How English Ruined Indian Literature

By AATISH TASEER

MARCH 19, 2015 

Source Link

NEW DELHI — A BOATMAN I met in Varanasi last year, while covering the general election that made Narendra Modi prime minister of India, said, “When Modi comes to power, we will send this government of the English packing.”

The government of the English! The boatman naturally did not mean the British Raj; that had ended nearly 70 years before. What he meant was its extension through the English-speaking classes in India. He meant me, and he could tell at a glance — these things have almost the force of racial differences in India — that I was not just a member of that class, but a beneficiary of the tremendous power it exerted over Indian life.

“English is not a language in India,” a friend once told me. “It is a class.” This friend, an aspiring Bollywood actor, knew firsthand what it meant to be from the wrong class. Absurd as it must sound, he was frequently denied work in the Hindi film industry for not knowing English. “They want you to walk in the door speaking English. Then if you switch to Hindi, they like it. Otherwise they say, ‘the look doesn’t fit.’ ” My friend, who comes from a small town in the Hindi-speaking north, knew very well why his look didn’t fit. He knew, too, from the example of dozens of upper-middle class, English-speaking actors, that the industry would rather teach someone with no Hindi the language from scratch than hire someone like him.

India has had languages of the elite in the past — Sanskrit was one, Persian another. They were needed to unite an entity more linguistically diverse than Europe. But there was perhaps never one that bore such an uneasy relationship to the languages operating beneath it, a relationship the Sanskrit scholar Sheldon Pollock has described as “a scorched-earth policy,” as English.

India, if it is to speak to itself, will always need a lingua franca. But English, which re-enacts the colonial relationship, placing certain Indians in a position the British once occupied, does more than that. It has created a linguistic line as unbreachable as the color line once was in the United States.

Two students I met in Varanasi encapsulated India’s tortured relationship with English. Both attended Benares Hindu University, which was founded in the early 20th century to unite traditional Indian learning with modern education from the West. Both students were symbols of the failure of this enterprise.

Senate Intelligence Committee Passes ‘Fatally Flawed’ Cybersecurity Sharing Bill in Secret

Mark Jaycox

March 20, 2015

Senate Intelligence Committee Advances Terrible “̶C̶y̶b̶e̶r̶s̶e̶c̶u̶r̶i̶t̶y̶”̶ ̶B̶i̶l̶l̶ Surveillance Bill in Secret Session

The Senate Intelligence Committee advanced a terrible cybersecurity bill called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (CISA) to the Senate floor last week. The new chair (and huge fan of transparency) Senator Richard Burr may have set a record as he kept the bill secret until Tuesday night. Unfortunately, the newest Senate Intelligence bill is one of the worst yet.

Cybersecurity bills aim to facilitate information sharing between companies and the government, but their broad immunity clauses for companies, vague definitions, and aggressive spying powers make them secret surveillance bills. CISA marks the fifth time in as many years that Congress has tried to pass “cybersecurity” legislation. Join us now in killing this bill.

The newest Senate Intelligence bill joins other cybersecurity information sharing legislation like Senator Carper’s Cyber Threat Sharing Act of 2015. All of them are largely redundant. Last year, President Obama signed Executive Order 13636(EO 13636) directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand current information sharing programs. In February, he signed another Executive Order encouraging regional cybersecurity information sharing and creating yet another Cyber Threat Center. Despite this, members of Congress like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr continue to introduce bills that would destroy privacy protections and grant new spying powers to companies.

New Countermeasures and Monitoring Powers

Aside from its redundancy, the Senate Intelligence bill grants two new authorities to companies. First, the bill authorizes companies to launch countermeasures (now called “defensive measures” in the bill) for a “cybersecurity purpose” against a “cybersecurity threat.” “Cybersecurity purpose” is so broadly defined that it means almost anything related to protecting (including physically protecting) an information system, which can be a computer or software. The same goes for a “cybersecurity threat,” which includes anything that “may result” in an unauthorized effort to impact the availability of the information system.

Why Kaspersky Won’t Touch Russian Cyberspying: Top Kaspersky Labs Officials Are Putin Cronies

Pamela Engel

March 20, 2015

Why one of the world’s leading cyber-espionage firms won’t touch Russia

The head of a leading security-software firm is friends with high-level Russian spies, according to a report from Bloomberg.

The company’s connections to the Kremlin have long been known and reported on, but Bloomberg reports that several executives have been replaced with people closely aligned with Russia’s military and intelligence operations.

Kaspersky Lab’s founder and CEO, Eugene Kaspersky, used to work for the KGB and reportedly maintains relationships with former and current Russian intelligence officials.

"Unless Kaspersky is traveling, he rarely misses a weekly banya (sauna) night with a group of about 5 to 10 that usually includes Russian intelligence officials," Bloomberg writes. "Kaspersky says in an interview that the group saunas are purely social: ‘When I go to banya, they’re friends.’"

