From TheRealNews:

Last year, when the time of renewing the United Nations mandate approached, Maliki cabinet and the Iraqi presidency went ahead and bypassed the Iraqi parliament, despite the fact that the parliament is the entity that has the exclusive constitutional authority over ratifying or approving the international treaties. This year, I think, the situation is different because the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution earlier this year, in May, stating that any United Nations renewal that doesn’t come back to the parliament is illegal and unconstitutional.

It may only be coincidence, but for the last few years, every time this particular vote comes up in the Iraqi parliament, talk of a coup against prime minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to peak. For instance, in 2006 after Maliki waivered before ratifying the UN mandate outside of the parliament’s authority, rumors began to circle that former regime elements might stage a coup. DemocracyNow had this:

I don’t think any of this could happen without American support, but I do know that there are a number of people inside the Baker commission, within the U.S. government, in the CIA and elsewhere, who are thinking about this. And just the other day, I spoke to Salah al-Mukhtar, who is a Baathist and former Iraqi official, who said that there are rumors all over Jordan that the CIA has been going around looking — the military going around looking for a general or two, who could take over in the event of a coup d’etat in Baghdad.

In August 2007, two months after Maliki passed on vetoing the parliament’s authority over international treaties, the rumors of a coup again burst into the open, even being speculated about on major cable news outlets. InformedComment offered this from private sources:

“There is serious talk of a military commission (majlis `askari) to take over the government. The parties would be banned from holding positions, and all the ministers would be technocrats, so to speak. . . [The writer indicates that attempts have been made to recruit cabinet members from the ranks of expatriate technocrats.]

The six-member board or commission would be composed on non-political former military personnel who are presently not part of the government OR the military establishment, such as it is in Iraq at the moment. It is said that the Americans are supporting this behind the scenes.

The plan includes a two-year period during which political parties would not be permitted to be part of the government, but instead would prepare and strengthen the parties for an election which would not have lists, but real people running for real seats. The two year period would be designed to take control of security and restore infrastructure.

Could the surge in rumors of a coup actually be US pressure on Maliki? Why do the rumors only surface during controversies surrounding the UN mandate, as opposed to the countless other scandals and errors that plague Maliki on a daily basis? The most interesting thing to note about all of these rumors is that they are all supported by the US, either overtly or through the CIA. While it’s highly unlikely that the US is actually spending the time and money to shuttle around the middle east and train mini-Iraqi juntas, it’s almost certainly a signal to Maliki that his status as favored son of the US is not guaranteed forever.

It’s pretty clear, however, that this time the US will continue to attempt to push the UN mandate through the approval process secretively and away from the oversight of the Iraqi parliament, probably even without resorting to overtly pressuring Maliki. With rhetoric between Iran and the US at its current escalation point, the US wouldn’t dare subvert the Iraqi constitution with a coup given that it may send a dangerous message to Tehran, that nothing is sacred in the battle for control of Iraq. Even rumors of a US-backed coup may fatally destabilize Maliki’s Shiite coalition, some of whom would gladly side with Iran over yet another Sunni police state.

Unfortunately, that does not mean Maliki’s position is entirely safe. Concerning a coup, Maliki had this to say to McClatchy’s in August of this year:

MALIKI: This is a sick mentality, a hangover, from the Baathist era. The era of coups has departed. Rule was through security and military agencies, but now the people rule. Coups were the distinguishing character of rule in the country and the people were excluded from the process. Now no one has the capability or the power to pull off an overthrow in this country and those who travel to the capitals of the world begging for support are delusional. This country will see no more such overthrows. The only possible overthrow is from within the constitutional democratic establishment. And if it were to be achieved through the parliament and the democratic political establishment then I am happy and it is welcome. Indeed I would cheer it on because for the first time we would have effected change through political means and not by weapons and tanks.

FADEL: But can the parliament really agree on anything?

MALIKI: So, then the government is safe. (laughter)

Essentially what Maliki is saying is that the parliament doesn’t need a coup to get rid of Maliki. They only need the political will to throw him out of office using legitimate constitutional processes. It’s almost certain that any replacement would be nowhere near as compliant as Maliki, and given his results, it could prove disastrous for the US effort. Worse yet, any major destabilization of the central Iraqi government, even if it is a normal constitutional process, could prove fatal. If that happens, the freshly ethnically cleansed Iraq may no longer be able to contain its civil war, whether US troops are present or not.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From the Jerusalem Post:

Meanwhile, an Israeli nuclear expert said on Thursday that the main target of the Israeli attack was most likely a plant for assembling a nuclear bomb, challenging other analysts’ conclusions that it housed a North Korean-style nuclear reactor.

