Japanese tourist raped in India

NEW DELHI - A man was arrested Sunday for allegedly raping a Japanese tourist at a popular beach resort in southern India, in the latest case of sexual assault against a visitor.

The 35-year-old woman was found bleeding by hotel staff in the town of Kovalam early Sunday and is undergoing treatment at a hospital in the Kerala state capital Thiruvananthapuram.

The woman sustained internal injuries but doctors have declared her out of danger.

Police identified the accused as a 25-year-old whose family runs a handicrafts store in the tourist hotspot. "He has been sent to judicial custody and we are waiting for the victim to recover to record her full statement," local police officer Vipin Kumar told AFP.

Japanese officials in New Delhi have been informed about the incident, he said.

The woman came to India two weeks ago and arrived in the beach town on Saturday, hours before the alleged assault took place.

It was unclear how the two met, police said.

Sexual attacks on tourists in India are widespread, with several western countries warning visitors about the risk.

Last year a Japanese woman was drugged and raped by a tourist guide in the western city of Jaipur, less than a month after six men gang-raped a 22-year-old Japanese tourist in the eastern city of Kolkata.

An Indian court in June convicted five men for gang-raping a 52-year-old Danish tourist in New Delhi in 2014. They were jailed for life.

India is facing intense scrutiny over its efforts to curb violence against women in general following the fatal gang rape of an Indian medical student in New Delhi in December 2012, which sparked a global outcry.

This news was published in The Nation newspaper. Read complete newspaper of 28-Nov-2016 here.

Graceful Exit

By Sarah Khan

Power transition in any form is a difficult and challenging task. Unfortunately, there have been a few examples of smooth power transition in civil and military realms in Pakistan. But General Raheel Sharif has set an unprecedented example by announcing timely retirement despite tremendous calls for extension in service from general public. His services for Pakistan are comprised of a long list but the decision to step down as per schedule is the biggest contribution for strengthening of institution/ system in Pakistan. It is a universal truth that no individual is indispensible. Rather one man’s rule for longer period and extensions at the top level creates frustration among all ranks which proves counterproductive for the overall system and creates hurdles for prosperity and development.
After several ups and down in political history of Pakistan, finally a system has evolved which is strengthening democratic norms and values in Pakistan. The political instability due to military interventions in the past has crippled the economy and development of Pakistan. Under visionary leadership of General Raheel Sharif, military did not intervene in political affairs of various political parties despite calls for martial law and military intervention. Although, the political system is yet evolving but General Raheel Sharif has set a direction for peace and development by taking strict actions for eradication of militancy and terrorism in Pakistan. Before his retirement he has ensured implementation of National Action Plan in letter and spirit. Karachi considered as economic hub of Pakistan, was unstable due to activities of RAW in the city. General Raheel took bold steps in order to counter RAW activities in Sindh. The development China Pakistan Economic Corridor was closely monitored by ex-COAS and he ensured to overcome every hurdle in operationalization of the said project.
In 2013, when General Raheel was appointed as COAS, Pakistan was going through extreme crises both internally and externally. Most of international reports had termed Pakistan as ‘most dangerous country’ and ‘failing state’ in the World. But after assuming the command of prestigious Armed Forces of Pakistan, General Raheel took so many commendable steps which have ensured a bright and prosperous future of Pakistan. Since 2013, the overall image of Pakistan Armed Forces has been improved nationally and internationally and our Armed Forces have regained the lost image and fame after successfully clearing FATA from militants. General Raheel’s personal involvement for successful operationalization of CPEC, eradication of terrorism at large scale, strengthening of ties with emerging powers including China, Russia and Turkey and decision to timely step down are some of the services which will be harbinger of peace, stability and strengthening of institution and system in Pakistan. His predecessor General Qamar Bajwa has to follow suit in order to keep Pakistan on track of peace and prosperity.

U.K., France, Russia Want To Join Pakistan-China’s CPEC

By Polina Tikhonova 

Russia is not discussing the possibility of joining CPEC with Islamabad. “The Pakistani media reports about secret negotiations between Russia and Pakistan on the implementation of projects as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are not true to the facts,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation said in a press release.

The CPEC is apparently becoming a new association (like BRICS), as many countries are showing interest in being part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. With ambitions to even become a new union (like European Union, but not limited only to Europe), the CPEC, co-created by Pakistan and China, has already attracted big international players such as Russia, the U.K. and France.

The $51 billion project has been all over the news lately, not only because it’s a game-changer for China, Pakistan and Asia as a whole, but also because there’s a theory that India could start a military conflict over the CPEC. But seeing how many nations are siding with the CPEC, it’s very unlikely that India would start a war over it.

Interestingly, Russia’s bid to join the CPEC comes as a yet another indication that Moscow, which has been India’s key weapons supplier for decades, is abandoning India for Pakistan. It seems that Russia has more chances than any other country to join the CPEC, as theories about a possible China-Russia-Pakistan superpower triangle keep piling up. The CPEC may be that formal launchpad to form an alliance between Beijing, Moscow and Islamabad.

CPEC is foundation for China-Russia-Pakistan superpower triangle

But what’s all the fuss about? Is the CPEC really becoming the new BRICS? It could be so.

