Who are playing with Balochistan?

India has established nine training camps along the Afghan border, where training members of the Balochistan Liberation Army ( BLA), and the UAE was supporting the insurgency in opposition to the construction of Gwadar port.

India, Russia, UAE support Baloch insurgency

India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are involved in the insurgency in Balochistan, revealed a new WikiLeaks cable release.

According to the cable, India has established nine training camps along the Afghan border, where they were training members of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), and the UAE was supporting the insurgency in opposition to the construction of Gwadar port

A cable sent from the United States Embassy in Islamabad revealed that Director General (DG) Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha had given a briefing during a closed session of the parliament.

The cable reads: that Pasha’s briefing consisted in large part of videos and photos of Taliban and other terrorist organization activities that demonstrated the militants were both inhumane and un-Islamic.

At several points, certain female parliamentarians asked the Army to stop showing disturbing footage, including a gory beheading. Members were told that India has established nine training camps along the Afghan border, where they are training members of the Baloch Liberation Army. According to sources, Pasha also claimed that India and the UAE (reportedly due to opposition to construction of the Gwadar port) were funding and arming the Baloch. Pasha also claimed that the Russian government was directly involved in funding/training/supporting the insurgency.

An unnamed parliamentarian had spoken to US Ambassador Anne Patterson about the briefing.

The briefing by DG ISI was given from October 8 to 9 in 2008, during a closed joint session summoned by President Asif Ali Zardari to address the security situation in the country. The Qustion & Answer session, which was originally scheduled for 30 minutes, lasted four hours___________________________________________________

By Hamid Waheed

THE Political leadership seems to be rightly focused on most vital issue being faced by Pakistan, cohesion amongst its federating units. Balochistan has assumed multidimensional importance on national as well as international forums. Aghaz Haqook-e-Balochistan to address Political, economic and social deprivation of Balochis is a step in same direction.
Balochistan in its vast area, full of natural resources holds treasures of hidden secrets, the hidden hands of the friends and foe. Latest trends of flowery words, moulding ideas, building perceptions, media handling and cyber net management has played a dominant role in turning friends to look foe and vice versa. Why all this with Balochistan only? The answer lies in vested interest of regional and global powers due to its geographical location. Whereas having national interest and pursuing it with government of Pakistan, like Gwadar port is a win-win situation for both nations. The covert hands supporting Militancy, from within and through safe havens provided to the militants in different countries is an unfriendly behaviours leading to destabilization of Pakistan. It is not a secret now that of Government of Balochistan in exile (GOB Exile) established by militants in April 2005 has it’s headquarter in Jerusalem as is evident from the website anyone can go and have a look. Very interestingly Balochistan Legal fund (BLF) has address originating from Washington DC. The ban on jihadi organizations and their assets freezing is common international phenomena but such support originating from Washington? 
Activities of Mir Suleiman, Khan of Kalat operating from U.K, holding international rallies and submitting letter to 10, Downing Street projecting forcible annexation of Balochistan by Pakistan? What amazes one is presence and involvement of Indian Consulates in Afghanistan bordering Balochistan along illegal arms supply route, arrest of Gazin Marri in Dubai in March 2006 for channelling funds to BLA from Dubai, and arrest and release of Harbayar Marri in UK, leaves many unanswered question. 
Murder of Nawab Bugti and Military operation in Balochistan is yet another friend foe story. Why should Military operate against wishes and interest of government of Pakistan? How many of us know of Military contribution for a common Baloch who has not been able to rescue himself from Feudal Clutches. To my surprise working on my research paper a student gave me these details regarding Pak Army contributions for Balochis. Chamalong coal mine were closed in 1980s after a clash between Marri and Luni tribe. 
Military efforts for reconciliation succeeded in Dec 2006 and later land mines were lifted by Pakistan Army to clear area. What Baloch of the area got through Pak Army is, a free education scholarship for 2000 students, about two thousand Baloch men got employment in Chamalong Guard and the area got uplift package worth 1.5 crore packed with necessary humanitarian aid. Balochistan Institute for Technical Education was established in February 2006 by Pak Army with a determination to edify the Baloch Youth and as of today two batches have passed out. What common Baloch got is over 650 competent Balochis in 13 discipline including 165 females.
Top 246 students have been adjusted in jobs at different government sectors. Not to forget is increase in quota for Balochis in Military Services, Dera Bugti Development Project, Coastal Highway Project, Balochistan Public School at Sui with boarding facility and number of schools established by FC imparting education to about 5000 Balochi children are just a drop in the ocean being offered by Military for Balochistan in the last 2 years. On the instruction of Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, young recruits of Balochistan were given special leniency, recently 4000 thousand Baloch cadets passed out and are appointed in different areas of Balochistan. 
What wonders me is why the army is sleeping and not projecting its sincere efforts for common Balochi. Are they too simplistic or they have no knowledge of perception management. The efforts of new political setup are all excellent measures but hopefully will take into consideration and reinforce the common Baloch agenda already in ruin for the last 60 years and will not only find solutions to support feudal culture. The political strategy must take the tactical efforts into consideration rather guide them towards a grand strategy which is either missing or is not visible. 
The international community owes an answer to Pakistan as to why some dissidents like Bramdah Bugti have been given sanctuary in Afghanistan who is frequent visitor to India supposedly on Indian passport? It’s a known secret that.

Staring into a valley of death

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The military headquarters has decided in principle to mount a military operation in the North Waziristan tribal area before the start of the Taliban’s summer offensive in Afghanistan next year.

The decision has been taken at a point that Washington has dropped any idea of dialogue with the Taliban, preferring to rely solely on brute force - a sudden shift in policy that Pakistan refers to as changing horses in midstream.

At the same time, Pakistan's political leadership refuses to take ownership of the North Waziristan operation, leaving the armed forces alone to decide on its strategy.

The United States has been pressing Pakistan for many months to move against al-Qaeda and related militants based in the tribal area, which also serves as a crucial staging post for the Taliban-led insurgency across the porous border in Afghanistan. The US wants to see its successful drone missile attacks against militants followed up with ground action.

