Revival of the ‘Concert of Europe’ in Its Worst Form

By Sajjad Shaukat

Renowned historians agree that in the post-Napoleonic era, the Treaty of Chaumont which was made in March 1814, by Great Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria…even the Vienna Settlement (1815) and various conferences of the Concert of Europe (1815-22) were used for the purpose of suppressing nationalism and liberalism everywhere in Europe and restoring the status quo…sealed the triumph of reaction and restored the pre-revolutionary conditions” [of the French Revolution]…the same four Powers tried at the Congress of Vienna to effect a regeneration of the political system of Europe…the Powers devoted to the grand interests they had in common…it was in this way that the Concert of Europe was formed.”

Prince Metternich, the emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire did what he could by subjugating the alien peoples by employing every possible techniques of state terrorism. It was due to his influence that the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states was accepted in 1820 by the Congress of Troppau which gave the European powers, the right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states where revolutions took place. The Protocol enabled Metternich to police the whole of Europe and crush liberalism and nationalism wherever it raised its head. When revolutions had broken out in Naples, Spain and Portugal and the people had forced their kings to give them liberal constitutions, it was in pursuance of this policy that Austria was able to crush the revolts in Naples and Piedmont. France also interfered in Spain.

Under the cover of the welfare of the world, the European powers also called upon the King of Sweden to explain why he had ignored the treaty rights with regard to Norway and Denmark. The ruler of Monaco was ordered to improve the administrative system of his country.

The principle of intervention in the internal affairs of the states divided the European powers into two camps. In 1822, despite the opposition of the Great Britain, France intervened in Spain and the former withdrew from the Congress of Vienna. The era of Congresses collapsed with the withdrawal of Great Britain.

In fact, Metternich stood for the maintenance of the status quo in Europe, and an international alliance of the like-minded rulers. He followed a reactionary policy in Austria-Hungary. He did all that he could to crush liberalism and nationalism within the country. In this regard, Carlsbad Decrees were enacted in 1819 to curb secret societies or revolutionary activities. He set himself to suppress the nationalist and democratic movements of Germany and Italy, and to counter the aspirations of the people of the Balkans for independence through military terrorism.

According to Indian historian, V. D. Mahajin, “Terrorism at that stage initially appeared as the mode of activity of the small conspiratorial groups, such as student bodies and secret societies, which grew up throughout Europe in the aftermath of the post-Napoleonic restoration. These early days were exciting, since Europe still abounded (as indeed it did until 1918) with kings, emperors and tsars to be eliminated because they were using the machinery of state terrorism in suppressing the genuine aspirations of peoples such as liberty, freedom and justice…the French Revolution of 1789 stood for certain principles and those were Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. The example of France became the inspiration of Europe and from there of the whole world. Her ideas dominated the European politics throughout the 19th century…Metternich was the enemy of the French Revolution and all that it stood for. He described it as “the disease which must be cured, the volcano which must be extinguished…Metternich had to admit that he was fighting for a lost cause, and the empire disintegrated, resulting in the independence of Italy, unification of Germany, Bulgaria and other states whose secret societies had been waging wars of liberation.”

In the words of Hayes, “in spite of the efforts of Metternich the old regime was doomed and could not be saved.”

This is of particular attention that with the elimination of the Cold War and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, the US and European thinkers evolved a new concept of balance of power to justify their interest in the aftermath of the changed circumstances in the world’s changed arena. In their writings, they paid a serious consideration on the system of collective security, maintained by the major powers of the Concert of Europe.

In this connection, George W. Downs remarked in relation to ‘The Pew Project’ which supported the research for the case of collective security in the aftermath of the Cold War, “The timing of the project is a function of both real-world events and theoretical developments…inspiration is also due to the strategic behaviour in environments where the enforceability of agreements by a central agent is absent” and “where individuals are motivated by self-interest…although the emphasis of this approach on actors, motivated by self-interest makes it natural extension of classic realism…its achievements lie largely in explaining the conditions under which self-interested agents…be they individuals, companies, or nation-states will cooperate.”

Stephen M. Walt, Michael W. Doyle and Charles Lipson favoured a system of collective security among the big powers of the West and America like the Concert of Europe of the past with a view to stopping any hostile revolution in the world. They opined, “Believing that balances of power often fail to form…balance-of-threat theory as a refinement of balance-of-power theory. States respond to imbalances of power in balance-of-power theory, and balancing and bandwagoning are defined in terms of power…the success of the Vienna Congress suggests that great powers can forge durable cooperation and provide a significant measure of collective security for themselves…the New World Order we are now entering is a new rendition of the classical balance of power…international accommodation among liberal states, together with opposition to non-liberal states…rather than the opposition of power to power…interaction under anarchy…this is because for liberals, threats are defined in institutional political terms (liberals versus non-liberals) rather than in power terms (capabilities versus capabilities). Liberal states therefore balance against the political threats that non-liberal states seem to pose.”

Even, Henry Kissinger offered an eloquent portrait of a more developed strategic model with the statesman as the architect of the balance of power. According to Kissinger, “Stability is a product of legitimacy and legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created…the international order is not also up for dispute…Europe rescued stability from seeming chaos [at the close of the Napoleonic Wars] was primarily the result of the work of two great men: of Castlereagh, the British Foreign Secretary, who negotiated the international settlement, and of Austria’s Foreign Minister, Metternich, who legitimized it. Great statesmen succeed in creating international orders within the balance of power by reconciling what their societies regard as just with what the resources of their nation and its allies make feasible. Metternich sought to create a conservative order that forestalled revolutionary change; Castlereagh, to create an international order that contained aggressive change…the Congress of Vienna reflected the success of those two projects…Metternich established a concert system that would intervene against revolutionary change.”    

These political scholars strongly favoured the system of collective security which could be formed by the United States and its Western, especially European partners in meeting any world threat collectively. They proposed a definition based on the commitment of a group of states to maintain a security norm within them which is consistent with the realist theory of balance of power.

It should be kept in mind that in the aftermath of the Cold War, particularly America and its other Western allies had declared the so-called Islamic fundamentalism its new threat and enemy which was used by them against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda which was created by the CIA was funded and armed by America and Saudi Arabia.

However, both American and some Western prominent political scholars had started equating that new threat of the so-called Islamic fundamentalism with terrorism, also emanating from the non-liberal, uncivilized and failed states. As the Soviet threat was over, the new balance-of-power theorists had given one more shape and a new meaning to the balance of power—the liberal versus non-liberal states which means US-led Western world versus Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism.

These thinkers justified the Concert of Europe, formed under the leadership of Metternich who had united the conservative powers against revolutions.

