The Indian Panorama

Tag: Afghanistan

  • Hard work ahead for re-elected Obama

    Hard work ahead for re-elected Obama

    On November 5, 2008, Barack Obama, an African-American, made history when he was elected the 44th president of the United States. The world’s oldest democracy had finally broken the race ceiling and a ‘man of color’ was set to occupy the White House.

    This year, on November 6, that part of history did not matter. President Obama was re-elected by a convincing majority and will now join the ranks of two-term U.S. presidents. And when he completes his second term in 2016, Obama would still be under 56.

    The challenges for Obama are stark and complex — both in the domestic context and on the external front. On the home front, the economic stasis and related unemployment figures (7.9 percent) will need urgent attention, more so against the backdrop of campaign promises about getting America back on track. The ‘fiscal cliff’ looms large and a divided U.S. Congress will not make for easy or amicable consensus on tax cuts and public spending.

    The foreign and security policy challenges are no less daunting and time critical. For a president who assumed office in January 2009 even as the United States was waging two wars — Iraq and Afghanistan — the radar screen is cluttered, particularly in relation to Asia. Iran looms large and Af-Pak has the 2014 deadline drawing closer.
    The China factor is the overarching presence in the continent and it is no coincidence that Beijing is set to elect its own president, Xi Jinping this week. With a new hand on the tiller, Beijing’s orientation towards the U.S. against the backdrop of the Obama Asian pivot will be the critical determinant in defining the geo-strategic texture of the Asian region.

    While seeking to restore economic vitality in the domestic context, Obama will have to concurrently establish U.S. credibility as a security guarantor with its anxious allies in Asia. Both East Asia and South East Asia are in a dilemma about how best to balance their own relations with an assertive China and a reticent United States. West Asia remains wary with an Arab Spring that has turned into a sullen autumn.

    South Asia is the more intractable nettle for the U.S. given the tenacity of the terror complex that inhabits the Af-Pak swathe and the obduracy of a nuclear armed Rawalpindi which remains inflexible about nurturing the forces of right-wing Islamic religious extremism.

    It merits recall that in March 2009, in his maiden address on this issue, Obama asserted: “We have a clear and focused goal – to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future … to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.”

    The Abbottabad operation of May 2011 that eliminated Osama bin Laden was one of the major successes in Obama’s first term and played no small role in burnishing the profile of the U.S. president as a competent commander-in-chief. But as Libya demonstrated, the footprint of anti-U.S. sentiment that takes recourse to terror and pre-meditated violence has gone global and the goal of March 2009 may still remain elusive — even after 2014.

    Paradoxically, while China and Japan had good reason to weigh the pros and cons of an Obama or Romney victory, for India either outcome would have seen a continuity in the bilateral relationship. The U.S.-India relationship has moved from prickly estrangement to tentative engagement since 2008 and bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress apropos imparting greater content is widespread.

    While differences over issues like Iran will persist, for India there is comfort in working with an Obama administration that has already invested four years into the fine print of the partnership. Given the fact that India will be preparing for its own general election in early 2014, the next 12 months are the only window left for the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh to pursue the big-ticket issues with the United States.

    New Delhi can derive satisfaction from the reality that it has the comfort of continuity in the White House and has been spared the vagaries of a new U.S. administration getting its own team into place — a process that can be time-consuming and contested. If Manmohan Singh can find the political will to engage with President Obama and pursue the many stalled bilateral initiatives with the United States, hopefully the next year will be more meaningful for a partnership that seems to have been adrift for some time.

    If the campaign trail was a hard slog, the tough part for Obama begins now.

  • Obama becomes 14th US Prez to win a 2nd Term

    Obama becomes 14th US Prez to win a 2nd Term

    NEW YORK (TIP): President Obama won a second term November 6 night and became the 14th US President to win a second term. He promised his thrilled supporters at the victory celebrations in Chicago that for the United States of America “the best is yet to come.” He congratulated his opponent Mitt Romney and said, “In the weeks ahead I am looking forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to discuss how we can move this country forward.”

    In a victory speech studded with the soaring rhetoric that first drew voters to him in 2008, Obama reminded the electorate what was still on his agenda — immigration reform, climate change and job creation.
    “Tonight, you voted for action not politics as usual.” he told supporters in Chicago. “You elected us to focus on your job, not ours.”

    Obama told Romney supporters that “I have listened to you… you have made me a better president.” He added, “I return to the White House more determined, more inspired than ever.

    The election is a validation, if not an overwhelming mandate, in support of the president’s policies of the last four years, which included a major overhaul of the healthcare system and a drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Top Republican lawmaker John Boehner said on Thursday he would not make it his mission to repeal the Obama administration’s healthcare reform law following the re-election of President Barack Obama.

    “The election changes that,” Boehner, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, told ABC news anchor Diane Sawyer when asked if repealing the law was “still your mission.”

    “It’s pretty clear that the president was re-elected,” Boehner added. “Obamacare is the law of the land.”
    Obama built a coalition of young people, minorities, and college educated women and won by turning out supporters with a carefully calibrated ground operation to get out the vote in crucial states like Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin.
    He thanked those who voted “whether you voted for very first time, or waited in line for a very long time — by the way we have to fix that,” he joked.

    He thanked Vice President Joe Biden, whom he called “America’s best happy warrior” and first lady Michele Obama.
    “Sasha and Malia,” he said addressing his two daughters. “You’re growing up to be two strong, smart, beautiful young women…I’m so proud of you. But I will say for now, one dog is probably enough,” he said riffing on his promise of a puppy four years ago.

    Prior to the president’s speech, Mitt Romney conceded gracefully in Boston.

    “I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes….but the nation chose another leader,” Romney told heart broken supporters at his Boston headquarters.

    “I pray the president will be successful in guiding our nation,” Romney said before running mate Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and their families joined Romney on the podium.

    Obama’s lease on the White House was renewed with a crucial victory in Ohio.

    Celebrations erupted in Obama’s home town of Chicago, in New York’s Time Square and outside the White House, while Romney’s Boston headquarters went mournfully quiet.

    “We’re all in this together. That’s how we campaigned, and that’s who we are. Thank you,” Obama tweeted even before formally announcing his victory.

    After a campaign for the White House and both houses of Congress that cost more than $6 billion, the make up of all three branches remains very much the same as it was before the election. Obama remains in the White House, Democrats retain control of the Senate and Republicans continue to control the House.

    The participants were themselves history making, the first black president running against the first Mormon presidential nominee to make it the general election. But for the most part the election turned not the politics of identity but of the economy.

    The election took place against the backdrop of a slow economic recovery. From its outset, both campaigns knew the race would come down to the economy, and both tried to tailor their appeals to middle class families struggling with inflation and unemployment.

    Obama routinely reminded voters he had inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and pointed to policies he led, including the auto bailout, and signs of improvement including a drop in the unemployment rate.

    Obama portrayed Romney as an out of touch millionaire intent on helping the rich at the expense of the middle class when they were hurting the most. That impression seemed to stick with voters who nationally said by 55 to 40 percent that they believed the economic system favors the wealthy rather than being fair to most people, according to exit polls.

    The candidates also tangled over health care, abortion, and taxes, leading to a bevy of negative ads.
    The campaign was the most expensive in history, with each candidate raising nearly $1 billion a piece.

  • 15 Ground-Breaking Documentaries premiered at SAFF’s 9th Annual International Film Festival

    15 Ground-Breaking Documentaries premiered at SAFF’s 9th Annual International Film Festival

    NEW YORK,NY (TIP): Despite the Hurricane Sandy onslaught, a large number of people attended the Sikh International Film Festival at the Asia Society to celebrate and commemorate Sikh art, culture, leadership, and films on Saturday, Nov. 3. Presented by the Sikh Art & Film Foundation (SAFF), the film festival premiered 15 short films and documentaries featuring Sikh stories from across the globe, from both established and emerging filmmakers. Short films were shown from noon to 2 p.m.; short documentaries from 3 to 5 p.m., and premiere documentaries from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The event culminated with an after-party and awards ceremony from 9:00 p.m. to midnight. The winners were:
    Brendan Nehmias for “Humble the Poet” – Best Short Film Michael Singh for “Visionary” – Best Short Documentary

    Winning films in the category of Best Short Film and Best Documentary were recognized with cash prizes that totaled $15,000.

    Five films made their World Premiere at Sikh International Film Festival 2012 including: Oak Creek: In Memoriam, from award-winning filmmaker Valarie Kaur (Divided We Fall), a recently completed short documentary commemorating the tragic shootings at Oak Creek; We Are Sikhs: a Poem, a short by Amardeep Kaleka, whose father was killed at Oak Creek; The Volunteers, British director Mark Hammett’s short feature about a young nursing home volunteer learning about Sikhs during World War II and the Burmese War; Injustice 1984, a film by Jarnail Singh which uncovers ugly truths behind the 1984 massacre from one family’s perspective, and The Sikhs of Kabul, a hard-hitting look at the minority Sikh population still living in Kabul, Afghanistan, where, during Taliban rule, they fell to the lowest rungs of society, and remain confined to a compound. Making its U.S. Premiere was Hola! The Mighty Colors, filmmaker Teena Kaur’s story about the Sikh celebration.

    Other titles shown were the short Humble the Poet about the tattooed hip-hop artist who is also a practicing Sikh in Toronto; Namrata, a true story of Namrata “Mona” Gil, an abused Sikh woman who becomes a police officer in Canada; The Visionary, a new film by controversial director Michael Singh; Sikhs@War, the story of the Sikhs who were recruited to fight for the Allies during WWI and WWII; #MyTurban, interviews with prominent Sikhs that were created from a social networking initiative; Beyond the Gardens’ Wall, about the harsh treatment of Sikh and Chinese immigrants who came to work in British Columbia in the early 1900s; Kartiviya, a short narrative film about a New York Sikh cab driver and grandiose promises made by a passenger; Remembrance: A Sikh Story about Sikhs in the Great Wars, and Five Folds, a narrative father-son drama.

