Tuesday, December 13, 2016

INDO- PAK NUKES : A Global Nuclear Winter: Avoiding The Unthinkable In India And Pakistan

SOURCE
http://www.eurasiareview.com/10122016-a-global-nuclear-winter-avoiding-the-unthinkable-in-india-and-pakistan-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29













A Global Nuclear Winter: Avoiding The Unthinkable In India And Pakistan – Analysis

                                 By

                    Conn Hallinan*



Border personnel from India and Pakistan during the Wagah Border ceremony. Photo by Therealhiddenace, Wikipedia Commons.
Border personnel from India and Pakistan during the Wagah Border ceremony. Photo by Therealhiddenace, Wikipedia Commons.

US President-elect Donald Trump’s off the cuff, chaotic approach to foreign policy had at least one thing going for it, even though it was more the feel of a blind pig rooting for acorns than a thought-out international initiative. In speaking with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the New York Timesreported, Trump said he wanted “to address and find solutions” to Pakistan’s problems.














And what big problems they are.
Whether Trump understands exactly how dangerous the current tensions between Pakistan and India are, or if anything will come from the November 30 exchange between the two leaders, is anyone’s guess. But it’s more than the Obama administration has done over the past eight years, in spite of the outgoing president’s 2008 election promise to address the on-going crisis in Kashmir.
Right now that troubled land is the single most dangerous spot on the globe.

War, Famine, and Radiation

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the disputed province in the past six decades and came within a hair’s breadth of a nuclear exchange in 1999. Both countries are on a crash program to produce nuclear weapons, and between them they have enough explosive power to not only kill more than 20 million of their own people, but also to devastate the world’s ozone layer and throw the Northern Hemisphere into a nuclear winter — with a catastrophic impact on agriculture worldwide.

According to studies done at Rutgers, the University of Colorado-Boulder, and the University of California-Los Angeles, if both countries detonated 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, it would generate between 1 and 5 million tons of smoke. Within 10 days, that would drive temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere down to levels too cold for wheat production in much of Canada and Russia. The resulting 10 percent drop in rainfall — especially in Asian locales that rely monsoons — would exhaust worldwide food supplies, leading to the starvation of up to 100 million or more people.

Aside from the food crisis, a nuclear war in South Asia would destroy between 25 to 70 percent of the Northern Hemisphere’s ozone layer, resulting in a massive increase in dangerous ultraviolent radiation.

Cold Start, Hot War

Lest anyone think that the chances of such a war are slight, consider two recent developments.
One, a decision by Pakistan to deploy low-yield tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons and to give permission for local commanders to decide when to use them.
In an interview with the German newspaper  Deutsche WelleGregory Koblentz of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that if a “commander of a forward-deployed nuclear armed unit finds himself in a ‘use it or lose it’ situation and about to be overrun, he might decided to launch his weapons.”
Pakistan’s current defense minister, Muhammad Asif, told Geo TV, “If anyone steps on our soil and if anyone’s designs are a threat to our security, we will not hesitate to use those [nuclear] weapons for our defense.”
Every few years the Pentagon “war games” a clash between Pakistan and India over Kashmir. Every game ends in a nuclear war.
The second dangerous development is the “Cold Start” strategy by India that would send Indian troops across the border to a depth of 30 kilometers in the advent of a terrorist attack like the 1999 Kargill incident in Kashmir, the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, or the 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.
Since the Indian army is more than twice the size of Pakistan’s, there would be little that Pakistanis could do to stop such an invasion other than using battlefield nukes. India would then be faced with either accepting defeat or responding.
India doesn’t currently have any tactical nukes, only high yield strategic weapons — many aimed at China — whose primary value is to destroy cities. Hence a decision by a Pakistani commander to use a tactical warhead would almost surely lead to a strategic response by India, setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange and the nightmare that would follow in its wake.

