How US Think Tanks are Luring India

[Moses]

How American Zionist Think Tanks Are Luring India Into Their Parlor Over Kashmir   <br>
By Ghulam Muhammed

Al-Jazeerah, April 9, 2005

 <br>
As an Indian Muslim, I am all for the new Indian initiative to come to some arrangements with Pakistan and the people of Kashmir over Kashmir imbroglio so that the whole sub-continent may savor real peace that had eluded the two neighbors, warring over Kashmir for the last half a century. Much that the current initiative --- starting with one of the many CBMs (Confidence Building Measure) ----flagging off a bus services opening the gates across the symbolically important travel route between capitals of the two parts of the divided Kashmir --- is most welcome and has generated a genuine upsurge of popular opinion from both India and Pakistan, the antecedents and the course that this BUS diplomacy could take, should be open to public scrutiny.

It is surprising that the problem of Kashmir attracts more in-depth coverage in the West, than in Indian and Pakistan media. The people are continuously kept in the dark, with the pious arguments that negotiations would better be engaged in private, rather than in public and through media headlines. However, this process is fraught with dangers, when the rulers of both negotiation teams are so pressured through political give and take, that they could barter away the very independence, sovereignty and freedom of their country to a third party, that appears on the scene merely as facilitator, a common friend, a universal well-wisher. The people, like the cuckolded husband, would be the last to know.

The people of India and Pakistan should be made aware as to what are the stakes of the US facilitators and what will be the cost of their friendly advice and facilitation.

Indian public is snowed under with embarrassment of riches, that Bush in his phone call and Condi Rice in her personal visit are showering on both India and Pakistan. Though there is hardly any serious discussion as to what come after. It is common knowledge, that there is no free lunch.

Bruce Fein, an American Zionist lawyer and ‘international’ consultant with Lichfield group, who was associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, in an article published by a Mumbai eveninger, Mid-day, might have released the cat out of the bag, when he writes:

“India squanders 800,000 troops and paramiliatary personnel plus billions in defending the line of control ---”.

The most urgent priority for the expansionist US superpower is to extend its hegemony over weak and indefensible countries around the world, through the use of US military power. This is the sacred blueprint that the American Zionist Neo-con planners have scripted for America’s New Century and their own New World Order. With their invasion of Iraq, resulting in tremendous strain on their human and material resources, they are drooling over India’s riches of 800,000 troops, engaged in a worthless exercise that could hardly be justified in their ‘investment oriented’ logic of armed warfare. In invading Iraq, US warmongers have gone to great length to work out the input-output equation to venture in this cold-blooded business enterprise. Indian rulers appear to be unfit and unfamiliar with this universal business of loot and scoot. They have been pouring precious billions into the western border defenses, just to press a point that Maharaja of Kashmir had duly signed an instrument of accession. For good order, western sources have put out, that the signature on that document is a fake and India is bleeding for half a century over a dispute that is possibly legally un-maintainable in international law, while its armed resources could be more profitably deployed in other theaters of the world, where the booty is much more substantial than the fake glory of making Kashmir a virtual prisoner camp, both for the people as well as the armed forces.

Zionists thinkers and bankers have a long history of treating war as a business proposal. They invest the money and they want the returns. The Neo-con group that originally worked out the New American Century plan, with full co-operation and encouragement from Israeli ruling and opposition leaders, has got the whole of America in a new euphoric mood to re-conquer the old colonized world, by investing their credit lines in armed conflicts around the world. All they lack are sufficient military forces fighting on the ground level. They have enough arsenals to destroy the whole world, a few times over. However, as shrewd business people, they want only to exploit their victims, and not interested in total destruction. It will be like slaughtering the golden goose. India and Pakistan with their pool of millions of fighting men, who had in the past fought colonial wars on behalf of their colonial masters, are the most attractive sleeping partners that can be brought to join the neo-colonial enterprise.

For lot of people at the helm of affairs in both, India and Pakistan, this is what is becoming a world power all about. However, those will some recall of history, how colonial wars in Asia, Middle East, Africa and even the internecine European armed conflicts had darkened the last few centuries, will be more than cautious in allowing India and Pakistan to become the next theater of bloody wars of much more brutal consequences. For the American Zionist Think Tanks, wars are business as usual. They want perpetual wars for perpetual peace. India had had altogether different ethos. Its natural wealth had always attracted others to invade it. India has never gone out to invade other nations, at least as long as it was master of its own destiny. The colonials are back.

