INDIA-CHINA RELATIONS HIT NEW LOW

When the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, next visits the White House he will be keen to talk about threat from China. In his back pocket, he will have a check for tens of billions of dollars to buy the latest U.S. weapons systems. It is estimated India is ready to spend upwards of $90 billion to ensure its forces are ready to deal with the ever expanding Chinese military machine.
Tensions between the two South Asian giants have been strained of late and that was evident in heated media exchanges. Indian newspapers carried stories about the potential threat China posed along India’s Himalayan borders where they intersected with China, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and West Pakistan. Beijing responded through the columns of the People’s Daily newspaper that it was time for India to put its own house in order and avoid the kinds of public comments that could have unforeseen consequences. China also pointed out that it had never recognized the Mc Mahon Line, which defines part of its border with India.
Expressions of enmity between New Delhi and Beijing are nothing new but tensions have heightened as India has watched China expand its navy through the building of massive bases in parts of the South China Sea region in an effort to control shipping lanes through which it moves most of the crude oil to fuel its massive infrastructure. China has also upgraded its theater nuclear capability along its border with India, especially in the region known as Arunachal Pradesh, which India claims is an integral part of its national territory. China disagrees and says it is part of South Tibet and therefore Chinese. Tensions in Arunachal Pradesh can be traced back to 1959 when India welcomed the Dalai Lama and gave him sanctuary. In 1962, Chinese troops crossed the border and started what became known as the Sino-Indian War. Fighting at high altitude was fierce and initially the Indian military was taken by surprise and proved no match for a large Chinese force. After one month of fighting, during which there were heavy casualties on both sides, many of them from frostbite, the Chinese withdrew below the Mc Mahon Line, the border line established by the British in the 19th century.
Since 1962, there have been many border skirmishes between the two countries but the latest bitter verbal exchanges about disputed Indian-run Arunchal Pradesh epitomize the serious, underlying tensions between the two nations. On a fundamental level, India has watched closely as China has sought to dominate the region. Beijing's signing of a pact with the military junta in neighboring Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, has incensed Indian leaders, who see it as another part of China’s strategy to encircle India. Military strategists in New Delhi have warned that China’s wooing of the junta is designed to acquire the use of a Myanmar port, which would provide the Chinese navy with direct access to the Indian Ocean.
China has consistently made it clear it is unhappy with New Delhi’s growing closeness to Washington and it echoed those feelings in its latest pronouncements in the People’s Daily. The Chinese realize India has the money and the determination to use its relationship with the U.S. to construct a military capable of matching China’s People’s Liberation Army. In the past two years, India has expanded its naval, air and theater nuclear capabilities. The Indian navy, which has formed close ties to the U.S. navy, is the fifth largest in the world and believes it must be able to deter what it perceives as China’s growing efforts to dominate the shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean, the South and East China Seas and the waters surrounding Taiwan, which offer a gateway to the Pacific Ocean.
For as long as people in the region remember, India traditionally saw Pakistan as its major threat but China’s growing military and economic expansionism has had the effect of shifting New Delhi’s focus towards China. Many Indian politicians and military advisers have warned that China has a clever tendency to present itself as a peaceful friend and neighbor while it continues to add to its military capability along Indian’s borders and use its wealth to further its energy goals across central and south Asia. For example, China has provided large sums of money to Sri Lanka to enlarge its southern port of Hambantota. The significance of Sri Lanka is that it sits almost at the tip of India looking directly into the main shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean and presenting a clear route to the Arabian Sea and the main oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia.
Some of India’s generals have reminded politicians in New Delhi that China takes a long term view of its military goals and sees them in terms best illustrated by the concept of “unrestricted warfare.” The concept came to prominence in a book of that name written by two senior Chinese military officers and published in 1999. It developed the thesis that China could win a conflict with the U.S. using unconventional and wide ranging means. The authors argued that China would be best served by accepting there were no rules of war and no tactics that could not be employed. Warfare should embrace terrorism, in economic or military forms, cyber attacks; psychological warfare and media warfare, whereby attempts should be made to control what people were told. Environmental warfare, meaning the poisoning of water supplies, would be effective as would the distribution of hard drugs. The authors pointed out that the U.S. military viewed war narrowly, with too much emphasis on technology. America was therefore vulnerable to unconventional tactics. Ultimately, the central thrust of the book was that China had to develop a "grand warfare method" combing military and non-military strategies.
Indian generals who closely study China and its People’s Liberation Army warn that the Chinese will often opt for unconventional methods to cause tension and weaken India’s resolve to stand up to Chinese bullying . They reckon China often makes a point of appearing peaceful and generous while it uses its massive reserves of cash to dominate its neighbors and reduce India’s influence. They add that Beijing recognizes India could equal it in the superpower stakes and therefore is determined to limit New Delhi’s role in Asia.
Before Barack Obama entered the White House, the Bush administration had been making strides in convincing India that, despite Washington’s closeness to Pakistan because of the war on terror, India and America had the potential to develop an important political/economic alliance. Washington stressed that it was keen to reduce America’s economic dependence on China by opening up a two-way economic exchange with India and its massive marketplace. Whether or not Obama pursues that goal remains to be seen. So far, he has not shown that he understands the significance of establishing closer relations with India, even if it is at the expense of upsetting Pakistan’s leaders. India is a massive marketplace with a highly educated, English speaking workforce and a technological capability that could eventually outstrip China in hi-tech research and development.

