War in Sri Lanka comes to an end: LTTE gets the final kick in the face

LTTE can be defeated. Yes.

In a civil war lasting more than 25 years, the LTTE gained a reputation of being nearly invincible. Time is changed now. Sri Lankan Government forces at last made their way through and showed LTTE the exit path.

How was it done?ell, a string of miscalculations and grave strategic mistakes led to the downfall of the LTTE and its leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran.

In 1991, an LTTE female suicide bomber killed former Indian president and National Congress Party leader Rajiv Gandhi, who had sent peacekeeping troops to Sri Lanka in 1987 that become involved in fighting with the rebels. The Congress Party, led by Gandhi’s widow Sonia, heads the government in New Delhi again today, probably one reason why big brother India failed to heed the protests of its own Tamil minority as Rajapakse pressed ahead with his campaign to annihilate the LTTE.

Then, in 2005, it was Prabhakaran of all people who brought about the victory of the hardliner Rajapaksa in the country’s presidential elections. Shortly before the polls, the LTTE ordered an election boycott. Ranil Wickremesinghe, who advocated a political solution to the conflict, narrowly lost the elections without the Tamil vote.

According to analyst Jehan Perera, Prabhakaran might have been gambling that the international community would withdrawing its support from Rajapaksa’s government over his hardline policy. However, the gamble backfired as more and more countries blacklisted the LTTE over the group’s ongoing suicide and other attacks, leading to the Tigers’ increasing international isolation.

With the self-confidence of its military advances against the LTTE, Rajapaksa’s government tried to sell the Tamil Tigers’ defeat as evidence that terrorism could only be quashed by military means while, at the same time, many Western states, chastened by their experience in Afghanistan, have drawn a very different conclusion. Seemingly drunk with imminent victory, Rajapaksa aide Lucien Rajakarunanayake recently wrote that Sri Lankan troops could soon be ‘the most sought-after force in the fight against terrorism.’ He said the world increasingly saw Sri Lanka as ‘an example how terrorism can be fought and defeated.’

Although a majority in the international community is horrified over the bloodbath among the civilian population caused by the fighting, his thesis finds its supporters in the West.

Back in January, the conservative US Wall Street Journal wrote: ‘For all those who argue that there’s no military solution for terrorism, we have two words: Sri Lanka.’ And, directed at the new US president, the paper added, ‘Colombo’s military strategy against Tamil terrorists has worked. Negotiations haven’t. That’s an important reminder as Israel faces its own terrorism problem and as the US works to foster stability and political progress in Iraq. Take note, Barack Obama.’ While the LTTE is unlikely to recover its former strength, it was expected to continue to operate in the underground and continue to carry out attacks.

Naked ambitions of naked Pakistani politicians

Pakistan’s money hungry President Asif Ali Zardari has pulled Pakistan into a crisis. His naked ambition has taken the country into the verge of being a failed state. This violent Muslim country elected a new government 13 months ago amid hopes that democracy could rise from the ashes of military rule and the assassination of Zardari’s wife Benazir Bhutto. But Pakistan’s troubles have worsened.

Since in democracy, more than 70 bombings have killed hundreds. The International Monetary Fund was forced to bail out the economy. And neither offensives nor peace deals have quelled the menace of Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Dreams of a national unity government are in tatters. The president is on a collision course with the main opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who has mobilised massive support to demand the promised reinstatement of judges sacked by former military ruler Pervez Musharraf.

The government banned protests and rounded up more than 1,000 activists into prison vans — a crackdown that the US-based Human Rights Watch says imperils the country’s nascent democracy. Pakistani politics has been always been around the cercle of – a desire for power grab, desire to play brinkmanship, to play games with one another. The Bhuttos, landed aristocrats from Sindh, and the Sharifs, industrialists from Punjab who became fantastically rich in the 1980s, spent decades bickering and ousting each other until signing a charter of democracy in 2006. The document pledged to restore democracy, avoid confrontation and abolish the political role of the military, which has ruled Pakistan for around half of its 62-year existence. Papering over their enmity — Zardari spent 11 years in jail under Sharif administrations — they formed a coalition after February 2008 elections. But Sharif walked out last August, furious that the president had reneged on three written promises to reinstate around 60 judges, including supreme court chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, fired in 2007.

