Why the Saudis unfriended the U.S.

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

March 26, 2014 -- Updated 1516 GMT (2316 HKT)

Inside Politics: Obama's emergency talks

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

U.S. has had alliance with Saudi Arabia since 1945; Obama to meet King Abudullah Friday

Peter Bergen says the relationship is now at its lowest point

Saudis are upset that Obama didn't stand by the "red line" he drew on Syria

Bergen: Two nations share common ground in opposing al Qaeda's rise in Syria

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of"Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- The world's most powerful democracy and the world's most absolute monarchy have long been close, if unlikely, allies.

They are bound together by common interests -- the free flow of oil and, more recently, fighting al Qaeda.

That alliance was first sealed between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi King Adul Aziz on February 14, 1945, when they met on the deck of the USS Quincy as the American warship cruised in the Suez Canal.

FDR and his advisors knew that oil, of which Saudi Arabia was well endowed, was a key component of America's economy. Indeed, Standard Oil of California had signed afarsighted deal a decade earlier giving it exclusive production rights in Saudi Arabia.

Thomas Lippman, who has written authoritatively on U.S.-Saudi relations, writes that as result of the meeting on the Quincy, the American president gave the Saudi king a DC-3 airplane that was specially outfitted with a rotating throne that allowed the king always to face the holy site of Mecca while he was in the air.

For his part, King Abdul Aziz so enjoyed his meals as the president's guest on board the Quincy that he surprised his host with an unusual demand: he wanted to take the Quincy's cook for himself. FDR was able to diplomatically ward off this request. (The concept that human beings are not personal property came to the Saudi kingdom relatively late; slavery was only abolished there in 1962.)

For more than six decades after that important meeting on the Quincy the Saudi-American relationship has largely worked well for both countries. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil producer and sits on around a fifth of the world's proven oil reserves and therefore it can set oil prices by increasing or lowering oil production. Generally it has done so in ways that respect American interests.

Elliott House on Saudi Arabia's outrage

When the Saudis really needed the States following Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of their neighbor Kuwait, the United States sent a half a million troops to the Gulf to expel Saddam's forces.

The Gulf's Achilles Heel

Published on The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)

Source URL (retrieved on Mar 27, 2014): http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-gulfs-achilles-heel-10131

March 27, 2014

Frederic Wehrey

As President Obama meets with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on Friday he will undoubtedly offer reassurances of U.S. solidarity to the panicked kingdom. The two leaders will attempt to mend fences on the divisive regional issues of Egypt, Syria and, especially, Iran. There will public utterances of common ground and commitments to move the relationship forward. But there is another danger lurking just off the Saudi coast that Obama must raise.

The political impasse of Bahrain is a festering wound in the Gulf, the Achilles’ heel of a region that has tried to insulate itself from the forces of change buffeting the rest of the Middle East and from Iranian influence. If left unaddressed, it will eventually threaten U.S. assets and people—particularly the sprawling headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. The urgency of fixing Bahrain, then, is not solely about human rights and aligning U.S. policy with U.S. values. It is about staving off an increasingly violent opposition and, potentially, malign Iranian interference.

Obama must deliver a firm message to King Abdullah: compel Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa dynasty to make real, substantial progress on reform. Given the enormous funding that Riyadh pours into propping up the Al Khalifa, the Saudis hold unique and unrivaled leverage. The resumption of dialogue between the Bahraini Crown Prince and the Shia opposition bloc al-Wifaq could not have happened without Saudi approval. Pragmatic Saudi interior minister Muhammad bin Nayef has reportedly held frequent meetings with the Crown Prince, as has the leader of the United Arab Emirates, Muhammed bin Zayed. But beyond such contacts and tacit toleration, the degree of active Saudi support for genuine reform in Bahrain is unclear. Oppositionists fear that, as was the case in previous dialogue attempts, the goal now is simply to neutralize the opposition by bringing it back into the parliament without any substantial institutional changes. If the island is to achieve a just and durable peace, sustained Saudi pressure will be a prerequisite for meaningful reform.

The window for action is closing. A militant strand of the Shia opposition led by the February 14 Youth Coalition and the Ashtar Brigades is becoming bolder and more brazen in its attacks against regime security forces. It is not surprising that new, more sophisticated improvised explosive devices have become the currency of this radical strain, And perhaps most worrisome for the U.S., they are growing increasingly hostile to the presence of the Fifth Fleet, which they believe is colluding in the ongoing repression. Angry young men have marched on the Fifth Fleet housing area of Juffeir, burning U.S. flags. Swathes of the capital are now no-go zones for U.S. personnel.

Hot Air About American Gas Will Not Scare Putin

Source Link 

Author: Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change

March 25, 2014 

Financial Times

Calls are mounting for the US to export shale gas to Europe to help free the continent from Russian influence. Observers are right to focus on Moscow's energy leverage but they are prescribing the wrong response. The most useful thing that Europe could import is not American gas itself but the open economic model that has enabled the US natural gas industry to thrive.

Europe buys nearly 30 per cent of its natural gas from Russia. This has led to concern thatPresident Vladimir Putin might turn off a few taps to gain leverage in the confrontation with Ukraine. For now, these fears are overblown – among other things, Europe has a lot of natural gas in storage – but the fundamental worry is well founded.