CHRISTIANS PERSECUTED IN MIDDLE EAST

Across the Middle East, Christian Churches that helped shape the intellectual life of the region for centuries are facing persecution. As a result, their congregations are dwindling at a staggering rate in some countries.
Iraq is a case in point and mirrors the problems facing Christians in many Muslim nations. During the Saddam era, Christians numbering 800,000 made up 3% of the Iraqi population and represented a significant element of the professional classes. Today, their numbers may be closer to 300,000 because of persecution, which has included the burning of places of worship, abductions, kidnappings, rape and murder. In the past month, six churches were attacked, leading to fears that, as the U.S. completes its pull-out, Christians will be in even greater danger. Since the start of the U.S. invasion in 2003, Christians living in major centers like Mosul in the north, as well as the capital Baghdad and Basra in the south have witnessed some of the worst sectarian terror and insurgent violence. Many within the Christian community relate the persecution of Christians in Iraq to the rise of militant Islam, which they say was inflamed by U.S. policy in the region, especially by the Iraq invasion and by America’s unqualified support for Israel. The Tel Aviv- Washington axis in particular has proved a significant factor because it has led to Christians being branded pro-Israel.
During Saddam Hussein’s reign, Christians in Iraq felt more secure than their counterparts in Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon or Eritrea. Saddam’s foreign minister, Tariq Aziz was Christian, as were other insiders in the regime. The largest Christian denominations, the Chaldeans, embraced Iraqi national unity under the Baath Party but when the Party was outlawed by the U.S. authority in Iraq it had the effect of making Christians the targets for Shiite mobs. In the ensuring years since Saddam’s overthrow, the Chaldean community has fallen from 400,000 members to less than 200,000, though some estimates indicate an even steeper decline.
The striking thing about Christianity in Iraq is the prominent place it held for centuries in the Arab world. It can trace its roots to the apostle, Thomas and his cousin, Addai. In the centuries immediately after Christ, Christians brought much Greek and Roman learning to Arab culture and a wide range of Christian communities became assimilated into Arab life. From Arab academic centers, much of the learning Christians promoted found its way back to Europe.
Just over a century ago Christians made up 20% of the population of the Middle East but that figure has dwindled dramatically to 5% and is steadily decreasing. Recent data suggest that as many as 2 million Arab Christians have fled the area in the last ten years. The majority settled in Europe and the remainder joined communities in Australia. Even Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ, which once had a majority Christian population, has plummeted to less than 50%. It is also a fact that 20% of Palestinians were Christian at the end of the 19th century but that figure is now closer to 2%. Several factors can be attributed to the decline of Christians within the Palestinian community, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and more recently the rise of Hamas. An added factor has been Israel’s excessive security policies, which have made it difficult for Palestinian Churches and their members to move freely outside the Occupied Territories. The result has been a negative impact on the numbers of Christians in that region.
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baghdad, Jean Benjamin Sleiman, is on record predicting that we may be witnessing is the extinction of Christianity in Iraq and across the region as conservative and extreme forms of Islam limit religious freedoms. His point is supported by the continued persecution of Iraq’s ancient Mandaean Church, which is linked to a special reverence for John the Baptist. Before the U.S. invasion in 2003, the 70,000 member church, represented the smallest Christian denomination in the country and led a peaceful existence. Its followers spoke Aramaic, the language once spoken by Jesus, and many of them were professionals. Now only 5,000 remain, the rest having fled to Europe and the United States. In the past six years, they have suffered hundreds of attacks, resulting in 167 of them being killed. Hundreds were also kidnapped for ransom and tortured. On April 19, 2009, three Mandaean jewelers in Baghdad were murdered in their shops and three others seriously wounded.
The most sizeable Christian congregation in the Middle East is the Coptic Church in Egypt which has between 8 and 10 million members, many of whom feel they are facing increased persecution. It is reckoned there could be more than 10 million Copts but that is difficult to ascertain because the Church is not allowed to carry out a census. Copts are kept under close surveillance by a State, which fears Muslims might convert to Christianity. A Muslim who becomes Christian faces serious retribution from the state and from his or her family. Copts are discriminated against in the government jobs’ sector and their churches are regarded as state property. While every school in Egypt has a mosque there are no prayer centers for Christians within any of the country’s educational institutions.
The problems Christians face in the Middle East can also be found elsewhere in nations like Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Pakistan, which have large Islamic populations. In Pakistan a Christian’s testimony in court carries less weight than that of a Muslim, making it easy for Islamic extremists to attack Christians without worrying about being found guilty in the courts. In recent months, Christian have been killed and seriously injured in parts of Pakistan and churches have been burned down after fiery statements by Muslim clerics denouncing Christianity. In Indonesia, Christians have been forced to hold services in their homes because the state has refused applications for the building of churches. In Myanmar, once known as Burma, public ceremonies and gatherings by Christians are illegal.
For Christians across the globe the 21st century has not brought much hope in respect of the right to worship. In Eritrea, thousands of Christians have been held without trial. In Sudan Christian girls have been whipped for wearing pants. In the Maldives, an island chain in the Indian Ocean, which is a popular tourist destination, the Islamic authorities have made it a crime to possess a bible. Christians in the Maldives meet in secret to pray, risking arrest, torture and lengthy prison terms. Even in India, Christians have been subject to attacks and their churches burned by Hindu mobs.
Outside of Islam, communist North Korea remains the most dangerous place for Christians. Estimates of the numbers of Christians who have disappeared with the closed regime since 1949 range from 200,000 to 300,000 with more than 1,500 churches razed to the ground. To this day, anyone caught with a bible faces years if not decades in a gulag. Nevertheless, it is believed close to half a million Christians continue to worship in secret.