A sad fact is that the ruling Brahmins are convinced that they cannot perpetuate their rule in India, through democratic means. In pursuance of their own security, interest and future prospects, they are extremely vulnerable to political and economic pressure to join hands with American Zionist Think Tanks and bankers, and deliver the whole sub-continent as willing partner to India’s New Century of blood and gore, instead of the glittering prospects of a new economic dawn. Indian people will not forget Atal Behari Vajpayee’s PMO head, Brajesh Mishra announcing the new strategic agreement with the US administration, at the most prominent Zionist Think Tank organization, American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Just like Pakistan, Democratic India is soon to lose its freedom to act. Let people beware! In the euphoria over the peaceful Kashmir solution, we should not lose sight of wider issues involved and should be prepared to resist any cooked up solutions that will require India to fight other people’s wars of conquest and exploitation. India should not be in the front line of any international conflict that is imposed on it through manipulation and subterfuge.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai, India <[e-mail]  <br>

[Moses]

Washington's Hidden Agenda in South Asia:


Indo-US Military to Military Relations

by Vishhnu Bhagwat

 Aerospace & Marine International, January 2005

www.globalresearch.ca    6 Feb 2005

The URL of this article is: globalresearch.ca/articles/BAG501A.html

---

Military to military relationships usually have as their underlying basis the tacit approval of the 'limiting boundaries' set by the political leadership of the two countries involved.

The United States has a long and somewhat controversial history of such relationships that it has forged with countries around the world, particularly in The Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Latin America and nearer home in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey and now in Eastern Europe and the Central Asian and Caspian Sea region.

Its military to military relationships with European nations have been of a markedly different character, though immediately after World War II, the US was engaged in a large covert undercover operation, which consisted in eliminating the Communist Resistance in these countries. The latter [Communist Resistance] had gained popular acceptance in several European countries including such as France, Italy and Greece to give some examples, in view of their anti-fascist peoples movements and militia organization at a time when most governments had capitulated to Nazi /fascist atrocities.

Overthrow of democratically elected civilian governments was routine in Brazil, Argentina, Chile or Pakistan if it served the political and economic interests of the US.

The School of the Americas,    identified,  groomed and trained military and police officers to assume such Leadership roles in their home countries.

The International Police Academy groomed the up and coming police and intelligence officers of the developing countries and gave them the political orientation of the free world , free market economies etc, and of Us sponsored "democracy". <br>
India had stayed largely clear of such joint military/police ventures having a broad understanding of the policy objectives of A NON ALIGNED STATE.

With the spread of such an all encompassing concept as 'Globalization' with policies oriented towards the political and economic objectives of the nation-state all but remaining in name, with arms expenditures of all countries concurrently escalating in an arms race fuelled by antagonisms, the orchestrated 'war on terror' fueled among others by Oil giants and arms manufacturing conglomerates in need of subsidies from national exchequers, strange undercurrents seem to be at play.

In the introduction to a recent publication 'People , Progress, Partnership - The Transformation of US -India Relations' , the outgoing US Secretary of State, General Colin Powell recalls former Prime Minister Vajpayee's words that India and the US are "natural allies".

In this context the question arises who are the "natural enemies" of these "natural allies"?

This document has an entire chapter on ' Defense Relations - Shared Strategic Future' . (http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/in1/wwwfpppdef.pdf)

During General Colin Powell's last visit to New Delhi the Secretary of State of the Bush administration, spoke glowingly of 'Military to Military' relations progressing, and being the cornerstone of growing Indo-US relations, in this fundamental transformation in relations between the United States and India.

Secretary Powell underlined that ,"together we have opened new levels of co-operation on law enforcement and intelligence sharing"

.It is worthwhile summarizing the major thrust areas of this chapter on ' Defense Relations-Shared Strategic Future' : (http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/in1/wwwfpppdef.pdf)


1.The key word in the ever expanding lexicon of the US-India defense relationship is "inter-operability" It portrays a future in which the two countries share strategic doctrines and operations in order to tackle the challenges of a new century

2.It was India's swift response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US and its unconditional support for the war on terrorism that galvanized the change in US-India military relations

3. The first steps had already been taken months earlier, when India endorsed the National Missile Defense program unveiled by President Bush in his speech at the National Defense University in May 2001.

4. The announcement of removal of sanctions against India in September 2001 helped to identify mutually overlapping national security goals and gave new impetus to military ties.

5.The aim of the burgeoning military ties is to develop capabilities and confidence , jointly confront multilateral security issues , such as protection of energy supplies and sea lanes, conduct peace-keeping and combat terrorism. The military establishments of both countries have much to gain from strengthening this relationship.

6. The development of inter-operable procedures, communications and doctrines is only possible through familiarization , understanding and confidence building , focusing on areas of mutual interest and enhancing the professional development of personnel.