Just days ago, Russia and Pakistan reportedly held backdoor meetings which led Moscow to formally request access to Gwadar Port and ask China and Pakistan to be part of the lucrative multi-billion-dollar project. According to sources cited by Pakistan’s Daily Times, the chief of Russia’s intelligence agency, Federal Security Services, made a secret visit to Pakistan.

Russian intelligence officials and Pakistani high officials reportedly discussed strengthening their bilateral defense and military ties. The two nations also reportedly expressed interest in reshaping the cooperation between their intelligence agencies. The Russian intelligence chief was also said to have visited Gwadar, which is a key point of the CPEC, a 3,000-kilometer network of roads, railways and pipelines that connects Kashgar and Gwadar.

Russian officials were also reportedly satisfied with the economic opportunities offered by the CPEC and, according to the media outlet’s sources, even expressed interest in using Gwadar Port for international trade. The Russians were also said to have pledged to make investments in various sectors of Pakistan to deepen their economic ties.

Is CPEC the end of India and Russia’s friendship?

Although Russia and Pakistan were Cold War-era rivals, the two have greatly amended their relations in the last two years. Their new friendship, which has been backed by military deals and joint military exercises, is attributed to the fact that with the help of Islamabad, Russia wants to get closer to China, which is Pakistan’s traditional ally.

India, Pakistan’s traditional and historical enemy, can’t be happy about Russia’s warm ties with Islamabad of late. Russia is well aware that India is a strong opponent of the CPEC, and joining the project would probably mark the formal end of their friendly ties.

Politics of the Nuclear Suppliers Group

The most prominent take-away from the current meeting is that, unlike popular perception, it is not just China that stands in the way of India’s membership, but a general desire among the participating governments of NSG to ensure that unlike the past NSG

 

By SaimaAmanSial

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, once dubbed merely as a ‘denial regime’ and a ‘cartel’ working for the denial of nuclear technology in South Asia is increasingly gaining preeminence as a multilateral group of significant standing. The change in perspective is driven by the growing nuclear energy demand in the South Asian states as well as a desire by these states to be given the status of an established nuclear weapon state. However, these demands have been met lopsidedly by the US-led industrially advanced states by welcoming India only in the club, as manifested by the Indian nuclear cooperation agreements; facilitated by the 2008 decision of NSG to grant India a waiver for export of nuclear technologies for its nuclear energy program.

Japan, widely known earlier for its opposition to a nuclear deal with India based on its India's non-NPT status and its own nuclear history, has recently finalised the nuclear deal with India contrary to its long standing nonproliferation stance. The Indo-Japan nuclear agreement is weak from the nuclear nonproliferation standpoint as is incorporates similar commitments India had already taken in the Indo-US nuclear deal — like the non-testing — but which it failed to uphold by rejecting Pakistan’s proposal for a bilateral non-testing agreement proposed this August.

This exceptionalism is not new as the decision for granting the NSG waiver to India in 2008 was clearly an offshoot of the increasing US reliance on building India as a strategic counterweight to China. This geostrategic interest of the US originally manifested itself in the Indo-US strategic alliance of early 2000s. Notwithstanding domestic fears in the US about the strategic bet on India being over-sold, US aided India in gaining the status of nuclear weapon state despite India’s candidature as a nuclear weapon state outside NPT. The Indo-US nuclear deal opened the floodgates of foreign supplied nuclear fuel, nuclear technology for India at virtually no consequential nonproliferation gains.

The US sold the deal on strong nonproliferation arguments that the regime would be stronger with India being a member. However, with the deal materialising, India is seen clearly as disregarding the essential norms of nonproliferation by keeping its nuclear reactors outside IAEA safeguards, continuing to produce fissile materials, refusing to accept the CTBT signatures, and continuing to pursue modernisation of nuclear armament.

Keeping the past noncommittal Indian behaviour on pursuing nuclear norms in perspective, the current drive towards NSG expansion brings forth a different debate. Prominent states who stand in the way of new membership include those that seek stringent nonproliferation norms to govern nuclear commerce. Though these states desire an inclusive nonproliferation regime that includes the states outside NPT, however, they want the evolution to be based on a uniform criteria. They argue that before fast-tracking new membership in the NSG, a thorough debate should be undertaken to evolve a new criteria.

This has also been the main stay of the debate in the 2016 plenary of the NSG in June and the consultative meeting held in Vienna on Nov 11-12. Despite India’s strategy of creating media hype about the consensus being forged on its application, the meetings this year have brought forth divergent results. The NSG participating governments have been unable to forge a consensus in their consultations in arriving to a mutually acceptable decision on criteria. Reportedly twelve members at the meeting called for a criteria-based approach including Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium, Brazil and Russia apart from China. These states have ardently been opposing non-NPT states in the NSG, advocating that that bringing in these states within the regime without an evolved criteria will weaken the norms than strengthen them. China has also firmly affirmed its stance of conditional admittance of NPT outliers, i.e. first, develop universal criteria for allowing non-NPT signatories to become NSG members and then discuss country-specific applications.

It is no secret that India has left no stone unturned in convincing China to support India’s NSG application, however, China has thus far stuck to its principled position in this regard. A Press Statement of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the latest consultative meeting of the group stated that it is the first time ‘since the NSG's inception in 1975, for the group to formally take up the issue of non-NPT states' participation in an open and transparent manner.’ This is surely a good precedent for the evolution of the group in particular and the nonproliferation regime in general. Chinese statement also strongly emphasised on application of a nondiscriminatory and uniform formula ‘applicable to all non-NPT states; without prejudice to the core value of the NSG and the effectiveness, authority and integrity of the international non-proliferation regime with the NPT as its cornerstone; and without contradicting the customary international law in the field of non-proliferation.’

