Nuclear Non-Proliferation Resolution

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

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

International Politics and Bin Laden Chapter

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

Withdrawal of Last US Troops From Iraq

The last US soldiers have rolled out of Iraq across the border to neighboring Kuwait, whooping, fist bumping and hugging each other in a burst of joy and relief. Their exit marked the end of a bitterly divisive war that raged for nearly nine years and left Iraq shattered, with troubling questions lingering over whether the Arab nation will remain a steadfast US ally. The mission cost nearly 4,500 American and well more than 100,000 Iraqi lives and $800 billion from the US Treasury. The question of whether it was worth it all is yet unanswered.
Captain Mark Askew, a 28-year-old from Tampa, Florida who was among the last soldiers to leave, said the answer to that question will depend on what type of country and government Iraq ends up with years from now, whether they are democratic, respect human rights and are considered a US ally.
Whither Stubborn Sectarian Clashes
US officials acknowledged the cost in blood and dollars was high, but tried to paint a picture of victory for both the troops and the Iraqi people now freed of a dictator and on a path to democracy.
But gnawing questions remain: Will Iraqis be able to forge their new government amid the still stubborn sectarian clashes. And will Iraq be able to defend itself and remain independent in a region fraught with turmoil and still steeped in insurgent threats.
Many Iraqis, however, are nervous and uncertain about the future. Their relief at the end of Saddam Hussein, who was hanged on the last day of 2006, was tempered by a long and vicious war that was launched to find nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nearly plunged the nation into full-scale sectarian civil war.
Some criticized the Americans for leaving behind a destroyed country with thousands of widows and orphans, a people deeply divided along sectarian lines and without rebuilding the devastated infrastructure.
Some Iraqis celebrated the exit of what they called American occupiers, neither invited nor welcome in a proud country. Others said that while grateful for US help ousting Saddam, the war went on too long. A majority of Americans would agree, according to opinion polls.
The low-key exit stood in sharp contrast to the high octane start of the war, which began before dawn on March 20, 2003, with an air strike in southern Baghdad where Saddam was believed to be hiding. US and allied ground forces then stormed across the featureless Kuwaiti desert, accompanied by reporters, photographers and television crews embedded with the troops.
Saddam’s Secret Nuclear Weapon Program
The task assigned to them in 2003 has been accomplished. The United States under President George W. Bush entered the Iraqi war theatre after it had made substantial gains in Afghanistan where it had toppled the Taliban regime in the wake of 9/11. He found an excellent opportunity to use the anti-terrorism plank to achieve Washington’s larger objective of ensuring energy security. Unverified intelligence reports about Iraqi ruler Saddam’s “secret” nuclear weapon program were enough for President Bush to go ahead with his new plan. He also found out that Saddam had close connections with Al-Qaida mastermind Osama Bin Ladin.
The United States also did not bother about seeking the UN Security Council’s sanction for attacking Iraq. Even when it was conclusively proved that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and that Saddam had no link with Al-Qaida — both being ideologically poles apart — Iraq was bombarded and Saddam dethroned. Later, he was captured and executed. Iraq was liberated from the clutches of the tyrant. What could have been done by the people of Iraq during the Arab Spring now was finished by the US with the use of its military might. But can this be justified legally, morally, ethically or otherwise? The debate is still on.
Iran-Iraq Shia Bloc
Ousting and killing Saddam, a secular despot, may have gladdened US Arab allies, who are despotic but quasi-theocratic. Ironically, it also pleased Shia Iran as the United States leaves behind a Shia-run Iraq. A consolidated Iran-Iraq Shia bloc will be to the liking of neither America’s Arab allies nor the United States itself. In short, the times ahead in West Asia are likely to be threatened with prospects of heightened tension. Such a state of affairs may not always fall short of actual fighting, not least when the US continues to play the ouster game in West Asia in the name of promoting democracy.
Undoubtedly, the Iraq war was unpopular from day one within the United States. It had been launched on clearly false premises. US President Barack Obama wanted to end the campaign he had inherited. He gave himself the deadline of December 31 this year, and has stuck to it. But it is lost on no one — not in Iraq, not in the United States — that the United States may have wanted to extend its stay in a reduced way for strategic reasons, but could not.