Kaspersky Lab has reportedly aided some of the Russian government’s criminal investigations by handing over data from customers who used the company’s software, which is favored by the likes of Best Buy and Amazon, according to Bloomberg.

Kaspersky insists that Russian intelligence officials can’t associate that data with individual customers, but sources who spoke to Bloomberg said the data can be altered to gather identifying information from users.

In any case, it’s unsettling that a major cybersecurity company serving millions of people (including Americans) is working so closely with a country that harbors some of world’s top hackers.

FBIThe US State Department, Department of Justice, and the FBI are offering a $3 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Russian hacker Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev.

The most significant implication of Bloomberg’s report is that while Kaspersky often goes after foreign hackers, the company looks the other way when it comes to malicious figures on its own turf.

Chinese Deny They Had Anything to Do With Cyber Attack on Register.com

March 20, 2015

Reuters

Chinese military denies role in reported U.S. hacking

China’s Defense Ministry on Friday denied that it had anything to do with a cyber attack on Register.com, a unit of Web.com, following a report in the Financial Times that the FBI was looking into the Chinese military’s involvement.

"The relevant criticism that China’s military participated in Internet hacking is to play the same old tune, and is totally baseless," the ministry said in a fax to Reuters in response to a question about the story.

According to the Financial Times, hackers apparently have had access to Register.com’s network for about a year, but the attack did not disrupt or result in theft of client data.

It is not clear what the Chinese military would be looking for or what it would gain from Register.com’s data.

Register.com says on its website it manages more than 2.5 million domain names, and also provides web management and design services.

China and the United States regularly accuse each other of hacking attacks.

State news agency Xinhua, citing a report from the National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team/Coordination Center of China, said that last year, 4,761 IP addresses in the United States controlled 5,580 Chinese websites through backdoor programs, allowing remote access to a computer.

Cisco Taking Steps to Prevent NSA and FBI From Intercepting Computer Shipments to Clients

Jeremy Kirk

March 20, 2015

One of the most successful U.S. National Security Agency spying programs involved intercepting IT equipment en route to customers and modifying it.

At secret workshops, backdoor surveillance tools were inserted into routers, servers and networking equipment before the equipment was repackaged and sent to customers outside the U.S.

The program, run by the NSA’s Tailored Access Operations (TAO) group, was revealed by documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and reported by Der Spiegel and Glenn Greenwald.

It was one of many revelations about the NSA that caused widespread suspicion that U.S. technology products shouldn’t be trusted, even if companies strenuously denied helping the agency.

And it appears some Cisco Systems customers have since taken steps to prevent NSA tampering.

The company has shipped equipment to addresses that are unrelated to a customer, said John Stewart, Cisco’s chief security and trust officer, on Wednesday during a panel session at the Cisco Live conference in Melbourne.

In theory, that makes it harder for the NSA to target an individual company and scoop up their package. But supply chains are tough to secure, Stewart said, and once a piece of equipment is handed from Cisco to DHL or FedEx, it’s gone.

Still, the risk of such tampering is pretty low for most customers. Cisco has been working on better ways for customers to verify the integrity of the systems it ships, but there will always be certain amount of risk that can’t be mitigated, Stewart said.

F-35 programme begins developing cyber-attack capability

Marina Malenic

18 March 2015

An F-35A, at Edwards AFB, California, is pictured with the F-35 Systems Development and Demonstration Weapons Suite the aircraft is designed to carry. The F-35 can carry more than 1,600 kg of ordnance in low observable mode and over 8,200 kg uncontested. The programme is now preparing to add non-kinetic weapons such as an offensive cyber pod. Source: Edwards AFB

Key Points 

The F-35 programme is developing a pod-mounted cyber-attack system 

The offensive system is in the "prototyping phase", according to the deputy programme manager 

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme is developing a pod-mounted cyber-attack system as it continues kinetic weapons integration, the deputy programme executive officer said on 17 March.

"Industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the airplane," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr at the Precision Strike Association conference in Springfield, Virginia. He told IHS Jane's that the offensive system was in the "prototyping phase" and was not being designed by F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin, but declined to name the developer.

Meanwhile, Rear Adm Mahr said, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B-model of the aircraft would be able to accommodate the Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II).

Cyber chief: Efforts to deter attacks against the U.S. are not working

By Ellen Nakashima 

March 19

The government’s efforts to deter computer attacks against the United States are not working and it is time to consider boosting the military’s cyber-offensive capability, the head of U.S. Cyber Command told Congress on Thursday. 

“We’re at a tipping point,” said Adm. Michael S. Rogers, who also directs the National Security Agency, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We need to think about: How do we increase our capacity on the offensive side to get to that point of deterrence?” 

