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

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

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

Afghanistan War

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tough Time Ahead

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

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

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

France’s Stand

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

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

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

Obama-Karzai Meet

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton’s India Visit: New Delhi Reminds Washington of Country's Interests in Region

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrapped up her three-day visit to India on May 8. Her trip came at a time when India and the United States are perceived to have taken somewhat different positions from each other on various issues. After two decades of increasing proximity, disagreements between the two countries over several key matters now seem to be slowing down the momentum of bilateral relations. Those who had hoped that Clinton’s visit would put the spark back in the ties will have been a bit disappointed as both parties have not done much, in addition to reiterating already-known positions.

During her stay, Clinton met key Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi. and discussed a range of issues, including China, regional security and civil nuclear cooperation.

Pakistan’s Role in Eliminating Terror

The US secretary of state has pressed Pakistan to do more to ensure its territory is not used as "launching pad" by terror groups for attacks and also said that Hafiz Saeed was "one of the "principal architects" of the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Hillary's comments came at a joint news conference after her talks with External Affairs Minister SM Krishna who spoke of the need for elimination of "terrorist sanctuaries" in the neighborhood.The two leaders nudged Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 26/11 attacks and pledged to continue to work together in combating the menace.

In his remarks, Krishna said the recent terrorist attacks in Afghan capital – Kabul -- highlighted the need for elimination of terrorist sanctuaries in the neighborhood and for Pakistan to take steps against terrorism, including bringing to justice the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks. He also stressed the need for stronger action from Pakistan on terrorism, including on bringing to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attack.

In April 2012, the United States offered a $10 million reward for information leading to the conviction of Saeed, the founder of the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

Afghan Problem

The vision for Afghanistan was also discussed at the meeting. India stressed the need for sustained international commitment to build Afghan capacity for governance, security and economic development, and to support Afghanistan with assistance, investment and regional linkages.

To ask India to “do more” on the Iranian issue, therefore, is not fair on the part of the United States. The US secretary of state should understand that if the US has to do all it can to safeguard its geo-political interests in the Afghanistan-Pakistan area, India, too, has its interests in Kabul which cannot be properly taken care of if New Delhi loses the Iranian link.

US Investment in West Bengal

Clinton’s offer to Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to invest in West Bengal is, however, a welcome development. The state will also gain immensely once the issues between India and Bangladesh are settled conclusively. An agreement between the two neighbors on the Teesta River water issue could have been signed by now had Banerjee not taken a stand different from New Delhi’s line of thinking. But, as External Affairs Minister SM Krishna told his Bangladesh counterpart Dipu Moni, in New Delhi, efforts are on to bring the West Bengal Chief Minister to the view that the country’s overall interests must be given precedence over the state’s interest.

Earlier, the West Bengal chief minister had scuttled the United Progressive Alliance’s plans to allow Foreign Direct Investment in multi-brand retail, arguing that the move would destroy small businesses. The US secretary of state seems to have failed to force a change of heart in the feisty Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.

Issue of Oil Imports From Iran

The Damocles sword is still hanging on India. The United States gave no firm assurance to India that the proposed American sanctions will not apply to it for oil purchases from Iran even as New Delhi stated that the Iranian issue was not a source of discord between the two countries.

Continuing to resist American pressure over the matter, India also made it clear that it would abide only by UN Security Council sanctions against Iran and not those imposed by individual countries.

The US pressure on India regarding oil imports from Iran leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Does it not tantamount to interference in our internal affairs? As long as Manmohan Singh is the prime minister any directions of the United States in India's internal affairs and treaties like nuclear deal are cake walks.

In March 2012, the United States announced sanctions which threaten to shut out importers of Iranian oil from the US financial system unless they make significant and continuing cuts to their purchases by the end of June. Japan and 10 European Union nations have been granted exemption while India and China remain at risk.

In addition to its need for oil, there are two reasons why India must not take the US pressure lying down. India's only reliable land-route into Afghanistan and Central Asia runs through Iran. Moreover, the current US approach is likely to make the Iranian — and regional — security situation worse, not better. Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is already nuclear-armed, worry that a nuclear-capable Iran would tilt the regional balance and want the squeeze put on Iran. But too much financial or military pressure could backfire, goading the regime to commit to acquiring a strategic weapon — something it has not done until today.

India has demonstrated that it has come of age and stood its ground. Iran, despite its saber rattling, is a responsible power and we have a very useful conduit to their Leaders, which could be invaluable, when the World needs stability and growth. India must neither shut off Iran's oil imports nor Iran's access routes to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Pakistan can make overtures to a new relationship, but India cannot afford to alienate the country that can provide a counter balance to the Taliban-Pakistan nexus.

