Mario Osava

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jan 19 (IPS) – Brazil expects its international standing to be bolstered by more cooperative relations with the United States under the presidency of Barack Obama, as well as a shift in Washington’s position on the issue of climate change and with respect to Cuba.

In his weekly radio programme Monday, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called once again for an end to the nearly five-decade U.S. embargo against Cuba, which he said would be a first sign of change in U.S. policy towards Latin America that has been ”misguided for a long time.”

Putting an end to Cuba’s exclusion from the Organisation of American States (OAS) is ”a desire shared by Latin America as a whole,” and Obama’s Latin America policy ”should start off by lifting the embargo,” Brazilian diplomat João Clemente Baena Soares, a former OAS secretary general, told IPS.

The Obama administration is likely to benefit Brazil, ”not because of what he can do for Brazil, but because of what he can do for the future of humanity, if he adopts a 21st century agenda, unlike his two predecessors, who followed a 19th century agenda,” said
Senator Cristovam Buarque, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The environment, for example, will have to ”form part of his overall economic policies, and not just be the focus of isolated measures,” he commented to IPS.

In addition, his government will have to tackle poverty ”not as a lack of wealth, but as a product of social exclusion,” and will have to ”respect diversity in the world, as part of a commitment to peace,” he said.

Brazil would enjoy indirect benefits from such policies, as would humanity as a whole, said the senator.

He said, for example, that this country would thus be able to expand its exports of ethanol to the United States, not because of a specific opening to Brazil’s alcohol fuel but due to a policy agenda in favour of renewable energy and less harmful to the global climate.

”I am very optimistic with regard to the Obama administration’s attitude towards the question of climate change,” given the naming of Nobel Physics Prize-winner Steven Chu as energy secretary and the appointment of other authorities with strong track records on the environment, said Fabio Feldmann, executive secretary of the Forum on Climate Change and Biodiversity of the state of São Paulo.

A positive change in Washington’s position will favour ”an important alliance with Brazil in the decisive negotiations on a new global climate change agreement at the conference in Copenhagen in December, Feldmann told IPS.

In Brazilian diplomatic circles, there are hopes of a new U.S. foreign policy which, although unlikely to bring immediate results for Brazil, would promote its international standing as an important actor on crucial matters dealt with at the multilateral level.

Baena Soares said he hoped for ”respectful and cooperative relations, which do not ignore Brazil’s importance.” He added that there should also be changes in bilateral relations, which were marked by sharp differences during the administration of outgoing President George W. Bush, on questions ranging from the environment to Iraq, trade negotiations and biofuels.

Expectations are high, but it is necessary to wait and see what concrete actions President Obama will take after he is sworn in on Tuesday, said the diplomat, who is also a former deputy foreign minister.

On the trade front, democrats have historically taken a more protectionist stance than Republicans, as is frequently pointed out in Brazil. But ”in times of crisis like today’s, that can change, because the emphasis is on curbing unemployment, and foreign trade can help reach that goal,” said Baena Soares.

The tendency is towards a growing appreciation of Brazil’s leadership role in Latin America, said Feldmann, who was a member of the constituent assembly that rewrote Brazil’s constitution in 1988 and was elected to Congress twice in the 1990s.

He also said he hoped that Washington’s relations with the most leftist governments in Latin America, like those of Bolivia and Venezuela, would become less tense.

With respect to Cuba, he agreed that the embargo is not justified and that lifting it would bring about a major shift in the scenario in Latin America.

But removing the embargo, which was put in place in 1962 and tightened in the 1990s, depends on approval by Congress, which Obama would not be able to count on in the short term, said Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, the author of several books on the history of relations between the United States and Latin America.

What the new president could do, said the analyst, is to scrap more recent restrictions adopted by Bush applying to visits and remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans.

But Lula expects ”a sign” from Obama of good will towards Cuba, as an indicator of improvements in relations between the United States and Latin America. The Latin America and Caribbean summit organised by Lula a month ago in Bahía in northern Brazil issued a call for an end to the embargo and admitted Cuba to the Rio Group, Latin America’s highest policy coordination forum.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

JERUSALEM, Jan 19 (IPS) – Europe now evidently understands what the U.S. has long understood – if you want to move Israelis on peace, you need to make them feel secure.

There they were Sunday evening, six of the Continent’s most powerful leaders at the table of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, lining up with Israel’s ”achievements” secured in its three-week war against Hamas.

In praising Israel’s unilateral ceasefire, and in committing themselves to help prevent smuggled weapons from Iran reaching the Palestinian Islamists as enunciated in the Israeli-U.S. Memorandum of Understanding signed last Friday in Washington, they were even prepared to soften their concerns for the dire humanitarian consequences of the onslaught.

But behind supporting the containment of Hamas, the message of the European Six was double-barrelled: We support your right to defend yourselves from within your borders, but just as you planned your assault on Hamas, so you must be ready to launch into an urgent full-scale peace offensive with the Palestinian Authority in order to determine your future borders with the West Bank for a two-state solution.

The U.S., focused on Tuesday’s White House inauguration, was absent. France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy may have been delighted to see Europe ”out in front”, but he too acknowledged that this dual process – containing Hamas and engaging the PA – is incomplete without Washington at the Israeli table too.

Friday’s ‘contain Hamas’ memorandum was underwritten by President-elect Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But where do they go from here is what the Europeans, the Israelis and the Palestinians want to know?

Throughout his campaign to win the presidency, Senator Obama largely stayed aloof from voicing clear-cut policy positions on the Israeli-Arab conflict except for two instances during a visit to the region last summer: In the southern Israeli town of Sderot, which was bearing the brunt of Hamas shelling, he publicly showed understanding for Israel’s right to self-defence; but in Ramallah on the West Bank, he reportedly showed no understanding for Israel’s passivity in the face of the Arab League peace initiative which offers total acceptance of Israel by the Arab world in return for ending the occupation and forging a full peace with the Palestinians.

Obama’s self-imposed restraint during the presidential campaign prompted speculation that his administration would continue the Bush approach of standing back from the nitty-gritty of the Mid-east conflict. The Israeli military campaign in Gaza changed that: belatedly, he is now on the record that ”from day one”, his presidency will be fully engaged.

What constitutes being ”engaged”?

Will he simply become entangled in superfluous accusations or justifications on who’s to blame for the Gaza war? Or, will he rather grasp the moment created by the battering of Hamas to push forcefully for an immediate and all-embracing peace offensive?

The U.S. needs to ensure that the outcome of the war is consolidated, both in terms of the truce and the effective blocking of any re-arming of Hamas, as well as in the reconstruction of Gaza. At the same time, the U.S. must stand full-square behind President Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority and underwrite the progress made during the past year under the stewardship of the special international envoy Tony Blair in laying the economic and security foundations of the Palestinian state.

