US Presidential Election 2012: Barack Obama Gets Second Term in White House

Fifty-one-year-old African-American Barack Hussein Obama was reelected as the US president on November 7, defeating his Republican rival Mitt Romney in a hard-fought and expensive battle, but he will have to contend with a gridlocked US Congress.

It was not such a long night after all as Obama swept the polls, proving wrong many a pundit who had predicted a close contest, to secure himself a second term at the White House. In fact, not only did the incumbent President doggedly defend the Democratic bastions of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan but the blue wave that he unleashed also swallowed whole the swing States of Virginia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Colorado, Iowa and Ohio — effectively shutting out all routes to victory for his Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Obama’s reelection bid by a narrow margin gives him four more years in an American environment that is challenging by any standards. Just before he took over as the first black President in his country’s history, he faced the biggest recession that hit his homeland since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In securing his place in history, however, he will have to continue to face the challenges of a divided nation and Congress, as the popular vote in the highly divisive election was split evenly between him and his Republican rival, Romney, at 49 per cent.

It is a vote for Obama’s stress on jobs, health-care reform and pro-gay, pro-abortion and pro-immigrant policies. Soon after the result, a relieved but energetic Obama promised “the best is yet to come”. It will, however, be a tough going for the new President as the Republicans have retained their hold on the House of Representatives, though the Senate stays with the Democrats.

Obama, however, faces the prospect of renewed challenges posed by a divided Congress with the Republicans retaining control of the House of Representatives and his fellow-Democrats maintaining their hold of Senate.

Election Process

US presidential elections are decided by an electoral college, which gives states a certain number of electoral votes based on population. A candidate must get 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Preliminary indications suggested that voter turnout was lower this year than the breathtaking levels that it soared to in 2008. Although it peaked at close to 70 per cent in some States such as Wisconsin, it also dropped heavily in others, by around 11 per cent in Texas.

The biggest plunge by far, according to media reports quoting a study by American University, was in Eastern Seaboard States that were still recovering from the devastation in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, which caused major property damage and knocked out power for millions, thus disrupting standard voting practices.

Obama shot past the 270 mark, garnering 303 electoral votes and winning most of the battleground states. On November 7, a final result was awaited in Florida, where the President had a narrow lead. Florida has 29 electoral votes.

Romney got 206 electoral votes. While the electoral vote margin was significant, the difference between the two candidates in the popular vote was much smaller. Obama got 50 per cent of the popular vote compared to 48 per cent for Romney, a Mormon. In all, Obama won 25 states and the District of Columbia, while Romney won 24 states.

In the 100-member Senate, the Democrats now have 52 seats, a net gain of one seat. The Republicans are left with 45 seats, with a net loss of one seat. Two independents usually caucus with the Democrats.

Two Republican candidates who had made controversial comments on the subject of rape and abortion during campaigning ended up losing the race. Both of them were Tea Party favorites – Richard Mourdock of Indiana and Todd Akin of Missouri.

Road to Success

Undoubtedly, it is true that for all his achievements, including the risky directive to get Osama Bin Laden in his Pakistan hideout, Obama’s four years are a litany of broken promises. He dramatically announced the closure of the notorious Guantanamo prison complex in a year and made a clarion call to the Muslim world from Cairo and promised to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guantanamo is still very much in existence and the Palestinian plight in overthrowing Israeli rule has never been more desperate, with more and more Palestinian land being colonized with little more than hand-wringing from the Obama administration.
On Guantanamo, he met stout Republican opposition in Congress, and on Israel he was up against the insurmountable Jewish lobby’s hold on the American political system, which has supported and helped the Israeli state in every way since the British departed from the region. It is an indication of Tel Aviv’s ability to influence US policy in the Middle East, as the world calls it, that going against Israel’s interests, whatever the cost to Washington, is a sure road to calumny and oblivion for any American leader.

Focus on Challenges

It is equally true that Americans are tired of fighting wars, particularly in the Arab and Muslim world, and American help in the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi was described as “leading from behind” by placing the European powers in front in the Nato air war camouflaging key US inputs.

The Iraq war, perhaps the greatest mistake of the George W. Bush presidency, was wound down and a timeline was set at 2014 for withdrawal from Afghanistan. In addition, President Obama has been seeking to temper Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s belligerence on Iran.

President Obama’s priority must, however, be to make the congressional system work. There are many anomalies in the US electoral system — for instance, Electoral College votes based on state quotas trumping the popular vote — and the President’s right to appoint justices of the Supreme Court is flawed.

It is expected that Obama will push for higher taxes on the wealthy so as to trim down the debt burden and also generate money for his pet programs. Equally importantly, he will try to cut a massive financial deal with Congress in the coming months to reduce the budgetary deficit.

Foreign Policy Issue

Barack is unlikely to do any major change on the foreign policy front. This is a comfortable scenario for India because Obama had amended his policy initiatives vis-à-vis India after his pro-China posturing during the initial months of his first term. He quickly realized the merits in the policy pursued by the George W. Bush administration which had clinched the historic nuclear deal with India. It was a matter of relief for India when he ultimately reverted to Bush’s policy, which was aimed at containing China to protect US interests in East Asia. Attempts at the containment of China were essential as most countries in the region are scared of an over-assertive China, which sees itself as the future superpower.

However, Pakistan and Iran must be feeling uncomfortable with Obama’s reelection as US President, as there is unlikely to be any let-up in the drive to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapon capability and the targeting of Taliban activists in Pakistan’s tribal areas through drone attacks. Of course, Barack Obama, whose forefathers were Muslim Kenyans and who spent his early childhood in Indonesia, no longer has to prove that he cannot be soft toward these countries posing threat to global peace. The truth is that no US President can afford to be lax towards terrorists or an Iran which is considered more dangerous for peace in West Asia than Israel by US allies like Saudi Arabia.

Boost to Indo-US Ties

Obama’s reelection is a good news for the Indian economy, although balance will have to be established between rhetoric and practicality on prickly issues like outsourcing of IT services.

With elections out of the way and status quo maintained, India Inc is betting on increased focus on reviving growth in the US which will also lift its own fortunes and also spur growth across the world. Being one of India’s largest trading partners, the US accounts for more than 13 per cent of total Indian exports and 60 per cent of IT exports.The recent reforms initiated by the UPA government are expected to enhance the Indo-US economic partnership.

The US accounts for more than 13 percent of total Indian exports and 60 percent of IT exports. The feeling is that Obama’s win will ensure continuity in growing India-US relations.

The issue of curbing outsourcing, which Obama made a poll plank, remains to be sorted out. Indian IT firms hope to get an opportunity to partner with US companies to achieve growth targets.

India’s exports to the US grew from $17.24 billion to $19.61 billion, showing a growth of 15 per cent during April-September, 2012, over the corresponding period last year. The share of the US in total exports went up to 13.88 per cent and it has surpassed the UAE as the prime destination of India’s exports.

On defense front, Obama’s reelection is set to boost the defense relations between New Delhi and Washington with focus on technology sharing, joint research, co-production of defense equipment and increased military engagement.

In his first term in 2009, Obama had opened the gates for US companies to enter the multi-billion dollar Indian defense market that was essentially dominated by the Russians and Israelis. As a result, India placed a huge order for US-produced defense equipment worth $9 billion – approximately Rs 47,000 crore. Obama’s second term promises even more deeper ties with India. It was illustrated by US Defense Secretary Leon E Panetta visit to India in June when he listed out several long term partnerships in the defense sector.

