Es gibt ein Panzerschiff in Africa das agreffen Handelschiff von England, circa 1949. Einige Seewulf habe ein Name fuer das Geistschiff. Seewulf, Kapitan Kidd oder Kraken?? Well ein Englisch zerstoerer war ueber Azores gestosst und war schnellig tiefligend. "Torpedoes out of nowhere," sagt das Amerikaner Kapitaen des Haitian geflaggt Gross Handelschiff Jamestown. (to be continued...)
bei Denkfabrikerleutnant Priamos Rana, Esq.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Dronenkrieg gegen Russland will erfolgloeisgen
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/17/america/drones.php
The American government is using drones against a band of Pashtuns with no defensive capacity. However, if used against Russians in Georgia, the new band of Russian, Chinese and Indian hackers can jam and disable US Predators.
The new Warsaw pact, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), has defense ties with India, China and Russia along with new Central Asian states. These states do not adhere to international arms control agreements as seen in 2008 with the tarnsfer of 33 T-72 tanks to unspecified buyers in wartorn Africa. The Russian arms sale along with China's refusal to curb its Manportable Air Defense System (MANPADS), (ref: AP and AFP reports 2006-2007) handheld anti-aircraft guided missiles, will allow notorious armed groups a capability to down US or NATO aircraft in contested zones of future combat operations. In late 1990s, a US fighter aircraft, an F-16 Falcon was brought down by a Serbian operated SA-6 'Gainful' (Kub) Surface to Air Missile (SAM). The SA-6 is an old SAM unveiled in Red Square around 1967. If an upgraded SA-6 can down a US F-16 equipped with radar absorbent paint and sophisticated jammers, what will be the fate of NATO and US fourth generation aircraft to Russian designed SA-11 'Gadfly' (Buk). The Chinese and Russians are set to deploy SA-10 'Grumble' (S300) to protect their key assets like the SS-25 Sickle mobile ICBM (ref: Soviet Military Power, 1990). If Iran acquires SS-25s the whole US nuclear superiority and its deterrence policy and its security guarantee to US will collapse. The B-2 unveiled in late 1980s by John Tower (ref: Newsweek) is the only hope in this scenario.
The Russians are quickly copying stealth technology to adapt it into their next generation of interceptors. Even this author had access to mathematical calculations over stealth technology in an aerospace magazine in a third world country . Aerospace engineers employed by Iran and other Arab countries can one day build an infrastructure to rival Israel's aerospace industry and mass produce ballistic missiles. China already has a range of mobile ballistic missiles.
To challenge the supremacy of the US Navy, China has two aircraft carriers in order most likely of Russian design. Armed with MiG-29K equiped with antiship missiles, this platform allows China to flex its muscle anywhere from the Pacific to the Indian ocean. Then, Japan too would want aircraft carriers as its sailors often get in trouble with Chinese, thanks to their historical dispute over energy resources and broader supremacy issue in Asia.
Military Intelligence magazine published in US Army Intel School, Fort Huachuca, AZ predicted the Korean peninsula might go under Chinese spehere of influence as early as early 1990s. Russia too is in this great game. It has wooed Central Asian energy states to impose high rent on US bases being used to support combat operations in Afghanistan. The crux of the matter is that these authoritarian states fear US intrusion into their undemocratic political system and persecution of minorities. In the name of suppressing terrorism, Russia and China with its staellites have trampled upon ethnic rights of many of these peoples. Outright force was used in Georgia while the West watched. In 1997-1999 Kosovo crisis, Russia even threatened to despatch airborne troops to support the Serbs, in a bid to threaten NATO punitive operations against Serb mass murder supsects like Radovan Kardzic and Vojslav Seselj.
The current economic crisis and left leaning Obama administration is a boon to foreign adventurism in hotspots around the world. In Nepal, terrorists cling to power while in Africa and Venezuela is under increased Russian arms sales. The Russians have even thretatened to station Tu-95 Bears in Cuba, according to some reports. Reports say Chavez is assembling Su-27 'Flankers' to flex his oil muscle against any US attempt to support his rivals in Caracas. While cocaine wars fueled by Colombian suppliers continues in Mexico, US should revive plans to destroy the cocaine plantations just as it was done in Vietnam. Once supply is extinguished at production site, the whole supply chain will wither in one stroke and done. Millions of young lives will be saved!
The American government is using drones against a band of Pashtuns with no defensive capacity. However, if used against Russians in Georgia, the new band of Russian, Chinese and Indian hackers can jam and disable US Predators.
The new Warsaw pact, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), has defense ties with India, China and Russia along with new Central Asian states. These states do not adhere to international arms control agreements as seen in 2008 with the tarnsfer of 33 T-72 tanks to unspecified buyers in wartorn Africa. The Russian arms sale along with China's refusal to curb its Manportable Air Defense System (MANPADS), (ref: AP and AFP reports 2006-2007) handheld anti-aircraft guided missiles, will allow notorious armed groups a capability to down US or NATO aircraft in contested zones of future combat operations. In late 1990s, a US fighter aircraft, an F-16 Falcon was brought down by a Serbian operated SA-6 'Gainful' (Kub) Surface to Air Missile (SAM). The SA-6 is an old SAM unveiled in Red Square around 1967. If an upgraded SA-6 can down a US F-16 equipped with radar absorbent paint and sophisticated jammers, what will be the fate of NATO and US fourth generation aircraft to Russian designed SA-11 'Gadfly' (Buk). The Chinese and Russians are set to deploy SA-10 'Grumble' (S300) to protect their key assets like the SS-25 Sickle mobile ICBM (ref: Soviet Military Power, 1990). If Iran acquires SS-25s the whole US nuclear superiority and its deterrence policy and its security guarantee to US will collapse. The B-2 unveiled in late 1980s by John Tower (ref: Newsweek) is the only hope in this scenario.
The Russians are quickly copying stealth technology to adapt it into their next generation of interceptors. Even this author had access to mathematical calculations over stealth technology in an aerospace magazine in a third world country . Aerospace engineers employed by Iran and other Arab countries can one day build an infrastructure to rival Israel's aerospace industry and mass produce ballistic missiles. China already has a range of mobile ballistic missiles.
To challenge the supremacy of the US Navy, China has two aircraft carriers in order most likely of Russian design. Armed with MiG-29K equiped with antiship missiles, this platform allows China to flex its muscle anywhere from the Pacific to the Indian ocean. Then, Japan too would want aircraft carriers as its sailors often get in trouble with Chinese, thanks to their historical dispute over energy resources and broader supremacy issue in Asia.
Military Intelligence magazine published in US Army Intel School, Fort Huachuca, AZ predicted the Korean peninsula might go under Chinese spehere of influence as early as early 1990s. Russia too is in this great game. It has wooed Central Asian energy states to impose high rent on US bases being used to support combat operations in Afghanistan. The crux of the matter is that these authoritarian states fear US intrusion into their undemocratic political system and persecution of minorities. In the name of suppressing terrorism, Russia and China with its staellites have trampled upon ethnic rights of many of these peoples. Outright force was used in Georgia while the West watched. In 1997-1999 Kosovo crisis, Russia even threatened to despatch airborne troops to support the Serbs, in a bid to threaten NATO punitive operations against Serb mass murder supsects like Radovan Kardzic and Vojslav Seselj.
The current economic crisis and left leaning Obama administration is a boon to foreign adventurism in hotspots around the world. In Nepal, terrorists cling to power while in Africa and Venezuela is under increased Russian arms sales. The Russians have even thretatened to station Tu-95 Bears in Cuba, according to some reports. Reports say Chavez is assembling Su-27 'Flankers' to flex his oil muscle against any US attempt to support his rivals in Caracas. While cocaine wars fueled by Colombian suppliers continues in Mexico, US should revive plans to destroy the cocaine plantations just as it was done in Vietnam. Once supply is extinguished at production site, the whole supply chain will wither in one stroke and done. Millions of young lives will be saved!
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Nachrichten auf Russischer Kraft gegen Vereinigten Staaten
Neues Kaltkrieg?
Neues Weltkrieg bei August 1914*
March 15, 2009
Associated Press
MOSCOW - A Russian air force general said that the country could base some strategic bombers in Cuba or on an island offered by Venezuela, news agencies reported, but a Kremlin official quickly said the military had been speaking only hypothetically.
The U.S. and Russia have been trying to reset their relationship, severely strained over U.S. plans to position missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic and by Russia's invasion of U.S. ally Georgia last year.
Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range bombers within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, was quoted by Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies as saying Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had offered Russia to use an airbase on La Orchila island.
"Chavez has offered us a whole island with an airfield, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," Zhikharev was quoted as saying. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible."
Interfax also quoted Zhikharev as saying that Cuba has four or five air bases with runways long enough to host the Russian long-range planes.
"This is possible with Cuba," it quoted Zhikharev as saying. "If the two heads of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there."
But Kremlin spokesman Alexei Pavlov told The Associated Press that "the military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all. If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment."
Mike Hammer, spokesman for President Barack Obama's National Security Council, said, "We do not comment on hypotheticals."
Officials at both Venezuela's presidential administration and Defense Ministry refused immediate comment and Cuban officials could not be reached for comment.
But Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said in a televised speech Sept. 7, "All these long-range planes and boats must have a place to stop. Where are they going to stop? Are they going to stop in territory belonging to countries that don't like them? No. They'll look for their strategic allies."
"Russia will be welcome - the air fleet or the naval fleet," Chavez said. "We're Russia's strategic ally."
Venezuela and Cuba, traditionally fierce U.S. foes, have close political and energy relations with Russia, which has been working to reassert itself as a military force. Russia resumed regular long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus.
Venezuela hosted two Russian Tu-160 bombers in September for training flights and later joined Russian warships for exercises in the Caribbean.
The bombers visit marked the first time Russian strategic bombers landed in the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War times, when the Soviet aircraft sometimes made stopovers in Cuba.
In the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba pushed the world to the brink of nuclear conflict after U.S. President John F. Kennedy announced their presence to the world. After a tense week of diplomacy, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev removed the missiles.
The military analyst Golts said basing Russian bombers in Venezuela or Cuba "has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base."
He said the bombers are considered strategic because they are capable of reaching an attacking range of the United States from Russia without the need for stopovers.
Moscow and the new Obama administration have appeared to want to mend their relations,
U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to put elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, although the United States insists they are intended to counter potential future threats from Iran.
Russia has welcomed Obama's apparently more cautious approach to the divisive issue.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva earlier this month to push a symbolic red "reset" button, another sign of the desire for a clean slate.
Cuban authorities made no comment last summer when a Moscow newspaper reported that Russia could send nuclear bombers to the island. While neither confirming nor denying the report, ailing former President Fidel Castro at the time praised his brother President Raul Castro for maintaining a "dignified silence" on the report and said that Cuba was not obligated to offer the United States an explanation.
© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Copied from Military.com as an issue for private consideration. Pritam has purchased AP Stylebook, AP Newswriting Guide and AP reporter's Handbook from New York bureau book center and from family source in Los Angeles, California. Any copyright infringemnent issue should be communicated to Pritam in facebook.
*August 1914 bei Alexander Solzhenytsyn
Neues Weltkrieg bei August 1914*
March 15, 2009
Associated Press
MOSCOW - A Russian air force general said that the country could base some strategic bombers in Cuba or on an island offered by Venezuela, news agencies reported, but a Kremlin official quickly said the military had been speaking only hypothetically.
The U.S. and Russia have been trying to reset their relationship, severely strained over U.S. plans to position missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic and by Russia's invasion of U.S. ally Georgia last year.
Russia has nothing to gain strategically from basing long-range bombers within relatively short range of U.S. shores, independent military analyst Alexander Golts said, calling the military statement a retaliatory gesture aimed at hitting back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters near Georgia.
The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, was quoted by Interfax and RIA Novosti news agencies as saying Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had offered Russia to use an airbase on La Orchila island.
"Chavez has offered us a whole island with an airfield, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," Zhikharev was quoted as saying. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible."
Interfax also quoted Zhikharev as saying that Cuba has four or five air bases with runways long enough to host the Russian long-range planes.
"This is possible with Cuba," it quoted Zhikharev as saying. "If the two heads of state display such a political will, we are ready to fly there."
But Kremlin spokesman Alexei Pavlov told The Associated Press that "the military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all. If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment."
Mike Hammer, spokesman for President Barack Obama's National Security Council, said, "We do not comment on hypotheticals."
Officials at both Venezuela's presidential administration and Defense Ministry refused immediate comment and Cuban officials could not be reached for comment.
But Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said in a televised speech Sept. 7, "All these long-range planes and boats must have a place to stop. Where are they going to stop? Are they going to stop in territory belonging to countries that don't like them? No. They'll look for their strategic allies."
"Russia will be welcome - the air fleet or the naval fleet," Chavez said. "We're Russia's strategic ally."
Venezuela and Cuba, traditionally fierce U.S. foes, have close political and energy relations with Russia, which has been working to reassert itself as a military force. Russia resumed regular long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus.
Venezuela hosted two Russian Tu-160 bombers in September for training flights and later joined Russian warships for exercises in the Caribbean.
The bombers visit marked the first time Russian strategic bombers landed in the Western Hemisphere since the Cold War times, when the Soviet aircraft sometimes made stopovers in Cuba.
In the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba pushed the world to the brink of nuclear conflict after U.S. President John F. Kennedy announced their presence to the world. After a tense week of diplomacy, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev removed the missiles.
The military analyst Golts said basing Russian bombers in Venezuela or Cuba "has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base."
He said the bombers are considered strategic because they are capable of reaching an attacking range of the United States from Russia without the need for stopovers.
Moscow and the new Obama administration have appeared to want to mend their relations,
U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to put elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, although the United States insists they are intended to counter potential future threats from Iran.
Russia has welcomed Obama's apparently more cautious approach to the divisive issue.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva earlier this month to push a symbolic red "reset" button, another sign of the desire for a clean slate.
Cuban authorities made no comment last summer when a Moscow newspaper reported that Russia could send nuclear bombers to the island. While neither confirming nor denying the report, ailing former President Fidel Castro at the time praised his brother President Raul Castro for maintaining a "dignified silence" on the report and said that Cuba was not obligated to offer the United States an explanation.
© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Copied from Military.com as an issue for private consideration. Pritam has purchased AP Stylebook, AP Newswriting Guide and AP reporter's Handbook from New York bureau book center and from family source in Los Angeles, California. Any copyright infringemnent issue should be communicated to Pritam in facebook.
*August 1914 bei Alexander Solzhenytsyn
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Resume March 11, 2009
PRITAM S. RANA
C/O Poonam Singh,
14540 Hartland Street, #206,
Van Nuys, CA 91405
Tel. (818) 988 9623
Email: pritamrana@yahoo.com
OBJECTIVE:-
To become a successful writer/researcher with a goal to become a bestselling
author.
Carry out day to day operations in most scientific and professional manner.
Meet highest safety standard and company goals.
Set an ethical standard and work with élan.
EXPERIENCE:-
Sub-editor,
Business Bureau, The Kathmandu Post, Kantipur Publications, P. B. No 8559, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4480100, URL: www.ekantipur.com
Edited news stories filed by reporters. Advised reporters on English language usage, clarity of news and checking of facts, graphs and other quantitative analysis tools used in the pages. Selected international news from AP and AFP. Wrote headlines of news stories. Assisted in layout of pg7. Translated captions of photos and finalized the aforementioned page.
***** Upgraded language and style to AP standard; reduced error to zero and promoted premium international as well as unnoticed cottage and agricultural products.
R & U Personnel,
Renewal and Update Department, Everest Net Pvt. Ltd., Ekantakuna, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 5546010, URL: www.enet.com.np
Handled customer care calls. Called clients with stale accounts in order to determine problems, to persuade them to renew accounts near expiry and assisted support department to determine clients with problems. Updated expired accounts and worked to retain customers.
***** Recovered hundreds of customers; run a major campaign to reduce addiction to internet porn, and helped reduce operational cost by implementing advanced managerial tools.
News Reporter (Journalist, Electronic Media),
News Department, Channel Nepal Television, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4487750, URL: www.channelnepal.com
News reporting with camera crew, read TV news reports, translated news items from Nepali to English, assisted video editors and handled production of daily news bulletins.
***** Helped renew diplomatic and donor interest in Nepali development, security and social issues. Conducted responsible public information campaign with conservative editorial line.
Customer Service Representative,
Himalayan Telecommerce Pvt. Ltd (ASK ME), Sigma House, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 2111290, URL: www.askme.com.np
Worked in national and international call centers. Provided information to customers like phone numbers and about service and products of various business organizations based upon a database. Performed telemarketing to potential customers in the United States. Undertook customer care training.
***** Met and exceeded sales targets. Marketed to consumers wishing to save by choosing affordable products. Adopted guerilla raids (ref: Phillip Kotler’s marketing stratagem) against established giant telecom providers like AT&T and Verizon.
Administrative Assistant,
Everest Net Pvt. Ltd., Ekantakuna, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 5546010, URL: www.enet.com.np
Assisted administrative manager in his daily operations, arranged meetings including the agendas and minutes, circulated administrative information to other staff members, documented and filled up company reports, updated staff profile and monitored media for notices with implications to the company.
***** Bagged the best employer award, maintained high standards of professionalism.
Junior Sub-Editor,
The Kathmandu Post, Kantipur Publications, Subidhanagar, New Baneswor, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4480100, URL: www.ekantipur.com
Edited feature articles contributed to the opinion-editorial page. Was responsible for the then Page4, the opinion page. Prepared initial draft for editorials.
***** Selected for copyediting op-ed page, the main opinion building arm of the newspaper.
SKILLS:-
News analysis with specialization on defense issues.
Familiar with MS Office package, e-mail and Internet.
EDUCATION:-
Master of Arts, Tribhuwan University, Kirtipur, NEPAL, Political Science,
2003-present.
Bachelor of Arts, Campion College, Lalitpur, NEPAL, English Literature and
Sociology, 1999-2002
High School, St. Xavier’s School, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL, 1987-1992.
PUBLICATION/AWARDS:-
Published more than thirty times in national dailies in Nepal since 2000
(ref: Google search)
First position, College Essay Competition, Campion College, 2001
LANGUAGES:-
English-fluent; German-beginner; Sanskrit-beginner
AFFILIATION:-
Association of the US Army, www.ausa.org, 1997-1999.
INTERESTS:-
Books, movies, tennis, model airplanes and tanks.
C/O Poonam Singh,
14540 Hartland Street, #206,
Van Nuys, CA 91405
Tel. (818) 988 9623
Email: pritamrana@yahoo.com
OBJECTIVE:-
To become a successful writer/researcher with a goal to become a bestselling
author.
