Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Monday, August 5, 2024
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Indian Restaurants Database
Database
of Indian Restaurants in USA
and U.K.: Classified information of Indian restaurants located in US, UK. Complete postal addresses of
3000+ of Restaurants.
Available in
: CD/e-mail edition (Price Rs. 2500/-
For more details: International information Resource Centre
POB: 667 GPO Srinagar SGR J&K 190001
Ph: 01933-223705
Mob: 09858986794
e-mail: iirc@rediffmail.com
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Assassination of Mr. Sheikh Osama bin Laden
By Sheikh GULZAAR
Srinagar, May3 : The Assassination of Mr. Sheikh Osama bin Laden actually comes to late and has been a total waste of effort on the United States Navy's elite SEAL Team 6, this is because Osama bin Laden had already proved his ability as the Al Qaeda chief on the successful planning of 9/11. After this success Al Qaeda and the Taliban new that his Duty was over and after 9/11 he did not plan any other attacks.
Members of The Al Qaeda and Taliban never questions the actions of there Chief and other members do not create politics on step on toes to become a Chief when there is a already a Chief, even thought Osama bin Laden did not plan more attacks, his health was failing and he was also becoming old other member did not try to become chief but respected Osama bin Laden as the chief and let him be to live the way he wanted without questioning or asking him to plan or lead.
Members of The Al Qaeda and Taliban were just waiting for Osama bin Laden to die in action or of natural causes to start the process of appointing a new Chief. The US need to really be worried now as the new chief may be a young person whom will not hesitate to use the worst methods to fight for there cause. unlike Osama bin Laden whom new the limits to fight for there cause. (Writer-South Asia)
Members of The Al Qaeda and Taliban never questions the actions of there Chief and other members do not create politics on step on toes to become a Chief when there is a already a Chief, even thought Osama bin Laden did not plan more attacks, his health was failing and he was also becoming old other member did not try to become chief but respected Osama bin Laden as the chief and let him be to live the way he wanted without questioning or asking him to plan or lead.
Members of The Al Qaeda and Taliban were just waiting for Osama bin Laden to die in action or of natural causes to start the process of appointing a new Chief. The US need to really be worried now as the new chief may be a young person whom will not hesitate to use the worst methods to fight for there cause. unlike Osama bin Laden whom new the limits to fight for there cause. (Writer-South Asia)
Friday, April 8, 2011
Beijing, Islamabad reject reports : Chinese Troops In PaK?
Beijing/Islamabad, Apr 7: China and Pakistan Thursday dismissed as “baseless” reports about the presence of Chinese troops along the Line of Control (LoC) in Pakistan-administered Azad Jammu and Kashmir (APaK).
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told a media briefing in Beijing that “the reports are baseless and ridiculous.” In Islamabad, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua told a weekly news briefing that there was no basis for the reports.
“This is the most absurd piece of information I have heard. It is totally baseless,” she said. Janjua was responding to a question about India’s External Affairs Ministry seeking a report from the Defense Ministry about the presence of Chinese soldiers along the LoC.
The media reports had quoted Northern Command chief Lt Gen K T Parnaik as saying that Chinese troops were present along the LoC and posed a military challenge to India. He had also expressed concern over the presence of Chinese military in the region as “too close for comfort”.
Parnaik had said: “Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Northern Areas is increasing steadily.
There are many people who are concerned about the fact that if there was to be hostility between us and Pakistan, what would be the complicity of Chinese.”
“Not only they are in the neighborhood but the fact that they are actually present and stationed along the LoC,” Parnaik said addressing a seminar in Jammu last week.
In New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs has sought a report from Defense Ministry on the issue.
This is not the first time China has dismissed such reports.
Last year, China officially clarified to India that some of its personnel were present in Azad Jammy and Kashmir to render flood relief assistance amid reports in the American media about the presence of large number of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan areas.
India has also time and again conveyed its concerns over the presence of Chinese personnel working in different projects in AJK as it was a disputed territory.
The issue reportedly figured during the last December visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to New Delhi. Fresh Indian concerns over the issue and the reported observations of the top Indian General comes ahead of the scheduled bi-lateral meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) summit at the Chinese resort of Sanya on April 13-14.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei told a media briefing in Beijing that “the reports are baseless and ridiculous.” In Islamabad, Foreign Office spokesperson Tehmina Janjua told a weekly news briefing that there was no basis for the reports.
“This is the most absurd piece of information I have heard. It is totally baseless,” she said. Janjua was responding to a question about India’s External Affairs Ministry seeking a report from the Defense Ministry about the presence of Chinese soldiers along the LoC.
The media reports had quoted Northern Command chief Lt Gen K T Parnaik as saying that Chinese troops were present along the LoC and posed a military challenge to India. He had also expressed concern over the presence of Chinese military in the region as “too close for comfort”.
Parnaik had said: “Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Northern Areas is increasing steadily.
There are many people who are concerned about the fact that if there was to be hostility between us and Pakistan, what would be the complicity of Chinese.”
“Not only they are in the neighborhood but the fact that they are actually present and stationed along the LoC,” Parnaik said addressing a seminar in Jammu last week.
In New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs has sought a report from Defense Ministry on the issue.
This is not the first time China has dismissed such reports.
Last year, China officially clarified to India that some of its personnel were present in Azad Jammy and Kashmir to render flood relief assistance amid reports in the American media about the presence of large number of Chinese troops in Gilgit-Baltistan areas.
India has also time and again conveyed its concerns over the presence of Chinese personnel working in different projects in AJK as it was a disputed territory.
The issue reportedly figured during the last December visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to New Delhi. Fresh Indian concerns over the issue and the reported observations of the top Indian General comes ahead of the scheduled bi-lateral meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese President Hu Jintao on the sidelines of the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) summit at the Chinese resort of Sanya on April 13-14.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
A Kashmiri Teenager Moves UN Diplomats and Activists in Geneva
The tears of Aneesa Nabi, whose parents were killed by Indian soldiers, even shook the Indians, as activists rushed to console her; several embassies sent observers to witness her testimony, including US government’s permanent mission to Geneva.GENEVA, Switzerland—Her parents would have never thought their little girl would go this far, but a Kashmiri teenager smuggled by an NGO across the ceasefire line in Kashmir landed in Geneva today to a grand start, shocking world diplomats and activists with the story of her father and mother long after their death.
Aneesa Nabi, 17, drew the attention of diplomats and human rights activists and NGOs that have descended on Geneva this month for the 16th session of Human Rights Council, which is UN’s highest rights body designed along the lines of the UN Security Council in New York, minus the powers.
Representatives of a Kashmiri NGO based in Pakistan, the Kashmir Institute of International Affairs, KIIA, were seen lobbying world diplomats and NGO representatives in the main hall of the Palais de Nations, or Palace of the Nations, which is the focal point of UN operations in Geneva.
“She really moved all of us,” said Altaf Hussain Wani, director programs at KIIA. “We’ve been with her for the past week but today she left us in tears.”
“You could see the interest in her,” said Shagufta Ashraf, a KIIA activist, as she distributed flyers and pamphlets in the main lobby of the Palais. “The diplomats and NGO types got really interested in this story.” African human rights activist Micheline Djouma arranged for Aneesa’s appearance at a seminar today on the sidelines of the Human Rights Council meetings. The council was busy dealing with issues as diverse as Iran’s human rights record and a proposal to outlaw denigration of religions. But this didn’t stop rights activists and some diplomats from attending Aneesa’s appearance.
What boosted Aneesa’s case was the fact that Kashmiri groups spread worldwide occupied a square in front of Palais de Nations, known as Broken Chair, where an exhibition of museum of Indian Army genocide against Kashmiri people was set up inside a tent, surrounded by banners and hoards depicting the situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Before Aneesa started her speech, an Africa-based rights activist Mrs. Colette Samoya, president of Bangwe organization, delivered a speech in French, where she mentioned Kashmir five times as she gave examples of violations against women and children in conflict zones. Building anticipation, Samoya kept reminding the audience, saying “We have a girl from Kashmir here to tell her story.”
Aneesa began her speech in a normal way, but her voice began choking when she mentioned her father, who was arrested by Indian Army on 24 July 1996 when she was four. By the time she mentioned her mother, she was in tears, sobbing involuntarily as she recalled how the Indian occupation authorities warned her not to join NGOs lobbying for disappeared persons. In 2003, the Indians barged into her house and opened fire on Aneesa’s mother from automatic guns as she fell to the ground. Amazingly, she was carrying a toddler, Aneesa’s younger brother, in her arms and never let him ago despite receiving fatal injuries. The boy’s leg was shattered by bullets but he survived.
“She had been repressing her emotions,” recalled Ahmed Quraishi, a representative of OIC’s World Muslim Congress and a Kashmir activist. “In the past, she would only smile when asked if she remembered her parents or missed them. She would ignore it. But today, all the repressed memories, all the repressed pain, came out naturally. She really believed this was her last chance to do something to help free her father if he is still alive.”
Video Link: http://786insidekashmir.blogspot.com/2011/03/kashmiri-teenager-moves-un-diplomats.html
HIGHLIGHTS
When Aneesa began talking, the entire hall went silent, which is rare in United Nations Human Rights Council side events.
She couldn’t control herself when she mentioned her father, and was unable to continue after mentioning her mothers
HIGHLIGHTS
When Aneesa began talking, the entire hall went silent, which is rare in United Nations Human Rights Council side events.
She couldn’t control herself when she mentioned her father, and was unable to continue after mentioning her mothers
A known Indian lobbyist linked to the Indian government, who is a Kashmiri Hindu, couldn’t control himself and hurriedly left the hall in tears
On the stage, an Indian academic, Dr. Krishna Ahoojapatel, tried to express grief, and an African panelist stood up from her chair, walked up to Aneesa and hugged her like a mother would hug a daughter. Someone else brought her a glass of water.
On the stage, an Indian academic, Dr. Krishna Ahoojapatel, tried to express grief, and an African panelist stood up from her chair, walked up to Aneesa and hugged her like a mother would hug a daughter. Someone else brought her a glass of water.
The moderator repeatedly interrupted a sobbing Aneesa to ask her if she wanted to take a break or continue telling her story. Aneesa tried to continue but couldn’t. She failed to read out the last portion of an appeal to the international community and to the United Nations to help force the Indian government and military to reveal the fate of her father.
A senior UN official, whose name is withheld, was so moved by Aneesa’s tragedy that he conveyed to her that he will do everything possible to hold the Indian government and military accountable for any harm done to her father and for serious human rights violations in Kashmir.
‘I saw them execute my mother, I was seven’
Tale of a Kashmiri girl from Srinagar who lost her parents, escaped The Indian Army and found her way to Geneva to tell her story.
A senior UN official, whose name is withheld, was so moved by Aneesa’s tragedy that he conveyed to her that he will do everything possible to hold the Indian government and military accountable for any harm done to her father and for serious human rights violations in Kashmir.
‘I saw them execute my mother, I was seven’
Tale of a Kashmiri girl from Srinagar who lost her parents, escaped The Indian Army and found her way to Geneva to tell her story.
Meet Aneesa Nabi Khan, a bright 17-year-old studying at a school in the part of Kashmir liberated from India. Her mild demeanor, big eyes and a warm smile set her apart from other students in her school. But very few of them know her real story. Someday soon she will graduate and do something to impact the lives of her people. Her parents will never know how their little girl, the eldest of three kids, has grown up to be a precocious young lady.
Today she is in Geneva to tell her story to politicians, activists and the media from all over the world. She came here to speak. She wants the world to know her story because she made it to this place. Others like her can’t. And she wants to represent them.
Today she is in Geneva to tell her story to politicians, activists and the media from all over the world. She came here to speak. She wants the world to know her story because she made it to this place. Others like her can’t. And she wants to represent them.
She has a story. It is a compelling tale of fear, courage, tragedy, and a people’s quest for freedom from the tyranny of one of the biggest armies in the world.
Where Does Aneesa Come From?
She comes from Kashmir, a paradise nestled in the grand Himalayas to the north of Pakistan, bordering China and India. One of the world’s most scenic lands is also home to the world’s biggest concentration of armed soldiers—more than half a million regular army from the world’s largest democracy: India. Aneesa’s people want freedom from occupation. India does not want to grant it or heed United Nations resolutions calling for a settlement.
But for 63 years, Kashmiris did not take foreign occupation lying down. Aneesa’s father was one of them. That’s how her tragedy begins.
Where Is Aneesa’s Father?
Ghulam Nabi Khan was in his mid-thirties in 1996 when he was last seen by Dilshad, his wife, and daughter and her toddler brother
Raees.
Ghulam left his house in the morning. He was what his people call a freedom fighter, oppose to the forced Indian occupation of his homeland. The Indian military saw him as a ‘militant’.
The Indians laid a trap for him. One of his friends was recruited by Indian intelligence. Ghulam was lured into a meeting at his friend’s house. They swooped on him as soon as he entered the house.
By evening the news reached his wife. So many Kashmiri men have ‘disappeared’ in similar circumstances. Dilshad’s brother took her to the local police station, manned by Indian police. They refused to register a case of forced ‘disappearance’. Days and months passed without any record of what happened to Ghulam. Fearing a similar fate, Dilshad took her children to her village to live with her parents. Somehow they managed to contact the mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Indian capital. Red Cross is the only international organization that is allowed limited access to a few jails in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Most of the jails and detention centers remain closed to the world. When a Red Cross delegation visits Kashmir, the Indian government and army only allows Indian citizens working for Red Cross to enter the occupied territory. The Red Cross searched for Aneesa’s father but to no avail. This is because Indian military is authorized by law to arrest and detain Kashmiris for long periods without charges or trial.
Where Does Aneesa Come From?