The most prominent take-away from the current meeting is that, unlike popular perception, it is not just China that stands in the way of India’s membership, but a general desire among the participating governments of NSG to ensure that unlike the past NSG waiver to India, new entrants should play their role in norm-building and norm upholding of the nonproliferation regime. This is also necessary at a time when states like Japan with known nonproliferation stance are now giving in on nonproliferation commitments based on commercial considerations.

Needless to say, that an equitable and criteria-based approach for membership extension is the only way to make outliers answerable to the nonproliferation norms without prejudice to the commercial considerations and subjective notions of ‘like-mindedness’.

The writer is a former Nuclear Nonproliferation Fellow Monterey California, USA and Fellow Nuclear Nonproliferation Education and Research Centre (NEREC), South Korea.

The Raheel Sharif model

By Mohsin Raza Malik

General Raheel Sharif, the 15th Chief of Army Staff, is scheduled to relinquish command of Pakistan Army by the end of this month after completing his 3-year fixed term in office. Unlike his predecessor, he has already declined an offer for an extension in his tenure. Though he served as COAS for a relatively shorter period, has earned a reputation as a courageous, pragmatic and professional military commander. In fact, in a short period of 3-years, he proactively played his role in evolving a comprehensive strategy to counter terrorism which had been the most critical challenge for Pakistan for the last one-and-half decade. Thus he has just proved that the courage, resolution and commitment matter the most when it comes to curbing the menace of terrorism.

There have been a number of so-called military intervention models in Pakistan, evolved and practiced by various commanders of the most powerful institution of the country- The Army. These ‘models’ generally vary according to the nature and intensity of invention made by the Khakis in the civilian domain. They have also been the primary determinants of Civ-Mil relations in Pakistan. They can conveniently be categorised into two broader categories: an aggressive model, and a passive model. The former involves a full-fledged military intervention, which usually resulted in toppling a civilian regime e.g. the ‘Zia model’, the ‘Musharraf model’. And the latter relates to an informal intervention which also leans towards the general tendency of the military commanders to impose their decisions on the political leadership while staying within their institutional domain. In this respect, the so-called Kakar and Kayani models are the two major instances.

The policies and practices of General Raheel Sharif as a COAS have given rise to another unique military model in Pakistan. It is relatively extensive, multi-faceted and a multi-component model. This model is different from all the previous ones. Unlike others, it is necessarily a military non-intervention model. Under this model, the military establishment has exercised maximum restraint in absolutely toppling a civilian regime, or otherwise unnecessarily interfering in the civilian affairs. The military establishment did not intervene despite the fact things had once reached the threshold where the past military commanders had been considering themselves justified in intervening is some way, either aggressively or passively. We have seen that General Raheel Sharif played a positive and constructive role in ending the political impasse in the country following the PTI-PAT sit-in in Islamabad in 2014. He constantly maintained his neutrality and impartiality in this prolonged political crisis.

However, despite strictly maintaining political neutrality, the military establishment didn’t remain thoroughly indifferent to the affairs of the state. It has constantly been showing its institutional concerns over certain undesirable developments in the country. At times, it also conveyed it strong displeasure over certain things like the ineffective or non-implementation of National Action Plan, poor civilian response to foreign-funded terrorism, the state of corruption, the Panamagate scandal, the news-leak issue etc. Thus it constructively engaged the civilian leadership. Moreover, the military establishment has also been taking the daring initiatives and making the crucial decisions relating to the national security. It by no means let the political expediency and civilian inertia eclipse the vital national security matters in the country.

Apart from its typical Civ-Mil aspect, the so-called Raheel Sharif model has another important military component that relates to the professional role of a military commander. General Raheel Sharif has emerged as a composed but resolute and pro-active military commander. He just came forward with strong professional commitment, unwavering resolve and a pragmatic and goal-oriented approach. Therefore, now he is being not only greatly admired and respected domestically, but his professional excellence is also being globally acknowledged.

General Raheel Sharif took command of one of the largest armies in the world at the most critical juncture of its history. The security situation in Pakistan was volatile and rather chaotic. A sophisticated Fourth Generation War was posing a severe existential threat to Pakistan. But regrettably, despite being in a state of war, there hardly existed the required degree of resolution and commitment on the part of both military and civilian leadership in the country to fight this war. Instead, they was considerable confusion over the nature and handling of this war. Pakistan army did not conduct any significant military operation since the conclusion of Operation Rah-e-Nijat in South Waziristan agency in December 2009. Resultantly, various militant groups got the opportunity to reorganize and reunited in the tribal areas.

In this particularly uncertain and confusing situation, Pakistan Army, under the command of General Raheel Sharif, courageously and sagaciously decided to inflict a decisive onslaught on the miscreants by launching Operation Zarb-e-Azab in North Waziristan in mid-2014. This military operation somehow broken the backbone of militancy in the country after destroying the hideouts of militants and dismantling their command and control structure. Now the entire tribal area has been successfully retrieved from these militants. Besides this, the Pak Army is also conducting the Intelligence Based Operations (IBO’s) as well as combing military operation across the country. Obviously, after the unfortunate APS Peshawar incident, these operations have intensified.