7. Fast paced developments in military to military ( "mil to mil") relations have been the most visible aspect of transforming the bilateral relationship. This is evident from the growing frequency of bilateral exercises ,seminars, personnel exchanges , high level and unit visits and exchanges , as well as military technology sales and cooperation, "and can play an important part in contributing to peace ,security and freedom" in Asia. Admiral Blair former CinC, US Pacific Fleet emphasized during his visit to India:


 "We will develop our relationship with India on the basis of India's emergence as a rising global power."


8.The guidance document of the US-India defense relationship is the 'Agreed Minute of Defense Relations of 1995. However the relationship has since then acquired many new dimensions and progressed towards "working together in real situations and when the need arises".

A key element of the engagement process is the enlarged 'International Military Education and Training (IMET) program which has a questionable record and history in the role that some of the US trained and sponsored officers have subsequently played in overturning democratically elected Governments, replacing them with military juntas or in allying with civil servants who subtly further US interests in their home countries.

9. Joint operations and joint exercises will it is argued in the document under reference, necessitate India possessing compatible equipment and technology. (Even though electronic sensors were marginally effective to check Mexican infiltration across flat land, into the US, India has inducted the same sensors on the LOC in J&K and stationed US technical personnel to install and maintain these sensors).

10.The document quotes former US Ambassador Blackwell as saying


 " The US will be a reliable provider of defense commodities to India because a strengthened ,capable and effective Indian military is in America's national interests."


11. The last refrain for 'mil to mil ' relationships is of course combating the regional and global challenges of terrorism.

(continued)

[Moses]

Two of the initiatives in the recently accelerated relationship have invited reactions which need to be addressed in the background of the continuity and clarity of the definition of what constitute US vital national interests.

These are spelt out in the National Security Strategy documents promulgated periodically.

Therefore several [Indian] media commentators who take the trouble to comment on President Bush being 'good for India' are simply adding to the obfuscation of the core issues. US presidents uphold and relentlessly pursue Corporate America's interests, though their style and rhetoric in public speech may differ.

The control of oil and key mineral resources in West/Central Asia, West Africa and Latin America is the number one priority of US policy and nothing will permit a deviation.

In this regard, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses : Strategy, Forces and Resources', are be reassessed in the framework of the 'Project for the New American Century' ( PNAC).  

If the criticality of the 'Resource rich' areas is geo-politically necessary, a "Force Posture Review' is undertaken without fuss. US policy is not influenced by sentimentality or even such values frequently resorted to as 'freedom and democracy' though they may be frequently cited to camouflage US corporate interests.

It is hardly necessary to quote examples, in different parts of the world. Democracy plays second fiddle in the pursuit of US global interests.

Some may say that this is 'real-politik' and it has always been so, especially so where imperial interests are to be secured. The problem is not with the United States which has a clear global vision , all spelt out. The real problem lies in the minds of the spin doctors who are out to confuse the public interest of the people of India as to where lie our vital national interests.

November 2004 saw some inspired writing in the mainstream [Indian] media and some TV channels painting a doomsday scenario for the most important non-NATO ally of Washington: Pakistan.

It is being visualized in this scenario that Pakistan is all on the way to 'cracking up / or break up ( despite the US economic aid of $ 3 billion and military Supplies already in the pipeline of one billion dollars ) , US military forward operating bases in Pakistan, a pervasive influence and control of the ISI, and close relationships with the Pak military .

Following the break up it is projected that the US and India will intervene to eliminate the Jehadi forces in Pakistan.

This scenario is totally unrealistic and ignores the military strategic objective of the United States in the region with large, debilitating US forces committed in Iraq, preparing for similar action in Iran and the axis of evil; the military forces redeployment to West Africa , and stretched out from Georgia-Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan , The Kyrgyz republic, Turkmenistan , not to mention the over 700 US bases around the world .

With this reality, Ops "Save Pakistani Freedom'' does not appear to be a probable one, with 'save Nepal , Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, on the anvil ! The security management issues confronting us are such that we are in no position to consider interventions outside. The BJP led government 's policy announcements, articulated by Mr LK Advani and Mr Brajesh Mishra " about the same source of terror", will have to rest while the present government devotes itself to pursuing a fragile energy security scenario to keep the people, industry and agriculture going, rather than chasing terrorists in foreign lands.

It is the same type of thinking of their being joint security interests that commits the Indian Navy to 'joint anti-piracy' patrolling with the US Navy in Malacca Straits, without the prior concurrence and participation of Malaysia and Indonesia, the other two nations on the Straits .