Yet US natural gas exports would do little to reduce Russian leverage. They cannot replace Russian gas in the current crisis since it will be more than a year until any US export terminals are built. Even once these facilities are up and running, the economics of sending shale gas to Europe are unlikely to make much sense. Once the cost of shipping is included, Russian gas is far cheaper; Moscow's share of the European market is not likely to change much. Instead, American gas will flow mainly to Asia.

This is not to say that US exports would not hurt Mr Putin. They would push down the price of gas in Europe, which is one of the many reasons why they should be allowed. But it is fanciful to suppose that they could provide a decisive edge against Moscow in a future crisis.

Europe's politicians should instead put their energy into copying the successful US policies that laid the groundwork for a spectacular boom in natural gas production. This might allow Europeans to produce more gas at home instead of buying it from Russia. The US Energy Information Administration estimates that Europe has 598tn cubic feet of technically recoverable shale gas, roughly half as much as the US. Yet almost none of this is being exploited. In part, that is because the continent is playing catch-up with a boom that started elsewhere. But there are deeper reasons, too. Many European countries have banned shale gas production. Those that allow development have slapped on taxes and government royalties that do much to deter it.

The US has lessons to offer on both fronts. Most gas-rich US states have rejected calls to prohibit shale gas production; instead, they have allowed development subject to robust environmental safeguards. The specifics vary from state to state. In Texas, a longtime energy producer, the industry has won public acceptance with less oversight than elsewhere. In Ohio or Illinois, which are new to the natural gas game, regulation is more stringent. Europeans would be wise to draw lessons from US states that have struck a balance between development and the environment.

The American shale gas industry has flourished on private land, where property owners are susceptible to commercial incentives. In Europe, mineral rights are generally publicly owned and unlikely to be privatised. Still, the more basic lessons – that government policy should be careful not to undermine the economics of gas development, and that care should be taken to ensure that local communities benefit from development – should be listened to carefully.

NATO's Military Decline

As Russia re-arms, the West increasingly neglects its defenses. 

Updated March 25, 2014

Vladimir Putin and his American apologists like to blame NATO's post-Cold War expansion for his territorial conquests, which ignores that the alliance refused in 2008 to let Georgia and Ukraine even begin the process of joining. Those are the two countries the Russian has since carved up, and the question now is whether Russia's expansionism will slap Western leaders out of their self-defense slumbers. 

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen sounded the alarm last week in a visit to Washington. "I see Crimea as an element in a greater pattern" of Russian strategy, he told an audience at the Brookings Institution. Moscow's annexation of Crimea, he said, is "a wake-up call" that "must be followed by increased European investment in defense." He might have included the U.S. 

The combined GDP of NATO's 28 member states tops $30 trillion. Yet with few exceptions, most notably Poland, NATO defense expenditures have declined since the end of the Cold War. The nearby table shows the relative defense spending in 2013 for some key NATO countries as a share of GDP. Only four members—the U.S., U.K., Greece and Estonia—spent at least 2% of GDP on defense. 

At 1.9%, France last year fell short of the 2% that is supposed to be the technical requirement for membership. Mr. Rasmussen's Denmark spent 1.4% of its GDP on defense, Angela Merkel's Germany 1.3%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%. This is what a country spends if it thinks its main security threat is Belgium. 

And the trend is down, as a majority of NATO members reduced defense spending in 2013. Among the more drastic defense cutters last year were Canada (7.6%), Slovenia (8.7%), Italy (10.3%), Hungary (11.9%) and Spain (11.9%). 

The U.S. reduced its overall spending by an estimated 2%. That might not sound like much, but American spending comprised 72% of all NATO defense expenditures in 2013. Under President Obama's latest budget proposal, U.S. defense spending will fall from 4.6% of GDP in 2011 to 3.5% in fiscal 2015 and 2.9% by 2017 when he is supposed to leave his successor a country stronger than he inherited. On present trend it will be weaker. 

The Obama theory of "collective security" is that as the U.S. retreats from its historic commitments in Europe and the Middle East, allies will step up to deter aggressors and protect Western interests. NATO budget cuts suggest otherwise. 

The cuts have created "gaps in meeting core NATO tasks" and resulted in "forces that are not ready, not trained, and not sufficiently equipped," according to a 2012 study by the U.S. National Defense University. In plain English, this means that if Vladimir Putin sets his sights on NATO's eastern periphery—by targeting the Baltic states, for example—the alliance may not have the capability to resist even if it has the political will. 

European powers in recent years have shelved entire divisions and weapons systems. The British Royal Navy doesn't operate a proper aircraft carrier. The Netherlands in 2012 disbanded its heavy-armor division, and France and the U.K. each now field a mere 200 main battle tanks. France has cut its orders of Rafale combat jets to six a year from 11. This isn't even a Maginot Line. 

Fighting Anew For Democracy

By David Ignatius - March 26, 2014

Source Link

BRUSSELS -- President Obama has spoken once again during the Ukraine crisis about being on the right "side of history." It's one of his signature lines, but he should stop: The phrase implies there's an inevitability to the advance of progress and justice. Would that it were so.