Nevertheless, their theory is quite opposite to the real definition of balance of power.  In this context, famous scholars of international relations, Lord Castlereagh, Quincy Wright, Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz agree by remarking, “Checking the unusual dominance and hegemony of the world by a single power is very essential for the survival of other states which live in anarchic situation where there is no international agency to impose international law and to provide security…the concept of balance of power rests with the basic assumption that excessive power in the system is a threat to the existence of other units and that the most antidote to power is power.”

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, power-vacuum was created in the world. Waltz and other thinkers expected “unipolarity to give way quickly to multipolarity as other major powers of Europe and Asia would move individually and collectively to balance the preponderant power of the United States.”

Unfortunately, other major nuclear powers or any prospective alliance did not challenge America’s hegemony in accordance with the system of balance of power. In that backdrop, the US emerged as the sole superpower in the unipolar world. In consultation with his Zionist-advisers, American former President Bush, (The Senior) replaced the old bipolar order with the New World Order, with the US acting as a kind of global policeman to protect the political and economic interests of Israel and the American Jews who are owners of many big cartels—multinational corporations, oil companies, banks etc., including print and electronic media of the US in particular and the world in general. Thus, by dominating American internal policies, Zionist Jews mould country’s foreign policy for their own interests, devoted to Israel.

It is noteworthy that neo-colonialism is the most dangerous form of colonialism, which is prevalent in the present world. In the past, the most developed countries had direct control on the less developed countries, but most of the colonies got independence after the World War 11. As regards neo-colonialism, in theory a less developed or developing country is free, but in practice, its government and economy are controlled by a developed country indirectly.

In the unipolar world, even the United Nations became an instrument of the US policy to establish American hegemony in the world. The Third World and a majority of Muslim countries were compelled to realign their domestic policies according to Washington’s dictates. In order to obtain the hidden agenda of Jews, the US imposed its sudden terms of globalization such as free markets, privatization and de-nationalization etc. on the ill-prepared developing countries, which left behind shattered nations and a global financial crisis. It further widened the gap between the poor and the rich countries or G-7 countries. The corporations and international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank which are indirectly controlled by Zionist Jews have continued to drive the project of globalization through the sole superpower.

This is mentionable that the New World Order, decreed after the fall of the Soviet Union, lays down that no social change is permissible outside the logic of capitalism, which in the case of periphery, can only be dependent capitalism. This policy is enforced through financial and trade means, and in case of failing, force is applied either by the pro-US government or directly by the sole superpower. Attempts at changing the social relations through force, as in Venezuela, Colombia, Nicaragua, EI Salvador, Guatemala etc., were of course crushed as illegitimate.

After 9/11, like the Concert of Europe, almost all the major Western countries including NATO states also joined the global war on terror.

Besides, in the name of war on terror, the US and NATO attacked Afghanistan and then without mandate of the UN Security Council, American-Anglo forces invaded Iraq. In both cases, the US-led countries justified their invasions under the mask of right of self-defence and Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMDs). However, the main aim of these major countries was to occupy the energy resources of Central Asia and Iraq.

In this context, about the double game, Hans J. Morgenthau, and Palmer and Perkins opine, “Just as power became the instrument of ambitious nationalism and state’s leaders, it has now become the tool of ideologies. The true nature of the policy is concealed by ideological justifications and rationalization. Therefore, the ideology provides a mask behind which the ulterior motives are concealed.”

Like Metternich, US-led forces also employed state terrorism by special military operations, extra-judicial assassinations and heavy aerial bombardment, which killed several innocent persons especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. And suspected Muslims were also kept in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and other cells, established in some Islamic countries and small European states where personnel of the CIA, the FBI, and the military employed various methods of torture like physical violence and even murder.

In order to fulfill the unfinished agenda of the US President George W. Bush, in the name of war on terror, President Barack Obama continued the same policies in their worst form to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel. Obama-led Administration went on with various techniques of ruthless terror and extrajudicial killings of the innocent persons through illegitimate drone attacks—assisting undemocratic forces, toppling the elected government in Egypt, and like Iraq, creation of more collapsed states such as Libya, Yemen and Syria which opened the doors for Al-Qaeda and ISIS which were already being supported by the CIA and Israeli Mossad.

While, Islamic movements everywhere had been equated with terrorism since September 11, but, like the Concert of Europe, India and Israel who jumped Bush’s anti-terrorism bandwagon were given green signal by Washington to crush wars of liberation in the Indian-held Kashmir and Israeli-occupied territories of the Palestinians. The death squads and security forces of these alien powers used every brutal tactic to suppress the genuine rights of self-determination—the very basis of the unification of Germany and Italy, including other European states which got independence.

Notably, in 2008, a rights group reported unmarked graves in the Indian-controlled Kashmir. In its report, China’s leading News Agency Xinhua unearthed more unmarked graves in Poonch of the Indian-occupied Kashmir. The report quoted the statement of Sofi Aziz Joo, caretaker of a graveyard as saying, “Police and Army used to bring those bodies and direct me to bury them. The bodies were usually bullet-ridden, mutilated, faces disfigured and sometimes without limbs and heads.” In this respect, in August, 2011, Indian Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) officially acknowledged in its report that 2,156 unidentified bodies of the innocent civilians killed in the two-decade conflict had been buried in unmarked graves in various regions of the Indian-held Kashmir.

Similarly, since its creation and during various phases of the Palestinian Intifada, Israeli forces used chemical and radiological materials against the unarmed Palestinians and thus killed several innocent people, including women and children.

Undoubtedly, if the double game of President Bush franchised Al-Qaeda on global level, President Obama’s dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign and left no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives in the pretext of global war on terror. Secretly, Obama authorized CIA to create ISIS. His perennial covert support to the Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, silence over the supply of oil by ISIS to some European countries whose governments have also not taken action against those companies which are exporting oil from the ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq, including CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) and ISIS militants to topple the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime might be cited as instance. Thus, under the cover of democratization of the Middle East, the region was deliberately thrown in worst form of terrorism and civil wars.

In the phenomena of the post-terror attacks in Paris and Belgium and under the cover of countering Russia, American President Obama sent additional troops in Syria, and its Western partners (NATO) are also supporting the US in this respect. The above mentioned drastic developments and various other developments such as American support to Kurds, exaggeration of the threat of the so-called threat of Islamophobia in the West-especially Europe, persecution of the Muslims in the continent, implications of the migrant-crisis, controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal, forced returns of refugees by the Turkish authorities to war-ravaged Syria, protests and violence at the Greek border against the refugees can simply remind readers of the revival of the Concert of Europe in its worst form.

