Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

It is with great sadness that Modern Tokyo Times hears about the death of Bahukutumbi Raman who was a foremost expert in the field of counter-terrorism, national security and geopolitics in India. Raman passed away after fighting against cancer during the later part of his life. However, true to the very nature of Raman he kept on churning out essential analysis of major international events related to India and the surrounding region until the very late stages of his life.

I myself contacted Raman several years ago when Modern Tokyo Times was in its infancy and he kindly allowed our agency to publish his work until we could get off the ground. The beauty of Raman is that despite knowing extremely powerful individuals within India and much further afield; he was also open to anyone who cared and had a valid message to give to the world. Therefore, it was a great honor when such a distinguished individual gave the Modern Tokyo Times a helping hand in the cut-throat world of the mass media.

His distinguished career runs of the pen naturally when it comes to security related issues and being at the center of safeguarding India. Raman is a former Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India. Also, Raman is the former head of India’s intelligence agency called Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) which applies to external threats. Therefore, by being a former head (and one of the founding fathers of RAW) of this important counter-terrorism agency; it is clear that Raman was very important within the power mechanisms of India in relation to national security.

Raman also was the director of the distinguished Institute for Topical Studies which is based in Chennai. Alongside this, Raman was also an important contributor to the South Asia Analysis Group. Outside of major institutions he frequently wrote about geopolitics, counter-terrrorism, military issues, national security and other related areas in relation to India and South Asia. He also kept in touch “with the street” by utilizing social media and was open to individuals irrespective of their position because he firmly believed in humanity.

India Express states that Raman was “One of the few officers who witnessed the creation of RAW in 1968 by RN Kao, his analysis on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China have been an asset to the intelligence community. In his memoir Kaoboys of Research and Analysis Wing: Down Memory Lane, he talked about his days in the agency.”

Raman cared passionately for the national security of India and to create mechanisms whereby terrorism and geopolitical land grabs by hostile nations could be dampened and repulsed before chaos broke out. On May 10, 2013, despite the pain of his severe cancer Raman bravely stated about the elections in Pakistan that “Better relations with India will be a minefield. The sensitivities of the army and the fundamentalist and jihadi organizations may have to be taken into consideration by the mainstream parties doing well in the elections before they take any major initiative for a policy change in a positive direction. They have to go very slow and keep down their enthusiasm. Better relations with India are, therefore, unlikely to be for tomorrow unless the PML (N) comes out with an absolute majority of its own.”

“India’s immediate policy interest ought to be not in the prospects for a quick improvement in the bilateral relations, but in the prospects for the better internal stability and better internal security in Pakistan with a genuine control over the activities of the TTP, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ) and other jihadi organizations.”

“India has had a contentious relationship with Pakistan ever since the two countries became independent in 1947. If this contentious relationship continues for some more years, we can live with it provided the new ruling dispensation in Pakistan shows the courage and foresight to take on the fundamentalist and jihadi organizations and defeat them in the interest of the people of Pakistan and at the same time persuade the Army to co-operate with the civilian leadership in this direction.”

Raman even in the last days of his life and suffering enormous pain showed the passion of youth but with the knowledge of age. India should note the wise words above because Raman was focused on seeing the events of the day and the reality of long term problems which he foresaw in the future.

Raman stated about international terrorism which is eating away at many nations based on various different factors that “How would I characterise international jihadi terrorism as personified by Al Qaeda and the International Islamic Front (IIF) formed by it in 1998, which pose the greatest threat to international peace and harmony? It is revanchist in character, medieval in its objectives and modern in its methods of operation. It wants to avenge through mass killings the imaginary wrongs which, according to it, were done to the Muslims of the world over the ages by the rest of the world. It is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash between savagery and civilization. Civilization has to prevail over savagery and it will. It wants to take the Islamic world not forward into the modern world of democracy, prosperity and enlightenment, but back to the days of the Islamic Caliphate. It has mastered or is trying to master modern means of destruction in order to achieve the destruction of modernity and take the Islamic world back to its dark ages. “

“International jihad terrorism has only pretexts for its actions. It has no legitimate root causes. In its revanchist, it is like the Nazism of the past. Imagine what could have happened to the world if leaders such as President Franklin Roosevelt, Sir Winston Churchill, Gen. de Gaulle and others had said “let us first address the root causes of Nazism before we eliminate Adolf Hitler and his cohorts.” Where would the world be today? It would be equally absurd for us to say “let us first address the root causes of Al Qaeda and the IIF before we eliminate the leaders of Al Qaeda, the IIF and their cohorts.” They have to be eliminated first by all of us thinking and acting in unison.”

After the death of Osama bin Laden the distinguished Raman commented that “The death of the jihadi Frankenstein’s monster in the cradle of the Pakistan Army has thrown the spotlight even more intensely than till now on another Frankenstein’s monster— namely, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan.” 

“Since the 1980s,the ISI was was pampered, fed and fattened by the US along with the Pakistan Army. The US, which closed its eyes to the pernicious role played by this State Frankenstein’s monster in sponsoring terrorism of various kinds against India, Afghanistan and other countries, is confused and does not know how to act against this State Frankenstein’s monster after having killed the non-State monster.” 

“The end of Osama bin Laden will not be the end of international jihadi terrorism. The non-state head of international jihadi terrorism may be dead, but the State of Pakistan, which continues to use this terrorism, lives in a denial mode. Neither the State of Pakistan nor its civil society is prepared to admit that Al Qaeda and its surviving leaders have managed to escape arrest, prosecution or death so far, because of the support extended to them by the State of Pakistan. The same is the case with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and other jihadi affiliates of Al Qaeda.” 

Raman gave his soul to India and helped the international community because of his enormous wisdom. He passed away on June 16, 2013. However, he will live on within the people he touched based on his writing, knowledge and the humanity he showed the world.

Rest in peace dear Bahukutumbi Raman.

http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.jp/2013/05/impact-of-pak-elections-on-ties-with.html

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?271660

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Ri Kuk-Chol and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The nation of Myanmar (Burma) appears to be at a major crossroads because past intransigence is now being followed by a possible thaw, whereby this nation comes in from the “international cold.” Of course, for nations like China then issues related to human rights was never on the agenda. Similarly, major democratic states have a schizophrenic approach to human rights. This is especially confirmed by major democratic nations having close ties with Saudi Arabia which denies religious freedom, prevents gender equality and allows little children to marry old men under Islamic Sharia law. Therefore, within this chaotic world you have the nation of Myanmar which is trying to break out from isolation in order to exploit its geographic importance and natural resources.

Irrespective if people have a negative or positive impression of this nation; it is essential to understand the fears of elites within this nation which have tried to crush dissent and various ethnic groups for many decades. Nations like Nigeria had a brutal war named Biafra whereby central forces were challenged by ethnic demands for independence. Similarly, the former Yugoslavia was multi-ethnic and multi-religious just like Nigeria and Myanmar are. However, political convulsions and outside meddling led to the demise of the former Yugoslavia.

Indonesia tried to crush the ethnic and religious independent passions of East Timor which led to mass repression and untold numbers of people being killed. Eventually, East Timor became independent after regional powers like Australia intervened on behalf of the international community. Despite this, you still have many tensions throughout Indonesia based on religious and ethnic issues. For example, West Papua (Irian Jaya) faces Javanization and Islamization policies which are aimed at altering the ethnic and religious balance against the mainly Christian Papuans. This issue is replicated in other areas and also against other minority Muslim ethnic groups which desire greater autonomy (or independence) within Indonesia and this notably applies to Aceh.

