[Disaster was perilously close in 1962, and there has been no shortage of dangerous moments since. In 1973, in the last days of the Arab-Israeli war, Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert.
India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war. There have been innumerable cases when human intervention aborted nuclear attack only moments before launch after false reports by automated systems. There is much to think about on Aug. 6.]
By Noam Chomsky
Aug. 6, the anniversary of
should be a day of somber reflection, not only on the terrible events of that
day in 1945, but also on what they revealed: that humans, in their dedicated
quest to extend their capacities for destruction, had finally found a way to
approach the ultimate limit.
This year’s Aug. 6 memorials have special significance. They take place shortly before the 50th anniversary of “the most dangerous moment in human history,” in the words of the historian and John F. Kennedy adviser Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., referring to the Cuban missile crisis.
Graham Allison writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs that Kennedy “ordered actions that he knew would increase the risk not only of conventional war but also nuclear war,” with a likelihood of perhaps 50 percent, he believed, an estimate that Allison regards as realistic.
Kennedy declared a high-level nuclear alert that authorized “NATO aircraft with Turkish pilots ... (or others) ... to take off, fly to
Moscow, and drop a bomb.”
None were more shocked by the discovery of missiles in
Cuba than the men in charge of the similar missiles that the U.S. had secretly deployed in Okinawa six
months earlier, surely aimed at China, at a moment of elevated regional tensions.
Kennedy took Chairman Nikita Khrushchev “right to the brink of nuclear war and he looked over the edge and had no stomach for it,” according to Gen. David Burchinal, then a high-ranking official in the Pentagon planning staff. One can hardly count on such sanity forever.
Khrushchev accepted a formula that Kennedy devised, ending the crisis just short of war. The formula’s boldest element, Allison writes, was “a secret sweetener that promised the withdrawal of
U.S. missiles from Turkey within six months after the crisis was resolved.” These
were obsolete missiles that were being replaced by far more lethal, and
invulnerable, Polaris submarines.
In brief, even at high risk of war of unimaginable destruction, it was felt necessary to reinforce the principle that
U.S. has the unilateral right to deploy nuclear missiles
anywhere, some aimed at China or at the borders of Russia, which had previously placed no missiles outside the USSR. Justifications of course have been offered, but I do not think
they withstand analysis.
An accompanying principle is that
Cuba had no right to have missiles for defense against what
appeared to be an imminent U.S. invasion. The plans for Kennedy’s terrorist programs,
Operation Mongoose, called for “open revolt and overthrow of the Communist
regime” in October 1962, the month of the missile crisis, recognizing that
“final success will require decisive U.S. military intervention.”
The terrorist operations against
Cuba are commonly dismissed by U.S. commentators as insignificant CIA shenanigans. The
victims, not surprisingly, see matters rather differently. We can at last hear
their voices in Keith Bolender’s “Voices from the Other Side: An Oral History
of Terrorism Against Cuba.”
The events of October 1962 are widely hailed as Kennedy’s finest hour. Allison offers them as “a guide for how to defuse conflicts, manage great-power relationships, and make sound decisions about foreign policy in general.” In particular, today’s conflicts with
Iran and China.
Disaster was perilously close in 1962, and there has been no shortage of dangerous moments since. In 1973, in the last days of the Arab-Israeli war, Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert.
India and Pakistan have come close to nuclear war. There have been innumerable
cases when human intervention aborted nuclear attack only moments before launch
after false reports by automated systems. There is much to think about on Aug.
Allison joins many others in regarding
Iran’s nuclear programs as the most severe current crisis, “an
even more complex challenge for American policymakers than the Cuban missile
crisis” because of the threat of Israeli bombing.
The war against
Iran is already well underway, including assassination of
scientists and economic pressures that have reached the level of “undeclared
war,” in the judgment of the Iran specialist Gary Sick.
Great pride is taken in the sophisticated cyberwar directed against
Iran. The Pentagon regards cyberwar as “an act of war” that
authorizes the target “to respond using traditional military force,” The Wall
Street Journal reports. With the usual exception: not when the U.S. or an ally is the perpetrator.
Iran threat has recently been outlined by Gen. Giora Eiland,
one of Israel’s top military planners, described as “one of the most
ingenious and prolific thinkers the (Israeli military) has ever produced.”
Of the threats he outlines, the most credible is that “any confrontation on our borders will take place under an Iranian nuclear umbrella.”
Israel might therefore be constrained in resorting to force.
Eiland agrees with the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence, which also regard deterrence as the major
threat that Iran poses.
