Last week, I spoke about how President
Barack Obama justified his prisoner swap of
five senior Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt.
Bowe Bergdahl by saying former military
leaders and presidents, including George
Washington, have engaged in prisoner of war
exchange, too.
Obama's exact words were: "This is what
happens at the end of wars. That was true for
George Washington; that was true for
Abraham Lincoln; that was true for FDR;
that's been true of every combat situation --
that at some point, you make sure that you try
to get your folks back. And that's the right
thing to do."
From that statement alone, I revealed how
Obama's made grievous errors in judgment
by concluding that 1) the war is over and 2)
he was engaging in a prisoner exchange like
George Washington -- to take just a single
example among his list of stellar leaders.
What Obama didn't tell you regarding
Washington and prisoner exchange during
the Revolutionary War is that both countries
-- England and the U.S. -- exchanged
prisoners of war because both had "few
facilities to accommodate large numbers of
prisoners," according to the Mount Vernon
Ladies' Association, whose mission it is "to
preserve, restore, and manage the estate of
George Washington to the highest standards
and to educate visitors and people throughout
the world about the life and legacies of
George Washington."
As far as buying Americans back from
captivity at the price of enemy combatants,
Obama needs to follow the example of Gen.
Washington, who "made sure that no states
holding military prisoners should trade a
British soldier for an American citizen.
Washington believed that this would have
legitimized the British capture of more
citizens, most of whom were largely
defenseless."
Though no one is minimizing the
understandable elation of Bergdahl's family
over his release, George Washington would
not have traded for him, because he didn't
believe in trading prisoners of war until after
the war was in fact over, treaties were signed
and hostilities ceased, lest he risk the capture
of further American people for ransom.
Here are my two additional grievances with
Obama's prisoner of war exchange:
3) As the commander in chief, George
Washington wouldn't have completely
undermined the very heart and soul of the
military as Obama did with his prisoner
exchange, especially in light of how it is a
cardinal sin in military culture to abandon
one's post and platoon during war.
A little over a week ago, The Washington Post
reported, "Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant
colonel and intelligence officer, wrote in
National Review that a 'fundamental culture
clash' exists between the president's team
and those in the armed forces, as reflected by
(national security adviser Susan) Rice's
remarks on Bergdahl's honor."
"Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to
think that the crime of desertion in wartime
is kind of like skipping class," Peters wrote.
"They have no idea of how great a sin
desertion in the face of the enemy is to those
in our military. The only worse sin is to side
actively with the enemy and kill your
brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on
Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies
101."
Maybe a key here as to why Obama could so
easily discard military code and culture is he
really doesn't regard America's battleground
in the world as a war on terror in the first
place.
Remember the 2009 explanative memo from
the White House to Pentagon staff members
via the Defense Department that said that
"this administration prefers to avoid using
the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on
Terror.' Please use 'Overseas Contingency
Operation'"?
Of course, while the White House plays with
semantics, our courageous U.S. military
personnel are continuing to fight and die on
the battlefield. While the war diminishes in
Obama's fairy tale mind, he just gifted the
real war on terror and the Taliban with their
greatest boost in years.
4) George Washington would not have
emboldened America's greatest enemies
around the world and put at greater risk not
only U.S. military personnel but also
American citizens by increasing their
captivity value in the eyes of our enemies.
And what are the odds that Obama had
another political ulterior motive for prisoner
exchange -- namely, the turning of the
American mind and media from his Veterans
Affairs battlefield? For his "never waste a
crisis"-saturated administration, is this
hypothesis really a stretch?
On June 5, veteran newsman and CEO of
WorldNetDaily Joseph Farah wrote in a
column titled "What Motivates Obama?": "Is it
possible that part of the calculated political
motivation underlying Obama's decision was
just that -- getting the VA out of the nation's
headlines? At first glance, it seems counter-
intuitive: Can you escape one scandal by
creating another? The answer is, of course.
It's called the old 'wag the dog' strategy."
The bottom line, as President Obama recently
said to cadets at the United States Military
Academy, is that "for the foreseeable future,
the most direct threat to America, at home
and abroad, remains terrorism."
Yet his actions as commander in chief say just
the opposite. Indeed, last June, he said
America needed to draw down its war footing
and bring it to an end.
The truth is that Obama is too conciliatory a
leader to be the commander in chief of the
greatest military force in human history. He
says terrorism is the "most direct threat to
America" to cadets yet calls the war on terror
an overseas contingency operation.
He doesn't even know how to announce
victory. He confessed to ABC News in 2009,
"I'm always worried about using the word
'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this
notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and
signing a surrender to MacArthur."
So how does one add up the following Obama
conclusions? 1) The war, which is not really a
war at all, is over, so much so that we're
exchanging the release of final prisoners of
war. 2) Victory won't be announced, yet the
end of combat missions and the withdrawal
of American troops have been.
There can be only one conclusion, at least in
Obama's mind: America has lost the war on
terror, particularly in the Middle East.
Facts unfortunately point to the tragic event
that Sgt. Bergdahl went AWOL on his post
and platoon. But even worse, facts point to
the catastrophic event that President Obama
just went AWOL as our commander in chief.
And George Washington is rolling in his
grave.
17 Jun 2014
A BITTER AFTER TASTE
The news from Iraq that Islamic terrorists
have now taken over cities that American
troops liberated during the Iraq war must
have left an especially bitter after-taste to
Americans who lost a loved one who died
taking one of those cities, or to a survivor
who came back without an arm or leg, or with
other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a
tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into
Iraq in the first place. Others say we should
never have pulled our troops out when we
did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible
government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the
notion of "nation-building," especially nation-
building on the cheap, and to the glib and
heady talk of "national greatness"
interventionists who were prepared to put
other people's lives on the line from the
safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President
George W. Bush for everything bad that has
happened since he left office should at least
acknowledge that he was a patriotic
American president who did what he did for
the good of the country -- an assumption that
we can no longer safely make about the
current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could
create a thriving democracy in the Middle
East -- one of the least likely places for a
democracy to thrive -- had paid off, it could
have been the beginning of a world-changing
benefit to this generation and to generations
yet unborn.
A thriving free society in the Muslim world,
and the values and example that such a
society could represent, might undermine the
whole hate-filled world terrorist movement
that is seeking to turn back civilization to a
darker world of centuries past.
But creating such a society, if it is possible at
all, cannot be done on the cheap, with
politicians constantly calling for us to
announce to the world -- including our
enemies -- when we are going to leave. The
very idea is silly, but everything silly in not
funny.
We haven't yet announced when we are
going to pull our troops out of Germany or
Japan, and World War II was over more than
60 years ago. Turning those militaristic
countries around was one of the great
achievements in human history. Their
neighboring countries have been able to
enjoy a peace and security that they had not
known for generations.
Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and
Japan made it seem that we might achieve
something similar in Iraq. But "the greatest
generation" that had fought and survived the
horrors of war around the world was under
no illusion that trying to turn our defeated
enemies around would be easy, quick and
cheap.
Creating democracy in Germany and Japan
was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable
and viable government amid the ruins and
rubble of war was the first priority and a
major responsibility. You cannot create
instant democracy like you are making
instant coffee.
There are prerequisites for a free society, and
the foundations of democracy cannot be built
on chaotic conditions with widespread
uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for
the sake of holding elections is to abdicate
responsibility for the sake of appearances.
The biggest danger is that you will create a
government that will work at cross purposes
to everything you are trying to achieve -- a
government you cannot rein in, much less
repudiate, without destroying your own
credibility as representatives of democracy.
That has happened in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
By contrast, in both Germany and Japan
power was turned over to elected officials at
such times and in such degree as conditions
seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries
resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But
we didn't publish a timetable.
Today, with terrorists threatening to at least
fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a
sobering thought that Barack Obama and his
key advisers have a track record of having
been wrong about Iraq and other foreign
policy issues for years, going back before they
took office -- and no track record of learning
from their mistakes.
have now taken over cities that American
troops liberated during the Iraq war must
have left an especially bitter after-taste to
Americans who lost a loved one who died
taking one of those cities, or to a survivor
who came back without an arm or leg, or with
other traumas to body or mind.
Surely we need to learn something from a
tragedy of this magnitude.
Some say that we should never have gone into
Iraq in the first place. Others say we should
never have pulled our troops out when we
did, leaving behind a weak and irresponsible
government in charge.
At a minimum, Iraq should put an end to the
notion of "nation-building," especially nation-
building on the cheap, and to the glib and
heady talk of "national greatness"
interventionists who were prepared to put
other people's lives on the line from the
safety of their editorial offices.
Those who are ready to blame President
George W. Bush for everything bad that has
happened since he left office should at least
acknowledge that he was a patriotic
American president who did what he did for
the good of the country -- an assumption that
we can no longer safely make about the
current occupant of the White House.
If President Bush's gamble that we could
create a thriving democracy in the Middle
East -- one of the least likely places for a
democracy to thrive -- had paid off, it could
have been the beginning of a world-changing
benefit to this generation and to generations
yet unborn.
A thriving free society in the Muslim world,
and the values and example that such a
society could represent, might undermine the
whole hate-filled world terrorist movement
that is seeking to turn back civilization to a
darker world of centuries past.
But creating such a society, if it is possible at
all, cannot be done on the cheap, with
politicians constantly calling for us to
announce to the world -- including our
enemies -- when we are going to leave. The
very idea is silly, but everything silly in not
funny.
We haven't yet announced when we are
going to pull our troops out of Germany or
Japan, and World War II was over more than
60 years ago. Turning those militaristic
countries around was one of the great
achievements in human history. Their
neighboring countries have been able to
enjoy a peace and security that they had not
known for generations.
Perhaps what was achieved in Germany and
Japan made it seem that we might achieve
something similar in Iraq. But "the greatest
generation" that had fought and survived the
horrors of war around the world was under
no illusion that trying to turn our defeated
enemies around would be easy, quick and
cheap.
Creating democracy in Germany and Japan
was a goal, but not a fetish. Creating a stable
and viable government amid the ruins and
rubble of war was the first priority and a
major responsibility. You cannot create
instant democracy like you are making
instant coffee.
There are prerequisites for a free society, and
the foundations of democracy cannot be built
on chaotic conditions with widespread
uncertainty and fear. To hold elections for
the sake of holding elections is to abdicate
responsibility for the sake of appearances.
The biggest danger is that you will create a
government that will work at cross purposes
to everything you are trying to achieve -- a
government you cannot rein in, much less
repudiate, without destroying your own
credibility as representatives of democracy.
That has happened in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
By contrast, in both Germany and Japan
power was turned over to elected officials at
such times and in such degree as conditions
seemed to indicate. Eventually, both countries
resumed their roles as sovereign nations. But
we didn't publish a timetable.
Today, with terrorists threatening to at least
fragment Iraq, if not take it over, it is a
sobering thought that Barack Obama and his
key advisers have a track record of having
been wrong about Iraq and other foreign
policy issues for years, going back before they
took office -- and no track record of learning
from their mistakes.
UKRAINE GAS TALKS BREAKS DOWN
Ukraine gets half of the natural gas it uses
from Russia. However, it's not an evenly
distributed half. Ukraine needs far more gas
in winter, and far less in Summer. Ukraine
has enough gas now to last until September.
Politics being politics, resolution of the
dispute could be another two months away
before anyone panics. Thus, it should be no
surprise that Russian Gas Payment Talks Fail .
Ukraine risks the cutoff of natural-gas
supplies from Russia after overnight talks
to resolve a pricing dispute between the
two countries ended without a deal less
than eight hours before a payment
deadline.
Ukraine must pay $1.95 billion to partially
settle its debt to the Russian-owned
natural gas exporter OAO Gazprom for
past deliveries by 10 a.m. Moscow time
today, said Sergei Kupriyanov, a company
spokesman, by phone. He said the
deadline won’t be waived.
“The Russian side has stated that if there
will be no upfront payment, it will start
limiting gas,” said Ukraine Energy
Minister Yuri Prodan.
Russian negotiators rejected a compromise
proposal by the European Union,
according to EU Energy Commissioner
Guenther Oettinger, who has been
involved in the trilateral talks since they
started in May.
The EU, dependent on Russian gas piped
through Ukraine for about 15 percent of its
supplies, is trying to broker a deal to
maintain shipments amid the fuel
payments conflict. In Ukraine, government
forces and rebels claiming allegiance to
Russia continue to clash in the east of the
country.
“For the moment our Russian partners
didn’t accept my proposal,” Oettinger said.
“We have no common understanding.”
Ukraine was ready to accept the EU
proposal of a price range between $300
and $385 per 1,000 cubic meters, still
above the $286.5 that the country paid in
the first quarter, Kobolyev said today.
Gazprom’s final offer was $385, the
company said last week.
Ukraine, which relies on Gazprom (GAZP)
for about half its gas, is able to survive
without Russian fuel until the middle of
September as its current gas consumption
almost matches domestic output due to low
seasonal demand and the stalling of
production at its chemical plants in the
east, according to a Concorde Capital, a
Kiev, Ukraine-based investment company.
The last paragraph above explains all you
need to know. The setup in Ukraine is quite
like debt ceiling negotiations in the US,
typically solved at the last moment with
huffing and puffing and overblown reporting
of consequences if a deal is not reached.
Given that Russia needs the income and
Ukraine and Europe needs the gas, the odds
of a deal "in due time" are at least 95%.
from Russia. However, it's not an evenly
distributed half. Ukraine needs far more gas
in winter, and far less in Summer. Ukraine
has enough gas now to last until September.
Politics being politics, resolution of the
dispute could be another two months away
before anyone panics. Thus, it should be no
surprise that Russian Gas Payment Talks Fail .
Ukraine risks the cutoff of natural-gas
supplies from Russia after overnight talks
to resolve a pricing dispute between the
two countries ended without a deal less
than eight hours before a payment
deadline.
Ukraine must pay $1.95 billion to partially
settle its debt to the Russian-owned
natural gas exporter OAO Gazprom for
past deliveries by 10 a.m. Moscow time
today, said Sergei Kupriyanov, a company
spokesman, by phone. He said the
deadline won’t be waived.
“The Russian side has stated that if there
will be no upfront payment, it will start
limiting gas,” said Ukraine Energy
Minister Yuri Prodan.
Russian negotiators rejected a compromise
proposal by the European Union,
according to EU Energy Commissioner
Guenther Oettinger, who has been
involved in the trilateral talks since they
started in May.
The EU, dependent on Russian gas piped
through Ukraine for about 15 percent of its
supplies, is trying to broker a deal to
maintain shipments amid the fuel
payments conflict. In Ukraine, government
forces and rebels claiming allegiance to
Russia continue to clash in the east of the
country.
“For the moment our Russian partners
didn’t accept my proposal,” Oettinger said.
“We have no common understanding.”
Ukraine was ready to accept the EU
proposal of a price range between $300
and $385 per 1,000 cubic meters, still
above the $286.5 that the country paid in
the first quarter, Kobolyev said today.
Gazprom’s final offer was $385, the
company said last week.
Ukraine, which relies on Gazprom (GAZP)
for about half its gas, is able to survive
without Russian fuel until the middle of
September as its current gas consumption
almost matches domestic output due to low
seasonal demand and the stalling of
production at its chemical plants in the
east, according to a Concorde Capital, a
Kiev, Ukraine-based investment company.
The last paragraph above explains all you
need to know. The setup in Ukraine is quite
like debt ceiling negotiations in the US,
typically solved at the last moment with
huffing and puffing and overblown reporting
of consequences if a deal is not reached.
Given that Russia needs the income and
Ukraine and Europe needs the gas, the odds
of a deal "in due time" are at least 95%.
IRAQ IS ON ITS OWN!
"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
great task remaining before us -- that from
these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the
last full measure of devotion -- that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain..." (The Gettysburg Address)
No life is more wasted than one lost in vain.
After the U.S. military battled heroically to
liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship and to eliminate the possibility
that it might become a staging area for
terrorist attacks, the Obama administration
has created a vacuum now being filled by the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-
Qaida affiliate, which has overrun Mosul and
Fallujah, cities liberated by American
soldiers. ISIS now threatens Baghdad.
The administration's nonpolicy policy
proclaiming the war over, has given ISIS a
green light to establish another terrorist state
in the Middle East. Following the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, al-Qaida will
likely have two states from which it can plan
and execute new assaults on America, Israel,
Britain and other "infidel" nations. Having
declared the war(s) over and al-Qaida "on the
run," President Obama responds with empty
rhetoric about his national security team
studying what to do, then leaves for a trip
that will end on a golf course in Palm
Springs.
Vice President Biden once called Iraq one of
the president's "great achievements."
On Friday, the president announced the U.S.
would not send military forces back to Iraq
unless the Iraqi government finds a way to
bridge sectarian differences. Even then, he
suggested, military power alone won't bring
stability to the country. Basically, the
president said, "Iraq, you're on your own."
Imagine what the families of dead and
wounded U.S. soldiers think about the sudden
resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq. They were
told their sons and daughters died in a noble
cause. According to "The Costs of War
Project" at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International Studies, "The wars
begun in 2001 have been tremendously
painful for millions of people ... each
additional month and year of war adds to
that toll." The Rock River Times writes,
"Coalition deaths in Iraq totaled more than
4,700, with the United States sustaining more
than 4,480 deaths through the Iraq War's
official end Dec. 15, 2011. More than 32,000
other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq,
while more than 134,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed during the course of the official war."