What's happening now in Vladimir Putin's Russia is a reminder that history has ebbs and flows, advances and retreats, and that its interpretation is subjective. Even more, recent events are a warning that decisive turns in history can result from ruthless political leaders, from weak or confused adversaries, or sometimes just from historical accident. Might doesn't make right, but it does create "facts on the ground" that are hard to reverse.

Putin's real problem is that he's on the wrong side of NATO. This stance was a loser for his Soviet predecessors, and it's likely to be so for Putin -- as long as the West keeps its head and doesn't take impulsive actions that would play into Putin's hands. A cautious NATO didn't send troops into Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968 to counter Soviet aggression, to catcalls from conservatives, but it decisively won the Cold War.

Putin's putsch in Crimea has had one profoundly positive effect on Obama and the West. It has produced what NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove last weekend called a "paradigm shift" in perceptions of the Russian leader. "What ... has changed in this paradigm," Breedlove explained, is that a Russia that "used to be a partner [is] now acting more like an adversary [which] puts force at-ready on our borders. And we have to be positioned differently and be more ready."

By annexing Crimea, Putin has indeed altered the framework in which the U.S. and other countries evaluate Moscow's actions. Presumably this repositioning of Russia was part of what Putin intended, but it's a risky strategy that has produced diplomatic, economic and military responses from a united West. Putin leads what by most political and economic indicators is a weak nation -- a declining power, not a rising one. Russia has a pugnacious, revanchist leader who is willing to use force, but that's a recipe for victory only if the West capitulates.

Breedlove was careful in discussing NATO military options. "Moving forces is not a trivial matter," he said, noting that it would be hard to counter a Russian army at the Ukrainian border that is "very, very sizable and very, very ready." But given the destabilizing effects of a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, NATO should prepare some deterrent to further aggression, other than jawboning.

Listening to the conversation among Americans and Europeans at a recent conference here, I came away with a sense that Putin's gambit will fail over time, if Europe and America remain resolute and patient. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Deshchytsia told me his country is determined now to join the European Union -- remaining at peace with its neighbor to the east, if possible, but "absolutely" prepared to fight Russian troops if they invade eastern Ukraine.

Markets for Cybercrime Tools and Stolen Data

Hackers' Bazaar

by Lillian Ablon, Martin C. Libicki, Andrea A. Golay

DOWNLOAD EBOOK FOR FREE

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes

PDF file 1.8 MB 

Technical Details »

FormatFile SizeNotes

PDF file 0.1 MB 

Technical Details »

Research Questions

What are the fundamental characteristics of black and gray markets for hackers?

How did they grow into their current state? What direction do they appear to be heading?

How can the existence of these markets harm the information security environment?

Abstract

Criminal activities in cyberspace are increasingly facilitated by burgeoning black markets for both tools (e.g., exploit kits) and take (e.g., credit card information). This report, part of a multiphase study on the future security environment, describes the fundamental characteristics of these markets and how they have grown into their current state to explain how their existence can harm the information security environment. Understanding the current and predicted landscape for these markets lays the groundwork for follow-on exploration of options to minimize the potentially harmful influence these markets impart. Experts agree that the coming years will bring more activity in darknets, more use of crypto-currencies, greater anonymity capabilities in malware, and more attention to encrypting and protecting communications and transactions; that the ability to stage cyberattacks will likely outpace the ability to defend against them; that crime will increasingly have a networked or cyber component, creating a wider range of opportunities for black markets; and that there will be more hacking for hire, as-a-service offerings, and brokers. Experts disagree, however, on who will be most affected by the growth of the black market (e.g., small or large businesses, individuals), what products will be on the rise (e.g., fungible goods, such as data records and credit card information; non-fungible goods, such as intellectual property), or which types of attacks will be most prevalent (e.g., persistent, targeted attacks; opportunistic, mass "smash-and-grab" attacks).

Key Findings

• The Hacking Community and Cyber Black Markets Are Growing and Maturing
• The cyber black market has evolved from a varied landscape of discrete, ad hoc individuals into a network of highly organized groups, often connected with traditional crime groups (e.g., drug cartels, mafias, terrorist cells) and nation-states.
• The cyber black market does not differ much from a traditional market or other typical criminal enterprises; participants communicate through various channels, place their orders, and get products.
• Its evolution mirrors the normal evolution of markets with both innovation and growth.
• For many, the cyber black market can be more profitable than the illegal drug trade.

THE CHANGING NATURE/CHARACTER OF WAR — WHEN ROBOTS COME TO THE SOUND OF GUNS”

Three Things That Have To Happen Before Robot Soldiers Hit The Battlefield

http://www.fortunascorner.wordpress.com

Patrick Tusker has an online article with the title above in this morning’s defenseone.com. He writes that DoD’s “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Robot Challenge, which is trying to build a walking, climbing, humanoid robot for “disaster relief” operations, has inspired excitement, speculation, and anxiety about Terminator-style robots on the future battlefield.”

He notes that “the team leading the race is a Tokyo-based group called SCHAFT that was acquired by Google, not long after the Silicon Valley giant acquired Boston Dynamics, creator of Big Dog robot pack mule and the ALTAShumaniod. So, are Google and DARPA’s ushering the era of Skynet upon us? The short answer is: not anytime soon.” But, Mike Hoffman, in an online article in this morning’s DefenseTech.org, writes that “Google has chosen to forego any military funding from DARPA, in the development of next generation robots” — as the “stain” from the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden has dampened any desire by the company to closely associate with the Pentagon — in this area — at least for now.

