Obama Visits India: Bilateral Cooperation Enhances

India and the United States on January 25 announced policy resolution on two key issues paving the way for a nuclear trade within the ambit of domestic laws and international obligations. The pact ends a six-year old stalemate in operationalizing the path-breaking civil nuclear agreement. The agreement was signed in New Delhi by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the visiting US President Barack Obama, who was the chief guest at the 2015 Republic Day parade. The 123 or civil nuclear deal was inked between India and the United States in October 2008. The pact, however, failed to deliver business for US companies.

Breakthrough in Civil Nuclear Deal

There was a “breakthrough” in civil nuclear agreement and both countries have sorted out the two pending issues. The American companies were concerned over the Indian nuclear liability laws that apply to the equipment suppliers in the event of an accident.  They have also demanded tracking of fuel supplied by the United States and other nations for the proposed nuclear power plants. While India will create an insurance pool to tackle the nuclear liability issue, on tracking it stated the matter will be dealt with under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

The civil nuclear deal was the centerpiece of our transformed relationship, which demonstrated new trust. It also created new economic opportunities and expanded our option for clean energy.

Primary among these is the Defense Technology Trade Initiative (DTTI) which not only intensifies military-to-military cooperation but also puts the spotlight on technology transfer and joint production, which India has been seeking with almost all its military partners.

The January 25 deal builds on the first plan that was signed in 2005 and provides the blueprint for India-US defense cooperation for the next 10 years. If the 2005 DTTI was historic for breaking the ice and laying the groundwork for an unprecedented partnership, the 2015 version marks a definite shift from a transactional relationship to a more organic one. In other words, if the past decade saw India sourcing an increasingly large proportion of its defense needs from the United States — by some estimates, India bought $10 billion worth of military hardware from the United States — the next decade will see the two countries sharing technology and co-producing weapons.

Delhi Declaration of Friendship

In addition to the major civil nuclear deal, both the Indian prime minister and the US president issued a 59-point statement encompassing the entire gamut of relationship, decided to renew the decade-old defense framework agreement for another

10 years and within it opened the defense technology and trade initiative. Both India and the United States issued a Delhi Declaration of Friendship — Shared Effort, Progress for All — in keeping with national principles and committing to hold regular summits with increased periodicity, elevate strategic dialogue, establish hotlines between the Indian prime minister and the US president and national security advisers, besides cooperating to develop joint ventures on strategically significant projects.

On clean energy, Washington is keen to work with New Delhi on the ambitious project of 100 gigawatt of solar energy by 2022 and air monitoring for megacities.

On Climate Change, the Indian prime minister said there was an urgent need to address the issue. He, however, said there was no pressure to work out an arrangement that the United States has with China.

Focus on Bilateral Ties

Noting that the multifaceted partnership between Washington and New Delhi is rooted in shared values of democracy and strong economic and people-to-people ties, the Indian prime minister and the US president elevated the bilateral relationship through their endorsement of a new India-US Delhi Declaration of Friendship, which builds on their September 30 Vision Statement by articulating tangible principles to guide ongoing efforts to advance mutual prosperity, a clean and healthy environment, greater economic cooperation, regional peace, security and stability for the larger benefit of humankind.

Joint Strategic Vision for Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region

India and the United States also issued a joint strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region to support regional economic integration by accelerated infrastructure connectivity, safeguard maritime security in ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.

Terrorism Menace

Prime Minister Modi President Obama stressed the need for joint efforts to disrupt terror entities, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), D Company and the Haqqani Network, and asked Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 attack to justice. Pakistan-based terror outfits that are not just a threat to India, but also spawn the jihadi network worldwide, are on the joint target list.

Obama said there should be no distinction between terror groups and pressed for countries to fulfill their commitment to wipe out terror safe havens.

Finally, the establishment of two hotlines — one between the two heads of Government and another between the two National Security Advisors — also speaks volumes about deepening cooperation between the two countries.

Agreement on Smart Cities

India and the United States signed three Memoranda of Understandings (MoUs) on January 26 to give a boost to the Center's flagship “smart cities” scheme. Washington has agreed to partner with Indian in developing three smart cities in Allahabad, Ajmer, and Visakhapatnam.

Three MoUs were signed by the representatives of United States Trade and Development Agency and the respective Chief Secretaries of State Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh in the presence of Union Urban Development Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu.

As per the agreements, the United States will assist the cities in project planning, infrastructure development, feasibility studies and capacity building.

Trade and Business 

The US president has announced a slew of initiatives that included $4 billion in loans from US banks, $2 billion in financing for renewable energy projects in India and $1 billion from the Exim Bank of the United States for project financing. Executive action to help Indian techies who currently have to undergo a painful and agonizing process of obtaining H-1B visas, to get legal permanent status (LPR), was also on the cards

India and the United States were moving in the right direction and there was untapped potential to be realized. Bilateral trade between the two countries had increased 60 percent in the past couple of years to a record $100 billion, but India’s exports to the United States were still less than 2 percent of all US imports, he said welcoming the Modi government’s reforms agenda for making it easier to do business in India.

This has been made possible, of course, by smartly balanced laws that fully comply with India’s World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations on intellectual property while incorporating protections that support public health. These laws have ensured a strict review of patent applications to avoid spuriously granting monopolies on drugs that are not actually new or innovative or whole new patents on minor changes to existing drugs. India has also focused on its WTO obligations rather than implementing excessive IP rules that undermine health, such as “data exclusivity” which, in the United States, makes clinical trial data private to create a whole additional monopoly separate from patents that prevents approval for generic drugs for periods of time.

Needless to say, the major multinational pharmaceutical companies oppose India’s finely balanced intellectual property system and are trying to topple it. What is less understandable is why the Obama administration would be backing their drive.

Religious Freedom

Unveiling his sweeping vision for the future of the India-US ties, President Obama, at the conclusion of his three-day trip on January 27, suggested his country could be the “best partner" while underscoring the importance of religious freedom and tolerance for India's success.

Citing the Indian Constitution on the right to freedom of religion, he said: "Your Article 25 says all people are equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and have right to freely profess and practice and propagate religion. In both our countries, in all countries upholding freedom of religion is the utmost responsibility of the government but also the responsibility of every person... Every person has the right to practice his faith without any persecution, fear or discrimination. India will succeed so long it is not splintered on religious lines," Obama also said. The importance of the message strikes when seen in the backdrop of the controversy over "Ghar wapsi" program run by the RSS-Sangh Parivar as also complaints of attacks on a church in the city. Obama further said, “Around the world we have seen intolerance, violence, and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing for upholding their faith stating that all have to guard against any efforts to divide people on sectarian lines or any other things.”

