Kabul Jirga Failed To Deliver Desired Dividends

A consultative peace council was held in Kabul yesterday to resolve political issue of Afghanistan and to end the war. Up to 1,200 people attended the Jirga (assembly of elders). It took one and a half month to prepare for the Jirga, however, according to the Afghan Government it succeeded in holding the consultative peace Jirga despite numerous difficulties.

Restoring Peace
According to Waheed Umar, spokesperson for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, only those Afghans were invited to attend the Jirga who could extend their help, through this Jirga, for the resolution of Afghan dispute and that the Afghan Government is able to resolve this long-standing issue, in any shape, with rival armed Taliban. From the very beginning spokesman of Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that this Jirga will do a lot in restoring peace, despite the fact that the participants of the Jirga have so far not expressed their opinion. He said that those personalities were invited to the Jirga who represented the Afghan people.

We have regards for Waheed Umar's statement and think that if Afghans can sit together and can find a way to douse the fire, which has been raging for years, then we pray to God for their success. But according to former Afghan Foreign Minister Dr Abdallah and the opposing armed Taliban, steps required for the Jirga were not taken. It was necessary that a lot of work should have been done on the political front for the Jirga. If it was difficult to make the armed Taliban attend the Jirga, at least the backing of Dr Abdallah and his supporters should have been achieved.

Capability To Resolve Issues
This is the reason why there is a lack of political support for the Jirga within and outside Afghanistan. The US and some other countries have backed Hamid Karzai during his visit to the US on the 12th of last month. It was required for Hamid Karzai to reach to Muslim countries, Afghan religious scholars, national leaders, and neighboring countries in order to win support of armed Taliban and his (Karzai) political rival Dr Abdallah or at least make them agree not to oppose the Jirga.

As today the political opponent (of Hamid Karzai) Dr Abdallah says that this Jirga has neither national status nor has the capability to resolve the issues and the rival armed Taliban say that the Jirga has been convened to protect the lives of foreign troops. Had the Afghan government made efforts for creating consensus then the opponents would not have raised their voice against the Jirga.

Afghan president, on the suggestion of the British foreign minister, should have sought support from Pakistan and other neighboring countries. There was a need that the unhappy armed groups should have been influenced and persuaded to participate in the Jirga through the council of religious scholars, formed two years ago in Kabul. In that case there had to be a possibility of success of convening the Jirga.

Political and Warring Sides
The Afghan government says that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has assured that they will not leave Afghanistan alone, cannot solve the Afghan problem. If the US makes efforts and extend help for the sake of peace, we will consider these in the interest of Afghan people. Anybody who takes step for the solution of Afghan problem should be appreciated.

According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, $60 million from foreign countries should be distributed among the armed groups, so that they renounce fighting. These dollars also cannot resolve Afghan issue. For the solution of this problem, first talks should be held with the Afghan people, neighboring countries, Muslim countries and with those religious scholars who could bring together both political and warring sides for talks and then peace should be established between them through a peace Jirga. The current situation in Kundoz, Baghlan and Badakhshan inside Afghanistan is not the same like that of 2009. There is a need of a sincere leadership to resolve the dispute of Afghanistan. When there is peace in Afghanistan, peace will return to the whole region.

Security Forces' Operations Against Thai Red-Shirts

After the war has ended, it was time for counting the bodies and the expenses of the operations of the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES). It has been initially found that the budget for the operations has been paid through fast-track procedures. The paying has been divided into sectors and the cost included the pays for informants in the fields.

Number of Security Forces
Earlier, it has been counted that the cost of CRES' operations from 12 to 23 March was about Bt280 million or about Bt30-40 million a day. When the operations of the CRES were extended, the number of security forces was increased from 50,000 to 64,000 since 23 March.

So, the cost of operations increased. From 23 March to 30 May when the curfew was lifted, the operation cost of the CRES stood at Bt3.4 billion and this cost was only the daily allowances paid to the security forces. The disbursements were made in installments in forms of emergency and necessary funds. The disbursements were requested from the Budget Bureau under the supervision of the Finance Ministry.

The disbursements were for only paying allowances and costs of foods to field officers and officers working in offices of the agencies concerned. When the fuel cost and all other expenses were added up, the overall cost of the operations was definitely higher than Bt5 billion.

The CRES announced that a total of 50,000 troops from the Army, Navy and Air Force were dispatched for the operations. Of 50,000 troops, 33,000 were dispatched to the fields while the 17,000 others were on standby in their agencies.

The operations were carried out under the Internal Security Act from 12 to 23 March. The budget for the operations of the military forces was approved by the Budget Bureau of the Finance Ministry as requested by the military through the International Security Operations Command (ISOC). The ISOC requested the budget for the cost of operations by 50,000 troops.

Moral Support
Troops of all ranks, who were deployed to keep security, were paid Bt300 a day each for a special allowance on top of field-operation allowance for Bt120 to Bt280 each a day. Moreover, there was a cost for providing three meals a day to the troops. There was also a cost of moral support of Bt100 a day for each troop.

The troops deployed for the operations could be broken up by their branches of armed forces -- the Navy, Air Force and Army. Navy Commander in Chief Adm Khamthon Phumhiran assigned Rear Adm Rungsak Serisawat, commander of the Bangkok Naval Base, to deploy four companies of troops for the operations. One company was deployed from the Navy Military Police Regiment, two companies from the Bangkok Naval Base and another company from the Marine Corps. The security forces of the Navy were in charge of areas on the Thon Buri side, particularly the Sirirat Hospital.

Air Force Commander-in-Chief ACM Itthaphon Suphawong assigned A.M. Raphiphat Laploetbun, commander of the Air Force's Ground Security Force Corps to deploy three companies of troops to take part in the operations. Two companies were stationed in the Government House while another company was on standby. The Air Force also dispatched 100 military police to help police man security checkpoints around the protest zone.

Engaged in Clashes With Protesters
The rest of 220 companies of troops came from the 1st Army Area, 2nd Army Area and 3rd Army Area. The troops were under command of First Army Area Commander Lt Gen Khanit Saphithak. Acting national police chief Pol Gen Prathip Tanprasoet also assigned 200 companies of policemen for the operations. The cost of the allowance for police forces was Bt700 million.

Each policeman received only Bt120 per day as an allowance. The policemen would receive Bt300 special allowance only when they engaged in clashes with protesters. The Royal Thai Police shouldered the cost of foods for all police forces in the operations. The Royal Thai Police paid Bt800,000 a day for the cost of the foods.Moreover, there were also costs of Department of Special Investigations (DSI) for deploying officers to investigate cases, which happened during the enforcement of the emergency decree. And the Cabinet allocated an additional budget of Bt10 million for the DSI for the purpose.

Thailand's Local Election

In the latest Bangkok-district-councilor election, held on 6 June, the Democrat Party has scored a landslide victory over its key rival, the Phuea Thai.

From this election, the Democrat has snatched up to 79 Bangkok-district-councilor seats from 10 electorates. The Phuea Thai, meanwhile, has grasped just 26 seats from three electorates.

Defeat for Phuea Thai
With such results, even the Phuea Thai has to concede its political defeat in this local election. The Phuea Thai, in fact, used to dominate the scene. Before 6 June, Phuea Thai members had served as Bangkok district councilors in up to 10 electorates. The Democrat, back then, had held the Bangkok-district-councilor seats in three electorates only. Today, the tides have clearly changed.

The Democrat Party's victory over the latest local election has received just little news coverage, though. Perhaps, this is because the Bangkok-district-councilor polling is just a local election.
Still, many groups of people have pointed out that the Phuea Thai Party has suffered the defeat in the latest Bangkok-district-councilor election mainly because of the recent red shirts' riot in Bangkok. The red shirts have been active under the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) banner. (UDD and Phuea Thai are closely linked).

War Against Red-Shirts Movement
Another key element in the Phuea Thai's defeat is perhaps the Center for the Resolution of the Emergency (CRES) orders that bar the 111 executives of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai Party and people with close links to the old power bloc from making financial transactions. (Phuea Thai is a reincarnation of the Thai Rak Thai).

Some Phuea Thai key members, who oversee the party's affairs in Bangkok, believe the government's propaganda war against the red-shirt movement has also contributed to the Phuea Thai's failure to fly high at the Bangkok-district-councilor election. During the past few months, the government has communicated a lot with people and such communications have the power to influence Bangkok residents to favor the ruling party's candidates in the Bangkok-district-councilor election.

In fact, when the UDD kicked off their latest rally in mid-March, it expected to campaign for the 'class war'. The UDD leaders successfully mobilized a large number of rural people to the capital and they expected 'the middle class' in Bangkok to jump into the bandwagon. The UDD leaders no longer intended to attract just grass-root people.

Cope With Public Suspicion
However, when the red-shirt rally dragged on, the UDD 'stepped up the pressure' on the government through various techniques. In the end, the red activities against the elites adversely affected the 'normal life' of Bangkok residents in general. To Bangkok people, they felt the 'risks' every time the red shirts paraded around the capital and clashed with security officials. The bloody confrontations took place in many parts of Bangkok, and even in nearby provinces.

