The issue of women’s safety comes under the national limelight with shameful regularity. The recent incident of a woman being pursued at night by men in a car in Chandigarh is a reminder that neither law nor public odium is a sufficient deterrent to such crimes. Two men, one of them the son of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Haryana State unit chief, have been booked for stalking the woman. They have been released on bail; Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to stalking, is a bailable offence. This has attracted the criticism that the police did not invoke more stringent provisions. It is believed that the police had originally sought to include sections relating to an attempt to kidnap the woman, but dropped the idea. The use of a particular section depends on whether the ingredients of the offence are present in the actions of the accused. The onus is on the Chandigarh police to show that available evidence is limited to the offence of stalking. The claim that there is no closed-circuit television footage from anywhere along the entire route needs investigating. The victim’s presence of mind to call the police in time foiled her pursuers’ designs, but not every woman may survive such an ordeal in the same manner. This is one reason why the police, as well as family and friends of the victim, ought to take complaints of stalking seriously, and act at an early stage.

As crimes against women go, stalking is far too often dismissed as harmless. However, it is important to understand how traumatic and inhibiting it is for a woman to be pursued with unsolicited interest, and for such stalking to be considered ‘normal’. There are times when stalking contains the seed for a bigger, often violent crime. It should not be forgotten that murders and acid attacks have had their origins in stalking. It became an independent offence in 2013, when the country’s criminal law was amended in the wake of the horrific gang rape of a woman in Delhi in December 2012. The hope that expanding the rigor and scope of penal laws would bring down crimes against women has, unfortunately, been belied often since then. The Chandigarh incident reveals that a sense of privilege, flowing as much from gender as political influence, permeates the offenders’ actions. The victim’s father is a senior civil servant, and it may not be easy to give this case a quiet burial. However, there is another, in fact quite familiar, element: the attempt by quarters close to the accused to cast aspersions on the victim. One can only hope that society has advanced sufficiently to call out such victim-shaming. Stalking tends to dominate the public discourse only when it relates to well-known people or results in violence — this episode should compel a deeper understanding of how widespread this offence is, and how rarely offenders are brought to justice.

(The Hindu)

Reports say North Korea has developed nuclear weapons that can hit US.  Experts, however, say the world is not on the brink of a Third World War.  They say if any war were to happen, it would break out by accident, not by design.

Donald Trump has said he will launch “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. North Korea has promised to get its revenge “a thousand fold” on the US for any attack. But is the world really on the brink of a Third World War? Experts say probably not, while pointing out that it is easy to see how we might get there. A general consensus is that the US President’s statements are just bluster, although many emphasize the fact that bluster has an unfortunate history of leading to war.

The new escalation is the latest in an ongoing ratcheting up of tensions between Pyongyang and Washington, and came after a report that claimed North Korea had developed nuclear weapons small enough that they could be flown all the way to the US mainland and detonated there. After that came what prominent arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis has described a “carnival of bellicosity”.

Trump’s “fire and fury” statement is unprecedented in US relations with North Korea and markedly similar to the kind of rhetoric that emerges from Pyongyang. North Korea appeared to call the US leader’s bluff within hours of his statement, announcing it was exploring the possibility of attacking Guam, a US pacific territory that among other things houses strategic bombers.

Crucially, this statement appears to have been formulated in response to the US flying two B1-B bombers over the Korean Peninsula on Monday, a repeat of a similar operation carried out in July — and therefore not in response to Trump’s warning. Rex Tillerson, the President’s foreign policy chief, moved to calm the situation and advised the US public not to worry.

The message of de-escalation appears not to have influenced Trump, however, who woke up and tweeted that the US nuclear arsenal was “more powerful than ever before” — though adding that he hoped never to use it. Nevertheless, the US leader’s shift to outright belligerence towards North Korea has given rise to widespread fears around the prospect of a major global nuclear conflict, the fallout from which would inevitably see the destruction of large parts of the world.

  My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before….

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1502279793000

…Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1502280201000

So, is the world about to get destroyed by a nuclear war?

No, probably not, according to experts contacted by The Independent. Trump’s comments offer a significant and meaningful change in the rhetoric being exchanged between North Korea and the US — but they appear to be just rhetoric, for now.

“The first thing I would say is that I’m not sure that Trump’s comments change the fundamental calculus on the Korean peninsula, in the North or in the South,” said James Hannah, assistant head of the Asia program at Chatham House. “What’s obviously changed is the Trump factor and he has in a way emulated the North Korea bellicosity approach.”

Even the President’s voice is just one among many — albeit that of the Commander in Chief — in the White House, and is by far the most aggressive. Rex Tillerson said there was no “imminent threat” and that “Americans should sleep well at night”, while explaining that the President had adopted such a confrontational tone because this was language that Kim Jong-Un could understand. That does not mean there was no reason to be concerned.

