sure he is very comfortable. Further, The Asia Society simply managed to put the press away in a back room, and without the Q & A period reaching out to them - that is except the literally last question which asked about the possibility for regional negotiations in the crucial Middle East problem. And the answer to that question was then submerged under the previous line of presentation that exposed beautifully the way Iran wants to be seen. No mention was made of the name Israel also in this answer by the Minister. The reality is that many in Iran like actually some of the cocoons created via the 1980 revolution that came as a reaction to some real injustices its people incurred from the hand of the US CIA when it undid the Mohammad Mosaddeq April 28, 1951 – August 19, 1953 regime for its nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and reinstated the Shah who returned on 22 August 1953, from the brief self-imposed exile in Rome. Also, some in the US Administration feared that Mossadeq was, or would become, dependent on the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, at a time of returning Soviet influence, and too close for comfort to have the cold War Tectonic Plates reach towards the Saudi and Iraqi oilfields. The extent of the US role in Mossadeq’s overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadeq, and describes him as impractical and naive, though he stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup. Eventually the CIA’s role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mosaddeq was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral. In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mosaddeq was ousted: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development, and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.” In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on alleged CIA documents. For his sudden rise in popularity inside and outside of Iran, and for his defiance of the British, Mosaddeq was named as Time Magazine’s 1951 Man of the Year. Other notables considered for the title that year included Dean Acheson, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and General Douglas MacArthur. In early 2004, the Egyptian government changed a street name in Cairo from Pahlavi to Mosaddeq, to facilitate closer relations with Iran. Now, these last few paragraphs, obviously, do not come from the monologue of Minister Mottaki, but I thought to bring this up because otherwise the show at the Asia Society cannot be understood, and the Ministers personality grasped. *** The literally last question mentioned above, that came from the back-room filled with people from media was added when the announced “last question” that came from a lady sitting at the front-right table, clearly laudatory asked, “for those of us interested in the understanding of the history of the Middle East, when did Iran invade last one of its neighbors?” The clear short answer was - “not in our lifetime.” *** Had be given to me the opportunity to ask a question - what I had in mind was something like this: “In light of what your excellency has said in regard to regional solutions for regional problems, and in light of justifiable aspirations by Iran to become an Asian powerhouse, what is your reaction to the Bahrain proposal at this year’s High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly, when Bahrain suggested the creation of a new UN organization comprising ALL STATES OF THE REGION - that wasinterpreted as meaning a Middle East organization that includes Israel?” This is exactly the most wanting direct question that was not put before our guest. *** From The Speakers Profile and The Internet: Manouchehr Mottaki was born May 12, 1953 in Bandar Gaz, in the northern Iranian Province of Golestan, and went to school there. Bandar-Gaz, during the Reza Shah Pahlavi rule, was an important city in the north with a national railroad and “several infrastructures.” It was considered a transit bridge to the Soviet Union. After graduation, he joined the army and as per national plan joined the public education program by which was conducted by the government. He went to Khorasan province and established a school in a poor village around Mashhad, and taught there. After his service in the army, since he was interested in social and political issues, he decided to travel abroad both for experience and study. At that time India was a popular academic destination for young Iranians. So he traveled and studied for a few years in India, before the revolution in Iran. He holds a bachelor’s degree in social sciences from Bangalore University in India (1976). Mottaki also holds a master’s degree (MA) in international relations from the University of Tehran (1996). After the 1980 revolution, he was elected by the people of his home town and the neighboring cities as the first parliament representative and assigned by the other representatives as the head of the national security and foreign policy committee due to his politic and diplomatic talents. During his years in Majlis (Congress) and effective collaboration with the foreign ministry, he was employed then by the ministry after parliament. Or, he made thus his career within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during 24 years of continuous presence in different positions through the Majlis (Parliament).. He served thus as member of parliament in the first Majlis, head of seventh political bureau of Foreign Ministry (1984), Iran’s ambassador to Turkey (1985), Foreign Ministry’s secretary general for Western European affairs (1989), Deputy Foreign Minister - first for international affairs (1989) and then for legal, consular and parliamentary affairs (1992). Iran’s ambassador to Japan (1994), Advisor to foreign minister (1999), Deputy head of Culture and Islamic Communications Organization (2001) Chief of the Foreign Relations Committee of the 7th Majlis National Security and Foreign Relations Commission (2004). During the 2005 presidential election, he was the campaign manager of Ali Larijani, the right-conservative candidate. President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, in 2005, appointed him to the position of Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2005.
