[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 Hiroshima ,
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.
6.
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.
The 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 India Kathmandu . This regime from the very day of its inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting Nepal Nepal Nepal
By Divash Sharma
In recent past, particularly since the mass movement of 2006, India Nepal Delhi Nepal relations Nepal India India Nepal
The 'Azad Kashmir Government' signed an agreement with 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 Pakistan India Kashmir and Nepal 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 India Nepal India
• Getting away with or at least maintaining the status queue regarding
anti-India sentiment among Nepali people. This is what India India Nepal
• Getting hold over Nepal Nepal India Nepal
• Providing Nepal Nepal India India
Unique Opportunity for India
The mass movement of 2006 provided India India India India India 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 Nepal
As Patriotic Nepali citizens, we should not blame India India Nepal 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 Nepal 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 India Kathmandu . This regime from the very day of its
inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting Nepal Nepal Nepal
COMMENT
---------- Forwarded message ----------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Madhukar <madhukarsjbrana@gmail.com>
Date:Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at
8:31 PM
Subject: Re:INDIA 'S
CLIENT REGIME IN KATHMANDU GRAVELY HURTS NEPAL
To: The Himalayan Voice <himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
Date:
Subject: Re:
To: The Himalayan Voice <himalayanvoice@gmail.com>
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 Nepal .
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,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
