West Asia News and Discussions

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 22 Apr 2011 10:18

Singha wrote: if there is a perfect match of mediaeval savagery, mental mediocrity, virulent religious hatred and disposable money - it is saudi arabia. the place would be a bigger yemen or a sudan if not for oil. somewhere god goofed up and gave them boundless oil and unkil did the rest to make it a virus for the rest of us.

THe problem was that after 1980 the jihad and global radical islam spread and it also came inside India with Kerala showing the signs of sharia culture. This contact with the west asia during the radicalization is the biggest threat to India. Pak with its agenda and connection inside India is another one.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Apr 2011 11:23

>>Menon ji and others who are saying empty stomachs had to be filled. I understand times were tough till early 90s. But not today.

Perhaps you are not fully aware of the situation in India boss. There are still a lot of very poor people there, including in my own Mallustan. Enough to keep seeking jobs in the Gulf for at least a decade to come, if not more.

>>A person can find work anywhere in India and feed himself and his family. Infact, I have heard and read stories of Mallus buying houses and fancy cars etc from money made in Gulf.

A person may not be able to find work anywhere in India, or he may find a better option pay wise in one of the gulf countries. Like I said, it seems you may not be well attuned to the working conditions and choices before people with very little money. Of course, plenty of Mallus have made money and buy fancy cars etc from - the Gulf money factor. And they start businesses in India, create jobs, come back and settle down and actually bring in a lot of best practices learned in the Gulf - you may be surprised. Of course there are lot of attendant comical socio-economic situations arising from this Gulf returnee factor too... What's wrong with that? I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Greed? By this token why should the Gulf people be singled out? Why not everyone leaving India to make a living?

>>Menonji with no disrespect intented to your father, ask him how he really felt when he couldn't eat because the illiterate camel riders tent dwellers were fasting.

It is clear you have limited exposure to this stuff. This is not some sort of family secret when the swallowing of pride was hidden shamefully. We used to talk about it regularly. "This is their country. They set the rules. When in Rome..." ... And this sort of talk also went on among other families. One of the positive side-effects of this, unintended no doubt, is that when all these Mallus came back they did so without much tolerance for such bullshit back home, because that was their Rome. (Besides, to address the Ramadan issue which is what you are talking about I presume, we never used to eat out anyway - mom flatly refused to spend money at a restaurant "so long as I'm at home"... People who have been on a hungry stomach for extended periods tend not to favour "luxuries" like eating out - unless travelling, and even then she used to cook and pack

). Perhaps I overcompensate now by hardly having 20 meals a year at home

There was once a poster on BRF who explained the whole phenomenon in terms of "internal" pride and "external" pride. That hit the nail right on the head in terms of these situations. Wish I could find that post.

In general, I recommend you take a step back and re-evaluate your position from the perspective of the poor who go there and elsewhere. You may begin to understand the circumstantial exigencies.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Apr 2011 17:35

Regarding the barring of entry of Non Muslims into Mecca and Medina.

I remember that the Konkan Railway officials who had executed the DMRC (Delhi Metro Rail Project) had not only been allowed entry into Mecca (of course escorted by local officials and security personnel) to survey the sites where the Saudis were planning a Mass Rapid Transit System.

The konkan railways guys wanted to offer their sky bus (of which they have a prototype test track in Madgaon, Goa).
That deal eventually went to some western company.

I've never mentioned this, but I was watching a documentary on the building of the Holy mosque at Mecca. Basically the documentary was extolling the leadership of King Abdulla, and the technological marvels of that entire complex.
The designers were westerners, although Muslim engineers were supervising the whole operation. Also, I am sure I saw several Sikh Labourers working on the site. You can't identify a hindu from a muslim, but you can 400% identity a sikh wearing a turban.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Apr 2011 19:39

I don't think we can blame people who compared the duties they could successfully complete, and saw that they could do only one - that of maintaining their families, and if to do that they had to swallow some of the conditions of living in "mleccha" lands, they did it.

We should however appreciate more those among them who maintained their inner commitment to their roots and did not become confused or hesitant over their identity in the face of possible incentives to go over to the other "side".

To all those of previous generations who maintained the spark and the fire and prepared their children for better days to reclaim their birthright, while accepting the immense price in self-esteem that has to be paid for the compromises - my namaskaar.

But it is time that next gen either return to homeland and take it to its rightful destiny, or become extensions of India and "Indic" with gradual political assertion, or assimilate completely in to their hosts. It is time to really choose sides.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Apr 2011 21:08

>>I don't think we can blame people who compared the duties they could successfully complete, and saw that they could do only one - that of maintaining their families, and if to do that they had to swallow some of the conditions of living in "mleccha" lands, they did it.

I don't believe such comparisons were or are made. Simpler questions of livelihood are the issue. And of course, one can "blame" these poor people, but frankly i don't see how that carries much water in any sense, not that they would give a crap.

>>We should however appreciate more those among them who maintained their inner commitment to their roots and did not become confused or hesitant over their identity in the face of possible incentives to go over to the other "side".

Absolutely.

>>To all those of previous generations who maintained the spark and the fire and prepared their children for better days to reclaim their birthright, while accepting the immense price in self-esteem that has to be paid for the compromises - my namaskaar.

Again, speaking for myself, as a classic case and ALL the hindu and christian mallu families and kids I knew there - and they were considerable - the question of a price in self-esteem did not arise at all. There was zero respect for the Arabs in any sense, on the contrary - apart from individual cases here and there. We simply knew that this was a difficult time and such compromises had to be made and things would get better and they did. There is another segment though, the poor "bonded" construction worker for example... I don't know what's exactly the situation there, but it would appear that there it is an extreme condition - for them I suspect things would be as bad back home; so self-esteem wise, same difference.

>>But it is time that next gen either return to homeland and take it to its rightful destiny, or become extensions of India and "Indic" with gradual political assertion, or assimilate completely in to their hosts. It is time to really choose sides.

I view it differently. I think we should go out and spread out and spread the seed, marry into their societies, and talk our talk, give our ideas and stay there and change them. And spread our pluralistic, non-absolute, eclectic worldview. Eventually, in terms of thought processes, the world will become Indic - although it will not resemble India. It is time for us to spread our wings. Look outward and create the conditions for the world to shape itself in an image not very different from ours in the basics, while allowing room for lots of local colour.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 22 Apr 2011 21:34

I'm beginning to realise that not many BRFites have an idea of the ground situation in the Gulf countries. Guys, these places are OVERRIDEN by Indians. In places like the UAE/Bahrain/Oman/Qatar/Kuwait you can hardly take 10 steps without meeting an Indian ... All this done with minimum political impact, and few law and order issues, except of course a little bit of white collar crime. And people from India are across the spectrum of society from the wealthiest to the poorest. It's a mini India in some of these countries...