Yemen Becomes New Al-Qaida Terrorist Network Base

When US President Barack Obama had announced of his decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan, he thought he could stop the revival of the Taliban and Al-Qaida network base there. However, before President Obama could even come out with any plan to train up the Afghan security force and prepare the total US troop withdrawal in a year or two, Al-Qaida terrorist network has already established a new base in Yemen as a new global terrorist shelter.
Large-Scale Conflicts
Yemen has never been a peaceful nation. All along, the Yemini Government has failed to provide social security to people. Activities of the Shiite rebels and family-based private Armed Forces have continued to be a challenge to the Yemini Government. Moreover, Yemen is also a Muslim country with long history of association with the religious extremists.
Since the armed rebellion staged confrontation with the Yemini Government in 2004,the Yemeni Government forces and the rebels have engaged in five large-scale conflicts resulting in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands people displaced.
Al-Qaida Terrorist Network
Yemen and the extremist forces have long established a kind of bond. From the early period when the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Yemen has already become a safe haven for the Taliban militants in Afghanistan. Before the 9/11 terrorist attack incident in the United States, there were a large number of Yemenis trained by Al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan. According to the media reports, at least two terrorist suspects who were released from the US Guantanamo Bay prison have later on gone to Yemen. These two terrorist suspects have eventually become the senior commanders of Al-Qaida terrorist network base in Yemen. One of the two has become the mastermind behind the terrorist plot in attempting to blow up the Northwest Airline plane heading toward the US homeland during Christmas seasons but failed.
Yemen is a country dominated with mountain plateau with narrow flat land along the coastal zone only. Such geographical contour is a perfect place for terrorists to hide, but difficult for the government forces to launch attack.
Favorable Factors
Based on favorable factors such as timing, human resource and geographical condition in Yemen, it is difficult for Yemen not to be chosen by Al-Qaida terrorist network to be its new shelter in addition Afghanistan. In addition, after the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the US Government has suffered heavy losses in both the US economic and military resources. If the US Government intends to get involved in the counter-terrorism war in Yemen, it is easier said than done.
Nevertheless, we heard that after the foiled attempt by a religious extremist to blow up a Northwest Airline plane heading Detroit, the US Government has reached a secret agreement with the Yemeni Government to allow the US military to launch cruise missiles or use the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to hit at Al-Qaida terrorists hiding in Yemen.
Wave of Counter-Terrorism War
It seems to us that the Arabian Peninsula branch of Al-Qaida terrorist network has now moved beyond from creating regional threat to become one of the most active Al-Qaida terrorist network branch outside Pakistan and Afghanistan. It also seems to us that Al-Qaida terrorist network indeed has the ambition to stage global terrorist attacks again.
Before the United States can counter the current wave of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, another wave of counter-terrorism war will soon begin. Looking the counter-terrorism war from afar, it appears to us that the Obama administration that is already trapped in the quagmire of Afghanistan ,will have an extremely busy time ahead.

Possible Facets of Afghan War

The current year is going about to end and we are entering 2012, the scene is it that the United States and its allies are badly entangled in Afghanistan. The activities of the Taliban are growing with each passing day. The expenditure of the US Army is growing to unbearable extent. According to the promise with the US people and the world, President Barack Obama has to start withdrawal of his forces, but that does not seem to be turning conducive for that. Now even the US officials have also stared admitting that the dream does not seem to be true. In addition to the growing distance between the United States and the allied countries, some Western countries are also starting withdrawal of their troops this year.
The most serious problem is that the harmony between the US, Pakistani, and Afghan Governments, which should be, is not there. The United States will increase pressure on Pakistan for increasing pressure on the Taliban according to the US desire, so that they are defeated on the battlefield or at least they agree to reconciliation on US terms. Pakistan will try that the United States makes it an ally by taking it into confidence on the future strategy for Afghanistan and desists from giving any role to India in Afghanistan. After badly frustrated with the global role, the Afghanistan will make serious effort to reconcile with the Taliban and Kabul will be demanded the United States and Pakistan to delegate it authority and also to compel the Taliban for reconciliation with the Afghan Government.
Carrot-and-Stick Policy
Until now, the situation is that all are pursing the carrot-and-stick policy toward each other. The three parties are also paying their share of the price, but at the moment none is ready to give up its path. It seems this game will continue in 2012 as well and it may further intensify. Thus, there is no chance of the situation taking a decisive turn in 2012. The trends will, however, be set during this year. By the end of the current year, the final moves of all parties will be clear and after the cards are shown by the three players, the plan of action of the resisting groups like the Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami will also become explicit. Al-Qaida as well as the Taliban considers 2012 decisive with regard to their struggle. They will adopt the carrot-and-stick policy toward Pakistan, whereas in response Pakistan will also demonstrate the similar attitude. Both sides will also indicate at reconciliation and full force will also be demonstrated and if no way for reconciliation is found, 2012 will be extremely bloodstained for Pakistan.
The trend of the Taliban's relations with Al-Qaida will also become explicit in 2012 and their direction will be set as to whether the Taliban break up with Al-Qaida or further increase their dependence on it. It is also to be decided this year that whether Al-Qaida maintains the status of this region as its battlefield or turns to any other region.
Lasting Peace in Region
From India to Iran and Saudi Arabia to Russia and Turkey, all are respondents and actors with one reference or the other, but they key is in the hand of three characters -- the US, Pakistani, and Afghan Governments. If confidence is built among them in real sense during 2011; they really become friends; they adopt the path of trusting each other instead of playing games with each other and if they adopt a joint strategy keeping in view the reservations and interests of each other instead of benefiting from weaknesses of each other, the crisis can be resolved and the chances of a lasting peace in the region can be created. But if the games with each other in the name of friendship and cooperation continue and the use of carrot-and-stick at the same time continues, the crisis and chaos will intensify and the difficulties of the three countries -- the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan -- will increase. Thus, not only the game of bloodshed and destruction will continue in the region but this fire will spread to the areas where even it cannot be imagined.
Interests of Other Countries
If the status quo persists or the gulf between the three mentioned parties further widens, the United States and its allies will suffer loss, Pakistan will head toward instability and Afghanistan will continue to be the battlefield. China and India will reap the benefits.
The war of the survival and interests of Iran, Russia, and China will continue on the Afghan and Pakistani soil, whereas the loss and humiliation will fall in the lap of the United States and Afghanistan, and Pakistan will face destruction. India will benefit because the attention of the Pakistani security forces will be focused on the western border instead of the eastern border, while the jihadists, who had turned toward militancy to fight India, will be fighting with the Pakistani forces.