Mottaki quotations: “Referring the case to the Security Council would be a lose-lose game, and we would prefer that this game does not happen. We see a win-win situation, that is where the EU and international community have confidence and the Islamic Republic of Iran reaches its legitimate right.” “The Islamic Republic pays great cost to control and prevent transfer of narcotics to West. “We do not accept global nuclear ‘apartheid’ and scientific ‘apartheid’. “All voluntary measures taken over the past two-and-a-half or three years have been halted and we have no further commitment to the additional protocol and other voluntary commitments.” “We should try to cool down the situation. We do not support any violence.” “Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned.” “The time for using language of threats is over, it’s time for negotiation. We express our readiness for negotiations based on justice and a comprehensive compromise. We want to peacefully solve the problem. “Nuclear weapons are not in Iran’s defense doctrine.” “The issue is quite simple. We would like to enjoy our membership as well as the other members of the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty. The country has followed the rules and regulations of the [International Atomic Energy Agency] and wants to keep its rights.” *** The Foreign Minister’s Introductory Presentation Before The Asia Society, Thursday, October 2, 2008: Mottaki started by saying that since our last meeting here (2007), we had three events: (1) The enjoyable visit of members of this Society in Tehran - he hopes this is a start for more such exchanges. This as a better way for mutual understanding - Scholars, Tourists, Students in such exchanges create the possibility to have more realistic picture of each other.
(2) LEBANON: A solution of more then 30 months of crisis was achieved after being initiated by different parties. Foreign Minister Mottaki wants to talk about how it was achieved - because the process is as important as the results. It was a regional-based solution for the Lebanon crisis. The decision was that it has to be a solution based on votes by a 50+ plurality of all groups in the country - all groups in the country come to the table and a consensus is built - that was the tone of the Lebanon Policy agreement. On the second day of the negotiations in Doha, at 2:30 AM, the feeling was that it all collapsed the negotiations were locked. Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League said go ahead, but others opposed. Mottaki was in contact with Doha and Beirut and at 9 AM they took up the issue again, and it was settled after a day of negotiations by 9 PM. One learned that use of force should expect a reaction from the other side. Then also that territorial integrity is an integral part of any solution. These lessons apply whenever you have conflict - this clearly also in the Georgia - Russia case.
(3) GEORGIA: The areas are already affected by crisis - energy, transportation, security. The crisis started by use of force based on wrong information and miscalculation. The latter by not expecting reaction. The second point is territorial integrity. Its the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia now, before it was Kosovo, Does it result from the same policies? If so, are there other areas where action led to reaction? If Yes - What are these? On the second day of the Georgia case there was an agreement signed with Poland. If this signing of the agreement with Poland has become another step, should we look for reaction in Syria? in Venezuela? What is NATO going to do? Iran is a neighbor of Azerbaijan and Armenia - so there is a regional concern and Iran has to take part in the initiatives - parallel with Europe. So he went to the region and to Berlin. Is NATO moving to accept Georgia as a member? The interesting question is then the borders. ***
Now it was the turn for Ambassador Frank G. Wisner to take his position as moderator and conversation partner. He has retired from the US Foreign Service in 1997 with the highest rank - that of a Career Ambassador, but continued to be involved in special positions like the Special US envoy for the Kosovo Final Status (December 2005 - March 2008). Now he is in the private sector. In his career postings he was Ambassador to India, the Philippines, Egypt, Zambia… among other appointments, he was also Under Secretary of Defence for Policy. He started by saying that Iran is a great nation that commands and deserves respect - yet for many of us it is difficult to see how Iran chooses to challenge the international community. How do you square your requirement for respect with a confrontation attitude he then asked the Minister. Mottaki, who made his introductory presentation in English, but now used a translator for the conversation part of the event, started to smile. His answer was: A very nice gathering and behavior - my response - What we see is selective