Carry out day to day operations in most scientific and professional manner.
Meet highest safety standard and company goals.
Set an ethical standard and work with élan.
EXPERIENCE:-
Sub-editor,
Business Bureau, The Kathmandu Post, Kantipur Publications, P. B. No 8559, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4480100, URL: www.ekantipur.com
Edited news stories filed by reporters. Advised reporters on English language usage, clarity of news and checking of facts, graphs and other quantitative analysis tools used in the pages. Selected international news from AP and AFP. Wrote headlines of news stories. Assisted in layout of pg7. Translated captions of photos and finalized the aforementioned page.
***** Upgraded language and style to AP standard; reduced error to zero and promoted premium international as well as unnoticed cottage and agricultural products.
R & U Personnel,
Renewal and Update Department, Everest Net Pvt. Ltd., Ekantakuna, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 5546010, URL: www.enet.com.np
Handled customer care calls. Called clients with stale accounts in order to determine problems, to persuade them to renew accounts near expiry and assisted support department to determine clients with problems. Updated expired accounts and worked to retain customers.
***** Recovered hundreds of customers; run a major campaign to reduce addiction to internet porn, and helped reduce operational cost by implementing advanced managerial tools.
News Reporter (Journalist, Electronic Media),
News Department, Channel Nepal Television, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4487750, URL: www.channelnepal.com
News reporting with camera crew, read TV news reports, translated news items from Nepali to English, assisted video editors and handled production of daily news bulletins.
***** Helped renew diplomatic and donor interest in Nepali development, security and social issues. Conducted responsible public information campaign with conservative editorial line.
Customer Service Representative,
Himalayan Telecommerce Pvt. Ltd (ASK ME), Sigma House, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 2111290, URL: www.askme.com.np
Worked in national and international call centers. Provided information to customers like phone numbers and about service and products of various business organizations based upon a database. Performed telemarketing to potential customers in the United States. Undertook customer care training.
***** Met and exceeded sales targets. Marketed to consumers wishing to save by choosing affordable products. Adopted guerilla raids (ref: Phillip Kotler’s marketing stratagem) against established giant telecom providers like AT&T and Verizon.
Administrative Assistant,
Everest Net Pvt. Ltd., Ekantakuna, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 5546010, URL: www.enet.com.np
Assisted administrative manager in his daily operations, arranged meetings including the agendas and minutes, circulated administrative information to other staff members, documented and filled up company reports, updated staff profile and monitored media for notices with implications to the company.
***** Bagged the best employer award, maintained high standards of professionalism.
Junior Sub-Editor,
The Kathmandu Post, Kantipur Publications, Subidhanagar, New Baneswor, Kathmandu, NEPAL.
Phone: (977) 1 4480100, URL: www.ekantipur.com
Edited feature articles contributed to the opinion-editorial page. Was responsible for the then Page4, the opinion page. Prepared initial draft for editorials.
***** Selected for copyediting op-ed page, the main opinion building arm of the newspaper.
SKILLS:-
News analysis with specialization on defense issues.
Familiar with MS Office package, e-mail and Internet.
EDUCATION:-
Master of Arts, Tribhuwan University, Kirtipur, NEPAL, Political Science,
2003-present.
Bachelor of Arts, Campion College, Lalitpur, NEPAL, English Literature and
Sociology, 1999-2002
High School, St. Xavier’s School, Jawalakhel, Lalitpur, NEPAL, 1987-1992.
PUBLICATION/AWARDS:-
Published more than thirty times in national dailies in Nepal since 2000
(ref: Google search)
First position, College Essay Competition, Campion College, 2001
LANGUAGES:-
English-fluent; German-beginner; Sanskrit-beginner
AFFILIATION:-
Association of the US Army, www.ausa.org, 1997-1999.
INTERESTS:-
Books, movies, tennis, model airplanes and tanks.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
American Women- Zenith to Nadir
Yesterday, I was thinking of two contradictory characters. One is Amelia Earhart, America's aviatrix and the other is Nadia Suleman.
The formula I conceived yesterday was:
Amelia Earhart > zenith
Nadia Suleman > nadir
Amelia stood ahead among her generation, becoming a record breaking pioneer flyer. In sharp contrast, Nadia represents the irresponsibility of the 13th generation, to which I have the dubious dictinction of belonging, ref: Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe, (ISBN 0-688-11912-3).
Do the words nadir and Suleman have etymological link? Nadirshahi means pillage in Persian or Urdu. And, Suleman's irresponsibility has caused US taxpayers to fund her children who are totally innocent. The doctor who performed the operation should be immediately asked to pay for her children's health, education and upkeep.
The medical industry has to maintain a minimum of ethical standards. This is United States not Iraq or other third world mecca of quacks.
I wonder how many college girls can remember Amelia's achievement. Are 99s no longer revered? God save America!
The formula I conceived yesterday was:
Amelia Earhart > zenith
Nadia Suleman > nadir
Amelia stood ahead among her generation, becoming a record breaking pioneer flyer. In sharp contrast, Nadia represents the irresponsibility of the 13th generation, to which I have the dubious dictinction of belonging, ref: Generations, William Strauss and Neil Howe, (ISBN 0-688-11912-3).
Do the words nadir and Suleman have etymological link? Nadirshahi means pillage in Persian or Urdu. And, Suleman's irresponsibility has caused US taxpayers to fund her children who are totally innocent. The doctor who performed the operation should be immediately asked to pay for her children's health, education and upkeep.
The medical industry has to maintain a minimum of ethical standards. This is United States not Iraq or other third world mecca of quacks.
I wonder how many college girls can remember Amelia's achievement. Are 99s no longer revered? God save America!
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer in RUSI
15:30, 18 Sep 2008
RUSI, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2ET
Link to map: multimap
Listen to lecture (59mb)
Watch excerpts
"Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
About two weeks ago, an exasperated NATO Ambassador asked a question to his colleagues around the Council table: Why is it that we always see so many crises happening in the month of August?
The question was, of course, a rhetorical one, so no one felt compelled to respond. But there can be no doubt that August 2008 will go down in history as a key
moment in international security. “The Guns of August”, to borrow the title of a famous book, will sound in our ears for some time to come.
We saw a war erupt in the Caucasus – with a Russian military response so disproportionate that some observers started musing about a second Cold War. As I will try to explain later in my remarks, I don’t believe that a second Cold War is in the offing. But one thing is clear: the role that Russia wants to play in the new international system still remains uncertain.
At the same time, the month of August and the first two weeks of September have also seen fierce fighting and a large number of casualties in Afghanistan – many NATO soldiers and many Afghans have lost their lives, and I want to use this opportunity to express my sympathy to the loved ones and friends of all those British soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
We have also seen the Taliban and other extremist forces strengthen their positions in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. It is thus becoming ever clearer that success in Afghanistan can only be achieved if we engage Pakistan in a common effort against extremism which threatens the future of the entire region.
Conflict in the Caucasus, instability in and around Afghanistan – these two theatres alone would seem more than one can handle at any given time. Yet we all know that these crises are not happening in a vacuum. Both conflicts will reverberate far beyond their points of origin. I don’t have to explain at length why Russia’s justification for recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia could set a dangerous precedent – with truly global consequences. Nor do I have to explain at length why the conflict will have longer-term implications for our energy policy, notably for the discussion about alternative transit routes.
The conflict in Afghanistan, too, is more than a regional issue. It is about
our response to the global phenomenon of international terrorism. It is about our readiness to support fragile young democracies that are trying to take their people out of poverty and into the modern world. It is about long-term stability in Central Asia. And it is about the struggle of moderate Islam to prevail against the forces of fanaticism.
Samuel Johnson once said that the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind. I am not suggesting that we are in any immediate danger of being hung, but if we don’t want this world to take a turn for the worse, we’d better concentrate on how best to deal with the challenges we face. So let me give you my thoughts on the way ahead – with respect to Russia, and with respect to Afghanistan.
First; Russia. Here, the issues are crystal clear. Irrespective of who did what and when in the August conflict, Russia has demonstrated a disregard for the sovereignty of a small neighbour, and for international law. This has created a major challenge for our partnership. Both NATO and the EU have made it abundantly clear that the very notion of partnership implies due respect for certain agreed standards of behaviour. As long as Russia chooses to ignore these standards, there can be no business as usual. Russia has long demanded to be treated with respect, as becomes a global power. But respect has to be earned – by taking one’s global responsibilities and the defence of universal values seriously, rather than by abusing one’s military might.
In both her actions and her accompanying rhetoric, Russia has shown much assertiveness. But what worries me even more is Russia’s apparent readiness to stand against virtually the entire international community. Russia’s perceived temporary gains in Georgia have come at the cost of her strategic isolation. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin tell us that the West needs Russia, but that Russia doesn’t really need the West. I have no problem with the first part of their statement. Yes, the West does indeed need Russia. But it is an illusion to believe that Russia can go it alone without the West. Going it alone in this global world is simply not an option.
What next? Let me be very clear. A solution to this crisis is possible.
But it will only be found if all parties are willing to make concessions and to walk back from where they are today. Such a solution cannot be found if we simply seek to “punish” Russia. NATO is not in the punishment business. Nor is there any need for us to engage in rhetorical escalation. We do not need to crank up the volume. So let me tell you how I, as the NATO Secretary General, see the way ahead.
As a starting point, we need a sober analysis of the implications of the Caucasus conflict in general, and of Russia’s policy in particular. And then we must devise a sound policy based on that analysis. This exercise has only just begun, so I don’t want to pre-empt its outcome. A few things, however, should be evident.
First, I do not foresee a U-turn in NATO’s policy vis-à-vis Russia. You need to make a U-turn when you’ve gone totally wrong. We, however, have not gone wrong. The key tenets of our Russia policy – a policy of constructive engagement – remain sound. We may have to make adjustments in the way we approach Russia, but we do not need a new policy. No matter how much we may disagree on some issues, the fact of the matter is that both NATO and Russia face a number of common challenges – and both NATO and Russia will be better off by facing them together. That is the reason why we invested so much in the NATO-Russia partnership.
Second, in this new security context, some have called for a reappraisal of the balance between an expeditionary NATO and our core task of collective defence.
Such a discussion is certainly justified. But, again, I do not foresee a 180 degree change in our approach. Article 5 already exists, we don’t have to reinvent it. Neither does upholding Article 5 require us to return to a Cold War military posture in Europe.
Third, irrespective of our approach vis-à-vis Russia, we must support Georgia. Indeed, in many respects, this is the most important thing that we need to do in the short-term. And we are doing it. We are helping Georgia to assess and repair the damage caused by Russian actions. And we will continue to support this country in realising its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Earlier this week, I visited Georgia together with the Ambassadors of the North Atlantic Council. During that visit, we inaugurated the NATO-Georgia Commission. It conveys the message – to Georgia, as well as to Russia – that geography does not have to determine your destiny, and that the era of spheres of influence is over.
In addition to our meetings in Tbilisi, we also saw the refugees from South Ossetia who were camped around Gori. It was a sobering experience. And it reinforced us in our strong conviction that the people of Georgia cannot afford any more conflict. We will continue to stand by Georgia, but we also expect it to remain firmly committed to democracy and reform. And we made that very clear to all our interlocutors.
Georgia may remain a bone of contention between Russia and the West for some time to come. But this must not prevent us from seeking to cooperate with Russia wherever our interests converge. One key area where this is the case is Afghanistan.
When Russia decided last month to suspend most of her cooperation with NATO, this did not include cooperation on Afghanistan. This is a clear indication that common interests can transcend disagreements in other areas. And it reminds us of the singular importance of Afghanistan in the broader security equation.
The outbreak of the Georgian crisis eclipsed Afghanistan from the headlines – but not for long. Now we are back to the torrent of bad news stories of which Afghanistan seems to offer a limitless supply.
There is an old adage which says that only bad news sells. And if that were true, the publishing industry must have been doing rather well recently.
And yet we have no reason to be so pessimistic. An objective assessment of the situation in Afghanistan should make that clear. Not only is our cause a just cause, our key objective of creating a safe and secure Afghanistan that is able to look after itself remains entirely within our grasp.
What gives me reason to be so confident? Again, let me confine myself to three points. The first one is on security. Yes, there is a widespread perception of a Taliban resurgence, as a result of some spectacular attacks. But, no, the Taliban have not been able to capitalise much on it. They continue to suffer heavy losses. And contrary to some alarmist predictions, they have not been able to strangle Kabul. ISAF will not be defeated, neither tactically nor operationally. And our training of the Afghan National Army is now enabling that new force to engage alongside our own – with increasing success, and with popular support. The ANA now participates in more than two thirds of ISAF’s operations. As the ANA expands, it will increasingly be able to deny our opponents their freedom of movement, hold the gains we make, and ultimately allow Afghanistan to take responsibility for its own security.
The Taliban will not be able to reverse this positive momentum. What they did achieve, however, is to create a sense of uncertainty that permeates the country and hinders progress. It is a cruel irony that the Taliban have now realised that our development efforts in Afghanistan are bearing fruit. That is why they are targeting these very efforts. What we build, they seek to destroy. Their aim is clear: to convince the Afghan people that neither the International Community nor their own Government can provide security for them. And to convince our own publics that our engagement in Afghanistan is doomed to fail.
It is up to us to prove them wrong. And this is my second point: We must see through their propaganda – and do whatever is necessary to defeat them. This does not just mean to provide the military resources that are critical for success. It also means to further enhance our training for the ANA. It means to capitalise on the recent decrease in drug production, by stepping up ISAF’s support for the Afghan Government. It means to lobby even more extensively for a Comprehensive Approach by the International Community – for an approach that will close the gap between security and development.
It means to support the preparation for next year’s elections, which offer a genuine opportunity to re-energise the political process in the country. And it means that our Governments and Parliaments must redouble their efforts to explain to their constituents why it is in our own security interest to prevent Afghanistan from sliding back to pre-“9/11” days.
Within a few months we will have a new Administration in Washington. Whoever wins, I expect the new President to increase US forces in Afghanistan and to focus even more US effort and attention on stabilising Afghanistan and on improving security along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Indeed, President Bush has already started this effort.
While I of course welcome an even greater US effort, I believe that it is important that we continue to make this not just a US responsibility but a collective transatlantic responsibility. When the telephone rings early next year, I hope that the other Allies will also be ready, not just with additional forces, but also with extra contributions to training Afghanistan’s National Army and Police, strengthening its institutions and developing its economy.
Success in Afghanistan also means stepping up our political engagement
with her neighbours, notably Pakistan. And this is my third point. As long as Pakistan’s border region remains a sanctuary for insurgents, Afghanistan will never become truly secure. Clearly, it is up to Pakistan to define its own security interests. Let’s be honest: there are some who believe that instability in Afghanistan is somehow in Pakistan’s security interest. And there are others who believe that extremism in Pakistan could be dealt with by diverting it into Afghanistan. But I fail to see how a permanently unstable Afghanistan would somehow be conducive to Pakistan’s own long-term security.
This should be a key argument in our dialogue with Islamabad – a dialogue that we must intensify.
I will be going to Islamabad next month to meet with Pakistan’s new civilian leaders as well as the Chief of Defence. We all need to do a better job together of monitoring and controlling the border, and we need to intensify the work of our Tripartite Commission where our military commanders meet to coordinate their approaches. Above all, we need to establish a permanent dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the international community to develop a joint strategy. The election of a new Pakistani President gives me hope that this is the right time for a new approach.
At the same time, we need to develop a framework for the broader region. Afghanistan’s neighbours also suffer from the turmoil in that country – just think of the problems that Iran is currently facing from Afghan narcotics. We need to bring as many as we can into a process of regional cooperation. The pacification of the Afghan-Pakistani border is not the panacea for all our problems. As in so many other parts of the world, long term stability and prosperity can only come from the development of a regional framework and economic integration. And I believe that more thought should go into how we achieve this.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The events in the Caucasus and in Central Asia remind us of the challenges our transatlantic community must face. But they also reaffirm the logic of Europe and North America acting together. When we do, we can bring about real positive change.
And NATO will remain a unique tool at our disposal. What started as an idea in the minds of Ernest Bevin and Dean Acheson 60 years ago has become an indispensable pillar of international order. Let us use our Alliance, and use its potential to full effect.
NATO coverage of Lecture
RUSI, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2ET
Link to map: multimap
Listen to lecture (59mb)
Watch excerpts
"Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
About two weeks ago, an exasperated NATO Ambassador asked a question to his colleagues around the Council table: Why is it that we always see so many crises happening in the month of August?
The question was, of course, a rhetorical one, so no one felt compelled to respond. But there can be no doubt that August 2008 will go down in history as a key
moment in international security. “The Guns of August”, to borrow the title of a famous book, will sound in our ears for some time to come.
We saw a war erupt in the Caucasus – with a Russian military response so disproportionate that some observers started musing about a second Cold War. As I will try to explain later in my remarks, I don’t believe that a second Cold War is in the offing. But one thing is clear: the role that Russia wants to play in the new international system still remains uncertain.
At the same time, the month of August and the first two weeks of September have also seen fierce fighting and a large number of casualties in Afghanistan – many NATO soldiers and many Afghans have lost their lives, and I want to use this opportunity to express my sympathy to the loved ones and friends of all those British soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
We have also seen the Taliban and other extremist forces strengthen their positions in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. It is thus becoming ever clearer that success in Afghanistan can only be achieved if we engage Pakistan in a common effort against extremism which threatens the future of the entire region.
Conflict in the Caucasus, instability in and around Afghanistan – these two theatres alone would seem more than one can handle at any given time. Yet we all know that these crises are not happening in a vacuum. Both conflicts will reverberate far beyond their points of origin. I don’t have to explain at length why Russia’s justification for recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia could set a dangerous precedent – with truly global consequences. Nor do I have to explain at length why the conflict will have longer-term implications for our energy policy, notably for the discussion about alternative transit routes.
The conflict in Afghanistan, too, is more than a regional issue. It is about
our response to the global phenomenon of international terrorism. It is about our readiness to support fragile young democracies that are trying to take their people out of poverty and into the modern world. It is about long-term stability in Central Asia. And it is about the struggle of moderate Islam to prevail against the forces of fanaticism.
Samuel Johnson once said that the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind. I am not suggesting that we are in any immediate danger of being hung, but if we don’t want this world to take a turn for the worse, we’d better concentrate on how best to deal with the challenges we face. So let me give you my thoughts on the way ahead – with respect to Russia, and with respect to Afghanistan.