The geopolitical angle is another major area which pits China, India, Japan and the United States within the Myanmar question. If political leaders in Tokyo and Washington continue with lofty ideals based on human rights, then clearly China and India will gain from this reality. Japan clearly hopes to expand economic, political and military angles to its relationship with India. In Japan the nation of India is viewed favorably based on this nation being the most populace democratic nation in the world and because of power projections aimed at containing China. Past relations between America and India were soured by Washington’s intrigues in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, this policy enabled Islamist forces to develop because of the deeds of major security intelligence agencies; this especially applies to the CIA, ISI and MI6. India felt these convulsions within Kashmir and by terrorist attacks throughout India based on the connivance of Pakistan. Therefore, the “right policy” towards Myanmar is not easy and this applies to the internal political mechanisms of this country and how major nations respond to the changes taking place.

In Myanmar you also have a powerful Christian element based on several mainly Christian ethnic groups which have been fighting for decades. Recent attention is focused on Buddhist and Muslim clashes. However, the Christian ethnic angle is the one area of fear for central forces in Myanmar which fear possible disintegration. It is believed that you have approximately 3.4 million Christians in Myanmar and Christian influence within several political movements is very powerful. This is based on being predominant in areas which remain hostile to central forces based on past policies and ongoing military, political, and economic operations, which are aimed at crushing several mainly Christian ethnic groups (or Christian led groups).

On the World Watch Monitor (http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org) website it is stated by Vishal Arora that “Amid global euphoria over reforms in Burman-majority parts of Burma, life has changed little for more than 3 million Christians and other minorities left to suffer from one of the world’s longest running civil wars.”

“Headlines around the world hailed the induction on Wednesday (May 2) of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi into parliament as the beginning of a new era in Burma, officially known as Myanmar. But for the 150,000 Internally Displaced People (IDP) living in eastern Karen state’s 4,000 IDP camps, life is still about landmine blasts, gun and mortar attacks, and the possibility of a final war between armed insurgents and the Burma army.”

Further down in the same article it states that “In predominantly Christian Kachin state, government troops have attacked KIA soldiers and civilians since a 17-year ceasefire broke down in June last year. The fighting has displaced over 75,000 people since then, according to the Kachin Development Networking Group.”

Therefore, it might be champagne and trade for some political and business leaders in America, China, India, Japan, and in other nations. However, on the ground it is a living hell in several parts of Myanmar for various minority Christian ethnic groups.

Like previously mentioned, it is very difficult for America and Japan, and other powerful democracies, because if they stand on the sidelines too much then China and other economic rivals will gain. Also, the geopolitical angle related to Myanmar for America, China, India and Japan is also extremely powerful. This reality needs to be weighed up against the many decades of economic and political discontent within the body politic of Myanmar. Therefore, is it really fine to do business deals in the knowledge that greater economic prosperity in Myanmar may be used against the various different mainly Christian ethnic groups which could be crushed?

This issue applies to a plethora of other nations. For example, in China it is clear that growing economic prosperity is also being aimed at changing the internal dynamics of mainly Buddhist Tibet and vast areas of West China where Islam predominates among the indigenous groups. It is a very fine balance and the same applies to countless other nations whereby minorities often suffer and become even more marginalized once major economic development takes place. After all, economic and growing prosperity in America and Australia during the very foundations of these nations meant that indigenous Native Americans and Aborigines would be crushed and marginalized. Given this reality, the perennial struggle between economic development, control of resources, modernization, and other forces, whereby various ethnic groups suffer greatly is now being played out in the modern world and this certainly applies to Myanmar.

Yet, in the opposite direction you also have the fear of a nation state unraveling based on ethnic and religious grounds. Therefore, the political and military elites in Myanmar are very worried about the right steps to take in order to preserve the territorial integrity of this nation. Also, from a Buddhist point of view, then various Islamic conquests crushed Buddhism in many parts of Asia and The Taliban even want to destroy every vestige of this faith in Afghanistan. Likewise, while Buddhist and Muslim clashes have hit the headlines in relation to Myanmar; it is clear that many massacres against Buddhists have taken place in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh and in southern Thailand. Sadly, the mass media often paints a very simple picture but many militant Buddhist monks look to history and the ongoing reality of what is happening to Buddhists in several nations; therefore, this increases their fear and loathing.

Myanmar therefore is beset with a plethora of challenges and the same applies to how major powers develop their strategy with this nation. Japan appears to want to expand because the BBC reports that “Mt Abe pledged about $500m (£330m) in new loans and wrote off $1.74bn of Burma’s debt to Japan, officials said.”

“Japan, a key donor to Burma, maintained trade ties with the country during its years of military rule.”

“Correspondents say Mr Abe’s visit – the first visit by a Japanese prime minister since 1977 – marks a further improvement in already warm relations.”

This follows on from President Obama who recently stated to President Thein Sein of Myanmar that “We want you to know that the United States will make every effort to assist you on what I know is a long, and sometimes difficult but ultimately correct path to follow.”

The leaders of America and Japan also have their eyes cast on China because while economic trade is welcomed it is clear that both nations are worried by the growing power of this nation. Therefore, both political leaders in America and Japan have to weigh up the geopolitical angle strongly and this also applies to India which is worried about the intentions of Beijing. All in all, the choices are very difficult either way but sadly for ethnic and religious groups on the ground their fate appears to be in the hands of powerful international nations and the real intentions of Thein Sein and other political leaders in Myanmar.

http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2012/05-May/article_1527548.html/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22673107

leejay@moderntkyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Jibril Khoury and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The conflicts in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Libya and in other parts of the mainly Islamic world, or where you have Muslim and non-Muslim fault-lines, appears to have one binding factor. This applies to Western backed support for Islamists alongside using proxy outside nations to fulfill geopolitical ambitions. On top of this are powerful factors in the mainly Muslim world in nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and other Gulf nation states which have either shared interests, or which encourage America, France and the United Kingdom to do their bidding – or to work collectively in order to spread Islamism.

In all the above mentioned places you will have a host of various factors and each conflict will be seen differently through the prism of different ideas. Syria is currently facing this shared attack between powerful dominant Sunni Muslim nations and hostile Western nations including America, France and the United Kingdom. However, the one binding factor is that in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Libya and now Syria; is that outside nations instigated the delicate internal mechanisms in order to unleash Islamism, terrorism and attacks against the ruling power mechanisms.

It mattered not if Hindus were cleansed in Kashmir or Alawites are being hanged and beheaded in Syria. Likewise, it matters not one jot if international terrorism is united in order to do the bidding of Washington, Riyadh, London, Ankara, Paris, Doha and other nations involved in the terrorist and destabilization rat-lines.

Prem Shankar Jha, The Hindu newspaper in India, comments about the shared dualities of Kashmir and Syria. He states that “But while nearly everyone wanted a change, almost no one wanted it at the cost of a violent disruption of their lives. In neither case, therefore, was the state the first to resort to violence: On the contrary, both insurgencies had to be stoked, so the first to pick up the gun were the insurgents. In Syria this was done by Salafi/Takfiri Islamists who crossed the border from Jordan in March 2011 and holed up in the Omari mosque in Dera’a before launching targeted provocations, and attacks on police stations and government offices.”

It is important to note that Kashmir and Syria were destabilized by Islamists using Pakistan and Jordan respectively. In the case of Syria, it is difficult to believe that America, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom intelligence agencies weren’t involved in the chain of events which took place in March 2011 in Syria. After all, Jordan is within the collective remit of all the above named nations. Similarly, in Kashmir it is clear that Pakistan stoked up the crisis and like usual the angle of America, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia pops up again.

Prem Shankar Jha also comments that another parallel with Kashmir “…is the intervention of hostile foreign powers bent on converting a domestic upsurge demanding political empowerment into a movement for secession or regime change. In Kashmir, Pakistan did this by disarming the JKLF cadres still in training in Muzaffarabad in 1990 and creating the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. In Syria, Turkey and Qatar are funneling money and battle hardened jihadis to start a sectarian war that will overwhelm the state.”

“Last and most important, like New Delhi, Damascus has been trying to prevent civil war by offering the insurgents the alternative of the ballot box. Mr. Assad began, on his own, by lifting all controls on the Internet in January 2011. Over the next six months, he first tried to negotiate peace with the Sunni zealots in Dera’a by sacking the governor and releasing 260 prisoners and 16 clerics, and promising to repeal the Emergency Laws and the ban on political parties that had been in place for 48 years. He fulfilled his first promise five days ahead of schedule on April 20 and his second three months later in July.”