The monetary cost is in the trillions of
dollars. Are we now saying, "Never mind"?
The U.S. has no serious counterintelligence
operation in Iraq, because it refuses to
perceive a commensurate threat from a
global enemy or to see the deadly purpose
and scope of this enemy. It does not
appreciate the scale of the upheaval among
the world's 1.3 to 1.6 billion Muslims, and
the money, motives, power and near-total
information control held by the Islamists who
are committed to the destruction of their
enemies and the subordination, forced
conversion and re-education of those they
allow to live. The jihadists in Iraq recently
looted $429 million from Mosul's central
bank, according to the regional governor,
making them possibly the richest terrorist
group ever.
Our focus under this administration is
unimaginatively constrained largely to the
Middle East, but the growing threat of Islamic
terrorism is not just there. The Islamist
infiltration of schools in Birmingham,
England, is an example for what is to come
there and in the U.S. if they are not stopped.
The administration and much of the media
try to separate "fanatical Muslims" from
"peaceful" ones, but the distinction is
meaningless when the fanatics have the
weapons and are willing to die for their
cause.
This war for the future of the planet is not
over and is unlikely to be for generations to
come. While it's true we can't be the
policemen of the world, we can be its
prisoners in a world ruled by Islamic
fundamentalists. If Western nations don't
combine to use their moral, monetary,
religious, intelligence and, yes, military
power to stop this onslaught against freedom,
we will lose it and never get it back.
Withdrawal from this war is a policy of
surrender. What we need is a unified
approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us
and other allied nations. What we need is a
policy that works.
great task remaining before us -- that from
these honored dead we take increased
devotion to that cause for which they gave the
last full measure of devotion -- that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain..." (The Gettysburg Address)
No life is more wasted than one lost in vain.
After the U.S. military battled heroically to
liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's
dictatorship and to eliminate the possibility
that it might become a staging area for
terrorist attacks, the Obama administration
has created a vacuum now being filled by the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), an al-
Qaida affiliate, which has overrun Mosul and
Fallujah, cities liberated by American
soldiers. ISIS now threatens Baghdad.
The administration's nonpolicy policy
proclaiming the war over, has given ISIS a
green light to establish another terrorist state
in the Middle East. Following the withdrawal
of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, al-Qaida will
likely have two states from which it can plan
and execute new assaults on America, Israel,
Britain and other "infidel" nations. Having
declared the war(s) over and al-Qaida "on the
run," President Obama responds with empty
rhetoric about his national security team
studying what to do, then leaves for a trip
that will end on a golf course in Palm
Springs.
Vice President Biden once called Iraq one of
the president's "great achievements."
On Friday, the president announced the U.S.
would not send military forces back to Iraq
unless the Iraqi government finds a way to
bridge sectarian differences. Even then, he
suggested, military power alone won't bring
stability to the country. Basically, the
president said, "Iraq, you're on your own."
Imagine what the families of dead and
wounded U.S. soldiers think about the sudden
resurgence of al-Qaida in Iraq. They were
told their sons and daughters died in a noble
cause. According to "The Costs of War
Project" at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International Studies, "The wars
begun in 2001 have been tremendously
painful for millions of people ... each
additional month and year of war adds to
that toll." The Rock River Times writes,
"Coalition deaths in Iraq totaled more than
4,700, with the United States sustaining more
than 4,480 deaths through the Iraq War's
official end Dec. 15, 2011. More than 32,000
other U.S. troops were wounded in Iraq,
while more than 134,000 Iraqi civilians were
killed during the course of the official war."
The monetary cost is in the trillions of
dollars. Are we now saying, "Never mind"?
The U.S. has no serious counterintelligence
operation in Iraq, because it refuses to
perceive a commensurate threat from a
global enemy or to see the deadly purpose
and scope of this enemy. It does not
appreciate the scale of the upheaval among
the world's 1.3 to 1.6 billion Muslims, and
the money, motives, power and near-total
information control held by the Islamists who
are committed to the destruction of their
enemies and the subordination, forced
conversion and re-education of those they
allow to live. The jihadists in Iraq recently
looted $429 million from Mosul's central
bank, according to the regional governor,
making them possibly the richest terrorist
group ever.
Our focus under this administration is
unimaginatively constrained largely to the
Middle East, but the growing threat of Islamic
terrorism is not just there. The Islamist
infiltration of schools in Birmingham,
England, is an example for what is to come
there and in the U.S. if they are not stopped.
The administration and much of the media
try to separate "fanatical Muslims" from
"peaceful" ones, but the distinction is
meaningless when the fanatics have the
weapons and are willing to die for their
cause.
This war for the future of the planet is not
over and is unlikely to be for generations to
come. While it's true we can't be the
policemen of the world, we can be its
prisoners in a world ruled by Islamic
fundamentalists. If Western nations don't
combine to use their moral, monetary,
religious, intelligence and, yes, military
power to stop this onslaught against freedom,
we will lose it and never get it back.
Withdrawal from this war is a policy of
surrender. What we need is a unified
approach to fighting Islamic extremism by us
and other allied nations. What we need is a
policy that works.
THE MUSHARRAF TRIAL AND BEYOND
On January 2, General Musharraf ended up at the Armed
forces institute of cardiology in Rawalpindi, a rather long
detour from his residence to the court, which had made
a third unsuccessful attempt to summon the ex-
president on charges of treason.
With speculations ranging from whether there was a
deliberateeffort afoot to prevent the general from
reaching the court to how smartly once gain a court
appearance had been avoided, the General remains
hospitalized. After the initial hoopla about the whys and
whats of the event, it is just another news item, till the
next big audience. However, one wonders what if
instead of the quiet yet highly professional new chief
justice Jillani, it was the media’s darling Justice
Chaudhry still holding the office, could these deferments
be possible? Every word uttered by the Chief Justice
would make proverbial breaking news across the
television channels, and for many the trial appeared
more on the personal grid than its merit.
An unfortunate situation, as very often public weds itself
to popular sentiments and opinions about what the truth
should be, than what it actually is. Should Musharaf be
handed out the guilty verdict on high treason? For
some, the answer is in affirmative, as it would prove a
deterrent for future khaki interventions and perhaps
cosmetically redress the civil-military imbalance. Yet a
review of the state of affairs, indicates problems where
the military appears least zealous given the
circumstances than civilian administers, who need to do
their necessary bit.
While the media remains preoccupied on providing
situational updates on Musharaf, the most urgent and
pressing concern in the first two weeks of the new year
has been the rising number of terrorist bombings. Not
less than fifty people, including civilians and law
enforcement officials have perished as a result. Yet
again, there has been a divided house when it comes to
dealing with the non-state terrorist elements. Where the
KPK provincial government under the PTI prefers
dialogue with the “disillusioned brethren” over direct
military action, the federal government appears totally
ambivalent about how to tackle this critical and most
pressing issue.
Both the provincial and federal governments seem to
disregard the drawdown of foreign troops from
Afghanistan and a different politico-military
arrangement, which appears nightmarish for Pakistani
security forces. The forces have been preoccupied
domestically for more than a decade, and the non-state
elements, have a bigger playfield and target practicing
to carryout.
The social and traditional media cannot get enough out
of the deaths of Aitzaz Ahmed a young school boy, who
bravely lost his life by thwarting a suicide attack on his
school mates and that of Chaudhry Aslam, a daredevil
policeman, who for long led a charmed life and stood
out as a symbol of defiance and destruction for terrorist
elements in the troubled port city of Karachi. These two
brave sons of the soil are not the only one lost in this
brutal war against terrorism and militancy. There have
been many who precede them and unfortunately many
who would gladly follow their footsteps, but is this a
fair price to pay.
What is required is an actual implementation of the
anti-terrorism act, the draft bill already prepared by
NACTA (the purpose built National Counter terrorism
Agency), with a zero-tolerance approach and full inter-
agential coordination as well as cooperation. Dialogue
can only work, if the government and not the militants
are at a superior footing with adequate deterring
physical capacity. The latter is actually not a problem,
although the law enforcement agencies remain lacking
in their capacity, but (at the cost of disregarding
security sector balance) the military somehow fills the
vacuum. It is the will and determination of the decision-
makers that matters. At any religious festivity, a
complete lockdown of major cities, with a total blockade
of communication and road access can temporarily
manage the problem, but is no way a long term to
permanent solution to a menace, which cannot be
addressed symptomatically alone.
The PML-N government emphasized on “3-E’s” during
and after the elections, Energy, Extremism and
Economics. With regards energy sector, the pipelines
and alternate energy sources are being worked on, but it
would take several years before a true relief is brought
about. Extremism as mentioned above needs an iron
fisted approach with no appeasement and political
patronizing of any sorts. With regards economics, unless
there is adequate energy and safe environment,
commercial and industrial output will be affected
drastically. The PML-N, a party which comprises of
feudal and industrialists more than any other should be
aware of this.
As part of better economic opportunities, the
government has in its traditional manner been more
proactive on improving relations with New Delhi, the
January 16-18 agreement between the trade ministers a
positive indicator, but one can only hope that the
relations between the two countries do not remain
focused on one issue area alone, but equal investment
and positive output be made on contentious issues
without preconditions and time delaying tactics.
forces institute of cardiology in Rawalpindi, a rather long
detour from his residence to the court, which had made
a third unsuccessful attempt to summon the ex-
president on charges of treason.
With speculations ranging from whether there was a
deliberateeffort afoot to prevent the general from
reaching the court to how smartly once gain a court
appearance had been avoided, the General remains
hospitalized. After the initial hoopla about the whys and
whats of the event, it is just another news item, till the
next big audience. However, one wonders what if
instead of the quiet yet highly professional new chief
justice Jillani, it was the media’s darling Justice
Chaudhry still holding the office, could these deferments
be possible? Every word uttered by the Chief Justice
would make proverbial breaking news across the
television channels, and for many the trial appeared
more on the personal grid than its merit.
An unfortunate situation, as very often public weds itself
to popular sentiments and opinions about what the truth
should be, than what it actually is. Should Musharaf be
handed out the guilty verdict on high treason? For
some, the answer is in affirmative, as it would prove a
deterrent for future khaki interventions and perhaps
cosmetically redress the civil-military imbalance. Yet a
review of the state of affairs, indicates problems where
the military appears least zealous given the
circumstances than civilian administers, who need to do
their necessary bit.
While the media remains preoccupied on providing
situational updates on Musharaf, the most urgent and
pressing concern in the first two weeks of the new year
has been the rising number of terrorist bombings. Not
less than fifty people, including civilians and law
enforcement officials have perished as a result. Yet
again, there has been a divided house when it comes to
dealing with the non-state terrorist elements. Where the
KPK provincial government under the PTI prefers
dialogue with the “disillusioned brethren” over direct
military action, the federal government appears totally
ambivalent about how to tackle this critical and most
pressing issue.
Both the provincial and federal governments seem to
disregard the drawdown of foreign troops from
Afghanistan and a different politico-military
arrangement, which appears nightmarish for Pakistani
security forces. The forces have been preoccupied
domestically for more than a decade, and the non-state
elements, have a bigger playfield and target practicing
to carryout.
The social and traditional media cannot get enough out
of the deaths of Aitzaz Ahmed a young school boy, who
bravely lost his life by thwarting a suicide attack on his
school mates and that of Chaudhry Aslam, a daredevil
policeman, who for long led a charmed life and stood
out as a symbol of defiance and destruction for terrorist
elements in the troubled port city of Karachi. These two
brave sons of the soil are not the only one lost in this
brutal war against terrorism and militancy. There have
been many who precede them and unfortunately many
who would gladly follow their footsteps, but is this a
fair price to pay.
What is required is an actual implementation of the
anti-terrorism act, the draft bill already prepared by
NACTA (the purpose built National Counter terrorism
Agency), with a zero-tolerance approach and full inter-
agential coordination as well as cooperation. Dialogue
can only work, if the government and not the militants
are at a superior footing with adequate deterring
physical capacity. The latter is actually not a problem,
although the law enforcement agencies remain lacking
in their capacity, but (at the cost of disregarding
security sector balance) the military somehow fills the
vacuum. It is the will and determination of the decision-
makers that matters. At any religious festivity, a
complete lockdown of major cities, with a total blockade
of communication and road access can temporarily
manage the problem, but is no way a long term to
permanent solution to a menace, which cannot be
addressed symptomatically alone.
The PML-N government emphasized on “3-E’s” during
and after the elections, Energy, Extremism and
Economics. With regards energy sector, the pipelines
and alternate energy sources are being worked on, but it
would take several years before a true relief is brought
about. Extremism as mentioned above needs an iron
fisted approach with no appeasement and political
patronizing of any sorts. With regards economics, unless
there is adequate energy and safe environment,
commercial and industrial output will be affected
drastically. The PML-N, a party which comprises of
feudal and industrialists more than any other should be
aware of this.
As part of better economic opportunities, the
government has in its traditional manner been more
proactive on improving relations with New Delhi, the
January 16-18 agreement between the trade ministers a
positive indicator, but one can only hope that the
relations between the two countries do not remain
focused on one issue area alone, but equal investment
and positive output be made on contentious issues
without preconditions and time delaying tactics.
INS ARIHANT: A 'GIANT STRIDE FOR INDIA
When the INS Arihant’s nuclear reactor went critical in
August 2013, India not only joined the blue-water navy
club of countries with the capability to build nuclear-
powered ballistic missile submarines, but also picked on
a major doctrinal headache. This, apart from the
specification concerns and limited intended utility, puts
the Indian Advanced Technological Vessel (ATV)
programme in a quagmire. With the Indian Navy
expecting to acquire and deploy the vessel in the first
quarter of 2015, certain aspects of this project must be
discussed to gauge New Delhi’s capability to field and
utilise such technology.
Manufacturing
The ATV project is believed to have been started with
the objective of manufacturing SSNs –fast moving
deep-diving nuclear powered attack submarines –
largely based on the K-43 Charlie class vessel, leased
from the Soviet Union at a time when India did not
overtly possess nuclear capability. The project since
then has been covertly developing in the backdrop of
India conducting the Pokhran-II tests, declaring an
ambiguous nuclear strategy, and making impressive
strides in the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBMs). The Arihant class seems to be a
derivative of the Charlie class, with the specifications
scaled up to the Akula class to accommodate a Vertical
Launch System (VLS) for ballistic missiles. Although
this would not hamper the general functioning of the
vessel, as per reports of the sea trials, the full
implications of this tweak will only emerge when the
Sagarika SLBMs are integrated into the of the INS
Arihant in early 2015. Furthermore, the inclusion of sail
planes and a towed array pod are surprising, as they are
generally avoided to counter limitations to speed and
fragility.
The pressurised water reactor (PWR) aboard the vessel
has also been developed with considerable assistance
from the Russians, contradicting New Delhi’s claims of
the Arihant being an indigenously developed submarine.
With no word on the progress of a domestic generator in
India, the Arihant class’s core component still uses
Russian intelligence and technology. The initial vessel
consumed more than a decade to be rolled out for
primary tests, as opposed to the average five years
taken for the development of vessels of the same class/
category by the five other navies that possess this
technology.
With the first vessel of the Arihant class still undergoing
final trials, India’s decision to start work on subsequent
vessels is a little hurried. An ideal strategy would have
been to concentrate on finishing the INS Arihant and
observing it in a deployed state and then diverting time
and resources on the succeeding vessels. If the claims
of the INS Aridhaman (second vessel in the Arihant
class) being built with ‘bigger and better’ specifications
is true, then the Indian government has not taken any
pointers from this endeavour and embarked on a new
project without successfully completing the first. In any
case, the US$ 2.9 billion per unit price of the vessel
does not justify its results, especially in comparison with
other navies building the same submarine at a
significantly lower price.
Utility: Intended Vs. Delivered
Former Naval Chief Nirmal Verma described the INS
Arihant as primarily a ‘technology demonstrator’.
However, it remains to be seen as to what ‘technology’
the vessel will be demonstrating. A simple comparison
of the Arihant with other submarines of comparable
class/category will reflect this issue. The Arihant has an
advertised maximum speed of only 24kts (submerged),
as opposed to the average 30kts afforded by all the
other classes. Not only does this reflect poorly on
India’s – DRDO and BARC’s – technological
capabilities, but also impedes the operational capability
of the vessel. Once discovered, the propellant potential
becomes the deciding factor for the survivability of a
submarine.
Also, the armament capacity of the INS Arihant is
acutely inferior, with the vessel only fielding 12 K-15
short-range SLBMs. In contrast, the Astute, the Virginia
and the Akula class all have provisions for at least 40
missiles.
With its slow speed and limited strike range, INS Arihant
does not contribute significantly to India’s second-
strike capability, with both China and Pakistan fielding
advanced anti-missile and early warning systems.
Doctrinal Shortcomings
The INS Arihant poses a new dilemma for the Modi
government. For ‘credible minimum deterrence’, New
Delhi is believed to have kept its nuclear weapons in a
‘de-mated’ state with the civilian authority exercising
absolute control. For a ballistic nuclear submarine, the
government will not only have to increase the readiness
of the weapons, but also relinquish their command to
naval officers on board the vessel. This increases the
possibility of an unauthorised/erroneous launch. Also
absent are well-defined protocols to dictate the steps to
be taken in the event of a communications failure with
the central command authority, or dealing with a hostile
take-over. The INS Arihant is a classic example of
governments going into the production stage of
weapons without developing concomitant doctrines.