The red-shirt rally and the bloody incidents on 10 April, 22 April, and 19 May becomes Bangkok residents' nightmare.

Of course, it remains unclear who have commanded the 'men in black' or the 'unidentified armed unit'. But quite a large number of Bangkok people can't help suspecting the red-shirted leaders and their leaders. Not just the government has to cope with the public suspicion.

The government and the red-shirted leaders are the parties in the conflict. To Bangkok people, both parties have played a role in their 'nightmare'.

Do the results of the Bangkok-district-councilor election foretell what will be coming in the general election? Will the Democrat Party snatch most of Bangkok-MP seats? No one can say anything about this at this point of time. Bangkok voters have a unique mindset. The conditions and factors that have influenced their choices at the polling stations are always clearly different from people in other regions.

Power Bloc
Still, one cannot ignore the fact that the Democrat Party's performance has improved hugely in the Bangkok-district-councilor election. And such result reflects to an extent how Bangkok voters 'feel' about the red-shirted leaders. For the time being, it is quite clear whether Bangkok residents 'embrace' or 'reject' the old power bloc.

But the Bangkok-district-councilor election already passed. The government must now think about how to capitalize on 'its good opportunity'. The government, after all, has just defeated the red-shirted leaders outside the Parliament and has just sailed though the censure debate in the Parliament.

Establishment of New Political Party
The government, particularly the Democrat Party, must think about how to keep its huge popularity among people for a long, long time. At the very least, the Democrat Party must make sure that it remains popular among Bangkok residents when the Bangkok Councilor election is held in August.

If the Democrat candidates can snatch most of the Bangkok-councilor seats in the 50 electorates, the Phuea Thai will face a really tough time. Moreover, the Democrat Party's landslide victory in the Bangkok Councilor election -- if takes place -- looks set to send the chill down the spine of Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan. Banned from officially engaging in political activities for five years alongside other former executives of the Thai Rak Thai, Sudarat has reportedly been trying to establish a new political party for Bangkok people. If the Democrat Party can score landslide victory in local Bangkok elections time and again, Sudarat will of course have the need to think twice.

India-Sri Lanka Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Democratic National Alliance parliamentary group leader said in Parliament on 8 June that if the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between India and Sri Lanka is signed, it would destroy local industries and India would monopolize the Sri Lankan market.

Statement Made in Parliament
Discussions on CEPA were now on and there were reports the agreement that is to be signed shortly covers eight sectors including air traffic, customs service, free travel for professionals and goods and services transactions. According to this agreement, taxes levied on the sale of goods between India and Sri Lanka will be lifted. All obstacles have been removed to permit a free flow of services and traveling of professionals. He urged Parliament to awake to the dangers to the economy inherent in the provisions of CEPA.

The conditions of the agreement have been framed in such a manner that Sri Lanka is made to look like a contiguous geophysical extension of India. The clauses in the agreement make it abundantly clear that growth limitations on both economies have been drastically lifted. What would ultimately happen is that Sri Lanka will metamorphose into a trade colony of India and almost the entire economy of the country will be under Indian control. Currently, India has encroached on 17 percent of Sri Lanka's internal trade market and India's intention seems to be that of expanding on that percentage resulting in the downfall of local production.

Affecting Production Cost
India is a country with a huge market run on state-of-the-art technology. India is a vast country that has a huge manufacturing base because of which the cost of production is low. But since our market is small our cost of production is higher. Another reason is absence of a proper industrial policy that would attract large-scale productions using state-of-the-art tech.

As taxes are imposed on Indian goods imported to Sri Lanka the local producer is protected but through CEPA the taxes imposed on Indian goods are being eliminated. This will result in Indian products being sold at a lesser price in the local market to the detriment of the local producer. With consumers buying more Indian products because of lower prices the Indian monopoly will expand to the detriment of the Lankan market.

Indo-Lanka Bilateral Trade
The argument that Sri Lanka consumers will have the benefit of purchasing goods at lower prices is not true. India after destroying the local producer will exert a price control mechanism in the local market. This will finally result in the crash of the national economy. This will then lead to a control over our political independence via a trade monopoly.

The argument could emerge that this agreement will help us export goods to India but the problem is that our manufacturers do not manufacture goods even to fulfill the local demand. This is underscored by the fact that while Indo-Lanka bilateral trade has increased in recent times, Sri Lanka has not benefited by this quantum increase.

US, China Engage in Deeper, Wider Cooperation

The recently concluded two-day China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue held in Beijing discussed major bilateral, regional, and global issues. The respective departments from both countries have engaged bilateral exchanges on energy safety, climate change, UN peace mission, counterterrorism, and enforcement issues. Their discussions have resulted in achieving 26 concrete results.

Foundation To Advance Bilateral Relations
These 26 concrete results cover the bilateral cooperation in vast fields involving nuclear security, energy cooperation, green technology cooperation, climate change, public health, human rights dialogues, anticorruption, third generation nuclear power technology, and maritime search and rescue exchange, among others. These fruitful results have given us a good indication that these two most important world powers have built good foundation to advance bilateral relations in depth and breadth. The achievement reached at the two-day bilateral dialogue will boost closer China-US ties. The fruitful exchange between the two countries will bring positive reaction to benefit the two countries and also people's welfare in the international community.

We trust the top national leaders from China and the United States understand clearly that good China-US relationship is important to each other and also to the international community.

As such, when Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered his speech at the opening session of the China-US strategic and economic dialogue held in Beijing, he pointed out that 'no matter how the international situation changes, regardless of what difficulty we face and whatever interference we encounter, we all must handle these from high strategic level and from long-term strategic perspective. We must firmly grasp and wholeheartedly preserve the hard work we strive hard together in wanting to build an active and comprehensive China-US cooperation of the 21st century, fostering strategic mutual trust, strengthening strategic cooperation and to properly handle differences, promote bilateral cooperation in bilateral, regional, and at global level of communication, coordination, and cooperation.'

Likewise, in his statement for the opening session of the Second China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue US President Barack Obama also said 'The relationship between United States and China will shape the 21st century. The importance of this relationship is no less than any kind of bi-lateral relationship in the world. We work together to build a positive, constructive and comprehensive relationship. We make commitment that through cooperation we will promote our mutual interest.'
In reality, China and the United States have their respective national interest; some of which like the RMB exchange rate issue can be conflicting. However, as President Obama said in this statement: 'Our two countries may not always reach a consensus on every issue, but through this dialogue we are able to have better communication and mutual understanding.'

Korean Peninsula Crisis
This China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue mechanism can indeed provide a platform for both countries to reduce conflicts and ease tensions. Take the RMB issue for an example, in this dialogue, both parties were able to deal with this thorny issue from pragmatic perspective. The United States has stopped its aggressiveness to force China to value up its currency and China has also promised to steadily push forward the reform of its RMB exchange rate mechanism. It seemed that both sides were happy about the same.

During the period when the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue was still on, the Korean Peninsula crisis was also at a deteriorating situation. In view of the fact that it was the United States and China that had helped to stage the Korean war and it was this two countries that had actually participated in this war 60 years ago, how these two countries can deal with the aftermath of the situation triggered by the 'Cheonan Incident' is of concern to the international community. Of note is that through this high-level dialogue, China and the United States were able to reach consensus in wanting to maintain peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula. Once again, this dialogue mechanism has shown that through engaging in the China-US Strategic and Economic Dialogue, China and the United States can, in addition to allowing both countries to reap common interest, this dialogue mechanism can also play a positive role to maintain peace and security in the region and even to the international community.

Promote Awareness and Understanding
However, we feel the brightest spot achieved during this dialogue is not the 26 or more concrete results reached, but it is in the long-term bilateral educational and cultural exchange built between the two countries. In an effort to promote educational and cultural exchange activities and other kinds of people to people exchanges, the senior government officials from both countries have signed the 'US-China Consultation on People to People Exchange' agreement and 'Educational and Cultural Exchange Initiatives.'

Although the establishment and development of bilateral relations is a matter between the two governments, without people's support from the two countries, such relationship is not strong. It is only through educational, cultural, and various people to people exchanges that people from both countries can promote awareness and understanding toward each other, thus eliminating unnecessary misunderstanding. The Chinese and US leadership apparently have already recognized the need for their bilateral relations to further develop through the promotion of nongovernmental people to people exchanges. As such, they have established such a mechanism to actively promote bilateral cultural and humanity exchanges.

To this end, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chinese State Councilor Liu Yandong on 25 May cochaired the first US-China Consultation on People to People Exchange Meeting at the National Center for the Performing Arts in Beijing. While in Beijing, Secretary Clinton launched the '100,000 Strong US Students in China Initiative' to oversee US students to study in China over the next four years. Moreover, the Chinese Ministry of Education also announced that in the next four years China will send 10,000 students to the United States to do doctorate degrees.