Mr. Tucker writes that, “iRobot, a leading robotics company, isn’t in the competition, despite being in the business of supplying the U.S. military with fielded robots for the past two decades. iRobot is best known as the maker of Roomba robot vacuum cleaner, but their most famous defense system, the company’s flagship product, is the PackBot, a tiny tank machine with a long arm. PakBots were originally designed to handle explosive ordnance, and one of their machines was featured in the film Hurt Locker, fulfilling that role. Today, they also supply situational awareness to soldiers — who need to know what’s around the corner.”

“When asked if we’ll have humanoid robots wielding machine guns in 15 years,” Chris Jones, Director of Strategic Technology at iRobot, laughed and called the “question a hard one to answer.” But, he pointed out some visible milestones between where we are now; and, that destination.

Marching Robots Need To Get Smarter

Mr. Tucker observes, “the military’s success with armed, flying drones like the Predator, doesn’t necessarily foretell a bright future for ‘gun-toting, walking robots. Keeping a machine airborne isn’t as difficult as getting a robot to navigate a 3-D, terrestrial environment such as a field, cluttered with debris, or a bombed-out building — where the chances for mishap are far higher — especially when you introduce live ammunition into the mix.” There are also “technical and systems challenges in terms of targeting,” Jones said. “It speaks to an increased bar for robustness and safety,” for ground-roving bots,” he added.

Hagel appoints top ethics officer

By Jennifer Hlad

Stars and Stripes

Published: March 25, 2014

Brig. Gen. Martin P. Schweitzer made inappropriate remarks in emails to Lt. Gen. James L. Huggins and Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair in reference to Renee Ellmers, a Republican who represents North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District. 

Rear Adm. Margaret Klein will be the first senior adviser for military professionalism, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Tuesday.

Klein will report directly to Hagel on issues related to military ethics, character and leadership, Hagel said in a written statement.

A flight officer, Klein was commissioned after she graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1981, according to her official biography. She is the chief of staff for the strategic plans and policy directorate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Klein “brings to the position a wealth of operational and leadership experience,” Hagel said, including experience as the commandant of midshipmen at the Naval Academy. “She knows that ethics and character are absolute values that must be constantly reinforced.”

In February, Hagel said some members of the military have been falling short of the high standards they are expected to meet, and he announced he would appoint a general officer to his staff to report to him on ethics and character issues.

“This will be an absolute top priority for the service secretaries, the service chiefs, [chairman of the Joint Chiefs] General Dempsey and me,” Hagel told reporters.

That was a day after CNN reported that Brig. Gen. Martin Schweitzer was no longer allowed to brief Hagel because Schweitzer made inappropriate sexual comments about a congresswoman in an email he sent to Army colleagues.

A colonel with the 82nd Airborne Division at the time, Schweitzer emailed a colleague that the lawmaker was not only knowledgeable but also “smoking hot,” according to the Dallas Morning News.

Klein will work with the joint staff and the services to coordinate efforts and report back to Hagel weekly on the progress, he said.

“Competence and character are not mutually exclusive,” Hagel said. “They are woven together, and they must be. And an uncompromising culture of accountability must exist at every level of command.”

hlad.jennifer@stripes.com 

Twitter: @jhlad

The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld (Part 1)

By ERROL MORRIS

Errol Morris on photography.

This is the first installment of a four-part series.

1.  THREE REPORTERS

Four kinds of persons: zeal without knowledge; knowledge without zeal; neither knowledge nor zeal; both zeal and knowledge.

– Pascal, Pensées

C-SPAN Video Library

When I first met Donald Rumsfeld in his offices in Washington, D.C., one of the things I said to him was that if we could provide an answer to the American public about why we went to war in Iraq, we would be rendering an important service. He agreed. Unfortunately, after having spent 33 hours over the course of a year interviewing Mr. Rumsfeld, I fear I know less about the origins of the Iraq war than when I started. A question presents itself: How could that be? How could I know less rather than more? Was he hiding something? Or was there really little more than met the eye?

Many people associate the phrases the known known, the known unknown and the unknown unknown with Rumsfeld, but few people are aware of how he first presented these ideas to the public. It was at a Pentagon news conference on Feb. 12, 2002. Reporters filed in to the Pentagon Briefing Room — five months after 9/11 and a year before the invasion of Iraq. The verbal exchanges that followed provide an excursion into a world no less irrational, no less absurd, than the worlds Lewis Carroll created in Alice in Wonderland.

Jack McWethy, the ABC Pentagon correspondent, asked Rumsfeld about the containment policies of the Clinton administration.[1]

The substance of Rumsfeld’s reply reiterated his previous condemnations of those policies — sanctions aren’t working, the no-fly zones produce little or no benefit, and Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction.[2] It was also a warning:

DONALD RUMSFELD: Every year that goes by and the inspectors are not there, the development of their weapons of mass destruction proceed apace, bringing them closer to a time when they will have those weapons developed in a form that is more threatening than it had been the year before or the year before that.