Of course those governments are concerned about the ground realities, but there is really no need for them to be. Indians are peaceful, law-abiding, contribute to the local society with minimum friction, ready for a deal, and quarrel amongst themselves all the time. I mean, if you really needed immigrants in your country, what more could you ask for? OK white skin maybe, but hey, you can't have everything. So we will be there for a while yet.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Apr 2011 21:37

Advait just one question are you under 25 ?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Apr 2011 23:14

JE Menon ji,
I meant compromises with host societal norms or requirements - and that is true for any foreign country, not just the Gulf. There is a kind of internal futile pain that one has to bear if he/she has to get along with things against principles/habits/culture just because he/she has made the choice of working at the place. "Self-esteem" was not an accurate word for what I meant. Sorry about that.

As for "attitudes", I did keep a second option about a gradual extension of political presence and assertion of the "Indic". I am not suggesting everyoine must return. The third option I mentioned was about assimilating into the host society - which is best served by marrying into. Within that of course it will be a give and take, and an entire value-system will be difficult to transpose - with for many perhaps even difficult and sensitive battles about which faith/culture/roots upbringing the next gen should have in such "mixed" (I hate the term!) marriages.

Of course in the Gulf this does not arise much for Indians - as non-Muslim Indian women marrying into Gulf families cannot change much in the cultural aspect, and there is not much chance of non-Muslim Indian men marrying Gulf Muslim women unless they do it in a third country.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 23 Apr 2011 00:54

>>As for "attitudes", I did keep a second option about a gradual extension of political presence and assertion of the "Indic". I am not suggesting everyoine must return. The third option I mentioned was about assimilating into the host society - which is best served by marrying into.

Indeed, or simply by going and living there. Mere presence by itself makes a difference. Combine that with sociability, a strong work ethic, and even stronger ethic of not taking handouts, fiscal prudence - all pretty much qualities of the average Indian, one could safely say - the impact of such a presence can be considerable. Marriage of course takes it a step further. Assimilation is a funny thing. An Indian in Britain may be "assimilating" into the society - but he has already changed it by his presence there - and names ranging from Sharma to Subramaniam will remain in the UK for a very long time to come indeed, in the case of marriage, etc. Of course, going native is par for the course, and wait for the second or third generation who have experienced India only by word of mouth (unless they have travelled there - thank god for globalisation and airplanes).

>>Within that of course it will be a give and take, and an entire value-system will be difficult to transpose - with for many perhaps even difficult and sensitive battles about which faith/culture/roots upbringing the next gen should have in such "mixed" (I hate the term!) marriages.

Oh very much so boss. I'm opposed to the idea of even attempting to transpose our value system (which is why I bolded "on the basics"). If we simply promote freedom of political, economic and religious varieties, we are already giving ourselves a huge leg up - because we are starting pretty much from scratch in these countries. We should by no means attempt to remake them in our image. They should find the Indian worldview attractive for its rationality, its accommodative and inclusive qualities, and its distributed open source nature. And as the world globalises and communicates, it will be seen to be so - unless of course we fu(k it up, which we are quite capable of, but in my opinion unlikely to do at this juncture in our history.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Apr 2011 12:03

RajeshA wrote:
shyamd wrote:Qatr will have a coup if they dont change their ways and fall in line.
shyamd ji,

Curiosity is awake now! What ways? What line? Whose line? Coup from whom? Coup supported by whom?

thanks for any info!

No one in GCC is happy with qatar. The royals & people will side with GCC, pursuing an independent foreign policy just because they have wealth is a bit of a no no.
No one is happy with qatar as they aren't really backing down from relations with Iran. If he continues with his policies on iran then coup. Turki, syria have fallen in line. Qatar hasn't really. This is the problem.

Although he has made some concessions due to al jazeera tv. But diplomatically he hasn't dropped iran.

------------------
I've had a nice week away from everything - spent some time doing some studying on KSA strategic policies. Very useful to apply past policies in the current situation. Also, interesting comparisons to Indian moves (during ABV time). India and KSA strategically have very similar thinking in terms of alliances against our respective adversaries (PRC and Iran respectively).

A very relevant article. I encourage all to read this.

Bandar's return

Posted By John Hannah Friday, April 22, 2011 - 9:07 PM Share

As my friend Simon Henderson has been chronicling, "Bandar is back." Sidelined in recent years by some combination of illness and palace intrigue, Saudi Arabia's legendary former ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is once again a major presence on the world stage. The Obama administration would be wise to take note. Working in tandem with the United States, Bandar's over-sized talents could prove a huge asset in efforts to shape the Middle East Revolts of 2011 in a direction that serves U.S. interests. Put to other uses, however, those same skills could lead to results that Washington may find, well, much less agreeable.

The reason that Bandar has been urgently called back into service is not hard to fathom. While many in the West have seen the promise of democracy and freedom in the political turmoil roiling Arab lands, the Saudis see little but disaster. They view everything through a single prism: their existential struggle with a menacing Iran that is hell-bent on collapsing the Middle East's existing order, unseating the House of Saud, and asserting a controlling influence over Islam's holiest sites in Mecca and Medina. For the Kingdom, there really is only one yardstick by which to measure emerging developments: Are they a net plus or minus for the Persian theocracy across the Gulf that seeks to assert its hegemony throughout the region?

From that vantage, the scorecard has not been good. The regime of Hosni Mubarak -- longtime Saudi ally; pillar of regional stability; stalwart opponent of the mullahs -- is gone. Yemen, on the Kingdom's southern border, teeters on the brink of anarchy. Most threatening of all, just miles off the Saudi coast, in tiny Bahrain -- a virtual protectorate of the Kingdom and the gateway to its oil-rich eastern province -- the Sunni al-Khalifa monarchy was pushed to the brink by Shiite protesters who, cheered on by Iran, dabbled dangerously with the idea of regime change. Brazenly challenged to defend one of their clearest redlines, the Saudis responded predictably, with a large-scale military intervention that underwrote a brutal crackdown to snuff out the escalating crisis.

Exacerbating everything for Riyadh has been its overarching loss of confidence in the reliability of American power. Against all Saudi advice, the Obama administration actively worked to help engineer Mubarak's ouster. In Bahrain, senior U.S. officials were publicly pressing the ruling family to make bolder concessions to the protesters -- literally hours before Saudi tanks began to roll. More recently, a tardy and hesitant exercise of U.S. military might has failed to dislodge Libya's Colonel Qaddafi, the man who just a few years ago contracted the assassination of Saudi King Abdullah. And in stark contrast to Washington's very public effort to push aside its longstanding Egyptian ally -- "yesterday," to quote Robert Gibbs -- Team Obama has kept an embarrassingly low profile in the face of sustained protests and bloodshed in anti-American Syria, a regime that proudly serves as Iran's closest ally in the Arab world.

