Disclosure of Tamil Homeland Myth

International pressure exerted on the Sri Lankan Government seems to be of no small measure when focusing on the issues regarding the alleged human rights violations leveled against the country. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has proposed that a special three-member committee should be appointed to investigate into the said violations of human rights and war crimes allegedly committed by the Sri Lanka Army. Subsequent to this, the US State Department also submitted report on human rights violations said to be committed by the Sri Lankan Government.
These two issues cannot be easily and lightly discarded. Although the Sri Lankan Government protested against these measures, it is has still not understood the next turn of affairs. When Sri Lanka was frequently accused of abusing human rights, the government raises another question instead of producing an answer. It is why the United Nations, which was never, concerned about the human rights violations of the United States Army in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel and also in some middle-eastern countries, is now overtly concerned about probing into 'supposed' human rights violations committed by the Sri Lanka Army. When the United States question about rights violations in Sri Lanka, the government in turn asks why the US State Department does not speaks about crimes committed against ordinary civilians when the US Army launch attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.
Solutions to Challenges
After ending Prabhakaran's terrorism, the solutions to challenges faced by Sri Lanka lies within the counter charges of the government based on the same issue. To maintain cordial international relations, four vital points are identified in political science.
1. To reach conscientious through discussions.
2. Offering grants.
3. Imposing embargoes.
4. Stabilizing domination.
United States and other 'powerful' countries apply all four measures at different stages towards poor and less affluent countries. The way in which the United States intervened in Iraq could be quoted as a clear example. The US intervened initially in Iraq with an accusing finger. The UN intervened to investigate nuclear 'arms factory' in Iraq consequent to US allegations. However, Iraq permitted the UN monitors to carryout their inspections under a 'controlled' situation. Then the US and the UN claimed that Iraq abandoned on its own accord the opportunity of coming to an agreement through negotiations. Subsequently, economic embargoes were imposed on Iraq and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces invaded the country. Thereby Iraq was subjected to two international strategies, i.e., imposing embargoes and stabilizing domination.
The entire world today accepts the fact that there were no nuclear arms in Iraq. Had Iraq being able to convince initially by settling the issue through discussion then it would not have paved the way for the NATO forces to invade the country.
Eradicating Islam Fundamentalism
However, a question arises here if Iraq had convinced the international community that they did not possess nuclear arms, would the NATO forces have invaded Iraq? The world at large is aware that the motive of the western camp led by the United States in projecting Iraq's possession of nuclear arms, was only an excuse to invade the land and not for any other purpose. However, the US gave a clear persuading theory internationally to justify their move, namely the US opinion on Islam fundamentalism. The United States successfully convinced the global community that their stance is eradicating Islam fundamentalism from the face of the earth. If any questions are raised on US attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, the response should be based on this standpoint. It was due to the US adopting such a policy on Islam terrorism that a leading Indian actor Shah Rukh Khan was questioned at the US airport on his entry to the country, because his name was Khan.
Sri Lanka too should resort to US course of action when facing the present challenging situation. It should essentially not follow the mistake committed by Iraq under similar circumstances. In the struggle by Tamil communalists projecting the image of a Tamil Eelam state, the defeated faction was the combat arm of the movement. Although Western pressure was exerted on the government during its fight against these combatants or in other words Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Mahinda Rajapakse government was prudent enough to use good judgment on the face of such pressure. A state policy was in place which gave the military, authority to intensify its war strategies, which ultimately defeated the LTTE. The plan was well formulated and western and global powers could not directly intervene in the operations. The stance of the government was, "A terrorist must be answered in his own language." Although the global powers nurtured the LTTE as their pet in the Indian Ocean region, conspired to salvage them, they could not find room to directly intervene in the government machinery. This was the Sri Lankan policy projected internationally, regarding eradication of the LTTE in the country. This is equal to US's policy projected globally, regarding Islam extremists.
Eradicating Terrorism
The same positive approach Sri Lanka pursued in eradicating terrorism should be shown in dealings with the accusations emitted by the West. At present, although the LTTE terrorism or the armed Tamil extremists are extinct, Tamil communalism is actively evident. Tamil communalists led by Rudrakumaran, domiciled in the US, are now attempting to establish an Eelam state in exile. The Global Tamil Forum which met in Britain hopes to establish Eelam (a separate state) in Sri Lanka by adopting various other measures other than terrorism. Sri Lanka is now facing this challenge. Here again the country should resort to its policy adopted when it defeated the LTTE. The country was able to crush the LTTE, by placing the eradication of terrorism as a government policy and bringing to world to its senses. It did not directly yield to any international pressure. If the Mahinda Rajapakse government did not adopt this steady and unwavering attitude towards the LTTE, it would never have been possible to defeat the outfit. A clear example is the tenure of Chandrika Kumaratunga's regime. During this period, the Sri Lankan Government's policy only showed the global community, the foolishness of its agenda by launching military operations and on the other hand talking of peace. Sri Lanka projected to the world that its policy is launching limited military offensives is a necessity prior to commencement of negotiations. Accordingly, the offensives were launched not to defeat terrorism but to hold discussions with the terrorists, in order to form a separate state or in other words a federal administration. If the same policy was adopted by the Rajapakse government, Prabhakaran would still be among the living.
In this instance, the government should take an example from its own strategy followed to annihilate the LTTE. The demand for an Eelam or separate state by Tamil communalists is based on the myth of Tamil homeland concept. Even Nelam Tiruchelvam identified the Tamil aspirations of Tamils from the platform of the so-called Tamil homeland. The government should respond to the pressures exerted by Eelamists and Western governments by disclosing to the world, by destroying the myth of the Tamil homeland. When this is accomplished, the global community or the West would be in the same situation which it faced at the time when the Rajapakse government forged ahead with the war to defeat terrorism. This is where Iraq failed. If Iraq too openly put forward to the international community a clear-cut policy regarding nuclear arms then the NATO Forces would not have been able to invade Iraq.
Homeland Concept
Sri Lanka should now forge ahead to defeat the present covert moves of the Tamil Eelamists, by taking this as an example. The Sri Lanka Government should adopt as a policy that a historical Tamil homeland concept is a mere myth. The fight against the Eelam concept should commence from this point to preserve the unitary and sovereign status of the country. This would definitely put a check on the wild outburst of Eelamists and other international forces who try to pressurize Sri Lanka.
If the international community is convinced that Tamil Homeland is nothing but a fiction then they would not have further dealings with these Eelamists. This has to be done to bring the Western colonialists to their senses.

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.