Tel Aviv University chemistry professor Uzi Even, who worked in the past at Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor, said satellite pictures of the site taken before the Israeli strike showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of reactors.

The absence of telltale features of a reactor convinced him the building must have housed something else, he said. And a rush by the Syrians after the attack to bury the site under tons of soil suggests that the facility was a bomb-assembly plant left leaking lethal doses of radiation by the Israeli attack.

The notion that the Syrian facility was a bomb-assembly plant, as opposed to a nuclear reactor, seems a lot more reasonable to me. While satellite imagery shows it to have extremely cursory similarities to nuclear sites in North Korea, the Syrian facility looks to me a lot more like the various rocket and missile development centers here in my hometown of Huntsville, Alabama. For instance, examine the rocket testing facilities at Wiley Labs courtesy of Google. Compare them with images of the Syrian installation. The design of the Syrian facility begins to make more sense. The likelihood that the Syrians constructed a rudimentary rocket development facility is much higher than the possibility of the Syrians somehow developing nuclear technology with no thermal emissions, visible output, or ventilation.

While it’s somewhat reasonable to presume that the Syrian facility was intended to be used by Iran to produce nuclear weapons, I’m doubtful that there was actually any nuclear material at the site before the attack. The Iranians would not risk losing all international legitimacy by allowing themselves to be directly linked to nuclear weapons development before their entire nuclear program is fully online. The paradigm of a peaceful nuclear power program is paramount to the Iranian position on the nuclear file, and they show absolutely no other signs of abandoning this paradigm for the sake of expediency. However, this doesn’t fully explain why the Syrians covered up and abandoned the site.

More likely, it was the Israelis who used tactical nuclear weapons on the site. This better explains why the Syrians would contain the site. A radioactive leak from damaged warheads is much easier to clean and repair than an actual warhead detonation. After a tactical nuclear strike, there is no hope of repair, no other option than to seal the site. This also explains the surreal discretion and silence from the Israeli government immediately following the strike. The Israelis will gladly comment about Iranian or Iraqi or anyone else’s nuclear weapons. What they won’t do is comment on Israeli nuclear weapons. This could also shed more light on the comic-book-like stories about Israeli commandos stealing plutonium from the Syrian site just before the airstrike. It begins to appear that these various media reports were plants to head off public opinion in case any government or international institution cried foul over sudden signs of radiation. As it’s become clear that no one is going to confront Israel on their use of nuclear weapons, they have relaxed their discretion and begun to comment more openly on the airstrike. Unfortunately, this doesn’t do anything to explain the silence from regional and international players.

While the US Administration could be accused of hubris in some instances, it’s unlikely that the US and Israel conducted a tactical nuclear strike and simply expected regional and international governments to keep quiet. In addition, given the complexity of the operation, involving among other things multiple sovereign airspaces and inter-military coordination, it’s unlikely that the West could have conceived, plotted, and executed the operation with zero intelligence leaks. It’s much more probable that the US informed various other players long before the airstrike occurred.

For this we turn to AINA via Beirut to the Beltway:

Saudi Arabia has told Iran not to count on the kingdom’s help if the international community imposes harsher measures on Tehran because of its refusal to abide by international requirements on the nuclear issue.

At a meeting in Riyadh last month, King Abdullah told visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran will have to “bear the consequences” of its actions, and should not underestimate the power, capabilities or will of the United States and the rest of the international community, according to a Saudi official.

“We told him, ‘Don’t come back to us and say you wish somebody had told you that,’” the official said. “Don’t come back and ask for help.”

The king was equally blunt with Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom he met in Riyadh on the sidelines of the Arab summit last month. Abdullah told Assad that if he wants to improve relations with Saudi Arabia — which are at an all-time low — he first has to prove his good intentions in Lebanon, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.

Abdullah’s words to the two close allies — Iran and Syria — come amid Saudi worries that the two countries’ defiance of the international community could plunge the region into larger chaos than the turmoil that resulted from Saddam Hussein’s refusal to come clean on his weapons of mass destruction program.

