India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 15 Dec 2010 17:28

Why is there no public outcry against Robert Vadra being on the no-frisk list in India?

Given a choice between the over-zealousness of the US officials, and the servility of ordinary Indians to 'VVIPs', I would vote for the former any-day.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Dec 2010 21:25

sachin, There is confusion about privileges of Indian political class and the privelges of the Ambassador/Envoy level diplomats. All diplomats do not have Ambassador/Envoy level privileges per Vienna Convention. Its only the Ambassador. The US says not even that for the Ambassador.

The problem is even the IFS guys write multiple thoughts in asentence and thus confuse the issue. And then there are MUTU guys like Ronen Sen who will defend the US more than the US ever will.

Per the Vienna Convention later ratified by UN, the Ambassador is inviolate. My take is that physical search of an Ambassador level person is a violation of that requirement.

The US has been known to apply the principal selectively to send a message and is not innocent.

Only tit-for tat will help them come to reality.
-
PS: see Arjun's post above about the confusion of the privileges of India class.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 15 Dec 2010 21:50

This is the 2007 memo linked in news reports that says diplomats are not exempt from screening. There's no specific call out for an ambassador.

Screening procedures for diplomats at US airports

The reports say that TSA does allow government officials to skip screening if they are accompanied by their TSA aproved security officials like the secret service. This mostly applies to USG people like the President, Speaker of the House.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 15 Dec 2010 22:01

^^No confusion in my mind...I agree the diplomatic no-frisk policy is a bilateral / multilateral one between countries, and therefore it is straightforward case of reciprocity that needs to be enforced, and that the political class no-frisk is a different issue. My point however is different - in that if the country is to be outraged on an issue, I see more cause for outrage in the Robert Vadra no-frisk policy rather than some diplomatic fat-cats being forced to endure stuff that the rest of us do on a daily basis.

munna · Post by **munna** » 15 Dec 2010 22:06

vera_k wrote:This is the 2007 memo linked in news reports that says diplomats are not exempt from screening. There's no specific call out for an ambassador.

Screening procedures for diplomats at US airports

The reports say that TSA does allow government officials to skip screening if they are accompanied by their TSA aproved security officials like the secret service. This mostly applies to USG people like the President, Speaker of the House.

Local laws don't matter when it comes to international law and conventions ratified by the nation itself. By adopting a Soviet-esq stance on diplomats of countries not in their zone (read TFTA) US is not doing itself a huge favor. Security screening is done to secure something and not as a principle of egalitarianism or democracy or equality. Anyone on a A-1 or G-1 visa is known or profiled enough to be treated differently. Yes, I support all the VIP-baazi in India and abroad because in a statist society like ours power is the currency while in a capitalist society money is the currency of the distinguished.

I do not begrudge a Robert Vadra or a Rockefeller enjoying their time due to familial accomplishments in their respective societies. In India politics/state is the top dog while in US the finance/money. To each his or her own, we respect other's red lines while others should ours. Rest do not count...

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Dec 2010 22:19

Arjun wrote:^^No confusion in my mind...I agree the diplomatic no-frisk policy is a bilateral / multilateral one between countries, and therefore it is straightforward case of reciprocity that needs to be enforced, and that the political class no-frisk is a different issue. My point however is different - in that if the country is to be outraged on an issue, I see more cause for outrage in the Robert Vadra no-frisk policy rather than some diplomatic fat-cats being forced to endure stuff that the rest of us do on a daily basis.

This is a variant of the torn shirt / open fly fallacy that BRFites are well aware of. We should focus on the merits one issue at a time, bringing in other issues only when the relevance is clear.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 15 Dec 2010 22:27

munna wrote:I do not begrudge a Robert Vadra or a Rockefeller enjoying their time due to familial accomplishments in their respective societies. In India politics/state is the top dog while in US the finance/money. To each his or her own, we respect other's red lines while others should ours. Rest do not count...

And what privileges does a Rockefeller enjoy over others in the US when it comes to public, governmental services? I agree that yours is the majority attitude in India- and is precisely also the attitude that has led to the majority accepting dynastic rule in India, when it would have provoked mass outrage in most other societies.

munna · Post by **munna** » 15 Dec 2010 22:38

Arjun wrote:
munna wrote:I do not begrudge a Robert Vadra or a Rockefeller enjoying their time due to familial accomplishments in their respective societies. In India politics/state is the top dog while in US the finance/money. To each his or her own, we respect other's red lines while others should ours. Rest do not count...
And what privileges does a Rockefeller enjoy over others in the US when it comes to public, governmental services? I agree that yours is the majority attitude in India- and is precisely also the attitude that has led to the majority accepting dynastic rule in India, when it would have provoked mass outrage in most other societies.

