Archive

Archive for July, 2009

Reestablishing the forgotten system

July 31, 2009 Leave a comment

By Syed Arsalan Al

The crumbling of the global economy caused by the collapse of financial institutions in USA and Europe has sparked off a debate among the intellectuals and masses all over the world that whether the world is witnessing the end of Capitalism or not. If the opponents of Capitalism are to be believed then the question arises that what alternate economic system should the world adopt then. The world has already witnessed the downfall of Communism after the disintegration of USSR. Nonetheless, Communism exists but it is not a system entirely with merits as it failed to address the problems posed by Capitalism. Therefore, it is obvious that the world needs a system different from these which can solve the problems of people all over the world.

While going through Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech of 1st July, 1948 which he delivered on the inauguration of the State Bank of Pakistan  I came across something entirely different from the above mentioned systems. An excerpt of the speech is as follows

The economic system of the West has created almost insoluble problems for humanity and to many of us it appears that only a miracle can save it from disaster that is not facing the world. It has failed to do justice between man and man and to eradicate friction from the international field. On the contrary, it was largely responsible for the two world wars in the last half century. The Western world, in spite of its advantages, of mechanization and industrial efficiency is today in a worse mess than ever before in history. The adoption of Western economic theory and practice will not help us in achieving our goal of creating a happy and contended people. We must work our destiny in our own way and present to the world an economic system based on true Islamic concept of equality of manhood and social justice. We will thereby be fulfilling our mission as Muslims and giving to humanity the message of peace which alone can save it and secure the welfare, happiness and prosperity of mankind.

It was clear from the words of Quaid-e-Azam that we, Pakistanis need to devise an economic system based on the values of Islam as he believed that Western Economic model created more problems than it solved. Even an ordinary man with a little understanding of the western system can identify the harms and their effects inflicted by this system. It is no wonder that a system which aims at creating a society based upon different socio-economic tiers, where self-interest is one of its fundamental characteristics, where the desires of the wealthy individuals are placed above the needs of the poor community, where the system itself is morally neutral, is bound to fail.

We need to devise our own system based upon the values preached by our Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him); a system where the resources are considered as a trust of God to people, where the concept of Halal and Haraam is understood and acted upon, where the rich take upon themselves the responsibility for the socio-economic uplift of the poor by the principle of Brotherhood and justice, where the people are taxed on their surplus wealth than on their incomes and expenditures. And, last but not the least; we need a system which is devoid of exploitative elements like interest and usury.

Anokha Ladla to ‘Sharif’ Daddy,” I want Siberian tigers!”

July 31, 2009 1 comment

News about Suleman Shabaz Sharif, son of Chief Minister of Punjab Shabaz Sharif, with heading VIP allowed to import Siberian tigers in violation of ban.

That reminds me of another news in media few years ago, when Sharif family was ‘ruling’ the Pakistan in it’s playing ‘musical chairs’ with PPP, they were said to have imported 50 or so BMW cars and since they would have to pay hefty tax or custom duty on it- as per law, Legislation was amended over night to allow ‘people’ to import cars without paying any tax.

However, next day soon after those BMWs arrived at Airport and cleared from customs, amenment was reversed immediately and law became as it was. Again.

Such is the characters of our political ’leaders’ of national levels.

And then they wonder?

Indian Air Force jet crashes, two pilots killed

July 31, 2009 4 comments

NEW DELHI: A trainer aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF) crashed in Andhra Pradesh on Friday, killing two pilots onboard.

The HPT-32 trainer aircraft plane crashed near an Air Force academy at Medak, during a training flight.

The aircraft crashed apparently due to an engine problem, an Air Force spokesman said, adding an investigation will be carried out.

Strong Russian funded Mini-SCO (TajAfPak) to transform West Asia

July 31, 2009 2 comments

Russia to fundmassive train & energy projects in Tajikistan, Afghanistan & Pakistan. The indications are that Russia has stepped into the vacuum created by the never ending American war in Afghanistan and Moscow is now reaching out to Pakistan.

Tajik access to Gwader via Pakistani road and rail: Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan linked through a 1340-kilometre long road that would connect Pakistan from Chitral via the Durrah pass into Afghanistan and on to the Tajik capital of Dushanbe on the other endTajik access to Gwader via Pakistani road and rail: Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan linked through a 1340-kilometre long road that would connect Pakistan from Chitral via the Durrah pass into Afghanistan and on to the Tajik capital of Dushanbe on the other end
  • Meeting with the presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan, Medevdev called building energy infrastructure a vital prerequisite for prosperity. “Energy projects are what really help governments that need to strengthen their economy,” he said. “Assistance must not just be a one-off, it should be aimed toward the future.” Boston Globe
  • Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Russia and agreed to open up trade and travel between Pakistan and Tajikistan on the one hand and link the three countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan through a 1340-kilometre long road that would connect Pakistan from Chitral via the Durrah pass into Afghanistan and on to the Tajik capital of Dushanbe on the other.
  • Briefing newsmen on the visit spokesperson to the President Farhatullah Babar said that the three heads of state also agreed to meet in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe every year to review the progress made in their commitments and also to further boost the social, political and economic ties between them. Statesman
From left, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, pose for a photo during their meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe, on Thursday, July 30, 2009. The presidents of Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan met Thursday in Dushanbe. The meeting could signal Moscow's intentions to boost its security role in the region. (AP Photo/ RIA Novosti, Vladimir Rodionov, Presidential Press Service)
From left, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, pose for a photo during their meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe, on Thursday, July 30, 2009. The presidents of Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan met Thursday in Dushanbe. The meeting could signal Moscow’s intentions to boost its security role in the region. (AP Photo/ RIA Novosti, Vladimir Rodionov, Presidential Press Service)

Medvedev hosted the first meeting of Karzai and Zardariin the Urals city of Yekaterinburg in June. Adding Afghan neighbour Tajikistan to the talks was aimed to give Afghan-Pakistani contacts a broader regional context.