Jim Miklaszewski, the NBC Pentagon correspondent, asked another question.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are — what was the word you used, Pam, earlier?

PAM HESS: Free associate.[3] [The phrase “free associate” came earlier in the press conference in response to a question about drones.]

DONALD RUMSFELD: Yeah. They can do things I can’t do. (laughter)

Are Fighters the New Capital Ships?

Air war has, in effect, become as costly as naval war. What are the implications for strategy? 

By Robert Farley

March 27, 2014

Admirals are notoriously conservative regarding their capital ships. By the early twentieth century, the cost of a battleship and the time required for construction demanded extraordinary care with respect to the survival of the vessels. Capital ships do not simply represent or implement national power; because of their great cost and the long periods of construction, they effectively constitute national power. The loss of a battlefleet represented a catastrophic expenditure of national treasure, not to mention blood. This logic was on the minds of the German and British commanders at Jutland, as well as dear to the Japanese admirals who so desperately husbanded their strength into 1944.

Air forces have not, historically, conceived of air frames in the same way. Cheaper, with quicker production times, and carrying fewer personnel, generals have viewed aircraft as more expendable. Even as late as Vietnam, the USAF suffered the loss of over 2,000 aircraft across the course of the conflict.

But over time, the cost calculus has changed. In 1944, the relative costs of fighters, bombers, and aircraft carriers ran very roughly as follows:

F6F Hellcat: $35,000

B-29 Superfortress: $700,000

Essex-class aircraft carrier $70,000,000

An aircraft carrier was worth 100 heavy bombers, each of which cost roughly as much as 20 carrier-borne fighters. These are (roughly) the expected cost numbers for the next generation of fighter, bomber, and aircraft carrier for the United States

F-35: $150 million

LRS-B: $810 million

CVN-78: $12.8 billion

The ordinal relationship remains the same, but the ratios have changed; an aircraft carrier costs 15.8 bombers, while a bomber cost 5.4 fighters. In effect, aircraft are no longer expendable; they now rival major naval vessels in terms of expense. For example, the loss of the B-2 Spirit of Kansas resulted in the destruction of nearly 5 percent of the fleet; the immense expense of reconstructing the Spirit of Washington remedied the loss of another 5 percent.

The implications of this shift are worth considering, especially in light of South Korea’s decision to purchase 40 F-35s, each at a cost roughly equal to one-fourth to one-half of a Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship. First, the idea that casualty aversion presents a major impediment to conventional great power conflict may be wrong; cost aversion may present just as large of an impediment. Few believe, for example, that the Marine Corps will be as risk-acceptant with respect to its new F-35Bs as it has been with its Harrier jumpjets.

Another is that anti-access strategies need not threaten to completely destroy an attacker; effective deterrence can threaten simply to destroy enough aircraft to significantly damage an enemy’s air force. This logic is already operant, of course, with respect to capital ships; no one expects the United States Navy to deploy an aircraft carrier into an area in which it faces a substantial chance of serious damage or sinking. But wiping out the USAF’s incredibly expensive and virtually irreplaceable F-22 Raptor force would have the same effect.

IN WAR, KNOW YOURSELF, KNOW YOUR ENEMY

Thursday, 27 March 2014 |

 Claude Arpi |

The Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report makes it clear that the 1962 debacle was a result of India’s military unpreparedness and also of the political leadership’s inability to recognise the danger

After the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report of the 1962 Sino-Indian war was ‘released’ by Mr Neville Maxwell, I wonder why nobody asked the Australian correspondent who wrote the famous book, India’s China War, in 1970, who gave him a copy of the top-secret report? A few decades ago, it was rumoured that a senior General or a Minister was the culprit. We will probably never know. Mr Maxwell, who had kept 126 pages of Part 1 of the report secret for the past 45 years, probably wanted to ‘clear’ his consciousness by posting it on his website.

In the meantime, the blind babus of the Ministry of Defence continued to affirm that the content of the report was of current operational value. Did they think for a second about all those who had died on the Namkha Chu or in Ladakh or about those who suffered as prisoners of war in Tibet, or even about a nation that was humiliated? No, it is not in their habit, though India is entitled to know what happened.

While reading the report, it clearly comes out that the author, Henderson Brooks, the Anglo-Indian General, was a professional, honest and courageous man. Often, he did not hesitate to point a finger at his superiors, without once directly mentioning the political leadership (it was not in the terms of reference of his work, limited to military operations).

However, the report strongly indicts others, like Lieutenant General BM Kaul, Prime Minister Nehru’s blue-eyed boy and Commander of 4 Corps. Lt Gen Kaul, who was Chief of General Staff in the Army Headquarters, before taking command of 4 Corps, is severely criticised time and again. But Nehru, who had promoted Lt Gen Kaul to positions that the general was unable to assume, was the real guilty man, though his name is never mentioned.

The report speaks, for example, of “the unbalanced posture of our forces in the Tawang sector on the eve of the Chinese offensive which “needs NO elaboration”. It adds: “[Tawang], which should have been the main centre of strength, lacked troops; the bulk having been inveigled to a flank in the Namkha Chu Valley, without adequate logistic support and in tactically unsound positions... The rout of 7 Infantry Brigade was a foregone conclusion.”