Shanghai World Expo US Pavilion
In fact, this US-China educational and cultural exchange program is not in the future tense; it is in the present tense. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disclosed that when she visited the Shanghai World Expo US Pavilion, she had received and met with more than 7 million young US student ambassadors. These young US students came from cities and towns from across the United States. These young people have all studied the Chinese language. She said that 'when they returned home, they would have their own closely related and inseparable experience with the Shanghai World Expo and with the visitors coming from all parts of China as well as from other part of the world when they received them at the US Pavilion at the Expo.'

However, China and the United States do have cultural differences. They also have different core value and core interest. It remains to be seen whether greater interaction between the citizens of the two countries can help bridge the cultural differences and competing core interests to achieve truly close China-US bilateral ties.

Rising Terror Attacks in Pakistan

Formal investigation into terrorists' firing incident in Jinnah Hospital Emergency has been launched. Joint investigation team and an intelligence agency team visited Jinnah Hospital and inspected the entry and exit gates of the hospital, to determine which way the terrorists fled.

The terrorists succeeded in fleeing by scaling up the college canteen wall adjacent to the hospital, and thereafter they snatched the police van. Police sources say the terrorists had fled before the police team reached the spot. A few police officials who were standing nearby reached the spot when they heard firing sounds. However, the terrorists had completed their task and left the place. Intelligence agency team determined the terrorists' fleeing route from a line of spilt blood. Meanwhile the intelligence agency team collected the soil samples, soaked in blood, and sent to laboratory for tests. However, police and intelligence teams have been unable to find out the terrorists who had fled.

Attack on Ahmedis Worship Place
It has been reported that four terrorists clad in police uniforms attacked Jinnah Hospital Emergency on 31 May, to get released their comrade, Mo'az, who, was arrested in injured state after terrorist attack on Ahmedi worship place in Model Town. They attacked the hospital when the hospital management and family members of the patients were busy in taking care of them. The assailants entered the hospital from the main gate in a white colored Honda Civic car with a green registration number plate. They parked the car outside the emergency ward, took out their weapons and started firing. They entered the emergency ward and tried to get their comrade released. Entering the emergency ward, the terrorists targeted the man with whom the policemen were deputed taking him for Ma'az.

The police had deputed policemen around a common man in the emergency, making him appear to be the terrorist, in order to hoodwink the terrorists. The purpose was that if the terrorists attack the hospital to get released their comrade, they might kill or take along the man, taking him for the terrorist. However, the terrorists, instead of taking that man along, fired at him so that their comrade is killed and that he could not tell police anything about his comrades. However, the terrorists fired at that man and the police personnel standing near him, and succeeded in fleeing.

Traditional Style of Attack
The police had kept Ma'az, the terrorist, in a separate ICU (Intensive Care Unit) ward, due to which he was saved. Despite the timely information about the terrorists' firing, the police reached the spot in its traditional manner. Until that time, the police personnel on the crime scene exchanged fire with the terrorists, injuring one of them. The terrorists fired and fled by snatching a police van, after passing from a route adjacent to MS (Medical Superintendent) Office, which leads to college canteen and scaling up the hospital wall.

The terrorists had first inspected all the entry and exit routs of the hospital before coming there to attack their own comrade. They had already decided as to which way they will flee. Intelligence agency has acquired CCTV footage for the last four days to determine as to whether the terrorists had inspected the routes, and which way they had used to enter the hospital if they had come there a couple of days ago.

No CCTV was installed on the entry and exit gates of the hospital, to suggest which way the terrorists had entered.

Pakistan-India Dialogue: Effects on Afghanistan

In the second week of April 2010, during the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit, in addition to meeting leaders of other countries Pakistan's Prime Minister also held a meeting with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh. The meeting was held on October 29 at the time when Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai also held meetings with Pakistani and Indian leaders in a bid to help improve ties between these two countries.

Mumbai Attacks Case
After the Mumbai attacks in 2009 when relations between Pakistan and India deteriorated and the series of meetings halted, the two countries at the time did not agree to hold talks even on the mediation of the United Nations. Each summit of SAARC concludes in the interest of all participating countries. On the sidelines of this summit, bilateral meeting between Pakistan and India is considered beneficial for both the countries. Here we discuss and write to see what will be the interest of Afghanistan if good relations exist between Pakistan and India?

The communiqué of SAARC meeting between Gilani and Manmohan says that Pakistan's Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was also accompanied by Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Qureshi held a meeting with his Indian counterpart, S M Krishna. In addition to this prime ministers of both the countries were accompanied by their aides as well as other high level officials.

Now, first we look into the meeting of the leaders of Pakistan and India, and then we will think on the aspect of Afghanistan. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, after a long term of bad relations, once again agreed to start composite dialogue between Pakistan and India. Although the issue of Mumbai incident was raised by the high-level Indian officials, the agreement to start composite dialogue helped end last year's tension. In addition to this tension, agreement was reached to hold talks. Leaders of both the countries acknowledged that holding talks can resolve disputes between the two countries and this will be in the interest of not only India and Pakistan but also for the region. During the meeting and talks, which continued for about 50 minutes, it was also stressed that both countries will stop using their soils against each other. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani met with his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh at the time when conclusion of SAARC Summit was announced. With the conclusion of SAARC Summit, leaders of both countries agreed to hold bilateral meetings and to continue talks between the two countries.

Eliminating Terrorism
Last year this meeting was held at Sharm al-Shaykh. In that meeting also, leaders of India and Pakistan met but the issue of Mumbai incident remained unchanged between them and India continued blaming Pakistan of harboring terrorism and establishing terror camps in Kashmir and other parts of India. Whatsoever was discussed in this meeting but India raised the issue that Pakistan harbors terrorism. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir told Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, that whenever ties between the two countries deteriorated, Bangladesh is affected first and on political aspect the damage to Bangladesh should be given more attention because on the issue of Bangladesh, Pakistan and India fought a bloody war in 1971 and after that Bangladesh was separated from Pakistan.

On neighborhood basis, though, Afghanistan has no joint border with India but on political basis Afghanistan needs more relations with India than Pakistan. This need has emerged because of the current warring situation in Afghanistan. In comparison to Pakistan, relations with India are more important for Afghanistan because India has no religious, cultural, and ideological ties with Afghanistan. If on political basis Afghanistan does no make ties with India, then it India, in the form of an enemy can inflict damage of any type to Afghanistan. At the time when Pakistan and India were at war for the liberation of Kashmir in 1965, ties between India and Afghanistan were better.

Political Rivalry Between India and Pakistan
In the face of these good relations a number of Pakistanis were of the view that India was carrying out aerial attacks on Western Pakistan from Afghanistan's side and border. Therefore, because of the bad relations between Pakistan and India, ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan also deteriorated. Indian observers claim and expressing their views, during literary gatherings, that Pakistan has not got good neighboring relations with Afghanistan. But the Pakistani people and Afghanistan say that India pursues its interests in Afghanistan and want to deteriorate ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As Pakistan and India now want to improve their relations and for this purpose they agreed to hold dialogue and meetings. This situation is in the best interest of Afghanistan because, although, Afghanistan has suffered damages because of the attacks by foreign armies, it also experienced losses in the form of education, culture and population because of political rivalry between India and Pakistan. Whenever Pakistan wanted, it has boosted reconstruction work in Afghanistan for improving friendship. India has changed the minds of a number of Afghans toward conspiracies against Pakistan. India has three objectives to achieve against Pakistan; it wants to change the minds of Persian-speaking people and to augment its influence and increase its supporters in Afghanistan.

Hatching Conspiracies
Since 2001, India has made pledges with Afghans for making five dams in Afghanistan. It is stated that three important dams will be constructed in Mazar-e-Sharif, Ghazni and Kunar and later will plan the construction of two other dams in Helmand and Parwan provinces. So far neither the dam was built on the waters of River Amo in Mazar-e-Sharif nor any power plants were installed at Sultan Band to provide electricity to Ghazni and Wardak and also no embankment was made at the river in Kunar. Parwan and Helmand Province have already been discussed later in the plan. But even if there are good ties between India and Pakistan, they prove helpful for Afghanistan.

The first thing is India should refrain from hatching conspiracies against Pakistan and Afghanistan and the second thing is it should not oppose awarding contracts of works and constructions in Afghanistan to Afghanistan; India should itself compete in the reconstruction work in Afghanistan. In this way Afghanistan will be reconstructed as the result of good relations between Pakistan and India. Relations will be better between these two countries and its benefit will go to Afghanistan also.

Malaysia's Future Economic Direction

At present, the Western civilization is facing a gloomy economic environment with several countries risk going bankrupt. The United States, for example, is now managing their economy under a loan burden as high as $50 trillion.

What has happened to the Western civilization which was previously a big world economic power is the consequence of their failure in arranging their economy with balanced values.

Yet, despite the economic downfall in the West, several countries have emerged with the potential to become new economic powers. Right now, the term BRIIC (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, and China) is so synonymous among political observers as far as this matter is concerned. BRIIC is an acronym of five countries which are experiencing rapid economic growth at the moment.