Emulating Metternich, at present, the US has been siding with the reactionary regimes in the developing world, especially in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates to maintaining status quo. The chief aim of the US-led West is to encourage every effort in maintaining the status quo in the world, as it secures their collective interests at the expense of the weak states. By blindly following their anti-Russia rhetoric, now, the US and its Western friends have totally ignored the dangers of their flawed strategy. Even, they do not bother for violation of the sovereignty of an independent state, as noted in case of Syria.

So the current situation resembles with past era of Metternich and such events as the Concert of Europe, rise of revolutionary movements etc.

It should be emphasized that while US foreign policy has shifted from multilateralism to unilateralism, non-recognition of a world beyond the borders of North America and Europe to a growing sense that the developing world is complex, the pregnant powers in the United States like Zionist Jews are not, emphatically, ready to revise the current world order, in which wealthy nations dominate the world economy to the detriment of most of the citizens of the globe. There is no likelihood, either in political Washington or in the corporate boardrooms of America, that the US will play a role in changing the inequitable distribution of wealth or income. Yet without real change in the distribution of wealth, the developing world will never be able to achieve its social goals; without significant change in the distribution of income, billions will continue to endure poverty, preventable illness and lowered expectations. Whatever the specific causes of terrorism, its breeding grounds are that malignant mixture of despair and rage which is a concomitant of living in dire poverty in a world where material wealth abounds, but is not shared. Without paying attention on the actual causes of new brand of terrorism, counter-terrorism becomes the overriding theme of the US-led West like Metternich.

Particularly, British Prime Minister David Cameron who is famous due to his anti-Muslim approach and has left no stone unturned in supporting America against Russia and Syrian President Assad, while covertly following the US-led Israeli policies must know that the era of Congresses (The Concert of Europe) had collapsed with the withdrawal of Great Britain which had opposed the interference in the internal affairs of states.

Perhaps, in pursuance of the past era of Metternich in wake of the modern world of social media and international trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, US and its allies have forgotten that they produce ‘surplus’ which is being exported to the Third World, especially the Islamic countries. Latest machines produce products quickly and rapid means of communication and correspondence through internet or email have accelerated the business transactions. In the present world, terrorism is being manipulated by the Zionist Jews—the indirect arbiters of the global politics and economy.

Hence, if the revival of the Concert of Europe continued by the US-led West in its worst form, it would bring about further political and economic instability in the world by jeopardizing global and regional interests of these Western powers  in wake of increasing threat of terrorism. And their irresponsible approach could result in to Clash of Civilizations in the sense of Huntington.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic_pak@hotmail.com

Courtesy Veterans Today

Remaking India, unmaking the Republic

LATHA JISHNU 

Nothing perhaps would offend Narendra Modi so much as being portrayed as an admirer of the formidable Indira Gandhi — at least in public. The BJP’s strongman who thumped his 56-inch chest to be voted India’s prime minister in May 2014 is a ferocious baiter of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and seldom misses an opportunity to blame it for the country’s ills. But Indira Gandhi herself has not come much in the line of Modi’s fire as her daughter-in-law Sonia and grandson Rahul have.

That might provide a clue to his closet veneration for the Congress Party’s iconic Iron Woman and the way he has modelled himself on her, the similarities prompting one political analyst to describe him as “Mrs G in trousers minus her cosmopolitanism”. And her political savoir faire and competence, it should be added.

It’s not just Modi, however. Former BJP prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is known to have extolled Indira Gandhi as Durga (Hindu goddess of invincibility) for the 1971 war with Pakistan. Imperious as Indira Gandhi may have been, Modi is autocratic in the extreme and has reduced the cadre-based BJP to a sycophantic party that is under his complete domination.

The Modi regime is altering the fundamental nature of India’s democracy.

When in recent months, Modi toppled the state governments in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand by engineering defections within the ruling Congress legislature it evoked memories of Indira Gandhi’s penchant for dismissing opposition state governments. What is lost on Modi — and his party — is that a hoary Congress practice of the previous century cannot be justified, especially after the Supreme Court had issued clear guidelines in 1994 that the majority of a government could be tested only on the floor of the state legislature.

Examine: Whatever created the impression that Narendra Modi was a moderate?

That put an end to the once-popular political game of playing skittles with elected state governments, the only exception being an inglorious exercise by Vajpayee in the late 1990s to overthrow the Bihar government of Rabri Devi. He ended up with more than egg on his face after the court reinstated her.

Yet, a brash Modi regime has thought little of brushing aside constitutional propriety by denying the Uttarakhand government a floor test. Such arbitrary exercise of power that undermines the federal nature of India’s polity appears to be in the DNA of the BJP despite its claims to being a party with a higher moral purpose than the Congress.

The Uttarakhand High Court which heard a petition against the dismissal of the Congress government was scathing in its strictures against Delhi and accused it of “cutting at the roots of democracy”. The court also excoriated the centre for its tearing hurry to pull down an elected government for no tangible reason. Similar questions were also asked by the Supreme Court for BJP’s subversion of democracy in Arunachal Pradesh where it had gone to the extent of declaring an emergency. So much for the cooperative federalism that Modi had promised when he took office barely two years ago. Political opportunism has its own logic.

But dislodging opposition state governments is just one aspect of the illiberal ways of the BJP governments both at the centre and in states. Parliament itself has come under attack with the saffron party using its brute majority in the House of the People or Lok Sabha to quell criticism. It has been run on practically dictatorial terms over the past two years.

Opposition criticism that Modi runs the most centralised government in free India’s history is hard to refute. He has done little to change his style which he had honed in his three terms as chief minister of Gujarat. It was a state that he ran as his fiefdom, where his cabinet was marginalised, party MLAs mattered little and the party was of no account.

Whatever the criticism in parliament or in the media, it is hardly likely to weigh with Modi who appears supremely indifferent to the convulsions in Indian society. The prime minister seldom speaks, not even when the worst of atrocities have been perpetrated on the minorities and the hugely disadvantaged lower castes. Nor does he seem particularly concerned about the travails of the economy or the acute agrarian crisis that has been exacerbated by drought, leading to a fresh spike in farmer suicides.

All these are but distractions for Modi who is fixed on his core agenda. He is engaged in the fundamental transformation of India’s liberal democracy into the imagined nation of the Hindu supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with whom he has spent most of his life. Dismissal of opposition state governments is but one part of the strategy to forever change India’s liberal democracy to one that the Hindu right wants.

Insidiously, it cuts at the very idea of what the Indian Republic was meant to be. The ideal of inclusiveness is being replaced with majoritarian exclusiveness. Nationalism is defined by callow slogan-shouting while ‘otherness’ is daily emphasised by attacks on inter-communal marriages, in murders of Muslim cattle traders and in suppression of dissent. Rationalism and its champions are the prime targets, the writers eliminated or their works pulped.