The Proliferation Security Initiative is a laudable idea , but it needs UN approval . After all the IAEA is a UN instrument . The US and India unilaterally intercepting , searching , detaining merchant ships in international waters could become messy business and cause avoidable friction and tension , specially when Intelligence is poor as was in Iraq and the Niger Uranium and the aluminium rods case and wholly fabricated in pursuit of US military objectives in other sovereign states.

Any objective analysis will demonstrate that US global designs, plans, preparations, operations have an altogether different dimension and there is very little by way of convergence between a Super Power and India, whose main challenge is to maintain its unity and lift its billion people out of misery and poverty -to feed ,clothe, house, educate, and provide employment to about 18 million young people entering working age new year, apart from the responsibility of nearly six hundred million who are unemployed or under unemployed and , therefore suffer serious malnutrition.

A former Prime -Minister, himself forced to sign the IMF loan and conditionalities and subsequently the Uruguay GATT agreements, US Treasury sponsored 'Reforms' and its consequences spoke of the 'middle path' and cautioned his Government and the country against too close an "Alingan" or embrace.

We now have a situation where the US Armed forces, a hitherto highly professional institution has turned itself deliberately and openly into a killing machine to impress the world with diabolical cruelty; mass murdering men , women and children sparing no one not the ill , maimed or old people in Iraqi cities, much of it on video tape.

Civilians have been bombarded, indescribable methods of torture have been used on children, women and civilians at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere , the infrastructure of cities and towns including water, sanitation , electricity and hospitals have been destroyed for the world to see . The Resistance of the people of Iraq to the occupation of their country and seizure by military means of the Oil resources is being described as "insurgency" and "terrorism." We are witnessing the Nazi assault and holocaust again and a replay of Vietnam on video in the scenes of killings by the Occupation forces emerging from Iraq.

Within the United States the US Administration having politicized the CIA even more than ever before has resulted in a revolt amongst CIA personnel at various levels and departments ,including analysts, and personnel in overt and covert operations. To sideline this dissent the US Secretary of Defense had already created a Special Intelligence Group , in the Pentagon reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense , to provide Intelligence to justify policy decisions already made for Iraq and elsewhere. The latest news leaks are reporting that Covert operations or 'War in the Shadows', in foreign countries will henceforth be carried out by the US Armed Forces , the CIA having been divested of this responsibility due to lack of confidence ( and trust) in its personnel. This fundamentally changes the character of the Armed Forces who now become the preferred and sole instrument of the Administration in planning and executing covert operations , which includes assassinations of Heads of State, and political leaders , subversion of local militias and their bosses to serve such political objectives as 'Regime Change' or the blackmailing Governments. In other words, the deployments on the battlefield can change into covert deployments in another country's political arena and its internal affairs as per requirement . That transforms the Generals , Admirals and Air Marshals into secret operatives who will stop at nothing and to whom no rules of engagement will apply. They already enjoy , by the US President's executive order immunity from the International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions as interpreted by the President of the United States .

What must be squarely faced, is whether 'mil to mil ' relations, therefore, will generate a similar psyche in the Indian Armed Forces and whether we can remain immune to the example that is being demonstrated in the name of anti-insurgency and counter terror operations, on daily show in Iraq and Palestine.

Will this influence not lead to a blow-back that will completely destabilize a nation with a diversity presently mutually reinforcing in India?

In fact, these objectives if emulated of the US strategic military covert doctrine could turn India 's direction to a theocracy with a contrived ' Internal Enemy'. Importantly will such close relations with US military forces mandated to carry out covert operations against people of sovereign nations not alter the apolitical and hitherto secular and professional character of our much respected Armed Forces ? Will it not result in India's objectives being questioned in the region and globally ? Are we then not playing with fire?

(continued)

[Moses]

The world is witnessing a fragile 'energy security ' situation which many experts and conferences on 'peak oil' have categorized as the "End of the Age of Oil'. We are witnessing a volatile dollar on a steady decline, with countries, companies and individuals switching to the Euro and gold , having earlier given life support to the US economy , hitherto regarded as a global power house. Today its Government ,, Corporate, and household debt is in trillions and every day and it is the injection of $ 2.6 billion a day, and 80% of the world's savings that enables the US economy to manage to survive , holding in hostage the Chinese and Japanese economies , East Asia and Europe and the Central Banks , including India. All those who have parked their dollars in US Treasury bonds ! (The Prime -Minister Dr Man Mohan Singh, known for his understatements, underlined at the Senior Commanders Conference , on 26th October, 04 , the "imperatives of the increasingly unstable international environment."

Very few nations would survive this economic time-bomb that is ticking relentlessly. Therefore, to talk of the 'war on terror', which is a cover up for the war to capture resources, is brinkmanship on a global scale.