As a matter of fact, General Raheel Sharif has played a pivotal role in evolving the current counter-terror and COIN strategies in Pakistan which essentially comprise a number of kinetic military actions coupled with some preventive measures in the form of NAP. These strategies have gone a long way in absolutely cubing the menace of terrorism and extremism in the country. The Operation Zarb-e-Azab is being considered to be an effective and the greatest counter-terror maneuvering in the world in the recent times. Now other terror-hit countries are also trying to replicate these counter terror strategies.

Trying a terrorist in the court of law is purely a responsibility of the civilian government but Pakistan Army has also readily assumed this task by setting up various military trial courts. Moreover, Pak Army’s role regarding the relief and rehabilitation of IDP’s of North Waziristan is also commendable. Presently, the military establishment is also actively supporting the para-military and law-enforcing agencies in Karachi to rid the city of undesirable criminal elements. All these daring actions of the army necessarily reflect the strong determination and commitment of its outgoing commander.

For the first time in country’s history, we have observed an army chief openly speaking against the alleged foul play of the Indian intelligence agencies, the RAW, in Pakistan. The higher military and civilian authorities in Pakistan have conveyed a strong message to India to call off its disruptive activities in Pakistan through its hostile intelligence apparatus. Moreover, the military establishment has also taken keen interest in the successful and early completion of the CPEC. It has already raised a Special Security Division (SSD) to provide security to the Chinese in Pakistan.

Through his professionalism and unwavering resolve, General Raheel Sharif has just proved that a single individual can substantially strengthen an institution. At the same time, by refusing to accept extension in tenure, he again has tried to show that there are not individuals but institutions which are the permanent entities. Thus institutions always matter and make all the difference. This move also contain a serious message for the politicos who are running their political parties in an authoritarian and arbitrary fashion. The cults of personality have overshadowed the political ideologies of these parties. Political parties have somehow become the ‘family limited companies’ controlled by different political dynasties.

The so-called General Raheel Sharif model has not only helped improve the security situation in Pakistan but has also earned a good name for the army as an institution. It has substantially improved the institutional capacity of Pakistan Army to effectively cope with both the internal and external challenges. It has also strengthened the democratic institutions in Pakistan. Therefore, this model should be idealised and followed by the succeeding military commanders in the lager interest of the country as well as their own institution.

Indo-Japan nuclear deal

Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

INDO-Japan strategic partnership is on a positive trajectory. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Japan was very productive. On November 11, 2016, Japan and India inked an accord ‘Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy’ in Tokyo, Japan. The treaty allows Japan to export nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel and nuclear technology to India. Moreover, the deal would also facilitate the US-based companies like GE and Westinghouse Electric to set up nuclear power plants in India. It’s because Japan’s Toshiba owns these companies’ shares. Westinghouse already signed an agreement to build six nuclear reactors in India.
Today, India is an attractive country for the Japanese due to its growing economy; Indo-Pacific strategy; strategic partnership with the United States; and having potential to compete with China in the Asian strategic environment. Moreover, New Delhi has successfully generated an impression that it is playing an effective role in maintaining the safety and security of sea-lanes in the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean regions and fighting against transnational crimes, terrorism, piracy and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In a joint statement Prime Minister Modi and his Japanese counterpart “condemned terrorism in strongest terms in all its forms and manifestations in spirit of ‘zero tolerance.” They also called upon all countries to “implement UNSC Resolution 1267 and other relevant resolutions designating terrorist entities.”
The Japanese nuclear industry is endeavouring to export nuclear power plants to foreign buyers. It is because the Japanese nuclear industry is in crisis due to the shrinking sales at home since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants disaster. Hence, Japanese firms are interested in building nuclear power plants in India to capture its lucrative nuclear energy market. The nuclear deal is a rewarding venture for the Japanese nuclear industry and equally beneficial for India. By virtue of the deal, New Delhi will receive advanced nuclear reactors for its sites coming up at Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh.
In addition, the deal would improve the credibility of India as a responsible nuclear power, and hence reinforce its case for the full membership of the Nuclear Supplier Group. The safety and security of nuclear power is not only critical for India alone, but is also a serious concern for the Indian neighbours. It was reported that in the case of Fukushima Daiichi, the Japanese operating authority failed to stick to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety standards. Notably, in the Fukushima catastrophe four reactors were damaged instead of six. The two were saved from the Tsunami because the operators of the facility followed the IAEA safety guidelines. The Chairman of the National Diet of Japan’s Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, Dr Kiyoshi Kurokawa’s pointed out that: “Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster– that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.”
The bilateral defence cooperation advanced between Tokyo and New Delhi during the last decade. On November 11, 2016, Japan announced to provide its state-of-the-art defence platforms such as US-2 amphibian aircraft to India. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe while speaking in the Indian Parliament on August 22, 2007 stated, “India and Japan have entered a new era under their strategic partnership.” He added that Indo-Japan partnership would create an “arc of freedom and prosperity” in the region. The current trends in the global politics and cementing strategic partnership between Tokyo and New Delhi alarms about the probability of strategic competition and thereby the earlier announced “an arc of freedom and prosperity” might be transformed into “an arc of containment” in the near future. In addition, quadrilateral dialogue among the US, India, Japan and Australia, alarm the Indian neighbours, especially China and Pakistan. Perhaps, any attempt by India and Japan to contain China on the behest of United States would perilous for the regional security.
To conclude, Japan being very vocal anti-nuclear weapon state agreed to assist nuclear-armed India in its nuclear pursuits including to secure the full membership of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Tokyo’s support for the membership of the Group is significant for New Delhi. It is because; the former is the only state, which was attacked with nuclear weapons; currently having a vibrant nuclear industry; and is an influential member of the Nuclear Supplier Group. Precisely, Japan formally accepted India as a responsible nuclear weapon state and hence is altering its symbolic role as an advocate of ‘world free from nuclear weapons’ or ‘nuclear disarmament’.
— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Who was Behind Mumbai Attacks?