    During the 7:00 p.m. documentary premiere series, the Sikh Art & Film Foundation premiered a multi-million dollar public service announcement campaign called Be Proud, created by Gurbaksh Chahal, Be Proud Foundation Founder and Founder & CEO of RadiumOne. The Be Proud campaign, created in the wake of the tragic Gurudwara shootings of six innocent Sikhs in Wisconsin in August, will begin airing nationwide in mid-November 2012, bringing its anti-hate, pro-unity message to Americans from all walks of life. The campaign, which is backed by renowned figures such as Sir Ben Kingsley, Deepak Chopra, Jay Sean, Gurinder Chadha, Kabir Bedi, Vikas Khanna, RDB, Anupam Kher, Lisa Ray,Priyanka Chopra, Eva Longoria, and Aamir Khan, is about eliminating hate with the “unifying truth that we are all a little different and we should be proud of what makes us unique,” according to Mr. Chahal. Be Proud will also be recording videos at the Gala that will be used on the Be Proud website, www.beproud.org.
    The Sikh International Film Festival was founded in 2003 to create awareness and pride in the diversity, culture and history of the Sikhs, a people rooted in the Punjab region of South Asia who practice the world’s fifth largest religion. Announcing the 2012 Film Festival and Sikh Heritage Gala, Tejinder S. Bindra, President of the Foundation, said, “In offering this year’s excellent lineup of films and events and sponsoring the Be Proud campaign, we renewed our mission to demonstrate Sikh culture and stand with our partners in declaring that intercultural understanding, fighting for the oppressed, and respect for each other’s differences are not just our core Sikh values, they are also our American values.”

    The Film Festival was sponsored by Habib Bank. The bank’s Senior Vice President Rizwan Qureshi, in his brief remarks extolled the work being done by the Sikh Art & Film Foundation and said Habib Bank was happy to associate itself with the organization.

    The Guest of Honor, Pratap Singh Bajwa, a Member of India’s Parliament was moved to see the plight of Sikhs in Afghanistan in the documentary ‘The Sikhs of Kabul’. He said he would take up the cause of Afghanistan Sikhs with the Prime Minister of India and make sure effective steps are taken by government of India to help them.
    Among the more prominent Sikhs present included hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal and Master Card CEO Ajay Banga.

  • The United States and India: A Vital Partnership in a Changing World

    The United States and India: A Vital Partnership in a Changing World

    The issue that I’ve been asked to address today — India’s rise and the promise of U.S.-Indian partnership — is one of those rarest of Washington species, especially ten days before a Presidential election, a genuinely bipartisan policy priority. I have been fortunate to play a small role in building our relationship with India over the past five years, spanning two U.S. Administrations, including the completion of the historic civil nuclear agreement by then-President Bush and Prime Minister Singh in 2008, and the landmark visits of Prime Minister Singh to the U.S. in 2009 and President Obama to India in 2010. I just returned from another visit to New Delhi, at the end of a fascinating trip across Asia, surely the most consequential region of the world in the new century unfolding before us.

    I remember well all the questions that spun around our relationship four years ago, as the Bush Administration gave way to the Obama Administration. Would we “re-hyphenate” relations with India, and see India mainly through the prism of preoccupations in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Would we be tempted by visions of a “G-2” world, subordinating relations with India to the significance of a rising China? Would India see as clearly as others how important its role in the world was becoming, and see beyond its G-77 past to its G-20 future? Would Indians embrace the rising responsibilities that come with rising influence?

    Debates were held. Papers were written. Hands were wrung. But together we’ve largely moved beyond those honest questions and concerns. Of course some suspicions linger, and some differences persist, which is only natural. Of course we have a great deal more work to do. But there is growing confidence in both our countries about what my longtime colleague and friend, India’s National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, has recently described as a steady convergence of interests and values. Indians and Americans, it seems to me, understand that the only “hyphen” we will pursue with respect to our relationship is the one that links the United States and India.

    The essence of the vital partnership that we’re building lies in a simple truth. For the first time, for both of us, our individual success at home and abroad depends significantly on our cooperation.

    Progress between us won’t always be measured in dramatic breakthroughs, like President Bush’s civil-nuclear initiative, or dramatic moments, like President Obama’s declaration of support for India’s permanent membership in a reformed UN Security Council. It won’t be measured in diplomatic honeymoons which never end. It won’t be measured in some special alchemy that magically transforms strategic convergence and powerful aspirations into meaningful cooperation.

    The real measure of progress in our increasingly vital partnership will instead be steady focus, persistence, hard work, systematic habits of collaboration, and methodically widening the arc of common interests and complementary actions. With that in mind, let me highlight quickly three important dimensions of the work — and the promise — that lies ahead of us: strengthening strategic cooperation; building shared prosperity; and deepening people to people ties.

    I. Strategic Cooperation

    First, as India’s recent economic rise has expanded its role and deepened its stake in shaping the international system, we are counting on India’s rise as a truly global power — one that looks east and west, a strategic partner for economic growth, security, and the provision of public goods.

    Last December in Pune, I spoke to Indian international affairs students. I told them that the U.S.-India relationship must be a cornerstone of the Asia-Pacific century ahead. And as the world’s economic and strategic center of gravity shifts east, the United States is not the only nation emphasizing its role as a resident diplomatic, economic and military power in the Asia-Pacific. India’s distinguished former Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, has also observed that India’s own engagement in East Asia reflects “the concept of the Asia-Pacific, which hitherto excluded India, expanding westwards to encompass the subcontinent as its integral part.”

    India and the United States have a powerful and shared interest in an Asia-Pacific where economic interdependence drives growth and shared prosperity … where disputes are resolved peacefully… where rules are respected and patterns of political and economic behavior favor openness. So we are working to define a shared agenda to help achieve and assure those goals.

    India has shown increasing signs that it intends to build on its longstanding “Look East” policy. I came away from my recent visits to India and Burma with renewed admiration for the East-West connectivity agenda India’s leadership is advancing across Southeast Asia. India is revitalizing centuries-old commercial ties with countries to its east and making headway on an Indo-Pacific corridor through Bangladesh and Burma that connects South and Southeast Asia.
    India just hosted the Mekong-Ganga ministerial meeting and held 2+2 consultations with Japan, and next week will host the U.S. and Japan for trilateral consultations. The ASEAN-India Summit will come to New Delhi this winter. Some may dismiss India’s efforts to become more embedded in the regional diplomatic architecture of the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum and APEC as maybe good for India’s hotel industry, but really just so many talk shops. But consider this: last week, India’s External Affairs Minister was in Brunei celebrating $80 billion in India-ASEAN trade this year — up 37% in the last year alone. We should all find talk shops as profitable as these.

    We all obviously also have to keep a very careful eye on less promising trends across the region, and the revival of old animosities that can quickly undermine the promise of economic interdependence and easy assumptions about shared prosperity. Recent frictions in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea are a sobering reminder of how fast nationalism and maximalism can rear their heads. All that should simply reinforce the interest of the U.S. and India in encouraging dialogue and diplomacy, instead of intimidation and coercion.

    Looking westward, both the United States and India have a strong interest in a peaceful, stable future for Afghanistan. The same week the U.S. and Afghanistan signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement in May, New Delhi hosted the inaugural meeting of the India-Afghanistan Partnership Council and in a few weeks President Karzai will pay a return visit to Delhi. India and the U.S. share a long-term commitment to pursue sustainable economic growth, strong democratic institutions and an Afghan-led process of peace and reconciliation — commitments reflected in the first United States-India-Afghanistan trilateral dialogue in September.

    For our part, the United States will lead a security transition in — not a departure from — Afghanistan. As Secretary Clinton has made clear, none of us can afford to repeat the mistakes that followed the Soviet exit from Afghanistan. With coalition forces drawing down, Afghanistan will need massive private investment and far greater economic linkages to its neighbors.

    India has committed more than $2 billion in development assistance to Afghanistan since 2001, building on ties that go back to the early Indus Valley civilizations. Even without direct access to India’s growing markets, Afghanistan already sends one quarter of its exports to India. Extending trade and transit agreements outward to India and Central Asia will allow Afghan traders to return to the marketplaces of Amritsar and Delhi. In June, when India hosted its own investment conference with Afghanistan, attendance far outstripped expectations, reminding us how organic these connections are. There has also been good progress on the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, though a great deal of work still lies ahead. The vision of a “New Silk Road” is not a single path, it is a long-term vision of economic, transit, infrastructure and human links across Asia. And India is its natural engine.

    Deeper defense and security ties have become another leading indicator of a burgeoning strategic partnership. As India’s military influence grows, our hope is that our partnership can become one of our closest in the region. We are united by our experience of tragedy and terror, shared threats in Afghanistan and a shared vision for a peaceful and open Asia-Pacific. We are proud of our robust counterterrorism cooperation, which simply didn’t exist until a few years ago — and now extends to all levels of policy and law enforcement.

    Since 2008, India has bought over $8 billion in U.S. defense equipment, up from effectively zero less than a decade ago. When we complete delivery of India’s $4 billion in C-17 aircraft, our combined fleet will represent the largest air lift capability in the world. These are indispensable assets for global response to crisis and disaster; last year’s delivery of the C-130J Hercules came just in time for rescue operations after the Sikkim earthquake. Our military services conduct some of their largest joint exercises with India, including over fifty formal engagements in the past year. As our defense relationship evolves from “buyer-seller” to co-production and joint research, we will be ambitious, and we ask India to be equally ambitious in sharing this vision of a new security partnership with the United States.

    As our partnership matures, we will continue to seek India’s help in building what Secretary Clinton has called “a global architecture of cooperation.” While it is true that the international architecture has sometimes struggled to keep up with the emergence of a rising India, it is equally true that India has sometimes bristled at the burdens of global leadership. Both need to change, and both, I would argue, are changing. As President Obama said in his 2010 address to the Indian Parliament, the United States looks forward to “a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.”