In the past four years, New Delhi has ordered medium lift transport planes (C-130-J), heavy lift planes (C-17 Globemaster) and long-range maritime reconnaissance planes (Boeing P8-I). The ties took a significant upswing last month when India gave nod to the purchase of Boeing ‘Apache’ attack chopper.

Assessment

The US president presides over a superpower on the retreat and is more concerned about fixing economic problems back home rather than playing the global “supercop”. By and large, he has not created or aggravated tensions. Having friendly relations with India may be part of the US policy to counter the rise of China, but the change has not hurt India’s interests.

To what degree Obama is successful in this regard will depend on how well he can reach out to the Republicans. He will be well advised to do so with utmost sincerity, as this and other such deals will determine his presidential legacy, which otherwise stands the risk of being rendered hollow by petty partisan politics. All it needs is a new resolve to move away from strange ideologies and beliefs that seem to thrive in the free American air to the detriment of logic and common sense.

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.

Causes of Growing Global Terrorism

The United States has never wanted peace in the world. Every country of the world is compelled to obey the United States out of fear. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States got the title of "sole superpower." International community should make the United States understand that elimination of terrorism is necessary but regretfully Americans do not want to end the causes of terrorism?
Post World War Scenario
The United States appears to be standing behind every war since the World War. More than 2 million Koreans were killed in the Korean war from 1949 to 1953. When the Vietnam war was fought in the next decade, more than 4.1 million Vietnamese were killed from 1959 to 1975. These include the citizens of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Cambodia. The confrontation was still on when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 and 1.3 million Afghans were killed. Then, the flames of Gulf war engulfed the entire region. Thousands of Iraqi children died a helpless death. Thousands of people craved for medicines in hospitals and severe food shortage emerged. The world was still recovering from this shock when the United States landed its troops in Afghanistan. The United States invaded the resource-rich country to hunt Osama Bin Laden. Later, Iraq was also ruined and the United States claimed that Iraq had chemical weapons.
Similarly, Kashmir issue remains unresolved until today in spite of having been recognized at international level. Many other devastations of this nature hit the world over the past eight decades but most of them were related to natural calamities. If matters are closely observed, it would appear that the United States is behind all these devastations and wars in one way or another. The United States launches wars under one pretext or the other and then devastation becomes the fate of the country where it enters. The United States is, at present, the largest arms supplying country. The United States sold weapons worth $800 million in 2007, whereas its own defense budget is over $700 million.
US intellectual Noam Chomsky has been drawing the world attention to this since long. According to him, the United States is assuming the role of an international rascal. On one hand, the United States is raising the attractive slogan of the "war on terror," and on the other, it has assumed the role of the greatest terrorist. Moreover, the United States is pursuing the communist ideology of telling lie and then standing firm in it.
Noam Chomsky considers the United States an international terrorist country in this situation. If we take stock of the international situation after 1990, we will be compelled to believe in what Noam Chomsky says. The way in which the United States made unjust intervention into different countries clearly proves that it is following the policy of imperialism.
US Intervention in Middle East
The greatest responsibility lies on the United States if peace could not be established in the Middle East to date. The United States openly supported the Jewish Israel. The United States supports atrocities being committed against the unarmed Palestinians. If Israel makes the lives of Palestinians miserable in flagrant violation of the UN resolution, the United States recklessly uses its veto in the UN Security Council to support it [Israel]. Thousands of Palestinians have been living in refugee camps in inhuman conditions since 1948. Not only this, Israel massacres innocent Palestinians even in the refugee camps. The killing in the camps of Sabra and Shatila is a clear instance in this regard. Ever since the establishment of Israel, the United States used it like a policeman in the Middle East and did so for the accomplishment of its agenda and to ensure protection of its national interests, particularly the oil supply. Even the United States declared the recent Israeli excesses just that it committed in the form of attack on Lebanon. The United States did not condemn the killing of hundreds of Lebanese citizens and recklessly used its unjust right in the Security Council in support of Israel. As a result, the war continued for approximately 40 days and scores of human lives were lost. The United States set up a puppet regime in Iraq to seize the country's oil reserves. Moreover, the potential threat that Jewish Israel could have faced from a powerful Muslim country [Iraq] has been eliminated. Having tightened Iraq into its clutches, the United States wants to fully focus on Iran, which aspires to acquire nuclear power. It is obvious from the problems that the United States had to face in Iraq regarding Iran, that it will not launch such an attack on Iran.
The US intervention in Afghanistan is approximately 26-year-old and its consequences are before us. Despite all of their drawbacks, the Taliban had succeeded in establishing a stable government in Afghanistan, but the United States made hundreds of Afghan target of its bombing on the basis of suspicion and pushed the country back into the Stone Age and established a puppet regime there. The prevailing situation in Afghanistan is such that innocent people are being killed every other day and the US brutality has crossed all limits.
Antihumanity Measures
When the Islamists set up a stable government in Somalia, which had plunged into civil war and peace started to return to the country, the United States attacked Somalia with the help of Christian Ethiopia. The United States annihilated approximately four Somali villages in the very first attack. The civil war has been going on there ever since.
The man of the contemporary world is fed up of these US antihumanity measures. Smaller and weak countries have started considering it "superpower" to remain safe from its mischief. It is necessary to reign in the US aggression if the terrorism is to be eliminated because it is promoting terrorism.

Story of China-Pakistan Friendship

A Persian verse is the true reflection of the China-Pakistan friendship. The translation of the said verse is: "a friend in need is a friend indeed."
Time has always proved that China is the only country in this world, which helped Pakistan in testing times. Although the United States also claims to be our friend but in fact it is a friend about which we can surely say, "the one who has friends like you, does not need heavens to be his enemy."
Foundations of Ties
There is no denial the fact that the credit of strengthening Pakistan's friendship with China goes to late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, whose efforts not only gave it a new direction but eternity. However, not many of us know that the foundations of the China-Pakistan friendship were laid by Pakistan's first Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan and Prof Ahmed Ali was the first person to hoist Pakistani flag in Beijing. Before performing this important duty he migrated from Hong Kong to China and established ties with the then communist leadership in China. Resultantly, not only Chu En-Lai, the right hand of Mao Zedong but the other senior members of the Communist party used to visit Pakistan's embassy but often used to sit and talk for hours in the night at Ali's home.
Late Prof Ahmed Ali does not need an introduction as he was in the vanguard of progressive writers' movement and was considered a famous writer of Urdu and English. He no only translated Chinese poetry prior to the revolution but owing to his emotional attachment, he also paid tribute to China in his poems. Ali's personal relations of Chu En-Lai played an important role in furthering China-Pakistan relations. Ali and his family were popular among Chinese and he used to celebrate his Eid along with Chinese Muslims with zeal and zest. Ali had a great affiliation for Chinese pottery, in addition to Chinese arts and paintings. He visited China for the last time with Pakistan's Prime Minister Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy in 1956, which proved to be of historic importance for strengthening the roots of the friendship between both the countries. While appreciating Chinese, Ali writes: "Chinese are extraordinary self-respecting, practical and nationalist people. They are proud of their ancient history and culture. Affects of their culture could be felt world over. Chinese are proud of having an edge on the other nations of the world and their emperors used to call themselves "Tie'nTzu," i.e., sons of God. Chinese are patient, lively, energetic, and tasteful people. Their cuisine is popular all over the world."
Role in International Relations
Today, China is an excellent power, approved by the entire world, including the United States, the only superpower. Interestingly, the struggle by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan for a separate homeland for Muslims of the subcontinent under the banner of the Muslim League coincided with the revolutionary changes in China in forties. Ali was in Nankeng at the time of partition of India.
After Pakistan came into being his family migrated and settled in the nascent state. Later on Ali also traveled through sea and joined his family in Pakistan. Soon he was appointed Director Foreign Publicity. His book the Muslim China was published in 1949 by Pakistan Institute of International Affairs Karachi. In the same year Chinese ruler Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Formosa after defeat and People’s Republic of China (PRC) came into being. Prime Minister Khan encouraged Ali's inclusion in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs because of his ability and knowledge about China. He took charge of Far East Desk in the Foreign Office. He introduced Pakistani leadership with the newly born PRC and its role in the international relations.
People-to-People Contacts
There is no doubt that Pakistan and China share relations higher than Himalayas and deeper than oceans. The sincere friendship of both the countries has become a precedent. Anti-Pakistan powers are worried and scared of this exemplary unity and solidarity. They cannot find a way to create rift between them. The clear and courageous support has pulled Pakistan out of isolation after killing of Osama Bin Laden. Therefore, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's recent visit to China is much important. China has warned in clear words that no country has any right to violate Pakistan's sovereignty and integrity and no power in this world should dare look at Pakistan with malicious intent.
The most important quality of China-Pakistan relations is people-to-people contacts and both the countries consider each other as obligatory. China has openly announced that China-Pakistan relations would remain unaffected irrespective of any changes in the world. It is imperative that not only the 60th anniversary of China-Pakistan friendship was celebrated with extraordinary zeal but it should be fully reflected through the media. Meanwhile, issuing a commemorative coin will be appreciable. It is must be remembered that Pakistan was the first Islamic country to accept China.