First; Russia. Here, the issues are crystal clear. Irrespective of who did what and when in the August conflict, Russia has demonstrated a disregard for the sovereignty of a small neighbour, and for international law. This has created a major challenge for our partnership. Both NATO and the EU have made it abundantly clear that the very notion of partnership implies due respect for certain agreed standards of behaviour. As long as Russia chooses to ignore these standards, there can be no business as usual. Russia has long demanded to be treated with respect, as becomes a global power. But respect has to be earned – by taking one’s global responsibilities and the defence of universal values seriously, rather than by abusing one’s military might.
In both her actions and her accompanying rhetoric, Russia has shown much assertiveness. But what worries me even more is Russia’s apparent readiness to stand against virtually the entire international community. Russia’s perceived temporary gains in Georgia have come at the cost of her strategic isolation. President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin tell us that the West needs Russia, but that Russia doesn’t really need the West. I have no problem with the first part of their statement. Yes, the West does indeed need Russia. But it is an illusion to believe that Russia can go it alone without the West. Going it alone in this global world is simply not an option.
What next? Let me be very clear. A solution to this crisis is possible.
But it will only be found if all parties are willing to make concessions and to walk back from where they are today. Such a solution cannot be found if we simply seek to “punish” Russia. NATO is not in the punishment business. Nor is there any need for us to engage in rhetorical escalation. We do not need to crank up the volume. So let me tell you how I, as the NATO Secretary General, see the way ahead.
As a starting point, we need a sober analysis of the implications of the Caucasus conflict in general, and of Russia’s policy in particular. And then we must devise a sound policy based on that analysis. This exercise has only just begun, so I don’t want to pre-empt its outcome. A few things, however, should be evident.
First, I do not foresee a U-turn in NATO’s policy vis-à-vis Russia. You need to make a U-turn when you’ve gone totally wrong. We, however, have not gone wrong. The key tenets of our Russia policy – a policy of constructive engagement – remain sound. We may have to make adjustments in the way we approach Russia, but we do not need a new policy. No matter how much we may disagree on some issues, the fact of the matter is that both NATO and Russia face a number of common challenges – and both NATO and Russia will be better off by facing them together. That is the reason why we invested so much in the NATO-Russia partnership.
Second, in this new security context, some have called for a reappraisal of the balance between an expeditionary NATO and our core task of collective defence.
Such a discussion is certainly justified. But, again, I do not foresee a 180 degree change in our approach. Article 5 already exists, we don’t have to reinvent it. Neither does upholding Article 5 require us to return to a Cold War military posture in Europe.
Third, irrespective of our approach vis-à-vis Russia, we must support Georgia. Indeed, in many respects, this is the most important thing that we need to do in the short-term. And we are doing it. We are helping Georgia to assess and repair the damage caused by Russian actions. And we will continue to support this country in realising its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Earlier this week, I visited Georgia together with the Ambassadors of the North Atlantic Council. During that visit, we inaugurated the NATO-Georgia Commission. It conveys the message – to Georgia, as well as to Russia – that geography does not have to determine your destiny, and that the era of spheres of influence is over.
In addition to our meetings in Tbilisi, we also saw the refugees from South Ossetia who were camped around Gori. It was a sobering experience. And it reinforced us in our strong conviction that the people of Georgia cannot afford any more conflict. We will continue to stand by Georgia, but we also expect it to remain firmly committed to democracy and reform. And we made that very clear to all our interlocutors.
Georgia may remain a bone of contention between Russia and the West for some time to come. But this must not prevent us from seeking to cooperate with Russia wherever our interests converge. One key area where this is the case is Afghanistan.
When Russia decided last month to suspend most of her cooperation with NATO, this did not include cooperation on Afghanistan. This is a clear indication that common interests can transcend disagreements in other areas. And it reminds us of the singular importance of Afghanistan in the broader security equation.
The outbreak of the Georgian crisis eclipsed Afghanistan from the headlines – but not for long. Now we are back to the torrent of bad news stories of which Afghanistan seems to offer a limitless supply.
There is an old adage which says that only bad news sells. And if that were true, the publishing industry must have been doing rather well recently.
And yet we have no reason to be so pessimistic. An objective assessment of the situation in Afghanistan should make that clear. Not only is our cause a just cause, our key objective of creating a safe and secure Afghanistan that is able to look after itself remains entirely within our grasp.
What gives me reason to be so confident? Again, let me confine myself to three points. The first one is on security. Yes, there is a widespread perception of a Taliban resurgence, as a result of some spectacular attacks. But, no, the Taliban have not been able to capitalise much on it. They continue to suffer heavy losses. And contrary to some alarmist predictions, they have not been able to strangle Kabul. ISAF will not be defeated, neither tactically nor operationally. And our training of the Afghan National Army is now enabling that new force to engage alongside our own – with increasing success, and with popular support. The ANA now participates in more than two thirds of ISAF’s operations. As the ANA expands, it will increasingly be able to deny our opponents their freedom of movement, hold the gains we make, and ultimately allow Afghanistan to take responsibility for its own security.
The Taliban will not be able to reverse this positive momentum. What they did achieve, however, is to create a sense of uncertainty that permeates the country and hinders progress. It is a cruel irony that the Taliban have now realised that our development efforts in Afghanistan are bearing fruit. That is why they are targeting these very efforts. What we build, they seek to destroy. Their aim is clear: to convince the Afghan people that neither the International Community nor their own Government can provide security for them. And to convince our own publics that our engagement in Afghanistan is doomed to fail.
It is up to us to prove them wrong. And this is my second point: We must see through their propaganda – and do whatever is necessary to defeat them. This does not just mean to provide the military resources that are critical for success. It also means to further enhance our training for the ANA. It means to capitalise on the recent decrease in drug production, by stepping up ISAF’s support for the Afghan Government. It means to lobby even more extensively for a Comprehensive Approach by the International Community – for an approach that will close the gap between security and development.
It means to support the preparation for next year’s elections, which offer a genuine opportunity to re-energise the political process in the country. And it means that our Governments and Parliaments must redouble their efforts to explain to their constituents why it is in our own security interest to prevent Afghanistan from sliding back to pre-“9/11” days.
Within a few months we will have a new Administration in Washington. Whoever wins, I expect the new President to increase US forces in Afghanistan and to focus even more US effort and attention on stabilising Afghanistan and on improving security along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Indeed, President Bush has already started this effort.
While I of course welcome an even greater US effort, I believe that it is important that we continue to make this not just a US responsibility but a collective transatlantic responsibility. When the telephone rings early next year, I hope that the other Allies will also be ready, not just with additional forces, but also with extra contributions to training Afghanistan’s National Army and Police, strengthening its institutions and developing its economy.
Success in Afghanistan also means stepping up our political engagement
with her neighbours, notably Pakistan. And this is my third point. As long as Pakistan’s border region remains a sanctuary for insurgents, Afghanistan will never become truly secure. Clearly, it is up to Pakistan to define its own security interests. Let’s be honest: there are some who believe that instability in Afghanistan is somehow in Pakistan’s security interest. And there are others who believe that extremism in Pakistan could be dealt with by diverting it into Afghanistan. But I fail to see how a permanently unstable Afghanistan would somehow be conducive to Pakistan’s own long-term security.
This should be a key argument in our dialogue with Islamabad – a dialogue that we must intensify.
I will be going to Islamabad next month to meet with Pakistan’s new civilian leaders as well as the Chief of Defence. We all need to do a better job together of monitoring and controlling the border, and we need to intensify the work of our Tripartite Commission where our military commanders meet to coordinate their approaches. Above all, we need to establish a permanent dialogue between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the international community to develop a joint strategy. The election of a new Pakistani President gives me hope that this is the right time for a new approach.
At the same time, we need to develop a framework for the broader region. Afghanistan’s neighbours also suffer from the turmoil in that country – just think of the problems that Iran is currently facing from Afghan narcotics. We need to bring as many as we can into a process of regional cooperation. The pacification of the Afghan-Pakistani border is not the panacea for all our problems. As in so many other parts of the world, long term stability and prosperity can only come from the development of a regional framework and economic integration. And I believe that more thought should go into how we achieve this.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The events in the Caucasus and in Central Asia remind us of the challenges our transatlantic community must face. But they also reaffirm the logic of Europe and North America acting together. When we do, we can bring about real positive change.
And NATO will remain a unique tool at our disposal. What started as an idea in the minds of Ernest Bevin and Dean Acheson 60 years ago has become an indispensable pillar of international order. Let us use our Alliance, and use its potential to full effect.
NATO coverage of Lecture
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Russia flexing energy muscle
Russia, endowed with vast reserves of gas is the biggest bully in Europe. It has stopped pumping gas to Ukraine which has affected supply to Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, Serbia, and Austria, according to BBC (the list of countries is to their credit).
Russia now has the power to dictate these countries to kowtow to it. Russia has shut off heat and forced these beleagured people of impoverished Eastern Europe to bow to its pressure. In its hinterland, Russia sent its military to stifle Georgia's attempt to free itself from the Russian yoke. Georgia was denied the right to explore and sell its energy to the West, without listening to Moscow's directives. It looks as if the Chechens were also slaughtered and subjugated just to make Gazprom and its energy supply monopoly fat.
In Chechenya, Russia used heavy armor against ragtag force of Chechen guerillas. It also employed bombers to flatten cities. Along with China, Russia's share in global supply of arms must be mounting. Its military industrial complex feeds world's brutal and autocratic regimes throughout the world.
If one looks at the supply of arms purchased by terrorists and most of it comes from Russian stocks. Russian leadership and its brutality is far from understood. Such brute force pressure tactics has shown that US and Europe is incapable of persuading Russia to show benevolence. Russia hasn't changed since Lenin's time. Brutality, inhumanity, disrespect for human rights are just some of the catalogue of Russian mess in world affairs.
Russia now has the power to dictate these countries to kowtow to it. Russia has shut off heat and forced these beleagured people of impoverished Eastern Europe to bow to its pressure. In its hinterland, Russia sent its military to stifle Georgia's attempt to free itself from the Russian yoke. Georgia was denied the right to explore and sell its energy to the West, without listening to Moscow's directives. It looks as if the Chechens were also slaughtered and subjugated just to make Gazprom and its energy supply monopoly fat.
In Chechenya, Russia used heavy armor against ragtag force of Chechen guerillas. It also employed bombers to flatten cities. Along with China, Russia's share in global supply of arms must be mounting. Its military industrial complex feeds world's brutal and autocratic regimes throughout the world.
If one looks at the supply of arms purchased by terrorists and most of it comes from Russian stocks. Russian leadership and its brutality is far from understood. Such brute force pressure tactics has shown that US and Europe is incapable of persuading Russia to show benevolence. Russia hasn't changed since Lenin's time. Brutality, inhumanity, disrespect for human rights are just some of the catalogue of Russian mess in world affairs.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Indo-Pak Standoff
How their forces compare in the eventuality of war
-Published in Space Time Today, Thursday, January 10, 2002
Since the attack on the Indian parliament some week ago by militants sopposedly based in Pakistan, relations between the two giant South Asian neighbors have been chilly. There were reports of troop buildup in both sides of the Indo-Pak border. the tension has continued despite presence of both Indian and Pakistani leaders at the eleventh SAARC summit in Kathmandu. The handshake between Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has been seen by observers as a gesture of warming relations between the two countries. However, tension remains, as India is demanding that Pakistan crackdown on groups which it [India] suspects are behind the parliament attack. Pakistan has said it will do its best, but this hasn't satisfied India.
Just after the attack on parliament by gunmen and suicide bombers, India accused groups based in Pakistan for the attacks. Some Indian commentators talked of launching surgical strikes against what they call terrorist camps inside pakistan controlled Kashmir. This action would be modeled on the US campaign against terror in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Musharraf commented that any adventurism on India's part against his nation would be met by force. The option available with India in such a strike would be to use its larger air force. It could send strike aircraft to bomb suspected camps in Pakistan controlled Kashmir. But the iarcraft would have to face Pakistani anti-aircraft fire, both missiles and guns. Pakistani air defenses are stronger than those of the Taliban. Besides ground based air defense systems, Pakisatni air force is powerful. Pakistan fields highly capable US built F-16 fighters, which could seriously jeopardize Indian attempts to violate Pakistani airspace. Besides, the fear of escalation [of violence] is too great. Any small military action could go out of control and spread elsewhere.
Both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. Not only do they have nuclear bombs but also the means to deliver them. india by far, according to experts, has greater number of nuclear weapons. But numbers matter less, for effects of these weapons are far too deadly. Both countries have developed or purchased short and medium range ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. ballistic missiles are almost unstoppable means of delivering nuclear weapons. The US is developing National Missile Defense (NMD) system to counter threat of ballistic missiles. It is reasonable to believe that many ballistic missiles possessed by India and Pakistan are on alert and on ready to fire positions since the escalation of tension.
Tens of thousands of army troops have been on alert due to tension between India and Pakistan. Indian Army is 1.2 million strong while the smaller Pakistan Army counts on to about 600,000 personnel. Indian Army also has about 3,500 tanks comapred to about Pakistan's about 2,000. The number of modern tanks is greater with India while Pakistan also has a few hundred very modern T-80 tanks purchased from Ukraine. To counter this threat, India purchased a few hundred more advanced T-90 tanks from Russia. both India and Pakistan are also building indigenous tanks by the names of Arjun and Al Khalid, respectively. Mechanization in armies of both countries is weak. India has three armored divisions. A division is a large unit of up to 14,000 troops. Armored divisions have about 250 tanks andd similar number of armored personnel carriers, artillery, engineers and other support arms. Pakistan has two armored divisions. Besides, the armored units, Indian army fields 27 infantry divisions. pakistan army has 19 divisions. Only India with its larger army has the ability to mount offensive against Pakistan if it chooses to do so. The Pakistan Army, on the other hand, is sufficient for defense but incapable of launching large offensive on India. Many observers believe by arming and training Kashmiri militants, pakistan has managed to tie down almost a third of India's army strength to fighting insurgency in Kashmir. Some believe this is a part of Pakistan's military strategy.
In terms of air power, both countries lack many of the sophisticated modern systems like those possessed by the US. Indian Air Force is large with over seven hundred warplanes. Pakistan Air Force is much smaller with up to 450 combat aircraft. Indian Air Force is almost totally equipped aircraft of Russian origin. Pkaistan has largely imported aircraft from China fater it was unable to obtain quality aircraft from the US. Some of the modern Indian fighter aircraft like the Su-30, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000are very capable. But their effectiveness is limited due to lack of support systems like Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) in the Indian Air Force. Older Indian strike aircraft like the MiG-23 lack new Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) to defeat ground based air defenses. The Indian Air Force is simply incapable of fighting a sustained air campaign like the Persian Gulf War or even the US strikes against Afghanistan. The Pakistan Air Force is even limited in its capability. Its only modern aircraft the US built F-16s are capable of both air to air and air to ground combat. But, although F-16s are very gooda s tactical fighters, their effectiveness in air combat has been marred by lack of medium range air to air missiles. The aircraft Pakistan has purchased from China like the Q-5 and F-7 are poor in terms of their combat capability.
In terms of naval capabilities, India leads Pakistan for it possesses an aircraft carrier, which deploys British built Harrier jet fighters.The number of other warships like destroyers, corvettes and patrol boats and submarines is greater in Indian service. India has indigenously designed Delhi class destroyers, Kashin class destroyers, Tarantul class corvettes and Nanuchka missile boats all armed with surface warfare missiles. India has over ten Kilo submarines. Pakistan has ageing Gearing destroyers armed with harpoon anti-ship misiles. It also has Chinese built missile boats. Among Pakistani submarines, the Agosta class French built models are superior boats. In the event of major conflict between India and Pakistan, Indian strategy would be to blockade Pakistani ports with its Navy. Pakistani warships, particularly its submarines would have the job of breaking the blockade.
India nad Pakistan have been locked in bitter argument over the disputed territory of Kashmir. This has been a major point of consternation between the two countries. Unless solved, Kashmir issue will continue to divide these two countries that share many cultural aspects. From time to time India and Pakistan flex their muscles and it seems war is imminent. It is for these countries to decide that war in modern sense is not only the cost of lives but also a huge loss in terms of money. Modern wars are terribly expensive.
THE END
Sourced from Janes Information Group materials including Fleet Command, Janes Defense Weekly and other literature. The author has special permission to cite Janes as a source of defense news and information.
-Published in Space Time Today, Thursday, January 10, 2002
Since the attack on the Indian parliament some week ago by militants sopposedly based in Pakistan, relations between the two giant South Asian neighbors have been chilly. There were reports of troop buildup in both sides of the Indo-Pak border. the tension has continued despite presence of both Indian and Pakistani leaders at the eleventh SAARC summit in Kathmandu. The handshake between Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has been seen by observers as a gesture of warming relations between the two countries. However, tension remains, as India is demanding that Pakistan crackdown on groups which it [India] suspects are behind the parliament attack. Pakistan has said it will do its best, but this hasn't satisfied India.
Just after the attack on parliament by gunmen and suicide bombers, India accused groups based in Pakistan for the attacks. Some Indian commentators talked of launching surgical strikes against what they call terrorist camps inside pakistan controlled Kashmir. This action would be modeled on the US campaign against terror in Afghanistan. Pakistani president Musharraf commented that any adventurism on India's part against his nation would be met by force. The option available with India in such a strike would be to use its larger air force. It could send strike aircraft to bomb suspected camps in Pakistan controlled Kashmir. But the iarcraft would have to face Pakistani anti-aircraft fire, both missiles and guns. Pakistani air defenses are stronger than those of the Taliban. Besides ground based air defense systems, Pakisatni air force is powerful. Pakistan fields highly capable US built F-16 fighters, which could seriously jeopardize Indian attempts to violate Pakistani airspace. Besides, the fear of escalation [of violence] is too great. Any small military action could go out of control and spread elsewhere.
Both India and Pakistan are now nuclear powers. Not only do they have nuclear bombs but also the means to deliver them. india by far, according to experts, has greater number of nuclear weapons. But numbers matter less, for effects of these weapons are far too deadly. Both countries have developed or purchased short and medium range ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. ballistic missiles are almost unstoppable means of delivering nuclear weapons. The US is developing National Missile Defense (NMD) system to counter threat of ballistic missiles. It is reasonable to believe that many ballistic missiles possessed by India and Pakistan are on alert and on ready to fire positions since the escalation of tension.