Here’s one example of how far the insanity is being carried. The National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language has sought a declaration from writers seeking financial aid from the council that their work was not critical of government policies. The declaration has to be signed by two witnesses. 

New laws are being enacted by the various BJP governments to extend the control of the government over universities and autonomous institutions. Prestigious institutions of higher learning are being packed with RSS ideologues and opportunists lacking in both academic credentials and any culture of enlightenment. The bureaucracy has been muzzled in no uncertain terms and officials, like the political sycophants, are not above declaring that Modi is God’s gift to Indian democracy.

Ruthlessness in stifling of political dissent and media freedom has become the hallmark of both the central and state governments run by the BJP, the most notorious being the Raman Singh regime in Chhattisgarh which has been in power for over 12 years. Much like Balochistan, Chhattisgarh, which is facing an insurgency by Maoists, has turned into the deepest black hole of India’s illiberal democracy. Journalists are hounded, arrested and jailed for reporting on the state. Lawyers and academics are debarred from working in the state or labelled anti-national and political activists are routinely targeted. In all cases, the BJP believes criticism of the state is not permitted in the national interest.

The founders of the Indian Republic, most of all Nehru, had hoped to and did create a liberal society despite the deep and unjust divisions in it. Over the years, much has been done to address the injustices but not with as much success as one had expected. The BJP under Modi appears determined to undo those hoped for ideals.

The writer is a journalist based in New Delhi.

India’s Nuclear Security Farce

Ishaal Zehra

No matter how much exaggerated claims India makes about the personal rapport of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the US President Barack Obama, truth remains apparent as luminosity in the dark.

Earlier it was the statement of president Obama who, at the end of the recent Nuclear Security Summit, talked about India and Pakistan in the same breath, bracketing them together. Obama desired to "see progress in Pakistan and India, that subcontinent, making sure that as they develop military doctrines that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction.” Nevertheless, with a history of enmity and hostility persisting between both the nuclear-armed neighbours, President Obama's concern does not seem inappropriate.

Indian journalists while covering the Nuclear Security Summit, on the other hand, took consolation rather miscalculated President Obama as he spoke about countries expanding their "nuclear arsenals especially those with small tactical nuclear weapons that could be at greater risk of theft." They considered that he was probably mentioning Pakistan without naming it.

Interesting to us and quite dismay to them, a report examining nuclear security worldwide released this month is suggesting that India's "nuclear security measures might be weaker than those of Pakistan." The Harvard Kennedy School report, "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Continuous Improvement or Dangerous Decline?" says it is difficult to judge whether India's nuclear security is capable of protecting against the threats it faces. On the other hand, "Pakistan has substantially strengthened its nuclear security in the past two decades," the report says, citing changes in organizations governing nuclear security, training, equipment and approaches to screening personnel, requirements for nuclear material accounting and control, approaches to strengthening security culture and "substantial changes in every other aspect of nuclear security covered in the survey" as reasons for the improved nuclear security. 

The risk of nuclear terrorism remains very real, especially when it comes to the sub-continent. Measures to secure nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them are the most effective tools for reducing this risk. With IS in the driving seat, terrorist threats are constantly changing.

India also faces significant terrorist risks. India has taken significant measures to protect its nuclear sites, but recent reports suggest some nuclear security weaknesses, and US-Indian nuclear security cooperation has so far been limited to a modest number of workshops. Moreover, India continues to expand her nuclear arsenals, now numbering many hundreds of weapons, and is continuing to rely on doctrines likely to lead to early dispersal of those weapons in the event of a crisis, tough they don’t admit it openly.

India is expanding its nuclear stockpile, continuing to produce both plutonium and HEU. She is expanding uranium enrichment, reportedly plans two new plutonium production reactors, and is building a new reprocessing plant at Kalpakkam.

India’s prototype fast breeder reactor will be able to produce an estimated 140 kilograms of plutonium annually once it opens. And in the future, India has plans for large-scale breeding, reprocessing, and recycling of plutonium fuels, and eventually breeding of U-233 from thorium.

A special security agency, the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), guards both nuclear installations and other especially dangerous or sensitive industrial facilities.

Indian experts report that India performs systematic vulnerability assessments in designing physical protection systems for nuclear facilities and makes use of some modern security technologies, including access controls and various types of intrusion detectors. CISF leaders, however, reportedly complained about 40 percent cuts from their request in weapons for CISF, 45 percent cuts in training equipment, and low morale.

Reportedly, US officials have also ranked Indian nuclear security measures as weaker than those of Pakistan and Russia and US experts visiting the sensitive Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in 2008 described the security arrangements there as “extraordinarily low key.”

In 2011, the Indian government proposed legislation to replace its existing nuclear safety regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), with a new Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) that would finally be fully independent of the Department of Atomic Energy. Despite a scathing legislative report on the AERB in 2012, however, the NSRA legislation has still not been passed.

The irony is that the AERB only has authority to regulate security at civilian facilities. The organizations managing India’s military nuclear activities (where the bulk of India’s HEU and separated plutonium reside) regulate themselves.

India has generally refused substantial nuclear security cooperation with the United States or any other country. In recent years, however, there have been workshops on the topic at India’s Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership (GCNEP) and trainings organized by the US State Department’s Partnership for Nuclear Security.

The threats India’s nuclear security systems have to confront appear to be significant thus can’t be overlooked. Besides facing domestic terrorist threats, India is also having ISIS as a living peril residing in their neighbouring Afghanistan. Moreover, there are concerns about insider threats within Indian nuclear facilities as India faces significant insider corruption.

Also, in 2014, Vijay Singh, a head constable at the Madras Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam, shot and killed three people with his service rifle soon after arriving at work. Although the CISF had a personnel reliability program in place, it was not able to detect Mr. Singh’s deteriorating mental health, despite multiple red flags, including his telling colleagues that he was about to explode like a firecracker.

Given the limited information available about India’s nuclear security measures, it is difficult to judge whether India’s nuclear security is capable of protecting against the threats it faces. Although India has taken significant measures to protect its nuclear sites, recent reports suggest that its nuclear security measures may be much weaker than required.

Pakistan’s PM's Adviser on National Security Lieutenant General Nasir Khan Janjua (Retd) is of the opinion that the Western powers desire better relations with India due to a shared anti-China policy despite the fact that a peaceful region and world is in Chinese interest and China has no ill intention towards any of these countries.

Janjua urge the world to shun policy of discrimination towards Pakistan and take steps to ensure strategic stability in South Asia, threatened by India's massive defence spending. He said Pakistan is committed in the war against terrorism and extremism, adding we have made major strides to rid the country of this curse.