India has tackled terrorism and insurgency, , with political acumen and sagacity; through reconciliation ,bringing about peace in very difficult circumstances. Narcotics , gun running and terrorism together have been and are our foes aimed at corroding the independence
of our economic and political policies within and in International fora.

In February 2004, the 'Next Step in Strategic Partnership' (NSSP), was hailed by the BJP leadership as a precursor to the bonanza of hi-tech that would follow. (see news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/indo-us-ties-under-b-8108.html )

The last BJP led Government sold out India's vital national interests ( see Aerospace & Marine International issue no.10 of May 2004) and brought no major gains. It consistently by-passed Parliament, hid its inter-governmental and agreements from the people and the Parliament wholly in violation of the Republican form of government which mandates open policies.

A former Foreign Secretary Shri Kanwal Sibal now our Ambassador in Moscow is reported in the Hindu, dated 28th October as saying ,



" India and the United States are not strategic partners , and have a long way to before they become that ….NSSD 2001 describes India as the US Strategic partner Ignoring the harsh reality that India and the United States cannot be strategic partners until issues related to nuclear power , missiles and dual technologies are resolved . Mr. Kanwal Sibal is further quoted as saying that " India was still subject to US sanctions."



In a recent interview to Hindu , Dr Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, in reply to the question "Will the dialogue with the US Next Steps in Strategic Partnership be of any use to India for developing our nuclear power technology ? " answered "I don't think so."

A lot of water has flowed down the Ganges since the days of the BJP led Government went on an imaginary honeymoon on distant shores.

On 19th September, 2001, Times of India, normally a cautious paper reported on a front page dispatch, datelined New Delhi , under the heading 'India offers America use of three air bases'. The report said


"Even though no military plans have been firmed up by the US for retaliatory strikes , India has identified three air bases in addition to unspecified port facilities on the western seaboard as part of its operational support to the US. The air bases are Avantipur in Jammu & Kashmir ( next to Srinagar to be more precise ), Adampur in Punjab and Jamnagar to the US. A senior security (defence) official told TNN that the offer was conveyed to the US after it was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security last Thursday ( ie around 14th September 2001, three days after 9/11, a record of sorts ), after consultation with the three service chiefs who unanimously agreed on the need to support US action. ( without knowing its contours and dimensions ).. According to the official " The Chiefs felt that the Americans had joined 'our' war against terrorism and we must naturally be the first ones to offer them help". The official stated that Defense Minister Jaswant Singh's articulation of the Governments stand, was motivated by a desire to ensure that Pakistan does not gain by India's default"… The official said India has already begun "operational cooperation" by providing US officials with intelligence on Afghan camps and on the Taliban. The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)  has gathered a wealth of detail on Pakistani military assistance to the Taliban in the last few years ( US ambassador Blackwill meets defence chiefs, page 7) the TOI report concludes."


It is hardly necessary to add that the United States preferred to operate from and with Pakistan. The CCS had made decisions ,without waiting to pause , in a record 72 hours . 'Our war on terrorism' as the Service Chiefs reportedly described it, continued against Cross Border terrorism exported by Pakistan , as here to before ,with little or no assistance from the US except to nudge and cajole us to sit for talks with MINNA. The 'attack' on The Parliament House on 13th December , 2002 led to the ' goofed up' up Ops Parakrama ( when the Army Chief asked the Prime Minister, what the PM expected from the war or in other words what the political objective of the unprecedented mobilization or "Stand to" of the Armed forces was to achieve ;all he got in reply was : "Who Baad Mein Batayenge" (that will be told later)

As for R&AW [Research & Analysis Wing] which is ever ready with 'details' for the US , and hardly ever for our own Defense Forces we have the following on record from an Intelligence official, after l'affaire Ravinder Singh in May04…. The Hindu reported in a series of articles the failure to issue directions by the National Security Adviser , Brajesh Mishra, while he was in the know and while the file was with him for some days 'instructions even to prevent the CIA asset to fly out of the country' (He was reportedly under surveillance). Why did Mishra hold back a decision ? Why was Ravinder Singh so important to the Americans is what the Intelligence Adviser in the PMO wants to find out ?