Fairly set pattern question! To understand the privileges enjoyed by US moneyed elite you have to understand the underpinnings of the society. Since money is power in US and not the government. Money buys you chartered jets and private airstrips (all screening bypassed), private security (armed with things most security agencies in India can only dream of), power to influence the government (since money decides government generally) and patronage (unlimited lobby power in all fora of the world).

In India a reward is a laal batti (red light) while in US it is hari pathi (green leaf/note). So currency of accomplishment differs and we have to arrive at mutually agreed to exchange rate for our twin systems. Such things do tend to get lost in translation.
As far as I go yes I do have healthy respect for dynasties like Bush, Kennedys, Windsors, Scindias, Gandhis, Koiralas and Rehmans (Bangladesh). These families have produced great to mediocre individuals but nevertheless hung on tenaciously and guided their respective nations.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Dec 2010 22:45

Arjun, Robert Vadhera, VVIPS etc are Indian local issues. Why do you keep bringing in the Indo-US thread and muddy the waters and you say there is no confusion in your mind.

In case you don't get it please dont bring local Indian issues in this thread.

Thanks, ramana

Munna don't reply. I want an end here.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 15 Dec 2010 23:09

Philip wrote:I volunteer for the "Frisking" job! In fact I''ll pay ggggood money for the privilige.This gives me a ggggggreat idea.The GOI can auction the jjjjob-I'm sure there'll bbbbe a huge number of aspirants for the enjoyment of fffffrisking diplomutts of anti-Indian nations and recover a fraction at least of the amount stolen from the people of India by its scamsters!

Let the frisking begin!

I don't know what this has to do with India-US Strategic News and Discussion but I must notice the sheer class shown in the above statement. But seriously, with all due respect, why one will need, (for "Frisking" job for enjoyment of fffffrisking" ) "diplomutts ..".. why not just one's own family members?

Sorry, I know I am definitely in minority here and no doubt I will be charged with flaming but seriously, at least in my opinion, this is not only off topic, vulgar, and makes the environment here in BRF quite hostile to a whole class of citizens.

This kind of unpolished language, unfortunately, is not isolated. There are lot of people who read BRF and let me just quote what another blog (written by a BRF contributer) wrote for a similar incident before:

...Wow! that kind of talk is plain offensive worthy imo of an instant permanent ban.

I am stunned that Philip has spoken with so little sensitivity. Even by Philip's low standards this is over the line.

(I am not giving a link here for the blog, but it is not difficult to guess and look at the actual blog posting and see what transpired this - there was a vulgar attack post on the First Lady of US (and also a mother, sister, daughter and a wife) the reason ...just because she is a woman )

Yes, I know that one can use "report" feature, to report an offensive post, but sorry, as a BRF member for more than a decade, I have to tell that this (and believe me, this is not an isolated incident) kind of lack of sensibility makes the environment extremely hostile. (To be fair, I don't know if any action was taken for that particular post (which caucused quite a few comments in the before mentioned blog - many negative for BRF) , I was simply too disgusted to read that topic for next several days)

In any case, I do not intend to place any more message in (or likely not even visit) this thread for a while. My intention is not to start a flame war or derail this thread.

Thanks ... respectfully..Amber G.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 15 Dec 2010 23:48

^^ Why are you afraid to give the link for the blog, if its by a BRF contributor, and why is that person who said "...Wow! that kind of talk is plain offensive worthy imo of an instant permanent ban", not posting his/her thoughts on this thread on his own?

Let me tell you what I see. I see you using some anons shoulders to fire your gun from & take on Philip, who for all practical purposes has said nothing particularly more rancid than many others have said. Yet you picked on him. I don't particularly like Philips posts by the way (sorry Philip, but its the truth), i find them dogmatic, repetitive & often fixed on what he thinks is right versus acknowledging any flaws in his argument or even any valid opposing point.

But your claims of women being dishonored etc by Philip are not correct as far as I can see. The posts thereafter are the ones which make puns on this aspect, but he did'nt.

He noted "I'm sure there'll bbbbe a huge number of aspirants for the enjoyment of fffffrisking diplomutts of anti-Indian nations" - correct him if you will, noting that the US is not an anti Indian nation, noting that despite what happened to Ms Shankar & now Mr Singh, given the fact that the TSAs actions are equally offensive to American citizens.

I would actually agree with you here. I don't think the US is anti Indian & the first incident was a clear case of ignorance appalling the local state officials, whereas the second was resolved amicably at the station itself by a guy willing to check the rules and do the right thing (have the diplomat check his turban himself).

But clearly some more care could be taken on the end of the security guys to deal with diplomats.

So, I find your complaints about how crude, vulgar etc Philip is, a bit specious. In the past, I have seen you use this shoot & scoot tactic effectively. You flame & point to a member whom you dislike & indicate your disgust, point to some other blog/e-posting about how other BRF members are appalled and then "leave it to the admins", who should obviously rise to the bait & respond.