Rogers noted that the command, which launched in 2010, has focused mostly on defense. But, he said, “in the end, a purely defensive, reactive strategy will be both late to need and in­cred­ibly resource-intense.” 

His testimony picks up where his predecessor, retired Gen. Keith Alexander, left off. Alexander, who retired last year and started a cybersecurity firm, had long advocated a more robust offensive capability. But concerns over the years from the White House, the State Department and even some within the Pentagon that the use of cyberweapons could trigger unintended consequences and might harm diplomatic relations have slowed their deployment. 

Rogers said that President Obama has not yet decided to delegate authority to him to deploy offensive tools. 

He indicated that policymakers still were not convinced that it was time. “We’ve got to increase our decision-makers’ comfort and level of knowledge with what capabilities we have and what we can do,” he said. 

When asked by Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) whether he agreed that the “level of deterrence is not deterring,” Rogers said: “That is true.” 

Rogers was emphatic that the threat is growing. Attackers not only want todisrupt, but also establish “a persistent presence on our networks,” he said. 

Debunked: Why There Won't Be Another Cold War

Matthew Rojansky, Rachel S. Salzman

March 20, 2015 

In the wake of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, talk of a “New Cold War” is in vogue. Even experts who studied the Soviet Union and Russia from the depths of mutually assured destruction and détente to the fall of Communism now say that it will be decades again before “normal” relations between Russia and the West can resume. We disagree.

The “New Cold War” narrative goes something like this: Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has constituted an unpardonable violation of the European security order and of international law, which will poison relations with the United States and Europe to the point that any hopes of rapprochement would be dashed. Putin himself is determined to make contempt for Western values—and anti-Americanism especially—the centerpiece of his regime’s official ideology. Further, he has successfully brainwashed the younger generation of Russians with these views. For the foreseeable future, we will at best achieve limited agreements on issues like arms control, only because of a grudging recognition that without them, we risk destroying each other and the world. It’s the Cold War and détente all over again.

True, relations between Russia and the West have become severely strained, and the sources of that tension—principally the catastrophic situation in Ukraine—may not change any time soon. But we believe the “New Cold War” narrative misreads both Russia and the West, especially when it comes to the generation that has fully come of age after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the original Cold War.

As members of that generation in the United States, both Russia watchers with experience working on second-track diplomacy and living and working in Russia, we suggest that it is a mistake to define the current conflict primarily through the lens of the previous one. The declaration of a “New Cold War” has come too soon, and the label does not fit.

Back to the Future: The U.S. Navy Confronts Great Power Challengers

Robert Farley

March 19, 2015 

Last Friday, the maritime services finally released the new edition of theCooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. The last Cooperative Strategy, released in 2007, earned some public attention, but the latest iteration has already produced a firestorm of commentary.

This likely has more to do with the changing nature of internet commentary than the document itself, but the proliferation of material has nevertheless led to an illuminating debate on how the strategy has changed, and how it may fail to meet the requirements of the United States military.

What’s a Cooperative Strategy?

The Cooperative Maritime Strategywas designed for a post-Cold War world, in which many of the basic maritime problems demanded collective, rather than unilateral, action. The idea found its genesis in the “1000 ship navy” concept, which envisioned an ever shifting coalition of naval partners for managing problems such as piracy, humanitarian crises, and the regulation of the international system of maritime trade. CS-21 (as the Cooperative Strategy was known) envisioned the United States playing a leading role in the defense of the global maritime commons, and consequently of the liberal international order. At the same time, CS-21 sought to depoliticize the maritime sphere, treating it as a positive sum space

Although CS-21 left some of the implications unstated, the cooperative approach had an edge. Through emphasizing relationships, the maritime services (and particular the USN) would gain an advantage over potential competitors by occupying a central role in most naval endeavors. Developing familiarity with the attitudes and capabilities of partners would give the USN a critical leg up in case of any actual political disputes. CS-21 wanted to make the point that while no one could have a pool party without inviting the USN, the involvement of the PLAN was strictly optional.

1971: Assessment of campaign in the Western Sector

By Maj Gen Sukhwant Singh

21 Mar , 2015

According to a Defence Ministry announcement after the 1971 conflict, India claimed the capture of 3,600 square kilometres of Pakistani territory against 126 square kilometres of Indian territory lost on the western front.1 The Indian public was elated at a marginal gain of a few square kilometres of territory. It failed to question, and the Government did not elucidate, the economic and strategic value of the territory lost or gained to evaluate fairly the overall gains.

The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert. In both regions these gains lay in farflung, desolate, uninhabited and difficult areas of negligible economic, strategic and political value which could hurt the rulers of Pakistan only in their prestige.

The major Indian gains claimed in terms of area were about 3,200 square kilometres in the Ladakh region under Lt Gen Sartaj Singh and 1,200 square kilometres. under Lt Gen G G Bewoor in the Rajasthan Desert.