    But India is not waiting for a permanent seat to begin exercising leadership. The list of India’s global contributions is long and growing: deep engagement in the Global Counterterrorism Forum … tough votes at the IAEA against Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations, and a lowering of dependence on Iranian crude … election support in Egypt … and peacekeepers around the globe. In the UN Human Rights Council, India made a powerful call for enhanced efforts to achieve reconciliation and accountability in troubled Sri Lanka. While we certainly don’t agree on everything, or see eye-to-eye on every issue, what matters is that India is continuing to use its resources and standing to help others enjoy the peace, prosperity and freedom its own people have worked so hard to achieve for themselves.

    II. Shared Prosperity

    The second critical area of cooperation is economic, consistent with Secretary Clinton’s greater emphasis on economic statecraft in America’s relationships around the world. But in this case, it is also a reflection of India’s vast potential and the realization that America’s and India’s long-term economic interests are essentially congruent and mutually reinforcing.

    Each of us is eager to put to rest questions about our economic staying power. In America, we obviously have to continue to put our own economic house in order. India has seen currency devaluation and high inflation, and its economic growth has slipped. We can and must help each other grow, and prove our doubters wrong.

    India’s modernization and the lifting of hundreds of millions of its own citizens out of poverty rightly remains the focus of the Indian government. In this endeavor, India has no more important partner than the United States. Our total direct investment in India in 2000 was $2.4 billion. By 2010, it was $27 billion. By the way, over roughly the same time period, the stock of Indian direct investment in America grew from a little over $200 million to nearly $5 billion – more than a twenty-fold increase. So we have literally never been so invested in each other’s success.
    Our economic relationship is very much a two-way street. Both of us are focused on attracting growth and investment to our shores. An Indian-owned Tata factory in Ohio puts thousands of Americans to work, part of the over 50,000 jobs Indian firms have created in the United States. And the opportunities for small, medium and large American businesses in India are staggering. While it’s well-known that India is projected to be the world’s third-largest economy by 2025, what is less well-known is that 90% of India is still without broadband; that 80% of the India of 2030 hasn’t yet been built, according to McKinsey; that India plans to invest one trillion dollars on infrastructure in the next five years alone. That is why Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley visited India, and came back with $60 million in two-way business. That is why Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear visited India three times and helped bring about a $7 billion private sector energy deal. That is why Norfolk has a sister-city alliance with Kochi in Kerala that has helped Virginia export nearly $300 million in goods to India each year.

    Of course, for our companies to provide the technology and expertise to help India prosper, India’s government must create an environment that encourages growth. That is why India’s recent easing of some restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment are so promising. Indian multi-brand retail, aviation, power grid and broadcasting companies and markets will be more open to investment, technologies, and best practices from all around the world. It will be easier to bring food to market. India’s Commerce Ministry estimates these changes will create 10 million jobs for its young and growing population. As encouraging as these changes are, we all know there is more to do to bring predictability to the Indian market — for India’s sake and for the sake of our economic relations.

    Greater economic openness is not a concession to the United States. It is one of the most powerful tools India has to maintain and expand its growth. In New Delhi last week, I urged my Indian counterparts to address non-tariff barriers, favoritism for local companies, restrictions on foreign investment and intellectual property protection — because progress and predictability will only shore up India’s economic foundations.

    So will a U.S.-India Bilateral Investment Treaty. We are aiming for a high-quality agreement that expands on recent reforms to provide still greater openness to investment; strong rules to protect investors and guarantee transparency; and effective means for resolving disputes should they arise.

    So will the Infrastructure Debt Fund, a consortium of Indian and American corporations and banks — created by the U.S.-India CEO Forum to finance India’s massive investment in roads, grids, seaports, airports and all the necessary building blocks of a modern economy.

    And so will a steady supply of energy. The Civil-Nuclear Initiative still holds remarkable promise for the people of India and the United States. Without diminishing the very real and often frustrating challenges we have faced, both our governments are now engaged in realizing the practical benefits of the civil-nuclear agreement, especially reliable electricity for India’s homes and businesses. Our companies are making good headway in negotiations with their Indian counterpart to complete pre-early works agreements by the end of this year. In June, Westinghouse and India’s Nuclear Power Corporation took important early steps that will lead to Westinghouse nuclear reactors in Gujarat. We hope General Electric can follow suit. The Indian government has clearly indicated that nuclear energy will remain an important part of India’s energy equation, and we are equally committed to expanding cooperation in other areas, from wind and solar energy to natural gas and biofuels.

    Of course, there is still more we can do. If we do not seize these economic opportunities, others will, and we will fall behind. Japan, Canada and the European Union are all moving to open up trade with India. Our goal should be to think ambitiously about the opportunities we can offer our businesses — including our small business and globalized entrepreneurs — through deepened economic engagement with India.

    III. People-to-People

    As important as economic resources and capital are, India has no greater resource and no richer source of capital than its own people. That brings me to my third area of cooperation: people-to-people ties. Some might think this “soft” or besides the point with hard security issues at stake. Diplomatic and economic dialogues are critical, but they are not enough for a twenty-first century friendship like ours. As Secretary Clinton has said, our greatest friendships have never been confined to the halls of power. They live also in the aspirations and interactions of our people. The phrase “people to people” actually covers tremendous ground in our relationship: science and technology, educational exchange, civil society engagement and innovation. The organic growth of people-to-people ties is what has set the pace in our relationship for many years, and our governments are only now catching up.

    The talents of the Indian diaspora are creating wealth from Calcutta to California. At a time when Indian immigrants comprised less than 1% of America’s population, they founded more than six percent of America’s startups, and over thirteen percent of the startups in Silicon Valley that powered our economy through the 1990s. We can all be proud of the successes of Indian-Americans in the U.S. and their contributions in boardrooms, classrooms, laboratories and now in the governor’s offices of South Carolina and Louisiana.

    We support student exchanges because we know from experience that today’s participants become tomorrow’s constituents for a strong U.S.-India relationship — from business leaders like Ratan Tata, educated at Harvard and Cornell; to statesmen like India’s External Affairs Minister, SM Krishna, a Fulbright Scholar who studied at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and George Washington University just up the street.

    In 2011, we held a U.S.-India Higher Education summit to usher in a new era of government support for people-to-people ties. 100,000 Indian students study in the U.S. every year, and we created a program called “Passport to India” to increase the numbers of young people heading in the other direction to learn and serve. A common determination to educate our children is one more tie that binds America and India together.

    And when tragedy strikes, as it did last August at a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, we come together to mourn and to heal. American police officers risked their lives to stop the gunman before he could do any more harm. The President personally reached out to India and to Indian-Americans, calling the Sikh community, “a part of our broader American family” and ordered flags to be flown at half-staff at every U.S. federal building in America and every U.S. mission around the world. The First Lady went to Wisconsin to show her support in person. The powerful response to this tragedy showed the very values of tolerance that the gunman sought to threaten. These, too, are values that Indians and Americans share.

    Conclusion

    While the potential of our bilateral relationship is limitless, I want to assure you that my remarks this morning are not.

    Much is possible as we deepen strategic cooperation and strengthen our economic and people-to-people ties. But we have to tend carefully to our partnership. Further progress is neither automatic nor pre-ordained. Keeping a partnership on track between two proud, noisy democracies takes vision and steady commitment. It’s a little like riding a bike; either you keep peddling ahead, or you tend to fall over.

    I remain an optimist about what’s possible for Indians and Americans. The truth is that there has never been a moment when India and America mattered more to one another. And there has never been a moment when partnership between us mattered more to the rest of the globe. As two of the world’s leading-democracies and most influential powers, we can help build a new international order — in which other democracies can flourish, human dignity is advanced, poverty is reduced, trade is expanded, our environment is preserved, violent extremism is marginalized, the spread of weapons of mass destruction is curbed, and new frontiers in science and technology are explored. That is the moment, and the promise, which lies before us.

    (Speech delivered by US Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns at Center for American Progress, Washington DC October 26, 2012)

  • 41 killed in Eid bombing at Afghanistan mosque

    41 killed in Eid bombing at Afghanistan mosque

    Kabul (TIP): At least 41 people were killed and 34 wounded when a suicide bomber wearing a police uniform targeted a mosque in northern Afghanistan’s Mainama city just after Eid-ul-Azha prayers, an official said. “A suicide bomber targeted a mosque while people were leaving the mosque building after the Eid-ul-Azha prayers at around 9 a.m. Friday in Maimana city, killing 41 people and injuring 34 others,” deputy to provincial governor Abdul Satar Bariz told Xinhua. The dead include 23 members of the Afghan National Police, Bariz said, adding that the provincial police chief Abdul Khaliq Aqsay was among the wounded. The bomber wore a police uniform as security was tight. High-ranking provincial officials were attending the prayers in Eid Gah mosque, the biggest mosque in the city, Bariz said. However, local media Tolo News reported that the police chief of Faryab was killed in the attack, citing a member of Afghan Parliament from Faryab province.

  • No Light at the End of the Tunnel

    No Light at the End of the Tunnel

    Whatever the outcome of Presidential election, the average American will find nothing to cheer him. The indication is clear from the debates that we have been witness to. It is just a blame game in which each tries to outdo the other. There is a competition to make tall claims about improving the lot of Americans and secure the future of America. But can either party do it?

    Given the scenario, it appears well nigh impossible for any one to lift the country out of the morass it has got stuck in to. One will need courage and statesmanship to take some tough decisions to bring succor to the common man. One, US involvement in wars abroad must end. Imagine, the cost-material and human.