Although the Pakistan military has taken on militants in other tribal areas, Islamabad has been reluctant to send troops into the highly volatile North Waziristan, both for fear of a bitter fight and for a militant backlash across the country.

This would still be the case, and something that the army would have to consider very carefully.

"Given the environment [in North Waziristan] in which the Pakistan army is being forced to decide on an operation, it would definitely be counter-productive. It would be like playing with a beehive. The reaction would be disastrous, not only in Pakistani cities, but in Western capitals as well," a senior counter-terrorism official told Asia Times Online.

Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has repeatedly urged his American counterpart to be pragmatic and seriously take into account the likelihood of a fierce reaction.

Nevertheless, the US and its Western allies are insistent that Pakistan should take action against al-Qaeda, given the exposure in recent months of al-Qaeda-linked terror networks in various countries with roots in Pakistan.

These include Pakistan-born Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty in the United States to receiving funds and training from the Taliban in Pakistan to detonate a bomb in Times Square in New York in May, and the subsequent arrest of nine of his associates in Pakistan.

Similarly, the arrest of Ahmad Siddiqui in Afghanistan and the seizure of a German citizen and others in Pakistan showed that al-Qaeda was far from the spent force that many had believed.

Commander Ilyas Kashmiri, a Pakistani who cut his teeth in the Kashmir struggle against India and then moved to North Waziristan to side with al-Qaeda, is the mastermind behind recruiting, training and then launching operatives. Kashmiri is widely viewed in the Western media as the most dangerous person in the world.

North Waziristan is also the base of the powerful Haqqani network of Jalaluddin and his son Sirajuddin; it is a major driver of the insurgency in Afghanistan and is becoming increasingly more powerful and violent. It poses a serious threat to coalition forces and to the planned transition of responsibilities to Afghan forces to coincide with the planned beginning of a drawdown of foreign forces in the middle of next year.

For these reasons, Washington has applied relentless pressure on Pakistan - including both carrots and sticks - to force it to launch a full ground operation supported by the Pakistani Air Force and US drones.

Kayani, who is accredited with successes against militants in Swat-Malakand and South Waziristan and who essentially rescued Pakistani cities from falling to the Taliban, is concerned.

These earlier successes were a cunning blend of brute force and ceasefire agreements in which militants were pushed into a corner and then through smart backroom peace overtures brought into line. Kayani wants continuity of this policy and even to expand it across the region.

The Americans would prefer the army to go in guns blazing, firing at al-Qaeda and the Taliban as if at a partridge shoot.

Kayani, with politicians having washed their hands of any decision-making, while committed to action, prefers limited surgical strikes. He believes that the Americans simply do not appreciate the difficulties involved, nor that the country is economically reeling from devastating floods this year and that a full-out assault would rupture the peace process with militants in other areas. A vicious cycle of terror attacks would be the inevitable result.

US steps up the pressure

The real American pressure on Pakistan to mount a military operation in North Waziristan began in October 2009, but Pakistan stalled.

In the meantime, the US tried to initiate talks with the Taliban, which gave Pakistan further reason to delay taking action. By October this year, the US had come to realise that the wish to talk to the Taliban was a mirage, and in a strategic dialogue in Washington the US made a clear demand for Kayani to let loose his men.

In November, Richard Holbrooke, the US's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, announced the US would reallocate US$500 million in aid funds to benefit flood victims - a clear encouragement for Pakistan.

Kayani could not be that easily swayed - the reality remained that even firing a single shot in North Waziristan would mean opening up a battle front. He advocated that such a momentous decision should be taken by parliament.

Kayani put out feelers for this. First, he contacted the president of Pakistan Muslim League, and the chief minister of Punjab, Shehbaz Sharif. He is a progressive politician and committed against militancy, especially since the recent attacks on shrines in Punjab. However, Shehbaz said it would not be wise for Pakistan to exhibit such a political will. He, however, assured the army chief of his support.

Minister of Interior Rahman Malik expressed the same sentiment. Similarly, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, when asked about an operation in North Waziristan, threw the ball into the army's court. "The military chief is fully empowered to take any decision regarding military operations."

A Pakistani counter-terrorism official involved in the recent unsuccessful peace overtures with the Taliban commented, "The Pakistan army was trying to make ground with the Taliban for negotiations, but now the Americans have abandoned everything and are pushing for an operation.

"They had said they wanted to speak to the 'good' Taliban, but the Haqqani network is no longer defined as good. If an operation is begun in North Waziristan, no matter how low-intensity, any chance for an end game through peace negotiations is gone. They cannot be switched on again and off again at will," the official said.

Kayani is in an unenviable position - damned if he mobilises his troops, damned if he does not, and abandoned by his political masters.

Is the Mossad targeting Iran's nuclear scientists?

 The Iranian nuclear expert assassinated in Tehran on Monday was the top scientist of Iran`s nuclear effort. Majid Shahriari was killed when an explosive charge placed in his car was detonated by remote control after he climbed into the vehicle, according to Western intellgence expert with knowledge of the operation.
__________________________________________________________


The assassination carried the signature of Israel's Mossad, which has carried out similar operations on foreign soil over the decades. Typically, a team of agents reconnoiters the target and his routines over a period of months, assessing vulnerabilities and opportunities to escape afterward. Most of the operatives are usually on their way out of the country by the time the charge is detonated by a member who sees the target enter the booby-trapped car. ""It's like a suit,"" says the intelligence expert. ""An assassination must be custom-made.""

Like other senior nuclear scientists, Shahriari had been assigned bodyguards, according to Parviz Davoodi, head of Shahid Beheshti University, where Shahriari lectured on physics and held a position on the faculty of the department of nuclear engineering. Speaking to the Iranian press, the university president, who earlier served as Vice President under Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, noted that security must be improved.