This occurred in March of 2007, months before the airstrike occurred. It’s possible that Abdullah’s reference to “us” and “we” refers not to the Saudis themselves, but more broadly to Arabs and muslims. Restive Arab dictatorships like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have nothing but catastrophe to gain from another Iraq-like scenario in the Middle East, which is precisely what the US is promising if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Turkey was the only regional player to respond publicly, declaring that Turkish airspace was not used to conduct the operation. It’s entirely not true, but it wasn’t intended to be. Turkey’s new prime minister, as a devout muslim, has a lot to prove to the international community as Turkey struggles to join the European Union. The statement about airspace was simply a political message to Turkish domestic audiences who may be upset that a muslim prime minister’s first act in office was to attack other muslims.

Under this interpretation, it appears that the entire operation was a success, with the West effectively deterring Syrian and Iranian development of nuclear weapons. However, the consequences must not be underestimated. After Saddam’s Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians with impunity, Tehran developed the idea that the international community does not care about Iran’s interest, no matter what the transgression. The use of nuclear weapons, and the proceeding silence, placed Syria firmly in Tehran’s corner. Syrian president Bashar Assad, unlike the ideologically-run regime in Tehran, is much more reasonable and open to compromise with the West. The near-immediate assassination of yet another March 14 minister in Lebanon was likely Assad’s response to the airstrike, and perhaps loose evidence of Syria’s future position on compromise with the West.

But the broader strategic implications for the US could be even more dire. It’s a wise bet that military planners in Beijing and Moscow immediately re-assessed their plans for Taiwan and the Caucasus respectively. While it’s unlikely that China or Russia could ensure the compliance of regional governments with the same degree of success as the US, the prospect of being free to use tactical nuclear weapons unilaterally without repercussions may be too enticing to pass up.

Popularity: 3% [?]

From BBC via Intellibriefs:

Mir Balaach Marri, alleged head of the banned Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), was killed in Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence sources told the BBC.

Mr Balaach’s brother, Sardar Gazain Marri, said he had learnt of the rebel leader’s death on Tuesday evening.

“Some of his comrades informed me he had been martyred,” he told the BBC.

“I cannot disclose the location as it would further threaten the lives of those with him.”

Sardar Marri says he believes his brother was killed in an army operation in Balochistan.

“I believe there were a clashes in the province on Tuesday in which Mir Balaach was killed.”

However, intelligence officials in Pakistan told the BBC the rebel leader had been killed in Afghanistan.

They also declined to discuss the circumstances surrounding his killing.

Analysts say the killing could have been the result of a covert operation.

This story is especially intriguing because of the dispute over whether Marri was killed in Pakistan or Afghanistan. Pakistan has long insisted that the Baloch separatists are affiliated with the Taliban in Afghanistan (which also has a sizable Baloch population), and therefore they must be crushed. However, because the Baloch populations stretch from Pakistan all the way into southern Iran, and because they happen to be flush with natural gas and minerals, the US has long taken an interest in the BLA. In fact, it’s been widely rumored that the CIA, and possibly Mossad, have been actively aiding Baloch terrorist cells in southern Afghanistan and Iran. Of course Pakistani Intelligence insists that Marri was killed in Afghanistan, implying that he was there fighting for the Taliban.

Is it possible that, to facilitate and expedite Pakistani General Musharraf’s internal crackdown on opposition, the US gave the Pakistani military actionable intelligence against Marri, who may or may not have been our ally against both Iran and the Taliban? If so, it shows some lack of resolve on the part of the US Administration, given that the strategic value of an independent and capital rich Balochistan far outweighs the short term tactical benefits of an appeased Pakistani dictator. There is much to the story of Balochistan that remains to be told.

For more on Balochistan: Exiled Gov’t (semi-official) - SAAG - BlueBloggin - BalochWarna - MIPT

Popularity: 3% [?]

From the New York Times via Nur al-Cubicle:

United Nations officials now concede that the country was in better shape during the brief reign of Somalia’s Islamist movement last year. “It was more peaceful, and much easier for us to work,” Mr. Laroche said. “The Islamists didn’t cause us any problems.”

Mr. Ould-Abdallah called those six months, which were essentially the only epoch of peace most Somalis have tasted for years, Somalia’s “golden era.”

