THE condemnation of Rab by the US-based Human Rights Watch comes as no surprise to us. We warned the government, time and again, that the crossfire deaths were undermining the edifice of the whole judicial process and whatever Rab had achieved in its anti- terrorism drive. The introduction of the crack force had a positive impact on the crime situation as proliferation of terrorist organisations was threatening law and order. The Rab's efficiency in containing the threat was commendable, but nothing could justify the deaths in crossfire, the accounts of which invariably followed the same pattern.
The anti-crime drive was expected to receive a fresh impetus when the present caretaker government took over and people also hoped that all excesses in the name of enforcing law would be eliminated. The crossfire deaths drew sharp criticism from human rights advocates both at home and abroad and the year 2007 saw a welcome decline in such deaths. But in recent months quite a few suspected criminals were reported to have been killed in crossfire, which has again raised serious concern regarding abuse of human rights by Rab.
The government can ill afford to ignore the issue, which has already sullied our image abroad. And to tell the truth, taking human lives in an unlawful manner should be viewed from not only the legal point of view or the image crisis that it might create, but also the moral perspective. It could be interpreted as a sure sign of the nation being not sensitive enough to the most fundamental right of its citizensthe right to live. We have always opposed the scheme of liquidating suspected criminals unlawfully, while pointing out that such criminals, whatever be the charges against them, have the right to defend themselves in a court.
The Human Rights Watch Report has exposed the ruthlessness of Rab's way of handling suspected criminals, which has been repeatedly exposed in the local media including The Star. The government's response should be clear and loud. Such killing must be stopped at once.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
undermining the edifice of the whole judicial process
No, your ineffective justice system does the undermining. RAB is just taking out the trash the only way possible.
The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia's national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.
Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia's views no longer mattered.
A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato's door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington's ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.
More infuriating was Western encouragement of freedom in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.
Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia's. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.
Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi's undoing.
It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.
Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine - hands off the Americas - has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies - in Cuba and Nicaragua.
Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard - Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.
The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.
It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush's remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).
The attack was short, sharp and deadly - enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches - on both sides - Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.
Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada to rescue US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.
There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics - remember your geography. To Nato - do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi - do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington - does Russia's voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 14:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia
The Russians feel the need to be worshiped. Whether we should accommodate them is another matter. We get taunted by the Canadians and the Latin Americans all the time. If we reacted as the Russians did, we'd be constantly in a state of war. The truth is that Imperial Russia needs to improve its table manners. And my hope is that it will stop short of a land grab too far - a land grab that will see Russian and American cities burned to the ground, and the Russian empire hacked to pieces by neighbors resentful of numerous past Russian atrocities.
#4
Michael Binyon: "Notice how structured the suface is, with a multitude of crossing lines, all aroud the circumference. At the bottom of this marvelous pillar, white, translucent objects are strewn as in votive fashion..."
Posting Besoeker's comment link to a Ralph Peters' article. Agree with every word. Can only add that Putin's Russia is structurally weak and extremely vulnerable to concerted action.
THE Russians are alcohol-sodden barbarians, but now and then they vomit up a genius. Prime Minister - and now generalissimo - Vladimir Putin is Mother Russia's latest world-class wonder.
Let's be honest: Putin's the most effective leader in the world today.
That doesn't mean he's good news for anybody - not even for the Russians, in the long run. His ruthless ambition and gambler's audacity may end terribly.
But, for now, give the devil his due: After a long string of successes, from his personal mastery of Russia's government and media to his coldblooded energy brinkmanship, Putin has capped his performance with a stunning success in Georgia.
Not a single free-world leader currently in office can measure up to Czar Vladimir the Great. Following his turnaround of Russia from bankrupt kleptocracy to flush-with-cash autocracy, he's now openly determined to restore Moscow's old empire. And he's getting away with it.
As a former intelligence officer, I'm awestruck by the genius with which Putin assessed the strategic environment on the eve of his carefully scripted invasion of Georgia.
With his old KGB skills showing (he must've been a formidable operative), Putin not only sized up President Bush humiliatingly well, but precisely anticipated Europe's nonreaction - while taking a perfect-fit measure of Georgia's mercurial president. Putin not only knew what he was doing - he knew exactly what others would do.
This is intelligence work at the hall-of-fame level. (For our part, we had all the intelligence pieces in our hands and failed to assemble the puzzle.)
On the military side, the months of meticulous planning and extensive preparations for this invasion were covered by military exercises, disingenuous explanations - and maskirovka, the art of deception the Red Army had mastered. The Russians convinced us to see what we wanted to see.
Equally as remarkable was the Kremlin's ability to lead the global media by the nose. (Oblivious to the irony, a BBC broadcast yesterday portrayed tiny, poorhouse Georgia as a propaganda powerhouse and Russia as an information victim - an illustration of the Russian propaganda machine's effectiveness.) From the start, every Russian ministry was reading from the same script (try to orchestrate that in Washington). Breaking off his phony play date with Bush in Beijing, Putin rushed back to the theater of war.
Upon arrival, he publicly consoled "refugees" who had been bused out of South Ossetia days in advance. Launching the war's Big Lie, Putin deployed dupe-the-rubes code words, such as "genocide" and "response." Wearing his secret-policeman's stone-face, Putin blamed Georgia for exactly what his storm troopers were doing to the Georgians. And lazy journalists around the world served as the Kremlin's ad agency.
Strategy and conflict hinge on character. Putin's character is ugly, but he's certainly got one: On the world stage, he comes across as a man among munchkins. When French President Nicolas Sarkozy flew in to Moscow to demand a cease-fire, Putin - busy with his war - couldn't be bothered. He fobbed Sarko off on Russia's play-pretend president.
Sarko thought he was grandstanding as a statesman, but Putin saw him as a "useful idiot" (in Leninist parlance).
Carla Bruni's husband got the cease-fire the twittering European Union demanded, all right. He returned to Paris holding in his hands a piece of paper that "guarantees peace in our time." Putin's thugs kept on killing. And they're still killing as I write.
Putin makes promises blithely to make flies go away. But the promises are worthless. Russia's troops will find excuses to stay right where they are - or they'll fake a withdrawal, leaving behind "South Ossetian volunteers" from Russian airborne units.
Want a straightforward indication of what the Russians intend? Putin's code-name for this operation is Chistoye Polye. Literally translated, that means "clean field." In military parlance, it means "scorched earth."
The empire of the czars hasn't produced such a frightening genius since Stalin.
Posted by: ed ||
08/14/2008 12:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If assessing the strategic env correctly (Euro non-reaction, playing the world media, etc) is genius, than anybody has been paying even cursory attention to world events in the past decade is a genius.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
08/14/2008 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hurrah, I'm a genius! Thank you for that bump to my self-esteem, Carl. ;-)
#5
Actually, I think the outcome is for the best. NATO and non-NATO members alike have learned that Uncle Sam won't always come riding to the rescue, so they'd better arm up or prepare to become provinces of whatever big power comes along. All of America's allies have learned that Uncle Sam won't use his big guns to help them settle territorial disputes to their advantage. And Russia has regained a little of its pride, and perhaps gotten a little something to salve the sting of being ignored over Kosovo. On this last point, only time will tell.
#9
the problem with that ZF, is that most of them cant stand up to Russia alone. Its a basic free rider problem. POland cant (probably) beat Russia. they need backup. Who? Why should UK do it, when germany could? Why should Germany do it when UK could (And when germany relies on Russian gas, and doesnt like the Poles anyway) Self reliance works for some things, not this.
As hard as jawboning the Euros to spend more on defense is, I doubt that Russian victories and US withdrawl is really more effective. But this is academic as far as Georgia is concerned.
#10
I doubt seriously that this will rouse Euro's elites out of their intellectual and moral torpor.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/14/2008 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
elites?
You think the populace will start rallying for more defense spending, higher taxes and or lower social services?
I understand the idea that the euro elites are more 'left' than the electorates on issues like guns, death penalty, abortion, immigration. But I very much doubt they are to the 'left' of their peoples on defense spending. If they are ive seen no evidence of it.
#12
I have to agree with LH. When there has been talk of cutting social bennies because of cost, that party is rapidly thrown out of office. The Europeans want their cradle-to-grave health care and they want the US to pay for their defense.
If the US withdrew and became isolationist, a strong military country would conquer the rest of Europe with little problem. Unfortunately, that is the only way I can see the Europeans taking responsibility for their own defense is to forced to, or succumb to another power that will take their resources for its own use.
#13
What still bugs me, is the unanswered question of What were Putins goals? and Did he achieve them?
1. Control over the BP pipeline? Epic fail. With US "humanitarian aid" in place, I think it's impossible for them to make another grab for it.
2. Absorption of Georgia? Possible fail. Time will tell on this one. He has weakened and trampled all over the independent nation. Will SO and Ahk. remain in his realm of control? More than likely.
3. Inviting the West to play The Game in order to ascertain strength, resolution and capabilities? Definite success. Although, he may have misunderestimated the US and GWB.
4. Alienate Old Europe, New Europe, China, the US, NATO and the UN? Smashing success. :D I hear our sale of ABM systems is going through to Poland and now Turkey is shopping for some sales.