I must say your tactics are flaming, and nor are they particularly subtle.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Dec 2010 01:09

Aesop value: All fingers are not the same.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2010 01:26

K.P. Nayar in Telegraph:

LINK

A pall falls on S. Asia policy
K.P. NAYAR
Washington, Dec. 14: Call it coincidence if you like, but it was just like Richard Holbrooke to have been in the care of a Pakistani doctor during his final days at the George Washington University Hospital here.

Holbrooke died last night after a 21-hour unsuccessful heart surgery for a torn aorta. He was 69.

In the last nearly two years of his eventful life, Holbrooke was consumed by Pakistan. In his special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, US President Barack Obama had someone who sneered at the idea of a “half-way house”.

Holbrooke wanted to transform Afghanistan and Pakistan from failed states into robust outposts that would anchor American interests in South Asia.

Had he lived for the remaining two years of Obama’s presidency, the man whose style earned him sobriquets such as “the bulldozer”, may have travelled a considerable distance along that road with its inevitable impact on India.

J.N. Dixit, who was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s first national security adviser, said in his last conversation with this correspondent that in six months, India and Pakistan would reach a solution on Kashmir. But three months after that conversation, Dixit was gone, leaving behind absolutely nothing on paper about what he was working on.

Nearly six years after Dixit’s death, another brilliant diplomat, this time an American who had a clear vision of what South Asia should look like — whether one liked it or not — is gone.

His departure is truly — at the risk of using a cliché — a tragedy for Obama’s South Asia policy.

After several false starts towards creating a recipe for the complex problems of the region during much of the two years of this presidency, clarity was finally emerging in Washington, with Holbrooke winning treacherous battles for control of how to deal with Obama’s most important strategic priority.

Obama’s visit to New Delhi had cemented the direction of this policy and Holbrooke was to build on it. But now he is gone, and once again, there are wide open questions about what to do with Afghanistan, Pakistan and by way of a consequential spillover, how to fit India into this conundrum.

India’s relations with Holbrooke were testy or worse to begin with. Indeed, predictably so even before he was formally appointed as Obama’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, one of the early decisions made by this President.

It is a tribute to Holbrooke’s qualities as a diplomat, to his understanding of realpolitik — and to Indian diplomacy’s relatively new willingness to identify its core interests — that by the time Holbrooke died, his office and New Delhi’s key men dealing with Kabul and Islamabad had created an unprecedented and wide-ranging dialogue on Afghanistan.

S.K. Lambah, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for Afghanistan and “back channel” to Pakistan came to Washington in July for talks with the Americans for what was a new start, as Holbrooke belatedly took effective control of what is known here as Obama’s “Af-Pak” strategy. Lambah was here again last week, this time with institutional backing from South Block.

Holbrooke’s demise does not damage this process, but raises question marks about its effectiveness.

As about the only American diplomat — with the exception of Henry Kissinger — who has been an editor, academic, development official, author and investment banker, Holbrooke respected depth, range and vision both in his interlocutors and adversaries.

He reached out to foreign secretary Nirupama Rao every time she was in New York or Washington and their lively sparring is testified to by officials present on both sides.

When Lambah came to Washington in July, Holbrooke was still haunted by shadows of his failed plans for regime change in Kabul through the backdoor. His failed plan was to replace President Hamid Karzai with former World Bank official, Ashraf Ghani, who was Washington’s first choice, and later with Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister.

A key conspirator in this plot was Peter Galbraith, the UN’s second ranking representative in Kabul during the elections in which the US orchestrated a campaign against Karzai, accusing him of fraud.

{No wonder this guy was screaming about electoral fraud etc against Karzai! BTW he was BB's best buddy and again a cohort of hers.}

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon appointed Galbraith in Kabul on the express recommendation of Holbrooke. Karzai got the better of the Americans and managed to retain power.

By the time Lambah arrived in Washington, Holbrooke was reconciled to dealing with Karzai in his new term as President, but Washington kept harping about corruption and lack of democracy in Karzai’s Afghanistan.

{Talk about dysfunctional!}

Lambah had one question to which no one in Holbrooke’s team had an answer. Why were the Americans harping on democracy and corruption in Kabul when they were willing to put up with similar failings in the entire region — in Pakistan and in every single “-stan” in Central Asia?

The Pentagon is in bed with dictators in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, they are bending over backwards to protect their oil and gas interests in Turkmenistan, so why this public fuss about Karzai alone?

Holbrooke had great admiration for people who put pragmatism above everything else and he was one to set policy goals and doggedly toil to achieve them.

