Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for February, 2017

We want Separation from India; Battle for Gorkhaland

 

 

At hoist, three yellow stars placed in a triangle pointing downward, at fly a yellow “dagger”. Here is an update about Gorkhaland and the flag of the Gorkha National Liberation Front. … The flag of the Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF) was designed 26 years ago by Amar Lama.Feb 27, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gorkhaland – the second coming

In the sleepy Himalayan towns of West Bengal, India, an old agitation for Gorkha statehood is revived and ‘resolved’. Ann Morgan reports on a fascinating struggle (which Western readers may only know of as the backdrop to the Booker prize-winning novel The Inheritance of Loss.)

West Bengal, by judepics under a CC Licence

You can’t make out the place where the severed heads used to hang along the main road in Kalimpong anymore. But the memory of the violent campaign for a separate Indian state that shook this picturesque town in the foothills of the Himalayas 25 years ago remains.

‘The state government fired upon the people of Kalimpong, just 100 yards from here,’ says local guesthouse and orchid nursery owner Norden Pemahishey, recalling one of the most violent days, 27 July 1986. ‘I witnessed that. One of my neighbors got shot. At that time the police had those second world war infantry rifles. They are nasty pieces of work. Just a small hole here and it blows you apart.

‘My dad and I took out our jeep to take the wounded,’ he continues. ‘No one else came out. We had seven or eight people with these bullet holes in one jeep. You can imagine the blood gushing out. By the time we’d crossed into town, people saw our jeep going through to the hospital. Then all hell broke loose. They attacked the police station and massive firing took place. Officially I think 22 people died on that day, but unofficially it was a lot more. That was Gorkhaland part one.’

Since a fresh separatist campaign launched in 2007, many have feared that Gorkhaland part two might go much the same way. So this June, when West Bengal’s first female chief minister, Mamata Banerjee, announced that she had ‘resolved’ the Gorkhaland issue less than three weeks after she and her Trinamool Congress party swept to victory in the north-east Indian state’s elections, ending 34 years of communist rule, it seemed as though the state’s new leader was making a habit of achieving the impossible.

The news came after just two days of talks between Banerjee and representatives from the Darjeeling region’s new ruling party Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM; literally Gorkha People’s Liberation Campaign). The fine details of the deal, which has yet to be formalized with the Indian government, will be thrashed out over the coming months, but the pact will involve the establishment of a newly elected body to administrate the Darjeeling hills and certain other – as yet unconfirmed – neighbouring districts, and promises investment in development for this hitherto neglected region. Already, the GJM has hailed it as the foundation for establishing Gorkhaland.

It’s an astonishingly rapid solution to a dispute that has rumbled on in one form or another for more than 100 years, and is bound up with the shifting boundaries that have seen land and people passed back and forth between India, Nepal, the British Empire and the various independent kingdoms that used to hold sway in the region.

Matters of state

In the 1980s, when the term ‘Gorkhaland’ came into common parlance, the campaign for a separate state for Gorkhas – loosely defined as the descendants of the Nepali Gorkhas who were drafted into the British and later Indian armies – was spearheaded by Subhash Ghising’s Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF). The violence then saw an estimated 1,200 people killed in the space of two years and only ended in 1988 when an agreement was signed between the West Bengal government and the GNLF.

Like the deal between Banerjee and the GJM, this paved the way for the formation of a semi-autonomous body with a mandate to administrate the Darjeeling hills. The GNLF painted it as the first step on the road to a separate state, but as time passed, rumors of corruption within the party and a growing sense that the ideal of Gorkhaland had been sacrificed for lesser concessions fuelled discontent.

Rumors of corruption within the party and a growing sense that the ideal of Gorkhaland had been sacrificed for lesser concessions fuelled discontent

In 2008, the newly formed GJM drove Subhash Ghisingh and his supporters out of the hills and began a new separatist movement, which saw them winning resounding victories in all four seats they contested in the recent elections. Anxious to play down any parallels between their campaign and the GNLF’s, and perhaps now between their deal with the West Bengal government and the one struck in 1988, the GJM are quick to stress the contrast between their methods and those of their predecessors.