On the other hand, Sartaj Singh lost the area of Chhamb, where the aftermath of the refugee problem still haunts the Jammu and Kashmir administration. The loss of the Kasowala bulge, the Hussainiwala enclave and the Fazilka agricultural belt in Punjab could not be equated with marginal gains in the Sehjra bulge and the Mamdot enclave in economic, military or political terms. The Indian occupation of the major portion of the Shakargarh bulge was somewhat embarrassing to the Bhutto government in view of the restive refugee population, but this in no way impaired the Pakistani economy or upset its military tactical balance. In short, this war failed to achieve a decision, although the Indian public was misled by articulate propaganda and impressive statistics. It is therefore imperative that the public should be educated to judge the country’s military achievement on merit.

Great Britain's SSBN Dilemma

By Daniel Darling

March 20, 2015

Source Link

With an election just two months away and funding pressures bearing down on its budget, Britain's Ministry of Defense (MoD) has topped up spending on the assessment phase for a new class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines for the Royal Navy. The funding allocation comes amidst the backdrop of campaign politics and mounting concerns over the long-term trajectory of Britain's defense spending. 

The new-generation submarines would ostensibly replace the current Vanguard-class fleet of four submarines that – armed with nuclear-tipped Trident II D5 ballistic missiles – represent Britain's around-the-clock strategic nuclear deterrent. The Royal Navy's Vanguard submarines operate in an unbroken series of deterrent patrols in the deep seas, serving as Britain's response equalizer in the unlikely event an attack is launched on the homeland.

The project to replace these submarines has been referred to as the Successor Program, while the larger deterrent revamp is often referred to simply as the Trident replacement.

The latest funding outlay of GBP285 million ($429 million) adds to the GBP2 billion already spent on the Successor Program's concept and assessment phase and comes as the British government approaches a 'dark' – or non-transparent – stretch between March 30 and the general election on May 7, during which major contract awards are banned to as not to influence the electorate.

Prior to a Main Gate (production contract) decision – which is unlikely before 2016 – up to GBP3.3 billion ($4.96 billion) will have been spent on Successor during the Initial Gate (assessment phase) period launched in May 2011.

Besides the tremendous funding pressures that would be brought on the defense budget by a Main Gate approval, there is also a political factor involved in the decision-making equation.

Even within the governing coalition there are fissures, as Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives favor the Trident nuclear replacement program, while their minority partner, the Liberal Democrats, made clear in the run-up to the last election their disfavor toward the project.

Laser Weapons Could Be Outfitted on Special Ops Aircraft

By Yasmin Tadjdeh

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1777

Air Force Special Operations Command may one day fire more than cannons and small-diameter bombs off its gunships, its commander said March 18.

AFSOC is considering how it could integrate emerging technologies such as laser guns and high-powered microwaves on its AC-130J Ghostrider gunship, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold.

“We’re moving in that direction,” Heithold said during a discussion at the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute in Arlington, Virginia. “Industry partners out here have got the technology.”

Retrofitting AC-130Js with lasers is still in the distant future, he noted. “We think that there’s going to be a small number of them in the Block 50 configuration that might have high energy lasers.”

The Navy already has successfully deployed and operated its directed-energy laser weapon, known as LaWS, on the USS Ponce. The technology is appealing to military leaders because of its destructive power and its affordability compared to traditional kinetic weapons. LaWS — which runs on electricity — costs less than $1 per shot.

High-powered standoff microwaves are also on Heithold’s list. He noted there was “great value” in the technology, and that it is also a nonlethal weapon that can effectively stop enemies.

AFSOC currently hasn’t put any money into these initiatives, but researching innovative weapons and technology is something SOCOM commander Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel has demanded. “He wants some leap ahead technologies,” Heithold said.

AFSOC is focusing on recapitalizing its fleet, which includes the AC-130J, Heithold said. The AC-130J — which will be used for close-air support and air interdiction — is meant to replace aging AC-130 H/U/W gunships. The first is currently in testing and a second is being built.

Australia Once Lost a War to the Mighty Emu

by MATTHEW GAULT

After World War I, more than 5,000 Australian veterans took money and land from the government to establish farms in the country’s harsh west.

Life was hard, but not impossible for the former soldiers. But during the 1930s, the Great Depression tanked the world economy and a drought ravaged Australia. Worse, a marauding horde of 20,000 emus invaded the western farms.

The emus had migrated from the center of the country. They sought safety, water … and the farmers’ delicious wheat.

“The enemy is the tough, prolific, gangling marauder of the sand plains whose species … has invaded, in a frenzy of hunger, some of the finest fields at the time of ripening of the harvest to shear off crops with voracious beaks,” The Sunday Herald newspaper stated in 1953.