It still doesnt make sense that he would risk so much for so little gain. Maybe it is just for show with the homefolks and to consolidate his power base. *shrug*
Also, I wish I knew how Iran and Israel play into this. (Yes I have some ideas, but my Tom Clancy/007 influenced mine has crazy visions of nukes going off in Saudi due to wahabbis)
#14
the immediate goal was to toss Saak out and get a friendly regime instead. That gives them effective control of the pipeline, it removes the annoyance of Saak, and more important it shows who is strong, that relying on the west is a mistake, and lots of other lessons they want to teach.
If Georgia is badly hurt but Saak survives, the lessons are only half taught.
Whether Saak WILL survive is something we dont know yet, and that we still may be able to influence.
#15
Putin's plan was to start the war when the Iran action was imminent or in progress. Saaky crossed him with a pre-emptive assault on Tskhinvali.
To what degree it was a Georgian initiative or a coordinated effort, hard to tell -- I tend to think that the coordination was more likely than not. (There is a lot of indications that this is precisely what happened. At some point when I've a bit of time, I may put it together for RB perusal).
Putin can't use this stratagem again. It's been blown.
Eastern Europe got their suspicion about Russian duplicity confirmed and will act accordingly. Chances for Putin to come with some brilliant strategy to reabsorb former satellites got just diminished substantially as the element of surprise is now lost. The facade is torn and naked truth is for all to see.
On the economic front, a lot advantageous deals will be taken away and agreements canceled.
#16
Interesting how everyone talks of Poland, Germany the UK and nobody has mentioned the EU. Shouldn't these nations be defending each other automatically because of the EU nonsense? I mean what's the point if not to ensure Poland is safe from invasion.
Yeah I know Georgia's not a member of the EU. I'm pretty sure Poland is though, right?
#18
One additional comment... The eastern European countries will, no doubt, enact laws that could reduce the prospect that a minority can be consisting of holders of foreign passports (specifically the Russian minority... "you don't like it, you're free to leave!"). Discriminatory? Yewbetcha! But better be safe than sorry.
#19
Honestly, why not take a long term gamble here? Russia is a dying country (and Putin knows it). Either by Chinese invasion or simple suicide, Russia won't be the same country 20 years down the road.
Putin's been pulling these shenanigans since several years ago (the poisoning of the Ukrainian president, and the rich guy in England). That didn't draw much attention from the world community, so why would an invasion of some country that most people think is the home of CNN, the Braves and Adult Swim?
The bottom line, let's let Russia think he won this round, let him keep trying to rebuild his outdated military, then eventually when the ChiComs take Siberia, two equally evil powers can duke it out.
The Russia-Georgia cease-fire brokered by France's president is less than meets the eye. Its terms keep moving as the Russian army keeps moving. Russia has since occupied Gori (appropriately, Stalin's birthplace), effectively cutting Georgia in two. The road to the capital, Tbilisi, is open, but apparently Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has temporarily chosen to seek his objectives through military pressure and Western acquiescence rather than by naked occupation.
His objectives are clear. They go beyond detaching South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and absorbing them into Russia. They go beyond destroying the Georgian army, leaving the country at Russia's mercy.
The real objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.
Which explains Putin stopping the Russian army (for now) short of Tbilisi. What everyone overlooks in the cease-fire terms is that all future steps -- troop withdrawals, territorial arrangements, peacekeeping forces -- will have to be negotiated between Russia and Georgia. But Russia says it will not talk to Saakashvili. Thus regime change becomes the first requirement for any movement on any front. This will be Putin's refrain in the coming days. He is counting on Europe to pressure Saakashvili to resign and/or flee to "give peace a chance."
The Finlandization of Georgia would give Russia control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is the only significant westbound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia. Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that live off energy exports. Moscow would become master of the Caspian basin.
Subduing Georgia has an additional effect. It warns Russia's former Baltic and East European satellites what happens if you get too close to the West. It is the first step to reestablishing Russian hegemony in the region.
What is to be done? Let's be real. There's nothing to be done militarily. What we can do is alter Putin's cost-benefit calculations.
We are not without resources. There are a range of measures to be deployed if Russia does not live up to its cease-fire commitments:
1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.
2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.
3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin's dictatorship long made Russia's presence in this group of industrial democracies a farce, but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. (And if Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, who has been sympathetic to Putin's Georgia adventure, wants to stay, he can have an annual G-2 dinner with Putin.) Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.
4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusan and Jamaican bobsled teams.
All of these steps (except dissolution of the G-8, which should be irreversible) would be subject to reconsideration depending upon Russian action -- most importantly and minimally, its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.
President Bush could cash in on his close personal relationship with Putin by sending him a copy of the highly entertaining (and highly fictionalized) film "Charlie Wilson's War" to remind Vlad of our capacity to make Russia bleed. Putin would need no reminders of the Georgians' capacity and long history of doing likewise to invaders.
Bush needs to make up for his mini-Katrina moment when he lingered in Beijing yukking it up with our beach volleyball team while Putin flew to North Ossetia to direct the invasion of a neighboring country. Bush is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France and Georgia. Not a moment too soon. Her task must be to present these sanctions, get European agreement on as many as possible and begin imposing them, calibrated to Russian behavior. And most important of all, to prevent any Euro-wobbliness on the survival of Georgia's democratically elected government.
We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 09:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those would be good first round steps, the EUnicks are little more than a trade cartel these days, and if it had the potential to cost them 1 euro in the coming years I think you could count on them going limp on us. To do without plentiful russian energy for a year would be unimaginable to them, not for the likes of swarthy brown eyed people in a far off place like Georgia. No, I think whatever is done will be done by us, unilaterally, so to speak. I wouldn't even look for the French to get involved any more than they have.
#3
I like these steps. Add to this a suspension of all export credits and the like, suspension of 'most favored nation' status in trade, and a shunning of all Russian diplomatic initiatives at the U.N.
And then make clear that we can cause trouble in other ways. F'r instance, we might have to agree with China that Siberia is under-populated and under-utilized.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/14/2008 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Jeeze, not another Jimmy Carteresque Olympic boycott. Is Krauthammer expecting Obama to win?
Posted by: ed ||
08/14/2008 11:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Charles Krauthammer. Soo gonna be ignored by Putin, because isolation increases his power, not decreases it.
The russians are directly challenging the US. Will the US help its allies or not? They know we don't want WW III. We need to bet they don't want it either.
We should declare a no-fly zone for beligerants over georgia and use Iraqi bases to enforce it. That puts their military in a precarious position, plus we can provide non-humanitarian aid to Georgia.
If Putin objects, we run it through the UN. Since the UN doesn't have planes, it will be or planes doing what we want.
I would suggest rather than boycotting the Sochi olympics, announce that under the circumstances we are concerned about the safety of civilian athletes in a neighborhood populated by the likes of Ossetian and Abkhazian irregulars. Mention the experience of the Israeli competitors in Munich, when the German rescue attempt was as dangerous to the remaining athletes as was the original PLO attack... and the Russian response to the terror attack on the theater in Moscow. Thoughtful analysis of the lack of Russian experience in successful counterinsurgency efforts would be apposite as well.
#7
I think you may be right, the russian psyche seems to similar to the oriental mindset. Saving face is very important to the russians for what I'm sure are cultural reasons. Embarrassing them that way would be a powerful weapon to use against them.
#1
Russia sees NATO-EU on one side includ former SSRS, NUCLEAR ISLAM in the middle, + CHINA on the end [read - that other bigger already nukularized JAPAN].
It just may be possible Russia's milaction agz Georgia is in fact a disguise/cover for Russ-perceived strategic weakness, + that RUSS IS ACTUALLY HEDGING ON THE FUTURE DAY IT MAY NEED TO FORMALLY INTEGRATE WID NATO + EUROPE TO PROTECT ITSELF AGZ POTENT NUCLEAR ISLAM + CHINA???
#2
I can be wrong, but my guts are telling me RUSSIA has covert, alterior intentions beyond that of war wid Georgia or reconstit the Russo-SOviet Empire???
Pooty's got the jihadi competitor. He's a bit disadvantaged--demographics and so far he's been unable to transform Russian nationalism into a death cult. But he's a great mafioso.
#5
One thing can be sure, Vladimir Putin is in charge in Russia. Medvedev is simply a media figurehead and as Ralph Peters writes, "A Czar is born." Any pretence of democracy in Russia has been vaporized. While other countries sent their presidents to the Olympics, Russia sent Putin who notified "W" of the pending action in Georgia and then flew back to visit troops in the field. How the West deals with these events will determine the future of the Ukrain, Poland, and the rest of the former soviet states. Hat tip to Sarko for cutting short his Olympic visit, basketball, womens beach volley venues, etc, and flying to Moscow.
#6
Georgia took the brunt of Putin's animosity, but let not minmize the fact that by design Bush, and by extension America, lost big time face. Wonder what lies Putin told Bush in the Olympic stadium huddle where Bush is seen hugging Putin, and why would the leader of the USA believe a word of anything said by a KGB man. While Putin was seen commanding troops from North Ossetia, Bush on the otherhand was seen cavorting with bikini clad volleyball players. Fiddling while Rome burns, indeed.
Bush has undone 60 years of cultivating the captive populations of the Russian Empire. Instead of scoring major points with current and future allies, Bush has displayed for the world that a US alliance isn't worth a pair of 2s when the cards are down.
The key key to salvaging this fiasco is to make sure Vlad Putin and his merry band of KGB thieves are put at a further strategic disadvantage than when this episode of engineered provovations leading to this little war began. Gotta give the Russians credit, they timed it well while Bush was out of the country and way from national security advisors for a sustained period of time.