Facing a situation where the region appears to be spiraling out of control, and its most important outside partner veers between weakness, incompetence, and reckless naivete, the House of Saud has circled the wagons, brought all hands on deck, called in the A Team -- choose your metaphor. But it all leads back to Bandar -- one of the most dynamic, creative, and aggressive statesmen of the past 30 years -- being summoned out of diplomatic purgatory to help the Kingdom cope with what it sees as an unprecedented crisis. Make no mistake, the Saudis now feel themselves very much at war with Iran, albeit by other means, and the stakes as viewed from Riyadh are nothing less than the future of the Arab Middle East and the survival of the House of Saud. And the force of nature that is Bandar bin Sultan has clearly been placed at the forefront of the Kingdom's battle plan.

I've lost count of how many times people have asked me in recent years, "Whatever happened to Bandar?" Now he's suddenly everywhere. Earlier this month, Secretary of Defense Gates visited Riyadh to see King Abdullah. Bandar was there. Days later, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon followed to deliver a message to Abdullah from President Obama. Again, Bandar was prominently featured in the photo-op. More interestingly -- and undoubtedly more worrisome -- at the end of March, in the wake of the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, Bandar was dispatched to Pakistan, China and India to rally support for the Kingdom's hard line approach to the region's unrest.

Bandar's formidable skills in the service of a Saudi Arabia that feels itself increasingly cornered and unable to rely on U.S. protection is a formula for trouble -- made even worse when the likes of Pakistan and China are thrown into the mix. No one should forget that, in the late 1980s, it was Bandar who secretly brokered the delivery of Chinese medium-range missiles to the Kingdom, totally surprising Washington and nearly triggering a major crisis with Israel. The danger today, of course, is that the Saudis feel sufficiently threatened and alone to engage in similar acts of self-help. Would they seek to modernize their ballistic missile force? Even worse, would the Kingdom go shopping for nuclear weapons or, at a minimum, invite Pakistan to deploy part of its nuclear arsenal to the Kingdom? Analysts have long speculated that Saudi money financed the Pakistani nuclear weapons program in exchange for a promise that when it became necessary, its fruits would be put at Riyadh's disposal. As the Middle East convulses and Iran relentlessly inches closer to achieving a nuclear weapons capability, has that time finally arrived?

Even short of these extreme scenarios, other troubling possibilities exist. During his trip to Pakistan, Bandar reportedly discussed contingencies under which thousands of additional Pakistani security forces might be dispatched to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia for the purpose of, in effect, cracking Shiite heads. Iran condemned the news, ratcheting up tensions further and increasing the risk that the situation could erupt into a full-blown Sunni-Shiite war. Additionally, no one can discount the danger that, with its back against the wall, the Kingdom might not once again fire up the old Sunni jihadist network and point it in the general direction of Shiite Iran -- leaving the rest of the world to deal with the nasty, unintended consequences of well-financed takfirists run amok.

To minimize the risk that any of these dangers actually comes to pass, the Obama administration would be well advised to focus like a laser beam on repairing its breach of trust with Riyadh. The visits of Gates and Donilon to the Kingdom clearly had that intent and, by most accounts, succeeded in stemming the hemorrhaging in the relationship. But the effort will need to be sustained.

The administration would also be smart to re-establish a very strong line of communication to Bandar now that he's again playing a major role in Saudi policy. Bandar working without reference to U.S. interests is clearly cause for concern. But Bandar working as a partner with Washington against a common Iranian enemy is a major strategic asset. Drawing on Saudi resources and prestige, Bandar's ingenuity and bent for bold action could be put to excellent use across the region in ways that reinforce U.S. policy and interests: through economic and political measures that weaken the Iranian mullahs; undermine the Assad regime; support a successful transition in Egypt; facilitate Qaddafi's departure; reintegrate Iraq into the Arab fold; and encourage a negotiated solution in Yemen. Even in Bahrain, if anyone in the Saudi hierarchy is going to understand over time that a stable solution must eventually go beyond repression to include a renewed effort at real reform, it is likely to be Bandar.

In April 2002, then-Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia arrived in Texas for a meeting with President Bush. It was a tense time in U.S.-Saudi relations. The Crown Prince was said to be deeply disturbed by raging Israeli-Palestinian violence, and angered by President Bush's failure to heed his pleas to take aggressive action to stop it. The claim was heard that American passivity in the face of Israeli "aggression" was allegedly empowering Iran and rendering the Saudi alliance with Washington increasingly untenable.

The day before the summit, a front-page story appeared in the New York Times declaring that "Saudi to Warn Bush Over Israel Policy." In the article, an unnamed senior Saudi official offered this inflammatory threat:"

It is a mistake to think that our people will not do what is necessary to survive, and if that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it. It's damned lonely in our part of the world, and we can no longer defend our relationship to our people.

Everyone immediately knew that the quote belonged to the Saudi Ambassador, Prince Bandar. Was it bombastic? Yes. Enraging? Certainly. But did it also reflect at least part of the Hobbesian reality faced by American foreign policy, however distasteful? Unfortunately, it did. So long as that remains the case, the United States would be wise to do its best not to leave Saudi Arabia, or Prince Bandar, feeling lonely. Putting the princes's 2002 proposition to the test is a risk that no one should be eager to run.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Apr 2011 21:33

President Gul's message to Israel. Sounds like Israeli-Turk relations are extremely bad that he has to publish this in public.

Israel's time is running out. the Israeli's are in alliance with the GCC on Iran, so it currently feels it has a free hand to do as it pleases. Israel is going to have to make concessions at some point after all this is over as a democratic regime means public opinion counts more than ever. Any over aggessive moves will mean problems for Israel. It has to tread carefully from now on.

The Revolution’s Missing Peace

By ABDULLAH GUL
Published: April 20, 2011

Ankara, Turkey

THE wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is of historic significance equal to that of the revolutions of 1848 and 1989 in Europe. The peoples of the region, without exception, revolted not only in the name of universal values but also to regain their long-suppressed national pride and dignity. But whether these uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a broader Israeli-Arab peace.

The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region and is being used as a pretext for extremism in other corners of the world. Israel, more than any other country, will need to adapt to the new political climate in the region. But it need not fear; the emergence of a democratic neighborhood around Israel is the ultimate assurance of the country’s security.

In these times of turmoil, two forces will shape the future: the people’s yearning for democracy and the region’s changing demographics. Sooner or later, the Middle East will become democratic, and by definition a democratic government should reflect the true wishes of its people. Such a government cannot afford to pursue foreign policies that are perceived as unjust, undignified and humiliating by the public. For years, most governments in the region did not consider the wishes of their people when conducting foreign policy. History has repeatedly shown that a true, fair and lasting peace can only be made between peoples, not ruling elites.

I call upon the leaders of Israel to approach the peace process with a strategic mindset, rather than resorting to short-sighted tactical maneuvers. This will require seriously considering the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, which proposed a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders and fully normalized diplomatic relations with Arab states.

Sticking to the unsustainable status quo will only place Israel in greater danger. History has taught us that demographics is the most decisive factor in determining the fate of nations. In the coming 50 years, Arabs will constitute the overwhelming majority of people between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. The new generation of Arabs is much more conscious of democracy, freedom and national dignity.