The current escalation of the “undeclared war” against
Iran increases the threat of accidental large-scale war. Some
of the dangers were illustrated last month when a U.S. naval vessel, part of the huge deployment in the Gulf,
fired on a small fishing boat, killing one Indian crew member and wounding at
least three others. It would not take much to set off a major war.
One sensible way to avoid such dread consequences is to pursue “the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons” – the wording of Security Council resolution 687 of April 1991, which the U.S. and U.K. invoked in their effort to provide a thin legal cover for their invasion of Iraq 12 years later.
The goal has been an Arab-Iranian objective since 1974, regularly re-endorsed, and by now it has near-unanimous global support, at least formally. An international conference to consider ways to implement such a treaty may take place in December.
Progress is unlikely unless there is mass public support in the West. Failure to grasp the opportunity will, once again, lengthen the grim shadow that has darkened the world since that fateful Aug. 6.
[The primary obstacle in the way of attaining the above mentioned objectives is not
but it is its client regime in India Kathmandu. This regime from the very day of its inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting . Hence, defeating and replacing the present client regime has become a precondition. All democratic, progressive, patriotic and nationalist forces should come together to launch a decisive movement to protect Nepali national sovereignty and independence and to create a way out from the disastrous situation that Nepal is in now. If people want to end the Indian proxy rule, they have to effectively end the client regime system that has been continuing quite for some time in Nepal .] Nepal
By Divash Sharma
In recent past, particularly since the mass movement of 2006,
has created a
situation where its influence dominates every aspect of governance in India . The 12-point
agreement signed in Nepal was the beginning of
a new departure point in Indo- Delhi . The then
seven-party-alliance and the then Communist Party of Nepal relations (Maoist) got not only
Indian political guidance but also logistic support including coordinating meetings
and providing substantial input in drafting the agreement. Even some
critiques suspect that the drafting was out-sourced to Nepal by Nepalese side and
simply the fortunate Nepali sides got ready to sign the 'final produce', which
they happily did. Anyway, India played a dashing role
during the time of drafting and signing this agreement. Since then, in every
major event in India , there is some sort
of Indian involvement. Nepal
The 'Azad Kashmir Government' signed an agreement with
in 1949. The
agreement is popularly known as "The Karachi Agreement". Through this
agreement, 'Azad Kashmir Government' handed over the important state functions
of Pakistan Kashmir to Pakistani authorities. These functions
included "defence, foreign policy, negotiations with the United Nations
Commission for India and Pakistan, publicity in foreign countries and in
Pakistan, co-ordination and arrangement of relief and rehabilitation works for refugees, co-ordination of publicity in connection with plebiscite, all
activities within Pakistan regarding Kashmir such as procurement of food, civil
supplies, running of refugee camps and medical aid and all affairs of Gilgit -
Ladakh under the control of Political Agent" (Karachi Agreement 1949).
Now, anybody could understand what roles are left for 'Azad Kashmir
Government'. If anybody is interested in details, googling "Karachi Agreement
1949" could be beneficial. The 'Azad Kashmir Government' is still there at
Muzaffarabad. This is a glaring example of a client regime.
The arrangements between
and its client regime
in Muzaffarabad are well written. However, Pakistan has not done and
could not do the same as the time is different now, so is the space. Therefore, the
forms are different in India Kashmir and . However, the nature
and content are similar to each other, if not exactly the same. Hence,
there is a need of examining Nepal 's objectives and
expectations from its client regime in India Kathmandu. These objectives and
expectations include but not limited to the following critical areas.