Ahmadinejad blamed the attacks on the U.S. and Israel, referring to the latter as ""the Zionist entity."" In Israel the news media made the same assumption, offering asides about the attacks in news stories announcing the appointment of a new head of Mossad. The daily Israel Hayom observed that Mossad's director, Meir Dagan, ""will be leaving an organization that is far sharper and more operational than the organization he received, and all of the accusations from Tehran yesterday are a good indication of that. Iran will be the focal point for the next Mossad director too.""

Among Dagan's known triumphs is the 2008 assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, the senior Hizbollah official. Mughniyeh perished in Damascus from the detonation of explosives hidden in the driver's headrest of his car.

(Source: TIME magazine)

Hillary Clinton on an inspection tour in Central Asia

The US State Secretary Hillary Clinton is on a four-day tour of four Asian countries, including three former republics of the Soviet Union, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

In Kazakhstan, Mrs. Clinton attended the summit of the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE). In her remarks to the summit she specifically stressed the need for further cooperation, and especially the European assistance to US efforts in Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton also praised the Kazakhstan authorities for their efforts in establishing democracy, but made it in a rather dubious way. It is no secret that the regime in Kazakhstan is probably the most democratic one of all former Soviet Central Asian states. As Mrs. Clinton has put it, “Kazakhstan may be further along than the countries in this region but if you compare to where I know Kazakhstan wants to be in ten or twenty years, there's a long road ahead.”

The whole Asian tour of the US State secretary was marred by the recent revelations by WikiLeaks that were intended to spoil America’s relations with too many countries. And Central Asia was not excluded.

The region plays a vital role in America’s strategies. And this is not only due to the fact that the whole region is too close to Afghanistan where the US is striving hard to make the world believe that it can implant its principle of governance in a completely alien environment.

The US interests are much deeper than that. The fact that the US is still maintaining its military base at Manas International Airport in Kyrgyzstan is one of the examples of a far-reaching strategic game the US is playing in the region.

The region also plays a vital role in the US attempts to limit Russia’s influence both in Central Asia and in the Trans-Caucasian region. This was clearly demonstrated during the OSCE summit in Astana when the US and the West in general were trying hard to impose a resolution on “the conflict in Georgia”, implying that the aggression launched by the Georgian regime against South Ossetia in August 2008 was an internal Georgian matter. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has put it, “There can be no question of Georgia’s territorial integrity within its former border limits.” The fact that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are independent states is irreversible.

But what goes even beyond this score is the US interest in the oil and gas reserves of the Central Asian region. To that end, the US is ready to close its eyes on the issues of human rights violations and other so called “democratic principles” Washington is so eager to use when dealing with countries that do not fall into its political line. It is common knowledge that the US is intensely lobbying the Nabucco pipeline and its extension to the oil and gas-rich regions of Central Asia, so that the routes of hydrocarbon transportation would bypass Russia. Hence, her interest in talking to Uzbek President Islam Karimov seems only too natural.

Therefore, the route Mrs. Clinton has chosen for herself in Central Asia seems to be quite symptomatic.

After Kazakh capital Astana she heads for the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek where she is due to discuss some issues (the agenda has not been revealed by the State Department) with acting President Roza Otunbayeva. The talks do not seem to be easy. Kyrgyzstan political parties have not yet succeeded in forming a reliable government after the parliamentary elections held almost two months ago, on October 10.

And as if to greet the US State Secretary on the eve of her arrival, a bomb blast rocked the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek on Tuesday, wounding two police officers.

Apparently, the event is not connected with Mrs. Clinton’s visit, and has to do with the internal problems of Kyrgyzstan. But such occurrences have been becoming less and less uncommon in the latest years. So, maybe it would be good advice to the State Secretary and other high ranking US officials to abstain from going too deep in the matters of the countries where they are not welcome. That is, if they really want to see those countries stable and secure, as they proclaim.

OSCE summit in Kazakhstan

The United States faces embarrassment as leaders from 56 countries, including heads of state and government gather for a two-day international summit in Central Asia.

_________________________________________________

By Shiraz Paracha

After a gap of 11 years, the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is holding its summit in Astana, a shiny but frosty capital of Kazakhstan, which is the rotating Chair of the OSCE for 2010.

The United States considered Kazakhstan ‘unfit’ to lead the OSCE. In the US eyes, Kazakhstan held a poor record in areas of governance, democratic reforms and human rights, a commonly applied charge sheet against non-Western countries and the so-called third basket of the OSCE agenda.

Kazakhstan, however, was determined to achieve the goal. There was a substantial support for Kazakhstan’s chairmanship among the European Union (EU) members. The EU is very keen to have broader and deeper ties with the resource-rich Central Asian state. In 2007, Kazakhstan assured its European partners in Madrid, Spain, that it would meet all the OSCE standards.

Julie Finley, the US ambassador to the OSCE from 2005 to 2009, however, continued to oppose the Kazakhstan’s ambition but eventually the United States had to accept Kazakhstan as the 2010 Chair of the OSCE. Several factors may have led Washington to budge and give a green signal for the ‘crowning’ of Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan is a vast country that borders China, Russia and Central Asian states. The US cannot afford to offend or ignore a state with a strategically important location and huge hydrocarbon reserves and precious mineral resources.

Secondly, in comparison to the West’s old rival Russia, it is easier for the United States and the West to deal with Kazakhstan.

In the 1970s, the Soviet Union had initiated an East-West dialogue that led to the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the predecessor of the OSCE. The Soviet proposed talks on economic cooperation in Europe were held at Dipoli in Helsinki in 1972. The outcome of the talks was "The Blue Book" and the 35-member CSCE in 1973 and later the Helsinki Final Act.

After the end of the Cold War, the CSCE was renamed into the OSCE; however, Russia became suspicious of the organisation’s aims and viewed it as an anti-Russia body that was promoting Western interests.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been a staunch critic of the OSCE. He believed that the OSCE was ineffective and biased and an instrument to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries.

