Lebanon Political Crisis and U.S. Role in Special Tribunal Trial

January 23, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

The Mediterranean country in the Middle East is situated between Syria up north all the way to the east and Israel down south.

A French Colony post World War 1, Lebanon gained independence in 1943.

The secular society enriched in cultural diversity experienced tremendous economic boom from agriculture, service sector viz. banking and the hospitality industry – tourism.

During that period it was regarded as the Switzerland of the East and the capital city Beirut – Paris of the Middle East.

Lebanon is also known for political upheavals predominantly attributed to foreign power intervention, invasion and occupation following independence up until now.

The prominent crises are – the prolonged civil war (1975-1990), Hezbollah and Israel confrontation referred to as July war or Second Lebanon war (12 July 2006 – 14 August 2006) with Israeli blockade of Lebanon ending in September 2006.

Subsequently the internal conflicts involved the Lebanese security force against the alleged Al-Qaeda motivated militants in northern Lebanon in 2007.

A year later in 2008 the political standoff between Hezbollah and the ruling government over institutional access produced casualties and resolved by Arab league mediation in Qatar.

Lebanon ‘Confessionalist’ parliamentary system has maintained power sharing among different religious and political factions since origin.

The tradition continued lately through national unity government represented by current caretaker Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of the former Prime Minister Rafiq Baha El Deen Al-Hariri assassinated in bomb explosion that killed 22 others on February 14, 2005.

Consequently, Special Tribunal for Lebanon was set up at the International Criminal Court, The Hague to investigate the political assassination.

Contrary to certain assertions the STL was initiated by the former French President Jacque Chirac – a close friend of deceased Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

The United Nations probes reportedly implicated Lebanese suspects presumed pro-Syrian and held them in detention without charge. They were released after four years due to lack of evidence for indictment.

Meanwhile stability in Lebanon resumed with the Doha agreement in 2008 and the nation was in the healing process from the political turmoil until the news reports in Jan 2011 confirmed the United States prompted impending STL indictments against Hezbollah that led to the opposition resignation and collapse of the national unity government.

The interim government by Prime Minister Saad Hariri is backed by the United States, France and Saudi Arabia while the opposition Hezbollah and coalition are favored by Iran and Syria.

Upon the Lebanese Prime Minister’s visit to Washington on Jan 12, 2011 – The White House Blog reaffirmed the United States position on STL action.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/01/12/president-meets-prime-minister-hariri-stability-and-justice-lebanon – Thank You.

“The President and Prime Minister reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening Lebanon’s sovereignty and independence, implementing all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and continuing a wide-ranging and long-term partnership between the United States and Lebanon.

During their meeting, the President stressed the importance of the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon as a means to help end the era of political assassinations with impunity in Lebanon.

The President and Prime Minister specifically discussed united efforts with France, Saudi Arabia, and other key international and regional actors to maintain calm in Lebanon and ensure that the work of the Tribunal continues unimpeded by third parties.”

—————————————————————————————————-

By Padmini Arhant

Political repercussions on STL preparation with the United States advising Prime Minister Saad Hariri to cooperate in the trial are a major national and regional concern.

Evidently the looming political unrest with potential (1975-1990) civil war is attributed to the 11 cabinet ministers’ departure in reaction to the U.S. backed Prime Minister’s compliance to foreign authorities request.

The grave situation is the result of the needless foreign involvement in Lebanon’s internal affair hindering the war torn nation’s opportunity to protect and provide for the citizens.

United States and U.N. Security Council claim on STL inquiry for ethical reasons would be credible,

If similar measures were adopted by accepting the Goldstone report on Gaza war citing Israel and Hamas aggression towards Palestinian and Israeli innocent civilians.

Prosecuting the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, Iraq under false premise at phenomenal human lives and economic cost.

Failure in adherence to universal fairness on international matter would reveal real motives behind selective targets jeopardizing trust and confidence in dispute settlement.

The former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri during the interview prior to his assassination clarified many issues that should serve as testimony against the allegations in the STL controversy.

It is increasingly clear that the U.S. persistent diplomatic pressure on Lebanon to move forward with the STL charges despite the status quo and the inevitable civil war could further destabilize the nation in the volatile region.

If the developments are not politically motivated then investigating all parties without exception based on respective perception of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri as an ally or adversary at that time would eliminate bias and deliver proper justice.

Since the quagmire emanated from the stated quest to apprehend those responsible for the former Prime Minister’s assassination and implied intention to prevent any harm to political leaders’ in Lebanon,

The perspective among the opposition crucial to form a viable government is – the foreign powers’ pre-emptive steps isolating specific group viz. Hezbollah for indictment.

Simultaneously granting impunity to external influences such as the Syrian government, Israel and the United States considering the then fragile strategic relationship by all with the slain Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri cannot be ignored.

Truth finding in this regard would be legitimate in the absence of Machiavellian pursuit – ‘the end justifies the means.’

On reflection the ex-Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, a patriot and an extraordinary statesman committed to Lebanon would have prioritized national interest over internal or alien supremacy through due diligence paramount to retain solidarity – the only effective political tool to resolve Lebanon’s burgeoning crisis.

Moreover harmony among the political representatives would be formidable for national security given Lebanon’s vulnerability and past incursions decimating the country’s infrastructure not barring economic devastation.

Even in the worst global economic recession, Lebanon GDP growth in 2007–2010 at 9% is extremely impressive and widely acclaimed for tightly regulated financial sector being one of the revenue sources in the economy.

The young leader and the incumbent Prime Minister Saad Hariri could perhaps emulate his father, the honorable Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri solemn oath to safeguard national unity and disavow allegiance to elements threatening domestic peace and stability. It was exemplified at the height of intense international political maneuvering and realized detrimental to Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Similarly, the present head of the state has a daunting task nonetheless not impossible to seek fair and transparent judicial proceedings against all parties i.e. local and overseas operatives rather than submitting to intrusive power politics.

The international court of justice real purpose would come to light when all nations regardless of stature are treated equal in the crimes against humanity.

Otherwise the institution functionality is compromised through political clout – best confined to governance instead of unconstitutional interference elaborated in the separation of power.

Hezbollah and other opposition members could effectively end the stalemate by honoring the proposals from them.

Palestinian refugee camps disarmament.

Troop withdrawal from Southern Lebanon but coordination with central armed forces in national defense.

Enabling Beirut weapon free for public safety and conforming to democratic environment.

Respecting constitutional laws on veto of government decisions.