However, while nations like the Russian Federation, Brazil, Iran, and others, supported a political solution to the crisis in Syria it is clear that the enemies of Syria upped the ante and began many terrorist rat-lines. Therefore, Turkey became a major player because the Erdogan government sensed an opportunity to install a compliant Sunni Muslim dominated Sharia state. The same applies to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nations in the Gulf.

In Bosnia it was reported that over 8,000 international jihadists entered this nation in order to do the bidding of Washington, London, Riyadh, Tehran and Ankara. Turkey was once more dreaming about its historical legacy and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states were enticed by creating majority Muslim states in Europe. In Bosnia the Serbs were facing the might of NATO, international jihadists and the involvement of many hostile nations. America even allowed Iran to fly aircraft into the Balkans in order to support Islamist factions within the Bosnian Muslim forces. It somehow escaped the world that Yugoslavia was trying to preserve the mosaic of various different ethnic and religious groups while outside nations supported religious sectarianism and nationalism. Naturally, this in time spearheaded Serbian nationalism but just like Syria it was outside nations which began to carve up Yugoslavia.

Kosovo and Libya followed the same model because Libyan rebels and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) sprung up from virtually nothing. Likewise, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which is an amalgamation of many various factions came from nothing overnight. Yet clearly the speed of Islamist forces in Bosnia, developing a powerful Croatian military unit, the growth of the rebels in Libya, the rise of the KLA in Kosovo and the overnight creation of the FSA in Syria were well orchestrated – just like what happened in Kashmir when Pakistan was given the green light to create mayhem against democratic India.

The Council on Foreign Relations states that “Militancy in the disputed region of Kashmir has been major fuel for discord between India and Pakistan since the 1980s. Attacks in the region began to increase in scale and intensity following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, when foreign insurgents flooded the region to join the Afghan Mujahadeen. The majority Muslim region has its own local militant groups, but experts believe most of the recent Kashmir and Kashmir-based terrorism has been the work of foreign Islamists who seek to claim the region for Pakistan. A spate of Islamist cross-border attacks into Indian-held territory, the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament in New Delhi, and the 2008 Mumbai attacks have all reinforced Kashmir’s standing as the significant bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Both states have nuclear weapons, making Kashmir one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.”

Prem Shankar Jha in another article about the crisis in Syria in the early period of April 2011, states that “the U.S. has been fully aware of the presence of al-Qaeda in the so-called Free Syrian Army since April 20, 2011 when Jihadis captured a truck (or Armoured Personnel Carrier) near Dera’a, and killed all the 18 or 20 soldiers it was carrying not by shooting them but by cutting their throats in the approved Islamic manner. A few days later, the U.S. ambassador in Syria, Robert Ford, called some of his colleagues in Damascus, including the Indian ambassador, and told them that al-Qaeda had arrived in Syria.”

“April 20, however, was only the beginning. All through the summer and autumn of 2011, and throughout 2012, videos posted by the rebels themselves showed that the armed opposition in Syria has been sliding inexorably into the hands of radical Islamists. Thousands of foreign fighters have poured into Syria from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and places as far apart as Pakistan and Chechnya. Syrian television broadcast interviews with numerous young men captured in Homs and elsewhere, who gave graphic descriptions of how they had been recruited by al-Qaeda to fight for Islam against a heretical regime in Syria. The rebels themselves have posted YouTube videos showing them executing captured Syrian soldiers and civilians in the approved manner.”

“But the Obama administration has steadfastly chosen to believe that the jihadis make up only ‘a tiny fraction’ of the Free Syrian Army, and has continued to provide FSA with logistical support, that is, satellite-based information about Syrian troop and VIP movements, and look the other way while Qatar and Saudi Arabia have provided it with guns and mounted pick-up trucks, mortars and RPGs.”

Ironically, the main stumbling block for America is not supporting the Islamist sectarian side which includes Al-Qaeda, but it is history and the need to manipulate the media. After all, Al-Qaeda and the Saudi Arabia angle involving September 11 is clearly obvious and also in Libya this year several American personnel were killed by similar Islamist forces. Therefore, it is very difficult for the Obama administration to be seen to be working hand in hand with the same forces which killed thousands of American troops in Iraq, did September 11 and killed Americans in Libya. Likewise, American troops are being killed in Afghanistan by Islamist factions including the Taliban. This means that media manipulation and covert operations by America, France and the United Kingdom must be very delicate in order to achieve their collective goal of overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad.

In modern day Syria it is clear that the FSA and various Islamist factions working within the FSA or individually – have been, and continue to be, involved in horrendous massacres. Indeed, some Islamists are even teaching children to behead captured Syrian soldiers and then they circulate their evil crimes against humanity. The silence of the international community when terrorist attacks are killing civilians is shaming all the nations and media agencies which are siding with the objectives of Ankara, Doha, London, Paris, Riyadh and Washington.

The Syrian armed forces continue to remain loyal to the Syrian government and people of this nation. Therefore, despite all the barbaric realities being installed against this nation the military have somehow managed to preserve all major cities from being taken over by the FSA and various Islamist factions. However, outside nations which are hostile to Syria are still supporting sectarian, international jihadists and sedition against this nation. Indeed, it is clear that outside nations are intent on upping the ante despite the daily terrorist attacks, beheading individuals and hanging people openly in order to install terror in the hearts of Syrians.

Turning back to an earlier Modern Tokyo Times article about Bosnia it was stated that “The Bill Clinton administration gave the “green light” for international Islamists to enter Bosnia and Kosovo. In time this would manifest itself with the brutal September 11 attacks against America and other international terrorist attacks like Madrid. Bill Clinton isn’t the only American leader to “support international terrorism from a distance” but clearly it is no coincidence that conflict in Libya, and now in Syria, bare all the same hallmarks of “a marriage of convenience.” This certainly leads to the suspicion that the Clinton family – this time Hillary Clinton along with the “dark shadows” of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski – are following the same ratlines in Syria which have been used in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya.”

Further down in the same article it was stated that “The bottom line is simple. September 11, and the ratlines that did this, were the same individuals who were fighting on the same side of America in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo – Simply put, no Bosnian Orthodox Christians and communists in Afghanistan did September 11. On the contrary, individuals involved in September 11 were on the same side in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo – yet this question remains unanswered. Likewise, no accountability! Put frankly, without past American administrations supporting Islamic terrorist ratlines either covertly or by doing nothing to stem the flow of Islamists, then September 11 would never have materialized.”

“It is dangerous therefore to see America once more moving in the same direction related to Syria. The Clinton family connection and the shadows of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski are very troubling because the same modus operandi is happening once more against the people of Syria. Therefore, the lessons learnt from September 11 have been lost and individuals within the chain that enabled this tragic event to happen have escaped their past deeds.”

Overall, Syria needs real support from friendly nations in order to stop the usual collusion between Islamists, Western powers and nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and several Gulf nations, from destroying an independent nation state. After all, look at modern day Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya because various factions exist and terrorism is a daily reality in Afghanistan and Iraq. Similarly, look at the reality for Hindu minorities in Kashmir and Orthodox Christian minorities in Kosovo because both can’t freely move around these entities. This means that it is imperative to stop the usual “failed domino system” from destroying secular Syria.

http://www.sana-syria.com/eng/22/2012/12/20/458223.htm

http://moderntokyotimes.com/2012/07/12/bosnia-connection-bill-clinton-and-islamist-ratlines-in-bosnia-assisted-september-11/

http://www.cfr.org/kashmir/kashmir-militant-extremists/p9135

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

In many Western institutions, art museums, elitist circles, educational establishments and in many media outlets, it appears that you have “a reverse Talibanization” based on misinformation. This applies to “manipulating history” and modern realities within parts of the Islamic world where minorities are fighting for survival. In order to pander to the political correct and cultural relativists, it appears that any manipulation of reality is fair game. Of course, the Muslim world is very diverse therefore each nation, history, cultural background and other important factors will be different and generalization is very dangerous. Yet clearly the history of the Indian subcontinent and the reality of modern day Pakistan shouldn’t be brushed under the carpet. After all, while non-Muslim minorities have survived in the Levant and become part and parcel of modern day Lebanon and Syria; this can’t be stated about Buddhism and Hinduism which is the main theme of this article when related to Pakistan.