Nevertheless, recently the OSCE has been accommodating Russian concerns and Moscow, too, is less critical of the organisation. Some Western commentators fear that the Russian influence in the OSCE has increased, particularly in the past two years. There are reasons for the change.

NATO and the United States are stuck in Afghanistan. Out of the 56 OSCE member states 43 are involved in Afghanistan. The Afghan factor, perhaps, has forced Washington and Brussels to adopt a soft approach towards Russia and Central Asia. NATO has been facing difficulties in Afghanistan due to insecure and unstable supply routes through Pakistan. Air supplies via Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan are not enough.

For the continuation of the NATO Afghan adventure, alternate land connectivity to Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia is a vital goal. The United States and NATO have been courting Russia and Central Asian states for access to Afghanistan from the north. Kazakhstan is the leader of Central Asia and it can help NATO and the US in transit facility through Central Asia.

In this backdrop, a change of heart seems to have occurred in the United States. Now the ‘land of the free’ has a high opinion of Kazakhstan. Former US ambassador to the OSCE Julie Finley has recently praised Astana and said that the Kazakh chairmanship of the OSCE has been successful. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is attending the OSCE Summit along with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and dozens of other world leaders.

As the OSCE Chair Kazakhstan has proved that the US was wrong in judging Astana. In fact, Kazakhstan as the first Muslim nation, the first Central Asian country and the first former Soviet republic has performed exceptionally well in providing leadership and guidance to the OSCE on several important issues and conflicts.

Afghanistan tops the agenda of the Astana Summit. Kazakhstan has a different perspective on Afghanistan, while attending the NATO summit in Lisbon, President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan said: “Peace in Afghanistan is not possible only by military means.” Kazakhstan has been working closely with the Afghan government in non-military areas.

This year, the foreign minister of Kazakhstan Kanat Saudabayev visited Afghanistan three times. Kazakhstan is helping in infrastructure development in Afghanistan and Afghan medical and police officials are also receiving trainings in Kazakhstan.

Violent inter-ethnic clashes in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan earlier this year were another test of Kazakhstan’s leadership. Astana handled a sensitive and dangerous situation wisely and helped in controlling the violence.

Nazarbayev and Saudabayev turned the OSCE platform for the political dialogue on resolving the crisis in Kyrgyzstan. Special consultations were held with the other OSCE members such as Russia, Spain, Lithuania, Germany, France, Turkey as well as the United Nations.

Months later, mostly peaceful parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan demonstrated that Kazakhstan is an anchor of stability in Central Asia. Maintaining peace and stability in Kyrgyzstan will be discussed at the Summit, President Roza Otunbayeva of Kyrgyzstan is in Astana for the Summit.

Regional conflicts such as in Georgia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh are also expected to be on the table in Astana. Russia considers the former Soviet space as its ‘special sphere of influence’ and has been very sensitive about the West’s involvement in these conflicts. Azerbaijan is keen to find a settlement of its dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh and Turkey backs the Azeri position but a major breakthrough on this issue is unlikely at the Astana Summit.

Thirty-five years ago at the peak of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had launched a sincere effort of a meaningful dialogue between the East and the West but it did not succeed because the other side’s aim was to wipe out the Soviet Union from the world map. The West achieved its aim in 1991 with the split of the Soviet Union and soon after that the OSCE, the brainchild of the Soviet leaders, was on the mission to export the Western brand of democracy into all former republics. The mission, however, has been a spectacular failure.

The OSCE Summit in Kazakhstan coincides with the anniversary of the 1975 Helsinki Act. It provides Russia and Central Asia an opportunity to have a bigger say in the Eurasian affairs and establish a much-needed balance between the Western greed of more power and control and non-Western needs. Russia will push for the OSCE reform at the Summit that will give Russia more leverage in Eurasian affairs.

The West has been bogged down in Afghanistan and needs Russian and Kazakhstan’s help for a safe passage. Capitalist system is losing credibility very fast and the resulting economic crisis is a matter of grave concern for the West. Blinded by their oil and energy needs, arrogant Western countries are, now, somewhat pragmatic and realistic about the significance of emerging powers of Eurasia.

Shiraz Paracha is a journalist and analyst. He can be reached at: shiraz_paracha@hotmail.com

Indian Tajik air base a casualty of Pak-Russia ties

India`s interest in Ayni went beyond renovation. It was keen to set up a base there, where early reports suggested Delhi was considering deploying MIG-29 fighters. A base at Ayni was seen to provide muscle to India` strategic ambitions in Central Asia.
________________________________________________


 By Sudha Ramachandran

India’s hopes of setting up its first air base abroad seem to have been grounded.

The Tajik government has announced that Russia is the only country in the race for use of the Ayni air base. "We are in talks over the Ayni airfield only with Russia," Tajik Foreign Minister Hamrokhon Zarifi told a press conference in the capital, adding that "such talks are not being held with any other party". 

Zarifi's announcement brings to an end - at least for now - years of speculation over who will get to use the base.

Located 15 kilometers west of the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, the Ayni air base was used by the Soviets during the 1980s to support their military operations in Afghanistan. With their withdrawal from Afghanistan, Ayni was abandoned and with the disintegration of the Soviet Union it fell into disuse. 

Then in 2002, India entered into a defense agreement with Tajikistan under which it agreed to renovate the dilapidated air base. Renovation involved building new hangars, repairing and extending the runway, construction of an air traffic control tower and the base's perimeter fencing. India reportedly spent around US$70 million on Ayni's renovation. 

India's interest in Ayni went beyond renovation. It was keen to set up a base there, where early reports suggested Delhi was considering deploying MiG-29 fighters. A base at Ayni was seen to provide muscle to India's strategic ambitions in Central Asia.

Tajikistan's geographic location prompted India's interest in an air base. The country shares borders with Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and China. A narrow strip of land, the Wakhan Corridor separates it from Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Gilgit-Baltistan area. Gilgit-Baltistan, which was part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, was occupied by Pakistan in 1947 and remains under its control.