dealing and approach - and double standards. Back in the 80s we extensively talked up issues. I suggest how the first Iraq war was dealt with and the second war - the war of Saddam against Kuwait. In all these the underlying issue is the occupation of foreign lands. {I assume he means the Iraq war against Iran as the first war and the war of Iraq on Kuwait as the second war} Back then the heated discussion was having a cease-fire not a settlement. So the first step is a cease-fire, another first step is withdrawal. We wanted to have the an “a” inserted so that it is clear that a withdrawal comes after the cease-fire. See, using “oil-for-food” money - even now a percentage goes to Kuwait, this while for 4 years we were engaged in lengthy negotiations that were ordered by the UN. Two Assistant Secretary-Generals that dealt with this are present here - they remember those negotiations. Sometimes just to keep things going we had to put proposals on the table. We felt these were in Iraq’s favor and Iraq asked - what do you pay us to accept? On the nuclear issue - at the end of the day - it is officials of one country … But Islamic and Sharia teachings say that atomic bombs have no place in our defense.we also contend that nuclear weapons are nomore effective. Also military powr has lost effectiveness. I outlined new agreements for the IAEA last year. 1,5 years ago, in Madrid, we said to the Agency we will give the right answers to the IAEA questions. Then the US turned over questions to the IAEA and they posed them to us. The agency said they have other questions and we started answering them one by one. For each set of questions they sent us a written letter that they accepted the answer as adequate. What expectations should Iran have? We expect the 5+1 to thank us for these efforts to answer all questions. We expected that at the September meeting to be told by the Agency that they put aside all questions, but they provided a second US set of contentions. They were supposed to bring up questions in one set of timetable. These questions went beyond the timetable. but we accepted. These questions, like the previous are baseless, we will not agre to the US directed routes. I believe if we continue the negotiations we will reach a point of agreement that will lead to action.
{All the above sounded to me like a reprise of the 1001 Nights stories - this time from Tehran. I wonder how many people in the room accepted these, though, as I remarked at the beginning of this article, I am probably one of the most inclined to allow some slack to the Iranians because of past US behavior - but this story contained really too much rope. It did not inspire safety at all.}
Now Ambassador Wisner had one more short question he said. The elections in the US. “Do you see from Iran’s point of view an opportunity for dialogue? What will be the modalities for negotiation? A. A US President will have to reach out including the Middle East. If there are changes in the White House we will intently consider them. We take note of comments made by previous Presidents, who are not in power anymore, also candidates not yet elected. Comments made, promises given by them cannot yet be seriously considered. We have to wait and see. As for an interest section, there is only stories in news media.
*** Q&A from the floor: Answer On Israel of sorts: Iran US relations are dependent on a number of issues. Unilateral Vs. Policies in the Middle East have complicated the situation. NO MENTION OF ISRAEL IN THE ANSWER.
Answer on Nuclear In The Middle East: Atomic weapons cannot provide security. We all heard that the US had enough to destroy Russia. It helped in the balance of fear. Six years have passed from the day your troops have entered Iraq - they have not succeeded. Why could not atomic weapons help in Afghanistan and Iraq? This year the 13th anniversary since the Islamic revolution in Iran. if I were to list our grievances against the US it will be a long long list. Had we a nuclear bomb, could that have changed your actions in Iraq? In tandem with development on hardware side, the software side. The US is not lacking in modern weapons, also in its economic might (except for the present problems). No serious changes will occur in the US. The problem is - insufficient reasoning to convince the international public opinion.
Answer to the last question on the Middle East: We go about our business about our nuclear problems. We provided the answers. if a person is asleep- how hard you knock, it will not help. The US cannot accept Iran’s peaceful proposals because once they accept they will not be able to stay in this position. US intelligence agencies announced that Iran does not work on nuclear bomb, but the uS did not accept. I know of five different reports. I think it is high time for them to accept this. The 15 years they were against my country. What is wrong about changing policies - and see what was wrong for their country?