The Hindu report dated 20 August 04 under banner headlines "Why was terror intelligence withheld" reports quotes in extenso Indian Intelligence officials as expressing 'concern over the withholding of terrorism- related information by the United States -information New Delhi believes could be key to saving lives 'Specific instances of non sharing of information gained through interrogations of Al Qaeda operatives like Muhammad Khan , arrested on 13 July, with respect to Al Qaeda operatives in India , as this organization shares infrastructure with Pak based terrorist groups operating in India. Various arrests of key people in Afghanistan and Pakistan charged with aiding the Taliban also ran extensive terror networks in India . Cases with names running Harkat ul Ansar, like Akhtar , interrogated and detained have been cited at the counter-terror meetings in New Delhi in July '04 but Indian Intelligence has been kept in the dark. "The US assets, which are part of the extensive technical and human intelligence of the US in Pakistan pick up enormous communication intelligence on the activities of terrorist organizations based in Pakistan." Our Intelligence officials have been cited in the Hindu report as saying , "that not one single piece of intelligence has ever been passed on to us . By contrast, we're being regularly mined for whatever we know about these groups." Washington has also been unwilling to facilitate ongoing CBI investigations into the 1999 hijacking of Indian airlines flight IC-814.

(continued)

[Moses]

A senior Intelligence official told the Hindu that while counter -terrorism has expanded greatly in recent years , much of what was passed on was "vague in the extreme and almost never of operational use." Are we to assume that knowing this state of play the Cabinet Committee on Security and the three Service Chiefs have played a game from 1999 to May 2004, which is fraught with grave consequences , in opening the doors of civil and military intelligence , the sanctum sanctorum, to US and Israeli intelligence. This bonhomie and casualness has extended to joint exercises in J&K and the North East where not only are assets recruited but the 'ground truth' of spy satellite imagery is verified .

All the joint exercises primarily provide windows to probe our electronic warfare and communication vulnerabilities. Friendly countries do not launch almost daily intelligence flights up and down our Western and Eastern seaboards from Diego Garcia and Australian bases, nor would their surveillance aircraft and 'research ships' monitor our exercises , missile firings and take gravimetric measurements and hydrological conditions on a fairly regular basis off sensitive Indian vital areas ( VAs) and VPs.

The greatest opening into previously barred areas has been encouraged by the former Home Minister and the two Defense Ministers ( Fernandes and Jaswant Singh with the tacit concurrence of the former PM and his NSA) . Senior civil, intelligence and military intelligence officials , knowing that this was gravely jeopardizing national security fell in line to curry favor , promotions and gubernatorial posts, like Dave for example. Kashmir and the North -East specially were up for grabs. Otherwise their jobs may have been on line.

The greatest losses have occurred as this ' bonhomie, 'trust' and unmonitored contacts have multiplier effects whose bounds have never been assessed . In the meanwhile the think tanks in New Delhi in particular, and the media in general have been giving encouraging uncritical support, to such activities and individuals.

Will anyone in the new dispensation call for a review of the losses and gains and bring into force time tested checks and balances in the 'mil to mil' and civilian to civilian relations at par with what the US, UK and every prudent nation has thought it appropriate, to minimally safeguard its interests.

 <br>
The writer is a former Chief of the Naval Staff ( India) and an expert on geopolitical, strategic and military issues

[Moses]

April 18, 2005
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Pipeline to Peace
By GEORGE PERKOVICH and REVATI PRASAD

Washington — India's foreign minister visited Washington last week and met with President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top officials to discuss a range of mutual interests, from countering China's strategic clout to promoting economic growth and resolving tensions between India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's obsession with Iran threatens to block a major initiative that could advance many of those goals.

India and Pakistan are trying to overcome decades of mistrust by cooperating on a pipeline that would bring natural gas from Iran through Pakistan to India. It is the sort of economically necessary, environmentally friendly and security-enhancing initiative that the United States has long advocated. Yet the administration and Congress are so fixated on pressuring Iran [due to the ownership of both by the Israeli lobby] that they would threaten sanctions against any foreign entity that participates in this win-win project between two bitter antagonists.

The 1,625-mile pipeline would originate in Iran's South Pars gas field and traverse southwest Pakistan to the Indian border, where India would then construct a line to bring the gas to energy-starved western India. The $4 billion pipeline would be the most economical way to get natural gas from the Persian Gulf to India. No American financing is needed to make it happen.

India is desperate for new sources of energy; its strong economic growth will stall without it. Pakistan would probably reap $600 million to $700 million annually in transit fees from the pipeline, which would also bring jobs to the restive regions of Baluchistan and Sind. For its part, Iran has agreed to provide $200 million for development in Pakistan and to establish a Pakistan-Iran investment company to improve bilateral investment.

Beyond the obvious economic benefits, the pipeline would reduce the risk of conflict between India and Pakistan. As Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan, a former Citigroup executive, explained, "If we do this pipeline and it does take off, I sincerely believe India-Pakistan relations will move forward in the right direction." Indian officials, while concerned that Pakistani governments will not always keep the gas flowing, judge the economic and strategic gains to be worth the risk.