Similarities and Differences Between Withdrawal of Russian and US Forces

Russians started withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1367 Hijri (1988). Later, the Afghan Government fought the opponents alone until 1371 (1992) and defeated them in the month of February, the same year. Now, the history is about to repeat itself. Some indications are emerging that after the withdrawal of the United States, whether or not the Afghan Government will prolong? To answer these questions it is necessary to analyze the past and present.
With the Russian arrival in Afghanistan, comparatively general uprising was started from north to south and east to west of the country. The uprising was initially at public level. However, later, Jihadist organization came to fore. Currently, only the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and a portion of Hizb-e-Eslami are fighting against the government. During the Russian period, mujahidin were supported by the neighboring countries, the Arab world, Western Europe, the United State, China, and almost half of the world. However, no country openly sympathizes with the Taliban. The Pakistani Governments and Iran have been blamed. However, they never accepted these allegations.
Mujahidin’s Control
Following the war, former mujahidin were equipped with the spirit of Islam and Jihad. Government forces also had the spirit of patriotism. A proof to it is that in 1367 (1988), mujahidin carried out a fierce attack on Jalalabad. At that time, Nangarhar local government units surrendered. Only the national security and police units protected Jalalabad. The military guards coming to Kunar from Jalalabad were also cooperating with them. Mujahidin had taken control of the airport and had reached the city gate. In this war, Pakistani forces also supported mujahidin logistically. It is said that their artillery was also used in the war.
The time was close when the entire Jalalabad would have fallen into the hands of mujahidin. Dr Najibullah ordered 9th battalion, controlling the road security of Jalalabad, to reach Jalalabad. The first group of this battalion, which reached there was Group-155. Its commander was Arozgai Asadullah. The brave army commander of Nangarhar asked him to defend the airport. Assadullah said: I will object it. Commander asked how many men do you have? He had about 250 troops. He maintained his troops on Pica and other weapons. Then he started communicating with him. During the telephonic conversation, another language was heard. He asked his troops, if they understand that language. They said yes, they are speaking Urdu. He asked whose language is it? Troops replied: of Pakistanis. Asadullah said: Pakistanis have attacked our homeland. Homeland is like a mother. Those of you who respect the dignity of mother should stand up with me; if you do not, you are free to go. All the troops said: we will fight.
Commander Asadullah said: we will be fighting in standing position. There will be no lying or kneeing position. Injured and dead will not be carried out. Similarly, we will fight the enemy face to face. Then, he led and the troops followed him. They advanced for 2.5-km. They repulsed the enemy. All of them were killed. However, many of the enemy personnel were massacred.
Defeat of Mujahidin
The offensive of these 250 troops later caused the defeat of mujahidin. They were only fighting in the name of homeland and not for the national ideology. At that time, the government forces were equipped with the spirit of patriotism. They were taking mujahidin as enemies of the homeland. They were observing that mujahidin were setting ablaze schools, destroying bridges, uprooting electricity towers, killing teachers, same as the Taliban are doing now. However, right after the fall of Dr Najib's government, mujahidin started looting and plundering across the country, and proved their enmity with the homeland.
In March, Interior Minister General Bismillah said: "There is lack of patriotic spirit in army and police". Earlier, military commanders used to be patriotic. They were not looters. They were real men and were equally treating their troops, without any differences. However, now situation is not the same. Probably, due to the same reason, soldiers are less patriotic now than before. When Russians were withdrawing from the country, there were thousands of tanks, hundreds of transport and combat air-crafts, hundreds of helicopters, equipped artillery, Luna, (military) equipment, Scud missiles, and complete resources and possibilities of anti-air craft were in control of the Afghan Government. However, now our army does not have weapons, not even Pica and RPG.
UN Peace Plan
With the well maintained army of that time, an active and dynamic president like Najibullah was working for the country. He himself fought a war as a leading commander. However, President Karzai does not posses similar physical capacity or a consistence vision. He keeps on changing his statements. At times, he becomes furious and at other moment a cool minded person. Equipped army, high morale of troops, strong president, and fair administration was the bases of prolonging the rule of Najibullah. However, his government was not toppled because of mujahidin but internal conspiracies. Initially, the coupe d'état by Shahnawaz Tanai broke the backbone of his government. Later, the coalition between General Momin, Dostam, Syed Kian and Ahmed Shah Masud limited the writ of the government to Northern part of the country. General Nabi Azimi and Karmal's cooperation blunt the UN peace plan, and forced Dr Najibullah to resign.
Can the Hamid Karzai government sustain after the US withdrawal? According to the aforementioned points, now the opponents of the government are limited to two confronting political groups. They do not have support from any international element. They do not enjoy greater support because of the incidents of setting the schools on fire, destroying bridges, roads, and hospitals, and suicide attacks. The Taliban do not have capacity for face to face fight. They can only conduct sniper and suicide attacks. They can only be caught through intelligence and detective information. The government forces are incapable against them and do not have air forces and air defense. They do not have cannons, tanks, and other heavy weapons. Above all, the soldiers are not as loyal as they should be. Another good point is that there is no excuse for the government to fight against the Taliban after the US withdrawal. Most of the Taliban will surrender due to the peace talks.
Following the Russian withdrawal, Jihadist organizations told their fighters that the government has loyalties to Russians; therefore, we need to do Jihad against them. They leveled decree of infidelity against Dr Najib. Mjahidin did not clear their hearts for Dr Najib no mater how many testimonies he was making. However, now no one suspects Karzai. It is being said that he offers Tahajud Prayer (mid night prayer). Therefore, he sleeps until 0900 and does not attend his office.
After the Russian withdrawal, the Afghan Government was left alone. Only the Soviet Government was supporting it. Now, when the United States will withdraw, the entire world will support Afghanistan. As we have trained ex-army soldiers, they can be reappointed in army and their expertise can be utilized. Our former Army officers are accustomed with the Russians weapons. If heavy weapons are taken from Russia, three years is not a long time to establish air force and build air defense. Until our air force is not self sufficient, the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can take the responsibility of country's air force and army. The government can maintain its troops for patriotism.
Financial Support
It is only possible if the Taliban are propagated against their crimes. The Taliban should be shown videos of them killing the people, setting ablaze the schools, and destroying the public welfare infrastructure. They should be forced to realize that they should not forget the sacrifices of the people. On the other hand, those soldiers who have been martyred for the sake of homeland, their families should be provided financial support. By doing so, soldiers will be free of the worries of their families' sustenance. As the Taliban cannot fight face to face, and stress upon suicide and sniper attacks; therefore, the government should make its intelligence stronger. If all this is done, then there is a greater possibility that the government can stay for a longer period. However, weak leadership of Karzai is a matter of concern. If he cannot do it, he should find an active, dynamic, and strong person for war strategy and administration.