“This meeting…is the first important step in the direction of better understanding,” Karzai told the news conference. “Afghanistan…welcomes this and will participate in that wholly.”

“The people of Afghanistan, the people of Pakistan andthe people of this region are looking up to the leadership of the region to help them with problems,” Zardari added. Medvedevsees trans-border projects with Afghanistan. (Editing by Ron Askew) (Writing by Oleg Shchedrov and Maria Golovnina).By Roman Kozhevnikov and Anastasia Onegina

Tajikistan enclaves with road link inset

President Barack Obama had appointed him to oversee the review of the US policy in Afghanistan. Instead of being an honest broker who was supposed to present the best options for America, Bruce Reigel sold his soul to Bharat Inc. andcame up with a convoluted unworkable, untenable and biased recommendation which was simply a perpetuation of the perpetual mimetic warfare in West Asia.  When Bruce Reidel’s team invented the concoction Af-Pak he thought he was inventing a cute term which would allow him andhis ilk to spread the bombing to the almost all of Pakistan.

Mr. Reidel and his Neocon buddies had it only partially right. While it is correct that that Afghanistan faces a regional problem, it was not right to place all the blame on the doorstep of Islamabad. Ahmed Quraishi, a well respected nationalist journalist of Pakistan calls the regional issue Af-Kash. The occupation of Kashmir and the occupation of Afghanistan are the symbiotic twins of the region that cannot be separated. It was the Pakistani which liberated half of Kashmir, and it was the Pakistanis that defeated the USSR in Afghanistan which led to the implosion of the USSR. The liberation of Aksai Chin actually saved China from splitting up into pieces. If Aksai Chin had not been liberated by the Pakistanis, China would not have been given the 5000 square miles of territory. These 5000 square miles allowed China a land link to Tibet. Without the land link to Tibet, it would never have been able to take over and consolidate the country. Tibet would have been either independent or a client state of Delhi. It wasn’t the stingers that destroyed the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan, it was the men behind the gun.

Mr. Reidel’s original monograph actually did mention the symbiotic relationship between the problems in Afghanistan and the occupation of Kashmir by Bharat (aka India). However after protestations or bribes from Delhi, Mr. Reidel’s team acquiesced to appeasement to Bharat. Kashmir which was high on the agenda for America was once again discarded to the whims of hedonistic pimps like Omar Abdullah.

If Mr. Reidel and the rest of the Obama team had done their homework the would have discovered that “Obama’s Vietnam” was not AfPak, the real  Graveyard of Empires was AfPak-TurkTaj-UzbKaz-AzKyr -istan

Central Asian Republics Tajikistan Pakistan Uzbekistan KyrgyzistanCentral Asian Republics Tajikistan Pakistan Uzbekistan Kyrgyzistan

If Mr. Reidel, Mr. Holbrooke, General Patraeus, General McCrystal an Admiral Mullen had known any history of the area, other than the claptrap doled out on the CIA Fact book andthe state department’s summary courses, they would know that Central Asia is intricately boundto Pakistan and Afghanistan. The home of Babar the founder of the mighty Mughal Empire  was not born in Lahore or Peshawar–he was born in Ferghana, Uzbekistan. The mighty Mughals ruled the area for three centuries–1526-1857 during which there were open borders from Samarqand, Bokhara, Ghazni and Dushambe. Neither the one century of East India Company rule (23 June, 1757 to 10 May, 1857), nor the one century of direct British (1858-August 14th 1947) crown rule which encompassed only 40% of South Asia was  able to disconnect Central Asia from South Asia. Lenin October revolution 1914 and the Durand Line were not able to divide the Muslims of Central Asia.

The dynamics of the breakup of the USSR, the occupation of Afghanistan, the presence of foreign armies, and a strong movement in Central Asia is working to push the countries together.

Afghanistan has now suffered from three decades of occupation. The spillover has been felt more acutely by Pakistan than any other country of the world. The Grand Bargain? Pakistan key to Afghan Great Game. However this spillover has also been felt by Uzbekistan, Tajiksitan and others in the region. AfPak countercurrents beyond the Oxus to AfPakAzUzbKazTurkKyr-istan

Pakistan and Central Asian states worry that the escalating war in Afghanistan spreads Islamic radicalism to the neighbouring regions threatening their fragile peace.

Central Asian officials say recent attacks in Central Asia were orchestrated by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, a Taliban-linked group headed by Takhir Yuldashev, Central Asia’s most wanted man.

But human rights groups suggest that governments in Central Asia, which is divided between five authoritarian nations, have exaggerated the problem and use it as an excuse to crush political dissent.

Security cooperation was a key issue of separate talks Rakhmon had with Zardari and Karzai earlier on Thursday.