Lebanon cannot afford another violent mutiny and all parties are urged to restrain from contributing to history repeat itself for political ideology.

Recognizing the pivotal role of each political faction in national liberation is important and acknowledgment of the predecessor Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri exemplary service to Lebanon dependent on reconciliation between members of national unity government.

Hence it is earnestly hoped that rationality will prevail against induced political discord for national progress and prosperity.

Best Wishes to a strong unified Lebanon with eternal peace across the nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. Please click on the hyperlinks for Featured Videos on this post. Thank you.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrytt_hariri-interview-from-november-2001_news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqU0qS_3U8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6foP6eNGWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p2RXWvy4Vs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkOCIfNQXP0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSieUhqIR6k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8i2Qrzr3Jw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNWOj_dFSR4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhogfsjCxQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m86uIK-aSIU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_U6CZglHiw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hbi6FnvWwvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Moag8mcfdN4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsiH9mU6T5o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOr-HcFKEn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UtvxjJDspM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5mpX_wyyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6bHKpSKoCo

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, International Politics | Leave a Comment 

U.S. China Relations and Global Impact

January 20, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

Hon. President Hu Jintao of China is currently on a state visit to the United States.

The head of the state arrival in the U.S. is pivotal to promote bilateral relationship on economic, political and strategic matter having a direct global impact.

Many issues have been brought to attention that requires mutual understanding and cooperation. The economic reality with United States as the largest consumer and China being the major manufacturer as well as creditor are inter-dependent to succeed in their respective ambitions.

China is the fastest growing economy with tremendous potential to be an effective global partner in resolving international crises.

Although the dialogue between the two nations in strengthening ties has been consistent in the past two years, the intentions are yet to be delivered in action on the domestic and international fronts.

The preliminary step towards fostering simultaneous growth is to review the activities and modify strategies beneficial to both economies with equal responsibility to contain the burgeoning economic crisis.

At present the huge anomalies in surplus and deficits between China and the United States is contentious and attributed to trade imbalance, fiscal and monetary policy variation besides incoherent business practices hindering investor confidence on economic returns.

China’s currency devaluation and other grievances such as intellectual property rights infringement, U.S. corporations’ access denial to fair market share are potent in the existing undercurrents that could be mitigated if not eliminated through acknowledgment and appropriate decisions.

Concurrently, the United States bears the burden to revive domestic economy centralized on job retention and creation along with national debt reduction to offset economic disparity.

While measuring economic status between China and the United States on per capita income – it is true that United States compares better than China due to the disproportionate population ratio.

However, the 13 percent poverty rate for the United States as a developed nation signifies the widening gap between the rich and poor in wealth distribution. This situation is largely contributed by politics undermining economics with no regard for national consequences.

Reiterating the earlier statement that balance of trade conversely enhancing economic prospects is critical in the competitive global environment.

With respect to strategic alliance on Iran and North Korea – China’s defiance in the U.N. Security Council against Iran and passivity on negotiations with Korea apparently frustrating the United States.

Similarly, the United States reaction via naval drill with South Korea on the Yellow Sea and response to Iranian civil nuclear program contrasting the Vietnam deal is perceived by China as provocative and U.S. double standards.

The facts confirm the power politics and self-interest on both sides escalating turmoil in the region.

Again the solution to stalemate in foreign policy agreements is the permanent membership expansion at the U.N. Security Council.

United States endorsement of India and assurance to Japan in this context qualifies as rhetoric given the status quo.

The Security Council extension representing each region detailed previously on many occasions could be effective in addressing various global problems.

Reluctance to accept pragmatic remedies reflects the desire for dominance in the constantly evolving economic and political dynamics.

Shifting focus on U.S and China – the recognition on travel and tourism, educational and cultural exchange is relevant and further commitments are commendable.

In humanitarian issues – U.S. is faced with Guantanamo Bay, mercenary operatives in the war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan, renditions, habeas corpus, military aggression instead of economic and social development, cited in coup d’état and political unrest in Latin America, Africa, Middle East…and notably the leading arms supplier in the world.

Notwithstanding environment abuse witnessed in oil spills and rescinding environment regulations to appease energy industry.

China’s impressive economic progress and environmental pursuit in the new millennium are overshadowed by the prevalent political system entailing:

Human rights violation against the people of China

Suppression of democracy

Imprisonment of Chinese dissidents

Failure to curb human trafficking and organ extortion in and from China.

Interference in foreign nations’ visitor protocol – example United States and India.

Music, Movies and Software piracy reported by entertainment and technology sector.

Arms supply to Africa.

Aiding ethnic cleansing in Sri Lanka.

Promoting tension between Pakistan and India on Kashmir.

Territorial dispute with India and incursion in the northeastern border concerning the Indian states Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh.

Refusal in acknowledgment of Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Forging defense and economic partnership with the dictatorial regime, the military Junta in Burma.

Declining support in the global financial regulations on tax havens used by corporations.

And

The illegal invasion and occupation of the independent nation – Tibet subjecting

Innocent men, women, children and the Buddhist Monks of Tibet to persecution.

Systemic eradication of Tibetan culture.

Desecration of the Tibetan shrines and Buddhist religion constituting sacrilegious in the highest order.

It is clear that both nations share guilt and glory in the contemporary era.

Their phenomenal accomplishments made possible by diverse resources most importantly the valuable human capital not adequately provided for and evident in immense hardships endured by the vast majority in the relatively affluent societies.

The industrialized and emerging economies could supplement one another in harmony rather than acrimony. Subsequently utilize the combined prosperity to uplift other developing nations seeking economic and political guidance.

Collective participation is vital to overcome global challenges like epidemic from communicable disease, natural disasters, environment protection, economic recession and international security.

It is in the best interests of the two illustrious nations to work together and reconcile differences to attain reciprocal economic gains.

Naturally the long lasting peace between the two militarily strong nuclear nations rests on building honest and trustworthy partnership now and in the future.

Best Wishes to U.S. China relation for a new beginning with hope and tranquility permeating across the globe.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

P.S. Please click on the hyperlinks for Featured Videos on this blogpost. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXP4mVUfkxA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D4j99o6FXE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhOkr4YQO0w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQBEcg0DvqM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLM-KBTuzUM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2COZeCrvpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TWXpFdd3os

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8aJGwh5RRk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btX28vIrh2w

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Tunisia – Victory to People Power

January 16, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

The North African nation is in major political transition after the people successfully unshackled themselves from decades old authoritarian oppression.