New Geopolitical Equation in Asia

After the dramatic announcement of killing of Osama Bin Laden, a big change in the geopolitics of Asia has become evident centering the dilemma in the relations between Pakistan and the United States. Through this incident, signals are being received regarding a visible role of China and a shrink in the influence of the United States in this region as a split has been created in the relationship between Pakistan and the United States. The plummeting in the Washington-Islamabad relations first came to the limelight through the arrest of a US contractor Raymond Davis, who is known as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spy, for his involvement in the killings of two Pakistani citizens. After languishing for three months in prison, Raymond Davis was freed in March with the payment of blood money.
Since then, it was being thought that the US pressure on Pakistan would be mounted. Exactly this happened. Subsequently, the United States claimed that their commandoes have killed Bin Laden in a raid. Pakistan has described the raid as a blow to its sovereignty. However, the United States has brought an allegation against Pakistani intelligence agency for providing shelter to Bin Laden. Though a number of questions have surfaced centering this raid -- whether Bin Laden was really killed in the attack or he was killed much earlier or anybody else was killed in the name of Bin Laden.
War on Terror
Centering this incident whatever it might be -- the actual Bib Laden killed or no -- Pakistan is trying to come out of the influence of the United States, a long time friend of that country. Within 15 days of the killing of Bin Laden, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani visited China. The Chinese leaders categorically announced that Pakistan has significant contribution to the war on terror. This country is also a victim of terrorism.
The Western countries must show their respect to the sovereignty of Pakistan. The Chinese leaders further announced that Beijing will consider any attack on Islamabad an attack against it and China will always stand beside Pakistan. This announcement from Beijing in the face of an intense pressure from the west was not only a matter of ease for Islamabad, but a clear indication that China support Pakistan at the time of difficulty.
Building Gwadar Port
Massive steps were taken to enhance military relations between China and Pakistan during this visit of Gilani. The area of cooperation also includes transfer of military technology side by side with military assistance. China has assured Pakistan of supplying more than 50 JF Thunder Aircraft within a shortest possible time. In addition, the two countries have reached an agreement on purchasing frigates for the navy and training on operating submarines. Seventy-five percent arms of Pakistani Armed Forces comes from China. Very soon 260 Chinese fighter planes will be added to the Pakistan Air Force. It is being though that Pakistan is going to be a member of Shanghai Cooperation from an observer at the behest of China. And this might add a new dimension to China-India relations in the coming days. During Gilani's visit to China this time, the most important military on the agenda was the proposal of setting up a naval base at Gwadar Seaport, built on assistance from Beijing.
China and India have long been involved in a race for expanding influence in the India Ocean. Comparatively India navy is now stronger in the India Ocean. It can be said India has its hegemony on the sea. An intensive relationship of cooperation of India navy with the US Navy has been added to this. China has to import its fuel oil from the Middle East through the narrow strata of Malacca under the India-US naval surveillance. During any adverse situation the India-US naval power may close down this supply route for China. Alternative sea routes are very essential for China. Beijing is going to be achieved this opportunity this time completely. Gwadar seaport has multifaceted military significance. Virtually this port will be the main center for China to maintain its influence in the southern seacoast of Asia. From there China will be able to maintain its surveillance on the Indian and US Naval Forces.
Gwadar Seaport is very close to the seacoast of Oman. The distance of the Persian Gulf from here is not so far. Before 1958, Gwadar was under Oman. Later, the area was handed over to Pakistan. In 1973, US President Richard Nixon visited Pakistan. During the visit, the then Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto requested Richard Nixon to help building a seaport at Gwadar. Bhutto proposed that Pakistan would ensure benefit of the US Navy from Gwadar if the port was built with assistance from his country. But Nixan did not make any response to that proposal.
Failing to get any support from the US for building the seaport at Gwadar, Pakistan did not abandon its plan in this regard. Later, they sought helps from China in this regard. The work on building the seaport began in 2002 with assistance from China. China invested $200million for construction of the seaport. The first phase of the construction of the port ended in 2006. Singapore Port Management Authority was given the responsibility of running the port. Now China will be given the responsibility of running the port from Singapore Port Authority. A decision has been taken to review soon the port management by Singapore Port Authority.
The work on establishing direct road and railway communications with China from Gwadar seaport has begun so that oil tankers could be transported to Chinese territory from the port. China began the expansion of road network on Karakoram Highway from Gilgit in Pakistan to Xinjinag province of China. In 2006, Islamabad and Beijing signed agreement to build a road from Kashgar in China to Abbottabad in Pakistan. The two countries took the decision of constructing an alternative land route in consideration that Karakoram Highway might be risky for bigger containers. Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari visited China in July 2010. During his talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao, a decision was taken to set up 3,000 km railway line from Kashgar to Gwadar.
Security experts believe China will use this port equally both for civil and military purposes. Chinese ships will not anchor at the port only, but its submarines use the same as a base. In a recent report by New Delhi-based Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis said this port is a threat to India. Gwadar Port is very close to Hormuz strata. During any adverse situation, Pakistan might impose restriction on this route. However, Beijing will be able to conduct a complete surveillance on Indo-US naval maneuverings in the Arab Sea and Persian Gulf.
Pressure From Western Countries
Both the United States and India are worried over this strategic and military cooperation between Pakistan and China. Many people think the conflict between the CIA and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is rooted in the relations between China and Pakistan. It seems that the US has toned down to Pakistan as Islamabad successfully played the China card in face of relentless pressure from the Western countries.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprised visit to Pakistan along with Admiral Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint US Chief of Staff. Hillary announced that the United States will continue its cooperation and the war on terror with Pakistan. So long the United States has been alleging that Bin Laden had been hiding inside Pakistan with helps from Pakistani intelligence officials. But during her visit to Islamabad, Hillary said she did not believe top Pakistani official knew about the hiding of Bin Laden in that country.
The US security adviser has already announced that Washington's assistance to Pakistan will not be stopped. The US concern has started unfolding at a time when Pakistan is set to go under the total influence of China.
Despite conducting drone attacks inside Pakistan to eliminate the Taliban militants, the United States has been holding talks with the Taliban at the mediation of Turkey. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials have already held meeting with mid ranking Taliban leaders. Recently, former NATO official and former foreign minister of Turkey Hiqmat Setin said that Turkey was going to hold high level talks with the Taliban soon.
It is being observed that the United States contact with the Taliban still exists. However, Pakistan has been made the target of the Taliban. Questions have now been raised from inside Pakistan about the motive behind the recent attack on Pakistani naval base in Karachi and destruction of two naval surveillance aircraft. Whether any special message is being given by this type of attack. It has become clear from the nature of the attack that the target of the raid was to hit the military strength of Pakistan. A section of the mass media in Pakistan has alleged that those who have been conducting this type of attack in Pakistan in the name of the Taliban have special links with the US and Indian intelligence agency.
Pakistan's Military Cooperation with China
However, India has already expressed concern over Pakistan's military cooperation with China. Following the claim of killing Bin Laden at Abbottabad by the US force, a hint was given from New Delhi that India might conduct similar attack on Pakistan. The reaction shown by Pakistan in response to that desire of New Delhi is another cause of concern for India. Pakistan made it clear that if India dared to conduct such raids Islamabad will limited scale nuclear weapon or tactical nuclear arms. It was not so long known that Pakistan has such sophisticate nuclear arsenals.
At the same time, India plunged into another diplomatic difficulty. India handed over a list of 50 terrorists residing in Pakistan to Islamabad authorities and demanded their extradition for trials. The following day reports were published in the Indian newspapers that two of the listed terrorists detained in Indian prisons. Indian wanted to mount pressure on Pakistan in line with the United States, but they himself got entangled in trouble. And as a result, the image of India was tarnished.
After the killing of Bin Laden, the competition launch between the United States and China for expanding influence centering Pakistan gives a signal of a new strategic equation of the Asian superpowers. Iran has also joined the race. Iran has already expressed its solidarity with the integrity of Pakistan. It is being thought that Pakistani military officials have been maintaining contacts with Iran.
Importance of Islamabad
Except China, Pakistan has taken initiative of enhancing cooperation with Russia. President Asif Ali Zardari had already visited Russia. He was given a rousing reception in Moscow. The new relations of China and Russia with Iran and Pakistan could turnout to be a big concern for the United States in future. This will make the position of US-led NATO force in Afghanistan weak, and also deal a blow to the US initiatives of establishing control over the energy resources in Central Asia. In addition, Russia, China is also enhancing its influence in the Central Asia. A cooperative relation between China and Pakistan will help Beijing to make another step forward in expanding its influence in this region. Because of road communication with Central Asia and port facilities, the importance of Pakistan has increased. Despite multifaceted pressure from United States and acts of sabotage inside the country, Pakistan is playing the cards of its good relations with China and Russia because of its geostrategic position. And this is the main weapon of Pakistan. Because of this it is very easy to criticize Pakistan, but difficult to avoid.