She comes from Kashmir, a paradise nestled in the grand Himalayas to the north of Pakistan, bordering China and India. One of the world’s most scenic lands is also home to the world’s biggest concentration of armed soldiers—more than half a million regular army from the world’s largest democracy: India. Aneesa’s people want freedom from occupation. India does not want to grant it or heed United Nations resolutions calling for a settlement.
But for 63 years, Kashmiris did not take foreign occupation lying down. Aneesa’s father was one of them. That’s how her tragedy begins.
Where Is Aneesa’s Father?
Ghulam Nabi Khan was in his mid-thirties in 1996 when he was last seen by Dilshad, his wife, and daughter and her toddler brother
Raees.
Ghulam left his house in the morning. He was what his people call a freedom fighter, oppose to the forced Indian occupation of his homeland. The Indian military saw him as a ‘militant’.
The Indians laid a trap for him. One of his friends was recruited by Indian intelligence. Ghulam was lured into a meeting at his friend’s house. They swooped on him as soon as he entered the house.
By evening the news reached his wife. So many Kashmiri men have ‘disappeared’ in similar circumstances. Dilshad’s brother took her to the local police station, manned by Indian police. They refused to register a case of forced ‘disappearance’. Days and months passed without any record of what happened to Ghulam. Fearing a similar fate, Dilshad took her children to her village to live with her parents. Somehow they managed to contact the mission of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Indian capital. Red Cross is the only international organization that is allowed limited access to a few jails in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Most of the jails and detention centers remain closed to the world. When a Red Cross delegation visits Kashmir, the Indian government and army only allows Indian citizens working for Red Cross to enter the occupied territory. The Red Cross searched for Aneesa’s father but to no avail. This is because Indian military is authorized by law to arrest and detain Kashmiris for long periods without charges or trial.
Indian army is desperate to eliminate Kashmiri men and women who actively participate in the independence movement. Once any Kashmiri, man or woman, is dubbed a ‘militant’ by the Indians, he or she is never seen again.
How Was Dilshad, Aneesa’s Mother, Executed?
After her husband’s ‘disappearance’, Dilshad moved with her three children to the village, where her own parents and her in-laws lived. She joined a group formed by Kashmiris called the Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons [APDP]. The group is one of the largest civil society organizations formed by Kashmiris to peacefully resist Indian occupation. It organizes peaceful protests in Srinagar against excesses by Indian occupation forces and keeps the cause of the ‘disappeared’ persons alive. The exact number of the missing is not known.
Dilshad became an active member of the APDP, frequently seen in television news footage from Srinagar organizing peaceful protests in front of Indian and international media. These protests caught the attention of some foreign diplomats based in New Delhi, local and international media, and rights organizations. They turned into an embarrassment for the Indian military. Indian occupation officials were remanded by the Indian government in New Delhi for failing to stop the activities of Kashmiri women like Dilshad.
How Was Dilshad, Aneesa’s Mother, Executed?
After her husband’s ‘disappearance’, Dilshad moved with her three children to the village, where her own parents and her in-laws lived. She joined a group formed by Kashmiris called the Association of the Parents of Disappeared Persons [APDP]. The group is one of the largest civil society organizations formed by Kashmiris to peacefully resist Indian occupation. It organizes peaceful protests in Srinagar against excesses by Indian occupation forces and keeps the cause of the ‘disappeared’ persons alive. The exact number of the missing is not known.
Dilshad became an active member of the APDP, frequently seen in television news footage from Srinagar organizing peaceful protests in front of Indian and international media. These protests caught the attention of some foreign diplomats based in New Delhi, local and international media, and rights organizations. They turned into an embarrassment for the Indian military. Indian occupation officials were remanded by the Indian government in New Delhi for failing to stop the activities of Kashmiri women like Dilshad.
One day in 2003, Indian soldiers entered the house of Aneesa’s mother. Some of them were in uniform and others were in plainclothes. The Indian soldiers asked everyone in the house to line up in the center of the front room. Dilshad, her brother, an unmarried younger sister, and her parents and some visiting relatives did what the soldiers told them to do. There was some shouting. Aneesa was nine. She too stood in the line. The soldiers were asking Dilshad about her activities with APDP when tempers flared and one of the Indian soldiers began firing indiscriminately. He took it out on Dilshad, which gave everyone else enough time to run toward the rooms behind them to hide. Nine-year-old Aneesa slipped under a bed. She could see an Indian soldier emptying his weapon into her mother.
The soldiers ran out of the house soon after.
Aneesa rushed to her mother. She remembers vividly how her mother was breathing her last. She says her mother wanted to say something but couldn’t. Blood started coming out of her mouth and she died in her nine-year-old daughter’s arms. Amazingly, Dilshad was still carrying Aaqib, who then was a toddler. Bullets hit his left thigh and tore the flesh apart. He was unconscious and his uncle rushed him to hospital. He survived the injury.
Aneesa’s Journey To Pakistan?
With her mother killed and father kidnapped by the Indians, the male members of Aneesa’s family worried about her safety and her future. By 2008, five years after her mother was killed, Aneesa’s two younger brothers had adapted to a life without parents. Raees was 13 and was looked after by his maternal grandmother. But Aaqib was even younger. So her mother’s unmarried sister took his custody. That left Aneesa. She was the only one among them to have a passport, an Indian passport. Apparently, her mother was planning to get her out of India anyway, most probably to travel to Dubai and then take a flight from there to Pakistan, where most of Kashmiris have taken refuge, escaping the harsh Indian occupation of their homes and fields. India is more than happy to issue Indian passports to Kashmiris because it sees that as Kashmiris accepting Indian citizenship. But over the years, most Kashmiris have preferred to reach Pakistan without passports—trekking the tough route through the mountains to Pakistan.
How Is Her New Life Like In Pakistan?
Aneesa is living with her mother’s cousin and her husband and three children. They all come from the same extended family so she feels at home and her family is very close to each other. She was in class 7 in Indian-occupied Kashmir. In Pakistan she was admitted to class 8. But she was weak in two subjects: Urdu, the Pakistani official language, and Islamic studies. The schools in occupied Kashmir have no choice but to follow the Indian educational system where the two subjects are not taught. But Urdu and Islamic studies were not alien to Aneesa and she quickly mastered them. She stays in touch with her brothers back in Indian-occupied Kashmir through telephone. She doesn’t remember her father at all. She was two when the Indians kidnapped him. She was nine when they killed her mother. She hardly experienced their love. She says her family now gives her love and affection and the sense of security that her tormentors denied her.
Still Looking For My Father
Aneesa and her new family continue to stay in touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross in the hope that someday they might find him in one of the Indian jails. Her relatives back in Indian-occupied Kashmir keep their ears to the ground, collecting any information or rumors about anyone sighting Aneesa’s father in Indian detention centers. They pass on the information to her so she could forward it to Red Cross.
Why Is She In Geneva This Year?
Her answer is simple: “I hope it helps me find my father.” She wants the international community not to abandon people like her. She wants the powerful democracies to heed her call. And she intends to make her voice heard. She couldn’t do anything for her mother. She couldn’t save her mother. But in case her father is alive, she wants the satisfaction of knowing she did all she could to save his life. Her activism brought her message to the world, and now Aneesa wants to take the world to occupied Kashmir. Her mother and father would have been proud of the work done by their daughter today.
The soldiers ran out of the house soon after.
Aneesa rushed to her mother. She remembers vividly how her mother was breathing her last. She says her mother wanted to say something but couldn’t. Blood started coming out of her mouth and she died in her nine-year-old daughter’s arms. Amazingly, Dilshad was still carrying Aaqib, who then was a toddler. Bullets hit his left thigh and tore the flesh apart. He was unconscious and his uncle rushed him to hospital. He survived the injury.
Aneesa’s Journey To Pakistan?
With her mother killed and father kidnapped by the Indians, the male members of Aneesa’s family worried about her safety and her future. By 2008, five years after her mother was killed, Aneesa’s two younger brothers had adapted to a life without parents. Raees was 13 and was looked after by his maternal grandmother. But Aaqib was even younger. So her mother’s unmarried sister took his custody. That left Aneesa. She was the only one among them to have a passport, an Indian passport. Apparently, her mother was planning to get her out of India anyway, most probably to travel to Dubai and then take a flight from there to Pakistan, where most of Kashmiris have taken refuge, escaping the harsh Indian occupation of their homes and fields. India is more than happy to issue Indian passports to Kashmiris because it sees that as Kashmiris accepting Indian citizenship. But over the years, most Kashmiris have preferred to reach Pakistan without passports—trekking the tough route through the mountains to Pakistan.
How Is Her New Life Like In Pakistan?
Aneesa is living with her mother’s cousin and her husband and three children. They all come from the same extended family so she feels at home and her family is very close to each other. She was in class 7 in Indian-occupied Kashmir. In Pakistan she was admitted to class 8. But she was weak in two subjects: Urdu, the Pakistani official language, and Islamic studies. The schools in occupied Kashmir have no choice but to follow the Indian educational system where the two subjects are not taught. But Urdu and Islamic studies were not alien to Aneesa and she quickly mastered them. She stays in touch with her brothers back in Indian-occupied Kashmir through telephone. She doesn’t remember her father at all. She was two when the Indians kidnapped him. She was nine when they killed her mother. She hardly experienced their love. She says her family now gives her love and affection and the sense of security that her tormentors denied her.
Still Looking For My Father
Aneesa and her new family continue to stay in touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross in the hope that someday they might find him in one of the Indian jails. Her relatives back in Indian-occupied Kashmir keep their ears to the ground, collecting any information or rumors about anyone sighting Aneesa’s father in Indian detention centers. They pass on the information to her so she could forward it to Red Cross.
Why Is She In Geneva This Year?
Her answer is simple: “I hope it helps me find my father.” She wants the international community not to abandon people like her. She wants the powerful democracies to heed her call. And she intends to make her voice heard. She couldn’t do anything for her mother. She couldn’t save her mother. But in case her father is alive, she wants the satisfaction of knowing she did all she could to save his life. Her activism brought her message to the world, and now Aneesa wants to take the world to occupied Kashmir. Her mother and father would have been proud of the work done by their daughter today.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Security in Sistan-Balouchestan to be handed over to locals: IRGC chief
 |
| http://jkmpic.blogspot.com |
TEHRAN – Iran has taken necessary measures to establish and promote security in southeast Iran, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari said on Saturday, reports Tehran Times.
“Security is important for the development of infrastructure in the region and we have taken measures in cooperation with people, specially tribes and ethnic groups in southeast of the country,” Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said during his trip to Zahedan, the capital city of Sistan-Balouchestan province.
According to the directives issued by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the security affairs of the region will be handed over to the people of the area, the top commander announced.
He went on to say that the enemy is trying to hinder the progress of the region through creating insecurity, sowing discord between the ethnic people, kidnapping, committing robbery and banditry.
The area has also experienced several terrorist acts during the past years. On December 15 a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device outside a mosque in the southeastern city of Chabahar during a Shia religious ceremony, killing 35 people and injuring more than 100 others.
The members of the terrorist group Jundullah use Pakistan’s soil as their safe haven for committing terrorist attacks in Sistan-Baluchestan (Writer-South Asia)
“Security is important for the development of infrastructure in the region and we have taken measures in cooperation with people, specially tribes and ethnic groups in southeast of the country,” Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said during his trip to Zahedan, the capital city of Sistan-Balouchestan province.
According to the directives issued by Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, the security affairs of the region will be handed over to the people of the area, the top commander announced.
He went on to say that the enemy is trying to hinder the progress of the region through creating insecurity, sowing discord between the ethnic people, kidnapping, committing robbery and banditry.
The area has also experienced several terrorist acts during the past years. On December 15 a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device outside a mosque in the southeastern city of Chabahar during a Shia religious ceremony, killing 35 people and injuring more than 100 others.
The members of the terrorist group Jundullah use Pakistan’s soil as their safe haven for committing terrorist attacks in Sistan-Baluchestan (Writer-South Asia)
Thursday, December 16, 2010
‘UN indirectly supported terrorist attacks in Tehran’
TEHRAN, Dec 16: - An Iranian official has said that the United Nations has become corrupt and the organization indirectly supported the recent terrorist attacks in Tehran, reports Tehran Times (16/12).
The UN structure has become corrupt, and the UN in some way approved of the recent terrorist attacks in Tehran, and of course, this ignominy will never be forgotten, Mohammad-Javad Larijani, the secretary general of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, told reporters in Tehran on Monday.
On November 29, two prominent physicists were targeted by terrorists in two separate bombings. Professor Majid Shahriari was killed and Professor Fereydoun Abbasi Davani was injured in the attacks. The two academics were both on their way to work at Shahid Beheshti University in northern Tehran when they were attacked. The police say that in both incidents, terrorists riding motorcycles attached magnetic bombs to the physicists’ cars.
Larijani said defending terrorists is the most ignoble corruption, but this corrupt practice has pervaded the international organizations that claim to be advocates of human rights.
Elsewhere in his remarks, he stated that some people have received international awards in the area of human rights, even though they have not contributed to the promotion of human rights at all.
For example, Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 for her efforts to promote democracy and human rights, while she had not made any efforts toward these ends, he noted.
Commenting on the post-election incidents in 2009, Larijani said some reformists tried to stage a coup d’etat in Iran, and the West, under the pretext of defending human rights, supported them.
In 2009, some protests were held in Iran and some of them turned into violent scenes in which 21 police officers and 13 civilians were killed, he stated.
At that time, many countries accused Iran of committing human rights violations, he said. However, over the past few weeks, the British police have harshly cracked down on students protesting against the government’s plans to increase university tuition fees, he pointed out.
Yet no country has criticized the British government for the clampdown, he stated.And the claims that the West has never violated human rights but Iran is a violator of human rights are totally untrue, he added
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Kashmir on United Nations Security Council agenda: UNO
United Nations, Nov 16: The Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the
United Nations Security Council’s agenda, a UN spokesman categorically stated
while rejecting as “inaccurate” reports that it has been removed from the list
of unresolved issues.