In such a context, Israel cannot afford to be perceived as an apartheid island surrounded by an Arab sea of anger and hostility. Many Israeli leaders are aware of this challenge and therefore believe that creating an independent Palestinian state is imperative. A dignified and viable Palestine, living side by side with Israel, will not diminish the security of Israel, but fortify it.

Turkey thinks strategically about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, not only because it knows that a peaceful Middle East would be to its benefit, but also because it believes that Israeli-Palestinian peace would benefit the rest of the world.

We are therefore ready to use our full capacity to facilitate constructive negotiations. Turkey’s track record in the years before Israel’s Gaza operation in December 2008 bears testimony to our dedication to achieving peace. Turkey is ready to play the role it played in the past, once Israel is ready to pursue peace with its neighbors.

Moreover, it is my firm conviction that the United States has a long-overdue responsibility to side with international law and fairness when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The international community wants the United States to act as an impartial and effective mediator between Israel and the Palestinians, just as it did a decade ago. Securing a lasting peace in the Middle East is the greatest favor Washington can do for Israel.

It will be almost impossible for Israel to deal with the emerging democratic and demographic currents in the absence of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world. Turkey, conscious of its own responsibility, stands ready to help.

Abdullah Gul is the president of Turkey.

Invitation to Israeli Leader Puts Obama on the Spot

By HELENE COOPER
Published: April 20, 2011

WASHINGTON — A Republican invitation for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address Congress next month is highlighting the tensions between President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu and has kicked off a bizarre diplomatic race over who will be the first to lay out a new proposal to reopen the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Enlarge This Image
Philip Scott Andrews/The New York Times

President Obama boarding Air Force One on Thursday at the start of a three-day trip with stops in California and Nevada.

For three months, White House officials have been debating whether the time has come for Mr. Obama to make a major address on the region’s turmoil, including the upheaval in the Arab world, and whether he should use the occasion to propose a new plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

One administration official said that course was backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the president himself, but opposed by Dennis B. Ross, the president’s senior adviser on the Middle East.

As the administration has been pondering, Mr. Netanyahu, fearful that his country would lose ground with any Obama administration plan, has been considering whether to pre-empt the White House with a proposal of his own, before a friendly United States Congress, according to American officials and diplomats from the region.

“People seem to think that whoever goes first gets the upper hand,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and a director at the New America Foundation. Using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname, he said: “If Bibi went first and didn’t lay out a bold peace plan, it would be harder for Obama to say, actually, despite what you said to Congress and their applause, this is what I think you should do.”

The political gamesmanship between the two men illustrates how the calculation in the Middle East has changed for a variety of reasons, including the political upheaval in the Arab world. But it also shows the lack of trust and what some officials say is personal animosity between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.

White House officials are working on drafts of a possible proposal, but they have not decided how detailed it will be, or even whether the president will deliver it in a planned speech. If Mr. Obama does put forward an American plan, officials say it could include four principles, or terms of reference, built around the final status issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979.

The terms of reference could call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. For their part, Palestinians would have to accept that they would not get the right of return to land in Israel from which they fled or were forced to flee. Jerusalem would be the capital of both states, and Israeli security would have to be protected.

Mr. Netanyahu has made it clear that he wants Israel’s security needs addressed before any peace deal with the Palestinians. He has become even more concerned about security because shifts in power among Arab states in recent months have weakened Israel’s already fragile relations with its neighbors, particularly Egypt.

The tussling between the Obama administration and the Israeli government reached a peak last week when Mrs. Clinton, in Washington at a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, announced that Mr. Obama would be “speaking in greater detail about America’s policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks.”

Her announcement electrified Israeli officials, who quickly got on the phone with American officials and journalists to determine whether Mr. Obama had decided to put an American plan on the table. He had not made such a decision, and White House officials cautioned that the internal debate was still going on.

But two days later, the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, announced his intention to invite Mr. Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. “America and Israel are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to hearing the prime minister’s views on how we can continue working together for peace, freedom and stability,” Mr. Boehner said in a news release.

Like many other foreign leaders, Mr. Netanyahu has addressed Congress before. He did so in 1996, and four other Israeli prime ministers have over the past 35 years. The platform gives American elected leaders the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their support for Israel before the politically crucial Israel lobby.

Mr. Netanyahu’s address will coincide with the planned meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the most powerful of the American groups that advocate for Israel.

Brendan Buck, Mr. Boehner’s press secretary, said that staff members had received no pushback from the White House about the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. “Obviously, it’s a troubled time for the region,” he said. “Our members have been very interested in demonstrating that we stand with Israel.”

Last November, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, told Mr. Netanyahu that the new G.O.P. majority in the House would “serve as a check on the administration,” in a statement that was rare for its blunt disagreement on American foreign policy as conveyed to a foreign leader.

Mr. Cantor put out a statement after a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu saying that he “made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”

Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization, said that Republicans were trying to “make Israel a partisan wedge issue.”

“And that’s bad for Israel, and that’s bad for the United States,” Mr. Katulis said. But he added that the administration would never publicly, or even privately, oppose the notion of an Israeli leader addressing Congress.

Two American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity out of diplomatic caution, said they thought that if Mr. Netanyahu intended to make a bold proposal for a peace deal with the Palestinians, he would do so before his own people in the Knesset.

“Instead of focusing on peace-making, everybody seems to be focused on speech-making,” said Martin S. Indyk, vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a former United States ambassador to Israel. “And unless the speeches generate peace negotiations, making speeches will not generate peace.”

Much of the debate is taking place under a pending deadline of the United Nations General Assembly meeting scheduled in September, when the Assembly is expected to broadly endorse Palestinian statehood in a vote that could prove deeply embarrassing to Israel and the United States, which are both expected to vote against it.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 22, 2011

An article on Thursday about tensions between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel misstated the location of a speech last week in which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that Mr. Obama would offer details soon about America’s policies in the Middle East. It was in Washington, D.C., at a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, not in Qatar.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 23 Apr 2011 21:36

From twitter

>>Yemen's Saleh Accepts Deal to Step Down http://on.wsj.com/eyyWg5 | Will go in next 30 days in exchange 4 immunity.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Apr 2011 22:38

Saleh had to go, KSA has been engaged via tribes with the opposition.

I am just catching up on news I have missed out during the week.

Pro-Bahrain demonstrations in Kashmir

$700m fund created between India - UAE.
Abdul Kalam calls for India-Dubai energy platform

Egypt is opening relations with Iran and GCC is angry with the timing. Egypt FM cancelled visit to UAE. Some sources aresaying UAE FM is pee'd off about the Egyptian decision.

Long term, GCC security may be in peril if GCC don't start spending money on a fund to re-develop Egyptian economy. But meanwhile there will be a showdown between civies and military at some point.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Apr 2011 23:02

I wonder what president Gul of Turkey smoking. What is the relationship between Egypt, Bahreain etc and Palestaine issue, I am not sure. I also am confused with Turkey's stand on Bahrain and the relevance of this article

GCC should focus on bringing democracy to their homes instead of having wet dreams on Iran or Israel...