India has been firm in its foreign policy right since independence, and rightly so; we are a country with one of the fastest growing economy. We have recently done an arm deal which is considered world's biggest. We have to manage our allies ourselves. The Indian external affairs minister’s decision to disagree with Clinton and reminding her of India's interests in the region.

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

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

84th Annual Academy Awards: ‘Saving Face’ Wins First Oscar for Pakistan

The 84th Annual Academy Awards were presented in Los Angeles on February 26. They were hosted by comedian Billy Crystal.
“The Artist” bagged five Oscars, including best picture, becoming the first silent movie to win Hollywood's highest honors since the original Oscar ceremony 83 years ago. It is the first silent winner since the First World War saga “Wings,” which was named outstanding picture at the first Oscars in 1929.
In the black-and-white comic melodrama category, the best actor award went to Jean Dujardin and the best director to Michel Hazanavicius.
In a night of few surprises, the other top Oscars went to Meryl Streep for best actress for the movie “The Iron Lady,” Octavia Spencer as supporting actress for “The Help.” In a night where first timers and veterans were recognized, Streep became the fifth actor to win three awards, the previous winners being Jack Nicholson, Ingrid Bergman and Walter Brennan. She is now only a step away to match Katharine Hepburn’s four Oscar record.
Christopher Plummer as supporting actor for “Beginners.” The 82-year-old Plummer became the oldest acting winner ever for his role as an elderly widower who comes out as gay in “Beginners.”
The other wins for “The Artist” were for musical score and art direction. Martin Scorsese's Paris adventure “Hugo” also won five Oscars, all in technical categories. Streep's win was her first Oscar in 29 years, since she won best actress for “Sophie's Choice.” She had lost 12 times in a row since then. Streep also has a supporting-actress Oscar for 1979's “Kramer vs. Kramer.”
Woody Allen won the original Screenplay Oscar for “Midnight In Paris”, about a novelist adrift in a romantic reimagining of 1920s Paris. Seventy-six-year-old Allen has been nominated for an Oscar 25 times and this was his fourth win, who won for directing and screenplay on his 1977 best-picture winner “Annie Hall” and for screenplay on 1986's “Hannah and Her Sisters.”
Allen also is the record-holder for 15 writing nominations, and his three writing Oscars ties the record shared by Charles Brackett, Paddy Chayefsky, Francis Ford Coppola and Billy Wilder.
“The Artist”, nominated in 10 categories, also won Oscars for best original score and best costume design.
“Hugo”, with 11 nominations, won five trophies in the technical categories including the Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Cinematography and Art Direction but the movie failed to win in the key categories.
First Oscar for Pakistan
A Pakistani short movie on the tribulation and courage of victims of acid attacks won a historic trophy at the 2012 Academy Awards, making its codirector Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy the first from the country to win an Oscar. The movie ‘Saving Face’ by Daniel Junge and Chinoy, the first ever Pakistani movie to be nominated for the prestigious award won the Documentary (Short Subject) Academy.
The movie follows British plastic surgeon Dr Mohammad Jawad, who returns to his homeland to help victims of acid burns and performs reconstructive surgeries on survivors. It also follows the story of a woman as she fights to see that the perpetrators of the crime are imprisoned for life.
The documentary, which is filmed across Islamabad, Rawalpindi and the small towns of Punjab, released in the United States in November. It is due to release in the United Kingdom in March, following which it will be released in Pakistan. Chinoy has also received the Emmy award for her documentary Pakistan: Children of the Taliban in 2010.
Other Winners
"A Separation", directed by Asghar Farhadi, became the first Iranian movie to win the best foreign Oscar trophy. Written and directed by Asghar Farhadi, the domestic drama focuses on a couple going through a divorce and touches on traditions, justice, and male-female relationships in modern Iran. "A Separation" was regarded as the front-runner for the foreign language Oscar after sweeping the awards circuit in Europe and the United States. It also garnered an Oscar nomination for best original screenplay but failed to win in that category. It was the second Iranian film to be nominated for an Oscar, and the first to win.
Johnny Depp voiced "Rango" defeated "A Cat in Paris", "Chico & Rita", "Kung Fu Panda 2", "Puss in Boots" to win Gore Verbinski an Oscar in the best animated category.
Movie editing honours went to Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall for "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". "Undefeated", by TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Rich Middlemas, won the Oscar in the documentary feature category.
"Saving Face", by Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, brought Pakistan its first Oscar in the documentary short category. "Iron Lady" won Mark Coulier and J Roy Helland Oscar trophies in the make-up category. "Man or Muppet" from "The Muppets" won Bret McKenzie a trophy in the original song category.
"The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr Morris Lessmore" by William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg won in the short movie animated category where as "The Shore" by Terry George and Oorlagh George took home the trophy in the short movie live action category.