                                                

                                                              By Sajjad Shaukat

On November 26, 2008, several persons were killed in the simultaneous terror attacks in Mumbai. Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media had started blaming Pakistan.

Mumbai attack was just another false flag operation of Indian establishment to gain sympathies of world community and defame Pakistan in the comity of nations. The whole drama was staged to put blame Pakistan and its intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

It is notable that renowned thinkers, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau opine that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud and falsehood to fulfill their countries’ selfish aims. But such a sinister politics was replaced by new trends such as fair-dealings, reconciliation and economic development. Regrettably, India is still following past politics in modern era.

Under the cover of the Mumbai catastrophe, India began a deliberate propaganda campaign against Pakistan and tried to isolate the latter in the comity of nations by showing that Islamabad was sponsoring terrorism in India. In this regard, Indian former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and its other high officials, while repeating old rhetoric of baseless allegations, stated that Pakistan has “epicenter of terrorism” and Islamabad should “end infrastructure of terrorism.” L.K. Advani, leader of the BJP, while accusing Pakistan as the hotbed of terror in the region, said that Pakistan’s secret agency ISI should be declared a terror outfit.

In this respect, Indian top officials and TV channels had remarked that Indian Mujahideen and the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT) based in Pakistan and ISI were behind the Mumbai terror attacks. With the assistance of Indian secret agency RAW, Indian investigators fabricated a false story that 10 terrorists who executed Mumbai carnage came in a boat from Karachi and were in contact with the members of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba through phone calls. But a number of questions arise in relation to the so-called links, deliberately entangling Pakistan. First, how it is possible that the militants phoned 100 times inside Pakistan, but they did not call their families? Second, the lonely gunman Ajmal Kasab who was arrested, knew his address and why he did not indicate the names and home addresses of other 9 fugitives with whom he lived for a long time? Third, after the hard journey of more than 50 hours, traveling on the slow moving water, evading 20 coastal guards of Indian Navy, how they reached Mumbai? Fourth, where did they change their muddy shoes and wet dresses? Fifth, how it became possible that they immediately hired a taxi and reached their targets, without taking some rest? Sixth, why the terrorists killed only four people at the Nariman house, sparing the other six guys present there?

Availing the pretext of the Mumbai catastrophe, New Delhi had suspended the process of ‘composite dialogue’ in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of troops. Islamabad had also taken defensive steps to meet any Indian prospective aggression or surgical strikes. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Pakistan also possesses atomic weapons.

However, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks, Indian rulers had started blackmailing Islamabad that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of Mumbai mayhem. New Delhi urged Islamabad to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Rejecting Pakistan’s stand that its government or any official agency was not involved in the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi wanted to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since our rulers admitted that Ajmal Kasab was Pakistani national. In fact, Islamabad’s admission which had emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US. And, Ajmal Kasab was tortured by the Indian intelligence agencies so as to endorse Indian false story against Islamabad, while giving statement in an Indian court. Suppose, even if he was Pakistani, it did not matter because he was a non-state actor, as non-state actors like smugglers and the militants are found in many countries.

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

It has clearly proved that Indian secret agencies; particularly RAW arranged coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai and orchestrated that drama only to defame Pakistan in the world, but also to fulfill a number of other sinister aims.

As a matter of fact, a lack of seriousness on India’s part to settle all disputes, especially Kashmir issue has compelled New Delhi to follow a self-contradictory and confused strategy towards Islamabad.

Hence, New Delhi earnestly found various pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the blame to Islamabad. For example, besides Mumbai attacks, in 2002, under the pretension of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India postponed the dialogue process.

In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab.

Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned militant outfits and intelligence agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that the attackers are from Indian-held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while Indian Punjab police chief claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified. Contradicting speculations, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the gunmen came from Pakistan.

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

Besides, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi, Indian intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting that a Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the boat on fire and it exploded. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, because, some Indian high officials admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

Similarly, India orchestrated the drama of militants’ attack at Indian Air Force Base in Pathankot on January 2, 2016. Indian media and top civil and military officials started claiming that the attackers had arrived from Pakistani Punjab’s Bahawalpur district, and had links with Jaish-e-Mohammad and ISI. But, despite Islamabad’s cooperation with New Delhi like formation of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) consisting of professionals to investigate the Pathankot attack, crackdown against the militant group Jaish-i-Mohammad—lodging of a First Information Report (FIR) in relation to the incident, India failed in providing any proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the Pathankot episode.