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Apr 2011 02:34

Iran's Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs Ali Abdollahi says Tehran plans to close off borders to prevent terrorist groups from entering the country.

“The comprehensive project of sustainable security will soon be implemented in the country's borders,” Abdollahi said on Saturday.

Abdollahi said Iran's southwestern, northwestern and western borders were the Interior Ministry's priorities, adding that “this plan will be implemented on all borders in order to prevent unauthorized crossings especially for terrorists.”

The Iranian official said the project has already begun in some of the border provinces and would soon start in other areas such as Kurdistan.

Salehi: Iran-Pakistan ties expanding

Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:10PM

Iran's Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi
The Iranian foreign minister has hailed developing bilateral ties between Tehran and Islamabad in a ceremony marking Pakistan's National Day.

“The relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan are expanding and satisfactory,” Ali Akbar Salehi said at a meeting with Pakistan's chargé d'affaires in Tehran Aman Rashid late Wednesday, IRNA reported on Thursday.

Salehi also put the value of trade between the two neighbors at an annual USD 1.2 billion.

The meeting comes as Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik is in Iran to hold talks with senior Iranian officials on regional and international issues.

Speaking at a reception on the anniversary of Pakistan's independence from Britain, the senior Pakistani diplomat recalled how his country freed itself from the British colonial rule after a seven-year struggle in 1947.

Rashid also said that Malik was on a tour in the western Iranian province of Kurdistan, where he was scheduled to meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He emphasized that the meeting was aimed at maintaining the current momentum in expanding bilateral relations between the two Muslim states.

Rashid addressed the recent popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East and “efforts by some countries to fuel tensions in the region,” calling for more cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad to promote security and peace in the region.

He further hailed the close cultural ties between his country and the Islamic Republic, and praised the Iranian nation for its humanitarian aid to the Pakistanis affected by the disastrous flood last year.

The Pakistani envoy expressed optimism on expanding trade between Iran and Pakistan and forecast a leap in the value of bilateral trade up to USD 4 billion a year.

He also said a high-ranking Pakistani delegation had held talks with Iranian officials to facilitate a joint gas pipeline project and that Islamabad was working closely with Tehran to finalize a deal.

Pakistan is trying to pacify Iran over the recent initiatives that the former has taken in Afghanistan and the Gulf.

An official source, requesting anonymity, said that Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s recent trip to Tehran as a special emissary of President Asif Ali Zardari was part of these initiatives.

Sonia Gandhi thanks Iran for Sa'adi Award

Can anyone guess what I am thinking??
Kingdom and China to sign nuclear cooperation pact

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia on Monday announced its plan to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with China. The Cabinet said it has authorized Hashim Yamani, president of the King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy, to hold talks with Chinese officials to reach a deal for peaceful use of atomic energy.

The new move comes after the Kingdom signed its first ever nuclear treaty with France in February. Yamani, who signed that agreement, said it would pave the way for the Kingdom's long-term plans to build power stations utilizing alternative energy sources to produce electricity and water.

The agreement allows the two countries to cooperate in the fields of production, use and transfer of knowledge regarding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Saudi Arabia has decided to make use of alternative resources such as atomic, solar, geothermal and wind power to meet its growing energy requirements.

Power demand is forecast to increase by 8 percent annually in the Kingdom. Demand for electricity in Saudi Arabia is expected to triple by 2032, which will give rise to the need for energy plants with a total of 80 gigawatts of installed capacity.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, who chaired the Cabinet meeting at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh, briefed the ministers on the outcome of his talks with US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the content of a letter he received from Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa.

The Cabinet discussed the latest developments in some Arab countries. It also welcomed the GCC’s call on the Yemeni government and opposition to meet in Saudi Arabia for talks aimed at reinforcing peace and stability in the country and achieving the hopes and aspirations of the Yemeni people.

The Cabinet also welcomed the statements made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Muslim World League condemning Iran’s interference in the internal affairs of GCC countries.

It denounced Israel’s airstrikes on Palestinians in Gaza and its decision to construct more Jewish settlements in occupied Jerusalem. The Cabinet urged the international community to pressure Israel to stop its crimes against the Palestinians and protect their rights.

Referring to an international dialogue conference held in Azerbaijan, the Cabinet reiterated the Kingdom’s commitment to promote world peace and cited in this respect King Abdullah’s efforts in initiating an interfaith and cultural dialogue.

Culture and Information Minister Abdul Aziz Khoja said the Cabinet took a number of other important decisions. It authorized Prince Naif, second deputy premier and minister of interior, to sign an agreement with Yemen for the transfer of convicts; approved an MOU signed with Sudan for cooperation in Islamic affairs and endowments; and endorsed a pact with Tunisia to prevent double taxation and avoid tax evasion.

The Cabinet appointed Salim Al-Faar and Mansour Abdullah as ambassadors at the Foreign Ministry; Saleh Al-Hammad director of the minister’s office at the Ministry of Economy and Planning; and Fahd Al-Ruwais administrative consultant at the Ministry of Culture and Information.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Apr 2011 09:12

What Happens When the Arab Spring Turns to Summer?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... _to_summer

A brief history of military advisors in foreign lands.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... med_advice

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 24 Apr 2011 15:54

Warmth is back in ties with Saudi Arabia?

By Syed Rashid Husain | From the Newspaper
(13 hours ago) Today

When Hina Rabbani Khar lands in Riyadh today, she can expect the red carpet to roll — once again. The talk of chill seems a distant story. – File Photo

RIYADH: Hina Rabbani Khar, the minister of state for foreign affairs, is to begin an official visit to Saudi Arabia on Saturday.

In normal circumstances, a visit by a Pakistani minister to Riyadh would make no news at all. But these are interesting, although not abnormal, times in Pakistan-Saudi relationship.

There is a consensus among political observers that after the inception of the PPP-led government in 2008, Islamabad’s ties with Riyadh had lost the warmth that had defined their partnership for the past six decades.

But the chill has apparently given way to a thaw, the observers think, and Islamabad now seems to be back on the regional radar — for more than one reasons.

The visit is taking place in the backdrop of the so called ‘Arab spring’ which has almost stalled and appears to be going nowhere. Old regional alignments are being revived and new alignments have been emerging on the wider Middle East chessboard as a new cold war between regional
heavyweights gets stickier.

The ongoing popular uprising in a number of countries have all lent a new meaning to the Arab-Iran gulf. And Pakistan’s role in the scenario has come under a renewed focus.

Events over the past few years have only helped reinforce and entrench misgivings within the Arab world about the growing Iranian influence. The departure of Saddam Hussain from Baghdad and the fostering of Maliki government in Iraq, has led many to look at the development from a different perspective- the growing Shia influence in the Arab world.

King Abdullah of Jordan once referred to it as “the expanding Shia crescent” in the region. Arab governments feel apprehensive on that account.
And recent events seem to have only reinforced their fears.