These countries are Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia and China. Some also opine that Vietnam should be included as a country with an economy worth our attention.

So our concern is, where does Malaysia stand and head to in this new world economic order? For the Director General of the Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM), Datuk Nik Mustapha Nik Hassan, after much reliance on the sector of installing components for international companies, the prospect of such an economy was seen no longer relevant in the current economic situation in this country. He said, Malaysia was no longer a strategic country for those companies in view of the rising labor cost in this country.

In comparison, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam have a much bigger population. Indirectly, these countries have the advantage as they have a big number of experts with low labor cost.

Socioeconomic Implication
In this regard, Nik Mustapha said, the prospective Malaysian economy needed a comprehensive transformation to make sure that the exit of foreign investors would not slow down our national economic growth.

However, the exit of foreign investors will also plunge us into a big dilemma in terms of socioeconomic implication as a huge number of workers in the installation sector will lose their income source. And most of these workers do not have a high educational qualification that can assure their future.

Nearly 80 percent of local workers in most sectors in Malaysia, for instance, have a qualification up to Malaysian Certificate of Education (SPM, equivalent to O Level) only. These workers averagely earn about 1,500 Malaysian ringgit ($469) a month and they can be categorized as the middle income group.

In cities, people earning this income are categorized as the poor. "This is a serious crisis of human capital development because the remaining 20 percent skilled and professional workers would not able to fill the critical needs of the employment market.

Track for Economic Recovery

"To advance towards the goal of a developed country, Malaysia needs more skilled and professional workers with a majority of the people earn about 4,000 ringgit ($1,250) a month in average," he said.

Nevertheless, Malaysia is essentially on the right track for economic recovery as proved by the 10.1 percent growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the first quarter of this year.
We are also one of the top 10 countries with promising economic growth over the same period. This proved that the several approaches introduced by the government, especially over the past one year under the administration of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, are correct and effective.

Presenting 10th Malaysian Plan
The economic transformation policy has truly given a big impact to the economic growth in the country despite the world economic recession. The positive impact is expected to prevail in the anticipation of the presenting of the 10th Malaysian Plan (10MP) by the government next month.

It is hoped that all these approaches would eventually lead Malaysia to achieve the status of a high-income nation by 2020 and subsequently become a developed country.

At the same time, our country will continue to compete with new economic powers in the world especially our neighbors, Indonesia and Vietnam which are now developing rapidly. As far as time is concerned, we only have less than 10 years to achieve the status.

This is a critical period and all plans have to be put in order and initiated immediately but wisely. The government machinery is no doubt the most crucial component as it plays the major role in the implementation of the government policies.

Amending National Development Policy
They have to change the dimension of public services by including supplementary values to make sure that the government's targets can be achieved fast and effectively. In the efforts towards this goal, they certainly cannot avoid from introducing religious values such as responsibility, sincerity, honesty and always set the target to give their best.

"Therefore, when measuring the growth of our country every year, we also have to look into the social aspect, on top of the economic aspect. This is because economic growth is closely related to the development of the society and we can say we have made an economic success if the people enjoy a satisfactory living standard socioeconomically," he said. At the same time, he recommended our country to amend the National Development Policy every year to substitute GDP as the measurement of the progress of economy and social welfare.

China-Japan-South Korea Leadership Summit

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak held a leadership summit at the international convention center at Jeju Island in South Korea recently. It was the third round of two-day China-Japan-South Korea leadership summit. At this summit the three countries passed the '2020 China-Japan-South Korea Cooperation Outlook.' The leaders said they would uphold history, face up to the future and persevere to promote good-neighborly trilateral relationship toward mutual trust, full cooperation among one another and to strive toward common development direction.

Crisis in Korean Peninsula
While the time, place and agenda of the third China-Japan-South Korea leader meeting have already been finalized, but because of the recent Cheonan fleet dispute in the Korean Peninsula, no one could expect in advance whether the meeting would come out with the expected results because the international community and media were watching and showing concern of the eminent crisis in the Korean Peninsula then.

Nevertheless, after the end of the meeting the gestures of cooperation as reflected by the three leaders and the concrete results obtained at the meeting have reflected the fact that the three countries would not let the Koran Peninsula issue to become a stumbling block for their further development and advancement in the triangular relationship.

Objective and Impartial Judgment
In recent years, it is a fact that China and South Korea have developed increasingly closer contact. However, the relationship between China and South Korea can never be compared with the 'clan' type of close relationship between China and North Korea. As such whether China would side North Korea over the Cheonan Incident has become the focus point of the three-leader summit. At the pre leadership summit, Wen Jiabao has already made clear to Lee Myung-bak that China would deal with the Cheonan Incident based on objective and impartial judgment. According to Chinese official news, China would not shelter any guilty party. The pragmatic and rationale attitude expressed by China over the Cheonan Incident was one of the reasons contributed to the successful holding of the meeting, and resulted in fruitful discussion.

The three leaders did not openly condemn North Korea, but agreed that the attacks on Cheonan fleet incident had caused casualties and was a serious incident that could affect Asian peace and stability. They sent their condolences to the victim families. Both the Chinese and Japanese leaders attached importance to joint investigation on the Cheonan Incident conducted by South Korea and other countries and noted the various responses. The leaders said the three countries would maintain communication, to properly deal with this incident, so that regional peace and stability could be maintained.

Free Trade Agreement
On economic cooperation, the three countries also agreed to strive forth that before the end of this year, to come out with the 'China-Japan -South Korea Investment Agreement' and that by 2012 the China-Japan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement can be materialized. In addition, the three countries will also expand and simplify the business environment in their respective countries at the same time establishing a mechanism to facilitate efficient transportation and logistic management. The three countries will also strengthen financial cooperation of financial institutions in one other's financial market.

It is understood that the total gross economic output of China, Japan and South Korea accounted for 70 percent of the total Asian economies. As of 2008, the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the three countries accounted for about 17 percent of the world economy; and the total value was $4.5 trillion. This accounted for 14 percent of total world trade. The data show that when the three countries further strengthen their economic and trade cooperation, it is not only conducive to economic development in Asia; it will also contribute to world economic recovery and prosperity.

The conclusion of the China-Japan-South Korean leader summit also resulted in the leaders' making a decision to set up the 'China-Japan-South Korea Coordination Secretariat' in South Korea in 2011. With such a permanent Secretariat mechanism in place, the three countries should be able to push their trilateral cooperation to a higher level. When the Secretariat is in place, it will also allow the cooperation among the three countries to become more solid than the current stage. This, in turn, will allow the three countries to face a more future-oriented and all-round cooperative partnership in various fields. Such development will also allow the mutually beneficial cooperation in different fields to become more fruitful. In the process the friendly feelings between the people of the three countries will also become more profound.

Differences and Contradiction
Of course the various historical factors and the contemporary reality factors, coupled with the different national core interest of the three countries will allow the trilateral cooperation mechanism formed by the three countries to become a kind of relationship that: 'amid cooperation, there will be competition, and that among the consensus there will be differences.'

However, just as the Chinese philosopher Confucius said: 'Gentlemen will maintain harmony with others but will not agree to differences, but the opposite kind of people will agree to differences but will not keep harmony.' We trust that no matter how many differences and contradiction exist among China, Japan and South Korea, as long as they can resolve their conflicts and disputes through using the dialogue and non-confrontational channel, the three countries can establish the type of gentleman relationship of 'keeping harmony amid differences.' This kind of trilateral relationship should be strong and can withhold the test of time.

Sending More Troops to Afghanistan, Repetition of Mistake

The US Senate has approved the resolution for fixing time frame of the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and budget for the newly deployed troops. Despite the fact that the subject of the US forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan is the most controversial and the most disputed issue. However, most of the US senators want the immediate withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, yet the senate, has approved the $30 billion new budget for its forces in Afghanistan. Most part of this $30 billion budget will be spent on the 30,000 newly deployed US troops whose deployment in Afghanistan was announced by President Barack Obama in December 2009.

Similarly, a part of the budget will be spent on the US troops in Iraq as well. In addition to this, the United States has approved $4 billion for the projects of reconstruction and economic support in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would be spent through the US Department of State. In addition to this, the US Congress has also approved $130 billion earlier, which would be spent in Afghanistan during the current year.

Impact of Afghan War
According to the media reports, United States has so far spent $1,000 billion on the war in Afghanistan. According to the official press releases of the Pentagon, more than 1,000 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far. The Afghan war has become a cancer for the United States. All of the US strategists agree that the United States may never succeed in winning the war in Afghanistan. They know that their opponents in Afghanistan are gaining strength with the passage of every month and every year, that the field of the battle against them is widening, that the opponents have been learning novel war tactics, that the circle of hatred against the United States is widening in the Islamic world, that the United States is cutting off from the Islamic world and human-loving parts of the world and that all of such forces are standing behind supporting the opponents of the United States.