Tens of thousands of army troops have been on alert due to tension between India and Pakistan. Indian Army is 1.2 million strong while the smaller Pakistan Army counts on to about 600,000 personnel. Indian Army also has about 3,500 tanks comapred to about Pakistan's about 2,000. The number of modern tanks is greater with India while Pakistan also has a few hundred very modern T-80 tanks purchased from Ukraine. To counter this threat, India purchased a few hundred more advanced T-90 tanks from Russia. both India and Pakistan are also building indigenous tanks by the names of Arjun and Al Khalid, respectively. Mechanization in armies of both countries is weak. India has three armored divisions. A division is a large unit of up to 14,000 troops. Armored divisions have about 250 tanks andd similar number of armored personnel carriers, artillery, engineers and other support arms. Pakistan has two armored divisions. Besides, the armored units, Indian army fields 27 infantry divisions. pakistan army has 19 divisions. Only India with its larger army has the ability to mount offensive against Pakistan if it chooses to do so. The Pakistan Army, on the other hand, is sufficient for defense but incapable of launching large offensive on India. Many observers believe by arming and training Kashmiri militants, pakistan has managed to tie down almost a third of India's army strength to fighting insurgency in Kashmir. Some believe this is a part of Pakistan's military strategy.
In terms of air power, both countries lack many of the sophisticated modern systems like those possessed by the US. Indian Air Force is large with over seven hundred warplanes. Pakistan Air Force is much smaller with up to 450 combat aircraft. Indian Air Force is almost totally equipped aircraft of Russian origin. Pkaistan has largely imported aircraft from China fater it was unable to obtain quality aircraft from the US. Some of the modern Indian fighter aircraft like the Su-30, MiG-29 and Mirage 2000are very capable. But their effectiveness is limited due to lack of support systems like Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) in the Indian Air Force. Older Indian strike aircraft like the MiG-23 lack new Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) to defeat ground based air defenses. The Indian Air Force is simply incapable of fighting a sustained air campaign like the Persian Gulf War or even the US strikes against Afghanistan. The Pakistan Air Force is even limited in its capability. Its only modern aircraft the US built F-16s are capable of both air to air and air to ground combat. But, although F-16s are very gooda s tactical fighters, their effectiveness in air combat has been marred by lack of medium range air to air missiles. The aircraft Pakistan has purchased from China like the Q-5 and F-7 are poor in terms of their combat capability.
In terms of naval capabilities, India leads Pakistan for it possesses an aircraft carrier, which deploys British built Harrier jet fighters.The number of other warships like destroyers, corvettes and patrol boats and submarines is greater in Indian service. India has indigenously designed Delhi class destroyers, Kashin class destroyers, Tarantul class corvettes and Nanuchka missile boats all armed with surface warfare missiles. India has over ten Kilo submarines. Pakistan has ageing Gearing destroyers armed with harpoon anti-ship misiles. It also has Chinese built missile boats. Among Pakistani submarines, the Agosta class French built models are superior boats. In the event of major conflict between India and Pakistan, Indian strategy would be to blockade Pakistani ports with its Navy. Pakistani warships, particularly its submarines would have the job of breaking the blockade.
India nad Pakistan have been locked in bitter argument over the disputed territory of Kashmir. This has been a major point of consternation between the two countries. Unless solved, Kashmir issue will continue to divide these two countries that share many cultural aspects. From time to time India and Pakistan flex their muscles and it seems war is imminent. It is for these countries to decide that war in modern sense is not only the cost of lives but also a huge loss in terms of money. Modern wars are terribly expensive.
THE END
Sourced from Janes Information Group materials including Fleet Command, Janes Defense Weekly and other literature. The author has special permission to cite Janes as a source of defense news and information.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Ode to Juno
-Bei die Seekueste, Santa Monica, Pacific Ocean
Oh goddess Juno, bitte finden,
ein braut fuer mich,
Es ist mein ernst wuenschen.
Minerva, machen mir staerker,
Venus, machen mir wuerdig und schoen,
Juno, foerdern ein wuerdig lieber.
Fuer das End auf Zeit
Oh goddess Juno, bitte finden,
ein braut fuer mich,
Es ist mein ernst wuenschen.
Minerva, machen mir staerker,
Venus, machen mir wuerdig und schoen,
Juno, foerdern ein wuerdig lieber.
Fuer das End auf Zeit
Goddesses at Getty
December 27, 2008
I experienced something spectacular at Getty today. The images of goddesses, Minerva, Juno and Venus, those who took sides in Homer's Iliad, had a profound effect on me. The images by an English guild artist,----- was the highest form of devotional art. The details in the craftsmanship exemplifies exceptional professionalism of the 18th century. The image of Seneca was also most beautiful. The Roman statesman's natural form suits his scholarly image, a person who wrote and travelled extensively. Seneca mentioned Imaos (Himalayas) mountains in his writings.
His Majesty Louis XIV was magnificent by any order. Particularly, interesting were his high heeled shoes. The fleur de lis on his cape reminded me of my cub scout days in 1986. The tapestries in the exhibit carries each visitor to a time in pre-French revolution Europe when European royal families and nobility enjoyed the serene beauty of nature and calm life. Hunting with composite bow and enjoying tea in an Oriental (Chinese) garden shows a profound impact of Marco Polo's introduction of Orient in the period of Rennaissance and neo-classicism. The European guilds reached artistic heights in sharp contrast to Middle Eastern iconoclastic art.
Columbus must have had a great desire to reach the orient through another route to reopen the Orient, which was under Ottoman blockade. He instead discovered the New World and Spain moved westward.
The amazing clocks, exceptional example of high craftsmanship, hava images of dragons and lions, engaraved with painstaking detail. The rush of blue blood as a Rana gave me a new sense of self esteem and I quickly thought of Nepal's honeymoon with the West after Sir Jung Bahadur's European tour. The imagery is chronicled in 'The Wake of the White Tiger' by Diamond Rana. The image of Greta muwa (Greta Mary Rana), the work's English translator, came vividly into my mind. At that moment, I wanted to celebrate Sir Juddha Rana's birthday in next April 19.
In the exhibit, 'Captured Emotions:Baroque Paintings in Bologna, 1575-1725, Christian imagery was vivid. Moses, religious persecution, executions are brilliantly depicted by the Italian painters. Joseph and Potiphar's wife gave a glimpse of adultery. The fall of man, depicted Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. Adam and Eve are wearing animal hide while an angel armed with a flaming sword guards against their reentry. Also painted are images of Jesus, before his execution.
The painting which had a profound effect on me as a Xavierian was The Vision of St. Ignatius of Loyola by Demenchino (Domenico Zampieri), an Italian painter who depicts the saint with the rendition of the vision of Christ and Moses?? in La Storta village. St. Ignatius was canonized in 1622 and was one of the leaders of Society of Jesus, an order instituted by Pope --- to counter Reformation. All of my good teachers were Jesuits. Besides, Sir Juddha had the Italian decoration, SS order of Maurice and Lazarus, which drew me to this particular painting.
Also notable is the panorama of Los Angeles visible from the terrace. The mountains in the east, the airplanes landing in Los Angeles International (LAX), and three cargo ships with the setting sun, the red sky, reminded me of the most memorable moment of my life. In the distance, high rise of downtown LA, all made look as if the city has a new spirit. A new elegance as America's number two city.
The green hills in which the center rests radiates peace and happiness. Only sights of Thessalonoki and Parthenon in Greece has more majesty. Every time I come to the Getty, I touch the marble slabs as I wonder at the artistic and aesthetic appeal. The structure is a marvel of American architecture. I first read about the Getty in 2006 issue of Vanity Fair. And here today, for my second time, I saw this great museum, an epitome of Western collection. I couldn't help think of the Greek monarch and the Spanish king, His Majesty Juan Carlos Bourbon y Bourbon (Queen Sophia is Greek) whose coronation I had witnessed in the special issue of Newsweek. General Franco was also depicted in that issue which my granddad Capt. Dadhi Shumsher had.
The great Romans, Julius Caesar, Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus were all over my spirit. The sculpture of woman protecting her son was amazing expression of high art with maternal love. I stood and gazed at the shield of Minerva. Apollo looked elegant, crafted the same way as Michaelangelo's David. It captivates all mankind who love and admire art.
As I rode on the tram on my way down, I saw a most beautiful German looking woman. Her face had a symmetry and beauty of unparalleled in the Orient. Her long fingernails her beautiful composure will last in my mind for a long long time. "Juno!", I gasped.
I experienced something spectacular at Getty today. The images of goddesses, Minerva, Juno and Venus, those who took sides in Homer's Iliad, had a profound effect on me. The images by an English guild artist,----- was the highest form of devotional art. The details in the craftsmanship exemplifies exceptional professionalism of the 18th century. The image of Seneca was also most beautiful. The Roman statesman's natural form suits his scholarly image, a person who wrote and travelled extensively. Seneca mentioned Imaos (Himalayas) mountains in his writings.
His Majesty Louis XIV was magnificent by any order. Particularly, interesting were his high heeled shoes. The fleur de lis on his cape reminded me of my cub scout days in 1986. The tapestries in the exhibit carries each visitor to a time in pre-French revolution Europe when European royal families and nobility enjoyed the serene beauty of nature and calm life. Hunting with composite bow and enjoying tea in an Oriental (Chinese) garden shows a profound impact of Marco Polo's introduction of Orient in the period of Rennaissance and neo-classicism. The European guilds reached artistic heights in sharp contrast to Middle Eastern iconoclastic art.
Columbus must have had a great desire to reach the orient through another route to reopen the Orient, which was under Ottoman blockade. He instead discovered the New World and Spain moved westward.
The amazing clocks, exceptional example of high craftsmanship, hava images of dragons and lions, engaraved with painstaking detail. The rush of blue blood as a Rana gave me a new sense of self esteem and I quickly thought of Nepal's honeymoon with the West after Sir Jung Bahadur's European tour. The imagery is chronicled in 'The Wake of the White Tiger' by Diamond Rana. The image of Greta muwa (Greta Mary Rana), the work's English translator, came vividly into my mind. At that moment, I wanted to celebrate Sir Juddha Rana's birthday in next April 19.
In the exhibit, 'Captured Emotions:Baroque Paintings in Bologna, 1575-1725, Christian imagery was vivid. Moses, religious persecution, executions are brilliantly depicted by the Italian painters. Joseph and Potiphar's wife gave a glimpse of adultery. The fall of man, depicted Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. Adam and Eve are wearing animal hide while an angel armed with a flaming sword guards against their reentry. Also painted are images of Jesus, before his execution.
The painting which had a profound effect on me as a Xavierian was The Vision of St. Ignatius of Loyola by Demenchino (Domenico Zampieri), an Italian painter who depicts the saint with the rendition of the vision of Christ and Moses?? in La Storta village. St. Ignatius was canonized in 1622 and was one of the leaders of Society of Jesus, an order instituted by Pope --- to counter Reformation. All of my good teachers were Jesuits. Besides, Sir Juddha had the Italian decoration, SS order of Maurice and Lazarus, which drew me to this particular painting.
Also notable is the panorama of Los Angeles visible from the terrace. The mountains in the east, the airplanes landing in Los Angeles International (LAX), and three cargo ships with the setting sun, the red sky, reminded me of the most memorable moment of my life. In the distance, high rise of downtown LA, all made look as if the city has a new spirit. A new elegance as America's number two city.
The green hills in which the center rests radiates peace and happiness. Only sights of Thessalonoki and Parthenon in Greece has more majesty. Every time I come to the Getty, I touch the marble slabs as I wonder at the artistic and aesthetic appeal. The structure is a marvel of American architecture. I first read about the Getty in 2006 issue of Vanity Fair. And here today, for my second time, I saw this great museum, an epitome of Western collection. I couldn't help think of the Greek monarch and the Spanish king, His Majesty Juan Carlos Bourbon y Bourbon (Queen Sophia is Greek) whose coronation I had witnessed in the special issue of Newsweek. General Franco was also depicted in that issue which my granddad Capt. Dadhi Shumsher had.
The great Romans, Julius Caesar, Cnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus were all over my spirit. The sculpture of woman protecting her son was amazing expression of high art with maternal love. I stood and gazed at the shield of Minerva. Apollo looked elegant, crafted the same way as Michaelangelo's David. It captivates all mankind who love and admire art.
As I rode on the tram on my way down, I saw a most beautiful German looking woman. Her face had a symmetry and beauty of unparalleled in the Orient. Her long fingernails her beautiful composure will last in my mind for a long long time. "Juno!", I gasped.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Arafat: Peacemaker or terrorist?
-By Pritam S Rana
Published in The Kathmandu Post, November 13, 2004, Saturday
Yasser Arafat died on November 11, 2004 leaving behind a legacy that can either bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis or it could mean decades of conflict. The man, Arafat, whose last office was the president of Palestinian Authority wasa symbol to Palestinians and Rabas as the champion of Palestinian nationalism. His unique style of wearing his keffiyeh, which looked like the map of "Palestine", is remebered by many of his admirers. His "legendary exploits" in his long struggle against Israel made him a role model not only for Arabs and Palestinians but also for all Muslims around the world. But despite Arafat's stature as father figure of the Palestinian movement for statehood, in his long struggle against Israel, Arafat employed violence against not only armed forces of his opponents but also against civilians, including women and children. He practiced violence for political aims and thus fully qualifies to the tag of an accomplished international terrorist. Later in his life, Arafat sought diplomatic victory to military solution, but he and his organization never gave up violence as a tool to achieve Palestinian statehood and rights.
According to PLO official version, Mohammed Yasser Abdul-Raouf Qudwa al Husseini, was born in August 24, 1929 in Jerusalem purportedly related to Jerusalem Husseini clan. Many historians including Christophe Bolanski, Jihan el Tahri and Said Aburish say Arafat was actually born in Cairo, Egypt. Aburish claims that "Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership...". During 1948, the [first] Arab Israeli War, Arafat left Cairo University to fight for Palestinian independence. During Suez crisis [1956], Arafat was an Egyptian Army officer. After Suez war, Arafat moved to Kuwait and founded, Fatah, an organization dedicated to forming Palestine in place of Israel and Jordan. Fatah's one of the first attempts was to raid Israel and to destroy a water pump in 1964. The Fatah mounted numerous raids inside Israel from Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza during the time. These raids from very early on did not distinguish military and civilians. All Israelis even children were targets. from this observation, we can deduce the type of mentality of rafat and his accomplices.
Also in 1964, The Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a tool in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Fatah, initially appprehensive of PLO, gradually became its dominant faction. PLO recognized in 1967, after Arab defeat at the hands of Israel, that it could not count on Arab states to defeat Israel. therefore, it chose the path of international terrorism, which established PLO's reputation. In 1968, the Palestine National Council met and revised their charter to liberate Palestine with armed struggle. Notably, Yasser Arafat was elected chairman of of the PLO in 1969, apost he held till his death. In 1970, Jordan based Palestinians and King Hussein's forces fought bitterly until Arafat and his supporters had to leave Jordan for Lebanon. This was bitter defeat for Arafat as he lost an important bastion to attack Israel. In 1972, in most barabaric manner defying all international norms, a Fatah faction calling itself Black September group, murdered 11 Israeli athletes in Olympic village of Munich.
After another defeat of the raba sates in 1973, Arafat decided to shift from terrorism to diplomatic offensive against Israel. He wanted to legitimize his crusade. PLO gained important recognition from the United Nations and Arab League as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat and his PLO were based in much of the 1970s in Lebanon. there, the PLO created such a huge apparatus, a state within a state was formed which looked after the welfare of the Palestinians as well as arming them. Lebanon served as the new bastion to raid Israel. Commando raids and artillery bombardment in Israel forced it [Israel] to encroach upon Lebanese territory. 1n 1978, a limited invasion and in 1982, a full-scale invasion were results of Arafat and his Palestinian fedayeens' anti-Israeli activity. PLO helped to destabilize Lebanon to such an extent that it contributed to a civil war and thousands of Lebanese were persecuted and killed by Palestinian fighters. Araft was chased out of Lebanon to Tunisia. In 1985, hijacking of cruise liner "Achille Lauro" implicated Palestinians from Arafat's organization, which resulted in murder of a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger.
In 1988, before UN general asembly, Arafat vowed to give up terrorism and promised recognition of Israel's right to existence. we were seeing the transformation of Aafat, the master terrorist to Arafat, the statesman. However later, we come to know he had not altogether given up terrorism. Ginally in 1991 Madrid conference, israel talked openly with Palestinians for the first time. Secret Oslo negotiations followed with aim to give Palestinaians self-rule. On September 13, 1993, Israel and Palestinians signed Declaration of Principles hosted by US president Bill Clinton. Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, the nobel signatories were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the following year. Arafat's reasons to change into a peacenik can be attributed to such reasons as the collapse of his primary backer, the Soviet Union. Besides, Rafat must have understood that Israel and its ally, the US are far too stronger for him to challenge militarily. He must have tried to win the hearts and minds of the world by going for legitimate claims in a peaceful diplomatic manner.
Arfat is also known for Arab resistance movement called the Intifada, which took place amidst great international publicity in 1988-89. the spectacle of rock throwing youths pitted against Israel's army dominated news across the world and helped gain sympathy of the world's people for the Palestinians. Arafat was declared president of the Palestinian Authority in 1996. The issue of Jerusalem, Jewish settlement and terrorism by radical Islamists and continuing struggle mars Israeli-Palestinian relations to this day. The next generation of leaders ought to understand that a Palestinian state cannot stand in opposition to Israel. Despite historic rivalry illustrated with Arafat's life itself, there is no alternative to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians need peacemakers not terrorists.
Note:-Some facts are borrowed from www.wikipedia.org; the current fighting initiated by Hamas denotes that war is imminent. Provocations of rocket strikes into Sderot and towns in the interior has invited Israeli reprisals.
(to be continued...)
Published in The Kathmandu Post, November 13, 2004, Saturday
Yasser Arafat died on November 11, 2004 leaving behind a legacy that can either bring peace between Palestinians and Israelis or it could mean decades of conflict. The man, Arafat, whose last office was the president of Palestinian Authority wasa symbol to Palestinians and Rabas as the champion of Palestinian nationalism. His unique style of wearing his keffiyeh, which looked like the map of "Palestine", is remebered by many of his admirers. His "legendary exploits" in his long struggle against Israel made him a role model not only for Arabs and Palestinians but also for all Muslims around the world. But despite Arafat's stature as father figure of the Palestinian movement for statehood, in his long struggle against Israel, Arafat employed violence against not only armed forces of his opponents but also against civilians, including women and children. He practiced violence for political aims and thus fully qualifies to the tag of an accomplished international terrorist. Later in his life, Arafat sought diplomatic victory to military solution, but he and his organization never gave up violence as a tool to achieve Palestinian statehood and rights.
According to PLO official version, Mohammed Yasser Abdul-Raouf Qudwa al Husseini, was born in August 24, 1929 in Jerusalem purportedly related to Jerusalem Husseini clan. Many historians including Christophe Bolanski, Jihan el Tahri and Said Aburish say Arafat was actually born in Cairo, Egypt. Aburish claims that "Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership...". During 1948, the [first] Arab Israeli War, Arafat left Cairo University to fight for Palestinian independence. During Suez crisis [1956], Arafat was an Egyptian Army officer. After Suez war, Arafat moved to Kuwait and founded, Fatah, an organization dedicated to forming Palestine in place of Israel and Jordan. Fatah's one of the first attempts was to raid Israel and to destroy a water pump in 1964. The Fatah mounted numerous raids inside Israel from Jordan, Lebanon and Gaza during the time. These raids from very early on did not distinguish military and civilians. All Israelis even children were targets. from this observation, we can deduce the type of mentality of rafat and his accomplices.