India's relationship with Tajikistan deepened in the late 1990s, when their shared concern over the Taliban regime in Afghanistan brought them closer together. It was at Farkhor, near Tajikistan's border with Afghanistan, that India set up a hospital in the late 1990s where injured Northern Alliance fighters were treated, and channeled equipment to the Northern Alliance.

The India and Tajikistan bilateral engagement has deepened since 2002, especially on counter-terrorism and defense co-operation. While the two sides have often spoken about the immense potential for economic cooperation, trade has been meager, and was valued at $22.11 million in 2007-08. Defense cooperation, in contrast has grown significantly. It was part of this expanding defense ties that India hoped to set up a base at Ayni. 

Given the disquiet its military presence in Tajikistan would trigger in China and Pakistan, India sought to keep its plans low-profile, even under wraps. Tajik and Indian officials repeatedly denied that an Indian base at Ayni was on the cards.

Then by 2007-08, media reports drew attention to Russian unease over India using the air base. India's growing proximity to the Americans was reported to be behind Moscow's discomfort.

Around this time, there was a noticeable downsizing of India's ambitions. Reports spoke of Indian plans to deploy only a squadron of Mi-17 V1 helicopters at Ayni. It was reported then that Russia, India and Tajikistan had agreed informally to share command and control of the Ayni base, holding it in rotation.

The Tajik foreign minister's announcement indicates that the sharing of use of the Ayni base with India is not on the cards. The 150 Indian personnel who were deployed there have been evacuated.

The closure of the base option for India at Ayni is, however, not a setback for India's interests in the region, Angira Sen Sharma, associate fellow at the Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, told Asia Times Online. India wields considerable soft power in Central Asia. A base at Ayni would have undermined that influence, she said. 

Drawing attention to China's strategy in Central Asia, Sharma said Beijing has focused more on investment there than on displaying its military might. India's interests in Central Asia, she said, would be better served through economic co-operation and investment in the region. Its investment in renovation of Ayni has enhanced its interests; using it as a military base would not.

India's ouster from Ayni indicates how much its equation with Russia has changed over the years. It is not just India's growing ties with the US but Russia's increasing interaction with Pakistan that is impacting India-Russia relations.

During the Cold War, the Soviets were bitterly opposed to Pakistan, given its participation in Western military alliances and its backing of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan. Relations have improved significantly in recent years and while Russia is still to begin the sale of weapons directly to Pakistan, Russian military hardware and technologies have been made available through third countries like China and Ukraine. 

Increasingly, it seems Russia is looking to Pakistan as an ally on Central Asian issues.

"What has made the Moscow turnaround is the realization that seeing Islamabad as part of the region's problems does not help to advance the Russian goal of playing a bigger role in the region. The Kremlin finally decided that Pakistan must be part of the solution," Vladimir Radyuhin wrote in The Statesman.

In August this year, Russia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan participated in a summit at the Black Sea resort of Sochi. The four had met in July last year at Dushanbe.

While the joint statement adopted in Sochi highlighted the problems of terrorism and drug-trafficking, it is joint economic projects that dominated the summit agenda. Russia agreed to join two regional infrastructure projects, including CASA-1000 (Central Asia-South Asia), which involves export of electricity from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan and the other a road and railway running from Tajikistan to Pakistan through the Wakhan corridor in Afghanistan.

Given the growing Russia-Pakistan engagement and its immense potential, it is not surprising that Russia has not been too keen on sharing base space with India. 

Russian analysts have argued that the Tajiks could be dangling Ayni before the Russians as bait to secure Moscow's support on a dispute it has over water with Uzbekistan. However, it seems unlikely that the Kremlin will bite.

Russia already has a base in Dushanbe, where some 5,000 personnel of the Russian 201st Motorized Rifle Division are deployed. It has been using this facility for free. Although the Tajiks have raised the issue of payment for the Dushanbe base with the Russians and soured relations a bit, Russia's position here is not shaky. It doesn't really need another base in Tajikistan.

Indian officials say that Russia is not keen on using the Ayni base but doesn't want others to use it either.

And there are several others besides India who have been eyeing Ayni. The French, for instance, who have been supporting their military operations in Afghanistan out of Dushanbe airport, would be keen to move them to Ayni. Then there are the Americans, whose future at the Manas base at Kyrgyzstan has become increasingly uncertain.

If the Americans were to offer an attractive sum for use of Ayni, will the Tajiks bite the bait? That is unlikely, say Indian officials, pointing out that impoverished Tajikistan is still far too dependent on Russia to offer Ayni to the US.

“India can file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too”

By Arundhati Roy

My reaction to today's court order directing the Delhi Police to file an FIR against me for waging war against the state: Perhaps they should posthumously file a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too. Here is what he said about Kashmir:

1. In his telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said, “I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the state to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view.” (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK).

2. In other telegram to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir's accession to India was accepted by us at the request of the Maharaja's government and the most numerously representative popular organization in the state which is predominantly Muslim. Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon as law and order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide the question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either Dominion then.” (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947).

Accession issue

3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We are anxious not to finalise anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it has been our policy that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.”

4. In another broadcast to the nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

5. In his letter No. 368 Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “I have repeatedly stated that as soon as peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide of accession by Plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of United Nations.”

U.N. supervision

6.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 25th November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, “In order to establish our bona fide, we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future, this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.”

7.In his statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March, 1948, Pandit Nehru said, “Even at the moment of accession, we went out of our way to make a unilateral declaration that we would abide by the will of the people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or referendum. We insisted further that the Government of Kashmir must immediately become a popular government. We have adhered to that position throughout and we are prepared to have a Plebiscite with every protection of fair voting and to abide by the decision of the people of Kashmir.”

Referendum or plebiscite

8.In his press-conference in London on 16th January, 1951, as reported by the daily ‘Statesman' on 18th January, 1951, Pandit Nehru stated, “India has repeatedly offered to work with the United Nations reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will and is always ready to do so. We have always right from the beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people deciding their fate by referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was our proposal long before the United Nations came into the picture. Ultimately the final decision of the settlement, which must come, has first of all to be made basically by the people of Kashmir and secondly, as between Pakistan and India directly. Of course it must be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) have reached a great deal of agreement already. What I mean is that many basic features have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the people of Kashmir who must decide for themselves about their future externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that even without our agreement no country is going to hold on to Kashmir against the will of the Kashmiris.”