“Some articles today on Kashmir are
inaccurate,” UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports.
He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of “continues
to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on
the list for this year,” the spokesman added.
Earlier, a spokesman for the Pakistan Mission clarified that Pakistan’s Acting
Ambassador Amjad Hussain Sial, in his speech to the General Assembly on Friday,
November 12 had referred to the omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a
statement by the President of the Security Council, and NOT from the Council’s
Annual Report-as reported in a section of press.
“The agenda item entitled, ‘India and Pakistan Question’, which covers Jammu
and Kashmir dispute, is duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security
Council and is also present on its agenda,” spokesman Mian Jehangir Iqbal said
in a statement.
In his statement, the 15-member Council’s President for the current month,
British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, while presenting the Annual Report to the
192-member assembly, did not mention the Kashmir dispute in the context of
unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact decades-old issue is
included in the Annual Report.
“We understand this was an inadvertent omission, as Jammu and Kashmir is one of
the oldest disputes on agenda of the Security Council,” Ambassador Sial
remarked, after Grant’s statement.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s UN Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, who is on a visit
to Pakistan, said there was no question of the Kashmir issue being dropped from
the Council’s agenda. “The Security Council Report in its annexures is
explicit,” he said in a statement.
“The President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of the UK,
is amply clear on the subject and is cognizant of the matter. I would request all
concerned not to speculate unnecessarily upon the subject”. (Agncies/Writer-South Asia)
Saturday, October 23, 2010
IRAN to US: It’s No Pride to Possess 5,000 Bombs!
New York, 23 October: Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again
stole the limelight when he warned that passing tougher UN sanctions
against Iran would shut off all chances for diplomatic engagement
between Iran and the United States and would not prevent Iran from
pursuing its nuclear program. Speaking at a news conference in New York
on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad added that it was “no pride” to the US to
confess of possessing 5000 bombs.
“Experience has proven that sanctions cannot stop the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad told reporters at a hotel across from UN headquarters, where a month-long nuclear treaty conference was in its second day. “While we do not welcome sanctions, we do not fear them either,” he said. “It seems to us that the structure of the Security Council is undemocratic and unjust, and is unable to bring about security. ... This Security Council will completely lose its legitimacy.”
Ahmadinejad called the US disclosures Monday about its previously secretive nuclear arsenal “a positive step forward,” but one that still raises questions. “It's no pride to possess 5,000 bombs,” he said. “Now, how can you have the trust of a government that announces 5,000 bombs after 60 years?”
Ahmadinejad argued any new sanctions would mean that US President Barack Obama had given up on his campaign to engage Iran diplomatically.
“We feel that the US government will be damaged, more than us, by those sanctions,” he said. “It's very clear that if the United States starts another sanctions (regime) against Iran, it means that it's the end of Mr. Obama's effort. It means Mr. Obama's submission. It means no change will occur.”
Concerning a possible Israeli attack, Ahmadinejad said that Israel would pay a heavy price if it attacked Lebanon or Syria which he said are capable of bringing the Zionist entity “to its knees.”
“Israel can't do anything against Iran … However, as far as Palestine's Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are concerned, we will fully defend them and support them,” Ahmadinejad said. “Lebanon and Syria are already capable of confronting Israel to bring it to its knees,” he added.
The Iranian president reminded reporters that the Zionist regime was defeated by Hezbollah alone. “It is obvious that it would face the worst defeat if” it attacked Lebanon and Syria. He called Israel a militaristic state imposed on the Middle East by the West and said it would self-destruct if it launched any new wars in the region.
Arab countries sought also to turn attention to Israel on Tuesday as delegates from 189 countries debated how to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. On the second day of the month-long meeting at the United Nations, Arab countries reiterated calls for a nuclear-free Middle East with criticism of Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and failure to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh expressed frustration at the lack of progress on implementing a nuclear-free Middle East, a goal that was declared in a resolution of a previous meeting of NPT signatories. He said that Israel's failure to sign the NPT and allow international monitoring of its nuclear program "renders the NPT a source of instability in the Middle East."
Egypt has proposed that this 2010 NPT conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations next year on such a Mideast zone. The proposal may become a major debating point in the month-long session.
However, the Israeli UN mission declined to comment on the specifics of the conference, but told The Associated Press that Israel's stance on nonproliferation continues to be that an accepted political solution for comprehensive peace in the Middle East should first be reached.
“WHERE IS BUSH TODAY AND WHERE ARE WE?”
In an interview with the Boston Globe on Tuesday Ahmadinejad urged Obama to avoid siding with more hawkish voices in the US against Iran. "He should be very careful not to get entrapped in the web laid by radicals around him," he said. "If he can't resolve the impasse with Iran, do you think he can resolve the problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine?" Ahmadinejad asked, adding that sanctions "will mean the end of his opportunity to improve world affairs."
“Mr. Bush used to pass resolutions against us. Where did it go? Where did it take him? Where are we today and where is he today? Iran is still advancing, and he is gone,” Ahmadinejad stated.
Ahmadinejad also told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that he and Barack Obama would have to refrain from "acting too hastily" if the two sides are to reach agreement on the impasse. "For example, the resolution presented to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] against Iran in the presence of Mr Obama was a very negative, hasty action that had very negative repercussions in Iran," he said. He was referring to a November 2009 resolution adopted by the UN nuclear agency that criticized Iran for defying a UN Security Council ban on nuclear enrichment. The resolution also rebuked Tehran for secretly building a uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. "The resolution was not based on any legal or lawful framework but surely a politicized act ... It reduced public confidence in the negotiation process in Iran."
The NPT is formally reviewed every five years at a meeting of treaty members — which include all the world's nations except India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which either have confirmed or are believed to have nuclear weapons.
“Experience has proven that sanctions cannot stop the Iranian nation,” Ahmadinejad told reporters at a hotel across from UN headquarters, where a month-long nuclear treaty conference was in its second day. “While we do not welcome sanctions, we do not fear them either,” he said. “It seems to us that the structure of the Security Council is undemocratic and unjust, and is unable to bring about security. ... This Security Council will completely lose its legitimacy.”
Ahmadinejad called the US disclosures Monday about its previously secretive nuclear arsenal “a positive step forward,” but one that still raises questions. “It's no pride to possess 5,000 bombs,” he said. “Now, how can you have the trust of a government that announces 5,000 bombs after 60 years?”
Ahmadinejad argued any new sanctions would mean that US President Barack Obama had given up on his campaign to engage Iran diplomatically.
“We feel that the US government will be damaged, more than us, by those sanctions,” he said. “It's very clear that if the United States starts another sanctions (regime) against Iran, it means that it's the end of Mr. Obama's effort. It means Mr. Obama's submission. It means no change will occur.”
Concerning a possible Israeli attack, Ahmadinejad said that Israel would pay a heavy price if it attacked Lebanon or Syria which he said are capable of bringing the Zionist entity “to its knees.”
“Israel can't do anything against Iran … However, as far as Palestine's Gaza, Lebanon and Syria are concerned, we will fully defend them and support them,” Ahmadinejad said. “Lebanon and Syria are already capable of confronting Israel to bring it to its knees,” he added.
The Iranian president reminded reporters that the Zionist regime was defeated by Hezbollah alone. “It is obvious that it would face the worst defeat if” it attacked Lebanon and Syria. He called Israel a militaristic state imposed on the Middle East by the West and said it would self-destruct if it launched any new wars in the region.
Arab countries sought also to turn attention to Israel on Tuesday as delegates from 189 countries debated how to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. On the second day of the month-long meeting at the United Nations, Arab countries reiterated calls for a nuclear-free Middle East with criticism of Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and failure to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Jordan's Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh expressed frustration at the lack of progress on implementing a nuclear-free Middle East, a goal that was declared in a resolution of a previous meeting of NPT signatories. He said that Israel's failure to sign the NPT and allow international monitoring of its nuclear program "renders the NPT a source of instability in the Middle East."
Egypt has proposed that this 2010 NPT conference back a plan calling for the start of negotiations next year on such a Mideast zone. The proposal may become a major debating point in the month-long session.
However, the Israeli UN mission declined to comment on the specifics of the conference, but told The Associated Press that Israel's stance on nonproliferation continues to be that an accepted political solution for comprehensive peace in the Middle East should first be reached.
“WHERE IS BUSH TODAY AND WHERE ARE WE?”
In an interview with the Boston Globe on Tuesday Ahmadinejad urged Obama to avoid siding with more hawkish voices in the US against Iran. "He should be very careful not to get entrapped in the web laid by radicals around him," he said. "If he can't resolve the impasse with Iran, do you think he can resolve the problems with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine?" Ahmadinejad asked, adding that sanctions "will mean the end of his opportunity to improve world affairs."
“Mr. Bush used to pass resolutions against us. Where did it go? Where did it take him? Where are we today and where is he today? Iran is still advancing, and he is gone,” Ahmadinejad stated.
Ahmadinejad also told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that he and Barack Obama would have to refrain from "acting too hastily" if the two sides are to reach agreement on the impasse. "For example, the resolution presented to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] against Iran in the presence of Mr Obama was a very negative, hasty action that had very negative repercussions in Iran," he said. He was referring to a November 2009 resolution adopted by the UN nuclear agency that criticized Iran for defying a UN Security Council ban on nuclear enrichment. The resolution also rebuked Tehran for secretly building a uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. "The resolution was not based on any legal or lawful framework but surely a politicized act ... It reduced public confidence in the negotiation process in Iran."
The NPT is formally reviewed every five years at a meeting of treaty members — which include all the world's nations except India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which either have confirmed or are believed to have nuclear weapons.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Nato regrets Pak troop deaths, urges route re-opening
ISLAMABAD/BRUSSELS: Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed regret on Monday for the deaths of Pakistani soldiers last week and said he hoped Pakistan’s border would reopen for NATO supplies to Afghanistan as soon as possible, reports Jumg (5/9./2010)
Angered by repeated attacks by Nato helicopters on militant targets within its borders, Pakistan blocked one of the supply routes for Nato troops in Afghanistan after a strike killed three Pakistani soldiers in the western Kurram region.
Analysts and Western officials said Pakistan’s closure of the border for a few days would not seriously impact the war effort in Afghanistan, but it would create political tension that Pakistan could exploit.
“I expressed my regret for the incident last week in which Pakistani soldiers lost their lives,” Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after meeting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Brussels. “I expressed my hope the border will be open for supplies as soon as possible.”
The apology came after gunmen attacked a convoy of trucks taking goods to Western forces in Afghanistan on the outskirts of Islamabad, killing three guards. The foreign minister while apprising the Nato secretary general of the gravity of public anger over Nato incursions said that Pakistan would only reopen the supply route for coalition troops in Afghanistan once public anger eases and security improves. “Unless the reaction cools down and we make sure that the supply line is secured, we cannot reopen it,” the foreign minister added. He further said the UN mandate for Isaf is confined to Afghanistan and Nato/Isaf forces are again advised to refrain from any actions that constitute a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Foreign Minister Qureshi did not hold a press conference after the meeting. Hours later, suspected militants attacked trawlers carrying supplies for Nato through Balochistan, killing one man, police said.
Pakistan has officially said the border has been closed for security reasons and the Taliban threat of more attacks will likely prolong the closure of the vital supply route — now in its fifth day — and further strain ties with ally Washington, which has long demanded Pakistan crackdown on militants. “Efforts are underway to resolve this issue, but there is a lot of anger in Pakistan about the border incursion,” a senior Pakistani government official told Reuters.
ISAF spokesman Major Joel Harper told Reuters in Kabul that the border closure wouldn’t impact the mission, but that the supply lines are “an important element of the Pakistani economy. It’s important to our logistics stocks”. The closures would force more supplies through NATO’s northern supply route through Russia and the central Asian republics, he said. “Nato authorities have all along anticipated disruptions in the supply chain and have been stockpiling supplies in advance,” said Kamran Bokhari, South Asia director at STRATFOR global intelligence.
Analysts and Western officials said Pakistan’s closure of the border for a few days would not seriously impact the war effort in Afghanistan, but it would create political tension that Pakistan could exploit.
“I expressed my regret for the incident last week in which Pakistani soldiers lost their lives,” Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said after meeting Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Brussels. “I expressed my hope the border will be open for supplies as soon as possible.”
The apology came after gunmen attacked a convoy of trucks taking goods to Western forces in Afghanistan on the outskirts of Islamabad, killing three guards. The foreign minister while apprising the Nato secretary general of the gravity of public anger over Nato incursions said that Pakistan would only reopen the supply route for coalition troops in Afghanistan once public anger eases and security improves. “Unless the reaction cools down and we make sure that the supply line is secured, we cannot reopen it,” the foreign minister added. He further said the UN mandate for Isaf is confined to Afghanistan and Nato/Isaf forces are again advised to refrain from any actions that constitute a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Foreign Minister Qureshi did not hold a press conference after the meeting. Hours later, suspected militants attacked trawlers carrying supplies for Nato through Balochistan, killing one man, police said.
Pakistan has officially said the border has been closed for security reasons and the Taliban threat of more attacks will likely prolong the closure of the vital supply route — now in its fifth day — and further strain ties with ally Washington, which has long demanded Pakistan crackdown on militants. “Efforts are underway to resolve this issue, but there is a lot of anger in Pakistan about the border incursion,” a senior Pakistani government official told Reuters.
ISAF spokesman Major Joel Harper told Reuters in Kabul that the border closure wouldn’t impact the mission, but that the supply lines are “an important element of the Pakistani economy. It’s important to our logistics stocks”. The closures would force more supplies through NATO’s northern supply route through Russia and the central Asian republics, he said. “Nato authorities have all along anticipated disruptions in the supply chain and have been stockpiling supplies in advance,” said Kamran Bokhari, South Asia director at STRATFOR global intelligence.