Last year an article was published about a museum exhibition called the“Museum exhibit highlights Pakistan’s Buddhist roots.”  This article was written by Emanuella Grinberg and published on CNN and the headline appealed greatly. However, it soon became apparent that it was little more than a propaganda stunt and written by an individual who clearly understands little about the history of the Indian subcontinent.

Sadly, Melissa Chiu also followed the same theme because the Museum Director at New York’s Asia Society also made baseless comments. Given this reality, her comments appeared to be based on political correctness and whitewashing the ongoing persecution of minorities in Pakistan, which clearly should have been outside her remit. Therefore, sometimes it is best to say nothing rather than enter into the realm of fantasy.

It matters not if Melissa Chiu desired this or if it was based on cultural sensitivities – or if because of other factors. The end result is that her comments distort reality by using clever language which places Pakistan within ancient culture. Yet clearly this is false and goes beyond any logical conclusions because it is abundantly clear that the nation of Pakistan isn’t ancient.

Also, in modern day Pakistan radical Sunni Islamists and parts of mainstream society often victimize Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and other minority Muslim groups, including the Shia and Ahmaddiya. Discrimination doesn’t just belong to aspects of society within Pakistan but more alarmingly many areas are state sanctioned. For example, in Pakistan, Muslims and non-Muslims can be charged with blasphemy which could lead to the death sentence. Equally alarming, many Christian and Hindu women have been kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam but the legal system and police do little to stop this tragic reality.

Therefore, what religious pluralism and what Pakistan history are Emanuella Grinberg and Melissa Chiu talking about?  Pakistan is a relatively new nation and since the creation of this country the Hindu and Sikh populations went into sharp decline. Indeed, even today you have ongoing Sunni Islamization and countless massacres have been done against Shia Muslims. Including taking Shia Muslims of buses and killing them based on their Shia identity.

It is true that the land of modern day Pakistan was at the crossroads of cultural influences but this happened under “mother India.” Hindus in India welcomed religious minorities fleeing Islamic persecution in Persia (Iran) because Zoroastrians fled to “mother India” in large numbers. However, constant Islamic invasions of “mother India” meant that Islamization would take place in parts of a more advanced Hindu civilization which welcomed religious pluralism – note Syriac Christians, Zoroastrians, Jains, Buddhists and other faiths which thrived within Hindu civilization.

Yet since the creation of Pakistan it is clear that many aspects of Hindu civilization and the Hindu faith have been crushed.  This applies to Hindus fleeing Pakistan, greater marginalization and the destruction and neglect of Hindu architecture and temples.  Therefore, while the Muslim population in India remains constant, the Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh in such a short period of time is in crisis and even today persecution and discrimination is part and parcel of the fabric of life.

In truth, the Hindus of Pakistan are sharing the same fate which befell the Buddhists of Afghanistan. Given this reality, then one day virtually nothing will be left of Hindu civilization apart from minor images in museums in modern day Pakistan. Similarly, very small Hindu communities may survive but this will apply to the margins of society.

Melissa Chiu comments that “When we think of Pakistan, Americans might associate it with the place where Osama bin Laden was captured, with terrorism and natural disasters…..But actually, it has a much longer history that dates back to an ancient culture that gives us a sense of a pluralistic tradition that was all about tolerance.”

Wrong, Pakistan does not have a long history but “mother India” of course does have a long deep history and it is one of the finest civilizations in the world.  The Hindu civilization faced stagnation and being reduced in size because of Islamic invasions and then British colonialism. However, since independence India is once more emerging and this nation is now a rising power.

Alternatively, since the creation of Pakistan the religious minorities and society on a whole is being Islamized. Therefore, mainstream Sunni Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims, the Shia, non-Muslim minorities and liberals within society are all on the back foot.  Also, for Ahmadiyya Muslims they are treated like second-class citizens in their own land despite not desiring to hurt anyone.

Ironically, Ahmadiyya Muslims and Shia Muslims are not being killed in India because of their religion. Yet, in Pakistan many members from both communities have been killed in recent times. When brave Sunni Muslim voices speak out against institutional discrimination, then they are also attacked by Islamists and this also applies to being killed.

Therefore, Melissa Chiu is using language delicately because Pakistan is a new nation and the “much longer history that dates back to an ancient culture” does not bare a relationship with aligning this with Pakistan. From an educational point of view this is very misleading irrespective if no intent. This reality means ancient history should be put under “mother India” when it comes to talking about the foundations of the old world in this part of the world.

Following on from this it is clear that the “pluralistic tradition” is nothing to do with Pakistan. On the contrary, it was part and parcel of Hindu civilization because “mother India” gave protection to many old faiths which were fleeing persecution – or which flourished internally because of Hindu religious pluralism. Today the old Buddhist and Hindu world in Pakistan is little more than “a modern day museum.”

Emanuella Grinberg then states “At its height, Gandhara encompassed present-day Peshawar in northwest Pakistan and parts of eastern Afghanistan, the Hindu Kush, and northwest India, making it a major center of trade, commerce and the development of arts and education. Pakistan may be 95% Muslim today, but Buddhism flourished in Gandhara between the 2nd century B.C. and 10th century A.D., giving rise to a distinct style of Buddhist visual art.”

This information is educational but look what is left out.  How did Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan become 99% Muslim and 95% Muslim respectively?  The factors will be based on multiple reasons but ignoring Islamic jihad, dhimmitude, jizya, forced conversions, pogroms, destruction of Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Jain places of worship – is a lot to leave out.

Emanuella Grinberg also crosses the line when in her article she gives the quote that “…the exhibit also demonstrates Pakistan’s dedication to preserving its multicultural heritage, Pakistan’s representative to the United Nations said.”

UN Amabassador for Pakistan, Abdullah Hussain Haroon, comments that “Buddha represents a human being whose ethereal qualities were so magnified by his enormous wisdom that his values of himself, which were espoused by Gandhi and so many others, became his contributions to mankind.”

Of course, nobody doubts the sincerity of Abdullah Hussain Haroon and clearly many people in Pakistan do genuinely support a more tolerant society.  Also, individuals like Abdullah Hussain Haroon want to preserve past history and protect civilizations which were very rich. However, the reality is much more complex than this and ongoing Islamization is a reality in this country. Indeed, even Sufi shrines have been attacked in recent times in Pakistan.

The BBC stated “In recent years kidnapping for ransom and armed robberies have multiplied in the area and Hindus have increasingly been the focus of attacks….Many pay protection money regularly to local gangs or influential figures. But in spite of this they are still targeted.”

The Hindu American Foundation stated (Washington, D.C. (June 15, 2006)) that “The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) bemoaned the destruction of the last Hindu temple in Lahore, Pakistan. At the time of the partition of India in 1947 Lahore was known as one of the centers of culture and cosmopolitanism. Soon thereafter its great artists, musicians, and its Hindu and Sikh populations either moved voluntarily out of that city or were driven out by the fundamentalist Muslim forces that have shaped the country since then. “The last stroke in making Lahore totally Muslim is the demolition of the only remaining Hindu temple in the city”, said Ramesh Rao, member of the HAF Executive Council.”

