Showing posts with label Sunday Guardian India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sunday Guardian India. Show all posts

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs - By Simon Jenkins - The Guardian, UK

 -------------------------

AS LONG AS JEWS/ZIONISTS ARE IN IMPORTANT POLICY MAKING POSITIONS IN THE WEST, WAR CANNOT BE STOPPED; AS THEY BELIEVE IN THE DICTUM OF PERMANENT WAR FOR PERMANENT PEACE. ONLY THEIR IDEA OF 'PEACE' IS CERTAINLY NOT SHARED BY REST OF THE WORLD.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/16/eisenhower-fears-invent-enemies-buy-bombs

guardian.co.uk home

Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs

Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

  • Simon Jenkins
  • Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why? Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them. This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.   Joe Magee: Guardian The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself. Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defence lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned". Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime. On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to Nato warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defence lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appal the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. Nato's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said Nato would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing. It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defence was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defence establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes". I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defence industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented." The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer. There is no strategic defence justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defence or Britain 2.5%, or for the Nato "target" of 2%. These figures merely formalise existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial. The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain. As long as "big defence" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defence ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour. There is one piece of good news. Nato has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US defence secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in Nato worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sharad Pawar begins political poker - By Seema Mustafa - THE SUNDAY GUARDIAN, New Delhi

While millions are groaning under the astronomical inflation in everyday food items, the shenanigans of Sharad Pawar is being covered up by mainstream media, for reasons best known to their owners. A rare breaking of rank has Seema Mustafa breaking the news behind the news about how Sharad Pawar is engaged more in maneuverings to wreck Congress government and willfully playing truant rather than working to remedy price rise through his Agricultural ministry. Isn't it preposterous that now there is news floating around about permitting the export of sugar.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai


---------

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1821-pawar-begins-political-poker-



Sharad Pawar begins political poker



SEEMA MUSTAFA  New Delhi | 2nd Jan
Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar
nion Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, quite unperturbed about spiralling prices and farmers' suicides, is busy building bridges with Congress detractors. Fishing in troubled UPA waters, Pawar is currently stoking disgruntled allies to form a pressure group within the government with a view to garnering support as an interim Prime Minister if Dr Manmohan Singh is compelled to resign in the New Year.
Pawar, who was on a shaky wicket when UPA 2 came to power as he did not get the expected number of MPs from Maharashtra, has survived the IPL controversy to emerge as a contender for the top post. Buoyed by a troubled Parliament and a stronger Opposition, the Agriculture Minister has doubled efforts to bring the UPA allies and other parties to his side. His meeting with rebel Jagan Reddy in New Delhi has caused concern within Congress circles that see it as part of the "Pawar ploy" to give support to Congress detractors.
Sharad Pawar was close to Jagan's father, the late Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Y.S. Rajashekhar Reddy. Congress leaders have always suspected him of supporting Jagan's rebellion, with the recent 45-minute meeting being seen by the party as a confirmation of this. It might be recalled that Jagan Reddy's has been spearheading a campaign against Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and has emerged as a recognizable political force in Andhra Pradesh. Congress members point to the fact that Pawar had earlier made common cause with party rebels like V.C. Shukla and K. Karunakaran and was "only acting in pattern".
{
Congress leaders have always suspected Pawar of supporting Jagan's rebellion, and the recent 45-minute meeting is being seen as a confirmation of this
Pawar, who has a good rapport with Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mamata Banerjee has been strengthening lines of communication with Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, a powerful ally in government. The two jointly addressed an Agriculture Conference in Tamil Nadu where the DMK leader was full of praise for Pawar and said that he had been personally invited by the Union Agriculture Minister. Sources pointed out that both leaders are now in "close contact".
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is unable to tame the Agriculture Minister or make him accountable for food supplies and prices. He has managed to evade responsibility and the Congress is not able to confront him on these issues as Pawar's support has become indispensable for the party to survive in Maharashtra, the only other major state it controls now besides Andhra Pradesh. In the latter too Pawar, sources said, is busy fomenting dissent, with the Congress particularly perturbed as several of its legislators are hovering around Jagan Reddy.
An emboldened Pawar has now launched a frontal attack against Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on the Lavasa Lake City project near Pune, for proposing action against it. Defending the project Pawar has said that the Environment Minister "should have consulted my ministry". There has been no immediate reaction from a stunned government. The Agriculture Minister has also come out, once again, in strong defence of industrialist Ratan Tata embroiled in the Niira Radia tapes controversy. He is the only Union minister to take this position.
As a senior Congress leader who has known Sharad Pawar for a long time said, "Pawar is able to sense trouble before it actually hits government, and obviously he is preparing the ground for himself." The 2G scam has weakened the Congress in Parliament, and the Opposition insistence not to back off from its demand for a JPC probe heralds prospects of a troubled Parliament through 2011.
----------------------

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/2038


Congress snub for inflationary Sharad Pawar Print E-mail
KOTA NEELIMA  New Delhi | 9th Jan
Sharad Pawar (Reuters)
ongress had to sideline Sharad Pawar this week to deal with food inflation that soared to 18.32%, widening the cracks in the UPA coalition further. The Ministries of External Affairs, Finance, Commerce and Industry tackled various aspects of price rise, a primary responsibility of Pawar's Ministry of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs.
A sulking Pawar left for Mumbai on Friday as it became clear that he played little part in the fire-fighting and no meetings were scheduled over the weekend.
The Congress had long been suspicious of Pawar's interventions ahead of and during the food price crisis. This comes along with a sense of unease about his political motives in overlooking his responsibilities as minister, especially about anticipating food supply and prices.
The latest episode started in December 2010 when onion prices saw a steep increase from Rs 35 a kg to Rs 65 a kg in just a few days.
According to the Finance Minister on Thursday "three-fourths of food inflation is explained by inflation in vegetables". The current rate of food inflation was recorded for the week ending 25 December and to which onion price rise was a major contributory factor.
{
The Congress had long been suspicious of Pawar's interventions ahead of and during the food price crisis.
Even while the cause for the onion shortage is being pinned on unseasonal rains, experts in government felt that the damage to the crop could not have affected production beyond 20%.
It was also suspected that hoarding and speculation could be the cause for price escalation, to counter which and increase availability the government banned the export of onions till 15 January.
However, on 21 December, commenting on the crisis, Pawar said, "Onion prices will remain high for the next three weeks and the situation is likely to improve only after two-three weeks." This statement was criticised as being counter-productive and since then Pawar has stayed away from commenting about price rise. NCP's D.P. Tripathi argues, "The Cabinet works under the rule of collective responsibility and there is no point in blaming one minister for this crisis." But even with Pawar to blame, it might not be easy for the Congress to answer why it had been slow in countering the price crisis which had been brewing for about a year.
Even on the issue of onion imports from Pakistan, the Ministry of External Affairs swung into action only after the food inflation figures headlined on Thursday this week. The action against hoarders, similarly, was taken on Friday after the extent of the crisis became public.
Food prices had remained beyond the reach of the common man through last year. For the week ending 16 January 2010, food inflation had been 17.40% due to high prices of vegetables and pulses. Even high farm output had failed to correct the grim situation as thousands of tonnes of food grains were lost due to inadequate warehousing facilities. This year, with the rate of inflation worsening, the government might be forced to resort to short-term remedies to bring immediate relief than more sustainable solutions