Showing posts with label Conflict. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conflict. Show all posts

Monday, August 5, 2019

Kashmir... again

OK, so regarding Kashmir, the Indian parliament just  approved resolutions abrogating the special status of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian constitution, and dividing the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories. Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted out the following:
 
 
This was a mistake and is going to cause huge problems down the road... 
 
Back in 2002 India and Pakistan faced off across their border (the "Line of Control" that divides J&K), and at that time I wrote the following (see below), recommending that a solution (Kashmiri independence) be shoved down the throats of both India and Pakistan... Nothing was done...

01/14/2002 The conflict in Kashmir Brief History:

When the British were leaving the Indian subcontinent there were 570 'princely states' in the subcontinent ruled by hereditary rulers. The British gave the rulers of these states the option of acceding to India, to Pakistan, or of remaining independent. The majority of these states acceded to India, a few to Pakistan. Indian independence arrived August 15th, 1947. Problems arose in a few states that had princes who were of a different religion than the majority of their subjects:
  • The Nawab of Jugandah and the Nizam of Hyderabad were Muslim rulers of states that were predominantly Hindu. Hyderabad and Jugandah were also physically in proximity to territory that was becoming India. When the nawab attempted to accede to Pakistan India imposed an economic blockade and later armed a "liberation army" of Hindu emigrees to invade. The nizam did not decide immediately, but signed a one year "standstill agreement" with India to have extra time to decide. In September 1948 the Indian army invaded and took over Hyderabad. 
  • Unlike Hyderabad and Jugandah, Kashmir was ruled by Maharaja Hari Singh, a Hindu prince of a majority Muslim population. Kashmir also was located between India and Pakistan. The maharaja did not wish to make an immediate decision, perhaps hoping for independence. He signed a Standstill Agreement with India and Pakistan. There are two versions of what happened next

Pakistan's version of events:

The ruler of Kashmir, as a Muslim, wished to accede to Pakistan. He was placed under tremendous pressure by the Indian government to accede to India. The Muslim population, seeing this and the covert arrival of Indian troops, rose up and rebelled against Hari Singh. The government of India, alleging that the ruler had acceded to India on the basis of a fraudulent instrument of accession, invaded and occupied a large part of Kashmir, which is now divided into Azad (Liberated) Kashmir and 'Indian-held Kashmir'. India has reneged on its promise to hold a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris... India needs to implement UN resolutions calling for a referendum

India's version of events:

Pakistan implemented an economic blockade of Kashmir to force the maharaja to accede to Pakistan. When this failed Pakistan next sent armed Pathan tribesmen into Kashmir to forcibly annex it. Maharaja Hari Singh was thus obliged to seek India's assistance, and on October 26th 1947 Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession. Indian forces entered Kashmir and fighting continued until the battle stabilized. Eventually the United Nations arranged a cease-fire January 1st 1949 and the cease-fire line became known as the Line of Control. Approximately a quarter of the western portion of the state is occupied by Pakistan, with the remainder a part of India. A plebiscite has never been held as promised because Pakistan never fulfilled a prerequisite condition - the complete withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir. Subsequently, free and fair elections have been held in Kashmir. Lastly, the future of the disputed territory is to be worked out by bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan as called for in the Simla agreement

The Future:

The ideal future would be an independent Kashmir. It is a beautiful region of snowcapped mountains and clear lakes, covering approximately 86,000 square miles. Once a tourist destination, it has been ravaged by years of fighting (Two faces of Kashmir - war and peace) and an estimated 60,000 people have died in the struggle between the two sides. The insurgents have carried out multiple acts of terror, while Indian troops have engaged in murder and torture, as documented by various human rights organizations e.g. Human Rights Watch.
 
Unfortunately independence is a highly unlikely scenario, as it would require both parties to show a level of flexibility far beyond what they have shown themselves capable of. The immediate prognosis is that Kashmir will remain a running sore between India and Pakistan for the foreseeable future. The interest shown by the US and the west in this latest flare-up is due to the fact that both countries are nuclear powers.
 