The INS Arihant maybe a landmark achievement, but it
cannot stand up to China’s newest Jin class vessels,
reported to be one of the current best. Similarly, the
implication of inducting a nuclear submarine in the
Indian Navy on Pakistan remains to be seen. There are
already talks of Beijing selling submarines and
technology to Pakistan. In that case, the INS Arihant
has only initiated another arms race in the region.
August 2013, India not only joined the blue-water navy
club of countries with the capability to build nuclear-
powered ballistic missile submarines, but also picked on
a major doctrinal headache. This, apart from the
specification concerns and limited intended utility, puts
the Indian Advanced Technological Vessel (ATV)
programme in a quagmire. With the Indian Navy
expecting to acquire and deploy the vessel in the first
quarter of 2015, certain aspects of this project must be
discussed to gauge New Delhi’s capability to field and
utilise such technology.
Manufacturing
The ATV project is believed to have been started with
the objective of manufacturing SSNs –fast moving
deep-diving nuclear powered attack submarines –
largely based on the K-43 Charlie class vessel, leased
from the Soviet Union at a time when India did not
overtly possess nuclear capability. The project since
then has been covertly developing in the backdrop of
India conducting the Pokhran-II tests, declaring an
ambiguous nuclear strategy, and making impressive
strides in the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic
Missiles (ICBMs). The Arihant class seems to be a
derivative of the Charlie class, with the specifications
scaled up to the Akula class to accommodate a Vertical
Launch System (VLS) for ballistic missiles. Although
this would not hamper the general functioning of the
vessel, as per reports of the sea trials, the full
implications of this tweak will only emerge when the
Sagarika SLBMs are integrated into the of the INS
Arihant in early 2015. Furthermore, the inclusion of sail
planes and a towed array pod are surprising, as they are
generally avoided to counter limitations to speed and
fragility.
The pressurised water reactor (PWR) aboard the vessel
has also been developed with considerable assistance
from the Russians, contradicting New Delhi’s claims of
the Arihant being an indigenously developed submarine.
With no word on the progress of a domestic generator in
India, the Arihant class’s core component still uses
Russian intelligence and technology. The initial vessel
consumed more than a decade to be rolled out for
primary tests, as opposed to the average five years
taken for the development of vessels of the same class/
category by the five other navies that possess this
technology.
With the first vessel of the Arihant class still undergoing
final trials, India’s decision to start work on subsequent
vessels is a little hurried. An ideal strategy would have
been to concentrate on finishing the INS Arihant and
observing it in a deployed state and then diverting time
and resources on the succeeding vessels. If the claims
of the INS Aridhaman (second vessel in the Arihant
class) being built with ‘bigger and better’ specifications
is true, then the Indian government has not taken any
pointers from this endeavour and embarked on a new
project without successfully completing the first. In any
case, the US$ 2.9 billion per unit price of the vessel
does not justify its results, especially in comparison with
other navies building the same submarine at a
significantly lower price.
Utility: Intended Vs. Delivered
Former Naval Chief Nirmal Verma described the INS
Arihant as primarily a ‘technology demonstrator’.
However, it remains to be seen as to what ‘technology’
the vessel will be demonstrating. A simple comparison
of the Arihant with other submarines of comparable
class/category will reflect this issue. The Arihant has an
advertised maximum speed of only 24kts (submerged),
as opposed to the average 30kts afforded by all the
other classes. Not only does this reflect poorly on
India’s – DRDO and BARC’s – technological
capabilities, but also impedes the operational capability
of the vessel. Once discovered, the propellant potential
becomes the deciding factor for the survivability of a
submarine.
Also, the armament capacity of the INS Arihant is
acutely inferior, with the vessel only fielding 12 K-15
short-range SLBMs. In contrast, the Astute, the Virginia
and the Akula class all have provisions for at least 40
missiles.
With its slow speed and limited strike range, INS Arihant
does not contribute significantly to India’s second-
strike capability, with both China and Pakistan fielding
advanced anti-missile and early warning systems.
Doctrinal Shortcomings
The INS Arihant poses a new dilemma for the Modi
government. For ‘credible minimum deterrence’, New
Delhi is believed to have kept its nuclear weapons in a
‘de-mated’ state with the civilian authority exercising
absolute control. For a ballistic nuclear submarine, the
government will not only have to increase the readiness
of the weapons, but also relinquish their command to
naval officers on board the vessel. This increases the
possibility of an unauthorised/erroneous launch. Also
absent are well-defined protocols to dictate the steps to
be taken in the event of a communications failure with
the central command authority, or dealing with a hostile
take-over. The INS Arihant is a classic example of
governments going into the production stage of
weapons without developing concomitant doctrines.
The INS Arihant maybe a landmark achievement, but it
cannot stand up to China’s newest Jin class vessels,
reported to be one of the current best. Similarly, the
implication of inducting a nuclear submarine in the
Indian Navy on Pakistan remains to be seen. There are
already talks of Beijing selling submarines and
technology to Pakistan. In that case, the INS Arihant
has only initiated another arms race in the region.
CHINA'S 'SALAMI SLICING ': WHAT'S NEXT?
It has been over a month since China installed an oil rig
in the disputed South China Sea (SCS). Ever since,
China has shifted the location of the rig thrice. The
installation of the rig appears to be a well calibrated
move. Evidently, China has adopted a ‘salami
slicing’ (step-by-step approach) in the SCS. It took
over Mischief Reef from the Philippines in 1995;
established Sansha city on the Yongxing Island/Woody
Island a few kilometres from its Hainan Province; cut
the cables of the Vietnamese vessels; occupied
Scarborough Shoal; and is now constructing a runway
on Johnson South Reef. The rig appears to be their next
move in the region.
Subsequent to the installation, China issued an official
document titled ‘The operation of HYSY 981 grilling rig:
Vietnam’s Provocation and China’s Position’ on the 8
June, reaffirming its position. It has also taken the issue
to the UN. Chinese Deputy Ambassador Wang Min sent
a ‘position paper’ on the rig to the UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon and asked the UN chief to circulate it to
the 193 members of the General Assembly. This is in
sharp contrast to China’s previous gestures. During the
Shangri La Dialogue, Lt. General Wang Ghuanzhong of
the People’s Liberation Army reiterated China’s position
that territorial disputes should be settled bilaterally
between the claimants with clear indication that the US
should keep away from the disputes. Until now China
stood for bilateral solution of disputes and was against
any arbitration. By issuing the statement and sending a
‘position paper’, China is itself internationalising the
issue.
These developments have further increased the tension
in the SCS dispute making it further complicated. It is
hence perplexing to understand as to why China issued
a ‘position paper’ on the rig in the disputed area. What
is China’s end game in the region?
Rig HYSY 981 in the Disputed Area
The rig is placed between the Paracel Islands occupied
by China and the Vietnam. Since 1974, China occupied
the Paracels (Xisha/Hoangsa Island).The problem arises
with the different interpretation of the position of the rig.
According to Vietnam, the rig is operating within 200
nautical miles of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and
on its continental shelf but China says that it is
operating in its own territory. China and Vietnam have
already signed the agreement on the delimitation of the
territorial seas; EEZs and the continental shelf in the
Beibu Gulf (Gulf of Tonkin); and the agreement on the
fishery cooperation in the region in 2000. Till date, this
is the only maritime boundary agreement that China has
had with any other country.
There are two reasons for China establishing the rig;
energy security and the strategic concerns in the region.
Since 1993, China has been a net importer of oil and is
heavily dependent on supply from abroad. Thus, to
reduce the dependence on foreign oil, China is in the
process of exploring different plausible locations; and
the SCS has approximately 11 billion barrels of oil
reserves and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. On
the strategic front, there is an increasing role of external
powers in the region. China Daily reported that “the
United States was the real threat…pointing to U.S.
cyber-warfare and missile defence capabilities and the
fact that U.S. defence spending far exceeded China‘s.”
Nevertheless, the most likely rationale for the
installation of the rig is that it is China’s response to
the changing strategic environment of the SCS.
China's Endgame in the Region
China has realised that the SCS is vital for both
solidifying its influence in the Southeast Asia, as well as
for its regional aspirations. China aspires to play an
important role in the region with minimum US influence
and has thus turned towards multilateral solution to the
dispute. Perhaps it has realised that if it continues
defying international laws and UN mandates, it will give
more space for the US to interfere in the region as is
evident in the case of the enhancing US-Philippines
alliance.
Yet, another reason for putting forward the ‘position
paper’ is to stop the discussion for a ‘Code of Conduct’
in the region which is already due after the ‘2002 code
of Conduct’. By putting forward the ‘position paper’,
China is trying to make its own stand clear and thereby
putting the blame on the Vietnam.
At this juncture, China’s strategy in the region appears
to be a combination of tactical timing and ambiguity.
Thus the installation of the rig has taken the dispute to
a multilateral forum. However, its solution remains
uncertain.
in the disputed South China Sea (SCS). Ever since,
China has shifted the location of the rig thrice. The
installation of the rig appears to be a well calibrated
move. Evidently, China has adopted a ‘salami
slicing’ (step-by-step approach) in the SCS. It took
over Mischief Reef from the Philippines in 1995;
established Sansha city on the Yongxing Island/Woody
Island a few kilometres from its Hainan Province; cut
the cables of the Vietnamese vessels; occupied
Scarborough Shoal; and is now constructing a runway
on Johnson South Reef. The rig appears to be their next
move in the region.
Subsequent to the installation, China issued an official
document titled ‘The operation of HYSY 981 grilling rig:
Vietnam’s Provocation and China’s Position’ on the 8
June, reaffirming its position. It has also taken the issue
to the UN. Chinese Deputy Ambassador Wang Min sent
a ‘position paper’ on the rig to the UN Secretary General
Ban Ki-Moon and asked the UN chief to circulate it to
the 193 members of the General Assembly. This is in
sharp contrast to China’s previous gestures. During the
Shangri La Dialogue, Lt. General Wang Ghuanzhong of
the People’s Liberation Army reiterated China’s position
that territorial disputes should be settled bilaterally
between the claimants with clear indication that the US
should keep away from the disputes. Until now China
stood for bilateral solution of disputes and was against
any arbitration. By issuing the statement and sending a
‘position paper’, China is itself internationalising the
issue.
These developments have further increased the tension
in the SCS dispute making it further complicated. It is
hence perplexing to understand as to why China issued
a ‘position paper’ on the rig in the disputed area. What
is China’s end game in the region?
Rig HYSY 981 in the Disputed Area
The rig is placed between the Paracel Islands occupied
by China and the Vietnam. Since 1974, China occupied
the Paracels (Xisha/Hoangsa Island).The problem arises
with the different interpretation of the position of the rig.
According to Vietnam, the rig is operating within 200
nautical miles of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and
on its continental shelf but China says that it is
operating in its own territory. China and Vietnam have
already signed the agreement on the delimitation of the
territorial seas; EEZs and the continental shelf in the
Beibu Gulf (Gulf of Tonkin); and the agreement on the
fishery cooperation in the region in 2000. Till date, this
is the only maritime boundary agreement that China has
had with any other country.
There are two reasons for China establishing the rig;
energy security and the strategic concerns in the region.
Since 1993, China has been a net importer of oil and is
heavily dependent on supply from abroad. Thus, to
reduce the dependence on foreign oil, China is in the
process of exploring different plausible locations; and
the SCS has approximately 11 billion barrels of oil
reserves and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. On
the strategic front, there is an increasing role of external
powers in the region. China Daily reported that “the
United States was the real threat…pointing to U.S.
cyber-warfare and missile defence capabilities and the
fact that U.S. defence spending far exceeded China‘s.”
Nevertheless, the most likely rationale for the
installation of the rig is that it is China’s response to
the changing strategic environment of the SCS.
China's Endgame in the Region
China has realised that the SCS is vital for both
solidifying its influence in the Southeast Asia, as well as
for its regional aspirations. China aspires to play an
important role in the region with minimum US influence
and has thus turned towards multilateral solution to the
dispute. Perhaps it has realised that if it continues
defying international laws and UN mandates, it will give
more space for the US to interfere in the region as is
evident in the case of the enhancing US-Philippines
alliance.
Yet, another reason for putting forward the ‘position
paper’ is to stop the discussion for a ‘Code of Conduct’
in the region which is already due after the ‘2002 code
of Conduct’. By putting forward the ‘position paper’,
China is trying to make its own stand clear and thereby
putting the blame on the Vietnam.
At this juncture, China’s strategy in the region appears
to be a combination of tactical timing and ambiguity.
Thus the installation of the rig has taken the dispute to
a multilateral forum. However, its solution remains
uncertain.
ISIL, IRAQ AND SECURING INDIA'S INTERESTS
The rabbit hole of Iraq springs up bizarre and
devastatingly new challenges for the US even a decade
after its invasion of the country. The embarrassment
does not end there. The US is now forced to re-enter
the quagmire and may fight alongside its arch-enemy
Iran, much to the chagrin of its most ardent allies in the
region – the Arab Gulf states and Israel.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a new
virulent strain of Wahhabi militancy, recently took
control over the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit and
according to some regional commentators threatens to
rejig the region’s entire post-Ottoman shebang.
Strangely, a large part of the ISIL’s forces comprises
remnants of Saddam’s so-called secular regime –
particularly the Naqshbandi Army operating under the
command of the fugitive Ba’ath Party leader Izzat al-
Douri. In response, Shiite militants have answered the
call to arms by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani in their
thousands, raising fears that Iraq might soon
disintegrate on sectarian lines.
These unforeseen events in Iraq follow other
extraordinary developments that are fast transforming
the geopolitical landscape of the region. Signs of a
possible détente in relations between the US and Iran
have taken the world by surprise. The six oil-rich Gulf
monarchies that constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) have been particularly outraged by the so-called
US ‘double-cross’, with Saudi Arabia being so incensed
that it refused to take the UN Security Council seat to
which it was elected. The country has even warned of a
major shift away from the US and is seeking to build an
Asian pivot for a new security architecture.
The US-GCC relationship first came under strain in
2011, when Washington sided with democratic forces
that deposed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and then
recognised the Muslim Brotherhood-backed president
Mohamed Morsi. Fissures widened following the US’
inaction in Syria and its ‘neutrality’ during the Bahrain
uprising, which confirmed GCC fears that Washington
was no longer the guarantor of Gulf security. The last
straw was the surreptitious nuclear deal with Iran last
November, which apparently did not consider taking Gulf
countries into confidence.
Thus, the trust is breached and the 40-year-long ‘oil-
for-security’ pact seems past its sell-by date. The
phenomenal increase in the US’ shale oil and gas
production has helped the superpower outgrow its
‘addiction to Middle East oil’, allowing it to act more
independently in the region. This has impaired
confidence in regional security arrangements, which
could have far-reaching implications for West Asia and
the world.
For its part, India would have to continue walking a
diplomatic tightrope between Iran and the GCC, building
on the trust and goodwill it has earned among all sides
in a volatile region. Interestingly, the early signs of thaw
in the US-Iran relations augur well for New Delhi, as this
had been a major point of contention in Washington-
New Delhi relations. India has maintained diplomatic
ties with Iran and both have shared geostrategic
interests, particularly in Afghanistan and Central Asia. A
breakthrough in the US-Iran negotiations could also
allow India to increase its oil imports from the Gulf
country – which are currently limited by the sanctions
regime. There is also ample scope for trade and cultural
exchanges.
Still, a wide gulf exists between Washington and Tehran
as the present thaw could dissipate any moment.
Moreover, any changes in regional relations should not
come at the expense of India’s historic and strategically
important ties with the GCC states. West Asia supplies
over 62 per cent of India’s oil imports, most of which
come from Arab Gulf countries. Moreover, the over 6
million-strong Indian Diaspora in the GCC states has
created deep human links between the two societies.
While 70 per cent of Indian expatriates in the GCC are
blue collar workers, over 20 per cent are professionals.
They remit about $30 billion to India every year.
Additionally, the GCC countries view the emergence of
Indian economy with great interest. With the rise of
major non-OPEC oil producers such as Russia and the
US, the Gulf is looking toward the Indian and Chinese
markets for sustainable demand. Again, following 9/11
and the 2008 global recession, Gulf capital is
increasingly seeking investment out of the West. A
significant degree of cultural comfort and confidence in
India’s property rights protection and rule of law (unlike
China’s) makes India an attractive investment
destination. However, the policy paralysis that dogged
India’s previous administration proved disappointing for
some corporations. It is hoped that with the coming of a
strong, new leadership in New Delhi, India may finally be
able to meet expectations.
However, the security architecture of the Gulf remains a
major concern for India. With the US influence in retreat,
India needs to actively engage with the GCC, Iran and
Iraq to secure its vital trade and energy interests. In
cooperation with other Asian powers such as China,
Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia, it should
initiate building a durable, non-hegemonic security
architecture which ensures stability and peace in the
region.
devastatingly new challenges for the US even a decade
after its invasion of the country. The embarrassment
does not end there. The US is now forced to re-enter
the quagmire and may fight alongside its arch-enemy
Iran, much to the chagrin of its most ardent allies in the
region – the Arab Gulf states and Israel.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a new
virulent strain of Wahhabi militancy, recently took
control over the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit and
according to some regional commentators threatens to
rejig the region’s entire post-Ottoman shebang.