The US president said, "In both our countries, in India and the United States, our diversity is our strength... your Constitution begins with the pledge to uphold the dignity of the individual. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that all men are created equal.”

Characterizing the qualities of countries being world leaders, Obama added, was not about the size of the economies or the number of weapons but the ability to show the way and how they work together.

NATO Summit: Prepares Road Map, Joint Exit Strategy for Afghanistan

The two-day summit of the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was held in Chicago, first on the US soil in more than a decade. Approximately 60 world leaders, including presidents of the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan have gathered to attend one of the biggest NATO summits in history. Despite a myriad of issues facing the 63-year-old organization founded in the wake of the Second World War as it confronts shifting 21st-century realities, the Chicago summit is set to be dominated by Afghanistan.

The Chicago summit was significant as President Barack Obama has announced that all combat operations led by the US forces will cease in the summer of 2013 and the NATO forces would move to a “support role.” The summit aimed at charting out a road map of international support to Afghanistan and prepare a blueprint for a joint exit strategy.

Afghanistan War

NATO allies declared that the end of a long and unpopular Afghanistan war is in sight even as they struggled to hold their fighting force together as France’s new President announced plans to pull troops out early.

The fate of the war is the centre of the two-day NATO summit that opened in Chicago. The alliance already has one foot out of the Afghanistan door, with the Europeans pinching pennies in a debt crisis and President Obama with an ear attuned to the politics of an economy-driven presidential election year.

Still, some cautioned against following France’s example while others played down stresses in the fighting alliance.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “There will be no rush for the exits. Our goal, our strategy, our timetable remain unchanged.”

The military alliance is pledged to remain in Afghanistan till 2014, but will seal plans during the summit to shift foreign forces off the front lines a year faster than once planned.

Afghan forces will take the lead throughout the nation next year, instead of in 2014. The shift is in large part a response to the plummeting public support for the war in Europe and the United States, contributors of most of the 130,000 foreign troops now fighting the Taliban-led insurgency. A majority of Americans now say the war is unwinnable or not worth continuing.

Tough Time Ahead

The US president, who was hosting the summit in his hometown and the city where his reelection operation hums, spoke of a post-2014 world when “the Afghan war as we understand it is over.” Until then, though, remaining U.S. and allied troops face the continued likelihood of fierce combat.

Obama said: “We still have a lot of work to do and there will be great challenges ahead. “The loss of life continues in Afghanistan and there will be hard days ahead.”

In fact, the strategy has shifted many times over the course of more than 10 years of war, and the goal narrowed to objectives focused on the long-term security of the mostly Western nations fighting there. The timetable has also moved, despite the overall commitment to keep foreign forces in Afghanistan till 2014.

France’s Stand

Tension over newly elected French President Francois Hollande’s pledge to end his country’s combat mission two years early infused the meeting. German Chancellor Angela Merkel pointedly cited the credo of the allies in the Afghanistan war, “in together, out together,” and her foreign minister cautioned against a “withdrawal competition” by coalition countries.

The Taliban are urging nations fighting in Afghanistan to follow France’s lead and pull their international forces from the war this year.

The Chicago summit called upon all the other NATO member countries to avoid working for the political interests of the US officials and answer the call of your own people by immediately removing all your troops from Afghanistan,” the group said in a statement before the meeting.

Obama-Karzai Meet

Obama said that NATO envisions a decade of transformation after 2014, with the United States still contributing money and forces.

“What this NATO summit reflects is that the world is behind the strategy that we have laid out,” Obama said after lengthy talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. “Now it is our task to implement it effectively.”

Karzai said his nation is looking forward to the end of war, “so that Afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulder of our friends in the international community, on the shoulders of the United States and our other allies.”

Despite the stubborn Taliban insurgency, war-weary international forces are seeking to hand control of security to Afghan forces while withdrawing some 130,000 foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.

G8 Summit: Camp David Declaration Addresses Major Economic, Political Challenges

The leaders of the G8 countries of eight most developed countries of the world – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States have met recently in Camp David, Maryland. They addressed major economic and political challenges faced by the world. The G8 summit in Camp David was the first major international event for the new French President Francois Hollande.

Camp David Declaration

The leaders of the summit in their Camp David Declaration recognized the importance of meeting our energy needs from a wide variety of sources ranging from traditional fuels to renewable to other clean technologies. As they reached implement their own individual energy strategies, they embraced the pursuit of an appropriate mix from all of the above in an environmentally safe, sustainable, secure, and affordable manner. They also recognized the importance of pursuing and promoting sustainable energy and low carbon policies in order to tackle the global challenge of climate change.

To facilitate the trade of energy around the world, they committed to take further steps to remove obstacles to the evolution of global energy infrastructure; to reduce barriers and refrain from discriminatory measures that impede market access; and to pursue universal access to cleaner, safer, and more affordable energy. The leaders remained committed to the principles on global energy security adopted by the G8 in St. Petersburg.

The group’s leaders papered over their deep-seated divisions on how best to tackle the Eurozone crisis, and declared that they wanted debt-stricken Greece to remain within the fold. However, they called on Athens to stick to the terms of a massive EU-International Monetary Fund (IMF) cash-for-reforms bailout, now hanging by a thread.

Incidentally, two Indian-Americans — PepsiCo chief Indra Nooyi and USAID administrator Raj Shah — were among the few special guests invited by US President

Barack Obama to a G-8 luncheon at Camp David on Saturday. They were invited to take part in a discussion with four African Presidents/PMs invited to the special luncheon. Obama said this was perhaps the first time business leaders attended a G8 summit.

Climate Change Problem

The summit leaders agreed to continue their efforts to address climate change and recognize the need for increased mitigation ambition in the period to 2020, with a view to doing their part to limit effectively the increase in global temperature below 2ºC above preindustrial levels, consistent with science. They strongly supported the outcome of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban to implement the Cancun agreements and the launch of the Durban Platform, which they welcomed as a significant breakthrough toward the adoption by 2015 of a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force applicable to all Parties, developed and developing countries alike.