‘This time, our agitation is a Gandhian, non-violent agitation,’ says Suva Pradhan, General Secretary of the GJM’s Kalimpong Subcommittee. ‘We did not cooperate with the [former] West Bengal government. We are not paying any taxes. No one in the whole area has paid any taxes for three years. We have organized hunger strikes to open up a dialogue with the government.’

He goes on to explain that the campaign for Gorkhaland grew out of the cultural, linguistic and emotional differences between West Bengal’s hill people and those living on the plains in the rest of the state.

Here, ethnic Nepalis, including Gorkhas, make up the majority. Nepali, or Gorkhali as some campaigners are anxious to brand the local dialect, is the most common language. Many people can trace their roots in the area back five generations to the first Nepalese workers brought into labor on the Darjeeling tea plantations, although, because of the freedom of movement permitted between the two nations under the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, they often possess neither Indian nor Nepalese citizenship papers. This has given rise to a sense of statelessness which the GJM is keen to address, bolstered by their belief that the historical contribution of the British and Indian gurkhas makes a compelling case for giving them administrative control over the region.

The faithful and the brave

‘The Gorkhas of Darjeeling, the Gorkhas of India, the Gorkhas residing anywhere in the world have always been recognized as the most faithful, most loyal, most brave people,’ says Pradhan. ‘They have fought the battles of different countries. They have protected this country for generations. Now their homeland is being colonized by Bengal, by people who only want to extract benefit from here. The Gorkhas should get their due. They should get justice which is overdue now.’

As well as non-payment of taxes, hunger strikes and bandhs (enforced region-wide shut-downs of roads and services which have crippled the local economy in recent years), the GJM’s ‘non-violent’ tactics include the establishment of the Gorkhaland Personnel (GLP). Uniformed, equipped with batons, and drilled in martial arts, this is an 18,000-strong organization of 16-21-year-olds, all of whom have been trained by ex-commandos and can be mobilized within 48 hours. They patrol the streets in parallel with the West Bengal police, often ‘arresting’ people for disorder or drunkenness.

At the Kalimpong training camp, located at the empty Chest Clinic, Retired Major SP Warner, the General Secretary of the GLP, is proud of what his organization has achieved.

‘It is the brainchild of Bimal Gurung,’ he says, sitting beneath a large framed photograph of the party leader. ‘It is the first time we ex-servicemen have been invited to join the party. Our main part of the agitation is we control the civilians – the action they take. We control them a lot. We stop them becoming violent. That is the point of us.

‘Our agitation is a Gandhian, non-violent agitation. We did not cooperate with the [former] West Bengal government. We are not paying any taxes. No one in the whole area has paid any taxes for three years’

‘It’s not for fighting. We have proved this many times. The inspector general of police said that many times. He got fed up with me. I took him to the camp. He supervised the camp. Then he gave his word: “ah, yes, no arms training is taking place”. Previously he was saying that the arms training was taking place. I said, “no, see for yourself, but please do not give the wrong information”.’

He points out that, with unemployment and drug addiction rife in the region, the GLP provides much-needed opportunities for young men and women, for whom discipline and physical fitness is very valuable. Many people believe in it. So much so that the trainees’ 1,500 rupee monthly salaries (about $34), clothes and food costs are paid for purely by ‘supporters’ – he himself gives 100 rupees a month towards the effort, he says. Quite who the other supporters are is unclear, although in the narrow strip of India caught between the troubled nation of Nepal, Bangladesh and the states of Bhutan and Sikkim – the subject of an angry dispute between India and China – the list of possible donors to an unofficial youth movement trained by ex-military men is long.

And, for all the rigorous drilling and training, the Major says he cannot rule out violence in certain circumstances.

‘As far as possible we will not permit that to take place. But can we? Because the youngsters of today – you can control them to a certain point, a certain stage, and after that, it will be very difficult,’ he shrugs.

The limits of control

In February, there was an example of what that certain point might be when three young GLP members died when police opened fire during a rally, in Shibsu. The resulting backlash saw police buildings and buses torched. As yet, there has been no inquiry and, given past incidents of alleged policy of brutality, such as the beatings at the Siliguri Rally in 2008, there seems to be a reluctance to investigate, as local Gorkha TV journalist Sandhya Pradhan found when she went to the scene of the deaths.