    Material cost runs into trillions of dollars. The fact is US has to borrow money from the market and pay interest on it to meet the cost of the military engagements abroad. An already battered economy gets battered further. The debt keeps growing by the hour. And then the human loss. Thousands of US soldiers have died fighting in wars abroad, leaving their families devastated.

    We had made a mistake by engaging ourselves in Vietnam. We thought we had learnt our lesson and that we will never ever again tread that path. But we made a mistake again. This time in Iraq. We kept shouting from the rooftop Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but we never found any. We were responsible for making a whole people miserable. That nation continues to remain in a permanent state of conflict and misery. We lost our men in war there. And then we turned to Afghanistan. We are trapped there We talk of bringing back home our soldiers by 2014. But already there is a louder talk in one quarter that Afghanistan cannot be left to fend for itself.

    We are ready to go in to another war; this time with Iran. Republicans have made their intentions clear that they will go against Iran to support Israel and Israel keeps repeating Iran is on threshold to acquire nuclear weapons. However, it will be suicidal for US to get involved in another war.

    The common man, the average man does not see anything to cheer him in times to come. Nor will he be enthused about who occupies the White House for the next four years, beginning 2013. For him, there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

  • Al-Qaida in Afghanistan attempting a comeback

    Al-Qaida in Afghanistan attempting a comeback

    NEW YORK (TIP): A diminished but resilient al-Qaida, whose September 11, 2001, attacks drew America into its longest war, is attempting a comeback in Afghanistan’s mountainous east even as US and allied forces wind down their combat mission and concede a small but steady toehold to the terrorist group, says an AP report.

    That concerns US commanders, who have intensified strikes against al-Qaida cells in recent months.

    It also undercuts an Obama administration narrative portraying al-Qaida as battered to the point of being a non issue in Afghanistan as Western troops start leaving.

    When he visited Afghanistan in May to mark the one-year anniversary of the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden, President Barack Obama said his administration had turned the tide of war.

    “The goal that I set to defeat al-Qaida, and deny it a chance to rebuild is within reach,” he said.
    As things stand, however, an unquestionably weakened al-Qaida appears to have preserved at least limited means of regenerating inside Afghanistan as US influence in the country wanes.

    The last US combat troops are scheduled to be gone by December 31, 2014, with security matters turned over to the Afghan government.

    “They are trying to increase their numbers and take advantage of the Americans leaving,” the police chief of Paktika province, Gen. Dawlat Khan Zadran, said through a translator in an interview in October in the governor’s compound.
    He mentioned no numbers, but said al-Qaida has moved more weapons across the border from Pakistan.

    For years the main target of US-led forces has been the Taliban, rulers of Afghanistan and protectors of al-Qaida before the US invasion 11 years ago. But the strategic goal is to prevent al-Qaida from again finding haven in Afghanistan from which to launch attacks on the US.

    Al-Qaida’s leadership fled in late 2001 to neighboring Pakistan, where it remains.

    The group remains active inside Afghanistan, fighting US troops, spreading extremist messages, raising money, recruiting young Afghans and providing military expertise to the Taliban and other radical groups.

    US Gen. John Allen, the top commander of international forces in Afghanistan, has said al-Qaida has re-emerged, and although its numbers are small, he says the group doesn’t need a large presence to be influential.

    US officials say they are committed, even after the combat mission ends in 2014, to doing whatever it takes to prevent a major resurgence.

    The Americans intend, for example, to have special operations forces at the ready to keep a long-term lid on al-Qaida inside Afghanistan.

  • Kerala Center to honor six at Awards Banquet on November 3rd

    Kerala Center to honor six at Awards Banquet on November 3rd

    NEW YORK (TIP):The Indian American Kerala Cultural and Civic Center (http://keralacenterny.com) will honor five Indian American Malayalees for their outstanding achievements in their field of specialization or for their service to the society and one diplomat for his service to the UN. The awardees will be honored at Kerala Center’s annual banquet on Saturday, November 3rd starting at 7.00 p.m. at Leonards of Great Neck in Long Island, 555 Northern Boulevard, Great Neck, NY 11021.

    The Chief Guest for the evening is Vijay K. Nambiar, Under Secretary-General and Special Adviser of the UN Secretary-General on Myanmar. Ambassador Nambiar will be honored for his service to the U,N. The keynote speaker is Dr. Geeta Menon, Dean, Undergraduate College and Abraham Krasnoff Professor of Global Business, Stern School of Business, New York University. Dr. Menon will also be honored for her achievement in the field of Education. Other award recipients who will be honored at the Awards Banquet are: Joy Kuttiyani, President of Kerala Samajam of South Florida, whose initiative to erect Mahatma Gandhi came to fruition recently for Community Service; Viju Menon, Vice President of Supply Chain Management at Verizon, the largest wireless carrier in the United States for Applied Sciences; Dr. Narayanan Neithalath is an Associate Professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, for Engineering; Roy Thomas, Deputy Director at New York State Mental Health Department for Social Work.

    An entertainment will follow after the award ceremony with a special performance by Wanted Ashiq, NY’s Premier Bollywood & Fusion Dance Troupe. Tickets for banquet can be reserved by contacting Kerala Center at 516-358-2000 or e-mail at kc@keralacenterny.com.

    This year’s awardees are as follows:

    Chief Guest and Being Recognized for Service to the UN

    Vijay Nambiar

    Ambassador Vijay Nambiar is Under Secretary-General and Special Adviser of the UN Secretary-General on Myanmar. He has been with the United Nations for the last six years before which, as an Indian Foreign Service Officer, he spent thirty eight years with the Government of India and served between 1985 and 2004 as Ambassador of India in Algeria, Afghanistan, Malaysia, China, Pakistan and the United Nations. He is fluent in Chinese and holds a post-graduate degree from Bombay University where he was awarded the Chancellor’s Gold Medal in 1965. He is married to Malini Nambiar and has two daughters.

    Keynote Speaker – Recognition for Outstanding Achievement in Education

    Dr. Geeta Menon

    Dr. Geeta Menon is the 11th Dean of the Undergraduate College at NYU’s Leonard N. Stern School of Business and the Abraham Krasnoff Professor of Global Business and Professor of Marketing. A respected educator at the graduate and undergraduate levels, she has mentored many doctoral students who have gone on to become faculty members at top schools. Dean Menon is also a prominent scholar whose study of the role of consumer memory and emotion in survey methodology has been published in leading academic journals, at which she has held editorial roles. She is the past President of the Association for Consumer Research (ACR). Dean Menon received her undergraduate degree from Stella Maris College and graduate degree from Madras Christian College in Chennai and Ph.D. in Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Recognition for Outstanding Community Service

    Joy Kuttiyani

    Joy Kuttiyani is the current president of Kerala Samajam of South Florida. He conceived the idea to create a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi on a half acre site in a public park in the city of Davie, where he lives. This was done with the involvement of a number of Indian Organizations and the City of Davie. The dedication of the Gandhi Square and the unveiling was done by Dr. Abdul Kalam along with American and Indian dignitaries. He is highly active in the both Indian and American political and community development. Advisory board member of Park & Recreation Town of Davie.

    Recognition for Outstanding Achievement in Applied Sciences

    Viju Menon

    Viju Menon is Vice President of Supply Chain Management at Verizon, the largest wireless carrier in the United States. He is a Fellow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Leaders for Global Operations Program with graduate degrees in Engineering and Management from MIT. Prior to Verizon, Viju led Intel Corporation’s World-wide Supply Planning Operations. A recognized thought-leader in Lean Manufacturing and Supply Chain Transformations, Viju has published in various journals and is an invited speaker at Industry Conferences. In 2012, Viju was selected to Diversity MBA Magazine’s “Top 100 Under 50” National list of “Diverse Executive and Emerging Leaders”.

    Recognition for Outstanding Achievement in Engineering

    Dr. Narayanan Neithalath

    Dr. Narayanan Neithalath is an Associate Professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment at Arizona State University, Tempe. AZ. Prior to that he was in the faculty at Clarkson University in Potsdam, NY. His expertise is in the science of sustainable materials for buildings and infrastructure. He is credited with developing, characterizing, and modeling novel cementitious materials that have lower carbon footprints, lower resource and energy implications, and lasts much longer, for use in infrastructural systems. He has authored more than 100 international journal and conference articles, and has delivered keynote lectures in several conferences within and outside the United States. His research on novel materials has been acknowledged by several awards including a CAREER award by the National Science Foundation.

    Recognition for Outstanding Accomplishments in Social Service

    Roy Thomas

    Roy Thomas has been appointed as the Deputy Director at New York State Mental Health Department by the Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo’s office. He is probably the only person of South Asian descent who is entrusted with this title in the history of the New York State Civil Service. During his last tenure of 5 years as the Chief of Service, his bold leadership and management was instrumental in transforming the Bronx Psychiatric Center into one of the leading hospitals in New York State. This landmark achievement has helped him to be chosen by the political leadership in Albany.

  • Al-Qaida still active, says Obama

    Al-Qaida still active, says Obama

    WASHINGTON (TIP): US President Barack Obama has conceded that al-Qaida is still active, despite the fact that its top leadership has been decimated in the last few years. “It’s true that al-Qaida is still active, at least sort of remnants of it are staging in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East,” Obama told the Comedy Central “The Daily Show” in an interview.

    “We’ve been able to do is to say we ended the war in Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’ve gone after al-Qaida and its leadership,” he said. Earlier in the day, his spokesman said that al-Qaida remains the number one enemy of the US, even as strength of this terrorist organization has been considerably weakened and many of its top leadership killed.

    “Al Qaida remains our number-one enemy and our number- one foe. That is why we focus so much of our attention on al-Qaida and its affiliates, because the struggle against al-Qaida continues, and the (US) President has been focused on it since the day he took office,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “This President, when he came into office, made clear his intention of refocusing our efforts on those who attacked the United States of America and killed Americans on September 11th, 2001. And he has kept that promise,” he said.