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on October 2nd, 2008 Our Original September 25, 2008 article: At The Asia Society he had a discussion with Thomas E. Freston, a principal of Firefly3, a consulting and investment company in the media business, former Chairman and CEO of MTV Networks. He is on the Board of the Asia Society and chairman of ONE, an organization that raises awareness about global poverty and disease. He had years ago, in the 1970’s, for the stretch of eight years, business interests in India and Afghanistan and remembers the good old days of a friendly, peaceful and happy Afghanistan. He is the primary funder of the America’s Society Afghan Initiative. The Introduction was done by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the Chairman of Asia Society, who said that after China, Afghanistan is the second most active country at the top priority of the Society. He also said that now the war in Afghanistan is already 7 years old, it is the second longest war in American history, and next month it will become the longest war in American history. Mr. Freston said about Mr. Karzai that he could have done many other things, but he chose 7 years ago to work for Afghanistan, and since 2001, after the fall of the Taliban, he chose to hold the highest position in the country. Freston said - “It seems like yesterday to me.” He links Afghanistan and the International World led by the US. In 2001, the Afghan people had the greatest hope for an immediate, peaceful, future - they got something of this - the greatest part of Afghanistan got this. What used to be only 9% of the territory that one could have reached then out to Afghanistan’s people - is now 85% - child mortality has decreased, we got press and media, a better economy, life has improved. Security is still not what we want. There is a democratic change. Prisons have gone - it is good for the people. In Pakistan I see now a ray of hope - if we can all look together - with also India and the US. By helping the people who out of desperation - out of fear - submitted to the forces that deprived them of education and better life - if one gives them a better alternative there will be no extremism. Why a 14 year old boy became a suicide bomber? I asked him and he said - “I don’t know! His father was a teacher of mathematics, he went to a good school - then his mother was diagnosed with cancer and the father could not pay for the school and took him out. He put him into a madrassa. When he wanted to see him, he was gone and they said he was sent to a better madrassa. A second case - last week an 11 year old was returned to the Us as his mother was found with papers in her possession that showed she was involved in a plot to bomb buildings in the US. That was a family of Harvard and MIT graduates. The kid did not want to acknowledge his family and contended he was an orphan left from last earthquake. Karzai said that this environment must change and it has to be done by the “US together with us.” He told a third story - this one about a foreign ministry employee who wanted to take his US born son along to the US. He did not want his son to stay in Afghanistan because he wanted to have for him an assured future. When the Q&A time came - people seemingly wanted most to hear from him about his meeting with Governor Palin. He Also met the Prime Minister of Norway, and had some media events. Mr. Freston said to Mr. Karzai: “You are probably the only one in this room who met Governor Palin.” Mr. Karzai said “She had good Questions regarding Afghanistan.” She wanted to know about the participation of women in afghanistan life, business … they have now a strong voice in Afghanistan - today better then the men he said. {Let us remark here that this is sort of a scoop - because the UN and the US delegation isolated Mrs. Palin from the press. Nobody was allowed to get close to her and ask any questions - seemingly she is not ready yet for untutored exposure.} Mr. Karzai complained that famous drug dealers in the US have multi-million dollars dealings in Afghanistan. It will help only if there is a meltdown of consummers’ demand and inter-locution at the US borders. On the other hand - all will not work if we do not get better lives for the Afghan people. There was a question if fellow Muslim countries could replace the western forces in Afghanistan. He answered that they were happy with Jordanian medical teams -”We welcome Arab involvement.” Further, transparency in awarding contracts and overhead resources has changed. previously there was a tremendous waste with contractors hiring contractors. He wants to see a strengthening of Afghanistan and the money should reach the people - “give us the capacity to defend ourselves” he said. Asked about the US general who said that twice the amount of forces are needed - he answered YES. Asked about sanctuaries for terror groups outside the country - he said troops should go where these are found. ————– Several days later, Mr. Karzai appeared on the Fareed Zakharia show on CNN and said that though Afghanistan still needs much help, it is much better off now. It has moved from a non-existent economy and no tax collection to a $3 Billion reserve that it has now. ———————– Talking to the Taliban? Will Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, respond positively to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s attempt at dialogue? Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s request that Saudi Arabia act as intermediary with Taliban head Mullah Omar - who was forced to flee Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 - is a confession of impotence. Under the protection of the international coalition’s forces, the Afghan authorities have not succeeded in establishing their power much beyond the Kabul region. Construction of a real state, in the modern sense of the term, runs up against ancestral clan divisions. The warlords make the law in the provinces. After undergoing military defeats, the Taliban harass NATO troops and Afghan soldiers. “The “Afghanization” of the war - which is the official objective announced by the international community - is leveling off. Is Afghanization of the peace possible? That’s the attempt into which Hamid Karzai is cautiously launching himself. He may be consulting suggestions already made by certain coalition countries, such as France and Great Britain, but rejected by Washington, to seek to integrate “moderate” Taliban into a political process. If that adjective has any meaning with respect to the “students of theology” who imposed their obscurantist order on Afghanistan for years. But President Karzai is going further, since he’s offering a form of dialogue with the head of the Taliban himself. As though it were a prerequisite for rallying the Pashtun majority to Kabul’s authority. For all those who have fought in Afghanistan to see human rights respected, the status of women change, to promote education, even to try to construct an embryo of democracy, the disclosure is bitter. Hamid Karzai’s about-face will provoke many arguments. Some will blame the military strategy the Westerners have followed and the absence of coordination between the multitudes of civilian intercessors. Others will recall that no outside power has ever succeeded in durably imposing its law on the Afghans and that the best-intentioned foreigners still run the risk of being seen as occupation forces. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 15th, 2008 Pakistan Says US Copters Repulsed.
“The U.S. choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 meters at Angor Adda. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and they turned away,” said one security official.
Pakistan is a crucial U.S. ally in its war on terrorism, and its support is key to the success of Western forces trying to stabilize Afghanistan. But Washington has become impatient over Islamabad’s response to the threat from al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Pakistan’s tribal regions on the border. At least 20 people, including women and children, were killed in the South Waziristan raid earlier this month, sparking outrage in Pakistan and prompting a diplomatic protest. Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani said in a strongly worded statement last week that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops onto its soil and Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs. Another security official said on Monday that U.S. armored vehicles were also seen moving on the Afghan side of the border, while U.S. warplanes were seen overhead. He said Pakistani soldiers sounded a bugle call and fired in the air, forcing the helicopters to return to Afghan territory. Conflicting Versions “The U.S. choppers were there at the border, but they did not violate our airspace,” Khan said. “We confirm that there was a firing incident at the time when the helicopters were there, but our forces were not involved.” A spokesman for the U.S. military at Bagram Airbase, north of Kabul, said its forces had not reported any such incident. “The unit in the area belongs to the (U.S.-led) coalition. They are not reporting any such incident,” the U.S. military spokesman said. But the official denials were contradicted by Pakistani civilian officials and villagers in Angor Adda. Two Chinook helicopters appeared set to land when troops began shooting, alerting tribesmen who also opened fire on the intruders, said a senior government official in Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province. A resident described the tension in the village through the night. “We saw helicopters flying all over the area. We stayed awake the whole night after the incident,” he said. The fiercely independent tribesmen of the region carry weapons regardless of whether they are militants. *** Pakistan Army Fighting Militants: The New York Times newspaper reported last week that U.S. President George W. Bush has given clearance for U.S. raids across the border. The raid on Angor Adda on September 3 was the first overt ground incursion by U.S. troops into Pakistan since the deployment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in late 2001. The United States has intensified attacks by missile-firing drone aircraft on suspected al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistani tribal lands in the past few weeks. Despite apparent U.S. frustration with Pakistan, the Pakistani army has been involved in fierce fighting with Islamist militants in Bajaur, another tribal region, and Swat, a valley in North West Frontier Province, close to the tribal lands. Pakistani forces, using helicopter gunships and artillery, killed at least 16 fighters and wounded 25 in Bajaur on Sunday. More than 750 militants have been killed in an offensive there that began in late August. The U.S. pressure comes at an awkward time for President Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. Zardari was elected on September 6, having forced former army chief Pervez Musharraf to quit last month, almost nine years after Musharraf took power in a coup. The new Pakistani president is in London and due to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown to talk over the border situation. Bush held a video conference with Brown last week to discuss a new strategy for the lawless Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier. Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani have both endorsed the stand taken by General Kayani. Permalink | ### |