The problem was exacerbated by the president’s ties to Washington, where lawmakers are likely to triple non-military aid to Pakistan to 7.5 billion dollars over the next five years. The problem with Zardari is that he feels more powerful because he believes he has American support. US President Barack Obama has declared Pakistan a central front in the war against Islamist militants. There have been more than 30 suspected US drone attacks since August 2008, sparking domestic resentment against a complicit government. Sharif, on the other hand, raised alarm bells in the West during the 1990s for seeking to introduce sharia law while prime minister. Washington has courted Pakistan’s army chief of staff Ashfaq Kayani, eyeing the military as indispensable in its “war on terror” but has publicly stated it does not expect an armed takeover.

The Army chief Kayani has had several meetings with Zardari as political leaders, under British and US pressure, have scrambled to find a compromise to head off the crisis. What is certain is that Zardari’s rule has never been more shaken. One thing is for sure, three main players – Zardari, Sharif and Kayani do not want nation’s gain. There are here for personel gain. One will come up top and explote the nation. Jo jita wahi sikandar!

They drove to Washington in hybrid vehicles

Three big US carmakers asked the Congress to renew their plea for an enormous $34 billion government bailout to save their vital industry from a possible collapse. Ford said it might pull through on its own and return to profitability by 2011, but asked for a $9 billion line of credit in case the economy worsens or one of its competitors fails. GM asked for $4 billion this month and another $14 billion next year and Chrysler said it needed $7 billion by December 31, 2008 if they were to survive a perfect storm of a global credit crisis, falling demand for large vehicles and a global economic slump.

An estimated three million jobs and a potential crash of the US economy are at stake as General Motors and Chrysler warn that they could run out of cash within a matter of weeks if they are not given access to billions in low-cost, government-backed loans. Neither automaker expects they would be able to survive if they were forced into bankruptcy protection and the ripple effects of their failure would be felt across the country as auto supplies and related companies collapse in the wake of a sudden loss of business. The White House said it was reviewing the three different plans and was open to a possible aid package, but cautioned not to expect any decisions in the coming days.

Lawmakers turned the three chief executives away empty-handed last month and charged them with coming up with proper plans showing they would be able to repay the loans and attain long-term viability. They were roundly criticised for letting their iconic brands crumble in the face of competition from foreign transplants, whose US plants operate at much lower costs, and failing to develop smaller fuel-efficient cars.

There was also anger that all three had flown to Washington for the hearings in separate corporate jets – more proof of the excesses of the CEO lifestyle. This time, they drove to Washington in hybrid vehicles.

Ford and GM will get rid of their company airplanes and all three chief executives will work for salaries of one dollar a year. All three put forward plans to invest billions in advanced technology, shift their product mix towards more environmentally friendly vehicles and slash operating costs.

Auto workers also offered to share in the sacrifice, despite landmark concessions made last year which have taken billions of dollars in health care liability off the books of the Big Three and will bring labor costs in line with the non-unionised US plants of foreign rivals by 2012.

Industry data showed that auto sales dropped 37 per cent last month, as total US sales fell to 746,789 from nearly 1.2 million vehicles in November 2007.

Mumbai attack: How it happened

Only 10 terrorists entered the city just an hour before and did the massacre. Nine terrorists were killed in encounters with the security forces, while a 21-year-old was captured alive.

The terrorists came in a ship and used a boat to come to the shore. Four Indians were already on the boat and the terrorists killed three of them while they used one, Amar Narayan, to handle the boat. When the boat was just three nautical miles away from shore, they slit Narayan’s throat and dumped his body in the trawler. They then used their own skill to come to shore.

After landing at Fish Market at Cuffe Parade near Colaba, they formed four groups and hired taxis to reach to their destinations. A group of two young terrorists entered Hotel Oberoi, four into Taj Mahal Hotel, two stormed into Nariman House while the rest entered the CST railway station from its mail trains’ gate. Their plan was to cause maximum damage and return with hostages protecting themselves.

As the attacks began, two terrorist started random firing at CST railway station while three other teams had began firing at Oberoi, Taj and Nariman House. One terrorist who sustained a bullet injury in his hand during an encounter with the police was captured. And all the rest were killed during the 3-day gun fight.

The arrested one will die during interrogations on next Wednesday unless he agrees to say, what interrogators wants him to say. Indian media, backed by intelligence forces will (successfully) put the blame on Pakistan’s shoulder. However, they will involve some more countries including Malaysia and Sri Lanka. Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba will be blamed heavily by the western media. Pakistan government will be screwed one more time as this group was formed by the Pakistani intelligence force to pinch Indian forces at Kashmir.