CENTRAL ASIA: CHINA'S DANGEROUS MEDDLING

As we revealed last week, Central Asia could soon see a face-off between NATO and its Russian counterpart, the CSTO. While Moscow and Washington should have no desire for conflict the Chinese have financial reasons for hoping that Russia will draw a line in the sand across the region.
China is trying to persuade the Russians return to a Cold War posture within The Stans, an energy rich part of the world, which includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. There is more untapped energy in the region that anywhere else on the planet and the Chinese are greedy for oil and gas to maintain their growing economy, massive industrial base and ever expanding population of 1.3 billion.
While Central Asia offers Western corporations business opportunities, it also represents a potential threat because of the rise of Islamic militancy. Some defense analysts believe major attacks on the West could someday be launched from there. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, a civil war in Tajikistan in which a range of Islamic militant organizations were involved, saw the deaths of 100,000 people, though say the death toll was closer to 200,000. With NATO fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, there is every reason for Brussels and Washington to be concerned about Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies attracting recruits from across the The Stans. Russia is aware of the terror threat but believes if it can establish more bases in the region it can eliminate it. From China’s perspective, the threat from terrorism pales in contrast to its goal of ensuring it keeps Western influence out of that region so Chinese state-owned energy companies can tap into vast oil and gas fields without competition.
To that end, China has been using its vast wealth to buy friends in the region and to portray Washington and NATO as bogeymen. The Chinese strategy is a clever one. China has known since 2001that the Russian economy has not been performing as well as its leaders had hoped and, in recent times, a down turn in crude oil prices had a negative effect on the country’s economic health. As a consequence, big Russian companies were starved of development money for oil extraction and research, as well as for oil infrastructure expansion. As American Free Press readers learned in February, China loaned $25 billion to Rosneft and Transneft, Russia’s state-controlled oil and pipeline companies at the start of 2009. In return, the companies agreed to build a pipeline from Russia’s Far East region to China. While, one could argue that the deal suited both nations, China saw it as yet another means to convince Russia that it was an ideal partner for much larger energy deals across Central Asia.
As part of China’s charm offensive, it has invested heavily in the large Russian oil corporation, LUKoil” and made large loans to Vnesheconombank, Russia’s national development and foreign investment bank, which had been hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis.
Over the past two decades, Russia resisted China’s attempts to expand is energy horizons but the February 2009 deal signified a major shift in Russian policy. It was also the start of a devious plan by China to stress the need to keep NATO influence out of The Stans so that Chinese companies could buy up rights to oil and gas exploration in parts of region. In tandem with Beijing’s economic wooing of Moscow, the Chinese authorities held high level meeting with Russian financial figures. During one of those meetings, the Chinese delegation proposed creating a China-Russia economic alliance to make the Yuan and the Rouble more attractive reserve currencies than the Dollar and the Euro. As yet, there is no indication Russia wants to go down that road because it would lead to an economic confrontation with the West. However, that has not stopped China from doing more than $100 billion in deals with Russia in the past six months. Most of the deals were related to oil, gas, electricity and iron ore.
China’s eyes were firmly on Central Asia in 2001 when it realized it had to make nice to the Russian Bear to get what it wanted. For the last eight years, it has been quietly investing in Russian companies and making loans available to many of them at knock down interest rates – a foreign policy strategy it has used elsewhere, especially in Africa and Latin America. In terms of its generosity vis a vis Russia, China’s aim was to get permission to purchase energy rights in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. When NATO held a meeting in Kazakhstan this year, the Chinese went into a frenzy. Almost immediately, they told the Russians NATO and the U.S. were intent on taking over the Stans in the next two decades, using Afghanistan as a base of operations.
China is astute when it comes to dealing with Russia. It knows Moscow can be easily spooked if it can be convinced the West is encroaching on its borders. To that end, China has been scaring the Russians in the hope they will establish a Berlin-type “wall” across Central Asia to keep the West out.
It is a dangerous game and China has been playing it for some time. In 2007, while China and Russia were holding large military exercises, the Chinese persuaded the presidents of Iran and Russia to join them in warning Washington not to meddle in Central Asia. To d ate, China has succeeded in convincing Moscow that NATO poses a threat because Russia now plans to open a second air base in Kyrgyzstan.
Dr. Stephen Blank, a national security scholar and Russian expert believes Russia and China have grown closer because they seeking to limit what they perceive as a “U.S. challenge” to their interests in Central Asia.” He argues that their united front has happened despite “long standing rivalries” between them. Here is how he defines the results of this new Russia-China alliance:

“It has also led to the creation of international organizations and structures representing an alternative model. These organizations take the form of the CSTO, Russian proposed groups such as the so-called Caspian Force, and the SCO – Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The SCO exemplifies this new strategy and serves as a model for future organizations in Asia. Beijing also hopes to reshape its Asian security agenda in an effort to attenuate the US alliance system, replacing it with one that is ideologically and politically more congenial to Beijing’s desire for unfettered sovereignty and freedom of movement in world affairs.”

Dr. Blank warns there could be “a world evolving without the West” and he identifies China as a major player in that process, with Central Asia as a defining element. He believes new world would be based on a “new national order,” and an ideology defined in part by an “officially controlled media” and a military alliance structure. He is convinced it is critical we take note of what is happening in Central Asia. From his perspective, the U.S. can no longer see the region as a “backwater.” He has a final warning for those who do not get his message:
“It may well be the case that what transpires in Central Asia, such as competition between international powers, will shape the future order of the world. It is already is a political battleground of growing importance - a battleground in which future geopolitical destinies may well be prefigured.”