A Regional Arms Race

With so much at stake, why is no one but a Twitter-addicted foreign policy apprentice saying anything? What happened to President Obama’s follow through to his 2008 statement that the tensions over Kashmir “won’t be easy” to solve, but that doing so “is important”?
A strategy of pulling India into an alliance against China was dreamed up during the administration of George W. Bush, but it was Obama’s “Asia Pivot” that signed and sealed the deal. With it went a quid pro quo: If India would abandon its traditional neutrality, the Americans would turn a blind eye to Kashmir.
As a sweetener, the U.S. agreed to bypass the global nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow India to buy uranium on the world market, something New Delhi had been banned from doing since it detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 using fuel it had cribbed from U.S.-supplied nuclear reactors. In any case, because neither India nor Pakistan is a party to the treaty, both should be barred from buying uranium. In India’s case, the U.S. has waived that restriction.
The so-called 1-2-3 Agreement requires India to use any nuclear fuel it purchases in its civilian reactors, but frees it up to use its meager domestic supplies on its nuclear weapons program. India has since built two enormous nuclear production sites at Challakere and near Mysore, where, rumor has it, it is producing a hydrogen bomb. Both sites are off limits to international inspectors.
In 2008, when the Obama administration indicated it was interested in pursuing the 1-2-3 Agreement, then Pakistani Foreign minister Khurshid Kusuni warned that the deal would undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty and lead to a nuclear arms race in Asia. That is exactly what has come to pass. The only countries currently adding to their nuclear arsenals are Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea.
While Pakistan is still frozen out of buying uranium on the world market, it has sufficient domestic supplies to fuel an accelerated program to raise its warhead production. Pakistan is estimated to have between 110 and 130 warheads already, and it’s projected to have developed 200 by 2020, surpassing the United Kingdom.
India has between 110 and 120 nuclear weapons. Both countries have short, medium, and long-range missiles, submarine ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles, plus nuclear-capable aircraft that can target each other’s major urban areas.

A New Uprising in Kashmir

One problem in the current crisis is that both countries are essentially talking past one another.
Pakistan does have legitimate security concerns. It has fought and lost three wars with India over Kashmir since 1947, and it’s deeply paranoid about the size of the Indian army.
But India has been the victim of several major terrorist attacks that have Pakistan’s fingerprints all over them. The 1999 Kargill invasion lasted a month and killed hundreds of soldiers on both sides. Reportedly the Pakistanis were considering arming their missiles with nuclear warheads until the Clinton administration convinced them to stand down.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+
Pakistan’s military has long denied that it has any control over terrorist organizations based in Pakistan, but virtually all intelligence agencies agree that, with the exception of the country’s home-grown Taliban, that is not the case. The Pakistani army certainly knew about a recent attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir that killed 19 soldiers.
In the past, India responded to such attacks with quiet counterattacks of its own, but this time around the right-wing nationalist government of Narendra Modi announced that the Indian military had crossed the border and killed more than 30 militants. It was the first time that India publicly acknowledged a cross-border assault.
Meanwhile the Indian press has whipped up a nationalist fervor that has seen sports events between the two countries cancelled and a ban on using Pakistani actors in Indian films. The Pakistani press has been no less jingoistic.
In the meantime, the situation in Kashmir has gone from bad to worse. Early in the summer Indian security forces killed Burhan Wani, a popular leader of the Kashmir independence movement. Since then the province has essentially been paralyzed, with schools closed and massive demonstrations. Thousands of residents have been arrested, close to 100 killed, and hundreds of demonstrators wounded and blinded by the widespread use of birdshot by Indian security forces.
Indian rule in Kashmir has been singularly brutal. Between 50,000 and 80,000 people have died over the past six decades, and thousands of others have been “disappeared” by security forces. While in the past the Pakistani army aided the infiltration of terrorist groups to attack the Indian army, this time around the uprising is homegrown. Kashmiris are simply tired of military rule and a law which gives Indian security forces essentially carte blanche to terrorize the population.
Called the Special Powers Act — modeled after a British provision to suppress of Catholics in Northern Ireland and mirroring practices widely used by the Israelis in the Occupied Territories — the law allows Indian authorities to arrest and imprison people without charge and gives immunity to Indian security forces.