Countering Terrorism With Violence

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

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

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

New US and Allies Outlook on Taliban

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

War on Terror Destroying US Credibility on Human Rights

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

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

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

US Troops Withdrawal From Afghanistan

After heated debate with his senior aides, US President Barack Obama has finally announced of his US troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan. First, he will withdraw the total 33,000 additional troops he sent to Afghanistan some 18 months ago back to the United States by the end of September 2012. When it comes to 2013, he will bring all the remaining 68,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan back to the US homeland so that the United States can officially ‘end’ the US combat operations in Afghanistan.
Effort on National Building
In announcing his US troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan, President Obama claimed that the United States has substantially completed the US goal in Afghanistan because Al-Qaida network leader Osama Bin Laden and half of Al-Qaida leadership have already been annihilated. As such, the earlier terrorism threat posed by the terrorist elements in Afghanistan has been eliminated. It is now time for the United States to focus its effort on national building.
In fact, by now, majority of the people in the United States have already suffered mental weariness not wanting the United States to engage in any kind of war. The people in the United States also think that it is time for the United States to withdraw the US troops from Afghanistan. In this regard, US troops withdrawal plan from Afghanistan as announced by President Obama was well received by majority of the people in the United States. But amid this atmosphere of joyous mood in the US society, no one can conceal the hard fact that after the United States engages the war in Afghanistan for ten years, the US forces still cannot beat the Taliban forces.
Exploratory Talks With Taliban
While it remains a truth that the United States did topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan; but the Taliban regime has not collapsed. After the Taliban regime retreated to the Pakistan border, they have reorganized their force again. Until today, the presence of the reorganized Taliban force still poses a serious threat to the continual survival of the present Afghan Government.
In fact, in the end, the United States has also come to acknowledge such a political reality by starting to engage in exploratory talks with the Taliban forces recently. It is now the hope of the US Government to find a political solution to end the Afghanistan war so that peace and stability can be restored in Afghanistan.
After the United States engaged ten long years of war in Afghanistan, this military action taken by the United States has already wasted the precious lives of 1,500 Americans. However, if the US troops just walk away from Afghanistan now, it remains a big question mark to gauge if the Afghan military and police task force can really shoulder the responsibility to defend their homeland at this very moment. It is also a big question mark to gauge if Afghanistan can really establish a stable government after the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In retrospect, what the United States decides to do in Afghanistan now is quite similar to what the former Soviet Union has done some 20 years ago when it was also forced to retreat and quickly cast aside its heavy burden in Afghanistan after it invaded and occupied Afghanistan for close to 10 long years.
US Presidential Election Factor
The year 2012 is a presidential election year in the United States. But US President Obama's announcement of the US troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan has come earlier than expected. Apparently, President Obama's decision and action to withdraw even more US troops from Afghanistan than most people have earlier expected has a great deal to do with his intention to be re-elected as a second term US President in 2012. Currently, the US weekly military expenditure in Afghanistan is $2billion. From afar, we can only use the expression ‘amazing’ to describe such a high US military expenditure in Afghanistan per week. To the present US economy which has already turned very tight, such a high military expenditure in Afghanistan is of course too much for the United States to bear. As such, the people in the United States have long complained about it and hoped that the US Government can take action to end the Afghanistan war as early as possible so that the large sum of money saved on the US military expenditure in Afghanistan can be spent on creating domestic employment. On this account alone, the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan as announced by President Obama will be a plus point for him to be re-elected as a second term US President in 2012.
Of note is that After President Obama announced his US troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan; subsequently, France and the United Kingdom have also announced that they will also withdraw their troops from Afghanistan. It seems to us that the Western countries are all eager to abandon this heavy burden called Afghanistan now.