The emus brought devastation at a time when farmers’ yields were already low. But most of the farmers were once soldiers, and they had rifles. But they also remembered the more powerful weapons of the Great War — such as machine guns.

It was 1932, and Australia was about to go to war against the emu. The war would be far more difficult than anyone anticipated.

“There’s only one way to kill an emu,” one veteran of the bizarre conflict remarked to The Herald. “Shoot him through the back of the head when his mouth is closed, or through the front of his mouth when his mouth is open. That’s how hard it is.”

A pack of emus. Eduardo Mariz via Wikimedia. At top — Australian soldiers fire a Lewis machine gun during World War I. Photo via Wikimedia

We Went Inside a German Special Forces Training Camp for Kurdish Troops

by MATT CETTI-ROBERTS

A young, German army non-commissioned officer stands inside the room. He’s by the window, and he’s waiting for his students. There’s no door — just a cardboard box in its place marked “fragile.”

The students — all of them Kurdish Peshmerga fighters — enter, kicking up dust and wildly pointing their weapons in different directions. Their lack of confidence doing this for the first time shows.

The German soldier stops them, pointing out what they did wrong. He stands in a corner demonstrating that if he had been an enemy, he could have killed the first man entering the room. The pupils nod their heads as a translator delivers the lesson.

The trainees enter the room and try again … and again. The Kurds make mistakes — sometimes small, sometimes big. But the foreign instructors carry on, patiently pushing them to do better.

At top and above — Kurdish troops conduct room clearing exercises. Matt Cetti-Roberts photos

Stranded Behind Enemy Lines? Steal a MiG!

by JOSEPH TREVITHICK

Shot down and stranded behind the Iron Curtain? No problem. Just steal a MiG-15 fighter plane … and fly home to freedom.

That’s the escape plan proposed in a recently declassified U.S. Air Force manual dating back to the early years of the Cold War. But the idea would have been virtually impossible for even the most seasoned pilots to put into action.

In 1955, the Air Technical Intelligence Center published a user’s guide to the Soviet MiG-15. The handbook described the first-generation jet’s basic layout and how to get it airborne.

“This manual has been prepared specifically for the purpose of providing USAF personnel with operating information on the MiG-15,” the handbook explained. “If necessary, this airplane may be used as a means to escape from hostile territory.”

The Air Force recently released the handbook in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. It’s available at GovernmentAttic.org.

Reading the manual won’t turn you into a fighter pilot — far from it. The guide is clearly not intended to help downed airmen do anything beyond getting the plane from point A to point B.

While its diagrams and other details show would-be escapees where to find the trigger for the jet’s 23- and 37-millimeter cannons, the actual instructions focus almost entirely on taking off and landing.

“Only the information the pilot must know is presented,” the manual stated. “Some procedures which might be considered unorthodox for operational flying of this airplane are recommended because they represent the simplest means of assuring safe flight.”

Above—No Kum-Sok’s MiG-15 in U.S. Air Force markings on Okinawa. At top—a test pilot takes off in Lt. No’s MiG-15 with an F-86 chase plane close behind. Air Force photos

WEEKEND READING: MARCH 20-22

Lauren Katzenberg

March 20, 2015

Here’s your War on the Rocks weekend reading list. Also, if you haven’t checked out our crowdfunding campaign, then do so immediately. Help us grow the site with the most experienced voices in foreign policy.

For our D.C. friends, we’ll be hosting a fundraising party the evening of March 24 at Eighteenth Street Lounge. Come booze it up with your favorite WOTR writers.

The U.S. government is spying on Americans?! Meh…The latest report from Pew Research Center asked American adults what they think of NSA’s government surveillance programs, the way they are run and monitored, and whether knowledge of these programs has altered their communication habits and online activities. What did it reveal? While, more than half of respondents think it is unacceptable for the government to monitor U.S. citizens, a majority have not taken steps to shield or hide their information or Internet activity.

What if American politics was more like Israel? Aaron Mannes posed the question this week, what if U.S. politics worked like the Israeli system? He writes that, “… in Israel, because of the political fragmentation, the Prime Minister is constrained at nearly every turn. As an experienced Israeli foreign policy hand observed, ‘the prime minister must strike a deal with the minister of defense every morning.’”

Let Russia keep digging its own grave. Our own Ryan Evans wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on Thursday arguing that as long as the conflict between Ukraine and Russia stays in Ukraine, because Russia is essentially burning all of its bridges in Europe, the situation could lead to a huge victory for the U.S. without having to even get involved. Evans says, “Don’t interrupt the enemy while he makes the wrong move.”

A change long overdue

by Bibhu Prasad Routray

March 18, 2015 

http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2015/03/a-change-long-overdue/

The persistent dependence on the central forces has remained a bane for the state police forces in the Northeast.