Making clear to the Russians that they made a mistake means a robust deployment of heavily armed American (and NATO) peacekeepers to Georgia, right on Putin's posterior. Arming Georgian troops w/ US weapons. Redeploying brigades to new NATO members bordering the NeoSSR and who are now feeling threatened and abandoned. Close down US bases in Germany and Italy once and for all and station troops where they can do some good.
Next, would be to engineer a huge drop is Russian export earnings. It may take 10 years, but the US kept up the pressure for 40 years in spite of German and French opposition. No integration into the world trade system. Georgia, Ukraine and former Waraw Pact countries will take of that for now.
30% of Russian gas exports is really Turkmenistan gas that the Putin's KGB buddies pay 30-40 cents on the dollar and export it to Europe for full price. Make damn sure the Nabucco pipeline, and more, across the Caspian gets built, all that gas bypasses Russia and Turkmens get market prices for their resource. The Caspian is still largely untapped. This also applies to Kazhak energy resources. Make sure they also connect to the pipeline. Every MCF and barrel going directly west is a one that Putin's buddies will not supply. A drop of 40% in Russian gas export money will ripple through their whole economy since the 20% of GDP derived from energy exports drives most of the Russian economy.
But most important of all, never, ever let Ukraine fall to the Russians again. If Germany and France keep insisting on appeasing Putin's Russia, then offer Ukraine and Georgia a mutual defense treaty with a subset of NATO. They are the ones who would do the fighting anyway.
Posted by: ed ||
08/14/2008 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Forgot to add. Decrease Eastern Europe's dependence on Russian energy by offering to help finance or trade the building of several dozen nuclear power plants. From where I have seen them locate power plants, even the 2-3gW of waste heat per reactor would be used for heating and cooling their cities. Every BTU is one they won't have to buy from the Russians.
It will be a much more effective and cheaper way to add to democratic nations' security than trying to reform muslim tribes.
Posted by: ed ||
08/14/2008 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
For some of those witnessing the fighting in the Caucasus over the past few days, the narrative is straightforward and easy. The plucky republic of Georgia, with just a few million citizens, was attacked by its giant eastern neighbour, Russia. Add to this all the stereotypes of the cold war era, and you are presented with a truly David and Goliath interpretation with all its accompanying connotations of good and evil. While this version of events is being written in much of the western media, the facts present a different picture.
Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a conflict of Russias making; this is not a conflict of Russias choosing. There are no winners from this conflict. Hours before the Georgian invasion, Russia had been working to secure a United Nations Security Council statement calling for a renunciation of force by both Georgia and South Ossetians. The statement that could have averted bloodshed was blocked by western countries.
Last Friday, after the worlds leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia, which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years. The majority of the regions population are Russian citizens. Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers. The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster and leading to an exodus of 30,000 refugees. The Georgian regime refused to allow a humanitarian corridor to be established and bombarded a humanitarian convoy. There is also clear evidence of atrocities having been committed so serious and systematic that they constitute acts of genocide.
There can be little surprise, therefore, that Russia responded to this unprovoked assault on its citizens by launching a military incursion into South Ossetia. No country in the world would idly stand by as its citizens are killed and driven from their homes. Russia repeatedly warned Tbilisi that it would protect its citizens by force if necessary, and its actions are entirely consistent with international law, including article 51 of the UN charter on the right of self-defence.
Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgias attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers. Russias tactical objective has been to force Georgian troops out of the region, which is off limits to them under international agreements. Despite Georgias assertion that it had imposed a unilateral ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers and supporting troops remained under continued attack a fact confirmed by observers and journalists in the region. Russia had no choice but to target the military infrastructure outside the region being used to sustain the Georgian offensive. Russias response has been targeted, proportionate and legitimate.
Russia has been accused of using the conflict to try to topple the government and impose control over the country. This is palpable nonsense. Having established the safety of the region, the president has declared an end to military operations. Russia has no intention of annexing or occupying any part of Georgia and has again affirmed its respect for its sovereignty. Over the next few days, on the condition that Georgia refrains from military activity and keeps its forces out of the region, Russia will continue to take the diplomatic steps required to consolidate this temporary cessation of hostilities.
Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgias president, has stated that unless we stop Russia, unless the whole world stops it, Russian tanks will go to any European capital tomorrow, adding on a separate occasion that its not about Georgia any more. Its about America. It is clear that Georgia wants this dispute to become something more than a short if bloody conflict in the region. For decision-makers in the Nato countries of the west, it would be worth considering whether in future you want the men and women of your armed services to be answerable to Mr Saakashvilis declarations of war in the Caucasus.
Russia is a member of the Security Council, of the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and partner with the west on issues as varied as the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. In keeping with its responsibilities as a world power and the guarantor of stability in the Caucasus, Russia will work to ensure a peaceful and lasting resolution to the situation in the region.
The writer is minister of foreign affairs of the Russian Federation
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
I'm more amazed by the supposed citizens of free countries shilling for the Russians.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/14/2008 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Last Friday, after the world's leaders had arrived at the Beijing Olympics, Georgian troops launched an all-out assault on the region of South Ossetia,
he omits the provacations the Ossetians launched against Georgia in the preceding days.
which has enjoyed de facto independence for more than 16 years.
It has enjoyed that WITH the cooperation of Georgia, which signed on to Russian peacekeeping conditional on it NOT changing the de jure status. For some roughly analagous legal issues, see Taiwan.
The majority of the region's population are Russian citizens.
Cause Russia declared them citizens. This has no import in international law.
Under the terms of the 1992 agreement to which Georgia is a party, they are afforded protection by a small number of Russian peacekeeping soldiers.
a pact signed under radically different political circumstances. And whose spirit Russia has been undermining for quite some time.
The ground and air attack resulted in the killing of peacekeepers and the death of an estimated 1,600 civilians, creating a humanitarian disaster and leading to an exodus of 30,000 refugees.
See Chechnya.
The Georgian regime
a democratically elected govt.
refused to allow a humanitarian corridor to be established and bombarded a humanitarian convoy. There is also clear evidence of atrocities having been committed -- so serious and systematic that they constitute acts of genocide.
youre supposed to take that evidence to the world BEFORE you intervene. So far theres no evidence of anything beyond the usual civilian casualties associated with bombarding a city.
The scale of the Bush administration's failures in Georgia is now becoming clear: The issue was not just a routine bungle; it was a fiasco of monumental proportions.
First, the State Department at least was not oblivious to the rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia; it could, in fact, hardly have missed them, since the Moscow newspapers have been full of almost nothing else since the beginning of this year. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Daniel Fried, her point man on Georgian affairs, both had solemnly warned Russia repeatedly to lay off Georgia. They just never imagined the Russians would ignore them and go ahead anyway.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
in Afghanistan, where the U.S. Army is currently winning, and in Iraq, where it is not.
Reality inversion. What they want to be true becomes the truth.
#2
This is the conversation between Bush and Putin at the Olympics. Vladimir, I will let you take Georgia if you keep you ass out of Cuba. In addition, since Cuba is an island, I want you to keep your hands off Venezuela cause Chavez is a gonner. George, no problem. I'm glad we can work out our problems.
Posted by: Art ||
08/14/2008 0:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I know little of the area and the article has some valid points about our anticipation of events but I sense a lot of defeatist wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Sieff (we were surprised, let's quit).
#4
Yeah, no shit, how could they not have known the Russian Army was sitting at their jumping-off points, ready to roll? Things like hundreds of tanks sitting around tend to stick out.
#7
Yeah, no shit, how could they not have known the Russian Army was sitting at their jumping-off points, ready to roll? Things like hundreds of tanks sitting around tend to stick out.
You mean like Korea 1950, Czechoslovakia 68, Tet 68, Kuwait 90, [not to mention the collapse of the 'former' Soviet Union]? Our intel has sucked for a long time, though retro evaluations have been 20/20 haven't they?
#8
It could have fought hard in the town of Gori, as Palestinian forces fiercely contested the Israeli army in Jenin on the West Bank in 2002. It did none of those things: Its remnants simply fled back to Tbilisi in panic.
By contrast, Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite Army of God in southern Lebanon, stood its ground and fought bravely and all too effectively against a bungled, indecisively commanded and chronically undermanned Israeli frontal assault in July 2006.
#9
I truly believe that Bush literally didn't have the guts to tell Putin with any amount of substance, to stop. Is it the supposed one way "friendship" that they enjoy? I dunno, but Bush seemed to be hiding under a bed the whole time.
He has to deal with the WOT, North Korea, Iran etc, all of which requires working with the Russians. There is nothing in Georgia that is worth getting the US into a shooting war. Plus he has to deal with a character like Saakashvili.
Look at what happened yesterday. Bush announced that the US would deliver humanitarian aid. Saakashvili immediately goes on national TV to announce that the US DOD is taking control over Georgia's ports and airports.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You're right, totally right, Saakashvili is a complete tool, but we haven't exactly projected power on this have we?
#13
Would projecting force with no intention to ever use it be wise? Suppose the Russians didn't blink?
And would that have then encouraged Saakashvili to reject calls for a ceasefire and thus produce even greater damage to Georgia?
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#14
There is nothing in Georgia that is worth getting the US into a shooting war.
Same about Truman and Korea. I could say the same thing about all of Europe as well. It's in a demographic and economic dead end. Too many intangibles in play to see what is going to happen down the road. However, one certainty is the militant revival of Soviet/Russian/Slav re-expansion.