Obama's reference to military doctrine also mentions India -- the Indian military's Cold Start Doctrine. Simply put, this means an immediate reaction to terrorist attack from Pakistan, by a counter punitive attack deep inside Pakistan territory. Though India has acted with restraint, the doctrine of punitive strikes is something that hard-liners in India have long favoured. This line is in tune with those who want India to have a muscular foreign policy.

Last June, when special forces of the Indian army, raided an NSCN(K) camp, by crossing the border into Myanmar, in coordination with the Air Force, to punish insurgents for a deadly ambush earlier of an Indian army convoy, there was much chest thumping in some circles. Though this has nothing to do with nuclear security, the kind of aggressive talk that emanated from India after the Myanmar operations, worried the rest of the world.

Keeping this in mind, the United States should seek to expand nuclear security cooperation with Pakistan and China as well, and should undertake nuclear security discussions and good practice exchanges with all of the countries where nuclear weapons or weapons-usable nuclear materials exist, including both developed and developing countries.

RAW, Heading Towards Decay

By Sajjad Shaukat

Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) which was created in 1968 to wage continuous secret battles against the regional through its agents, assumed a significant status in formulation of Indian foreign policy.

While waging their secret wars, RAW’s agents have their presence in almost all regional countries, implementing various tactics of psychological warfare. In this context, M. K Dhar in his book, “Open Secrets, India’s Intelligence Unveiled” points out, “RAW’s operations against the regional countries are conducted with great professional skill and expertise, which include the establishment of a huge network inside the target countries. It has used propaganda, political dissent, ethnic divisions, economic backwardness and criminal elements to foment subversion and terrorism to weaken these states in consonance with Indian regional ambitions.” However, application of these nefarious designs varies from country to country. In this regard, dismemberment of Pakistan, interference of RAW in Sikkim, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Tibetan regions etc. might be cited as instance.

Although RAW has still been exploiting every sinister trick and tactics to poke its nose in internal affairs of India’s neighbouring countries, yet the agency has been faced with embarrassing fiascos and national security failures, especially the defections from within its ranks due to the unexplainable despair and despondency, haunting its senior officials.

On 17 April 2016, it was reported that three officers of RAW, “willingly fled” to a large Western country which has a history of accepting and facilitating such disappearances of Indian intelligence officers. All were posted on senior levels and had shifted their families to that Western country much before they themselves disappeared. Two of the officers were handling two South Asian countries, while the third was handling a large East Asian country. It is assumed that all three were working for the Western countries for long and in all likelihood have passed on vital information before disappearing.

This is not for the first time that officers working for the Indian spy agency have “willingly disappeared”. As per official records, since the creation of the agency in 1968, nine such like instances have been reported with the famous defection case of Rabinder Singh (Joint secretary in RAW) defecting to the United States in 2004. Most of the other agents had defected, while they were posted in Western Europe or North America.

Apart from defections, Indian intelligence agency RAW is also plagued by other problems identified as over bureaucratization of the system with allegations about favoritism in promotions, corruption, ego clashes, no financial accountability, inter-departmental rivalry etc. The agency also suffers from ethnic imbalances in the officer cadre. The agency officials have also developed strong tendency to manipulate their status for unlawful activities. A former chief Ashok Chaturvedi is accused of utilizing funds for personal/family leisure trips. Many officials have suffered seriously at the hands of senior officials on sexual harassment as well. On August 19, 2008 a female Director (Language), namely Ms. Bhatia who had served as head of RAW Training Institute in Gurgaon,  tried to commit suicide in front of Prime Minister’s Office, alleging inaction and wrong findings of a sexual harassment complaint, filed against a joint secretary, who was on deputation to RAW. In order to conceal his crime, she was discharged from duty on the ground that she was mentally unfit.

Another factor attributing to the defections of the agency is low wages as compared to other departments of the Indian government. It has been reported that the salary and other benefits of intelligence officials are at par with the state police and clerks. Moreover, risk allowance in both the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and RAW has been reduced to 15 percent, whereas central agencies like Central Bureau of Intelligence (CBI) get at least 25 per cent risk allowance. Indian government under BJP has tried to appease the growing frustration in the ranks of RAW and IB officials by announcing a revision of their pay structure, however, the claim still need materialization.

It is also acknowledged by the Indian officials that domestic intelligence agency is facing a shortage of over 7,000 skilled professionals to generate and disseminate crucial intelligence input. According to government figures released in 2013, IB had only 18, 795 personnel against the sanctioned strength of 26,867 officers. External spy agency RAW has strength of around 9,000 officers, including field agents serving on deputation. The RAW cadre is shrinking by the day and in 2012 the agency was forced to seek the help of Department of Personnel & Training to tide over the manpower shortage.

As regards the sinister plots of RAW in targeting neighbouring countries—particularly Pakistan is of special focus, which has deepened the negative image of the Indian intelligence agency.

In this respect, the role of India in destabilizing Pakistan has become naked after the arrest of Kulbhushan Yadav, on March 24, 2016. Yadav openly admitted that he was the serving agent of Indian secret agency RAW in Balochistan province, and during his stay, he contacted various Baloch separatist leaders and insurgents, including Dr Allah Nazar Baloch, to execute the task to damage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project (CPEC).

Addressing a joint press conference with Federal Minister for Information Pervaiz Rasheed, Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Lt. Gen. Asim Saleem Bajwa disclosed on March 29, 2016, “Kulbushan that Yadav was an active officer of the Indian Navy prior to his joining RAW. He also served as a scrap dealer and had a jewelry business in Chahbahar, Iran, after he joined RAW in 2013.

In a video, during the press conference, Yadav confessed that he spied for India. Yadav admitted that he was assigned with the task to create unrest in Karachi and Balolchitan to destabilise Pakistan and to target the Gwadar Port. Yadav also revealed that he was funding Baloch separatists along with other terrorists—he was captured, while heading Iran.

However, confession of Yadav fonfirmed nefarious activities of RAW which has been exploiting sub-nationalists, mass murder of innocent civilians like Hazaras, Balochis, extremists organizations etc. for spread of terrorism in Pakistan.

Besides, based in Afghanistan, RAW in connivance with the Afghan intelligence-National Directorate of Security (NDS), has been supporting subversive activities in Pakistan. In this connection, RAW-NDS nexus is “devils unison” to destabilize the region by promoting extremist terrorists organizations like Aghanistan-based Daesh or ISIS, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA),  Jundollah (God’s soldiers) etc. in weakening Pakistan, its province of Balochistan, Tibetan regions of China, and Sistan-Balochistan of Iran by supporting terrorism and promoting acrimonious sense of dissent and political volatility.