‘They have thrown plastic tarpaulins over the area so no-one can put any memorial to the people who have been shot,’ she says. ‘They don’t want to see the area where it happened. The blood is still there on the spot. They want to cover it up.’

A passionate supporter of Gorkhaland, which she says she needs ‘like a mother’, she shows me around a puja (Hindu ritual worship) site set up for people to come and pray for Gorkhaland in the run-up to the elections. Two large pyramid frames, wrapped round with flowers and decorations stand over coals where offerings of rice, spices, and food can be made to Ganesha, the elephant god revered as the remover of obstacles. On a table in the far corner stand pictures of Jesus Christ and some Buddhist lamas, as a nod to some of the other religions in the area.

Diktats and defiance

Although the Nepali Gorkhas are in the majority, the hills around Darjeeling are home to a wide variety of ethnic and cultural groups, partly as a result of the area’s complicated political history, which has seen boundaries drawn and redrawn across the region. Kalimpong itself has a sizeable Tibetan refugee community, while members of various indigenous hill tribes make up a considerable proportion of the population. Chief among these is the Lepcha tribe, whose members account for 12 percent of residents. Though generally committed to the idea of a separate hill state, for which provision was made in the 1947 Indian constitution, they are anxious that their interests and ancient traditions are not being represented.

‘You can’t have one state to create an identity for one community. There is no such thing. We all are Indian. We are Indian and that is the bottom line’

‘The Gorkhas have a right to demand Gorkhaland but that does not mean that the Lepchas support the nomenclature,’ says Dorjeet Lepcha, President of the Lepcha Youth Association and Coordinator of the Lepcha Rights Movement. ‘We want something inclusive, like “Darjeeling”. You can’t have one state to create an identity for one community. There is no such thing. We all are Indian. We are Indian and that is the bottom line.’

In 2008, the Lepcha community opposed a diktat from the GJM that all hill people should wear Gorkha dress for one calendar month as part of the separatist campaign. The party relaxed that requirement for Lepchas, but the Gorkha bias remained.

Frustrated at their community’s lack of political representation, the Lepcha Association called for all Lepchas to abstain from the recent elections. However, they were keen to stress that this action ‘is neither against any community nor against any political party but an expression of the circumstance [sic] of Lepcha Community at present’, in an official statement.

They are right to be careful. It is only a year since Madan Tamang, leader of the moderate Akhil Bharatiya [All India] Gorkha League party, was set upon and hacked to death by a mob who tried to cut off his head at a public meeting in Darjeeling, allegedly after he had criticized some of the GJM’s methods.

With the name Gorkhaland painted on every shop sign and plastered on posters and graffiti on the very street where the heads of Gorkhaland skeptics once hung, it seems that, no matter what Banerjee has agreed, Gorkhaland is here to stay.

Ann Morgan is a freelance journalist.

 

, , ,

No Comments

School Buses Scam -15 MAJOR CRIMES of Nawaz Sharif

School Buses Drama

 

 

 

Sharif

15 MAJOR CRIMES of Nawaz Sharif


1. SUPPORTING ZARDARI (2008-2011)
2. Giving Mujahidin List to India (1997)
3. Secret deal with Musharraf (Copy available on BBC Urdu website)
4. Corruption of 55 Arab Rupees to London (BBC News Documentary)
5. Money laundering 43 Arab Rs to Saudi Arab (Capitalism’s Achilles Heel Book)
6. Corruption of 40 Arab Rs in Motorway (BBC News documentary)
7. Corruption of 25 Arab Rs in Sasti Roti (Daily Express 13.03.2013)
8. Corruption of 13.5 Arab Rs in Yellow Cab Scheme (Daily Jang 29.04.2013)
9. Corruption of 29 Arab Rs in Metro Bus Scheme (Off the Record 05.03.2013)
10. Corruption of 18 Arab Rs in Karachi Shipyard Scam (1998)
11. Attack on Supreme Court (1997)
12. Beating Chief Justice with Shoes (1997)
13. Hudaibiya Paper Mill scam (1996)
14. Corruption of 22 Arab Rs reserved for Electricity Production (Punjab Budget 2012)
15. Secret Deal with Zardari

,

No Comments

Edward Snowden: A Man of Conscience & An Interview with Amy Goodman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmZpMqMxo2Q

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In our extended conversation, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald responds to claims NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations helped Russia, and examines what actions the Trump administration may take against him and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. “Exactly the same playbook was used against [Daniel] Ellsberg that is now being used against Snowden, which is to say, ’Don’t listen to these disclosures. Don’t regard this person as a hero for exposing our corruption and lawbreaking. Focus instead on the fact that these are traitors working with our enemies,’” says Greenwald. “And just as it was completely false in the case of Ellsberg, so too is it completely false in the case of Snowden.”


TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: We continue our conversation with Glenn Greenwald, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and founding editor of The Intercept. I spoke with him on Thursday with Democracy Now!’s Nermeen Shaikh.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to turn to an op-ed published last week in The Wall Street Journal titled “The Fable of Edward Snowden.” It was written by journalist Edward Jay Epstein, whose upcoming book, How America Lost Its Secrets: Edward Snowden, the Man and the Theft, it will be published later this month. In the article, Epstein writes, quote, “It was not the quantity of Mr. Snowden’s theft but the quality that was most telling. Mr. Snowden’s theft put documents at risk that could reveal the NSA’s Level 3 tool kit—a reference to documents containing the NSA’s most-important sources and methods. Since the agency was created in 1952, Russia and other adversary nations had been trying to penetrate its Level-3 secrets without great success. Yet it was precisely these secrets that Mr. Snowden changed jobs to steal.” Now, that’s what Edward Jay Epstein wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

In response to the article, journalist Barton Gellman issued several tweets discrediting the piece, including writing, quote, “Snowden, Epstein book says, reached unreachable ‘Level 3’ secrets that only a spy could want.” But “[t]here’s no such category at the NSA.” So, Glenn Greenwald, could you talk about that? And respond to this forthcoming book on Snowden.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, first of all, it’s a huge irony, because, as we just discussed, Democratic partisans spent the last week trying to turn me into a Breitbart admirer, and at the same time many of these same Democratic partisans were heralding this attack on Snowden by Edward Jay Epstein. Who is Edward Jay Epstein? He is a longtime neocon who’s written forever for The Wall Street Journal op-ed page, probably the most right-wing organ within the mainstream American media outlet. But he’s also a writer for Breitbart. He has written multiple articles for Breitbart. And so, at the same time that these Democrats are accusing me of being a Breitbart supporter, they’re heralding an article, a smear, by a Breitbart writer.

Beyond that, the theme of this article and the theme of his book—and, obviously, we can’t detail all the falsehoods here. I encourage you to go look at what Bart Gellman posted online, who said there’s so many falsehoods that he doesn’t even have time to discredit them all. But the central theme is essentially to insinuate that, all along, Edward Snowden was an operative of Russia, that he was really just a Russian spy, he wasn’t a whistleblower, he wasn’t acting out of conscience or anything else. And I just want to say two things about that. Number one, even CIA and NSA officials, who hate Edward Snowden with a burning passion, have publicly repudiated this theory over and over. They have said, “We have no evidence to believe that Snowden ever worked with the Russian government, either before he leaked these secrets or after.” And, in fact, the former CIA chief, Mike Morell, said, “I believe that both the Chinese and the Russians tried to get Snowden to share information with them, and Snowden said, ‘I absolutely will not share anything with you,’ because of his disdain for intelligence agencies in general.” So, if you are going even more extreme than both the NSA and CIA in saying bad things about Edward Snowden, that shows how far off the rails you actually have gone.

The other thing that I would say is that what is being done to Edward Snowden by The Wall Street Journal and Breitbart, these sort of far-right organs that Democratic Party partisans are now cheering, is exactly what it’s done to all whistleblowers, beginning with Daniel Ellsberg. If you go back and look at what The New York Times was reporting in 1971 about Daniel Ellsberg after he leaked the Pentagon Papers, John Ehrlichman, one of the top domestic policy aides to Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger, at the time Nixon’s national security adviser, continually said that they believed that Daniel Ellsberg was a Soviet spy, that before giving the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times he had given them to the Kremlin. Exactly the same playbook was used against Ellsberg that is now being used against Snowden, which is to say, “Don’t listen to these disclosures. Don’t regard this person as a hero for exposing our corruption and lawbreaking. Focus instead on the fact that these are traitors working with our enemies.” And just as it was completely false in the case of Ellsberg, so too is it completely false in the case of Snowden.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think will happen with Edward Snowden under a Donald Trump administration? And then, what do you think will happen with Julian Assange, who’s being cited now by Trump as having the accurate information all of the—over all of the 17 intelligence agencies?