    “Our efforts against al-Qaida have inarguably led to success and progress, but the work is not done. Al-Qaida central and a leadership there has been devastated by our efforts and the efforts of our allies,” Carney said.

  • Malala’s attacker was held in 2009, then freed

    Malala’s attacker was held in 2009, then freed

    KHAR (TIP): One of the two Taliban militants suspected of attacking a teenage girl activist was detained by the Pakistani military in 2009 but subsequently released, intelligence officials said. Malala Yousufzai, 14, was shot and critically wounded on October 9 as she headed home from school in the northwest Swat Valley. The Taliban said they targeted Malala, a fierce advocate for girls’ education, because she promoted “Western thinking” and was critical of the militant group. They identified the man who planned the attack only as Attaullah, and said he was one of the two gunmen who shot her. The military had detained him during the army’s 2009 offensive in Swat because of suspected ties with the Pakistani Taliban, which had established effective control over the valley at the time, said two intelligence officials. Attaullah was released because of a lack of evidence linking him to specific attacks, said the officials. It’s unclear how long he was held. Believed to be in his 30s, Attaullah is on the run and may have fled to Afghanistan, they said. He organized the attack on the orders of Maulana Fazlullah, officials said.

  • Pakistan opposition thwarts anti-terror move

    Pakistan opposition thwarts anti-terror move

    ISLAMABAD: Pakistan government was forced to drop a move to seek parliament’s support for action against militants in the wake of the Taliban attack on teenage rights activist Malala Yousufzai, due to stiff opposition from PML-N of former PM Nawaz Sharif. The PPP-led ruling coalition dropped its plans to introduce a resolution in the National Assembly on Wednesday after opposition from the PML-N. Sources said the resolution called for “practical measures” against militants after the shooting of the 14-year-old schoolgirl.

    Senior PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, the leader of opposition, said the resolution was a precursor to a military operation in the Waziristan tribal region though Mualana Fazlullah, considered the mastermind of the attack on Malala, was hiding in Kunar province of Afghanistan. Khan also accused the government of failing to implement previous parliamentary resolutions aimed at tackling militancy. Religious affairs minister Khursheed Ahmed Shah rejected Khan’s allegations and said there was no mention of Waziristan in the proposed resolution. He said the PML-N could make changes to the draft or move a separate resolution on the issue. However, Khan insisted that the government merely wanted to get the opposition’s mandate to launch an operation in North Waziristan.

  • Obama nominates Dunford to head NATO forces in Afghanistan

    Obama nominates Dunford to head NATO forces in Afghanistan

    WASHINGTON: Gen Joseph Dunford, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps and a combat veteran who led a regiment in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been nominated by President Barack Obama as his new commander to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Dunford would replace Gen John Allen, who has now been nominated as next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), Obama said. Praising Allen for his contribution in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, Obama said he has personally relied on his counsel and is grateful for his devotion to US national security. “For more than a year, General Allen has served with distinction as the commander of US forces and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, seeing us through a critical period in our military efforts and in Afghanistan’s transition,” a statement from Obama said.

    “During his tenure in Afghanistan, General Allen established his credibility with our NATO allies and ISAF partners as a strong and effective military leader,” Obama said. Under Allen the US has made important progress towards its core goal of defeating al-Qaida and ensuring they can never return to a sovereign Afghanistan, Obama said. If confirmed by the Senate, General Dunford will preside over the withdrawal of most of the 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan expected by the end of 2014. General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, in a statement praised Gen Allen for his successes in Afghanistan. “General John Allen took command in the summer of 2011 as we were arresting and reversing insurgent momentum in key areas throughout the country. He immediately strengthened areas of success, taking them to new levels, while identifying elements of the campaign that required revision,” he said.

    Dempsey said like Allen, Gen Dunford is one of the most experienced and capable leaders in our military and nation. “Intelligent and forthright, Gen. Dunford is one of our most highlyregarded senior officers. He is an infantry officer with more than 35 years of exceptional leadership at every level, including multiple commands and, in particular, command of 5th Marine Regiment during the initial invasion of Iraq,” he said. Allen, he said, achieved remarkable progress in war against terrorism during his stint in the country but noted that much work remains to be done. Allen added his leadership and moral courage to a fight that is as much about will as it is about operations and tactics, he added

  • Nothing to cheer the common man in Presidential debates

    Nothing to cheer the common man in Presidential debates

    Whatever the outcome of Presidential election, the average American will find nothing to cheer. The indication is clear from the two debates that we have been witness to. It is just a blame game in which each tries to outdo the other. There is a competition to make tall claims about improving the lot of Americans and secure the future of America. But can either party do it? Given the scenario, it appears well nigh impossible for any one to lift the country out of the morass it has got stuck in to. One will need courage and statesmanship to take some tough decisions to bring succor to the common man. One, US involvement in wars abroad must end. Imagine, the cost-material and human.

    Material cost runs into trillions of dollars. The fact is US has to borrow money from the market and pay interest on it to meet the cost of the military engagements abroad. An already battered economy gets battered further. The debt keeps growing by the hour. And now the human loss. Thousands of US soldiers have died fighting in wars abroad, leaving their families devastated. We had made a mistake by engaging ourselves in Vietnam. We thought we had learnt our lesson and that we will never ever again tread that path. But we made a mistake again. This time in Iraq. We kept shouting from the rooftop Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but we never found any. We were responsible for making a whole people miserable. That nation continues to remain in a permanent state of conflict and misery. We lost our men in war there. And then we turned to Afghanistan. We are trapped there We talk of bringing back home our soldiers by 2014. But already there is a louder talk in one quarter that Afghanistan cannot be left to fend for itself.

    We are ready to go in to another war; this time with Iran. Republicans have made their intentions clear that they will go against Iran to support Israel and Israel keeps repeating Iran is on threshold to acquire nuclear weapons. It will be suicidal for US to get involved in another war. The common man, the average man does not see anything to cheer him in the debates that are taking place. Nor will he be enthused about who occupies the White House for the next four years, beginning 2013.

  • As i see It: US losing IED war in Afghanistan

    As i see It: US losing IED war in Afghanistan

    Although the surge of insider attacks on United States-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces has dominated coverage of the war in Afghanistan in 2012, an even more important story has been quietly unfolding: the US loss to the Taliban of the pivotal war of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Some news outlets published stories this year suggesting that the US military was making progress against the Taliban IED war. These failed to provide the broader context for seasonal trends or had a narrow focus on US fatalities. The bigger reality is that the US troop surge could not reverse the very steep increase in IED attacks and attendant casualties that the Taliban began in 2009 and which continued through 2011.

    Over the 2009-11 period, the US military suffered a total of 14,627 casualties, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System and iCasualties, a non-governmental organization tracking Iraq and Afghanistan war casualties from published sources. Of that total casualties in Afghanistan, 8,680, or 59%, were from IED explosions, based on data provided by the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). The proportion of all US casualties caused by IEDs continued to increase from 56% in 2009 to 63% in 2011. The Taliban IED war was the central element of its counter-strategy against the US escalation of the war. It absorbed an enormous amount of the time and energy of US troops, and demonstrated that the counterinsurgency campaign was not effective in reducing the size or power of the insurgency. It also provided constant evidence to the Afghan population that the Taliban had a continued presence even where US troops had occupied former Taliban districts.

    US Pentagon and military leaders sought to gain control over the Taliban’s IED campaign with two contradictory approaches, both of which failed because they did not reflect the social and political realities in Afghanistan. JIEDDO spent more than US$18 billion on high-tech solutions aimed at detecting IEDs before they went off, including robots and blimps with spy cameras. But as the technology helped the US-NATO command discover more IEDs, the Taliban simply produced and planted even larger numbers of bombs to continue to increase the pressure of the IED war.

    The counter-insurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus and implemented by General Stanley A McChrystal, on the other hand, held that the IED networks could be destroyed once the people turned away from the Taliban. They pushed thousands of US troops out of their armored vehicles into patrols on foot in order to establish relationships with the local population. The main effect of the strategy, however, was a major jump in the number of catastrophic injuries to US troops from IEDs.

    In an August 30, 2009, initial assessment, McChrystal said the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) could not succeed if it is unwilling to share risk at least equally with the people. In an interview with USA Today in July 2009, he argued that the best way to defeat IEDs would be to defeat the Taliban’s hold on the people. Once the people’s trust had been gained, he suggested, they would inform ISAF of the location of IEDs. McChrystal argued that the Taliban were using the psychological effects of IEDs and the coalition forces’ preoccupation with force protection to get the US-NATO command to reinforce “a garrison posture and mentality”.

    McChrystal ordered much more emphasis on more dismounted patrols by US forces in fall 2009. The Taliban responded by increasing the number of IEDs targeting dismounted patrols from 71 in September 2009 to 228 by January 2010, according data compiled by JIEDDO. That meant that the population had more knowledge of the location of IEDs, which should have resulted in a major increase in IEDs turned in by the population, according to the Petraeus counter-insurgency theory. The data on IEDs show that the opposite happened. In the first eight months of 2009, the average rate of turn-ins had been 3%, but from September 2009 to June 2010, the rate averaged 2.7%. After Petraeus replaced McChrystal as ISAF commander in June 2010, he issued a directive calling for more dismounted patrols, especially in Helmand and Kandahar, where US troops were trying to hold territory that the Taliban had controlled in previous years. In the next five months, the turn-in rate fell to less than 1%. Meanwhile, the number of IED attacks on foot patrols causing casualties increased from 21 in October 2009 to an average of 40 in the March- December 2010 period, according to JIEDDO records. US troops wounded by IEDs spiked to an average of 316 per month during that period, 2.5 times more than the average for the previous 10-month period

    The Taliban success in targeting troops on foot was the main reason US casualties from IEDs increased from 1,211 wounded and 159 dead in 2009 to 3,366 wounded and 259 dead in 2010. The damage from IEDs was far more serious, however, than even those figures suggest because the injuries to dismounted patrols included far more traumatic amputation of limbs – arms and legs blown off by bombs – and other more-severe wounds than had been seen in attacks on armored vehicles.