Unethical US Feelings Exposed

At the moment, the Muslims are the victim of terrorism and are in a state of subjection. Muslim countries are being maligned. Some powers have made the principle that "first defame and then target". The bad luck of the Muslims is that they have no courage even to give verbal response to the United States. Those who are unearthing the brutality and violence of the United States are rising from Europe. American Professor of Philosophy, Noam Chomsky is one of among of those pro-just writers. Most of his books are proven best sellers. Prof Noam's new book, the Power and Terror has been introduced in the market.
Violation of International Norms and Laws
In his new book, while expressing his views about incident of Osama Bin Laden, Prof Noam wrote that the assassination of Osama is an open violation of international norms and laws. It seems clear that no effort was been made to arrest unarmed persons alive. 80 commandoes took part in the operation to arrest Osama and they did not face any resistance. There were arms with the people in the Osama's house Osama, but he was killed despite the fact that not a single bullet was fired on the American Commandos. The suspects were arrested alive and case filed against them in a transparent manner in a society, which claims to be civilized and where the law is strictly followed.
Osama Bin Laden was blamed for destroying twin towers in the United States through two airplanes. The name of investigator into incident is Robert Molar. On April, 2002, Robert Molar told the press that they could say more after comprehensive investigations that the plan was prepared in Afghanistan and its details were decided in United Arab Emirates and Germany. Molar did not mention Pakistan in his investigations which mostly become target of criticism after the incident. Pakistan was maligned and inflicted great losses and it was given the punishment for the crime which it did not commit.
The United States could arrest Osama Bin Laden if it wanted since in 2002 Taliban offered that they themselves will hand over Osama to the United States if it provides evidence about his involvement in attack on twin towers.
It was never the aim of the United States to arrest Osama because it was staging fake drama to arrest of Osama to justify its continue it presence in the region. America has spent hundreds of billions of dollar in war in Afghanistan and it is strange that it spent such a huge amount just for one person.
The objectives of the United States are as under:
1. To maintain its military presence in selected parts of the world.
2. To occupy natural resources including gas, oil and uranium of these countries.
3. To prevent any other country to become a super power.
4. Continuous battle-field training of American forces.
5. To continue production of arms manufacturing factories of the United States.
Prof Chomsky says it has been claimed that Al-Qa'ida carried out 9/11 attacks but there is no concrete evidence of it. The major evidence which was described as Barack Obama's that they carried out them. Such statements and claims for their so-called successes do not have any legal status.
Prof Chomsky states, the United States is unhappy with Pakistan as it had been providing shelter to Osama for five years; but ironically America is not embarrassed over violation of Pakistani borders. The United States sent its troops inside a sovereign country which is itself a big crime and it has provoked anti-US sentiments in Pakistan. Osama was killed and his dead body thrown in the sea inspite of being arresting him alive.
Chomsky asks the US administration that what will be reaction of masses of the United States if the commandos of a hostile country carry out such operation in the United States, enter into White House , kill American President and throw his dead body in the sea"?
The allegations leveled against Osama are controversial, while there are numerous allegations of human killings on former US President George W. Bush. The US President had committed those crimes on the pattern of German Nazis. A heavy bombardment was carried out on Iraq on the order of Bush and the whole country was changed into rubbles. Millions of people were killed and injured, millions were rendered homeless and jobless. The biggest torture cell of the world was set up at Abu Gharib prison in Iraq. Iraqi President Sadam Hussain was traced and executed after trial.
Osama bin Laden could be arrested alive and he could be brought for trial but on the contrary a much uncivilized method was adopted in this regard.
Although Osama Bin Laden has been killed but have his preachings and ideas been killed. Is there now no supporter of Osama in the world and can half of the population of any country be called terrorists?
Collapse of Twin Towers
Prof Chomsky is pro-justice American scholar. The rulers of Muslim countries could not say even secretly to the United States the remarks which the Prof Chomsky is saying openly. Several others pro-justice scholars also are unearthing the naked aggression of the United States. There is solid evidence in their writings which opens the eyes of every the person who favors justice.
The collapse of the twin towers was just drama as the upper parts of the towers should have been destroyed when the planes hit them. A preview of the photos raises the question that why the towers collapsed from foundations as the explosives was planted in the foundations of the towers.
Rulers and Policymaking Bodies
There is no doubt that the United States has reached in the climax of the progress but regrettably it is facing constant defeat because of its moral behaviors. There are such people in the United States rulers and policymaking bodies who are the most wealthiest people of the world. They ignore every moral norm in their lust of accumulating money. In the second half of the 20th century (1950 to 2000), the United States had committed lots of bloodshed which was never committed by any other country in the entire history.
1. Millions of people including women and children were burnt alive by dropping nuclear bomb on Japan.
2. Millions of Koreans were killed in war of Korea.
3. Millions of poor people were killed in the Vietnam War.
4. The aggressive polices of the United States in Middle East particularly in Palestine caused large scale devastations.
5. Iraq and Afghanistan have been changed into graveyards and rubbles.
The main voice is rising from the United States against the cruelty of the United States. Lot of things would be written about Osama Bin Laden in the next few years which would clarify the situation. T.S. Elliott was a famous poet and critic of the United States. In his famous drama (Murder in Cathedral), a priest was killed in the Church by the order of king in Britain in 1130. The unethical feelings of the United States are exposed while reading the book of T.S. Eliot, keeping in mind the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
US Joint Conscious
Today the joint conscious of the United States is weeping and saying that:
* The terror by night, that ends in deadly actions,
* We are soiled by filth that we cannot clean and clear the air, clear the key,
* Wash the wind, wash the brain,
* Wash the soul, Wash them all.
The pro-justice observers and scholars have not agreed over the point of view of the United States about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. No one from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan can disclose the cruelty of the United States; rather a new sun will be rise from the west and will provide concrete proofs to the United States about its brutality. Western media itself is saying that the drama of Osama was staged to improve popularity of graph of President Obama; and it is a good omen that the western media is speaking the truth.