Indian authorities did not cooperate with Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team which visited India to probe into Pathankot attack. The JIT members visited Pathankot Airbase on March 29 where Indian National Investigation Agency officials briefed and showed them the route from where the attackers stormed the airbase. In fact, besides fulfilling other sinister designs against Pakistan, New Delhi staged that drama to postpone secretary-level talks with Pakistan, which were scheduled to be held in Islamabad on January 15, 2016.

Sources said that the lights along the 24-km perimeter wall of the Pathankot airbase found to be faulty on the eve of the attack. The Pakistani investigators were allowed to enter the military airbase from the narrow adjacent routes instead of main entrance and their duration of the visit was just 55 minutes, enough to take a mere walk through the airbase. The JIT could not collect evidence in this limited time. And the visiting team was only informed about the negligence of Boarder Security Force (BSF) and Indian forces. It was disclosed that at the time of the assault, the BSF was sleeping, even though they had been alerted of a possible attack 48 hours earlier.

India’s orchestrated drama of the Pathankot incident could also be judged from the fact that earlier, Indian Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had stated in confusion that New Delhi would not allow access to the JIT into the base, though it was allowed on very limited scale to fulfill the formality. It can undermine the seriousness of bilateral commitments to find the truth.

Continuing false flag operations, on Setember18, this year, India also staged the drama of the terror attack in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) at a military base in Uri, close to the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan.

Like the previous terrorism-related events, without any investigation, Indian media, civil and military high officials started blaming LeT and ISI, saying that the militants who target the Uri base came from Pakistan’s side of Azad Kashmir. In this regard, a senior Home Ministry official and a spokesman of the Indian army allegedly said, “It is clearly a case of cross-border terror attack…the militants infiltrated across the Line of Control from Pakistan before attacking the base in Uri.”

The situation developed in the aftermath of the Uri base terror assault like creation of Indian war hysteria against Pakistan, mobilization of troops near the LoC, exposure of the myth of Indian surgical strikes inside Azad Kashmir, differences between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Country’s Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Sing about the ‘fake video’ of this episode, criticism Modi government inside India, continuous violations at the LoC, targeting villages of Azad Kashmir etc., and diversion of attention from the new phase of uprising in the Indian held Kashmir where Indian security forces have martyred more than 100 innocent Kashmiris since July 8, 2016, who have been protesting against the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfew have clearly proved that with the help of Indian intelligence agencies, especially RAW, India has itself arranged the Uri base assault not only to defame Pakistan abroad, but also to achieve a number of sinister designs.

Nevertheless, all these terror attacks were planned by Indian security agencies to distort image of Pakistan and its primary intelligence agency, ISI, linking it with the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba. In these terms, coordinated terror assaults of November 26, 2008 in Mumbai were part of the same Indian scheme.

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

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Revisited Salala Attack

                                                      

                                                             By Sajjad Shaukat

On 26th of November 2011, the US-led NATO forces attacked two Pakistani check-posts on Pak-Afghan border and martyred 24 Pakistani military personnel indiscriminately. 

In this regard, two American Apache helicopters and two F-15 Eagle fighter jets targeted the two Pakistani posts, Boulder and Volcano, situated at Salala in the Baizai tehsil of Mohmand Agency. The airstrike was carried out in two phases.

Notably, the aerial attack was coordinated and deliberate, its second phase carried out by American forces after the Pakistan Army informed the ISAF command that their forces were attacking Pakistani troops–and despite this information, it continued.

In this context, a NATO inquiry said that both sides had made mistakes. Pakistan categorically rejected the inquiry report. It had earlier refused to be part of a joint inquiry. Top Pakistan Army officials denied the attack was unintentional.

Reacting to the Salala attack, Pakistan blocked the NATO ground lines of communication to Afghanistan and demanded an apology before the supply line would be unblocked.

Pakistan’s parliament unanimously approved recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) in connection with the re-engagement with the United States. Besides other matters, the recommendations included an immediate cessation of drone attacks and infiltration into Pakistani territory, entailing some conditions regarding supply to NATO forces in Afghanistan across the country. Besides, Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for November 26, 2011 unprovoked Salala check-posts assault.

Meanwhile, a number of American diplomats including NATO chief had visited Islamabad and met the then Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, asking them for re-opening the NATO routes. Setting aside the American pressure, they reiterated that parliament in light of the PCNS recommendations and the Defence Committee of Cabinet would decide on the issue of NATO supply, after negotiating new relationship with the US, based upon equality and non-violation of Pakistani territory.

When Pakistan government remained stern on its stand by keeping the NATO supply lines suspended for the six months in wake of US pressure tactics, on May 10, 2012, the United States House Armed Services Committee approved a bill that would prohibit the preferential procurement of goods or services from Pakistan until the “NATO supply lines are reopened.”

Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen suggested on May 11, 2012 that Pakistan could miss out on important talks on the future of Afghanistan, if it failed to reopen supply routes in time to secure a place at a NATO summit in Chicago on May 20-21, 2012. Indirectly, he disclosed that Pakistan would not be invited to participate in the summit.

On the other side, Prime Minister Gilani confirmed that the Defence Committee of the Cabinet, would debate as to how to repair relations with America in time to attend the NATO summit in Chicago or to boycott it. While, the British Defence Minister Phillip Hamond stated that negotiations on restoration of the NATO supply is progressing in the right direction, but Pakistan would not accept any pre-condition.