UN Resolution on Terrorists, Organizations

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has unanimously adopted two resolutions under which terrorists and organizations associated with Al-Qaida and the Taliban would be split into two separate lists. There was one committee in the UNSC for sanctions against Taliban and Al-Qaida. However, it has now been decided unanimously to deal with Taliban and Al-Qaida separately.
After the adoption of two resolutions, international powers led by the United States have said they view that Taliban and Al-Qaida have different targets. In the words of western diplomats, Taliban are waging resistance only in Afghanistan while Al-Qaida has an international agenda. The head of UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committee and the German ambassador has said that the adoption of the resolutions is a clear and strong message that we are supporting the Afghan government to end violence and advance the process of reconciliation for peace in Afghanistan.
Possibility of US-Taliban Talks
Soon after the adoption of the resolutions by the UNSC, Afghan President Hamid Karzai addressing a press conference in Kabul disclosed that several international powers including, the United States, are engaged in talks with the Taliban. Earlier, different diplomatic circles reported several times that negotiations were underway between the Afghan government and Taliban. However, it is for the first time that Afghan President has officially confirmed talks with Taliban adding that the United States itself is engaged in talks. After disclosure by the Afghan President, the US Embassy has refused to confirm or deny talks with Taliban. However, Taliban spokesperson Zabiullah Mujahid has strongly denied talks with the United States and European countries. Mujahid telephoned to the French news agency, AFP, from an unknown place and denied the disclosure made by Afghan President. He said that the Taliban have in the past denied such reports.
We do not know as to why Karzai has made this disclosure. Whether or nor the United States or western countries are holding direct or indirect talks with Afghan Taliban, it has become clear that now the United States has compelled to beg to the Taliban for talks. A major hurdle in the way of talks between United States and Taliban were the resolutions under which it has declared Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists. Following adoption of the resolutions by the UNSC, names of some wanted Taliban leaders would be removed from the list as the resolution allows the Afghan government to make changes in the list. However, they will be approved by the UNSC.
Afghan War Strategy
The split of Al-Qaida and Taliban in the list of terrorists by the UNSC indicates difference over strategy between the United States and Europe regarding Afghanistan war. After passage of the resolution (resolutions) British Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt has said that with a view to grasp the situation, US contacts with Taliban are in line with the thinking of the international community and Afghan people as well as the government. Commenting on reports of contacts between the United States and Taliban, he said that he had always supported reconciliation with resistance elements in Afghanistan and their joining to the national mainstream on the conditions of Afghanistan government. The conditions of the Afghan government include, abandoning of violence, severing contacts with terrorist organizations and acceptance of the constitution. The fresh contacts, which have been confirmed by Afghan President Karzai is a step towards the destination to which, the situation will at last lead.
It is known to all that establishment of peace does not depend on only military success and training of Afghan army and police rather it will be on a political settlement. The statement of an important official of British Foreign Office about the United States' negotiations with Taliban shows the fact that differences have developed between the United States and Europe over Afghan war strategy.
Differences between the US political and military leadership with regards to (Afghanistan) wa r have become clear. On the one hand, US President Barack Obama has announced to begin US military withdrawal from July 2011. The US military leadership holds the viewpoint that Taliban cannot be brought to the negotiations table without crushing their resistance. The time is passing and the Afghan war is ten years old. If the US military with the help of 40 countries has not succeeded to crush Taliban's resistance during the past 10 years, as to how it will do so during the next few months.
Status of Taliban
The United States through the UNSC resolution has allured Taliban to weaken their resistance and divide the Mujahidin. The western diplomatic circles raise the questions (question) as to what is the status of those Taliban in the ranks of Taliban to whom the United States is holding talks. The United States and international western powers through the latest UNSC resolution have at least admitted that war going on in the name of elimination of terrorism is based on falsehood and deception. A question has also arisen about the legal and moral credibility of the UN resolutions. The law changes when their expediencies change. They declare terrorists to someone and remove someone from the list of terrorists on their own sweet will.
The peace cannot come to the world when the international law will be made on the basis of reposts of secret agency, the CIA without giving any evidence. Ten years ago, the United States had resorted to brutal military adventurism (in Afghanistan) by declaring Al-Qaida responsible for 9/11 and Taliban as their supporter. During these 10 years, hundreds of thousands of Afghans were killed and lethal weapons on a large scale were tested on poor Afghans. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons were also used in Afghanistan because of which disabled and ill children are being born there.
Legislation Against Terrorism
The legislation against terrorism had started even before 9/11. The United States has forcibly imposed its laws on the entire world through the United Nations. These laws are the worst case of trampling of human rights. The United States continued to present Afghanistan and Taliban as a threat to the world for 10 years although the Afghans were fighting US attack as they fought the Soviet Union. At that time, Mujahidin had come to Afghanistan from the entire world.
The United States under its anti-humane agenda declared international impact of Afghan Mujahidin's success over Soviet Union as terrorism. The United States had got conducted inhuman and unjust legislation from the United Nations before the 9/11 in the name of terrorism. Terrorism is a crime whose definition could not be made until today. The war was the continuation of the new world order whose, one aspect is globalization. However, today the US and western pride has been trampled in the mountains of Afghanistan.