“A private developer was allowed to demolish the ‘Krishna Mandir’ at Wachhoowali, Rang Mahal, and construct a commercial building in its place. Government officials, in charge of protecting minority interests, were involved in the machinations that led to the destruction of the last Hindu temple in Lahore. The Evacuee Property Trust Board (EPTB), the government body maintaining properties of minorities, especially Hindus and Sikhs, was said to have concealed facts from the municipal board chairman about the nature of the building. This is not the first time the EPTB has permitted the demolition of a temple. It was only last year that the Vehari temple in Punjab was razed for the construction of a commercial building.”

“These acts of connivance of local authorities in the destruction of non-Muslim religious symbols and in harassing minority groups are in the established tradition of driving minorities out of Pakistan. The Hindu population in Pakistan, which was between 15 and 24 percent in 1947, at the time of partition of India, has now been reduced to less than two percent. “While we applaud the condemnation by several opposition members of the National Assembly like Pakistan People’s Party, and Pakistan Muslim League-N, we realize that the political, social, and religious dynamic in Pakistan allows such attacks on minorities and minority institutions with impunity,” said Dr. Mihir Meghani, President of HAF. “Unless there is worldwide condemnation of this act of destruction, and arrest and imprisonment of officials involved in the matter, there is no hope for minorities in Pakistan.” 

Therefore, the author, the ambassador and the museum director in the CNN article can state platitudes about the showing of Buddhist history.  However, Hindu and Sikhs are becoming “real museums” without having “a museum” to show the reality of Pakistan since partition.

The pluralism of past history is nothing to do with Pakistan because past pluralism was based on Hindu civilization and the Indian subcontinent.  Given this, it is deplorable that at a time when minorities face so much persecution and injustice in modern day Pakistan; that an article written by a CNN correspondent is whitewashing past history and the modern day reality of Pakistan.

The author instead comes up with allowing the following comment in her article which states that “...the exhibit also demonstrates Pakistan’s dedication to preserving its multicultural heritage.”

This could not be further from the truth because much of Pakistan’s past Hindu and Buddhist heritage is under attack.  Also, never mind heritage, the Hindu population since the creation of Pakistan is in clear free-fall percentage wise and institutional discrimination is widespread.

Maybe the author believes it is fine to have a museum which distorts reality and then to make political capital out of the misfortune of past history, whereby Buddhists suffered so greatly at the hands of Islamic rule.  Also, the past eradication of Buddhism after several Islamic conquests is not just history. After all, since the creation of Pakistan it is clear that Hindu civilization and the Hindu population faces the same Sunni Islamization processes. This applies to violence, persecution and institutional discrimination.

Also, why does the author allow the following comment: “This was one of the great periods of the world of fundamental equity, of human rights and so many other important principles, which are important to Pakistan and the United States today….”

When does a state sanctioned policy for supporting the death penalty for blasphemy against Mohammed become “important principles?”  Also, how does the ongoing Islamization of Pakistan become turned into“...the exhibit also demonstrates Pakistan’s dedication to preserving its multicultural heritage.”

I am sure that many Hindus will be alarmed by how ancient Hindu civilization and pluralism is being used in the same paragraph to denote Pakistan. Therefore, the article by Emanuella Grinberg is very misleading and near the end it sounds like a propaganda piece.  It should be equally astonishing that a major agency would allow such a shallow and distorted history to be allowed to be published and manipulated. However, articles like this can be found regularly and this is the real issue – on the one hand the Taliban want to turn Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan into “Islamic year zero – yet, articles like this, are also doing their own internal Talibanization by re-writing history and distorting the reality of modern day Pakistan.

Of course, the Christian world, Muslim world, Pagan world, Buddhist world, and so forth, are extremely varied. Therefore, in the Levant many Christian communities survived alongside various different Muslim groups. However, unlike the Levant it is clear that the history of the Indian subcontinent is very different. Also, during such a short history of modern day Pakistan many minorities like Hindus and Sikhs are in free fall because of institutional discrimination and persecution.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/08/21/pakistan.gandhara.art/index.html?hpt=hp_mid 

http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/temple-destruction-lahore-pakistan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6367773.stm

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Olivier LeCourt and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

In late 2011 it became apparent that the government of Japan was intent on spreading its international influence. Indeed, it could be argued that the current government is more open to influencing the world stage than past governments for many a decade. Therefore, each new development became like a new piece in a complex jigsaw and clearly this “forward thinking” is badly needed because in the past Japan’s “quietist policy” meant that other nations took advantage.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda continues to press ahead with important geopolitical agendas. This applies to recent agreements with the Philippines; making positive overtures to South Korea; making it known that he would visit North Korea providing the abduction issue could be solved; sending peacekeeping troops to South Sudan; the first ever bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India; agreements with Vietnam in the area of nuclear plants; Japan will help to fund a Southern Corridor linking Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar; currency initiatives with China; and in other important areas.

At the same time Japan is offering an olive branch to Europe providing the European Union will focus on serious reforms and implement sound economic policies.  If this occurs, then Japan will buy more Eurobonds and help nations like Greece alongside other economic powers in 2012 in order to stabilize the situation.

Turning back to the announcement in late 2011 that Japan and India will hold their first ever bilateral naval exercise in 2012, then this will be welcomed by America and Australia which is a regional power in its own right.  After all, Australia sent military forces to East Timor, Iraq, and other nations, and it is essential that all democratic powers move closer together in order to maintain regional stability.

It is easy to view the bilateral naval exercise between Japan and India and see this move to be aimed, at least partly, at China but this would be overstepping the mark. After all, Japan also desires closer ties with China but leaders in Tokyo must also boost relations with democratic powers. Therefore, instead of adopting “a quietist policy” and “constrained policy” it is in the interest of Japan and democratic powers to see a more robust foreign policy.

India may view this move to be more political and leaders in New Delhi are worried about aspects of China’s foreign policy.  This applies notably to China’s support of Pakistan, border issues between China and India and China’s port link ups in Gwadar port (Pakistan), Chittagong port (Bangladesh), Hambanota (Sri Lanka), and the Irrawaddy Corridor (Myanmar) which will open up the Bay of Bengal.  Therefore, China’s geopolitical expansion is growing and this applies to the Bay of Bengal, Strait of Hormuz, Indian Ocean, and other areas and this is leading to maritime concerns.

However, while Japan does have some vested interests because important maritime issues concern all nations which operate or rely on trade and energy resources to pass through important sea-lanes; it is clear that Japan is more focused on border disputes within northeast Asia.

Japan, however, is intent on showing China that its military expansion and increasing geopolitical expansion and claims over border disputes with many nations, isn’t going to constrain Japan. On the contrary, it will merely boost Japan’s awareness that countermeasures will be implemented and deeper relations will be forged with other nations throughout various parts of Asia.

Noda and various ministries aren’t interested in negative policies towards China because trade between Japan and China is enormous.  Also, for much of history the best scholars from both nations visited each other and cultural interaction was enormous.  Without a shred of doubt the impact of many aspects of Chinese culture influenced Japan for many centuries and clearly Japanese scholars and ideas influenced China.

In historical terms China and Japan don’t share a history like France and England which was based on war and regional hostility in many periods of history.  Therefore, prior to the end of the late nineteenth century China and Japan wasn’t a threat to each other.

If is therefore hoped that relations between Japan and China will blossom in the future and clearly they have come a long way since China began to open-up.  However, Japan, like any nation state, must be prepared to protect its own geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the joint naval exercise between Japan and India which will take place next year shouldn’t be viewed negatively by China or any other nation.

Instead, it should be seen for what it is and this applies to a major power developing cordial military relations with another democratic power, in order to boost security and other important ties.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Joachim de Villiers and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

China continues to grow rapidly in the economic field and for many nations China is a stabilizing factor in a changing world.  This applies to the ongoing development of many powerful economic sectors in order to modernize and develop the infrastructure. However, while the economic power of China is welcomed the same does not apply to military modernization. Therefore, are regional nations and America justified to raise issues about the military build- up of China?

According to political powers in China the modernization of the PLA is natural and organic.  After all, the geopolitical reality of China means that this nation is rightly worried about many external issues. Also, political elites in the Chinese Communist Party are also worried about sensitive ethnic and religious issues within China.