Ultimately, Muslims (Indian, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Afghans) will have to suffer the side-effect of this incident. By Muslim, I mean, liberal Muslims, not the fanatics.

Indian Navy is dumb, intelligence force dumber, Army dumbest

Situation is, 50+ hours have gone and counting. Indian Army / security forces still could not flash out terrorists from one of the hotels in Mumbai. Probably they should ask Sharukh Khan or Ajay Devghan to do something about it now. Both these actors have experience in handling such situations, unlike them (Indian Army).

How inefficient a trained security forces can be? After 50 hours of operation, all they could find is, dead bodies inside the hotels, hello, the whole world already knows it. The Army commander claimed, the soldiers had to retaliate as terrorists started throwing grenades; what were they expecting, flowers? Indian Army said, the terrorists had map and layout of the hotel, which they did not. Sir, search google, you will find it.

Indian commando units stormed into a Jewish center, known as Chabad House. Result………..five bodies of Israeli citizens. The terrorists had executed the hostages during the commando raid, the Indian military said. No sign of terrorists there? Did not you actually go in there for the terrorists? If the hostages are killed, why the hell did you go there? Just to practice rope jumping from helicopters? Same situation in Oberoi hotel – Army raids and recovery of 24 dead bodies of only the hostages.

So, how many lives were saved by the Indian Army? None. On a contrary, over 50 people died after the Army started their operations. The people who came out, they were stuck on other part of the hotels, where terrorists had no control.

The intelligence sources had no idea about the whole thing; still no confirmation of how many terrorists was there, their nationality or name of their organizations. What do these intelligence officers do actually? Watch Bollywood movies in office time and cricket at evening? Perhaps.

Last week, Indian Navy claimed that they destroyed a pirate ship at the Gulf of Aden. Later they found out, it was a Thai fishing vessel. 13 innocent crew died on that incident. It seems, Indian security forces have lost it all. Its Navy is dumb, intelligence force dumber, Army dumbest.

Political turmoil in Thailand: What’s next?

Thailand is facing serious political turbulences for the last few weeks. Anti-government demonstrators, demanding resignation of the Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, have seized the Government House in Bangkok and battled with the security forces in other parts of the country. Several labor unions and transport workers’ associations also joined the protest. However, resignation of Prime Minister will not put an end to the problem; it will start a new game altogether.

Kingdom of Thailand has a diverse geographic configuration that features flat plains, mountains, tropical rainforests and amazing beaches. The politics and governments of the country too, have shown an assortment of systems blended with interventions of the religion, monarchy and the military. Since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, it experienced governments dominated by the elite rich or the military powers.

Despite almost regular military interventions, Thailand saw a steady economic growth and a financial boom in the 1980s that continued in the 1990s in full pace. The country nonetheless was severely struck with what became known as Asian Financial Crisis of 1997. Inflations caused Thai Baht valuation fall from 25 to 56 against the US Dollar. Unlike some other neighboring countries, Thailand gained momentum and came back to path of growth within a short time. Internal disturbance however made it difficult to maintain a steady growth. The saga still continues.

The Kingdom experienced its last military coup on September 19, 2006 following mass anti-government protests against the than Premier Thaksin Shinawatra over several high stake corruption allegations. The capital of the country practically became ‘human sea’ before the Army stepped with the blessings of the Monarchy. Thaksin Shinawatra was away and remained there for sometimes. Army Chief vowed to have a fair election and kept his words. Situation took an interesting turn when Thaksin Shinawatra backed People’s Power Party won the majority of seats in the December 2007 general election. Thaksin soon came back to face corruption cases, but only for few months; he fled to the UK last month and asked for political asylum there.

With a very brief silence, in mid 2008, Bangkok again became loud in the streets from protests demanding the resignation Shamak Sundaravej led government. The protesters say that Shamak led administration is only a puppet government, actually ruled by Thaksin himself.

A rather arrogant stance of Sundaravej to stay in power despite all the protests paved the way for further violence on the streets of Bangkok which later spread across the country. The unrests and disobedience are intensifying, so much so that the country at a time became virtually standstill with three regional airports and 35 train routs closed down. Amidst the crisis, a ray of hope emerged from the Army Chief General Anupong Paochinda who vowed not to seize power and see political problems be solved through political means.