US To Reconsider Anti-Terror Policy After Osama's Death

In the aftermath of the killing of Al-Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden well inside Pakistan, this country would find it very difficult to answer several queries. Pakistan's sincerity in taking action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack, in particular, remains a significant question in India. Pakistan had denied Usama's presence on its soil, but when it joined the global war against terrorism by putting everything at stake, the international community was left with no doubt about the sincerity of its army and Inter-Services Intelligence.
Campaign for US Presidential Elections
The US military has killed Osama Bin Laden close to Pakistan's capital in an area considered to be extremely safe and secure. This extremely secret action is being termed a major success. US President Barack Obama announced that the most dreaded terrorist of the world has been killed. This may serve him very well in his election campaign for the second term. Yet, one should take note of the worry behind his announcement, whether following Usama's killing the terrorist network spread far and wide would be wiped out.
Following the 11 September 2001 attack on the United States, the country took the extreme measure by carrying out an invasion on Afghanistan and turning it into a heap of ruins. At that time, in December 2001, the United States had announced that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in Tora Bora hillocks in Afghanistan. Later, former US President George Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf repeatedly claimed that Usama had been killed in similar actions. With the latest announcement of Usama's death and jubilation over it by Americans, the lid on the secret is off. The entire world dreaded Usama extremely.
Concerted Campaign Against Osama
It was the United States that had launched a concerted campaign against Usama, who was considered to be a hero in the Islamic world. Yet, terrorism continued to raise its head in different forms. A conscientious group in the world regards US military actions as the greatest acts of terrorism. Al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden had carried out actions to teach a lesson to the West only, which spread terrorism in the name of Al-Qaida or Usama. In anti-terrorist actions, it appeared that the United States has earned a license to sacrifice human lives. It is on the basis of this license that it carried out actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Islamic countries.
Yet, the silence of those who call themselves to be champions of humanity is surprising indeed. It is also meaningful. The very same world, which justifies Israeli terrorism in Palestine and the latest acts of terrorism indulged in Libya by the United States and its allies, is now heaving a sigh of great relief after Osama Bin Laden's killing. This relief may not last long for the United States and its allies. This is because those who raise their voice against oppression, tyranny, and excesses, are never alone. The United States believes that by killing just one individual, Osama Bin Laden, it has achieved its goal, and is jumping and springing in jubilation. Should that jubilation remain, the world may get the message of peace. But it is necessary to assess the might of those forces that spread the network of Al-Qaida so that the jubilation at Usama's killing may not turn into a major tragedy.

Peace and Stability
US President, Barack Obama has got the credit of killing the most wanted person, Osama Bin Laden, during his presidency. At the same time, he should take note of the factors that helped Al-Qaida network to emerge with a bang. Undoubtedly, the number of those who were attracted by the ideology of Usama and Al-Qaida has largely declined in the world. Even in the Islamic Arab world, people no longer raise the slogan of 'Long Live Usama' and carry his photographs with the same enthusiasm as they earlier used to show. Yet, the strength of those who shout 'Death to the United States' has not dwindled either.
Obama need to seriously ponder why some groups who want peace and stability in the world hate the United States and raise the slogan 'Down with the United States.' It is also his moral duty to condole the deaths of those who have lost their lives at US hands. All peace-loving people in the world, including those in the United States, who had committed the blunder to raise and strengthen a formidable force of Taliban in Afghanistan during the 1990s against the former Soviet Union should also ponder over this. The opinion gaining ground about Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence or Taliban at the international level has been further fortified by Osama Bin Laden's killing. India's stand has also got a fillip with regard to the Mumbai terror attacks. There is need that the United States and its allies should give up their partial line of action in eliminating terrorism.