The tension created by the United States Afghan war has now reached Sudan, Libya, Somalia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and the Western world. The battle field has extended from Asia to Africa. The current military data of Afghanistan show that the human and property losses that the United States has incurred in Afghanistan are higher than what the US intelligence and pentagon are sharing with the media.

A clear cut majority of the US people is sure about the failure of United States in Afghanistan. 80 percent of the people of the United States want the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. US Senator Tom Harkin says: "I can no more tolerate the same. Now, it is the time to rethink over this contradiction, the confusion created by the war." Another US senator of the Democrats, Chief Benjamin says: "I think that impatience has grown very much. The nine-year presence of the foreign forces in Afghanistan has shown that in spite of the increase in the number of troops to whatever high extent, winning the war is impossible without people's support."

Security Situation
At present, except the big cities, most of the parts of Afghanistan are under the control of the opponents and the writ of the government is very weak therein. Three months ago, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), through their 15,000 well-equipped troops, launched operation named 'Mushtarak' in the small district of Marjah, which is situated in the outskirts of Lashkar Gah District in Helmand. They killed dozens of civilians in Marjah and displaced thousands from there. But Marjah is still under the control of the Taliban at the moment, and the security situation in Marjah is far worse as compared to that in past. In spite of the presence of the forces of 48 countries in Afghanistan, the Taliban captured Barg-e-Matal District in Nuristan. So, what difference they would make even if they increase the number of their troops?

Our request to the United States is to welcome the joint call of its citizens and the Afghans and, instead of sending more troops to Afghanistan, to withdraw its existing troops from Afghanistan through a strategy that is logical and acceptable to all.

Political and Economic Presence
If the United States really considers Afghanistan its strategic ally, it should establish a real government in Afghanistan and should support it in becoming self-sufficient. The few billion dollars budget, which Obama is spending on the US troops in Afghanistan, are like foam on the surface of water and it would make no difference. Instead of these expenses, if the United States spends one-fifth of this budget on the security sector in Afghanistan, the later would have its own powerful Army and police structure. In that case, United States and NATO will not need to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Afghanistan and as compensation, to take back thousands of dead bodies of their soldiers. Neither would China, Iran, Russia and the Arab world form an alliance against the United States and NATO.

The Afghans want the political and economic presence of the United States in Afghanistan and they want friendship with them inside the circle of mutual respect. Afghanistan is in need of support from the United States and the Western world and it is a supporter of globalization. But the Afghan people consider the surge in the foreign troop as something against themselves and the region. They consider the troop surge as something not beneficial for the foreigners as well. It would be better if the funds spent on the foreign forces in Afghanistan are spent on the security sector of Afghanistan.

India-US Strategic Cooperation: S.M. Krishna Visits Washington

India and the United States concluded their first cabinet-level strategic dialogue on 4 June. Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna on 3 June told US President Barack Obama that India 'can be a dependable anchor' in Asia-Pacific region's growth, even as he emphasized that New Delhi considered its relationship with Washington as 'one of our foremost foreign policy priorities.'

Earlier Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held discussions as part of the first-ever Strategic Dialogue between the two nations, which encompassed subjects like economic cooperation, high technology exports to India, cooperation over climate change among other things.

Foremost Priorities
India considers its relationship with the US as a top foreign policy priority as the partnership is destined to have a strong impact on global stability, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna told President Barack Obama on 3 June. The president, we consider the mutually beneficial relationship with the United States to be one of our foremost foreign policy priorities,' he said. Krishna also lauded Obama for 'taking strong interest in the future of the Asia-Pacific region, while adding that India can be a dependable anchor of the region's growth.

Nuclear Liability Regime: India is committed to putting in place a nuclear liability regime, Foreign Minister Krishna said even as he invited US firms to invest in India. Speaking before the start of the United States-India Strategic Dialogue at an event hosted by the US-India Business Council, the Indian foreign minister said many US firms were in dialogue with Indian companies. We would like it to be as robust a partnership as we have both envisioned.

Pledge To Deepen Ties
India and the United States concluded their first cabinet-level Strategic Dialogue on 4 June, pledging to deepen ties between the two nations. Clinton and Krishna pledged to deepen people-to-people, business-to-business and government-to-government linkages between the world's oldest and largest democracies for the mutual benefit of both countries and for the promotion of global peace, stability, economic growth and prosperity.

US Intervention for Access to Headley
The Indian foreign minister sought the US secretary of state's intervention in New Delhi getting proper access to the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks accused David Headley aka Daood Gilani, indicating that the US was 'yet to fulfill its pledge' in this regard three days after an Indian investigating team arrived here to question him.

Two-Way Trade in Advanced Technology
The Indian foreign minister projected high-tech commerce as a sheet anchor for India's ties with the US as the strategic dialogue got underway in Washington. 'Indian importers have a 100 percent compliance record when it comes to safeguarding imported technology -- we have been implementing the End-Use Verification Agreement with US partners for years. With this trust that we have built as strategic partners, we should be able to create robust two-way trade in advanced technology,' the Indian foreign minister said.

Diverge on Afghanistan

On the Afghan issue, it was learned that the thinking and paths adopted by India and US appeared to diverge. While Clinton hinted at 'reintegrating the Taliban fighters back into the society,' Krishna warned against engaging with any group that was involved in terror-related activities.

US Af-Pak Strategy
Favoring increased cooperation between India and the United States over Afghanistan. President Obama must have also realized that India cannot be ignored if he wants to ensure successful implementation of his Af-Pak strategy. He said that the United States and India together could 'considerably alter' the course of global affairs.

Obama's Expected India Visit
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke on 28 May with President Obama. The two leaders discussed the forthcoming Strategic Dialogue between the two countries scheduled next week in Washington. Both sides attach great priority to the dialogue as a means to strengthen bilateral engagement on a wide range of issues, including high technology trade, science & technology, civil nuclear cooperation, agriculture, human resource development, security and other strategic issues.

The two leaders took the opportunity to discuss regional and global issues of mutual interest. President Obama conveyed condolences on the loss of lives resulting from the air crash in Mangalore recently. The Prime Minister said that a warm welcome awaited the President and his family when they visit New Delhi.

Change of Guard in Japan: Naoto Kan Elected Prime Minister

Naoto Kan, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) leader, was voted in as the country's new prime minister on 4 June, with his Cabinet to be launched early next week roughly one month out from an expected upper house election. Both upper and lower houses of parliament separately as elected Kan as the new premier in a majority vote, replacing Yukio Hatoyama, who abruptly announced his resignation on 2 June, only about eight months after sweeping to power.

Introduction to Kan
The 63-year-old Kan, who was deputy prime minister and finance minister in the Hatoyama Cabinet, became Japan's 94th leader, at a time when the country is struggling with a two-decade-old economic slump and filled with public mistrust in politics. Kan, the fifth prime minister since 2006, intends to launch a new Cabinet on 8 June.

According to a senior DPJ lawmaker, Kan is planning to name Yoshito Sengoku, who was state minister in charge of designing national strategy, as the government's top spokesman. Kan agreed with the DPJ's small coalition partner, the People's New Party, that the two will continue to form a government together.

Kan is Japan's first prime minister in 14 years who was not born into a long-established political family, unlike many of his immediate predecessors, including Hatoyama and Taro Aso, whose grandfathers were also prime ministers.

The fact that Kan is not a hereditary politician will likely help increase his party's popularity, as many voters are tired of seeing prime ministers who hail from elite families resigning one after another. But the leadership change is unlikely to lead to a major shift in Japan's economic and foreign policies.

Kan has said he will continue the unfinished work of Hatoyama, while doing his utmost to restore public confidence in the DPJ ahead of the House of Councillors election expected in July.
Kan said his first job as prime minister would be to ''rebuild the country,'' in a speech following his 291-to-129 victory in a DPJ presidential election earlier in the day over sole contender Shinji Tarutoko, a less well-known DPJ lower house member who called for ''a generational change'' in party leadership. He also called for unity within the ruling party in the run-up to the upper house election.

Previous Cabinet's Unpopularity
Attention is focused on to what extent Kan, an activist-turned politician, will be able to lessen the influence of Ichiro Ozawa, the outgoing DPJ secretary general, when he runs the government. One of the major reasons for the previous Cabinet's unpopularity was money scandals associated with Ozawa, regarded as the most powerful figure in the DPJ, who has decided to resign with Hatoyama.

Many of those who supported Tarutoko in the election are affiliated politically with Ozawa, who heads an interparty group of about 150 lawmakers, by far the biggest in the ruling party.
The decision to pick Sengoku, who is known to be critical of Ozawa, as chief Cabinet secretary suggests that Kan is trying to create an image that the new government is distancing itself from the kingmaker.

Hatoyama and his entire Cabinet stepped down together in the morning, ahead of the Diet's vote on the new leader in the afternoon, after floundering in public opinion polls, caused by his mishandling of where to relocate a key US military base in Okinawa Prefecture and money scandals.