On September 2, state of emergency was declared in Bangkok in response to the growing magnitude of civil unrest. The government vows a return to normalcy as soon as situation becomes stable. On September 4, The special cabinet of the ruling party agreed in principle to hold a referendum to seek public opinion on whether they want the government to continue administering the country or not.

Resignation of Samak Sundaravej led government seems to be the only solution to this problem but the question is, what next? There is strong possibility that People’s Power Party will again form government with its allies if an election takes place. This is because the party has quite a strong support base all over the country; not to mention it is funded by the rich elites including telecommunication Tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra himself. To its support, it has not done anything terrible to be ousted within a year of winning the last election. Another point that puts the ruling party in a safer position is that, the protests on September 2006 brought millions of people in Bangkok but this time around, there are only thousands. Moreover the general public is getting frustrated about the continuous unrest as it hampers their economical wellbeing and social comfort.

On the contrary, if there is an election and People’s Power Party fails to win, it will sure put pressure on the next government to earn its due; meaning unrest will hit the streets again. Worst comes worst, the Army generals might step in anytime with the excuse that political parties failed to solve the problem – politically.

In any case, Thailand is heading towards a bigger turmoil unless the anti-government protesters give the ruling party another chance to prove themselves that they are not puppets  by Thaksin and has the ability to pace up the economical paddle.

-Mohammad Yousuf
-Subhan Choudhury

The Crisis in Caucasus – will the French-served peace last?

It was a time when the whole world was waiting for the spectacular unveiling of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The U.S. President George Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin were just inches away fro each other, watching the greatest show on earth. However, this physical nearness was overwhelmed by the political distance in the Caucasus region where Russia launched a military operation in response to a rather ‘silly’ adventure of Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia. In a week long exchange or military wrath, Georgia is found to have paid a heavy price. Although there was a declaration of cessation of military operations, hostilities in the region are far from a complete end.

But why waging this unnecessary war? Both sides of Georgia and Russia have their own logics about the legitimacy of the conflict. Many critics would argue that it was due to a test-drive of the U.S. administration to assess the military capabilities, determination and power of Russia; Georgia by far has a reputation of being American ally in the region. But the conflict in the Caucasus seemed much overdue since the birth of the breakaway semiautonomous provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A brief look back would help understand the backdrop of the events that made quite a movement in the recent international politics -

Twilight of Soviet Union saw a number of separatist movements – Georgia being the principal. With a rising pulse of separation in 1989 in Tbilisi, South Ossetia too, made its intention clear of being separate from Georgia. This resulted in violent clashes between Georgians and South Ossetians in Tskhinvali (capital of South Ossetia).

In 1990, South Ossetia with its 70,000 strong population (majority being Russians) declared its intention to secede from Tbilisi government which again escalated the conflict. Soviet forces were stationed in the region to keep a peace that ultimately seemed futile.

With the demise of Soviet Union and Georgia becoming independent in 1991, nothing happened in South Ossetia in Georgia’s favor. The intent of breaking away from Tbilisi did not die down in South Ossetia. A year long sporadic violence continued in the region till an agreement was reached for a deployment of Russian-Ossetian-Georgian peacekeeping force. A political impasse continued over the issue of South Ossetia’s independence during Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze’s period till his ousting by ‘Rose Revolution’ in 2003. With a landslide victory in the election that followed in 2004, Mikheil Saakashvili, the new president of Georgia held the reins with a commitment to heel the breakaway regions namely Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Nevertheless, Mikheil Saakashvili’s proposal of dialogue and conditional autonomy was vehemently opposed by the separatist especially those of South Ossetia.

An unrecognized referendum in 2006 portrayed the rejuvenated demand of independence by South Ossetians which was offset by a similar referendum by Georgian minority in South Ossetia who preferred to stay with Tbilisi administration. Since then sporadic clashes continued. Russia’s supportive posture to Tskhinvali along with the facts like most South Ossetians carrying Russian passports and using Rouble for trade caused an increasing anger in Tbilisi. It is no wonder that Georgia always wanted to release her dogs of war at some point of time.