It is on the third front that President Obama has his work cut out: to convince a sceptical Israeli public of the merits of proceeding forthwith to a full-scale settlement with the Palestinians and that continued occupation of the West Bank in no way advances their security, or deterrence.

What is called for is a bold new approach that sets aside the hackneyed ”land-for-peace” formula: ”The two-state solution is endangered, not rescued, by being endlessly discussed,” wrote presciently before the war Hussein Agha and Robert Malley in their New York Review of Books article, ‘How Not to Make Peace in the Middle East’.

Instead ”land-for-security” – ending the occupation (of Palestine) for genuine security (for Israel) – should be the guiding Obama principle.

He needs go beyond the immediate realm of Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians. Israel believes it has restored its deterrent capability, not only against Hamas and Hizbullah, but has sent a strong message further afield.

The front-runner in Israel’s upcoming election campaign, Benjamin Netanyahu, consistently posits the two organisations as ”Iran’s forward outposts”. According to Israel Army Radio, at Sunday night’s dinner in Jerusalem, the Likud party leader reportedly warned the European guests that if Iran is not contained by stronger sanctions, the time would come when Israel might have to act alone.

President Obama has now the opportunity to use the Memorandum on preventing arms smuggling to Hamas as the basis for a security understanding with Israel that would help assuage such fears about Iranian intentions. He has made clear he means to take on Iran. He may, however, desist from beginning such negotiations until after the spring presidential election in Iran.

But in just three weeks, Israelis go to the polls; their war against Hamas has triggered the need to shelve that important principle – of non-interference in domestic politics, especially among friends.

Barack Obama should not wait until after the Feb. 10 election; he should engage the Israeli people right now.

His message should be straight: Who you chose as your leader is your business. But our equation – as Israel’s proven friend – is simple: We will continue to stand by you, to do whatever it takes to underwrite Israel’s security and legitimacy in the region. But for your part, the people of Israel, you have to accept that we do not accept the legitimacy of the ongoing occupation in the West bank which precludes the possibility of reaching a full-scale agreement with the Palestinians and the entire Arab world.

Obama should say on day one of his presidency: This isn’t a question of pressuring Israel, this is in Israel’s interest – it’s your choice, the people of Israel; end the occupation and you’ll get the security you crave – we guarantee that. Peace will follo

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Gaza Fire and Smoke

Fire and smoke billow following an Israeli airstrike in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah near the border with Egypt
© Iyad El Baba/UNICEF

Mel Frykberg

RAMALLAH, Jan 19 (IPS) – Humanitarian aid is being rushed into Gaza as Israel and Egypt open their borders temporarily to allow convoys of aid to pass through.

While Israeli drones circle the skies above, Hamas security men are back on the streets attempting to restore some semblance of law and order. Policemen are directing traffic. Several looters have been arrested.

Gazans who survived the battering inflicted by Israel’s 22-day military campaign, codenamed Operation Cast Lead, are venturing out and trying to pick up the pieces of their lives.

”People are feeling dazed and confused. Many are desperately trying to contact family members and friends on the few remaining phone lines that operate to see if they are still alive or if they are injured,” Abdallah Al-Agha from Khan Yunis in the south of Gaza told IPS.

”Others are leaving UN shelters for the first time in days to see if and what remains of their homes,” added Al-Agha.

Elena Qleibo, a Gaza-based aid worker from Oxfam and an ex-Costa Rican ambassador to Israel, said parts of Gaza resembled an apocalypse.

”The destruction wrought on Beit Lahiya, in northern Gaza, and the Zeitoun suburb in eastern Gaza city is immense,” Qleibo told IPS. ”The sewage is flowing in the streets. Electricity pylons, water and sewage works, municipal and medical buildings, and homes have been levelled.”

Initial estimates state that 15 percent or 20,000 of the Gaza Strip’s buildings have been damaged, with nearly 30,000 Palestinians forced to find shelter in UN Relief and Welfare Agency (UNRWA) shelters and with family.

Nearly 1,300 Gazans lost their lives, around a third of these children, with a total of more than half of the deaths civilian. The number of injured is pushing 4,000.

”People are extremely angry and the level of hate against Israel is very high. I have lived and worked in Gaza for many years and I have never seen such hatred from the population,” said Qleibo.

Gazans are not blaming Hamas, contrary to Israel’s wishes. ”People laugh at Israel’s claims that this was a war against the Islamic resistance organisation and not one aimed at civilians.

”They see this as a war against all Palestinians. The number of civilians killed and maimed and the destruction wrought was way too extreme,” said Qleibo.

”The scale of death and destruction is most definitely counter-productive. Throughout this conflict so many experts and global leaders have highlighted there is no military solution to this conflict – an effective political solution is needed,” John Ging, the head of Gaza’s (UNRWA), told Maan News Agency.

UNRWA’s main compound in Gaza city, which feeds 750,000 Gazan refugees, half of the total population, was destroyed in an Israeli attack Jan. 15.

Ging said that 50 aid trucks entered Gaza Saturday, the day Israel announced its unilateral ceasefire.

”But we need hundreds of trucks. The needs are growing exponentially and the pipeline for humanitarian supplies is very narrow. Even those, such as Palestinian Authority (PA) employees, who were not dependent on UNRWA assistance, have become dependent. There is nothing on the market and there is no cash,” Ging told Maan.

”We cannot contemplate that the crossings will remain closed; there must be a better future. The ordinary people here during this siege have paid the price of this conflict and this operation. For them, their singular priority is access to restore dignity to their existence.

”The closures have driven thousands into aid dependency against their will – that has to end. A solution that prioritises the needs of the ordinary people must be found,” said Ging.

Egypt allowed 42 seriously injured Gazans to pass through the Rafah crossing in the south to travel to Egyptian hospitals. Tonnes of international medical supplies and three ambulances from Qatar entered Gaza from Rafah. Forty-nine doctors from abroad are supplementing exhausted teams of Palestinian medical staff at Gaza’s main hospitals.

In addition to medical supplies, 401 tonnes of food donated by Libya, Morocco, Oman and Jordan entered Gaza from Egypt. Ninety tonnes of food entered Gaza from an Israeli crossing point.

Egyptian civil society organisations donated nearly 12,000 blankets to replace those destroyed during Israel’s attack on the UN warehouse.

”While international food and medical aid is desperately needed, it is also imperative that in the longer run urgent socio-psychological treatment is extended to a severely traumatised civilian population,” Qleibo told IPS.

Meanwhile, rescue teams are pulling out bodies from underneath mountains of rubble, something Israeli soldiers stationed in the area previously prevented. Once all bodies are recovered, the death toll may rise significantly.

Muawiyah Hassanain, director of Ambulance and Emergency Services in the Health Ministry in Gaza, said that dozens of bodies were extricated on Sunday alone.