The Hatoyama Cabinet was formed after the DPJ's landslide victory in last summer's House of Representatives election, which ended more than half a century of almost continuous rule by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

But Hatoyama decided to resign because of growing concerns about the potential loss of many DPJ seats in the forthcoming upper house election. If all goes smoothly, Kan will deliver his policy speech and take questions from ruling and opposition party representatives in the Diet soon.

Officially, Kan will assume the premiership upon an appointment ceremony at the Imperial Palace, and until then Hatoyama will continue serving as premier. The schedule for the ceremony has not been decided, yet.

Challenges Ahead
As the country's sixth prime minister since 2006, Kan has to ensure his party's success in upper house elections scheduled in mid-July so as to guarantee the smooth passage of bills. During Hatoyama's eight-month tenure, the DPJ had to woo a coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Japan New Party to assure a majority in the upper house. But the ruling coalition has fallen apart.

The SDP joined the opposition and the image of the DPJ became increasingly sullied in the minds of the people, following Hatoyama's backtracking on a campaign pledge to move an unpopular US marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.

In the coming election, it will be difficult for the DPJ to hold its 54 seats in the upper house. A 'twisted parliament' seen in the past when then the opposition Democrats and their allies won control of the upper house may return, allowing the opposition to delay bills and jam the government's policy plans.

Handling Japan-US Relations
Another challenge for the new prime minister is how to handle Japan-US relations. When the opposition, the DPJ repeatedly criticized the ruling LDP for blindly following the United States and called for a equal relation with the US. In fact, there are no differences in principle between the two parties in protecting and strengthening the Japan-US alliance.

The failure of the outgoing cabinet to relocate the U.S. air base to a coastal area within the Okinawa Prefecture suggests that politicians' promises could be dishonored and that the interests of the people on Okinawa could be ignored but the Japan-US alliance has to be protected. Kan also has to understand that for his junior cabinet to stay in office longer, he has to formulate effective economic policies so as to escort the infancy of Japan's economic recovery into real growth.

US, India, Israeli Sign Accord for Opening of Joint Offices

The US, Indian, and Israeli Governments have signed an agreement to set up joint intelligence offices. The agreement was inked at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi.

Strengthening International Intelligence
Meanwhile, the interior, external, and defense ministries of the Indian Government has given directions to the concerned intelligence authorities to bolster contacts with the US and Israeli intelligence agencies as part of efforts aimed at strengthening its international intelligence system. The ministries have also directed the authorities concerned to prepare a list of expert officers in this regard.

The United States will set up a joint intelligence system of its three intelligence agencies in the Indian cities of New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, and Jaipur. In addition, the Israeli intelligence agency will set up its offices in New Delhi, Mumbai, and Jammu. India will set up its joint intelligence offices in Washington and New York as well as in Israeli cities of Tel Aviv and Ashdod.

Agreement of Cooperation
The sources say that Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Mosad, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have signed an agreement of cooperation spanning more than five years after long and intense deliberations of one year.

Supposedly, the United States has hatched a plan of bringing forward India to maintain its supremacy in the Afghan region, while Israel has also signed several joint intelligence-related agreements with India to increase its influence in the Arab countries through New Delhi.

New US National Security Strategy

US President Barack Obama's new National Security Strategy released recently has officially placed a 'full stop' to his predecessor's, George W. Bush's unilateralism. The focus of 'destroying the old and building the new' in Obama's 52-page doctrine on security strategy is Washington's awareness of the value of global cooperation. The United States new security strategy affirmed that it has placed foreign relations to be the focus of foreign affair policy, emphasizing on the search for consensus or 'commitment to dialogue'.

Objections From International Community
Many people would not forget, in 2001, President Bush released the US's national security strategy with the policy of 'striking preemptively', asserted the right to attack with force against any country and terrorist organizations which may be considered a threat to the United States. Implementing this strategy, the US blatantly attacked Iraq in spite of objections from the international community. Needless to say, the damage for Iraq was severe, and for the US, the Iraq war was a disaster. Sinking into increasingly unilateral policies, the United States must receive even more painful implications.

Bogged down in the so-called global war on terror, economic recession, apprehension of bomb plots, all of these show that the United States, doesn't matter how powerful it is, still shows its own deadly 'Achilles' Heels', which it cannot single handedly solve all global problems in its own way. The absurdity is in the fact that it is weakened by the chase for its own shadow. The preemptive striking policy and the freedom to act in the past is not only ineffective, but also overshadowing the US image.

Obama administration's new security strategy emphasized that the United States cannot act alone in this world, and pledged to form a 'new international order'. Learning valuable lessons from its predecessor Bush in the last eight years, the United States is forced to officially acknowledge the multi-polar new world order that is forming, with the rise of more powerful countries such as China, Russia and India. More than ever, the United States understands that, without the active and continuous multilateral cooperation, it would be very difficult to solve issues which are considered crucial for the United States and the world.

The US Government and even the people of the United States understand that, without change, the United States will surely lose its superpower status. Without change, it is a certainty that the US benefits in strategic regions will be wobbly. Better late than never, Washington is frantically adjusting to restore its influence and power.

Praises India, Condemns Pakistan
Obama's National Security Strategy provides a striking contrast between how the US views India and Pakistan -- the former as a rising global power and the latter as the epicentre of global terrorism.

The document says the US and India are building a strategic partnership that is underpinned by shared interests and shared values as the world's two largest democracies and the close contacts between its people.

The document heaps praise on India. 'India’s responsible advancement serves as a positive example for developing nations, and provides an opportunity for increased economic, scientific, environmental, and security partnership,' it says and adds, 'Working together through our Strategic Dialogue and high-level visits, we seek a broad-based relationship in which India contributes to global counterterrorism efforts, nonproliferation, and helps promote poverty-reduction, education, health, and sustainable agriculture.'

Pressure on North Korea
In reality, the United States has changed in its relations with allies and the world in the past two years. From the assembling of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces for Afghanistan, seeking support to put pressure on North Korea, lifting up its relations with Russia, repairing its relations with Europe, to the promotion of peace negotiations in the Middle East and the extensive consultation regarding the route to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This clearly demonstrated the United States' old conservative idea of its transcendence and placing itself on a higher plane than the rest of the world, is gradually discarded.

World in New Order
Perhaps Obama has finished with unilateralism, or does the US want to renounce its status as the 'imposer of the game'? 'Obama's Doctrine' stressed the necessity for the United States to create a world order based on diplomatic persuasion and military strength. This shows that the US's new security strategy has not changed its fundamental goals. The United States continues to maintain its powerful military forces, with an ability and operation range beyond the rest of the world.

Alhough it has abandoned the concept of 'war on terror,' the United States did not hide its intention to interfere with 'rival countries' such as Iran and North Korea. This is synonymous with the fact that the United States is not and has never abandoned the ambition to 'lead' the world in the 'new order'. Thus, in spite of putting on new 'coats', the US goals for security strategy have not changed. Unilateralism was the official joint statement. However, the United States changes in strategy were to accommodate the new position to achieve a completely old goal.

Multi-Party Regime in Vietman -- Where Lies the Ultimate Truth?

A party is a political organization regrouping people sharing the same goal and ideal existing in a specific society. The direct goal of a party is to enter politics. The ultimate goal is to win and keep the state power (government). History of Vietnam and the world has shown that all revolutions to overthrow a social regime or to change the ruling forces, which are called 'colored revolutions', are often the results of mobilization and rally of the mass, sometimes underground sometimes open of political parties. When they become the ruling party, depending on concrete situation, they will opt for multi or mono party system.

Nevertheless, in many countries often there is no pure multi party or one ruling party system. In a multi party regime, there is always a ruling party governing for many years, even decades. In the case of a sole ruling party system, usually the power is complemented by the participation of official organizations (in the political system) or non official ones (Non-Governmental Organizations -- NGOs).

When studying the relationship between a political party and the social system, many people either deliberately or by political naivety tend to omit other factors such as specific historical background or national security concern, social order. Not a few people were lured into the playground of democracy or human rights of anti-communist forces. To them, the relationship between a ruling political regime (multi or mono party) and democracy is a sole one. Reality has proved the contrary. Multi-party system is not bad, as well as one-party system is not without reason. The recent 'hanging' parliament situation in the United Kingdom or the riots and conflicts of the 'red shirts' with the incumbent Thai government should provide foods for thought on the difficulties and complications of multi-party democratic regimes.

In Vietnam, to this date, what are the viewpoints on multi-party regime, based on political views?

First, there is the viewpoint of academic democrats. For them, democracy is the driving force of development. A democratic regime must inevitably be linked to a multi-party system with political competition. Naturally, the viewpoint of these academic democracy followers is not wrong in theory, but they have left out the particular historical characteristics and political realities of different countries.