Avenues to Peace

As complex as the situation in Kashmir is, there are avenues to resolve it. A good start would be to suspend the Special Powers Act and send the Indian Army back to the barracks.
The crisis in Kashmir began when the Hindu ruler of the mostly Muslim region opted to join India when the countries were divided in 1947. At the time, the residents were promised that a UN-sponsored referendum would allow residents to choose India, Pakistan, or independence. That referendum has never been held.
Certainly the current situation cannot continue. Kashmir has almost 12 million people, and no army or security force — even one as large as India’s — can maintain a permanent occupation if the residents don’t want it. Instead of resorting to force, India should ratchet down its security forces and negotiate with Kashmiris for an interim increase in local autonomy.
But in the long run, the Kashmiris should have their referendum — and both India and Pakistan will have to accept the results.
What the world cannot afford is for the current tensions to spiral down into a military confrontation that could easily get out of hand. The U.S., through its aid to Pakistan — $860 million this year — has some leverage, but it cannot play a role if its ultimate goal is an alliance to contain China, a close ally of Pakistan.
Neither country would survive a nuclear war, and neither country should be spending its money on an arms race. Almost 30 percent of Indians live below the poverty line, as do 22 percent of Pakistanis. The $51 billion Indian defense budget and the $7 billion Pakistan spends could be put to far better use.
*Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedge.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com.



Monday, December 12, 2016

Loose Cannons, Generals And US Foreign Policy In The Trump Era

SOURCE:
http://swarajyamag.com/world/loose-cannons-generals-and-us-foreign-policy-in-the-trump-era








SNAPSHOT

President-elect Trump seems to be hiring US Army and Marine Corps generals in key advisory roles.
While its impact on US policy is debatable, what’s common to Trump’s picks is that they all disagree with President Obama on his policies.
Under Obama, India-US relations reached new heights. India shouldn’t take that for granted, and must instead stay prepared for any eventuality.




Loose Cannons, Generals                      And

   US Foreign Policy In 

      The Trump Era

                                  BY
                     Syed Ata Hasnain 




December 11, 2016,                                                       
   President-elect Donald Trump has a few more weeks to remain in the ‘loose cannon’ mode before he is fully accountable for what he utters. For over a year, he has been trumpeting his wares, his mind and his ideas, on a nation which is in a state of regression. The entire Trump phenomenon arose from a sense of insecurity brought on by the failure of post-Cold War international configurations that the United States (US) sought to create. The so-called restructuring of the new world order at a time of fundamental change in the way the world exists and does business could not succeed. The Information Revolution and the resultant globalisation hasn’t given the dividends that were sought by a superpower like the US.


In fact, in an era when the US is still counted as the only superpower, there is an internal weakening in its fabric, leading to a loss of confidence among its people in the American Dream. The economic meltdown of 2008 added to its woes, and the military deployments in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Iraq, the former a strategic compulsion and the latter a strategic blunder, only weighted the sinking ship. The social fabric of the US, formerly its strength, suddenly has become a weakness.

The arrival of Trump at such a crucial juncture in US and world history, when the world is seeking a mature approach towards the persisting problems of communal confrontation and phenomena such as terror and radicalism, could not have been more tragic.
In India, we may gloat about our success and the fact that an Indian American hand also facilitated Trump’s success; the emergence of Indian American personalities in the soon-to-be-created power centre of the Republicans seems to also overawe us. The impact on India-US relations may well have a telling effect – Indian American political personalities are not known to display any loyalty to their former homeland. In fact, in the case of personalities such as Bobby Jindal, the opposite is known to be true.