In Lebanon the influence of the pro-Iran Hezbollah is ascending — at the expense of the Saudi-backed Hariri. This was regarded by many here as a strategic loss.

Riyadh has also been complaining, for long, of the growing Iranian influence in Hamas-ruled Gaza. And to counter Tehran’s growing clout, Riyadh had little option than supporting the pro-West Abbas set-up in the West Bank. Then the upheaval in Egypt turned out to be the last straw on the back of the proverbial camel. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia supported Hosni Mubarak till the end.

The US failure to support Mubarak, not only soured the political relations between Riyadh and Washington, but also forced the Kingdom to play its cards rather aggressively. There was no room for further complacency — many felt here.

When the uprising began in Bahrain, everyone here in Riyadh realised the stakes were too high. The option of watching things take its own course was definitely not on the table. Riyadh acted and acted swiftly.

WAR OF WORDS

An explosive war of words erupted between Riyadh and Tehran. Events in Bahrain exacerbated tensions between Saudi Arabia, its Arab allies and Iran, dragging relations between them to its ebb in at least a decade and setting the stage for confrontations elsewhere in the region.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising six Arab states around the Gulf, was also dragged into action. The GCC explicitly warned Iran of dire consequences, if it continued endeavouring to make inroads into the Arab world.

Back-channel diplomacy was also used to send the message in rather clear terms to Tehran. Gulf governments were no more ready to give in and vowed doing everything at their disposal to protect their ‘legitimate interests’.

Hands off the Arab world — was the clear message to Iran. And in the meantime, the Arab world also went into full gear to galvanise support and muscle to block Tehran’s inroads, into what is being termed here the ‘Arab territory’ – through the Shia soft belly of the Arab states.

And it is here that Pakistan and Turkey got into the loop too. For after all these are the two strongest countries — as far as muscle is concerned — within the Sunni world.

A stream of events took place in a short span of time. Saudi National Security Council chief Prince Bandar bin Abdul Aziz came over to Islamabad, immediately after the meeting in Kuwait of President Zardari and Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz, the second deputy premier and the long-time interior minister.

And Prince Bandar’s visit was preceded by a visit of the Saudi chief of staff to Pakistan. In the meantime, the Bahraini foreign minister also dashed to Pakistan, despite the ongoing strife in his country.

Something was indeed brewing. Islamabad was again on the radar in Riyadh. Interestingly, the visit of Hina Rabbani Khar to Riyadh was announced after Prince Bandar sent a letter to Prime Minister Gilani — following up on his meetings in Islamabad late last month. In the letter, Prince Bandar reiterated Saudis’ desire to further strengthen relations with Pakistan in all areas of mutual interest.

In the aftermath of Prince Bandar’s regional visit, Riyadh has already signed a security agreement with Malaysia, vowing to enhance the level of security cooperation between the two countries. And after his Beijing trip, Saudi Arabia and China too announced signing an agreement on nuclear cooperation for peaceful purpose.

And Prince Bandar is no ordinary diplomat. He is often regarded as a trouble-shooter for Riyadh. John Hannah, writing in the Foreign Policy magazine, says: ‘Saudi Arabia’s legendary former ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is once again a major presence on the world stage.’

And his previous visit to Pakistan did not escape world attention and generated considerable interest. In the same story Hannah says: “More interestingly – and undoubtedly more worrisome – at the end of March, in the wake of the Saudi intervention in Bahrain, Bandar was dispatched to Pakistan, China and India to rally support for the kingdom’s hard line approach to the region’s unrest.

“Bandar’s formidable skills in the service of a Saudi Arabia that feels itself increasingly cornered and unable to rely on US protection is a formula for trouble — made even worse when the likes of Pakistan and China are thrown into the mix.

“No one should forget that, in the late 1980s, it was Bandar who secretly brokered the delivery of Chinese medium-range missiles to the kingdom, totally surprising Washington and nearly triggering a major crisis with Israel. The danger today, of course, is that the Saudis feel sufficiently threatened and alone to engage in similar acts of self-help.

“Would they seek to modernise their ballistic missile force? Even worse, would the kingdom go shopping for nuclear weapons or, at a minimum, invite Pakistan to deploy part of its nuclear arsenal in the country?”

As the Middle East convulses and Iran relentlessly inches closer to achieving a nuclear weapons capability, has that time finally arrived? Even short of these extreme scenarios, other troubling possibilities exist. During his trip to Pakistan, Bandar reportedly discussed contingencies under which thousands of additional Pakistani security forces might be dispatched to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to crush the uprising.

So it appears Pakistan is getting sucked into a regional cold war — and Washington may not mind it this time too. When Hina Rabbani Khar lands in Riyadh today, she can expect the red carpet to roll — once again. The talk of chill seems a distant story.

Good to see people reading the same things that I am. Basically expect some transfer of maal's. They'll deploy it soon and push the existing stuff (with indigenous upgrades) to Bah and point it towards Tehran.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 24 Apr 2011 17:31

shyamd wrote

Sonia Gandhi thanks Iran for Sa'adi Award

Can anyone guess what I am thinking??
Kingdom and China to sign nuclear cooperation pact

For me it only confirms my original belief at the start of this merry regional dance - that India is playing into the temporary lollipop initiative, and in the end, none of the much touted for claims that somehow all this will lead to postponement of Pak biting or neutralization through Riyadh, will ever turn out to be true. India is being outfoxed. Well maybe they know what they are doing. Or pretend so. It is too late for the legendary kissing both a**** strategy to pay dividends.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Apr 2011 18:54

Brihaspati garu,

I'm pretty sure, that India is being sidelined in the whole ME affair. Bahrain comes as the next lifeline for Pakistan after 2001, this time from Saudi Arabia!

India's equation with Saudi Arabia is just for decorative purposes to stop India from starting her own game, e.g. against Pak, etc. We are being taken for a ride. Pakistan would be exerting influence over Riyadh the next 10 years, and that means we can mentally prepare ourselves for even stronger radicalization of Kashmiri and Indian Muslims, all paid for by Saudi Arabia and pushed by Saudi Wahhabis. We should think of how many Indian Muslims working in Saudi Arabia are vulnerable!

There is talk of Pakistan and Turkey being the strongest Sunni countries!

This is what I meant, when I said an Indo-BD combo would have kicked ass and Pak would have been kicked in the balls and shut up! With a Muslim label, you don't need to show restraint!

But as things stand now, we will be the kicking bag!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 24 Apr 2011 20:57

RajeshA garu,

That is what happens when a nation puts economic progress ahead of national interests. What can India do? It will be emotionally and politically blackmailed by millions of gelf migrants and their relatives back home. This is IC-814 redux million times.

I think you are over estimating BD in this equation. Pakistan's value is only due to its clown jewels and mercenary army. Can BD do that, and does India want BD to become that?

What GCC wants now is a mercenary army. India must never allow such nonsense wherever possible; it is watching paki perfidy helplessly as it has no influence over Pakis.