While Washington and Brussels manage the war in Afghanistan, they would do well to keep a careful eye on China and the Central Asia region. If China can persuade Russia to continue the expansion of its military presence in The Stans the region could become a flashpoint leading to a new Cold War. That would suit China whose only interest in Central Asia is feeding its increasing appetite for energy.

OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY BECOMES BUSH-LIKE IN CENTRAL ASIA

As time passes, Barack Obama’s foreign policy in Central Asia is beginning to look very much like the one pursued by his predecessor, George Bush. There are reports that Obama is ready to buy the support of states that have been unreliable partners in the past, particularly Uzbekistan, which is run by a tin pot dictator, Islam Karimov, who boils his enemies alive.
In 2004, American Free Press exposed a deal George Bush made with Karimov during a secret 2002 meeting in the White House. Karimov was offered millions in aid, training for his military and tens of millions more for the use of a former Soviet air base that was an ideal site for launching U.S. strikes into Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The base, which became known as K2, also provided a corridor for supplies by road across the Afghan border into the northern Afghan stronghold of Mazar –i- Sharif, the base of General Dostum, a warlord who had thrown his support behind the CIA during the 2001 invasion. Dostum and Karimov had a good relationship and Dostum earned a cut from major heroin smuggling operations across the Afghan-Uzbek border.
One of the first real insights into the operations of Karimov and his regime was provided by the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. In 2005, this newspaper reported how Murray had warned his superiors in London that intelligence acquired from interrogations of detainees by the Uzbeks was extracted under torture and then passed to the CIA and British Intelligence. Efforts were subsequently made to discredit Murray and he was forced out of his post but time has proved him right. One of his most shocking memories occurred during his time in the British embassy in Tashkent. Six hours after he spoke to a professor, who complained to him about the Uzbek regime’s use of torture, a body was dumped on the professor’s doorstep. It was the professor’s grandson and the skin has been boiled off one of his arms.
The Bush administration’s cozy relationship with Karimov ended on July 30, 2005 when the Uzbek foreign ministry sent a telegram to the U.S. embassy in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, basically telling the U.S. it had 180 days to move out of the K2 base. Nearly three months earlier, Karimov’s police and military had killed an estimated 800 protestors in the city of Andijan. The EU responded by blocking arms sales to the Uzbek military but the Bush Administration was careful not to take sides, with Donald Rumsfeld rejecting calls for an international inquiry. Eventually a bi-partisan group of senators demanded a UN investigation and the White House was forced to publicly express concerns about Uzbekistan. That prompted Karimov to tell the U.S. military to leave the K2 base.
The U.S. departure from K2 pleased Russia and China, which had long worried about a major U.S. military presence in the region. For the Defense Department and NATO, it meant relying entirely on the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan. That country’s leader soon began complaining he was not being paid enough rental cash. In February 2009, the Kyrgyzstan parliament rejected a U.S. offer of $60 million a year for Manas and voted to close it, resulting in it becoming a transit center. The uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presence in Kyrgyzstan has long been tied up with the politics of the region. Even though Russia now earns a lot of money ferrying U.S. supplies to Afghanistan, it continues to fear the NATO presence in “The Stans.” That fear has been heightened by a growing awareness that NATO could be in Afghanistan for decades.
In the background, the Chinese have been stirring the political pot, warning that NATO is pursuing an expansionist policy in Central Asia. China’s rhetoric on the issue was particularly shrill after Kazakhstan hosted NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Security Forum on June 24-29, 2009. A week later, in a less angry tone, China encouraged the Russians to counter NATO through the CSTO, which is Russia’s version of NATO. The CSTO is comprised of Russia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia has since decided to open a second air base in Kyrgyzstan to complement the four other military installations it has in that country. The Russian plan to expand its military presence in Kyrgyzstan did not please Karimov’s regime, which warned that the move could eventually destabilize the region. Much to the displeasure of the Chinese and Russians, the Uzbek leader has always been loose cannon. In 1999, they broke with the CSTO but later returned to it. Their recent criticism of Moscow is being seen in some circles as a desire to return to the U.S.-NATO fold. The argument goes that Karimov recognizes that NATO is going to be in Afghanistan for possibly decades and there is money to be earned by being part of the NATO effort. Therefore, if he re-opens the K2 base to NATO, it will mean the U.S. and its NATO allies will not need to pay Russia for airlifts of supplies to Afghanistan. Instead they can spend that money in Uzbekistan.
There is speculation in some Eastern capitals that the Pentagon and NATO HQ convinced Obama that the K2 base was essential to a long campaign in neighboring Afghanistan. Meanwhile, behind the scenes there have been secret talks in Washington and Brussels about renewing diplomatic ties with Karimov as a precursor to him re-opening the K2 base to NATO. It is believed unlikely, however, that any agreement will not lead to Obama rolling out the White House carpet for Karimov. Nevertheless, Obama will be following in the steps of his predecessor by mending fences with the Uzbeks. The move will require him to turn a blind eye to the excesses of the Uzbeks and to be ready to provide the large sums of money Karimov will demand. Some might argue that when you are fighting a long war you have to get into bed with unsavory people but Obama had better be careful when it comes to “The Stans.” Money can buy alliances in Central Asia but, while Russia and China continue to see NATO as the bogeyman, the White House had better be ready for some surprises. Alliances bought can quickly become alliances lost to a higher bidder.
In the meantime, the Chinese will continue to encourage Russia to draw a line across Central Asia by building military installations in CSTO member states. Moscow has been planning to do just that and has promising to pay handsomely for its installations and to spend lavishly on infrastructure projects. But, Moscow may not have enough money in its coffers to fulfill its assurances to CSTO leaders. In that event, China would probably be ready with a line of credit since it would prefer Russia took on the task of stopping NATO in its tracks.