The full scale of the horror is yet to be revealed as the international foreign corps based in Israel continues to fight for unrestricted access into Gaza to report first-hand. Israel has enforced a ban for close on two months on all media other than a few handpicked reporters embedded with Israeli forces, who were permitted entry.

”Professionals should be allowed into the battlefield,” said Foreign Press Association secretary Glenys Sugarman, unimpressed by the reporters the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) spokesperson’s unit let in.

”You can’t just send journalists to join the military forces who show them around. That is not independent and open reporting. In the modern, open world, when there are people that see and are willing to comprehend what’s going on here – this is an important message,” added Sugarman.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Image: Rafah Camp Gaza

Palestinians in the Rafah refugee camp, in northern Gaza, after an Israeli airstrike on 11 January
© Iyad El Baba/UNICEF

Athar Parvaiz

SRINAGAR, Jan 19 (IPS) – As war clouds hover over India and Pakistan, anxiety levels have risen in Kashmir, often described as the bone of contention between the South Asian neighbours

Bellicose posturing by the two countries, following the Nov. 26-29 terror strikes in Mumbai, has, according to analysts here, the potential of spiralling into yet another one of a series of wars fought over the territory by the two countries, created in 1947 following the decolonisation of the sub-continent.

”War between India and Pakistan appears to be a possibility given the course the two countries have taken,” Mohammad Sayeed Malik, a well-known, Srinagar-based political commentator told IPS. ”If not checked, it may reach a point of no return and actual war would be impossible to avoid.”

The Mumbai attacks, which left 180 people dead, rudely interrupted the ‘composite dialogue,’ begun in February 2004 after the nuclear-armed neighbours restored diplomatic ties – downgraded in reaction to a similar armed attack on India’s parliament in December 2001.

Accusing Pakistan-based militant groups, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), for staging the attack on Indian parliament, India massed troops along the border in the largest military mobilisation since the two countries went to war in 1971.

The LeT, set up to fight Indian rule in Kashmir, has now been implicated in the Mumbai attacks as well by India and by United States officials and analysts who have also linked it to Pakistan’s shadowy Inter-Services Intelligence.

In the aftermath of the 2001 attack, war between the neighbours was avoided by intense diplomatic activity led by the United States. But it took until February 2004 before the composite dialogue process – a serious effort aimed at confidence building, normalisation of bilateral relations and dispute resolution – could be put into place.

The peace process brought better diplomatic, trade and people-to-people contact across the 298-km, fenced and fortified Line of Control (LoC) that divides Indian Kashmir from the Pakistan-administered part of the territory and has served for decades as the de facto international border.

Most significantly, for people living along the LoC, the peace talks brought about a cessation of the constant exchange of artillery fire by the Indian and Pakistani armies across the border. Scores of civilians have been reported killed, maimed or displaced by the destructive exchanges.

”After the ceasefire, we had been living in a comfortable manner without any fear, but now we might again have go through the traumatic times before the ceasefire,” Rustum Gelani, a resident of the border town of Tangdar, told IPS over telephone.

Reports from the other towns near the LoC such as Uri and Poonch suggested that people were close to panic. ”We would appeal the two countries to maintain the ceasefire,” said Abdul Gafoor, a resident of Poonch.

People living along the road leading to LoC in Tangdar, Uri and Poonch have reported seeing deployment of troops and equipment for several days now. ”More military and machines are being stockpiled on the LoC… it looks like war is brewing up,” said Neik Mohammed, a resident.

Army officials have downplayed the activity as part of routine exercises, normally conducted at this time of the year. But one defence source said the moves were ”precautionary measures as our neighbour Pakistan is mobilising troops on its side of the border”.

Malik said that should war break out between India and Pakistan, Kashmiris would be the worst sufferers; socially, economically and politically. ”It would wash away all the gains of the five-year-old peace process. The positive mood in the aftermath of the peaceful elections in Kashmir may vanish into thin air,” he said.

”During and after Gen. [Pervez] Musharraf’s rule, Pakistan had made quite a lot of progress in disengaging itself from active involvement in Kashmir… a war could reverse it,” Malik added.

Civil society and NGOs have been busy urging India and Pakistan to work towards de-escalating tension and peace-building. ”We call upon India and Pakistan to sign the convention and treaty to ban production, stockpiling and use of cluster munitions and landmines,” said ActionAid’s Arjimand Talib, a peace activist.

”A war would seriously dent efforts at poverty eradication in the region and shift focus from development to further militarisation,” Talib added.

”After India felt that international pressure had started working on Pakistan, it has helped bring down tension levels. This should have been enough, but since India’s elections are just round the corner, one can’t be sure that the war hysteria will come down,” said Malik.

Tapan Bose, secretary general of the Pakistan India People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD), told IPS that public anger projected in the media carried the danger of precipitating war, forgetting that ordinary people would suffer the consequences most.

”We have been so overwhelmed by the war jingoism of the media and sections of the state and upper middle class [because they were hit by the Mumbai attacks] that we forget what the peace process means for thousands of ordinary people,” Bose said. ”Who speaks for them?”

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Image:
Srinaagar Security Personnel
Author: Scott Clarkson
Wikimedia Commons
GNU Free Documentation License 1.2

B.RAMAN

Despite differences over strategies and tactics in the fight against global jihadi terrorism, there is a convergence of views between the outgoing administration of President George Bush and the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama as to what should be the ultimate objective of the US war against global terrorism.

2. They are both agreed that the ultimate objective should be to prevent another 9/11 in the US homeland by Al Qaeda and an act of catastrophic terrorism involving either the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) material or devastating attacks on the critical infrastructure.

3. In their view, of all the terrorist organisations operating from the Pakistani territory, only Al Qaeda has the capability for launching another 9/11 in the US homeland and for organising an act of catastrophic terrorism. Hence, the first priority of the Bush administration was to the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, its ideological ally. This priority will continue under Obama too. During the election campaign, Obama’s criticism of the policies of Bush was not because of the focus on the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but because of what he looked upon as the inadequacy of that focus as illustrated by the perceived failure of the Bush administration to have Osama bin Laden and his No.2 Ayman Al-Zawahiri killed or captured and the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda in the Pakistani tribal belt destroyed.

4. He attributed the inadequacy of that focus and the failure of the Bush Administration to destroy or even seriously weaken Al Qaeda to what he looked upon as the unnecessary US involvement in Iraq, which took resources and attention away from the war against Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region. According to him, the real threat to the US homeland comes from the Pakistan-Afghanistan region and not from Iraq and hence there should have been no diversion of the attention and resources from there. He said during the election campaign: “We are fighting on the wrong battlefield. The terrorists who attacked us and who continue to plot against us are resurgent in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They should have been our focus then. They must be our focus now.” In a speech at the Wilson Centre in Washington DC on August 1,2007, he said: “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won…The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

5.Anoher point on which there has been a convegence between the views of the two is over th importance of Pakistan in the war against global terrorism. Both feel that the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be won without th co-operation of Pakistan, which, essentially means the Pakistani Army. Obama said during the campaign: “Success in Afghanistan requires action in Pakistan. While Pakistan has made some contributions by bringing some al Qaeda operatives to justice, the Pakistani government has not done nearly enough to limit extremist activity in the country and to help stabilize Afghanistan. I have supported aid to Pakistan in the Senate and … I would continue substantial military aid if Pakistan takes action to root out the terrorists.” He also said when Pervez Musharraf was still the President: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will. I firmly believe that if we know the whereabouts of bin Laden and his deputies and we have exhausted all other options, we must take them out.”