Andrew Exum, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security and former adviser on Gen Stanley McChrystal’ assessment team in Afghanistan, said the closures mattered little tactically.
“Even though it’s painful it doesn’t cripple the mission,” he said. “The larger strategic issue is that we’re seeing a period of rising public tension between the United States and Pakistan.”
“It’s clear the Pakistanis are frustrated with the United States,” he continued. “It’s clear the Pakistanis are frustrated with the drone strikes in Pakistan. What I don’t think the Pakistanis understand is how frustrated the Americans and the American public are with the Pakistanis.”
Rasmussen said the killing of the three Pakistani soldiers was unintended and showed the need to improve coordination between the NATO and the Pakistani military. He said a joint investigation was under way. “It is important we step up our cooperation,” he said. —Agencies
Mariana Baabar adds: Meanwhile, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), when contacted, said it cannot confirm the identity of two planes that hovered inside Pakistani airspace at the time when Nato helicopters were striking a Pakistani checkpost. A private television channel showed the footage of the incident in which for the first time the presence of these two planes came to light.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Press TV banned in Kashmir
By: Johan Simith
Srinagar, Sept 14: Indian authorities on Monday banned the Iran based world's famous TV cannel Press TV which had aired a clip about alleged desecration of holy Quran in United States yesterday.
Addressing a news conference here, the Chief Secretary, S S Kapur today said the Government of India as well as State Government had condemned the proposed move of Pastor Terry Jones to desecrate holy Quran. The good sense prevailed with intervention of concerned authorities of United States that Pastor Terry Jones cancelled forever the proposed condemnable action. He quoted news item of Press TV where it was Pastor Terry Jones was quoted saying. However, Chief Secretary said that it was surprising that only this Television Channel “Press TV” based in Iran, one unknown individual was shown without verification or any authenticity desecrating holy Quran, which seems to be deliberate act and conspiracy to instigate innocent sentiments of people.
He said that he verified from Broadcasting Ministry, Government of India, the authenticity of the “Press TV”. He was informed that this channel is not at all listed among registered channels being aired in India.
He said, therefore, the District Magistrate Srinagar has been asked to issue orders for immediate banning of the un-authorized channel. He said that no other reliable channel of world or of India had aired such commendable images of desecration.
He said that even if such act has occurred at any individual level it is an act which is strongly condemnable and provoking the sentiments of innocent people by deliberate telecasting such images are also against the ethics.
Describing the report of the said channel as totally against the public interest, the Chief Secretary said that this unauthorised and unregistered channel (Press TV) has been banned in all other districts of the state forthwith. He said it seems from the reports of the channel that there is a game plan to provoke and incite the sentiments of people to achieve their nefarious designs.
Kapur also appealed the media to extend their cooperation to the administration in arresting such rumours being aired to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the State.
The Chief Secretary further said that as a result of these rumours, a violent mob of people set ablaze a building of the branch of Tyndale Biscoe School at Tangmarg. He said peaceful demonstrations were also held at Kargil and Budgam.
Addressing a news conference here, the Chief Secretary, S S Kapur today said the Government of India as well as State Government had condemned the proposed move of Pastor Terry Jones to desecrate holy Quran. The good sense prevailed with intervention of concerned authorities of United States that Pastor Terry Jones cancelled forever the proposed condemnable action. He quoted news item of Press TV where it was Pastor Terry Jones was quoted saying. However, Chief Secretary said that it was surprising that only this Television Channel “Press TV” based in Iran, one unknown individual was shown without verification or any authenticity desecrating holy Quran, which seems to be deliberate act and conspiracy to instigate innocent sentiments of people.
He said that he verified from Broadcasting Ministry, Government of India, the authenticity of the “Press TV”. He was informed that this channel is not at all listed among registered channels being aired in India.
He said, therefore, the District Magistrate Srinagar has been asked to issue orders for immediate banning of the un-authorized channel. He said that no other reliable channel of world or of India had aired such commendable images of desecration.
He said that even if such act has occurred at any individual level it is an act which is strongly condemnable and provoking the sentiments of innocent people by deliberate telecasting such images are also against the ethics.
Describing the report of the said channel as totally against the public interest, the Chief Secretary said that this unauthorised and unregistered channel (Press TV) has been banned in all other districts of the state forthwith. He said it seems from the reports of the channel that there is a game plan to provoke and incite the sentiments of people to achieve their nefarious designs.
Kapur also appealed the media to extend their cooperation to the administration in arresting such rumours being aired to vitiate the peaceful atmosphere in the State.
The Chief Secretary further said that as a result of these rumours, a violent mob of people set ablaze a building of the branch of Tyndale Biscoe School at Tangmarg. He said peaceful demonstrations were also held at Kargil and Budgam.
He said that contribution of Biscoe School in Educational arena of the state particularly in the valley has always remained remarkable. Therefore, burning the prestigious institution of Tangmarg imparting education to the people of the area is also an unwarranted act.
The Chief Secretary said that the people of the state are facing tremendous problems as a result of turmoil for last several months, therefore, these incidents should not be allowed to flare up to cause further inconvenience to public at large. He added that miscreants should not take law into their hands.(Writer-South Asia)
The Chief Secretary said that the people of the state are facing tremendous problems as a result of turmoil for last several months, therefore, these incidents should not be allowed to flare up to cause further inconvenience to public at large. He added that miscreants should not take law into their hands.(Writer-South Asia)
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Dalit Voice
Dalit Voice
#109, 7th Cross, Palace Lower Orchards Bangalore - 560003 Phone: 91-80-23366771 
|
||
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Iran army official: Reconciliation plan is a hypocrisy for nations
TEHRAN, August 4: An Iranian senior army official warned reconciliation plan between Palestine and Zionist regime seeks an after-shock in the World of Islam and Palestine, reports ISNA.
"Reconciliation plan is a superficial action to deceive nations and it is a psychological operation launched by the US and Israel," Iran's Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi told ISNA.
"The US is seeking Zionists' goals through raising the subject of reconciliation plan, so it can be said to be nothing new," he said.
"Zionists have been after confronting Islam, Islamic Ummah and the Islamic World since occupation of Palestinian lands, they expelled Palestinians from their homes to make a country for themselves."
He then added, "Quds Day protest rally sends the signal that the issue of Palestine is the world's primary subjecct."
"It also represents the message that human rights in Palestine are totally violated, Palestinian men, women, youth and children are killed and their homes have been destroyed."
"Today, Zionist regime is a fake one whose leaders admitted that it will be annihilated," he continued.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Zionist regime's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington on September 2 with the US Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton also present.
"Reconciliation plan is a superficial action to deceive nations and it is a psychological operation launched by the US and Israel," Iran's Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi told ISNA.
"The US is seeking Zionists' goals through raising the subject of reconciliation plan, so it can be said to be nothing new," he said.
"Zionists have been after confronting Islam, Islamic Ummah and the Islamic World since occupation of Palestinian lands, they expelled Palestinians from their homes to make a country for themselves."
He then added, "Quds Day protest rally sends the signal that the issue of Palestine is the world's primary subjecct."
"It also represents the message that human rights in Palestine are totally violated, Palestinian men, women, youth and children are killed and their homes have been destroyed."
"Today, Zionist regime is a fake one whose leaders admitted that it will be annihilated," he continued.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Zionist regime's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington on September 2 with the US Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton also present.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
कश्मीर के ज्यादा के नियंत्रण में चीनी सेना (Chinese army in control of much of Kashmir)
श्रीनगर, 28 अगस्त चीन वीजा एक सेवारत भारतीय सेना महाप्रबंधक को मना कर
दिया है कि वह भूमि है पर, जम्मू और कश्मीर के विवादित राज्य में भारतीय
सेना के प्रभारी.चीन एक विवादित क्षेत्र के रूप में किया गया है जम्मू और कश्मीर का वर्णन. बीजिंग
के लिए लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल बी एस जसवाल की यात्रा की अनुमति देने से इनकार कर
दिया सेना के जनरल आफिसर कमांडिंग इन चीफ, उत्तरी कमान के क्षेत्र में.पिछले
कुछ वर्षों के लिए एक अभ्यास के साथ रखने में, भारतीय रक्षा प्रतिष्ठान
जून में था एक नियमित रूप से उच्चस्तरीय आदान प्रदान की चीन यात्रा इस साल
अगस्त के लिए उत्तरी एरिया कमांडर द्वारा तैयारियाँ शुरू किया.
", एक श्रीनगर स्थित सैन्य विश्लेषक हिलाल अहमद युद्ध जो मुजफ्फराबाद से हाल ही में लौटे की शर्त पर आजाद Jamuu और कश्मीर (ए जे) के क्षेत्र की एक बड़ी पथ चीनी पीपुल्स लिबरेशन आर्मी (पीएलए) के प्रभावी नियंत्रण के तहत अब है" कहा गुमनामी.
विकास "भारत अपने उत्तर पश्चिमी सीमा पर सुरक्षा हितों, दूर" एक वीसा के चीन के इनकार पर एक चीनी चाय "कप में लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल बी एस जसवाल को तूफान से भी अधिक के लिए भारी" महत्व रखती है, उन्होंने कहा.भारतीय अधिकारियों का कहना है कि वे पूरी तरह आजाद जम्मू और कश्मीर में चीनी सैनिकों की उपस्थिति के बारे में पता. विदेश मंत्रालय के एक प्रवक्ता ने शुक्रवार को भारत के मीडिया को बताया: "हम PoK.We में गतिविधियों के बारे में पता कर रहे हैं स्पष्ट रूप से कहा कि जम्मू और कश्मीर के पूरे राज्य भारत का एक हिस्सा है और किसी भी गतिविधि है हमारी अनुमति के साथ जगह ले जाना चाहिए."
यह पूछने पर कि सरकार विशेष रूप से किया गया था चीनी सेना और सड़कों के निर्माण में अन्य एजेंसियों की उपस्थिति के बारे में पता, उन्होंने कहा: "हम इसे जानते हैं और हम बना दिया है हमारे विचारों में जाना."चीनी प्रतिक्रिया के बारे में पूछे जाने पर उन्होंने कहा, "हम स्पष्ट स्थिति और चीनी बनाया है के बारे में जानते हैं."वीजा के इनकार, भूमि जसवाल कि जम्मू और कश्मीर के परिचालन कमान में था जो चीन विवादित क्षेत्र मानता है, पर शुक्रवार को भारत से एक मजबूत प्रतिक्रिया उकसाया. चीनी राजदूत ने विदेश मंत्रालय और वीजा के लिए बुलाया गया था कुछ चीनी सैन्य कर्मियों के लिए मना कर दिया. Demarches भी बीजिंग के लिए भेजा गया था करने के लिए लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल जसवाल के लिए एक वीजा के इनकार के विरोध में.
चीन पिछले परिचालित एक 'देश भारत से अलग कश्मीर चित्रण नक्शे में है, और controversially राज्य से यात्रियों के लिए वीजा प्रदान stapled. कुछ विश्लेषकों का कहना है कि चीन के नवीनतम उत्तेजना के बीच आता है अन्य सीमाओं पर चीनी की बढ़ती मुखरता संकेत. , योनातन Holslag, समकालीन चीन अध्ययन और के लेखक की ब्रुसेल्स संस्थान में अनुसंधान साथी कारणों "यह कहना मुश्किल है कि यह कैसे निर्णय चीन जटिल नौकरशाही द्वारा किया गया था, लेकिन यह एक समय आता है, जब बीजिंग विभिन्न क्षेत्रीय विवादों में अपनी मांसपेशियों flexing है" चीन और भारत: शांति के लिए संभावनाओं.
, Holslag नोट "जाहिर है, चीन अरुणाचल प्रदेश पर संघर्ष में दांव upped है, लेकिन अब कश्मीर में भी फिर से एक सौदेबाजी चिप और एक महत्वपूर्ण रणनीतिक गलियारे के रूप में शोहरत के लिए बढ़ रहा है." चीन उन्होंने कहा, "तेजी से निर्माण और जल प्रबंधन परियोजनाओं के सभी प्रकार में दिखाई आजाद जम्मू और कश्मीर में."अन्य विश्लेषकों चीन पिन विज़ pricks-A-विज़ कश्मीर और उसके-the-भूमि में पाकिस्तान की गतिविधियों पर अपनी पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ व्यस्त रखने के लिए भारत की रणनीति के हिस्से के रूप में, और चीन से दूर देखें.", जॉन ली, स्वतंत्र अध्ययन के लिए सिडनी स्थित केंद्र में विदेश नीति अनुसंधान साथी और हडसन संस्थान में अतिथि साथी का कहना है कि चीन एक दशक से अधिक के लिए लगातार रणनीति के लिए भारत विचलित रखने के उत्तर की ओर कर दिया गया है".
ली का मानना है कि वीजा के इनकार चीनी सामरिक हलकों में एक "धारणा के लिए बंधे हो सकता है कि भारत चीन के 'हाल के वर्षों के दृष्टिकोण के नरम - और, सकारात्मक विपरीत पर जवाब नहीं था, अमेरिका और दक्षिण के देशों के साथ साथ सामरिक संबंधों को मजबूत पूर्व एशिया. "
चीनी सामरिक हलकों में भारत के साथ चीन के रिश्ते की एक "सख्त लिए पिचिंग हैं क्योंकि उनका मानना है कि वे बहुत खोना नहीं है, क्या दिया पिछले कुछ वर्षों में हुआ है."