New Great Game and Afghanistan

The United Kingdom and Russia were vying for capturing the Central Asia during the 19th century. The United Kingdom was approaching from the Indian side, whereas the Russians were heading toward India while capturing Central Asia. Unfortunately, the Afghan soil was the center of this great game and Pashtuns were its fuel at that time. Both countries were using Afghanistan as a buffer state and playing this game from the Afghanistan soil. The tenure of this classical great game started with Russia-Prussia war in 1813 and ended on Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907. A British intelligence officer, Arthur Konolly had given this title to a geopolitical and strategic war and he had named the entire Central Asia the Great Chessboard. Rudyard Kipling later on gave this great game an unmatched fame and a romantic status in his novel the KIM.
War of Capturing Resources
This new great game is a war of capturing resources, particularly oil, its supply routes, pipelines and mineral resources more than just occupying territories. Another fundamental difference between the two is that the United Kingdom and Russia were the major players in the old great game, whereas Iran played a side role from time to time along with them; whereas, in the new game, a large number of regional and international powers are involved and the fuel are again the Pashtuns and to an extent Pakistanis. The players in this war include, in addition to the United States, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its allies, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Tajikistan of Central Asia, population of which is even less than 2,000,000.
This war is becoming the most expensive war of all times. Only the United States spent $130 billion in 2010 ($4 billion for social sector, and that too, with a number of conditions because of which the entire amount could not be released) (Parenthesis as published). This expenditure earlier amounted to $50 billion to $65 billion. The expenditure incurred by other countries is in addition to this. With regard to life losses, too, this war is becoming unbearable for the United States and its allies. The number of casualties and injured troops is increasing with each passing day. So far, more than 3,000 US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) troops have died, whereas number of injured troops stands close to 8,000. However, according to independent sources, number of casualties and wounded troops could exceed these estimates because the Americans and ISAF sources are trying to fudge the numbers due to public reaction.
As far as the Afghans are concerned, they -- according to famous poet, Faiz Ahmed Faiz -- consider their flesh and blood part of the soil so it became food of the soil (means the body went back to its origin). Majority of the troops, who have returned to their home countries, are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Their treatment, including physical ailments, will cost approximately $650 million. On returning home, these troops assume strange behavior. Some limit themselves within their homes; and some join those Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which help people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
According to the US Anti-Suicide report, approximately 100 out of these returnees commit suicide every year, whereas, approximately 200 are prevented from committing suicide. Different countries want to have a stake in these countries because of their natural resources and strategic importance.
Natural Resources and Strategic Importance
Let us have a look at the natural resources and strategic importance of this region. The oil experts say huge quantity of oil is present under the Caspian Sea. In addition, the world's largest natural gas reserves are present in Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries. According to survey, conducted during the erstwhile Soviet Union times, 73 million tons coal, 100 billion barrel oil (it appears to be somewhat incorrect) (parenthesis as published) and 5 trillion cubic ft natural gas is present in Afghanistan.
In addition to this, the American National Geological Society conducted another survey in 2007 but released its report in 2010, which says that huge reserves of copper, gold, cobalt and raw iron, which value at $1 trillion, are present on the Afghan side of the Durand Line. The nature's distribution does not observe the geographic limits, set by human beings. It means that there could be huge reserves on the other side of the border, too (means, on Pakistani side). The Pentagon has compared and declared the Lithium reserves here at par with Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. In modern life, Lithium assumes the same importance as the oil, because no battery can be manufactured without Lithium. It is abundantly used in manufacturing several products.
China has initiated a $3 billion project in ionic copper mines, situated in Lugar Province of Afghanistan. It means the Pakistan-Afghanistan Pashtun belt is important as a transit route and it is also full of natural resources.
To benefit from these resources, the United States had first planned to lay a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, and then to India and the Arabian Sea. The US firm, Unocal, Bredas of Argentine, and a Saudi company were competing to get the contract for this project. The US firm, Unocal had already spent lot of money on conducting feasibility study and had also arranged funding from international institutions, but the Taliban awarded contract to Bredas, which stunned the United States. Approximately four months before the 9/11 attacks, the US delegation informed every one and particularly Pakistan, during an international conference in Bonn that the Taliban had now become unbearable. And their government will be toppled by the end of the year.
The CIA initiated contacts with Ahmed Shah Masood; otherwise, ZalmayKhalilzad, while representing the US Government, had expressed support to the Taliban in his article, published in The New York Times only two days before this contact (with Ahmed Shah Masood by the CIA was established). In this article, Zalmay had also reprimanded the European countries for banning women veil. The write had suggested the European governments that they should not impose their culture on Afghans, as observing veil is a centuries old Afghan tradition.
The 9/11 attacks provided them (the United States and allies) a golden opportunity and they invaded Afghanistan, which unleashed a new process of destruction and devastation, because the war (in Afghanistan, allusion to Russian invasion of Afghanistan) had, in fact, started 20 years ago before the 9/11 attacks.
Cultural and Religious Influence
From a strategic importance point of view, four historic areas surround this region. Wild tribes, be they in the form of Scythians, White Huns or Mughals, have always marched from the northern plains, Steppe; and finally, Russia's march through Central Asia toward warm waters and Afghanistan and then expansion of Chinese empire from south to the east; and arrival of Indian cultural and religious influence from northwest side.Afghanistan is situated in the southwest of the Middle East region and Wakhan corridor is also situated here, borders of which, touch Azad Kashmir (Pakistan-administered Kashmir) in the south, Tajikistan in the north and China in the east. During 10-year erstwhile Soviet Union war, this was under their occupation; and the United States is also staying here. Iran is also situated in the same area; and Gwadar Port, which is placed as a modern port right at the edge of Asian Gulf, is situated on its eastern side.