6. His proclaimed determination to act unilaterally against high-value targets of Al Qaeda in Pakistani territory is no different from the policy pursued by the Bush Administration in the last year of its presidency. Unmanned Predator aircraft of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out over 30 strikes on suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistani territory during 2008 as against 10 in 2006 and 2007. These strikes were carried out despite protests by the Pakistan Government and Army and resulted in the deaths of eight middle-level Arab operatives of Al Qaeda and Rashid Rauf, a British citizen of Pakistani origin, who was related by marriage to Maulana Masood Azhar, the Amir of the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM).

7. Even if Obama wants the CIA to further step up its Predator attacks, their effectiveness would depend on a further improvement in the flow of human and technical intelligence. Obama has avoided specific pronouncements on his willingness to order land-based strikes on the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistani territory. Under the Bush administration, the US special forces did try a land-based strike in South Waziristan in September,2008, which was not successful. It did not launch any more land-based strikes following a furore in Pakistan. While the Asif Ali Zardari Government is avoiding any action to resist the Predator strikes despite its open condemnation of them, there seems to be a fear in Washington that if the US continues to undertake land-based strikes, public pressure could force the Pakistan Government and the Army to resist them resulting in an undesirable confrontation between the armies of the two countries.

8. Obama is likely to face the same dilemma as Bush faced. The sporadic successes of the Predator strikes alone will not be able to effectively destroy the terrorist infrastructure of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistani territory. To be effective, land-based strikes would also be necessary. However, the political consequences of repeated land-based strikes would be unpredictable. There is already considerable anger in the tribal belt against the Pakisan army for co-operating—-even half-heartedly— with the US in its war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. How to make up for this unsatisfactory co-operation by the Pakistan Army by stepping up unilateral US covert actions in the Pakistani territory without adding to the public anger against the Zardari Government? That is a question to which the advisers of Bush were not able to come up with a satisfactory answer. Even the advisers of Obama do not seem to have an answer to this so far.

9. A recommendation of Gen.David Petraeus, the Commander of the US Central Command, to induct another 30,000 US troops into Afghanistan in the coming months to counter the activities of the Taliban has already been approved by Bush. This decision has the support of Obama. But, more troops alone to step up the operations against the Afghan Taliban in Afghan territory would not serve the purpose unless accompanied by action to choke the supplies of men and material from the sanctuaries of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Pakistani territory and the flow of funds from the once again flourishing heroin trade in Afghanistan.

10. No terrorist organisation in Pakistan can exist without State complicity if not sponsorship, sanctuaries and funds. Not only Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but also the largely Punjabi terrorist organisations of Pakistan operating against India in Indian territory enjoy these three essential elements of survival in Pakistan.A ground reality not realised in Washington DC is that all the jihadi terrorist organisations based in Pakistan make available to each other the use of their hide-outs, sanctuaries and training centres. One recently saw the instance of Rashid Rauf of the JEM being killed in a Predator strike on an Al Qaeda hide-out. There have been reports in the Pakistan media of two Punjabi terrorists belonging to what they have described as the Punjabi Taliban being killed in a Predator attack on an Al Qaeda vehicle in South Waziristan on January 1,2009. The Predator strike targeted and killed Osama al-Kini alias Fahid Mohammad Ally Masalam, described as responsible for Al Qaeda operations in Pakistan including the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on September 21,2008, and his No. 2 Sheik Ahmed Salim Swedan. Both were Kenyan nationals. In addition to the two of them, the Predator strike also reportedly killed two members of the JEM, who were also in the same vehicle. One would recall that in March,2002, Abu Zubaidah, the Palestinian member of Al Qaeda, was caught in a hide-out of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) in Faislabad in Pakistani Punjab.

11. From such instances, it should be clear that one cannot make a distinction between sanctuaries of Al Qaeda, those of the Taliban and those of the anti-India organisations. All sanctuaries have to be attacked and destroyed irrespective of to which organisation they belonged. The Bush Administration was not prepared to follow such a clear-cut policy and tried to make an operational distinction between anti-US terrorism and anti-Indian terrorism. Pakistan fully exploited this ambivalence.

12. From the various statements of Obama and his advisers, there is not much reason for India to hope that this ambivalence would disappear under him. The double standards vis–vis anti-US and anti-India terrorism, which have been the defining characteristics of US counter-terrorism policies since 1981, will continue to come to the rescue of Pakistan. It would be futile for India to expect any major change under Obama. We should deal with the terrorism against our nationals and interests emanating from Pakistani territory in our own way, through our own means and on our own terms. So far as India’s fight against terrorism is concerned, the advent of Obama as the next President of the US is not going to make any major difference.

13. At the same time, even if he succeeds in damaging if not destroying the capabilities of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, India will have some beneficial fall-out, but it will not be the end of Pakistani use of terrorism against India. We should wish him well and help him in whatever way we can professionally without accepting any political interference by the US in matters such as Jammu & Kashmir and India’s presence in Afghanistan. We should not accept any US overlordship in the region under the pretext of a regional approach to the problem of terrorism.(15-1-09)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Copyright © 2000 B. Raman

Image:
Wikimedia Commons

Mel Frykberg

RAMALLAH, Jan 18 (IPS) – One Palestinian civilian died and over a dozen rockets hit southern Israel early Sunday morning just hours after Israel implemented a unilateral ceasefire halting its three-week military incursion into Gaza.

The Israeli Air Force (AIF) carried out several bombing attacks on the northern and southern Gaza strip. Israeli soldiers exchanged gunfire with a number of Palestinian gunmen after the rockets were fired into southern Israel by Palestinian resistance groups after the ceasefire.

Israel had said the truce would comprise two components. First, Israeli troops would remain stationed in Gaza for a period of time to see if Hamas ceased with rocket fire on Israel. If the salvos of missiles stopped the IDF would withdraw from the strip. If, however, Hamas continued with hostilities, the Israeli military would resume operations and the air force would recommence sorties and bombing raids.

Hours before the resumption of violence, UN Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon expressed relief at the announcement of the ceasefire during a summit of top European leaders and the UN in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh.
Ki-Moon told reporters, ”This should be the first step leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.” He said he wanted the withdrawal as soon as possible.