#15
1 re intell - ive been hearing this a lot. Look, its not uncommon for countries to mobilize on the border to exert pressure. I dont think it was at all obvious that Russia was going to go in to this degree. Anyway, we dotn enough yet
2. The comparison to Lebanon - Israel, even had they been willing to use that degree of force (and israel isnt a huge oil exporter and cant defy world opinion to the degree Russia can) simply doesnt have the scale of army and population Russia has. Also Hezb was much better prepared than teh Georgian Army.
#17
About Bush -- so what was he to do? Jump on a plane, fly into Georgia, jump on a tank and lead the Georgian troops from the front?
I'm sometimes amazed with just what folks want Bush to do. Not in touch with his National Security Council? Ever hear of the telephone, video conferencing?
When did he give the order to get those C-17s into the air? What is the turn-around time to get the supplies, load the planes, etc. (I think the military calls it logistics)
Also, those first few days, he had lots of the world leaders right there with him. Talking face to face. The Aussie PM even heard Bush and Putin arguing.
Russia and Georgia have simultaneously started large-scale military exercises amid growing tensions between the two countries, caused by Russia's support of the self-proclaimed states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,and Georgia's plans to enter the NATO bloc.
The US even had a scheduled military exercises with Russia in that area -- so Russia's forces were gathering for that.
The United States has canceled a naval exercise with Russia in protest over Moscow's military operations in Georgia, a senior U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.
Top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, have strongly criticized Russia's military campaign in Georgia but the decision to cancel the exercise was among Washington's first concrete actions of protest.
So, yes, we knew they were there, were even gonna play with them a bit.
Back to my question. What did you expect Bush to do as soon as that invasion happened? Maybe walking up to Putin and knocking him out would have been the answer.
Playing AllahPundit: The exit question is, describe the actions Bush "should" have taken in those first 4 days, how those actions would have changed the status of where we are today, given that you may or may not know that he did them, he just doesn't publicize all that he does in the background.
#18
im not saying it would have made a big difference, but he COULD have left beijing the same time Tsar Vlad did, and not hang around. Go back to the WH and take charge, visibly.
He MAY have made the conscious judgement that that would have pissed the Chinese, and was therefore not a good idea.
#19
LH could you please explain how returning to the WH would have allowed him to take charge anymore than staying where he was with many other world leaders?
Who did he need to be visible to and what does that mean in a day of instant worldwide communications, video included?
Do you think that there's someone important that DOESN'T know he's in charge?
#20
One other item. Bush may have been opting to stay in the "area of operation" as CiC.
Distance:
Washington to T'bilisi, Georgia -- 5,778 miles
Beijing to T'bilisi, Georgia -- 3,633 miles
Lot closer for him if he needed to go jump on that tank, driving it to confront Putin!
'Cause, you know, that is his unilateral method of operation. Forget that the French Pres and Foreign Minister were in Moscow, representing not France, but the EU.
Yet, Bush needed to be in the White House. Again, I ask, doing what?
#22
One other item -- if you think that it should have been Bush jetting off to Moscow, rather than Sarkozy consider this:
Beijing to Moscow -- 3601 miles
Washington DC to Moscow -- 6929 miles
Would have gotten more frequent flyer miles, maybe, but wouldn't be as close to jet into the "area of operation," if it became important that he get to Moscow.
#23
Beavis -- sad that I had to laugh -- but you are so right...
Some of Bush's company in case he might have wanted face-to-face visits with:
AFGHANISTAN - President Hamid Karzai
ALBANIA - Prime Minister Sali Berisha
ALGERIA - President Abdelaziz Bouteflika
ANGOLA - President Jose Eduardo dos Santos
ARMENIA - President Serzh Sarkisyan
AUSTRALIA - Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
AZERBAIJAN - President Ilham Aliyev
BELARUS - President Alexander Lukashenko
BRAZIL - President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
BRUNEI - Sultan Haji Hassanal
BULGARIA - President Georgi Parvanov
BURUNDI - President Pierre Nkurunziz
CAMBODIA - King Norodom Sihamoni
CHAD - Prime Minister Youssouf Saleh Abbas
CONGO - President Joseph Kabila
COOK ISLANDS - Head of State Frederick Goodwin
CROATIA - President Stjepan Mesic
CYPRUS - President Demetris Christofias
EAST TIMOR - President Jose Ramos-Horta
FIJI - Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama
FINLAND - Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen
FRANCE - President Nicolas Sarkozy
GABON - President El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba
GHANA - President John Agyekum Kufuor
ISRAEL - President Shimon Peres
JAPAN - Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda
KAZAKHSTAN - President Nursultan Nazarbayev
LATVIA - President Valdis Zatlers
LAOS - President Choummaly Sayasone
MADAGASCAR - President Marc Ravalomanana
MALI - President Amadou Toumani Toure
MAURITIUS - President Sir Anerood Jugnauth
MALAYSIA - King Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin and Queen Tuanku Nur Zahirah
MICRONESIA - President Emanuel Mori
MONACO - Head of State Prince Albert II
MONGOLIA - President Nambaryn Enkhbayar
MONTENEGRO - President Filip Vujanovic
MOZAMBIQUE - President Armando Emilio Guebuza
MYANMAR - Prime Minister General Thein Sein
NETHERLANDS - Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende
NORWAY - King Harald V and Queen Sonja Haraldsen
PHILIPPINES - President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
ROMANIA - President Traian Basescu
RUSSIA - Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
SAMOA - Head of State Tuiatua Tupua Tamasese Efi
SAN MARINO - Captains regents Rosa Zafferani and Federico Pedini Amati
SERBIA - President Boris Tadic
SINGAPORE - Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew
SLOVAKIA - President Ivan Gasparovic
SOUTH KOREA - President Lee Myung-bak
SRI LANKA - President Mahinda Rajapakse
SWITZERLAND - President Pascal Couchepin
THAILAND - Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and Crown Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn
TONGA - Crown Prince Tupouto'a Lavaka Ata and Prime Minister Feleti Vaka'uta Sevele
UNITED STATES - President George W. Bush. A seven-member delegaton led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will attend the closing ceremony
UZBEKISTAN - President Islam Karimov
VANUATU - President Kalkot Mataskelekele and Prime Minister Vanuaroroa Ham Lini
VIETNAM - President Nguyen Minh Triet
And some of those coming in later, who just might have decided to come in early, if needed for a visit:
BANGLADESH - Interim Prime Minister Fakhruddin Ahmed. Army chief general Moeen U. Ahmed will attend.
BELGIUM - Prime Minister Yves Leterme. He will attend the closing ceremony. Crown Prince Philippe Leopold Louis Marie will attend opening.
BRITAIN - Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He will attend closing ceremony. Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell to attend opening ceremony.
CANADA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper
CZECH REPUBLIC - Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek will miss the opening ceremony, but attend the Games later.
ESTONIA - President Toomas Hendrik Ilves
GERMANY - Chancellor Angela Merkel
GREECE - Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis. Foreign Minister Dora Bakoyiannis and Culture Minister Michael Liapis will attend.
HUNGARY - Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany will attend the Games but not the opening ceremony.
INDIA - Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. India's ruling Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi will attend opening, as will Sports Minister M. S. Gill.
INDONESIA - President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
ITALY - Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Foreign Minister Franco Frattini will attend.
LITHUANIA - President Valdas Adamkus. Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas will later attend the Games.
NEW ZEALAND - Prime Minister Helen Clark. Governor-General Anand Satyanand will attend.
NORTH KOREA - President Kim Jong Il. Second in command, Kim Yong Nam, will attend.
PAKISTAN - President Pervez Musharraf. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani will attend.
POLAND - Prime Minister Donald Tusk
SOUTH AFRICA - President Thabo Mbeki. His wife Zanele Mbeki will attend the Games.
SPAIN - King Juan Carlos and Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos and Crown Prince Felipe de Borbon y Grecia will attend.
TAIWAN - President Ma Ying-jeou. Thomas Tsai, president of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, will attend.
UNITED NATIONS - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
ZIMBABWE - President Robert Mugabe
#24
" LH could you please explain how returning to the WH would have allowed him to take charge anymore than staying where he was with many other world leaders?"
To have face to face meetings with RIce, Gates, Hadely,Joint Chiefs, and ANYONE else from the US national security establishment. Rice was in Beijing, but the others werent. But if you think advice from anyone at State otehr than Rice herself, and that advice from the Joint Chiefts, teh CIA, etc is valueless, as I know some here do think, than youre right, no practical advantage to leaving beijing.
Who did he need to be visible to and what does that mean in a day of instant worldwide communications, video included?
What it means is making clear that you think this is a crisis requiring massive attention. Which is hard to convey while watching volleyball.
The audience? Well the people of Georgia first and foremost. The Russians, secondarily. The Eastern europeans, third.
Do you think that there's someone important that DOESN'T know he's in charge?
The point is not to show hes at the top of the org chart, but that hes actually hands on on the crisis. Can you say 3 AM call?
#27
if you think advice from anyone at State otehr than Rice herself, and that advice from the Joint Chiefts, teh CIA, etc is valueless, as I know some here do think, than youre right, no practical advantage to leaving beijing
Face to face is not the only way for Bush to communicate with those people. POTUS does not travel without a full comms capability.
#28
I'm pretty sure W can multi task -- show face in China and conf call on the Marsat phone or iridum super singars w/the head shed back in DC, foggy bottom or wherever & talk to the info gurus. Not exactly rocket science.