In early August, this year, clashes mounted between South Ossetian separatist forces and Georgian troops and climaxed with Georgia launching aerial bombardment and land offensive against the breakaway region on 7 August. By 8 August, Georgian troops were in control of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali that ultimately lasted for hours only. Inaccessible terrain and approach conditions from the north to South Ossetia left Georgians happy and oblivious of fast moving Russian military forces. Soldiers, tanks and vehicles poured in at the same time when Georgian military control was established over Tskhinvali. The control soon became fragile and ultimately broke down completely when Russian air and ground attacks continued not only on Georgian forces in South Ossetia but other important parts of Georgia. At the end of what lasted for a week, Georgians paid higher price in terms of human and infrastructural casualties. Little sense of relief started to prevail in South Ossetia after Georgian troops pulled out of Tskhinvali.

Blame-game continued from the beginning of the hostilities between Georgian and Russian forces. Military and government version of logics behind Georgian offensive against Tskhinvali was for ‘restoring constitutional order’ by ‘neutralizing separatist fighters attacking civilians’. Russian authorities see their counter-offensive as a measure to protect their people in the region who are allegedly targeted by Georgian military. Russia even linked this hostile act of Georgia as a disqualification for NATO membership – a matter to Russia’s discomfort being long discussed amongst existing NATO members. As a presidential decree to declare ‘state of war’ got approved in the Georgian parliament on 9 August, Russian president expressed his commitment in forcing Georgians to peace duly supported by his prime minister Vladimir Putin’s claim of Georgia’s act of genocide.

Caught in the middle of the conflict, hundreds of civilian lives were lost, while thousands fled the ruined South Ossetia and Georgian town of Gori. Material losses were high on the side of the Georgians with certain areas of Tbilisi, Gori, and Port of Poti being damaged by Russian air bombardment.

Although Georgia started to pull out of South Ossetia as early as 10 August, Russian forces continued to advance beyond South Ossetia into her main land. Russian advances and operations inside Georgia provoked the U.S. only to make cautionary statements against Russia – an act that utterly disappointed a pro-U.S. Georgia in view of her anticipation of U.S. active involvement. Meanwhile diplomacy by EU intensified and a French-brokered peace plan was served to both the countries in dispute. The six point peace plan outlined:

-    Complete end of use of force
-    Granting free access to humanitarian aid
-    Return of Georgian forces to places of permanent deployment
-    Return of Russian forces to pre-conflict positions
-    Complete cessation of military actions.
-    Resumption of international talks on the future status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Following the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s four hour long meeting, President Saakashvili signed the agreement on 15 August. Initially it was rejected by Russia probably because it still wanted to consolidate her gains in posing a substantial threat to Georgia being inside her territory for days already. However, finally on 16 August, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the agreement. This agreement includes a provision that allows Russia to make additional security arrangements till the arrival of international observers to monitor the ceasefire.

Current situation in the Caucasus portrays a scene that is far from a lasting peace. It is a fact that with both sides signing the French-served peace plan, tensions have dropped substantially in the region. But with Russia’s intention of staying back till ‘additional security measures’ are in place and Mr. George Bush’s August 16 statement of ‘no room for debate’ on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two very fundamental points out of those six served, seem to be in distress. Without a complete withdrawal of Russians from South Ossetia and Georgian main land, Georgia remains under a threat. With an opposing U.S. attitude to the promised international talks on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, separatist movements in these two breakaway regions may get reenergized throwing the entire Caucasus region in a volatile situation in future.

The international community will nervously watch the events that follow in next few days and weeks.

Contributor: Mohammad Yousuf

Philippine’s peace pact in limbo

More than a decade after signing the peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), the Philippines government said, it will take more time to implement the pact. The government panel actually brought out some of its proposals during previous meetings with the MNLF and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) but didn’t come out with specific details.

The Philippine government, the MNLF and the Organization have been working on a possible amendment on the 1996 peace accord after the former complained that the truce was not fully implemented. Jess Dureza, presidential adviser on the peace process said – “It will take time, but we are hopeful,”. “There is a scheduled tripartite meeting this May, and we believe several other constructive proposals will come out.” – he added.

The former rebel group, whose leaders are from Sulu, also said the autonomous region was not given enough power despite the existence of the peace agreement. The Organization of Islamic Conference recently said, the government and the former Muslim separatists are making progress toward implementing a peace accord granting autonomy to Filipino Muslims in the south.

The influential Muslim organization said it is now counting on the government and the MNLF to come up with proposals on amending the 1996 peace agreement, which ended decades of fighting and led to the creation of an autonomous region for Muslims.