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.

New Geopolitical Equation in Asia

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

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.

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.

Rabbani's Assassination: Jolt To Afghan Peace Efforts

The assassination of former Afghan President Barahuddin Rabbani in a suicide attack makes it clear that peace in that war-torn country is very far yet. His assassination is an attempt to sabotage the ongoing efforts for peace in that country. Those involved in hatching the conspiracy alone cannot be held responsible for it. Efforts to bring peace are under way with the US support. But not only the Taliban, but the common man in Afghanistan also have no faith and trust in the United States, hence, they do not take these efforts seriously. Insurgents and terrorists derive mileage efforts; and have to bear the brunt of it. Even the former Afghanistan president became a victim to such suicide attack.
Talks With Taliban
Rabbani was among the moderate leaders in Afghanistan. He was the president of Afghanistan in the period 1992-1996 and as president he made efforts to bring peace in Afghanistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai assigned him the task of bringing terrorist elements in the peace process by holding talks with the Taliban and bringing them back to the mainstream. Since Rabbani was an influential leader, his efforts were being supported not only by various sections of the society but at the international level as well. He visited India in July as the chairman of the High Peace Council. He held meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna, and others. He attached special importance to India on the reconstruction of Afghanistan and the establishment of peace and lauded India's cooperation and commitment for it. That is why India has expressed deep sorrow and grief at his sudden demise and announced to continue to extend cooperation in the peace process in that country.
Rabbani was of the firm belief that without India's full support, the peace dialogue cannot move in the right direction. Under these circumstances, his killing has given rise to a significant query to what role would India have in the dialogue with the Taliban and to whom Karzai would hand over the responsibility to hold talks with the Taliban.
Hatred Toward US
The killing of Rabbani makes it clear that there exist a most powerful group among the Taliban, which want to derail the peace dialogue. The main reason behind it is nothing but the strong resentment and hatred toward the United States. The assassination of Rabbani is a severe jolt to the United States also which is prepared to pack up and leave Afghanistan. If, consequent upon Rabbani's killing, the peace dialogue get affected, it may have an impact on the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan as well.
Most importantly, Rabbani's assassination is a severe jolt to moderate elements in Afghanistan. This moderate group includes that section of the Taliban, which was supporting the talks, by abjuring violence with the Karzai government and US representatives. In short, the fatal attack on Rabbani has placed a big question mark on his expectations of establishment of peace. It has, more importantly, added to the woes and difficulties for the United States.