The pipeline would also have environmental benefits. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, and a steady supply of it to India would help slow carbon emissions that would otherwise contribute to global warming.

The Bush administration objects because it believes that economic pain can compel Iran to abandon its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and will, ultimately, drive the cleric-led government from power. But 26 years of sanctions and pressure have achieved neither objective; indeed, they may have convinced many Iranians that only nuclear technology can protect their country against American hostility.

Democrats and Republicans alike, especially in Congress, have consistently misdiagnosed Iran's political dynamics. Nationalism has largely supplanted revolutionary religious fervor in Iran, and American pressure only feeds it. Iranians from across the political spectrum are convinced that the United States aims to keep their nation down, as payback for the hostage crisis and the 1979 revolution. Blocking the pipeline would continue that counterproductive trend.

Moreover, Washington can't have it both ways. We can't argue that Iran does not need nuclear energy because it has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas and then block Iran's investments in its gas industry. To wean Iran from its nuclear program, including its pursuit of uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to produce weapons, Washington must convince Iranians that the United States supports their peaceful economic development.

The Bush administration threatens to compound the negative impact of its opposition to the pipeline by supplying India with new nuclear reactors as an alternative - a proposal that would go against existing domestic laws and international nuclear nonproliferation guidelines. Such a unilateral and mercantile move would incense Canada, Germany, Japan and other countries that the United States has pressured not to sell nuclear technology to countries like India that don't accept international safeguards.

In effect, the administration would be trying to block Iran's nuclear ambitions by rewarding India's, thereby undermining the global support needed for tougher nonproliferation rules both now and in the future.

The wisest solution is the simplest one here. All the United States has to do is stay out of the way and let market forces and regional security interests take over. A pipeline that is good for India, Pakistan and - God forbid - Iran will be good for America.

---

George Perkovich is the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Revati Prasad is a junior fellow there.

[Moses]

New York Times reports that:

April 19, 2005

Facing Global Sanctions, Iran Uses Oil Fields to Seek Alliances
By JAD MOUAWAD

TEHRAN, Iran - As it faces the threat of global sanctions from the United States and Europe because of suspicions that it is turning its nuclear program to weapons production, Iran is fighting back with a powerful weapon of its own: its vast oil and gas resources.

Iran's ruling clerics are meticulously arranging energy sales and building partnerships with influential countries, including China and India, as a way to win stronger friendships around the world.

The rising price of oil, nervousness in the energy markets and the scramble by fast-growing countries to secure their own access to oil supplies has lately played into Tehran's hand.

This renewed push to turn underground riches into political power complicates the Bush administration's attempt to isolate Iran, which holds 10 percent of the world's oil deposits and has the second-largest gas reserves.

High-profile talks with European negotiators continue over the future of its nuclear program, as does the threat of United Nations sanctions and American action in the background.

But in the meantime, Iran has approached China and India, two of the largest and most dynamic consumer markets, and promised them long-term supplies of gas and access to oil exploration.

In addition, Iran last year granted Japan, traditionally its largest customer in Asia, even greater access to oil.

"Iran wants to diversify its strategic alliances and is looking to the East," said Ali Ghezelbash, an oil analyst at Atieh Bahar Consulting, a business consultancy in Tehran. "China and India are huge consumers of energy and could be very powerful allies for Iran on the international scene."

As American oil companies are barred from investing in Iran because of unilateral sanctions, Iran's policy is opening the door to their state-owned rivals in Asia to build up oil and gas reserves as a counterweight.

There is no guarantee, though, that Iran's clients will necessarily turn into political allies. Moreover, Iran's ability to buy friendships is undermined by its own limitations. While the country pumps close to four million barrels of oil a day, it spends $2 billion each year to import fuel because of a lack of refining capacity. Then it spends another $3 billion to subsidize gasoline that is sold here at one of the lowest prices in the world - 8 cents a liter, or about 30 cents a gallon.

And nearly a third of Iran's production is unavailable for export because it is tied up in domestic consumption, where much of it is squandered by inefficient cars, badly insulated homes or wasteful industries.

"Iran definitely has geology on its side," said Vincent Lauerman, the editor in chief of Geopolitics of Energy, an industry newsletter based in Calgary, Alberta. "But if you look at the fields that are producing, these tend to be mature and declining."

Still, for all its problems, Tehran is definitely making progress in its geopolitical campaign. In January, Iran said it would provide India with liquefied natural gas for 25 years, an agreement valued at $40 billion. It also gave India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Company, ONGC, a 20 percent stake in the Yadavaran oil field, a 300,000 barrel-a-day project.