चीन का मानना है कि भारत में ज्यादा होता जा रहा है और दक्षिण पूर्व एशिया में रणनीतिक रूप से मुखर है, वह कहते हैं. लंदन में वेस्टमिंस्टर विश्वविद्यालय के प्रोफेसर Dibyesh आनंद बाहर हाल के वर्षों में वहाँ चीन के "मुख्य राष्ट्रीय हितों की तीखी अभिव्यक्ति किया गया है, और कश्मीर में कील के" परिवर्तन "- अगर सरकारी नीति के रूप में की पुष्टि की -" हिस्सा हो सकता है कि अंक इस अभिकथन "भारत., आनंद कहते हैं, स्पष्टीकरण ही नहीं लेनी चाहिए जनरल वीजा के इनकार पर है लेकिन जम्मू और कश्मीर पर चीन की स्थिति पर.
"जब चीन का कहना है कि भारत को बार बार चीन के हिस्से के रूप में तिब्बत स्वायत्त क्षेत्र की अपनी मान्यता पुनरावृति, वहाँ कोई कारण है कि भारत एक समान स्पष्टीकरण प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता है." और अगर वे कहते हैं, चीन के विवादित क्षेत्र के रूप में पूरे जम्मू कश्मीर विचार, " भारत को अपने पूरे चीन नीति पर पुनर्विचार की जरूरत है - क्योंकि यह स्पष्ट रूप से भारत के आंतरिक मामलों में हस्तक्षेप और एक पाकिस्तान के साथ द्विपक्षीय संबंधों में हो जाएगा. "
लेकिन ताजा प्रकरण से परे लग रही है, आनंद का कहना है कि भारत चीन सीमा विवाद के एक संकल्प के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है. "दोनों देशों के बीच सहयोगात्मक संबंध इतना जब तक सीमा विवाद ज़िंदा है के लिए गिनती नहीं". होगा और उसके आकलन में, सीमा विवाद न केवल सामरिक प्राथमिकताओं लेकिन अधिक महत्वपूर्ण बात के बारे में राष्ट्रवादी narratives के बारे में "है." इन narratives में, चीन एक "परेशानी, अमेरिका के साथ काम करने के लिए तैयार एक देश के रूप में भारत को देखता है. नुकसान के लिए चीन के" भारत, दूसरी तरफ, "के रूप में देखता है कुटिल चीन और पाकिस्तान के साथ मिलकर काम."और भारतीय और चीनी नेताओं का कहना है, आनंद, "इन narratives राष्ट्रवादी बदलने में कोई रुचि नहीं दिखाई है."
Holslag कि "के रूप में चीन सामरिक क्लौस्ट्रफ़ोबिया की बढ़ती भावना के साथ संघर्ष कर रही है के रूप में ज्यादा है, अन्य शक्तियाँ क्या वे चीन की बढ़ती मुखरता के रूप में अनुभव के बारे में fretting रहे हैं. मानना है कि" ये सुरक्षा दुविधाएं वे कहते हैं, "अधिक दबाव एक क्षेत्र में हो जाएगा, जहां की शेष राशि बिजली की तेजी से बदलने के लिए, खासकर जब क्षेत्रीय हितों को दांव पर लगा रहे हैं. "
, Holslag का कहना है कि भारत नवीनतम उत्तेजना, "वृद्धि प्रबंधन करने के लिए प्रतिक्रिया के लिए के रूप में महत्वपूर्ण है." भारत वह नोट, "कुछ यात्राओं को रोकने के द्वारा अनुपात प्रतिक्रिया नहीं दी है. जबकि ट्रैक पर सबसे अधिक सैन्य आदान रखने" लेकिन साथ जारी रखा "पाकिस्तान पर तकरार, व्यापार विवादों proliferating, सीमा वार्ता में पदों सख्त है, और राष्ट्रवाद बढ़ रही है," भारत चीन उन्होंने गिनाते संबंधों "बन तेजी से करने के लिए मुश्किल का प्रबंधन करेगा. (Writer-South Asia)
", एक श्रीनगर स्थित सैन्य विश्लेषक हिलाल अहमद युद्ध जो मुजफ्फराबाद से हाल ही में लौटे की शर्त पर आजाद Jamuu और कश्मीर (ए जे) के क्षेत्र की एक बड़ी पथ चीनी पीपुल्स लिबरेशन आर्मी (पीएलए) के प्रभावी नियंत्रण के तहत अब है" कहा गुमनामी.
विकास "भारत अपने उत्तर पश्चिमी सीमा पर सुरक्षा हितों, दूर" एक वीसा के चीन के इनकार पर एक चीनी चाय "कप में लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल बी एस जसवाल को तूफान से भी अधिक के लिए भारी" महत्व रखती है, उन्होंने कहा.भारतीय अधिकारियों का कहना है कि वे पूरी तरह आजाद जम्मू और कश्मीर में चीनी सैनिकों की उपस्थिति के बारे में पता. विदेश मंत्रालय के एक प्रवक्ता ने शुक्रवार को भारत के मीडिया को बताया: "हम PoK.We में गतिविधियों के बारे में पता कर रहे हैं स्पष्ट रूप से कहा कि जम्मू और कश्मीर के पूरे राज्य भारत का एक हिस्सा है और किसी भी गतिविधि है हमारी अनुमति के साथ जगह ले जाना चाहिए."
यह पूछने पर कि सरकार विशेष रूप से किया गया था चीनी सेना और सड़कों के निर्माण में अन्य एजेंसियों की उपस्थिति के बारे में पता, उन्होंने कहा: "हम इसे जानते हैं और हम बना दिया है हमारे विचारों में जाना."चीनी प्रतिक्रिया के बारे में पूछे जाने पर उन्होंने कहा, "हम स्पष्ट स्थिति और चीनी बनाया है के बारे में जानते हैं."वीजा के इनकार, भूमि जसवाल कि जम्मू और कश्मीर के परिचालन कमान में था जो चीन विवादित क्षेत्र मानता है, पर शुक्रवार को भारत से एक मजबूत प्रतिक्रिया उकसाया. चीनी राजदूत ने विदेश मंत्रालय और वीजा के लिए बुलाया गया था कुछ चीनी सैन्य कर्मियों के लिए मना कर दिया. Demarches भी बीजिंग के लिए भेजा गया था करने के लिए लेफ्टिनेंट जनरल जसवाल के लिए एक वीजा के इनकार के विरोध में.
चीन पिछले परिचालित एक 'देश भारत से अलग कश्मीर चित्रण नक्शे में है, और controversially राज्य से यात्रियों के लिए वीजा प्रदान stapled. कुछ विश्लेषकों का कहना है कि चीन के नवीनतम उत्तेजना के बीच आता है अन्य सीमाओं पर चीनी की बढ़ती मुखरता संकेत. , योनातन Holslag, समकालीन चीन अध्ययन और के लेखक की ब्रुसेल्स संस्थान में अनुसंधान साथी कारणों "यह कहना मुश्किल है कि यह कैसे निर्णय चीन जटिल नौकरशाही द्वारा किया गया था, लेकिन यह एक समय आता है, जब बीजिंग विभिन्न क्षेत्रीय विवादों में अपनी मांसपेशियों flexing है" चीन और भारत: शांति के लिए संभावनाओं.
, Holslag नोट "जाहिर है, चीन अरुणाचल प्रदेश पर संघर्ष में दांव upped है, लेकिन अब कश्मीर में भी फिर से एक सौदेबाजी चिप और एक महत्वपूर्ण रणनीतिक गलियारे के रूप में शोहरत के लिए बढ़ रहा है." चीन उन्होंने कहा, "तेजी से निर्माण और जल प्रबंधन परियोजनाओं के सभी प्रकार में दिखाई आजाद जम्मू और कश्मीर में."अन्य विश्लेषकों चीन पिन विज़ pricks-A-विज़ कश्मीर और उसके-the-भूमि में पाकिस्तान की गतिविधियों पर अपनी पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ व्यस्त रखने के लिए भारत की रणनीति के हिस्से के रूप में, और चीन से दूर देखें.", जॉन ली, स्वतंत्र अध्ययन के लिए सिडनी स्थित केंद्र में विदेश नीति अनुसंधान साथी और हडसन संस्थान में अतिथि साथी का कहना है कि चीन एक दशक से अधिक के लिए लगातार रणनीति के लिए भारत विचलित रखने के उत्तर की ओर कर दिया गया है".
ली का मानना है कि वीजा के इनकार चीनी सामरिक हलकों में एक "धारणा के लिए बंधे हो सकता है कि भारत चीन के 'हाल के वर्षों के दृष्टिकोण के नरम - और, सकारात्मक विपरीत पर जवाब नहीं था, अमेरिका और दक्षिण के देशों के साथ साथ सामरिक संबंधों को मजबूत पूर्व एशिया. "
चीनी सामरिक हलकों में भारत के साथ चीन के रिश्ते की एक "सख्त लिए पिचिंग हैं क्योंकि उनका मानना है कि वे बहुत खोना नहीं है, क्या दिया पिछले कुछ वर्षों में हुआ है."
चीन का मानना है कि भारत में ज्यादा होता जा रहा है और दक्षिण पूर्व एशिया में रणनीतिक रूप से मुखर है, वह कहते हैं. लंदन में वेस्टमिंस्टर विश्वविद्यालय के प्रोफेसर Dibyesh आनंद बाहर हाल के वर्षों में वहाँ चीन के "मुख्य राष्ट्रीय हितों की तीखी अभिव्यक्ति किया गया है, और कश्मीर में कील के" परिवर्तन "- अगर सरकारी नीति के रूप में की पुष्टि की -" हिस्सा हो सकता है कि अंक इस अभिकथन "भारत., आनंद कहते हैं, स्पष्टीकरण ही नहीं लेनी चाहिए जनरल वीजा के इनकार पर है लेकिन जम्मू और कश्मीर पर चीन की स्थिति पर.
"जब चीन का कहना है कि भारत को बार बार चीन के हिस्से के रूप में तिब्बत स्वायत्त क्षेत्र की अपनी मान्यता पुनरावृति, वहाँ कोई कारण है कि भारत एक समान स्पष्टीकरण प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता है." और अगर वे कहते हैं, चीन के विवादित क्षेत्र के रूप में पूरे जम्मू कश्मीर विचार, " भारत को अपने पूरे चीन नीति पर पुनर्विचार की जरूरत है - क्योंकि यह स्पष्ट रूप से भारत के आंतरिक मामलों में हस्तक्षेप और एक पाकिस्तान के साथ द्विपक्षीय संबंधों में हो जाएगा. "
लेकिन ताजा प्रकरण से परे लग रही है, आनंद का कहना है कि भारत चीन सीमा विवाद के एक संकल्प के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है. "दोनों देशों के बीच सहयोगात्मक संबंध इतना जब तक सीमा विवाद ज़िंदा है के लिए गिनती नहीं". होगा और उसके आकलन में, सीमा विवाद न केवल सामरिक प्राथमिकताओं लेकिन अधिक महत्वपूर्ण बात के बारे में राष्ट्रवादी narratives के बारे में "है." इन narratives में, चीन एक "परेशानी, अमेरिका के साथ काम करने के लिए तैयार एक देश के रूप में भारत को देखता है. नुकसान के लिए चीन के" भारत, दूसरी तरफ, "के रूप में देखता है कुटिल चीन और पाकिस्तान के साथ मिलकर काम."और भारतीय और चीनी नेताओं का कहना है, आनंद, "इन narratives राष्ट्रवादी बदलने में कोई रुचि नहीं दिखाई है."
Holslag कि "के रूप में चीन सामरिक क्लौस्ट्रफ़ोबिया की बढ़ती भावना के साथ संघर्ष कर रही है के रूप में ज्यादा है, अन्य शक्तियाँ क्या वे चीन की बढ़ती मुखरता के रूप में अनुभव के बारे में fretting रहे हैं. मानना है कि" ये सुरक्षा दुविधाएं वे कहते हैं, "अधिक दबाव एक क्षेत्र में हो जाएगा, जहां की शेष राशि बिजली की तेजी से बदलने के लिए, खासकर जब क्षेत्रीय हितों को दांव पर लगा रहे हैं. "
, Holslag का कहना है कि भारत नवीनतम उत्तेजना, "वृद्धि प्रबंधन करने के लिए प्रतिक्रिया के लिए के रूप में महत्वपूर्ण है." भारत वह नोट, "कुछ यात्राओं को रोकने के द्वारा अनुपात प्रतिक्रिया नहीं दी है. जबकि ट्रैक पर सबसे अधिक सैन्य आदान रखने" लेकिन साथ जारी रखा "पाकिस्तान पर तकरार, व्यापार विवादों proliferating, सीमा वार्ता में पदों सख्त है, और राष्ट्रवाद बढ़ रही है," भारत चीन उन्होंने गिनाते संबंधों "बन तेजी से करने के लिए मुश्किल का प्रबंधन करेगा. (Writer-South Asia)
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Inside the White House: Letters to the President
Every day, President Obama reads ten letters from the public in order to stay in tune with world's issues and concerns. "Letters to the President" is an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the process of how those ten letters make it to the President's desk from among the tens of thousands of letters, faxes, and e-mails that flood the White House each day.
You can also call or write to the President:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Please include your e-mail address
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
e-mail address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Please include your e-mail address
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
e-mail address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
NATO Pulls Pakistan Into Its Global Network
 |
| Rick Rozoff |
By Rick Rozoff
Srinagar: August, 5: In four months the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will hold a summit in Lisbon, Portugal. The host country was one of the 12 nations that founded the United States-dominated military bloc 61 years ago reports Intelligence daily.
Srinagar: August, 5: In four months the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will hold a summit in Lisbon, Portugal. The host country was one of the 12 nations that founded the United States-dominated military bloc 61 years ago reports Intelligence daily.
The Warsaw Pact dissolved
The rival grouping that was created six years after NATO’s formation and its expansion into Turkey and Greece in 1952 and the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955, the Warsaw Treaty Organization (Warsaw Pact), formally dissolved itself almost twenty years ago.