This was one of several episodes in Holbrooke’s recent engagement of India which changed Indo-US equations on Afghanistan and laid the foundation for Holbrooke’s work with New Delhi which could have been.

During the last US presidential primaries, Holbrooke threw his lot with Hillary Clinton and was mentioned as possible secretary of state in a Clinton administration. When she became secretary of state instead, Holbrooke was chosen for the most sensitive diplomatic job in the Obama administration.

But Holbrooke’s heart was on an expanded South Asia portfolio: deep down he hoped to repeat his biggest success as a diplomat in ending the war in the Balkans by trying his hand at resolving Kashmir.

The then Indian ambassador in Washington, Ronen Sen, told President-elect Obama’s transition team in Chicago that appointing Holbrooke as a special envoy to South Asia, including Kashmir, would be a non-starter.

Lambah, who attended a Track II Indo-US meeting during the transition said what Sen could not put in black and white owing to diplomatic correctness. Lambah said Holbrooke would be denied an Indian visa if he were to meddle in Kashmir.

Holbrooke believed till the end that there could be no solution to the problems in “Af-Pak” without including India. But it is a tribute to the man that he and Lambah became friends and created a working relationship. The question is whether that relationship will endure with Holbrooke’s successor.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 16 Dec 2010 01:42

Karan M has right to his opinions as I do mine. His "why are you afraid" does not make any sense as is assumes that some one is afraid.

BTW the blog is http://indianmavericks.blogspot.com/, the comment was posted by Maverick, who, I believe, is a High Energy Physicist, an independent consultant, and who has edited (IIRC) BRF's SRR review in the past, the reason why he does not post in BRF, I don't know. The blog, BTW is visited/commented from many present and past BRF members and BRF-admins. I myself comment there some times, but mainly for physics related topics.

As to the post(s), which Karan M finds unobjectionable, he could worship it, for all I care. I have my opinion he can have his. Still, I just can't fathom why he would ask me "why I am afraid".. as it is fairly easy to search and look at the original comments posted by Maverick..

(Yes, I know I was going to take time off from this thread

)

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 16 Dec 2010 03:30

If you were upfront AmberG, then you would have posted the blog in your original post itself, right?

Instead, you quoted somebody anonymous, and only when I ask, do you post a link to a blog & then make a fuss about how it should be obvious.

And please tell me, why it would be easy to "search and look at the original comments" posted by this Maverick, when you did not even post the original blog to begin with? This is typical of the word games you play.

What I see is some blog where a guy posts his personal views & you try and wage flame war using his comments. And then you even state he had said this in the past but it applies to the comments today.

Again, you have not even bothered to explain how is that relevant to Philips current post. You made a big hue & cry about insult to women & what not, when Philip did not even mention women in his original post & then quietely overlooked all the people who posted after him. When you are asked to explain your views, you note: "As to the post(s), which Karan M finds unobjectionable, he could worship it, for all I care."

Can you explain where & how I have appreciated Philips post, and if you truly dont care, then why is it that you made such a big fuss about it instead of replying to the point.
I actually disagreed with Philips statement of intent regarding the US being anti-India. Again, nice attempt to twist words.

Basically, your entire attempt seems to be to use somebody else's personal views to attack Philip because for some reason you do not like him & then to continue with the same diversion tactics when asked to explain why is it that you are flaming.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2010 11:32

J'attaque Phillipe! Hoist him with his own petard me hearties! Send him to Gitmo! Gentlemen,as Wiki has delivered in style,the "truth will out" and the truth of true US contempt for India was best revealed by the very words of Sec. of State,Hillary Clinton.This "self-appointed" globocop wishes to plant the Pax Americana on every continent regardless of the sensitivities of those nations and their local issues.NATO,created for N.Atlantic/European security, as Ramanna has said now wants to participate in US-led military expeditions across the globe!

As one worthy in a paper today put it,dare a US official try and "pat down" a Sheika from Araby? No way ! This picking upon senior Indian diplomats and celebrities is a deliberate and insidious strategy,to try and demean and humilate Indians.It smacks of racism and I stand by my statements.And as for the US being anti-Indian,a list of the arms it supplies to Pak which can be used only against India is sufficient evidence despite India's repeated protestations-for decades! To fault myself,perhaps as mentioned in an above post,the US is not "anti-Indian,but a "friend".With "friends" like the US though,who needs enemies?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Dec 2010 12:04

Forget friends like US, with MUTU patriots like Maverick et al, who needs traitors.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2010 12:38

Sanku....!!!

Here's the latest US intel on Af-Pak and the non-performance of rent-boy Pak,not performing his paid-for tricks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tants.html

Afghan war will fail unless Pakistan acts over militants
Success in the Afghanistan war will elude Nato forces unless Pakistan acts to drive the Taliban from its sanctuaries in the country's border areas, according to American intelligence reports.