INDEPENDENT REPORT EXPOSED ISRAELI LIES

After months of meticulous investigations, the Israeli rights group, B’Tselem has confirmed that the Israeli military killed 773 non-combatants during the invasion of Gaza, which began on December 27, 2008 and ended on January 18, 2009. Among the 773 were 320 minors and 109 women over the age of 18.
Figures show that within the overall Palestinian death toll of 1,387, there were 248 Palestinian police officers killed in aerial bombardment of their police stations. In contrast, nine Israelis lost their lives, three of them civilians. The new statistics, like others provided by human rights groups, expose as lies claims by the Israeli military leadership that only 1,166 Palestinians died and that 60% of them were Hamas fighters.
B’Tselem, which got no help from the Israeli Defense Forces when conducting its inquiry, says the discrepancies between its findings and the military’s claims are “intolerable.” One of those discrepancies is the fact that 320 minors were killed yet the military says the figure should be 69. However, unlike the IDF, B’Tselem staffers visited Palestinian homes and assembled photos of 252 children under age sixteen who were among the dead. It stresses that behind the dry statistics are “shocking individual stories” with whole families killed.
“Parents saw their children shot before their very eyes and relatives watched their loved ones bleed to death. Entire neighborhoods were obliterated,” says the report.
From B’Tselem’s perspective, the “extremely heavy civilian casualties and massive property damage” require introspection on the part of Israeli society. In calling for “an independent and credible investigation,” the group says military briefings are no substitute for transparency. It has sent its report to Israel’s Judge Advocate General, along with what it calls 20 illustrative cases of the killing of 90 Palestinian civilians that it feels should also be investigated.
There is unlikely to be any positive response by the Israeli government to a report on the slaughter of innocent Palestinians. That same government is only focused on bringing pressure to bear on the Obama administration to support its case for bombing Iran. It has even ignored Washington’s demands for a halt to settlement building and instead has expanded settlement construction.
The dirty little secret of the awful plight of Palestinians is one Israel would like the rest of the world to ignore. Essentially, Palestinians have no rights and they are constantly reminded of that fact by extreme policies restricting their freedom of movement, their rights to land, access to medical facilities, university education and open economic development.
A stark example of how Israeli law favors illegal settlers and not poor Palestinians occurred on the early morning of August 10, 2009 when two male settlers beat an elderly female Palestinian shepherd. They also tried to steal her sheep by leading them towards a settlement. Fortunately, some of her neighbors ran out and began filming the assault. The culprits were well known and the matter was brought to the attention of the local police and military. While that was being done, one of the culprits was observed mingling with soldiers and calling for military reinforcements on a two-way radio. A complaint was later lodged by the victim but is unlikely any action will be taken against her assailants. Such assaults are common though they are not always committed by settlers. Elements of the Israeli military and its intelligence apparatus use far more excessive measures, which often breach international law.
For example, Palestinians, who have complained about the construction of separation barriers hampering their movement, have found themselves visited in the middle of the night by the IDF. They have been dragged from their beds, blindfolded, taken to interrogation centers and accused of crimes. Often they have been beaten and released 48 hours later with no recourse to justice.
When reports surface about separation barriers, they fail to describe Israel’s massive use of road closings, as well as barriers both temporary and permanent. Temporary barriers are put in place making it impossible for the elderly or the sick to negotiate them. They can be huge mounds of earth that are never removed. A major road through Hebron has been shut since 2001 because a settler was shot on it. That road once served 45,000 Palestinians but now it is used only by settlers. In fact many roads have been closed so they can be available to illegal settlements. In one instance, a road closure forced Palestinian children to walk three miles each morning over rugged terrain to get to school. Before the road closure, the journey took two minutes.
The distinguished Japanese writer, Haruki Murakami, who was in Jerusalem in February to accept a literary prize, has called Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian “unjust. In February, he was heavily criticized for visiting Israel but later defended his decision on the basis that he had hoped to use the trip to highlight the plight of the Palestinians but never got the opportunity to do so. Recently, he gave interviews in which he pulled no punches regarding his views on Israel. He recalled that he found Israel a traumatic place. It was, he felt, a racist, militant and aggressive society and he attributed much of that to schooling and how children were taught the state’s official history, followed later in life by mandated military service. Israelis, he argued, had failed to understand their policy towards the Palestinians was wrong. They forced Palestinians to undergo through security checks when they wished to go anywhere and would not let them build homes where and when they wanted. Ultimately, they had no sovereignty over their land.
He also commented that the State of Israel was suffering from “some sort of trauma.”
“The brain tells them that excessive self defense is not good but their body spontaneously responds to the slightest of provocations.”
He recalled being in a taxi and seeing, an Israeli soldier take an entire family out of their car at a junction in Jerusalem and beat up the father in front of his children. When he asked another taxi driver what was the purpose of the security wall that ran along the highway, the driver replied that it was there to keep the animals from crossing the border.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry dismissed Murakami’s comments as unhelpful, saying they contained “inaccurate generalizations.”
Murakami was not the first writer to take Israel to task for his militaristic mindset and he will not be the last.