Does restraint only applies to Muslim or Crhistian or Jewish labels? Our objective must be to make war an acceptable strategy even for Hindus; not take some superficial islamic identity to use war as instrument of danda-neeti.

Forgive me for saying this; while Somnath is trying to use Economy as a tool; you are trying to use Islamic lobby as the tool to extend Indian interests. It is like manmohan thinking that he needs to wear a Bush mask or a Putin mask to be prime ministerial in leading his national interests.

That is the approach of timid; not worth a strategy for a society of Indicness.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 24 Apr 2011 22:08

Fighting in Southern Sudan claims the lives of 55 rebels: Link

The clash is between South Sudan's army and rebel militia, in a soon to be independent state entity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, based in London, named 112 people it said were killed or listed as missing since the "Good Friday" protests, but cautioned that not all the deaths were confirmed: Link

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 Apr 2011 03:01

Saudi Arabia & India ties are no more just crude

HUMA SIDDIQUI
Posted: Monday, Apr 25, 2011 at 0142 hrs IST
Tags: FE Trade Winds | Deciphering Bilateral Trade | Saudi Arabia-India Ties | King Abdullah Visit India

: Capitalising on excellent political relations and high economic growth, private companies from India and Saudi Arabia are exploring investment opportunities in the other country.
The visit of King Abdullah to India in January 2006 laid the foundations of the contemporary relationship between the two countries. Through the ‘Delhi Declaration’, signed during the visit, the two countries committed themselves to pursuing a joint strategic vision to promote bilateral ties for mutual benefit as well as for the peace and security of the region as a whole.

“Based on the road map set out in the Delhi Declaration our bilateral relations have been strengthened with regular visits at ministerial level and stronger economic ties based on substantial trade ties and investments. Today, Saudi Arabia is India’s fourth largest trade partner, with bilateral trade being valued at over $25 billion,” Faisal Hassan Ahmed Trad, ambassador of Saudi Arabia to India, said.

Indian investments in Saudi Arabia have also increased significantly since King Abdullah’s visit and today, there are over 550 small and medium Indian enterprises in the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is steadily developing its non-oil sectors. The Kingdom, which is rich in several minerals such as gold and phosphate, is increasingly opening up its infrastructure, energy, industrial and services sectors, throwing up excellent possibilities for investments and joint ventures for Indian companies. There isn’t a single major Indian project in Saudi Arabia so far.

The Saudi envoy told FE, “Both countries are witnessing a new and dynamic phase in their bilateral ties. There is increased cooperation in sectors including information services, biotechnology, nanotechnology and space. India has one of the largest scientific and technical pools of manpower in the world and is known for the excellence of its knowledge-based industries. The development of the knowledge economy promises to be a major joint endeavour.”

“The governments of both the countries are taking all necessary steps to facilitate private investment and trade,” added Trad.

A significant role in bringing the two countries together has been played by the expat Indian community. It is not surprising that Indians, now numbering nearly two million, constitute the largest expatriate community in Saudi Arabia. Almost 25 % of remittances from the Gulf region are from the kingdom, said the envoy.

“Saudi Arabia is one of largest suppliers of oil to India, which is also one of our top seven trading partners,” said the diplomat. A number of Saudi-Indian joint ventures, ranging from the banking and insurance sectors to the industrial and services sectors, are currently operating in both countries. “These close business ties are being translated into joint investment opportunities and entities after the liberalisation of investment rules announced by the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority,” he said.

The visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Saudi Arabia in February 2010 resulted in the ‘Riyadh Declaration’, which articulates the similarity of assessment and approach of the two countries on regional and global issues, and also the commitment to promote ties in political, security, defence and economic areas.

New areas of cooperation that the two countries will now pursue vigorously include education, science and technology. The two countries are also expected to commit themselves to join forces to combat the scourge of extremism and violence, which are a threat to all countries in the region.

According to officials, Saudi Arabia is seeking investments from India in various sectors including information technology, energy and infrastructure among others. The country needs $ 1.4 trillion investment in various sectors.

“Apart from the traditional exports of basmati rice, textiles and jewelleries, Saudi Arabia offers huge investment opportunities in promising sectors like IT, infrastructure, energy and services for India,” according to government official. India is the fifth largest trading partner for Saudi Arabia and the bilateral trade during 2010 fiscal stood at $ 21 billion, the official said. There is a need for diversifying the trade basket of the two countries. “We need to move up the value chain. The sectors of potential for investments in Saudi Arabia relate to oil and gas, education, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and manufacturing industries such as chemicals, plastics and food processing,” the official added.

Recently, Saudi Arabia’s Al Qahtani Sons Group signed a joint venture agreement with Indian firm SledgeHammer Oil Tools to build one of the largest manufacturing plants for oilfield and drilling equipment in the Gulf nation.

India-Saudi economic relations have shown remarkable growth with bilateral trade registering a three-fold increase in the last five years. Bilateral trade of the two countries was nearly $21 billion in 2009-10.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Apr 2011 03:04

^

From above

According to officials, Saudi Arabia is seeking investments from India in various sectors including information technology, energy and infrastructure among others. The country needs $ 1.4 trillion investment in various sectors.

“Apart from the traditional exports of basmati rice, textiles and jewelleries, Saudi Arabia offers huge investment opportunities in promising sectors like IT, infrastructure, energy and services for India,” according to government official. India is the fifth largest trading partner for Saudi Arabia and the bilateral trade during 2010 fiscal stood at $ 21 billion, the official said. There is a need for diversifying the trade basket of the two countries. “We need to move up the value chain. The sectors of potential for investments in Saudi Arabia relate to oil and gas, education, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and manufacturing industries such as chemicals, plastics and food processing,” the official added.

I thought the investments are expected to flow the other way around...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 25 Apr 2011 03:23

Is KSA producing a lot of skilled IT grads? What will be teh incentive for India to invest in the IT sector for KSA - especially that pressure by the Saudis to employ Saudis by foreign "investors"? Corporate tax-breaks could be one - but will that be enough for a skills based industry unless treat it almost like off-shore tax-havens - the real work carried out elsewhere.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Apr 2011 03:29

We have a crude proverb in telugu - "naadi kakapote, .... daaka dekamannatta" (If it is not mine, let him drag till ....)

As long as India thinks dhimmitude is a strategy (like non-violence is a virtue even against bigotry) KSA can even demand employment opportunities for Saudis in India's endowment department.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 Apr 2011 03:29

RamaY wrote: I thought the investments are expected to flow the other way around...

What he is saying is, he wants Indian companies to enter KSA. Energy - govt dominated. So this means India taking a stake in refineries etc and join in the profit making. IT - Indian IT co's to come in and sell stuff to KSA companies, IT cos make $$, while KSA companies improve efficiency. Infrastrucutre - They want more indian competition for rail contracts ($100bn) and other assorted infrastructure. We have already got contracts for a part of the rail construction. So they probably want to increase this.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 25 Apr 2011 04:00

^ Hopefully so. To my eyes it looked like KSA needs $1.4T investments and it is seeking investments from India towards that need.