“The three states have expressed enthusiasm to cooperate in fighting against all threats and challenges like terrorism and all its manifestations: separatism, extremism and organised crime,” a joint statement from the Afghan, Tajik and Pakistan presidents said. Medvedev sees trans-border projects with Afghanistan. (Editing by Ron Askew) (Writing by Oleg Shchedrov and Maria Golovnina).By Roman Kozhevnikov and Anastasia Onegina

The Christian Science Monitor now has had the epiphany that the war in Afghanistan has spill overs. Uzbekistan pressured the IMU is scared of Taliban reprisals on supplies to Kabul

Dushanbe, Tajikistan – A spate of militant clashes in Tajikistan may indicate that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are spilling beyond their borders – a top concern for neighboring Central Asian nations and Russia.

The rise in violence comes as Pakistan wraps up an assault on militants in the north and Western forces intensify a campaign against insurgents in Afghanistan ahead of an Aug. 20 election. The offensives may be pushing foreigners fighting in either country to flee the conflict and return home.

“The situation at the Afghan border may deteriorate ahead of elections,” Interior Minister Abdurakhim Qahorov warned last week. “Different criminal groups may try to seek temporary refuge in neighboring countries, including ours.” Christian Science Monitor. Security was the topic at a regional summit in Dushanbe Thursday. By Abdujalil Abdurasulov | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor from the July 30, 2009 edition

The war from Afghanistan has spilled over into all the countries of the area andis destabilizing the wider region. Tajikistan, shares a 750-mile border with Afghanistan, sits on the front line of spillover effects. The fire ignited in Baghdad now engulfs Cairo to Delhi and beyond. The implications of the IMUactivity in Pakistan

The issue of regional security was raised at a Thursday summit in Dushanbe with the presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Russia.

“[Terrorism] threatens my brother’s country. It threatens my country and our neighborhood,” Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said Wednesday in Dushanbe. The Christian Science Monitor from the July 30, 2009 edition

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan has been active in the area for more than two decades. IMU militants have been discovered in the Paksitani FATA. IMU welcomes Karzai & Zardari in Dushambe with 2 bomb blasts . It is but obvious that the IMU activity in Dushambe is continuing to grow with the Tajik opposition.

There also have been shootouts on the Afghan-Tajik border near Tavildara. Part of this fight is the remnant of the Tajik civil between Mullo Abdulloand the government. The entire area is up in revolt Central Asian people – ethnic Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz, etc.

“Tavildarais just 500-600 kilometers (about 310-370 miles) away from … Pakistan.”Abdugani Mamadazimov, chair of the Association of Political Scientists based in Dushanbe.

Rupee News predicted that the Afghan war would move Westward and Northwards. This has not jsut happened now–it has been happening for years.

For years we have shed light on the pull andpush theory. Can the $80 Billion Think Tank industry not comprehend the simple truths described by Peter Senge in his seminal book “The 5th Discipline“.  They theory goes as follows. When the Police cracks down on drug dealers on 42nd street, the drug dealing does not disappear, it simply moved to 52nd street or gets dispersed over a bigger area out of reach of the police raids. Similarly when the US bombs the insurgents in East Afghanistan, it is but obvious that they will find shelter and hideouts on the Duran Line and beyond. As the US drones bomb FATA, areas in Pakistan are affected destabilizing parts of the NWFP.

The conflict was broadly fought between government forces and the United Tajik Opposition (UTO) – a coalition of Islamists and secular reformists. Al Jazeera

We strongly believe in the Push Theory is in action. In this case, the fear is that becuaseof the actions of the Pakistan Army in Swat, some of the Uzbek militants belonging to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) may have moved back to the Tajikistan and Uzbekistan where they have been active for more than a decade.

The US has openly announced that it would use the Central Asian Republics to bring in supplies into Afghanistan.

The Taliban won the war against the USSR by cutting off their supplies from the same routes that the US will use. The Taliban attacked the supplies coming via Pakistan. According to Russian estimates only about half the supplies made it to Afghanistan. Now the raids on the supplies may be moving to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Tajikistan has agreed to provide its territory for the transit of nonlethal cargo to supply US troops in Afghanistan. This route, called the Northern Distribution Network, goes through the Baltics, Russia, and Central Asian states.

The Taliban have warned the Tajikgovernment against cooperating with the US. “This is regarded as a participation in the aggression against Afghanistan,” Abdul Vase Mutasim Agha, introduced as a director of Taliban’s political committee, told Al Jazeera in May when the US-Tajik agreement on the transit corridor was reached. “This step of yours would lead to instability.” Christian Science Monitor

For the past decade the US thinktanks have been blaming Pakistan for all their ills in Afghanistan. The US spent $605 Billion in aid to Iraq and wasted $143 in aid to Afghanistan. Pakistan got about $5 Billion (the other five billion was reimbursements for services rendered). The solution to the quagmire in Afghanistan is a massive Marshall Plan for Pakistan and the area. The US has lately changed its attitude towards Pakistan–slightly.

Central Asia smaller map with Tajik Pakistan roadlink

The Russians have now publicly announced that they will massively invest in Rail and Energy. According to the news reports filtering in these are the salient points of the aid.

  • Says they are needed to help the region recover
  • Afghan, Pakistani, Tajik leaders vow security cooperation

DUSHANBE, July 30 (Reuters) – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday brought together the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan andtheir neighbour Tajikistan to try and spur regional economic recovery and attract huge aid flows.

Medvedev said he, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari discussed trade andcross-border projects at their second meeting in less then two months now joined by the Tajik leader.