Strangely, a large part of the ISIL’s forces comprises
remnants of Saddam’s so-called secular regime –
particularly the Naqshbandi Army operating under the
command of the fugitive Ba’ath Party leader Izzat al-
Douri. In response, Shiite militants have answered the
call to arms by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani in their
thousands, raising fears that Iraq might soon
disintegrate on sectarian lines.
These unforeseen events in Iraq follow other
extraordinary developments that are fast transforming
the geopolitical landscape of the region. Signs of a
possible détente in relations between the US and Iran
have taken the world by surprise. The six oil-rich Gulf
monarchies that constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC) have been particularly outraged by the so-called
US ‘double-cross’, with Saudi Arabia being so incensed
that it refused to take the UN Security Council seat to
which it was elected. The country has even warned of a
major shift away from the US and is seeking to build an
Asian pivot for a new security architecture.
The US-GCC relationship first came under strain in
2011, when Washington sided with democratic forces
that deposed Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and then
recognised the Muslim Brotherhood-backed president
Mohamed Morsi. Fissures widened following the US’
inaction in Syria and its ‘neutrality’ during the Bahrain
uprising, which confirmed GCC fears that Washington
was no longer the guarantor of Gulf security. The last
straw was the surreptitious nuclear deal with Iran last
November, which apparently did not consider taking Gulf
countries into confidence.
Thus, the trust is breached and the 40-year-long ‘oil-
for-security’ pact seems past its sell-by date. The
phenomenal increase in the US’ shale oil and gas
production has helped the superpower outgrow its
‘addiction to Middle East oil’, allowing it to act more
independently in the region. This has impaired
confidence in regional security arrangements, which
could have far-reaching implications for West Asia and
the world.
For its part, India would have to continue walking a
diplomatic tightrope between Iran and the GCC, building
on the trust and goodwill it has earned among all sides
in a volatile region. Interestingly, the early signs of thaw
in the US-Iran relations augur well for New Delhi, as this
had been a major point of contention in Washington-
New Delhi relations. India has maintained diplomatic
ties with Iran and both have shared geostrategic
interests, particularly in Afghanistan and Central Asia. A
breakthrough in the US-Iran negotiations could also
allow India to increase its oil imports from the Gulf
country – which are currently limited by the sanctions
regime. There is also ample scope for trade and cultural
exchanges.
Still, a wide gulf exists between Washington and Tehran
as the present thaw could dissipate any moment.
Moreover, any changes in regional relations should not
come at the expense of India’s historic and strategically
important ties with the GCC states. West Asia supplies
over 62 per cent of India’s oil imports, most of which
come from Arab Gulf countries. Moreover, the over 6
million-strong Indian Diaspora in the GCC states has
created deep human links between the two societies.
While 70 per cent of Indian expatriates in the GCC are
blue collar workers, over 20 per cent are professionals.
They remit about $30 billion to India every year.
Additionally, the GCC countries view the emergence of
Indian economy with great interest. With the rise of
major non-OPEC oil producers such as Russia and the
US, the Gulf is looking toward the Indian and Chinese
markets for sustainable demand. Again, following 9/11
and the 2008 global recession, Gulf capital is
increasingly seeking investment out of the West. A
significant degree of cultural comfort and confidence in
India’s property rights protection and rule of law (unlike
China’s) makes India an attractive investment
destination. However, the policy paralysis that dogged
India’s previous administration proved disappointing for
some corporations. It is hoped that with the coming of a
strong, new leadership in New Delhi, India may finally be
able to meet expectations.
However, the security architecture of the Gulf remains a
major concern for India. With the US influence in retreat,
India needs to actively engage with the GCC, Iran and
Iraq to secure its vital trade and energy interests. In
cooperation with other Asian powers such as China,
Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia, it should
initiate building a durable, non-hegemonic security
architecture which ensures stability and peace in the
region.
16 Jun 2014
TACKLING NAXAL VIOLENCE
In a way the challenge of left-wing extremism the new
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in New
Delhi faces bears close resemblance to the situation
that confronted the United Progressive Alliance regime
in its second tenure in 2009. However, given that the
Congress party-led government failed to contain the
threat, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party
government needs to revisit the overall approach and
not repeat the past polices that contributed to the
survival of the extremist outfit.
In 2009, the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-
Maoist) was in the upswing with a dramatic spike in the
deaths of civilians and security forces. Extremism-
related incidents and fatalities among the civilians and
the security forces increased by 41 per cent and 25 per
cent respectively, in 2008. States such as Maharashtra
and West Bengal contributed significantly to this
upswing, with the eastern Indian state becoming the
third most extremism-affected state of the country, in
2009, with 255 incidents and 158 fatalities. The CPI-
Maoist was indeed looking at expanding its sphere of
influence.
The UPA government sought to tame the rise of
extremism with an iron hand.. The change of guards in
the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) following the
2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks led to a series of brain
storming sessions, and a new policy aiming to
annihilate the CPI-Maoist, titled ‘Operation Green Hunt’
took shape. However, hope expressed by the then Home
Secretary that security forces would be able to liberate
the areas quickly and the civil administration would
kick-start development work in those areas met an early
end in 2010 with the Central Reserve Police Force
receiving a series of setbacks at the hands of the
extremists.
Over the next four years, the UPA government
experimented with a cocktail of force-centric and
development-oriented approach. However, even with
improvements in the overall situation, the CPI-Maoist
continues to remain a formidable adversary. As per the
official data, each day of the year recorded over three
Maoist-related violent incidents resulting in the death of
at least one civilian or a security force personnel, in
2013. An identical situation has prevailed over the first
six months of 2014 as well. Maoists might have been
prevented from expanding their area of operations into
newer territories, but the old theatres such as
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, parts of Odisha and
Maharashtra continue to report significant violence. The
number of attacks carried out by the CPI-Maoist and
close to 50 deaths in the days preceding and following
the parliamentary elections underlines the military
capacities of the extremists.
Three significant deficiencies, among many, that have
marked India's response to the challenge of left-wing
extremism are: first, there is no national consensus on
ways to meet the challenge. States and ministries have
debated on whether to pursue a social development or a
force-centric model of conflict resolution. Second,
although the security forces have made some advances
vis-Ã -vis the extremists, the civil administration
continues to be a reluctant partner in reintegrating the
former Naxal hotbeds through development
administration. Third, there is an acute leadership crisis
at the political as well as the security establishment
levels, hindering success. These deficiencies must be
addressed by the new government in New Delhi in order
to make a substantial impact in the extremist-
dominated areas.
Policy Prescriptions to Deal with the Red Menace
First, the unity of purpose is a key element for success
in any counter-insurgency campaign. The lack of
success vis-Ã -vis the Naxals is predominantly rooted in
the diverse as well as conflicting prescriptions made not
just by the states, but also by the various departments
within the UPA government. Annual meetings of the
chief ministers organised by the government merely
provided platforms for airing diverse opinions, but made
little progress in terms of arriving at a common
approach. The new government must find a way to
bridge the divide between the prescriptions. The prime
minister as well as the home minister must not be seen
as detached actors expressing helplessness at the
state-of-affairs, but should lead from the front.
Second, contrary to the common perception that
periodic military setbacks suffered by the security forces
are the primary reasons for the continuing extremist
domination, the lack of enthusiasm of the civil
administration is a bigger reason for areas freed from
the extremists relapsing into chaos. Development
projects planned for the Saranda region in Jharkhand is
an example of this malaise. A solution must be found to
make the bureaucracy both at the centre as well as in
the states sensitive and participatory in the development
projects.
Third, small achievements would remain critical for the
state's campaign against the CPI-Maoist. A leaf must
be taken from the book of the Maoists, who persevered
for years to find support among the tribal population
and subsequently dominate the areas. The state must
attempt incremental and non-reversible progress
against the extremists.
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in New
Delhi faces bears close resemblance to the situation
that confronted the United Progressive Alliance regime
in its second tenure in 2009. However, given that the
Congress party-led government failed to contain the
threat, the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party
government needs to revisit the overall approach and
not repeat the past polices that contributed to the
survival of the extremist outfit.
In 2009, the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-
Maoist) was in the upswing with a dramatic spike in the
deaths of civilians and security forces. Extremism-
related incidents and fatalities among the civilians and
the security forces increased by 41 per cent and 25 per
cent respectively, in 2008. States such as Maharashtra
and West Bengal contributed significantly to this
upswing, with the eastern Indian state becoming the
third most extremism-affected state of the country, in
2009, with 255 incidents and 158 fatalities. The CPI-
Maoist was indeed looking at expanding its sphere of
influence.
The UPA government sought to tame the rise of
extremism with an iron hand.. The change of guards in
the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) following the
2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks led to a series of brain
storming sessions, and a new policy aiming to
annihilate the CPI-Maoist, titled ‘Operation Green Hunt’
took shape. However, hope expressed by the then Home
Secretary that security forces would be able to liberate
the areas quickly and the civil administration would
kick-start development work in those areas met an early
end in 2010 with the Central Reserve Police Force
receiving a series of setbacks at the hands of the
extremists.
Over the next four years, the UPA government
experimented with a cocktail of force-centric and
development-oriented approach. However, even with
improvements in the overall situation, the CPI-Maoist
continues to remain a formidable adversary. As per the
official data, each day of the year recorded over three
Maoist-related violent incidents resulting in the death of
at least one civilian or a security force personnel, in
2013. An identical situation has prevailed over the first
six months of 2014 as well. Maoists might have been
prevented from expanding their area of operations into
newer territories, but the old theatres such as
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, parts of Odisha and
Maharashtra continue to report significant violence. The
number of attacks carried out by the CPI-Maoist and
close to 50 deaths in the days preceding and following
the parliamentary elections underlines the military
capacities of the extremists.
Three significant deficiencies, among many, that have
marked India's response to the challenge of left-wing
extremism are: first, there is no national consensus on
ways to meet the challenge. States and ministries have
debated on whether to pursue a social development or a
force-centric model of conflict resolution. Second,
although the security forces have made some advances
vis-Ã -vis the extremists, the civil administration
continues to be a reluctant partner in reintegrating the
former Naxal hotbeds through development
administration. Third, there is an acute leadership crisis
at the political as well as the security establishment
levels, hindering success. These deficiencies must be
addressed by the new government in New Delhi in order
to make a substantial impact in the extremist-
dominated areas.
Policy Prescriptions to Deal with the Red Menace
First, the unity of purpose is a key element for success
in any counter-insurgency campaign. The lack of
success vis-Ã -vis the Naxals is predominantly rooted in
the diverse as well as conflicting prescriptions made not
just by the states, but also by the various departments
within the UPA government. Annual meetings of the
chief ministers organised by the government merely
provided platforms for airing diverse opinions, but made
little progress in terms of arriving at a common
approach. The new government must find a way to
bridge the divide between the prescriptions. The prime
minister as well as the home minister must not be seen
as detached actors expressing helplessness at the
state-of-affairs, but should lead from the front.
Second, contrary to the common perception that
periodic military setbacks suffered by the security forces
are the primary reasons for the continuing extremist
domination, the lack of enthusiasm of the civil
administration is a bigger reason for areas freed from
the extremists relapsing into chaos. Development
projects planned for the Saranda region in Jharkhand is
an example of this malaise. A solution must be found to
make the bureaucracy both at the centre as well as in
the states sensitive and participatory in the development
projects.
Third, small achievements would remain critical for the
state's campaign against the CPI-Maoist. A leaf must
be taken from the book of the Maoists, who persevered
for years to find support among the tribal population
and subsequently dominate the areas. The state must
attempt incremental and non-reversible progress
against the extremists.
TIME FOR CHINA-INDIA NUCLEAR SPEAK
It is significant that the first international call that
Narendra Modi received soon after taking oath as Prime
Minister was from Premier Li Keqiang of China. This has
been quickly followed up with the visit of the Chinese
Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, within weeks of the new
government assuming charge in New Delhi. While there
is no denying that such visits are planned well ahead
and would have taken place irrespective of the
government in power, the tone and tenor of the meeting
has been distinct. The nuclear issue did not come up for
discussion, but the implications of how India-China
relations develop under the new Indian government will
be felt in the nuclear domain too.
The installation of every new government provides an
opportunity for a productive new beginning in inter-State
relations. Of course, India has since independence
largely followed a broadly pre-set foreign policy that has
never seen major swings or deviations. Changes have
largely been confined to shifts in focus and priorities.
But, as Mr Wang Yi said during his visit to India, China
wanted to "cement our existing friendship and explore
further cooperation."
The exploration of this further cooperation must include
the nuclear dimension too. Until now China has been
closed to this idea on the ground that India is an
illegitimate nuclear weapons power. However, over the
last sixteen years, now that India has consolidated and
operationalised its nuclear strategy, its 'legal' status is
really a non-issue. Slowly, India will have to 'chip away'
at traditional Chinese objections on this front and
convince it of the benefits of starting a nuclear dialogue
that can gradually explore the possibilities of nuclear
confidence-building measures and even arms control at
a later date.
Of course, India would first have to convince itself of the
need for these. As a State under denial from Western-
crafted arms control regimes, India is itself wary of this
concept. However, it would be foolish to eschew the
possibility of India being in the driver's seat on nuclear
CBMs and arms control. These are effective tools that
are used by nuclear-armed countries to stabilise their
deterrent relations and avoid situations of crisis and
arms race instability. India should find ways of doing
the same. Prime Minister Modi made a statement in a
completely different context when he said, "If India has
to compete with China, the focus should be on skill,
scale and speed." The same could be equally applied to
the nuclear context too. We need to skilfully find areas
of nuclear CBMs and arms control (a joint no-first use
agreement, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, control over
multiple independently retargetable vehicles could be
some ideas worthy of being explored) and do it with
speed. It would be in India's interest to find ways of
avoiding being sucked into an offence-defence nuclear
arms race.
It has been evident for a while that a relatively well-
armed and economically powerful China is in an
increasingly assertive mood and is looking to play a
larger role in Asia. India is well conscious of this.
However, it is essential that India shows assertion of its
own on issues that are of supreme national interest.
Unfortunately, the previous government, despite the
many good tasks that it undertook in strengthening
India's nuclear capability and position, suffered from the
perception of being low in resolve. Modi's personality
type is different and it reflects positively on the aspect
of political resolve, at least in case of India's foreign
policy. China respects this and it is not surprising that
the Chinese Foreign Minister praised Prime Minister
Modi for showing the world “resolve and courage” by
setting an agenda to push reforms and development and
for injecting “vigour and vitality” immediately after
taking charge.
India has many issues that can serve as useful
leverages in its relations with China. The consistent
upswing in bilateral trade, totalling close to US$70
billion, is a positive development even though New Delhi
has to work towards reducing its trade deficit with
China. Terrorist incidents in China have exposed the
dangers of extremist radicalism that continue to brew in
the country that Beijing claims as its close friend. It
would be naïve to believe that China will let go of its
special friendship with Pakistan, given that both
perceive this relationship as useful to keep India
unsettled. But, it would still be in India's interest to try
and expose the nuclear dangers for all if Pakistan
continues down the path of sponsoring and supporting
terrorism and China continues to shield its
misbehaviour. China must be 'made to understand' that
it cannot escape from existential nuclear dangers such
as an unauthorised or mistaken nuclear launch or one
caused by miscalculation.
Wang Yi was consistent in reminding India to follow a
"one-China" policy. Sushma Swaraj nattily retorted with
the need for China to respect a "one-India" policy. Both,
however, must equally recognise the fact that nuclear
dangers bring another kind of one-ness to the
neighbourhood that we would all ignore at our own
peril. It behoves the two largest nuclear armed countries
of Asia to join hands in reducing nuclear dangers to the
extent they can. The new government must seize the
opportunity to initiate nuclear-speak with China.
Narendra Modi received soon after taking oath as Prime
Minister was from Premier Li Keqiang of China. This has
been quickly followed up with the visit of the Chinese
Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, within weeks of the new
government assuming charge in New Delhi. While there
is no denying that such visits are planned well ahead
and would have taken place irrespective of the
government in power, the tone and tenor of the meeting
has been distinct. The nuclear issue did not come up for
discussion, but the implications of how India-China
relations develop under the new Indian government will
be felt in the nuclear domain too.
The installation of every new government provides an
opportunity for a productive new beginning in inter-State
relations. Of course, India has since independence
largely followed a broadly pre-set foreign policy that has
never seen major swings or deviations. Changes have
largely been confined to shifts in focus and priorities.
But, as Mr Wang Yi said during his visit to India, China
wanted to "cement our existing friendship and explore
further cooperation."
The exploration of this further cooperation must include
the nuclear dimension too. Until now China has been
closed to this idea on the ground that India is an
illegitimate nuclear weapons power. However, over the
last sixteen years, now that India has consolidated and
operationalised its nuclear strategy, its 'legal' status is
really a non-issue. Slowly, India will have to 'chip away'
at traditional Chinese objections on this front and
convince it of the benefits of starting a nuclear dialogue
that can gradually explore the possibilities of nuclear
confidence-building measures and even arms control at
a later date.