And, due to growing influence of a particular group of Indian Police Services (IPS) and Indian Army over RAW, this intelligence organization is rapidly turning into a “Hindu fascist” entity, promoting and supporting Hindu radicalization of Indian society in collaboration with the exrmist outfits like RSS, BJP, Bajrang Dal, VHP etc. In this respect, since the leader of the ruling party BJP Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of India, various developments like unprecedented rise of Hindu extremism, persecution of minorities, forced conversions of other religious minorities into Hindus, especially, assaults on Christians and Muslims including their places of worships and property by the fanatic Hindu mobs, ban on beef and cow slaughter, inclusion of Hindu religious books in curriculum, creation of war-like situation with Pakistan etc. have verified this collaboration.  In fact, in connivance with RAW, the Hindu fundamentalist outfits have been promoting religious and ethnic chauvinism in India by propagating ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism).

It is mentionable that RAW has always adopted “an ostrich approach” and cared nothing about the boiling lava of uneasiness in the employees in the wake of myriad problems.

Nonetheless, it is owing to these reasons that Indian RAW is rapidly heading towards decay.

Hope Not Again?

By now, after having three military rules in Pakistan, no one is left with an iota of doubt that Martial Law or the military rule is not at all a solution to the problems of the country. Currently different schools of thought are prevailing in Pakistan; let the military rule the country if they have to do every bit (a very minimal percentage of the population), military should not poke it’s nose at all and let the civilian handle the issues themselves, come what may (anti armed forces, mafias and corrupt part of establishment’s mantra) and finally a school that has a belief about the armed forces to be as good the stakeholder as the other quarters are, hence the army should always be there to watch the proceedings closely as a monitor and don’t let the wrong to happen (a more sane and logical voice and the majority of Pakistanis believe in it).

Unfortunately, this laid up phenomenon about country ruled by the businessman is proven drastically wrong the world over. Almost every prominent name mentioned in the ‘Panama Papers Leak’ is somehow the other annexed to one or the other off-shore company mentioned in the historical leak, one or the other way. There are famous sayings, some authentic and others by unknowns that never entrust the country’s affairs to a businessman because he is basically a capitalist and not a leader. A satirical common notion, that is prevailing the world over is, if you make a businessman your ruler, he would prefer to sell the country than to sail it. Although it’s on the lighter tone, nevertheless, it does carry some credence.

Not a very old story from Thailand was of few years back, a business tycoon turned politician Thaksin Shinawatra was running the show between 2001 thru 2006. Today he is known as a great corrupt who used his richness to get permanent power. He was blamed to rule all of power in democracy system, parliament, government, and court by changing the current constitution for personal benefits for him along with his relatives. Thaksin was held responsible for killing over 2, 000 innocents in the name of war against drugs, betrayed his own country by persuading a country close-by to invade the northeast part of Thailand just for his own petroleum investment business purposes. A former police officer who founded the IT and telecommunications conglomerate in 1987, that made him one of the richest persons in Thailand. He joined politics in 1994, founded the Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) in 1998 and as it was expected became the prime minister after a landslide electoral victory in 2001. However he was shown to door as a result of a citizens’ movement “yellow shirts”, accusing him of corruption, abuse of power and autocratic tendencies. Thaksin called snap elections that were boycotted by the opposition and invalidated by the Court. Eventually he was overthrown in a military coup on 19 September 2006. His party was outlawed and he was barred from political activity. Although one can’t agree with the dictatorial happenings of post coup d’état; however that’s what happens in case of political starvation and treachery anywhere in the world.

So friends! Does not it sound like our own story; some familiar habits, unknown moves and known reactions? Unfortunately Mian Nawaz Sharif has an unfortunate track record of locking-on horns with the institutions without realizing their sensitivity, sanctity or time. He would always be out of time and out of place. What he has failed to understand is the swerving difference between the soldiering and the soldering. The military system has its own way for running the affairs. Command ability is the essence of running the show successfully while having immense amount of pressure from higher tiers and certainly from the under commands.

A day back the prime minister had invited a selected group of senior journalists and columnists at Governor’s House to brief them about his government’s development projects, though the main aim was to explain his stance on the Panama Papers leaks. Our editor Mr. Arif Nizami when asked the prime minister about the status of the relationship between the civil and military leaderships, he, instead of responding to the question himself, asked an ‘able’ Federal Minister Khawaja Saad Rafique to answer Nizami’s query which was quite untoward and surprising for few reasons; whose guest was Mr. Nizami? Was the PM totally clueless about the civil/ military relations or was he showing his arrogance about the subject? Though, later it was shared by a close aide of PM Nawaz that the premier avoided the question since the government was not on the same page with the military leadership.

Nawaz Sharif entered the power corridors in mid-eighties, after winning the general elections of 1985, he was sworn-in as Chief Minister of Punjab and within the next five years he was knocking at the door of premiership when in 1990 Benazir Bhutto was dismissed by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan on corruption charges. A businessman’s psyche is to consider his employees as his domain; hence Nawaz Sharif was no exception. While lacking the basic spirit of politics, he considered the trust conferred upon him by the people as power and authority and that has remained a dilemma all along that he always won the elections under the disguise of a politician but tried to rule the setup as a corporate head. Unfortunately, till date he has not been able to overcome his two main glaring weaknesses; holding grudge and bringing the armed forces under his thumb (at any cost). Ironically he is living on with the former, nevertheless, unable to fulfill his latter desire.

Those who closely observe him know that while holding grudge against anyone, he would keenly observe the opponent’s level of sorrow to ascertain his own level of hurt, without realizing that two rarely meet. He is probably the only politician of Pakistan’s history who would never make any slightest effort to change his behavior and psyche. Everyone knows the level of enmity that PPP carried along for Zia ul Haq and his mates but then we all saw that both schools of thoughts forgot that hate and hatred, at least apparently and Benazir Bhutto and Ijaz ul Haq, both were living in Islamabad at one time.

As far as Nawaz Sharif is concerned, if we look back at his political career, it is all arraigning, annoying and antagonistic. It’s fine to forgive Nawaz Sharif for his first term, considering it a maiden experience but during the second tenure he had no justification to wrap up the affairs so abruptly. Unfortunately he lacks the ability to settle his priorities, hence has to pay through nose, each time. During his first term as the Prime Minister he developed abrupt rifts with three successive army chiefs; with General Aslam Beg on Gulf issue, with General Asif Nawaz Janjua on Sindh Clean-up Operation and with General Waheed Kakar on former’s embarrassing bout with the President: Ghulam Ishaq. Eventually the old and the arrogant both had to leave their offices for making a mockery of Pakistan the world over.