Attack on Indian Mission in Kabul

The latest powerful explosion outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul (Afghanistan) was certainly carried out with the intention of attacking the embassy. Had the explosive-laden car reached inside the embassy premises, a large number of embassy staff would have been killed. The suicide attack killed 17 persons, including two Afghan policemen, and injured over 80 others. The incident is very sad and condemnable. This is the second incident within 15 months of the attack targeting the Indian Embassy. Although the Taliban terrorists have owned up the responsibility for the attack, it is not difficult to understand at whose instance the attack was carried out.
The attack on the Indian Embassy raises apprehensions and all sorts of questions. The attack in high security zone in Kabul gives an idea of the US-led war in that country. The generals of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces have been frequently claiming that the Taliban, now, are confined to remote rural areas only. This offensive has manifested that the Taliban's access extends to the highest alert zone of the country's capital.

Why Indian Embassy Targeted?
The second vital point is why is the Indian Embassy being targeted repeatedly? In the wake of the terrorist attack in July 2008, the NATO troops clarified that the attack was jointly carried out by the Taliban and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). India has made due contribution in the economic rehabilitation of Afghanistan after the invasion by NATO forces in that country. These works include construction of infrastructure like roads and restoration of power generation, etc.
According to the Taliban perception, however, the hold of foreign forces gets strengthened with the rehabilitation work and their Talibani influence gets eroded. The ISI wants to restrict the Indian influence in Afghanistan and desires to identify it as hostile toward the Jihadi (crusade) struggle.

Failure of NATO Forces
Despite the attacks on Taliban hideouts in the regions adjoining the Pakistani border under the US strategic pressure, it has not been made possible to eliminate the coordination between the Taliban and the ISI so far. In such conditions, the responsibility to ensure the security of foreigners engaged in the rehabilitation works rests with the NATO forces. Doubtless, the latest attack on the Indian mission is the outcome of the failure of the NATO forces.
In 2001, with a view to secure a permanent liberation for Afghanistan, the United States launched the invasion. The main objective declared on that occasion was to liberate the Afghans from the hold of the Taliban and establish democratic order in the country. By holding the Taliban responsible for the plight of the women and children, paucity of the basic amenities of life and rampant starvation, the entire world supported the invasion.
However, even after the lapse of eight years, neither Al-Qaida nor the Taliban have been eliminated, or for that matter, the opium trade has been checked. During the period, several thousands of people were rendered homeless, orphan, and disabled. The death toll has become not more than statistics. In fact, the death toll due to the military attacks has been rising constantly. In simultaneous with education and health, the left-out basic amenities also have been destroyed due to the war. Now, the issue left is how the NATO forces could wriggle out of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is not adjacent to any sea, forest or snowbound areas from any side. The hazards of such a territory serve as loopholes for traders of arms and drugs. The question is how arms and ammunition find their way to the Taliban despite the monitoring by the most modern reconnaissance appliances? The European and US experts who were originally supporters of the invasion and have now turned into critics have started questioning the very of the war. In certain quarters, the plea is also being put forward that even opponents of the Taliban, peace-loving, and democratic people, due to the excesses of the NATO forces, have now started criticizing the interference of the US forces. Such a state of affairs calls for a review of the overall perception of the global war on terror.
It seems that the war is adding to the woes of displaced persons, orphans, disabled, and refugees. To top it all, conditions such as hunger, poverty, ignorance, and food scarcity are around the corner. The present situation calls for perceiving the whole problem from a purely humanistic viewpoint by rising against the arrogance of warmongers.

International Reaction
Several countries, including the United States and Afghanistan, have condemned the attack. Afghanistan says the intention behind the attack is to spoil friendly relations between India and Afghanistan. Afghanistan indicates at the Pakistani role in the attack and says that the conspiracy was not hatched by any terrorist organization, but by the ISI.
One thing is clear that Pakistan is not happy with India's fullest cooperation in reconstruction of Afghanistan. It carried out the heinous act to spoil cordial relations between the countries. Pakistan does not like it that India helps Afghanistan so much. India has increased vigilance after the attack. More stringent security arrangements should be made at all embassies situated abroad, so that any conspiracy by terrorists and fundamentalists could be foiled. Looking at the growing activities of Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, India needs to remain very alert. Special vigilance should also be maintained in Kashmir, so that Taliban terrorists cannot infiltrate.

Terrorism in Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons

It is difficult to comment directly on the threat of a nuclear attack on the US issued by a senior Al-Qaida leader. The entire world fears possible consequences if terrorists laid their hands on Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The US has warned several times that if Pakistan ever fell to terrorists or if they were very close to nuclear weapons, the US Army will seize them.