There may or may not have been a deal over the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Jammu & Kashmir. The controversial Act, as a result, may or may not be diluted in the coming months. However, hundreds of kilometres away, in Manipur, situation is ripe to initiate a gradual downgrading of the Army deployment and let the state police take over the counter-insurgency (COIN) responsibilities.

On 18 February 1980, Lallan Prasad Singh, Governor of Manipur, in his address to the state legislative assembly, referred to the “seriously disturbed conditions in the valley” and the “serious of violent activities such as murders, including the killing of security personnel, armed robberies, looting of shops, banks and Government funds, and snatching of arms” by the extremist groups. In September that year, the entire state was declared as “Disturbed Area” and the Army called in to assist the civil administration in COIN measures.

For the next two and half decades, the Army remained the lead COIN force in the state, conducting offensive operations, cordon and search exercises, pain staking COIN duties and even road opening duties. So much was the dependence on the Army that even while the civil society organisations raised the banners that read “Indian Army-Go back” the ruling regime found it difficult to imagine a Manipur without the army’s presence. Backroom conversations reveal that some of the most virulent anti-AFSPA politicians and community leaders continued to demand for the deployment of the army as a guarantee of their safety.

Diplomatic Access: Pakistan

By Diplomatic Access

March 19, 2015

Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. Jalil Abbas Jilani on regional cooperation and the fight against terrorism. 

For spring 2015, The Diplomat presents “Diplomatic Access,” a series of exclusive interviews with ambassadors from the Asia-Pacific region. By talking to these diplomats, we’ll give readers a sense of each country’s perspective on various regional economic and security trends — from TPP to the Silk Road Economic Belt; from the South China Sea disputes to the Islamic State. Check out the whole series to date here.

In this interview, His Excellency Jalil Abbas Jilani, Ambassador of Pakistan to the U.S., gives Pakistan’s take on regional economic integration and security cooperation, including counter-terrorism efforts.

The Diplomat: From Pakistan’s perspective, what are the greatest threats to regional security?

Amb. Jilani: Terrorist, rising extremism, and growing resort to violence obviously are the biggest threats to the wider region and a top concern for Pakistan, a country that has been the worst victim of these vicious trends .

Growing military imbalance in a region beset with long standing territorial conflicts with no crisis management mechanism contributes to making the regional security environment more complex.

Rising poverty, disease, and environment-related vulnerabilities, including climate change, are some of the other challenges that make the security environment even more precarious in our part of the world.

What can be done to address these threats?

A Breakthrough on the TAPI Pipeline?

By Micha’el Tanchum

March 20, 2015

India and Pakistan hint that progress has finally been made with Turkmenistan on the huge energy project. 

Indian and Pakistani press reports surrounding the March 15 meeting in Kabul of the steering committee Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline suggest a breakthrough has finally been achieved and construction on the mega-project could begin in 2015. The apparent impasse over Turkmenistan’s terms for financing the pipeline’s construction seems to have been resolved owing to the Turkmen government’s new determination to diversify the markets for its natural gas. With the drastic reduction and imminent cessation of Russian imports of natural gas from Turkmenistan, China has become Turkmenistan’s sole export market. While welcoming economic cooperation with China, Ashgabat has been working assiduously to avoid undue economic dependence on Beijing and therefore has been motivated to make key concessions for the construction of the TAPI pipeline. By creating the first significant overland link with India, the TAPI pipeline project will not only diversify Turkmenistan’s gas exports – it will permanently alter the pattern of Central Asian connectivity.

On October 2014, Russian natural gas giant Gazprom announced it would cease purchasing natural gas from Turkmenistan. Following through on its announcement, Gazprom slashed its imports from Turkmenistan by almost two-thirds at the beginning of 2015. In 2003, Turkmenistan’s state-owned natural gas company Türkmengaz signed a 25-year agreement with Gazprom for the delivery of 70-80 billion cubic meters (bcm) of Turkmen gas per year to Russia. By 2008, Turkmenistan’s gas exports had reached 45 bcm. Due to an April 2009 explosion in the Truboprovodnaiia sistema Sredniaia Aziia-Tsentr (Central Asia-Center pipeline system), commonly known as SATS, near the border between Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan’s natural gas exports to Russia were temporarily halted.

What Is Behind China’s Growing Attention to Afghanistan?

Zhao Huasheng

MARCH 8, 2015 

Source Link

In the past year, Beijing has become more diplomatically engaged with Afghanistan, raising the potential for China to play a helpful role in Afghanistan’s future economic and security prospects.

China has been intensifying its diplomatic efforts to help build a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, by hosting a regional meeting on the issue and deepening its bilateral ties with Kabul. In a new Q&A, Zhao Huasheng examines China’s growing attention to Afghanistan as well as the interests that are motivating Beijing. He says China is not seeking to fill a void left by the withdrawal of U.S. forces, but that it, in the future, could play a useful role in the reconciliation process between the Afghan government and the Taliban. 