The secretary-general also stated that Hamas needed to do its part in bringing an end to the violence by halting rocket attacks on southern Israel. Nevertheless, few expected the ceasefire to last long.

Late Sunday afternoon, Hamas accepted the ceasefire and gave Israel a week to withdraw its troops.

However, Gaza-based Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum warned that Israel’s ”aggression and the siege which are components of war” were still a provocative element.”

Osama Hamadan, a representative of the group in Lebanon, added that if the Israeli military continued its presence in the Gaza Strip, this would initiate further resistance against the occupation forces.

While Hamas was trying to present a tough demeanour and attempting to get the last word in, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was endeavouring to hide his obvious satisfaction at the outcome of the Gaza campaign.

Suppressing a smile, Olmert faced the cameras at a press conference at the Israeli Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv. ”We won. The IDF objectives for its operation in the Gaza Strip were obtained in full.

”Hamas was surprised and badly beaten, the government made decisions responsibly and wisely. The IDF’s performance was excellent and the southern home front displayed resilience,” he told journalists.

While the rupture of the ceasefire surprised few, political pundits and analysts questioned what both protagonists had achieved from the bloody incursion and what plenipotentiary both sides will use to negotiate a path forward.

More than 1,200 Palestinians, at least half of them civilian, are dead, and over 4,500 wounded. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians died.

This has been the first bit of political ‘good news’ for Olmert in a long time. He was forced to resign several months ago on the back of serious allegations of fraud.

Following the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, Israel’s Winograd Commission, which investigated the political and military failures of the war, castigated Olmert for his mismanagement of the war. The IDF suffered substantial casualties in a country highly sensitive to this issue.

In photo-ops at Saturday’s press conference, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, the main architect of the Gaza military operation and the person behind the two-phase truce, was looking equally smug. Prior to Operation Cast Lead Barak was a political non-entity and the laughing stock of the Israeli public.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a strong contender for the premier’s position in the forthcoming general elections on Feb. 10, meanwhile, has established her ‘tough guy’ credentials as somebody who won’t go soft when it comes to Israel’s security.

In the wake of Gaza, the political fortunes of the Israeli war cabinet’s troika have risen dramatically as both Livni and Barak jockey for positions of power in the next election.

Israel believes it has achieved several ’successes’. One being the re-establishment of the deterrence factor which had faded considerably at the hands of Lebanese resistance group Hizbullah during the 2006 war. In other words Israel’s Arab enemies will think twice before attacking the Jewish state again.

The IDF for its part can look to the successful implementation of military training strategies carried out on the recommendations of the Winograd Commission after its military failures in Lebanon. IDF officers are also proud of the considerable damage they have inflicted on the enemy.

Israel has also successfully highlighted the problem of ”illicit arms smuggling.” Livni and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an agreement in Washington Friday aimed at halting the smuggling of arms into Gaza from Egypt.

But while Hamas might be badly bruised and bleeding, it is far from broken. The rockets are still coming and the group remains defiant. Furthermore, it has won a modicum of international legitimacy, and a lot of sympathy.

Film clips of Israelis watching the blanket bombing of Gaza from hilltops surrounding the territory, sitting in deckchairs replete with umbrellas and refreshments didn’t go down well internationally. Neither did the constant stream of dead and mangled civilians.

Massive demonstrations continue to take place in capital cities around the world. Israel’s slick PR machine, known abroad as Hasbara, has switched into top gear to try and counter the damning media reports and pictures which have flooded TV screens globally.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has dispatched six ministers to urgently address government ministers and the media in overseas capitals over what it sees as the ”distorted image” of the Gaza campaign being portrayed there.

In the event of the ceasefire taking hold, Gaza’s borders will have to be opened to allow desperately needed humanitarian aid in. Hamas will be able to point to this development as a political success.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Image: Gaza Fire and Smoke

Fire and smoke billow following an Israeli airstrike in the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah near the border with Egypt
© Iyad El Baba/UNICEF

Analysis by Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler

JERUSALEM, Jan 18 (IPS) – ”If only my three daughters will be the last victims of this horrible conflict,” wept Dr. Ezzadin Abu Al-Aish, a Palestinian gynaecologist recovering from his wounds in Tel Aviv’s Tel Hashomer hospital. An Israeli tank shell killed three of his nine children aged 20, 15 and 14 as well as a 14-year-old niece in their home in the Jebaliya refugee camp Saturday. Israel says its forces were responding to sniper fire.

Israeli TV viewers had already become familiar with the doctor, who had trained at the Israeli hospital and maintained regular professional contact with Israeli colleagues. During the war, through Israel’s Channel 10 network, he regularly brought accounts of Gaza’s humanitarian plight into Israeli living rooms.

”I raised my children to be soldiers of peace – I believed medicine could be a bridge between our two peoples,” Dr. Abu Al-Aish said in an impromptu televised news conference. Many viewers expressed their shock at his tragedy. But there were other reactions: ”Shame on you – why was your building used to fire on our sons?” one woman yelled.

The woman, Levana Stern, later identified herself as the mother of three paratroopers, one of whom was serving in Gaza. Other parents accused the TV stations of promoting ”Palestinian propaganda”. This mix of repentance and the contrasting refusal to countenance repentance have both been triggered by the accumulative damage on Israel’s ”image” because of the horrors of their army’s three-week ”shock and awe” war on Hamas.

Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak paraded the ”successful achievement of all our objectives” as underlying Saturday night’s unilateral ceasefire declaration – a ”belated” decision in the view of several top politicians and army commanders alike. Over the previous few days there had been a growing perception that the unremitting onslaught on Hamas had reached the point of diminishing returns.

There’s no formal agreement with Hamas. Israel wants to avoid the Islamist organisation being put on an equal footing.

Olmert and Barak warned that if Hamas refuses to hold its fire, Israel will respond forcefully. On the ground Sunday morning, the only incidents were those initiated by Hamas. For now, Israeli forces remain in all areas of Gaza they have conquered. Indications are that Israel does not intend to stay for long.

The outcome is not quite as clear-cut as the Israeli leadership would have it. Is the military and political battering which Hamas has sustained enough to deter it long-term?

Will Israel emerge from the war as diplomatically boosted as many Israelis would like to imagine: ”Israel has become a country riven by hatred and almost as blood-thirsty as its enemies,” wrote columnist Ofer Shelach in the centre-right newspaper Ma’ariv. ”A country that once had the ambition, in the Biblical phrase ‘to be a light unto the nations’, is now proud to have adopted the value system of Vladimir Putin. If that is victory, woe unto the victors!”

Less concerned with war ethics and more with the military situation on the ground, Israeli hardliners still doubt the merit of their government’s understanding reached with Egypt, the U.S. and the Europeans about curbing weapons smuggling into Gaza to refurbish Hamas.