The leaders agreed to continue to work together in the UNFCCC and other fora, including through the Major Economies Forum, toward a positive outcome at Doha.

Six-Point Settlement Plan

In its “Camp David Declaration”, the Group of Eight also supported six-point plan of the United Nations and Arab League Joint Special Envoy (JSE) Kofi Annan’s settlement plan for Syria and cautioned North Korea against further provocation, besides pledging steps to mitigate the economic impact of the Afghan transition and saying Greece, now battling a crippling debt crisis, should remain in the Eurozone.

The summit leaders supported the efforts of JSE Annan and look forward to seeing his evaluation, during his forthcoming report to the UN Security Council, of the prospects for beginning this political transition process in the near-term. Use of force endangering the lives of civilians must cease.  They called on the Syrian Government to grant safe and unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to populations in need of assistance in accordance with international law. They welcomed the deployment of the UN Supervision Mission in Syria, and urge all parties, in particular the Syrian government, to fully cooperate with the mission.

The Camp David leaders strongly condemned recent terrorist attacks in Syria. They remained deeply concerned about the threat to regional peace and security and humanitarian despair caused by the crisis and remain resolved to consider further UN measures as appropriate.

Incidentally, two Indian-Americans — PepsiCo chief Indra Nooyi and USAID administrator Raj Shah — were among the few special guests invited by US President Barack Obama to a G-8 luncheon at Camp David.

Iran and North Korea’s Nuclear Programs

Piling up pressure on Iran, the leaders of the world's eight most powerful economies have asked it to swiftly address all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program and vowed to ensure that crude markets are "fully and timely" supplied despite oil embargo on Teheran.

As Iran faced sanctions, the G8 leaders said increasing disruptions in the global oil supplies "pose a substantial risk" to the world economy.

The G8 leaders remained united in our grave concern over Iran’s nuclear program. They called on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions and requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors. They also call on Iran to continuously comply with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including its safeguards obligations.

The summit leaders also called on Iran to address without delay all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program, including questions concerning possible military dimensions.  They desired a peaceful and negotiated solution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, and therefore remain committed to a dual-track approach. They welcomed the resumption of talks between Iran and the E3+3 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union High Representative). They called on Iran to seize the opportunity that began in Istanbul, and sustain this opening in Baghdad by engaging in detailed discussions about near-term, concrete steps that can, through a step-by-step approach based on reciprocity, lead towards a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.

As regards North Korea, the G8 leaders continued to have deep concerns about provocative actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) that threaten regional stability. They remained concerned about the DPRK's nuclear program, including its uranium enrichment program.  They condemned the April 13, 2012, launch that used ballistic missile technology in direct violation of UNSC Resolution.

The Camp David leaders urged the DPRK to comply with its international obligations and abandon all nuclear and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable, and irreversible manner. They called on all UN member states to join the G8 in fully implementing the UNSC resolutions in this regard.

Countering Terrorism

At the summit, G8 leaders condemned transnational organized crime and terrorism in all forms and manifestations. They pledged to enhance our cooperation to combat threats of terrorism and terrorist groups, including Al-Qaida, its affiliates and adherents, and transnational organized crime, including individuals and groups engaged in illicit drug trafficking and production. They stressed that it is critical to strengthen efforts to curb illicit trafficking in arms in the Sahel area, in particular to eliminate the Man-Portable Air Defense Systems proliferated across the region; to counter financing of terrorism, including kidnapping for ransom; and to eliminate support for terrorist organizations and criminal networks.

The G8 leaders urged states to develop necessary capacities including in governance, education, and criminal justice systems, to address, reduce and undercut terrorist and criminal threats, including "lone wolf" terrorists and violent extremism, while safeguarding human rights and upholding the rule of law. They underscored the central role of the United Nations and welcome the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) and efforts of the Roma-Lyon Group in countering terrorism.

Growth and Employment Opportunities

“As all the leaders agreed, growth and jobs must be our top priority. A stable, growing European economy is in everybody’s best interests — including America’s,” Obama said after the end of the summit.

“Europe is our largest economic partner. Put simply, if a company is forced to cut back in Paris or Madrid, that might mean less business for manufacturers in Pittsburgh or Milwaukee. And that might mean a tougher time for families and communities that depend on that business,” he said.

“Even as we’ve confronted our own economic challenges over the past few years, we have collaborated closely with our European allies and partners as they’ve confronted theirs,” Obama said.

The US president said he discussed with other leaders the ways for promoting growth and job creation while still carrying out reforms necessary to stabilize and strengthen their economies for the future.

Poverty Alleviation

The Camp David leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and recognized the vital role of official development assistance in poverty alleviation and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. As such, they welcomed and endorsed the Camp David Accountability Report which records the important progress that the G8 has made on food security consistent with commitments made at the L’Aquila Summit, and in meeting our commitments on global health, including the Muskoka initiative on maternal, newborn and child health. They remained strongly committed to reporting transparently and consistently on the implementation of these commitments.

The next G8 Summit will be held the United Kingdom in 2013.