Russia is reluctant to get involved in military efforts in Afghanistan after its own 10-year experience of a failed 1980s invasion but still seeks a role in settling the conflict.

Russia views ex-Soviet Central Asia as a traditional sphere of interests and has always been sensitive to instability the Afghan conflict may cause in the region. Drug traffic and Islamic radicalism stemming from Afghanistan also pose security threats for it.

Drawing together regional powers affected by the Afghan conflict is seen by the Kremlin as a priority.

“We have a common space, which should be filled with all sorts of projects,” Medvedev said in the Tajikcapital after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

“We were talking about energy projects, railway projects,” he told a news conference after talks also attended by Tajik President Imomali Rakhmon.

Medvedev did detail the projects discussed, but said Russia, a member of G8 and G20 clubs of leading economies, would lobby for their international financing.

“I believe that huge sums allocated by the international community — altogether making trillions of dollars — should go for such aims,” he said. Medvedevsees trans-border projects with Afghanistan. (Editing by Ron Askew) (Writing by Oleg Shchedrov and Maria Golovnina).By Roman Kozhevnikov and Anastasia Onegina

Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order

July 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Global Research, July 28, 2009

This essay is Part 2 of “Global Power and Global Government.” Part 1, “The Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System” can be viewed here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14464


Russia, Oil and Revolution

By the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire had a virtual monopoly over the United States, and even many foreign countries. In 1890, the King of Holland gave his blessing for the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company, which was mainly founded to refine and sell kerosene from Indonesia, a Dutch colony. Also in 1890, a British company was founded with the intended purpose of shipping oil, the Shell Transport and Trading Company, and it “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and eventually, “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”[1]

Russia entered into the Industrial Revolution later than any other large country and empire of its time. By the 1870s, “Russia’s oil fields, including those in Baku, were challenging Standard Oil’s supremacy in Europe. Russia’s ascendancy in natural resources disrupted the strategic balance of power in Europe and troubled Britain.” Britain thus attempted to begin oil explorations in the Middle East, specifically in Persia (Iran), first through Baron Julius de Reuter, the founder of Reuters News Service, who gained exploration rights from the Shah of Iran.[2] Reuter’s attempt at uncovering vast quantities of oil failed, and a man named William Knox D’Arcy took the lead in Persia.

By the middle of the 19th century, “the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world, perhaps in all of history. Their five international banking houses comprised one of the first multinational corporations.” Alfonse de Rothschild was “heavily invested in Russian oil at least forty years before William Knox D’Arcy began tying up Persian oil concessions for the British. Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly Standard Oil, was the Baron [Rothschild]’s pet project.” In the early 1880s, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region.[3]

By the mid-1880s, “the Rothschilds were poised to become the chief oil supplier, not only to Europe but to the Far East,” however, “the Baku-Batum railroad was already proving inadequate to transport the volume of oil being produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal, which shortened the journey to the Far East by four thousand miles. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez.”[4] When the Egyptian government was bankrupt in 1874, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli turned to his close friends, the Rothschilds, “for the colossal cash advance necessary” to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company.[5] By this time, the Rothschilds were already principle shareholders in the Bank of France,[6] and the Bank of England, sitting alongside other notable shareholders such as Baring Brothers, Morgan Grenfell and Lazard Brothers.[7]

The Rothschilds “had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.”[8] When the Czar died, he was succeeded by his son, Czar Nicholas II, who instituted anti-Semitic pogroms, discriminating against Jews, which had the effect of stimulating a massive emigration of Jews out of Russia and Eastern Europe and into Western Europe. However, these East European and Russian Jewish émigrés grew up in a newly industrializing nation in which the tyranny of the government and collusion between it and powerful financial and industrial interests left the great majority of people dispossessed and incited more socialist tendencies in thought and action.

The English Rothschilds were very alarmed “when the socialist tendencies of the émigrés contributed to a massively disruptive tailors’ strike in the East End of London in 1888. A young Georgian communist who would become known to the world as Joseph Stalin was already organizing laborers to strike at the Rothschild oil interests in Batum.” The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain, as they were intensely anti-Czarist and progressively socialist, and the Rothschilds were known for their heavy collaboration with the Czarist regimes of Russia. One potential solution considered to the problem of increased socialist-leaning Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish émigrés to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.[9]

On top of this, as the pre-eminent Zionist in Britain, his proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, in that several years prior, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, and it was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests.

The Rothschilds, despite their overtly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rhetoric, did not stop their support of the Russian regime and economic activities within anti-Semitic Russia. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, “had gone so far as to co-sign an agreement with rival producers – including America’s Standard Oil [of Rockefeller interests] – to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Russian government.” In 1902, the Rothschilds “entered into a partnership with Royal Dutch and Shell (soon to become a single global company) to form the Asiatic Petroleum Company for exploiting the fields of Southern Russia.”[10]

In the early 1900s, the Rothchilds were the primary oil interests in Russia, second in the world only to the Rockefellers. As industrialization was under way, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people. This spurred protests and riots, and a “young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general, [and] the Rothschilds in particular. Mass action by oil workers in Baku [the major oil fields in Russia] in 1903 was the spark that set off the first general strike across the Russian landmass.” Then with the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, and further protests, came the Revolution of 1905. In the following years, the Rothschilds sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, gaining significant shares in the international oil company.[11]