“Having followed North Korea for a long time, I am getting more worried,” said Aiden Foster-Carter, honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds University. “I worry about rhetoric getting out of control on either side and this leading to a miscalculation of some sort.”

Professor Foster-Carter stressed that he was not suggesting Trump’s comments or the US approach was anything like that of North Korea, only that there was an increasing degree of public enmity between the two sides. North Korea demonstrates better than any nation that bluster is important.

“I worry about loose rhetoric,” said Jeffrey Lewis, an adjunct professor at the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies. “Because I worry that allies or the North Koreans won’t understand that it’s just bluster. But having said that, I don’t believe that it’s evidence that the US is going to attack the North Koreans. In a strange way, it’s reassuring because it’s clear he doesn’t know what to do; if he had some plan to attack them, he wouldn’t be talking about his plan to attack them.”

Could conflict break out at some point in the near future?

Perhaps the most terrifying thing about the situation is how impossible that question to answer; there are simply too many disparate elements, each of them unpredictable on their own and amounting to a situation in which almost anything could happen.

“If the calculus hasn’t changed, what is being introduced is a greater level of unpredictability and rhetorical tension,” says Hannah. “Which has a number of knock-on effects. If the US is unpredictable, Trump supporters might see that as a pro — taking a harder line and putting pressure on the North and conceivably on China, by eventuating the threat. But equally, that unpredictability doesn’t wash well with US allies in the region, like Japan or South Korea. It creates a sort of echo chamber of inflated rhetoric.”

And with Trump in power, rhetoric tends to dominate the debate — and often become the debate. “If you do raise the rhetoric then I suppose there’s a greater worry that the chance of action in some quarters is increased,” adds Hannah.

It all really comes down to whether North Korea thinks that Trump’s statements actually mean anything. If he is just blustering — an activity they know well — then very little has changed; if they think that the rhetorical stance is something that puts them in danger, then conflict could arise.

How might war break out?

If any conflict were to happen, it is likely that war would break out by accident, not by design. Trump’s comments might be mostly powerful as rhetoric — but wars have been fought over similar rhetoric before. It’s worth noting that, of course, most people are still against the idea of nuclear wars. That is a fairly safe assumption and means that, whatever is said, nobody is going to choose to drop an atomic bomb on another country happily.

More simplistic military intervention, of the kind that western governments had hoped for when they went into Iraq in 2003, is also probably out of the question. As soon as North Korea felt it was being invaded, it would likely launch attacks on South Korea; if that happened, the big questions of North Korea’s nuclear range would be less important, since Seoul could be hit by simple artillery. The idea of risking those people for an intervention is all but impossible.

“Worried though I am about Trump I think he would be dissuaded from such a course,” says Professor Foster-Carter. “It would destroy South Korea, it would destroy the alliance; it would be more damaging even than all the conflicts that we’ve sadly grown used to in places like Iraq.”

But it’s not that simple.

“It has become more complicated to the point that concerns of miscalculations are higher, so that’s probably where the danger is,” says Hannah. “In a very complicated situation, I think the fear is of an unpredictable misstep or message that triggers some kind of chain reaction by one party or the other.”

That’s the chief concern about Trump’s comments — that they could be read as a suggestion that something damaging is about to happen, and that they could pre-emptively respond. And with such a swell of aggressive rhetoric swirling around the situation, any individual incident’s importance is going to be far higher.

The breakdown of negotiations and diplomacy between the US and North Korea also means that any minor event could be significant, since there’s no easy way for either country to address or calm any problem. Between 1994 and 2003, diplomatic agreements froze North Korea’s nuclear development and made it easier for diplomacy to go on between the country and its adversaries on other issues.

“What that means is when you have a conflict — when there’s a shoot-out on the maritime demarcation line, for instance — you’ve got a way to defuse tension,” said Professor Hazel Smith, author of North Korean Markets and Military Rule. “Today that doesn’t exist. So, if you have a relatively minor incident on the border, which is still disputed, which is still possible, there is a possibility for it to escalate. That’s how wars start. It is dangerous, the situation we have right now, especially when you have so many states with different interests involved.”

If that war happened, the US would ostensibly win it — that much is obvious, and is a key factor in the US military’s thinking. But that part of the world is surrounded by many of the biggest armed forces in the world, and any conflict would be “very, very bloody indeed”, said Professor Smith.

So, what is Donald Trump up to?

It’s possible that Trump’s comments are part of some master plan, unlikely though it might be. And the very fact that he is talking about the country is an important break from the Obama administration’s commitment to what it called strategic patience — but which really “was hard to distinguish from neglect”, says Professor Foster-Carter.

“Trump to his credit takes North Korea seriously but does it in such an extraordinary manner,” he said. Anyone minded to think of Trump as a strategic genius, may see his latest comments as evidence of a clearly though-through plan.