AFGHANISTAN ANOTHER FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE

AFGHANISTAN ANOTHER
FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE

By Staff at AFP



Amid all the talk about troop levels in Afghanistan little attention has been directed at the fact that the war has been creating yet another financial black hole for billions of American taxpayer dollars.
And if that is not a big enough problem, it was recently confirmed that billions of dollars Congress sent to Pakistan to bolster its role in the fight against Al Qaeda were never used for that purpose. Of $12 billion handed over to the Pakistan regime between 2001 and 2008 in the form of economic and military aid, $8.6 billion was earmarked for the “war on terror.” However, only $600 million was set aside for the Pakistani military’s counter insurgency role. The remaining $8 billion cannot be accurately accounted for because Musharraf and his generals are believed to have used some of it for economic programs to promote their political image as a kindly military dictatorship. According to the latest reports from Pakistan, the $600 million the military received proved inadequate for its anti-terror role. Meanwhile, billions of dollars from the aid package were also diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program and to the purchase of military equipment to deal with the perceived border threat from India.
It is now estimated that by March 2010 the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the financial support provided to countries like Pakistan, will have reached the $1 trillion mark. If the Iraq war has provided a lesson for Congress vis a vis Afghanistan, tens of billions of dollars will never be traced to the programs they were designed to fund and billions will simply have found their way into the pockets of greedy politicians and people involved in reconstruction projects that never materialized.
In 2001, the Defense Department allocated billions to the Afghan conflict but for that year the exact figure is no longer available. In 2002, there was an expenditure of $20.8 billion and since then the annual outlay has risen steadily, reaching $60.2 billion in 2009. That creates an approximate total of $228 billion spent during the past 8 years in Afghanistan but the total is deceiving because it relates to U.S. combat troops and does not include money spent on other personnel involved in what was once hailed as “Operation Infinite Justice” but later changed to “Operation Enduring Freedom” to avoid giving offense to Muslims. For example, there are 74, 000 “contractor” personnel on the Pentagon’s books and those numbers are expected to rise. It is hard to calculate the exact cost of having so many mercenaries in the war zone but a five-year contract with Xe, formerly Blackwater, is believed to be in the region of $250 million and that is merely for protecting diplomatic personnel and facilities.
When one is confronted with such vast sums it becomes hard to do the math and history has shown that Washington has never been good at keeping tabs on taxpayer dollars. Iraq was a glaring example of Washington’s failure to manage vast sums set aside for the war. As we now know, billions simply vanished, much of it in cash. And billions more will now be needed to pay for the exit from Iraq, including the tens of thousands of pieces of military equipment that will have to be transported Stateside or to Afghanistan. Financial projections provided by the Defense Dept. are generally rough estimates that hide some basic facts. For instance, it is reckoned that the price of getting a gallon of gas into Afghanistan ranges from $75 to $100. Add to that the fact that the U.S. military uses anywhere from 750,000 to 900,000 gallons a day and it becomes difficult to reach an exact figure for energy use alone.
With the Obama White House asking for additional funding for Afghanistan it is only fair to conclude that the projected annual budget will far outstrip what was previously allocated for Iraq. Many of the costs envisaged are essentially projections and will be well off the mark because they are unlikely to take account big spending on facilities such as bases, prisons, the training and arming of Afghan police and soldiers and the cash needed to fund militia support. Since 2001, more than $10 billion has been spent on trying to train the Afghan police force with few positive results. Funds earmarked for training the police and army have been funneled through the Afghan government which, like its Pakistani and Iraqi counterparts, is riddled with corrupt officials eager and ready and to siphon off American taxpayer dollars into overseas bank accounts. If Obama’s plan to create a modern Afghan army and police force is followed through the costs of such a project will be enormous. Afghans would not only have to be trained, armed and paid salaries but bases would have to be constructed throughout the country to accommodate them. The task of training the police alone would be daunting because the billions spent to date have led to the training of at best 20% of the country’s police force.
Then, there is the potential cost of expanding the State Department’s physical presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is pitched at a possible $736 million, which does not include ancillary outlays on staffing and security. In Pakistan, the free money trail is particularly difficult to follow once billions are routed through the power structure. That was the case but was not publicly admitted by Congress during Musharraf’s period in office. It only started to feature as an issue in 2008 when the U.S. Government Accountability Office implied, in language carefully constructed not to be blunt, that Pakistan had been playing fast and loose with subsidies. The reality was that Pakistan had been using “creative” accounting practices to extract additional funds from Washington. Some observers later termed it “over-billing” but in reality it was a cleverly constructed theft. Under Musharraf problems arose because all U.S. funding was handled by him and his military top brass. It later transpired that he and some of his generals were more concerned about using billions for pet projects than they were about the fact Al Qaeda was rebuilding its base within Pakistan and the Taliban was gaining a significant foothold in parts of the country. As a consequence, the country’s military did not get enough funding to upgrade its capabilities for battling insurgents on its own soil. That did not stop the authorities in Islamabad from billing the U.S. for military operations that Washington had already funded.
The Pentagon has acknowledged that there are no mechanisms in place to follow money once it reaches Kabul and Islamabad. That has not stopped the Obama administration and Congress from proposing to provide Pakistan with another $7.5billion over the next five years. While the country’s new civilian government appears happy to get the money, the country’s generals are concerned there may be too many strings attached, namely the monitoring of the Pakistani army’s “anti-terror” efforts. But, if the past is anything to go by Pakistan’s generals should not worry a great deal since Washington has admitted it can rarely trace money when it leaves the U.S. As for strings attached to subsidies, few if any strings have ever been properly tied to the massive sums of money already sent to the war zones.
Aside from the hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars spent on the wars, and the financial black hole that is Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real issue in Afghanistan is that more money, more boots on the ground and greater firepower will not defeat the Taliban. As insurgents, they are probably the best trained in the world and they can use the terrain effectively and adapt when needed. The truth is that America will continue to bleed money and blood while the war in Afghanistan continues.