2nd Nuclear Security Summit: Tightening Nuke Weapons Design and Programs

The two-day second Nuclear Security Summit concluded in Seoul (South Korea) on March 27. The first was held in Washington DC in April 2010 after US President Barack Obama mooted the idea in a speech in Prague in 2009. President Obama, who singled out nuclear terrorism as the most serious threat to international security in his speech, was in Seoul. Leading the Indian participation in the summit was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The gathering of 58 world leaders saw discussing the various issues surrounding nuclear security. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 appear to have spurred countries across the globe to discuss measures that are needed in the event of nuclear materials and facilities actually falling into the hands of non-state actors. Nuclear security is hence seen as a step to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Joint Communique
Seeking strong national measures and global cooperation against nuclear terrorism, world leaders have underlined the central role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the atomic security framework and insisted that the rights of States to peaceful use of nuclear energy will not be hampered.
The leaders said: “We stress the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control.”
The communique, adopted by 53 world leaders and five multilateral organizations, also highlighted the fundamental responsibility of the States to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes.
In the backdrop of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the idea of nuclear safety came to the fore at Seoul, with India underlining the need for synergy between nuclear safety and nuclear security. The Seoul communiqué too touches on this aspect. After all, the release of dangerous radioactive materials in sufficient quantities from a legitimate nuclear power plant is no less dangerous than a terrorist stealing and unleashing a dirty bomb.
At a more practical and feasible level, at the Seoul summit, India pushed the expansion of its bilateral ties with South Korea to include the purchase of civilian reactors and military hardware from it, in addition to engaging in space cooperation under which this country would launch South Korean satellites. Maritime security was discussed too between Singh and President Lee Myung-Bak, in addition to stepped up Korean investment in Indian infrastructure.
India’s Stake
Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India had made a strong pitch for membership of four exclusive nuclear clubs contending that it would help strengthen its export control systems and maintain highest international standards of its nuclear program.
He added that India had never been a source of proliferation of sensitive technologies and the country was determined to further strengthen its export control systems to keep them
At the summit, the prime minister said on par with the highest international standards. He underlined that India had already adhered to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NBG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Singh said: "As a like–minded country with the ability and willingness to promote global non-proliferation objectives, we believe that the next logical step is India's membership of the four export control regimes."
India is keen for membership of the NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. At the same time, Singh said an agreed multilateral framework involving all states possessing nuclear weapons was necessary to attain the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.
"This should include measures to reduce nuclear dangers by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and by increasing universal restraints on the first use of nuclear weapons," he said.
The prime minister also announced a contribution of one million dollars to the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Fund for the years 2012-13.
India has also made some progress, albeit slowly, on its commitment to set up a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership. It announced that the centre will have a 200 acre campus in Bahadurgarh, Haryana and comprise four different schools covering nuclear security, nuclear energy systems, and radiation safety.
On India's nuclear program, the prime minister said comprehensive reviews of nuclear safety measures have been undertaken at nuclear facilities.
Concern for Pakistan’s Arsenal
President Obama has voiced concern over safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, saying the world cannot allow non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on the nuclear weapons and end up destroying cities.
“We can’t afford to have non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons that would end up destroying our cities or harming our citizens,” Obama told reporters alongside Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani before the two leaders held private talks on the sidelines of the summit.
The West is concerned over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as it remains vulnerable because the atomic facilities are located in areas where “Taliban and Al-Qaeda are more than capable of launching terrorist attacks”.
In their first meeting since the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a covert US raid on Pakistani soil in May 2011, the two leaders tried to rescue a troubled anti-terror alliance which has been full of mistrust and recriminations in recent times.
North Korea and Iran Warned
The US President has warned North Korea and Iran that their options are few and their friends fewer as those nations refuse to back down from actions the world sees as menacing.
Seoul warned that it might shoot down parts of a North Korean rocket if they violate South Korean territory, as worries about what Washington calls a long-range missile test overshadowed an international nuclear security summit.
Nuclear Terrorism
The leaders at the summit reached a consensus that nuclear terrorism is among the top global security challenges and that strong nuclear material security measures are the most effective way to prevent it. This may not seem like much, but getting 47 nations to agree on any nuclear issue, however innocuous, is not always easy.
In addition, 29 of the countries present made voluntary commitments to enhance nuclear security. Country-specific steps — colloquially termed “house gifts” — were taken ahead of the summit. Thus, Chile removed all its Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) — 18 kg — in March 2010, while the Philippines joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Several countries, including India, announced that they would create new “centres of excellence” to promote nuclear security technologies.
The outcome Seoul summit, as much as the first one hosted by US President Barack Obama in Washington in 2010, are traceable at the level of theology to President Obama’s Prague speech of 2009. And therein lies the weakness of the enterprise. In that address, the US President had highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands, and envisioned a world free of the atom bomb. But until such time as that happens, Obama was quite clear in his vision that the United States would stand ready with its own nuclear weapons to take care of any potential adversary.

China Announces Defense Budget: Beijing Sets 7.5 Per Cent GDP Target

China has announced it will increase defense spending by 11.2 per cent in 2012, for the first time taking its annual military expenditure beyond $100 billion as it puts in place plans to modernize its Army against the backdrop of an uncertain regional environment.
The planned defense budget was announced in Beijing on Sunday as 670.274 billion yuan ($106.39 billion), an increase of 67.604 billion yuan over the expenditure in 2011 and an 11.2 per cent year-on-year rise.
The present hike will bring official outlays on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) to 670.3 billion yuan ($110 billion) for 2012, after a 12.7 per cent increase in 2011 and a near-unbroken string of double-digit rises across two decades.
The rise in military spending was in keeping with the growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and fiscal expenditure. The spending as a share of GDP was only 1.28 per cent, lower than many countries including the United States and the United Kingdom. “where it exceeds 2 per cent.”
Double-Digit Percentage Rise
It, however, remains unclear how China's neighbors will perceive the double-digit percentage rise, with several countries, from Japan to those involved in disputes over the South China Sea, having expressed concerns in recent months over the rise in military spending.
The defense budget grew by 12.7 per cent last year to $91 billion, though spending grew by a lower than expected 7.5 per cent in 2010, the first time in two decades that the increase was a single-digit figure on account of the global financial crisis.
China's spending in 2012 will exceed what India spent last year by three times — India's defense expenditure was reported at $36 billion in the 2011-12 budget.
In addition, the specified military spending, which many western analysts say is far higher than the official version, China in 2011 spent over $100 billion on internal security. The hike in China's defense budget, which is now almost triple of the Indian defense spending, may impact New Delhi's military expenditure.
India had allocated $ 36.04 billion for defense in 2011, which represented an 11.59 per cent growth over the 2010 budget.
US President Barack Obama has sought to reassure Asian allies that the United States will stay a key player in the area, and the Pentagon has said it will "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region".
Obama's proposed budget for the fiscal year of 2013 calls for a Pentagon base budget of $525.4 billion, about $5.1 billion less than approved for 2012.
Beijing has sought to balance long-standing wariness about US intentions with steady relations with Washington, especially as both governments focus on domestic politics this year, when Obama faces a re-election fight and China's ruling Communist Party undergoes a leadership handover.
But the US "pivot" has fanned unease in China, with some PLA officers calling it an effort to fence in their country and frustrate Beijing's territorial claims.
GDP Growth
China has set its growth target for 2012 at a lower-than-expected 7.5 per cent, in an indication that its focus during a crucial transition year would be on maintaining stability and achieving more balanced growth.
The 7.5 per cent target is the first in eight years that has fallen below 8 per cent, long seen by Chinese officials as the minimum level of growth needed to maintain internal stability. The Chinese economy does, usually, exceed the annual targets set by the government, and is expected to surpass the 8 per cent figure this year as well. The economy grew by 9.2 per cent in 2011, down from 10.4 per cent in 2010.
Assessment
Asian neighbors, however, have been nervous about Beijing's expanding military, and this latest double-digit rise could reinforce disquiet in Japan, India, Southeast Asia and self-ruled Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory. Japan and China have locked horns over islands each claims in the East China Sea; Vietnam, the Philippines and other nations have challenged Beijing over claims to swathes of the South China Sea that could be rich in oil and gas.
It was understood that China has been constructing an aircraft carrier, although the timing of its deployment is not known. It was believed that China was also developing stealth fighters, all these programs made people wonder what the assumption behind such military modernization was about.
The growth trajectory of China's military modernization, as evident from the country's latest defense budget, has attracted much attention across the Asia Pacific region. This followed the expression of concern, in some regional circles, over some of China's recent “military manoeuvres.”