Serious Threat
The leader of Al-Qaida Afghanistan unit Mustafa-Abu Al-Wazeen made a comment in this connection. When asked for his reaction, he ruled out any such possibility.

On the contrary, he said that Mujahideen would capture the weapons and use them against the US. The conclusion that can be drawn from this statement is that terrorists will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if necessary. The US is the first on its radar. However, the question remains the same. Will at any time? The statement of Al-Qaida leader strengthens the fear.

Safety of Weapons
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has been constantly assuring the complete safety of these weapons. It is certain that the nuclear weapons have not reached terrorists. However, the international community refuses to believe him.

The US President Barack Obama had described Pakistan's nuclear weapons as a threat to both India and the US. He even called a meeting of former US secretaries of states to know their views on the subject. It is quite evident that he is thinking of a new approach to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Possible Nuclear Attack
Al-Qaida leader has demanded the withdrawal of the US troops from the Islamic countries and to stop granting aid to anti-Islamic countries like Israel. This condition cannot certainly be accepted. The only alternative that is left, therefore, is to be prepared to face the threat and to overcome it. A possible nuclear attack is also included in this threat.

Even otherwise, if one is ignorant about the management of nuclear weapons, it is difficult to use them. When the father of the country's nuclear technology, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan tries to sell it clandestinely, there will be no dearth of experts to advise how to use them against the US or other countries. He himself can do it. To think otherwise is like living in a fool's paradise. Therefore, it is better to preempt it. Since India is Pakistan's nearest neighbour, this statement is equally worrying for it.

Whither Obama Cairo Speech?

“I have come in search of a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world”. With these words, the US President Barack Obama started his speech at Cairo University addressing the Islamic world. The long awaited speech unequivocally dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s, and focused on six main topics that all in all represent the vision and political approach of the new US Administration toward the Arabs and Muslims and the Middle East. All the issues he spoke of are of concern to us; it behooves us, therefore, as Arabs and Muslims that we read the speech carefully and slowly, so as to visualize our positive engagement with the US Administration clearly and in a way that protects our interests.

Focus of Speech
Before his visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, Obama received much advice from think tank institutions and advisers to focus in his speech on the Iranian nuclear threat instead of the issue of Palestine -- the most important Issue to the Arabs and Muslims. However, there are many indications to suggest that Obama's meeting with the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdallah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz, has influenced the way the speech was written. No wonder then, that President Obama stressed in his speech the issue of inter-faith dialogue that King Abdallah led, and has, in fact, sent special thanks to the Saudi King for his leadership in bringing people together, instead of dividing them.
The speech was important regarding all regional issues, but the choice to visit Saudi Arabia first reveals that Obama had other objectives in mind, among them oil remains the top priority, due to its importance to the US economy. The US spends almost $700 billion per annum on energy, and this constitutes a big challenge to the Obama Administration, in addition to being a cause for the change in its policy. It is for this reason that the Obama Administration, like its predecessors, gives great importance to Saudi Arabia. If it wishes to do so, Saudi Arabia can contribute positively or otherwise to the solution to the economic problems of the US.
As he started his speech, Obama stressed that there is a tension between the US and the Islamic world that needs their cooperation to deal with on the basis of mutual respect. The US President pointed out that the US and the Islamic world have many interests in common. He quoted many verses from the holy Quran that extol the value of the human being to add force and credibility to his speech. He spoke of past centuries that shaped the relations between the West and the Islamic world that were for the most part relations of cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Talking about the history of his country, he revealed, for instance, that Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the US.

Dealing Regional Issues
Obama displayed a deep sense of understanding of the dynamics of violence in the region by saying that so long we allow the differences between the US and the Islamic world to continue, we play into the hands of those who sow the seeds of hatred instead of peace. This indicates that he is well-aware of what the Washington can do to formulate relations between the Islamic world and the US, in a way that ensures security, stability, and prosperity for all. That is because these relations allow for coexistence and are not mutually exclusive.
It should be pointed out here that President Obama is aware of the Islam-phobia phenomenon that exists in many Western countries, and he undertook to fight against the negative, normative stereotypes of Islam and the Muslims. This constitutes a preliminary step towards creating a healthy climate for mutual respect.
The first issue that should be confronted, according to Obama, is violence and extremism. It should be noted that he did not use the term ‘terrorism’, so as not to give the impression that he equates Islam with terrorism, as some in the West do. Obama said that the US is not at war with Islam.
Obama then moved on to where violence is -- Afghanistan, pointing out that it is a major threat for breeding violence and extremism; and he did not hesitate to State that Al-Qaida is number one enemy, not Islam or the majority of Muslims. This was an important message, coming as it did, after years of arrogance practiced by the Bush Administration.
In the context of his talk about the need to intensify efforts in combating extremism everywhere, President Obama talked about the error which the US committed in launching war against Iraq, and the intention of his Administration to leave Iraq as a free and independent State.