The Organization, MNLF, and the Philippine government representatives are expected to submit a report to the Organization of Islamic Conference next month on possible amendments for the autonomy to be fully realized. Government and MNLF negotiators said they are just finalizing the documents and will come up with a combined report after the tripartite meeting. The tripartite meeting is aimed at discussing issues concerning the implementation of the Conference-mediated 1996 peace agreement.

Parties working on the agreement were supposed to meet on January 14 2008, but the Organization of Islamic Conference failed to send its representative for unknown reasons. The meeting was tentatively rescheduled on May 12, 2008 in Manila. Both the Philippine government and the MNLF agreed to create a joint working group, a body composed of government and MNLF representatives to look into the complaints of the former rebels.

Anti-torture commission for Cambodia

Cambodian people suffered the world’s worst torture between 1975 and 1979. The worst acts of torture were carried out at the notorious Tuol Sleng center in Phnom Penh by the then Khmer Rouge regime. This center has been turned into a genocide museum since the overthrow of that regime in 1979.

Torture did not end with the end of that murderous regime, though it has drastically declined in comparison. It is still perpetrated at police stations, prisons and other detention centers, and the police still show brutality in the eviction of people from their homes and lands, and in banning public demonstrations.

In February 2008, in Koh Kong province, a young fisherman was allegedly beaten and kicked about immediately after his arrest and later on when in police custody, making him lose consciousness on both occasions. Hardly two weeks later, in Kep seaside town, a police officer was arrested and then allegedly shackled day and night for 24 days in a windowless cell at a police discipline unit for allegedly disobeying the order of the country’s national police commissioner to cede his land to a senior government minister.

Nevertheless, the Cambodian government has seemed to show its earnestness in combating and preventing torture. In 1992 it became a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or CAT. In 2005 it signed the Optional Protocol to this Convention, or OPCAT, hardly three years after this protocol had been adopted. In 2006 it supported the trial, and welcomed the sentencing to 12 years’ imprisonment, of six police officers for the torture and murder of a woman in police custody. In 2007 it ratified OPCAT, becoming only the second Asian country to do so and the 34th party to this protocol.

However, Cambodia’s earnestness has not been matched by deeds as required by the two related international human rights instruments. It has as yet to enact a law to criminalize torture and lay down a procedure for victims to have their right to freedom from torture adjudicated and promptly redressed, as stipulated in CAT.

Likewise, it has yet to make a declaration recognizing the competence of the U.N. human rights body called the Committee against Torture, created under CAT. With this recognition aggrieved individuals can resort to this committee when domestic institutions fail to adjudicate their rights and award appropriate remedy, which is very much the case in Cambodia.

The Cambodian judiciary and other competent authorities have failed to act, let alone promptly, to address torture cases. In the case of the alleged police torture of the young fisherman mentioned above, the prosecution in Koh Kong province turned down the complaint of torture against the police filed by that young fisherman. He could not get his complaint accepted and acted upon until after the prosecutor had moved to another position and been replaced.

The prosecution in Kampot province accepted the complaint against the alleged police torture and illegal confinement of the police officer in Kep seaside town when it was filed, but it has not been acted upon.

Cambodia has also failed to honor its obligations under OPCAT which prescribes, among other things, that state parties must create a national mechanism to prevent torture within the prescribed 12 month period after they become a party to it. Cambodia became party to OPCAT on March 30, 2007, yet 12 months have already elapsed without it setting up any such mechanism, despite the offer of outside assistance. According to OPCAT, this anti-torture commission must be an independent body. It must have power of access, without hindrance, to all places where persons deprived of their liberty are detained; the right to meet in privacy any of those persons; authority to make recommendations to protect those persons’ fundamental rights including freedom from torture; and its recommendations should be heeded by all authorities responsible for those detention centers where violations of rights have been detected. The body must also have adequate resources to do its work.

The Cambodian government must not delay any longer the creation of such an anti-torture commission as prescribed by OPCAT and its declaration of recognition of the competence of the Committee against Torture under CAT. Cambodia’s judicial or other competent authorities should promptly investigate acts of torture or other ill-treatment, adjudicate these acts, punish the perpetrators, award appropriate remedy to their victims, and take appropriate action to prevent the repeat of such acts.