For a quick recap of the situation in Somalia, Middle-East-Online has this:

US secret services have detected dangerous signs of “Talibanisation” in the traditionalist outlook of the UIC, such as bans on music, football, videos, and women working, and are keen to avoid the creation of a new Afghanistan in the region. They tried to buy some of the Somali warlords in February 2006. But the specially created Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism was unable to check the advances of the Islamist militias, who had won overall control of Mogadishu by July.

This new setback was followed by a bold move: There would be no repeat of Black Hawk, nor any US forces deployed on the ground, at least officially. Instead, with a mandate from Washington, the Ethiopian army marched into Somalia to support the TFG, which had been unable to take possession of its capital. By December 2006, the Ethiopian forces had removed the Islamist militias from Mogadishu.

The US army’s hunt for real or supposed members of al-Qaida continued. In January 2007, it undertook its first major operation, the machine-gunning of a group of “fugitives” by a heavily armed C-130 Spectre gunship, first used in the Vietnam war. Operations such as these, unscrutinised, in semi-secrecy, mark the return of a robust US stance in the secret war in the Horn of Africa. In February, special forces carried out operations in the south of Somalia and on 2 June, a US navy warship fired on targets near the port of Bargal in Puntland, which, it was claimed, were hideouts for “fugitive members of al-Qaida” — though these claims are unverified.

Raids against the jihadists have also increased in Mogadishu since the Ethiopians and President Abdullahi’s forces took control. Just being a former member of the UIC is sufficient grounds for being classified as a terrorist. Estimates of the number who have disappeared range from 200 to 1,000; they are believed to be being detained in the Villa Somalia in the port or in the National Security Agency’s underground cells. This augured ill for a reconciliation conference scheduled for June in Mogadishu. It opened a month late and lacked any participants from the Islamist groups and the Hawiye, the majority clan. It concluded on 30 August without any significant outcome.

It seems obvious at this point that Somalia under the leadership of the UIC was a far more stable and peaceful place than under the anarchy of the warlords. It begs the question of why the US would continue to fight the UIC when the islamists were able to pacify a country the US had so far failed to pacify itself. It’s not as simple as anti-islamic attitudes, as the US military has proved it will work with such elements if its strategically viable, notably in northern Afghanistan or Iraq’s restive Anbar province. Similarly, there isn’t much to gain from a determinately pro-Ethiopian policy now that the Cold War is over. One can therefore reasonably assume that the US has some strategic interest in seeing Somalia destabilized.

My personal theory is that this strategic interest is a future home for AFRICOM. When it was announced in February 2007, hot on the heels of an apparent UIC routing in Somalia, the US State Department had this to say:

The Defense Department is creating a new U.S. Africa Command headquarters, to be known as AFRICOM, to coordinate all U.S. military and security interests throughout the continent, the Bush administration announced February 6.

“This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa,” President Bush said in a White House statement. “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”

Until now, U.S. military involvement in Africa has been shared among the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Pacific Command. Defense Secretary Robert Gates called this divided responsibility “an outdated arrangement left over from the Cold War.”

Creating AFRICOM “will enable us to have a more effective and integrated approach than the current arrangement of dividing Africa between [different regional commands],” Gates said February 6 before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As the sharpened tip of the Horn of Africa, an AFRICOM in Somalia would have immense strategic value in protecting energy resources not only on the African continent, but also as a bolster to CENTCOM, Central Command, and their fledgling outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Together with Israel in the Mediterranean, the US would effectively lock down all energy sources west of the Black Sea. Short of South America, Russia and China will have only each other to look to for energy.

Basing AFRICOM has so far been a problem for the Pentagon; Most African countries want nothing to do with it, Nigeria being the latest. However, even with this opposition, Somalia is wide open. It’s pretty clear that most African governments, friendly or not, don’t want to allow US bases on their land. Quite simply, the US will need land with no government to allow it. That’s where an unstable Somalia is especially suited. Somalia doesn’t just have a weak government like Sudan or Libya, it has no government. It’s essentially anarchy. The TGF in Mogadishu is abysmally ineffective with no credibility, so much like the Taliban in Afghanistan, the US can claim that Somalia has no sovereignty to violate when we inevitably violate it. Learning its lessons from Afghanistan, however, means that this time the US will also wipe out any religious elements. This may actually severely weaken the legitimacy and credibility of any insurgency that’s likely to emerge once the US moves in. The US will install a friendly government and, again like Afghanistan, they will ask us to stay.