However, despite western concern, the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used even if the tensions between these two countries breaks out into a full-scale war is negligible. India has a declared "no first use" policy, possesses military superiority (both in terms of quantity and quality), and professional armed forces that are under civilian control. There are no scenarios in which tactical use of nuclear weapons would be militarily useful to Pakistan, and thus Pakistan would only use them as a weapon of last resort if the very existence of the country were in doubt. This is an unlikely scenario, since immense international pressure would be brought to bear on India before this point would be reached. Any armed conflict now would not involve nuclear weapons.
 
However, it is very likely that in five to ten years these countries will achieve advances in nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and their delivery systems. This will significantly lower the nuclear threshold, and increase the risk of their use at a future point. Thus it is in everyone's interest that the question of Kashmir be resolved at this time when the risk of a nuclear exchange is low! The international community should push for a demilitarized and independent Kashmir as a solution to the problem

Friday, May 5, 2017

There's certainly 'fake news' out there...


Ever since the U.S. elections the hot topic has been "fake news." As usually in 'Russian fake news.. propaganda... kompromat... (it always sounds 'sexier' if you throw in some foreign words!) was responsible for Hilary Clinton's election loss.' For example, per Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia) Russia was not only responsible for the prolific production of 'fake news' but also managed to "... generate news down to specific areas... were able to (affect) specific areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, where you would not have been receiving off of whoever your vendor might have been, ‘Trump versus Clinton’ from the waning days of the election. But instead, ‘Clinton is sick,’ or ‘Clinton is taking money’ from some source..." and trick the Google algorithm so that "... you wouldn't get Fox or ABC, The New York Times; what you get is four out of the first five news stories that popped up were Russian propaganda..." (Note: he did throw an obligatory "reported to me" in there somewhere, but he was rather categorical that all this actually happened...)

The 'fake news' bandwagon then rolled on to star in the upcoming French and German elections. 

Being in the U.S. I certainly saw a ton of (frankly) crap in the run up to the election... Hilary Clinton faints, folks speculate about why, some with outlandish theories... Picture of Hilary Clinton being helped up some stairs? Ditto. Candidate Trump refuses to release his tax returns? Folks speculate about why, some with outlandish theories... Are we seeing a pattern here? However, after the elections everything seemed to get rolled up in the "fake news" meme. I must say I didn't see any more than the usual level of crap (note: at least 20-30 of everything out there on the 'net); but perhaps I wasn't in an area specifically 'targeted!'

So, it was interesting when I ran across this online article by "Die Welt" purporting to unmask a specific example of 'fake news.' So, according to this reporting 'fake news' was being circulated that Emmanuel Macron is gay and that (per Die Welt) this allegation (Macron being a "closeted homosexual") was 'fake news' put out specifically by "... the pro-Russian propaganda website Sputnik on Feb. 4." Strangely enough, although this was a web story it did not include a link to the Sputnik article with the "fake news." Perhaps this was a high-minded attempt not to further propagate 'fake news' (more on that later).

Well, Google is your friend (except, perhaps, when Mark Warner believes it is being subverted by the Russians!) I used Google and immediately found the Sputnik article in question: 'Ex-French Economy Minister Macron Could Be 'US Agent' Lobbying Banks' Interests.' A read of the article doesn't quite bear out the Die Welt allegation. Yes, the article references Macron being gay; however, what it reported was that this ex-minister and sitting member of the French parliament made accusations about Macron being a stalking horse for U.S. financial interests and then went on to insinuate that Macron might be gay. And Sputnik reported that the candidate had denied a rumor about being gay (along with other allegations e.g. misuse of government funds).

So, Sputnik reported (factually) that an ex-minister had made allegations and insinuations about Macron and that Macron had denied a number of allegations... and both included his sexual proclivities. I'm hard pressed to see how this is 'fake news.' On the other hand, the Die Welt's article certainly misconstrued (at best) or lied (at worst) about Sputnik's article! In this particular case I would have to say that of the two articles, the Die Welt article claims the title of  'fake news.' So, very likely Die Welt not linking to the Sputnik article was not some high-minded attempt to prevent the further propagation of 'fake news,' but an attempt to make it harder to see that their article was the one stretching the truth the most!