Of course, India would first have to convince itself of the
need for these. As a State under denial from Western-
crafted arms control regimes, India is itself wary of this
concept. However, it would be foolish to eschew the
possibility of India being in the driver's seat on nuclear
CBMs and arms control. These are effective tools that
are used by nuclear-armed countries to stabilise their
deterrent relations and avoid situations of crisis and
arms race instability. India should find ways of doing
the same. Prime Minister Modi made a statement in a
completely different context when he said, "If India has
to compete with China, the focus should be on skill,
scale and speed." The same could be equally applied to
the nuclear context too. We need to skilfully find areas
of nuclear CBMs and arms control (a joint no-first use
agreement, an anti-ballistic missile treaty, control over
multiple independently retargetable vehicles could be
some ideas worthy of being explored) and do it with
speed. It would be in India's interest to find ways of
avoiding being sucked into an offence-defence nuclear
arms race.
It has been evident for a while that a relatively well-
armed and economically powerful China is in an
increasingly assertive mood and is looking to play a
larger role in Asia. India is well conscious of this.
However, it is essential that India shows assertion of its
own on issues that are of supreme national interest.
Unfortunately, the previous government, despite the
many good tasks that it undertook in strengthening
India's nuclear capability and position, suffered from the
perception of being low in resolve. Modi's personality
type is different and it reflects positively on the aspect
of political resolve, at least in case of India's foreign
policy. China respects this and it is not surprising that
the Chinese Foreign Minister praised Prime Minister
Modi for showing the world “resolve and courage” by
setting an agenda to push reforms and development and
for injecting “vigour and vitality” immediately after
taking charge.
India has many issues that can serve as useful
leverages in its relations with China. The consistent
upswing in bilateral trade, totalling close to US$70
billion, is a positive development even though New Delhi
has to work towards reducing its trade deficit with
China. Terrorist incidents in China have exposed the
dangers of extremist radicalism that continue to brew in
the country that Beijing claims as its close friend. It
would be naïve to believe that China will let go of its
special friendship with Pakistan, given that both
perceive this relationship as useful to keep India
unsettled. But, it would still be in India's interest to try
and expose the nuclear dangers for all if Pakistan
continues down the path of sponsoring and supporting
terrorism and China continues to shield its
misbehaviour. China must be 'made to understand' that
it cannot escape from existential nuclear dangers such
as an unauthorised or mistaken nuclear launch or one
caused by miscalculation.
Wang Yi was consistent in reminding India to follow a
"one-China" policy. Sushma Swaraj nattily retorted with
the need for China to respect a "one-India" policy. Both,
however, must equally recognise the fact that nuclear
dangers bring another kind of one-ness to the
neighbourhood that we would all ignore at our own
peril. It behoves the two largest nuclear armed countries
of Asia to join hands in reducing nuclear dangers to the
extent they can. The new government must seize the
opportunity to initiate nuclear-speak with China.
BANGLADESH: A NEW THRUST TOWARDS EAST ASIA
The Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina’s
back-to-back visits to Japan and China provide a
diplomatic bonanza to the government bedeviled by
legitimacy crisis at home and abroad following the 5
January general elections this year. Hasina took the
opportunity to silence her critics by making substantive
gains in bilateral relations with the two East Asian
countries. Japan is generally known as a committed
development partner of South Asian countries – as
reflected in volumes of official development assistance
(ODA) pumped into the region every year. Japanese
investment and bilateral trade volume between Tokyo
and Dhaka have been seen a rise, especially over the
past decade. Japan has remained the largest bilateral
donor to Bangladesh for the past fifteen years. Both
countries have developed a strong development
partnership with growing activity by Japanese investors
in Bangladesh.
The 21 point Japan-Bangladesh Comprehensive
Partnership signed by the respective prime ministers
during Hasina’s May 2014 visit is a demonstration of
strong commitment to engage Japan more substantively
in Bangladesh’s development process. In the past seven
years, the number of Japanese companies operating in
Bangladesh has nearly tripled – from 61 in 2007 to 176
in 2013; and the total grants and aid from Japan stood
at $11 billion in 2013. Japan’s strategic intention was
to combine two oceanic regions – the Pacific Ocean and
the Indian Ocean – for what the Japanese ambassador
in Dhaka called a larger space for Japan’s economic
activities.
He added that it looks like a “butterfly” in which
Bangladesh and Myanmar occupies the “lynchpin
position” to connect these oceanic regions. Apart from
appreciating the strategic importance of Bangladesh,
Tokyo would also be happy to receive Dhaka’s support
in its bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC – and also
to the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals by
North Korea. Recently, the Bangladeshi government
recognised a number of foreign friends, including a few
Japanese, for their contribution during the Bangldesh
Liberation War.
As a result, the prime minister’s Japan visit has
contributed to an agreement on a range of specific
projects vis-Ã -vis, inter alia, the construction of Ganges
Barrage, a multi-modal tunnel under Jamuna River, a
dedicated Railway Bridge over Jamuna River, a multi-
modal Dhaka Eastern Bypass, and the ecological
restoration of four rivers around Dhaka. A Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Japan
External Trade Organization and the Bangladesh Export
Processing Zones Authority that reserves important
facilities in 5 EPZs in Bangladesh for Japanese
investors. Japan has also committed its support for
capacity building in nuclear safety and security. In an
unprecedented gesture, Japan committed an ODA of $6
billion over the next five years that is crucial for
infrastructure development in Bangladesh.
In a rare show of diplomatic moves, Hasina made a six-
day official visit to China in early June with a 70-
member business delegation immediately after she
visited Japan. With these back to back visits, Hasina
scored high points in diplomatic maneuvering both for
her new government and the state. The much discussed
China visit resulted in five deals, including Chinese
assistance in the construction of a power plant in
Patuakhali and building a multi-lane road tunnel under
the Karnaphuli River. Chinese President Xi Jinping
described Bangladesh as an important country along the
maritime Silk Road project that he has been
championing, and which envisages enhancing
connectivities, building ports and free trade zones, and
boosting trade with littoral countries in the Indian Ocean
region and in Southeast Asia. China made it clear that it
attaches great importance to the Beijing-Dhaka
relationship and regards Bangladesh as an important
development partner and cooperative partner in South
Asia and the Indian Ocean region.
Bangladesh is an important country along the Maritime
Silk Road for China, and Beijing welcomes Dhaka’s
participation in the development of the cooperation
initiatives of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road. The issue of constructing
the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar (BCIM)
economic corridor also garnered the interest of both
leaders as part of efforts towards enhancing connectivity
between China and eastern South Asia. However, the
absence of any deal on construction of the Sonadia
deep sea port was conspicuous. The diplomatic circles
in both countries had widely expected a deal on this
mega project. As revealed by Bangladesh’s State
Minister of Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam, “Bangladesh
has decided to take time to pick the best offer over the
construction of a deep seaport at Sonadia in Cox’s
Bazar as a number of countries have shown interest in
the lucrative mega project.”
High level visits often turn out ceremonial and
declaratory in substance. But these two visits of
Bangladesh’s prime minister have been a diplomatic
breakthrough for Dhaka in cementing its foreign policy
thrust towards the east. The diplomatic overtures by
Japan and China have emboldened the Hasina
government in Bangladesh to strengthen her position
domestically and internationally. Although Japan and
China are traditional friends of Bangladesh, there has
always been a gap in their economic engagement,
particularly in the context of Bangladesh’s growing
economic and social performance. The outcomes of the
recent visits might lead to reduction in the gap,
especially amid the new matrix of external roles in
Dhaka’s domestic politics.
back-to-back visits to Japan and China provide a
diplomatic bonanza to the government bedeviled by
legitimacy crisis at home and abroad following the 5
January general elections this year. Hasina took the
opportunity to silence her critics by making substantive
gains in bilateral relations with the two East Asian
countries. Japan is generally known as a committed
development partner of South Asian countries – as
reflected in volumes of official development assistance
(ODA) pumped into the region every year. Japanese
investment and bilateral trade volume between Tokyo
and Dhaka have been seen a rise, especially over the
past decade. Japan has remained the largest bilateral
donor to Bangladesh for the past fifteen years. Both
countries have developed a strong development
partnership with growing activity by Japanese investors
in Bangladesh.
The 21 point Japan-Bangladesh Comprehensive
Partnership signed by the respective prime ministers
during Hasina’s May 2014 visit is a demonstration of
strong commitment to engage Japan more substantively
in Bangladesh’s development process. In the past seven
years, the number of Japanese companies operating in
Bangladesh has nearly tripled – from 61 in 2007 to 176
in 2013; and the total grants and aid from Japan stood
at $11 billion in 2013. Japan’s strategic intention was
to combine two oceanic regions – the Pacific Ocean and
the Indian Ocean – for what the Japanese ambassador
in Dhaka called a larger space for Japan’s economic
activities.
He added that it looks like a “butterfly” in which
Bangladesh and Myanmar occupies the “lynchpin
position” to connect these oceanic regions. Apart from
appreciating the strategic importance of Bangladesh,
Tokyo would also be happy to receive Dhaka’s support
in its bid for a permanent seat at the UNSC – and also
to the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals by
North Korea. Recently, the Bangladeshi government
recognised a number of foreign friends, including a few
Japanese, for their contribution during the Bangldesh
Liberation War.
As a result, the prime minister’s Japan visit has
contributed to an agreement on a range of specific
projects vis-Ã -vis, inter alia, the construction of Ganges
Barrage, a multi-modal tunnel under Jamuna River, a
dedicated Railway Bridge over Jamuna River, a multi-
modal Dhaka Eastern Bypass, and the ecological
restoration of four rivers around Dhaka. A Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Japan
External Trade Organization and the Bangladesh Export
Processing Zones Authority that reserves important
facilities in 5 EPZs in Bangladesh for Japanese
investors. Japan has also committed its support for
capacity building in nuclear safety and security. In an
unprecedented gesture, Japan committed an ODA of $6
billion over the next five years that is crucial for
infrastructure development in Bangladesh.
In a rare show of diplomatic moves, Hasina made a six-
day official visit to China in early June with a 70-
member business delegation immediately after she
visited Japan. With these back to back visits, Hasina
scored high points in diplomatic maneuvering both for
her new government and the state. The much discussed
China visit resulted in five deals, including Chinese
assistance in the construction of a power plant in
Patuakhali and building a multi-lane road tunnel under
the Karnaphuli River. Chinese President Xi Jinping
described Bangladesh as an important country along the
maritime Silk Road project that he has been
championing, and which envisages enhancing
connectivities, building ports and free trade zones, and
boosting trade with littoral countries in the Indian Ocean
region and in Southeast Asia. China made it clear that it
attaches great importance to the Beijing-Dhaka
relationship and regards Bangladesh as an important
development partner and cooperative partner in South
Asia and the Indian Ocean region.
Bangladesh is an important country along the Maritime
Silk Road for China, and Beijing welcomes Dhaka’s
participation in the development of the cooperation
initiatives of the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road. The issue of constructing
the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar (BCIM)
economic corridor also garnered the interest of both
leaders as part of efforts towards enhancing connectivity
between China and eastern South Asia. However, the
absence of any deal on construction of the Sonadia
deep sea port was conspicuous. The diplomatic circles
in both countries had widely expected a deal on this
mega project. As revealed by Bangladesh’s State
Minister of Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam, “Bangladesh
has decided to take time to pick the best offer over the
construction of a deep seaport at Sonadia in Cox’s
Bazar as a number of countries have shown interest in
the lucrative mega project.”
High level visits often turn out ceremonial and
declaratory in substance. But these two visits of
Bangladesh’s prime minister have been a diplomatic
breakthrough for Dhaka in cementing its foreign policy
thrust towards the east. The diplomatic overtures by
Japan and China have emboldened the Hasina
government in Bangladesh to strengthen her position
domestically and internationally. Although Japan and
China are traditional friends of Bangladesh, there has
always been a gap in their economic engagement,
particularly in the context of Bangladesh’s growing
economic and social performance. The outcomes of the
recent visits might lead to reduction in the gap,
especially amid the new matrix of external roles in
Dhaka’s domestic politics.
THE ENIGMATIC CASE OF BOWE BERGDAHL
Sgt Bowe Bergdahl was serving with the US Army in
Afghanistan’s Paktika province when he was captured
on 30 June 2009 by the Taliban’s Haqqani faction. After
protracted negotiations, Bergdahl was released on 31
May 2014 in a deal brokered with the Taliban by the
governments of the US, Afghanistan and Qatar. In terms
of this deal, five Taliban detainees, currently
incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), were
transferred to Qatari custody for one year, after which
they would be free to go wherever they wished. Bergdahl
was treated after his release at a Regional Medical
Centre in Germany, and has now been transferred to a
medical facility in Texas for further physical and
psychological treatment. Incidentally, the five Taliban
detainees exchanged to secure Bergdahl’s liberty
include the former Taliban army chief of staff, a Taliban
deputy minister of intelligence, a former Taliban interior
minister, and two other senior Taliban figures. Eyebrows
have been raised in the US political and military
establishments, especially among Republicans and
conservative Democrats, apart from the veterans’
community, over whether too high a price has been paid
to secure Bergdahl’s release. These hardened terrorists,
their argument goes, are bound to return to active duty,
and complicate the on-going war on terror by the US.
President Obama, who took the decision to proceed with
this exchange, has justified it on humanitarian grounds,
citing the American tradition of not leaving anyone
behind on the battlefield. A further wrinkle was added
because the prior approval of Congress had not been
sought before the release of the Guantanamo Bay
detainees, which is a procedural and statutory necessity
under American law. But the Obama administration has
justified its bypassing of Congress by claiming that the
window of opportunity to obtain Bergdahl’s release was
limited and dilatory procedures could have endangered
his life. There is also the legal argument that the
Presidential system of governance in the US gives
absolute discretion to the Chief Executive to take
appropriate decisions in matters involving the supreme
national interests. Detractors, however, have found
these justificatory arguments unconvincing, if not glib.
Some versions of Berghdahl’s capture have also
become controversial. He had confessed to being
captured when he fell behind on a patrol. The Taliban
alleged that Bergdahl was ambushed after he got drunk
off base. Other sources said that Berghdahl walked off
the base after his shift. The US Defense Department had
attributed his disappearance to his walking off his base
with three Afghans when he was taken prisoner. Critics
allege that Bergdahl was a deserter, and swapping him
for notorious Taliban leaders was most unwise,
especially since general American policy eschews
bargaining with militants for freeing hostages.
Why then did President Obama - an intensely political
leader - undertake this manoeuvre? Obviously, he
wanted to bolster his sagging political image, which has
been severely dented in the recent past. Clearly, the
American economy is showing no signs of recovery,
unemployment has reached historical heights, and the
Obamacare health programme is going nowhere.
Furthermore, foreign policy disasters centering on
Ukraine, Syria and, now, Iraq are staring Obama in the
face. He might have calculated that securing the release
of Bowe Bergdahl would deflect attention from these
depressing realities. Unfortunately, this affair became
hugely controversial and divisive. Apropos, the latest
Obama public approval ratings have dropped to an all-
time low of 44 per cent.
What are the lessons to be learnt from this episode that
have universal applicability? No doubt, domestic political
realities like the strength of the government, importance
of the hostage, or even their numbers are relevant
considerations for deciding on how to deal with hostage
crises. But, the most obvious lesson to be learnt is that
nations should have a hostage policy. Should they
negotiate with abductors and hijackers to secure the
release of citizens? Or, pursue a firm policy of not
dealing with abductors and hijackers? The worst policy
would, of course, be to have a hostage policy and make
exceptions when crises arise, which is the choice
preferred by President Obama.
India’s experience is instructive here. The abduction of
the Sukma Collector in Chattisgarh in 2012 by Naxalites
led to a high-level official team of interlocutors being set
up; it negotiated his release after 12 days in captivity.
No Naxalites, it seems, were released in return. But a
high-level review of all pending cases was promised and
the release of all arrested Naxal suspects against whom
no specific charges had been levelled. The Chief Minister
had made an impassioned plea at that time requesting
a national hostage policy being devised for the guidance
of the states. That policy has not yet been drafted, and
the states remain adrift on how to handle such hostage
cases if they occur in future.
Perhaps the Modi government, which has emphasised
governance, should devise a hostage policy before the
next crisis occurs. Even deciding on not having a policy
and proceeding in an ad hoc fashion requires a policy
decision.
Afghanistan’s Paktika province when he was captured
on 30 June 2009 by the Taliban’s Haqqani faction. After
protracted negotiations, Bergdahl was released on 31
May 2014 in a deal brokered with the Taliban by the
governments of the US, Afghanistan and Qatar. In terms
of this deal, five Taliban detainees, currently
incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), were
transferred to Qatari custody for one year, after which
they would be free to go wherever they wished. Bergdahl
was treated after his release at a Regional Medical
Centre in Germany, and has now been transferred to a
medical facility in Texas for further physical and
psychological treatment. Incidentally, the five Taliban
detainees exchanged to secure Bergdahl’s liberty
include the former Taliban army chief of staff, a Taliban
deputy minister of intelligence, a former Taliban interior
minister, and two other senior Taliban figures. Eyebrows
have been raised in the US political and military
establishments, especially among Republicans and
conservative Democrats, apart from the veterans’
community, over whether too high a price has been paid
to secure Bergdahl’s release. These hardened terrorists,
their argument goes, are bound to return to active duty,
and complicate the on-going war on terror by the US.