Also in 1964, The Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a tool in the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Fatah, initially appprehensive of PLO, gradually became its dominant faction. PLO recognized in 1967, after Arab defeat at the hands of Israel, that it could not count on Arab states to defeat Israel. therefore, it chose the path of international terrorism, which established PLO's reputation. In 1968, the Palestine National Council met and revised their charter to liberate Palestine with armed struggle. Notably, Yasser Arafat was elected chairman of of the PLO in 1969, apost he held till his death. In 1970, Jordan based Palestinians and King Hussein's forces fought bitterly until Arafat and his supporters had to leave Jordan for Lebanon. This was bitter defeat for Arafat as he lost an important bastion to attack Israel. In 1972, in most barabaric manner defying all international norms, a Fatah faction calling itself Black September group, murdered 11 Israeli athletes in Olympic village of Munich.
After another defeat of the raba sates in 1973, Arafat decided to shift from terrorism to diplomatic offensive against Israel. He wanted to legitimize his crusade. PLO gained important recognition from the United Nations and Arab League as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Arafat and his PLO were based in much of the 1970s in Lebanon. there, the PLO created such a huge apparatus, a state within a state was formed which looked after the welfare of the Palestinians as well as arming them. Lebanon served as the new bastion to raid Israel. Commando raids and artillery bombardment in Israel forced it [Israel] to encroach upon Lebanese territory. 1n 1978, a limited invasion and in 1982, a full-scale invasion were results of Arafat and his Palestinian fedayeens' anti-Israeli activity. PLO helped to destabilize Lebanon to such an extent that it contributed to a civil war and thousands of Lebanese were persecuted and killed by Palestinian fighters. Araft was chased out of Lebanon to Tunisia. In 1985, hijacking of cruise liner "Achille Lauro" implicated Palestinians from Arafat's organization, which resulted in murder of a wheelchair-bound Jewish passenger.
In 1988, before UN general asembly, Arafat vowed to give up terrorism and promised recognition of Israel's right to existence. we were seeing the transformation of Aafat, the master terrorist to Arafat, the statesman. However later, we come to know he had not altogether given up terrorism. Ginally in 1991 Madrid conference, israel talked openly with Palestinians for the first time. Secret Oslo negotiations followed with aim to give Palestinaians self-rule. On September 13, 1993, Israel and Palestinians signed Declaration of Principles hosted by US president Bill Clinton. Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, the nobel signatories were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the following year. Arafat's reasons to change into a peacenik can be attributed to such reasons as the collapse of his primary backer, the Soviet Union. Besides, Rafat must have understood that Israel and its ally, the US are far too stronger for him to challenge militarily. He must have tried to win the hearts and minds of the world by going for legitimate claims in a peaceful diplomatic manner.
Arfat is also known for Arab resistance movement called the Intifada, which took place amidst great international publicity in 1988-89. the spectacle of rock throwing youths pitted against Israel's army dominated news across the world and helped gain sympathy of the world's people for the Palestinians. Arafat was declared president of the Palestinian Authority in 1996. The issue of Jerusalem, Jewish settlement and terrorism by radical Islamists and continuing struggle mars Israeli-Palestinian relations to this day. The next generation of leaders ought to understand that a Palestinian state cannot stand in opposition to Israel. Despite historic rivalry illustrated with Arafat's life itself, there is no alternative to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Palestinians need peacemakers not terrorists.
Note:-Some facts are borrowed from www.wikipedia.org; the current fighting initiated by Hamas denotes that war is imminent. Provocations of rocket strikes into Sderot and towns in the interior has invited Israeli reprisals.
(to be continued...)
Ignominious end of Saddam
-By Pritam S Rana
Published in The Kathmandu Post, January 2, 2007, Tuesday
During Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, posters often compared him with Babylon's ancient rulers, Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam considered himself all powerful - able to make any decision, eliminate any opposition and rule with absolute impunity just like the ancient emperors. But on the fateful day of December 30, 2006, he was hanged after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for ordering the 1982 killing of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail, Iraq, which was only a small part of his long catalogue of deaths and sufferings he caused among Iraqis and people of other neighboring countries.
By 1968, Saddam had become number two man in Iraq after pan-Arabist Baath party solidified its grip into that country. Previously Iraqi politics had been rather volatile with coups and counter-coups, assasination attempts against incumbent leaders. As Saddam was consolidating power within the Baath party leadership hierarchy, the 1973 oil crisis helped him generate massive revenues from an unprecedented rise in fuel prices then. Saddam was able to expand his agenda with the money into various social, agrarian, and other development works in his country. He provided free education, and health care which helped him gain countless well-wishers in his country.
In 1979, Saddam forced ailing Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr from power and assumed presidency for Iraq for himself, formally becoming Iraq's all-in-all. Saddam's first step after becoming president was the mass purging in the ruling Baath party. In a party assembly called by him in the same year, Saddam expunged 68 other Baathists among which 22 were reportedly executed. This was how Saddam solidified his power base, eliminating any possible threat to his one man rule. Saddam's foreign policy was even bloodier. Saddam closely remembered waht he thought was unequal agreement with Iran in the 1970s, which was then ruled by the Shah and was a close ally of Washington. As revolution swept away the Shah and the US leverage in Iran, Saddam grew suspicious of Iran's new Islamist revolutionary government. Fearing that Iran's Shiite leadership might incite Iraq's own sizeable number of Shiites to rebel against his regime, Saddam ordered invasion of Iran in 1980. The war with Iran lasted for 8 years and it killed nearly two million people from the two countries. During the war, Iraq acquired modern arms from primarily Soviet Union, China and France. Some analysts have pointed out that US shared intelligence to Saddam's regime during the war. Iran-Iraq war was marked by barbaric bombings of civilian targets and of attacks against neutral shipping. Also in 1988, the Saddam regime demonstrated that it was prepared to violate all international agreements on using banned weapons. Having already used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers, Saddam's air force bombed the town of Halabja with nerve and mustard agents, killing about 5,000 Kurdish civilians and maiming another 10,000. Saddam's lust of conquest was not lost for long. After two years of the end of the costly war with Iran, Saddam began quarrels with a tiny but affluent oil rich Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and claimed "Kuwait was an Iraqi province." The whole world led by US quickly condemned Iraq's latest aggression and US led coalition massed combat troops in Saudi Arabia ostensibly to prevent any Iraqi move against Saudi Arabia, world's leading oil producer. Saddam was foolish enough to think that he could challenge the US military power. On clear skies of the open desert terrain of the region, US airpower paralyzed Iraqi military and other important targets within days of hostilities in 1991. As Saddam refused to pull out from Kuwait, a largest armored force ever assembled since World War II entered Kuwait, decimated Iraqi resistance and liberated Kuwait within days. The cease-fire agreement allowed Iraq to enjoy its sovereignty but it had to pledge to give away its weapons of mass destruction. It also imposed no fly zones over Iraqi airspace to protect Iraqi minorities from air raids by Saddam's air force. Another phase of bloody events followed the 1991 Gulf War. Encouraged by Iraq's defeat in Kuwait and prodded by US administration to rebel against Saddam, the Shiite population in the south and the Kurds in the north of Iraq challenged baghdad's authority. As no help came from Washington, Saddam's remnant troops massacred tens of thousands of would be resistance fighters and their families. Thus Saddam remained unchallenged. The 2001 World Trade Center attacks profoundly influenced the Americans to believe that all anti-US regimes in the world could have links with Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Saddam, an old time foe who had been challenging UN arms inspectors was the prime target for the Bush administration in its global war on terror. US intelligence analysts possibly calculated that Al Qaida's elusive organization married to Saddam's purported arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear would pose a lethal threat to Washington and its allies. So in 2003, the US military invaded Iraq. After facing an array of resistance within Iraq, the US military captured Saddam on December 2003. After a long series of trials marked by assasination of lawyers and other hindrances, Saddam was finally sentenced to die on November 5, 2006 as ther verdict was upheld by Iraq's highest appeals court. Saddam paid for his life for his hands were bloody. Many opposed Saddam's hanging while others spoke against death penalty. Saddam had done many positive things to his country. He modernized his country, gave his people free health and education and oil subsidy, tax breaks, etc. But, he allowed his two sons to go on a killing spree in his country. He himself ordered killings of his closest aides, his own people and people of his neighboring countries. After all, he also ordered the murder of his own son-in-laws. So how do we remember Saddam? Do we forget his crimes and suffering he caused to so many families? If we end up supporting dictators and still say we support democratic values, I think it would be a great contradiction.
Published in The Kathmandu Post, January 2, 2007, Tuesday
During Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq, posters often compared him with Babylon's ancient rulers, Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam considered himself all powerful - able to make any decision, eliminate any opposition and rule with absolute impunity just like the ancient emperors. But on the fateful day of December 30, 2006, he was hanged after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for ordering the 1982 killing of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail, Iraq, which was only a small part of his long catalogue of deaths and sufferings he caused among Iraqis and people of other neighboring countries.
By 1968, Saddam had become number two man in Iraq after pan-Arabist Baath party solidified its grip into that country. Previously Iraqi politics had been rather volatile with coups and counter-coups, assasination attempts against incumbent leaders. As Saddam was consolidating power within the Baath party leadership hierarchy, the 1973 oil crisis helped him generate massive revenues from an unprecedented rise in fuel prices then. Saddam was able to expand his agenda with the money into various social, agrarian, and other development works in his country. He provided free education, and health care which helped him gain countless well-wishers in his country.
In 1979, Saddam forced ailing Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr from power and assumed presidency for Iraq for himself, formally becoming Iraq's all-in-all. Saddam's first step after becoming president was the mass purging in the ruling Baath party. In a party assembly called by him in the same year, Saddam expunged 68 other Baathists among which 22 were reportedly executed. This was how Saddam solidified his power base, eliminating any possible threat to his one man rule. Saddam's foreign policy was even bloodier. Saddam closely remembered waht he thought was unequal agreement with Iran in the 1970s, which was then ruled by the Shah and was a close ally of Washington. As revolution swept away the Shah and the US leverage in Iran, Saddam grew suspicious of Iran's new Islamist revolutionary government. Fearing that Iran's Shiite leadership might incite Iraq's own sizeable number of Shiites to rebel against his regime, Saddam ordered invasion of Iran in 1980. The war with Iran lasted for 8 years and it killed nearly two million people from the two countries. During the war, Iraq acquired modern arms from primarily Soviet Union, China and France. Some analysts have pointed out that US shared intelligence to Saddam's regime during the war. Iran-Iraq war was marked by barbaric bombings of civilian targets and of attacks against neutral shipping. Also in 1988, the Saddam regime demonstrated that it was prepared to violate all international agreements on using banned weapons. Having already used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers, Saddam's air force bombed the town of Halabja with nerve and mustard agents, killing about 5,000 Kurdish civilians and maiming another 10,000. Saddam's lust of conquest was not lost for long. After two years of the end of the costly war with Iran, Saddam began quarrels with a tiny but affluent oil rich Kuwait. He invaded Kuwait in 1990 and claimed "Kuwait was an Iraqi province." The whole world led by US quickly condemned Iraq's latest aggression and US led coalition massed combat troops in Saudi Arabia ostensibly to prevent any Iraqi move against Saudi Arabia, world's leading oil producer. Saddam was foolish enough to think that he could challenge the US military power. On clear skies of the open desert terrain of the region, US airpower paralyzed Iraqi military and other important targets within days of hostilities in 1991. As Saddam refused to pull out from Kuwait, a largest armored force ever assembled since World War II entered Kuwait, decimated Iraqi resistance and liberated Kuwait within days. The cease-fire agreement allowed Iraq to enjoy its sovereignty but it had to pledge to give away its weapons of mass destruction. It also imposed no fly zones over Iraqi airspace to protect Iraqi minorities from air raids by Saddam's air force. Another phase of bloody events followed the 1991 Gulf War. Encouraged by Iraq's defeat in Kuwait and prodded by US administration to rebel against Saddam, the Shiite population in the south and the Kurds in the north of Iraq challenged baghdad's authority. As no help came from Washington, Saddam's remnant troops massacred tens of thousands of would be resistance fighters and their families. Thus Saddam remained unchallenged. The 2001 World Trade Center attacks profoundly influenced the Americans to believe that all anti-US regimes in the world could have links with Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Saddam, an old time foe who had been challenging UN arms inspectors was the prime target for the Bush administration in its global war on terror. US intelligence analysts possibly calculated that Al Qaida's elusive organization married to Saddam's purported arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear would pose a lethal threat to Washington and its allies. So in 2003, the US military invaded Iraq. After facing an array of resistance within Iraq, the US military captured Saddam on December 2003. After a long series of trials marked by assasination of lawyers and other hindrances, Saddam was finally sentenced to die on November 5, 2006 as ther verdict was upheld by Iraq's highest appeals court. Saddam paid for his life for his hands were bloody. Many opposed Saddam's hanging while others spoke against death penalty. Saddam had done many positive things to his country. He modernized his country, gave his people free health and education and oil subsidy, tax breaks, etc. But, he allowed his two sons to go on a killing spree in his country. He himself ordered killings of his closest aides, his own people and people of his neighboring countries. After all, he also ordered the murder of his own son-in-laws. So how do we remember Saddam? Do we forget his crimes and suffering he caused to so many families? If we end up supporting dictators and still say we support democratic values, I think it would be a great contradiction.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Taliban challenge in Afghanistan
Published Sunday, June 24, 2007, The Kathmandu Post
-By Pritam S Rana
Wire reports from Afghanistan tell a grim story. Suicide attacks and kidnappings along with other acts of violence are common almost everyday. the Taliban opposition and its supporter, Al Qaida, are active in destabilizing the nascent peace and sense of security. By firmly capitalizing on the increasingly heavy civilian casualties in retaliatory military actions by US and NATO forces in the country, the Taliban seems to be organizing a massive resistance aimed to evict the foreign forces once and for all from the country.
Part of the Taliban strategy is to divide Western resolve to democratize and bring stability to the country.. Some time back, the Taliban took French and Italian citizens hostages and then released them against the expectation that they will be executed. The Taliban knows that France is a vocal critic of US foreign policy and thus by offering olive branch to the French, the hard-line Islamic group aimed to create a fissure in the Western (Atlantic) alliance especially in the already divided NATO. many of the NATO member states who have military detachments in Afghanistan have strict caveats (word borrowed from www.wikipedia.org) restricting offensive military operations. The Taliban wants to take advantage of these limitations as illustrated by the killing of Finnish soldier some time back. Finland is a non-NATO neutral European state.
The almost daily instances of suicide bombings, firefights, with US and NATO forces and abductions are part of Taliban's strategy to keep up the pressure on the foreign forces. The increasing civilian casualties, which has already enraged Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, serve the purposes of the Taliban. The Taliban seeks to mobilize the the civilian population against the foreign forces and draw its parallels with the Soviet Union's military, the hated occupier against whom the Muhjahedeen resistance fought tenaciously in the 1980s. besides relying on hardcore Taliban fighters to conduct low-intensity insurgency against Afghan security forces and its foreign allies, it can be deduced that the Taliban has recruited the relatives of those killed in US and NATO retaliatory raids to conduct the devastating suicide bombings in urban centers. Security is supposed to be tight in such areas, but it is a tough task for security men to spot a potential suicide bomber from ordinary city dwellers.
The NATO/ISAF forces have structured Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) at various provinces of the country. these are a combination of civilian and military personnel who are engaged in performing small recosntsrution projects. they also provide security to other civilian agencies like the USAID who are involved in recosntruction work or aid. Taliban wants to target these outposts and want to deny the civilian populace the benefits of these efforts. It want(s) the 'foreign occupiers' to go so it can once agian run Afghanistan in strict puritanical Islamic code. It may also want to harbor Al Qaida again so it can once again plan and execute terrorist operations against the 'hated United States' and its allies.
The Taliban focused its thrusts in southern part of Afganistan since last few years where British forces are posted. The death of Mullah Dadullah, a senior Taliban commander in May was a hard earned victory for the Afghan and allied forces. dadullah was said to be responsible for the massacres of Shia Muslims in 2001 and was a grotesque and bloodthirsty individual. With such leaders, Taliban hopes to impose its authority and raise a rallying cry against the foreigners in the country and its 'puppet' government led by Hamid Karzai.
There is no doubt that the prsence of foreign forces who are authorized by UN Security Council is necessary to help rebuild Afganistan. teh country needs foreign assistance more than ever. However, the awarding of rebuilding contracts exclusively to Americans and Europeans would be seen with much scrutiny by the Taliban sympathizers. Despite the talk of possible dialogue with Taliban by Afgan leader Karzai, they haven't yielded anything. until the Tliban decides to lay down arms and give up its anteliluvian and xenophobic ideology, there can be no peace in Afghanistan. Afganistan has much to do to control illegal poppy cultivation and opium smuggling. Continued armed conflict would curtail such efforts, which is sure to destabilize the country for a long time.
Instead of moving toward modernity and globalization, the ideas espoused by Taliban and its transnational terrorist network, Al Qaida, would transform Afganistan into an Islamic caliphate (ref: Insurgency and Terrorism by Bard O'Neill), far removed from reality. being one of the poorest countries in the world despite being located on an area of immense geo-strategic potential (ref:Halsford Mackinder's geopolitical theory utilized by Hitler in June 22, 1941), afghanistan deserves a better chance.. Teh US and Western powers have strategic interest in Afghanistan. Teh country can allow oil pipelines through Central Asia to Pakistan and thus gain much. Suffering from endemic fighting since late 1970s, the time has finally come for Afghan people to see lasting and permanent peace.
-By Pritam S Rana
Wire reports from Afghanistan tell a grim story. Suicide attacks and kidnappings along with other acts of violence are common almost everyday. the Taliban opposition and its supporter, Al Qaida, are active in destabilizing the nascent peace and sense of security. By firmly capitalizing on the increasingly heavy civilian casualties in retaliatory military actions by US and NATO forces in the country, the Taliban seems to be organizing a massive resistance aimed to evict the foreign forces once and for all from the country.