The specter of political and social instability within Russia was high and did not go without notice from international banking, oil, and industrial interests. Naturally, the international banking houses were keeping a close eye on developments within Russia. The Rothschilds had to lessen their overt involvement with Russia, as they could not maintain such a relationship with the most anti-Jewish nation in the world at the time, while also claiming to be the primary advocates of Jewish aspirations for a homeland. This is why they sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, but then gained significant shares in the company itself. So while publicly cutting their ties with Russia, they still held massive interests in its industrial capacity. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the Rothschilds “refused to participate in underwriting a major loan, this at a time when Russia desperately needed funds to stabilize the regime.”[12]

So, in 1906, John D. Rockefeller stepped in to aid Czarist Russia, and offered $200,000,000, or “400,000,000 rubles for a concession for railroads from Tashkend to Tomsk and from Tehita to Polamoshna and a grant of land on both sides of the prospective lines.”[13] These international financiers were still clearly intent upon maintaining their interests within Russia.

However, the Russian governments refusal to allow the deal between the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and other major oil monopolies to divide up the world’s oil reserves, may well have spurred discontent among these powerful interests. If Russia refused to allow them to control all the oil and have a right to all oil, did this mean that Russia was planning on building a domestic oil industry? If this were the case, it could pose a threat to all the entrenched economic and financial interests, particularly those of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, as Russia’s significant oil reserves and resources would allow it to possibly even surpass the United States in industrialization. Further, Czarist Russia became an increasingly unstable investment environment, controlled by an increasingly unpredictable monarchy.

The 1917 October Revolution “inspired workers’ uprisings in the oil fields against low wages and harsh working conditions. In 1919, Azerbaijan took advantage of the political unrest to declare sovereignty over the Baku fields. That same year SONJ [Standard Oil of New Jersey] made an agreement with the Azerbaijani government to purchase undeveloped land for exploration in the Baku region. Amidst the chaos, foreign oil companies rushed into Russia hoping to collect concessions at reduced rates. The Nobel brothers sold much of their operations to SONJ (today ExxonMobil) to build an alliance in 1920.”[14]

Antony C. Sutton, economist, historian and author, as well as research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, that both fascist and communist systems are “based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists,” and that, “the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.”[15] Thus, the major money powers of the west decided to put their money behind the creation of a totalitarian communist state in Russia, in order to create a captive economy, which they could exploit and remove from competititon.

When the Revolution began, Trotsky was in New York, and was immediately granted an American passport by President Wilson, and then given a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa, in order to return to Russia and “carry forward” the revolution.[16] Trotsky, while traveling, was arrested in Canada, but was released as a result of British intervention.[17]

Trotsky traveled on board a ship in 1917, leaving New York, along with an interesting cast of fellow passengers, including “other Trotskyite revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, American Communists, and a man named Charles Crane. Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee, whose son, Richard Crane, was an assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, played a significant part in what occurred in Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, said that Crane, “did much to bring on the [Alexander] Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” Kerensky was the second Prime Minister in the Russian Provisional Government, which followed the collapse of the Czarist government, and preceded the Bolshevik. Crane also thought that the Kerensky government “is the revolution in its first phase only.”[18]

The Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, which broke out in 1914, and had all the major European powers at war. Morgan and Rockefeller interests, organized in Wall Street and centralized in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, used “the Red Cross Mission as its operational vehicle” in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Red Cross Mission in Russia got its endowment from wealthy people such as J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, Cleveland H. Dodge, and Mrs. Russell Sage, and “in World War I the Red Cross depended heavily on Wall Street, and specifically the Morgan firm.” When the American Red Cross set up a mission to Russia, “William Boyce Thompson, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, had ‘offered to pay the entire expense of the commission’.”[19] All expenses were paid for by William Boyce Thompson, who was a major stockholder in Chase National Bank, whose President had Thompson appointed head of the New York Fed.[20]

The Mission was primarily made up of lawyers, financiers, their assistants, people affiliated with Standard Oil and the Rockefeller’s National City Bank.[21] The Mission supported through a loan, the Provisional government of Alexander Kerensky, yet, William B. Thompson of the New York Fed “made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.” Interestingly, when the Bolsheviks took control, “The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree – the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.”[22] Ultimately, the Red Cross mission in Russia “was in fact a mission of Wall Street financiers to influence and pave the way for control, through either Kerensky or the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of the Russian market and resources.”[23]

The American International Corporation (AIC), was “created in 1915 to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.” It was created and controlled by Morgan, Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and its directors were affiliated with National City Bank (Rockefeller), the Carnegie Foundation, General Electric, the DuPont family, New York Life Insurance, American Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Members of its board financially supported the Bolsheviks and urged the US State Department to recognize the Bolshevik government.[24]

In 1920, Russian gold was being siphoned through Sweden, where it was melted down and stamped with the Swedish mint, funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Guaranty Trust Company (Morgan), two of the primary banking interests behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. [25] During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.[26]

As Antony Sutton wrote, “Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy,” and that, “The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.”[27]

Eventually, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious, and Wall Street won. Under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the early 1930s, Soviet industrialization “required Western technology and expertise,” and in a “frequently overlooked contribution” that came “from abroad,” American firms aided in the industrialization of the USSR, including Ford, General Electric and DuPont,[28] with Standard Oil, General Electric, Austin Co., General Motors, International Harvester, and Caterpillar Tractor trading heavily with the Soviet Union.[29]