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always been in focus since more than a decade. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) had already unanimously adopted a resolution asking all non-NPT states to join the treaty.
The 15-member council, while urging “other states” outside the NPT to join the controversial treaty as “non-nuclear states” to help rid the world of atom bombs, also urged all countries to sign and ratify the CTBT and refrain from conducting atomic tests. India has not signed the CTBT yet.
The Security Council had adopted a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution. Through this resolution, the Security Council had called upon all nations to sign the NPT. The countries that have not so far signed it have been asked to do so. Under this treaty a ban has been imposed on making nuclear bomb in the future.
The “other states”, which were not named in the resolution, were a clear reference to Pakistan and India, which have not signed the NPT, but are known to have atomic arsenals, and Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having nuclear arms but is believed to have a sizeable stockpile of warheads.
The resolution also calls for talks on drafting a treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. The mandate of the council came when it approved the resolution 1887 that calls on countries that have not signed the nuclear NPT “to comply fully with all their obligations”. The resolution will strengthen the NPT.
India’s Stance
A convergence of international factors — political, economic and military — has led to a situation where correct and timely decisions on the treaty can enhance India’s standing as a nuclear weapon state as well as brighten its economic prospects.
The reverse is also true. It is, therefore, important that the ongoing debate in the country on the CTBT is set on the right parameters.
Hitherto, the debate has been fudged by hangovers from the past. The NPT and CTBT have criss-crossed, their lines of distinction blurred in public perception. Another term in current international lexicon, the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty (FMCT), adds to the confusion.
Little is understood about the FMCT and the clout that India could wield by a correct posturing on this treaty, which is still in the making. Even more than the substance of these treaties — distinct in themselves — it is the history surrounding them that has influenced opinion in this country. It would be in order, therefore, to have a glimpse of this history and a closer look at what these treaties mean to India.
India has decided to affix its signature on the treaty. India has refused to abide by the Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty. India said it could not join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.
The Indian Air Force chief recently expressed apprehension of a possibility of a nuclear attack on India. In the past also India was asked to sign the NPT, but it declined to do so pleading that unless and until nuclear-weapon nations destroy their nuclear arms, the treaty would be useless. Now, India has yet again refused to sign the NPT. At that time India stated that some other nations are in possession of nuclear weapons, hence it will need to make its own nuclear weapons for the sake of self-defense because in view of the need of self-defense it is not advisable to sign the NPT.
Now, India, once again declining to be a signatory to the treaty, vehemently opposed the UN security calls. It pleaded: "We cannot implement the regulations thrust upon other nations, for these impinge upon the sovereignty and national interests." It will not be in the country's interests to accept such decisions.
India has already taken a categorical stand not to make first use of the nuclear weapons to which it is completely committed. India's permanent representative at the United Nations, Hardip Singh Puri, has in a communication to Susan Rice of Security Council raised questions on its role in the implementation of international treaties.
India’s refusal to sign the NPT is based on unexceptionable grounds of national security. While Pakistan has been a ‘rogue state’ which has fuelled nuclear proliferation by sharing its know-how for making nuclear weapons with China, North Korea, Libya and Iran, India has had an absolutely clean record of eschewing both proliferation and aggressive intent. It is this country’s misfortune that it is flanked by a nuclear-armed China which has had expansionist designs in the past and a hand-in-glove nuclear Pakistan which is most untrustworthy and sinister. If, in the circumstances, India seeks to retain its right to stay nuclear to deter its recalcitrant neighbors, it can hardly be faulted. India’s stand that the nuclear weapon states must work towards total disarmament to carry conviction is also perfectly legitimate.
There has been an important transformation after Pokhran II: India is now unambiguously a weapon state, with transparent and credible nuclear weapon capability. The thermonuclear test, backed by advanced Indian nuclear technology, further uplifted India’s status, completely changing India’s situation vis-a-vis the CTBT. Hurdles to India to being a full signatory to the CTBT are not per se in the draft of the treaty as such but in the continuing shadow cast by the NPT. In the event, the right course would be for India to declare its adherence to the CTBT unambiguously, while reserving the final step of signing and ratifying to an assurance from the United States — and others — that in implementation of CTBT, India’s nuclear status will be equal to the five recognized weapon powers.
Demand for Amendment to NPT Treaty
Simultaneously, eight nations of the world, including India, have demanded an amendment in the NPT treaty. The Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. The resolution passed by 15-member SC that the remaining nations should sign the NPT. The resolution adopted under the leadership of the United States, China, and Russia also has affirmed it.