Now,we have seen v.little info/debate upon the (miniscule) role that it ,has designated for India in Afghanistan,either now or after the US retreats.Is there any open info as to what the almighty US has in store for its "strategic partner" at all,or any thought from our side as to what we should do when the US has beaten the retreat and the hordes of Talibs and latter-day Mongols come-a-conquering?

Vikas · Post by **Vikas** » 16 Dec 2010 12:49

Does the Indian Political elite feel as offended as Jingos on BRF feel about this pat down incident ? If not than nothing ever is going to happen unless TSA decides to frisk someone from "The Family". Then all bets are off and even Ombaba might be frisked in India.
Till then Bhaj Govindam !

BTW I find it hard to accept that a lowly TSA would get instructions to single out senior Indian diplomats and celebrities in a deliberate and insidious way.
TSA 's are known for patting down all and sundry. We need to see how GoI handles this issue now.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Dec 2010 13:19

Vikas,remember the "dot-buster" days? As in the racial attacks against Indian students in Oz,we stand out for any TSA as a docile ethnic entity,that in recent centuries has been colonised and house-trained and are willing to be flunkeys and the sweatshop of the west.Nothing better describes our national image than Dr.Singh's sentimental outburst to Dubya Bush that "India loves you"! As one worthy asked,will a TSA dare to try and pat down a Sheika?

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 16 Dec 2010 13:24

Dot Buster vigillantes operated in NJ too.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 16 Dec 2010 13:39

Amber G. wrote:Karan M has right to his opinions as I do mine. His "why are you afraid" does not make any sense as is assumes that some one is afraid.

BTW the blog is http://indianmavericks.blogspot.com/, the comment was posted by Maverick, who, I believe, is a High Energy Physicist, an independent consultant, and who has edited (IIRC) BRF's SRR review in the past, the reason why he does not post in BRF, I don't know. The blog, BTW is visited/commented from many present and past BRF members and BRF-admins. I myself comment there some times, but mainly for physics related topics.

As to the post(s), which Karan M finds unobjectionable, he could worship it, for all I care. I have my opinion he can have his. Still, I just can't fathom why he would ask me "why I am afraid".. as it is fairly easy to search and look at the original comments posted by Maverick..

(Yes, I know I was going to take time off from this thread )

What's posted on other blogs by people who choose to leave (or others who were kicked out) should be of no concern here. Don't whine about what is posted elsewhere.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 16 Dec 2010 13:40

The Bad Sleep Well: Richard Holbrooke’s Deathbed

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Dec 2010 14:12

An appreciation of Richard Holbrooke who died on December 13, 2010 with Strobe Talbott, President of The Brookings Institution, Richard Beattie, Chairman of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Les Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and Frank Wisner, Former U.S. Ambassador to India

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11346

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Dec 2010 14:29

Punjab Dy CM lodges protest with US Ambassador for humiliation Sikhs at US airports

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/p ... orts/26989

SGPC plans protests outside US embassies

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 109456.cms

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Dec 2010 18:20

No more criticism of blogs run by Indians on here. Please give your opinions on the appropriate blog. No more criticism of Maverick or his blog here will be entertained. He has been a respected figure on BRF in the past, and still is by many, though he does not post here anymore.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 16 Dec 2010 19:12

JE Menon wrote:No more criticism of blogs run by Indians on here. Please give your opinions on the appropriate blog. No more criticism of Maverick or his blog here will be entertained. He has been a respected figure on BRF in the past, and still is by many, though he does not post here anymore.

Dude, if you want no criticism, then don't post asinine stuff from that blog on here.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 Dec 2010 20:02

I didn't post anything here from Maverick's blog. You probably misunderstood. We cannot entirely control what posts are initiated here, we can only contain.

And your point is exactly why I said "please give your opinions on the appropriate blog".

OK guys, no more on this here. Go to the blog in question and post there if you wish.

arjunm · Post by **arjunm** » 16 Dec 2010 22:45

The Afghan War: Spreading Democracy (and Heroin)
Ryan Harvey | Friday 10 December 2010

Leaked documents reveal US and Afghan government collusion with major traffickers.
Documents made public by WikiLeaks' latest file drop show that Afghan President Hamid Karzai pulled strings several times throughout early 2009 to free numerous drug traffickers with whom he had political or economic ties.
The documents also show that US officials have held multiple high-level meetings with a man widely viewed as one of the country's major heroin dealers.
That man is Ahmed Wali Karzai: He's the half-brother of President Karzai and has been investigated by numerous major newspapers for drug allegations.
Referred to in many US documents as "AWK," Ahmed Wali Karzai, has long been on the radar of government officials and journalists for his off-the-books dealings with local warlords, traffickers, Taliban members and Afghanistan government officials.