Those looking to be sympathetic, may suggest he is trying to match North Korea’s often aggressive commentary with similar attack of his own, or that his lack of care is a result of the “madman theory”, whereby a person behaves so bizarrely that they unsettle opponents and gain power from the perception they might do something crazy.

In some ways, it has the advantage of helping both sides. Both Pyongyang and Washington are led by men who are interested in making the other out to be evil and unhinged, both want to look strong and both can benefit from giving the appearance that, if prodded, they could trigger a nuclear Armageddon. Those are perhaps less likely than the theory Trump is simply wading into a discussion that he feels strongly about. Thankfully, the US leader is surrounded by people who are slightly more sensible — even if they’re not always able to stop him speaking.

The idea of the “fantastic, grim scenario” in which the world is pushed to nuclear was is “unbelievably frightening,” says Professor Foster-Carter. “But I don’t think it will happen because I think, hope and pray there’s enough adult supervision — in the military people, like Mattis and McMaster — and there’s no sensible strike option.”

It’s clear that those generals who now surround Trump — secretary of defense James Mattis, and national security advisor HR McMaster — do not want war, precisely because they are the most acutely aware of the damage it might do.

“One of the ironies is that it’s the generals that are trying to prevent the outbreak of military conflict — to look at alternative ways of what’s going on,” said Professor Smith.

Trump’s comments were in part notable because he did not appear to have taken direction on them — and may not have even planned to say it at all. Trump’s unpredictability reflects on the entire situation. The intervention of Rex Tillerson, who is among Trump’s more considered advisors, shows that the White House is still attempting to avoid all out escalation.

The danger depends in large part on whether those more sober heads can keep Trump calm, and quiet. The former reality TV star’s statement isn’t as significant in what he said as that he was able and willing to say it at all. It introduces a new instability to an already fairly shaky situation, in the form of the most powerful man in the world.

Who are North Korea’s allies?

Traditionally, North Korea has received help from countries like Russia and China. It might indeed be China that is at least partly motivating Trump’s recent outburst — playing as it does to his campaign comments about re-negotiating the two countries’ relationship. “I don’t think we’re seeing a US mobilization for nuclear war,” said Hannah.

“But Trump has invested himself heavily in the North Korea issue as an issue to prove himself. It’s also quite central to his approach to China. And China is a big part of his foreign policy, rhetorically at least.”

What does it mean for the UK and Europe?

Very little, both in terms of the immediate danger and the knock-on diplomatic effects. European countries will obviously take a close interest in the latest developments, but they are relatively small players where such matters are concerned. The US is involved because it has become a useful enemy for North Korea, for all sorts of reasons related to the Korean war and events before and since. But the most important countries are generally those around North Korea, including Japan and South Korea — both of which are in easy reach of any weapons and are allies of the US — as well as Russia and China.

How can we stop it?

This could have all been prevented in the 1990s. Then, there was an appetite in North Korea for a negotiated solution, and a desire in the US to acquiesce. Such a relatively straightforward solution may no longer be possible to fix a problem like Korea. The country believes, probably rightly, that its nuclear program keeps other countries from launching regime change, meaning its leadership is unlikely to relinquish its huge, atomic bargaining chip.

So, any security deal — bringing together all of the interested parties, including China, Russia and Japan as well as the US — would have to guarantee that there would be no regime change. That would be unpalatable to the US, since it would mean not only recognizing but committing to perpetuate an oppressive and deadly regime.

(Source: The Independent)

                                                             

 

 

 

Even as Trump takes the hard line against Pakistan backing certain terror groups, there are many US generals who do not wish to antagonize Afghanistan’s neighbor

“While McMaster is echoing Trump’s hard line, there are many generals, including Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Dunford who do not wish to antagonize Pakistan and doubt whether a punitive approach can alter the behavior of the Rawalpindi generals. Eventually, the hard line could prevail but how it gets operationalized will be worth watching”, says the author.

 

 

The legendary Trump tantrums and tweets have so convulsed the White House that a four-star Marine General, John Kelly, in charge of Homeland Security, had to be transferred to the White House as Chief of Staff to maintain dignity and decorum and keep strategic policy-making insulated from chaos. Take Afghanistan, or Af-Pak. Inter-agency wrangles — between Pentagon, State Department, national security establishment and the CIA — have delayed the Af-Pak policy document. It was due in April but was put on hold as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wanted to re-hyphenate Afghanistan with Pakistan.

Gen John Nicholson, US Commander, Resolute Force, in Kabul, who was in Delhi last month, had been told to expect the strategic directive latest by July 18. Instead, on July 19, in a stormy meeting of top generals at the White House presided over by Trump, he demanded to know why the war in Afghanistan was not being won even after 16 years, 2,740 US lives and USD 1 tn. According to one insider account, Trump wanted Nicholson sacked and replaced with his National Security Advisor, serving Lt Gen HR McMaster. The President’s NSC has met thrice seeking out-of-the-box ideas. Trump had famously told visiting President Xi Jinping over dinner that he had left the war-fighting to the generals.