Peace Process in Afghanistan

The United States wants to put an end to its longest war, the war in Afghanistan. US President Barack Obama made this comment recently. Although many people do not accept this or do not want to accept it, these comments bear a strange resemblance to the comments made by the last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, when the Soviet forces were withdrawing from Afghanistan. Gorbachev really succeeded in ending the longest war in the history of his country, but it nevertheless cost the then Soviet Union and Afghanistan dearly. Although it portrayed Soviet defeat in Afghanistan in the most honorable way, it opened the gate for new long and frustrating wars in our country.
Does Obama also want to end the longest war in the history of his country the way Gorbachev did? Obama's comments clearly contradict comments made by the United States and its military commanders in the past. Previously, continued military cooperation and possible long-term US presence was emphasized. What has happened now that US officials are now showing an inclination towards ending their military presence in Afghanistan?
Legitimate Solutions
Meanwhile, Taliban leader Mullah Omar surprisingly showed in his Id message that he has revisited his previous position.
It is not clear how the Afghan Government found out that the statement is indeed issued by Mullah Omar because Hamid Karzai has constantly been in doubt whether the Taliban really stage attacks and kill people when they assume responsibility for such incidents. He had argued that since nobody has seen Taliban spokespersons, nobody can know that these persons who contact the media truly represent the Taliban and their leader). Mullah Omar said in the statement that any legitimate solutions to the Afghanistan issue can be considered. The Taliban leader has not explained what his group deems as legitimate, but it is clear that this group has constantly emphasized on a political role for itself under special conditions.
New Developments
Anyway, several points emerge from the US president's comments and Mullah Omar's statement:
First, when Obama says he will soon end the longest US war, he may mean he will do so to handle the financial cost the war is inflicting. The most recent report by the two Senate committees on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq says that 60bn dollars were wasted on two useless wars. The report emphasizes that 60bn dollars of taxpayers' money have been wasted due to suspicious contracts, lack of oversight and transparent mechanisms. This may have prompted the US president to speak about ending the war in Afghanistan.
Second, after Usamah Bin-Ladin's death, the 10-year war in Afghanistan, which the Americans regard as the longest war in US history, entered a new phase and many Americans said that continued presence of their troops in Afghanistan is no longer justified. It is also important to remember that the level of international interest in the menace of terrorism is not as high as it used to be and many people believe that the Westerners were mistaken in defining terrorism.
Third, the United States wants to have a long-term presence in Afghanistan and in the region, which can be facilitated if military bases are built. This is why the Americans are tying to have a strategic declaration with Afghanistan to achieve this objective and practically maintain a powerful and long-term presence in Afghanistan. To achieve this objective, there is a need to secure the consent of a number of powerful regional countries including Pakistan, China and Russia and it seems some countries have consented already.
Fourth, the government of Afghanistan has been busy trying to include a number of Taliban and their leaders in the political process and a number of countries supporting Afghanistan have agreed to this or have been encouraging this. Mullah Omar's statement can be viewed as a green light to the forthcoming talks in Turkey. The international community wants to hold a regional conference in Turkey and invite a number of groups and neighboring countries involved in Afghanistan before it holds the Bonn II conference. It is said that the conference can enable the Taliban to enter the political process in the country. Although the Americans have said that there is no place for the Taliban in the Bonn II conference, the government of Afghanistan has constantly emphasized that the Afghan delegation will be composed of one group under the umbrella of the government of Afghanistan. Karzai has extended an invitation to the Taliban to participate in the conference under these conditions.
Fifth, authoritarian circles within the government are trying to convince the United States and Western governments that the best solution to the crisis in the country is to negotiate with and give insurgent groups a share in the government. Therefore, the lengthy war is likely to come to an end through talks with these groups.
Sixth, the government of Afghanistan wants to convene a Loya Jirga or grand assembly of Afghans, which many analysts think would be a ceremonial event, to secure the agreement of the Jirga to the joint declaration with the United States and thus pave the way for the Taliban to enter the government.
Seven, Americans are not satisfied with what has happened in Afghanistan in the past 10 years and by having a regional ally they want to rid themselves of the need to spend heavy sums of money. It is not important for them as to who will ensure their interests as long as their interests are ensured.
Eighth, President Karzai embarked on a tour of Saudi Arabia shortly prior to Id ul-Fitr citing umrah (pilgrimage to the Holy Kaba in Saudi town of Mecca) as the reason, but Saudi Arabia had previously assembled a number of other Afghan groups. The statement by the Office of the President about Hamid Karzai's trip had alluded to talks with Saudi officials for peace in Afghanistan.
Ninth, these show that fresh efforts are being made to maintain the status quo while at the same time find a solution for Afghanistan. This can stand in blatant contradiction with the achievements of the international community in the past 10 years in Afghanistan. These new developments can also jeopardize true peace and sideline the enlightened and pro-reform forces in the country.