The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

WikiLeaks highlights threat from Pak
India needs to review its security measures
by T.V. Rajeswar

MANY documents released by WikiLeaks have yielded disturbing information about India’s security environment. American Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson had conveyed to the US State Department in September 2009 that Islamabad would always support the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). The ambassador had specifically said that the Pakistan Army and its ISI were covertly sponsoring four militant groups, including the LeT, the Afghan Taliban and the latter’s allies, the Haqqani and Hekmatyar networks, and would not abandon them for any amount of US money. It was also pointed out that there was no chance of Pakistan considering enhanced financial assistance as sufficient compensation for discontinuing its support to these groups.

A leading think tank based in Delhi, the Observer Research Foundation, has come out with the information that the LeT has a core cadre strength of 50,000 trained and armed men — 5000 in Karachi and the rest across Punjab. The cadre consists of dedicated men, and many of them are former army and ISI commandos. They have access to the latest weapons and funds. The Punjab Government of Pakistan had also reportedly made a grant of nearly $1 million in 2009.

All these factors only underline the need for India to be vigilant against the threat from Pakistan, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. There are further reports that the LeT has opened its units in Nepal and Sri Lanka for running training camps for the infiltration of cadres into India. It is mentioned that from Sri Lanka these terrorists are likely to launch attacks on specific targets in South India. This is the first time that South Indian targets have been mentioned in any of the LeT plans. One wonders whether the LeT cadres are targeting the comparatively peaceful southern part of the country by launching attacks on some of its famous temples at Rameswaram, Madurai, etc. The consequences throughout India of such attacks can be imagined. Possibly, these elements are looking for opportunities to disturb communal peace by planning such attacks.

The WikiLeaks expose has also thrown light on the dangerously unstable situation in Pakistan. President Asif Zardari has been afraid of being overthrown or even assassinated by the Army. Zardari asked for US help for protecting his life as well as ensuring that in the event of his being overthrown, his sister should be made the next President and not his son Bilawal as was thought after Benazir Bhutto’s death. The latest reports state that Zardari has sought asylum for his family and himself from the President of the UAE. Benazir herself had stayed in exile for many years in Dubai before her return to Pakistan and her subsequent assassination.

Gen Ashfaque Kayani, however, has his own idea about President Zardari’s succession. General Kayani mentioned his own choice, A. Wali Khan of the Awami National Party, as a possible replacement. The government led by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would, however, remain undisturbed so as to pre-empt fresh elections in which case former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif might stage a comeback. General Kayani hates Nawaz Sharif more than anyone else and hence his choice for the Awami National Party chief.

Despite Pakistan’s economy being in serious trouble, American appraisals have it that Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world. This has been mentioned in one of the cables released by WikiLeaks. The assessment was made in 2008. At the same time, the safety of a huge quantity of enriched uranium in one of the nuclear facilities in Pakistan was causing security concerns to the US which seriously thought of lifting the enriched uranium with the consent of the Pakistan Army. Pakistan, however, later backtracked on it.

It may be recalled that after the LeT attack on Indian Parliament in December, 2001, the Indian Army came out with Operation Parakram, resulting in massive forward troop mobilisation along the western front. The exercise was more in the nature of a warning shot to Pakistan since the troops were called back after US intervention.

The diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that in the aftermath of the 26/11 killings by ISI-assisted LeT terrorists, Pakistan expected an attack from India — Operation Cold Start — and Islamabad was prepared to consider the nuclear option if the need arose. India did not go beyond holding discussions with Pakistan at various levels and urging it to prosecute all those involved in the 26/11 attack, an exercise still going on.

What is clear from all these exchanges is that Pakistan is prepared to consider exercising the nuclear option if faced with setbacks in a normal confrontation with India. With Pakistan being in an unstable state and with the dominance of the army over all the aspects of life in Pakistan, India has to be on the alert all the time.

Former Pakistan ruler Gen Parvez Musharraf has gone on record with his assertion that he trained terrorist groups to operate from Pakistan on a regular basis. Now that the former US Ambassador has clearly testified to the fact that whatever be the financial disbursement and the pressure from the US, Pakistan will never give up on Kashmir. The Kashmir problem has never been easy for India to handle all these years. The report of the interlocutors sent to Kashmir to talk to the various sections of people and politicians and come up with their suggestions for a solution has to be awaited. We know well the stakes involved in resolving the Kashmir problem.

The Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister is quoted as having said that a Pakistan military leader told him that the Pakistan Army was no match to the Indian Army — the justification given by Pakistan why it needed nuclear weapons.

The US has reportedly told Pakistan that it needed to have a new security arrangement with India as a pre-condition for a civilian nuclear deal with Washington DC. Senator John Kerry, considered a foreign policy czar in the US, reportedly told this to Zardari in Islamabad in January 2010. Kerry has also reportedly advised Zardari to have a security arrangement with India in the interest of Pakistan’s own stability.

Another bit of interesting information is that General Kayani told a top American diplomat that the Pakistan Army wanted resumption of back channel talks with India but President Zardari was against it. General Kayani reportedly has the backing of General Pasha of the ISI in this regard. This thinking should be encouraged and eventually there may be talks with General Kayani himself since he is the most important man in Pakistan today. General Kayani and General Pasha may be encouraged to talk directly with Indian interlocutors, who may consist of the National Security Adviser and the Army Chief.

Now one can draw the conclusion that Pakistan would never give up supporting the terror groups like the LeT and would use them for creating problems for India, at least in Jammu and Kashmir.

The writer is a former Governor of UP and West Bengal.

MIDDLE

Hell-bent to serve
by G.K. Gupta

THE world is not totally bereft of people who under the most trying and hellish circumstances are known to take up the challenge to serve and alleviate the suffering of others. There are many instances when people risked their lives so that others could live. Consider the hair-raising stories of what happened during World War II.

Auschwitz in occupied Poland was the site of the greatest mass murder of all times, the most infamous Nazi death factory, the most heinous place on earth where millions of Jews — men, women and children — were mercilessly put to death in gas chambers, extermination camps or starved to death. When those in the Auschwitz death camp would have done anything to escape, a British POW, Denis Avey, smuggled himself into their midst to help some of them get out after swapping his British POW uniform with the dirty, stripy uniform of a Jewish condemned prisoner.

Sir Nicholas Winton, who now at 101 stands erect, rescued 669 Jewish children at great personal risk from their doomed fate in the Nazi death camps. He ensured that the kids whose parents had already perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz were out of the reach of Nazi power. Both Avey and Winton were honoured by Gordon Brown, the last British Prime Minister, at a function a few weeks before he gave up his premiership.

One most remarkable man whose name is revered by millions was Oscar Schindler, an ethnic German. He outwitted Hitler and the Nazis to save more Jews from the gas chambers than by any one else during World War II. He spent millions bribing and paying off the SS (most feared Nazi organisation) and kept the Nazis out of reach from the 1,200 Jews under his protection. He died penniless in 1974. All this is so well recaptured in Hollywood’s Schindler’s List, the 1993 epic film and winner of many awards.

Most poignant are the stories of how during the German occupation of Poland, some dedicated Poles embarked on the dangerous mission of smuggling out a number of Jewish children from Nazi death camps, gave them refuge in their own settlements and then helped them escape to freedom. All this was regardless of religion, race or any ethnic considerations.

In the light of the above, now consider that Bollywood is planning a film on Hitler, the universally hated dictator. Interestingly, it is entitled “Dear Friend Hitler”, the name borrowed from the contents of two letters Mahatma Gandhi wrote to Hitler on stopping the war and on preaching non-violence. In a belated realisation, Anupam Kher, the veteran actor who had agreed to play the role of Hitler, has walked out. Israel and particularly the Indian Jews migrated to Israel were shocked and so was the small Jewish community in India who vehemently protested against any glorification of one of history’s worst mass murderers.

Coming to our day-to-day life, complete strangers flit past us at times whose little acts of kindness stir our lives like an exquisite tune of melody. They always symbolise to us the acme of all that is noble and magnanimous in a human being. Such uplifting moments when sublime, heart-warming human messages come my way are worth treasuring.

OPED ENVIRONMENT

Another opportunity missed
Sunita Narain

There is not doubt that the world was meeting in Cancun with little or no expectations for a deal. At the last meeting in Copenhagen, the split between the industrialized world and the rest was still wide open. The world remained divided on how it would share the economic and ecological space, given that growth depended on who had the right to pollute.