Some Israelis also doubt whether the one-sided ceasefire guarantees Israel’s deterrent capabilities. Yossi Peled, a former army general and candidate for the right-wing Likud in the forthcoming elections, said bluntly on Israel television, ”Unilateralism is a proven dirty word – look how badly we came off from our unilateral withdrawals from south Lebanon (in 2000) and Gaza (in 2005). I fear that in the not-too-distant future we’ll have to take on a strengthened Hamas.”

The ceasefire also signals the start of the election campaign for the Feb. 10 Israeli national poll. Olmert (who isn’t running), and Barak and Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni (who are challenging the front-running right-wing Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu), all anticipate plaudits for their belated ceasefire decision when a sextet of top European leaders arrive in Jerusalem Sunday night following their summit in Sharm el-Sheikh with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, the power behind the ceasefire plan.

But this is only a prelude. Urgently anticipated is the intervention of the new U.S. Administration. That’s been widely expected ever since president-elect Barack Obama himself said he would not waste time getting involved. The ceasefire only parries speculation about the context in which President Obama will choose to build his venture into the Middle East minefield: Will he simply become embroiled in the familiar charges and counter charges of who was justified, and who was to blame for this war? Or, will he go so far as to grasp the delicate situation by the horns and embark on an immediate and forceful peace offensive?

Even as he was declaring the ceasefire, Olmert at least again put on record the need to work for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza prepared to live in peace alongside Israel. Israeli political scientist Zeev Sternhell was more explicit: ”The war’s objective must ultimately be political,” he wrote in Ha’aretz. ”The devastation visited upon Gaza must be the launching pad of vigorous negotiations under international auspices for an all-out peace.”

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Gaza Injured

Many children have been killed or injured in Israel’s military offensive in Gaza
© Life via IRIN photos

Global Politics Online Journal

B.RAMAN

There have been two audio messages disseminated by Al Qaeda calling for an armed jihad against Israel in support of the people of Gaza in their fight against the Israelis. The call is for support to the people of Gaza and not to the Hamas with which Al Qaeda does not feel comfortable.

2. The first message by Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No.2 to Osama bin Laden, was issued on January 6,2009, and the second by bin Laden himself on January 14,2009. The first by Zawahiri is direct with virulent attacks not only on Israel, but also on Muslim rulers considered as apostate by Al Qaeda such as those of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. In the past messages of Zawahiri, the name of Gen. (retd) Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan used to figure among the alleged apostates, but the latest message of Zawahiri contains no reference to the present rulers of Pakistan after the exit of Musharraf.

3.The message of bin Laden is less aggressive than that of Zawahiri and avoids references to individual leaders of the Islamic world. While the message of Zawahiri criticises President-elect Barack Obama by name for his silence on the Israeli military strikes in Gaza, bin Laden’s message does not criticise him by name. Its criticism is directed more at the outgoing Bush Administration than at the incoming Obama Administration.

4. bin Laden’s message tries to project the Israeli military strikes in Gaza as intended to achieve the Israeli objectives before Bush lays down office. Reading between the lines, one could see that bin Laden is saying that Israeli fears that the next Administration may not be able to back Israel in the same way as the Bush Administration did because of its expected preoccupation with the worsening economic crisis in the US should account for the Israeli desire to achieve its aims in Gaza before Bush leaves office.

5. Both Zawahiri and bin Laden have told the Muslims of the world that holding anti-Israeli demonstrations alone would not be sufficient. They want the Muslims to wage a determined armed jihad against Israel in retaliation against its military strikes in Gaza. bin Laden talks of the need for jihad by individual Muslims as well as for collective jihad by the community as a whole.

6. Interestingly, bin Laden’s message avoids any references to the ground situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. He refers to the defeat of the Soviet troops in Afghanistan by the jihadis in the 1980s and projects the current economic crisis in the US and the rest of the Western world as the outcome of the determined jihad waged by the Muslims against them. In proof of his claim that the jihad has started having an impact on the West, he does not cite the results achieved by the jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, he refers to the severity of the economic melt-down and cites remarks of Joseph Biden, the US Vice-President-elect, Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve, and other Western leaders.

7. The fact that he is constrained to quote from Western leaders to convince the Muslims that the jihadis are winning shows that there is apparent skepticism in sections of the Ummah whether the jihad is really benefiting the Muslims.He quotes from Western statements in an attempt to remove this skepticism.

8. The message of bin Laden does not speak of a man with the same elan as bin Laden, the author of the past messages. His unusual appeal to rich Muslims for contributions to help the peope of Gaza speaks of a possible decline in the flow of funds for the global jihad.

9. The two messages do not contain references—-direct or indirect— to the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26 to 29,2008. bin Laden’s message has a reference in passing to the allegedly oppressed people of Kashmir. Apart from that it has no reference to India or its Muslims. Zawahiri’s message contains an appeal to the Muslims of a number of countries, including Pakistan, to wage a jihad against Israel, but his appeal is not addressed to the Muslims of India.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Copyright © 2000 B. Raman

Image:
Aiman Al-Zawahiri
As-Sahab Interview
Public Domain Image
Wikimedia Commons

Daniel Luban

WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (IPS) – The three-week-old war in Gaza – halted Saturday by an Israeli ceasefire – has had a polarising effect on the U.S. Jewish community, resulting in a deeper and at times acrimonious split between dovish groups that are sceptical of the Israeli military campaign, and centrist and hawkish groups that have been broadly supportive of it.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this split, however, has been the reaction of organisations commonly viewed as representative of ”moderate” and ”liberal” Jewish public opinion. These groups have overwhelmingly lined up in support of Israeli military action.

In the process, participants and observers say, they may have driven a firmer wedge between the so-called ”peace lobby” and the remainder of the constellation of Jewish groups.

As the Israeli offensive got underway on Dec. 27, a great deal of the reaction in the U.S. Jewish community broke down along predictable lines.

Powerful and traditionally conservative organisations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations expressed unqualified support for the offensive, stressing that it was a justifiable and necessary act of self-defence and dismissing concerns about disproportionate use of force or potential long-term political effects.

Dovish groups such as J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, and Israel Policy Forum also condemned Hamas rocket attacks and stressed Israel’s right to self-defence. But they warned of the malign political effects of military escalation, and most called for an immediate ceasefire.

But it was the reaction of those organisations occupying the political middle ground between these two camps that was most noteworthy, and perhaps most decisive in framing the political debate over the war within the U.S. Almost universally, groups with a general reputation for liberal politics and moderate dovishness sided with the hawks, giving the military campaign their unqualified support and calling for a ”sustainable” or ”effective” – as opposed to ”immediate” – ceasefire.

Arguably the most important of these groups is the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) and its associated Religious Action Center, considered the leading liberal Jewish lobbying group on Capitol Hill. The URJ’s initial statement, issued on Dec. 28 by Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the organisation’s president, called the Israeli attack ”tragic” but ”necessary” and ”not[ed], with sadness, the predictable chorus of those in the international community calling for Israeli ‘restraint’”.