Tunisia having been a French colony sought independence in 1956 and subsequently President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali gained power in 1987 imposing repressive form of government until the recent ousting.

The citizens across the nation were marginalized due to massive corruption, political suppression through surveillance and confinement of human rights activists, sentencing journalists for revealing the reality on soaring unemployment and economic chaos.

As a result the former Tunisian government ranked lowest in public internet access and freedom of press in the world.

These activities were considered mild compared to the abuse of Presidential power with opposition quelled eliminating checks and balances in a political system characterized by the people as kleptocracy thriving under nepotism through political appointments of family members including subservient entities in various capacity exercising control over economic sector.

Further insight confirm that President Ben Ali’s son-in-law Sakher al-Materi (daughter Nessrine’s husband) was groomed to succeed the Presidential position prior to overthrow of the government.

Although Tunisia is no exception in this regard the uprising attributed to a college graduate Mohamed Bouazizi’s tragic self-immolation upon being denied street vendor permit by the local authorities reportedly dependent on bribery for service.

Again such frustration is experienced by many in most regions becoming the tip of the iceberg as witnessed in Tunisia.

The regime expulsion was inevitable given the deteriorated economic conditions depriving the vast majority the political and economic opportunity while the minority flourished through concentration of power retained among the self-proclaimed privileged groups in the society.

Emancipation is not without sacrifice and hence should not be squandered in the aftermath of this political transformation.

Tunisia is at the crossroads requiring due diligence in seeking political representation.

People having secured the much anticipated freedom through solidarity are now challenged with leadership vacuum and could overcome any trepidation by ensuring the constitutionally approved lawful government is dedicated to individual liberty, political rights, social progress and economic prosperity for all.

It is imperative for the people of Tunisia to appoint effective head of the state committed to progressive values embedded with democratic principles in the interim and beyond not only for national security but also to achieve the twenty first century goals.

National defense is paramount to prevent undesirable elements taking advantage of the political situation in any format. Border patrol and local vigilance is a priority to protect the nation against harmful infiltration.

People governance could be expedited by an early election to establish political stability and national sovereignty.

In the process, it’s extremely important to be prudent in choosing the Presidential candidate including the entire cabinet sworn allegiance to the republic of Tunisia and not external powers maintaining authority over leadership commonly identified as the puppet administration.

The contemporary political environment resisting transparency and accountability – Tunisia could perhaps set precedence in this respect by forming an independent committee to investigate the predecessor’s alleged crimes and embezzlement charges for recovery of public assets seized during the undemocratic rule.

It would also benefit the democratic system to continue the public review and monitoring of activities to promote efficiency within and outside the government.

Tunisia has come a long way and deserves to share the new millennium prospects made possible by the deceased Mohamed Bouazizi in the small town of Sidi Bouzid and thousands of dissidents enabling the political victory.

May Mohamed Bouazizi soul rest in peace and remembered as the light in the national awakening.

Congratulations! To the Jasmine revolution on the new independence and reviving hope for millions aspiring similar outcome in their respective domain.

Best Wishes for a spectacular future to the people of democratic Tunisia.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, International Politics | Leave a Comment 

International Recognition of Israeli Palestinian Peace Process

January 10, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

Israeli Palestinian peace talks have come to a grinding halt following the moratorium expiration on Jewish settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem last September.

The Palestinian casualties in early January 2011 involving a man and a woman in the northern West Bank checkpoint and the barrier is a setback for the long anticipated peace resolution between Israel and Palestinian authorities.

Additionally the recent tension in beleaguered Gaza with Israel reporting on the rocket firing by Hamas across the southern border resets the status quo after a prolonged ceasefire promoting hope for exports from Gaza to Israel.

Subsequently Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s invitation to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for direct dialogue is praiseworthy.

However, the Israeli Prime Minister’s terms on negotiations without preconditions in the backdrop of ongoing settlement expansion is a dilemma for the Palestinian President considering the political challenges in their domain.

Any agreement would be feasible upon instantaneous settlement freeze that has long been contentious in the crucial interaction between the two heads of the states.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu having previously proved Israel’s commitment to two states solution through temporary settlement containment could perhaps persuade opposition within Israeli coalition in this matter rather than expecting Palestinian approval of the continuing occupation.

The two states recognition could be easily achieved with natural understanding and acknowledgment of 1967 lines for an Independent Palestinian State concurrently suspending settlement activities in Palestinian territories viz. West Bank and East Jerusalem.

As mentioned earlier Israel’s security will be strengthened by expediting the peace treaty that would enable free Palestine to focus on nation building beginning with infrastructure, economic growth, education and health care…guaranteed to promote social progress transforming existing mistrust and discord into a reliable trading partnership fostering bilateral relationship with their neighbor, Israel.

Further the Arab world would widely accept Israel’s sovereignty when peace protocol per 1967 territory is honored ceasing claim on Palestinian meager land with exponential rise in the local population.

Again reiterating requests made to both parties per post titled “Peace Dawns on Palestine and Israel – Two States Solution,” published 9/2/2010 under International Politics on this website,

Both states could reach common destination by removing roadblocks such as occupation, settlement, troop presence with checkpoints and barriers from the Israeli side and,

Palestinian efforts in maintaining solidarity within political factions while pursuing their goals through non-violent means is the pragmatic course to prevail in the decades old conflict.

Peace deal is not attainable with demolition in East Jerusalem, skirmishes in Gaza and West bank under siege. The Palestinian preparation to approach United Nations Security Council for international endorsement of liberated Palestine along the 1967 lines reveals the peace brokers’ lack of influential power and interest in resolving the Mideast crisis.

Therefore the international society could intervene in ending the Palestinian plight and Israeli political gridlock over settlements and troop withdrawal by reviewing the reality and the impact of ignoring the humanitarian suffering currently benefiting terror recruitments serving as the reason for perpetual warfare.

By addressing the Palestinian political struggle and Israeli desire for national security, the international community would effectively contribute to the success of the Israeli Palestinian peace process.

On that optimistic note, the Palestinian and Israeli leaders are urged to set their differences aside and cooperate in signing the peace accord with international blessings.

Good Luck and Best Wishes to Palestinian, Israeli and world leaders in finalizing the amicable Mideast peace doctrine.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Sudan Secession Referendum

January 7, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

On January 9, 2011 the largest nation in Africa and the Arab world – Sudan will be split into two separate states upon validation in the Southern Sudanese independence referendum.

