IN HIROSHIMA’S SHADOW : THERE IS MUCH TO THINK ABOUT

[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 Nation for Change
INDIA'S CLIENT REGIME IN KATHMANDU GRAVELY HURTS NEPAL

[The primary obstacle in the way of attaining the above mentioned objectives is not India but it is its client regime in Kathmandu. This regime from the very day of its inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting Nepal. 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.]

By Divash Sharma

In recent past, particularly since the mass movement of 2006, India has created a situation where its influence dominates every aspect of governance in Nepal. The 12-point agreement signed in Delhi was the beginning of a new departure point in Indo-Nepal relations. The then seven-party-alliance and the then Communist Party of Nepal (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 India 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 Nepal, there is some sort of Indian involvement.

India very well knew from the beginning that it needs a client regime in Nepal. Here, some explanation is needed about the nature and scope of work of 'a client regime'. After the Indo-Pak war of 1947, India annexed part of Kashmir controlled by its forces by creating some sort of legitimacy in the form of 'consent' of the nominal ruler of Kashmir, Hari Singh. On the other side, Pakistan founded a client regime under Sardar Mohammed Ibrahim Khan by designating him as 'President of Azad Kashmir'. 

The 'Azad Kashmir Government' signed an agreement with Pakistan in 1949. The agreement is popularly known as "The Karachi Agreement". Through this agreement, 'Azad Kashmir Government' handed over the important state functions of 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. 

India colonized parts of Kashmir. Also, it provided voting rights to Kashmiri people at par to any other Indian and 'merged' parts of Kashmir into India. However, Pakistan created a client regime and ruled over them without any accountability towards them. There is no Kashmir as Kashmir in India; there are no Kashmiris as Kashmiris in Pakistan. Hence, both are unjustifiable arrangements but of different types.

The arrangements between Pakistan and its client regime in Muzaffarabad are well written. However, India 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 Kashmir and Nepal. However, the nature and content are similar to each other, if not exactly the same.  Hence, there is a need of examining India's objectives and expectations from its client regime in 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’s terror suspects including Pakistanis in Nepal. This is the item-wise break down of India’s much talked about security perceptions.

• Getting away with or at least maintaining the status queue regarding anti-India sentiment among Nepali people.  This is what India talks loud about India’s willingness for Nepal’s progress and spreads ‘seeds of goodwill’ in the form of small grants to schools, communities and other smaller institutions.

• Getting hold over Nepal’s water resources and getting unrestricted access of its products and services to Nepal. India 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 Nepal, if it desires so.

• Providing Nepal a pair of shoes, which Nepal wears and follows India in any strategic or critical journey that India makes in the international arena. 

Unique Opportunity for India

The mass movement of 2006 provided India 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) 

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 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. 

As Patriotic Nepali citizens, we should not blame India 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 Nepal’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.

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 by mobilizing local, bilateral or multilateral resources, skills and technologies. Keep business environment friendlier to indigenous enterprises, skills and technologies to make Nepal prosperous. 

• 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 but it is its client regime in Kathmandu. This regime from the very day of its inception, has been continuously and gravely hurting Nepal. 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.

COMMENT
---------- 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>

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.