    A June 2011 Army task force report described a new type of battle injury – Dismount Complex Blast Injury. This was defined as a combination of traumatic amputation of at least one leg, a minimum of severe injury to another extremity, and pelvic, abdominal, or urogenital wounding. The report confirmed that the number of triple limb amputations in 2010 alone had been twice the total in the previous eight years of war. A study of 194 amputations in 2010 and the first three months of 2011 showed that most were suffered by Marine Corps troops, who were concentrated in Helmand province, and that 88% were the result of IED attacks on dismounted patrols, according to the report. In January 2011, the director of JIEDDO, General John L Oates, acknowledged that US troops in Helmand and Kandahar had seen an alarming increase in the number of troops losing one or two legs to IEDs.

    Much larger numbers of US troops have suffered moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries from IED blasts mostly against armored vehicles. Statistics on the total number of limb amputations and traumatic brain injuries in Afghanistan were excised from the task force report. In 2011, US fatalities from IEDs fell to 204 from 259 in 2010, and overall fatalities fell to 418 from 499. But the number of IED injuries actually increased by 10% to 3,530 from 3,339, and the overall total of wounded in action was almost the same as in 2010, according to data from iCasualties. The total for wounded in the first eight months of 2012 is 10% less than in the same period in 2011, whereas the number of dead is 29% below the previous year’s pace. The reduction in wounded appears to reflect in part the transfer of thousands of US troops from Kandahar and Helmand provinces, where a large proportion of the casualties have occurred, to eastern Afghanistan. The number of IED attacks on dismounted patrols in the mid-July 2011 to mid-July 2012 period was 25% less than the number in the same period a year earlier, according to JIEDDO.

    The Pentagon was well aware by early 2011 that it wasn’t going to be able to accomplish what it had planned before and during the troop surge. In a telling comment to the Washington Post in January 2011, JIEDDO head General Oates insisted that the idea that “we’re losing” the IED fight in Afghanistan was “not accurate”, because, “The whole idea isn’t to destroy the network. That may be impossible.” The aim, he explained, was now to disrupt them, a move of the goalposts that avoided having to admit defeat in the IED war. And in an implicit admission that Petraeus’s push for even more dismounted patrols is no longer treated with reverence in the ISAF command, the August 2010 directive has been taken down from its website.

  • Quran-burning US pastor barred from entering Canada for debate

    Quran-burning US pastor barred from entering Canada for debate

    TORONTO (TIP): The US pastor known for burning Qurans and inciting unrest in the Middle East was barred on Thursday from entering Canada, where he was set to attend a potentially divisive debate with a imam, Canadian media reports said. Terry Jones was blocked at the USCanada border in Windsor, Ontario, because of a previous legal infraction in the United States and because the German government has issued a complaint against him, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp said. Jones told the CBC that he would seek legal counsel on whether to appeal what he said was a “grievous act” against free speech. “We are going to head back to Florida now and we are going to check whether we are going to appeal that,” he said. The Canadian government said it does not comment on individual cases and that border officials determine the entry of any individual on a case by case basis. “Every person seeking entry to Canada must demonstrate that they meet the requirements to enter the country,” said Julie Carmichael, spokeswoman for public safety minister Vic Toews. Jones was scheduled to debate a Toronto imam, a Sikh leader and a Muslim author on Thursday evening on the grounds of the Ontario provincial legislature in Toronto, according to local organizers. The once little-known pastor sparked riots in Afghanistan two years ago when he burnt copies of the Quran to mark the anniversary of Sept 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. He also promoted the film “Innocence of Muslims” this year, which Muslims said insults the Prophet Mohammed. The film sparked unrest across Middle East. The US ambassador to Libya and three embassy staff were killed in September when Islamist gunmen, blaming the US government for the film, stormed the US consulate in Benghazi.

  • 7 Royal Marines arrested over ‘suspicion of murder’ in Afghanistan

    7 Royal Marines arrested over ‘suspicion of murder’ in Afghanistan

    LONDON (TIP): Seven Royal Marines from the British Royal Navy (RN) have been arrested on suspicion of murder, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) have confirmed. The arrests by the Royal Military Police are apparently related to an incident in Afghanistan last year, when 3 Commando Brigade was based in Helmand, Afghanistan.

    The MoD said that the incident followed an “engagement with an insurgent” and no civilians were involved. “The investigation will now be taken forward and dealt with by the service justice system. These arrests demonstrate the Department and the Armed Forces” determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their rules of engagement and our standards,” the BBC quoted a MoD spokesman, as saying. “It would be inappropriate to make any further comment while the investigation is under way,” he added.

    According to the report, some 23 servicemen from the 3 Commando Brigade lost their lives in 2011 during a summer tour of duty that encompassed the height of the fighting season, while many more were injured. The MoD is now likely to be liaising with 4 Mechanized Brigade, the UK force now in command of Task Force Helmand, to ensure that all necessary force protection measures are taken in case, the report said.

  • Protect Afghan girls from child marriage: UN

    Protect Afghan girls from child marriage: UN

    KABUL (TIP): UN agencies in Afghanistan on Thursday called for protecting Afghan girls against child marriage, even as the tradition remains rampant in the country. More than 46 percent of Afghan women are married before age 18, and over 15 percent before age 15, Xinhua quoted the “Afghanistan Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010-11” as saying.

    In December 2011, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to declare on October 11 as the “International Day of the Girl Child” to recognise girls’ rights and the challenges they face around the world.

    This year marked the first anniversary of the day with the theme of “my life, my right, end child marriage”. In response to widespread concerns about violence against women, the Afghan government enacted the ‘Elimination of Violence Against Women’ (EVAW) law in August 2009. However, Afghan laws set 16 as the minimum age of marriage for a girl and 18 for a boy.

    ‘The EVAW law criminates the practice of child marriage, recognising that a child under the legal age of marriage is not capable of giving her valid consent to enter into marriage,’ Jan Kubis, the top UN envoy in Afghanistan, was quoted as saying. Laurent Zessler, Afghanistan representative for the UN Population Fund, said: ‘Child marriage is a health issue as well as a human rights violation. Girls aged 10-14 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than women aged 20-24.’ ‘Despite a lot of progress during the past 10 years, Afghanistan’s maternal mortality rate is still 327 deaths per 100,000 live births,’ she said.

  • A Hot Vice Presidential Debate: Biden Outperforms Ryan

    A Hot Vice Presidential Debate: Biden Outperforms Ryan

    NEW YORK (TIP): The vice presidential debate between Vice-President Joe Biden and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Re. Paul Ryan appeared to be a sequel of an earlier debate between Obama and Romney.

    The 90 minute debate held at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, from 9:00 p.m. – 10:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 11 was moderated by ABC’s Mar tha Raddatz. The debate was split on foreign and domestic policies. Libya, Afghanistan were the major foreign policy issues. Speaking about the failure of Obama to understand the situation in Libya, Paul said, “It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a ter rorist attack.” Ryan blamed the Obama administration for “projecting weakness abroad.”

    “What we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy,” he added. Biden, who ke pt smiling during Ryan’s comments, responded, “With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.” He criticized Ryan for voting to cut funding for embassy security and added of Mitt Romney and Ryan, “These guys bet ag ainst America all the time.” For Biden, the debate marked an oppor tunity to change the nar rative of the campaign in the wake of President Obama’s widely-panned perfor mance in the first presidential debate last week. Mitt Romney has g ained in both national and battle g round state polls in the wake of that perfor mance, and the two men are now ef fectively tied in national polls. While vice presidential debates have not changed the course of a campaign in the past, a strong perfor mance by the vice president could allow the Obama campaign to re g ain its footing. For Ryan, the Wisconsin Re publican cong ressman and House Budget Committee chair who is seen by many as the intellectual leader of the GOP, the debate was a chance to introduce himself to the American people and make a forceful case for the Romney/Ryan ticket.

    Ryan, who asked to be refer red to as “Mr. Ryan” instead of “Cong ressman Ryan” by the moderator, was pressed on his plan to transfor m Medicare into a voucher-like system as well as the Romney-Ryan ticket’s unwillingness to specify which deductions and loopholes should be eliminated from the tax code in order to make its tax cuts revenue-neutral. On Iran, the two ag reed Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, but Ryan said sanctions should be tougher claiming Iran is moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. Biden defended the administration’s sanctions saying “These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions. Period.” Biden followed by asking, rhetorically, how the administration could make the sanctions any tougher.

    “What more can the President do? We will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said. Raddatz then moved on to domestic policy where Biden and Ryan got to Mitt Romney’s comment at a F lorida fundraiser that “47 percent” of people don’t pay income taxes. Ryan came to his running mate’s defense, “sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth in the right way,” Ryan said. Biden immediately dismissed the suggestion that Romney’s “47 percent” was a flub saying, “If you think he just made a mistake, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”Moving to Medicare, Biden laid down his commitment, “We will be no par t of a voucher pro g ram or the privatization of Social Security,” he said. But Ryan accused the vice president of not putting “a credible solution on the table.” Ryan shot back, “they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar tur ning Medicare into Obamacare,” refer ring to the Obama administration’s $716 billion in Medicare savings. Raddatz then moved on to the proposed tax plans of both the Obama- Biden and Romney-Ryan ticket. Ryan fiercely defended Romney’s plan saying “six studies have guaranteed that this math adds up,” and guaranteeing that his plan won’t raise the deficit or raise taxes on the middle class. Biden questioned that guarantee asking how lower taxes rates and g reater economic g rowth was possible.