Trump’s utterances continue to project the extent of his ignorance in matters strategic, especially if they concern the military domain. Out-of-the-box ideas and introduction of volatility in the leadership style are fine if the strategic leader has a firm hold over history and an understanding of the nuances. Trump, probably on advice, is obviously following a strategy of gamesmanship, needling opponents, forcing them to respond to reveal their core concerns and display their limits of tolerance. His telephonic conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, the first recorded conversation between an American President and a Taiwan head of state since 1979, has irked China. Ever since the US decided to improve its relationship with China following the pathbreaking diplomatic efforts of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, the principle of One China has been adhered to – with no diplomatic relations with Taiwan. However, the US has maintained a special relationship with the island state and treaded a careful path, something that is only now coming into focus.
On Iran, Trump’s views are well known and supported by his advisors; the 15 July 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement does not meet approval among any of them. The future of Iraq and Syria, as well as the situation in West Asia, will be dependent on US’ attitude towards the Iran nuclear deal.
The President-elect is known to have been guided to some extent during the campaign by a set of US Army and Marine Corps generals who are emerging from the shadows. Among the ones likely to be advising him as part of his core team are General Michael Flynn as Trump’s pick for National Security Advisor and General James Mattis for Defense Secretary. More uniformed officials from the four American armed forces, including General Stanley McChrystal, could find plum, influential jobs running intelligence agencies or offering advice. The New York Times observed that the single thread tying them all together is that they all had issues with President Barack Obama.
Trump seems to perceive the idea of a political opposition as one with a literal 180-degree opposition. Expectations always remain that a presidential candidate once elected would quickly adjust himself to the ways of the establishment and proceed cautiously in terms of pursuing change. But one example from history of single-minded pursuance of change as a policy was Nixon with his approach to China; ping-pong diplomacy took just five months to commence after his inauguration.
Observers are terming the entry of US Generals into advisory and strategic decision-making roles as dangerous because that would inevitably lead to a more robust policy of the use of hard power. However, the New York Times, quoting Stephen K Bannon, the President-elect’s chief strategist, says “the 
incoming administration was looking at 
potential cabinet officials with combat 
experience so that people who had fought in 
wars would be making decisions about whether 
to commit the country to more of them.” Military leaders of the Marshall, Eisenhower and Powell variety drew much respect when saddled with political responsibilities. Yet today, even military analysts are being critical. Retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, who authored two books on military strategy, speaks about the feasibility of too many military instruments in every consideration of international security.  Somehow, the perception of military leaders seeking conflict resolution through the employment of only hard power appears to have permeated the thinking of most academic and security related analysts. This is also the opinion of the political class and civil society in most nations.
To establish the truth or otherwise of this perception would need a separate essay. Currently suffice to say that military leaders are acutely conscious of the economic and social implications of the unrestrained use of hard power. Military institutions the world over, which teach and discuss strategy, usually emphasise on all instruments of conflict resolution. The United Kingdom’s Royal College of Defence Studies and India’s National Defence College hardly carry much content about the military in their curriculum. Yet, somehow this perception prevails to the detriment of exploiting the strategic might and experience of military leaderships.
For Indian foreign policy specialists, analysts and those specifically focused on the development of the India-US strategic relationship, this would be a time for concern. If 
there has to be a marked influence of the US 
military on strategic policy formulation, then it 
is worth knowing that the US military has no 
particular affection for India. The slight disdain that exists, and many would take this writer up on it, is symbolically displayed in many a US training institution where both Indian and Pakistan Army personnel train. In all strategic seminars around the world, it is the Pakistan Army which finds favour with the US armed forces. India’s Soviet/Russia connect from the Cold War era and the US-Pakistan connect of CENTO and, also, the 1979-89 period of Soviet presence in Afghanistan inspires less confidence in India and more in Pakistan, at least within the US uniformed and intelligence community.
Former US President George Bush’s push for a stronger US-India equation received energetic support from President Obama in the second half of his presidency. Just when things seem to be looking upwards comes the new presidency of Trump. Continuity is usually the responsibility of non-partisan bureaucracies, but when the President-elect is veering towards hiring advisors who have had major disagreements with President Obama, the potential of continuity becomes questionable.
This is what Indian policy planners must be prepared for. They must work to prevent awkward perceptions from developing. The time to work on that is now, even before the inauguration. We may be sceptical about the alleged Trump-Nawaz Sharif telephonic chat and promises of a visit to Pakistan, but Pakistan’s strategic position in world polity must not be scoffed at. Indian efforts at isolating Pakistan on the issue of terrorism have been insufficiently supported internationally, and the US continues to play games in this regard. The strategic importance of Pakistan’s territorial space for all kinds of international players makes it a nation everyone wishes to befriend.
Trump may yet turn out to be an outstanding President, independent in thought and not tied to old-world equations. Yet, the uniformed intellectual community is definitely going to be a major player in deciding US security policy. If that is the case, India will have to redouble its efforts to stay where it has reached with President Obama and potentially engage in different dimensions beyond just the political and diplomatic contacts.
Calling upon the Indian military and 
intelligence community to play a greater role in 
diplomacy may well be in order.
You re reading 1 of 7 free articles for this weaek. Only Swarajya subscribers have unlimited access to all our articles.
Click here to subscribe for as little as Rs 299Already have an account? Log in
 
  • Donald Trump

  • America

  • India-US relations

  • US Foreign Policy

  • Indian foreign policy

  • Michael Flynn
  •                                                                          









































































































    Saturday, December 10, 2016

    PROJECT SARASWATI : India's 'Miracle River'

    SOURCE:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2073159.stm


                    PROJECT SARASWATI


              India's 'Miracle River'



    Saturday, 29 June, 2002



    Scientists say new evidence could              unearth the Saraswati




    The legend of the mighty Saraswati river has lived on in India since time immemorial. Ancient Hindu scriptures called the Vedas, recorded thousands of years ago, are full of tantalising hymns about it being the life-stream of the people.