Standard Oil bought “gargantuan quantities of Red Oil,” General Electric received a $100,000,000 contract from the Soviet Union to build “the four largest hydroelectric generators in the world,” Austin Co., got a $50,000,000 contract to erect the City of Austingrad, “complete with tractor and automobile factories involving an additional $30,000,000 contract for parts and technical assistance with Ford Motor Corp.” On top of this, “Other [Soviet] business friends are General Motors, DuPont de Nemours, International Harvester, John Deere Co., Caterpillar Tractor, Radio Corp. and the U. S. Shipping Board, which sold the Reds a fleet of 25 cargo steamers.” Banks with close ties to the Russian economy included Chase National, National City Bank and Equitable Trust, all of which are either Rockefeller or Morgan interests.[30]

World War Restructures World Order

In the midst of World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.” The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.[31]

“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US, and “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.” On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.[32] They were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”[33]

The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”[34] There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.[35]

World War I had marked a monumental period in history in what can be understood as “transitional imperialism.” What I mean by this is that historically, periods of imperial decline and transition (that is, the rise or fall of an empire or empires), are often marked by increased international violence and war.

World War I was the result of the culmination of imperial ambitions by various powers. This was the natural result of the wave of “New Imperialism” that swept the industrialized world in the 1870s. In 1879, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary created the Dual Alliance to combat growing Russian influence in the Balkans with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Italy joined in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance. In 1892, the Franco-Russia Alliance was made, which was a military alliance between France and the Russian Empire to counteract the German Empire’s supremacy over Europe. In 1904, the Entente Cordiale, a series of agreements between France and Britain, was agreed upon in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. In 1907, the Anglo-Russia Entente was formed in an effort to end their long-running Great Game by setting the boundaries of their imperial control over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet. It also acted as a balance to the growing German Empire’s might and influence in Europe. After the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Triple Entente was cemented between Britain, Russia and France as a significant counter to the Triple Alliance.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire had been a long and slow process. The Ottoman Empire dated back to 1299, and lasted until 1923. “From 1517 until the end of World War I, a period of 400 years, the Ottoman Empire was the ruling power in the central Middle East. Ottoman administrative institutions and practices shaped the peoples of the modern Middle East and left a legacy that endured after the empire’s disappearance.”[36]

In the late 16th century, “Ottoman raw materials, normally channeled into internal consumption and industry, were increasingly exchanged for European manufactured products. This trade benefited Ottoman merchants but led to a decline in state revenues and a shortage of raw materials for domestic consumption. As the costs of scarce materials rose, the empire suffered from inflation, and the state was unable to procure sufficient revenues to meet its expenses. Without these revenues, the institutions that supported the Ottoman system, especially the armed forces, were undermined.” This was largely done through commercial treaties known as Capitulations. The first Capitulation “was negotiated with France in 1536; it allowed French merchants to trade freely in Ottoman ports, to be exempt from Ottoman taxes, and to import and export goods at low tariff rates. In addition, the treaty granted extraterritorial privileges to French merchants by permitting them to come under the legal jurisdiction of the French consul in Istanbul, thus making them subject to French rather than Ottoman-Islamic law. This first treaty was the model for subsequent agreements signed with other European states.”[37]

The Ottoman state had been sufficiently weakened by the early 20th century, which happened to be the same time period that Europeans, particularly the British, were looking at Middle East oil to fuel their empires. The major European alliances sought to take advantage of this weakened Ottoman position. In 1909, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inciting the anger of the Russia Empire. The First Balkan War was fought between 1912 and 1913, in which Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria fought the Ottoman Empire. The settlement that followed angered Bulgaria, which then began to engage in territorial disputes with Serbia and Romania. Bulgaria then attacked Greece and Serbia in 1913, followed by Romania and the Ottoman Empire declaring war against Bulgaria, which was the Second Balkan War.

This further destabilized the region, and Austria-Hungary grew wary of the growing influence of Serbia. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, where the assassin was from, and then declared war. The Russian Empire mobilized for war the next day, with German mobilization following behind, and France behind it. Germany then declared war on Russia, and World War I was under way.

The end of the Great War saw the disillusion of the Ottoman Empire, breaking up its territory, which was carved up between France and Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. The German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires also officially ended as a result of the war, for which Germany was given the sole blame for the war and punished through the Versailles reparations. The Russian Empire ended with the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in Russia pulling out of the war in 1917, the same year the United States entered the war. The Great War turned the United States into a powerful nation in the world, becoming a leading creditor nation with significant international influence. The British and French maintained their empires, though they were in decline. However, they attempted to maintain significant control over the Middle East.

World War I was thus the culmination of a massive build-up of imperial nations seeking expanded influence and markets for their capital. Entering the War, there were many empires, leaving it, there were two dominant European Empires (France and Britain) and an emerging new force in the world, the United States.