AFRICOM will have a home. Somalia will be pacified. While it’s true that this is essentially about energy security, and thus may seem to be a bit insensitive to the self-determination of Somalis, the introduction of massive, overt Western influence on Africa may have positive benefits in terms of opening up closed societies to free market prosperity and democratic institutions. The same could also be said for the current US enterprise in the Middle East. In both Somalia and the Middle East, however, no benefits are yet visible from US influence. Quite the contrary, actually. But, the Long War is just getting started.

For more on AFRICOM: Official - Wikipedia

Popularity: 3% [?]

From Global Security via RFE/RL:

The foreign minister-in-exile of the separatist Chechen government, Akhmed Zakayev, has submitted his resignation.

Zakayev made the announcement amid a growing rift between the parliament-in-exile of the self-declared Chechen Republic Ichkeria (ChRI) and the separatist president and resistance commander, Doku Umarov.

In a video statement received by RFE/RL last month, Umarov declared the existence of a “North Caucasus emirate” and proclaimed himself the emir. That declaration prompted the ChRI parliament to state that Umarov had effectively relinquished his presidential powers, which now devolve to the parliament.

Zakayev told RFE/RL by phone from London today that until the parliament makes a decision on forming a new cabinet and appointing a new prime minister, he is not able to continue as foreign minister. “I think that everything that is happening in the state should have a legitimate foundation; everything should be done in compliance with the law, and in this case, I think that until the parliament forms a new cabinet of ministers, neither I nor the other members of the cabinet can fulfill their duties and professional obligations,” he said.

Zakayev said his resignation should not be viewed “as a departure from the fight for our independence, our freedom, and for the recognition of our state. By no means.”

“Chechnya at present is occupied, but it is not conquered,” he continued. “That’s why people today are waiting for an opportunity, but they haven’t accepted this situation by any means. I am absolutely confident that the Chechen people have good reason to think that soon in the future they will gain independence and live in a free, democratic country.”

It sounds like Zakayev is taking the only reasonable option and folding on his ministerial powers when there’s no constitutional authority. But Zakayev is referring to a separatist constitution - in exile, no less. His actions don’t strengthen the constitution, they effectively help dissolve it. As foreign minister for Chechen separatists, one could presume that Zakayev is neither foolish nor naive. It’s therefore reasonable to presume that Zakayev understands exactly what he’s doing.

The situation in Chechnya has been improving over the last few years, with Grozny airport officially taking flights in late 2006. But even saying that Chechnya is “improving” is a bit like saying Baghdad is better than Mogadishu. You’re dealing with extreme relativities. Make no mistake, Chechnya is still very much a war zone, much to the chagrin of Moscow. However, Zakayev’s resignation gives two major benefits to Moscow’s Chechen file.

First, the split in the separatist government is between secular nationalists and radical islamists. As long as the secular nationalist faction is folding up shop, it frees up Moscow to pursue the remaining Chechen rebels with the kind of brutal vigor only the Kremlin can muster. Russia has found that, post 9/11, the international community tolerates brutal crackdowns on islamist extremists more than it tolerates the same crackdowns on secular nationalists. Incidentally, China is closely emulating this very same technique in East Turkestan, cracking down on the Uieghur minority there.

Second, it very explicitly extends that wait-and-see message to other Chechen separatists. This message is based on the idea that if the separatists simply step back and allow Russia to defeat the muslim extremists, it will bow out quietly and gladly let the Chechens resume their march to independence. Of course, Moscow has no intention of abandoning Chechnya anytime soon, but this paradigm has been extremely effective in pacifying the nationalists. Zakayev’s comments, with his prestige, only strengthens this idea.

The more the US continues its drive towards Russia and Central Asia, the more Chechnya will become important. It’s unfortunate that US assets are so tied up elsewhere, as Chechnya would be an ideal theater for observing Russia’s counter-insurgency tactics and strategies, valuable intelligence for when the US and Russia’s interest in energy reserves inevitably overlap in Central Asia.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Much has been made about US pressure on General Musharraf to doff his uniform, restore constitutional order, and crackdown on Taliban militants in the tribal regions of Pakistan. How has the Pakistani government responded?

From Long War Journal via Time

Sufi Mohammed is one of the most dangerous Taliban leaders in the Northwest Frontier Province. As the leader of the outlawed Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM - the Movement for the Implementation of Mohammad’s Sharia Law). He is said to have “close links with the administration of the Lal Masjid,” according to Sharif Virk, the chief of police for the Northwest Frontier Province as well as senior al Qaeda leaders.