#29
Doesnt W even more than most like to look people in the eye? I dont have as much confidence in video conferencing as a substitute for a RL meeting for a bunch of reasons, but then Im an old fogie.
Well anyway, I hope the WH tells us all how much time W spent doing video conferences from Beijing, it would help the PR alot, cause hes left a lot of people thinking he was less than involved, and my impression is thats not just sufferers from BDS but ordinary folks including lots of georgians. I could be wrong, and I expect you all will tell me Im full of it. Fine.
#30
LH -- There probably are some in Georgia, just like in the good ole USA, that wanted W sitting in the WH telling us every move, conversation they were doing.
But not all of the Georgians, 'cause they were the ones, who at those rallies, were waving big ole USA flags!
And, yes, W does like to look folks in the eye. I'm just guessing, but I think he has had more than one video conference and real meetings with those folks, that he knows them well enough, that he can see them eye-to-eye in a video conference.
#31
Relax, LH. Bamm Bamm will make things all better when he gets sworn in to office. That day is only 5 short months away. He'll convince us all to shed our cynicism about Russia and work hard to accept the fact that Europe really ought to be a province of Russia. Isn't a European Union what the Europeans have been working towards all these years? Greater Russia will simply be an EU with a Russian accent. Yes, we can accept it, but only if we try really hard, like Bamm Bamm wants us to.
#32
And LH, you still haven't detailed what you wanting him to be doing. 24 four hours a day meetings with State Department folks, DOD, etc.
Only so much can happen in each meeting, then you just sit around and wait, see what the next 12 hours brings, then meet again.
If you read above, I ask for some specifics. Other than sitting in the WH, looking folks in the eyes, I'm assuming you are thinking, W in the WH makes the world safe is the image to be projected.
Plus -- I still have heard no specifics are what he should be doing. Fly to WH, what now?
It's always the same, W just doesn't do anything --- but no one ever ventures forth with anything other than, he should have gone to New Orleans (and do what:) he should have gone to the WH (to do what?).
#33
ZF - Hell, I think if McCain gets in that will make things better.
Sherry - Im not going to go into the details of WH crisis management. You dont sound persuadable, and as I said in my first post on the matter, I dont think it would have mattered THAT much.
#34
LH -- it's not a question of being persuadable or not, it just that incident after incident after incident, the Bush Bashing... well, today, my temperament is of the kind, I just had to vent about it.
I'm usually pretty quiet around here. Today? Well, my patience just ran thin.
I accept what Beavis said, "if he came back, they would just say he was reading the goat book again."
No one deserves the abuse this man has taken. Me, I was glad to see him having fun, and our athletes apparently were extremely please to have him there.
Look at the pics of them with him, hanging all over him! Even the Redeem Team Basketball team! Kobe Bryant standing with his arm around Bush? Who would have ever thought to see that?
And Phelps telling of winning one of those races and how good it felt to look up and see that thumbs up from his President. Now, Mike had to know where he was sitting, and he had to have looked straight at the Pres to see that.
So again, it's not the persuadable or not, it's always Bush just reading the goat book, and no better suggestions made on maybe a better book he should have been reading.
I'll go back into my "no comment" mode now, but I do appreciate you listening.
#35
i dont usually bash Bush, ive defending him on several occasions, and I despise BDS.
But the counterpart to BDS is the apparent belief no one could EVER do anything better than Bush does. And in this particular instance I think it was clear what could have been done better. Most of the impact would have been in PR, but PR matters. In this instance, where our military levers are very limited, PR matters ALOT. Thats part of what being president is about, being there to rally around, and using your own person for imagery. Bush has been singularly poor at it, and its harmed even his wisest policies. and if Bush didnt like it he shouldnt have signed up for the job.
Im glad he had time to relax, but come january hes going to have LOTS of time for that.
And yeah, abuse goes with the job too, and if he didnt want that he shouldnt have signed up.
Both McCain and Obama have already gotten plenty of abuse they dont deserve. But thats what comes iwth the territory.
#38
and that wonderful comment from the choose thread: Want a straightforward indication of what the Russians intend? Putins code-name for this operation is Chistoye Polye. Literally translated, that means clean field. In military parlance, it means scorched earth.
#39
Putin is a good reason for a missle defence shield in Poland. Best policy is to continue support former satellites of the Soviet Union that are favorable to the US. Looks like the Cold War is on again but in a more limited way. Russians have delusions of grandeur. If you shake hands with the Russkies you had better count your fingers afterwards.
#40
LH, I'd say you were full of it but that wouldn't be true. You obviously spilled some of "it" on the keyboard.
For Bush to race off from the Olympics back to DC over this would have been the WORST thing he could do. This guy doesn't panic and he knew that no matter what was going down in Georgia, making a big public display of concern wasn't going to help matters. Remember what is going on here: this is the United States and Russia. The same people who had the entire world worried about MAD for half a century. Things like this need to be handled carefully and cautiously because the consequences, should they get out of hand, could be extremely dire.
I'm sure Bush knew our immediate options were relatively limited given our assets in the area. To make a big deal about going back to DC, only to show that we weren't going to do anything, would have made him look foolish. We're not likely to go to war with Russia over Georgia so downplaying this incident was the smartest thing he could have done. Think of the alternative: do you really think it would have been better if he got in Putin's face and said "pull your troops out in 24 hours or we start opening the silo doors?"
The Russians made a big mistake here. They're going to need to back away from it. However, they're a major player on the world stage and bullying them would not be taken well by them or by onlookers. I think Bush is handling this quite well so far. Sieff is obviously just a guy with an axe to grind and quite possibly a case of BDS. For him to say this was an American "fiasco of monumental proportions" is ridiculous hyperbole.
#41
I'm not sure what decisions he could've made at the WH that he couldn't make where he was. I'm sure he has enough repour w/his JCS that if they said "sir, need you to come home asap to unfuck this thing" he would've went back to DC most rik-tik. If to go back to DC was just for image sake, well, W has never really seem to give a shit about image (at least to me).
The Georgian people are fabled for their generosity and charm - sometimes to ridiculous extremes. As a heavy Russian artillery assault pounded one village near the Ossetian border, an old Georgian woman crept alongside a garden wall where I was taking shelter to offer me apples from her orchard.
Yet many Georgians have a tendency towards recklessness - as anyone who has driven on their roads can confirm.
The international consensus is that Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's president, took the national trait of recklessness to a farcical level when he decided to launch an offensive to liberate the region of South Ossetia from separatist rebel control.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just another western educated, third world, tinpot, crooked (would be) authocrat.
#3
Moscow not only funded and probably armed the rebels in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia; it also persuaded many of the people there to take up Russian passports by luring them with the promise of pensions. This gave the Kremlin the disingenuous pretext of defending Russian "citizens" to justify military intervention in Georgia.
Thats all that really needs to be said , apart from words like goading .
#4
It is clear that the Georgian political leaders and troops did not heap themselves with glory here. They were fools to have embarked upon this path. Georgia's national existence now relies not on their own wisdom and courage, but on the kindness of strangers.
Russia completely dominates the conventional military situation now. Their uncharacteristic restraint in not occupying Georgia, like a latter day Hungary is probably only due to the desire to avoid another war of occupation, like a latter day Afghanistan. Hopefully, that fear leads to an agreement that leaves the Georgian people free to elect new leaders at the usual time and gets the Russians out of a quickly deepening quagmire.
#5
I doubt the Russians are game for an occupation. Their military thrust will achieve the political aims.
Saakashvili has been seen on TV looking up in abject terror at possible Russian planes. Quite a normal human reaction but not something people want to see in their wartime leaders.
Once the fighting ends and Euro peacekeepers man the buffer zone, the reality of their loss will hit the Georgians and they will kick him out
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Yet Saakashvili knew that, if he did not resolve the separatist problem, European members would continue to block Georgia's membership bid.
Odd - but this line is the answer. The separatist problem is solved, so does the EU support a membership bid? Watch German-Baltic diplomatic activity, which is where the decision will be played out.
#8
I see attention and concern in Saakashvili's face, but not abject terror. He stands straight, not cowering away from the attack. Perhaps he should have combed his hair before the picture was taken?
As for Georgian recklessness behind the wheel, how does it compare to Parisians, or the foreigners in Brussels -- I was told upon moving there to expect one car destroyed per year, and so it came to pass... on the day before I was to turn it in for resale as the final step before moving back to the States.
Besides, who trusts politicians, or even statesmen, to be more trustworthy than God?
#9
It looks worse on the TV. His political opponents will use it to discredit him.
From the Times of London
As President Saakashvili looked up in terror at the Russian helicopter roaring over the besieged town of Gori, with his troops in retreat and Western allies offering no more than words against Moscow, the catastrophic consequences of his decision to take military action in South Ossetia last week could not have been clearer.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It looks worse on the TV. His political opponents will use it to discredit him.
So what's your excuse?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/14/2008 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The Russians followed the same playbook used by the Nazis in the months preceding the outbreak of war in 1939. For Poland, it was months of violent provocation over the Danzig Question - ethnic German riots in the city and surrounding countryside, murders, beatings, and relentless propaganda vilifying the Poles (much of the same was done in the Sudetenland and Austria). The Poles refused to be provoked because they already had a solemn defense pact with the British and the French. The Germans, as everyone knows, solved that problem with a secret agreement with Russia to divide Poland between them. Stalin probably had a pretext for attacking Poland, too, but it had nothing to do with Danzig.