That agreement came on the heels of a similar deal signed in October, a commitment to supply China with natural gas over 30 years that also granted China's state-owned oil company, Sinopec, a 50 percent stake in Yadavaran, which holds an estimated 3 billion barrels of oil reserves. This came with a potential value of $70 billion.

Iran is also trying to persuade the strategic rivals India and Pakistan to agree to the construction of a $4 billion pipeline that would carry Iranian gas through Pakistan to India.

In the meantime, after years of fruitless talks, Japan's Inpex last year was granted a $2 billion development contract for the Azadegan field, Iran's largest discovery in the past three decades, with an estimated 26 billion barrels of reserves.

"It is very clear, for example in the case of China, that their energy interest in Iran gives them a stake in the game," said Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy based in New York. "Their position is much more engaged here because of their energy policy."

Oil-rich countries, of course, have long used their resources to expand alliances, make new friends or punish adversaries. Nor is energy diplomacy something new for Iran; in the 1970's when the shah ruled Iran, the country was very active in using its oil to build up political support, particularly with the West.

But Iran's Islamic regime is finding that its oil weapon can be a double-edged sword.

With the bulk of the world's oil reserves concentrated in the Persian Gulf and production elsewhere slowly waning, Iran knows that it has time on its side.

"The world will be consuming growing amounts of oil and only five or six countries can supply this," said Mehdi Hashemi, a son of Iran's former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who maintains ties with the oil ministry. "Iran is one of them."

In 1995, Mr. Rafsanjani, who was president then, even tried to lure the United States into improving relations by granting Houston-based Conoco a $1 billion oil development deal.

But the strategy backfired. Ten days after the announcement, President Clinton banned American companies from contributing to Iran's oil sector.

The following year, Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, or ILSA, which threatened penalties against American and non-American companies investing more than $20 million in Iran and Libya's energy sectors.

"Whenever Iran has wanted to get closer to a country it has used its oil diplomacy," said Siamak Namazi, a managing director at Atieh Bahar, the Tehran consultancy. "But the history of American-Iranian relations has been that when one opens the window, the other nails it shut."

Iran is counting on outside help to bolster its stagnating production. After nearly two decades of isolation, the clerical rulers of Iran have realized they cannot afford the massive expansion and modernization the industry needs without capital and expertise from abroad.

Since the mid-1990's, foreign investors, mainly European and Asian companies, have poured about $15 billion into Iran's oil and gas industry. But the country's energy resources remain tired and have never really recovered from the Islamic revolution of 1979.

After the clerics toppled the shah, they cut their oil output by two-thirds to demonstrate their resolve to sever ties with the West; the Iranian industry then became a prime economic target in the eight-year war against Iraq. But when Iran signaled it was once again ready to open up access to foreigners, the United States imposed sanctions against its oil sector.

From a peak production of six million barrels of oil a day in 1974, Iran's oil output slumped to two million barrels in the early 1980's, and has since stabilized at around four million barrels a day, or 5 percent of the world's output.

"Iran has obviously suffered from the departure of the expatriates, from sanctions, from poor management, and from political interference," said Manouchehr Takin, an analyst at the Center for Global Energy Studies in London.

Iran's current expansion plans call for increasing oil production to 5.5 million barrels a day by 2010. But since fields have an annual rate of decline of 200,000 barrels a day, Iran actually needs to find an additional 2.5 million barrels a day - as much as what neighboring Kuwait produces - if it wants to meet its target.

Given the country's restrictive investment rules and the tense political environment, foreign investors are not rushing in. Recently, Lord John Browne, the chief executive of BP, angered Iranian oil officials when he said that to do business with Iran at the moment would be "offensive to the United States and therefore against BP's interests."

Energy has been at the center of Iranian politics ever since the first foreign concession was granted in 1901 to William Knox D'Arcy, an English businessman. It still holds a central part in the nation's recent history - from the creation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the nationalization of the oil sector in 1951, and the CIA-led coup to topple the leftist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, two years later.

The question remains very much alive today in Iran, where foreign ownership of petroleum assets is constitutionally prohibited and where energy policy is vigorously debated in Parliament.

"It's true throughout the Middle East, but the public here is very emotional about the oil issue," Mr. Takin said. "In Iran, the memories of the past are still very vivid."

But as with any high-stakes business, Iran's energy diplomacy is partly a bluff. For many oil executives here, the decisive coup would be, as it tried in 1995, to attract American companies back - but this time lock them in.

"We've been in this business for over a hundred years," said Hossein Kazempour Ardebili, a senior adviser to Iran's foreign and oil ministries. "Security of supplies is our bread and butter. If the United States is looking for security of supplies, Iran is an inevitable partner."

---

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company