    “Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates and increased g rowth,” Ryan of fered. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy,” Biden quipped back. On the topic of abor tion, Raddatz asked Ryan if someone who wishes abor tion to remain le g al has something to wor ry about with Romney in of fice. “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision,” said Ryan But Biden argued those who wish abor tion to remain le g al do in fact have something to wor ry about, “The next president will get one or two supreme cour t nominees, that’s how close Roe vs. Wade is,” he said. On a personal note, Raddatz asked what each candidate’s individual character would bring to the White House.

    “There are plenty of fine people who could lead this country,” Ryan be g an, “but what you need are people who, when they see problems, fix those problems.” Biden pointed to his drive to fight for the middle class. “My record stands for itself,” he said, “I never say anything I don’t mean…my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle class people.” In closing, Biden reiterated his commitment to the middle class once more, “The president and I are not going to rest until the playing field is leveled,” he said, “That’s what this is all about.” Ryan, with the final word, made the hard sell, “Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility…the choice is clear, and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote.”

  • Pay $6bn to 9/11 victims, US court orders Iran, Qaida

    Pay $6bn to 9/11 victims, US court orders Iran, Qaida

    NEW YORK: A US court formally ordered Iran, al-Qaida and other defendants on October 3 to pay $6 billion compensation to the victims of September 11, 2001.

    Although Iran denies any connection to 9/11, it was included in the list of alleged culprits by the US district court in New York, along with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Afghanistan’s Taliban guerrillas and al-Qaida, which took credit for the terror attack.

    Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is also named.

    However, the money, awarded for economic, personal and punitive damages for a total of $6,048,513,805, is unlikely to be recovered.

    This is because Iran is in a tense standoff with the US over multiple issues, especially its nuclear industry and alleged plan to build an atomic weapon. Iranian-backed Hezbollah has no relations with the US.

    Al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden, also named in the ruling, was killed by US navy SEALs in a raid in 2011.
    The Taliban are in an active war with US-led troops across Afghanistan.

    The ruling caps court decisions prompted by lawsuits filed by families of 47 victims from among the nearly 3,000 killed on 9/11.

  • An Overview of the 67th UN General Assembly

    An Overview of the 67th UN General Assembly

    What did we learn from the 67th UNGA?

    Every year, United Nations General Assembly brings world leaders from across the world to New York under a single roof, to address the global issues that stare us in the face. The 67th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was no different, with more than 120 world leaders sharing a single podium to make statements.

    The General Assembly convened on 18th September 2012 with the theme “Bringing About Adjustment or Settlement of International Disputes or Situations by Peaceful Means.” The session officially ended on 1st October 2012.

    The UNGA is usually a dramatic affair where we see several debate boycotts and menacing threats that are openly made. And this year’s General Assembly did not fail to meet such standards. This year, the GA’s line up had an impressive transition. Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected President addressed the world leaders for the first time while Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke for the last time as Iranian President from the same podium.

    As the GA sessions started soon after the Benghazi attacks, the topic of Freedom of Speech was debated heavily. However, Syrian crisis remained the main issue at the UNGA. Almost all countries condemned the spiraling civil war in the region but they could not agree on a solution. Although there was no Muammar Gaddafi to tear up the UN charter this year, the debate was ‘action-packed’ nonetheless.

    Syrian crisis

    Once again, the world leaders who met at the UNGA failed to reach an amicable approach to solve the Syrian crisis. In his opening speech during the General Debate, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged all the assembled nations to extend efforts to end the Syrian crisis and to immediately stop all arms flow into Syria. According to UN reports, approximately 28,000 have been killed in the crisis ridden Syria so far and thousands have been forced to take refuge in neighboring countries. Syrian civil war is slowly spilling across its borders, causing tensions in the region.

    Neither the nations supporting the opposition nor the nations supporting the Assad regime could eventually come to a unanimous decision on the appropriate steps that need to be taken in Syria. The Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moellem accused several ‘well known countries’ of using the Syrian crisis as a pretence to pursuing their ‘colonial interests’ in the region. He also said that calling for Bashar Assad to step down is a ‘blatant interference in the domestic affairs of Syria.’

    Anti-Islam film

    US President Barack Obama delivered a speech that highlighted and honored the importance and preservation of freedom of speech. Violence erupted in the Islamic nations after a controversial movie made in the United States about the Islamic Prophet was televised in Egypt. The violence led to attacks on the US consulates and resulted in the murder of Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to Libya. President Obama’s powerful speech contained the message meant for new Islamic leaders to “speak out forcefully against violence and extremism”. He also termed the video as ‘disgusting’ but maintained that no amount of controversies in video justifies the violence that surfaced in the Middle East. “There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs,” he added.

    However, Islamic leaders assembled in the UN strongly disagreed with the President Obama’s opinion. Egyptian President Morsy said the contents of the film are ‘unacceptable’. Yemen’s President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi also agreed saying, “There are limits to the freedom of expression especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.”

    Iran and Israel

    Iranian President Ahmadinejad did not deter from his usual zealous attacks against Israel. He condemned “uncivilized Zionist military threats against Tehran”. He also accused the West for its “oppressive international order” and termed them as “handmaidens of the devil”. Tension has been mounting between Israel and Iran after Israel warned that Tehran is close to achieving nuclear weaponry and Iran maintaining that its nuclear program is peaceful. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu pushed President Obama to clearly set ‘red lines’ for Iran that would initiate military action against Iran’s nuclear developments. Obama took a clear stand against Iran at the UNGA by saying that US will “do what it must do” on Iran. He assured that the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran will be immense.

    Meanwhile Netanyahu literally drew the ‘red lines’ for the assembled world leaders to make Israel’s stand on Iran extremely clear. In his speech at the UNGA backed with a chart with a bomb drawn on it, Netanyahu suggested that threshold for a military strike should be set at the point Iran produces enough highly enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon. “Red lines don’t lead to a war, red lines prevent war”, said Netanyahu in his speech before the UNGA.
    Palestine

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stood before the General Assembly once again to bid for a full membership of Palestine in the UN. In his speech he condemned numerous attacks on Palestinians by Jewish settlers and claimed that the Israeli polices undermined the functioning of the Palestinian National authority and warned of a possible collapse of the nation. His speech was very well received by the UN leaders who gave him a standing ovation. Israel’s Netanyahu responded by saying that ‘libelous speeches’ at the UN could hardly further the cause of peace.
    India

    On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, India participated in several meetings related to the international and regional stakeholders in Afghanistan after the proposed 2014 withdrawal of foreign forces is completed. Meanwhile, Kashmir once again made it to the General debate in the UN after a remark by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari triggered the issue. Zardari said in his speech that the ‘people of Kashmir have chosen their destinies’ and it was followed up by Pakistan’s Deputy Permanent representative at the UN, Raza Bashir Tarar’s remark that Jammu and Kashmir was never an integral part of India.

    India’s External Affairs Miniter S.M. Krishna spoke before the UN members and made it ‘abundantly clear’ that Jammu and Kashmir ‘has always been a part of India’. It must be noted that India always maintained that the issue of Kashmir should never be discussed on the UN podium and even President Obama conceded that Kashmir is an ‘internal issue’ for both India and Pakistan.

    Other issues

    Most of the UN member countries asked for strengthening of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The nations asked for disarmament of nuclear weaponry and destruction of chemical weapons. Egyptian President Morsy accused Israel of disrupting peace in the Middle East region by saying, “Middle East no longer tolerates any country’s refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), especially if this is coupled with irresponsible policies or arbitrary threats”. Meanwhile most countries asked for Iran’s complete cooperation with UN’s nuclear wing, International Atomic Energy Agency.

    India took a strong stand at the UNGA and asked all the member states to ensure a “zero tolerance” approach towards terrorism. Countering Terrorism was also discussed extensively at the United Nations and many member states pledged support for India’s stance on terrorism.

    Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez denounced the embargo that was put in place in 1960 by the United States. He also added that the embargo has caused several downturns for its economy and that it has caused “invaluable human and economic damage.”

    North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Pak Kil-yon criticized the United States claiming that it wants to conquer the Korean Peninsula and use it as a stepping stone to achieving complete Asian domination.

    South Sudan’s President Riek Machar vowed to fight poverty in the region through diversifying its economy by utilizing its oil revenue.

    Middle East was the center of focus at this year’s General Assembly. This eventually led to many other global issues that were either almost sidelined or merely mentioned callously. The high-level meetings conducted on the Rule of Law at both International and National level only called for the reformation of the UN. Most of the member states called for a structural change in the working of the UN, including extending veto powers to members beyond the Permanent Council. However, issues such as the realization of the Millennium Development Goals found strong supporters among the participating countries. Yet, the session saw a mere reiteration of the importance of completing the goals before the deadline that seems to be closing in very soon. But discussion on efforts that are to be made and solutions to problems that surfaced were limited.

    Global warming and other environmental issues also found very few mentions, which could be attributed to the recent completion of the Rio-20 meetings. But considering the fact that the Rio meetings were less than successful, superficial discussion on global climate changes were rather surprising.

    Global health issues also found a backseat at the UN this year. At the event “New Alliance: Progress and the Way Forward”, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah discussed U.S. efforts to address global hunger and food security through the Feed the Future Initiative and the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton also engaged in the meetings on health and water security pledging US support and efforts that are to be taken to achieve an AIDS free world and dispel wars for water.

    Education also did not receive complete focus this year at the UNGA and was only discussed with the Middle East crisis. Governments of several countries addressed the pressing concerns of lack of education in countries that are facing ongoing crisis. In a statement that was circulated on the sidelines of the UNGA, many member states ensured participation to eradicate lack of education in these regions. “Few Education Sector Plans and budgets address disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness, response and recovery. This lack of plans, capacity and resources makes it harder for schools to keep children and youth safe and continue to hold classes when a crisis strikes, to inform communities of risks and actions to take, and for education systems to recover after a crisis,” the statement read.