Many nations, including India have not signed the NPT. The plea put forward by them is that developed nations have built their nuclear weapon reserves and the NPT is being thrust upon other nations, which is absolutely unjustified. The question arises whether countries in possession of nuclear weapons will not browbeat countries that do not have such weapons. For instance, Pakistani rulers in the past have been holding out, lamenting nuclear attacks on India.
Obama’s Indication
US President Barack Obama first signaled his dedication to the cause of the NPT at Prague way back in April 2009. While stressing non-proliferation, and indicating his preference for reducing the US stockpile of nuclear weapons, the US leader revealingly also said, "Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defence to our allies." This underlines that the US proposes one set of standards for itself, and another for India. This country’s long-held position has been that it is in favor of comprehensive nuclear disarmament, and that non-proliferation is not a substitute for this. President Obama is yet to offer disarmament as an attainable goal.
So long as that remains the case, it will continue to be on the wrong side of political morality. India too has been lax in not publicly countering the American stance under Obama right after Prague. It has also been remiss on another count. After the passage of UNSC Resolution 1887, its official view is that it won’t sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state, whose obligations are of a different order under the NPT from those who have come on board as nuclear weapons states. This is at variance with this country’s original stance that the NPT ought to be rejected on grounds of being an inequitable arrangement that allows nuclear weapons only in the hands of a few.
Even now, India has voiced the apprehension that it is faced with a threat from Pakistani terrorists that intend to carry out a nuclear offensive against India because it is apprehended that some of the nuclear weapons of Pakistan have found their way to Al-Qaida and other groups. The United States had stated that Pakistani terrorists pose a big threat to India.
Even as the United Nations desires to make the world free of nuclear weapons as per the secretary general, it is high time to move forward. India has declined to sign the NPT, saying that it will not do so until nuclear weapon nations destroy their nuclear weapon reserves. The Indian stand is fully justified.
In varying degrees, the five NPT weapon powers are unwilling to give up their superior status which finds no place in the CTBT as such. A new brand of doublespeak nuclear diplomacy is at work. China wants India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapon status, citing a Security Council resolution, while France and Russia are veering round to de facto acceptance of India's nuclear weapon status provided this country accedes to the CTBT. The US, the decisive power in creation of the global non-proliferation regime, is mid-way.

Global Fight Against Terror Suffers Because of US Attitude

The treat given by an Al-Qa'ida member to blow up a US plane proves that the dangerous possibility of terrorist attacks is still threatening the country despite all efforts. This incident further exposes the US failure to curb terrorism within its territory even though it is leading the international campaign against terrorism.
Suitable Opportunity
It is true that there has been no major attack in the United States after the 9/11 incident. Yet, it cannot be denied that terrorists are looking for a suitable opportunity. They even try to strike occasionally. It is also clear now that terrorist organizations have started raising a terrorist army within the country itself. Apart from the United Kingdom and the United States, many terrorists who have been traced in the Western countries were brought up in these countries. Some of them have even undergone higher education. Only recently five US citizens of Pakistan origin were arrested near Lahore. They had come to receive training on terrorism.
The young man of Nigerian origin who was arrested for trying to blow up a Delta Airlines plane of the United States had received education in Britain. He is also connected with Al-Qa'ida. It is, therefore, quite evident that notwithstanding all restrictions imposed from time to time, terrorist organizations have managed to attract Muslim youths to the so-called crusade.
Frustrating Terrorist Ambitions
The United States cannot rest content just by claiming that it has succeeded in frustrating terrorist ambitions on its soil. In other parts of the world terrorism is spreading rather than being restricted. Barack Obama was expected to reconsider the US strategy on terrorism on assuming office. But this hope was soon belied. Barring a few positive statements the US administration is more or less following its old policy on terrorism.
There are enough reasons to believe that it is only assuring the protection of its own interests as far as the campaign launched by it against terrorism and described as "international", is concerned. As a result, minimum coordination among the different countries participating in this campaign is lacking.
Missing Target
This lacuna has made the task of terrorists earlier. Any big mistake can be made in such circumstances. It was by sheer luck that the terrorist of Nigerian origin Omar Farooq Abdul Multalat was seized just in time. He had managed to enter the United States in spite of being on its list of suspects. It is also a fact that Indian intelligence agencies have not been given the necessary information on David Headley who is believed to have been involved in the 26 November 2008, Mumbai attacks. India is even being made to wait for a sample of its voice. In this situation, how can it be assumed that the United Sates is actually willing to join other countries to fight terrorism?