Countering Terrorism With Violence

On the next day after the US military killed the head of Al-Qaida, Osama Bin Laden, US President Barack Obama claimed that it was a beautiful day for the United States and the world will become safer following the death of Osama. This US military attack against Osama reminds us of the movie "Wag the Dog". In the movie, the US president was plagued by a sex scandal before the presidential election. His aide found a Hollywood director Stanley Motss to "produce" a fake news about a battle against international terrorists. With the help of the computer-generated virtual images, they successfully created the sufferings of the US troops and people and the victimized civilians.
Post-Osama Scenario
The righteous image of the US president in combating terrorism became so rightful, glorious and larger than life. Amid the wave the patriotism, they successfully diverted people's attention from the sex scandal and the US president won his second term.
Some opine that Osama's death will help raise Obama's popularity in his bid of seeking reelection. But we have our reservation about this view. If Al-Qaida fights back all out and launches a series of terrorist attacks around the United States after Osama's death. Obama and the Americans will be the biggest victims then. Undoubtedly, Obama's successful bid to kill Osama has catered the psychological needs of the US people who face the threat of terrorism. He has become a defender of the people and brought great relief to the terrified American people.
Nevertheless, there are still things for us to ponder over in the ensuing development of this incident. First of all, the terrorist attacks in the post-Osama era will become more frequent and more unpredictable. In the 1970s, the so-called terrorism was very much politics-oriented and was set against a background of the confrontation between the Eastern and Western blocks. The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Palestinian terrorist groups in Middle East are examples of such movement. Though detestable, they had taken their actions based on the notion of national self-determination. For instance, the tragedy during the Munich Olympic Games. Amidst the strong condemnation from all over the international community, voices of their sympathizers were also heard. At least, most of the Third World countries sympathized them. At that time, it was not difficult to find learned and knowledgeable figures within terrorist groups. They were persistent in pursuing their ideals and had their own self-perceived righteous goals. They believed they were noble-minded fighters for ideals who were willing to sacrifice their own reputation or even their lives. Nevertheless, today, the terrorist activities have not only experienced changes in terms of quantity, but also quality. The size of their groups has shrunk while their righteous goals have also gone.
Hostility Against West
More specifically, the new terrorists in the post-Osama era will not limit themselves to hostility against the West and the confrontation of religious values; instead, it is more difficult to comprehend their conviction and to predict their actions. From a more superficial perspective, the potential factors leading to terrorism could be the unequal distribution of wealth, grudges against the West for controlling the international economy, and internal strife and conflicts between religious sects. Most people more or less have this kind of underlying frustration. But for some radical elements who harbor grave resentment and hatred, their jealousy and desire for vengeance are easily triggered by external factors. Therefore, it is not surprising to see them resorting to brutal actions against a government or certain class in the society and having no care for innocent lives, simply to vent their frustration. For this reason, to totally uproot the danger and threat of terrorism to the human society, the permanent solution is to eliminate the injustice in various political and economic aspects.
Second, there are many ways of dealing with terrorism. But we are afraid that the effect of countering Islamic terrorists with violence may be limited. After Osama was killed, some have posted messages that they will seek revenge to some radical forums on the Internet. This is an alert. At the same time, the US government has also issued a worldwide travel alert to its citizens. This shows that Whitehouse is also vigilant that Al-Qaida will fight back in full force. From the religious perspective of the followers of Islamic fundamentalism, an international terrorist attack is still deemed as a righteous Jihad dedicated to God. It is a battle between the justice and the evil. But from the perspective of the American value (represented by Obama), the Islamic world may symbolize close-mindedness, backwardness, mystery and evil. Hence, the theory of the clash of two civilizations. As the two sides insist on their beliefs and confront each other with terrorism and crackdown, it is probable that there will be more conflicts in the future. Judging from what we have witnessed in the past 10 years, it is indeed true that the more they try to counter terrorism, the more severe terrorism will get.
Third, Osama was bombed dead close to the Pakistan Military Academy but the United States had not informed Pakistan in advance. This may complicate the US-Pakistan relations and stir the sensitivity of the Islamic world. The Islamic world has kept silence on this incident so far, even Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which have been holding a mild stance, have not made any statement yet. Perhaps a collective anti-US movement is poising for take-off. Meanwhile, will the radical Iran and Syria provide supports to more terrorist activities in secret? In other words, will the United States' bid to counter violence with violence effectively crack down terrorism? Or, will it intensify the antagonism? This is probably an issue that Obama and the US public must address.