What is China’s current role in diplomatic efforts to build a peaceful and stable Afghanistan? 

Since the start of 2014, China’s Afghanistan diplomacy has become more positive, proactive, and dynamic. 

In October 2014, Beijing hosted the fourth foreign ministers’ meeting of theIstanbul Process—an international effort launched in 2011 to encourage cooperation and coordination between Afghanistan and its neighbors and regional partners. By hosting this event for the first time, China showed its desire to take the initiative in promoting a smooth power transfer after Afghanistan’s 2014 presidential election and a stable security transition following the withdrawal of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops and U.S. combat forces, which took place in December 2014. The Istanbul Process meeting also demonstrated China’s positive attitude toward regional and international cooperation on Afghanistan. China also hopes to use this multilateral framework to propose its own ideas for securing Afghanistan’s future, and to win other nations’ support for its approach. 

Drone Strike Kills Senior Pakistani Taliban Commander

March 19, 2015

U.S. drone strike kills Taliban commander on Afghan-Pakistan border

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan (Reuters) - A U.S. drone strike killed a Pakistani Taliban leader and two others on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the Taliban said on Thursday, in the latest attack by an unmanned aircraft targeting the Afghan bases of Pakistani Taliban leaders.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials confirmed Thursday’s strike on the border between Pakistan’s Kurram agency and Afghanistan.

The strike killed Pakistani Taliban commander Khawray Mehsud, who possessed “great militant skills,” the Taliban said in a statement.

"He was very close to martyred (Pakistani Taliban) chief Hakimullah Mehsud and was his personal bodyguard," it added.

The Pakistani Taliban are allied with the Afghan militants of the same name and share a similar jihadist ideology.

SICK DEFENSE: HOW TO FOSTER AN AFFORDABLE, INNOVATIVE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

Ryan Brukardt, Eric Chewning, Lorraine Hammer, John G. McGinn and Stephen Rodriguez

March 19, 2015

Source Link

The U.S. defense industrial base provides America and its allies with the capabilities to deter, engage, and defeat adversaries decisively. This “arsenal for democracy” must be a source of technological advantage at a price tag the taxpayers can afford. A healthy U.S. defense enterprise has proven a decisive lever in America’s success in past conflicts and a critical tool to maintaining the peace. Yet the relative strength and vitality of our industrial base is at risk. The Department of Defense (DoD) has reacted with alarm at flagging research and development (R&D) across industry. This has motivated U.S. defense officials to increasingly reach out to commercial technology providers for solutions. However, as their recent visit to Silicon Valley demonstrated, not everyone is chomping at the bit to work with the Pentagon.

Historically, the defense industry evolves in response to the nation’s military strategy, force structure needs, political environment, and fiscal realities. In past defense downturns, industry changes were characterized by the removal of capacity through consolidation and the exit of a large number of companies. While some of this is to be expected during this downturn, many critical areas within the industrial base are already at minimum scale or are served by a small number of companies (in some cases, a single supplier). If not managed properly, the United States could foreclose on sources of future technological advantage for the warfighter as companies exit the defense market. Further, if we are not able to optimize our industrial base, the nation will end up paying for unneeded capabilities and overhead or, worse, having to make hard choices about giving up capabilities we need to achieve our national security goals.

What can defense leaders do?

China’s Controversial Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

By Sara Hsu

March 20, 2015

The U.S. has been very quick to make an issue of China’s new bank. 

China is leading the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in an attempt to improve infrastructure in Asia. A move by the U.K., and soon after Germany, France and Italy, to join the AIIB as founding members has been viewed by the United States as folly, and the U.S. warned other nations on Tuesday not to join the organization without considering China’s governance of the institution. Germany, France and Italy have pledged to ensure proper governance.

Currently the AIIB has 31 founding members, including the new European members, and is supposed to be a development bank similar to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. China’s President Xi Jinping announced the proposed creation of the bank just before the APEC meeting in Bali in October 2013. While the specific plans for governance of the bank are unclear, Xi has noted that management of the AIIB would be less bureaucratic than the Asian Development Bank, which has been touted as inefficient and redundant.

The AIIB, along with the New Silk Road initiative, which is also led by China, is designed to improve infrastructure throughout Asia. China’s pockets are bursting with foreign exchange, which the nation intends to use in part for these endeavors. Chinese companies have also proven their ability to build infrastructure (albeit excessively in recent years) through construction of the world’s largest dam (although controversially displacing millions of citizens), the longest bridge, and the largest express road network. Employment of Chinese construction companies in these multilaterally funded projects would boost China’s gross national product.