"John Frum", this is the second day (at least) you've posted those pictures of Saakashvili on this site, stating that his face looked up at the sky in "terror".
Well, screw you, pal. For a political leader clearly the target for removal by the Russian military, a military with overwhelming air superiority over Saakashvili's country, the man shows enormous courage for placing himself within reach of Russian attack helicopters and attack aircraft.
George Bush was ridiculed by the Left in this country when he was rushed into AF-1 for parts (at the time) unknown. Dick Cheney spent several days in an "undisclosed location".
In an age when anyone in the street can be an enemy agent with a direct sat link to a forward air controller, it takes something special for a commander in chief during wartime to stroll about his war-torn country in broad daylight.
#13
His handlers should have had better judgment.
Saakashvili should have shown better judgment.
Bernard Kouchner was also there in Gori but there are no videos of the French FM on the ground being covered with flak jackets.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Let's put it this way. Russia was able to attack so quickly because they were ready to attack. It was just a matter of time. From a Georgian point of view at least they chose the time and thus had the military mobilized rather than destroyed in place.
I don't think Saakashvili is so foolish. I think he had a bad hand and made the most of it.
#15
Yet Saakashvili knew that, if he did not resolve the separatist problem, European members would continue to block Georgia's membership bid.
This is an interesting question, will it change the resolve of NATO or turn them off to Georgia for being such a pain in the ass? I don't think he intended it to get this out of hand though.
Ungala Akhalshenishvili, 23, who works at a cellphone company in Tbilisi, said her opinion of him had fallen over the course of the crisis. The president seemed to be playing the part of a man eager to fight, only to need a rescue from more muscular friends.
He has always tried to put a good face on what has happened, she said. But yesterday when I saw him he looked frightened and he seemed like he was waiting for France to come in and solve his problems.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#17
If photography was around I wonder what the faces of Samuel Adams and John Hancock would look like at o'dark 30 in the morning tumbling out of the Hancock-Clarke house in their night shirts running away from the British coming up the road from Boston.
#18
JF: Saakashvili has been seen on TV looking up in abject terror at possible Russian planes.
I see the shot but can't really describe it as abject terror. I can see why Russian propagandists (and their apologists) would describe it as such, but then again, these are the people who claim the CIA invented AIDS to kill black people.
#19
mrp: In an age when anyone in the street can be an enemy agent with a direct sat link to a forward air controller, it takes something special for a commander in chief during wartime to stroll about his war-torn country in broad daylight.
Especially if the adversary country has air dominance. The reality is that he was in real danger of being taken out with a smart bomb. The French Foreign Minister was safe, since killing him would have meant a state of war between France and Russia.
#20
Actually he doesn't look terrified to me, more annoyed that some idiot photographer was taking the opportunity to take a photo while he was being crushed by his pig-pile of bodyguards.
Filed under "Better late than never"
The current crisis in Georgia provides a timely reminder of Sweden's need to more effectively defend its borders and offshore territories, particularly the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, writes security expert Bo Pellnäs.
During the Cold War, Sweden played a stabilizing role in northern Europe. But today the Swedish military has been almost entirely dismantled and it is hardly likely that the countries in our immediate vicinity view us as any sort of serious actor in terms of security policy, either in the Baltic region or northern Europe.
We have consciously deprived ourselves of the majority of the military resources, which, in the long term, could contribute to peace and stability in the region.
This has happened as a result of successive military advisory committees focusing on short-term threats and avoiding any discussions concerning long-term security measures. In the short-term perspective, the sky is always blue, which helps keeps things nice and cheap.
But has Carl Bildt's description of the conflict in Georgia perhaps produced a little grey rain cloud in the sky above the parliamentary defence committee?
We should also look at the importance of being the first to arrive with military troops in a conflict zone. This is relevant both in relation to the Baltic states and the peacetime deployment of our military resources.
Should the security situation worsen and the Russian military build-up continue at the current rate, a discussion about the precautionary deployment of NATO or EU troops in the Baltic states will become unavoidable.
This should ideally have happened as a natural step when the Baltic states joined NATO. But deploying military resources to the region in the midst of a taut political situation is difficult to say the least, as it would seriously risk worsening an existing crisis.
It is only possible to avoid considerations of this sort if one allows oneself to believe that treaty texts are capable of having a peace-keeping effect without being backed up by considerable resources.
Finally, the principal of being first in place in a conflict zone is directly applicable to our own security situation with regard to Gotland.
It was a fundamentally stupid move on Sweden's behalf to withdraw its military units from Gotland. We need to maintain a long-term perspective, month after month, year after year, to display our determination to defend Gotland.
It has nothing to do with threat levels or the current political situation in the Baltic region. What's important is that we have resources in place in Gotland should tensions flare in the Baltic Sea area.
Other countries in the region should know that we intend securing the island. Any foreign power that feels it may need the island to build a position of strength in the south Baltic must be the one that is forced into an act of open aggression under the terms of the UN treaty, which prohibits states from using violence except in self-defence.
#2
Too bad, in the 70s, the Swedes could sting anyone who threatened them. They couldn't have beaten the Russians, but could have made them pay a price. Their strategy was to sweep the Baltic clean of shipping in the first few minutes of conflict because ships sitting in Helsinki could target Stockholm.
The nation is still reeling under the impact of three rounds of serial blasts in quick succession in Jaipur on May 13, 2008, in Bengaluru on July 25 and in Ahmedabad on July 26. The police have been unable to make much headway in the investigations into the Mumbai suburban train blasts of July, 2006, in which about 190 innocent civilians were killed and other terrorist strikes, which have followed one after the other in different parts of the country. The Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled States of Rajasthan, Karnataka and Gujarat have been as clueless in the face of this terrorism as the non-BJP ruled States.
2. There is a huge jihadi iceberg, which has been moving from State to State spreading death and destruction. We have not been able to locate this iceberg, trace its movement and destroy it. We don't even know who are behind the so-called Indian Mujahideen, which has claimed responsibility for many of these terrorist strikes. They have had many failures in the form of unexploded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) --- over 30 of them. The conventional wisdom in investigation is that every failure by the terrorists takes the police one step closer to a successful identification of the terrorists responsible. Over 30 failures --- over 20 of them in Surat in Gujarat-- and yet we are as clueless as ever. Were these failed IEDs examined by a single team? What were their conclusions? No answer.
3. The so-called Indian Mujahideen had sent three E-mail messages claiming responsibility--- two before the explosions took place and one after the explosion. It has been reported by "The Hindu" that one more message purporting to be from the Indian Mujahideen has been received by a newspaper warning of terrorist strikes in Godhra in Gujarat where a group of Hindu pilgrims travelling in a railway compartment were burnt to death by a group of Muslim fanatics in February 2002, which provoked acts of retaliation by sections of the Hindus all over the State. We take pride in the fact that we are a nation of high-class experts in information technology (IT). And yet, we have not been able to make any break-through in our investigation through an examination of these messages.
4. It is agreed by all analysts that one of the objectives of the perpetrators of these blasts in different States of India outside Jammu & Kashmir was to create a divide between the Hindus and the Muslims. Fortunately--- thanks to the prompt action by the concerned State administrations and to the good sense of the two communities--- the terrorists have not succeeded in this objective.
5.But what the terrorists have failed to achieve so far in other parts of India through their repeated acts of terrorism, the Government of India and the BJP have achieved for them in Jammu & Kashmir---- the Government through its shockingly ham-handed handling of a sensitive issue and the BJP by its cynical exploitation of the communal tensions arising from the Government's mishandling for partisan political purposes with an eye on Hindu votes in the next elections, which are expected before next May.
6. Ham-handed handling of vital national security issues has become the defininig characteristics of the Government of India. We have been seeing it again and again since the Mumbai suburban train blasts of July 2006. Important decisions have been taken--- whether relating to Pakistan or China or terrorism--- without examining their implications for national security. Many sensitive issues have been handled in a shockingly inept manner--- thereby giving the impression of its being a Government of novices with very little understanding of such issues.
7. Nothing illustrated its ineptitude more dramatically than the casual manner in which it watched without intervening when the decision to transfer a plot of land to the ownership of a board for the maintenance of a Hindu shrine (Amarnath) in the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley was taken by the local administration headed by the Congress (I) without a proper examination of its likely impact on Muslim public opinion and its likely exploitation by the Muslim radicals and then when the leaders of the Muslim community protested against it,it was cancelled without examining its likely impact on Hindu public opinion in the Hindu majority Jammu Division of the State.
8. The agitation launched by the Hindus of the Jammu Division of the State against the cancellation could have been justified if they had kept it confined to demonstrations and protests. Instead of doing so, they used the agitation for indulging in deplorable acts such as trying to disrupt communications with the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley and allegedly preventing the Muslim farmers of the Valley from sending their produce of fruits to the rest of India for sale.
9. This was a dangerous turn in the agitation and was interpreted by many as an economic blocade of the Muslims in order to force them to concede the demands of the Hindus in relation to the transfer of the land. A similar situation was sought to be created in 1990 by the jihadis in the valley by preventing the fruit farmers and artisans from sending their produce to the rest of India for sale. The Government of V.P.Singh, the then Prime Minister, immediately intervened and had their fruits etc flown from Srinagar to the rest of India at Government's expense in special planes of the Indian Airlines. It also organised Kashmir Trade Fairs in Delhi and other parts of India and helped the Kashmiri farmers and artisans to bring their produce out for sale.