President Obama, who took the decision to proceed with
this exchange, has justified it on humanitarian grounds,
citing the American tradition of not leaving anyone
behind on the battlefield. A further wrinkle was added
because the prior approval of Congress had not been
sought before the release of the Guantanamo Bay
detainees, which is a procedural and statutory necessity
under American law. But the Obama administration has
justified its bypassing of Congress by claiming that the
window of opportunity to obtain Bergdahl’s release was
limited and dilatory procedures could have endangered
his life. There is also the legal argument that the
Presidential system of governance in the US gives
absolute discretion to the Chief Executive to take
appropriate decisions in matters involving the supreme
national interests. Detractors, however, have found
these justificatory arguments unconvincing, if not glib.
Some versions of Berghdahl’s capture have also
become controversial. He had confessed to being
captured when he fell behind on a patrol. The Taliban
alleged that Bergdahl was ambushed after he got drunk
off base. Other sources said that Berghdahl walked off
the base after his shift. The US Defense Department had
attributed his disappearance to his walking off his base
with three Afghans when he was taken prisoner. Critics
allege that Bergdahl was a deserter, and swapping him
for notorious Taliban leaders was most unwise,
especially since general American policy eschews
bargaining with militants for freeing hostages.
Why then did President Obama - an intensely political
leader - undertake this manoeuvre? Obviously, he
wanted to bolster his sagging political image, which has
been severely dented in the recent past. Clearly, the
American economy is showing no signs of recovery,
unemployment has reached historical heights, and the
Obamacare health programme is going nowhere.
Furthermore, foreign policy disasters centering on
Ukraine, Syria and, now, Iraq are staring Obama in the
face. He might have calculated that securing the release
of Bowe Bergdahl would deflect attention from these
depressing realities. Unfortunately, this affair became
hugely controversial and divisive. Apropos, the latest
Obama public approval ratings have dropped to an all-
time low of 44 per cent.
What are the lessons to be learnt from this episode that
have universal applicability? No doubt, domestic political
realities like the strength of the government, importance
of the hostage, or even their numbers are relevant
considerations for deciding on how to deal with hostage
crises. But, the most obvious lesson to be learnt is that
nations should have a hostage policy. Should they
negotiate with abductors and hijackers to secure the
release of citizens? Or, pursue a firm policy of not
dealing with abductors and hijackers? The worst policy
would, of course, be to have a hostage policy and make
exceptions when crises arise, which is the choice
preferred by President Obama.
India’s experience is instructive here. The abduction of
the Sukma Collector in Chattisgarh in 2012 by Naxalites
led to a high-level official team of interlocutors being set
up; it negotiated his release after 12 days in captivity.
No Naxalites, it seems, were released in return. But a
high-level review of all pending cases was promised and
the release of all arrested Naxal suspects against whom
no specific charges had been levelled. The Chief Minister
had made an impassioned plea at that time requesting
a national hostage policy being devised for the guidance
of the states. That policy has not yet been drafted, and
the states remain adrift on how to handle such hostage
cases if they occur in future.
Perhaps the Modi government, which has emphasised
governance, should devise a hostage policy before the
next crisis occurs. Even deciding on not having a policy
and proceeding in an ad hoc fashion requires a policy
decision.
15 Jun 2014
FIRST LADY MALADY
As the National Assembly begins
constitutional amendment process, the call for
more definite roles in the constitution for the
first ladies becomes a subject of public
discourse. The ceaseless debate over whether
or not the first ladies be assigned
constitutional roles does not begin now, it has
become recurrent national issue.
Despite the fact that the idea of First lady-ism
is a constitutional aberration, it has long been
adapted and introduced into the nation’s
political system by most successive
administrations. There is no doubt that the
personality and the style of Dame Patience
Jonathan, the wife of the current Nigerian
President have generated renewed interest in
the position of First Lady both in the
governance process and the polity generally.
From the past experiences, the first ladies
undeniably play highly influential supportive
roles that can not be simply wished away
even though the office is alien to the nation’s
constitution. We can thus agree that first
ladies one way or the other exert tremendous
influence by virtue of their husbands’ offices.
The present First Lady, Dame Patience
Jonathan in her contribution to the ongoing
debate on the proposed constitutional
amendment has advocated that the role of
First Lady be enshrined in the constitution so
that they can receive retirement benefits like
their husbands and enjoy their careers. It
seems Dame Patience Jonathan lacked clear
understanding of the semantic import of the
word career in the situational context.
Without missing words, neither the
presidency nor the First Lady roles are
careers. It is my considered opinion that
career is a long-term or life long job.
Of equal importance is the recommendation
of the presidential committee on the review of
the 1999 Constitution under the eminent
chairmanship of former Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Alfa Madibbo Belgore that the office of
the First Lady be abolished at all levels of
government. The Committee in its report
which it has since submitted to President
Goodluck Jonathan has also noted that the
office of First Lady does not operate under
any legal framework and the operation (both
in kind and cash) of such offices at all levels
be discouraged and abolished forthwith.
If the First Ladies think they could not
confine themselves to taking care of the home
front and completely distance themselves
from the affairs of state, their initiatives and
private projects should henceforth not be
funded with the tax payers money.
In more developed countries, first ladies are
allowed to play supportive roles without
necessarily constituting any form of financial
burden on the nation. In essence, First Ladies
can make impact and contribute to national
development without their roles necessarily
enshrined in the constitution.
Given the American experiences, the First
Ladies were never excluded from state
governance but their roles were advisory and
supportive. The sources of the project finance
by United States First Ladies are usually
devoid of public suspicion unlike ours where
private initiatives of the First Ladies are
funded from public treasury. Without doubts,
most initiatives in which Laura Bush and
Hillary Clinton were involved as United States
private First Ladies at different times in
American history were well thought out and
designed to add value to the society.
Contrarily, the Nigerian First Ladies are
known for extravagance and they often wield
greater power and influence than the serving
ministers. A good example in mind was the
summit of African First Ladies recently held
in Abuja where over 200 brand new vehicles
were hired for the event. Even with the
government explanation that the vehicles
would be returned to the company from
which they were leased, the action was largely
condemned by the vast majority of Nigerians
as a form of national waste.
Again, the ongoing face-off between the First
Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan and her
predecessor Hajia Turai Yar’Adua over a
choice land allocation in Abuja, the land
meant to be used for their enduring legacy
projects has culminated into litigation.
Whoever wins the media propagandas war or
court litigation between the First Ladies, both
of them in the eye of public are parasites
eating deep into the fabric of the nation.
Of course, it can be seen already that the
office of the First Lady even without
constitutional empowerment has power and
influence considering the circumstance under
which the disputed Abuja land between Turai
and Dame was revoked. In my own view, the
issue is not about who wins and who loses in
the court but it is more or less a shame on the
nation and show the nature of power play at
the presidency.
While acknowledging the successes Dame
Patience Jonathan had made as the current
leader of African First Ladies Peace Mission,
financial recklessness associated with her
leadership roles calls for serious national
concern.
From all indications, Nigerians are tired of
First Lady Initiatives which are being
financed for ego trips with little or no public
value. It is disheartening that most African
First Ladies are guilty of exploiting their
proximity to power to enrich their family,
friends and close associates. Indeed, the office
has constantly been an object of gross abuse.
It is also worthy of note, the underlying
malady of blazing sirens and moving with
rampaging convoys even when going for
shopping; this had indeed fuelled the
discontent against First Lady-ism. And the
odds usually faced by commuters or better still
the traffic chaos associated with unofficial
movement of First Ladies has really
contributed to the opposition against the call
for the constitutional roles for the office of
the First Ladies.
Above all, the office of the First Lady has its
social relevance but lacks the legal framework
to reposition and justify its existence within
the constitutional order.
constitutional amendment process, the call for
more definite roles in the constitution for the
first ladies becomes a subject of public
discourse. The ceaseless debate over whether
or not the first ladies be assigned
constitutional roles does not begin now, it has
become recurrent national issue.
Despite the fact that the idea of First lady-ism
is a constitutional aberration, it has long been
adapted and introduced into the nation’s
political system by most successive
administrations. There is no doubt that the
personality and the style of Dame Patience
Jonathan, the wife of the current Nigerian
President have generated renewed interest in
the position of First Lady both in the
governance process and the polity generally.
From the past experiences, the first ladies
undeniably play highly influential supportive
roles that can not be simply wished away
even though the office is alien to the nation’s
constitution. We can thus agree that first
ladies one way or the other exert tremendous
influence by virtue of their husbands’ offices.
The present First Lady, Dame Patience
Jonathan in her contribution to the ongoing
debate on the proposed constitutional
amendment has advocated that the role of
First Lady be enshrined in the constitution so
that they can receive retirement benefits like
their husbands and enjoy their careers. It
seems Dame Patience Jonathan lacked clear
understanding of the semantic import of the
word career in the situational context.
Without missing words, neither the
presidency nor the First Lady roles are
careers. It is my considered opinion that
career is a long-term or life long job.
Of equal importance is the recommendation
of the presidential committee on the review of
the 1999 Constitution under the eminent
chairmanship of former Justice of Nigeria,
Justice Alfa Madibbo Belgore that the office of
the First Lady be abolished at all levels of
government. The Committee in its report
which it has since submitted to President
Goodluck Jonathan has also noted that the
office of First Lady does not operate under
any legal framework and the operation (both
in kind and cash) of such offices at all levels
be discouraged and abolished forthwith.
If the First Ladies think they could not
confine themselves to taking care of the home
front and completely distance themselves
from the affairs of state, their initiatives and
private projects should henceforth not be
funded with the tax payers money.
In more developed countries, first ladies are
allowed to play supportive roles without
necessarily constituting any form of financial
burden on the nation. In essence, First Ladies
can make impact and contribute to national
development without their roles necessarily
enshrined in the constitution.
Given the American experiences, the First
Ladies were never excluded from state
governance but their roles were advisory and
supportive. The sources of the project finance
by United States First Ladies are usually
devoid of public suspicion unlike ours where
private initiatives of the First Ladies are
funded from public treasury. Without doubts,
most initiatives in which Laura Bush and
Hillary Clinton were involved as United States
private First Ladies at different times in
American history were well thought out and
designed to add value to the society.
Contrarily, the Nigerian First Ladies are
known for extravagance and they often wield
greater power and influence than the serving
ministers. A good example in mind was the
summit of African First Ladies recently held
in Abuja where over 200 brand new vehicles
were hired for the event. Even with the
government explanation that the vehicles
would be returned to the company from
which they were leased, the action was largely
condemned by the vast majority of Nigerians
as a form of national waste.
Again, the ongoing face-off between the First
Lady, Dame Patience Jonathan and her
predecessor Hajia Turai Yar’Adua over a
choice land allocation in Abuja, the land
meant to be used for their enduring legacy
projects has culminated into litigation.
Whoever wins the media propagandas war or
court litigation between the First Ladies, both
of them in the eye of public are parasites
eating deep into the fabric of the nation.
Of course, it can be seen already that the
office of the First Lady even without
constitutional empowerment has power and
influence considering the circumstance under
which the disputed Abuja land between Turai
and Dame was revoked. In my own view, the
issue is not about who wins and who loses in
the court but it is more or less a shame on the
nation and show the nature of power play at
the presidency.
While acknowledging the successes Dame
Patience Jonathan had made as the current
leader of African First Ladies Peace Mission,
financial recklessness associated with her
leadership roles calls for serious national
concern.
From all indications, Nigerians are tired of
First Lady Initiatives which are being
financed for ego trips with little or no public
value. It is disheartening that most African
First Ladies are guilty of exploiting their
proximity to power to enrich their family,
friends and close associates. Indeed, the office
has constantly been an object of gross abuse.
It is also worthy of note, the underlying
malady of blazing sirens and moving with
rampaging convoys even when going for
shopping; this had indeed fuelled the
discontent against First Lady-ism. And the
odds usually faced by commuters or better still
the traffic chaos associated with unofficial
movement of First Ladies has really
contributed to the opposition against the call
for the constitutional roles for the office of
the First Ladies.
Above all, the office of the First Lady has its
social relevance but lacks the legal framework
to reposition and justify its existence within
the constitutional order.
NIGERIA RISING DOMESTIC DEBT PROFILE
As Nigeria security challenges persist
unabated, the Federal Government also seems
helpless in tackling the nation’s rising
domestic debts profile. As the debt continues
to rise at unprecedented rate, and even more
drastically in the recent time, the nation’s
image is becoming dented. It is regretted that
the Federal Government had failed woefully
in efforts to reduce the nation’s debt profile.
Statistics obtained from the Debt Management
Office indicates that the domestic debts had
increased from ₦5.966 trillion ($37.71 billion)
at the end of the first quarter ended March
31, 2012, to ₦6.153 trillion ($38.89 billion) at
the end of the second quarter ended June 30,
2012. Indeed, the figures represent an
increase of ₦187 billion or three per cent over
the figure recorded in the first quarter.
Considering the economic implications of the
nation’s rising debt profile, it becomes a
major policy issue requiring extensive public
debates and discourse. More importantly,
heavy indebtedness of the nation remains one
of the major challenges facing most
developing countries at the beginning of the
21st Century. Indeed, high levels of domestic
national debt are likely to be deleterious for
economic growth and development. It is also
true that any economy structured and
sustained by borrowing cannot achieve
economic prosperity.
Detailed report of the domestic debts shows
that the Federal Government bonds accounted
for ₦3.71 trillion or 60.37 per cent of the
money borrowed from internal sources as at
June ending. The unfortunate scenario is that
the impacts of the government bonds are not
actually felt by average Nigerians. It would
have been understandable if the bonds are
effectively employed by the government to
finance long-term investments. Of course, the
Nigerian treasury bills accounted for ₦2.08
trillion or 33.88 per cent, while Treasury
bonds accounted for ₦353 billion or 5.75 per
cent.
Similarly, the domestic debt component of the
total debt profile as at March 31, 2012 which
stood at ₦5.966 trillion, showed that the
Federal Government bonds accounted for
₦3.67 trillion or 61.44 per cent of the money
borrowed through internal sources.
The Nigeria attitude to borrowing is somehow
a national stigma and it calls for re-
orientation of our value system. Nigerians are
being misguided to believe that borrowing is
inevitable and sacrosanct for economic
growth. Whatever the likely benefits derivable
from the huge internal borrowing, it is bound
to have negative economic consequences on
the citizens.
The recent acknowledgement and lamentation
by President Goodluck Jonathan while
presenting the 2012 budget proposal to the
National Assembly that the country domestic
debt have been growing at alarming rates in
recent years is a further prove of the nation’s
economic instability. It is also worthy of note
the decision of the federal government to
earmark ₦560 billion for debt servicing in the
2012 budget. In my own view, debt servicing
cost of public debt is likely to crowd out
public investment.
We may also deduce from President Goodluck
Jonathan’s admission of the threats poised on
the nation by the high domestic debt profile
that this has called for serious national
rethink. It is also interesting to note that the
Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
had expressed in an unequivocal terms, she is
more worried with domestic debts than the
external’s.
With the current economic realities, it is
imperative that the nation should initiate a
comprehensive debt servicing plan. In
designing the plan, the government needs to
carefully re-examine the nation’s borrowing
culture with its attendant consequences. Let
me also state that leadership corruption
remains a factor affecting the national success
in the area of debt servicing. Of particular
interest is diversion of funds meant for debt
servicing by people at the helms of affairs.
With the current debt servicing initiative of
President Goodluck Jonathan, the nation is
bound to accumulate more debts in view of
the fact that he gave a caveat that the nation’s
debt should not go beyond 30 per cent of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If the
administration is truly serious in its desire to
reduce the national debts, the set target or
ceiling will still largely constitute a burden.
The caution by President Goodluck Jonathan
on debt – GDP ratio when carefully analysed
shows that at the moment the debt to GDP
ratio is slightly less than 20 per cent. With
latitude of 30 per cent caveat, the government
may add up to 50 per cent of the current debt
level. This is indeed unacceptable, considering
the implications of these rates on the nation’s
economy.
Obviously, escalation of debt profile by the
Federal Government would continue to crowd
out the real sector of the economic and the
equities market. Of equal importance is the
fact that the capital realised from borrowing
is used to finance consumption rather than
investment. In a way, this government
tendency is having destabilizing effect on the
economy through increase in interest and
inflation rates. Without missing words, by
increasing those two rates, the government is
battering the economy.
From policy perspectives, the negative
impacts of domestic debts on economic
growth strengthens the arguments for
ambitious debt reduction through fiscal
consolidation. Another factor that coincides
with the domestic debt is the recurrent budget
deficit which also causes the nation to be
borrowing from Financial Institutions.
With the nation’s abundant human and
natural resources, the question that continues
to agitate mind is the reason for our
continuous borrowing both externally and
internally. This unanswered question poises a
lot of leadership challenges for the nation.
For significant reduction in the domestic debt
to be realisable, the task should not rest solely
with the presidency but there should be co-
operative efforts of all the stakeholders in the
nation’s economy. The National Assembly
equally has a vital role to play in revamping
the nation’s economy through debt reduction
initiatives and perhaps cut pays.
Without doubts, economic sustainability is
affected largely by the nation’s debt profile.
Our government’s high cost of borrowing can
inescapably trigger destabilisation and
disenablement of commercial lending rates of
over 20 per cent to the real sector. This will in
effect cause higher cost of production and can
as well blow up the inflationary trends.
No economy is known to have ever developed
with high inflationary trends and exploitative
borrowing rates. In other words, the nation’s
infrastructural deficits and poor living
condition of people are parts of the resultant
effects of persistent borrowing.
Again, high domestic debts are bound to put
pressure on the government at the point of re-
payment as this may cause the government to
neglect some key government priorities.