War on Terror: End of Post-9/11 Era

When the artist Art Spiegelman told his story of 9/11 in a graphic novel, he called it In the Shadow of No Towers. It was an arresting thought, the gloom cast not by the twin peaks of the World Trade Centre but by their absence. We have been living in that shadow for the last 10 years -- but it's time we escaped it. We need to declare the end of the post-9/11 era.
Of course that will be impossible for those directly affected. No one expects -- and no one would ask -- those still grieving for a wife or son, a husband or sister, to put the September 11 attacks behind them just because an anniversary with a round number is looming. What deepens their tragedy is that it continues. The television documentaries, newspaper testimonies and eloquent reminiscences that have been flowing for days leave no doubt that for those directly affected, 9/11 will never let them go.
Artists and writers too will resist closing the book on September 11 any time soon. Happenings on that scale take many decades, not just one, to process. As Salman Rushdie puts it: "I think these great events have to rot down. Maybe another generation has to look at it."
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
If grief and art will necessarily stay fixated, the realm of politics needs to move on. Osama Bin Laden is dead; George W. Bush and Tony Blair are long gone from office. The two 9/11 wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are not over, but both now have a timetable for troops to come home. The phrase of the age -- "the war on terror" -- has been retired.
As far as Al-Qaida is concerned, it has been decapitated: as well as Osama Bin Laden, the network's new number two and chief operational planner was killed last month, and the man branded its "foreign minister" revealed to be in Pakistani custody on Monday. Most analysts say Al-Qaida is weakened, its capacity to act reduced.
Post-9/11 Landscape
Of course no wants to tempt fate with complacency. For that reason one aspect of the post-9/11 landscape will and should remain in place: vigilance. Police and intelligence agencies charged with protecting the public cannot revert to September 10 pretending that 9/11 -- or, for that matter, Bali, Madrid and London -- did not happen. The threat has changed, but it has not disappeared.
Other aspects of the post-9/11 order persist too. Guantanamo Bay remains open, one of the early disappointments of the Barack Obama presidency. The US "homeland security" apparatus created a decade ago is now well dug in. Given the tenacity of such bureaucracies -- plenty of cold war American military structures linger to this day -- few would bet on this newer one allowing itself to be mothballed.
Overarching and Paramount Threat
Moreover, it is the mind-set that has to go. In those dazed days after the attacks, a new foreign policy doctrine was hastily assembled. It said that the world faced a single, overarching and paramount threat in the form of violent jihadism. Every other battle had to be subordinated to, or subsumed into, that one. And the call went beyond foreign policy. Culture, too, was to be enlisted in a clash of civilizations between Islamism and the west that would rank alongside the great 20th century struggles against communism and fascism. Christopher Hitchens confessed he felt "exhilaration" as he saw the towers fall. At last there would be war against "dull and vicious theocratic fascism. I am prepared for this war to go on for a very long time. I will never become tired of waging it, because it is a fight over essentials. And because it is so interesting."
Such talk has been a constant of the 9/11 decade but its time has passed. For one thing, it's predicated on a mistake. The right way to regard the 2001 attacks was as a heinous and wicked crime -- not a declaration of war. As Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, argued in her first Reith lecture calling it a war "legitimizes the terrorists as warriors & quote. It is exactly what Al-Qaida wanted -- feeding their fantasies of grandeur -- and we gave it to them.
Second, post-9/11 thinking has led to grave and lethal misjudgments. The greatest of these is agglomeration, lumping disparate and complex threats under one easy heading. The most notorious example will always be Iraq, casting that as part of the war on terror even though there was nothing to connect Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Laden.
But it worked in subtler ways too. The director of Chatham House, Robin Niblett -- who was in Washington when flight 77 struck the Pentagon -- recalls how, during the cold war, regimes in Africa, Asia or Latin America won western backing as they fought off local, domestically motivated rebels simply by casting their opponents as part of "the global Communist foe". In the past decade, the west fell for the same trick all over again. Hosni Mubarak gained a new lease on office by insisting he was holding back the Muslim Brotherhood, which he portrayed as the Egyptian branch of the global jihad. This week has brought fresh evidence that Colonel Gaddafi was playing the same game, persuading British intelligence to become complicit in his torture of dissidents, partly by painting the Libyan opposition in Al-Qaida colors. "The danger of the 9/11 mindset is that you try to compress all kinds of challenges into a single threat," says Niblett.
Making the war against jihadism paramount has had other consequences too, still being felt. On post-9/11 logic, the shredding of civil liberties -- condemned by Manningham-Buller as handing "victory to the terrorists" -- was almost inevitable, for surely such freedoms had to take second place to the supreme threat. More serious has been the unleashing of a rampant Islamophobia -- intense in Europe, recently lethal in Norway and rising in the US. That too is all but inevitable once Islamism is deemed the greatest peril faced by the human race.
Famously Tony Blair declared after 9/11 that the "kaleidoscope has been shaken. The pieces are in flux". But the kaleidoscope has been shaken again -- most dramatically by this year's Arab revolutions. Whatever landscape was created once the dust of the World Trade Centre had settled in 2001 has been remade in 2011. Change has come to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya -- and Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with it.
Again, this is not to say the dangers have receded. Would-be terrorists have seen the earth-shaking impact a spectacular attack can have -- especially if it prompts a massive reaction that fuels the terrorists' cause, as the Iraq invasion did for Al-Qaida. If one of the Arab revolutions fails, an Al-Qaida offshoot could find purchase in that country. But vigilance is not the same as a careless, undiscriminating monomania.
Even those who were not there say the memory is so vivid, it feels like yesterday. But it was not yesterday. It was 10 years ago. We should mark the 9/11 anniversary with respect and care for those who died. But then we ought to close this sorry and bloody chapter -- and bury the mentality it created.