Therefore, it appears that China does have a lot to be worried about and the reality of the role of America in Northeast Asia means that rulers in Beijing are concerned about any possible containment policy.   Not that all aspects of America’s foreign policy are deemed to be against the natural interest of China.

It must be stated that the armed forces of America and NATO are intent on crushing Sunni Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan.  This policy is in the interest of China because in western regions of this nation you have ethnic and religious issues aimed at Beijing. Also, Japan is contained by America and the fear of Japanese nationalism and military modernization is reduced by the current reality and because of constitutional factors in Japan.

China claims that military modernization is natural and no different from other major powers which also have geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the geopolitical reality of China and the shared space with many regional nations is the real issue behind China’s insecurity.

The region of Northeast Asia is very diverse and varied and China needs to focus on multiple areas. This applies to geography, economics, politics, religion, ethnicity, and many other factors. Added to this diverse reality is the nuclear dimension and this factor is a cause of concern. Also, it is factual that America, the Russian Federation, China, and India, are all major military powers and they share space in various geopolitical areas.

Therefore, the nuclear dimension alone is more than problematic because America, China, the Russian Federation, India, North Korea, and Pakistan, are all nuclear powers. Japan is also a nuclear power by stealth because of the de facto reality that this nation is protected by America and in the past Japan allowed American nuclear submarines within the waters of Japan.  It is also clear that Japan could develop nuclear weapons if this nation desired. However, constitutional factors, the legacy of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, alongside being protected by America means that currently it is not feasible but if internal changes occurred in Japanese politics then it is a distant possibility, even if remote to many people.

If we look at the geopolitics of China, then it is clear that they overlap in many parts of Asia. For example Central Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Eurasia, the Mekong delta, and South China Sea region. This vast area is very diverse and China faces multiple challenges with regards to expanding its influence and defending any weak area within the geopolitical space of China.

Taiwan is a complex matter but this issue is contained within a small geographic region; therefore, the role of America and other outside nations is a concern for China.  This applies to political dimensions and the fact that Taiwan could be a launching base during the worse-case scenario between China and America.  However, it is most unlikely that America would give complete support to Taiwan because of self-interests. Also, relations between China and Taiwan are complex because economic ties continue to grow and both have vested interests in the economic modernization of China.

The economic angle means that trade investments between America and China, just like China and Taiwan, are enormous and you have major economic linkages. Despite this, you do have tensions based on currency manipulation and other factors and clearly you have a lobby in America which is concerned about China.

China is also worried about certain aspects of America’s foreign policy and this applies to bases being dotted in many nations throughout Asia. After all, America has military bases in Japan and South Korea respectively, and Guam is being developed in order to increase the leverages of America. Also, America has bases in other parts of Asia and Australia is a powerful ally despite the population of this nation being relatively small given the size of its landmass.

Therefore, China is concerned about the real intentions of America and a declining power is sometimes more dangerous because if trade problems or military issues did occur, then issues like Taiwan could be manipulated. Again, this is the worse-case scenario but for military leaders in China they must be prepared for multiple worse-case scenarios in order to protect China and this also applies to protecting powerful energy routes.

Tensions with India also remain, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite growing trade. India is also rightly concerned about China’s military support towards Pakistan and both nations share a complex relationship.  This also applies to territorial disputes, the role of India based on the Dalai Lama and Tibetan nationalism in India, and other complex issues based on protecting important sea-lanes and space.

China and India also court Myanmar because of geopolitical concerns and the same applies to other strategic nations in the region.  Therefore, while tensions may appear to be contained you still have negative aspects within the rising ambitions of both China and India. However, growing economic trade and the threat of Islamic terrorism alongside the influence of the Russian Federation, which seeks to unify all three nations in order to utilize mutual vested interests, means that a major military clash is most unlikely outside the area of the territorial dispute (military clash would be contained to a small border issue).

Overall, China is right to worry about vast areas of the geopolitical reality of this nation and military modernization is based on this fact and the need to protect energy routes and other important factors. Internal issues related to Islam in west China and Tibetan nationalism, alongside political dissent, indicates that China is faced with both internal and external factors. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and nations in Central Asia. In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China`s recent military modernization was enhanced by military purchases bought from the Russian Federation.

Also, the military spending of America is much higher and from China’s point of view it is clear that America is based in the backyard of China but China is not based in the backyard of America. Therefore, according to the military doctrine of China it is about protecting the nation from many possible scenarios during a time of conflict. However, it is not based on expansionism but protecting self-interests and the nation state of China.

In light of everything, it is clear that China is modernizing the armed forces based on the geopolitical reality of this nation. Alarmists appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill because China’s statecraft is based on conflict resolution. Also, even during worse-case scenarios then China does not desire a major military confrontation outside of a limited space. This applies to the fact that the government of China is firmly focused on economic modernization, stabilizing internal issues, protecting energy routes and trying to resolve the growing gap between cities and the countryside.

Therefore, China’s military modernization is natural and based on protecting the nation state from hostile forces. It is not based on military confrontation and intimidating neighbors. Also, it must be remembered that China could have taken Hong Kong much earlier if this nation had desired but China’s statecraft meant that patience was the virtue.

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Murad Makhmudov and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

The United States put pressure on China and Japan to introduce sanctions on Iran’s oil industry and sadly Japan showed its weakness once more. However, China showed its independence by remaining neutral. After all, the government of America is an ally of Pakistan despite the complex relationship. Also, it is clear that India and Pakistan continue to spend vast sums on their respective military capabilities, including the nuclear angle. This in itself shows the lack of either sincerity or commitment on behalf of America and other nations like France which lambast Iran over the nuclear issue.

If political leaders in Tokyo believe that Iran is a threat to the national security of Japan or that Iran is an international threat, then clearly Japan must state this categorically and not hide behind the political intrigues in Washington. However, Iran does not have any ill intent towards Japan and clearly with China, India, Israel, and Pakistan, having nuclear weapons in Asia, it is understandable for Iran to be concerned about this reality from their respective geopolitical point of view.

Therefore, Japan should only follow suit on the grounds of national interests and the interest of the international community. However, the national interest of Japan isn’t threatened by Iran and the international community is divided on this issue because of so many internal pressing issues throughout every continent. This fact would imply that Japan bowed down to the “messenger,” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, because why is Japan deciding on this now?

It must be stated that September 11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, have one common theme and this applies to radical Sunni Muslims being involved in the deaths of American civilians and American soldiers. The Shia community in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have not protected or funded global terrorist networks which were responsible for September 11, London, Bali, and countless terrorist attacks in Iraq and Pakistan. Therefore, the government in Tehran is much more responsible than the ruling elites in Saudi Arabia which have many ratlines and hidden agendas.

The Finance Minister of Japan, Jun Azumi, commented that “In the past five years, we have reduced… the amount of oil imported (from Iran).” He further continued by stating that “We wish to take planned and concrete steps to further reduce this share, which now stands at 10%.”

However, after the devastating March 11 tsunami hit Japan in 2011 this unleashed the tragedy of the nuclear crisis in Fukushima. Therefore, Japan is already facing many energy shortfalls and this political burden will further put pressure on political leaders in Tokyo.

Timothy Geithner commented that ”We are working very closely with Europe and Japan and allies around the world to substantially increase the amount of pressure we bring on Iran…We very much appreciate the support Japan has provided standing with us and the international community in support of this very important strategic objective.”

China took a neutral stance because political leaders made it clear that they hoped for a resolution to be found between Iran and the nuclear watchdog (International Atomic Energy Agency). Also, political leaders in Beijing stressed that oil related issues should not be solved by relating this to the nuclear issue. Liu Weimin a ministry spokesperson for the government of China commented that “To place one country’s domestic law above international law and press others to obey is not reasonable.”