NATO's expansion
In the interim since its formation, having grown to 16 members by 1982 with the incorporation of Spain, NATO expanded from 12 to 28 members and absorbed 12 nations in Eastern Europe over the past 11 years. The last dozen were, except for two former Yugoslav federal republics (Croatia and Slovenia), earlier part of the Warsaw Pact and in three instances (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) also of the Soviet Union.
The North Atlantic military bloc’s sole right to maintain its name is that its major powers do largely have coastlines on the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean. The majority of its members do not. Since the Warsaw Pact’s demise and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has subordinated all of Europe through full membership and the Partnership for Peace and more advanced programs.
"Partnership for Peace"
The newest members of NATO graduated through successive stages of integration from the Partnership for Peace to Individual Partnership Action Plans and Membership Action Plans to full membership. All supplied troops for the occupation of Iraq and now have forces serving under NATO in the Afghan war zone.
Current members of the Partnership for Peace program in Europe are: Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. Bosnia, Moldova and Montenegro now have Individual Partnership Action Plans and Ukraine was recently granted a special Annual National Program. Russia was a member of the Partnership for Peace from 1992-1999, but suspended participation in that program and the Permanent Joint Council with NATO over the Alliance’s 78-day bombing war against Yugoslavia in 1999. However, in 2002 the NATO-Russia Council was inaugurated and though in abeyance after the 2008 Georgia-Russia war is functioning again.
All three former Soviet South Caucasus states – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – are Partnership for Peace members. The first two also have Individual Partnership Action Plans and Georgia its own Annual National Program, which NATO awarded it shortly after its five-day war with Russia in 2008.
In Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in the Partnership for Peace. Kazakhstan is the first country outside of Europe (inclusive of the Caucasus) to receive an Individual Partnership Action Plan.
Middle East and Africa
In the Middle East and Northern and Western Africa, the following countries are NATO Mediterranean Dialogue partners: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. Israel and Egypt each have an Individual Cooperation Program with NATO introduced in the last three years under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue provisions. Egypt and Jordan have small troop contingents in Afghanistan.
Under the auspices of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004, NATO has strengthened military ties with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. All but Oman and Saudi Arabia have formalized military cooperation arrangements with NATO. The United Arab Emirates is one of 46 official Troop Contributing Nations for NATO’s war in Afghanistan and there are also Bahraini soldiers in the war theater.
Contact Countries
The Brussels-based military bloc also has a category of military cooperation called Contact Countries, which to date include Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. All four have assisted the war in Afghanistan in various capacities and all but Japan have provided NATO with troops. Other Asia-Pacific states have deployed troops to serve under NATO in Afghanistan and as such are arguably already Alliance partners. Those countries include Singapore, Mongolia and Malaysia.
Tripartite Commission
NATO has initiated a Tripartite Commission consisting of its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the armed forces of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A complement to the U.S.-Afghanistan-Pakistan Tripartite Commission, in 2008 former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth referred to it as the Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission, which is a more accurate, if not its formal, title.
A tally of 28 full NATO members and the partners mentioned above produces a list of at least 70 of the 192 members of the United Nations which are linked to the Western military bloc in some manner.
NATO's Grip on PakistanOf all those nations, Pakistan is the second largest, its population of 170,000,000 only surpassed by that of the U.S. It is also one of only seven nations that acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons.
NATO’s grip on Pakistan was increased in 2005 when the military bloc became involved in an earthquake relief operation in the country, NATO’s second mission in Asia.
After that Pakistani military officers attended training courses at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany for the first time in 2006. The Pakistani Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, General Ehsan ul Haq, visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels in the same year.
In 2007 Jaap de Hoop Scheffer became the first NATO secretary general to travel to Pakistan. In the same year Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz visited NATO Headquarters.
The next year President Pervez Musharraf made the same trip, followed by his Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, ten months afterward.
In January of 2009 NATO chief Scheffer visited Pakistan to meet with newly installed President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Army chief General Kayani.
Returning the favor, Kayani paid a visit to NATO Headquarters in May, and the next month President Zardari, nine months after assuming his post, traveled to NATO Headquarters for a meeting with the bloc’s top governing body, the North Atlantic Council, being the first elected president of Pakistan to do so. In October of last year NATO conducted an international seminar on Pakistan in Brussels which included the ambassadors of all 28 of the bloc’s member states. In December NATO launched an Individual Tailored Cooperation Package to consolidate the integration of Pakistan.
This year Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi was at NATO Headquarters in February to meet with the new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and to address the North Atlantic Council, and last month Prime Minister Gilani led a large government delegation to the same location, where he also met with Rasmussen and addressed the North Atlantic Council.
On either end of the International Conference on Afghanistan held in Kabul on July 20, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen visited Tajikistan, where French NATO forces have been stationed since 2002 and where recent reports detail plans for the U.S. to open a training center [1], and Pakistan.
On July 19 Rasmussen met with Tajik Defense Minister Sherali Khairulloyev and Security Council Secretary Amirkul Azimov to coordinate a common Afghan strategy.
He arrived in Pakistan on July 21, six days after a twenty-member Pakistani parliamentary delegation completed a four-day trip to NATO Headquarters in Belgium “to share information about the Alliance’s policies and activities and to strengthen political dialogue between NATO and elected representatives of Pakistan.” [2]
The group was also taken to the Allied Command Operations Headquarters, formerly known as Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the central command of NATO military forces.
While in Islamabad this Wednesday, Rasmussen was accompanied by a large delegation which included NATO Spokesman James Appathurai and Robert Simmons, NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and its first Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. [3] Simmons was also in Pakistan in May when he spoke at a conference entitled “NATO’s Transition and its Relation with Pakistan.”
His comments at the time included the assurance that “Pakistan is NATO’s valued partner and our common challenge is war in Afghanistan.”
A report of his visit stated, “Simmons emphasized that NATO does not want to limit [itself] to high level dialogue with Pakistan but also to have practical cooperation by making use of the instrument of [an] Individual Cooperation Program to cover civilian and military affairs” [4], the same name as that used by NATO for its advanced partnerships with Israel and Egypt.
On May 21 Rasmussen and other NATO officials met with Pakistani President Zardari and with Chief of Army Staff General Kayani and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid in separate meetings at the military’s General Headquarters. During the meeting with General Majid, discussion “focused on the future NATO strategy for Afghanistan [and] the status of NATO-Pakistan relations including a proposed framework to institutionalize enduring, broad-based and mutually beneficial future cooperation.” [5]
During Zardari’s meeting with Rasmussen, the Pakistani president stated he “appreciated training facilities offered by NATO to Pakistani officers and called for further increasing such facilities,” and “hail[ed] NATO’s intended support for training counter-terrorism units.” [6]
Last year the Pakistani military launched a “counterinterrorist” offensive in the Swat Valley and adjoining parts of the North-West Frontier Province that dwarfed in comparison fighting on the other side of the Durand Line, leading to 3,000,000 civilians being displaced according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Oxfam among other sources. There can be little doubt that the operation was ordered by Washington.
Over the past two years the U.S. has killed over 1,000 people with drone missile attacks in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. There have been reports of NATO helicopter gunship and commando raids in Pakistan launched from Afghanistan.
On July 21 NATO chief Rasmussen said that “Pakistan and NATO enjoy an important relationship and intend to build upon it…it goes beyond Afghanistan.” Indeed. Rasmussen also “commended Pakistan’s operations in the Tribal Areas….He mentioned the tripartite arrangement with NATO and said [NATO] would encourage Pakistan to continue it.” [7]
NATO’s first war in Asia and its first ground war is not limited to Afghanistan. In touting his organization’s “long-term partnership with Pakistan,” the Alliance’s secretary general added that NATO’s presence in Afghanistan and several adjoining nations was “driven not by calendar, but by commitment.” [8]
NATO is in South and Central Asia to stay. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan and in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan following suit and India next in line. (The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, began a two-day visit to India on July 23, and pledged a continued “commitment” to South and Central Asia.)
In November NATO will endorse its new Strategic Concept, the first since it began its Eastern expansion at the fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. in 1999. It is NATO’s first 21st century, first avowedly expeditionary military doctrine. It is the blueprint for global NATO, with partners and operations on at least five continents.
References:
1. Afghan War: Petraeus Expands U.S. Military Presence Throughout Eurasia
Stop NATO, July 4, 2010
2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, July 16, 2010
3. Mr. Simmons’ Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border
Stop NATO, March 4, 2009
4. Xinhua News Agency, May 21, 2010
5. South Asian News Agency, July 21, 2010
6. Associated Press of Pakistan, July 21, 2010
7. Daily Times, July 22, 2010
8. 8) Ibid
About the author: Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. He is the manager of
Stop NATO international.
The rival grouping that was created six years after NATO’s formation and its expansion into Turkey and Greece in 1952 and the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955, the Warsaw Treaty Organization (Warsaw Pact), formally dissolved itself almost twenty years ago.
NATO's expansion
In the interim since its formation, having grown to 16 members by 1982 with the incorporation of Spain, NATO expanded from 12 to 28 members and absorbed 12 nations in Eastern Europe over the past 11 years. The last dozen were, except for two former Yugoslav federal republics (Croatia and Slovenia), earlier part of the Warsaw Pact and in three instances (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) also of the Soviet Union.
The North Atlantic military bloc’s sole right to maintain its name is that its major powers do largely have coastlines on the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean. The majority of its members do not. Since the Warsaw Pact’s demise and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has subordinated all of Europe through full membership and the Partnership for Peace and more advanced programs.
"Partnership for Peace"
The newest members of NATO graduated through successive stages of integration from the Partnership for Peace to Individual Partnership Action Plans and Membership Action Plans to full membership. All supplied troops for the occupation of Iraq and now have forces serving under NATO in the Afghan war zone.
Current members of the Partnership for Peace program in Europe are: Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. Bosnia, Moldova and Montenegro now have Individual Partnership Action Plans and Ukraine was recently granted a special Annual National Program. Russia was a member of the Partnership for Peace from 1992-1999, but suspended participation in that program and the Permanent Joint Council with NATO over the Alliance’s 78-day bombing war against Yugoslavia in 1999. However, in 2002 the NATO-Russia Council was inaugurated and though in abeyance after the 2008 Georgia-Russia war is functioning again.
All three former Soviet South Caucasus states – Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia – are Partnership for Peace members. The first two also have Individual Partnership Action Plans and Georgia its own Annual National Program, which NATO awarded it shortly after its five-day war with Russia in 2008.
In Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are in the Partnership for Peace. Kazakhstan is the first country outside of Europe (inclusive of the Caucasus) to receive an Individual Partnership Action Plan.
Middle East and Africa
In the Middle East and Northern and Western Africa, the following countries are NATO Mediterranean Dialogue partners: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. Israel and Egypt each have an Individual Cooperation Program with NATO introduced in the last three years under enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue provisions. Egypt and Jordan have small troop contingents in Afghanistan.
Under the auspices of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative of 2004, NATO has strengthened military ties with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. All but Oman and Saudi Arabia have formalized military cooperation arrangements with NATO. The United Arab Emirates is one of 46 official Troop Contributing Nations for NATO’s war in Afghanistan and there are also Bahraini soldiers in the war theater.
Contact Countries
The Brussels-based military bloc also has a category of military cooperation called Contact Countries, which to date include Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. All four have assisted the war in Afghanistan in various capacities and all but Japan have provided NATO with troops. Other Asia-Pacific states have deployed troops to serve under NATO in Afghanistan and as such are arguably already Alliance partners. Those countries include Singapore, Mongolia and Malaysia.
Tripartite Commission
NATO has initiated a Tripartite Commission consisting of its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the armed forces of Afghanistan and Pakistan. A complement to the U.S.-Afghanistan-Pakistan Tripartite Commission, in 2008 former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Karl Inderfurth referred to it as the Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission, which is a more accurate, if not its formal, title.
A tally of 28 full NATO members and the partners mentioned above produces a list of at least 70 of the 192 members of the United Nations which are linked to the Western military bloc in some manner.
NATO's Grip on PakistanOf all those nations, Pakistan is the second largest, its population of 170,000,000 only surpassed by that of the U.S. It is also one of only seven nations that acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons.
NATO’s grip on Pakistan was increased in 2005 when the military bloc became involved in an earthquake relief operation in the country, NATO’s second mission in Asia.
After that Pakistani military officers attended training courses at the NATO School in Oberammergau, Germany for the first time in 2006. The Pakistani Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, General Ehsan ul Haq, visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels in the same year.
In 2007 Jaap de Hoop Scheffer became the first NATO secretary general to travel to Pakistan. In the same year Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz visited NATO Headquarters.
The next year President Pervez Musharraf made the same trip, followed by his Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, ten months afterward.
In January of 2009 NATO chief Scheffer visited Pakistan to meet with newly installed President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Army chief General Kayani.
Returning the favor, Kayani paid a visit to NATO Headquarters in May, and the next month President Zardari, nine months after assuming his post, traveled to NATO Headquarters for a meeting with the bloc’s top governing body, the North Atlantic Council, being the first elected president of Pakistan to do so. In October of last year NATO conducted an international seminar on Pakistan in Brussels which included the ambassadors of all 28 of the bloc’s member states. In December NATO launched an Individual Tailored Cooperation Package to consolidate the integration of Pakistan.
This year Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi was at NATO Headquarters in February to meet with the new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and to address the North Atlantic Council, and last month Prime Minister Gilani led a large government delegation to the same location, where he also met with Rasmussen and addressed the North Atlantic Council.
On either end of the International Conference on Afghanistan held in Kabul on July 20, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen visited Tajikistan, where French NATO forces have been stationed since 2002 and where recent reports detail plans for the U.S. to open a training center [1], and Pakistan.
On July 19 Rasmussen met with Tajik Defense Minister Sherali Khairulloyev and Security Council Secretary Amirkul Azimov to coordinate a common Afghan strategy.