• Securing Nepal-India board, keeping eye on Nepal-China boarder too, observing movements regarding international arrivals and departures via air routes and getting extradition treaty signed so as to arrange access to
’s terror suspects
including Pakistanis in India . This is the
item-wise break down of Nepal ’s much talked about
security perceptions. India
• Getting away with or at least maintaining the status queue regarding anti-India sentiment among Nepali people. This is what
talks loud about India ’s willingness for India ’s progress and
spreads ‘seeds of goodwill’ in the form of small grants to schools, communities
and other smaller institutions. Nepal
• Getting hold over
’s water resources and
getting unrestricted access of its products and services to Nepal . Nepal has encouraged Indian
private or public sector companies for securing water resources and expanding
networks to Nepali market. It has already controlled many large water projects
and the Koshi high dam (Sapta Koshi High Dam Multipurpose Project and Sun Koshi
Storage cum Diversion Scheme) heads its priority list now. Also, BIPPA has
created platform for expansion of its production networks in India , if it desires so. Nepal
a pair of shoes,
which Nepal wears and follows Nepal in any strategic or
critical journey that India makes in the
international arena. India
Unique Opportunity for India
The mass movement of 2006 provided
a unique opportunity
as there was a most unpopular king as the target of the movement; dethroned,
weak and unpopular parliamentary parties were struggling for their very
existence and a powerful but vulnerable Maoist party led by its ambitious
leaders of middle class origin was standing at the crossroads. Without any
delay, India jumped into the
situation by bringing a few tankers loaded with petroleum, a few tankers with
nutritious juice and a few tankers with plain water. Seeing the tankers loaded
with petroleum; the king rushed to his lavatory. The malnourished parliamentary
parties lined up for the juice and the ready-to-cross-the-floor Maoist leaders
cooled down with the plain water. As a result, the king watered down; the
seven-party-alliance was formed and they made contractual arrangement with the
Maoist leaders. Finally, a client regime came into existence under the
leadership of the ‘great’ Girija Prasad Koirala. After Girija Prasad Koirala,
three more leaders offered their services to India according to the best
of their abilities and statures. From everyone, India got something. Now,
another leader is serving India as one of the most
valuable collaborator.The former Indian Ambassador to Nepal Shyam Saran told
recently that India intervened to save
General Rukmangud Katawal to preserve the professionalism of Nepal Army. ( Please see India intervened in Katuwal Case: Sharan) India
This is enough to understand the gravity of the intervention. When a foreign country could influence the appointment or retention of an Army Chief, anyone can understand easily how
is running its
business. A friend of mine emailed me this morning stating that, “I am not a
hydrophobic anti-India activist. However, Saran's revelation made me feeling
powerless and insecure”. The Nepali state has lost its sovereign power to make
decisions altogether with its glory, status and manoeuvrability. Nepal
As Patriotic Nepali citizens, we should not blame
primarily for all
ills that we have. Promoting and protecting its national interest is a
legitimate right of India . However, we should
oppose Indian design that does not respect India ’s sovereign rights as
an independent nation either. Moreover, it has established a client regime in Nepal that is totally unacceptable. Hence, the client regime should be defeated and replaced by a
regime which is committed to Nepali cause. Nepal
The Nepali patriotic forces should define their own objectives. A few vitally important ones are mentioned below.
• Protect national boarders in all directions that include international airports. Take charge of national security.
• Maintain patriotic alertness and be prepared to oppose when and where Nepali sovereign rights are challenged.
• Protect Nepali national resources and use them on the best interest of
by mobilizing local,
bilateral or multilateral resources, skills and technologies. Keep business
environment friendlier to indigenous enterprises, skills and technologies to
make Nepal prosperous. Nepal
• Take firm stand in any international forum by maintaining independence and protecting Nepali interests.
The primary obstacle in the way of attaining the above mentioned objectives is not
but it is its client
regime in India Kathmandu. This regime from the very day of its
inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting . Hence,
defeating and replacing the present client regime has become a precondition.
All democratic, progressive, patriotic and nationalist forces should come
together to launch a decisive movement to protect Nepali national sovereignty
and independence and to create a way out from the disastrous situation that Nepal is in now. If people
want to end the Indian proxy rule, they have to effectively end the client
regime system that has been continuing quite for some time in Nepal . Nepal
---------- Forwarded message ----------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Madhukar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at
CLIENT REGIME IN KATHMANDU GRAVELY HURTS NEPAL
To: The Himalayan Voice <email@example.com>
To: The Himalayan Voice <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The hope and grounds for a sovereign, independent
Nepal lies surely in the hearts and minds of our youth today.
Let us pray that they enter politics with this spirit and mindset to expunge
the older party leaders that are part and parcel of this shameful and hurtful
client regime that the author speaks of so passionately.
In addition to his excellent action points we need to underscore the need for a strong managerial civil service free of political leverage; the creation of an autonomous National Intelligence Agency mandated by the Constitution along with a National Security Council -- that is much broader than the present dysfunctional NSC.
Last but not the least we, need to set up National Economic Council (NEC) to debate and deliberate on the economic dimensions of national interest and guide all planning agencies at all levels of governance. Dismantle the current National Planning Commission and have it, if felt needed, as part of the PMO to advise the political party/parties in power. Presently, the NPC is a political body that is victimized by policy paradigms laid out by the donor nations and institutions.
The proposed NEC must subscribe to the philosophy and principles of people-private-public pragmatic - partnerships to garner political, economic and social spaces to the spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurship for a prosperous, developed and independent
Reforming the Nepal Police towards making it a community police force (CPF) while strengthening the Armed Police Force to include border security, industrial security, highway security and infrastructure security are vital, strategic musts.
Thank you for this patriotic article. Let's keep the debate on to rid ourselves of our client state mindset and leaders once in for all
Madhukar SJB Rana,