In Cancun there has been an unexpected breakthrough. The outlines of an agreement have been finalised in the form for the text of the Long Term Cooperative Action working group. The Western media has been liberal in its praise. Even the critics say that pragmatism won and the world has taken a small step ahead.

Greenpeace activists protest next to a giant life ring during talks on climate change in Cancun. — Reuters

The question is what has been agreed to and will this move the world ahead on its difficult mission to cut emissions of carbon dioxide? My analysis, based on the proceedings at Cancun, is the opposite of the widely held perception.

First, let us understand the outcome against the challenge we face. It is well accepted, that to keep the world below the already dangerous 2 degree Centigrade temperature increase, global emissions need to drop to 44 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (the mix of greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2e) by as early as 2020 — as against the roughly 48 billion tonnes of CO2e currently. In other words, the world has already run out of space and has to cut fast and drastically.

This is why at the Bali climate conference held in 2007 the proposal on the table was that industrialized countries would cut emissions drastically by 2020 — some 40 per cent reduction over the 1990 levels was being discussed. It was also agreed at this meeting that developing countries, including India and China, would take on steps to avoid the growth of emissions. But as this energy transition — still not afforded by the industrial world — would cost money, they would be enabled by technology and funds.

This is what was being discussed in Cancun. How much would the industrialized countries cut, by when and what would be deal on technology and funding.

The outcome

Now let us what we have got:

On emission reduction targets it says that "there will be scaled up mitigation efforts, needed for stabilization, with developed country parties showing leadership by undertaking ambitious emission reductions and in providing technology, capacity building and financial resources to developing countries."

There are no specific targets have been set for the industrialized countries, based on their historical responsibility to the problem.

Instead, what it endorses are the voluntary 'pledges' made by industrialized countries. The pledges add up to as little as 9 per cent reduction below 1990 levels to as best as 15 per cent (if the countries are extremely ambitious). In other words, they fail any target of reduction by any measure. The US, which has been instrumental in getting the deal at Cancun, will have the most to gain. As against the 40 per cent reduction it needed to do by 2020, it will get away by doing zero per cent reduction over its 1990 levels. It is no wonder it is laughing its way to the bank.

The burden shifts to us

The agreement also marks another big shift in the global architecture. The distinction between the developed and developing countries has been removed as there will be universal agreement for all. This is unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which asked for binding actions from the industrialized countries as the first step, based on their responsibility to the problem.

The agreement is based on each country's pledge to cut emissions, including ours. Now, if these 'pledges' of developing — including India's target to cut energy intensity by 2020 — are compiled, then a curious fact emerges. The burden of cutting emissions has in fact been shifted to us.

Therefore, while the total amount that the rich will cut, amounts to some 0.8-1.8 billion tonnes of CO2e, the poor developing countries have now agreed to cut 2.3 billion tonnes of CO2e by 2020. In other words, the agreement shifts the burden of the transition to us.

Equity is given a go-by

The agreement has all the right words on equity, which would satisfy the uninitiated. But the fact is that as of this agreement, the concept of global equity in climate negotiations has been undermined, if not completely destroyed. How?

First, it is based on creating a new framework, one, which is based primarily on what countries pledge they will do domestically. It therefore, does not demand that countries take on targets based on principles of historic responsibilities or equity.

Second, it dilutes the provisions for equity in the agreement itself. In the previous drafts it was unambiguously stated that developing countries would have equitable access to the global carbon budget. This equitable sharing of the atmospheric space has been replaced by the vague statement "equitable access to sustainable development". In other words, we have bargained away the need to apportion the global atmospheric space to protect our future right to development.

Thirdly, the deal requires that a developing country’s actions must be internationally reported, measured and verified. While this does not mean that we have agreed to a legally binding global deal, it does take the first steps to internationalise our domestic actions and so paves the way for a legal global agreement for all. This is in fact part of the agreement for the next meeting scheduled in Durban.

Bad for the world's climate

The Cancun agreement and our fatal compromises could even have been justified, if the world was indeed on course to cut emissions to avoid catastrophic changes. We know we are most vulnerable to climate change. But the bottom-line is that the agreement in Cancun is not just too little, too late. It is nothing. All data shows that the current pledges — developed and developing — put the world on track for at least 3 degree Centigrade increase. It is a climate disastrous deal.