I hope it wont become like another Chinese high-speed railway system. An Indian Co invests $20B in a railway line, exploiting '000s of Indian labor at home salary rates; then lose that investment when that railway system becomes unprofitable. KSA says no to govt. bailout.

Perhaps I am paranoid.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 25 Apr 2011 04:15

RamaY wrote:^ Hopefully so. To my eyes it looked like KSA needs $1.4T investments and it is seeking investments from India towards that need.

I hope it wont become like another Chinese high-speed railway system. An Indian Co invests $20B in a railway line, exploiting '000s of Indian labor at home salary rates; then lose that investment when that railway system becomes unprofitable. KSA says no to govt. bailout.

Nah don't be silly. We'll just get contracts for rail road construction. Engineering help here and there. They just want to make sure while we gain, they get something out of it too - makes sense.

Perhaps I am paranoid.

Unfortunately you are. Chill out boss.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 25 Apr 2011 21:41

xposted from nukkad.

rebels fighting in misrauta university campus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iy4fsaD ... r_embedded

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 26 Apr 2011 00:26

Hina Khar agreed with her counterpart Saud al Faisal to strengthen bilateral relations, Saudi agreed to protect TSP interests in Afghanistan and pass GCC-TSP free trade deal at the earliest.

Wakadani also visited Naval HQ in Pak.

Zardari, Al Waqdani discuss defence ties

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and visiting head of the Royal Saudi Naval Forces today held a meeting here in which they "emphasised upon further augmenting socio-economic, trade and defence ties between the two countries".

"Pak-Saudi bilateral relations including defence cooperation between the two countries were discussed during the meeting," the President's office said in a statement.

Zardari hailed the contributions of Vice Admiral Dakheel Allah Bin Ahmed Al Waqdani, the commander Royal Saudi Naval Forces, in promoting and giving further impetus to existing the relationship between the defence forces of the two countries, the statement said.

The president said Pakistan values its cordial and friendly equation with the brotherly Muslim country the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In reply, Vice Admiral Al Waqdani thanked the president for the meeting and expressed the hope that the existing close cooperation in defence and other areas between the two countries would continue to grow to the mutual benefit.

Zardari, later, conferred the award of the country's highest military award "Hilal-i-Pakistan" on the vice admiral in recognition of his endeavors for strengthening cooperation between the naval forces of both the nations.

Vice Admiral Al Waqdani, a graduate of Pakistan Naval Academy, received his commission in 1969 as Ensign in the Royal Saudi Naval Forces. He was promoted to the rank of vice admiral and appointed as commander Royal Saudi Naval Forces on May 9, 2010.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 26 Apr 2011 02:56

The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy (LONG ARTICLE)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011 ... z1KZh9KtYj

On Targeted Assassination

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... for_dinner

The Ultimate Ally: The "realists" are wrong: America needs Israel now more than ever: Israeli Ambassador to US (Plus Rebuttals from Steven Walt and others)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... imate_ally

Gaza's Salafis under scrutiny

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... r_scrutiny

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 27 Apr 2011 08:15

Middle East in flux

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... %20_israel

A Pew Poll released this week shows that more than half of all Egyptians would like to see the peace treaty with Israel annulled. Almost two-thirds indicated that they thought that the country's laws should be based on the Koran and about half felt it was "very important" that religious parties be part of the next government.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 27 Apr 2011 08:55

^^^ there are many commentators talking about "Arab spring." well, it seems we're getting a glimpse of what this "Spring" will look like.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 27 Apr 2011 09:02

what comes out of pandora's box is never predictable.

from glee at the turn of events, the people stoking the flames might yet feel dismay.

but I do wish they run the same experiment in TSP and see what comes up from the shadows if the army is forced off the stage. chickenhawks ever willing to beat up weak states like libya but soil their victoria secret undies when its time to bell the big cats.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 27 Apr 2011 09:18

^ ShyamD's post above...

Snow india gets to invest in KSA(not the other way around);while pakis get GCC FTA Android support formanlaw their afghaninterests.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 27 Apr 2011 19:26

I think very strong possibilities that Assad regime will fall. Unkil and KSA want it to happen to corner Hezballah and reduce their power, MB is sunni so KSA doesnt mind and can build stronger relations. MB is now in permanent contact with US intel, KSA intel. MB is going to come out on top most likely in Egypt.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 28 Apr 2011 06:43

A simple(-istic?) account of the happenings in the middle-east in the Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ar ... epage=true

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 28 Apr 2011 07:32

A Regional Response to Syria

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... bout_syria

The escalating violence and repression unleashed by Bashar al-Asad against protestors in Syria has been as horrific as it was predictable.

...

But I don't see a great deal of leverage which the U.S. can on its own bring to bear on the course of events in Syria. ...

But it should make clear to Bashar al-Asad that he is on the path of Yemen's Ali Abdullah Saleh. ...

The key next step is to build a strong regional consensus among Syria's neighbors on a Yemen-style plan for a meaningful political transition. ...

The core of the problem is that on its own, the U.S. has very limited leverage over Damascus or events on the ground in Syria. ...

One common demand which the administration should reject is that it withdraw Ambassador Robert Ford from Damascus. ...

On the other hand, the administration should toughen its rhetoric against the Asad regime. ...

There are no grounds for a Libya-style military intervention in Syria. ...

The regional and international environment also makes it difficult to do a great deal more in Syria. ...

But there could be a regional consensus for a guided political transition. And that is where American efforts should now be directed.

...

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 28 Apr 2011 21:01

shyamd wrote:I think very strong possibilities that Assad regime will fall. Unkil and KSA want it to happen to corner Hezballah and reduce their power, MB is sunni so KSA doesnt mind and can build stronger relations. MB is now in permanent contact with US intel, KSA intel. MB is going to come out on top most likely in Egypt.

The Turks are *really* unhappy with the Assad's handling of the protests - Syria is the lynchpin in their plan to economically reintegrate the entire Levant, and through it, much of the Arab world in to their economic space. They have been urging reform without repression.

The Assad regime's tactics were based on an era when you could shoot your own people in droves and suppress every single photo or video coming out of it. That was an era when it was easier to create fear and silence, rather than outrage among your population. With digital media, mobile phones and the internet, its impossible to do these things without the ugly images and sounds appearing everywhere, and when people see them they feel compelled to speak and act.

Its not clear who is the problem - whether its Bashar, or his brother Maher, who controls much of the military and security services and is personally a much scarier guy.

The Syrian army is a conscript force - most soldiers are having real trouble turning their guns on unarmed protestors-there are reports that there have already been refusals by some officers and men in the 5th division. There are only a few units with hardcore vetted loyalists that are willing to do the dirty deed.

As long as the protests keep growing, and they remain unarmed, shooting will only weaken rather than strengthen cohesion within the Army. If soldiers defect and start taking up arms, the regime will stop losing, just like in Libya.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Apr 2011 21:17

14 people incl some tourists killed in a cafe blast at Marrakesh in Morocco.