Arab League Suspends Syria

The Arab League has suspended Syria until President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining. The immediate cause of the vote is the failure by Damascus to abide by its own November 2 assent to an earlier League plan to end the violence, which the United Nations estimates has caused more than 3,500 deaths since the protests began in March.
A statement, read by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani, said the Arab League decided “to suspend Syrian delegations’ activities in Arab League meetings” if it continued to stall the Arab plan and to implement “economic and political sanctions against the Syrian Government.” It also called for the withdrawal of Arab ambassadors from Damascus, but left the decision to each Arab state.
The statement warned that Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi would contact international organizations concerned with human rights, “including the United Nations,” if the bloodshed continued. It called for a meeting in Cairo with Syrian opposition groups in three days to “agree a unified vision for the coming transitional period in Syria.”
A week of deadly violence in city of Homs had overshadowed the meeting, in which Arab ministers appeared divided on what measure to take but eventually voted by majority on the final statement.
Assad’s regime agreed on November 2 to an Arab road map, which called for the release of detainees, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as negotiations with the opposition.
Instead, human rights groups say the regime has intensified its crackdown on dissent, especially in flashpoint Homs, killing at least 125 people in the city since signing onto the League’s deal.
Saudi Arabia, which is extremely hostile to Iranian influence in Syria and to democracy in the region, advocates encouraging Sunni Islamist forces, and this would also marginalize moderate Syrian Sunnis. This suits North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members very well. Those Western powers whose leaders, facing severe domestic problems and needing some high-profile foreign adventurism, suborned the United Nations Security Council into voting for the violent and destructive intervention against Muammar Gaddhafi know that Russia and China will rightly veto any such resolution on Syria; but now the West can look uninvolved and can expect little criticism for its silence over continuing state brutality in Bahrain and Yemen.
Growing Death Toll
The UN human rights office said that more than 3,500 people have been killed in the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, deploring the slaughter that went on despite a peace plan. The brutal crackdown on the dissent in Syria has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,500 Syrians.
More than 60 people are reported to have been killed by military and security forces since Syria signed the peace plan sponsored by the league of Arab states, including at least 19 on Eid al-Adha.
The Arab roadmap calls for an end to violence, the release of those detained, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as talks between the regime and opposition.
EU Extends Sanctions
European Union (EU) governments agreed have to extend sanctions against Syria to 18 more individuals associated with its violent crackdown on dissent, but signaled that Western military action against the government was unlikely for now.
EU foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, also sought to increase economic pressure on President Bashar al-Assad by approving plans to stop Syria accessing funds from EU’s European Investment Bank (EIB).
The EU has already placed sanctions on 56 Syrians and 19 organizations in its effort to get Assad to halt his bloody crackdown on the eight-month uprising, and has banned the import into the EU of Syrian crude oil.
EU leaders warned last month that Syria could face new sanctions if there was no halt to the violence, in which the United Nations says more than 3,500 protesters have died. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was a good case for further extending EU measures, which from 15 November will affect 74 individuals and 19 firms and entities.
Syria’s Reaction
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that the government in Damascus will not budge despite its suspension from the Arab League, which he warned was a “dangerous step.” Muallem’s comments come after the Arab League announced a fresh meeting on Syria and as global pressure, including a threat of new sanctions, intensified on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime over its lethal crackdown on protests. “The decision of the Arab League to suspend Syria... represents a dangerous step,” Muallem added.
The foreign minister said: “Today there is a crisis in Syria which pays the price of its strong positions. Syria will not budge and will emerge stronger... And plots against Syria will fail,” said the minister. Muallem said Syria’s government was not concerned about the likelihood of foreign military intervention in the country, due to the opposition of China and Russia. He added: “Syria is not Libya. The Libyan scenario will not be repeated; what is happening in Syria is different from what happened in Libya and the Syrian people should not worry.”

Weaknesses, Inabilities of Afghan National Army

According to a report of The Washington Post, the occupying crusader forces in Afghanistan have announced that 24,00 soldiers deserted the hired the Afghan Army of the labor institute (Afghan Government) during the last six months. It means that 15 per cent soldiers of the army have escaped from their duties during the last six months. According to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), only 12,000 soldiers have been recruited in the army during the past six months, which shows that the new recruitments are only 50 per cent of those who have escaped.
The Washington Post reports that 5,000 soldiers deserted the army during the month of June alone.
Occupying Forces
The incidents of desertion of soldiers from the army is getting momentum at a time when the foreign occupying forces, which have transferred the security responsibilities of various regions to the hired Afghan soldiers and are gradually withdrawing from the rest of the regions, are also fleeing from the country.
William Caldwell, commander of the occupying forces of NATO, says that Afghan military officials should find ways to deal with such humiliated state of affairs. Meanwhile, General Abdorrahim Wardak, Defense Minister of the puppet system [government] of the United States, says that the problem of desertion by soldiers from the army can be resolved only when the foreign occupying forces transfer the security responsibility to local labors. The statement by Wardak not only negates military strategy but also unacceptable to ordinary prudence.
Various officials of the hired army term the immoral attitude and ill-treatment by the corrupt commanders with the soldiers responsible for the desertion of soldiers. They say that meager pay and insufficient food supplies are the reasons behind deserting the army.
On the other hand, the US commanders of the occupying forces in Afghanistan term the weaknesses of the chief of the hired army as the real reason behind the desertion of soldiers and say that army chief misappropriates all the budget of the army and deprives the soldiers of their due share which in turn compel these soldiers on desertion from the army.
Flexible Recruitment Policies
Although the military officials of the occupiers and the local forces term the flexible recruitment policies and the weaknesses of the army chief as the reasons behind the desertion of soldiers but the fact is that fierce attacks and resistance by the mujahidin, in which thousands of soldiers of the hired army have been killed, are the real reasons behind the desertion of soldiers from the army.
While the hired army is going through very problematic and disgraceful conditions, the foreign occupiers and the local labors Afghan Army are still dreaming to be successful in recruiting two hundred thousand personnel army. However, analysts of Afghan situation are of the view that recruitment of such a large number of personnel during the continuation of aforementioned problems is impossible.

Afghan President’s India Visit: New Delhi and Kabul Establish Strategic Cooperation

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, came to India for a two-day visit on 4 October. Karzai’s trip to New Delhi is seen as one laden with significance where the deepening of bilateral ties between the two countries are concerned. The two countries entered into a strategic partnership under which India will, among other things, assist the war-ravaged nation in training, equipping and capacity building programs for Afghan National Security Forces.