GLENN GREENWALD: So, I think, certainly, it’s unclear. I mean, I think there’s this assumption that because Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have been saying positive things about one another, and there’s connections between the Trump campaign and various Russian interests, that that means there’s going to be this flowering détente between the two countries, and this great relationship is going to emerge, and they’re going to become allies. And that’s certainly possible. It may be that there is an alliance between the U.S. and Russia against China as a struggle for power and imperialism ensues. It’s also the case—and as part of that, if that really does happen, one of the fears that some people have is that, as part of the kind of coming together of the U.S. and Russia, that Trump will be able to persuade Putin to hand Snowden over as kind of a gift, as something that Trump can show to the American people: “Look, I got my hands on Snowden, when Obama was unable to do so.” And that certainly is a concern.

But I think that’s a little bit of a superficial view, because the animosity between the American political class and intelligence community, on the one hand, and the Russian political class and intelligence community, on the other, is very ingrained. It has existed for decades. It is entrenched and systemic and cultural. And I think there is a very good likelihood that those entities, which most certainly do not want détente between Russia and the United States, will find ways to undermine and subvert this agenda. And it’s very easy to see that the U.S. and the Soviet—and Russia can once again sort of become at loggerheads and resume this animosity. So I don’t think we know what’s going to happen with Snowden.

As for Assange, I mean, remember, the reason he’s in the Ecuadorean Embassy is not, in the first instance, because the U.S. is trying to get their hands on him. It’s because Sweden has these pending charges against him, that various courts in the U.K. and the EU have upheld the validity of. And so, I don’t really see how Trump can alter that, can change that dynamic. That’s one of the tragedies, is I don’t see an exit for Julian Assange exiting the Ecuadorean Embassy without facing those charges in Sweden. What the position of Assange and Ecuador has always been was that if the U.S. or Sweden agree that his going to Sweden won’t result in his extradition to the U.S., he will go on the next flight and face those charges. So, if the Trump administration says, “We have no interest in extraditing Julian Assange,” if they end the grand jury that’s been pending against WikiLeaks, that I could see as a potential resolution. He goes to Sweden. He faces the charges against him. If he’s convicted, he gets imprisoned. If he’s acquitted, he’s free.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go to another recent piece of yours on Assange headlined “The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False.” In the piece, you cite a passage from a recent interview with Julian Assange conducted by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. You then point out the distortion of Assange’s words in the account given by Guardian journalist Ben Jacobs.

Assange’s precise words in the interview are worth citing at length. When asked about his response to Trump’s election, he said in the interview, quote, “Hillary Clinton’s election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider, he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better,” end-quote.

So, could you explain, Glenn Greenwald, how Assange’s response was conveyed in the Guardian article, the Guardian article which was headlined “Julian Assange gives guarded praise of Trump and blasts Clinton in interview”? Of course, The Guardian subsequently posted a correction to the piece.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. So let me just take a step back. I mean, I obviously worked at The Guardian when I did the Snowden reporting. I have a lot of respect for the reporters and editors there. They do a lot of great reporting. But one of their big flaws as an institution is they develop personal feuds with people they cover. And when that happens, they dispense with all journalistic standards. So, one of the people who they have particular hatred for is Jeremy Corbyn. And over and over, they have produced journalistic garbage about Corbyn in pursuit of their feud. The other—probably the only person they despise more than Jeremy Corbyn is Julian Assange, with whom they had once worked and then had a huge falling out with. It’s very personal and acrimonious. And whenever The Guardian reports on Julian Assange, all journalistic standards get thrown out of the window.