P.S. It is to be noted that the Macron campaign refused to accredit Sputnik and some other news outlets on the grounds that they were illegitimate and purveyors of 'fake news.' And when Marine Le Pen asked Macron about off-shore accounts, which was followed by some fake documents "proving" the same the Macron campaign again fingered Sputnik... In response the editors of Sputnik wrote the Macron campaign an open letter pointing out that they had reported no stories about this item and  asking  for a dialog. Oh, and apparently "... The provenance of the latest conspiracy theory isn't clear, but there are hints tying the faked documents to far-right circles in California."

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Random picture - "drone memo" author



Also known as the "drone memo" this 41-page memo sets out the justification for the elimination of (American citizen) al-Awlaki. Presumably there is a similar memo for the elimination of his teenaged son, also killed in a drone attack while . "... at a barbecue and preparing to eat when the U.S. attacked them by air and ended their lives..." Or perhaps there is no memo for the son, it might be sufficient that he made the fatal mistake of not having "... a more responsible father..."

The Drone That Killed My Grandson

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Random charts - ISIS



"... an examination of its history through its own documents indicates that the group has been far more ambitious and effective than United States officials judged as they were winding down the American involvement in the war.

The Sunni extremist group, while renowned for the mayhem it has inflicted, has set clear goals for carving out and governing a caliphate, an Islamic religious state, that spans Sunni-dominated sections of Iraq and Syria. It has published voluminously, even issuing annual reports, to document its progress in achieving its goals..."

Yet it was a surprise when it happened!?! Strange, was no one paying attention? Well actually, they were: "... In congressional testimony in February, a top army intelligence official, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, said the group, “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014....”

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Not "OSCE observers"


A full week after the OSCE had clarified that those detained were not "OSCE observers" the media keeps on reporting about the detained, and now released "OSCE observers." A case of lazy reporting? Of stupidity? Or 'propaganda'? Occam's Razor would suggest the former...

Of course, when the Russians engage in similar tactics, the U.S. immediately labels it rank propaganda...


Friday, March 28, 2014

Random charts - animal rights

 


"... The use of animal models in biomedical research is essential to our ability to develop treatments and cures for those suffering from debilitating diseases. Breakthroughs in treatments for illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, HIV/AIDS, and Parkinson’s disease would not have been possible without the use of animals in research. Moreover, biomedical research directly benefits animals themselves. The majority of veterinary advances are a direct result of research involving animal models..."

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Great quote - independence


 "... the General Assembly has asked whether the declaration of independence was “in accordance with” international law.The answer to that question turns on whether or not the applicable inter-national law prohibited the declaration of independence. If the Court concludes that it did, then it must answer the question put by saying that the declaration of independence was not in accordance with international law. It follows that the task which the Court is called upon to perform is to determine whether or not the declaration of independence was adopted in violation of international law. The Court is not required by the question it has been asked to take a position on whether international law conferred a positive entitlement on Kosovo unilaterally to declare its independence or, a fortiori, on whether international law generally confers an entitlement on entities situated within a State unilaterally to breakaway from it. Indeed, it is entirely possible for a particular act — such asa unilateral declaration of independence — not to be in violation of inter-national law without necessarily constituting the exercise of a right conferred by it. The Court has been asked for an opinion on the first point,not the second..."

- International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion of 22nd July 2010  The ICJ concluded that nothing specific  in international law prohibited the Kosovo declaration of independence.

"The proposed referendum on the future of Crimea would violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law

- President Obama, see Obama: Crimea Referendum Would Violate International Law. No specifics or particular law actually cited...

Saturday, March 8, 2014

Great quotes - extraordinary threat?


"I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons -- including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine -- that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat..."