The HBR is a manual of what should not be done: “The NEFA [North-East Frontier Agency] battles were the concern of the [IV] Corps. It must, however, be made clear that this applied to only the tactical sphere. The overall defensive planning and the provision of logistic support must and always should be the concern of the Command [in Lucknow, Lieutenant General Sen] and the General Staff at Army Headquarters [in Delhi]. Unfortunately, the reverse happened. There was interference in the tactical level and the overall planning and provision of logistic support was conspicuous by its absence.”

India's defence industry languishes Monopoly of the defence PSUs has to end

G Parthasarathy


Engineers work on a LCA Tejas before its induction into the IAF. A PTI file photo

SPEAKING on the 15th anniversary of the Pokhran nuclear test last year, Narendra Modi observed: “There is a crucial question we have to answer — how do we become self-sufficient in defence manufacturing? This is not only about military power but also about being self-reliant for our defence equipment”. India has, since 2011, retained the dubious distinction of replacing China as the largest arms importer in the world. According to SIPRI, India’s major arms imports surged by 111 per cent in the last five years compared to 2004-2008.

China’s arms imports have declined. It has successfully leveraged its arms imports to engineer and develop a vibrant defence industry, now exporting armaments, ranging from fighter aircraft and frigates to missiles and rifles. Pakistan’s Al Khalid tank, frontline JF 17 fighter and recently acquired frigates are all from China. Its main ballistic missiles, the Shaheen 1 and Shaheen 2, are replicas of their Chinese counterparts. Moreover, China is a regular supplier of arms to our other neighbours like Myanmar, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The pathetic inadequacies of India's defence industry were exposed when it was unable to meet Afghanistan's wish list so vital for its security as American forces prepare to leave.

While our missile development programme gives us pride, our nuclear deterrent will be credible only when Agni 5 and the Navy’s nuclear submarines become fully operational. We are not in a position to export any major weapons platform. The 5.56 mm (INSAS) Automatic Rifle, manufactured by our ordnance factories will be rejected by any modern army. There is a total absence of accountability in the entire process of defence acquisitions and domestic production. The most classic case of such bungling pertains to the famous/infamous Bofors FH 77, 155 mm Howitzer.

In 1986 India signed a $285 million contract for the supply of 410 155 mm Bofors Howitzers. The contract included a provision for the manufacture of 1000 guns in India. The Bofors deal, which led to the outrageous arrest of a Defence Secretary of impeccable integrity, S.K. Bhatnagar, became a turning point, further complicating the already cumbersome defence acquisition procedures. The government cancelled the entire contract without arranging for either domestic manufacture or selecting an alternative gun. Like in all such cases, the armed forces rushed in for the import of an alternative. The acquisition process became more complicated, as offers for comparable weapon systems from Singapore and South Africa were rejected on allegations of kickbacks.

India would have been hard pressed to win the Kargil conflict speedily without the firepower that the Bofors gun provided. But we now come to the strange part of this entire episode. By 1987, India had received the entire design data and transfer of technology from Sweden for the manufacture of the Bofors gun. For over 20 years, these designs gathered dust in the offices of the Defence Production Establishment. It was only when no alternative was available that these designs were discovered and after much procrastination, the Ordnance Factories commenced a process of assembly. While the first test of the indigenous gun understandably failed, the Ordnance Factory Board has now successfully moved to commence its manufacture soon, with a range of 38 km as against the 30 km range of the Swedish Bofors. We have similarly successfully designed and developed multi-barrelled rocket launchers. But the larger issue is: Who is to be held responsible for mothballing the designs received from Sweden and why was the task of domestic manufacture not undertaken earlier?

Ailing social sector and political apathy

India’s public spending on health as a proportion of GDP is among the lowest in the world. As a result nearly 80 per cent of the health expenditure in the country continues to be in the private sector, which is unregulated

Mohuya Chaudhuri
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2014/20140327/edit.htm


Overburdened: Quality of services provided at health centres remains abysmally poor. Tribune photo

INDIA may be growing rapidly as an economic giant but in the health-care sector it continues to lag way behind many developing nations. In the last few decades, the government spending on health has remained static at close to 2 per cent of the GDP. Even when the country witnessed economic growth to the tune of 9 per cent, spending on health was abysmally low, despite multiple promises made by successive governments to improve it.

The impact has been on health services and quality of care, which continue to be suboptimal. The main challenges are absence of affordable medicines in the public health system as well as poor availability and access to health centres. Families have to travel long distances to access health care and often return without receiving help because there are no doctors. This has forced them to turn to the private sector. Even today, nearly 80 per cent of the health expenditure in India continues to be in the private sector, which is unregulated. Cost of care has increased exponentially and the public is grappling with the burden. It is estimated that each year more than 4 crore people are driven to poverty due to healthcare expenses.

Reproductive health

Much of the modest increase in public spending on health was channeled into the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). So far, it is the first major national effort to strengthen the health system. In the past decade, there have been marked improvements in the reproductive and child health care. While infant mortality rate (IMR) has declined to 42 per 1000 live births, it is still higher than Bangladesh, where IMR is 33. Maternal mortality rate (MMR) has only dropped from 212 to 178 in 2013. In comparison, the MMR rate in other South Asian countries like Thailand is 48 and in Sri Lanka it is 35.