10. One would have expected the Government of India to have promptly acted in a similar manner to break the alleged blocade by the Hindus of Jammu. It did nothing of the sort. It kept fiddling as the situation went from bad to worse. Angered by the inaction of the Government, the fruit farmers, instigated by the Muslim radicals and jihadi terrorists, decided to take their produce to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir for sale. No Government could have allowed this. The Government's efforts to stop this have led to instances of firing by the security forces on unruly mobs resulting in over 15 deaths.
11. One would have expected the BJP, which aspires to come to power in New Delhi after the next elections, to exercise self-restraint and resist the urge to exploit the situation for partisan political purposes. The expectations have been belied. Its crude attempts to exploit the situation with an eye on the next elections have added oil to fire and are threatening to take J&K back to 1989, when the insurgency started. All the counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism gains of recent years in the State face the danger of being wiped out by the Government's inept handling and the BJP's cynical exploitation of it.
12. In the situation as it is developing in J&K, nobody seems to be interested in national interests and in protecting the lives, property and economic interests of its citizens--- whatever be their religion. Partisan political interests have taken precedence over national interests.
13. Public opinion should force the Government and the BJP to wake up and prevent a slide back to 1989. Otherwise, the Indian Mujahideen, whoever is behind it, and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence will be having the last laugh.
The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 14:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Unless something drastic happens, the United States is about to lose its principal trusted Pakistani ally, President Pervez Musharraf. The newly elected Pakistani coalition government, distracted by its own internal squabbles and power struggles as it divvies up its newfound collective power since the elections, appears set to finally proceed with the impeachment of Musharraf. The loss of Musharraf in Pakistan will prove a watershed moment in the future of the conflict before us.
Ironically for Pakistan, the future of democracy there may ultimately be at stake, lying in the uncertain hands of a fractious coalition government that has been even more at odds with itself than with Musharraf, whose own massive unpopularity put them in power in the first place.
In November, when Musharraf declared a state of emergency and sacked supreme court justices who were expected to nullify his recent parliamentary re-election to the presidency, he asserted that he was protecting democracy in Pakistan. And, even though he forced through his re-election before his party was expected to be swept from the majority, a seeming affront on the spirit of the democratic process, he may well have been more correct than many would have ever thought at the time.
For once the convulsing new ruling coalition executes the two points they agree on booting Musharraf and restoring justices the Pakistani government may devolve into a state of weakness only ever more vulnerable to the bloodlust of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance which seeks to replace it.
The Pakistani vote that followed Musharrafs November moves was far less a national acquiescence to any real or imagined PPP or PML-N vision for the country than a resounding voice of displeasure for Musharraf. The principle partners in the new government, the PPP of assassinated Benazir Bhutto and the PML-N of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, agree on little beyond a unifying opposition to Musharraf.
The PML-N, in fact, withdrew its members from the national cabinet when the two parties could not agree on a timetable to reinstate the judges sacked by Musharraf a primary platform on which both parties were elected to perform. But several of them have now rejoined the cabinet, once again unified in seeking the ouster of the president through impeachment proceedings almost certain to succeed if a parliamentary vote is taken.
But then what?
The government of Pakistan is in far more disarray now than before Musharrafs PML-Q party was unceremoniously given the electoral boot. Power struggles continue to play out with an ebb and flow that tear at fought-over institutions and in ways the very writ of government. Pakistan lacks a strong central figure that, for all his flaws (and they are many), it at least had in Musharraf. Pakistan has always been infamous in its corruption, and the battle lines only magnify that now, with instability growing and encroaching on American strategy against terror like gathering storm clouds on the too-near horizon.
For there are two central tenets that the ruling PPP/PML-N coalition agree on; distancing themselves from the United States as an ally in the war on terror and the ouster of Pervez Musharraf, Americas most vital connection. Both of these tenets are aims shared by both al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who have made numerous assassination attempts on Musharraf and are currently executing a very patient insurgency inside Pakistan. This is not to say that the Pakistani ruling coalition and the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance are partners by any means and certainly not the PPP, whose leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by the latter.
But it is worth noting that the head of the PML-N, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, was reported by the Pakistani press at the time to have received billions of rupees as a campaign donation by Usama bin Laden in his first failed run at the premiership in the late 1980s. He also has a close relationship with Hamid Gul, the former ISI director said to be good friends with bin Laden and often referred to as the father of the Taliban, which he had a significant hand in creating and supporting.
This is the new government of Pakistan, which seeks the end of Musharrafs days and the end of Pakistans days as anything more than a nominal American ally. And there appears little in the way to prevent that. The future for us thus becomes much more difficult in our drive to liquidate al-Qaeda and the Taliban, still with sound sanctuary in the parts of Pakistan where the government has little if any writ. And the level of that writ decreases daily in more and more areas.
Pakistan does not want to simply sever ties with the United States. They do, at the end of the day, recognize if only seemingly just enough - that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have their eyes on them, too. And the billions each year in US aid money in exchange for Pakistans cooperation is a significant boost for the government and its military. The challenge for them is in how to walk the fine line, doing as little as possible without actually losing the very significant sums of American financial aid.
Consider the timeline of events after the Indian Embassy was bombed in Kabul, Afghanistan. The United States had signals intelligence linking Pakistani ISI officers to the bombers and tried to leverage this intelligence upon a Pakistani government drifting not only away from America, but towards outright disarray and instability with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their midst.
* Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan bombed by al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance on July 7th.
* US privately informs Pakistan after the bombing that they have a problem that the US has little patience for, namely al-Qaeda and Taliban supporters within their ISI ranks. While not a new problem nor a new revelation to either party, the point is clearly stressed.
* Pakistan announces that it is rolling the ISI (military intelligence) under civilian oversight, namely the Interior Ministry, once considered by far and away the most stalwartly loyal to President Pervez Musharraf. A purge is hinted at though not plainly stated.
* A CIA UAV missile strike on a madrassa in South Waziristan, Pakistan, kills four al-Qaeda members, including one senior leader, Abu Khabab al-Masri, who was al-Qaedas chief chemical weapons and bomb expert.
* Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani visits President Bush in the White House, then upbraids him in a press conference, saying the US is impatient and needs to hand over intelligence and let Pakistan forces handle ourselves. He adds that Pakistan is fighting the war for ourselves, suggesting that the United States back off.
* Likely a bit miffed at the rebuff, only then does the US publicly release the intelligence data linking Pakistani ISI members to the terrorist cell that bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul.
* Pakistan responds by reiterating that plans to roll the ISI under Interior Ministry control is still in the works, even though it was opposed by Musharraf and the military and thus reportedly rescinded hours after its original announcement.
President and Chief of Army Staff, Musharraf tried to play both sides by cooperating with the United States and placating the Taliban and al-Qaeda enemy within. Without Musharraf, the Pakistani government also gives every indication it intends to play both sides by placating the United States and avoiding any confrontation with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, affording them even more fertile fields to grow in within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP).
Their demand that we share intelligence and leave strike execution solely to them is laughable on its face if the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance is to be combated and eventually defeated. We shared intelligence with the ISI ahead of strikes on 29 known al-Qaeda and Taliban training camps, probably to prove a point. And when the subsequent strikes on those camps found them suddenly and largely abandoned, the point was clear. We clearly did not share strike intelligence or data ahead of the strikes that recently killed Abu Khabab al-Masri. If we had, he surely would not have been the recipient of an al-Qaeda obituary glorifying the terrorist groups chief chemical weapons expert.
As this ever-weakening government continues to move ahead with often self-destructive results and internal disarray, our strategy will have to adjust accordingly. The pace of airstrikes against high value al-Qaeda targets has already increased multiple-fold and will likely continue to do so with a sense of urgency. Necessity may one day dictate limited-scale cross-border operations directly into the Taliban-al-Qaeda lairs, operations we had hoped the Pakistani military and security forces would shoulder. A large scale incursion will likely never be in the works, as lacking a sufficient blocking anvil to hammer them against, they would simply scatter farther into Pakistan, changing little other than to cause the Pakistani military to fire at us rather than with us.
Pakistan indeed appears to have freely made the choice to move the lines, even if somewhat less than definitively. And the direction seemingly chosen may soon increase the level of difficulty and danger for us there, to say nothing of their own security amid a patient Taliban-al-Qaeda insurgency best described as Death by a Thousand Cuts.
But every dark cloud has a silver lining. And it is with little doubt that a weak post-Musharraf Pakistan gives rise to a very dark cloud. But it will almost certainly cause the United States and India to solidify an alliance that has always seemed a natural one, if elusive throughout the Cold War. If nothing else, the demise of Musharraf may ultimately add a bit of clarity in that regard.
And clarity is an all too often underappreciated aspect in national security strategy. In the long-term interests of any concern, clarity is far more valuable than consensus.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 11:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
PAKISTANS diplomacy has historically been imbued with imagination and initiative. Recently, however, there was an occasion when our effort to engage in a salvage operation was stopped virtually in midstream.
Its origins go back to the July 2005 George Bush-Manmohan Singh joint statement that carried the US commitment to provide civilian nuclear technology to India. Bush had then stated that his administration would not only adjust US laws and policies, but also work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India.
A year later, the US Congress passed the Henry Hyde US-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Act of 2006, which Bush signed into law on Dec 18, 2006. Thereafter on July 27, 2007, India and the US reached a consensus on the text of a nuclear cooperation agreement, prompting Bush to reiterate the US desire to base relations with India on a strategic vision that transcends even todays most pressing security concerns. However, for this agreement to be put into operation, India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) needed to agree on a Safeguards Agreement.