The organisation’s website recommended statements by the Israeli government as objective background reading on the crisis, and included content such as lesson plans for helping to teach children about the necessity and justice of the war.

On Dec. 31, Yoffie made a more notable intervention in the debate with an op-ed in the Jewish Daily Forward that attacked the newly-formed ”pro-peace” lobbying group J Street.

Reacting to a J Street statement claiming that ”[n]either Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong”, Yoffie called the group’s position ”morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment, and also appallingly na?ve” and accused it of demonstrating ”an utter lack of empathy for Israel’s predicament”.

While J Street was quick to respond with a defence and clarification of its position, observers on both sides of the debate agreed that Yoffie’s attack was effective in setting the terms of debate and putting dovish groups on the defensive.

Mark Pelavin, associate director of the URJ’s Religious Action Center, resisted any suggestion that the group’s position on the Gaza war had been inconsistent with its overall liberal reputation. He pointed out that Yoffie’s op-ed attacked not just J Street but also hawkish New Republic editor Martin Peretz for taking ”obscene, cowboy-like delight” in the Israeli offensive.

”As always, we’ve had complaints from the left and from the right,” Pelavin told IPS. ”But there’s a fair amount of consensus on the main points.”

Nevertheless, if the tone of the URJ’s reactions has been more sombre than those of groups like AIPAC, the actual political content of their recommendations has been largely the same. On the ceasefire issue, which became the most important dividing line between hawks and doves on Capitol Hill, the URJ stood with more right-leaning groups in opposing calls for an immediate ceasefire.

The same has held true for other prominent moderate Jewish organisations, such as the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), United Jewish Communities (UJC), and the United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism (USCJ). All have offered strong support for the offensive, opposed an immediate ceasefire, and resisted any temptation to question the campaign’s strategic wisdom.

”There was no question about whether we were lining up with J Street,” said Hadar Susskind, Washington director of the JCPA. ”It is our clear belief that as unfortunate as the current situation is, Israel has a right and responsibility to defend itself, and they need to exercise that right.”

Representatives of these organisations told IPS that their support for the war was in line with the views of their constituents and member organisations. However, there is very little polling data about the reaction of U.S. Jews to the Gaza war, and all sides have claimed support within the Jewish community for their positions.

A Rasmussen poll published shortly after the beginning of the conflict found that the U.S. population at large supported Israel’s attack by a narrow margin of 44 to 41 percent, although support was much lower among registered Democrats.

But some suggested that the moderate groups’ backing of the war had less to do with U.S. public opinion and more to do with the still-overwhelming support for the war among Israelis.

”When Israeli society is so united behind the war, it takes a great deal of determination and conviction not to follow along”, a staffer for one dovish group told IPS.

Given the outgoing George W. Bush administration’s strong support for Israeli policies, it is unclear how much impact the debate within the U.S. Jewish community could have had on actual policy.

Still, the moderate groups’ support has undoubtedly altered the political landscape for the time being, helping to present a united front of support for Israel and marginalise criticism of the offensive in Washington.

How long the present political alignment will last is another question. It will likely depend upon whether the Gaza war ultimately comes to be viewed as a success for Israel, as well as what course of action President-elect Barack Obama chooses to take in the region. For the moment, participants on both sides of the war debate remained hopeful that the left and centre of the Jewish community could patch up their differences to work productively on a solution to the crisis.

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Image: Rocket from Gaza

In recent months rocket fire into Sderot has become an almost daily event.
© Tamar Dressler/IRIN

Global Politics Online Journal

B.RAMAN

(This is an elaboration of some points made extempore by me in continuation of my paper on terrorism at the Regional Outlook 2009 Forum of the Institute of South-East Asian Studies, Singapore, on January 7,2009. The paper is available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers31/paper3007.html )

“Terrorists are increasingly technology-savvy, but not technology-slavish. They do not hesitate to revert to old technologies and old instruments of destruction if they find that security agencies, in their preoccupation with countering the use of new technologies and new instruments by the terrorists, relax their vigilance against the possible re-use of old technologies and old instruments by them.”

——–Extract from my article dated 17-2-2000 titled TERRORISM: THE TECHNOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE available at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers2/paper104.html

———————————

In the terrorist attack by 10 Pakistani terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) at Mumbai from November 26 to 29, 2008, there were 163 fatalities. Five of these fatalities were caused by explosives and the remaining 158 by hand-held weapons (assault rifles and hand-grenades).

2. There had been commando-style attacks with hand-held weapons by terrorists in the Indian territory even in the past—in Punjab by the Khalistani terrorists in the 1980s and the early 1990s, in Jammu & Kashmir by the Kashmiri and Pakistani terrorists since 1989 and in other parts of the country by the jihadi terrorists from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as by the Maoists from Central India. However, attacks with hand-held weapons by the jihadi terrorists in the Indian territory outside J&K were mainly against armed static guards of the security forces outside imporant establishments. Examples: The attack on the Indian Parliament House at New Delhi in December,2001, the attack on the police guards outside the US Consulate in Kolkata in January,2002, the attack on the guards outside an important Hindu temple at Ahmedabad in September 2002, the attack on a training centre of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)at Rampur in Uttar Pradesh in the early morning hours of January 1,2008 etc.

3. For attacks on unguarded soft targets in public places, the jihadi terrorists had mostly preferred timed or remotly-controlled improvised explosive devices (IEDs). After the Rampur attack, jihadi terrorists from a group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen (IM) had carried out attacks on soft targets in Jaipur (May), Bangalore (July), Ahmedabad (July) and Delhi ( September). All these involved timed IEDs. There was one minor attack with a rifle by a terrorist of the LET on the participants in a conference of scientists at Bangalore in December,2005, killing one participant. The terrorist managed to escape to Pakistan.

4. The Mumbai attack of November 26 to 29,2008, was the first act of mass casualty terrorism by the jihadi terrorists against innocent civilians using hand-held weapons. The previous two acts of mass casualty terrorism with fatalities of more than 150 were carried out with timed IEDs —– in March 1993 and in July 2006, both in Mumbai.

5. The increasing use of IEDs by the terrorists since 9/11 had led to strict anti-explosive checks even by private establishments such as hotels, company offices etc. The killing with IEDs tends to be indiscriminate with no way of pre-determining who should be killed.Moreover, the publicity earned from IED attacks tends to be of short duration— hardly of one or two hours. As was seen during the attack on the Parliament House, the visual impact of TV-transmitted images of attacks with hand-held weapons as they are taking place tends to be more dramatic. In an attack with hand-held weapons, the terrorists can pre-determine whom they want to die and kill with precision.