At the July 19 meeting, Trump did not encounter any unconventional thinking, but was presented three widely accepted options — status quo, ramping up force levels, investing in a political solution. It seems he is incensed with Pakistan for consistently ‘not cooperating’ — after reviewing punitive policy recommendations made by Sen. John McCain, chairman, Senate Armed Forces Committee, following a brief visit last month to Pakistan; former Congressman Larry Pressler; and Lisa Curtis, Senior Director for South and Central Asia at the White House NSC. Trump is likely to get tough with Pakistan.

The message loud and clear from the White House was conveyed last week by McMaster to Pakistani generals. That Trump will not tolerate any support to terrorists, Pakistan has to change its paradoxical policy of supporting the Taliban, Haqqanis and other groups and has to stop those providing safe havens and support bases to these groups. The bottom line is changing the behavior of the deep state, which no US Administration has been able to achieve. Trump wants to win an unwinnable war hoping a tough and punitive policy on Pakistan’s non-compliance may open the door for better or worse in bringing a chastened Taliban/Haqqani network to the negotiating table. At the last count, the Taliban were in control of 95 of Afghanistan’s 407 districts.

While McMaster is echoing Trump’s hard line, there are many generals, including Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Dunford who do not wish to antagonize Pakistan and doubt whether a punitive approach can alter the behavior of the Rawalpindi generals. Eventually, the hard line could prevail but how it gets operationalized will be worth watching.

The security situation in Afghanistan is worsening by the day as Kabul awaits Trump’s Ten Commandments. While at the strategic level there is a stalemate, at the tactical level advantage is with the Taliban and their affiliates. Earlier in the year, National Security Adviser Hanif Atmar, speaking at the IDSA, New Delhi, had said that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) were losing on an average 29 soldiers a day fighting Taliban, Haqqanis and the ISIS. In comparison, Indian losses in Kashmir for all of 2016 were 95 combatants. Last three months have witnessed the most horrendous attacks ever — biggest truck bomb explosion in Kabul and the largest assault on an army camp in Balkh province killing hundreds of civilians and soldiers. These have sapped the confidence of Afghans who came on the streets demanding security from the National Unity government (NUG) riven with differences and afflicted by corruption. Meanwhile, the NUG has evolved a four-year (2017-2020) roadmap for enhancing ANSF fighting capabilities as agreed at the Warsaw NATO summit this May. The Americans and the West pay almost the entire cost of Afghanistan security and economy.

Pentagon’s latest report on Afghanistan states that India is the most reliable friend of the Kabul regime. Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly said that India will stick with Afghanistan through thick and thin. During last week’s US-India Forum at New Delhi, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj lauded sacrifices made by the US in preserving the gains of the last 16 years, including peace, security and democracy in Afghanistan. New Delhi’s development assistance for Afghanistan is worth USD 3 bn and is the largest to any country other than Bhutan.

Pakistan is the stick in the mud. Atmar had made plain that defeat of the Taliban was possible only if the Taliban and Haqqani sanctuaries were dismantled. He claimed that the Afghan Special Forces were the best in the world and the war could be taken to the sanctuaries. Senator Ted Poe has listed two legislations, one declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism and the other withdrawing the privileged status of Most Favored Non-NATO Ally. Trump advisers are convinced that only coercion and raising the costs for Pakistan will work. Besides curtaining funding, hard options such as surgical strikes against sanctuaries and targeted drone strikes to take out the Taliban and Haqqani leadership are on the table.

Since 2004, when drone strikes first started against Pakistan, 428 strikes have taken place, the last on July 3 in South Waziristan against ISIS targets. On June 13, US drones struck in Hangu district of Khyber Pakhtunwa, killing Abu Baqar Haqqani, in Pakistan beyond the drone-permissible tribal belt area. This is the second attack outside the agreed drone-strike areas, the last being in Balochistan which took out Taliban supremo Mullah Mansour last year.

It is estimated that approximately 1,200 to 1,600 terrorists have been killed in drone attacks. Will the drone strikes extend to Taliban and Haqqani sanctuaries on Pakistani soil? Will Afghanistan Special Forces assisted by US Rangers conduct surgical strikes against safe havens? A Trump authorization for either or both these options can be a game-changer. While admiring the chocolate cream dessert at the banquet for Xi, Trump informed him that Cruise Missiles had just attacked the Syrian airbase from where chemical attacks were launched by Assad forces in Syria. How far can Trump go to tame Pakistan to get out of Afghanistan? The long-awaited policy directive will conceal more than it will reveal!

(The author is a founder-member of the Defense Planning Staff)