During his second and heavy mandate fame tenure in the office Nawaz Sharif saw the finest, professional, harmless and noble General Jahangir Karamat in the office. Unfortunately he had nurtured the grudge against the institution by now; hence fell out with him too. He, with roaring two-third majority wasted his energies to rein the institutions, merely to satisfy his ego. Instead of developing rapport and working relationship with new president Farooq Leghari, he showed Leghari the door and brought his favourite Rafiq Tarar in. The following on his hit list was General Jahangir Karamat whom he sacked in the most unethical and illegal way. Like any powerful dictator he couldn’t tolerate the General’s idea of a national security council and considered it a conspiracy against him hence packed the general’s luggage just few months before his genuine retirement. His next choice was Pervez Musharraf whom he obliged to wear two hats; COAS and Chairman JCSC, despite Musharraf’s lack of seniority to Admiral Bokhari.

Relieving General Karamat was a blunder that was not appreciated even by his senior and seasoned colleagues. Sartaj Aziz was one of them who were extremely confident and certain that CGS General Ali Kuli Khan would be appointed as the Chief of Army Staff based on his seniority, merit, being a very competent officer, and next in seniority to General Karamat. In his book, Between Dreams and Realities: Some Milestones in Pakistan’s History, Sartaj Aziz writes:

“Blunder of firing of General Karamat; others will blame Nawaz Sharif for many mistakes he made. But in my view, the most serious of these mistakes was Nawaz Sharif’s decision to remove General Jahangir Karamat as chief of army staff in October 1998. In relieving General Jahangir Karamat, Prime Minister Sharif had committed a “blunder”. He also failed to recognize that despite his heavy mandate, it was not advisable for him to dismiss two army chiefs in less than a year. In doing so he had overplayed his hands and effectively derailed the democratic process for nine long years”.

By 1997 Sharif’s love lost for his own choice Musharraf was also over. Soon he was seen taking the earliest ‘available flight’ for Saudi Arabia, as a result of a ‘quick draw’.

A renowned Political scientist Dr. Samina Ahmed once noted that since his re-elect in 1997 and success of passing the constitutional amendments, Prime Minister Sharif began to abuse his powers. She later quoted: 

“During his time, Sharif was a very powerful prime minister since the country’s independence. Power is tangible when you can exercise it. In Pakistan, the (Nawaz) Government doesn’t seem capable of exercising it”.

The keen observers noted a mark change in their inclination and political behavior when in April 2009, while ignoring and violating all the diplomatic, political, democratic and the security norms of an independent sovereignty, the Sharif Brothers visited the US Embassy without any party member which was an alarming fact of the time. The other issue is haste in developing extremely friendly relations with India while shoving most sensitive Kashmir issue into the dusty draws. According to Wilson John of the Observer Research Foundation, the then Pakistani Army Chief General Kayani also told Sharif in his initial days to go slow on friendly relations with India. One wonders if elder Sharif has paid any heed to the advice.

Right now the situation is that Mian Nawaz Sharif is in the office for his third term, a rare event, at least in democratically mature nations. Almost a year of his term has been passed but he is yet not over with the ‘preliminaries’. Apart from the other blunders the glaring one is siding against his own picked army chief General Raheel Sharif; a seasoned, balanced and mature professional. How could one expect from any sane person to turn against his most important security organisations? If the period that Mian Nawaz Sharif has in the office during all the three terms is totaled, it comes to more or less seventy-six months or around six years and four months; a considerable period to deliver goods but the disappointed nation is seeing nothing except the loud mouth campaigns and of course a tussle, a term.

It reminds me of that famous and stubborn mule whose regiment would adoringly call him Sheriff (the police officer) and who would energetically participate in the war but was in the bad habit of severely kicking the soldiers for no reason, hence killing them. Once the war was over, people visited a graveyard to pay homage to the deceased soldiers. People were reading the names on the tombstones and at the end of the graves they found a marble stone with inscription, “Sheriff the mule is resting here, who kicked forty soldiers and an artillery gun-shell”.

Philosopher Confucius once said and I quote, “To be wronged is nothing, unless you continue to remember it.” Usually a person invariably watches his next step soon after putting a wrong one and that’s the human psyche but again then there is no dearth of those who deliberately move the next step identical to the previous. It’s time for Mian Nawaz Sharif to readjust his priorities, before it is too late.

Who is Endangering the Global Security?

  

By Sajjad Shaukat

Russia’s Defense Ministry hosted the fifth Moscow Conference on International Security, held in Moscow on April 27-28, 2016 with the participation of high military officials and experts from around the world to discuss the fight against terrorism and other pressing security challenges. Besides, security problems of Asian-Pacific region, war and peace problems in Europe as well as global security and military interaction were discussed at the forum.

The special attention was paid to the Middle East region—traditional and new challenges as threats to the international security and role of the armed forces in countering them. Fighting terrorism and security cooperation remained as top priority on the agenda.

In this context, Russia’s analyst Martin McCauley said on April 27, this year, “Only Russia and the US, the two major global powers can bring a solution to the many problems threatening peace…unless they make concessions to each other and share information, the progress is unlikely to be achieved.”

He elaborated, “Russia invites NATO members to the conference every year. Sometimes they come, sometimes they don’t. But there is not many to be seen at today are meeting, why so?...the head of America’s National Intelligence Agency, James Clapper stated…there are Islamic State [ISIS] cells already in England, Germany and Italy. Therefore, the Americans are saying things which perhaps they should have been saying in Moscow. But they have been saying these things and they are warning Europe that there is a formidable threat from Syria, from jihadists returning from Syria, North Africa, Iraq…the Americans say that more and more closer cooperation between states is necessary. They are…saying that it’s very, very important to collaborate. But of course, their top people should be in Moscow saying that.”

In this regard, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, “Security cooperation with Russia was one of the projects frozen by NATO. Why are they unwilling to work together in this sphere?..it is very unfortunate. There is this so-called Cold War between America and Russia at present. At a time when information sharing, working together against terrorism, working together to solve more problems are not really on the table…and if they are willing to do that and make concessions to the other side…then progress can be made in Syria. But if they continue to argue we are supporting [Bashar al-] Assad, from the Russian point of view; the Americans they say, Assad has to go before we can really get down to business…that approach is blocking progress. Compromise has to be made. It is very important for Russia and America…Moscow underlines that in a world where security is becoming more important and a threat from jihad and terrorism is increasing.

Although in their speeches at the Moscow International Security Conference, the representatives of the USA and other Western countries emphasized on the joint cooperation among the major countries including Russia to fight terrorism and other related-challenges to the global security, yet in practical terms, these Western states prefer American shrewd diplomacy against Moscow.