Second, there is the viewpoint of pragmatic democrats. They believe that in our country at present, there exist too many mass frustrations over the bureaucratic, corrupted and irresponsible situation created by cadres and government employees. This situation can be reduced if there are other political parties to joint the state and society governance. But these pragmatic democrats did not see that in many 'multi-party' countries, bureaucracy and corruption are not lessened. On the other hand, this viewpoint did not take account of the fact that hostile forces could take advantage of the multi-party system to realize their dark schemes.
Third, there is the viewpoint of the demagogues. In theory, they do not differ from the academic democrats. To give more weigh to their view, they reason that in Vietnam 'there was a multi-party system' before. For example, the 'first National Assembly in 1946 was a multi-party one (with 72 non-elected seats reserved for the Vietnam Nationalist Party and Vietnam Revolutionary Party)'or 'the 1992 Constitution 'implicitly' recognizes multi-party system' as it does not stipulate the Vietnam Communist Party (CPV) is the sole ruling force... (In this article the author does not intend to argue over these issues).

The basic difference between the demagogues and the academic democrats lies in the political intention. For the sham democrats, this is not solely to propagate the doctrine, but to realize their ambition to change the political regime of Vietnam and to create a legal basis for overseas political parties such as 'Viet Tan (New Vietnam)', 'Democracy and Human Rights Alliance', 'People Action Party', 'Vietnam Democr atic Party' and others to 'repatriate'. These parties are not only anti-communist political organizations but they are also terrorist organizations in nature aiming at the overthrow the state of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This is completely against the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of International Law. At the same time, the propagation of their viewpoints is targeted in creating opportunities for 'domestic' political organizations that are still in the 'embryonic' stage such as the 'Vietnam Socialist Party', the 'Vietnam Democratic Party' created by Tran Huynh Duy Thuc and Le Cong Dinh.

Advocating Pluralism, Multi-Party System
Among those advocating 'pluralism', 'multi-party system', it cannot be excluded that there were people who had once implemented the '10/59 Law that outlaws all communists' clearing the way to the killing of tens of thousands communists and patriotic people during the last years of the fifties of the 20th century. The majority of overseas people who are propagating political pluralism and opponent multi-party system for Vietnam still hold a deep grudge towards the revolution or they are trying to distort and negate all achievements made by our people in the great war to defend the country and the leading role of the Vietnam Communist Party in the resistance against the aggressors, among which there is the anti-american imperialists war. After 35 years of liberation of the South and reunification of the country (1975-2010), while the whole nation is expressing with pride its gratitude towards heroes and martyrs, among whose were tens of thousand Vietnamese communist cadres and members who had sacrificed their life, Bui Tin is calling for 'all people should ask the ruling communist state to sincerely apologize to the people'! There are people who consider the liberation day as the 'national humiliation day'. This is the portrait of the overseas people demanding multi-party regime.

What is the historical, political and legal foundation of the leading and ruling role of the Vietnam Communist Party?

Historically speaking, everyone knows that for the last 80 years (since the party establishment 3-2-1930 to date), the CPV led and formed by President Ho Chi Minh is the sole vanguard organization that spare no sacrifices and hardships to mobilize and lead the August Revolution in 1945 to regain national independence and sovereignty and build a modern Vietnam under the democratic republic regime. For the first time in history, all citizen and human rights of the people are recognized in the Constitution (1946). Next, the CPV is the sole force that leads the Vietnamese people to carry on the resistance wars against aggressive colonialists to defend the revolutionary achievements. The CPV is also the sole political force to initiate the renewal work and the integration into the international community thus helping to elevate the Vietnam's position in the world.

Political and Ideological Aspect
On the political and ideological aspect, CPV follows the Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh's thoughts with a revolutionary and creative spirit. The goal of the Party is: National independence and sovereignty with emphasis on building a 'rich people, strong country, equitable, democratic and civilized society' society and speeding up international integration under the spirit of 'Vietnam want to befriend with all countries in the world regardless of differences in social regime'.

Those who are advocating for multi-party regime are often the same people who are trying to smear the repute of the CPV. Their arguments follow a deceitful logic: that as Marxism-Leninism has collapsed (their arguments often copy the views of anti-communist people such as Brezinsky in his 'The Grand Failure' or Fukuyama in his book 'The End of History and the Last Man'), the CPV with Marxism-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh's thoughts as the guiding ideology, would inevitably becomes an outdated political force and the socialist society in Vietnam would soon collapse. Hence, the need for a new political party in Vietnam to lead the country is obvious! The initial step would be to accept a multi-party political system!

Naturally, most of the professors, doctors, 'historians,' 'academicians', 'biographers', writers and journalists who advocate for democracy and pluralism only read Marx superficially or indulge in sophistic thinking. They deliberately conceal or naively pass over the new thinking, political lines and policy of the CPV on socialism and the path to socialism in which the party has acknowledged its past mistakes and errors during the era before the renewal work ( such as subjective voluntarism, abolition of commodity economy, market mechanism and so on). Our party has asserted to build a market economy with socialist orientation; to build a state of law of the people, by the people and for the people; to bring into full play the role of the National Fatherland Front and other social organizations and to push forward deeper integration into the international community.

Degenerating Individuals
On the leading role of the party, it has been written in the documents of the 10th National Party Congress: 'The party operates within the framework of the Constitution and the Law and will not do the work of other organizations in the political system. So, it cannot be said that the CPV is a 'monopolistic' party. It is true that within the party, there are still a number of degenerate individuals who take advantage of the party's prestige to indulge in bureaucratic and corrupted activities and violate the mastery right of the people but they are being eliminated by the party's redressing process.

On the legal aspect, the leading role of the CPV has been unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly and stipulated in Article 4 of the SRV Constitution (1992). This totally conforms to international law. In Article 1, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1996), it has been written: 'All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Hence, multi-party or mono-party -- where is the truth? The truth lies in the realities, in the best benefits to the people. The choice of multi-party or a one ruling party regime must be based on the actual situation of each country. In any case, it is first and foremost to put national interest above everything else and make national security, stability and sustainable development as the prerequisites (for other requirements).The next step, naturally, would be that the choice of any political system must be endorsed and supported by the mass majority via their legitimate representatives at the National Assembly.

Brazil, Turkey Emerge New Diplomatic Powers

By persuading Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium out of the country and receive in return high enriched uranium for use in a reactor in Iran, Turkey and Brazil made a meaningful diplomatic achievement by outwitting the efforts of Western powers which are more akin to intimidation and have an undertone of a war threat.

Nuclear Issue
Reaching a solution through negotiation to overcome the deadlock of the issue of Iran's nuclear program is for the interest of regional and global security.

We should praise Brazil and Turkey, two non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for their diplomatic wisdom that they managed to convince Iran to negotiate on the nuclear issue and agree to move away the uranium.

Unfortunately this issue has not won respect or compliment from the Western media, which consider it as too late since the US and Israel have had their strategy in place to attack Iran in the process of imposing more stringent sanctions on Iran.

The President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will step down this year after holding the post for two terms has successfully led his country towards the status of a big power via this proactive diplomatic approach.

In fact, prior to this, when there was a serious tension between Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia in 2008, Lula intervened as a neutral mediator crossing the boundaries of political ideology in Latin American countries.

Palestine-Israel Issue
In the endeavor to win a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Lula is also aware that his country should be seen as playing the role of problem solver rather than a symbolic role to show its strengths in terms of economic growth and military power.

He has also made the effort to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine through high-profile diplomatic mission in March this year as a neutral party.

In addition, Lula already gained a status on a par with Middle East Quartet and he proposed a friendly soccer match between the Brazilian national team and the Palestinian-Israeli mixed team. The Quartet is formed by the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU) and UN and involved in mediating the peace process between Palestine and Israel.

Although Turkey is not a developing country growing like Brazil, it is also emerging as a respectful power in Middle East.

Ankara also became the mediator in the negotiation process of Israel-Syria conflict to resolve the old settlements issue between the two countries. Turkey also played a role in easing the tension between Hamas and Fatah. Turkey is in a better position than Egypt to play a diplomatic role in resolving the Palestine-Israel issue.

It seems Brazil and Turkey are portraying themselves as the new actors in international relations particularly in diplomatic efforts.

Resolving Deadlock
Amazingly, within a short period, Brazil and Turkey have successfully resolved the deadlock, which the West, UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been working on for a long time. More surprisingly, Iran which had been recalcitrant and insistent to enrich the uranium within the country had changed its position because of the persuasion of Brazil and Turkey.

US Persuading China, Russia To Support Sanctions on Iran

Through their diplomacy, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister, Tayeb Erdogan have persuaded Iran to hand over half of its semi-enriched uranium to Turkey and in return, it will be given enriched fuel for research and medical requirements for one year. While it will be able to enrich up to 20 percent of the remaining uranium.

Thus, Iran concluded an agreement on seven conditions with Turkey and Brazil. Keeping in view the US campaign to impose sanctions on Iran, the Brazilian president and Turkish prime minister, convinced Iran to abandon its previous stance so that some crisis may not emerge in the Gulf because the US was getting ready to launch a sudden air attack on Iran under the pretext of Iran's nuclear weapons program and was urging the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to impose the stringent sanctions on Iran. So far as Britain and France are concerned, they are bent on dismantling Iran's peaceful nuclear program out of their ethnic and religious prejudice, but Russia and China differed on imposing stringent sanctions on Iran.