China's Anti-Corruption 'Firefighter' Headed to the US

By Shannon Tiezzi

March 20, 2015

Wang Qishan is said to be planning a trip to the U.S., presumably to ask Washington to extradite Chinese suspects. 

Wang Qishan, the chief of China’s anti-corruption agency, is planning a visit to the United States sometime this year, Financial Times reported. It will be Wang’s first trip abroad since he assumed his post as the head of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI).

Wang Qishan is an old pro when it comes to diplomacy with the U.S. As China’s vice premier, he co-chaired the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogues from 2009 to 2012. During that time, Wang worked alongside U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the economic track of the dialogue.

When Xi Jinping and company came to power in late 2012, Wang joined the all-powerful Politburo Standing Committee. He also moved from vice premier to the head of the CCDI, where he was tasked with serving as the point man in Xi’s anti-corruption campaign. Wang’s clean reputation and personal “firefighting” abilities are seen as crucial for the success of the anti-corruption drive. Now China is banking on his personal diplomatic skills and relationships in Washington to extend the campaign to the U.S.

As China’s anti-corruption campaign rolls on, Beijing is focusing on pursuing corrupt officials both at home and abroad. Beginning in July 2014, China unrolled a concerted effort to track down and repatriate corrupt official who had fled overseas — an initiative dubbed “Operation Fox Hunt.” According to Chinese media reports, the “Fox Hunt” brought 288 suspects from 56 countries back to China for prosecution last year.

Yet China does not have extradition treaties with many Western nations, due to concerns about China’s legal system. As a result, in the early stages of the campaign Beijing was mostly limited to asking officials to turn themselves in in exchange for leniency.

Why the US Should Worry About Russia, Not China

By Robert Farley

March 19, 2015

How you solve a problem like China is different than how you solve a problem like Russia. 

Last Friday, the United States released its updatedCooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (CS-21). One of the biggest critiques of the firstCooperative Strategy concentrated on the difficulty of fitting China and Russia into the “cooperative” frame. China continues to expand its navy and has obviously undertaken a set of assertive actions in the East and South China Seas. Russia has, in recent years, invaded Georgia and Ukraine, effectively annexing parts of both countries. How does it make sense to include either of these countries under the tab “cooperation?”

The Cooperative Strategy is effectively a strategy for defending the liberal international economic order. The 2015 version (and its 2007 predecessor) is at its best when it envisions the operational employment of the U.S. maritime services in pursuit of basic oceanic maintenance. Most notably, this includes fighting against people best characterized as “enemies of all mankind” (including pirates, thieves, and terrorists), and dealing with humanitarian disasters.

The document is less effective at characterizing great power conflict in the maritime space. Even when two countries both allow the possibility of positive sum cooperation at sea, conflict can arise over the precise distribution of spoils, as well as concerns over vulnerability. And some countries do not place a high value on the reliability of maritime security.

Russia and China pose the greatest potential threats to the vision of liberal international order implicit in CS-21, a situation that has more or less held since 1949. Yet China is, for the first time in its history, deeply dependent on the sea. And there’s every indication that the Chinese fully understand this. The PLAN is not the Red Banner Northern Fleet, a force intended primarily for the protection of SSBN patrol areas and for the disruption of NATO control of the North Atlantic. The PLAN will, in the fullness of time, become a blue water navy, fully capable of protecting Chinese trade and projecting Chinese influence across Asia and beyond.

Russia is different. While we should generally view geographically determinist accounts with skepticism, there is no question that the maritime sphere is far less important to Russia than it is to the United States or China. Russia benefits less from a reliable set of interlocking regimes and procedures for managing the maritime sphere, and can take advantage of asymmetric opportunities to disrupt that system.

South Korea Again Caught Between U.S., China

By John Power

March 20, 2015

On issues such as THAAD and the AIIB, Seoul has struggled to balance its two most important relationships. 

Not for the first time, South Korea is struggling to balance its competing relationships with the United States and China. The latest sources of discord: a U.S. missile defense system and a China-led regional investment bank.

China has strongly opposed U.S. proposals to deploy the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) in South Korea as an ostensible counter to North Korean missile threats. The missile defense system would bring within range a significant portion of China’s stockpile of ballistic missiles.

The U.S., meanwhile, has reportedly urged allies including South Korea to refrain from joining the burgeoning Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, expressing concerns about its governance and transparency.

Seoul’s dilemma is that it considers both countries vital to its interests. The U.S. remains South Korea’s security patron, stationing some 28,500 troops in the country as an ostensible deterrent to North Korea; China is its largest trade partner.

“It couldn’t dramatize the Korean predicament better, where economically, sort of everything is toward China, in terms of growth, but then in terms of security, everything still points back to the United States,” John Delury, an associate professor of Chinese studies at Seoul’s Yonsei University, told The Diplomat. “And so, you can see Seoul kind of being pulled between the two.”