    The 67th United Nations General Assembly focused heavily on the ongoing Middle East crisis. However, the participating nations remained ‘disunited’ on the appropriate solutions that need to be taken to resolve these issues. Such major differences led to an expected silence and complete inaction on other globally significant issues such as health, poverty, education, etc

  • Osama was blind in one eye: Zawahiri

    Osama was blind in one eye: Zawahiri

    LONDON (TIP): Slain al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden was blind in one eye after an accident during his youth and was a one-time member of the Muslim Brotherhood, his successor has claimed in a new video tribute to the terror mastermind.

    Ayman al-Zawahiri, made the claim in an hour-long video titled ‘Days With The Imam’. It was an account of the life of bin Laden, who was killed in a US navy SEAL raid on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, last year.

    Zawahiri revealed “for those who do not know” Saudi-born bin Laden was left blind in his right eye after an accident during his youth.

    He also claimed that the terrorist mastermind was expelled from the Saudi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood for insisting on waging jihad, holy war, against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the Daily Mail reported.

    It is claimed that bin Laden travelled to Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to deliver cash to the Taliban, but then defied the Brotherhood’s orders to join the armed struggle.

  • Afghan burqa opponent wins ‘alternative Nobel’

    Afghan burqa opponent wins ‘alternative Nobel’

    STOCKHOLM (TIP): Afghan human rights activist, ex-minister and burqa opponent Sima Samar on Thursday won the Swedish Right Livelihood Award honouring those who work to improve the lives of others. Samar, 55, was honoured “for her longstanding and courageous dedication to human rights, especially the rights of women, in one of the most complex and dangerous regions in the world”, the jury said.

    A doctor by training, she fled to Pakistan in 1984 when her husband disappeared following arrest by Afghanistan’s communist regime. She returned in 2001 to become the first minister of women’s affairs, but had to resign after six months after she criticized sharia law in an interview in Canada. She was in 2002 named the head of Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, which she still leads.

    Samar shares award with US political theorist Gene Sharp, 84, whom the jury described as “the world’s foremost expert on non-violent revolution”, and Campaign Against Arms Trade, a NGOcompaigning for an end to British arms exports.

    An honorary prize was awarded to 90-year-old Hayrettin Karaca, “considered the grandfather of the Turkish environmental movement,” the jury said.

    Swedish-German philatelist Jakob von Uexkull founded the donor-funded prize in 1980 after the Nobel Foundation refused to create awards honouring efforts in the fields of the environment and international development.

    The three winners share the prize sum of $193,000.

  • Un General Assembly Opens With Packed Agenda

    Un General Assembly Opens With Packed Agenda

    New York (TIP): The 67th UN General Assembly Session opened at the headquarters of the world body in New York on September 18.

    Addressing the opening session, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged world leaders to do more in resolving the pressing issues facing the international community and described the fighting in Syria as “a regional calamity with global ramifications.”

    Noting that “brutal rights abuses continue to be committed” in Syria by both government forces and the opposition forces, Ban called for a unified response to the crisis. He stressed that “the international community should not look the other way as violence spirals out of control”.

    “I call on the international community – especially the members of the Security Council and countries in the region – to solidly and concretely support the efforts of Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi,” the UN chief said.
    Ban also expressed concerns over “continued violence in Afghanistan and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” and urged the governments of “Sudan and South Sudan to resolve all remaining post-secession issues” as early as possible.

    Noting Somalia’s successful completion of the political transition process, he urged the international community to do more in addressing the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the country brought on by drought and conflict stricken Sahel region.

    Acknowledging that Libya recently held its first free elections in half a century, Ban said leaders in Myanmar have shown courage and determination in moving on the path of democracy and reconciliation.

    On the decades long conflict between Israel and Palestinians, Ban stressed that the two-state solution remains “the only sustainable option” to end the conflict. Noting that “continued growth of Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory seriously undermines efforts toward peace,” he urged both parties to return to the negotiating table to resolve the crisis.

    In an apparent reference to Israel’s threat to launch unilateral military action against Iran for halting the Islamic Republic’s controversial nuclear program, Ban denounced “the language of delegitimization and threats of potential military action by one state against another.”

    “Any such attacks would be devastating. The shrill war talk of recent weeks has been alarming – and should remind us of the need for peaceful solutions and full respect for the UN Charter and international law,” Ban stressed.
    Ban also urged the international community to sincerely pursue the “goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.” He called on Iran to “prove the solely peaceful intent” of its nuclear program, and urged North Korea to “move toward de-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” He also called upon world nations to ensure all UN Security Council resolutions are “implemented in full and without delay.”

    Scores of the world’s heads of State, government and other high-level officials are attending the ongoing General Assembly session in New York. They are expected to present their views and comment on issues of individual national and international relevance at the Assembly’s General Debate, which ends on October 1.

    What is the UN General Assembly?

    The United Nations General Assembly is a forum of all of the members of the United Nations that takes place for several months each year. Held in New York, the annual convening of member states allows the UN to address the most pressing global issues of the moment.
    Or, as the UN puts it on their website, “In September, every year, the world gathers in New York to tackle humanity’s most intractable problems.” The UNGA is in session through mid-December.

    What does the UNGA do?

    The 193 member-nations who assemble for the UNGA use the opportunity to deliberate and vote on major decisions, “such as those on peace and security, admission of new members and budgetary matters,” according to the UN. Six committees, each focused on a theme such as international security or law, address topics more deeply.

  • U.S. WITHDRAWS TRIPOLI EMBASSY STAFF

    U.S. WITHDRAWS TRIPOLI EMBASSY STAFF

    Underscoring continued security worries, the United States said on Thursday it was temporarily withdrawing more staff from its embassy in Libya’s capital Tripoli, but hoped they could return early next week.

    Rasmussen reiterated that NATO had no intention to intervene in Syria as it had in Libya, but stood ready to defend NATO member and Syria’s neighbor Turkey, should this be necessary.

    “We do believe that the way forward in Syria is a political solution,” he said. “Syria is a very complex society, religiously, ethnically, politically. Any foreign intervention may have unpredictable repercussions.”

    Rasmussen said an October 9-10 meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels would discuss a decision to halt joint operations by NATO-led foreign troops and Afghan forces in Afghanistan after a spate of killings of NATO soldiers by Afghans they were training.

    He stressed that the measure was “temporary,” but could not say when it might be lifted. “That decision will be taken on the ground based on a complete evaluation of the security situation.” The U.S. Department of Defense said on Thursday that NATO-led forces were resuming operations alongside their Afghan counterparts in growing numbers, a week after commanders curtailed some joint missions due to a surge in insider attacks and tensions over an anti-Islamic video. The Pentagon did not provide precise figures on the extent of the increase in partnering since the new policy was enacted. But U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in Washington that most units in Afghanistan were conducting “normal partnered operations at all levels.

    Rasmussen said joint operations remained an important element in training Afghan forces to ensure they can take complete responsibility for security and allow foreign troops to end their combat role by the end of 2014 as planned.

  • NATO: Halt in joint Afghan operations won’t hurt strategy

    NATO: Halt in joint Afghan operations won’t hurt strategy

    played down the significance of the alliance’s decision to scale back joint operations with the Afghan army and police after a string of insider attacks, saying NATO’s strategy of handing over responsibility for the war to its Afghan allies remains unchanged. Following the deaths this year of 51international troops killed by Afghan forces or militants wearing Afghan uniforms, NATO has said that troops will no longer routinely carry out operations such as patrolling or manning outposts with their Afghan counterparts.
    On Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said plans for a gradual transition to having Afghans responsible for security in the country by the end of 2014 would continue despite the suspension, which he described as “prudent and temporary.”The so-called “green-on-blue” attacks by Afghan forces or militants in their uniforms has tested the trust between NATO troops and their Afghan allies.
    The suspension of joint operations came amid a spate of bad news for NATO, after insurgents mounted a brazen attack on the sprawling and heavily guarded Camp Bastion base in Helmand province and destroyed orbadly damage eight US Marine attack jets.
    Meanwhile, a mistaken NATO airstrike killed eight village women and girls searching for firewood in eastern Laghman province, andeight South African civilian contractors diedin a suicide bombing near Kabul airport.Fogh Rasmussen sought to put a positive spin on the decision to suspend joint operations, saying it proved that Afghan forces “ware already capable of operating on their own.””The measures taken to reduce the risks facing our troops . … won’t change our overall strategy,” he told reporters in Brussels.”Let me be clear, we remain committed to our strategy and we remain committed to our goal of seeing the Afghans fully in charge of their own security by the end of 2014,” he said.

    “The goal is unchanged, the strategy remains the same and the timeline remains the same.”Still, critics pointed out that insider attacks — which have continued despite efforts to vet all 352,000 members of Afghanistan’s army and police forces – were undermining the entire international mission in Afghanistan.

    In London, lawmakers criticized the suspension as potentially undermining the strategy of training local forces to provide security once US and NATO forces leave Afghanistan at the end of 2014.”It does appear to be a really significant change in the relationship between(coalition) and Afghan forces,” said opposition Labour Party lawmaker Jim Murphy. John Baron, a member of Britain’s ruling Conservative Party, said the change “threatens to blow a hole in our stated exit strategy, which is heavily reliant on these joint operations continuing.”

    “This announcement adds to the uncertainty as to whether Afghan forces will have the ability to keep an undefeated Taliban at bay once NATO forces have left, “Baron, a former army officer, told the House of Commons.UK defense secretary Philip Hammond told lawmakers that the decision was a temporary response to elevated threat levels following the outrage in Muslim countries over an anti-Islam video produced in the United States.

    Troops would “return to normal operations” as soon as the tension eased, Hammond insisted after being called to the House of Commons to explain the changes.

    Labour legislator Paul Flynn, a staunch opponent of the Afghanistan war, was banned from the Commons for a day after he accused Hammond of misrepresenting the truth.”Our brave soldier lions are being led by ministerial donkeys,” Flynn said.