GROWING DEBT PUTS AMERICA AT RISK

While 13,000 lobbyists in Washington are busy throwing money at policymakers, and Congress discusses a trillion dollar health bill, our major creditors such as China, Japan and Russia are gleefully watching America dig itself even deeper into debt. In fact, are giving us the tools to do it by continuing to purchase U.S. Treasury securities.
In the past year, China has increased its purchase of Treasury bonds by approximately $30 billion, making it our largest creditor with a holding of more than $800 billion in bonds. As a consequence, Japan has been relegated to second place on our creditors’ list with approximately $635 billion of our debt and Russia has moved into 7th place behind the U.K. with a stake of $120 billion. Third place features oil exporting nations, including some of America’s staunchest critics, namely Venezuela and Iran. That oil exporters’ group now holds bonds valued at over $186 billion. As of January 2009, U.S. Treasury bonds worth $3 trillion were being held by more than 40 nations across the globe. Some estimates put the figure at $3.5 trillion and rising. Even Chile is holding over $15 billion in bonds and Colombia around $11 billion even though it receives massive aid from Washington.
Ultimately, China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room of creditors. In 2008, it moved ahead of Japan by buying up almost half of America’s securities’ debt, thereby placing itself in a unique position to influence our financial policy. During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama talked tough about reigning in China’s acquisition of U.S. bonds and forcing the Chinese to tighten their monetary policy. Since becoming the White House incumbent, his stance towards China has reflected none of that toughness or confrontational assertiveness. Instead, in June he sent Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to Beijing to reassure the Chinese government and public that the dollar was strong and America would always honor its debts. When Geithner conveyed those assurances to students and faculty at Beijing University he was met with derision and laughter. Still, nothing has deterred China from purchasing more of America’s debt. Some experts argue that China has no intention of dumping its Treasury bonds while the cash return it gets from the U.S. gives it financially fluidity and the ability to shape the global financial scene.
In light of that, it now seems ironic that in 2000 experts in Washington were predicting a rosy financial future for America, claiming we would have s surplus in the trillions of dollars within a decade. But, it only took five years to wipe out that optimism and to set the national debt on a path where it is now at $8 trillion. Sadly, in just over two decades America has been transformed from being the globe’s largest lender to being its biggest debtor. Nowadays, it relies on China, Japan and other nations to raise capital. In the past ten years, no one has stopped to ask how we thought we could pay for two wars, leave military spending unchecked and bail out Wall Street. Now, there is the prospect of massive spending on health care and other costly Obama administration projects. The money spent on wars alone has cost America’s national interests dear and has given its creditors too much leverage. In particular, it has provided some creditors with the ability to be able to threaten Washington that at any time they might dump their Treasury bonds on the global market. While a major creditor like China remains happy to buy U.S. bonds in order to amass dollars to fund its purchase of raw materials other creditors in the room tend to feel secure. But, if the Chinese were to cease buying bonds other creditors might panic and rush to cash in theirs. Such a move that would send the U.S. Treasury into a spiral.
This year, the dollar has weakened against the Yen and the Euro fueling concerns that if China were to dump 50% of its bonds on the market the result would be a big rise in U.S. interest rates. But, China is not going to risk overturning the apple cart because purchasing U.S. debt underlies a policy strategy related to internal growth plans and international outreach. The interest it gets on the return from its bonds gives it the cash to finance oil and gas deals. It also enables it to provide interest free loans to countries that hold huge energy reserves but lack the money to develop them. In the past year, it has made loans to Russian, Brazilian and Australian energy conglomerates. As Washington turns a blind eye to what China is doing with its vast reserves of cash, the Chinese are also quietly expanding their interests in Canada. For the past three decades, it has quietly invested heavily in Canada through the large Chinese community there. Recently, China was involved in heavy share purchases in Canada’s energy sector. The Chinese push into Canada was orchestrated from Hong Kong in the 1980’s when Hong Kong was a British protectorate. Until the British formally handed Hong Kong back to China in 1997, there was a massive influx of Chinese into Canadian cities, particularly Toronto. The influx happened with the help of corrupt immigration officials who were secretly recruited and financed by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. In fact, the PLA had a special unit that ran a gravy train of officials in Hong Kong handing out visas to selected people from mainland China. Canada’s Security Intelligence Service was alerted to what was taking place but failed to act and dismissed important evidence of the scam presented by one of its own.
In evaluating the potential threats posed by America’s mounting debt, China is not the only country in the spotlight. Rising debt ultimately weakens America, forcing it to ignore its national interest in favor of wars abroad, unchecked military spending and an ever expanding federal government. At the root of the problem is a dangerous belief America can buy its way out of debt by more borrowing. Like all debt, at some point creditors big and small may decide they want to cash in their U.S. Treasury bonds, or as was rumored in the past year, move to a new global currency established by China and Russia. China has lately disparaged rumors that it was ever keen to replace the dollar as the primary currency but the very fact Beijing has such a financial hold on America could limit U.S. ability to deal with China in the event of a major political or military confrontation.
Barack Obama would do well to remember the saying: “Running into debt isn’t so bad. It’s running into the creditors that hurts.” In America’s case it is worth noting that some of those creditors are heavy hitters.