9.In his report to All Indian Congress Committee on 6th July, 1951 as published in the Statesman, New Delhi on 9th July, 1951, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future. It is here today that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in the battlefield but in the minds of men.”

10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N. representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, “The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.”

Word of honour

11.As reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, on 2nd January, 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji's question in the Indian Legislature as to what the Congress Government going to do about one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said, “is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation we cannot go back on it. We have left the question for final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

12.In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, Pandit Nehru said, “Let me say clearly that we accept the basic proposition that the future of Kashmir is going to be decided finally by the goodwill and pleasure of her people. The goodwill and pleasure of this Parliament is of no importance in this matter, not because this Parliament does not have the strength to decide the question of Kashmir but because any kind of imposition would be against the principles that this Parliament holds. Kashmir is very close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or adverse fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not wish to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep them against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it was made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose ourselves on them on the point of the bayonet.”

Kashmir's soul

13.In his statement in the Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as published in Hindustan Times New Delhi on Ist April, 1955, Pandit Nehru said, “Kashmir is perhaps the most difficult of all these problems between India and Pakistan. We should also remember that Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of Kashmir.”

14.In his statement in the Security Council while taking part in debate on Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on 24th January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon said, “So far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the statements that I have made in this council which can be interpreted to mean that we will not honour international obligations. I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.”

(The Hindu)

Who will be left in charge of Afghanistan after 2014?

The situation in Afghanistan is getting more and more out of the US and NATO control. On Monday, a “rogue” Afghan policeman turned his gun against NATO soldiers killing six Americans.

This was regarded as the worst incident of the kind this year.

The shooting took place in Nangarhar Province, which borders Pakistan and includes the Tora Bora Mountains and the cave complex that was one of the last hide-outs of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The Taliban has called the incident one of its greatest successes in adopting new tactics – that is making the Afghan policemen and soldiers trained by NATO instructors turn their arms against their tutors.

The latest incident is probably the bloodiest one this year, but definitely not the only one.

It was at least the fifth time in 13 months that Afghan soldiers or police officers have turned their weapons on their NATO partners.

In August, in northern Badghis Province, two Spanish police officers and their interpreter were killed by an Afghan police trainee; officials said the killer was a Taliban agent.

British soldiers were killed by Afghan security forces in two separate attacks in Helmand Province. In July, an Afghan soldier used rocket-propelled grenades and a gun to kill three British soldiers; Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility.

In early November 2009, five British soldiers were killed by a rogue soldier as they relaxed on a roof at an Afghan-British checkpoint.

The most recent instance was on November 6, when an Afghan soldier turned his weapon on two Americans in Helmand Province, killing them, and then fled. A spokesman for the Taliban said the killer had taken refuge with its fighters.

Most of the previous cases are said to have involved Taliban infiltrators. But no one has given a definite answer on how to distinguish between a Taliban fighter posing as an Afghan government soldier or policeman, and a soldier/policeman who voluntarily decides to join the insurgents’ fight against foreign invasion.

The cases cited above are only the cases when the attack was launched by people believed to be US and NATO allies. All in all, within the whole period of foreign invasion since 2001, more than 2,200 foreign troops have been killed in Afghanistan, with 2010 being the worst year ever on terms of casualties.

All this raises a lot of questions, the most vital of them being - is the US and NATO really ready to leave the country in 2014 as Barack Obama and other Western leaders promise?

It would be appropriate to recall that when Barack Obama came to power, he promised to start the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan in 2011. But, facing the aggravating situation in that country later reformulated his promise, now saying that the troops’ withdrawal will start in 2014 provided that the US will be sure that it can rely on the Western-trained Afghan army, police and security forces to take the responsibility in their hands.

The incidents involving the Afghan soldiers and policemen turning their arms against the Westerners show that the more training is given to them, the deadlier the double-edged sword becomes. And the most vital of all vital questions arises by itself: isn’t it the US and NATO presence that is really aggravating the situation?

Now, the NATO officials are putting up a bold front, saying that the incidents will not affect NATO’s commitment to “partnering” with Afghan security forces. But privately, more and more Western soldiers are beginning to say that they are losing confidence in their Afghan “partners”.

The Iraq war has cost the US about 4,500 soldiers killed, that is two times more that the Afghan war. But the life of a single person is precious. How long is the public to wait, and how many more deaths it will cost to realize that the Western troops are posted in a country which is not going to welcome them, as it never welcomed ANY foreign invaders?

And training the Afghan army, police and security forces means only one thing: the Taliban fighters will eventually absorb in their ranks more skillful and well-trained soldiers.

It is better not to think about the possible consequences.

Uncle Sam threatens WikiLeaks prosecutions

It seems that the exposure is bringing WikiLeaks praise and applause by embarrassing the world`s most powerful country. But auestions are raised when one takes a closer look at the website. How long will a website committed to whistle blowing on the US government be tolerated?
____________________________________________________________

A day after US authorities said they would be conducting a criminal investigation into the leaks of thousands of confidential US diplomatic cables through the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, Beijing expressed its hope that the situation would be carefully handled.

"We don't want to see any disturbance to China-US relations," Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei said at a regular news briefing.

The criminal investigation, announced by US Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, raises the chances that the website and its founder will be targeted.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the government would take aggressive steps to hold responsible those who "stole" the secret documents.
"The United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats' personal assessments and observations," she told reporters.
Holder said that, "to the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible; they will be held accountable."
Holder said that Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks and an Australian citizen, was not immune from prosecution just because he was a foreign citizen, according to Reuters.
"We will move to close those gaps (in US law), which is not to say that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or subject of an investigation that's ongoing," Holder said.