Despite the fact that NRHM did scale up infrastructure across the country and hired more frontline personnel in low performing states, the goal of achieving universal health care is still a distant dream.

Since it has not been able to reach the most impoverished, marginalised and underserved communities, the gains have been partial. Currently, though institutional deliveries have gone up to 80 per cent yet there are serious concerns about the quality of services provided at health centres. Often women do not return for the next delivery.

Demilitarisation, Human Rights, and Indo-US Interests

Paper No. 5672 Dated 25-Mar-2014

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1486

Guest Column by Parasaran Rangarajan

The United States is reported to have requested a military installation in Sri Lanka as part of its “Pivot Towards Asia” where the Pentagon has stated that approximately 60% of U.S. Navy assets will be in the Asia Pacific region including Oceania, South China Sea, and the Indian Ocean by 2020[1] .

Sri Lanka is currently under increasing international pressure for violations of international law and views the continued U.S. sponsored resolutions at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) against the island nation as interference in its domestic affairs in a larger attempt to bring about regime change under the guise of human rights.

While there is no doubt that justice cannot be delayed in regards to the events which took place in 2009, U.N. resolutions have been regarded as pre-texts for other actions as of late since the UNHRC cannot refer cases directly to the International Criminal Court (ICC) although this is within the scope of its mandate if both bodies decide to work together in the future. Citing this reason, some of the anti-western nations have denied support for this resolution seeking justice under international law. Hence, we must review the justifications the actions of the UNHRC establishing an international investigation into Sri Lanka emulating the North Korean structure or similar actions by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR)alongside the de-militarisation aspect.

The current outgoing Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has been criticized by opposition parties for being weak and not taking stronger stands in foreign policy issues including those related to the increasing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean among other matters. In his last official trip overseas to the BIMSTEC conference in Myanmar where he met Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he has sought de-militarisation of the Northern Provinces of Sri Lanka as there are reported to be nearly 175,000 troops stationed conducting illegal land grabs, human rights violations, and interfering in daily normal civilian life[2]. While de-militarisation may be difficult under the Constitution of Sri Lanka as noted by senior government of India advisers, this must be looked at seriously in relation to human rights and strategic gains for India[3]. Many of these troops and its commanders have been implicated in allegations of violations of international law and denied visas to the U.S for training as under U.S. law; those alleged for war crimes cannot be given training.

Some Sri Lankan Army (SLA) personnel such as General SarathFonseka have openly come out and stated that if there is an international investigation into war crimes, the responsibility and chain of causation for these heinous crimes will lead to him as he oversaw much of the last phases of the Eelam War between the government of Sri Lanka and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) but this can be viewed as an attempt to shield the Rajapaksa administration and executive branches[4]. We will not know the details of this matter until an international investigation is completed because diplomatic communications from the U.S. as found on WikiLeaks have shown information that the orders to shell the “No Fire Zones” came from none other than the Rajapaksa family[5]. This has been echoed by others in the international community including Tamil Diaspora organisations as well who have been campaigning for an international investigation.

As internet matures, India faces a choice on governance

Mahima Kaul

24 March 2014

Source Link

For many years, the Indian public in particular had very little interest in who controlled the internet and decisions taken at a structural level that shaped its future. 

The press carried little tidbits about the World Summit on Information Society; a pair of United Nations-sponsored conferences about information, communication and, with an aim to bridge the so-called global digital divide separating rich countries from poor countries by spreading access to the internet in the developing world, the UN body, International Telecommunications Union (ITU); which coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical standards, and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the continued operations of the Internet's underlying address book, the Domain Name System (DNS) and also UN Commission of Science and Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, where governments come together to discuss issues like internet governance. 

What was commonly known followed a similar trajectory: America invented the internet, it is a global commons, and it works well. 

Over the last few years, however, as the Indian experience with the internet has matured, questions of governance, both internally and externally have started making headlines. Allegations of mass surveillance have hogged all headlines. Another factor cannot be missed: the Indian digital economy is growing rapidly, and while internet governance is nowhere close to being an election issue in India, domestically, access, freedom of expression, cyber crime and cyber security are growing concerns. There also the reality that as India's population gets increasingly connected, it will host one of the biggest online demographies in the world. Therefore, India's views and actions in terms of how the internet should grow and be governed is crucial to the future of the internet itself. 

In October 2011, the Indian government proposed that a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) be formed, so that governments can debate and deliberate on vital issues such as intellectual property enforcement, privacy and data protection, online filtering and censorship and network neutrality. Those opposed to the idea have warned that the "open" nature of the internet will be threatened by governments who favor a controlled and censored form of the internet. Also the proposed structure of the UN-CIRP seemed to be the very anti-thesis of a dynamic internet; it involved setting up a 50 member committee that only met for two weeks in the year. Those opposed to this bureaucratic suggestion, instead, favour a multi-stakeholder transnational governance mechanism, which gives all stakeholders of the internet a place on the table; including governments, businesses and civil society members. 