The landmark agreement was signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Karzai after their wide ranging discussions on the situation in the embattled nation and how India could strengthen its capacity building programs in that country.

Political and Security Issues

The agreement envisions bilateral ties on an altogether different and broader plane, encompassing areas such as security and economic cooperation. The most significant aspect of the strategic partnership is the political and security cooperation it envisages in areas such as combating international terrorism.
The agreement provides for the training, equipping and capacity-building of Afghan national security forces, which is being seen as a preparation for the drawdown of US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces by 2014. Thus far, treading carefully, New Delhi had been largely pumping aid to help build Afghanistan’s infrastructure.

Security cooperation between the sides was intended to help enhance their respective and mutual efforts in the fight against international terrorism, organized crime, illegal trafficking in narcotics, money laundering and so on, the text of the strategic partnership document said. India agreed to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programs for Afghan National Security Forces.

The two countries also concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cooperation in the field of development of hydrocarbons and another on cooperation in the field of mineral resource development.

Under the agreement, the two sides will engage in close political cooperation by establishing a mechanism for regular bilateral political and Foreign Office Consultations. Political consultations will be led by the Foreign Ministries of both countries and include summit level consultations convened at least once a year.

The two sides will also consult and cooperate at the United Nations and other international, regional and multilateral fora. India and Afghanistan also agreed to establish a Strategic Dialogue to provide a framework for cooperation in the area of national security. The dialogue will be led by National Security Advisers (NSAs) and involve regular consultations with the aim of intensifying mutual efforts toward strengthening regional peace and security.

Support for UN Reforms

The strategic agreement also comprises joint initiatives on key international issues and support for UN reforms, including permanent seat for India in the UN Security Council. It entails a strategic dialogue to provide a framework for cooperation in the area of national security. "The dialogue will be led by NSAs and involve regular consultations with the aim of intensifying mutual efforts towards strengthening regional peace and security.

The two countries committed themselves to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation, as well as cooperation between other bodies of business and industry representatives, with a view to expanding trade and economic relations.

The major pacts signed include:

* An MoU on cooperation in the field mineral resource development concluded. The two sides will engage in close political cooperation
* India to assist in training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan security forces
* Both nations committed to strengthening trade, economic, scientific and technological cooperation

War on Terror Destroying US Credibility on Human Rights

Ten years later, there is still an aura surrounding the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC). People remember where they were when they heard about it.
The United States immediately refused an offer of assistance from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the defense alliance whose Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them. NATO has not been the same since. The United States later used its airpower to bomb the Taliban and Al-Qaida's regular forces to bits. That was also a resolute act that was carried out without any significant presence on the ground in Afghanistan, and which did not provoke any particularly strong protest.
Eliminating Terrorism Menace
The decisive action in the period immediately after 11 September was an act of speech, that of defining the situation as war. And then there was a war, against Iraq. The justification that the United States gave for going to war was not correct; there was no tie between Al-Qaida and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as the United States had alleged, and people knew that. When this became known to the public in the country that is the US main ally, the United Kingdom, it cost social democrat Tony Blair his job as prime minister. US public opinion hardly reacted at all.
But there was some protest. One of the critics, interestingly enough, was a razor sharp analyst named John Mearsheimer. "If you are the strongest guy in the street, why stand on the rooftop and shout it out," he asked. If US military power is absolutely superior to that of other states, why throw away a huge amount of resources, which could advantageously be deployed elsewhere, on something that cannot possible be of vital national interest?
Now, in 2011, when the war in Iraq alone has cost the United States more than the war in Vietnam, and it seems quite unclear what the benefits have actually been, there are many more people asking the same question. But when it was essential to question the war, Mearsheimer and a few other skeptics stood completely alone. In Europe, a majority of us asked whether Al-Qaida was what the Germans call duellfähig, worth a duel, with the world's strongest state by far. Would not a police operation have been a reaction that was considerably more in proportion to the situation, and considerably better suited to get results?
Deterioration in Quality of Life
That question remains valid. Others have been added to it. The main question now being asked is how to get out at the least possible cost. The costs have already been far too high. The whole tone of US politics, and to some extent that of European politics as well, has become increasingly edgy and security-oriented. This is a deterioration in quality of life that affects us all.
The US warfare has been costly, not only in human lives and in financial terms, but also politically. The United States has managed to preserve the decisively important alliance with Saudi Arabia, and officially at least, working relations with Pakistan have been maintained, but over the last ten years, the United States has become even less popular among wide sectors of the population in the Middle East. For Americans, there is now even more reason to ask the question: "Why do they hate us?" than there was in 2001.
When the United States chose to define relations with radical Islam as war, this led to extended effects in all of Christendom, and in the entire Islamic world, the Ummah. Before 9/11, we in Norway talked about "immigrants." Now we talk about "Muslims." One precondition for the events of 22 July was the steadily growing tension between these imaginary quantities in the decade before. Here we have two examples of a general tendency that cannot be explained by 9/11, but which cannot be considered in isolation from 9/11 either.
US Ties With Central Players
With regard to the United States' place in the world in general, 9/11 seems chiefly to have strengthened and accelerated already existing tendencies. The US shift away from Europe toward the rest of the world has been obvious. The United States is, therefore, not overly concerned about NATO being weakened. Tensions between the United States and the other central players on the world stage, particularly China and India, have become bigger. These two states were dissatisfied with their ranking and influence before 9/11, and after ten years of growth, they are even more dissatisfied.
The border between India and Pakistan has consolidated its position as one of the places where a war in Asia could break out; it is probably the most likely place. No one now talks triumphantly about the United States being the strongest empire in world history, as many Americans did before 9/11. Nevertheless, the United States is still the strongest state by far in military terms and will remain so for some years to come.
The candidate for the most important repercussion of 9/11 is related to the polarization in relations with Muslims and in relations with China and India, but it is more general in character. After the United States' behavior at Guantanamo and in Abu Ghraib, it is more difficult for Washington to speak from a human-rights perspective.
Western Hegemony
After the unsuccessful campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is more difficult to credibly claim that US political and economic systems can be forcibly exported. Taken together with China's and India's steadily strengthening positions, this means that the West's ascendancy in global politics has been considerably weakened.
In the future, the "war on terror" may be seen as an important stage in the windup of Western hegemony. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy. The "war on terror" was a failed reaction to it.