Sudan like other parts of Africa has been ravaged by decades of civil war.

The Second Sudanese Civil war resumed in 1983 to 2005 and then continued in western region – Darfur still engaged in skirmishes on the ground.

The current President Omar al-Bashir then seizing power in 1989 bloodless military coup set up a totalitarian government leading the nation towards genocide.

The civil wars resulted in the worst humanitarian crisis with –

2 million casualties and more than 4 million displaced population including an estimated 200,000 prisoners of wars and civilians taken into slavery not barring child soldiers by the pro-government Arab militias, the Sudanese army as well as the rebel factions involved in the north-south economic, ethnic, religious and political confrontation.

Captives from the Second Sudanese Civil War were reportedly enslaved at an alarming rate in the early nineties and thereafter.

Since independence in 1956 from the colonial powers Egypt and Great Britain,

The North African nation has been dealing with military coups at the central power and civil wars in the southern as well as eastern and western provinces against rebel forces,

Notwithstanding cross border conflicts with Chad and Eritrea on the west and southeastern fronts.

The Sudanese federal government in alliance with Arab militias is stated to have escalated the violence prompting rebel retaliation facilitated by prolific arms supply to the region at the devastation of several millions across the nation.

The interdependency between the oil rich south and the rest of Sudan with pipeline and ports services face critical challenges following Southern Sudan secession.

Northern Sudan along with eastern and western states will have to prepare for economic austerity once the oil revenue shared now declines with the southern segregation.

Hence there are genuine concerns over the rebels response to economic disparity affecting – Darfur on the west, the east and central Sudan not barring the provocation by the militias stationed in the north and south without being subject to either government’s authority.

Spark ignited from these groups could easily promote mutiny with serious consequences on the southern sovereignty besides increasing national vulnerability by influencing other disenchanted population to demand individual statehood.

Moreover the territories are yet to be clearly demarcated and ‘Abyei’ – the bridge between the northern and southern land apparently with depleting oil reserves,

Nonetheless ‘the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline’ that connects the oil fields in this area with Port Sudan on the Red Sea through the northern Sudan’s capital – Khartoum could become a contentious issue.

Oil exports are reported to have been crucial to Sudanese economic growth rising from 6.1% in 2003 to 9% in 2007. This achievement would not have been possible without functional pipelines serving the oil supply.

The reason for rebel forces to rise against the governing power is to restore political rights through fair representation in national governance, equal economic opportunity and most importantly social and religious freedom.

In the absence of any or all of these basic elements in a society the nation is susceptible to political and social unrest often evolving into ethnic cleansing as witnessed in human history.

The latest world events like Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia, Sri Lanka in South East Asia and previously Bosnia, Herzegovina of the former Yugoslavia are stark reminders to leaderships to acknowledge and honor human rights of all regardless of demographic representation.

Whether it is colonial power treatment of the indigenous population or the ethnic minority marginalized by the majority rule, the human attitude towards fellow citizens is regrettable forming the basis for perpetual discord within a society.

However these developments do not occur by itself and external interventions are proved to be the sources in order to gain regional or territorial dominance.

If mankind has made tremendous progress in economic fields the reversal is also true in social tolerance evident in the unresolved disputes spanning over decades.

All that requires in the balancing act is empathy and the sharing concept to benefit all rather than the self-interest.

With Sudan – the aggressive authoritarian national leadership assumed excessive power and quelled political opposition.

The Presidential re-election was marred with corruption and forced expulsion of formidable pro-democracy candidacies offering meaningful reform alongside religious and cultural diversity. Accordingly, the election was declared undemocratic by the international community.

The incumbent government curtailed free speech by sentencing journalists and political activists, imposing national religious laws regardless of individual faith and last but not the least,

The leadership is indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court of Justice.

The southerners and the remaining Sudanese plight have long been ignored by the central power focused on iron-fist rule exemplified in policies implemented to the republic’s detriment.

In the secession vote the southerners are predicted to overwhelmingly approve the long anticipated liberty but like everything else there is a price for realizing the dream which might threaten their national security and sovereign status given the volatile conditions.

Southern Sudan is not any safer by being independent although the past six years autonomy might drive the inclination to self-governance.

Meanwhile provinces deprived of economic prosperity in the remaining country could attempt to follow suit and contribute to preventable warfare.

Sudan in semblance with African counterparts is rich in mineral resources and precious metals.

Similarly political instability is not uncommon and widely attributed to diverse groups disenfranchisement reflected in disproportionate or lack of national representation.

People in southern Sudan could experience better peace prospects through solidarity with the significant rest frustrated over the political dilemma and elect leadership dedicated to serving all rather than preferred segments in the society.

Southern Sudan decision to split from the mainland would set precedence for disintegration likely to jeopardize the fragile environment in all aspects.

Collective action towards political transformation and social justice has never failed in producing the desirable outcome.

The unified and non-violent approach by consolidating efforts among –

SPLM (Sudan’s People Liberation Movement) from the south,

JEM (Justice and Equality Movement) representing the Darfur, Red Sea and Equatoria regions,

Along with, Beja Congress and Rashaida Free Lions, two tribal based groups of the Beja and Rashaida people in the Eastern front,

To form a government with Northern National Congress Party comprising members and leaders pledged to secular democratic Sudan would prevail in establishing an efficient and powerful government.

People power would rightfully return with stronger coalition at the federal level that is guaranteed to bring stability, harmony and prosperity to the war torn nation.

It is sincerely hoped that Southern Sudanese will carefully examine the pros and cons in seeking secession from the magnificent nation Sudan with glory and fortune in abundance available to every human committed to unity.

Good Luck and Best Wishes to the people of Sudan for permanent peace and a bright future.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, International Politics | 1 Comment 

Korean Peninsula Peace Strategy – The Unified Korea

November 29, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The recent skirmishes in the Korean Peninsula evolved into a deadly attack on the South Korean port Yeonpyeong.

According to the news reports – South Korea suffered casualties with two civilians and two marines killed in the North Korean firing forcing many residents to leave for the mainland.

Further the U.S and international news agencies also reported that prior to the attack, the North Korean authority and their ally China warned the United States to refrain from conducting military exercises with South Korea on the Yellow sea, the disputed territory between North and South Korea.

The joint naval drill on the economic route was characterized as ‘provocative’ by China and its key trading partner North Korea.

North Korean subsequent artillery response revived emotions among South Korean citizens affecting the latest diplomacy between the once unified nations.