While introducing measures to reduce the
nation’s domestic debts profile, greater
attention needs to be paid to viable
investment initiatives. If the government can
ensure huge returns for private investors, the
impacts will be better felt by all and sundry
instead of continuous borrowing. Irrespective
of the present economic challenges,
government should stop paying lip service to
problem of national debt as this remains a
major obstacle to national development.
unabated, the Federal Government also seems
helpless in tackling the nation’s rising
domestic debts profile. As the debt continues
to rise at unprecedented rate, and even more
drastically in the recent time, the nation’s
image is becoming dented. It is regretted that
the Federal Government had failed woefully
in efforts to reduce the nation’s debt profile.
Statistics obtained from the Debt Management
Office indicates that the domestic debts had
increased from ₦5.966 trillion ($37.71 billion)
at the end of the first quarter ended March
31, 2012, to ₦6.153 trillion ($38.89 billion) at
the end of the second quarter ended June 30,
2012. Indeed, the figures represent an
increase of ₦187 billion or three per cent over
the figure recorded in the first quarter.
Considering the economic implications of the
nation’s rising debt profile, it becomes a
major policy issue requiring extensive public
debates and discourse. More importantly,
heavy indebtedness of the nation remains one
of the major challenges facing most
developing countries at the beginning of the
21st Century. Indeed, high levels of domestic
national debt are likely to be deleterious for
economic growth and development. It is also
true that any economy structured and
sustained by borrowing cannot achieve
economic prosperity.
Detailed report of the domestic debts shows
that the Federal Government bonds accounted
for ₦3.71 trillion or 60.37 per cent of the
money borrowed from internal sources as at
June ending. The unfortunate scenario is that
the impacts of the government bonds are not
actually felt by average Nigerians. It would
have been understandable if the bonds are
effectively employed by the government to
finance long-term investments. Of course, the
Nigerian treasury bills accounted for ₦2.08
trillion or 33.88 per cent, while Treasury
bonds accounted for ₦353 billion or 5.75 per
cent.
Similarly, the domestic debt component of the
total debt profile as at March 31, 2012 which
stood at ₦5.966 trillion, showed that the
Federal Government bonds accounted for
₦3.67 trillion or 61.44 per cent of the money
borrowed through internal sources.
The Nigeria attitude to borrowing is somehow
a national stigma and it calls for re-
orientation of our value system. Nigerians are
being misguided to believe that borrowing is
inevitable and sacrosanct for economic
growth. Whatever the likely benefits derivable
from the huge internal borrowing, it is bound
to have negative economic consequences on
the citizens.
The recent acknowledgement and lamentation
by President Goodluck Jonathan while
presenting the 2012 budget proposal to the
National Assembly that the country domestic
debt have been growing at alarming rates in
recent years is a further prove of the nation’s
economic instability. It is also worthy of note
the decision of the federal government to
earmark ₦560 billion for debt servicing in the
2012 budget. In my own view, debt servicing
cost of public debt is likely to crowd out
public investment.
We may also deduce from President Goodluck
Jonathan’s admission of the threats poised on
the nation by the high domestic debt profile
that this has called for serious national
rethink. It is also interesting to note that the
Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala,
had expressed in an unequivocal terms, she is
more worried with domestic debts than the
external’s.
With the current economic realities, it is
imperative that the nation should initiate a
comprehensive debt servicing plan. In
designing the plan, the government needs to
carefully re-examine the nation’s borrowing
culture with its attendant consequences. Let
me also state that leadership corruption
remains a factor affecting the national success
in the area of debt servicing. Of particular
interest is diversion of funds meant for debt
servicing by people at the helms of affairs.
With the current debt servicing initiative of
President Goodluck Jonathan, the nation is
bound to accumulate more debts in view of
the fact that he gave a caveat that the nation’s
debt should not go beyond 30 per cent of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If the
administration is truly serious in its desire to
reduce the national debts, the set target or
ceiling will still largely constitute a burden.
The caution by President Goodluck Jonathan
on debt – GDP ratio when carefully analysed
shows that at the moment the debt to GDP
ratio is slightly less than 20 per cent. With
latitude of 30 per cent caveat, the government
may add up to 50 per cent of the current debt
level. This is indeed unacceptable, considering
the implications of these rates on the nation’s
economy.
Obviously, escalation of debt profile by the
Federal Government would continue to crowd
out the real sector of the economic and the
equities market. Of equal importance is the
fact that the capital realised from borrowing
is used to finance consumption rather than
investment. In a way, this government
tendency is having destabilizing effect on the
economy through increase in interest and
inflation rates. Without missing words, by
increasing those two rates, the government is
battering the economy.
From policy perspectives, the negative
impacts of domestic debts on economic
growth strengthens the arguments for
ambitious debt reduction through fiscal
consolidation. Another factor that coincides
with the domestic debt is the recurrent budget
deficit which also causes the nation to be
borrowing from Financial Institutions.
With the nation’s abundant human and
natural resources, the question that continues
to agitate mind is the reason for our
continuous borrowing both externally and
internally. This unanswered question poises a
lot of leadership challenges for the nation.
For significant reduction in the domestic debt
to be realisable, the task should not rest solely
with the presidency but there should be co-
operative efforts of all the stakeholders in the
nation’s economy. The National Assembly
equally has a vital role to play in revamping
the nation’s economy through debt reduction
initiatives and perhaps cut pays.
Without doubts, economic sustainability is
affected largely by the nation’s debt profile.
Our government’s high cost of borrowing can
inescapably trigger destabilisation and
disenablement of commercial lending rates of
over 20 per cent to the real sector. This will in
effect cause higher cost of production and can
as well blow up the inflationary trends.
No economy is known to have ever developed
with high inflationary trends and exploitative
borrowing rates. In other words, the nation’s
infrastructural deficits and poor living
condition of people are parts of the resultant
effects of persistent borrowing.
Again, high domestic debts are bound to put
pressure on the government at the point of re-
payment as this may cause the government to
neglect some key government priorities.
While introducing measures to reduce the
nation’s domestic debts profile, greater
attention needs to be paid to viable
investment initiatives. If the government can
ensure huge returns for private investors, the
impacts will be better felt by all and sundry
instead of continuous borrowing. Irrespective
of the present economic challenges,
government should stop paying lip service to
problem of national debt as this remains a
major obstacle to national development.
WORLD PEACE BY 2048
World peace has eluded humankind for millennia, despite
the fact that many of the greatest thinkers of our age
have proposed plans for achieving it. One proposal now
on the table aims to bring about sustainable world
peace by 2048. Will it be more successful than its
predecessors?
Norman Cousins, a notable author, journalist and world
peace advocate, is one of many who have worked
tirelessly toward the goal of a sustained world peace. In
his book The Pathology of Power he wrote that “it may
not be within the reach of the present generation of
Americans to create global sanity. But it is certainly
within our reach to bring rational considerations to bear
in the operations of our own government. Beyond that
must be the hope that rational leadership might
encourage sanity elsewhere.”
Cousins concluded that part of the problem concerns
the continual tug-of-war between superpowers and
called on Americans to establish rationality in their own
government in order to encourage it elsewhere. But
perhaps achieving peace requires much more than mere
rationality, or even advocacy.
To that end, in July 2011 the Institute for International
Sport held its first annual World Youth Peace Summit.
General Colin Powell was a keynote speaker and Bishop
Desmond Tutu was the Grand Marshall of the Peace
Walk 2011. The Summit explains that its ongoing
mission is to develop young peace advocates. “By
providing the opportunity to study peace policies
through an intensive series of lectures and workshops,”
says its Web site, “the Summit furnishes participants
with practical knowledge of how to develop and
implement their own peace initiatives successfully in
their home communities.”
A longing for lasting world peace is on the minds of
many people and one doesn’t have to look far to see
why. The world’s track record in the arena of
interpersonal relationships speaks to the need for better
ways of thinking, acting and solving challenges. Much
human suffering has arisen from our tendency to allow
our needs and wants to be met at the expense of
weaker people and nations.
Perhaps the most famous reminder of man’s quest for
peace stands in front of the United Nations building in
New York City. It’s a sculpture that depicts a man
beating a sword into a ploughshare. The caption is
taken from the book of Isaiah and depicts a time of
peace unprecedented in human history. The scripture it
is based on ( Isaiah 2:4 ) reads, “He shall judge between
the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
But what is the underlying idea in this sculpture? Going
deeper into the book of Isaiah, it becomes evident that
the scripture is meant as a statement that human
beings will be unable to achieve lasting peace without a
complete change in our nature. Unfortunately, our
actions over the centuries indicate that we believe we
can do it through sheer force of will and human
rationality. President John F. Kennedy put this belief
into words in a 1963 commencement address at
American University. “Our problems are man-made,” he
insisted. “Therefore they can be solved by man.”
Sadly, a long history of bloody power struggles touching
all nations and time periods fails to validate that claim.
Is there any reason to believe that our future efforts—
whatever form they may take—will produce different
results from those of the past?
J. Kirk Boyd is a lawyer, a professor, and the executive
director of the 2048 Project, which he describes as a
plan to “prevent future wars, eliminate poverty, and
create the conditions necessary for a sustainable
existence on our planet.” In his book titled 2048:
Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together, he proposes
that our long-held belief that world peace and
prosperity are unattainable is a myth. In fact, he says,
the foundation for world peace through the 2048 Project
has already been laid, beginning with the creation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the
United Nations in 1948.
Boyd insists that the plan for 2048 excludes no one,
adding that people around the globe have been working
tirelessly for years to implement it. He believes we have
the capacity to learn to live together peacefully, much
the same way a family does. You may not agree with all
the decisions your family makes, he points out, but you
work out your problems because you have a tacit
agreement to live together in harmony. As the essence
of humanity’s agreement to live together, he proposes
five freedoms as a fundamental entitlement for
everyone: freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom from
degradation of the environment.
Participation in the 2048 project, claims Boyd, will
change our lives and the lives of our progeny forever.
“This is not an overstatement,” he insists. “The
enforceable International Bill of Rights that is achieved
through the 2048 process affects every major decision
and every moment of our lives—including what we can
say about a corrupt politician to root out dishonesty,
whether we can have a medical operation we need, how
we can practice religion, and whether there is a place
for us and our children at the university—as well as
many other things.”
But who will ensure that all five freedoms are
experienced equally by everyone? Boyd places his faith
in his fellow human beings to come up with solutions
and enforce them through strong, impartial courts and
institutions that will emerge from “deep and broad”
thinking. The plan for 2048, says Boyd, “is grounded in a
strong international tradition of entrusting decision
making to neutral, respected persons, whether they are
tribal mediators or Supreme Court justices.”
He does admit that power corrupts, and that could be a
problem that would need to be corrected when it
happens. His solution is to have these arbiters swear an
oath to uphold the laws contained in this bill of rights.
“Some may be skeptical that such neutrality can be
maintained,” he acknowledges, “but we have seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures, how the evolution of society has been
inextricably intertwined with the selection of neutral
decision makers among us. . . . One of our great
character traits as human beings is the ability to
resolve disputes among ourselves fairly and impartially,
based on presentation of disputes to neutral parties.”
Boyd’s hope—though admirable—seems overly
optimistic. While it’s true that we expect courts to be
neutral decision makers, what we have also “seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures” is the failure of these decision makers. The
judicial system has not always worked: people have
been wrongly convicted; disputes have escalated rather
than being resolved; oaths have been made and broken.
What happened to the promises that the United States
government made to the Native Americans, for
instance? What happened to the promise of “peace
within our time” made between Germany and England
before World War II? Humanity’s record is one of failed
contracts and broken promises.
Certainly it would be nice if we could trust a world
government to solve our problems, and in fact this is
not a new idea. Men such as Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin
and Stalin also believed they could bring peace and
prosperity to the world. Of course, these would-be
messiahs failed to deliver. Could any world government
succeed where so many throughout history have failed?
The prophet who gave us the words that appear on the
UN statue also hinted at the answer to this question. In
Isaiah 9:6 –7 he speaks of a Messiah who will
accomplish what humanity never could: “For unto us a
Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the
government will be upon His shoulder. And His name
will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of
His government and peace there will be no end, upon
the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it
and establish it with judgment and justice from that
time forward, even forever.”
the fact that many of the greatest thinkers of our age
have proposed plans for achieving it. One proposal now
on the table aims to bring about sustainable world
peace by 2048. Will it be more successful than its
predecessors?
Norman Cousins, a notable author, journalist and world
peace advocate, is one of many who have worked
tirelessly toward the goal of a sustained world peace. In
his book The Pathology of Power he wrote that “it may
not be within the reach of the present generation of
Americans to create global sanity. But it is certainly
within our reach to bring rational considerations to bear
in the operations of our own government. Beyond that
must be the hope that rational leadership might
encourage sanity elsewhere.”
Cousins concluded that part of the problem concerns
the continual tug-of-war between superpowers and
called on Americans to establish rationality in their own
government in order to encourage it elsewhere. But
perhaps achieving peace requires much more than mere
rationality, or even advocacy.
To that end, in July 2011 the Institute for International
Sport held its first annual World Youth Peace Summit.
General Colin Powell was a keynote speaker and Bishop
Desmond Tutu was the Grand Marshall of the Peace
Walk 2011. The Summit explains that its ongoing
mission is to develop young peace advocates. “By
providing the opportunity to study peace policies
through an intensive series of lectures and workshops,”
says its Web site, “the Summit furnishes participants
with practical knowledge of how to develop and
implement their own peace initiatives successfully in
their home communities.”
A longing for lasting world peace is on the minds of
many people and one doesn’t have to look far to see
why. The world’s track record in the arena of
interpersonal relationships speaks to the need for better
ways of thinking, acting and solving challenges. Much
human suffering has arisen from our tendency to allow
our needs and wants to be met at the expense of
weaker people and nations.
Perhaps the most famous reminder of man’s quest for
peace stands in front of the United Nations building in
New York City. It’s a sculpture that depicts a man
beating a sword into a ploughshare. The caption is
taken from the book of Isaiah and depicts a time of
peace unprecedented in human history. The scripture it
is based on ( Isaiah 2:4 ) reads, “He shall judge between
the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
But what is the underlying idea in this sculpture? Going
deeper into the book of Isaiah, it becomes evident that
the scripture is meant as a statement that human
beings will be unable to achieve lasting peace without a
complete change in our nature. Unfortunately, our
actions over the centuries indicate that we believe we
can do it through sheer force of will and human
rationality. President John F. Kennedy put this belief
into words in a 1963 commencement address at
American University. “Our problems are man-made,” he
insisted. “Therefore they can be solved by man.”
Sadly, a long history of bloody power struggles touching
all nations and time periods fails to validate that claim.
Is there any reason to believe that our future efforts—
whatever form they may take—will produce different
results from those of the past?
J. Kirk Boyd is a lawyer, a professor, and the executive
director of the 2048 Project, which he describes as a
plan to “prevent future wars, eliminate poverty, and
create the conditions necessary for a sustainable
existence on our planet.” In his book titled 2048:
Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together, he proposes
that our long-held belief that world peace and
prosperity are unattainable is a myth. In fact, he says,
the foundation for world peace through the 2048 Project
has already been laid, beginning with the creation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the
United Nations in 1948.
Boyd insists that the plan for 2048 excludes no one,
adding that people around the globe have been working
tirelessly for years to implement it. He believes we have
the capacity to learn to live together peacefully, much
the same way a family does. You may not agree with all
the decisions your family makes, he points out, but you
work out your problems because you have a tacit
agreement to live together in harmony. As the essence
of humanity’s agreement to live together, he proposes
five freedoms as a fundamental entitlement for
everyone: freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom from
degradation of the environment.
Participation in the 2048 project, claims Boyd, will
change our lives and the lives of our progeny forever.
“This is not an overstatement,” he insists. “The
enforceable International Bill of Rights that is achieved
through the 2048 process affects every major decision
and every moment of our lives—including what we can
say about a corrupt politician to root out dishonesty,
whether we can have a medical operation we need, how
we can practice religion, and whether there is a place
for us and our children at the university—as well as
many other things.”
But who will ensure that all five freedoms are
experienced equally by everyone? Boyd places his faith
in his fellow human beings to come up with solutions
and enforce them through strong, impartial courts and
institutions that will emerge from “deep and broad”
thinking. The plan for 2048, says Boyd, “is grounded in a
strong international tradition of entrusting decision
making to neutral, respected persons, whether they are
tribal mediators or Supreme Court justices.”
He does admit that power corrupts, and that could be a
problem that would need to be corrected when it
happens. His solution is to have these arbiters swear an
oath to uphold the laws contained in this bill of rights.
“Some may be skeptical that such neutrality can be
maintained,” he acknowledges, “but we have seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures, how the evolution of society has been
inextricably intertwined with the selection of neutral
decision makers among us. . . . One of our great
character traits as human beings is the ability to
resolve disputes among ourselves fairly and impartially,
based on presentation of disputes to neutral parties.”
Boyd’s hope—though admirable—seems overly
optimistic. While it’s true that we expect courts to be
neutral decision makers, what we have also “seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures” is the failure of these decision makers. The
judicial system has not always worked: people have
been wrongly convicted; disputes have escalated rather
than being resolved; oaths have been made and broken.
What happened to the promises that the United States
government made to the Native Americans, for
instance? What happened to the promise of “peace
within our time” made between Germany and England
before World War II? Humanity’s record is one of failed
contracts and broken promises.