And this article was a perfect example. There’s not just a correction; there’s actually a retraction at the bottom of that article now, because they claimed, with zero evidence, that WikiLeaks has had a long-standing, close relationship with the Putin regime, as they called it. That has now been deleted from the story. They also claimed that Julian Assange praised Russia for having a free and vibrant press, and that therefore there was no need for whistleblowing, when in fact he said nothing of the sort. He simply said that the reason why Russian leakers don’t go to WikiLeaks, as opposed to other outlets in Russia, is because WikiLeaks doesn’t speak Russian and has no presence in the Russian media landscape, and therefore isn’t viewed as a good option for a Russian whistleblower. They also corrected their total distortion of what he said.

What they also said, which is what you just asked me about, was they tried to make it seem like Julian Assange was a fan of Donald Trump, that he was praising Trump at the expense of Hillary Clinton. And as the quote that you just read proves, he wasn’t praising Trump at all. He was simply neutrally describing what he thought would be the consequence, the fallout, of the Trump presidency—namely, that Trump isn’t a part of the traditional power structure in Washington, which is why the traditional power structure in Washington is so horrified at his victory and why they’re so disoriented and scared, that instead he’s creating a new power structure filled with rich people who are corrupt, but that because it’s new, it’s going to take some time to become entrenched. And in that process, there will be instability. And that instability will enable some positive outcomes and also some very negative ones. He was just describing his predictions for what the fallout would be of a Trump presidency, by no means praising Trump. But The Guardian was trying to feed this narrative that Assange is a Trump fan, that he loves Russia, that he serves Putin. That was the whole point of the article. This was another article that really went viral all over the internet, and the key claims ended up collapsing. They had to retract and correct several of the key claims. And, of course, none of those corrections or retractions went anywhere near as far as the original false claims themselves did.

AMY GOODMAN: During his Fox News interview, Julian Assange said the Obama administration is implicating Russia in the leaks to delegitimize Trump.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that has been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimize a Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try—they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president.

AMY GOODMAN: Your thoughts on this, Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: So, I do think there’s an element of truth to this, which is that if you look, for example, at the agency that has led the way in pushing these allegations about Russia, which is the CIA, there is no question that the CIA—the community of the CIA was vehemently in support of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy and, with equal vehemence, opposed to Donald Trump. The two leading members of the CIA community, former CIA Director Michael Morell, who served under President Obama, and former CIA Director General Hayden, who served under President Bush, both endorsed Hillary Clinton, one in The Washington Post, the other in The New York Times. And when they did so, they both attacked Donald Trump with a viciousness that is very rare, claiming that he essentially had been turned into, converted and recruited into a tool of Putin. The CIA was very aggressively in favor of Hillary Clinton’s victory. And there’s a lot of different reasons for that, but I think the primary one is that the CIA proxy war in Syria is something that Hillary Clinton had promised not just to support, but to escalate. She was very critical of Obama for restraining the CIA’s effort to support these rebels and to remove Assad, while Trump took the exact opposite position, saying, “We have no business trying to change the government of Syria. We ought to let Russia run free in Syria, kill ISIS, kill whoever else they want to kill, because we have no interest. We should keep Assad and Russia in charge of Syria.” There were other reasons, as well. So there’s no question the CIA was a political actor behind the Hillary Clinton presidency and against Donald Trump’s.

And since then, Trump has attacked the CIA. He’s pointed out that they’re unreliable, that they lied about WMDs. And just yesterday, Chuck Schumer went on The Rachel Maddow Show, and she asked him about this conflict between the CIA and Trump. And he said something incredibly important and very revealing. He said, “It is really stupid of Trump, just from a perspective of self-interest, to go to war with the intelligence community, because they have six different ways to Sunday to destroy you if you stand up to them,” which is something that people have known forever, that the deep state can destroy even politicians who are supposed to be more powerful than they are. So I think a lot of this is exactly what Julian said, which is the CIA is attempting to undermine and subvert Trump because they never wanted him to be president in the first place, and they’re now trying to weaken and subvert his agenda, that they oppose.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

 

, , ,

No Comments

Pakistan’s MIRVs prowess Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Pakistan Observer

Pakistan’s MIRVs prowess

 

by

Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal

 

 