Civil Unrest, Rekindled Nationalism in Libya

The Libyan revolutionaries captured the country's capital Tripoli with a crushing force. Three sons of the Libyan tyrant Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who made up a last-ditch fight were seized one after another. Now the revolutionaries are stepping up their hunt for Gaddafi while taking over the control of Libya's economic lifelines. This indeed marks the death of "the era of Gaddafi". Although Gaddafi still tries hard to turn the tide, he has lost his control over the country. The name of Gaddafi may become obsolete soon.
Under the coordination of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Transitional National Council formed by the anti-Gaddafi alliance is now gradually taking over the ruling power. This has not only realigned the political forces in Libya, but has also added an uncertain variable to the new order of Middle East, which is yet to be established. This variable may be in the form of what predicted by the US State Secretary Hillary Clinton -- an Iraq-style civil unrest in Libya. But it could be in the form of the resurrection of nationalism in Middle Eastern tribes as well. The fanatic nationalism may replace the tyrant politics and start to expand its external influence again. Whichever scenario it is going to turn out, the situation in Libya worries the outsiders a lot.
What worries us the most now is the rekindled nationalism among the public in Middle East. The emergence of nationalism almost coincides with the collapse of the tyrant rule. Nationalism has timely filled in the blank in the people's hearts after the downfall of the tyrant politics. In countries used to be ruled by tyrants like Iraq, Tunisia, and Egypt, nationalism has helped the people found their new starting point. However, the over emphasis on nationalism may cause new commotion. Another concern is the anti-Gaddafi alliance because we could see the shadow of Gaddafi cast upon the alliance. Under this shadow, we do not see any candidate who can replace him at the moment yet. This is why many Western people have predicted that after the downfall of Gaddafi, Libya will plunge into an internal strife, which will be more sinister and destructive than that in Iraq. The hatred and violent confrontation between tribes may lead the country to a crisis of separation.
It is beyond doubt how the weapons of mass destruction and bio-chemical weapons possessed by Libya could influence the balance of powers in Middle East. Therefore, a pressing mission for the gulf countries now is to rebuild the "natural equilibrium" of Middle East. Countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France have called on Gaddafi to hand over his power the soonest possible, so that the Transitional National Council led by Mahmoud Jibril can take over the administration temporarily. This is not only related to how fast Libya can be consolidated, this is also related to the establishment of the equilibrium in Middle East. If a political and economic alliance can be established and the different tribes in the country can agree and come out with a consistent diplomatic policy in the post-Gaddafi Libya, then it is possible that we will see a power balance between the Libyan alliance and other Arabic countries. If Libya is unable to establish such a political and economic alliance at the moment, then the country should develop some form of negotiation mechanism among the many tribes in the country to ensure the security in Libya itself, as well as in Middle East. This kind of arrangement of the power structure is rather similar to the equilibrium in Europe in the 19th century, but at the same time, this is indeed the direction of the development of our history today.
Disintegration in Arab World
In addition to diplomatic arrangement, the West should also find way to mitigate the shocks caused during the disintegration process in Iraq, Tunisia, and Egypt by tackling from the perspective of internal affairs. The West has hoped to see Middle East transit from tyrant politics. However, the changes have been too speedy for the West to handle. We have even observed the panic and confusion of the West as they are unable to be on top of these changes. Initially Russia opposed to the call of the United States and Europe that demanded Gaddafi to step down. But the country changed its mind in late July and called on Gaddafi to step down the soonest possible. This is an example of how some have failed to have a good command of the situation. This is why the West should get in touch with the revolutionaries as soon as possible to learn about their thoughts, to provide them the necessary aids, to appease the grudge among the tribes, and to prevent another civil war from breaking out.
Deterioration of Country’s Economy
The deterioration of the Libyan economy triggered the movement that eventually toppled the Gaddafi regime. However, the deteriorated economy would not get improved as an immediate result of the collapse of the tyrant politics or the rise of nationalism. What would the Libyan people do when they realize nationalism is not going to bring them warm winter?
Perhaps some would get frustrated; but it is more likely that some would advocate Fascist and nationalist dictatorship and attack the West for bringing the Libyan economy into trouble. They may impute the economic problems to the West and a series of civil wars may break out between tribes in support of Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi tribes.
Role of International Community
Thus, what the whole international community should do today is to think of how to address the issue based on the fact of the power vacuum in Libya. For the West, the United States especially, the current pressing task is to understand and handle the changing state of affairs in Libya by employing a new framework. The new framework has to cover both the internal affairs and diplomatic fronts. In relation to internal affairs, they should establish communication channels with all tribes in Libya to be on top of the situation. At the same time, they should offer economic aids as soon as possible to help the Libyan people get through the coming severe winter and prevent Fascism or civil wars from breaking out.
Diplomatically, they should try to reestablish the equilibrium to prevent the expansion of the Arabic nationalism. For the entire international community, handling the changing state of affairs in Libya is like managing an international crisis. It is the greatest challenge to the political wisdom and resolution of the Western world as to whether or not they can handle this crisis in an appropriate manner and whether or not they can prevent the predicted disaster.

Libya's Future After Gadhafi's Downfall

When I turned on my computer in the morning and clicked into the website of Reuters, the big headline reads: ‘Rebels enter Tripoli, crowds celebrate’. Beneath the headline was a picture of a rebel sitting at the windowsill of a car -- he stretched half of his body out of the window and raised his arms high up to cheer.
Continuing Civil War
Libya has plunged into a civil war for more than six months following the eruption of the reform wave in Middle East early this year. The civil war has finally come to an end?
Finally, the winner emerges between the Libyan revolutionaries backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the force loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi after a half-year tough fight. But I have put a question mark there because this only marks the end of a civil war. Another or more civil wars are brewing, or we may say that it has actually already started.
Libya is a country. But more accurately, it is actually a tribal society. There are altogether about 2,000 small and big tribes in Libya. Strictly speaking, Libyan people are actually loyal to their own tribes. In Libya, a country with such special attribute, the people identify themselves more with their tribes than with the country.
Suppressive and High-Handed Approach
In the past 42 years, Gaddafi had ruled Libya using suppressive and high-handed approach. In the eyes of democratic European and North American countries, Gaddafi is beyond doubt a dictator. But in a typical tribal society that practices the rule of the jungle, it is an absolute daydream if we hope the nation would elect an Obama in accordance with the standard of the West.
From the perspective of the outsiders, the Libyan people are now liberated and Libya is now reborn. But what actually happens in the country now is that a civil war within a civil war is boiling up and may break out at any moment.
There may be a reign of terror among the Libyan tribes now. The war between tribes may be brewing and poised to erupt. What follow will be fighting back, revenge, and power struggle.
Gaddafi already fell. But his followers and the Gadhafa tribe which has been loyal to him would not just await their doom. They would definitely fight back and take revenge.
At the same time, the opposition is similarly factional. In late July this year, Major General Abdul Fatah Younis -- former interior minister in Gaddafi's regime who subsequently defected to the rebels and became the chief commander of the revolutionaries -- was killed in an ambush. What the transitional government claimed when announcing his death was contradictory, making some to suspect if Major General Abdul Fatah Younis was assassinated by ‘his own men’. His death also revealed the internal contradiction in the opposition camp.
Challenges Faced by Transitional Government
Meanwhile, the transitional government is also facing tricky and tough issues like the distribution of interests and power after it takes over the ruling power; the post-war reconstruction of Libya, and putting the chaotic society back to order.
NATO, which is led by the West, had deployed their troops to Libya in the name of democratizing Libya. Now, as the Libyan tyrant Gaddafi is coming close to his ‘last breath’, is Libya advancing towards democracy?
Let us take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Commotion and social disorder have prevailed after the two nations overthrew their dictators. In a Third World country in transition, democracy is still a luxurious gift.