In these terms, Pak-US war of nerves accelerated due to American coercive diplomacy towards Islamabad coupled with its double game. In this regard, after the 9/11 tragedy, Pakistan joined the US war against terrorism as frontline state and Islamabad was granted the status of non-NATO ally by Washington because of its earlier successes achieved by Pakistan’s Army and country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) against the Al-Qaeda militants.

Within a few years, when the US-led NATO forces felt that they were failing in coping with the stiff resistance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they started false allegations against Pak Army and ISI of supporting the Afghan Taliban. US high officials and their media not only blamed Pakistan for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, but also continuously emphasized to ‘do more’ against the insurgents in tribal areas by ignoring the internal backlash in the country such as bomb basts and suicide attacks which killed thousands of innocent people and personnel of the security.

Cold war had already started between Pakistan and the United States when hundreds of CIA agents entered Pakistan under the guise of diplomats to destabilize the country. On January 11, 2011, Raymond Davis who was CIA agent killed two Pakistanis in Lahore.

Since May 2, 2011, Pak-US relations further deteriorated when without informing Islamabad, US commandos killed Osama Bin Laden in a covert military operation. Afterwards, tension intensified, as America continued its duress on Pakistan in wake of drone attacks on FATA, while brushing aside parliament’s resolution in this respect.

Differences also increased between Islamabad and Washington, because Pakistan’s superior agency, ISI interrupted covert activities of the American so-called diplomats. Notably, ISI thwarted the anti-Pakistan activities of the agents of Blackwater and CIA which had started recruiting Pakistani nationals who were vulnerable. In this connection, with the pre-information of ISI, Pakistan’s police and other security agencies arrested a number of secret agents. On many occasions, ISI helped in stopping the clandestine activities of the CIA spies who were displaying themselves as diplomats. On the information of this top spy agency, Pakistan’s establishment expelled several American spies operating in the country. On the other side, US withheld $800 million in military aid to punish its army and ISI.

It was due to the professional competence of ISI in foiling the anti-Pakistan plot that US and India including their media accelerated deliberate propaganda against ISI.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the November 26 incident in Mohmand Agency, Pakistan’s bold steps such as vacation of the Shamsi Airbase, boycott the second Bonn Conference and rejection of the US investigation report regarding the deliberate attack on Salala Army check-posts accelerated tension between Islamabad and Washington.

Some American top officials accused Pakistan-based Haqqani militants behind the well-coordinated attacks in Afghanistan, which occurred on April 15, 2012. US aim was to pressurize Islamabad for restoration of the NATO transit routes.

It is mentionable that confused in their goals, sometimes US high officials praised Pak sacrifices regarding war on terror, sometimes, admitted that stability cannot be achieved in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan after the withdrawal of foreign troops, sometimes, threatened Islamabad to abandon the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project and sometimes, realized that US wants to improve its relationship with Pakistan, but at the same time, they blame Islamabad for safe-havens of militants in the country. While in connivance with India and Israel, America has been continuing its anti-Pakistan activities by supporting militancy in Pakistan and separatism in Balochistan.

Nonetheless, after the Salala incident, Pak-US war of nerves continued, it took the relationship of both the countries to the point of no return. On July 3, 2012, Defence Committee of the Cabinet permitted NATO supplies across the country to Afghanistan after the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 by American air strike on Slalala check posts by saying “sorry”.

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

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Is the US Trying to Sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor?

Intentional or not, U.S. counterterror operations are pushing militants into Balochistan, the heart of CPEC.

By Ian Price

When the United States added Jamaat-ul-Ahrar (TTP-JA), a faction of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP), to the terror list in July 2016 following their claim of responsibility for a failed car bombing in Manhattan, it helped to push the group out of the tribal region of Pakistan and into areas that China was eying for their multibillion economic corridor project. This was part of a larger strategy that eventually created immeasurable headaches for both the security establishment in Islamabad and officials in Beijing, potentially causing billions of dollars in losses for both. Given Washington’s growing acrimonious ties with Pakistan and desire to constrain China’s expansion, this seems a fortuitous coincidence. But was it simply an unplanned consequence of Washington’s war on terror, or a calculated outcome set into motion specifically to keep Pakistan and China in check?

It’s no secret that Pakistan has fallen out of Washington’s good graces in recent times. The current dip in relations culminated in a U.S. bill introduced on September 20 seeking to officially designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. Pakistan has also seen the writing on the wall, allegedly using their networks to disrupt progress in Afghanistan and cozying up to China as a new source for weapons and economic growth. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), for which China announced nearly $50 billion in funding in late 2014, would be the triumph of their growing relationship. This was certainly unwelcome news for the United States, who had a cautious eye on both countries, but there was no way for Washington to directly intervene. Indirectly, however, Washington seems to have succeeded in meddling with the project through a recent intensification of operations in east Afghanistan.

When the TTP-JA was added to the U.S. State Department’s global terrorist list, it significantly expanded Washington’s options for dealing with the organization. The United States has already used drone strikes against designated Taliban groups in a number of instances, including a May 21 strike in Pakistan’s Balochistan that killed TTP leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour and a November 2015 strike that killed another commander, Khan Saeed, in the Khost province of Afghanistan. As illustrated by precedents involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, and various Islamic State (ISIS) holdings, when the United States puts a group on the list, they intend to target it aggressively.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

At the same time, security forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan aren’t sitting idly by, waving to drones as they buzz overhead and leaving all of the work for the Americans. In the last week of July alone, joint U.S.-Afghan operations killed an estimated 300 ISIS militants in eastern Afghanistan. In Pakistan, security forces have launched no less than three large-scale operations against TTP elements in the Federally Administered Tribal Region (FATA) that borders Balochistan, also reportedly killing hundreds militants since they began in 2014. Operation Khyber 3, launched on August 17, claimed 14 militant lives in its opening salvo.