Regardless of the military operation on the West sea of Korea, the North Korean action resulting in fatalities is reprehensible. The real victims in the avoidable quagmire are the South and North Korean population.

Simultaneously, it is important to highlight the missed opportunity following the former President Jimmy Carter visit to North Korea in September 2010.

The North Korean leadership’s unprecedented peace message through President Jimmy Carter requesting Washington to hold peace talks and Pyongyang eagerness to commit to de-nuclearization including permanent peace treaty with the United States and South Korea was not pursued leading to the status quo.

The urgency to move forward with the initiative was elaborated in the article titled:

‘Special Acknowledgment – President Jimmy Carter North Korea Visit’ published on this site on 09/20/10 under International Politics.

Had United States given North Korea the benefit of the doubt then it would have clarified Pyongyang’s sincerity or the lack there of considering the protocol through U.S. ex-President that emphasized serious and the highest possible communiqué even if it was not representative of the current administration.

It’s regrettable that invitation for peaceful dialogue is ignored fomenting military option as the preferred reaction to the twentieth century cold war generated political standoff.

When diplomacy is not the priority for the primary negotiator, it promotes belligerence accompanied by tragic loss of life as witnessed in the present discord.

Any attempts to salvage the situation in the aftermath appear disingenuous jeopardizing the trust factor among the participants expected to resolve the contentious issue.

After the Korean War (1950-1953) – the communist North Korea is a nuclear state with reportedly 8 to 12 nuclear arsenals in possession and preparing to strengthen its nuclear capability.

In April 2010, there were allegations against North Korea on the South Korean warship, the Cheonan drowning that claimed 46 sailors’ lives.

North Korea has exhibited missile stunts causing tensions in the Peninsula and now this time around the attack is detrimental to the humanitarian developments comprising South Korean food aid to North Korea notwithstanding tourism and trade relations benefiting both nations.

Similarly, South Korea and U.S. military activities foster hostility even though the defined purpose is stated as – restrain North Korea and remind its dependable partner China to intervene in the conflict to deter North Korean aggression.

China’s reluctance to comply with US demand is perceived as an act intended to protect national interests using North Korea to challenge United States in the multilateral entreaty.

It is clear from the existing situation that adversarial approach exacerbates the crisis with undesirable results such as deaths and destruction. There is tremendous display of power politics and self-interest contributing to the escalating turmoil in the region.

Evidently procrastination serves none except allowing North Korea to enhance nuclear armament leaving vast majority in abject poverty and isolation while South Korean citizens remain fearful and frustrated from the confrontation.

North Korea is extremely vulnerable despite the indicated nuclear proliferation and constant harassment of South Korea – the neighbor and trading partner. The impending power transition is yet another uncertainty in the political domain.

Therefore, North Korea could thrive from renouncing violence against the people of South Korea otherwise their relatives across the border. In all these years, the saber rattling is proved counterproductive and withheld economic progress.

Although both nations rely heavily on the external powers – i.e. Communist North Korea seeking China’s assistance and Capitalist South Korea dependent on the United States, they fail to recognize the fact that they could end the conflict today on their volition through bilateral peace treaty.

South Korea as a sovereign nation is at liberty to establish peace accord with North Korea irrespective of the international effort. The peaceful strategy would insure the democratic government pledge to improve security and reunite the families split across the border.

Hence, the reconciliation between the two nations could be aimed at the unification process with South Korean economy and North Korean defense power enabling a strong and prosperous Korea as one nation.

The achievement would be analogous to Germany – When the Berlin wall demolition facilitated the East and West Germany merger with significant advantage prevalent in the EU member.

Upon reunion with North Korea, South Korea could stimulate the domestic economy through local growth and consumption like China. The people in North Korea would at last be emancipated and become a valuable resource for the South Korean market economy.

North Korean military personnel would adequately address the national security concerns for the united Korea. It would be a phenomenal success for the people in terms of political stability, economic prosperity and social equality.

Tranquility in Korean peninsula would permeate to other parts of Asia and guarantee peace for all other nations in the continent.

North Korean commitment to nuclear disarmament could come to fruition in the course of constructive and meaningful engagement by the Korean leaderships.

In this context, the independent South Africa exemplified the smooth nuclear dismantling setting precedence for other nuclear powers to adopt ‘non-nuclear’ concept.

South Africa deserves praise for the monumental decision favoring humanity.

The nuclear free zone is the only effective policy for global peace and security.

North Korea peace offer could be directly presented to the people of South Korea and the deal finalized in good faith to demonstrate the leadership’s affirmation for solidarity yielding a unified Korea.

Sincere condolences to the South Korean families grieving for their deceased members and,

Best Wishes to North and South Korea for peaceful existence as one nation.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal in 2014

November 27, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Afghanistan troop withdrawal was discussed during the NATO press conference last week i.e. 11/20/10 indicating the timeline in 2014.

Again, this topic has been extensively covered under various articles on this site.

The military decision was presented as the evaluation on the ground defining the persistent threat from Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, preparing the Afghan security personnel and armed forces and ensuring political stability across the nation…in semblance to Iraq.

With respect to Al-Qaeda – the CIA accounted for a meager 100 militants in Afghanistan and the northwestern Pakistan combined together against over 120,000 formidable U.S. and NATO coalition.

As for the Taliban containment, the Pakistan ISI and military intervention to prevent peace talks between Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government is common knowledge.

Even the U.S. leading press reported the Pakistan intelligence having misused the U.S. agents in tracking down the Afghan Taliban chief only to foster the Taliban and Afghan government standoff by holding the captive in a secret location unbeknown to U.S. intelligence.

Amid such activities, the foreign power still maintains Pakistan – an ally in the war on terror providing $2 billion military funding rather than channeling the aid towards desperately required social and economic development.

Pakistan ISI and military have long profited from the militancy within and across the borders with Afghanistan and India predominantly due to the U.S. military aid further distributed in lucrative arms sales to Al-Qaeda and militants including the Afghanistan and Pakistan based Taliban.

The carefully configured operation has contributed to cyclical violence in armed conflict, suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as terrorism against India and Iran.

Today on November 26, 2010 the Mumbai terror victims’ families mourn their relatives’ deaths from the brutal attack in public square two years ago.

The perpetrators like David Headley from the U.S. and terror masterminds in Pakistan are granted impunity despite evidence confirming the charges.

The Pakistani military, intelligence and the political establishment’s evasion to bring the Mumbai terrorists to justice is no different from U.S. and NATO avoiding questions about Osama Bin Laden in the 9/11 terrorism.