He arrived in Pakistan on July 21, six days after a twenty-member Pakistani parliamentary delegation completed a four-day trip to NATO Headquarters in Belgium “to share information about the Alliance’s policies and activities and to strengthen political dialogue between NATO and elected representatives of Pakistan.” [2]
The group was also taken to the Allied Command Operations Headquarters, formerly known as Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), the central command of NATO military forces.
While in Islamabad this Wednesday, Rasmussen was accompanied by a large delegation which included NATO Spokesman James Appathurai and Robert Simmons, NATO’s Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Security Cooperation and Partnership and its first Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia. [3] Simmons was also in Pakistan in May when he spoke at a conference entitled “NATO’s Transition and its Relation with Pakistan.”
His comments at the time included the assurance that “Pakistan is NATO’s valued partner and our common challenge is war in Afghanistan.”
A report of his visit stated, “Simmons emphasized that NATO does not want to limit [itself] to high level dialogue with Pakistan but also to have practical cooperation by making use of the instrument of [an] Individual Cooperation Program to cover civilian and military affairs” [4], the same name as that used by NATO for its advanced partnerships with Israel and Egypt.
On May 21 Rasmussen and other NATO officials met with Pakistani President Zardari and with Chief of Army Staff General Kayani and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majid in separate meetings at the military’s General Headquarters. During the meeting with General Majid, discussion “focused on the future NATO strategy for Afghanistan [and] the status of NATO-Pakistan relations including a proposed framework to institutionalize enduring, broad-based and mutually beneficial future cooperation.” [5]
During Zardari’s meeting with Rasmussen, the Pakistani president stated he “appreciated training facilities offered by NATO to Pakistani officers and called for further increasing such facilities,” and “hail[ed] NATO’s intended support for training counter-terrorism units.” [6]
Last year the Pakistani military launched a “counterinterrorist” offensive in the Swat Valley and adjoining parts of the North-West Frontier Province that dwarfed in comparison fighting on the other side of the Durand Line, leading to 3,000,000 civilians being displaced according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Oxfam among other sources. There can be little doubt that the operation was ordered by Washington.
Over the past two years the U.S. has killed over 1,000 people with drone missile attacks in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. There have been reports of NATO helicopter gunship and commando raids in Pakistan launched from Afghanistan.
On July 21 NATO chief Rasmussen said that “Pakistan and NATO enjoy an important relationship and intend to build upon it…it goes beyond Afghanistan.” Indeed. Rasmussen also “commended Pakistan’s operations in the Tribal Areas….He mentioned the tripartite arrangement with NATO and said [NATO] would encourage Pakistan to continue it.” [7]
NATO’s first war in Asia and its first ground war is not limited to Afghanistan. In touting his organization’s “long-term partnership with Pakistan,” the Alliance’s secretary general added that NATO’s presence in Afghanistan and several adjoining nations was “driven not by calendar, but by commitment.” [8]
NATO is in South and Central Asia to stay. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan and in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan following suit and India next in line. (The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, began a two-day visit to India on July 23, and pledged a continued “commitment” to South and Central Asia.)
In November NATO will endorse its new Strategic Concept, the first since it began its Eastern expansion at the fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. in 1999. It is NATO’s first 21st century, first avowedly expeditionary military doctrine. It is the blueprint for global NATO, with partners and operations on at least five continents.
References:
1. Afghan War: Petraeus Expands U.S. Military Presence Throughout Eurasia
Stop NATO, July 4, 2010
2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, July 16, 2010
3. Mr. Simmons’ Mission: NATO Bases From Balkans To Chinese Border
Stop NATO, March 4, 2009
4. Xinhua News Agency, May 21, 2010
5. South Asian News Agency, July 21, 2010
6. Associated Press of Pakistan, July 21, 2010
7. Daily Times, July 22, 2010
8. 8) Ibid
About the author: Rick Rozoff has been involved in anti-war and anti-interventionist work in various capacities for forty years. He lives in Chicago, Illinois. He is the manager of
Stop NATO international.
Monday, August 2, 2010
IRAN NEXT SUPER POWER
by Pyotr Goncharov
Srinagar: There are reasons to suspect that Iran's nuclear program is neither peaceful nor civilian. Its Natanz (pictured) facility will have 54,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, and it has already put into operation two cascades with 164 centrifuges each. Iran intends to turn on all of the 54,000 centrifuges.
There are reasons to suspect that Iran's nuclear program is neither peaceful nor civilian. Its Natanz (pictured) facility will have 54,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, and it has already put into operation two cascades with 164 centrifuges each. Iran intends to turn on all of the 54,000 centrifuges. What for? Photo courtesy AFP.
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Dec 29, 2006
Iran may become one of the top 10 features of the outgoing year for a number of reasons, including its nuclear dossier and the Holocaust conference, as well as the anti-Israeli rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In short, Iran has made others view it as a regional superpower and the key player in the Middle East.
Its nuclear program remains the top issue, with good reason, because it threatens the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
If Iran implements its nuclear program in the proclaimed format, namely on the basis of its own uranium enrichment technologies, this will deal a death blow to the NPT. Iran's program will trigger the domino effect, encouraging Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to follow suit.
The bomb is not the issue, as Iran will most likely decide against creating it. But it will hover merely one step away from it, forcing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to cover the same distance. Tehran promises to share its nuclear technology with Kuwait and Syria, which, taken together with Israel's 200 nuclear charges, will turn the region into a nuclear powder keg.
There are reasons to suspect that Iran's nuclear program is neither peaceful nor civilian. Its Natanz facility will have 54,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, and it has already put into operation two cascades with 164 centrifuges each. Iran intends to turn on all of the 54,000 centrifuges. What for?
Russian nuclear experts say this number will allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel for 20 nuclear power units. So far, Iran plans to turn on only one unit, at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is being built with Russia's technical assistance. The unit is expected to be put into operation in September 2007 and start generating electricity in November. The construction of the other 19 units is not planned so far.
On the other hand, the same experts say, given the political will, the 54,000 centrifuges can be used to create five to seven nuclear charges within two weeks at the most.
Therefore, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cannot issue guarantees of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, although it cannot prove its military goals either. The IAEA has questions to Tehran which it has refused to answer so far, keeping the world on nuclear tenterhooks.
The talks on Iran's nuclear program, as well as endless debates by experts, political analysts and other specialists, have turned into a cliffhanger compounded by Iran's intricate diplomatic embroidery. More than three months have passed since the UN's August 31 deadline, by which Tehran should have stopped work on its first cascade of 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges. Since then, Iran has put into operation a second cascade and announced the intention to increase the number of working centrifuges to 3,000 by March 2007.
It is certainly bluffing, as it does not have the necessary capacity for this. Yet it has played a joke on the UN Security Council no other country has dared to play before.
Ahmadinejad's statements to the effect that "Iran has made a crucial decision and is moving honorably along its chosen path," and that Tehran would consider any Security Council resolution on sanctions as a hostile move are most likely just verbal bravado, which the world has learned to regard calmly.
Tehran fears sanctions, or else why did Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, rush to Moscow shortly before the planned stopover in Moscow by U.S. President George W. Bush? Tehran thought President Bush and Vladimir Putin would discuss the Iranian nuclear dossier, and feared that Bush would convince Putin to vote for harsh sanctions against Iran. Tehran needed Russia's support, and Larijani received it. But nothing lasts forever.
Putin later said that Russia's support to Tehran was aimed at encouraging it to maintain relations with the IAEA so as to clarify the nuclear watchdog's questions and restore the world's trust in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programs. But it appears that Tehran is not willing to resume talks, at least not now.
On December 23, the UN Security Council voted on the Iranian resolution. The permanent members of the council, who form, together with Germany, a six-country group on Iran, have coordinated sanctions against Iran. The resolution proposed by the European Trio, which is negotiating with Iran on behalf of the European Union, differed radically from Russia's stand.
Moscow argued that the sanctions should cover only the areas that worry the IAEA - enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and work on all heavy water-related projects, and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
The Security Council heeded the Kremlin's arguments, but future developments are almost impossible to predict, especially considering the "Persian motifs" in Tehran's foreign policy. One way or another, Russia's neighbor, Iran, will continue to play a key role in the region, and this is the main result of the story with its nuclear dossier.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. Source: RIA Novosti
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Dec 29, 2006
Iran may become one of the top 10 features of the outgoing year for a number of reasons, including its nuclear dossier and the Holocaust conference, as well as the anti-Israeli rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In short, Iran has made others view it as a regional superpower and the key player in the Middle East.
Its nuclear program remains the top issue, with good reason, because it threatens the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
If Iran implements its nuclear program in the proclaimed format, namely on the basis of its own uranium enrichment technologies, this will deal a death blow to the NPT. Iran's program will trigger the domino effect, encouraging Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to follow suit.
The bomb is not the issue, as Iran will most likely decide against creating it. But it will hover merely one step away from it, forcing Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to cover the same distance. Tehran promises to share its nuclear technology with Kuwait and Syria, which, taken together with Israel's 200 nuclear charges, will turn the region into a nuclear powder keg.
There are reasons to suspect that Iran's nuclear program is neither peaceful nor civilian. Its Natanz facility will have 54,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges, and it has already put into operation two cascades with 164 centrifuges each. Iran intends to turn on all of the 54,000 centrifuges. What for?
Russian nuclear experts say this number will allow Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel for 20 nuclear power units. So far, Iran plans to turn on only one unit, at the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is being built with Russia's technical assistance. The unit is expected to be put into operation in September 2007 and start generating electricity in November. The construction of the other 19 units is not planned so far.
On the other hand, the same experts say, given the political will, the 54,000 centrifuges can be used to create five to seven nuclear charges within two weeks at the most.
Therefore, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cannot issue guarantees of the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, although it cannot prove its military goals either. The IAEA has questions to Tehran which it has refused to answer so far, keeping the world on nuclear tenterhooks.
The talks on Iran's nuclear program, as well as endless debates by experts, political analysts and other specialists, have turned into a cliffhanger compounded by Iran's intricate diplomatic embroidery. More than three months have passed since the UN's August 31 deadline, by which Tehran should have stopped work on its first cascade of 164 uranium enrichment centrifuges. Since then, Iran has put into operation a second cascade and announced the intention to increase the number of working centrifuges to 3,000 by March 2007.
It is certainly bluffing, as it does not have the necessary capacity for this. Yet it has played a joke on the UN Security Council no other country has dared to play before.
Ahmadinejad's statements to the effect that "Iran has made a crucial decision and is moving honorably along its chosen path," and that Tehran would consider any Security Council resolution on sanctions as a hostile move are most likely just verbal bravado, which the world has learned to regard calmly.
Tehran fears sanctions, or else why did Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, rush to Moscow shortly before the planned stopover in Moscow by U.S. President George W. Bush? Tehran thought President Bush and Vladimir Putin would discuss the Iranian nuclear dossier, and feared that Bush would convince Putin to vote for harsh sanctions against Iran. Tehran needed Russia's support, and Larijani received it. But nothing lasts forever.
Putin later said that Russia's support to Tehran was aimed at encouraging it to maintain relations with the IAEA so as to clarify the nuclear watchdog's questions and restore the world's trust in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programs. But it appears that Tehran is not willing to resume talks, at least not now.
On December 23, the UN Security Council voted on the Iranian resolution. The permanent members of the council, who form, together with Germany, a six-country group on Iran, have coordinated sanctions against Iran. The resolution proposed by the European Trio, which is negotiating with Iran on behalf of the European Union, differed radically from Russia's stand.
Moscow argued that the sanctions should cover only the areas that worry the IAEA - enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and work on all heavy water-related projects, and the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.
The Security Council heeded the Kremlin's arguments, but future developments are almost impossible to predict, especially considering the "Persian motifs" in Tehran's foreign policy. One way or another, Russia's neighbor, Iran, will continue to play a key role in the region, and this is the main result of the story with its nuclear dossier.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. Source: RIA Novosti
Monday, July 26, 2010
Shaheed-e-Azemat Sheikg Abdul Aziz vedio aired by KBC
Srinagar: The core viewers or the niche market of KBC is estimated to over 30 million people of which nearly 5 millions are settled in UK, Europe and Middle East with higher buying power due to long and sustained migration tradition.
Potentially the whole of Asia, Africa, Middle East, UK and Europe is our market. However, its target audience and niche market include the entire population of Jammu Kashmir along with Pahari, Pothowari and Hindko speaking Pakistanis and Indians in South Asia and across the world. But the transmissions of KBC are not to be confined to these communities. It will also cater for the wider English speaking audience across the globe and Punjabi, Urdu and Hindi speaking population of South Asia.
KBC tends to broadcast in all major languages spoken in the state of Jammu Kashmir and in South Asia in general. While the languages spoken across Kashmir include Kashiri, Pahari, Doagari, Gojari, Kishtwari, Ladakhi, Sheena, Broshiski, and Punjabi, Kashmir was the first state in South Asia where Urdu was adopted as official language in 1905.
Since 1947 Hindi has also been emerged as one of the state languages as well as English that has become state language at the government level as well as at public level due to large scale migration to UK and USA and strong linkages between Kashmiri diaspora with Kashmir.
The closeness and similarities between Pahari and Pothowari and Hindku languages and communities make programmes in these languages an essential component of KBC programming and news coverage.
The core languages of KBC programming include English, Pahari, Pothowari, Hindku, Kashiri, Dogari, Punjabi and Urdu. However, there will be programmes in other languages of Kashmir and South Asia in general.
Potentially the whole of Asia, Africa, Middle East, UK and Europe is our market. However, its target audience and niche market include the entire population of Jammu Kashmir along with Pahari, Pothowari and Hindko speaking Pakistanis and Indians in South Asia and across the world. But the transmissions of KBC are not to be confined to these communities. It will also cater for the wider English speaking audience across the globe and Punjabi, Urdu and Hindi speaking population of South Asia.