 The Sweden-based Internet company WikiLeaks has been showered with media and public attention after exposing more highly confidential material regarding US diplomacy with other countries.
It seems that the exposure is bringing WikiLeaks praise and applause by embarrassing the world's most powerful country. But questions are raised when one takes a closer look at the website. How long will a website committed to whistle blowing on the US government be tolerated?
WikiLeaks, since this summer, has embarrassed Uncle Sam several times. This July it released some 90,000 documents on the US-led Afghanistan War. This week a further 250,000 US diplomatic documents were made public, creating a "9/11 of world diplomacy."
But it is worth noticing that most of the materials that were exposed are sensational in nature, yet minor pieces of information, and the negative effects their release can pretty much be mitigated by some remedial work.
The US State Department has condemned the WikiLeaks release, which seems only to have increased the credibility of the website. WikiLeaks claims that it has a large number of volunteers working all over the world with access to confidential information for free. The powerful and ubiquitous CIA has not been able to identify the source of the sudden leakage of diplomatic secrets. It sounds more or less unconvincing. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is still on the run, despite his high public profile.
Is there some tacit understanding between the website and the US government? It may be worth asking. And what does it mean to other countries that are on the radar screen of WikiLeaks?
If granted real authority, once WikiLeaks sets its sights on other countries, the fallout could be drastic. Leaked information could severely damage the social stability of nations that are not able to handle the release of so much sensitive information.
An information tsunami is flooding every country, but different countries have different abilities to control and absorb it.
Developed countries, especially the US, dominate the global flow of information at the moment.
Countries like China, despite their rising status in the information world, must have a line of defense against a hurtful information campaign.

Indian cynicism

By Ahmed Quraishi

We in Pakistan share the grief of the 166 innocent people killed in the 2008 attacks but do not share the cynicism of the Indian government and the hypocrisy of its few international enthusiasts who are supporting it for ulterior motives.
Those in the Indian ruling elite marking the two-year ‘anniversary’ of the event and their cheerleaders in Washington who are exploiting the event to get back at Pakistan are doing a disservice to the memory of the martyrs by ignoring key realities. The first one is the hypocrisy of the Indian government. The Indian film industry’s melodrama should not mix with Indian foreign policy. The Indian government grandstanded and played to newsroom headline-makers by serving a protest message to the top Pakistani diplomat in the Indian capital on the eve of the anniversary. Indian officials were supposedly protesting why Pakistan has not yet convicted individuals named by New Delhi as alleged masterminds of the attacks. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that India’s government is yet to respond to a Pakistani plea to send some of the Indian interrogators who debriefed Ajmal Kassab, the lone surviving attacker, to Pakistan to testify in the Pakistani trial of the alleged suspects. That testimony is important to fill the gaps in the Pakistani probe and provide Pakistani judges a better perspective and conclusive evidence. India won’t cooperate in this but is ready to grandstand.
India’s media won’t question this Indian conduct. Obviously it is reading from the same script and is unanimously focused on Pakistan.
We also have strong indications that India is using the Mumbai tragedy to settle scores with its political opponents in the Kashmir dispute. Lashkar-eTayyeba, or LeT, is yet to be convicted in the Mumbai attacks, if it will ever be depending on evidence. And yet the Indians are single-mindedly obsessed about LeT as payback for the tough time the Kashmiri group has given India in the twenty years since the first Kashmiri uprising in 1989. Bringing Mumbai culprits to book is a noble cause. Using the tragedy to target Kashmiri figures and groups is not. This Indian obsession with LeT comes at the cost of ignoring other equally important parts of the probe into the Mumbai tragedy.
Resolving the Mumbai mystery is more important for us than the Indians. We want to know the full dimension of the conspiracy. The involvement of a few Pakistani names is just one small part of the attack. The real story is outside Pakistan, in several countries whose telecommunication systems were utilised during the attack and where some of the suspects traveled through frequently, raising the possibility that one or more third-country intelligence service knew what was going on. Respected Indian investigating journalists have published articles and at least one book offering evidence that one of several Indian spy agencies knew something before the attacks. The biggest question mark involves a US citizen of Pakistani descent who worked for the FBI and the CIA at different times and who is cited as the main planner. This American was planted in the close circle around key LeT activists based in Pakistan. Who was meddling between Pakistan and India?
This might be a conspiracy theory but it is no more fantastical than the theory put forth by the CIA and several key US officials about ‘intelligence findings’ that allege LeT is ‘getting closer’ to Al-Qaeda and is developing ‘international ambitions.’ This ridiculous American conspiracy theory cites some mosque somewhere in the liberated part of Kashmir where the imam called for jihad everywhere and not just in Kashmir. American conspiracy theories about LeT going global are a sign of how closely allied US policy in the region has become with India at the cost of Pakistan’s legitimate interests that our American ally is now brazenly flouting.
Pakistan must resist the US-backed Indian obsession over LeT and instead demand a full probe into the international parts of the Mumbai tragedy. Indians must understand that it is easy to raise tensions and we can do that by marking an annual memorial of 69 innocent Pakistani peace-promoters burned alive on Indian soil in 2007 by serving Indian military intelligence officers and Hindu terrorists.

The writer works for Geo television. Email: aq@paknationalists.com

Containment of China and Iran

After the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, although all the American military bases located in Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea etc, are now dovoted to the containment of China and Iran, yet India and Israel have been playing a key role in this regard.
 ___________________________________________________________

By Sajjad Shaukat.

Although Sino-Indian differences have always existed due to Indian presumption that peace-loving China is its adversary, yet the same has been intensified by the Indian new Army Chief General VK Singh who after taking over the charge on March 30 this year said in his first strategic statement, “Indian Army is well prepared to face any threat from China.” Before him, on December 29, 2009, Indian former Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor had openly revealed that Indian Army “is now revising its five-year-old doctrine” and is preparing for a “possible two-front war with China and Pakistan.” 