The last few months of 2013 were very active internationally, on questions of internet governance. Three big international events made headlines, and India's role in them is especially telling. The first was the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Indonesia in November. This event brought together all members of civil society on a common platform to deliberate on the rules of global governance, but in effect did not have any binding powers. Given that it was held in the wake of the Snowden revelations of NSA surveillance, the conversations centered around the need to ensure better protection of all citizens in the online environment and to reach a proper balance between actions driven by national security and respect for freedom of expression, privacy and human rights. While in the 2012 IGF, India's Minister for Communication Technology had been present, in 2013, was "extremely small" according to Dr Anja Kovaks who participated there. She added that, "many developing countries look up to India's engagement with internet-governance forums to ensure that the concerns of the developing world are not ignored during policy-making." 

In December, 2013, the UN Commission of Science and Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation released a statement which also carried India's proposal that, "The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies. The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources." Earlier this year, a note written by India's National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), leaked to an Indian newspaper in March 2014, warns of the DNS system under US control, and goes on to say that "India's position is aligned with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran who also want governments to collectively drive internet management worldwide?" It adds that, "trust in the internet has declined and India's objective in the Geneva session was to ensure its concerns are accommodated in whatever international regime of Internet governance finally emerges." 

Yes, The Taliban Are Terrorists

 

 

“It is time for Washington to put objective facts above political wishful thinking and recognize the Taliban as a terror organization.”
By Aziz Hakimi
March 25, 2014

The story is heartbreaking. A Facebook status update on July 16, 2013, from Ahmad Sardar, the Afghan journalist in Kabul. Nelofar, his 5-year-old daughter asks her dad, “Do the Taliban kill animals too?” The father answers no, and the little girl says: “I wish we were animals.”

Little Nelofar is dead now, brutally murdered by the Taliban – shot in the head – together with her dad, her mom and her 8-year-old brother. Of Nelofar’s family, only her 2-year-old brother has miraculously survived, in a coma with three bullets in his body.

On March 20, 2014, on the eve of the Persian New Year, the Taliban managed to enter the highly fortified Serena Hotel, located just a kilometer away from the Afghan presidential palace, where Nelofar and her family were celebrating the Nawrooz, the arrival of the spring and of the New Year.

The Taliban suicide mission left nine people dead and many more injured before Afghan forces killed the four attackers, who had managed to sneak pistols and ammunition inside the hotel, despite the tight security measures.

This is certainly not the first ruthless killing of civilians by the Taliban and, as Afghans know, it will not be the last. Every attack has been accompanied by widespread resentment of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has on numerous occasions called the Taliban his “dissident brothers.”

Many Afghans accuse Karzai of turning a blind eye to the massacres of civilians by the Taliban in the hearts of the Afghan capital and other major cities. Karzai never directly condemns the Taliban for the killings. Instead, he and other officials release statements that refer to the killers as the “enemies of peace and stability,” an absurd and overused phrase that carries no real sense of condemnation toward the Taliban themselves.

Some inside the government have privately told journalists that they are officially being asked by the president’s office to use such ambiguous expressions.

India continues to fall behind China

By Frank Ching
March 26, 2014, In 2010, when China-India trade was on a roll, the two countries set a goal of US$100 billion in trade in 2015. Indeed, in 2011, trade rose to US$74 billion, a 23-percent increase over the previous year.

For the last two years, however, events have moved in the opposite direction, with trade levels declining year by year, falling by 2.7 percent in 2012 and by an additional 1.5 percent in 2013 to US$65.47 billion. Total trade dropped 11.5 percent over the two years.

Now, achieving the US$100 billion target in 2015 is looking increasingly difficult.

An even pricklier problem from New Delhi's standpoint is that while India's exports to China have been dropping, China's exports to India continue to rise so that, in 2013, the value of Chinese exports to India was almost three times that of Indian exports to China.

The Indian trade deficit with China reached US$31.4 billion in 2013, according to Chinese customs figures.

Indian figures show an even worse situation. Last week, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chief of the Planning Commission, said at the annual bilateral strategic economic dialogue that “India's trade deficit over the last three successive years has been in excess of US$35 billion per annum, which is not sustainable.”

While still holding onto the official target of US$100 billion in trade by 2015, he said that the deficit “needs to be reduced to sustainable levels by more exports from India to China.” Specifically, the Indian side proposed Chinese investment in Indian industrial parks.

The decline in Indian exports is attributable to several factors, including the banning of iron ore mining in several regions by India's Supreme Court as a result of environmental concerns, and the imposition of a 30-percent export duty on iron ore shipped abroad.

This has resulted in a major fall in iron ore exports from India, which used to be the world's third largest exporter of iron ore.

New Delhi has been asking Beijing to open up its market to more Indian products, such as pharmaceuticals and software technology. At the latest meeting, China promised to encourage the participation of Indian IT companies in the Chinese market.

Increasingly, both sides are looking at a substantial increase in Chinese investment as one way to ease India's trade deficit problem. Current Chinese investment in India is less than US$1 billion.

A press release issued after the meeting said that the two sides agreed to “pursue specific collaboration arrangements” to upgrade the existing railway network in India.

A task force is also being set up to enable Chinese companies to invest in industries and industrial zones in India. The idea is that goods currently exported from China can be manufactured in India in the future.

China has suggested the construction of a high-speed rail system in India but Ahluwalia said that India was looking at China to help increase the speed of its present railways, redevelop old stations and increase its capacity for hauling freight. India, he said, was not looking to China to build a high-speed railway network.