Growing Tension between US and Islamic World
The second issue that constitutes tension between the US and the Islamic world is the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. In the context of his talk about the peace process, he pointed out that he will personally invest in this process and promised to help the parties reach a permanent solution. Here, it should be noted that the President by and large made a balanced reading of the situation. He expressed his sympathy with the historical Jewish experience, but he did not forget to express his sympathy with the right of Palestinian to self-determination in their homeland and their right to a State of their own.
Even before he made his speech, the President displayed great courage in explaining the US position on Israeli settlements, and stated in his speech that the settlements are illegal. This was probably the most courageous position in the history of the US, as far as the issue of Israeli settlements is concerned. The talk about the Arab peace initiative and the need for the Arabs to play the role expected of them in helping the Palestinians indicates understanding of the importance of the Arab role in attaining peace. Moreover, the President stressed that peace between the Arabs and Israelis is in the interest of the US. In other words, he was saying that he has a reading of the US interest in isolation from that of the pro-Israeli forces in Washington. This is a positive development in the US position.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons Issue
The third topic related to nuclear weapons -- and here he was talking about Iran. He explained how the relations between the US and Iran developed, but he sent a message calling on the two parties not to remain prisoners of the past and to look to the future. While proposing to have dialogue with Iran on all issues, he explained that the US remains committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, by military means, if necessary. Meanwhile, he recognized Iran's right, as all other countries, to obtain peaceful nuclear capabilities. Perhaps we should point out here that the US position toward Iran has an Israeli dimension, as Israel sees in Iran's continued efforts at uranium enrichment, a threat to its existence.

Role of Democracy
The fourth topic relates to democracy. Although he said that he preferred democracy; he stressed that he will not impose any form of government on any nation. This was an issue which the Bush Administration tried, but failed to make it work. However, Obama did not ignore the issue altogether. He explained that this position does not diminish the US responsibilities toward governments that represent the will of their peoples. Moreover, in his talk about democracy, he stressed the importance of respect for the freedom of expression and the rule of law, and expressed his belief that elections on their own do not make democracy.

Freedom of Religion and Minority Rights
The fifth topic relates to the freedom of religion and respect for minority rights. Tolerance is part of Islam, Obama said, and he pointed out his personal experience when he was a child in Indonesia, a Muslim country where Christians and others practiced their religion and worshipped freely. He stressed that religious tolerance, which is rooted in Islam, is the spirit that we need today more than at anytime before; but he also called on the West to show tolerance toward Islam. In a reference to some Western countries that prohibit Muslim students from wearing the hijab at school, he pointed out that any Muslim woman should be free to wear the hijab if she wishes to do so. This needs interfaith dialogue, which the Saudi monarch has espoused.

Economic Development
Economic development was the last topic in President Obama's speech. Here, he pointed out the necessity for balance between development and preserving tradition, because as he put it, it is not necessary for the Islamic world to become American in order to achieve development. He pointed out the importance of education and enumerated a number of educational initiatives and funds that he intends to launch, in the course of his strategy of cooperation and engagement with the Islamic world.
On the whole, Obama's speech was important, eloquent, and expressed understanding and empathy with our concerns. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that President Obama has not made any plans to translate his words into policies. While it is true that he was sympathetic, all that he said was words, which if not translated into deeds, in whole or in part, the high expectations will become a source of frustration. Many Muslims will be enthused by Obama's speech; but he has to realize that the Palestinian issue is the most important issue. The Arab and Islamic world will not take the Obama Administration seriously unless they see any immediate and tangible action that enables the Palestinians to establish their State in their national homeland.
Nor will the US succeed in translating its vision (into reality) without the help of Saudi Arabia, which has economic and political power, as well as the necessary international status. Moreover, Saudi Arabia rises above the daily concerns of politics and concentrates on humanitarian issues that go deep to the roots of differences between human beings, and which Obama clearly pointed out.

Assessment
In conclusion, Obama had chosen to visit Saudi Arabia first because of its oil power and influential economic presence, and moreover, he wanted to apprise Saudi Arabia of the new US policy, as Saudi Arabia was critical of the policy of his predecessor and uncomfortable with it. He has also chosen Saudi Arabia because the success of any of his political objectives in the region will need Saudi approval and blessing. Furthermore, he has chosen to apologize to Islam and Muslims because he is aware of the Saudi view of the previous US Administration, which exploited Islam and the war on terrorism to impose its foreign policy, in a way that moderate States and US friends in the region found offensive.