    In a new radio programme, Madhur Jaffrey recounts the legend of the Saraswati river - and explores startling new evidence that it may not have been a myth after all.



    Vast and awesome, the Saraswati's holy waters are supposed to have flowed from the Himalayas into the sea, nourishing the land along the way. But as the centuries passed and no one could find it, myth, belief and religion came together and the Saraswati passed into the realm of folklore.

    Now most people in India think of it as a mythical river. Some even believe that it is an invisible river or that it still flows underground. Another commonly held perception is that the Saraswati once flowed through the north Indian city of Allahabad, meeting there with two other rivers, the Ganges and the Jamuna.

    The confluence of these three rivers - one of which is not visible to the eye - is considered one of India's holiest spots.




    For most of the country, the name Saraswati is better known for its divine namesake - the goddess Saraswati, Hindu goddess of Learning. Worshipped particularly by students and school children, her festival falls in February, and the city of Calcutta is famous for celebrating her in style.

                            Saraswati, 
        Hindu Goddess of Learning 





    Makeshift shrines are erected in every street and after the festival is over, thousands of the images are taken to the banks of the river Hooghly and pitched into the water where they are forever carried away by the river.
    The goddess' connection to water is part of the enigma that surrounds the river. But that mystery could be set to be dispelled forever, as startling scientific evidence has come to light.

    Through satellite photography, scientists have mapped the course of an enormous river that once flowed through the north western region of India. The images show that it was 8 km wide in places and that it dried up 4,000 years ago.


    Dr JR Sharma who heads the Remote Sensing Services Centre in Jodhpur which is mapping the images, believes a major earthquake may have played a part in the demise of the Saraswati. There was, he says, a big tectonic activity that stopped the water supply to the river.


    Sharma and his team believe they have found the Saraswati and are excited about what this discovery could mean for India. The idea is to tap its potential as a water source. They are working with India¿s leading water experts who are using the satellite images as clues.





    Deep in the western Rajasthan desert, not far from the security-conscious border with Pakistan, an extraordinary programme is underway. Giant drilling rigs probe deep into the dry, arid earth pulling out undisturbed layers of soil and sediment for scientists to study and test.

              Scientists Hope to Find 
              Water Under the Desert 




    Water engineers are exploring the region's ancient riverbeds for what they call groundwater - underground reservoirs that contain perfectly drinkable water. If they are successful, their discovery could transform the lives of thousands of locals who currently experience harsh water shortages.


    Mr KS Sriwastawa of the Rajasthan State Groundwater Board believes one of these ancient buried channels may be the Saraswati.


    He knows the stories refer to the ancient river flowing through this area and says excitedly that carbon dating has revealed that the water they are finding is 4000 years old. That would date it to the time of the Saraswati.


    The modern search for the Saraswati was first sparked by an English engineer called CF Oldham in 1893 when he was riding his horse along the dry bed of a seasonal Rajasthani river called the Ghaggar.


    As he rode on, he was struck by a sudden thought. The Ghaggar when it flowed, was a small, puny river and there was no reason for its bed to be up to 3km wide in places unless it occupied the former course of a much larger river - the Saraswati.


    The discovery of a vast prehistoric civilisation that lived along the banks of a major river, has added impetus to the growing modern belief that the Saraswati has been found.


    Over 1000 archaeological sites have been found on the course of this river and they date from 3000 BC. One of these sites is the prehistoric town of Kalibangan in northern Rajasthan.


    The town has proved a treasure trove of information about the Bronze Age people who actually lived on the banks of the Saraswati. Archaeologists have discovered that there were priests, farmers, merchants and very advanced artists and craftsmen living there.


    Highly sophisticated seals on which there is evidence of writing have also been found, indicating that these people were literate, but unfortunately the seals have never been deciphered.


    They may well hold the clue to the mystery of what happened to the Saraswati and whether it has really been found again.

    The Miracle River is broadcast at 3.30pm on Saturday 29 June on BBC Radio 4