Time Magazine reported Sufi was released “in hopes that he can help calm the situation” in Swat and Shangla, the neighboring district which the Taliban overran last week. Sufi’s release was endorsed by General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the Director General of military operations in the region. “Shuja calls it part of the ‘political effort’ needed to accompany the military campaign,” Time reported. “Brute use of force alone would only take us backwards,” said Shuja.

It seems like odd timing to release a senior Taliban leader now. The article continues…

The release of Sufi is a clear sign the Pakistani government and the military are prepared to cut a deal with the Taliban in Swat and Shangla. The formation of a “peace jirga” is another. On November 18, Dawn reported local tribal leaders and members of the political parties have formed a peace jirga to end the fighting in Swat.

How has this so far escaped the attention of Washington? It could be that they haven’t noticed one single prisoner out of over 3,000. The LA Times has this:

More than 3,000 people jailed in Pakistan under emergency rule have been released in recent days, the Interior Ministry said today, the latest sign that embattled President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was rolling back some of the harsher measures he has taken against his opponents.

Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema put the exact figure of those freed in recent days at 3,416 — including lawyers and political activists — and said more than 2,000 people remained jailed.

“The process has started. More are being released today,” Cheema said of the releases. He said those still in detention “would be freed soon,” though he said the cases of some facing criminal charges could take longer.

One could presume that out of those 3,000 released, more than just Sufi Mohammed are aligned with the Taliban. After all, the LA Times goes on to report that the prisoner release doesn’t include higher-ranking members of the opposition. In addition, the crackdown itself continues.

The release of political opponents in Pakistan came hours after judges hand-picked by Musharraf quashed legal challenges to his disputed re-election as president. Still, many high-ranking party activists and leaders, such as former cricket star Imran Khan, remained in prison. Khan began a hunger strike Monday to protest emergency rule.

And while some people were being showed out of detention facilities, others were being led in.

In the southern city of Karachi, police detained about 150 journalists today after clashing with them during a protest against the state of emergency, witnesses said. Two reporters were seen bleeding from head injuries.

Police also detained 23 journalists after they tried to hold a rally in the southern city of Hyderabad to protest press restrictions, said Ali Hassan, a local journalist who was present at the rally.

It appears that, though the stated goal of emergency rule is to curb the Taliban and facilitate democracy, General Musharraf is actually, and apparently quite purposefully, doing exactly the opposite; Strengthening the Taliban and demolishing democratic opposition.

One wonders how long US patience with Musharraf will last beyond the current administration. The US cannot withdraw aid earmarked for the war on terror, and Russia and China will support Pakistan’s strategic interests if the US will not. If Musharraf continues to fracture Pakistan internally, the US may be left with no other choice than to allow India to once again swallow up its breakaway western province.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From Intellibriefs via Indo-Asian News Service (subscription):

India appears to have failed in persuading principal military ally Russia to stop China from supplying RD-93 aircraft engines to Pakistan for their Joint Fighter-17 (JF-17) Thunder programme, a report in Jane’s Defence Weekly says…

Earlier this year, China handed over two JF-17 fighters to Pakistan with the RD-93 engines under the equal partnership agreement between the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Corporation and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex. Pakistan plans an initial production schedule of 16 JF-17s.

Russia had contracted to supply China 100 RD-93 engines with an option of providing 400 more that, it now appears, are definitely being transferred to Pakistan as part of Moscow’s overall pressure tactics to keep India within its armaments fold.

What does this have to do with Biden’s Pakistan policy? Watch this video from JoeBiden.com and, at about 2 minutes in, Biden explains his views on US military aid to Pakistan vis a vis India

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRfAjxivRgM]

In other words, China and Russia have seen to it that even if Biden is successful in cutting off strategic aid to Pakistan, it will not have the desired effect of damaging Musharraf’s credibility in the Pakistani military. If the US cuts off strategic aid to Pakistan, the military will still be well supplied with Strategic fighter, bomber, and support aircraft.

The current political situation in Pakistan has revealed that the Pakistani military is actually quite satisfied with Musharraf. If not, they would never have allowed their assets to be used in Musharraf’s coup/crackdown against the media, parliament, and judiciary. With the exception of an increasingly aggressive Benazir Bhutto, Musharraf has relatively few worries about revolution. Even the pro-Taliban elements in the tribal regions have been relatively appeased. As the Pakistani Army has diverted its resources to the crackdown, the Taliban has conquered a lot of new territory.