Now, previously secret US Embassy documents, made public by WikiLeaks, further these claims. The documents also show that the US has continued to consult with AWK on major infrastructure projects, security contracts and economic plans.
One of the leaked documents is a report from a November 2009 meeting between AWK and the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry. In this document, Eikenberry describes Karzai as being, "... widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker." Nevertheless, he cautions that working with Karzai is a political necessity.

In this meeting, Karzai calls for private "jihadi" mercenaries operating within the region to fall under his control; he also calls for major development projects to be initiated with his oversight. Eikenberry responds, "... given AWK's reputation for shady dealings, his recommendations for large, costly infrastructure projects should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism."

He also notes that Karzai, "... is understood to have a stake in private security contracting ..." and "... both he and the governor have tried to exert control over how contracts are awarded in the province ... all of which could be a significant conflict of interest in the province."

In another document, made public by WikiLeaks, there is a report from a February 2010 meeting with AWK in which, then-Deputy Ambassador to Afghanistan Francis Ricciardone says that Karzai, "... appears not to understand the level of our knowledge of his activities and that the coalition views many of his activities as malign."

This new information linking the Karzai's with the heroin trade supplements previous reports on AWK's operations in Kandahar. It also further emphasizes the realities of the "dirty war" in Afghanistan.

In 2008, The New York Times released reports that Ahmed Wali Karzai was extensively linked to the heroin trade. An investigative report, in late 2009, declared that Karzai was, "... a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade."(1)

The report also announced (citing, "current and former American officials") that Karzai, "... gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency and has for much of the past eight years."(2)

According to The New York Times, the Bush White House said it, "... believes that Ahmed Wali Karzai is involved in drug trafficking," and, "Neither the Drug Enforcement Administration, which conducts counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, nor the fledgling Afghan anti-drug agency, has pursued investigations into the accusations against the president's brother." (3)
The Times article also extensively quotes a jailed, high-level Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) informant, named Hajji Aman Kheri. "It's no secret about Wali Karzai and drugs," he told them. "A lot of people in the Afghan government are involved in drug trafficking."(4)
Other examples of such immunity were recently made public by WikiLeaks as well.
In April 2009, President Karzai pardoned five border policemen who were caught smuggling 124 kilograms of heroin in their patrol vehicles. They were sentenced to terms of 16 to 18 years each, only to be pardoned by President Karzai shortly after, "on the grounds that they were distantly related to two individuals who had been martyred during the civil war."
Rumors in the US Embassy are that Karzai is also planning on pardoning several other men caught smuggling heroin. One man was a high-ranking police chief and nephew of a member of Parliament, who was caught ordering his men to smuggle heroin. Another man was a "priority DEA target."

The same document says that Karzai tampered with the case of a narcotics trafficker whose father is a wealthy businessman and Karzai supporter. "Without any constitutional authority," the embassy cable says, "Karzai ordered the police to conduct a second investigation which resulted in the conclusion that the defendant had been framed."
These documents come after controversy arose last year when former Afghan Defense Minister and current First Vice President Muhammad Fahim was selected as Karzai's running mate. CIA reports sent to the White House in 2002 suggested that Fahim was involved in narcotics trafficking and, though the White House avoided public criticism, they privately directed American military trainers to work with Fahim's subordinates only, but not with Fahim himself.
President Karzai's other brothers have also made headlines this year for their secret dealings. Abdul Qayum Karzai mediated secret talks with the Taliban in Saudi Arabia. Mahmood Karzai has come under a federal investigation for tax evasion, racketeering and extortion.
Don’t miss a beat - get Truthout Daily Email Updates. Click here to sign up for free.

Now, documents leaked to the Guardian tell of Fahim's predecessor, former Afghan Vice-President Ahmed Zia Massoud, arriving in Dubai with 52 million dollars in cash and not needing to explain it. The reports outline the extent to which money has been smuggled out of Afghanistan by corrupt officials, and that Afghan officials have consistently lied about these "capital flights."

Another major figure under suspicion for selling drugs happens to be one of the main men charged with stopping them. Former Counter-Narcotics Deputy Minister Muhhamad Daud Daud, who came out of the Mujahideen under Ahmad Shah Massoud and became one of Afghanistan's biggest military commanders, is also in the mix.
While publicly assisting the US in counternarcotics policy, Daud Daud profits from the industry. According to The Guardian UK, "several western officials" allege that Daud Daud, "... has historical and family links to smuggling."(5)
A 2009 investigation by the Canadian Globe and Mail, found evidence that Daud Daud was deeply involved in the heroin industry. This investigation tells of a man named Sayyed Jan. In the story, he was stopped by members of the Counternarcotics Police of Afghanistan, with 183 kilograms of pure heroin in his car.(6)