International Politics and Bin Laden Chapter

Former Al-Qaida Chief Osama Bin Laden chapter in the international politics had come to an end in May 2011. Bin Laden is now dead. He is now part of history. Many painful stories and incidents of deaths are involved with this history. He had given a new interpretation of the religion of Islam. His interpretation was controversial and it cannot be said Muslims across the world had accepted the version. But it is fact that he produced hundreds of "jihadists" in the Muslim world. These jihadists were ready to embrace "martyrdom" in the name of Islam. Bin Laden wanted to revert to the ancient course of Islam. The "Wahabi" doctrine has this ancient course. Some people prefer identifying the course as the 'Salafi' ideology. The Saudi Royal family is the follower of this ideology.
One Saudi Islamic pundit, Mohammad Bin Abad Al Wahab, is the exponent of this ideology. He was born in 1703. Once the founder of Saudi Royal family, Ibne Saud, was attracted by this philosophy. The family is still following the ideology. It is being told that Saudi Arabia is promoting this doctrine. The Wahabi doctrine gives highest importance to jihad. The followers of Wahabi ideology do not believe in worshipping pir (spiritual leader), mazar (grave), holding milad (a kind of meeting to glorify the Prophet Mohammad), visiting grave, shirk and bidat. Bin Laden used to believe that Islam could be established in the world through jihad.
Significance of Islam
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam has spread to various countries of the world. But in nowhere it expanded through terrorism. The people, who come to our region of the world thousands of years back for preaching Islam, did not resorted to terror activities. They had preached the messages of peace and choose to stay here because of love for the land.
However, for preaching which Islam Bin Laden had stepped into the field? He had inspired hundreds of youths to take part in "jihadist" activities. Bin Laden was an owner of billion of dollars. He spent the money for terror activities. He had developed a big network in the Arab world from Iraq to Algeria. Al-Qaida has a strong base in Yemen. Bin Laden had given birth to the organization named -- Al-Qaida. Allegation has been raised that Al-Qaida was involved with the destruction of World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Since then the name of Bin Laden has spread to everywhere in the world. He became the "No 1 terrorist of the world." The United States had been on the hunt of Bin Laden since 11 September. After long 10 years he was detected in the Abbottabad City of Pakistan.
Bin Laden has undoubtedly committed crimes. He could be hanged in trials. It would have been normal, if he was tried. But the United States has given rise to many questions by killing Bin Laden. A dead Bin Laden has emerged a more risky man for the United States. Rather the killing of Bin Laden will enhance his popularity. But the question that has assumed prominence to me is that whether this role of the United States would create a big threat to the developing world? The Muslim world is gripped with agitation. One type of hegemony has been created in the name of globalization. In this regard some Islamic pundits (for example Sayyid Qutb of Egypt) think Islam is the solution.
Palestinian Problem
A leader like Bin Laden gives the call for jihad when the Palestinian problem is not solved year after year. The Israeli commandoes kill the Palestinian leaders. And no trails are being held for the killings. It is true that this so called jihad did not get massive support in the Muslim world. But at the same time it is natural that some sorts of agitations and hatred are simmering in the Muslim world as the innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States had conducted aggression against Afghanistan on the plea that the Taliban gave shelter to Bin Laden. The US forces have been in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011. US President Barack Obama also won Nobel Prize for peace. But his hands are tainted with blood. He had a given a promise that the US soldiers will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2011. Now the deadline has been extended to 2014. But security experts believe the United States has a big interest in Afghanistan. They will have stay in this country. The Central Asia is abundant with huge energy resources, gas and oil. The US companies have huge investment here. The United States does not want other powers (particularly China and Russia) have a share of these resources.
The energy resources of Central Asia will be controlled from Afghanistan. For this reason this "Islamic militancy" has been born to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. This militancy is also a threat to the security of the Central Asia. The Asiaism of NATO will centre round this region. As a result, there is a remote possibility of withdrawing force from Afghanistan. In case of Iraq it was told that the country had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It had been further told the WMD was posing threat to the security of the region. Under this pretext the United States captured Iraq in 2003. We all know the next stories. The WMD was not found in Iraq. But Saddam Hussein was hanged. Iraq was destroyed. Some US companies are reconstructing Iraq by selling the oil resources of that country. The United States is now searching the path of military intervention in Libya in the name of humanitarian intervention. The oil of Libya is the target of the United States. Libya is the gateway to North Africa. The control of Libya will mean controlling the North African countries having huge resource. The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established with this target.
Terrorism in the name of Islam is acceptable. This is not Islam also. But it equally not acceptable to attack any independent country or violating its sovereignty in the name of suppressing terrorism. This role of the US is the violation of the Clause 4 ( 1) and 4( 4) of the UN Charter that deal with "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity." The United States has involved itself with terror activities in the name of curbing terrorism. The concept of "preemptive strike" that US President Bush had used and Obama now using will not at all help America to galvanize its image. History says the United States is committing such incidents time and again.
Violation of International Law
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague in 1986 ruled that the United States violated the international law by using force illegally in Nicaragua and providing help to Contra guerrillas (fighting the leftist government of that country at that time). The United States did not accept the verdict of the international court. But the UN secretary general in a resolution adopted by 94-2 votes had urged the United States to accept the verdict international court. The United States and Israel voted against the resolution.
In the death of Bin Laden a new chapter has been ushered in. It is to be observed what impact this 'death' creates in the Muslim world. But the Obama administration has more responsibility at this moment to enhance the US image in the Muslim world. President Obama's Cairo address had created a prospect in this regard. But a little progress has so far been achieved. Smaller Islamic militant groups like Al-Qaida have been born to a quite good number of Islamic countries. These groups have much influence in the countries like Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. The Islamic militants in Somalia directly or indirectly control the state power. The organization named Al Sadarb has introduced Shari'ah in the area controlled by them.
Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Salafist Group of Preaching and Combat had called for suicide bombing and worldwide jihad. The AQIM is active in the entire Maghreb region. The responsibility of the Obama administration at this moment is taking initiatives for bringing these militant groups in the mainstream of the society.
Moreover, it is very urgent to start "dialogue" with the militants in Afghanistan.
Existence of Mullah Omar
After Bin Laden, Mullah Omar is the target of the United States. The existence of Mullah Omar could not be found anywhere in Afghanistan in the long last 10 years of hectic searching. The solution to the Afghan problem will not be possible without initiating dialog with the Taliban. However, the Taliban movement and Al-Qaida are not the same. There are differences between the two.
Al-Qaida had given a call for jihad across the world, but the Taliban wanted to establish Islamic rule only in Afghanistan. It is very urgent for President Obama to withdraw soldiers from Afghanistan. The responsibility of the US President has further increased. The problem could not be solved by engraving the body of Bin Laden in the Arabian Sea from the US warship-Karl Vinson, patrolling in that sea. Obama himself will have to take the initiatives to earn confidence of the Muslim world. The death of Bin Laden has given birth to this possibility. President Obama has ensured his victory in the 2012 US President election by killing Bin Laden. Nobody has doubt about this. But various complexities have been created in the Muslim world, Pakistan-US relations and India-Pakistan relations. The complexities will increase regional tension. These will also create tension in the world politics. And the same will be the main obstacle in the way of establishing peace in the world.