6. In Mumbai, 72 people were killed in the terrorist attacks in two hotels and in the Nariman House where a Jewish religious-cum-cultural centre is located and 86 innocent civilians in public places such as the main railway terminus through which an estimated 2.8 million passengers pass daily, a hospital, a cafe etc. The attacks in the public places by two terrorists on the move lasted less than an hour, but caused more fatalities. The static armed confrontation in the hotels and the Nariman House lasted about 60 hours, but caused less fatalities. In terms of publicity, the static armed confrontation got the terrorists more publicity than the attacks by the two terrorists on the move in public places. By the time TV , radio and other media crew came to know what was happenuing in the public places and rushed there, the attacks were already over. There was hardly any live coverage. The only live visuals were from the closed circuit TV cameras installed at the railway station. In the hotels and the Nariman House, the media crew were able to provide a live coverage of almost the entire confrontation.

7. Within a few hours of the start of the confrontation, the security staff of the hotels reportedly switched off the cable transmissions to the rooms. The terrorists were, therefore, not in a position to watch on the TV what was happening outside, but their mobile communications enabled them to get updates on the deployments of the security forces outside from their controllers in Pakistan who, like the rest of the world, were able to watch on their TV what was happening outside. This could have been prevented only by jamming all mobile telephones. Such jamming could have proved to be counter-productive. It would have prevented the terrorists from getting guidance and updates from their controllers in Pakistan. At the same time, it might have prevented the security agencies from assessing the mood and intentions of the terrorists and could have come in the way of any communications with the terrorists if the security agencies wanted to keep them engaged in a conversation till they were ready to raid.

8. The Mumbai attack poses the following questions for examination by all the security agencies of the world:

* Presently, the security set-ups of private establishments have security gadgets such as door-frame metal detectors, anti-explosive devices, closed-circuit TV etc, but they do not have armed guards. It would not be possible for the police to provide armed guards to all private establishments. How to strengthen the physical security of vulnerable private establishments and protect them from forced intrusions by terrorists wielding hand-held weapons?
* What kind of media control will be necessary and feasible in situations of the type witnessed in Mumbai? This question had also figured after the Black September terrorist attack on Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics of 1972. Since then, the position has become more complex and difficult due to the mushrooming of private TV channels and private FM radio stations.
* How to ensure that mobile telephones do not unwittingly become a facilitator of on-going terrorist strikes without creating operational handicaps for the security agencies? The Israelis, who have taken military action against the Hamas in Gaza, have severely curtailed media access to Gaza. The Hamas has sought to overcome this by having visuals of the fighting transmitted to foreign TV channels through mobiles. Copy-cats of this are likely in future.

9. The LET terrorists, who attacked Mumbai, had a three-point agenda:

* An anti-Indian agenda to create fears in the minds of foreign businessmen about the security of life and property in India and in the minds of the Indian public about the competence of the Indian security agencies to protect them.
* An anti-Israeli and an anti-Jewish agenda whose objectives coincided with those of Al Qaeda.
* An anti-US agenda and an anti-NATO agenda, whose objectives coincided with those of Al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. Of the 25 foreigners killed, nine were either Israelis or Jewish persons, 12 were from countries which have contributed troops to the NATO force in Afghanistan and four were from other countries. Nationals of European countries, which are not participating in the war against terrorism in Afghasnistan, were not targeted.

10. All these agendas coincide with the agenda of the global jihad as waged by the International Islamic Front (IIF) for Jihad Against the Crusaders and the Jewish People formed by Al Qaeda in 1998. From 1998 till April 2006, Osama bin Laden projected the global jihad as directed against the Crusaders (Christians) and the Jewish people. In an audio message disseminated by him in April,2006, after the visit of President George Bush to India, he expanded the objectives of the global jihad and projected it as directed against the Crusaders, the Jewish People and the Hindus. The Mumbai attack targeted these three proclaimed adversaries of the IIF, of which the LET is a member.

11. Since 2003, there have been indications that following a weakening of the command and control of Al Qaeda because of the US military operations in Afghanistan, the LET had started playing the role of a standby co-ordinator of the IIF on behalf of Al Qaeda. The Mumbai attack brought out the increased capabilities of the LET for the planning and execution of simultaneous commando-style attacks against multiple targets. The LET now poses a serious threat not only to India as it was doing in the past, but to other countries as well. It is a new and major threat to international peace and security which has to be fought by the united efforts of the international community.

12. The last point I want to highlight is about the role of Pakistan. Since the terrorist attack lasted 60 hours and the lives of the nationals of many countries were in danger, the intelligence agencies of India, Israel, the US and the UK —-and possibly of other countries too—- were monitoring through technical means the conversations of the terrorists holed up in the two hotels and in the Jewish centre with each other and with their controllers in Pakistan. Thus, a substantial volume of independent technical intelligence exists— collected by the intelligence agencies of these countries independently of each other.

13. All this independent evidence clearly shows that the terrorist attack was mounted by the LET from the Pakistani territory with the help of 10 Pakistanis specially recruited and trained for this operation in training camps in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and then in Karachi. On the basis of the evidence gathered by the Indian investigators and shared by the intelligence agencies of other countries with India, the Government of India has demanded three things from Pakistan: firstly, the arrest and handing over to India for interrogation and prosecution of the Pakistan-based ring leaders of the conspiracy as named by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the only surviving perpetrator, who was caught by the Mumbai police; secondly, the arrest and handing over to India of 20 other accused in terrorism related cases pending before Indian courts who have been given shelter in Pakistan; and thirdly, the dismantling of the Pakistan-based terrorist infrastructure of the LET.

14. As other Pakistani Governments had done in the past, the present Government headed by President Asif Ali Zardari too has refused to extend mutual legal assistance to India as required by the conventions followed by the Interpol and by the UN Security Council Resolution No.1373 adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly after the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US. It first even denied that the terrorist captured by the Mumbai Police is a Pakistani national despite Kasab’s father identifying him as his son in an interview to the “Dawn”, the prestigious daily of Karachi. Under mounting pressure from the US, it has now reluctantly admitted that he is a Pakistani national, but continues to question the credibility of the evidence collected by India. It has made clear that there is no question of handing over any Pakistani national to India for trial
.
15. Since Pakistan became independent in 1947, it has never handed over to India any Muslim—-Pakistani or Indian— who had committed an offence in Indian territory—-whether the offence is terrorism or theft or robbery or rape or child sex or narcotics smuggling or any other offence. The attitude of non-cooperation adopted by the present Government should not, therefore, be a matter of surprise.

16. The international community should not allow Pakistan to get away with its brazen defiance of all international conventions relating to action against terrorists. If it manages to do so due to the reluctance of the international community to act against Pakistan, this won’t bode well for the success of the war against terrorism. (13-1-09)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

Copyright © 2009 B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group (www.southasiaanalysis.org)

Image:
The Taj Mahal Hotel Burniing
Source: www.thechetan.com
Creative Commons Image Search