CHINA CALLS ON NATO TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN

CHINA CALLS ON NATO
TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN

By Staff at AFP




As NATO struggles to keep its members committed to the war in Afghanistan China has waded into the debate with a call for the U.S. and its allies to declare an end to the war and withdraw combat troops.
China’s first public comments on the conflict were made in an article in China Daily, the Chinese government-run newspaper. The author was Li Quinggong, deputy general of the country’s National Security Policy Studies. He described the Afghan conflict as the “anti-terror war begun by President Bush in 2001” and said it had been “the source of ceaseless turbulence and violence.” He suggested that if NATO were to withdraw it could be replaced by an international peacekeeping force to help the Afghan government and its security forces “exercise effective control over domestic unrest and maintain peace and security.”
He also called on the wider international community to add its voice to what he referred to as “ever mounting anti-war calls in the U.S.” He suggested anti-war sentiment could be exploited to put pressure on the Obama White House to put an end to the war. In addition, the U.N. Security Council could discuss the matter and see if a roadmap could be developed to bring an end to the conflict.
One of the major points raised in the China Daily piece was what author called “the ticklish issue” of whether NATO could accept the Taliban as a “key player” in a “reconciliation process” and whether it could agree on how to “dispose of Al Qaeda’s armed forces.” From the tone of the article it was clear China’s leaders believed dialogue with the Taliban was a key ingredient in any effort to stop the violence, a point often by the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai.
“The Taliban and the country's major warlords are all key actors that can play an influential role in deciding the country's prospect,” the article stressed.
In essence, the basic thesis of the article was that chaos in Afghanistan was linked to “long-standing domestic strife between factions” and the fact that the country had experienced numerous wars and conflicts, including the Soviet invasion. All of that was compounded by the ongoing “chaotic battle” involving US-led coalition forces, Afghan government troops, domestic warlords, and the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
“The disorderly confrontations and strife do no good to anyone but have only caused untold suffering to Afghan people,” the article concluded.
For China to encourage an international anti-war movement to put pressure on the Obama White House implied the Chinese were not only concerned about an expanded NATO presence in Central Asia but were also worried by growing unrest among Islamic elements within their own population. The Beijing leadership has reckoned for some time that the longer the war in Afghanistan continues there is bound to be a spill-over of Islamic militancy into parts of China. Interestingly, the article offered no suggestions on how to “dispose” of Al Qaeda and its surrogates and carefully avoided any reference to U.S. - Pakistan or U.S. - India relations.
For China to speak out in this way confirms its leaders have been aware of the growing stresses within NATO and NATO countries. Behind the scenes in Brussels, NATO has had great difficulty maintaining a unity of purpose among its members, many of whom disagree on strategy, with some refusing to send troops to the frontlines. NATO leaders are witnessing growing opposition to the war across Europe and in some member states politicians are coming under pressure to call for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and to deny NATO reinforcements.
On the battlefield, the military campaign NATO thought would display its strengths has only served to expose its weaknesses. The brunt of the fighting is being done by the U.S. and Britain with other member nations refusing to put their troops in harm’s way, insisting they not be deployed to combat zones. The cracks in the Alliance, which is now in its 60th year, emerged as the Taliban showed itself to be a lethal adversary and the prospect of defeat became accepted wisdom in some circles. There is now a real risk of NATO will be bogged down the way the Soviets were when they faced the same Afghan tribesmen. That fear is gradually invading the corridors of power in many NATO capitals.
In April 2008, the Obama White House privately believed the new President would get the support he needed from all NATO member states. That was a naïve assumption exposed by NATO that same month when several Alliance members made it clear they did not have the political will or public backing to provide reinforcements. Furthermore, states like Germany told White House advisors they did not want their combat troops involved in volatile zones like Helmand Province. In Britain, Washington’s key ally, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been busy fighting a political rearguard action to maintain troop levels. Recently, reports surfaced that he denied his generals extra combat troops. Next year, Canada will pull its troops out and Italy may follow suit, if not before then.
While the political pressure in Brussels increases there is a growing recognition elsewhere that NATO misjudged the problems it faced on the battlefield. And Obama, who made the Afghan crisis a major issue in his pre-election campaign, had no grasp of Afghan history when he insisted he had the solution. Like so many before him, he made the mistake of believing the more troops and military hardware thrown at the Afghan conflict the greater the prospect of success. The British, the Russians and even Alexander the Great learned that military adventurism in Afghanistan always leads to failure.
NATO is facing yet another major problem as Russia makes it clear it prefers to have a positive relationship with the West. Since NATO grew out of a Cold War doctrine in 1949, it might find little to bolster its continued existence with no bogeyman in Moscow. For the West, the real threats economically and militarily may soon come from China. A report in the Independent newspaper in London on October 6, 2009, claimed that China was planning for an economic war with the U.S. that might result in military confrontations over oil. The Independent claimed it had proof that Arab oil states have held secret meetings with finance ministers from China, Russia, Japan, France and Brazil to discuss ending the primary role of the dollar in oil trading, replacing it with gold, the Yen or the Euro, or a combination of currencies.
China has taken a great interest in Middle East oil in recent years and now imports 60% of its crude oil from the region. It has invested heavily in oil exploration in Iran, Iraq, Sudan and many central African nations like Nigeria. As it continues to build its oil and energy links to Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, it may seek to end U.S. influence in those parts f the globe as a means to creating a new world order with China at its pinnacle. What many observers have failed to recognize is that China has been flooding the Middle East with its exports, thereby fueling its massive industrial infrastructure. Without increasing oil supplies at a level never reached by the U.S. China’s march to super power status would grind to a stop. Privately, it worries that, because it has to ship most of its oil by tankers, its supply chain could be highly vulnerable in the event of a military confrontation with the U.S. In such a scenario the U.S. navy could close down the majority of China’s fuel supplies. The impact would not only damage its economy but also its military readiness.