New US and Allies Outlook on Taliban

The attitude of the United States, so to say the Western world has stated changing on the Taliban issue. Now, they want to proceed through not confrontations and clashes but through understanding and peaceful means. After fighting for over a decade in Afghanistan, they have now decided to establish peace by putting an end to bloody war. They are trying to overcome the challenges through political settlement instead of military confrontation. It seems they have changed their stand and policy on Taliban issue.
Al-Qaida and Taliban are the diehard enemies of the United States and its allies. These two organizations are black-listed as international terrorist operatives. Their supporters and sympathizers are also regarded as the enemies of the western world, including the United States. These are also defamed internationally as the enemies of mankind. Not only the Western world, all countries of the glove which are the members of the United Nations hate these extremists and their shelter givers.
The Al-Qaida is blamed for launching terrorists' attacks on Twin Towers of New York and Pentagon building in Washington on 11 September 2001. The Taliban are also identified as the terrorists and extremists as well as accomplices and patrons of the Al-Qaida operatives. The United States and the United Kingdom blamed Taliban for 9/11 terrorist attacks and took vow to crush such evil forces. To attain this objective, they installed an alternative regime of Taliban government in Afghanistan by launching joint the US and British military attacks on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001 to crush the Taliban regime in Kabul as retaliation of the 9/11 incident. Later, an election was held in Afghanistan. The anti-Taliban Karzai government is still ruling Afghanistan. The US troops are still stationed in Afghan soil.
Movements Against Western Forces
Although the western forces were succeeded to overthrow the Taliban regime, they could not eradicate the followers of the Taliban from Afghanistan. They are still building up resistance movements against the Western occupation forces. They are carrying out sniff attacks on Anglo-US forces. The Taliban forces have been continuing guerilla warfare against the strongest western troops for over a decade. The Taliban military strategists made the western power deeply concerned. When they (three Western power) have felt that there is no way to eradicate the Taliban by military action, they have no other alternative but to think for changing their policy and strategies. And exactly the western powers are doing the same thing on Taliban issue. This has been crystal clear from some recent remarks of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. At a press conference on 17 June Hamid Karzai said that the western powers have started discussion and negotiations with the Taliban forces to establish peace ending one decade of arms confrontations. Although it was in the air for quite some times that the United States was trying to start negotiation with the Taliban force, this is for the first time that a high-level Afghan leader like Hamid Karzai admitted this publicly. But he informed that this discussion is still at initial stage. There may be some constructive talks when Afghan Affairs conference will take place in German capital Bonn in next December.
That the United States is going to change its stand on Taliban issue was sensed from some remarks of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the beginning of the current year. She, however, told about some pre-conditions of beginning peace talks with the Taliban forces. She said that before initiating any such peace negotiation, the Taliban must snap their relations with Al-Qaida operatives. Besides, Taliban have to accept the present constitution of Afghanistan. The Taliban, however, outright rejected Hillary's offer.
Al-Qaida’s Threat to the US
The present stand of the United States and its allies is irrevocable on the issue of Taliban. In this regard they are prepared not to give any concession to the Taliban extremists. On 2 May, the US troops entered deep into Pakistan territories and killed Al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden. The incident is not end here.
The United States declared its vow to kill Egypt-origin Ayman Al-Jawhiri when he was elected leader of the Al-Qaida international terrorist operative to replace Osama Bin Laden. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of US army declared that Jawhiri would also have to face the same fate like that of Osama Bin Laden. As we have killed Ladin, we will do the same thing in case of Jawhiri, Admiral Mike said. He said that Al-Qaida was still great threat to the United States.
Prevailing Political Reality in Afghanistan
Political analysts viewed that the United States is going to change its stand on Taliban because of prevailing political reality in Afghanistan. The reflection of the attitude of the United States and its allies on Taliban and Afghanistan has also fallen on the United Nations. The UN Security Council has also adopted resolution to carryon more effectively and vigorously its war against terrorism giving new thought towards Taliban and Al-Qaida. The Security Council in this regard is considering two proposals. There is an agenda to take vote in the Security Council in this issue. In these proposals it was said that the Taliban and the Al-Qaida would have to consider under two separate perspectives. This is because these two organizations and extremists outfits do not have same agenda. The aim of the Al-Qaida is to attack on Western interests and to reach this objective they are lodging jihad (holy war). However, the objectives of the Taliban are limited to their own country. They seldom launch any attacks targeting the outside world. Present Chairman of the Security Council and German Ambassador to the United Nations, Peter Wig, while giving his comment on the resolutions taken by the Security Council in the first part of June last on Taliban and Al-Qaida said: "The decision of the security council to impose sanctions separately on Taliban and the Al-Qaida is the true reflection of the reality existing in Afghanistan."
War on Terror
Through taking divided resolution on Taliban and the Al-Qaida, it is presumed that situation has been fast changing in Afghanistan after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Now time has come to give new thought. In the meantime the New York District Court has dismissed the cases filed against Laden on charge of terrorism owing to his death. Judge Luis Kaplan dismissed over 200 charges of terrorism, murders, use of weapons of mass destructions for killing civilian people brought against Osama Bin Laden. The charges brought against Ladin were dismissed by the court after being sure about his death.
Al-Qaida chief Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden is no more. He was replaced by Al-Jawhiri. Nothing as such new target of Al-Qaida was heard from the lips of Jawhiri until today. Although some hints were received about the change of attitude of the US Administration on the Taliban, no sign was noticed about the aggressive attitude of the United States against the Al-Qaida. However, there is indication of new formula of the United States over its declared the war on terror in cooperation with Pakistan.

US Pays Heavy Opportunity Cost 10 Years After 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

Prior to 11 September 2001, the United States was always full of confidence in facing all kinds of challenges and provocations. The name of the United States then was synonymous to "international police personnel" and "financial big brother."
But suddenly, 11 September 2011 came; three aircrafts hit the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon Building of the US Defense Department. Towering buildings collapsed; and the confidence of the people in the United States also collapsed with them. The world community suddenly realized US President George W. Bush could so easily be attacked by the weaker party.
In 2009 when George W. Bush, Jr. left the White House, many people in the United States especially the family members of the US soldiers who had to station overseas to fight the so called counterterrorism war in Iraq and in Afghanistan; as well as the antiwar protestors, were happy to see Bush leaving. They applauded.
Spreading Islam-Phobia
After the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States, the US security mechanism has also undergone tremendous change. The so-called Islam-phobia also spread quickly in the United States. In the US society, the personal freedom of the citizens became subject to certain restrictions. The immigration law has also been tightened. Once again, Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilization" thought caught the attention of the people again.
Joseph Nye, Jr. who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Clinton administration believed that a major significant shift of the 11 September incident was that there was an increasing strength of the nonstate actors in the power fight. This shift of power has become one of the largest power transitions in the information age.
The number of the people in the United States killed by Al-Qaida terrorist network was more than the people killed by the Japanese military when Japan attacked the US Pearl Harbor during the Second World War. As such the attacks by the terrorists as non-state actors can perhaps be called the "privatization of war." This is because the war between two nations can no longer be limited or confined to the fight and contest of military strength between nations only.
During the Cold War period, the "mutually assured destruction" strategy allowed the United States and the former Soviet Union to process strong and elite military force. But such a strategy could not allow either country to get benefit from adversaries. In the end both sides became equally vulnerable in order to avoid disaster from happening. But the 11 September terrorist attack in the United States has re-written this international rule of the game.
Creating Asymmetric Situations
Joseph Nye, Jr believed the 11 September terrorist attack incident has created two asymmetric situations that in turn have helped to push the Al Qa'ida terrorist network a step forward.
First, it is the "information" asymmetry. While the terrorists are well aware of their target of attacks, but the United States has little understanding of the hiding places and facial features of the terrorists. While some intelligence were able to predict the damage of the nonstate actors could cause to great powers such as the United States but the conclusions of the intelligence did not get acceptance and be included as part of the official counterterrorism strategy adopted by the authority. Second, there is this "attention" asymmetry. While it is logical for large scale participating bodies with many interests and goals to overlook and pay less attention to some of the smaller scale participating bodies; on the other hand, the smaller participating players can pay more attention to their own goals and are able to focus their attention to what they want to do.
On reflection, the global agenda pertaining to the terrorist attacks staged by Al-Qaida Chief Osama Bin Laden has already been dominated in the world scene for approximately 10 years. Although Bin Laden has already been killed by the US military force in Pakistan in May 2011, but the United States has also paid trillions of dollars in the past ten years trying to arrest Bin Laden. The United States has ended up paying more for the opportunity cost than it has earlier expected.
It is indeed strange and funny for us to observe that when the people in the far away land in the United States suffered the hurt of terrorist attacks 10 years ago, some sectors still hold the suspicion that the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States was but a self-directed act by the United States itself. Moreover, there were also some sectors that were thankful that such tragedy had happened in the United States but had not happened to them; and there were also some compassionate sectors who expressed their sympathies to the people in the United States. But a tragedy remains a tragedy. After the wounds heal, the indelible scars left in the hearts of the Americans can still occasionally feel the pain.
It has been ten years after the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. The world media has spent large media space to report on news related to the 11 September incident in order to evoke our past memory of what had happened to the United States ten years ago. But such a memory war will not just stop here; it may even turn worse as days go by.
Top National Priority
International rule of the game is like the Leaning Tower of Pisa; it will continue to tilt toward the side of the stronger power. US President Barack Obama has tried to change it. He begins US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. But the asymmetry situation he faces will be difficult for him to see the result within short period of time.
No wonder some people in the United States feel that the biggest lesson the United States can learn from the experience of the 11 September incident is on how the US Government should handle its foreign affairs. They feel that the US Government should adhere to the advice of former US President Eisenhower who had won many highly decorated war honors for half of his life some half a century ago. This former US president had said: "Do not get into war that involves in the occupation of other countries' territories. Put focus on strengthening US economy as top national priority."
Unemployment Rate and Federal Deficit
However, now the US economy is in a mess. Although the pending US sovereignty debt issue seems to have been resolved, but there are many hidden concerns in the US society. President Obama has continued to be troubled by the high unemployment rate and federal deficit issue in the United States.
The United States has already bid farewell to its former arrogant hegemony and their proudly-hailed power. The misjudgment of what the United States should do after the 11 September terrorist attacks has led the United States loosing many good opportunities to make good the nation. What is left after the 11 September incident is but a rotten economy, a mess and regret in the US society.