I personally respect Senator Biden for being the only candidate to take a realistic, nuanced perspective on Pakistan, as opposed to the seemingly hardline wait-and-see attitude of the other Democratic candidates or the Regime-centric policies favored by the current US Administration. This move by China and Russia leaves Biden a little more cornered on Pakistan policy. Does he ignore it, hope the story doesn’t make it into the mainstream press, and continue with his current policy? Does he propose other aid be cut off from Pakistan, aid not used strategically to counter India? Or, and this is the most difficult option, does he decide to take a much harder, and more public, stance against China, Russia, and their enabling of dictators?

For more on Gen. Musharraf: Official website - Wikipedia
For more on Pakistan’s Emergency Rule: BBC - Wikipedia - The Real News
For more on the Pakistan-India Security Strategy: Council on Foreign Relations - Foreign Policy In Focus - Danger Room

Popularity: 3% [?]

From Kavkaz-Center:

The US is considering a plan to create gangs of mercenaries from local population in the border areas of Pakistan to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban, emulating its tactics in Iraq’s Anbar province.

The plan would involve increasing the number of US trainers in Pakistan by dozens from the current number of around 50, and the direct financing of a separate tribal “paramilitary force” that has so far proved largely ineffective. Washington would also pay militias that agreed to fight al-Qaida and foreign “extremists”…

Some other elements of the campaign, approved in principle by the US and Pakistan, await funding. They include 0m (£170.7m) over several years to help train and equip the frontier corps, a “paramilitary force” that has around 85,000 members and is recruited from border tribes.

The Pentagon has this to add, from GlobalSecurity via Voice of America:

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says the idea of trying to engage Pakistani tribal leaders came from a visit to Pakistan by the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, Admiral Eric Olson. Admiral Olson is the lead defense official in the effort to increase international cooperation in the global war on terror, and to enhance the capabilities of partner nations.

“Admiral Olson went there,” he said. “He met with the Pakistanis. And they were both desirous of figuring out ways in which there could be greater cooperation. That’s it.”

Morrell says the Admiral’s staff at Special Operations Command developed some proposals, and the New York Times says those ideas are now being circulated among experts outside the Defense Department. But Morrell says the ideas have not been endorsed by Admiral Olson or anyone else.

Note that the Pentagon isn’t disavowing the report, they’re simply saying it hasn’t been officially endorsed. Additionally, given that the US policy in Anbar could be reasonably considered a success from a PR point of view, it’s only natural that they would look elsewhere to see if the same policy could be useful. However, it does raise some questions about the consequences of such policy, something that remains unknown even in Anbar. Are these militias pro-US or simply anti-Taliban, and at the heart of it, who is using whom?

Popularity: 2% [?]

From The World Next Week via Intellibriefs:

MIT Professor Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) social welfare organisation is hoping to ship 5 million to 10 million cheap laptops to developing countries this year. But the nonprofit organisation will struggle to lower the actual cost and increase the sales of its so-called ‘$100 laptop’ in the face of competition.

Negroponte’s original plan was based upon economies of scale. He expected the governments of developing countries to order millions of his cheap XO-1 laptops in order to cut manufacturing costs. The ‘$100 laptop’ currently costs $180 to buy, but almost $200 to make. But major electronics companies — such as Intel and Taiwan’s Asus Computer — befog the professor’s worthy vision: they are introducing similarly-priced rival laptops that will also deliver cheap computing to poor children, and turn a profit.

Judging whether the OLPC program was a success or failure lies in perspective. Certainly from Negroponte’s point of view it could be called a failure, but in fulfilling the larger aims of the program, that is “bringing internet connectivity to areas that currently lack telecommunications infrastructure,” time will no doubt show that OLPC was a resounding success.

Corporate enterprise may not have taken the lead on technology in the developing world, but the fact that they have shifted from undermining the OLPC to competing with it shows that the UN does have the power to reach humanitarian goals, even if that power is only bullying business into action. Certainly corporate enterprise would prefer a price war with the UN to more harmful practices like market planning and trade regulation, and with the right publicity, the UN would appreciate a new image as an innovator in humanitarian capitalism.

For more info on the OLPC - Laptop.org (official) - Wikipedia

Popularity: 2% [?]