Part of the Taliban strategy is to divide Western resolve to democratize and bring stability to the country.. Some time back, the Taliban took French and Italian citizens hostages and then released them against the expectation that they will be executed. The Taliban knows that France is a vocal critic of US foreign policy and thus by offering olive branch to the French, the hard-line Islamic group aimed to create a fissure in the Western (Atlantic) alliance especially in the already divided NATO. many of the NATO member states who have military detachments in Afghanistan have strict caveats (word borrowed from www.wikipedia.org) restricting offensive military operations. The Taliban wants to take advantage of these limitations as illustrated by the killing of Finnish soldier some time back. Finland is a non-NATO neutral European state.
The almost daily instances of suicide bombings, firefights, with US and NATO forces and abductions are part of Taliban's strategy to keep up the pressure on the foreign forces. The increasing civilian casualties, which has already enraged Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, serve the purposes of the Taliban. The Taliban seeks to mobilize the the civilian population against the foreign forces and draw its parallels with the Soviet Union's military, the hated occupier against whom the Muhjahedeen resistance fought tenaciously in the 1980s. besides relying on hardcore Taliban fighters to conduct low-intensity insurgency against Afghan security forces and its foreign allies, it can be deduced that the Taliban has recruited the relatives of those killed in US and NATO retaliatory raids to conduct the devastating suicide bombings in urban centers. Security is supposed to be tight in such areas, but it is a tough task for security men to spot a potential suicide bomber from ordinary city dwellers.
The NATO/ISAF forces have structured Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) at various provinces of the country. these are a combination of civilian and military personnel who are engaged in performing small recosntsrution projects. they also provide security to other civilian agencies like the USAID who are involved in recosntruction work or aid. Taliban wants to target these outposts and want to deny the civilian populace the benefits of these efforts. It want(s) the 'foreign occupiers' to go so it can once agian run Afghanistan in strict puritanical Islamic code. It may also want to harbor Al Qaida again so it can once again plan and execute terrorist operations against the 'hated United States' and its allies.
The Taliban focused its thrusts in southern part of Afganistan since last few years where British forces are posted. The death of Mullah Dadullah, a senior Taliban commander in May was a hard earned victory for the Afghan and allied forces. dadullah was said to be responsible for the massacres of Shia Muslims in 2001 and was a grotesque and bloodthirsty individual. With such leaders, Taliban hopes to impose its authority and raise a rallying cry against the foreigners in the country and its 'puppet' government led by Hamid Karzai.
There is no doubt that the prsence of foreign forces who are authorized by UN Security Council is necessary to help rebuild Afganistan. teh country needs foreign assistance more than ever. However, the awarding of rebuilding contracts exclusively to Americans and Europeans would be seen with much scrutiny by the Taliban sympathizers. Despite the talk of possible dialogue with Taliban by Afgan leader Karzai, they haven't yielded anything. until the Tliban decides to lay down arms and give up its anteliluvian and xenophobic ideology, there can be no peace in Afghanistan. Afganistan has much to do to control illegal poppy cultivation and opium smuggling. Continued armed conflict would curtail such efforts, which is sure to destabilize the country for a long time.
Instead of moving toward modernity and globalization, the ideas espoused by Taliban and its transnational terrorist network, Al Qaida, would transform Afganistan into an Islamic caliphate (ref: Insurgency and Terrorism by Bard O'Neill), far removed from reality. being one of the poorest countries in the world despite being located on an area of immense geo-strategic potential (ref:Halsford Mackinder's geopolitical theory utilized by Hitler in June 22, 1941), afghanistan deserves a better chance.. Teh US and Western powers have strategic interest in Afghanistan. Teh country can allow oil pipelines through Central Asia to Pakistan and thus gain much. Suffering from endemic fighting since late 1970s, the time has finally come for Afghan people to see lasting and permanent peace.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
When Dragon snarls at Eagle
Pritam S Rana worked as a sub-editor for The Kathmandu Post national daily in Kathmandu, Nepal from 2004 to 2007. He is working to complete his master’s degree in political science from Tribhuvan University, Nepal. He is seeking a new writing career as he moves to the US in 2007. He has been published previously in various leading newspapers and online portals in Nepal.
Indo-Russian ties: Arms deal strong as ever
-By Pritam S Rana
Published on The Kathmandu Post, Thursday, October 12, 2000
Russian President Valadimir Putin's recent visit to India marks the continuation of more than 40 yerars of strategic partnership between the two countries. India and the former Soviet Union first signed the Friendship and Cooperation treaty in the early sixties, a key clause in it allowed the Indians to purchase Russian armmament at reduced "friendly price". The special relationship between India and Russia has continued though it soemwhat changed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The Russian decision to sell arms tot he Indians was in line wityh their policy of seeking allies and sympathizers for theirt cause cause during the Cold War. India, on its part, was concerned with its arch-rival Pakistan's entry into SEATO (South Asia Treaty Organization), a US led collective security organization, which insured a steady flow of US arms to Pakistan. It is to be noted that India itself refused to join SEATO for it would contradict India's avowed stand of neutrality in the Cold War. Some still believe that Indian leaders of the time were sympathetic to Moscow due to the fact that both countries pursued socialistic principles. The more realistic reason (raison de'etre, comments please) was however, economics. The Russians offered their arms for a fraction of the price Western weapons cost. Besides, Indian policy makers perceived that the threat posed by China required large arms purchases from abroad. The Indians could not find a better deal. In the 1962 Sino-Indian border war, China captured large chunks of Indian territory in Aksai Chin (Eastern Kashmir) and NEFA (area north of Assam). From then onwards, Indian security perception was dominated by China so much that it preceded Pakistan. Also during this time, the Sino-Soviet schism had intensified and there were border incidents between the erstwhile communist allies. Thus, Soviet arms export to India served the strategy of anatagonizing and isolating China China as well.
Moscow began supplying arms worth billions and billions of dollars to New Delhi, which included weapons of every category, meant for all the three services of Indian defense, namely the Army, Air Force and the Navy. The Indian Army received tanks, personnel carriers, artillery, antitank missiles and guns nad transport trucks. the Indian Air Force took jet interceptors, strike aircraft, transport aircraft, surface to air missiles and related radar equipment. The Indian Navy gradually added destroyers, corvettes, missile boats, submarines and realted weapons and spares. This trend continued ... (to be continued)
(to be continued....)
Note:- India's refusal to sign SEATO resulted in India's alignment with Russia. India could serve as a conduit for re-export of sensitive technology to Moscow.
Published on The Kathmandu Post, Thursday, October 12, 2000
Russian President Valadimir Putin's recent visit to India marks the continuation of more than 40 yerars of strategic partnership between the two countries. India and the former Soviet Union first signed the Friendship and Cooperation treaty in the early sixties, a key clause in it allowed the Indians to purchase Russian armmament at reduced "friendly price". The special relationship between India and Russia has continued though it soemwhat changed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The Russian decision to sell arms tot he Indians was in line wityh their policy of seeking allies and sympathizers for theirt cause cause during the Cold War. India, on its part, was concerned with its arch-rival Pakistan's entry into SEATO (South Asia Treaty Organization), a US led collective security organization, which insured a steady flow of US arms to Pakistan. It is to be noted that India itself refused to join SEATO for it would contradict India's avowed stand of neutrality in the Cold War. Some still believe that Indian leaders of the time were sympathetic to Moscow due to the fact that both countries pursued socialistic principles. The more realistic reason (raison de'etre, comments please) was however, economics. The Russians offered their arms for a fraction of the price Western weapons cost. Besides, Indian policy makers perceived that the threat posed by China required large arms purchases from abroad. The Indians could not find a better deal. In the 1962 Sino-Indian border war, China captured large chunks of Indian territory in Aksai Chin (Eastern Kashmir) and NEFA (area north of Assam). From then onwards, Indian security perception was dominated by China so much that it preceded Pakistan. Also during this time, the Sino-Soviet schism had intensified and there were border incidents between the erstwhile communist allies. Thus, Soviet arms export to India served the strategy of anatagonizing and isolating China China as well.
Moscow began supplying arms worth billions and billions of dollars to New Delhi, which included weapons of every category, meant for all the three services of Indian defense, namely the Army, Air Force and the Navy. The Indian Army received tanks, personnel carriers, artillery, antitank missiles and guns nad transport trucks. the Indian Air Force took jet interceptors, strike aircraft, transport aircraft, surface to air missiles and related radar equipment. The Indian Navy gradually added destroyers, corvettes, missile boats, submarines and realted weapons and spares. This trend continued ... (to be continued)
(to be continued....)
Note:- India's refusal to sign SEATO resulted in India's alignment with Russia. India could serve as a conduit for re-export of sensitive technology to Moscow.
Airpower in the Hands of Tamil Tigers
-Pritam S Rana
Published in The Kathmandu Post, Saturday, May 19, 2007
The acquisition of air power by Tamil Tiger rebels lately in Sri Lanka is a matter of immense importance to scholars of insurgency. It is unprecedented in the sense that no rebel outfit in the post-World War II history of the region has acquired aircraft to be used for various military applications. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) managed to acquire light rainer aircraft after fighting primarily on the ground and sea for many years and use the newly acquired capability skilfully against its enemy, the Sri Lankan military. The effect, although limited in military value, has had a powerful psychological impact on not only the Sri Lankans but alarm bells have rung as far away as New Delhi and Washington.
Although the attack on Katunayake airbase on March 2007 was prominently covered by the media and was dubbed as the first air raid by the Tamil rebels, it is thought that the Tigers has been preparing for many years to acquire air capability. According to wikipedia.org, the LTTE credits an Indian trained aeronautical engineer, "Colonel Shankar", for the formation of Air Tigers or Vaanpuligal. Existence of Tiger flown aircraft was reportedly existing since as early as 1998. But the Sri Lankan government officials refused to believe it saying it was nothing but LTTE propaganda.
The suddenly on March 26, 2007, two light Tamil Tiger flown aircraft, believed to be Czech designed Zlin Z-143s penetrated Katunayake airbase north of Colombo dropping several light bombs. Three air force personnel were killed and another 16 were wounded. It was thought that the Tigers intended to take out Sri Lankan Air Force MiG-27s and Kfir jets parked on the tarmac but did not succeed. From being a master of the Sri Lankan sky (aerospace), the air force suddenly faced a threat of aerial bombing. Until then it had a monopoly in the protracted armed conflict in the island nation. Sri Lankan generals lacked a clear foresight and could not even imagine that the LTTE had a multi-dimensional threat. Sri Lankan defense officials had invested only in aircraft like Israeli made Kfirs and Russian designed MiG-27s, which are primarily ground attack aircraft. These aircraft have restricted air combat capability and are thus not suitable to conduct air superiority operations to counter Tamil aircraft in the air. therefore, Sri lankan government now has to purchase surface to air missiles to guard its air bases and other military installations. it is also possible that LTTE might resort to attack economic targets or even civilians. So air defesne would be the top priority for Sri Lankan generals. There might also be pressure on the Sri Lankan Air Force to focus on locating Tiger airfields and bombing them out of commission. Its traditional air support role would have to be curtial meaning that ground forces and naval forces have to fend for themselves. having only around 20 combat aircraft grouped in two squadrons, the new pressure created by Tamil Tiger air capability would be severe on Sri Lankan Air Force. it does not take an expert to see that Sri Lanka won't be able to afford sexy jet fighters to counter LTTE air power as its economy is already feeling the pinch of renewed hostilities.
According to media reports, India was admamant that the radars it supplied to Sri Lanka were perfectly all right. Small aircraft like Zlin Z-143 when flying low are difficult for advanced interceptors like MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 in Indian service to detect, track and achieve a lock on such small and elusive target. A proven example is the incident in 1987 when a 19-year old German, mathias Rust, eluded the massive air defense systemof the then Soviet Union and landed his small airplane at the Red Square, Moscow.
Intelligence and military officials in India too must be worried about the LTTE's air capability. india is nervous that a host of insurgents poised against it might somehow acquire aircraft to drop bombs or worse, chemical or biological weapons. The US too cannot ignore the threat as it too faces insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq where were insurgents acquiring air power could only mean deep trouble. The Americans have not yet forgotten how difficult it is to shoot down small and elusive intruders. They know this well from their experience in Korea nad Vietnam.
The Tamil Tigers are fighting against a thrid world power, the Sri Lankan government. The tigers control a huge swathe of territory where they enjoy support from the Tamil population. The Tamil separatists have sought to address a grievance of discrimination by the majority Sinhalas for years. Broad support base and help from expatriate Tamils have allowed the Tigers to create a formidable organization which includes Sea Tigers (the Tiger navy) and Black Tigers (suicide unit). Long experience of fighting the government forces coupled with broad base support has allowed the Tigers to create an air arm to carry out their protracted struggle. if others emulate it, it means more problems for governments.
THE END
Authors' note:- I saw a similar article on The Economist. I saw that after I published it. My resource base for soem facts is www.wikipedia.org. Other analysis due to my extensive reading of various Western publications. I still want to give a major credit to Jane's Defense Weekly for teaching me about military hardware identification. I own their Tanks (bought in Ekta Educational Palace, Jawalakhel, Nepal and Airplane Handbook bought in a bookstore in Friar Street, Van Nuys. Some credit goes to Bill Sweetman's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age, which taught me experience of the USAF in Korea and Vietnam. More scholarly credit goes to Dr. Thomas A. Marks, who lectured me on counter-insurgency strategies through books like Bard O'Neill's Insurgency and Terrorism and the ICASP journal.
Published in The Kathmandu Post, Saturday, May 19, 2007
The acquisition of air power by Tamil Tiger rebels lately in Sri Lanka is a matter of immense importance to scholars of insurgency. It is unprecedented in the sense that no rebel outfit in the post-World War II history of the region has acquired aircraft to be used for various military applications. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) managed to acquire light rainer aircraft after fighting primarily on the ground and sea for many years and use the newly acquired capability skilfully against its enemy, the Sri Lankan military. The effect, although limited in military value, has had a powerful psychological impact on not only the Sri Lankans but alarm bells have rung as far away as New Delhi and Washington.
Although the attack on Katunayake airbase on March 2007 was prominently covered by the media and was dubbed as the first air raid by the Tamil rebels, it is thought that the Tigers has been preparing for many years to acquire air capability. According to wikipedia.org, the LTTE credits an Indian trained aeronautical engineer, "Colonel Shankar", for the formation of Air Tigers or Vaanpuligal. Existence of Tiger flown aircraft was reportedly existing since as early as 1998. But the Sri Lankan government officials refused to believe it saying it was nothing but LTTE propaganda.
The suddenly on March 26, 2007, two light Tamil Tiger flown aircraft, believed to be Czech designed Zlin Z-143s penetrated Katunayake airbase north of Colombo dropping several light bombs. Three air force personnel were killed and another 16 were wounded. It was thought that the Tigers intended to take out Sri Lankan Air Force MiG-27s and Kfir jets parked on the tarmac but did not succeed. From being a master of the Sri Lankan sky (aerospace), the air force suddenly faced a threat of aerial bombing. Until then it had a monopoly in the protracted armed conflict in the island nation. Sri Lankan generals lacked a clear foresight and could not even imagine that the LTTE had a multi-dimensional threat. Sri Lankan defense officials had invested only in aircraft like Israeli made Kfirs and Russian designed MiG-27s, which are primarily ground attack aircraft. These aircraft have restricted air combat capability and are thus not suitable to conduct air superiority operations to counter Tamil aircraft in the air. therefore, Sri lankan government now has to purchase surface to air missiles to guard its air bases and other military installations. it is also possible that LTTE might resort to attack economic targets or even civilians. So air defesne would be the top priority for Sri Lankan generals. There might also be pressure on the Sri Lankan Air Force to focus on locating Tiger airfields and bombing them out of commission. Its traditional air support role would have to be curtial meaning that ground forces and naval forces have to fend for themselves. having only around 20 combat aircraft grouped in two squadrons, the new pressure created by Tamil Tiger air capability would be severe on Sri Lankan Air Force. it does not take an expert to see that Sri Lanka won't be able to afford sexy jet fighters to counter LTTE air power as its economy is already feeling the pinch of renewed hostilities.
According to media reports, India was admamant that the radars it supplied to Sri Lanka were perfectly all right. Small aircraft like Zlin Z-143 when flying low are difficult for advanced interceptors like MiG-29 and Mirage 2000 in Indian service to detect, track and achieve a lock on such small and elusive target. A proven example is the incident in 1987 when a 19-year old German, mathias Rust, eluded the massive air defense systemof the then Soviet Union and landed his small airplane at the Red Square, Moscow.
Intelligence and military officials in India too must be worried about the LTTE's air capability. india is nervous that a host of insurgents poised against it might somehow acquire aircraft to drop bombs or worse, chemical or biological weapons. The US too cannot ignore the threat as it too faces insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq where were insurgents acquiring air power could only mean deep trouble. The Americans have not yet forgotten how difficult it is to shoot down small and elusive intruders. They know this well from their experience in Korea nad Vietnam.
The Tamil Tigers are fighting against a thrid world power, the Sri Lankan government. The tigers control a huge swathe of territory where they enjoy support from the Tamil population. The Tamil separatists have sought to address a grievance of discrimination by the majority Sinhalas for years. Broad support base and help from expatriate Tamils have allowed the Tigers to create a formidable organization which includes Sea Tigers (the Tiger navy) and Black Tigers (suicide unit). Long experience of fighting the government forces coupled with broad base support has allowed the Tigers to create an air arm to carry out their protracted struggle. if others emulate it, it means more problems for governments.
THE END
Authors' note:- I saw a similar article on The Economist. I saw that after I published it. My resource base for soem facts is www.wikipedia.org. Other analysis due to my extensive reading of various Western publications. I still want to give a major credit to Jane's Defense Weekly for teaching me about military hardware identification. I own their Tanks (bought in Ekta Educational Palace, Jawalakhel, Nepal and Airplane Handbook bought in a bookstore in Friar Street, Van Nuys. Some credit goes to Bill Sweetman's Fighter Combat in the Jet Age, which taught me experience of the USAF in Korea and Vietnam. More scholarly credit goes to Dr. Thomas A. Marks, who lectured me on counter-insurgency strategies through books like Bard O'Neill's Insurgency and Terrorism and the ICASP journal.
Airpower in Nepalese context
Need for (a)symmetric response to rebels' threats
-Published in Space Time Today, Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By Pritam S Rana
The idea of employing aircraft for military purposes is still relatively new in Nepal even though this phenomenon has been in existence since around the beginning of the 20th century. The main reason attributed for this lack of development in military avaiation in Nepal is the underdeveloped situation and minimal industrialization of our country. Unfloding events in the present time have shown that a certain minimum military aviation is required to carry out military strikes to support ground troops.