This high-stake game moved recently to Vienna where the IAEA Board of Governors was hustled into approving, by consensus, the draft of the Safeguards Agreement that contained procedural errors as well as critical exceptions and concessions that other IAEA agreements did not contain.
For example, it does not, unlike accepted IAEA format, use the word in perpetuity with reference to the safeguards, which can only be taken as indicative of Indias desire to keep open the possibility of reneging on the agreement. It also has a provision that permits India to take corrective measures to ensure the uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies.
Since such a disruption can happen only if India resumes nuclear testing, this loophole will stop the IAEA from preventing the diversion of materials from civilian safeguarded reactors to military purposes. Nor does the agreement include a list of facilities to be safeguarded. Instead, India has been permitted to volunteer which of its facilities will be placed under safeguards and when. This has led some to describe it as an empty shell agreement.
Earlier, when US largesse to India had caused deep concern to American advocates of non-proliferation as well as our national security experts, the last government had chosen to adopt an attitude that revealed both ignorance and apathy.
Admittedly, our demand for a similar facility would have been brushed aside, given the bitter memories of Kargil and allegations of proliferation misdemeanours. Nevertheless, our refusal to immediately react to the Indo-US deal was deeply disappointing to most Pakistanis.
The restoration of a democratic government had renewed hopes that Pakistan would finally wake up to the grave implications of the Indo-US deal and initiate a vigorous diplomatic campaign on two tracks. One, bilaterally with Washington to press for a criteria-based approach, while seeking its assistance in harnessing alternative sources of energy. Two, by sensitising friendly capitals on this issue and seeking their support to delay, if not deny, passage of the Safeguards Agreement.
In mid-July, a half-hearted effort was finally launched by the Foreign Office, when our permanent representative in Vienna, wrote to the Board of Governors (BOG), as well as member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), pointing out the procedural errors as well as substantive concessions contained in the Safeguards Agreement.
By endorsing Indias refusal to place its breeder reactors and thorium-based programme under safeguards, the agreement recognises Indias three-phased nuclear programme, which amounts to gratuitous legitimisation of potential nuclear proliferation that was contrary to IAEA objectives.
The letter also stressed that the IAEA statute does not provide for differentiation between member states on the basis of political consideration, nor did it allow for special treatment for a particular state.
Calling it an India-specific agreement was therefore wrong but any safeguards agreement adopted by the BOG in respect of India should be available as a model for other non-NPT states. The foreign ministry also decided to send a special envoy to China, to obtain its support for our approach.
In response, the Bush administration launched its own campaign to dissuade Pakistan from any effort to thwart the Indo-US game plan. In doing so, it also claimed that the previous government had already given its commitment not to oppose the unprecedented concessions given to India.
Our ambassador in Washington, too, according to well-informed sources, pitched in, recommending that we do nothing to upset the Bush administrations advice and, instead, terminate all efforts to counter the Indo-US move, at both the IAEA and the NSG, which is to meet to consider the US draft to allow nuclear trade with India. To the Foreign Offices disappointment, the entire campaign was called off, causing deep dismay at this abject surrender of national interests.
The Indo-US nuclear deal should not be seen merely as a commercial arrangement. Thanks to this deal, India will obtain full access to nuclear technology, while the global ban on civil nuclear cooperation with Pakistan will remain intact. India will also stand admitted to the exclusive club of nuclear weapon states, while Pakistans nuclear programme will continue to draw international concern and opprobrium.
Moreover, the manner in which the deal was concluded is reflective of the common desire of New Delhi and Washington to bring about a qualitative change in their bilateral ties, making it truly strategic. This is evident from the manner in which the Bush administration was willing to employ its heavy guns to silence critics, while convincing others that the benefits of a strategic partnership with India far outweighed US commitments (both domestic and international) to non-proliferation.
On the Indian side too, Manmohan Singh was so determined to consummate the deal that he was willing to risk a parliamentary vote of non-confidence, in favour of a policy that represents Indias abandonment of the half-a-century old Nehruvian policy of not identifying with any one superpower.
No wonder, the then US Under Secretary of State Nick Burns had asserted: This is a unique agreement, for a unique country. But it is our own behaviour that demonstrates the distance travelled since Bhutto refused to buckle under US pressure to abandon the reprocessing plant and Mian Sahib, notwithstanding the combined threats and blandishments of Clinton and Blair, refused to surrender Pakistans sovereign right to carry out nuclear tests, in response to those of India.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 09:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope you cry yourselves to sleep tonight you one way mother f-ers. You are proliferators of nuclear equipment and information. You get nothing. India gets it all. Suffer in your humiliation.
The Islamabad declaration which conveyed the coalition government's intention to impeach General Musharraf has been received with mixed feelings by the people of Pakistan. The two coalition leaders have been hailed widely for taking a bold stride and surmounting what was being viewed as a stalemate in their relationship. By and large the people of Pakistan would like to see the fulfilment of the Islamabad declaration. However, underlying this desire is the sentiment of doubt and scepticism about the success of this declaration and the motion to impeach General Musharraf.
These sentiments which fall anywhere between cautious optimism and unbridled pessimism are quite understandable. After all, when have we ever known Pakistan's politics to follow a logical or predictable path?
What I find absurd, however, is the response of those few Pakistanis who are still left in General Musharraf's camp. Immediately after the announcement of the Islamabad declaration, some of the so-called legal wizards and conventional supporters of General Musharraf began questioning the constitutional validity of the impeachment motion. Article 47(8) of the Constitution grants that an impeachment motion may be moved against the President if he is guilty of violating the constitution or is guilty of gross misconduct. Musharraf's supporters claim that there are no charges against him which may satisfy the requirement of this article and warrant filing and passing of the impeachment motion.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Send em Kucinich. He seems to think he's an expert on this stuff. Tell em they can keep him for as long as they need him.
Sixty-one years into freedom from British rule we are not only prisoners of the circumstances created by our leaders--because of their incapability, selfishness, greed and lack of vision--we are in serious danger of losing whatever independence we have left. Instead of recounting all our failures and lamenting our mistakes which have brought us to this sorry plight, it is time to lay on the line the vital steps the leadership in each strata of our society must take for the sake of a country that we all love, or prefer to love, but one which is in grave danger of becoming a place we would hate to live in. The meaning of independence is to be free, not dependent upon others.
Good governance is the demand of all our citizens. This will be achieved if democracy is not given short shrift by those who profess to be the principal proponents thereof. The February 2008 elections were meant to be contrived but these were fortunately free and fair, as much as elections can be in Third World countries. Accountability being the basis of his own existence, Musharraf overturned this by enacting the black NRO. What we got is hardly a pristine version of democracy. The manner the "inheritance" of the mantle of leadership of our major political party was passed onto husband and son, thanks to a disputed will, would have put any absolute monarchy in the world to shame.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Freedom means being responsible for your actions---no Muslim ever takes responsibility for his actions.
#2
In the Bukhari Hadith there are 12 references to Muslims as "abd-Allahs" or "slaves of allah." Its a master-slave system. Liberty is anathema to the Clash enemy.
#3
Pakistanis must wake up to the fact that our nuclear reality is the one strong deterrent that guards our freedom. The Pakistan Army zealously guards that deterrent, ISI being our first line of defence against external enemies. All the multi-dimensional attacks on the Army and the ISI are based on one objective, and one objective alone: to denude us of our crown jewels, the nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
I see.
Pakistani reality obviously differs from that of everyone else.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/14/2008 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The writer is a defence and political analyst
Are any of these people not mouthpieces for the ISI?
The violent Gaza confrontation between Hamas and Fatah that occurred after the July 25 explosion of a car carrying Hamas activists has brought about a significant strengthening of Hamas's control of the Strip and an almost total elimination of Fatah's presence there.
After Hamas's June 2007 takeover of Gaza, the Islamic movement allowed Fatah to continue its local activities. Fatah leaders were able to travel between the West Bank and Gaza, officials working for PA President Mahmoud Abbas continued to operate in Gaza, and Fatah's organizational frameworks continued to function. Among the reasons for this were Hamas's reluctance to burn all its bridges with the PA, and the fact that Muhammad Dahlan's rivals within Fatah cooperated with Hamas in its takeover.
The assassination of five senior members of its military wing presented Hamas with the opportunity to wipe out Fatah's presence in the Strip. It is safe to assume that Hamas decided on this objective long ago, because all attempts at dialogue with Fatah had failed. The PA under Abbas and in cooperation with Israel is engaged in an ongoing effort to destroy the Hamas infrastructure in the West bank, and Fatah operatives in the Strip continued to challenge Hamas, in part through firing rockets into Israel to demonstrate that Hamas control is weak.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/14/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
Congrats boys! You are undoubtedly the big cheese of that filthy, suicidal toilet!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
THE condemnation of Rab by the US-based Human Rights Watch comes as no surprise to us. We warned the government, time and again, that the crossfire deaths were undermining the edifice of the whole judicial process and whatever Rab had achieved in its anti- terrorism drive. The introduction of the crack force had a positive impact on the crime situation as proliferation of terrorist organisations was threatening law and order. The Rab's efficiency in containing the threat was commendable, but nothing could justify the deaths in crossfire, the accounts of which invariably followed the same pattern. 