Notably, in their speeches, Russia’s Defence Minister, Sergey Shoygu, the Chief of Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, including top military experts, while indicating that terrorism is the fault of the West pointed out, “The US and Nato…causing global insecurity and waging an information war against Moscow…the rise of terrorism was partly the result of attempts to transfer the values of Western democracy to countries with their own mentality, spiritual values and traditions...this had exploded North Africa and the Middle East…the biggest threat is the adventurous military and political policy of some countries like the US and its close allies in the Middle East.”

However, as regards the question of security, renowned power-theorists, Morgenthau, Waltz and Kissinger see international relations as constituting a search for security in the world where there is no super agency to impose law, and where maximization of power is the only route to state security. This is because of this reason that America and its allies of war on terror have, so far, wanted security only for themselves, including Israel, and seek to guarantee it through lethal force. In the past few years, heavy aerial bombardment and ground shelling by the US-led forces-and-supported terrorist outfits like the Afghan-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, Al-Nustra Front and ISIS killed millions of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq (During the Anglo-Saxon occupation) Syria, Libya and Pakistan. A similar pattern of the US-backed state terrorism could be noted in case of Palestine, Kashmir, Somalia, Yemen and elsewhere in the world.

In order to ensure the security of Israel, America jeopardized the safety of the Middle East, then of Asia and Europe, including the US and the entire world by playing double game in relation to Al-Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliated militant groups. Besides the past terror attacks, the recent ones by these outfits, especially ISIS in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, America, France and Belgium, and in some African countries might be cited as instance.

Particularly, due to their failed adventure in coping with the Afghan Taliban and Syrian forces-backed by Russia, America and its Western allies have already made themselves insecure as ambush assaults and suicide attacks continue on the coalition forces in Afghanistan, while in case of Syria, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front) are still fighting to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad whose army has liberated several towns and cities from the control of the CIA-assisted these terrorists, and the rebels. In the recent months, Russian President Vladimir has displayed as to how fight the ISIS and Al-Qaeda, as Russian military compelled these terrorist groups to vacate most of the regions of Iraq and Syria. Now, under the cover of countering Russia and by following paradoxical policy openly, American President Barack Obama has announced to send additional troops in Syria, and its Western partners (NATO) are also supporting the US in this respect.

Various other drastic developments such as American support to Kurds, Turkey’s continued crackdown on Kurds, exaggeration of the threat of the so-called threat of Islamophobia in the West-especially Europe, persecution of the Muslims, implications of the migrant-crisis, controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal, forced returns of refugees by the Turkish authorities to war-ravaged Syria, protests and violence at the Greek border in connection with more than 50,000 refugees etc. are likely to produce more terrorism by threatening the international security.  

By blindly following their anti-Russia rhetoric, now, the US and its Western friends have totally ignored the dangers of their flawed strategy. Even, they do not bother for violation of the sovereignty of an independent state. In this connection, on April 13, 2016, the UN-brokered, Libyan unity government rejected the US-led British plan of deploying troops for anti-ISIS mission, because the head of the North African state’s new government turned down the offer of Western soldiers’ deployment. Similarly, violations of the sovereignty and extrajudicial killings have continued for a long time by the CIA-operated drone attacks on Pakistan and some African countries.

On the other side, by utilizing the vicious circle of terrorism and the dual policy of America, some Western countries, Israel and India, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and TTP also employ double game. Besides working for CIA, Mossad and RAW, these militant outfits have, also, been motivating the common Muslims for suicide attacks and terror-related activities as part of Jihad. Otherwise, Jihad does not permit suicide attacks and prohibits any sort of terrorism.

It is owing to the double game of the US-led Western World that ISIS which is most dangerous terrorist group than Al-Qaeda is rapidly spreading its tentacles to all over the world by giving a greater setback to the global security through suicide attacks and bomb-blasts. However, both the terrorist outfits have massacred several innocent Muslims and Christians, and are further making the safety of the human beings insecure.  

It is also due to the irresponsible approach of the US-led West that the Muslim militants who have been fighting against the Israeli-led imperialist powers through ambush rocket attacks and suicide bombers have broken the myth of old model of power-based security which only safeguards the interest of the major countries at the cost of the small states.

Nevertheless, war-mongering hidden strategy of the Western powers against Syria, Iran, Pakistan and Yemen will further expedite extremism among the young men, turning them into suicide bombers, radicalizing a vast region from Pakistan to Syria, ultimately making America, Europe and Israel insecure—besides endangering the world peace. Such a covert policy will result into recruitment of more terrorists, and consequently massive hostility and resistance against American-led Israeli dominance of the world’s status quo.

In the present era of globalization, there is a direct relationship between internal and external security. If America and its allies intend to convert Syria, Pakistan and other Muslim countries into “failed states” by causing instability, they, are, in fact, creating external insecurity which is likely to further harm their larger geo-political and economic interests on regional and global level.

It is mentionable that in the aftermath of 9/11, even some Western think-tanks have recognized inter-relationship between economics, politics and terrorism. They agree in light of the US fake global war on terror, failed strategy, prolonged war against terrorism and defeatism in Afghanistan that religious fanaticism and stiff resistance of the Islamic militants are linked to political and economic injustices.

Taking cognizance of these facts, the US and its major allies must abandon their anti-Russia strategy and should not create obstacles in the Geneva peace talks on Syria, which would, now, resume on May 10, 2016, while the US Secretary of State John Kerry had agreed to keep the Syrian president in power and for a unified state of Syria. They should also note that division of Syria, as envisaged in the “CIA Plan B” will likely to culminate into uncontrolled terrorism which will jeopardize the security of every nation.   

In wake of the social media and modern international trends like renunciation of war, peaceful settlement of disputes and economic development, these so-called arbiters of the world politics must not depend upon old power factor for obtaining security in sense of Henry Kissinger (As already mentioned), which has failed. Otherwise, more collapsed states will cause more poverty, more lawlessness and more terrorism. Instead, America and its allies should give economic and security aid to the less developed states—for the development of infrastructure, particularly to those countries which have deliberately been made by these big powers unsafe. They must also agree with Moscow to resolve the Syrian question through political process. And they must also pressurise India to settle the Kashmir issue with Pakistan, as its solution is essential for the Asia-Pacific security.

These multicultural Western powers should ensure the national interests of their own nations and those of the other nations or small countries in accordance with international law and on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit—the aspects which are necessary for global  security.

In the present world of rapid interaction among the countries and international integration, Washington and its partners like Europe and Israel must know that security is a two-way traffic. If they need security, states like Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya Pakistan etc. also need the same. Security cannot be obtained by endangering the security of these and other weak states, especially the vulnerable Muslim countries.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Courtesy Veterans Today