Finance, technology: no gains

Lets then look at the agreement for finance — needed for adaptation in the already vulnerable world and for mitigation in the rest. It was agreed in Copenhagen that there would be fast track funding available — some US$ 30 billion by 2012 and some US$ 100 billion by 2020. When this figure was put out, it was already considered too little for the challenge ahead.

But the Cancun agreement goes no steps ahead. It only calls for the creation of a green fund. No money is seen or promised.

In the case of providing technology for mitigation is concerned, the agreement is even weaker. It only talks about the setting up of a climate technology centre and network, with no idea of how low carbon technologies will be made available on free or concessional terms to the South. The contentious expression, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is not even mentioned.

Based on these facts, it is clear that however much we would like to believe that the Cancun glass is half full, it is completely empty. The developing world has made major compromises in its position; it has staked its future. But it has got nothing in return. Worse, the world has not got a deal to avert climate change. It is a dud deal, which will devastate large parts of our world.

What has been achieved

Shared Vision

This means the big overall picture.
The Aim An official aim, accepted by all, of halting global warming at a rise of less than 2C above pre-industrial levels (it presently stands at about 0.8C above those levels). Recognition that industrialised countries must do more. Setting a date for a global peak in carbon emissions.
The Deal The 2C target was agreed and the need for stronger action by developed countries was recognised, The idea that the world's CO2 emissions should peak was recognised — for "as soon as possible" — but no date was set.
What are we waiting for? A date for this emissions peak — 2020 was what Chris Huhne wanted — and perhaps an even tougher target than 2 degrees, such as 1.5. (Small island states threatened with sea level rise want this). A scientific review will look at this in 2013.
Legal Form
This means what future agreements are going to look like.
The Aim Developing countries wanted a pledge to renew the Kyoto protocol, with its commitments only on rich countries to cut their emissions. Rich countries want a universal emissions treaty binding on everyone.
The Deal A compromise in which both of these potentially irreconcilable positions were held in abeyance without wrecking the talks through clever language drafted by Chris Huhne and his team.
What are we waiting for? A second commitment period of Kyoto, with perhaps a parallel treaty legally binding everyone (which Britain would accept). A target for next year's climate conference in Durban.
Emissions Pledges
This refers to the cuts in carbon emissions that countries say they will carry out
The Aim The bringing into the official UN climate change negotiating process of the pledges that many developing countries, such as China, have made over the past year under the Copenhagen Accord. This was an ad-hoc document drafted by heads of state as a face-saver at the meeting last year that has no official status.
The Deal The pledges have been brought into the UN process and documentation, or in the jargon, "anchored".
What are we waiting for? Industrialised countries, including Britain, would like to make these developing country pledges legally binding; that's some way off yet.
MRV
This refers to Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
The Aim A system by which the world community as a whole could be guaranteed that countries which claimed they were cutting their carbon emissions were actually doing so.
The Deal A softened version of the original MRV proposals that the Chinese angrily rejected as too intrusive at Copenhagen. It was drawn up by the charismatic Indian minister for the environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh.
What are we waiting for? Widespread application of monitoring.
Forests Agreement
An outline treaty to prevent deforestation because of the carbon emissions released.
The Aim Financial sticks and carrots to halt deforestation. Many countries wanted the full-scale "monetisation" of protected forests so rainforest countries could generate carbon credits and there would be a new market commodity, forest carbon.
The Deal A large-scale agreement to halt deforestation in developing countries in return for rich-world funding, but reference to market mechanisms was left out at the insistence of Bolivia. Various safeguards, including rules to protect forest peoples and wildlife.
What are we waiting for? The emissions-credits-from-forests idea is the big attraction for many investors, private and public. It will doubtless creep back in.
Green Fund
A new institution to channel some of the vast new flows of climate finance to the developing countries — likely to be $100bn (£63bn) annually by 2020.
The Aim To bring the fund into existence now. Developing countries wanted a big say in how it will be run.
The Deal It was brought into existence yesterday at Cancun, with the World Bank as its trustee. It has got a board, a design committee, terms of reference and a one-year deadline for it to be up and running. Developing countries are well represented.
What are we waiting for? For the fund to start lending money for climate change projects. This will probably happen after the next UN climate meeting in Durban next year.
— The Independent

The writer, a well-known environmentalist, is the Director of the Centre for Science and Environment