The Great Depression

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . . . Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.[38]

- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927

Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who worked closely together throughout the 1920s, decided to “use the financial power of Britain and the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.” These men were not working for the governments and nations of whom they purportedly represented, but “were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”[39]

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a stock market boom, which was a result of the commercial banks providing “funds for the purchase of stock and took the latter as collateral,” creating a massive wave of underwriting and purchasing of securities. The stock market speculation that followed was the result of the banks “borrowing substantially from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Federal Reserve System was helping to finance the great stock market boom.”[40]

In 1927, a meeting took place in New York City between Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, the German central bank of the Weimar Republic; Charles Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France and Benjamin Strong of the New York Fed. The topic of the meeting was the “persistently weak reserve position of the Bank of England. This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve System would ease interest rates to encourage lending. Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.” The Fed obliged.[41]

The Bank of England had a weak reserve position because of Britain’s position as champion of the gold standard. Foreign central banks, including the Bank of France, were transferring their exchange holdings into gold, of which the Bank of England did not have enough to supply.  So the Fed lowered its discount rate, and began buying securities to equal French gold purchases. Money in the US, then, “was going increasingly into stock-market speculation rather than into production of real wealth.”[42]

In early 1929, the Federal Reserve board of governors “called upon the member banks to reduce their loans on stock-exchange collateral,” and took other actions with the publicly pronounced aim of reducing “the amount of credit available for speculation.” Yet, it had the reverse effect, as “the available credit went more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.” On September 26, 1929, London was hit with a financial panic, and the Bank of England raised its bank rate, causing British money to leave Wall Street, “and the over inflated market commenced to sag,” leading to a panic by mid-October.[43]

The longest-serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote that the Fed triggered the speculative boom through its pumping excess credit into the economy (sound familiar?), and eventually this resulted in the American and British economies collapsing due to the massive imbalances produced. Britain then “abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.”[44]

The Bank for International Settlements

In 1929, the Young Committee was formed to create a program for the settlement of German reparations payments that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty, written at the Paris Peace talks in 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, founder of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), as a subsidiary of General Electric. He was also President and CEO of GE from 1922 until 1939, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1928, and was also, in 1929, deputy chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. When Young was sent to Europe in 1929 to form the program for German reparations payments he was accompanied by J.P Morgan, Jr.[45]

What emerged from the Committee was the creation of the Young Plan, which “was assertedly a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge German real assets for a gigantic mortgage held in the United States.” Further, the Young Plan “increased unemployment more and more,” allowing Hitler to say he would “do away with unemployment,” which, “really was the reason of the enormous success Hitler had in the election.”[46]

The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[47]

The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.”[48] As Carroll Quigley explained:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able  to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[49]

The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”[50]

In a letter dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt told Edward M. House, “The real truth .. is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson – and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W[oodrow]. W[ilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States – only on a far bigger and broader basis.”[51]

Banking on Hitler

Throughout the 1930s, with the loans provided through the Dawes and Young Plans, Germany was able to create a few dominant industrial cartels, which were all financed by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.[52] These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”[53] Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.”[54] On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.[55]

Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank throughout Weimar Germany, stayed on as President of the German central bank from 1933 until 1939, and was thus a central figure in Nazi Germany, being a major driver being the German plans for reindustrialization, redevelopment and rearmament. Hitler, in 1934, made Schacht his Minister of Economics.

Central banks across Europe began to purchase Nazi gold, which was smuggled and melted down and re-stamped in Switzerland, (much like was done with Soviet gold). Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States all “traded with the Nazis with gold transferred by the BIS.” This was done as a collaborative effort among central banks, as “the BIS did enter into gold and currency transactions with Nazi Germany through its participation with the Reichsbank.” Schacht wielded his significant influence and “had become instrumental in placing high-ranking Nazi officials and foreign collaborators on the BIS Board of Directors.”[56]

Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon

World War Two also marked a period of massive imperial transition. The build-up of the Third Reich led to Nazi imperialism throughout Europe and North Africa and the Japanese Empire expanded into China. At the end of the War, the British and French Empires were all but vanished, holding onto remaining colonies in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union was devastated and Germany, with much of Europe, was in ruins. What emerged from this war that was most significant was the rise of a new empire, the American Empire. America’s intervention into the war and expansion into Europe as a liberating force allowed it to set up bases throughout Europe as well as in Japan on the Pacific. The Soviet Union, having taken Europe from the East, expanded its influence and dominance across Eastern Europe. Following Churchill’s speech that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe, the Cold War was underway. Thus, World War II ended the age of many European empires, even of those in decline, and created a bi-polar world, which was divided between the USSR and the USA.

Following World War II, the US, as the only major nation in the world whose industrial base survived the devastation of the war, assumed the position of global hegemon. It began to set up the infrastructure, both national and international, to assume the position of global superpower, exerting its hegemony across the globe. The crown had been passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. Ultimately, both were and are owned and controlled by the same interests, primarily represented through the central banks and the private banking interests that make up the dominant shareholders.

Before America had even entered the war in late 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the round table groups Carroll Quigley discussed as having originated from the secret society of Cecil Rhodes, was planning on America entering the war. The CFR had essentially captured US foreign policy firmly in the grips of the banking elite. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913) ensured that the United States would become indebted to and owned by international banking interests, and thus, act in their interest. The Fed financed the US role in World War I, provided the credit for speculation, which led to the Great Depression, and massive consolidation for the interests that own the Federal Reserve System. It then financed US entry into World War II.

The CFR, established six years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. It was to alter America’s conceptualization of its place within the world – from isolationist industrial nation to an engine of empire working for international banking and corporate American interests. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire – encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view. By altering one’s ideology to that of promoting such an internationalist agenda, the big money that was behind it would ensure one’s rise through government, industry, academia and media. The other major think tanks and policy institutions in the United States are also represented at the CFR. They are constitutive of divisions within the elite, however, such divisions are predicated on the basis of how to use American imperial power, where to use it, on what basis to justify it, and other various methodological differences. The divide amongst elites was never on the questions of: should we use American imperial power, why has America become an Empire, or should there even be an empire? If one takes such considerations to heart and questions these concepts, be it within the foreign policy establishment, intelligence, military, academia, finance, corporate world, or media; chances are, such a person is not a member of the CFR.