Certainly it would be nice if we could trust a world
government to solve our problems, and in fact this is
not a new idea. Men such as Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin
and Stalin also believed they could bring peace and
prosperity to the world. Of course, these would-be
messiahs failed to deliver. Could any world government
succeed where so many throughout history have failed?
The prophet who gave us the words that appear on the
UN statue also hinted at the answer to this question. In
Isaiah 9:6 –7 he speaks of a Messiah who will
accomplish what humanity never could: “For unto us a
Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the
government will be upon His shoulder. And His name
will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of
His government and peace there will be no end, upon
the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it
and establish it with judgment and justice from that
time forward, even forever.”
SEVEN BILLIONS AT THE DOOR
For most of our tenure on the planet, the human impact
on the synergy of air, water, soil, energy and life that
make the Earth habitable has been small. But as our
technology, industry and numbers have increased, that
impact has also increased. The increase has been
exponential in terms of our population as well as our
influence on the natural systems that create a life-
sustaining environment. In some ways humankind has
become the ultimate invasive species. To be equated
with some sort of fuzzy-clawed crab or other gravid
invertebrate seems rather an insult. But as Caldwell
notes above, we seem to be just as oblivious to the
world around.
To many observers, we seem to be a species wheeling
out of control; apparently senseless to the
consequences of our actions in the world and with little
means of control either of ourselves or of anyone or
anything else.
Thus as the United Nations pegs October 31, 2011, as
the date when human population passes 7 billion, we
can expect increasingly strident calls for a deep
evaluation of our planetary role. The UN’s 7 Billion
Actions Web site suggests that, “Individual actions are
needed—to think, live and engage one another
differently, and to manage this growth responsibly. Our
increasing global population will affect us all and it is
everyone’s business to do something about it.”
EVEN MORE IN THE PIPELINE
But what does “live and engage one another differently”
mean? Commentators may simply focus on the fact that
no one really knows when number 7,000,000,000 will
come off the line. And while it is correct that the actual
date cannot really be known, the greater symbolism of
the moment is what the UN is seeking to capture: at a
time of global economic and political turmoil, there are
ever more of us that need food, water and space. To
act “differently” will mean in essence that everyone, and
especially those of the First World, will need a more
global perspective.
If we are to create a sustainable global community,
there must be, for instance, more equitable use of
resources. Just as we have seen global economies
become destabilized through “every man for himself”
corporate and financial strategies, the same type of
ecological abuses will surely lead to a day of reckoning
as well. Unfortunately, the biosphere of the planet does
not so easily forgive its debts. The way forward is to
accept and operate from the principle that we are our
brother’s keeper, and there are ever more brothers on
the way.
Analysis of world demographic trends shows that we
will be pushing 9 to 10 billion in the next 40 years. “And
then what?” asks Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich.
Unfortunately, according to one UN population estimate,
the high-end scenario if world population growth falls to
just 0.5% (rather than a 0% growth rate) grows to 36
billion by 2300. (The world population growth rate today
is 1.2%.)
Ehrlich has been discussing these questions for more
than 40 years. Beginning in 1968 with The Population
Bomb, Ehrlich predicted a dire future for the burgeoning
human numbers. He admits he was wrong concerning
the timing of the massive famines and ecological
unraveling he foresaw. While human civilization has
always faced food shortages and resource bottlenecks
from time to time, Ehrlich believes our modern
equivalents are not so easily hurdled.
Like Ehrlich, many ecologists have come to the
conclusion that we are “ecosystem engineers.” Writing
in The Dominant Animal , Paul and Anne Ehrlich, for
example, note that human influence is so pervasive that
we have altered the paths of all life. They write that “a
burgeoning human population, perpetually trying to
increase its consumption, is now reshaping the entire
Earth to suit its own immediate needs—to be its
niche.”
“There’s no fear that the population will grow to
infinity,” Ehrlich told Vision. “We either stop it by
adjusting the birth rates or nature will stop it by
adjusting the death rates. My ethical system tells me
we ought to avoid the latter. We don’t want to solve the
population problem by having several billion people die
in misery.” (See more of our interview “ And Then
What? )
While the green revolution in farming and increases in
dam building, aquifer drilling, fishing fleet
industrialization and fossil fuel consumption abated the
detonation of Ehrlich’s 1970s’ population meltdown,
these efforts did not defuse the bomb. In fact, many of
these technological fixes have been faux saviors; while
they seemed to advance the status quo for a time, they
ultimately may have only offered borrowed time—time
which might have been used to better our ends.
Instead, it seems to have been time lost. According to
Ehrlich, these natural-capital-consuming practices have
merely put more people and the planet itself in greater
peril. “We are in the middle of a large scale disaster
right now. Globalization has given us the privilege of
perhaps having the entire civilization go under.”
A SENSE OF LIMITS
Lynton Caldwell (1913-2006) was one of the first
political scientists to recognize the connection between
human activities and the threat that we would create for
ourselves. A designer of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, Caldwell understood that growth and
consumption were not without limits. “Without a strong
and governing principle of limits built into public policy,
the ingenuity of humans may impel them toward their
own demise.”
In a 1998 article “Is Human Destiny to Self-Destruct,”
Caldwell was spot on. “Limits hold true for all life-forms
and will ultimately constrain the direction of human
development. If the present widespread commitment to
a sustainable future is realistic, people and policy
makers must act upon the axiom that unfettered growth
and unrestrained expansion in a finite system leads
toward a condition of cul-de-sac which, if irreversible,
could result in destruction.” Of all the threats to
humanity, proposes Caldwell, the greatest are arguably
war and civil disorder. “One need not minimize their
dangers to also recognize that attrition of the Earth's
biosphere and life support systems could continue
unobtrusively under conditions of peace until a point at
which environmental disintegration led to societal
disintegration.”
In a section relevant to the October 31, 2011, milestone,
Caldwell focused on population. It is also relevant to
note that at the time he wrote the Earth housed only 6
billion people. “Today there is one human force that is
driving the expansive course of the material economy
and stressing all parameters of the natural environment.
It may be the most significant factor in the prospect of
societal self-destruction. This is the unprecedented and
presently irreversible explosive growth, dispersal, and
concentration of human populations. There are few real
environmental, economic, and social problems that
would not ultimately be significantly eased if world
populations were stabilized below present and projected
levels.” Pointing out the complexity of the combined
forces of population, resources, environment, and the
economy, He adds that “generalizations risk error; and
yet the adverse ecological and sociological
consequences of unrestrained population growth seem
undeniable—albeit nevertheless widely denied. If society
overshoots the limits of sustainability, retrenching to a
stable state would likely be painful and
disruptive. Whether democracy and individualism as we
know them could survive a reverse transition is, at least,
questionable.”
Concerns that current human populations are already
too large to be sustained indefinitely by the earth’s
resources can only increase along with the
numbers. . . . “Stabilizing populations at significantly
reduced numbers would greatly improve the human
prospect, says Caldwell, “But this objective seems far
from acceptable in today's world. There would be pain
in the transition—the benefits in the long-range future.
The plausible expectation is that humanity will be
unwilling or unable to attempt this transition until it is
imposed by forces exceeding human volition or control.
The possibility of disastrous consequences for humanity
should not be discounted.”
THE WAR OF THE WORLDS
In the novel The War of the Worlds , historian and writer
H.G. Wells couched the imperialism of his day in the
costume of invading aliens from Mars. Today, we drive
our machines across the Earth with similar abandon
and little regard for our fellow man or for nature itself. It
is an interesting parallel to the 1890s, only now we are
much improved in our capacity to “engage the enemy”
and take possession of what will be ours. Now we have
the run of the planet. We don’t drive spindly-legged
tripods with mysterious heat rays, but we do seem to
be terraforming the planet in our own image; our
vehicles and destructive potential probably even exceed
Welles’ ample imagination.
Selecting October 31 as the seven billion marker also
has an interesting parallel with Orson Welles’ production
of The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. As he
noted at the end of the program—an hour that many
listeners believed to be an actual newscast of an
extraterrestrial invasion—it was all in fun. “This is Orson
Welles, ladies and gentlemen, out of character to assure
you that The War of the Worlds has no further
significance than as the holiday offering it was intended
to be. The Mercury Theatre's own radio version of
dressing up in a sheet and jumping out of a bush and
saying Boo!”
Who would believe such an outlandish story, he
commented later when told of the panic. Of course, in
1938 on the eve of World War II, Welles likely
understood that he was playing with fire—that an
uneasy audience might just be far enough over the edge
to be taken in.
Today, we are on the same kind of edge. In all three
cases—Wells’ original writing, the Mercury radio version,
and the UN’s current use of this date—the public has
been asked to consider the bigger picture and to take
responsibility for being part of that picture. The world is
at our door, and we are at the world’s door. Will it be
trick or a treat?
“Human beings have broken out of the circle of life,
driven not by biological need, but by the social
organization which they have devised to ‘conquer’
nature,” wrote ecologist Barry Commoner in The Closing
Circle . “Anyone who proposes to cure the environmental
crisis undertakes thereby to change the course of
history.”
on the synergy of air, water, soil, energy and life that
make the Earth habitable has been small. But as our
technology, industry and numbers have increased, that
impact has also increased. The increase has been
exponential in terms of our population as well as our
influence on the natural systems that create a life-
sustaining environment. In some ways humankind has
become the ultimate invasive species. To be equated
with some sort of fuzzy-clawed crab or other gravid
invertebrate seems rather an insult. But as Caldwell
notes above, we seem to be just as oblivious to the
world around.
To many observers, we seem to be a species wheeling
out of control; apparently senseless to the
consequences of our actions in the world and with little
means of control either of ourselves or of anyone or
anything else.
Thus as the United Nations pegs October 31, 2011, as
the date when human population passes 7 billion, we
can expect increasingly strident calls for a deep
evaluation of our planetary role. The UN’s 7 Billion
Actions Web site suggests that, “Individual actions are
needed—to think, live and engage one another
differently, and to manage this growth responsibly. Our
increasing global population will affect us all and it is
everyone’s business to do something about it.”
EVEN MORE IN THE PIPELINE
But what does “live and engage one another differently”
mean? Commentators may simply focus on the fact that
no one really knows when number 7,000,000,000 will
come off the line. And while it is correct that the actual
date cannot really be known, the greater symbolism of
the moment is what the UN is seeking to capture: at a
time of global economic and political turmoil, there are
ever more of us that need food, water and space. To
act “differently” will mean in essence that everyone, and
especially those of the First World, will need a more
global perspective.
If we are to create a sustainable global community,
there must be, for instance, more equitable use of
resources. Just as we have seen global economies
become destabilized through “every man for himself”
corporate and financial strategies, the same type of
ecological abuses will surely lead to a day of reckoning
as well. Unfortunately, the biosphere of the planet does
not so easily forgive its debts. The way forward is to
accept and operate from the principle that we are our
brother’s keeper, and there are ever more brothers on
the way.
Analysis of world demographic trends shows that we
will be pushing 9 to 10 billion in the next 40 years. “And
then what?” asks Stanford ecologist Paul Ehrlich.
Unfortunately, according to one UN population estimate,
the high-end scenario if world population growth falls to
just 0.5% (rather than a 0% growth rate) grows to 36
billion by 2300. (The world population growth rate today
is 1.2%.)
Ehrlich has been discussing these questions for more
than 40 years. Beginning in 1968 with The Population
Bomb, Ehrlich predicted a dire future for the burgeoning
human numbers. He admits he was wrong concerning
the timing of the massive famines and ecological
unraveling he foresaw. While human civilization has
always faced food shortages and resource bottlenecks
from time to time, Ehrlich believes our modern
equivalents are not so easily hurdled.
Like Ehrlich, many ecologists have come to the
conclusion that we are “ecosystem engineers.” Writing
in The Dominant Animal , Paul and Anne Ehrlich, for
example, note that human influence is so pervasive that
we have altered the paths of all life. They write that “a
burgeoning human population, perpetually trying to
increase its consumption, is now reshaping the entire
Earth to suit its own immediate needs—to be its
niche.”
“There’s no fear that the population will grow to
infinity,” Ehrlich told Vision. “We either stop it by
adjusting the birth rates or nature will stop it by
adjusting the death rates. My ethical system tells me
we ought to avoid the latter. We don’t want to solve the
population problem by having several billion people die
in misery.” (See more of our interview “ And Then
What? )
While the green revolution in farming and increases in
dam building, aquifer drilling, fishing fleet
industrialization and fossil fuel consumption abated the
detonation of Ehrlich’s 1970s’ population meltdown,
these efforts did not defuse the bomb. In fact, many of
these technological fixes have been faux saviors; while
they seemed to advance the status quo for a time, they
ultimately may have only offered borrowed time—time
which might have been used to better our ends.
Instead, it seems to have been time lost. According to
Ehrlich, these natural-capital-consuming practices have
merely put more people and the planet itself in greater
peril. “We are in the middle of a large scale disaster
right now. Globalization has given us the privilege of
perhaps having the entire civilization go under.”
A SENSE OF LIMITS
Lynton Caldwell (1913-2006) was one of the first
political scientists to recognize the connection between
human activities and the threat that we would create for
ourselves. A designer of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, Caldwell understood that growth and
consumption were not without limits. “Without a strong
and governing principle of limits built into public policy,
the ingenuity of humans may impel them toward their
own demise.”
In a 1998 article “Is Human Destiny to Self-Destruct,”
Caldwell was spot on. “Limits hold true for all life-forms
and will ultimately constrain the direction of human
development. If the present widespread commitment to
a sustainable future is realistic, people and policy
makers must act upon the axiom that unfettered growth
and unrestrained expansion in a finite system leads
toward a condition of cul-de-sac which, if irreversible,
could result in destruction.” Of all the threats to
humanity, proposes Caldwell, the greatest are arguably
war and civil disorder. “One need not minimize their
dangers to also recognize that attrition of the Earth's
biosphere and life support systems could continue
unobtrusively under conditions of peace until a point at
which environmental disintegration led to societal
disintegration.”
In a section relevant to the October 31, 2011, milestone,
Caldwell focused on population. It is also relevant to
note that at the time he wrote the Earth housed only 6
billion people. “Today there is one human force that is
driving the expansive course of the material economy
and stressing all parameters of the natural environment.
It may be the most significant factor in the prospect of
societal self-destruction. This is the unprecedented and
presently irreversible explosive growth, dispersal, and
concentration of human populations. There are few real
environmental, economic, and social problems that
would not ultimately be significantly eased if world
populations were stabilized below present and projected
levels.” Pointing out the complexity of the combined
forces of population, resources, environment, and the
economy, He adds that “generalizations risk error; and
yet the adverse ecological and sociological
consequences of unrestrained population growth seem
undeniable—albeit nevertheless widely denied. If society
overshoots the limits of sustainability, retrenching to a
stable state would likely be painful and
disruptive. Whether democracy and individualism as we
know them could survive a reverse transition is, at least,
questionable.”
Concerns that current human populations are already
too large to be sustained indefinitely by the earth’s
resources can only increase along with the
numbers. . . . “Stabilizing populations at significantly
reduced numbers would greatly improve the human
prospect, says Caldwell, “But this objective seems far
from acceptable in today's world. There would be pain
in the transition—the benefits in the long-range future.
The plausible expectation is that humanity will be
unwilling or unable to attempt this transition until it is
imposed by forces exceeding human volition or control.
The possibility of disastrous consequences for humanity
should not be discounted.”
THE WAR OF THE WORLDS
In the novel The War of the Worlds , historian and writer
H.G. Wells couched the imperialism of his day in the
costume of invading aliens from Mars. Today, we drive
our machines across the Earth with similar abandon
and little regard for our fellow man or for nature itself. It
is an interesting parallel to the 1890s, only now we are
much improved in our capacity to “engage the enemy”
and take possession of what will be ours. Now we have
the run of the planet. We don’t drive spindly-legged
tripods with mysterious heat rays, but we do seem to
be terraforming the planet in our own image; our
vehicles and destructive potential probably even exceed
Welles’ ample imagination.
Selecting October 31 as the seven billion marker also
has an interesting parallel with Orson Welles’ production
of The War of the Worlds radio broadcast in 1938. As he
noted at the end of the program—an hour that many
listeners believed to be an actual newscast of an
extraterrestrial invasion—it was all in fun. “This is Orson
Welles, ladies and gentlemen, out of character to assure
you that The War of the Worlds has no further
significance than as the holiday offering it was intended
to be. The Mercury Theatre's own radio version of
dressing up in a sheet and jumping out of a bush and
saying Boo!”
Who would believe such an outlandish story, he
commented later when told of the panic. Of course, in
1938 on the eve of World War II, Welles likely
understood that he was playing with fire—that an
uneasy audience might just be far enough over the edge
to be taken in.
Today, we are on the same kind of edge. In all three
cases—Wells’ original writing, the Mercury radio version,
and the UN’s current use of this date—the public has
been asked to consider the bigger picture and to take
responsibility for being part of that picture. The world is
at our door, and we are at the world’s door. Will it be
trick or a treat?
“Human beings have broken out of the circle of life,
driven not by biological need, but by the social
organization which they have devised to ‘conquer’
nature,” wrote ecologist Barry Commoner in The Closing
Circle . “Anyone who proposes to cure the environmental
crisis undertakes thereby to change the course of
history.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)