Now, where can the militants run? Traditionally, Kabul and Islamabad both blame the other for abetting TTP and other terrorist groups in their borders, and to an extent both are correct. The porous border region between the two countries is much like the wild west, and terrorists enjoy a relatively large amount of freedom of movement in the less secure areas. As Pakistan turns up the heat in the FATA, militants are pushed into Afghanistan, and vice versa when Afghanistan kicks up operations. Now, with nowhere to run on either side of the border, many tribal militants are now making a home for themselves in nearby Balochistan.

Unlike in traditional Taliban strongholds, Balochistan’s security arrangements are much less comprehensive. The same areas in Quetta, Balochistan’s capital city, are targeted over and over and over despite, or perhaps because of, headway in the FATA. And while the dominant ethnic group of the province is Baloch, there is still a sizable Pashtun population in northern Balochistan to blend into, including in and around Quetta. Balochistan also has its own border with Afghanistan that militants can move through.

Not only are TTP-JA and other Taliban elements being pushed into Balochistan, but they are now more actively carrying out attacks, which is hardly an unpredictable consequence. Between their founding in 2007 and when the United States added the TTP to the terror list on September 1, 2010, the TTP had claimed or is believed to have carried out at least 16 attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and elsewhere that resulted in an estimated 370 deaths. After their addition to America’s global terror list, the TTP carried out approximately 32 attacks over the next three years, resulting in almost 700 more deaths. That is a 2:1 ratio in the frequency of attacks and amount of victims killed for the three year periods before and after the designation.

It would be a gross oversimplification to suggest that the uptick in activity was owed solely to American forces targeting the TTP in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but many of the attacks claimed by the TTP were stated to be retaliatory measures against U.S. strikes carried out in the area. It certainly suggests, at the very least, that Washington’s targeting of the TTP both drove them further out of their traditional areas of influence, and challenged them to retaliate for the losses that they accrued.

The pattern has begun to repeat itself with the TTP-JA. In no small part thanks to the dual squeeze put on the group by the U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan combined with the ongoing Pakistani Khyber operations, the TTP-JA has already increased their activity in Balochistan. Before July, the TTP-JA had claimed or is believed to have been responsible for six attacks resulting in approximately 160 deaths. In August and September alone, the TTP-JA is believed to have already carried out five attacks resulting in a further 135 deaths, mostly in Quetta. The beginnings of a worrisome trend, to be sure, but more importantly it illustrates that when the United States begins targeting new militant groups along the Afghan-Pakistani border, the result predicatively appears to be an increase in terror in Pakistan. It’s simple math, and no doubt was at least part of the overall decision-making calculus behind commencing operations against the TTP-JA to begin with. If the security and intelligence establishments in the United States consider this outcome to be an unfortunate part of doing business or a deliberate means to an altogether different end still remains an open question.

The border squeeze has certainly complicated matters for China and their CPEC project. China’s concerns over Balochistan’s security are longstanding, and recent developments have done little to raise Beijing’s confidence. In order to protect Chinese workers in the country, Pakistan has promised to raise a security force of 15,000. This would include 9,000 regular Army soldiers in addition to 6,000 more paramilitary personnel. As part of the plan,manpower will be drawn not only from Balochistan but also other provinces, including from local police forces. Sindh province has already voiced disapproval over the security measures, which they say intrude on their rights. Not surprisingly, other provinces appear to be reticent to commit soldiers to places like Balochistan, the most dangerous province and soon-to-be home of the juiciest terror targets in the country once construction is in full swing.

The Pakistani government knows that it is facing an uphill battle, and so does China for that matter. In July, five projects worth billions were already on the chopping block due to their slow start and Pakistan’s inability to provide adequate security. As recently as September 28, Pakistani media was reporting about China’s dissatisfaction with the current security arrangements for the corridor and how this will affect the project’s overall timeline.

China has good reason to be worried. There have been a number of attacks against Chinese laborers, engineers, and businessmen in Balochistan and throughout the country since 2001. Not only that, but China has already poured in a reported $14 billion into the CPEC project already. All of this weighs particularly heavy on the heads of Pakistani government officials who can’t afford any more delays, as billions of dollars hang in the balance for both countries.

And that is the crux of the argument. Because of the upswing in terror and the degradation of the security situation in Balochistan, Pakistan and China risk losing billions over delays and cancellations for the CPEC project. The security situation owes to, in no small part, the pushback that the TTP-JA and other groups have received from the United States and her allies in eastern Afghanistan this summer. To put it more bluntly, the United States has contributed to the degradation of security in Balochistan, a key region for CPEC projects, risking billions for China and Pakistan and putting a strain on their bilateral relations. It would have been easy to predict this outcome, as many observers have. So this ultimately raises a very interesting question: Was the United States banking on increased violence in Balochistan all along?

Ian Price works as a South Asia intelligence analyst for a private company in Tel Aviv, Israel. He holds a master’s degree from Tsinghua University in Beijing on the subject of Chinese Politics and Foreign Policy.