Any further delay and any continued failure to take action to combat and prevent torture will harm the Cambodian government’s credibility and cast doubt upon its earnestness in combating torture. It will also raise suspicions that it condones torture and other forms of ill-treatment of a population which has already suffered so much from such atrocities in its recent past.

Afghanistan in 2007: Drugs, Taliban & Corruption VS. Living Standard, Communication, Infant mortality

Six years after the US invasion in Afghanistan, the country is far from being a secured land. Presence of security forces including foreign peacekeepers, across the country, has not yet ensured a peaceful livelihood. Two-thirds of the Afghan population still lives on fewer than $2 US dollars a day. A recent survey, carried out by the US based Asia Foundation revealed that, 46% of the Afghan population believe that the security remains one of the biggest problems in the country.

 

However, the living standard of Afghan people took an upward turn since 2004 and is much superior than the life under Taliban regime. Communication is one of those sectors those were enhanced and made Afghan peoples’ life easier. For instance, Afghans had to cross the border and travel to Pakistan, just to make a phone call to relatives living abroad; now, over 2 million Afghans have their cellular phones and can contact relatives and friends in every corner of the world. The county has progressed in the health sector as well. Johns Hopkins University reported that Infant mortality rate of the country declined from 165 per 1,000 live births in 2001 to about 135 per 1,000 in 2006. This means that about 40,000 fewer infants are dying each year compared to during Taliban rule. Infrastructure development has recently got momentum as well. In 2006, US based Black & Veatch and the Louis Berger Group, won contracts worth $1.4 billion to rebuild roads, power lines and water supply systems of Afghanistan. Nevertheless, in the meantime, Taliban militants adopted new tactics from Iraqi insurgents and changed the pattern of their suicide attacks. In the first 10 months of 2007, Taliban militants conducted 193 suicides bombings; a 20% increase from last year.

 

The question is why the livelihood of Afghan people is not secured yet? What are the major roadblocks? The answer should not be restricted to “The Talibans”. Though the newspaper headlines still are scary, foreign forces in 2007, suffered less than one combat death a week. When Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s, they lost 1572 dead a year, about five times higher than the US led foreign soldiers. Taliban are actually only a name in the list that illustrates the major roadblocks for development and a secured land; not even the first one. The major and ‘top of the list’ roadblocks are poppies, corruption and Pushtun tribal politics. Actually, these three factors merge and produce the Taliban.

 

The opium and heroin produced from the poppy crops in Afghanistan generate three billion dollars a year. The warlords use much of these funds to buy politicians, tribal leaders and thousands of gunmen. And about half of this figure goes to the farmers growing the poppies. This brings instant riches, because poppies yield 30 times more income than traditional food. In addition, Corruption in Afghanistan works as an ancient custom, hand in hand with poverty and violence. Tribal leaders and politicians of the country take for granted that they can be bought, or at least rented, if the price is right.

 

Taliban’s ‘believe system’ is corrupt itself, making things worst. The ‘Taliban way of life’ actually represents religious conservatism. Taliban way has no tradeoff or relations with the modern thinking. Thus the Taliban denounce education for women, and many other pillar of modern life. The Taliban fighters, nevertheless, like the expensive gadgets, such as SUVs and satellite phones very much but do not allow any other devices inside their households. Even by Afghan standards, Taliban represent extremist militants. Till today, the Taliban fighters believe that they are on a mission from the creator. They carryout this mission by using drug money. One wonders, what they will answer to their creator about their fund, if ever asked. But, for the time being, this source will keep things going for a while.

 

The solution lays in hitting on the source of fund. To eliminate Taliban militancy from the country, the highly profitable drug business has to be destroyed. In addition, the corruption has to be washed off and a diplomatic approach needs to be taken to deal the Pushtun problems.

 

It is true that, over the last 20 years, Afghanistan’s infrastructure suffered severe damages; its institutional devastation was equally harsh. Moreover, the country suffers some of the harshest climatic conditions and most difficult terrain on earth, of which, much is laced with millions of unmarked landmines. On the positive note, Afghanistan possesses 36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels of petroleum and up to 1,325 million barrels of natural gas liquids along with huge amounts of gold, copper, coal, iron ore. If utilized properly, these natural resources can boost up Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts and can generate revenue to develop its infrastructure.

 

Economic opportunities, however, can be utilized, only if the drug problems and Pushtun politics are removed from the path. If the drug money does not reach the Talibans, they will automatically shift their mission to something else. They have to.