"The drug dealer was carrying a signed letter of protection from General Mohammed Daud Daud," the report says.(7)

"That document, along with other papers and interviews with well-placed sources, show that General Daud has safeguarded shipments of illegal opiates even as he commands thousands of officers sworn to fight the trade," the investigation concludes.(8)
According to the family members of the arrested trafficker, Jan paid General Daud Daud $50,000 to allow him to make a single trafficking run. Jan was later bribed out of prison and is believed to be once again leading his trafficking operation.
This is a glimpse of how one smuggles heroin out of Afghanistan: Pay off the officials who are supposed to be stopping you. It's an open-secret in the world capital of heroin.
"As of mid-February 2007," an internal military file from April 2007 states, "Afghan government officials working with eradication forces [are] accepting bribes from local farmers."(9)

This report describes farmers paying between $750 and $1,000 per acre for protection from corrupt officials. This amount of money is not something the average farmer can afford to pay, thus, one can assume that these pay-offs are made by large landowners.(10)

The document concludes that the police chief and "other provincial officials" are involved; and that Helmand provincial Governor Wafa was fully aware of the situation.(11)

In July 2010, The Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, issued a report stating, "... most experts we spoke with agree that corruption at all levels of government enables narcotics trafficking."(12)
The report goes on to describe that members of the Afghan government have historically, "... rendered many aspects of the counternarcotics program useless, including using the eradication program as a means of extorting and by robbing alternative livelihood programs of resources intended for the Afghan farmer."(13)
It also cites research which found, "... there is a growing belief in the south (of Afghanistan) that those working for the government are more actively involved in the trade in narcotics that the Taliban."(14)
This study found that the vast majority of farmers understand the central government to be highly involved in the narcotics industry.
This information is even more alarming when laid next the UN's own statistics on the Afghan heroin trade.
As of 2009, the Taliban's share of opium-profits is estimated at 125 million dollars only. This means that the other 2 billion, 875 million dollars must go to either corrupt government officials or other warlords/drug networks.(15)

The US is in the middle of a drug war, backing men whom they know to be warlords and heroin traffickers in exchange for their political cooperation against groups like the Taliban, Hezb-e-Islami and the Haqqani Network, which oppose the current Afghan government and the US presence that keeps it afloat.

The US used this strategy in the 1980s as well, when it backed the Afghan Mujahideen rebels to combat Russia's bloody occupation. Its support for some of the most undemocratic and notorious warlords in the Mujahideen resulted in a decade of civil war that led to the Taliban's rise to power.
And, as it did in the 1980s, when covert US government funding supported the anti-Soviet insurgency, the US is working with some of the most undemocratic and notorious warlords in the country.
The blowback from such alliances today will probably be similar.

http://www.truth-out.org/the-afghan-war ... eroin65816

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Dec 2010 23:51

What about David Headley and his drug running as Daoud Gilani?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 17 Dec 2010 03:39

You see when south american countries are under pressure on drugs, they have to create another source. Khan users sources about 65-70% of illegal drugs from the world, and they are the highest drug addicts.

Killing drug addicts means khan will lose super power status with a new age civil war.

asprinzl · Post by **asprinzl** » 17 Dec 2010 06:09

I see every Tom, Dik and Harry in the media seem to be lionizing Richard Holbrooke. In actuality Holbrooke is an ego maniac with an exagerated sense of self-importance. With his bloated ego, he cannot see the historical setting of things. Everything has got to be his way. Regardless historical settings or cultural significance. That is why he had the audacity to tell the Indians to give up Kashmir, the Serbs to give up Kosovo and the Israelis to give up part of Jerusalem. Rumor has it that he even wanted to Tibetans to give in to the Chinese.

If he had worked for the Mafia, he would have been their Capo, hit-man or enforcer. He was basically a thug in Armani suit and a college education. He was never a skilled diplomat everyone seem to be attributing. He was a henchman threatening or bullying little nations to submit to him purely on the basis of the military/political muscle of the USA.

In the end this Mafia thug could not do diddly squat when facing the Pak-Is-Satanis because the Pakis were just another bunch of Mafia thugs like him. When a Mafia thug meets a rival Mafia thug, short of a full blown war, it results in a stalemate. To wiggle himself out of this stalemate, Holbrooke tried to sacrifice a little store owner in the neighborhood (India). Such is the skill of this so called illustrious diplomat. Good riddance. The world is a better place without him.
Avram

arun · Post by **arun** » 17 Dec 2010 07:57

"if you want to end malaria you have to get rid of the swamp."

Wikileaked discussions between our former National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan and FBI Director Robert Mueller:

Indian protests that America is too soft on Pakistan

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Dec 2010 10:39

Looking at the drugs trade problem.