Need for Comprehensive Reconstruction, Rehabilitation Plan for Afghanistan

The way the global war on terror was launched after the 9/11 incident it caused the loss of a large number of human lives. Rather instances of the worst human rights violations and war crimes also emerged in the meanwhile and that too at the hand of the countries that consider themselves to be the champions of the human rights and human friendliness. The denial of the fact that the poverty increased there after the US invasion of Afghanistan is not possible. In addition, the hatred and provocation against the US and West has also increased, which is the basic cause of terrorism.
The major powers immensely used their power in the war on terror because of which it (terrorism) expanded instead of being contained. Numerous reports of the human rights organizations have appeared wherein this fact was revealed that majority of the people arrested in connection with terrorism proved to be innocent. Similarly, the innocent people have also been losing lives after being caught in the operations of the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops and actions of terrorists and are still losing their lives and their number is increasing every year.
Civilian Deaths
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan released its biannual report in July 2011 in which the data of the civilian deaths in the first half of the current year during the global war against terrorism in Afghanistan have been published. According to the mentioned report, the number of deaths during this period witnessed 15 percent increase as compared to the same period of the previous year. In the first six months of 2011, 1,462 innocent Afghan civilians have lost their lives while death of 1,271 people during the same period was recorded last year and total 2,777 deaths were reported in the entire year.
It would be pertinent to mention here that the collection of data with regard to the deaths of allied and US troops is comparatively easy but there is no authentic and reliable procedure in place to collect the data of the deaths of common Afghan citizens, therefore, the real number of civilian deaths would certainly be much more than that mentioned in these compiled reports, which is a matter of concern.
Growing Destruction, Poverty and Ignorance
The present situation of the war in Afghanistan has created the worst situation of death and destruction in this impoverished and backward country where the number of the innocent citizens who die, sustain injuries and are maimed is constantly increasing every year. In this type of reports, the responsibility for killing of a large number of Afghan civilians is put on the antigovernment and insurgent groups and the Taliban.
This tradition has been repeated in the mentioned report as well. But it is a fact that whether the innocent Afghan civilians become fall prey to the actions of the US or NATO forces or lose their lives at the hand of pro-government Afghan forces or Taliban and anti-government terrorists, the common citizens are at the losing end, as they are being crushed from both sides and this war has made the growing destruction, poverty and ignorance their fate, which in itself is one of the major cause of the real causes of spreading terrorism.
Impact on Pakistan
Pakistan has also been affected by negative effects of the war and the entire Pakistan is in the grip of the coward acts of terrorism for the last 10 years to control which the Pakistan Army had to launch military action in its territories. Compelled by the connivance of the terrorists with the anti-Pakistan forces, the Pakistani armed forces had to resolve to crush these forces that had risen against Pakistan in these difficult circumstances and were becoming a threat to Pakistan's security and peace.
The successes of the Pakistan Army in Swat and Malakand Division are laudable where they (troops) played an important role in restoration of peace in these areas by laying down their precious lives.
Withdrawal of US Troops
The United States and allied troops made Afghanistan the stage of this global war, which was aimed at elimination of terrorism in the world, in 2001 where the invading forces used their immense military power and superiority of science and technology against the weakest nation of the world and thousands of innocent people were put on the altar of war during their military actions.
The US has recently announced withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan in the first phase of which the process of the departure of 10,000 troops has started. It is pleasant that the invading forces have given the schedule of their departure but they also need to pay attention to the matter that a comprehensive program is chalked out for rehabilitation of the destroyed lives of people there after their withdrawal so that the miseries of these war-stricken Afghans can be compensated to some extent.
Establishment of Peace
Anyhow, this war spanned over a decade has confirmed that the United States direly needs to change its strategy in the war against terrorism. The use of power also harms the lives of the innocent people, making the achievement of the real objectives impossible. Therefore, the process of dialogue with the warring groups has become the need of the hour and now the situation is heading toward the same direction because in this way we can contain the unjustified loss of lives and property of the innocent people and can achieve the objective of the establishment of peace that can eliminate the causes of terrorism.
In addition, the difficult phase of the rehabilitation of the Afghan people and reconstruction is also ahead without the completion of which, the dream of the establishment of a durable peace in Afghanistan cannot be realized.