The employment of aviation by the military predates use of aircraft. Balloons were used as far as back in the American Civil War (1861-65) for observation purposes. In World War I (1914-1918), aircraft had already made their debut and were initially used for observation. Later artillery obsservers who controlled fires of ground-based cannons also flew and found they could observe targets better from the air. Soon airplanes began fighting each other in the sky with machine guns. In World War II, great changes came in technology as planes became more and more powerful. Bombers, fighters and reconnaissance aircraft dominated the skies in every battlefront and the idea of air power became significant in the minds of military commanders and civilains alike.
In the Korean War (1950-1953) US airpower significantly nullified Chinese-North Korean superiority in numbers on the ground. In the next important conflict in the world, air power was used ever increasingly. In 1967, Israel used its air force to destroy Arab air force and armies. When the US was involved in Vietnam it used a variety of aircraft: jet fighters to bomb infrastructure and light counter insurgency (COIN) aircraft types to counter Viet Cong infiltration. The war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 also saw use of air force of both nations. In countless civil wars, which followed World War II, military aviation has been in use in one form or another. 1n 1991 Persian Gulf War, US used its air power at its best reducing Iraqi defenses and thus minimizing resistance to friendly ground forces.
In our country, combat aircraft have not been in use. The possibility existed in World War II when the then Nepalese government could have asked for British military aircraft for Nepalese service. If such a transfer had occured, Nepal would have had an air force. But there were hardly any airfields in Nepal at that time. Also, educated, trained manpower for flying and maintaining such aircraft did not exist. After World War II, the sophistication of military aircraft rose to such an extent that their costs skyrocketed due to such complexities like jet engines, advanced avionics, weapons like missiles and other equipment. The high cost of maintaining a jet air force certainly precluded any thought in Nepal of keeping such a force. Therefore, the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) maintains only transport planes and helicopters.
But now times have changed. Nepal used to be until a few years ago, a very peaceful country. Now, there is an armed rebellion, which aims to overthrow not only the government but also our culture and our values. This armed opposition is growing stronger by the day even though it takes heavy losses. Therefore it is imperative to consider improving the army's land power and to develop and utilize air power to assist land operations.
Currently the helicopters in use mainly for transportation are equipped with door-mounted machine guns. The RNA is using them for offensive purposes. But it is to be understood that door-mounted machine guns have limited effectiveness because aiming is difficult as the helicopters move. Weapons that fire with the axis of the helicopter are are more accurate. The night vision systems fitted in the helicopters should be forward looking infrared (FLIR) and not just night vision goggles (NVGs). FLIR system works on the principle of detecting heat signature and cannot only see in the dark but also through smoke, vegetation and other forms of camouflage. On the other hand NVGs magnify starlight so as to create image and is less effective in detecting movement at night. Helicopters should be used for assault transport and not as gunships.
The government should either procure or lease dedicated counter insurgency (COIN) aircraft. These aircraft and not helicopters should be the gunships. When procuring such aircraft, the government should select the very best, which is highly effective even when used in small numbers. An example of such an aircraft is in service with the US Marines. The aircraft is called OV-10D Bronco and is made by Rockwell Company in the US. It is a twin turboprop engine about 14m long and 13m wide with a maximum speed of 463km/h and a combat radius of 367km. It is armed with three barrel 20mm cannon (1500 rounds carried) and can aslo carry unguided rockets and light bombs. The heart of this aircraft system is the under nose AAS-37 pod equipped with FLIR, laser designator, and automatic video tracker. this pod can slave the 20mm cannon which can fire independently of the axis of the aircraft allowing the pilot to freely move his aircraft while the gunner slaves and fires the weapon. This aircraft is capable of night operations and appears to be highly suitable for Nepalese conditions. The aircraft is least expensive when compared to the cost of modern jet fighters. It is superior to jet airplanes in terms of its endurance and also is faster than helicopters with its larger range. Only trained pilots are required with a team of technicians able to maintain the aircraft avionics and subsystems.
The civil war situation in Nepal loos bleak. Despite imposition of emergency there is no slackening in rebel activity. They appear to be successful in forming large bands and attacking police and army positions. The government should think of assyemtric response to the rebel threat rather than just meeting the rebels on the ground on terms dictated by them. Massed rebel fighters can become easy targets of air assets like the OV-10D Bronco. There are so many new expensive cars being procured for government ministers and officials. So there is no need to assume that such an aircraft would be too expensive for Nepal. Nepal needs a small air force just for the sake of increasing and offlocating firepower so as to employ it effectively against ground-based threat. Employing air power for air defense is a requirement, which cannot be met in Nepal due to high cost of jet interceptors and missiles. The government needs to allocate money to finance a tiny fleet of COIN aircraft if it wants to counter the present rebellion and any other future uprisings in the country. Airpower is important in all forms of military operations. It plays an important role in supporting ground based units and sometimes it can play a decisive role.
* This article is dedicted to my granddad Flying Officer BK Singh, service number 2904, RAF who flew for the Royal Flight in 1950s. He flew DC-3/C-47 Dakotas and other airplanes. After the British left, he also was recalled to drop relief to the beleagured Indian troops in 1962 war with People's Republic of China.
-Published in Space Time Today, Tuesday, May 21, 2002
By Pritam S Rana
The idea of employing aircraft for military purposes is still relatively new in Nepal even though this phenomenon has been in existence since around the beginning of the 20th century. The main reason attributed for this lack of development in military avaiation in Nepal is the underdeveloped situation and minimal industrialization of our country. Unfloding events in the present time have shown that a certain minimum military aviation is required to carry out military strikes to support ground troops.
The employment of aviation by the military predates use of aircraft. Balloons were used as far as back in the American Civil War (1861-65) for observation purposes. In World War I (1914-1918), aircraft had already made their debut and were initially used for observation. Later artillery obsservers who controlled fires of ground-based cannons also flew and found they could observe targets better from the air. Soon airplanes began fighting each other in the sky with machine guns. In World War II, great changes came in technology as planes became more and more powerful. Bombers, fighters and reconnaissance aircraft dominated the skies in every battlefront and the idea of air power became significant in the minds of military commanders and civilains alike.
In the Korean War (1950-1953) US airpower significantly nullified Chinese-North Korean superiority in numbers on the ground. In the next important conflict in the world, air power was used ever increasingly. In 1967, Israel used its air force to destroy Arab air force and armies. When the US was involved in Vietnam it used a variety of aircraft: jet fighters to bomb infrastructure and light counter insurgency (COIN) aircraft types to counter Viet Cong infiltration. The war between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 also saw use of air force of both nations. In countless civil wars, which followed World War II, military aviation has been in use in one form or another. 1n 1991 Persian Gulf War, US used its air power at its best reducing Iraqi defenses and thus minimizing resistance to friendly ground forces.
In our country, combat aircraft have not been in use. The possibility existed in World War II when the then Nepalese government could have asked for British military aircraft for Nepalese service. If such a transfer had occured, Nepal would have had an air force. But there were hardly any airfields in Nepal at that time. Also, educated, trained manpower for flying and maintaining such aircraft did not exist. After World War II, the sophistication of military aircraft rose to such an extent that their costs skyrocketed due to such complexities like jet engines, advanced avionics, weapons like missiles and other equipment. The high cost of maintaining a jet air force certainly precluded any thought in Nepal of keeping such a force. Therefore, the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA) maintains only transport planes and helicopters.
But now times have changed. Nepal used to be until a few years ago, a very peaceful country. Now, there is an armed rebellion, which aims to overthrow not only the government but also our culture and our values. This armed opposition is growing stronger by the day even though it takes heavy losses. Therefore it is imperative to consider improving the army's land power and to develop and utilize air power to assist land operations.
Currently the helicopters in use mainly for transportation are equipped with door-mounted machine guns. The RNA is using them for offensive purposes. But it is to be understood that door-mounted machine guns have limited effectiveness because aiming is difficult as the helicopters move. Weapons that fire with the axis of the helicopter are are more accurate. The night vision systems fitted in the helicopters should be forward looking infrared (FLIR) and not just night vision goggles (NVGs). FLIR system works on the principle of detecting heat signature and cannot only see in the dark but also through smoke, vegetation and other forms of camouflage. On the other hand NVGs magnify starlight so as to create image and is less effective in detecting movement at night. Helicopters should be used for assault transport and not as gunships.
The government should either procure or lease dedicated counter insurgency (COIN) aircraft. These aircraft and not helicopters should be the gunships. When procuring such aircraft, the government should select the very best, which is highly effective even when used in small numbers. An example of such an aircraft is in service with the US Marines. The aircraft is called OV-10D Bronco and is made by Rockwell Company in the US. It is a twin turboprop engine about 14m long and 13m wide with a maximum speed of 463km/h and a combat radius of 367km. It is armed with three barrel 20mm cannon (1500 rounds carried) and can aslo carry unguided rockets and light bombs. The heart of this aircraft system is the under nose AAS-37 pod equipped with FLIR, laser designator, and automatic video tracker. this pod can slave the 20mm cannon which can fire independently of the axis of the aircraft allowing the pilot to freely move his aircraft while the gunner slaves and fires the weapon. This aircraft is capable of night operations and appears to be highly suitable for Nepalese conditions. The aircraft is least expensive when compared to the cost of modern jet fighters. It is superior to jet airplanes in terms of its endurance and also is faster than helicopters with its larger range. Only trained pilots are required with a team of technicians able to maintain the aircraft avionics and subsystems.
The civil war situation in Nepal loos bleak. Despite imposition of emergency there is no slackening in rebel activity. They appear to be successful in forming large bands and attacking police and army positions. The government should think of assyemtric response to the rebel threat rather than just meeting the rebels on the ground on terms dictated by them. Massed rebel fighters can become easy targets of air assets like the OV-10D Bronco. There are so many new expensive cars being procured for government ministers and officials. So there is no need to assume that such an aircraft would be too expensive for Nepal. Nepal needs a small air force just for the sake of increasing and offlocating firepower so as to employ it effectively against ground-based threat. Employing air power for air defense is a requirement, which cannot be met in Nepal due to high cost of jet interceptors and missiles. The government needs to allocate money to finance a tiny fleet of COIN aircraft if it wants to counter the present rebellion and any other future uprisings in the country. Airpower is important in all forms of military operations. It plays an important role in supporting ground based units and sometimes it can play a decisive role.
* This article is dedicted to my granddad Flying Officer BK Singh, service number 2904, RAF who flew for the Royal Flight in 1950s. He flew DC-3/C-47 Dakotas and other airplanes. After the British left, he also was recalled to drop relief to the beleagured Indian troops in 1962 war with People's Republic of China.
China defying world by persecuting Tibetans
Published on nepaliperspectives.blogspot.com on October 6, 2006
-Pritam S Rana
Reports by news agencies (and those posted on local news portals in Nepal - e.g. "e-kantipur") outline unspeakable cruelty displayed by Chinese authorities against Tibetans attempting to escape flee China. Such acts of inhumanity cannot be permitte d to pass.
According to reports., agroup of about 70 Tibetan refugees including women, children and monks tried to cross into Nepal from the Tibet, on Saturday. Chinese soldiers having prior information of the flight "arrived with weapons and opened fire." According to published reports, about 40 refugees managed to cross into Nepal while two were reportedly killed. Additionally, 2 others have gone "missing."
While the world is focused on conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Sri Lanka and other hot spots, Tibet remains till this day, uder a brutal occupation. The Chinese entered Tibet with military forces in 1950 and consolidated it after 1959.
China's indifference towards the people of Tibet is refelcted by Staurday night's tragic event. In stark contrast to universally accepted standards, Chinese soldiers chose to mow down fleeing and unarmed Tibetans for what was termed a 'border violation'. Despite the modernity of their economic enterprise, the Chinese seem to wed to Stalinist dictum of keeping foreigners out and insiders within. The actions of China's border troops show parallels with the attitudes of KGB (border guards).
China may think its economic prowess and its capacity as the world's largest market gives it go ahead to suppress the Tibetan people. It is now established fact that Tibetans are now a minority in their own homeland.
Tibetans are in such a sorry predicament that no country in the world (including the United States) is openly willing to challenge China on its Tibet policy. The US needs China's vast market to sell its produce while other major European powers also do not want to natagonize China for fear of economic retaliation. China, as the world's largest holder of the US treasury's 30-year bond, exercises considerable leverage not just in bi-lateral regional trade, but truly in the smooth functioning of the entire global economy.
Owing to China's increasing economic might, the cause of Tibetan freedom is now championed only by individuals and diminishing groups. They do not receive government support, for fear of antagonizing China. And despite the Tibetan spiritual leader (the Dalai Lama's) heightened staure as a Nobel laureate, the cause he champions appears to be losing momentum.
China's reaction towards the Dalai Lama has been harsh. beijing puts pressure on foreign governments not to welcome the Dalai Lama in their countries. Such pressure is accurately felt in countries like Nepal which is forced to bow down to Beijing in the name of 'peaceful coexistence'.
beijing's propaganda in tandem with the aid it provides to Nepal has been consistent over the years. The leftist and communists in Nepal have steadfastly backed China's claim to Tibet. nepal has held a long relationship with both China and India. Nepal was a trade partner and cobelligerents in different wars of the past. nepal is one of the few countries besides India, which can trace the independence and soverignty of Tibet in the past through a careful study of history. Despite China's constant claim that Tibet was forever part of China, historical analysis reveals that Tibet was only an ally of China during it wars with Nepal. The Chinese simply decided never to leave.
It was a miserable decision by the former Nepali government to close the Tibetan contact offices in nepal. Tibetan people are Nepal's earliest neighbors. Many ethnic groups in Nepal (including the renowned Sherpas and Tamangs) are said to have migrated to Nepal from Tibet. Nepalis and Tibetans have fraternal relations that go back as the time of the Licchavi King Amshuvarma who married his daughter Bhrikuti to the Tibetan King Srong Chong Gampo.
The Chinese on the other hand, came to contact with the Nepalis only after the Tibetans felt threatened by Nepal's expansionist policies in the 18th century. Tibet sought military support from China, which brought them to Nepal's border at that time.
(to be continued...)
-Pritam S Rana
Reports by news agencies (and those posted on local news portals in Nepal - e.g. "e-kantipur") outline unspeakable cruelty displayed by Chinese authorities against Tibetans attempting to escape flee China. Such acts of inhumanity cannot be permitte d to pass.
According to reports., agroup of about 70 Tibetan refugees including women, children and monks tried to cross into Nepal from the Tibet, on Saturday. Chinese soldiers having prior information of the flight "arrived with weapons and opened fire." According to published reports, about 40 refugees managed to cross into Nepal while two were reportedly killed. Additionally, 2 others have gone "missing."
While the world is focused on conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, Sri Lanka and other hot spots, Tibet remains till this day, uder a brutal occupation. The Chinese entered Tibet with military forces in 1950 and consolidated it after 1959.
China's indifference towards the people of Tibet is refelcted by Staurday night's tragic event. In stark contrast to universally accepted standards, Chinese soldiers chose to mow down fleeing and unarmed Tibetans for what was termed a 'border violation'. Despite the modernity of their economic enterprise, the Chinese seem to wed to Stalinist dictum of keeping foreigners out and insiders within. The actions of China's border troops show parallels with the attitudes of KGB (border guards).
China may think its economic prowess and its capacity as the world's largest market gives it go ahead to suppress the Tibetan people. It is now established fact that Tibetans are now a minority in their own homeland.
Tibetans are in such a sorry predicament that no country in the world (including the United States) is openly willing to challenge China on its Tibet policy. The US needs China's vast market to sell its produce while other major European powers also do not want to natagonize China for fear of economic retaliation. China, as the world's largest holder of the US treasury's 30-year bond, exercises considerable leverage not just in bi-lateral regional trade, but truly in the smooth functioning of the entire global economy.
Owing to China's increasing economic might, the cause of Tibetan freedom is now championed only by individuals and diminishing groups. They do not receive government support, for fear of antagonizing China. And despite the Tibetan spiritual leader (the Dalai Lama's) heightened staure as a Nobel laureate, the cause he champions appears to be losing momentum.
China's reaction towards the Dalai Lama has been harsh. beijing puts pressure on foreign governments not to welcome the Dalai Lama in their countries. Such pressure is accurately felt in countries like Nepal which is forced to bow down to Beijing in the name of 'peaceful coexistence'.
beijing's propaganda in tandem with the aid it provides to Nepal has been consistent over the years. The leftist and communists in Nepal have steadfastly backed China's claim to Tibet. nepal has held a long relationship with both China and India. Nepal was a trade partner and cobelligerents in different wars of the past. nepal is one of the few countries besides India, which can trace the independence and soverignty of Tibet in the past through a careful study of history. Despite China's constant claim that Tibet was forever part of China, historical analysis reveals that Tibet was only an ally of China during it wars with Nepal. The Chinese simply decided never to leave.
It was a miserable decision by the former Nepali government to close the Tibetan contact offices in nepal. Tibetan people are Nepal's earliest neighbors. Many ethnic groups in Nepal (including the renowned Sherpas and Tamangs) are said to have migrated to Nepal from Tibet. Nepalis and Tibetans have fraternal relations that go back as the time of the Licchavi King Amshuvarma who married his daughter Bhrikuti to the Tibetan King Srong Chong Gampo.
The Chinese on the other hand, came to contact with the Nepalis only after the Tibetans felt threatened by Nepal's expansionist policies in the 18th century. Tibet sought military support from China, which brought them to Nepal's border at that time.
(to be continued...)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Blue Helmets: Nepal's need
-By Pritam S Rana
Since the past years, violence has continued unabated in Nepal. Several rounds of peace talks have failed to establish peace and tranquility. Locked in political debates concerning the constitution, representation, and appropriate political system, the stakeholders oof this continuing conflict have put the people of this country on a noose of death and destruction. therefore, it is high time that internationmal intervention be invited to settle this conflict once and for all. No international body apart from the United Nations (UN) can play a better role in the Nepali context.
The UN mediation between the government and the Maoists will be far desirable thans aay Indian mediation. Nepalis have goof reason to suspect India for having designs against them. But, the supranational UN has no vested interest in the internal affairs of this country, as most countries of the world are its members. Although it is accused by some that UN has become a tool of the West, close observation disputes the accusation. It is an incomprehensible matter why Nepali political leaders are refusing to invite UN mediation in a conflict, which they cannot resolve themselves. Can the Nepali people be forever held hostage to political wrangling of their leaders? Obviously not. New leaders should rise from among the masses and speak for a UN role in resolving the conflict, whichh ahs already claimed the lives of about 10,000 innocent Nepalis. Can Nepoal afford to be abnother Cambodia or Congo?