As long as the demand exists the supply will. If the supply chain is illegal then the risk premium will increase the cost of drugs on the street. It is that premium which makes the Illicit drugs trade an attractive business proposition for the drugs cartels.

I think that, if drugs trade cannot be eliminated then the better option would be to regulat it. The best way to do so is to legalise & decriminalise drugs & trade in them.

When you decriminalise drugs then the power of Drugs cartels will is broken as drugs will not attrack the huge risk premium they attract today. Therby reducing the attarctivness of the business for them.

It also has the advantage of bringing the industry overground.

It becomes like any other intoxicating agent. Such as alchol or tadaco. The usage can still be attacked socialy like it is done for Alchohal or Tabaco.

This is my personal belief

JMT Onlee...........

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Dec 2010 13:59

OT

What one needs is to develop drugs which are otherwise harmless, give you a high, but either does not cause addiction, and if they do cause, then it is easily cured through some therapy. Such drugs can be sold over the counter to all over 25 years and they are heavily taxed, with the taxes being used for rehabilitation of drug addicts, anti-drug public awareness campaigns, especially in schools, etc.

Again JMTs

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 19 Dec 2010 03:18

Leaks show US is India's strategic partner

India cannot "imagine for a moment a Taliban takeover of its extended neighbor" Afghanistan, defence minister A K Antony bluntly told the visiting US national security advisor James Jones in 2009, in what brought out India's fears over the return of Pak-controlled militia and the fear that US may be losing their appetite for a prolonged confrontation in Afghanistan. Antony also frankly said India wants US led "international community's operations there must succeed".

On February 12, 2009, the US ambassador David C Mulford in a detailed briefing note for the late Richard Holbrooke, the US president's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was visiting New Delhi, summed up, "The nuclear deal and a closer strategic relationship with the United States have generated an extraordinary public debate in India during the last year. We have won this debate hands down and, as a result, the U.S.-India relationship has a strong foundation on which to grow over the coming decades."

our recent improvement in relations have made Delhi much more amenable to cooperating on regional issues, as evidenced by our efforts together ranging from tsunami relief to Nepalese democracy to anti-piracy in the Gulf and off Somalia. Trend lines suggest the opportunity for even greater cooperation is ripe."

The cable from Mulford is important also in that it illuminates how US's commercial interests have been among the key drivers of search for closer ties." For the United States to fully realize the commercial benefits of civil nuclear cooperation, India must "follow through on its commitment to set aside nuclear reactor park sites for US firms" and address other industry concerns, such as patent protection and adoption of domestic liability protection.

Successful implementation of the nuclear agreement will "provide access to an estimated $150 billion in commercial opportunities for US firms and lead to the creation of up to 30,000 American jobs over the next three decades," the ambassador estimates. "It will also help protect the Congressional bipartisan consensus for India and preserve the unprecedented popularity of the United States among Indians, on which our growing bilateral relationship depends," he argues.

In another cable, the US ambassador quotes Shiv Shankar Menon as saying, "there was no popular resistance to the idea of FBI involvement in the Mumbai investigations. Menon concluded, "We have a huge confluence of interests, and as long as that exists we will work together." Boucher assured Menon that India could rely on the U.S. to keep up the pressure on Pakistan; Menon replied, "And you can count on our pressure on you to help you do it."

US is India's strategic partner. But at what cost.

darshan · Post by **darshan** » 19 Dec 2010 08:22

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101218/ap_ ... akistan_34

Pakistan's top spy agency denied Saturday that it helped unmask the CIA's station chief in Islamabad, dismissing speculation it was retaliating for a U.S. lawsuit linking the Pakistani intelligence chief to the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 19 Dec 2010 15:37

^^ if I were at that position, I would call Indian embassy and sue the airport authorities for not respecting the human rights and privileges of an ambassador. ^^ I think she just turned out to be a calf instead of lioness

.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 20 Dec 2010 07:37

X-posting from intelligence thread

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-emba ... nts/180760
Cable about reactions of 26/11

reading the above cable, gives me goosebumps .

i) There are people called PolCouns and Poloff, who have heavy connections with the inside of the govt and possibly handlers.
ii) searched for PolCouns on google. All are references to India's wiki leaks cables. I am guessing it to be a psuedonym for a handler.
iii) Searched for Poloff, it is the last name of a well connected US family/is a name of position in US embassy.
iv) According to my interpretation of XXXXXXXX's, there are atleast two spies of US in very high places whose reports have been consolidated into this particular report. More analysis as of now is not possible as these XXXXXXX's are computer generated and not blanked out portions, so as to compare sizes.
v) The culture of spies in congress continues unabated. Ref: 12c

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Dec 2010 07:52

^^^What about Political Counsellor/Counsel and Political Officer/Office?