US Sinking Under Tides of Economic Crisis

Today, the United States is poor, not capable enough to govern and administer the world. The world's richest country has now become the world's most indebted country. The super power, which used to provide loans to others, is itself heavily indebted today. Today, the United States has trillions of debt, which it cannot pay.
What a good proverb that one has to pay for his deeds, or that what you sow so shall you reap. The United States has been impoverished by its recklessness and arrogance.
Causes and Reasons
If we go a little back, we can see that in 2000 Christian era (when Bill Clinton was relinquishing power to George W. Bush), the United States had a surplus amount of $300 dollars in its exchequer. However, when, in the wake of the 9/11 incidents, Bush resorted to huge military and financial spending, this surplus moved to negative, meaning that $300 billion expenditures were incurred in two years. In the subsequent two years, this expenditure doubled, rising to $600 billion. In the following two years, it further grew to $900 billion, and in 2009 it blew up to $1200 billion (meaning $1.2 trillion), and today we see that it has soared to $1700 billion (meaning $1.7 trillion), which has no precedence in the US history. It forced Washington to obtain loans to prop up its falling economy. It obtained heavy loans from Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf countries.
In Bush's first tenure, the debt of the United States was $ 7.6 trillion while in his second tenure, it rose to $10.6 trillion while today it has increased to $14.02 trillion. These figures show that half of this loan has been taken during the past six years (when wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were on their height). If this $14 trillion loan is divided among all the Americans, every American will have a debt of $453,000.
Economic experts say that the United States may spend $1.3 trillion more than the its revenue this year because the budget deficit is adding $ four billion to the national debts every day, and this loss is gradually leading the United States to sinking. This means that Washington borrows 41 cents of every dollar, which it spends. The finance minister had said that such an eventuality had never occurred in the US history.
Impact of War and Fragile Peace
A matter of more shame is the fact that both the parties blame each other for this big crisis, each of them absolving itself of the responsibility. The Congress is under compulsion to do one of the following two things: either it would have to raise the upper limit of procuring loan so the government can obtain more loans, or it would have to make a huge reduction in spending and budgets. Whatever it does would not prove beneficial because debt always grows in war and fragile peace, although not as much as Bush had incurred. He impoverished the state and handed it over to Barack Obama in a bankrupted condition.
Regrettable is the fact that almost equal to half of this $14 trillion, meaning $6 billion, is to be paid as mark-up. Although the actual mark-up is $900 billion but for several reasons, it increases to$6 trillion:
1. As the government cannot pay the debt, it has to pay more markup.
2. The lenders (governments, companies, banks, and individuals) increase the ratio of their mark-up.
3. As the government loses the trust of the lenders, every one avoids paying more loans or imposes conditions of their choice.
4. It maintains its high defense expenditure and budget, therefore, both the wars are continuing on borrowed money.
The Pentagon's budget for 2011 or the present year is $707 billion. An additional $200 billion is being specified for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the so-called war on terror. Why? The Soviet Union has collapsed and WARSAW Pact has also perished. Then why is it ransacking itself and the world? Why did it lost its 6,000 soldiers without any justification and threw $3 trillion into fire? That is the reason that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have left three questions unanswered:
1. Would the United States receive so much loss if there had not been these wars?
2. Would the United States be so much indebted if there had not been these wars?
3. Would the United States is such a massive economic crisis if there had not been these wars?
Not Accepting Bitter Reality
Naturally, the answers are in negative. The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and the huge military expenses in both the countries tumbled the stock market. The companies were plunged into losses and bankruptcy. A big financial crisis ensued in 2007-2008. It accelerated and intensified the financial and trade deficit, badly affecting the mortgage sector. The economy melted like snow. More loans were obtained. Excessive dollars were printed, which further lowered the dollar rate. It caused inflation and financial deficit grew further. Big companies got closer to closing down until the government provided billions of dollars to save them from collapse. Unemployment ensued, grew, and perpetuated. All these factors formed a chain, which has tied the hands and feet of the United States in such a manner that the latter finds it difficult, rather impossible, to get rid of it.
See, even the Soviet Union once did not accept that the Afghan war impaired it. The same way, today the United States is not accepting this bitter reality. So, the question is: If the base of this big crisis is not the Afghan war, what it is?
How and in how much time would the United States get itself out of the $14.2 trillion loan? The answer is totally obscure. Therefore, we can say that this is a very back-breaking and insurmountable crisis, which is gradually submerging the United States. Cannot we say that this huge tide is rising like those violent waves of the Red Sea, which had submerged Pharaoh?

People of Arab World Hijacked

All of a sudden, the love of the prime minister for religion has gone up. Even the Menons (left politicians like Rashed Khan Menon and his accomplices) are uttering verses of the holy Quran. The religion trade is now going on massively by making efforts to stop 'fatwa' (religious addict) saying it is a trade of religion traders and uttering the ideals of Islam. Taking the office of a "religion-less" or irreligious state, the love for religion is nothing but a lie and deception.
The people of the country know in whose interest the women policy has been framed. The CIDAW is a charter of conspiracy for turning the women into a commercial commodity. In 1997, a so-called declaration in the United Nations for ending or abolishing all discriminations against the women had got recognition. It is not a charter for development of the women but a story of deception or intrigue. The real Islamic scholars and leaders have taken to the street. They are united not only against the women policy but against all the anti-Islamic policies. Slogans are being raised everywhere in the country that fatwa will be the constitution of the country in future.
Unity of Society
So it is not hartal (closure strike), what is the great need of the country is unity of the society of religious leaders and Islamic thinkers. And only united strength can protect the dignity of the holy Quran. The people of the Arab world have been hijacked. The people are not seeing the dream of freedom. Their fear always is that when bombs and grenades of the hyenas are thrown into their homes. The boisterous sound of weapons and missiles is shattering the life and peace of human habitats. The people are rushing toward hospital in corpse, carrying ambulances with mutilated and severed bodes of the human beings. What they wanted and what is happening; it is like bringing crocodiles by digging canals. In fact, the character of the United States is one and identical. The difference is only in their complexion or in the color of their skin. So the Nobel Peace Prize winning Barack Obama is doing the same thing as his predecessor George W. Bush did. Overtly, it may seem they are not united, but, in fact, they are. The imperialism is the core policy of the United States. As hyenas do not feel good, the United States does not find it comfortable without aggression. They are carrying out killings as they have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are a nation of hyenas. They are selling life-destroying tablets and pills in the packets or phials of peace.
US Responsibility
It is also the US responsibility to protect those who they purchased. The movements are a convocation or installation of grabbing anew. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a purchased grouping of the United States. And the United Nations is their place for their pastime and gossiping.
The attention of Obama is fixed not on the people of Libya but on their oil resources or oil wealth. Thrown into deep recession, it is the need of the United States to plunder the resources of Muslims to get their luxurious lifestyle going. When the United States citizens are beset with unemployment and are about to start begging at that time their government has attacked the Libyan people to grab their oil resources. Other autocratic Arab rulers joined NATO air attacks. And the responsibility of the United States is to ensure security to the evil doers or Satans. Sending warships to Libya they gave a signal to others that no more now, the game is over. Our target has been achieved.
Warplanes and Warships
The last desire of former US President Bush was to launch attack on Iraq and Libya. Obama has fulfilled that desire of Bush. But the difference is Bush has already been insulted trough the hurling of shoes while Obama is yet to get that treatment. The people across the world have been fuming. Obama is playing such a game where the world is clapping with contentment when Libya is being bombarded. It means there will be attacks, but quietly. There would be killing but without any sound.
Obama! You are not t he last. The more your atrocities will grow, the more your days will be numbered. Your nuclear weapons will lose their strength and prowess. Look at Fukushima of Japan. They are counting their days for ruination with their own arms. Not much time would be needed to end your game of pride. Your warplanes and warships would crash onto the roof of your White House only in three minutes. Your nuclear reactors would add gloom to the taste of your dream. The wait of the Muslim ummah (community) is for the help of God. The things for which you boast are your deathtrap.