Japan also stressed that they will seek more oil exports from other nations in the Gulf. However, at a time when Shia Muslims are being persecuted in Bahrain and continue to be second-class citizens in Saudi Arabia – then this would appear to be taking an anti-Iran stance for no reason. Therefore, political leaders in Tokyo should think more deeply before becoming entangled in the web of America and Saudi Arabia.

If Japan sincerely believes that Iran is a threat to the national security of Japan and that this nation threatens the international community, then by all means Japan must stand firm with America. However, it would appear that Japan doesn’t believe this and that the only binding factor is the pressure put on Tokyo by political leaders in Washington. The timing for Japan, with internal energy problems, could not be worse and domestic issues should have meant more than the political meddling of America and Saudi Arabia.

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

Jeffrey Meyer

The Foundry

The Heritage Foundation

India is steadily emerging to be one of the world’s top economic players but still faces development challenges and infrastructure bottlenecks that hinder growth. Heritage’s Lisa Curtis has been arguing that the U.S. needs to acknowledge India’s growing global role and the changing Asian strategic landscape. With new relationships emerging in Asia, the United States has an opportunity to strengthen its presence in this vital region.

Following the State Department’s announcement that the first round of U.S.–India–Japan trilateral talks will occur before the end of the year, it is time to examine how the U.S. can encourage the burgeoning Japan–India relationship. In a recent conference titled “India–Japan Ties: Asia’s Fasting Growing Relationship?” hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center, three speakers stressed the need for Japan and India to strengthen their economic and military partnership.

The panelists agreed on the need to promote economic interactions between Japan and India, but there was no consensus on the role security should play in this relationship. K.V. Kesavan, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in India, argued that even though things have changed in the past 15 years, security should not overtake economic interests in the region. From the perspective of the United States, Daniel Twining argued that U.S. goals and aspirations for India and Japan cannot be attained if we make massive defense cuts. Maintaining a strong defense presence in the region serves our greater strategic ambitions and gives the U.S. greater leverage in Asia, according to Twining, senior fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

One of the more controversial aspects of the India–Japan relationship continues to be nuclear nonproliferation. For years, Japan was opposed to India’s nuclear ambitions, but Tokyo was fully on board with the 2008 Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) decision to provide a waiver allowing India to import civilian nuclear technology and fuel without signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Nuclear dialogues between the two nations have intensified over the last year, though they were weakened by the Fukushima disaster. Heritage’s Curtis has stressed that incorporating India into the international nonproliferation framework should be viewed as an ongoing process that will take hard work and innovative thinking by the United States, India, and other partners. While Japan’s reaction following the Fukushima disaster is understandable, hopefully the two countries will not squander the progress made in their nuclear discussions as India seeks to join the ranks of nuclear nations.

Takenori Horimoto said China is a major security threat on which India and Japan agree. He argued that the axis of Japan’s maritime policy and the Japan–U.S. security alliance have gradually shifted from the fight against terrorism toward China’s oceanic assertiveness in the past two years. The 2011 meetings between Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized the need for the two nations to strengthen their security cooperation regarding China’s maritime expansion. The United States should consider the rise of China’s maritime power as a threat not only to its security interests but to overall stability in Asia.

Now is not the time for the United States to make military cuts, which would severely weaken our security and economic interests in Asia. As part of its Asia strategy, the U.S. needs to strongly support the emerging relationship between Japan and India. Any U.S. retraction of its engagement in Asia would only embolden China and hurt the interests of the U.S., Japan, and India.

Jeffrey Meyer is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

Posted in American Leadership

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/06/u-s-should-encourage-strong-japan-india-relations/

Please visit The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/ for more in depth reports from this highly acclaimed think tank

The situation in Kabul should pose increasing concerns not only to the US and Afghanistan, but also India. The steady weakening of the security situation in the Afghan capital a year before the US Presidential elections is reminiscent of the weakening of the security situation in Saigon, the Vietnamese capital, in 1974, which inexorably led to the capture of Saigon by the Vietcong and the hasty withdrawal under humiliating conditions of the US forces in 1975.

2. The steadily deteriorating situation in Kabul was once again highlighted by a suicide attack against a bus carrying International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel on October 29, 2011, in which five US soldiers, eight American civilians, three Afghan civilians and one Canadian were killed. The attack, for which responsibility has been claimed by the Taliban, was carried out by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber. The incident has been described by local observers as one of the worst ground attacks against foreign troops in Kabul since 2001.

3. There were two other incidents the same day—- but away from Kabul. In the first reported from the South, three ISAF soldiers were reportedly killed by a man in Afghan army uniform. The gunman was ultimately killed.

4.In the second incident outside Kabul, a teenage girl carried out a suicide attack on a building of the Afghan intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, in the eastern province of Kunar, killing herself and wounding several NDS personnel.

5.In September, there was a commando style attack on the US Embassy and the ISAF headquarters in Kabul which lasted 20 hours, causing many casualties in the area around—but not in the US Embassy itself. The US blamed the Haqqani network for these attacks and started a PSYWAR campaign against the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for allegedly using the Haqqani network for promoting Pakistan’s strategic objectives in Afghanistan.

6. The war of words between the US and Pakistan and US threats of an aid cut-off if Pakistan did not sincerely act against the network have had no impact on the ground situation in Afghanistan as seen from the incidents of October 29 in Kabul and outside.

7. The latest incidents illustrate that while the US may be making headway in its counter-terrorism operations against Al Qaeda and its terrorism affiliates, it is badly stuck up in its counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban and the Haqqani network. The US pressure on Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network has come too late—- long after the Taliban and the Haqqani network succeeded in infiltrating into Afghan territory, and in establishing a wide network of sleeper cells, which are no longer dependent on the sanctuaries in the Pakistani territory for their sustenance and motivation.

8. Even in the unlikely event of Pakistan acting against the sanctuaries of the Haqqani network in Pakistani territory, the presence of many well-motivated and well-trained sleeper cells inside Afghanistan would continue to come in the way of US attempts to reverse the ground situation.

9. The Pakistan Army already visualises tactical advantages and a likely strategic turning-point in the ground situation in Afghanistan. The tactical advantages arise from the success of the Taliban and the Haqqani network in establishing a network of sleeper cells inside Afghan territory. The strategic turning-point visualised by Pakistan would, in its calculation, arise from an increasing pressure in the months before the Presidential elections on President Barack Obama to find a way out for extricating the US out of Afghanistan without humiliation or a loss of face for the US.

10. The Pakistan Army feels that only it will be in a position to prevent a humiliating situation for the US for which Washington will have to pay a price in the form of coming to terms with the ground reality of a Pakistani presence and control in Afghanistan and a dilution of the Indian presence and influence. Easing of the US pressure on Pakistan to act against the anti-India jihadi groups such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) could be part of this price.

11. It would be unwise of India to view Pakistan as a cornered nation without any exits unless it acts against terrorism emanating from its territory. It is presently a cornered nation all right, but the deteriorating ground situation in Afghanistan and the ultimate US dependence on Pakistan to avoid a humiliating withdrawal could provide Pakistan with a feasible exit option.

12. India should undertake an exercise as to how much of its presence and influence in Afghanistan would be sustainable in the event of a weakening of the US position and how to sustain it. We should not extend and expand our direct and open presence and influence beyond realistic limits. A greater injection of realism into our Afghan policy is called for.

Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

China continues to grow rapidly in the economic field and for many nations China is a stabilizing factor in a changing world.  This applies to the ongoing development of many powerful economic sectors in order to modernize and develop the infrastructure.

However, while the economic power of China is welcomed the same does not apply to military modernization. Therefore, are regional nations and America justified to raise issues about the military build- up of China?

According to political powers in China the modernization of the PLA is natural and organic.  After all, the geopolitical reality of China means that this nation is rightly worried about many external issues. Also, political elites in the Chinese Communist Party are also worried about sensitive ethnic and religious issues within China.