Lessons From 9/11 Incidents

The US and International media have carried overwhelming reports related to the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It seems that other major incidents happened in the past 10 years have all been pushed aside.
Striking Visual Effects
I still remember 10 years ago, in the morning after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, all TV channels had repeatedly replayed the scenes of the fierce flame of the burning twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York after the hijacked planes crashed into the building, and the panic and fearful crowd fleeing for their lives. Those scenes had created enormously striking visual effects. Those scenes are still vivid in the minds of those who had not experienced the incident personally.
War on Terror
The 9/11 incident was a tragedy and the ensuing developments after the terrorist attacks have brought about more far-reaching impacts to the world. Following the attacks, President George W. Bush declared a war on terror. The US troops first launched their hunt for Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks in Afghanistan; and subsequently started a war in Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. But it was immediately exposed that their military actions were a façade.
At the battlegrounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, 6,000 US troops were killed. However, according to a conservative estimate, at least 200,000 civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan lost their lives in this war. The Americans may defend themselves by claiming that they did not kill these people. But as the invaders, the United States had failed to protect local civilians, leaving them at the mercy of local rebels or extremist groups.
Although Washington claims that the United States is safer today, the country has paid a grievous price over the past one decade. The United States is no longer the only dominant power -- economically, militarily, and morally -- that leads the world. The freedom enjoyed by the Americans -- something they always take pride in -- has been corroded gradually.
Civilian Casualties
The biggest destructive power after the 9/11 is no other than the growing fear and hatred. In 2005, after the terrorist attacks in London, the British police shot dead an overstayed Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes by accident. Having witnessed the civilian casualties caused by the US troops' bombings, an Afghanistan said with righteous indignation that "I also wish to launch a suicide bombing". In Norway, Anders Behring Breivik launched his mass killing spree because of his hatred against Muslim immigrants.
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you." This quote should serve a reminder to us, especially in the light of the current international state of affairs.

10th Anniversary of 9/11 Attacks: Impact on International Community

Although 10 years have passed since a group of terrorists attacked the United States, the scene of suicide terrorist attacks in the United States that happened on 11 September remains vivid in the mind of the world community. Through the television screen, the world community witnessed the first plane crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City; but as evacuation and rescue operations were taking place, the world community again witnessed the second plane crashed into the South Tower of the WTC. At the blink of eyes, the world community witnessed the two New York City landmarks collapsing at an alarming rate.
It was just that within a short period of that few hours that the world has been changed. It was also the first time the world community suddenly realized that the super power called the United States could also become so fragile. It only took a little more than 10 terrorists to put Uncle Sam on the rush to handle the situation that followed.
Shock and Impact on People
After the 11 September terrorist attack incident, the people in the United States as well as the people in the world suddenly realize that their lives have been severely affected. The biggest change is that when people go abroad they must go to the airport at least two hours before flight time. Moreover, for those who have to go to the United States and other European countries, they have to swallow their displeasure and accept all kinds of airport security scans including going through nude video scanning and long period of body search including the searching of private body parts if warranted. Moreover, because the terrorists who launched the 11 September attacks in the United States were radical Muslims, the Muslims in the world have suffered even more discriminated treatment at these western airports.
Another phenomenon we observe is that after the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States, many countries have the tendency arrest people at every turn using the name of fighting against terrorism. Some countries have even used such an opportunity and excuse to suppress dissidents. To these countries the rule of counterterrorism is "better to catch more of the innocents than allowing the culprits to escape from punishment." In the end the price people have to pay is the erosion of basic human rights. There are just too many cases and incidents whereby we notice that the counterterrorism laws have been abused by countries.
Killing of Osama Bin Laden
The paradox is that although Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States has already been killed by the US military force and although the counter terrorism wars staged by the United States have already toppled two authoritarian regimes namely the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, but the whole world has not turned more peaceful but instead the world has become even more restless. There is no place in the world one can consider a safe place to live.
After the 11 September incident, London, Madrid, Bali, Moscow, and Mumbai have also suffered massive terrorist attacks one after another. These are prime examples of the unsafe world we now live. These examples have also reflected the reality that until today, the United States and the people in the West still have not understood the root cause of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. They only treat violence with violence and allow more terrorist attack tragedies to continue.
Quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq War
In addition, the retaliation action taken by the US Government in the post 11 September era has also ultimately led the United States being trapped in the quagmire of Afghanistan and Iraq war. The destruction to the United States caused by the US counterterrorism war can be said that it is even worse than the damage caused by the act of 11 September terrorist attacks.
In the United States, in addition to the restrictions on citizens' individual freedom and privacy, the huge overhead cost for the US Government to launch counterterrorism war has become one of the major factors wearing down the US economy. More importantly, the people in the United States will have to forever living under the shadow of terrorist attacks.
Chronology of 10-Year US Antiterrorism Campaign
After the 9/11 terror attacks, the United States initiated an ongoing war on terror. The following are the chronology of the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign over the past 10 years.
2001
* On October 7, the United States launched large-scale military strikes against Afghanistan as the Taliban regime refused to hand over al-Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden, and the Afghanistan War broke out.
* On October 26, US President George W. Bush signed the US Patriot Act into law, granting related authorities more powers for surveillance and search in the name of safeguarding American national security interests.
* On November 3, Bush issued a directive, approving the establishment of military tribunals to try foreign terrorist suspects.
2002
* On April 17, the U.S. Defense Department announced the establishment of the US Northern Command in charge of homeland defense.
* On June 12, Bush signed a presidential directive to counter biological terrorism threats, including anthrax attacks.
* On July 16, Bush officially promulgated the United States' first National Strategy for Homeland Security, requiring measures be taken to intensify homeland security to prevent terror attacks in the United States similar to the 9/11 event.
* On September 20, the Bush administration published its initial National Security Strategy, which for the first time formally proposed a "pre-emption doctrine" to combat terrorists and enemy countries.
* Bush signed an act to establish the Department of Homeland Security.
2003
* On February 14, the Bush administration unveiled the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, saying Washington would lead the fight to where the terrorists hide and take unilateral action if necessary.
* On March 20, the United States launched a war against Iraq under the pretext that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and had links with Osama Bin Laden.
2006
* On June 29, the US Supreme Court ruled that Bush did not have the power to set up military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. The US military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, suspended its operations after the ruling.
2007
* On February 6, Bush approved the establishment of the US Africa Command to coordinate such affairs as security and antiterrorism. In October, the command was officially established, with headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.
2008
* On July 10, Bush signed a bill into law, allowing the government, without the permit of a court, to do eavesdropping on overseas telecommunications in the need of fighting terrorism.
2010
* On August 18, the last contingent of American military combat troops was withdrawn from Iraq, and the US seven-year-long combat operation there ended.
2011
* On May 1, the United States initiated a military raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden.
* On June 29, the White House released the National Strategy for Counterterrorism, focusing on defeating Al-Qaida and preventing homeland security threats from domestic terrorists.