China and Future of Asian Security Order

Since 2010, the success or failure of peace settlement of conflict in the South China Sea has become a hot issue of concern to the international political community. From 18 to 23 July, the negotiation between China and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) (over territorial dispute in the South China Sea) finally reached a breakthrough.
Based on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, ASEAN and Chinese officials have reached a diplomatic agreement on a set of guidelines that can help to promote the creation of a mutual trust, mutual cooperation mechanism to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea.
Sovereignty Claim
Although this mutual cooperation mechanism will not change respective country's position on the sovereignty claim of maritime rights and islands in the South China Sea, but as we look at this breakthrough from all perspectives, the signing of this agreement has carried with it great significance.
First, after the relationship between China and Southeast Asian countries went through a round of crisis last year, the signing of the Guidelines now ushers a new turning point for China and Southeast Asian countries to move toward the right direction in resolving the conflict in the South China Sea. Second, despite the fact that the cause that led to the crisis in the South China Sea in 2010 was very complicated, but the arrival of the turning point this year has reflected the fact that China has the ability to digest and resolve crisis and turn crisis into opportunity. Third, more importantly, the signing of this ‘Guidelines’ agreement also signifies that Asian countries have the ability to use their own method to deal with one another's disputes and to establish an Asian regional order among them.
Presence of US forces in Asia
The presence of the US forces in Asia is an objective reality and the presence of the US forces in Asia is viewed by ASEAN member countries as a necessity force to ‘balance’ China. As such, very often, the US factor tends to make the construction of an Asian regional security order more complex. To China, the presence of the United States in Asia is something China cannot avoid but yet the presence of it is not at all that bad. While the presence of the United States in this Asian region has increased the difficulties of China in handling issues relating to Asia, the presence of the United States in Asia has also made China becoming more rational in handling regional affairs.
From historical perspective, the establishment of any form of regional order, especially the establishment of regional security order has never been an easy one. Most of the regional security orders that people see now were in fact achieved through wars. For example, the formation of the European security pact cannot be separated from the two world wars. The security alliance pact between the United States and Japan and the security alliance pact between the United States and South Korea are also inseparable from the past wars. Apparently, it is comparatively easier to establish new security order in post-war period.
War is a matter of life and death. Very often, in the post-war period, countries can discover many favorable conditions to form a new security order. In Europe, the two world wars have brought immense disaster to mankind. This disaster nevertheless led countries to reach a consensus on the need to establish a common security order to avoid future war. But in the process of building the European security order, the United States has played a leading role. After the Second World War, the United States has become the world leader acceptable by all the countries in Europe. Meanwhile, the United States also has the ability to play such a role using his massive economic power and military strength. In addition, development of the Cold War has also helped the United States to ascertain and establish its world leadership. During that period, Western Europe faced a strong Soviet Union; they needed such a similar strong US leadership to withstand their external threat. The Cold War that persisted for as long as half a century has highly institutionalized the security order in Europe and in the United States (mainly reflected in North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]). After the Cold War, the United States and Western Europe are able to expand the NATO mechanism to cover the whole of Europe.
Western Security Order Derived From Long Period of War
Similarly, the security alliance partnership between the United States and Japan as well as between the United States and South Korea alliance pact were also formed in the post-victory period of the United States. After the defeat of Japan in the Second World War, the United States took control of Japan for the then Japan did not have any independent diplomacy. To a very large degree, the US-Japan security alliance after the Second World War was arranged by the United States single-handedly. Although Japan is the main participant in the US-Japan security pact, Japan does not have very much say in it. The security pact signed between the United States and South Korea is also quite similar. South Korea has no difficulty to accept the US leadership and allow the US troops to be stationed in South Korea because South Korea's security threat comes from North Korea.
However, in many ways, the kind of security order formed after the ‘post-victory’ period did reflect many internal inequities. Regardless of whether it is the European security order, or whether it is the alliance pact signed between the United States and Japan or the alliance agreement signed between the United States and South Korea, the United States is in a position to command absolute leadership. While on one hand, the leadership status of the United States is useful for the establishment of new security order, but on the other hand, member countries within the security pacts must accept the US leadership. Yet for the United States to maintain its leadership status, there are some basic prerequisite and conditions the United States must observe. First, there is the cost of war to bear. Second, there is the external threat to face. Third, the openness of the US leadership with the system and the ability of this leadership to accommodate the interests of the members within the group or security pact must adhere. If substantial changes occur in these conditions, the fundamental basis of such security order will be threatened.
After the end of the Cold War, NATO is able to continue and survive and expand by relying on its expansion range. At the same time, it might be that the security threat coming from Russia has also helped in the cohesion of NATO. In the case of the alliance pact between the United States with Japan and with the alliance pact between the United States and South Korea, there were certain periods of time when these alliance pacts between them becoming loose due to the lack of external threats. During certain period, the outcries of the people in South Korea in demanding the US troop withdrawal from South Korea were very high. In Japan, during Japan's Democratic Party leader Hatoyama's tenure as the Prime Minister of Japan, Hatoyama has also proposed the establishment of an East Asian Community in order to pursue equality status of Japan with the United States. Nevertheless, in recent years, North Korean has been viewed as the threat of both Japan and South Korea. Behind the security alliance pact of Japan and South Korea with the United States, these three countries have now considered China as their external threat.
In addition, a region's geopolitical environment can also have a unique impact on that particular region's security order. Such geopolitical impact is most obviously manifested in North America. In North America, the natural environment of the United States in that particular region makes the United States holding a dominating and supremacy position and so the United States has naturally become the leader in North America. It is also apparent to all that the North American security system is a kind of highly hierarchical dependence type of security system. In all aspects of strength and capability, whether it is Mexico or Canada, these two countries cannot be compared with that of the United States. These two countries also do not have any ambition to challenge the United States. Coupled with the openness of the US system itself, North America has developed a more natural regional security order than other regions in the world.
In Asia, the construction of the regional security order does not follow such a pattern. In the first place, unlike Europe, Asia has not gone through the type of prolonged war that Europe has gone through in the past. Moreover, even when there were wars in Asia, the wars did not produce any ‘victor’ similar to that of Europe. In the 1930s of the last century, Japan had wanted to establish the Japanese Imperial order though the use of war, but Japan's ambition ended in failure. While we can China was the ‘winner’ or ‘victor’ after Japan's defeat, but in reality, China neither had the concept nor thought to establish a regional security order similar to that of the western countries. This was in addition to the fact that China did not have the ability and sufficient power to do so too. Due to the development of the Cold War, the US-Japan and US-Republic of Korea alliance were formed. In this regard, it was also quite impossible for a regional security order be formed in Northeast Asia to include all the countries in that region then. On the contrary, due to the fact that the security pacts signed between the United States and Japan as well as the security pact signed between the United States and South Korea have all viewed China as their potential external threat, the security order in the Northeast Asian region is in fact an ‘insecure’ security order. Under the current situation, for a security order to be formed in the Northeast Asian region, it must satisfy the following two conditions. First, China has to accept the regional security order led by the United States; and at least for the minimum, China must not challenge such a regional security order led by the United States. Second, the United States must accommodate China's interest to a certain level. However, these two considerations are rather unstable. As such, as of today, the Northeast Asian region still faces the challenge to form a regional security order that can include the need of both China and the United States.