THE sustainability and durability of sovereign defense necessitate perpetual contemplation of the making of modern strategy, the invention of the new weapons, and investment in the defense industry. Pakistan’s mastery in the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) technology would be having a constructive contribution in its sovereign defense arrangement of the state.
Indeed, Ababeel ballistic missile invention and testing manifest that Pakistani military planners are cognizant of the fundamentals of the sovereign defense. Pakistan conducted successfully the first ever test of its new medium-range, surface-to-surface, ballistic missile Ababeel on January 24, 2017. The Ababeel missile is a new entry in Pakistan’s missile arsenal. It uses the MIRV to deliver multiple conventional and nuclear warheads. The MIRV is a very sophisticated missile technology. Except for a few technologically advanced nations (United States, Russian Federation and China) majority of ballistic missile capable states, lack MIRV capability. Though India did not conduct the test of a ballistic missile having MIRV features, yet it is capable of employing Agni-III and Agni-V for the MIRVs mission. Moreover, India’s Defence Research and Development Organization had already demonstrated India’s capability to introduce MIRVs in its missile arsenal. It had launched multiple satellites from one booster rocket.

The Ababeel missile has a maximum range of 1,367 miles and is capable of carrying multiple warheads. Photo courtesy of Pakistan’s Inter Service Public Relations

 

 

 

 

 
The MIRVs is an important force multiplier Vehicle because it provides an option to deliver multiple warheads with a single missile. Hence, it enables the striking power to engage multiple targets with a high level of precision with a few missiles. It simultaneously disrupts or destroys the radars of the adversary. It is very effective against the state, which deploys ballistic missile defense systems. It was rightly opined that: “If a state is worried about the survivability of its limited missile force and anticipates significant attrition of that force by the adversary, MIRVs provide multiple warheads with which to retaliate for every missile that does survive.” Precisely, it is a cost-effective weapon to defeat missile shield.
The Ababeel with a range of 2,200 kilometers — three times the distance between Islamabad and New Delhi — having the capacity to engage multiple targets and thereby it would be very lethal for the Indian defenses. Michael Krepon rightly pointed out that: “If New Delhi decides to absorb the costs of ballistic missile defenses for high-value targets, along with the radars to accompany BMD deployments, these expenses will be in vain.” In simple words, Ababeel is a dependable ballistic missile to neutralize India’s ballistic missile defense shield.
The development of MIRV manifests Islamabad’s steady progression from counter-value to counter-force targeting potential for the sake of credible full spectrum nuclear deterrence strategy. Ankit Panda pointed out: “a MIRVed Pakistani strategic capability may stand as a powerful deterrent to India’s retaliatory capabilities, freeing Pakistan up to use battlefield nuclear weapons as a war-terminating strategy without concerning itself with escalation to the strategic level.” Indeed, the MIRVed strategic capability would enhance the National Command Authority’s confidence in continuing the centralized command and control system of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
In the parlance of strategic theories, an introduction of MIRVs would be having both stabilizing and destabilizing consequences. The general perception is that the MIRVs in Pakistani arsenal sustain the prevailing strategic parity with New Delhi, which the latter desires to destabilize. If history is a reliable guide, with the testing of Ababeel, India is likely to do so as well. India’s placing of MIRVs atop its ballistic missile would intensify the current costly arms race between the belligerent neighbors. In theory, an arms race is perilous for the strategic stability. Therefore, it’s imperative for both Islamabad and New Delhi to act rationally and negotiate bilateral strategic arms control treaty for the durability of strategic stability in the subcontinent.
Pakistan has been endeavoring to sustain the credibility of its deterrence strategy. Therefore, it is currently investing in ensuring the second-strike capability and also improving the penetrating potential of its nuclear-capable vehicles. The development of both Babur-3, submarine launched cruise missile and Ababeel would relieve Islamabad from “use-it-or-lose-it” dilemma. However, it would not be misread that Islamabad would alter its nuclear first use doctrine. The conventional asymmetry between India and Pakistan obliges the latter to retain its first use the nuclear option in its nuclear doctrine despite the progression in its second strike capability. To conclude, Islamabad’s vigilant defense planning not only withstands the strategic equilibrium between India and Pakistan but also ensures the sustainability of strategic stability in South Asia.
— The writer is Associate Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Email: [email protected]

 

 

, , ,

No Comments