Afghanistan was invaded to eliminate Al-Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden dead or alive.

Now a decade later, the most sophisticated military might – the U.S. and NATO are still in Afghanistan with the war spilled over to Pakistan and Yemen.

Al-Qaeda and Taliban continue to be the reason for the prolonged occupation in Afghanistan.

U.S and NATO ambiguous timetable for troop withdrawal set in 2014 is suggestive of two possibilities.

It is ambiguous because of the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen underscoring the statement that the withdrawal commitment will not be “calendar driven.” Otherwise it could be beyond 2014 and not any sooner.

Per U.S. and NATO accounts – Given the inferior ammunition and significantly lower combatants Al-Qaeda and Taliban are essentially winning the war on terror in Afghanistan depriving the nation the long overdue political stability which in turn is contradictory to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s position that:

“U.S. policy in Afghanistan is working” implying that NATO and U.S. choice of political leadership – President Hamid Karzai has the situation under control through efficient governance.

Then why is the troop withdrawal scheduled for 2014 and not 2011?

Alternatively ‘truth’ being the first casualty in war and politics, the U.S. and NATO leadership with the U.N. chief are not being forthright to the people in Afghanistan, the U.S. and ally taxpayers notwithstanding the increasingly frustrated press as the voice for democracy.

Afghanistan political woes persist with the central power challenging the latest election results while the Afghan President Hamid Karzai publicly acknowledged the cash flow from Iranian regime and U.S. officials to his administration.

It is imperative to highlight the Iranian influence in two war zones – Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran alliance with the U.S. appointees – Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki is not without a reason.

Afghanistan and Iraq being the strategic location for military strike against Iran – the impending U.S. war policy with an unequivocal worldwide catastrophe is being maneuvered by Iran through financial assistance to Afghanistan and political ties with Iraq.

U.S. overtures to Afghanistan and Iraqi leaders in spite of their performance track record and against respective population dissent is the bedrock for insurgency, militancy and incessant warfare in both nations.

The Taliban is emboldened with the local population forced to accept the corrupt and inefficient political system or become a recruit for the militant group.

Afghan population plight exacerbated with the deteriorating social, economic and political conditions. The report on Afghan women self-immolation attributed to atrocities and social injustice towards them is a major credibility factor for the U.S. backed Afghan administration.

Besides President Hamid Karzai as the U.S. and NATO appointee is complacent to foreign occupation whereas resisted by Taliban.

To a large extent the Afghan population find themselves between the rock and a hard place.

Hence raising the relevant questions:

What is the real purpose behind the ten year old Afghan war?

With Osama Bin Laden being no longer the intended target and skeletal Al-Qaeda operatives relocated to Somalia,

Why is the troop withdrawal set in 2014 instead of 2011?

Why the pullout in 2014 is explicitly stated as not ‘calendar driven’?

What is the precise strategy to reverse Afghanistan status quo in particular with women, children and youth population?

With the existing corruption scandals, what transformation has transpired under the present Afghan administration?

If the U.S. policy is working in Afghanistan as claimed by the U.S. Secretary of State, then,

What is the explanation for the social crimes against women?

When will Afghanistan be truly independent and recognized as a sovereign nation?

Finally, what is so auspicious about 2014 that cannot be carried out sooner to save life?

Peace to the grieving families in Mumbai, India and distressed Afghan society.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Iraq Political Quagmire following Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki Appointment

November 21, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Iraqi Parliament reportedly commenced its fractured session on November 11, 2010 with Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki appointed for the second term against the electoral mandate.

The Parliamentary ominous beginning resulting in a walkout by the secular leader Ayad Allawi and other political party members disappointed with the Maliki government default on a range of issues is indicative of the so-called agreement notably imposed upon the Iraqi people represented by the elected officials rather than allowing the democratic course to choose a leadership capable of governing a diverse state exhausted from wars and sectarian violence.

The Iraqi election held in March 2010 yielded a narrow victory for the secular Shia leader Ayad Allawi political party unified with the Sunni, Kurdish, Assyrian and other minorities in the country.

However, the reports confirmed that the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was nominated as the head of the state with the blessings from the United States administration and not from Iran as predicted.

According to the news reports –

“Mr. Allawi’s walkout occurred even as Obama administration officials praised the deal in a conference call with reporters. Two American officials later played down the walkout, saying that Mr. Allawi’s bloc remained committed to the agreement, despite what one of the officials called a “hiccup.”

For better or worse, the agreement reflected the still-potent American influence here, despite assertions by some that the United States was losing sway to Iran.

When the leaders met on Wednesday night to broker the agreement — however tenuous it seemed — it was the American ambassador, James F. Jeffrey, who was in the room, not the one from Iran, according to Antony J. Blinken, the national security adviser to Mr. Biden.”

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki Shia centric party alliance with anti-American cleric Muqtadā al-Ṣadr currently a resident in Iran was not approved in the Iraqi political circle most importantly on the streets of Baghdad and across Iraq –

Due to Prime Minister Maliki led Shia government’s poor track record against the minorities especially the Sunni population contributing to insurgency that has claimed thousands of innocent Iraqi lives until now.

Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki is the leader of the Islamic Dawa Party – stated as a Shia political party sworn to build an Islamic State in Iraq and combat secularism.

Although the party is known to have strong ties with the Iranian theocratic leadership – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and believed to receive financial assistance to date, it could not win in March 2010 democratic electoral process.

The Iranian ally and anti-American cleric Muqtadā al-Ṣadr co-operation with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not strengthen the political representation in Iraqi Parliament with qualified concerns about the Iraqi leadership ability to maintain law and order, achieve legislative victories or promoting solidarity in national interest.

It was evident during the Parliamentary vote for Kurdish President Jalal Talabani to serve the second term.

In a 325 member Iraqi Parliament, the legislative impasse apparently ended with a simple majority of 195 votes for it failed to secure the two thirds majority – attributed to the discord between Prime Minister Maliki and other political factions.

As for the democratically elected non-sectarian Shia leader Ayad Allawi with strong Sunni and other demographic votes – the leader is eliminated and not even considered for any worthy position by the Maliki administration thereby explicitly rejecting the electorate will.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki characterized as ‘dour and divisive’ leader lacking voter confidence and political support across the nation is appointed for the second term reflecting the U.S. foreign policy contradictory to the democratic reality in a war torn nation.