It is imperative that the violence in Nepal be mitigated. The government is unable to disarm the Maoist rebels. Instead of controlling violence, the unruly actions of the security forces have unleashed violence among people who are already being tormented by the rebels. The only visible solution to this cycle of violence is the deployment of UN peacekeeping force in Nepal. These forces can, by the virtue of their deployment, deter violence, being perpetrated by Maoist rebels and the government forces, against civilians. There are many advantages of of the deployment of UN peacekeepers. The UN peacekeeping force can provide multilateral support to the country. The peacekeepers can assist in confidence-building measures, power sharing arrangements, election, strengthening the rule of law and also in economic and social development. Many politicians in Nepal have said that election is impossible in the present circumstances as rebels hold sway over major parts of the rural areas. The UN peacekeeprs can oversee this problem. They can act as impartial observers.
The UN force in Nepal will not take sides in the ongoing conflict. Contrary to Maoist suspicion, they will not be targeted by the UN peacekeepers. But Maoists dare not challenge them. They can use force to protect themselves. Also, rules of engagement governing the use of force have been strengthened allowing UN peacekeepers to use "all necessary means" to protect civilians in their immediate vicinity. This means if UN force in Nepal is given this set of rules of engagement, it will deter Maoists from carrying out violent acts against civilians in close proximity of the UN peacekeepers. Nepal has participated in numerous peacekeeping missions throughout the world. But for obvious reasons, The Royasl Nepalese Army will not participate in UN peacekeeping mission in Nepal.
The Nepali government should realise that only concrete steps like inviting UN peacekeepers can really make the difference in Nepal. Placing too much faith in would-be facilitators and mediators from within Nepal will only make matters worse.
The nepali Prime Minister should first build consensus and then ask the UN Secretary General to contemplate a UN peacekeeping mission in Nepal. He can take the matter to the Security Council. The Prime Minster should also direct the foreign ministry to instruct Nepali ambassadors abroad to urge
Notes:- This article resulted in UN's Nepal mission the UNMIN. My application to UN was rehected by Kieran Dwywer and Matthew Kahane, the UN representative to Nepal. My application to go to study peacekeekping in UN school in Brindisi was only ansswered. i would want to request the US government, the principal sponsor and financier of UN to put pressure on such corrupt and negligent attitude by UN staff who have completely failed to prosecute Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), Ram Bahadur Thapa (Badal) and Dr Baburam Bhattarai for crimes against humanity. This coterie has to tried in ICC Den Haag and be sentenced to life in prison. I invoke this declaration as grea great grandson of Col. Man Shumsher Rana, Attorney General of Nepal and a loyal citizen.
Since the past years, violence has continued unabated in Nepal. Several rounds of peace talks have failed to establish peace and tranquility. Locked in political debates concerning the constitution, representation, and appropriate political system, the stakeholders oof this continuing conflict have put the people of this country on a noose of death and destruction. therefore, it is high time that internationmal intervention be invited to settle this conflict once and for all. No international body apart from the United Nations (UN) can play a better role in the Nepali context.
The UN mediation between the government and the Maoists will be far desirable thans aay Indian mediation. Nepalis have goof reason to suspect India for having designs against them. But, the supranational UN has no vested interest in the internal affairs of this country, as most countries of the world are its members. Although it is accused by some that UN has become a tool of the West, close observation disputes the accusation. It is an incomprehensible matter why Nepali political leaders are refusing to invite UN mediation in a conflict, which they cannot resolve themselves. Can the Nepali people be forever held hostage to political wrangling of their leaders? Obviously not. New leaders should rise from among the masses and speak for a UN role in resolving the conflict, whichh ahs already claimed the lives of about 10,000 innocent Nepalis. Can Nepoal afford to be abnother Cambodia or Congo?
It is imperative that the violence in Nepal be mitigated. The government is unable to disarm the Maoist rebels. Instead of controlling violence, the unruly actions of the security forces have unleashed violence among people who are already being tormented by the rebels. The only visible solution to this cycle of violence is the deployment of UN peacekeeping force in Nepal. These forces can, by the virtue of their deployment, deter violence, being perpetrated by Maoist rebels and the government forces, against civilians. There are many advantages of of the deployment of UN peacekeepers. The UN peacekeeping force can provide multilateral support to the country. The peacekeepers can assist in confidence-building measures, power sharing arrangements, election, strengthening the rule of law and also in economic and social development. Many politicians in Nepal have said that election is impossible in the present circumstances as rebels hold sway over major parts of the rural areas. The UN peacekeeprs can oversee this problem. They can act as impartial observers.
The UN force in Nepal will not take sides in the ongoing conflict. Contrary to Maoist suspicion, they will not be targeted by the UN peacekeepers. But Maoists dare not challenge them. They can use force to protect themselves. Also, rules of engagement governing the use of force have been strengthened allowing UN peacekeepers to use "all necessary means" to protect civilians in their immediate vicinity. This means if UN force in Nepal is given this set of rules of engagement, it will deter Maoists from carrying out violent acts against civilians in close proximity of the UN peacekeepers. Nepal has participated in numerous peacekeeping missions throughout the world. But for obvious reasons, The Royasl Nepalese Army will not participate in UN peacekeeping mission in Nepal.
The Nepali government should realise that only concrete steps like inviting UN peacekeepers can really make the difference in Nepal. Placing too much faith in would-be facilitators and mediators from within Nepal will only make matters worse.
The nepali Prime Minister should first build consensus and then ask the UN Secretary General to contemplate a UN peacekeeping mission in Nepal. He can take the matter to the Security Council. The Prime Minster should also direct the foreign ministry to instruct Nepali ambassadors abroad to urge
Notes:- This article resulted in UN's Nepal mission the UNMIN. My application to UN was rehected by Kieran Dwywer and Matthew Kahane, the UN representative to Nepal. My application to go to study peacekeekping in UN school in Brindisi was only ansswered. i would want to request the US government, the principal sponsor and financier of UN to put pressure on such corrupt and negligent attitude by UN staff who have completely failed to prosecute Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda), Ram Bahadur Thapa (Badal) and Dr Baburam Bhattarai for crimes against humanity. This coterie has to tried in ICC Den Haag and be sentenced to life in prison. I invoke this declaration as grea great grandson of Col. Man Shumsher Rana, Attorney General of Nepal and a loyal citizen.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Hidden contest: Indo-Pak quest for nuclear weapons
Published on The Kathmandu Post, Tuesday, December 26, 2000
-By Pritam S Rana
The nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 confirmed the long held suspicion that these regional rivals were on the firm track of developing nuclear arsenals at the expense of regional security, in order to enhance their status as major regional powers. Currently, hidden from the headlines, these powers are undertaking a massive build-up of nuclear weapons and the means to develop them. this is happening with the negligence of of the international community into this impending crisis which can at any time in the future blow into a nuclear holocaust having serious consequences to the region, if not the whole world.
Necessity: The desire to acquire nuclear weapon was first realised in India during the reign of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, if not earlier. This has direct relation to Sino-Indian hostility beginning in 1962, since when India sought to match China's enormous military power. Nuclear weapons would, the Indians believed, the ultimate guarantor of Indian security from Chinese numerical superiority in conventional forces. The 1974 so-called "peaceful nuclear explosion" marked India's entry into the limited few who possessed nuclear arms. China exploded its nuclear weapon back in 1964. The problem in South Asia was that India wasn't alone in feeling threatened from a potential superior adversary. Pakistan felt the same; it felt the might of India would challenge its "pivotal" position, as a counterweight to Indian hegemony in the region. The Kashmir dispute has further served to fuel Indo-Pak conflict to a proportion that even the lone superpower, The US, feels the bit of a chill.
Since 1974, India has had a weapons programme in its nuclear research effort. Besides, tapping on nuclear technology for power stations, the fissile material from these and other weapon dedicated nuclear plants, thousands of Indian scientists and other technical personnel are engaged in the activity of developing, producing and improving nuclear explosive devices. Dr. Abdul Kalam is one of the well known scientist engaged in the Indian effort working for the Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Indian nuclear research institutes at Trombay and various other places. the most important source of India for nuclear technology has been Russia, which is presently willing to offer nuclear technology to other nations like Iran. Pakistan is also not far behind, although its programme is much younger to India's. More than 3,000 Pakistani scientists were working on the "Pakistani bomb" programme, headed by Dr. Abdul Qader Khan, considered the father of Pakistani nuclear programme primarily being carried out in Khan Research Laboratories at Kahuta. France was one of the earliest helpers in Pakistani nuclear power programme but it later withdrew as the Pakistani initiative was known for the production of weapons. From then onwards, China served as willing to provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan under the guise of development assistance in energy sector of a friendly state.
Delivery problem: apart from the development and manufacture of nuclear explosive devices, there stands th problem of delivering them. It is noteworthy that a manned bomber in world War II delivered the first atomic weapon ever employed in war. The vulnerability of manned aircraft to deliver even conventional weapons had been realized even in that time; thousands of Allied bombers were destroyed and prevented from reaching their targets by German air defenses. The revolutionary innovation of the first ballistic missile, the V2 in Nazi Germany by the brilliant inventor Werner Von Braun was a major breakthrough in the weapon delivery technology. Barun moved to the US and helped develop US ballistic missiles while the Russians for their own programme abducted other colleagues of Braun. This is the story behind the development of long-range weapon delivery.
In our regional context, both Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapon developments are being complemented by an enormous expenditure of money and time into the development of delivery system. Both these powers now realize that ballistic missiles are are the only sure means to strike their adversary with impunity. Note that there, yet, isn't an effective counter-ballistic missile system in the world. India has tested the 2,500 km range Agni Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) and has deployed shorter range Prithvi (200 km range) Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM). The main Pakistani ballistic missile system is the Ghauri (1,500-2,500 km range) IRBM suspected to be based on North Korean technology. Also, Pakistan has purchased from China, M-11 series (300-600 km) SRBMs, named locally as Shaheen series. pakistan also has shorter Hatf series ballistic missiles apparently developed indigenously. However, both countries are dependent on on technology from such states as China, North Korea and and to some extent Russia, despite the latter's express denial. The US and its Western allies carefully control the dual use technologies, those that can be used in production of nuclear weapons in its exports to the third world. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect India to channelize its dramatic growth in IT industries into improving its nuclear weapons technology. Such an effort could only result in hampering its future imports of emerging technologies by further tightening of the export control regime of Western countries.
Despite, the array of ballistic missiles being developed by the two South Asian rivals, few of them have been operational. This means that the air forces of the respective nations will have to employ their existing strike aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons for the interim period until the successful development and deployment of the virtually unstoppable ballistic missiles. there also remains the challenge for both countries to develop workable command and control systems for these weapons of mass destruction along with the question who has the trigger and which side will dare to use these awesome weapons first in case of an armed conflcit between the two.
Myth of Deterrence: The Indian and Pakistani leaders and policy makers might view the addition of nuclear weapons into enhancing their national military power and prestige, this has totally failed to avert armed conflict, thus, failing in maintaining deterrence, the idea of peace which exists due to fear of mutual nuclear exchange. The Kargil War is the graphic example, where the formula of nuclear deterrence, which worked for Russia and US was buried/burnt with the dead bodies of those who fell there.
The cost in terms of money, manpower and time is in such massive proportions that these alone can provide enormously to the deprived of both countries; billions upon billions are being are poured into the making of the tools of future holocaust, only waiting for the time when one of the sides lose its rationality. The religious fervor in the rhetoric and somewhat in policy of both nations serves as a potent spice for the impending heightening of a potential crisis which can easily spill into a disaster of magnanimous proportion. Imagine the consequence to Nepal, if Calcutta docks are damaged beyond repair by a nuclear strike.
THE END
Notes:-Credit goes to www.fas.org, Jane's, Newsweek, and various other news agencies. This analysis earned me an opportunity to write a dissertation on this subject for Army majors who wanted to attend US Army Command and Staff College, Fort Leavenworth. Ia sked for Rs 10,000 but they failed to produce the remuneration. I can produce this into a new book given ample research opportunity. My masters thesis can be based on this touchy but a significant issue of South Asian security. ASEAN can also be affected if sea routes to Persian Gulf is intercepted by Indo-Pak naval confrontation. japan's oil supply might need escort from Japanese navy resulting in breaking Japan's 2000 nautical mile limit imposed after WWII. US Navy might be asked to separate warring Indo-Pak ships ala 1971. The SCO naval force might overtake US Navy in sea superiority in the Indian ocean. this can result in mitigation of ANZUS treaty. Australian security wrests on this crucial pact (ref: Defense and Diplomacy issue with Australian Defense update and the issue of Jane's with news report of Admiral Dunleavy, USN saying he wanted "Russian Navy away from Pacific Islands and Oceania.
-By Pritam S Rana
The nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 confirmed the long held suspicion that these regional rivals were on the firm track of developing nuclear arsenals at the expense of regional security, in order to enhance their status as major regional powers. Currently, hidden from the headlines, these powers are undertaking a massive build-up of nuclear weapons and the means to develop them. this is happening with the negligence of of the international community into this impending crisis which can at any time in the future blow into a nuclear holocaust having serious consequences to the region, if not the whole world.
Necessity: The desire to acquire nuclear weapon was first realised in India during the reign of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, if not earlier. This has direct relation to Sino-Indian hostility beginning in 1962, since when India sought to match China's enormous military power. Nuclear weapons would, the Indians believed, the ultimate guarantor of Indian security from Chinese numerical superiority in conventional forces. The 1974 so-called "peaceful nuclear explosion" marked India's entry into the limited few who possessed nuclear arms. China exploded its nuclear weapon back in 1964. The problem in South Asia was that India wasn't alone in feeling threatened from a potential superior adversary. Pakistan felt the same; it felt the might of India would challenge its "pivotal" position, as a counterweight to Indian hegemony in the region. The Kashmir dispute has further served to fuel Indo-Pak conflict to a proportion that even the lone superpower, The US, feels the bit of a chill.
Since 1974, India has had a weapons programme in its nuclear research effort. Besides, tapping on nuclear technology for power stations, the fissile material from these and other weapon dedicated nuclear plants, thousands of Indian scientists and other technical personnel are engaged in the activity of developing, producing and improving nuclear explosive devices. Dr. Abdul Kalam is one of the well known scientist engaged in the Indian effort working for the Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Indian nuclear research institutes at Trombay and various other places. the most important source of India for nuclear technology has been Russia, which is presently willing to offer nuclear technology to other nations like Iran. Pakistan is also not far behind, although its programme is much younger to India's. More than 3,000 Pakistani scientists were working on the "Pakistani bomb" programme, headed by Dr. Abdul Qader Khan, considered the father of Pakistani nuclear programme primarily being carried out in Khan Research Laboratories at Kahuta. France was one of the earliest helpers in Pakistani nuclear power programme but it later withdrew as the Pakistani initiative was known for the production of weapons. From then onwards, China served as willing to provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan under the guise of development assistance in energy sector of a friendly state.
Delivery problem: apart from the development and manufacture of nuclear explosive devices, there stands th problem of delivering them. It is noteworthy that a manned bomber in world War II delivered the first atomic weapon ever employed in war. The vulnerability of manned aircraft to deliver even conventional weapons had been realized even in that time; thousands of Allied bombers were destroyed and prevented from reaching their targets by German air defenses. The revolutionary innovation of the first ballistic missile, the V2 in Nazi Germany by the brilliant inventor Werner Von Braun was a major breakthrough in the weapon delivery technology. Barun moved to the US and helped develop US ballistic missiles while the Russians for their own programme abducted other colleagues of Braun. This is the story behind the development of long-range weapon delivery.
In our regional context, both Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapon developments are being complemented by an enormous expenditure of money and time into the development of delivery system. Both these powers now realize that ballistic missiles are are the only sure means to strike their adversary with impunity. Note that there, yet, isn't an effective counter-ballistic missile system in the world. India has tested the 2,500 km range Agni Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) and has deployed shorter range Prithvi (200 km range) Short Range Ballistic Missile (SRBM). The main Pakistani ballistic missile system is the Ghauri (1,500-2,500 km range) IRBM suspected to be based on North Korean technology. Also, Pakistan has purchased from China, M-11 series (300-600 km) SRBMs, named locally as Shaheen series. pakistan also has shorter Hatf series ballistic missiles apparently developed indigenously. However, both countries are dependent on on technology from such states as China, North Korea and and to some extent Russia, despite the latter's express denial. The US and its Western allies carefully control the dual use technologies, those that can be used in production of nuclear weapons in its exports to the third world. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect India to channelize its dramatic growth in IT industries into improving its nuclear weapons technology. Such an effort could only result in hampering its future imports of emerging technologies by further tightening of the export control regime of Western countries.
Despite, the array of ballistic missiles being developed by the two South Asian rivals, few of them have been operational. This means that the air forces of the respective nations will have to employ their existing strike aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons for the interim period until the successful development and deployment of the virtually unstoppable ballistic missiles. there also remains the challenge for both countries to develop workable command and control systems for these weapons of mass destruction along with the question who has the trigger and which side will dare to use these awesome weapons first in case of an armed conflcit between the two.
Myth of Deterrence: The Indian and Pakistani leaders and policy makers might view the addition of nuclear weapons into enhancing their national military power and prestige, this has totally failed to avert armed conflict, thus, failing in maintaining deterrence, the idea of peace which exists due to fear of mutual nuclear exchange. The Kargil War is the graphic example, where the formula of nuclear deterrence, which worked for Russia and US was buried/burnt with the dead bodies of those who fell there.
The cost in terms of money, manpower and time is in such massive proportions that these alone can provide enormously to the deprived of both countries; billions upon billions are being are poured into the making of the tools of future holocaust, only waiting for the time when one of the sides lose its rationality. The religious fervor in the rhetoric and somewhat in policy of both nations serves as a potent spice for the impending heightening of a potential crisis which can easily spill into a disaster of magnanimous proportion. Imagine the consequence to Nepal, if Calcutta docks are damaged beyond repair by a nuclear strike.
THE END
Notes:-Credit goes to www.fas.org, Jane's, Newsweek, and various other news agencies. This analysis earned me an opportunity to write a dissertation on this subject for Army majors who wanted to attend US Army Command and Staff College, Fort Leavenworth. Ia sked for Rs 10,000 but they failed to produce the remuneration. I can produce this into a new book given ample research opportunity. My masters thesis can be based on this touchy but a significant issue of South Asian security. ASEAN can also be affected if sea routes to Persian Gulf is intercepted by Indo-Pak naval confrontation. japan's oil supply might need escort from Japanese navy resulting in breaking Japan's 2000 nautical mile limit imposed after WWII. US Navy might be asked to separate warring Indo-Pak ships ala 1971. The SCO naval force might overtake US Navy in sea superiority in the Indian ocean. this can result in mitigation of ANZUS treaty. Australian security wrests on this crucial pact (ref: Defense and Diplomacy issue with Australian Defense update and the issue of Jane's with news report of Admiral Dunleavy, USN saying he wanted "Russian Navy away from Pacific Islands and Oceania.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