Therefore, it appears that China does have a lot to be worried about and the reality of the role of America in northeast-Asia means that rulers in Beijing are concerned about any possible containment policy.   Not that all aspects of America’s foreign policy are deemed to be against the natural interest of China.

It must be stated that the armed forces of America and NATO are intent on crushing Sunni Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan.  This policy is in the interest of China because in western regions of China you have ethnic and religious issues aimed at Beijing. Also, Japan is contained by America and the fear of Japanese nationalism and military modernization is reduced by the current reality and because of constitutional factors in Japan.

China claims that military modernization is natural and no different from other major powers which also have geopolitical concerns. Therefore, the geopolitical reality of China and the shared space with many regional nations is the real issue behind China’s insecurity.

The region of Northeast Asia is very diverse and varied and China needs to focus on multiple areas. This applies to geography, economics, politics, religion, ethnicity, and many other factors. Added to this diverse reality is the nuclear dimension and this factor is a cause of concern. Also, it is factual that America, the Russian Federation, China, and India are all major military powers and the shared space in different areas with each power is a reality. 

Therefore, the nuclear dimension alone is more than problematic because America, China, the Russian Federation, India, North Korea, and Pakistan, are all nuclear powers. Japan is also a nuclear power by stealth because of the de facto reality that this nation is protected by America and in the past Japan allowed American nuclear submarines within the waters of Japan.  It is also clear that Japan could develop nuclear weapons if this nation desired. However, constitutional factors, the legacy of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, alongside being protected by America means that currently it is not feasible but if internal changes occurred in Japanese politics then it is a distant possibility, even if remote to many people.

If we look at the geopolitics of China, then it is clear that they overlap in many parts of Asia. For example Central Asia, Northeast Asia, South Asia, Eurasia, the Mekong delta, and South China Sea region. This vast area is very diverse and China faces multiple challenges with regards to expanding its influence and defending any weak area within the geopolitical space of China.

Taiwan is a complex matter but this issue is contained within a small geographic region; therefore, the role of America and other outside nations is a concern for China.  This applies to political dimensions and the fact that Taiwan could be a launching base during the worse-case scenario between China and America.  However, it is most unlikely that America would give complete support to Taiwan because of self-interests. Also, relations between China and Taiwan are complex because economic ties continue to grow and both have vested interests in the economic modernization of China.

The economic angle means that trade investments between America and China, just like China and Taiwan, are enormous and you have major economic linkages. Despite this, you do have tensions based on currency manipulation and other factors and clearly you have a lobby in America which is concerned about China.

China is also worried about certain aspects of America’s foreign policy and this applies to bases being dotted in many nations throughout Asia. After all, America has military bases in Japan and South Korea respectively, and Guam is being developed in order to increase the leverages of America. Also, America has bases in other parts of Asia and Australia is a powerful ally despite the population of this nation being relatively small given the size of its landmass.

Therefore, China is concerned about the real intentions of America and a declining power is sometimes more dangerous because if trade problems or military issues did occur, then issues like Taiwan could be manipulated. Again, this is the worse-case scenario but for military leaders in China they must be prepared for multiple worse-case scenarios in order to protect China and this also applies to protecting powerful energy routes.

Tensions with India also remain, because Chinese-Indian relations are still fragile despite growing trade. India is also rightly concerned about China’s military support towards Pakistan and both nations share a complex relationship.  This also applies to territorial disputes, the role of India based on the Dalai Lama and Tibetan nationalism in India, and other complex issues based on protecting important sea-lanes and space.

China and India also court Myanmar because of geopolitical concerns and the same applies to other strategic nations in the region.  Therefore, while tensions may appear to be contained you still have negative aspects within the rising ambitions of both China and India. However, growing economic trade and the threat of Islamic terrorism alongside the influence of the Russian Federation, which seeks to unify all three nations in order to utilize mutual vested interests, means that a major military clash is most unlikely outside the area of the territorial dispute (military clash would be contained to a small border issue).

Overall, China is right to worry about vast areas of the geopolitical reality of this nation and military modernization is based on this fact and the need to protect energy routes and other important factors. Internal issues related to Islam in west China and Tibetan nationalism, alongside political dissent, indicates that China is faced with both internal and external factors. This reality is pushing China to move closer to the Russian Federation and nations in Central Asia. In recent times this can be seen via the growing importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and China`s recent military modernization was enhanced by military purchases bought from the Russian Federation.

Also, the military spending of America is much higher and from China’s point of view it is clear that America is based in the backyard of China but China is not based in the backyard of America. Therefore, according to the military doctrine of China it is about protecting the nation from many possible scenarios during a time of conflict. However, it is not based on expansionism but protecting self-interests and the nation state of China.

In light of everything, it is clear that China is modernizing the armed forces based on the geopolitical reality of this nation. Alarmists appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill because China’s statecraft is based on conflict resolution. Also, even during worse-case scenarios then China does not desire a major military confrontation outside of a limited space. This applies to the fact that the government of China is firmly focused on economic modernization, stabilizing internal issues, protecting energy routes and trying to resolve the growing gap between cities and the countryside.

Therefore, China’s military modernization is natural and based on protecting the nation state from hostile forces. It is not based on military confrontation and intimidating neighbors. Also, it must be remembered that China could have taken Hong Kong much earlier if this nation had desired but China’s statecraft meant that patience was the virtue.

http://eng.mod.gov.cn/

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

^[ii] Shebonti Ray Dadwal and M. Hahtab Alam Rizvi: US Sanctions on Iran and tier Impact on India, June     21, 2010, IDSA Issue Brief

^[iii] Jo Becker, US Approved Business with Blacklisted Nation, New York Times, December 23, 2010.

^[iv] Kenneth Katzman, Iran Sanctions, Congressional Research Service Report, June 22, 2011.

^[v] Patrick Clawson, Escalating sanctions on Iran, June 3, 2011 at http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/all/PatrickClawson

^[vi] Ibid.

^[vii] Subramanian, K: The sad demise of India-Iran payments system, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper No.4423, 12-Apr-2011 at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/paper44/paper4423.html

^[viii] Financial Times, China and Iran plan oil barter, July 24, 2011 at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2082e954-b604-1e0-8be4d-00144feabdc0.html.

^[ix] India Looks Beyond Iran for oil, The Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2011.

^[x] Reuters, UPDATE 6-Iran halts oil supply, but India see no shortage, July 21, 2011.

^[xi] Kapila, Dr. Subash: India – Saudi Arabia: The strategic significance of the Delhi Declaration (January 2006), South Asia Analysis Group Paper No.1734, 14.03.2006

^[xii] Aaron Mattis, Saudi Arabia’s Struggle to Contain Iran, Harvard International Review, May 1, 2010.

^[xiii] Bloomberg, OPEC Oil Accord Breaks Down After Six Nations Block Plan to Boost Output, June 9, 2011.

http://www.c3sindia.org/india/2490

Please visit the Chennai Centre for China Studies at http://www.c3sindia.org/india/2490 for in depth reports from this highly claimed think tank.

C3S Paper No 844

By Lisa Curtis and Dean Cheng

The Heritage Foundation

Abstract: The U.S. should pursue robust strategic and military engagement with India in order to encourage a stable balance of power in Asia that prevents China from dominating the region and surrounding seas. The U.S. and India share a broad strategic interest in setting limits to China’s geopolitical horizons and can work together to support mutually reinforcing goals without becoming “allies” in the traditional sense. The U.S. should support India’s military modernization campaign, including its quest for increasingly sophisticated technologies, and develop new initiatives for keeping the Indian Ocean safe and secure. Additionally, the U.S. should remain closely engaged with the smaller South Asian states and temper any expectations that the U.S. and China can cooperate in South Asia, where India remains the predominant power. Although India’s recent decision to forgo American planes to fulfill its fighter aircraft needs has added a dose of realism to Indo–U.S. relations, the complex challenge presented by a rising China will inevitably drive the U.S. and India to elevate ties and increase cooperation across a broad range of sectors in years to come.