Power politics is the contemporary trend displayed through interventional tactics even if it proved detrimental to the vast majority struggling to emerge from the ravaged war and incessant suicide bombings.

The Iraqi situation is best summarized as the fragile democracy assigned to the republic opposed political leadership with a doomed forecast facilitating the never ending occupation to curb the inevitable sectarian tensions not to mention the regional threat from the incumbent’s formidable partnership with Iranian cleric rule.

But the euphoria on the status quo is an irony.

Antony J. Blinken, the national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.

“The result — an inclusive government, all blocs in and a redistribution of power — was exactly what the Iranians didn’t want,” Mr. Blinken said in a telephone interview.”

People in Iraq have a responsibility to unanimously decline the foreign power intrusion in national politics and exercise the democratic right to be governed by the unifying and not polarizing leadership.

Iraqi population could change the present political dilemma by enforcing the electoral victory declaring the secular coalition to power.

The Iraqi electorates’ verdict in March 2010 was loud and clear denying Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki opportunity to derail progress, prolong U.S. occupation and revive Iranian instigated militancy – essentially resisting the counterproductive domestic and international policies implemented under Maliki leadership with foreign coercion.

Iraq is a sovereign nation and at liberty to determine the political future with fair representation that guarantees peace, economic prosperity and social equality for all.

Any political party refusal to accommodate the national requirements and address issues effectively benefiting the entire nation is a serious challenge to a democracy.

Considering the bloodshed and over a million Iraqi civilian lives lost since invasion, every Iraqi citizen is obliged to protect their individual freedom by working together as one national force regardless of the religious denomination and identity.

Iraq has tremendous potential to deal with crisis provided the central leadership is unanimously recognized and accepted as the trustworthy governing authority.

The minority skepticism and fear from the political bias could lead to perpetual sectarian conflicts depriving the majority a peaceful existence.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might be the head of the state but the legitimacy is arguably at stake based on the political fragmentation and public disapproval in the government formation.

Poignantly, the anti-American cleric Muqtadā al-Ṣadr response following the U.S.
involvement in the political decision and effort to encourage Maliki leadership in severing affiliation with Sadr movement could lead to the merger collapse.

The similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan with the foreign troops presence, training the police and the armed personnel for security, entrusting power to unpopular leadership, political uncertainties…cannot be ignored.

Hence the Iraqi non-sectarian coalition is the only reliable power to govern the state traumatized by the sectarian warfare, carnage and destruction in the absence of secular leadership.

Peace and political stability to the people of Iraq.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

Iran Nuclear Program – U.S. NATO & Israel Military Strike – An Apocalyptic Mission

November 10, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

Nuclear proliferation is a global challenge in the twenty first century. The nuclear states hierarchy has contributed to non-cooperation in ratifying Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The explicit nuclear threats exemplified by the prominent nuclear nations are largely responsible for the prolific nuclear quest.

Since the nuclear nations share equal responsibility in adherence to non-proliferation, the lack of fairness in the nuclear capability verification and the absence of universal treatment is the deterrent factor for the non-compliance among certain nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states.

Further, the ‘peaceful purpose’ concept through civilian program is a convenient avenue for some nations to advance their nuclear weaponization ignoring the inevitable serious ramifications.

Iran seeking nuclear status under such premise is a legitimate concern among the international community. Besides, Iran’s nuclear ambition could be detrimental for national and regional security.

In the increasingly insecure global environment, the nuclear threat is a potential cause for preemptive strikes and the opportunity readily available upon the Iranian nuclear weapon development.

Iran would essentially facilitate the imminent targeted attack by moving forward with the fissile material production or in accepting any nuclear deal considering the inflammatory remarks against Israel possibly used as circumstantial evidence and the Arab nations’ conspicuous reservations against Iran as the nuclear power.

Iranian authorities’ influence over Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shia insurgents is well known and the speculative nuclear arms race in the Middle East following the Iranian nuclear armament could become the fundamental reason in the military operation against Iran unequivocally evolving into a recipe for disaster in the volatile region.

Given Iran’s extemporaneous nuclear undertaking the events leading to the military response would be catastrophic triggering a worldwide confrontation. The recent reports stated that the White House never ruled out the military option and the policy reiterated through the US State department.

Hence, it is in Iran’s best interest to terminate the entire nuclear activities effective immediately and allow IAEA inspection not only to meet the international requirement but also thwart the underlying inextricable military attack aimed at the Iranian nuclear facilities with a pervasive impact on the region and the rest of the world.

Iran is not in a position to procrastinate as the military strategy has been a work-in-progress and completely prepared for the appropriate time. Iran’s default would be self-endangering and devastating considering the ‘all options including nuclear warning’ has been the agenda in the long contentious nuclear dialogue.

It is imperative for Iran to realize that convincing the allies on the nuclear involvement as the sovereign right to nuclear energy and any decisions to pursue nuclear arsenal would precisely authorize the military intervention for the warring factions.

Moreover, Iran being the fourth major oil producer with an estimated 10% of the total global oil reserves, the civilian nuclear program arguably raises a credibility issue and declining access to the international monitoring agencies for assessment arouses suspicion implying the definitive expansion to a nuclear warhead in the discreet uranium enrichment.

Iran could perhaps end the nuclear program and consequentially the imposed economic sanctions that has created enormous trade restrictions affecting the national revenue especially investments for oil production.

It would clearly be a winning situation for Iran in renouncing the nuclear goals and most importantly prevent an apocalyptic occurrence with Iran being the initial casualty and originating point.

Hopefully, Iran would reconcile terms with reality and let rationality prevail over ideology.

Peace to Iran and the Middle East.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

India-Pakistan Relations – Peace in the Indian Sub-Continent

November 8, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

In the last couple of days there have been many perspectives about India – predominantly expressing regrets, concerns and subliminal to scathing attacks for not embracing Gandhian principles in austerity and non-violence.

The specific reference was made against the rising Indian middle class and implied the Indian leaderships’ aspirations to be the leading economic and military power in the region.

The criticisms were largely directed at the hypothetical Indian Cold Talk and the alleged defense disposition presumably contributing to the nuclear neighbor Pakistan’s reluctance to withdraw troops from the Indian border for redeployment in the northwestern Pakistani territory to fight against the militancy.

Simultaneous statements supporting the critical assertions were issued by the U.S. military high command and the Pakistan-Afghanistan special envoy characterizing the non-existent Cold Talk as;

“A major threat undermining the US war in Afghanistan.”