Notably, in May 1998, when India detonated five nuclear tests, the then Defense Minister George Fernandes had declared publicly that “China is India’s potential threat No. 1.”India which successfully tested missile, Agni-111 in May 2007, has been extending its range to target all the big cities of China.

As regards Indian new military build up against China, on May 31 2009, after 43 years, New Delhi re-opened its Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO) airbase in northern Ladakh, which overlooks the strategic Karakoram Pass and is only 8 km south of the Chinese border-Aksai Chin area.

On April 20, 2008, The Times of India had written, “By having a full-fledged airstrip at DBO, India will be able to rush in troops and supplies to the region during emergencies.” The paper quoted Western Air Command chief Air Marshal P K Barbora saying: “Yes, we have also plans to land our AN-32 transport aircraft at DBO. It is part of the Indian Air Force to improve air maintenance of the far-flung posts in the region”.

India has also erected more than 10 new helipads and roads between the Sino-Indian border. In this connection, Defence Ministry planners are working on building additional airfields and increasing troops raising two new mountain divisions to be deployed along the 4,057-kilometer Line of Actual Control (LAC). New Delhi has also announced to develop immediately 1,100 kms of strategic roads on the Indo-Tibetan border.

With the help of Israel and America, on 26 February 2008, India had conducted its first test of a nuclear-capable missile from an under sea platform after completing its project in connection with air, land and sea ballistic systems.

On May 10, 2009, Indian Navy Chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta had revealed that New Delhi “will soon float tenders to acquire six submarines”. Mehta also accused Beijing and explained that the “Indian Navy would keep a close watch on the movements of Chinese submarines which are operating out of an underground base in the South China Sea” and “wish to enter the Indian Ocean”. However, under the pretension of Chinese threat, Washington, New Delhi and Israel are plotting to block the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean for their joint strategic goals.

Besides, New Delhi has itself been planning to destablise, and even to disintegrate China. In this regard, on March 10, 2008 when anti-government violent protests by Buddhist monks had erupted in Tibet’s capital, Lhasa including nearby provinces, India, backed the same, though outwardly denied. Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet who has lived in exile in India along with his 120,000 followers since a failed revolt against Chinese rule in 1959 has been tacitly encouraged by New Delhi enabling him to mobilize armed groups and international support to create instability in the neighboring provinces of China. For this purpose, India has clandestinely established secret camps where Dalai Lama’s militants are being imparted armed training. In this respect, Indian RAW has sent a number of agents who have joined the ranks and files of the Tibetan insurgents of China, and they create unrest from time to time.

Although the whole of Islamic world is target of Indo-Israeli plot, yet the same has intensified in case Iran. It is because of the fact that Iran is determined to continue its nuclear programme. In this respect, US-led some western countries have also been supporting the Indo-Israeli nexus against Beijing and Tehran overtly or covertly.

However, we cannot blame especially India and Israel including US regarding the conspiracy against China and Iran without some concrete evidence. In this context, in his interview, published in the Indian weekly Outlook on February 18, 2008, Israel’s ambassador to India, Mark Sofer had explained regarding India’s defence arrangements with Israel by disclosing, “We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret” and “with all due respect, the secret part will remain a secret.” On being asked whether he foresaw joint exercises, Sofer replied, “Certain issues need to remain under wraps for whatever reason.”

As regards the American tactical backing to Indo-Israeli relationship, on September 5, 2003, American Wall Street Journal had pointed out, “The U.S. finally gave its approval to Israel’s delivery of Phalcon Airborne Warning & Controlling Systems (AWACS) to India” this “sale might affect the conventional weapons balance” in the region.

Security relationship between New Delhi and Tel Aviv has been promoted with the help of Washington to make the two states work closely to counter-balance a rising China whom America considers main competitor in the coming years.

If India considers China and Pakistan as its key enemies, Israel takes Iran in the same sense especially due to its nuclear programme which is also negated by the US. Nevertheless, this similarity of interests has brought the two countries to follow a common secret diplomacy.

On October 18, 2009, a deadliest suicide attack had killed dozens of officers including the deputy commander for the Revolutionary Guards, Brigadier General Nour Ali Shoushtari in the Sistan-Baluchistan. Jundullah (God’s soldiers), a Sunni militant group which is pro-active against the Iranians, claimed responsibility for the incident.

In that context, Iran directly accused US and Britain for their alleged patronage and funding of that type of terrorist attacks for creating instability within Iran. Parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani had blamed the US, saying, “We consider the terrorist attack to be the result of the US action. This is the sign of America’s animosity against our country.”

Tehran had also lodged a strong protest with Islamabad over the failure of its law enforcement agencies to dismantle the Jundullah network in its part of Balochistan, while remarking that plan was prepared in Pakistan. Some reports suggested that in confusion; even some Iranian leaders had expressed apprehension on some of Pakistan’s officials in cooperation with the Jundulluh regarding that suicide attack. This is what the US, India and Israeli wanted.

While taking cognisance of the Indo-Israeli plot against Islamabad and Iran, on October 20, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had said that the suicide attack in Iran’s Sistan was a conspiracy against brotherly relations between Pakistan and Iran. He further added, “It is obvious that the same forces that are working in Pakistani Balochistan are also working in Iranian Sistan.” In the recent past, a suicide attack also killed a number of persons in Iran.

While Pakistan’s security forces have been fully concentrating on the pocket-resistance in the tribal areas, foreign plot against Balochistan has intensified. In this regard, subversive events like targeted killings, attack on government buildings and oil pipelines, which are being supported by Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad with the tactical help of American CIA, have increased in the province.

It is mentionable that Balochistan is replete with mineral resources. Its ideal geo-strategic location with Gwadar seaport where China has invested billion of dollars could prove to be Pakistan’s key junction, connecting rest of the world with Central Asia. It is due to the multiple strategic benefits that the US, which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to control Balochistan as an independent state in containing China and Iran. Owing to these reasons, America and India are creating instability in Pakistan by supporting insurgency and backing Baloch separatists to complete their hidden agenda.

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