KBC tends to broadcast in all major languages spoken in the state of Jammu Kashmir and in South Asia in general. While the languages spoken across Kashmir include Kashiri, Pahari, Doagari, Gojari, Kishtwari, Ladakhi, Sheena, Broshiski, and Punjabi, Kashmir was the first state in South Asia where Urdu was adopted as official language in 1905.
Since 1947 Hindi has also been emerged as one of the state languages as well as English that has become state language at the government level as well as at public level due to large scale migration to UK and USA and strong linkages between Kashmiri diaspora with Kashmir.
The closeness and similarities between Pahari and Pothowari and Hindku languages and communities make programmes in these languages an essential component of KBC programming and news coverage.
The core languages of KBC programming include English, Pahari, Pothowari, Hindku, Kashiri, Dogari, Punjabi and Urdu. However, there will be programmes in other languages of Kashmir and South Asia in general.
more deatils and latest vedios:
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Is Lashkar-e-Taiba a real global threat
By: Abdullah Muntazir
Srinagar, June 29: There is a debate going on in the west on the issue of a possible threat from Lashkar-e-Taiba – A Jihadi group fighting against Indian occupation of Kashmir and blamed for Mumbai attacks in 2008 – to the western interests. There is no doubt Lashkar hates United States for a number of reasons. Apart from the widespread anti-America resentment in almost all Islamic groups across the globe, the group has some of its own reasons to dislike US. US declared Lashkar-e-Taiba a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) a few months after 9/11 without any substantial reason. The group until then never attacked or planned any attack on US interests. Its focus was totally on Kashmir against Indian forces.
The group believes that by declaring it terrorist organization US wanted to please India and press Pakistan to back off from freedom struggle in Kashmir. Despite its anger the group refrained from attacking US interests in the region but US was not satisfied with its own measures by putting Lashkar on FTO list of the State Department and went to UN Security Council in 2005 for international sanctions against the group. Eventually UNSC put the group in the list of Al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliates and asked the member countries to freeze its assets and impose embargo on purchase of weapons while its members were banned from international travelling. These sanctions could not affect the group in Pakistan as technically it was not active in Pakistan anymore after January 12, 2002 when the then president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf banned the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Sipa-e-Sahaba, and Tehreek-e-Jafria.
US also tried its best to put the name of Jamat-ud-Dawah – a charity and preaching Islamic organization accused of being a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba – in the same UNSC list. Nevertheless, China blocked these moves repeatedly until December 10, 2008 when china, on the request of Pakistan, withdrew its technical hold and Jamat-ud-Dawah and the names of its some prominent leaders were included in the list of banned entities. Jamat-ud-Dawah denies any links with Lashkar and interestingly it took US almost five years to conclude that Jamat-ud-Dawah is an alias of Lashkar-e-Taiba. Lashkar was declared FTO in 2001 while US included the name of Jamat-ud-Dawah in the lists of aliases of Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2005.
In short, Lashkar has obvious reasons to be an anti-American Jihadi group but we will have to see whether this so-called anti-Americanism is ever translated into a practical action or it is just rhetoric in the west on the provocation of some Indian lobbies active in the west – particularly in the United States.
For a number of reasons I believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba is not a direct or indirect threat to western interests. Here are these reasons;
Although the group advocates revival of Khilfphah in the Muslim world but at the same time, it also believes in Pakistani nationalism from an Islamic context. For Lashkar, there are only two states on the world map based on ideology, which are Israel and Pakistan. Pakistan came into being exclusively on the base of Islam while Israel is Jewish state. Lashkar believes that protecting Pakistan is like protecting Islam. No transnational pan-Islamic Jihadi group honors geographical borders. For them these borders are un-Islamic and it is sinful to willingly accept these ‘un-Islamic lines’ drawn on the ‘land of Allah’. On the other hand, Lashkar believes Pakistan is a ‘gift of Allah’. Due to this pro-Pakistan ideology, the group naturally becomes closer to Pakistani security establishment. It thinks in the same line as Pakistani armed forces think –India is the number one enemy of Pakistan. It was quite rational for Pakistani security establishment to rely on Lashkar-e-Taiba for freedom of Kashmir. The group has successfully engaged Indian armed forces in Kashmir for almost 15 years along with other Jihadi groups fighting in Kashmir.
There was tremendous pressure on the group after 9/11 to join Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight against US and NATO forces but the group did not want to create problems for its sympathizers in Pakistani state institutions, therefore it openly declined this popular demand of fighting America. Instead of shifting its focus from Kashmir to Afghanistan, the group expanded its operations from Kashmir to inside India. India accuses Lashkar for attacking dozens of high value targets inside its border including attacks on Mumbai, Indian Military Academy, Red Fort, Akshardham Temple, nuclear institute in Bangalore, Mumbai train attacks in 2006 and others. With its high profile attacks on Indian interests, it appealed the young Indian Muslims who are annoyed by dominating Hindu extremists. Massacres of more than five thousand Muslims by Hindu extremists in Indian state of Gujarat poured oil on fire and provided Lashkar with a great opportunity to exploit the Indian Muslim youths. Pakistani security establishment had/has no problem with Lashkar’s anti-India agenda because India is always suspected for its covet activities in FATA and Baluchistan.
Lashkar has ‘sacrificed’ more than five thousand ‘mujahedeen’ in Kashmir. For Lashkar, it will be betrayal to the souls of those five thousand plus martyrs if it leaves the ‘mission Kashmir’ uncompleted and indulges itself in a battle which is already saturated as far as the number of Jihadi groups are concerns. Lashkar believes that by attacking nations other than India will damage its Kashmir campaign.
Popularity graph of Lashkar in occupied Kashmir and Pakistan is on its peak. There was a time when Al-Qaeda was the mentor for all Jihadi groups and Osama bin Laden was one of the most beloved people in Pakistan. However, suicide attacks inside Pakistan became counterproductive and as result, Al-Qaeda and Taliban are deprived off their good reputation in Pakistan. However, this is not the case with Lashkar. It has an ideology that forbids attacking Muslim states. Therefore, Lashkar not only refrained from attacking Pakistani interests but it discouraged other groups too.
Due to its pro Pakistan ideology and policies, it has deep roots in Pakistani society. It is now able to work as a pressure political group in a number of areas in central and northern Punjab. Although it openly denounces democracy but covertly, it supports candidates of its choice. They can be from any political party. Lashkar knows very well that if it started a global Jihadi campaign it will no longer enjoy such a political advantage in Pakistan.
The group very well appreciates its weaknesses and strengths. It is not capable of challenging the whole west. Not only it will be fool enough to create more and more enemies but it will also invite the wrath of Pakistani security establishment, which is not tolerating Al-Qaeda at any cost, although it views Taliban from a different angle. For Pakistani security establishment Taliban are potential allies in the future but Al-Qaeda is ‘an enemy’. The simplest definition of Al-Qaeda is ‘anyone who attacks the west and has an Islamic origin’. Therefore, if Lashkar starts attacking western targets, Pakistan will obviously consider it Al-Qaeda.
Another reason that Lashkar cannot become ‘Next Al-Qaeda’ is that Al-Qaeda itself does not trust Lashkar. It blames Lashkar as a ‘B’ team of ISI. Due to Lashkar’s reluctance in fighting against US, some of its member defected and tried to join Al-Qaeda but they were considered ‘planted’ people and could not win trust of seniors of Al-Qaeda leaders. One such fighter once told the author of this report, “We are never allowed to see the people of higher ups because they don’t trust us due to our Lashkar background.” While one cannot rule out Lashkar’s support for Afghan Taliban, it seems unlikely that Lashkar and Al-Qaeda can cooperate with each other in current circumstances. Most of the experts in the west quote the example of arrest of Abu Zubaida –a senior leader of Al-Qaeda – from a safe house of Lashkar-e-Taiba but these experts ignore that this arrest was the end of a short love affair between the two groups started right after 9/11. Lashkar was reportedly trying to evacuate ‘Muslim brethrens’ from the war zone but Al-Qaeda members blamed it for betraying and ‘selling’ Abu Zubaida to ISI and US.
Some analysts present David Headley’s case –an American citizen with alleged links with Lashkar as well as CIA –as a catalyst to prove that Lashkar has now global reach and next time a Mumbai style attack may occur ‘not in India but in Manhattan’. A question arises that why these experts and analysts ignore the fact that David Headley was working with Lashkar-e-Taiba since 2003. It was very easy for Lashkar to use Headley and his contacts in US to plan and execute an attack on American soil. Headley’s plea agreement clearly shows that an attack on US or other western countries was never even discussed. Headley only confessed to plan an attack on Danish newspaper. It is an exceptional case as the Danish newspaper committed a crime against the whole Ummah and anyone at anytime can go at any extreme in this cartoon-controversy.
There is a need to view Headley case from another perspective. While Al-Qaeda uses all its available human resource against western targets, Lashkar-e-Taiba succeeded in utilizing a western human resource against its prime enemy India. Think for a while that if David Headley was affiliated with Al-Qaeda what would have happened? A man with American passport, travelling freely across the world, having blessing of some US intelligence agencies –Al-Qaeda would have loved to use him against Pentagon or CIA headquarters or NATO headquarters in Brussels instead of asking him to scout Mumbai.
Virginia Jihad Network also proves that Lashkar is not interested in attacking US or the west. In this case, some American Muslims with Pakistani and Arab origins were allegedly involved in helping Lashkar-e-Taiba for its war against India. US had to enact an old law to convict them because they were not found guilty of harming US citizens. US government accused them that they were trying to harm a US ally. The sentencing of half dozen Muslims was highly criticized by human rights groups.
Pakistani experts on militancy also disagree with the hypothesis of a section of western press and US politicians that Lashkar-e-Taiba is a global threat. These Pakistani experts are not ready to buy the ideas that Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba are one and same, and that ‘Lashkar is next Al-Qaeda’. Hamid Mir, a leading Pakistani journalist who interviewed Osama Bin Laden more than twice, while commenting on the article of Newsweek magazine in which Lashkar is presented as Next Al-Qaeda, said, “The author of the Newsweek’s article deliberately ignored certain facts to prove his point. Hafiz Muhammad publically condemns suicide bombings and killings of innocent non-Muslims while al-Qaeda does not condemn suicide bombings or killings of innocent people. Jamat-ud-Dawah works in rural Sindh province to help Christians and Hindus but the author of the article mentioned only its relief activities in Kashmir. Lashkar is not like Al-Qaeda.”
Another leading Pakistani journalist and expert on militancy Amir Zia, who works with SAMA TV and News Line Magazine, while talking to the author of this article, said, “Lashkar always remained a Kashmir focused group. It fights against Indian atrocities in Kashmir and tries to attack only military targets. After Mumbai attacks this perception prevailed that this group may become a threat to the west but for me it agenda is limited to Kashmir and India”
Defense analyst and a professor at renowned Quad-e-Azam University Islamabad commented on the issue from a different angle and said “It will be premature to say that Lashkar is a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda. The situation is a bit complex. The group is in evolution process. It works in different forms. It also works in the name of Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation to focus on relief activities. There can be some nexus between some old members of the group but as a whole, the group is not focused on the west. It tries to adopt same line as that of the government of Pakistan. Hafiz Saeed now has started to take up political issues between the two countries.”
Indeed Lashkar is a real threat to India and it is capable of bringing India and Pakistan to war. This indirectly may affect US interests in the region, as it wants Pakistan’s total focus on its western border. Pakistan can use its influence to keep this group away from any Mumbai style attacks inside India but trying to crush this ‘bunch of savages’ as demanded by anti-Pakistan US senator Gary Ackerman may become counterproductive.
Lashkar is not occupying any specific territory just as Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan did in Sawat and Waziristan. It is impossible to launch a military operation against the group in Pakistan. If India with its hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in Kashmir could not control a few thousand fighters of Lashkar, how can Pakistan control millions of its supporters across the country? The government of Pakistan can only take administrative measures which it has already taken by arresting 7 top commanders of Lashkar and trying them in an anti terror court.
During current strategic dialogue, US officials demanded actions against Lashkar and its leaders. US are very much concerned on the issue. Nevertheless, Pakistan will have to think of its own interests. While Pakistan cannot support a militant group but it also cannot create another Tehreek-e-Taliban in Pakistan. The strategy of crushing the militants is no longer working and the world is compelled to find ways to peruse Afghan Taliban for dialogue.
Although Pro India senator Gary Ackerman is trying to convince US policy makers that resolution of Kashmir issue will not satisfy Lashkar-e-Taiba but the reality is that Kashmir resolution will end the reasons for Lashkar and other groups fighting in Kashmir to take up arms. On January 17, 2009, Lashkar itself made it categorically clear that it will lay down arms if Kashmir issue is peacefully resolved. Its spokesperson Dr. Abdullah Ghaznavi had said “Our struggle is only confined to Kashmir and we have no relations or association with armed groups operating at international level. We have no global agenda. We just want freedom of Kashmir and if it comes peacefully we will welcome it. We don’t see armed struggle as the only way to achieve our goal. If the world listens to our cries and play its role in resolving the Kashmir issue there would be no reason for is to fight.” ( Kashmir Newspaper )
One can argue that it is just a political statement of Lashkar to mislead the world opinion. Of course, it can be a political statement but if Kashmir issue is resolved then groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba will no longer enjoy sympathies of Pakistan. If the west really wants to contain Lashkar, it should ask India to come out of the fear that if it gives up Kashmir the whole India will disintegrate. A nation of more than a billion citizens should not be fearful from giving people their due rights. Boiling Kashmir will spoil the Indian dreams of becoming a permanent member of UNSC. For its growth and prosperity, India must adopt a conflict free policy in the region. This will make the Indian market secure for the western investors. So the west in general, and US and UK in particular, should come forward and help India in resolving Kashmir issue instead of pressing Pakistan for no long-term benefits.
About the authors: Abdullah Muntazir author of this report is an expert on militancy and regional security.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)