These bizarre allegations deserve attention to dispel myths and widespread rumors intended to serve the divisive foreign policies facilitating the relentless war and arms race in the volatile region.

It is imperative to highlight the protocol ahead of the Presidential visit to India comprising two provocative US initiatives –

According to the reports:

Pakistani Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was summoned to Washington D.C. by the White House and offered a magnanimous $2 billion military aid on 10/30/10, a week before the international voyage and subsequently,

The Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, has been quoted as saying his defense posture is “India centric.”

Meanwhile, the US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer was delegated to push the American jet fighters and currently the proposal entails sensor-fused weapons or Cluster bombs and billions of dollars worth military hardware for potential use in the propaganda driven Pakistan-India confrontation.

Unequivocally, the United States recent decisions in the conventional and nuclear proliferation could be more devastating than India’s alleged militaristic ambition with the tremendous U.S. military pressure on India through the office of Presidency as the executive sales division to invest in defense weapons when the significant population in both democracies could benefit from investments in life sustenance than destruction deals.

Similarly, allowing the Retail giant Wal-Mart access to the Indian market is a political suicide given its deadly impact on small business economy. India’s vast majority survival is dependent upon entrepreneurship from street vendors to licensed small traders and family run business.

Wal-Mart arrival in India with its poor track record in the US employee’s exploitation and the Indian small businesses inevitable termination would lead to widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots ultimately backfiring against the incumbent Indian government.

With respect to India lacking in austerity – objectivity is a misnomer with the critics’ eagerness to appease the political establishment considering the domestic events such as the controversial US taxpayers funded unofficial London, Madrid trip…

Or

For that matter the three day Indian visit alone costing the US tax payers over $200 million a day.

As for India never inheriting Gandhian non-violence and evolving into an ambitious military power supposedly affecting the no-exit perpetual US war plan in Afghanistan and Pakistan;

How is it rational to offer Pakistan a $2 billion military aid rather than the desperately needed economic aid especially in the aftermath of the ravaging floods and the persistent drone attacks until now that has claimed thousands of innocent Pakistani lives under US operation?

Then on the other side, the Indian leadership arms twisted for defense contracts viz. the transportation items stripped of critical high end technology dumped on the Indian defense force draining the Indian capital reserves in billions of dollars that could otherwise be invested to save and protect millions of lives living in abject poverty.

The burden is now on the prodded Indian middle class to bear the life threatening defense and commercial ventures.

These symbolic detrimental actions by no measure conform to Gandhian or Dr. King doctrine.

Moving across to other International frontiers –

‘Obama Set to Offer Stricter Nuclear Deal to Iran’ is yet another seismic shift leaving the vulnerable Israel on the edge. Again this position by no means in adherence to Gandhi or Dr. King peace pledge alternatively the much touted nuclear disarmament during the political campaign.

The U.S. demand on India to appreciate Pakistan’s efforts on terrorism and declining to urge Pakistan to meet its end of the bargain in extraditing Mumbai terror masterminds,

Notwithstanding US default to handover the American terrorist David Headley represents the double standards that has long jeopardized US credibility in resolving international crisis.

Despite numerous terrorist activities against India originating from Pakistan, there were no military retaliation from the Indian side as falsely propagated in the so-called ‘Cold Talk’ unlike the Afghanistan war or the proxy war against Yemen in 2009 covertly conducted till date.

As stated earlier in the 10/21/10 article – India-U.S. Relationship and the Nuclear Deal published under International Politics on this website,

U.S. seeking business partnership with India is primarily focused on militarizing and nuclearizing the nation instead of reversing the trend to achieve the universal nuclear non-proliferation, the only pragmatic course to global peace and security.

In the same breath, accusing India as the growing military power in the region is political connivance misleading and instigating both India and Pakistan against one another in the same manner as Israel and Palestine are approached in the Middle East conflict.

Also explicitly denying India with the UN Security Council permanent membership is suggestive of political convenience and hypocrisy given the continuous MFN status renewal and ITO privileges to China that has been largely misused against none other than the United States.

India and the United States could forge better trade relations through civilian projects in other areas of economic benefit.

There are great opportunities in exchanging new wave technology, green sector orientation, and educational programs among many economic aspects.

It would contribute to the urgently required job growth in the U.S. with India benefiting from the advanced high end commercial agreements in non-defense aviation, heavy machinery and equipment to modernize the manufacturing sector.

Besides the multitude prospects in infrastructure improvement and construction are guaranteed to provide mutual gains.

The U.S. and India being the democratic societies could exemplify the common goal for peace and social-economic progress beginning with;

A commitment towards robust environmental policy,

Ratifying the CTBT, NPT and FMCT in concurrence with other nations,

Not barring the ICBL – the international campaign to ban land mines and,

Cultural exchange programs fostering respect and appreciation for one another.

India and Pakistan on their part could come together by setting the manifested mistrust and political differences aside to resume bilateral talks focused on strengthening economic ties through trade, transportation and most importantly signing a peace treaty involving the nuclear renunciation for a peaceful Indian sub-continent.

Both nations share rich cultural heritage and the people across the border belong to one family with adopted identities separated by external political interference.

Therefore it’s essential for the nuclear neighbors to set precedence in becoming non-nuclear and accept one another as allies not adversaries.

Pakistan and Afghanistan population have shed enough blood from the violence with no end in sight.

The vibrant middle class in Pakistan could shape the nation’s destiny by participating in political process and prioritizing nation building. The Pakistani citizens across the religious, social and economic spectrum possess the key to Pakistan’s bright future.

Pakistan and Afghanistan progress is stalled due to foreign occupation and political meddling by sources not particularly interested in the regional advancement.

Certain Pakistan military and intelligence personnel have been instrumental in derailing the democratically elected governments albeit on corruption scandals,

Nevertheless the political instability has exacerbated the fragile economic conditions with unemployed youth and under educated mass in the rural-urban areas becoming the likely recruits for terror networks attributed to the foreign Para-military troops’ infiltration and unmanned drones producing many civilian casualties.

Pakistan could end the unmitigated violence through co-operation with India and Afghanistan working in harmony instead of acrimony towards each other.

There is tremendous hope for optimistic tri-lateral relations between the three neighbors – Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

The people in all three nations look forward to unity and tranquility in the war and terror dominant South East and Central Asia.

People power is resilient and resourceful to overcome challenges confronting the nation.

Peace to the Indian sub-continent and the rest of the world.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under International Politics | Leave a Comment 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

PadminiArhant.com