Warning and Threats
And the US had overcome these differences by making deals. The US assured that it would not take up the issue of human rights violations in Russia while deferred its demand from China to revise its currency exchange rate. It appears that the US has persuaded Russia for the UN Security Council resolutions against Iran. Its proof is its (Russia's) dissatisfaction over the agreement concluded by Turkey and Brazil. It led to bitterness between Iran and Russia and the Russian foreign policy advisor, responded to the criticism of Russia by Iranian President Ahmedinejad with impoliteness. He warned the Iranian president that no president can retain his power by the force of his rhetoric as, what he said, was clear from 2,500 years of Iranian history.

This comes true in case of Russia that the Soviet Czar and his successor communist rulers failed to rule over Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan for more than 150 years and the local population drove them out and now their leadership is also being removed. In addition to these Turk- origin states, the white-skinned Christian population also came out of its empire. Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania broke away from the Soviet Union and became independent states. Now, Shishtan, Tataristan, and Dagestan are about to get freedom.

We are surprised at the Russian behavior. It does not talk about imposing sanctions on Israel, which has neither signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), nor Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). However, according to an estimate, it has 200 nuclear bombs while according to CIA estimate this number is 400. It hurls threat every other day to attack Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iran's nuclear program. To US, Russia, France, and Britain, Israel's nuclear stockpiles are not a threat to the world peace while the Iranian peaceful nuclear program is a grave threat for the western states. What sort of logic is this Putin! Medvedev?

Poland has deployed its anti-missile system in Poland adjacent to the Russian border, which Russia considers as a threat to itself. However, the Polish foreign minister has supported the deployment of the US forces in his country. The United States says that the missiles are being deployed to defend Europe from possible missile attack by Iran, and these are not a threat to Russia, but Russia considers them as a threat for its security.

In addition, The US had declared the Russian attack on Georgia on 7 March 2009 as threat to the world peace and expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Now, the number of Atlantic Treaty has increased to 28 from 16 in the wake of the end of cold war. The imperialistic forces will use their collective military power for seizing the natural resources of Afro Asia, and Latin American states. The US influence has reached up to Georgia and Ukraine while is has military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, where it was hard to imagine during the cold war that the US will dare break into the Soviet Union. However, this is a fact that the United States has completely cornered off both China and Russia.

Blackmailing North Korea
Meanwhile, it is blackmailing North Korea, the old ally of China, to suppress China. It says that North Korea sank a South Korean warship in March. At the same time, it has used the Security Council to impose sanctions on North Korea with a view to destroy its nuclear arsenal and factories.

Hillary Clinton is going from post to pillar from Moscow to Beijing, so that Iran and North Korea may be disarmed to establish the US domination. The newspapers give an impression that China is also vacillating like Russia due to the US pressure.

If the information of the western media is to be believed, it (China) has also agreed to support the US draft resolution to impose sanctions on Iran. If it is correct, it is axing its own feet because China is an important buyer of the Iranian gas while Russia has built nuclear power houses in Iran and it has to work on more projects. If Russia and China supported the fourth US resolution on sanctions on Iran, they will lose the confidence of Afro-Asian and Latin American states.

Trade and Political Interests
Now, that Russia and China are compromising with the US and European Union under the compulsion of their expediency and for the sake of their trade and political interests, Turkey and Brazil have risen against the hegemony of five-member mafia (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) on nuclear energy. This is an important change in the international scenario.

The question is that all these five riders have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and are threatening and blackmailing other countries on this basis. They have declared themselves exempted from NPT, CTBT, and FMCT, while bullying the other states to follow these treaties. Now if we closely see, these five powers are holding the remaining 187 member states of the UN as hostage while according to the article one of UN Charter, all the member states of the world body have equal rights and independence.

Violation of UN Charter
The NPT is a flagrant violation of the UN charter. Then, why all remaining states should accept it? Now, even if the NPT is accepted in principle, then why it is not being implemented on Israel and India? While both the states have neither sign the treaty nor implemented the same.

Despite this, the 45- member nuclear supplier groups has exempted 35 percent nuclear reactors of India from the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under the US pressure, and given free a hand to them to produce nuclear bomb. Because of this, India voted against Iran's nuclear program in the IAEA board of governors and under the US pressure, it quit the Iran- Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.

Enriching Uranium Production
If China and Russia support clamping down of sanctions on Iran, it will be a great injustice with Iran because according to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sources themselves, Iran had frozen its nuclear program in 2003 and is not enriching uranium more than 20 percent. It is the clear evidence that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes because 93 percent uranium has to be enriched for production of bombs.

It appears that the days of this five-member mafia in international politics have been numbered and no matter even if these powers get resolution against Iran adopted at the Security Council, they should know that it will have no importance than a mere piece of paper. If the non-aligned countries become active at this juncture, then it will become imperative for the United Nations to cancel Article 27 about the cancellations of rights.

Phuea Thai Party With Two-Face Politics

The second political machine has started and is working to its full capacity after the first political machine or the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) had completely failed in its operation to stage riots in the capital to seize power. (For the operation to stage riots or civil war, the UDD was the No 1 machine.)

That is, the Phuea Thai Party is the political machine in Parliament of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. It has started working by holding a censure debate against six Cabinet members, including the prime minister.

Not Reaching Goal
However, the goal of the censure debate was not seeking to topple the government in Parliament because it was impossible to reach that goal. But the Phuea Thai wanted at least three consequences from the debate.

First, it wanted to use the censure debate, which was broadcast live nationwide, to defend the UDD and its big-boss, Thaksin, against allegations that the UDD had committed acts of terrorism and had burned the city.

Fight Against Government
At the same time, the Phuea Thai wanted to use the censure debate to cheer the red-shirted people around the country up and to instigate them to go on fighting against the government.

The Phuea Thai assigned party-list MP Chatuphon Phromphan, who is a UDD leader, to debate about the crackdowns on protesters on 19 May. This clearly showed that the censure debate was aimed at allowing Chatuphon to whitewash himself and the UDD.

Second, the Phuea Thai (and the UDD) wanted to use the censure debate to raise an allegation against the government (and the military) inside Parliament and to point out that the government had the people's blood on its hands by killing the people. The Phuea Thai wanted to show that the government itself staged the arson attacks to create a situation and that the government did not want to have reconciliation with the red-shirt people at all.

Allegations Against Government
The Phuea Thai wanted to use these allegations to hold the government and security forces responsible for the violence so that the UDD would not be blamed for what happened.

Moreover, the use of the censure debate to raise the allegations against the government would more or less reduce the credibility of the government's efforts to give explanations to the people and foreign envoys and media.

Because of the censure debate, the government would have to try harder to defend itself and would be endlessly under the UDD's allegations. At the same time, the UDD would have more breathing space following severe charges raised against it by the government. Before the censure debate, the UDD was in a bad situation after the public had witnessed what it did on 19 May and earlier.

Third, the Phuea Thai wanted to use the censure debate to instigate resentment of red-shirt people nationwide by using the 19 May event as the main cause. The Phuea Thai hoped that resentment would lead to an underground war after the censure showdown could not topple the government inside Parliament and could not force the government to apologize to the public and show responsibility for what it has done.

UDD leaders earlier talked about an underground war. They said if the red-shirt demonstration was dispersed, an underground war would happen. Later on, Thaksin used this term when he gave interviews to foreign media after the UDD gave up and ended the Ratchaprasong rally.

As a result, the censure debate by the Phuea Thai was the sequential to the red-shirt rally. The Phuea Thai received the baton passed on by the UDD. The party simply shifted the battlefield from the Ratchaprasong Intersection to the Parliament. And the censure debate remained an attempt to push for political changes undemocratically like what the UDD attempted to.

Creating Underground War
Now, the UDD is clearly aiming at creating an underground war in the cities and rural areas after their attempt to seize power in the capital had failed.

The Phuea Thai now performed its duty in line with parliamentary way by holding the censure debate just to use a democratic form or gesture to join a (civil) political war which already started.

Before the violence happened on 19 May or after the UDD started its mass rally at the Phan Fa bridge on 12 March, the Phuea Thai declined to perform its parliamentary duty at all.

The Phuea Thai declined to perform its duty as a political party and Phuea Thai MPs declined to perform the duty of MPs. They did not carry out the strategy of launching separate attacks with the red-shirt people as they should have done. Earlier, they declined to hold a censure debate by using causes of the UDD, such as double standards, social inequality and the issue of elitist polity's influence, to attack the government.

Providing Financial Support
The Phuea Thai failed to carry out its duty but it supported the non-parliamentary politics of the UDD by mobilizing their constituents to join the rallies as well as providing items needed for the rallies. Some Phuea Thai MPs even provided financial support for the rallies. Moreover, several Phuea Thai MPs joined the rallies by speaking on the stage.

As a result, the Phuea Thai could not deny its responsibility over the loss of lives during the violence. In addition to the UDD, the government, the military, the terrorists and Thaksin, the Phuea Thai must also be held responsible.