ASEAN Regional Security Order
However, ASEAN is a special case. It is a successful non-western regional security order. While western security order has set conditions for its formation, there is no such condition exists among ASEAN member countries. For example, although there are sporadic conflicts among ASEAN member countries, however, within ASEAN there is no breakout of war in magnitude comparable to the type of war that happened in Europe in the past. As such, within this ASEAN regional group, there is no ‘winner’ or ‘victor’ of wars or conflicts. Moreover; the Southeast Asian region also does not have a natural leader similar to that of the United States in other regions of the world. Although among the ASEAN member countries, Indonesia is a natural big country within the Southeast Asian region, but in term of Indonesia's internal strength and external influence towards other countries in Southeast Asia, the status of Indonesia is far less from such a position that can be compared with that of the United States in North America. Moreover, although at different period of time, Southeast Asia also faced some external threat, but these threats were far less serious than the situation in Europe or Northeast Asia.
Under such conditions, the countries in Southeast Asia embarked on a non-western path and established a non-western regional security order for themselves. After the formation of ASEAN, due to the fact that ASEAN's security order is different from that of the western style secur ity order, ASEAN has all along been viewed as a regional forum with no real significant power or even carried any significant meaning. However, on practical level, ASEAN is no less insecure than any region (including Europe) since the end of the Cold War. As stated above, the security order within ASEAN is neither imposed by external force nor that was its security order ascertained or formed by a strong and forceful leader outside the ASEAN region. As such one can also hold the view that the creation and development of this regional security order in ASEAN in fact hold more democratic features than other regions. As a matter of fact, the contact, discussion, consensus and trust building mooted among all ASEAN member countries as well as the ultimate institutionalization and legalization of the work of ASEAN are the main security features of this regional grouping in Asia.
Post-Cold War Scenario
After the Cold War, ASEAN has also faced many challenges. But ASEAN accepted and succeeded to face such challenges. At certain period of time, ASEAN thought that the most effective means to maintain ASEAN's regional security was to exclude the involvement of all external big nations. Later on, ASEAN leaders realized that the exclusion of great powers into the Southeast Asian region was not realistic for it did not meet the interest of ASEAN. In this regard, ASEAN has successfully transformed into an inclusive regional forum, and has gradually established an inclusive regional security cooperation framework within the Asian region. The most outstanding achievement of ASEAN is that ASEAN has succeeded to accommodate China, Japan and South Korea from the Northeast Asian region into ASEAN's annual summit and forum. Of late, ASEAN has also included the participation of the United States in its ASEAN Regional Forum. At this year's forum held in Bali, China and ASEAN reached a non-binding guidelines and agreement for the implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. This is one of the achievements of ASEAN in dealing with regional affairs.
Historians in the future will say that this ‘Guidelines’ agreement reached between China and ASEAN is a starting point of a new China-ASEAN regional security order. In the formation of this regional security order, China will play a key role in it. If the China factor is ignored, then the talk of a new Asian regional security order would be impossible to achieve.
As a rising Asian power, China is destined to play a major role in Asia's regional security order. This is regardless of what other people's subjective wish of Asia's regional security order will be. How China acts will determine whether Asia can form a certain kind of regional security order or not. From what is happening now, it is obvious that China has gradually used its own method to successfully integrate itself into the Asian regional security order that uses ASEAN as its fundamental base. China's choice is not only consistent with China's national interests. China's choice is also more in line with ASEAN's interests. However, this process is not easy. For China, this is a challenge. China must learn, adapt and take up the responsibility to shoulder the duties entrusted along the process.
China's transformation of behavior in dealing with other countries has comprehensively reflected the non-western concept of Asian feature. In China's relationship with ASEAN countries, like all other big countries, China's initial response was refusal. But very soon, China accepted the multilateralism nature of ASEAN and within this multilateral framework; China played an active role in it. In this kind of multilateral relationship, China also made effort to stress on putting multinational economic relations with ASEAN first; and then later on expanded to other areas, including the security fields. Now, through trade and economic relations, China and ASEAN countries have gradually built mutual trust with each other and have begun to engage in various aspects of institutionalized constru ction. Although China and ASEAN have already achieved the implementation of free trade through the signed China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, China still puts its focus on building up economic relations with all ASEAN member countries. Of particular note is that the reason why ASEAN is able to accommodate China is because China has chosen to be accommodated by ASEAN. In this regard, China is different from some other major powers which are only interested to fight for leadership role within the ASEAN framework. After China joined ASEAN's friendly pact, China has no intention to fight for leadership role, but instead, China acknowledges and supports ASEAN's leadership role. In this regard, the behavior of China and the action taken by China pose a striking contrast of the behavior of the United States. It is obvious that the United States has begun to assert its leadership role in this ASEAN region once the United States joins ASEAN as part and parcel of its partnership body. In fact, while welcoming the participation of the United States into the ASEAN mechanism, at the same time, ASEAN countries also keep close watch and concern of the US behavior within the ASEAN framework.
On the other hand, based on China's foundation on trade and economic ties with ASEAN countries, China already has the condition to establish a regional security order with ASEAN. As compared with the western culture, China's culture has never been one that will put a lot of emphasis on maintaining regional security order. On regional security matter, China has always been very cautious. Although the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was discussed in 1992, it was only in 2002 that China has agreed and signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea with all ASEAN member countries. Then it was after nine years that ASEAN and China finally signed the agreement to implement the ‘Guidelines’ of the Declaration. This newly signed ‘Guidelines’ pertaining to the South China Sea conflict is an assurance of peace and security to the South China Sea, a piece of ocean that has multiple party disputes over the sovereignty of its islands and maritime resources. The next step for China and ASEAN to do is to start carrying out negotiations and working on the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea so that it can have legal binding.
Although the ‘Guidelines’ signed between China and ASEAN still does not have any legal binding, and although the close cooperation between China and ASEAN and sovereignty dispute in the South China Sea are two different issues, but after all, the provision of this ‘Guidelines’ has already paved way for a good start to resolve the pending conflict in the South China Sea in a more peaceful manner. In resolving disputes between countries, the West tends to use hard power and military policy. Yet unlike the West, China is more inclined to create a friendly atmosphere first and the later on, try to find a peaceful solution to resolve the sovereignty disputes.
South China Sea Conflict
After China's reformation and opening up, China did not waste very much time and had applied peaceful settlement means to resolve its border conflicts between Russia, Vietnam and other countries. This achievement of China is rare in the West. We have reason to believe that although the South China Sea territorial conflicts can be more complicated that China's border issues with other countries and although in the South China Sea conflict, there are constantly some external forces beyond the region trying to interfere with the already complicated conflicts in the South China Sea, we have reason to believe that China, a country that is able to accept past mistakes as its learning experience is bound to find some peaceful means to resolve the issues in the South China Sea.
At a higher level, people can also believe that unlike the West that uses force, ‘external threat’ and supremacy leadership to establish regional security order, China and Asian countries are capable to clearly establish its own distinctive regional security order embedded with Asian characteristics. If the western security order is a manifestation of the western culture, then the emergence of the Asian security order must by default also reflect the embodiment of Asian culture. In more than a century in the past, although Asian countries (including China) have, in varying degree, influenced by the western culture, but with the emergence of countries with long history of civilization such as China and India, Asia will eventually return to Asia. Asia will eventually establish an Asian regional security order that truly belongs to Asia.