The CFR effectively undertook a policy coup d’état over American foreign policy with the Second World War. When war broke out, the Council began a “strictly confidential” project called the War and Peace Studies, in which top CFR members collaborated with the US State Department in determining US policy, and the project was entirely financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.[57] The post-War world was already being designed by members of the Council, who would go into government in order to enact these designs.

The policy of “containment” towards the Soviet Union that would define American foreign policy for nearly half a century was envisaged in a 1947 edition of Foreign Affairs, the academic journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. So too were the ideological foundations for the Marshall Plan and NATO envisaged at the Council on Foreign Relations, with members of the Council recruited to enact, implement and lead these institutions.[58] The Council also played a role in the establishment and promotion of the United Nations,[59] which was subsequently built on land bought from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.[60]

The Rise of the American Empire and Keynesian Political Economy

Within liberal political economy, a prominent individual and British economist, John Maynard Keynes, undertook the process of evolving liberal theory into what later became known as Keynesian economics. Following in the footsteps of the dominance of the liberal order, in which the economic and political realms were viewed as separate, and necessarily so, Keynes sought to re-imagine the political-economic relationship. His work was largely influenced by the events leading up to and following the Great Depression, which was largely seen as a failure of the liberal economic order. Keynes wanted to combine state and market forces, not rejecting the liberal notion of the “invisible hand,” however, relegated that to a more distinct area, and imagined a broader role for the state in the economy.

Keynes advocated for the state to act, or invest, when private individuals would not, in an effort to stave off financial or economic crises. Thus, Keynes would argue, the state strengthens the market. A Marxist theorist would likely point to this as an example of how the state, within a capitalist society, functions as an institutional organ which protects the interests of the capitalist class. Keynes advocated a liberal international order composed of free markets, however he recommended state intervention domestically, particularly to protect jobs and control inflation.

Keynesian political economic theory served in large part as a basis for the creation of the Bretton-Woods System, established in 1944, and his concept of embedded liberalism (promotion of liberal international economy, and state intervention in domestic economy), reigned supreme until the 1970s.

In 1944, representatives of the 44 Allied nations met for the Bretton Woods conference (the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) in New Hampshire, in an effort to reorganize and regulate the international financial and monetary order following the war. The UK was represented by John Maynard Keynes; with the American contingent represented by Harry Dexter White, an American economist and senior US Treasury department official.  It was out of this conference that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), now part of the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO), originated. They were designed to be the institutionalized economic foundations of exerting American hegemony across the globe; they were, in essence, engines of economic empire.

In 1947, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which created the position of Secretary of Defense overseeing the entire military establishment, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as well as created the CIA modeled on its war time incarnation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS); and the Act also created the National Security Council, headed by a National Security Adviser, and designed to give the President further advice on foreign affairs issues separate from the State Department. Essentially, the Act created the basis for the national security state apparatus for empire building.

The founding of the CIA was urged by the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1940s, and the architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions; were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Deputy Directors of the CIA for the first two decades were all “from the same New York legal and financial circles.”[61]

Russia and Iran Join Hands

July 30, 2009 Leave a comment

The United States may think of Russia as a strategic partner when it comes to Iran. In reality, the geostrategic tensions between Washington and Moscow are still powerful enough to warrant a common approach by Russia and its eastern neighbor Iran with respect to a deterrent strategy towards the intrusive Western superpower.

This week, a small but significant clue is on full display with joint Russia-Iran military exercises in the Caspian Sea involving some 30 vessels. This is partially disguised by a benign environmental cause.

The maneuver, dubbed “Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian”, combines security and maritime objectives in the Caspian Sea, the world’s largest lake and also a main energy hub that is now the scene of competing alternatives for energy transfer. It signals a new trend in Iran-Russia military cooperation that will most likely increase in the near and intermediate future in light of Iran’s observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The continuing standoff over Iran’s nuclear program should affect this warming of relations.

Iran’s willingness to join this exercise represents a complete about-face from seven years ago. In May 2002, Tehran reacted sharply to a Russian military exercise in the Caspian – held in the aftermath of a failed summit on the issue – by refusing to even send a military observer to the maneuver.

Despite all the ups and downs of Iran-Russia relations since then, the weight of geopolitical and geo-economic considerations on both countries has increasingly switched towards greater cooperation, much to the chagrin of Washington, which is keen on isolating “nuclearizing Iran”.

At a time when Russia feels undermined by US-backed pipeline projects in the region, as well as dismayed by the absence of any compromise by the Barack Obama administration on its planned installation of an anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe, Moscow’s intention to upgrade its military connections with Tehran is calculated. The signal to Washington is that Russia does not tolerate any direct or indirect “regime change” scenario with respect to Iran, a major pillar of anti-US sentiment in the region.

The two-day military exercises are being closely watched by the region’s other littoral states – Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan – as well as neighboring states in the Caucasus and Central Asia, some of which are aligned with the West and are wary of a new level of Russia-Iran military ties.

Should Russia make good on its promise to put into operation the much-delayed Bushehr power plant that it is building in Iran, a good deal of present Iranian misgivings about Russia will disappear. After all, Russia is Iran’s sole nuclear partner and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev openly rebuffed Obama’s attempt, in his recent Moscow visit, to link a new arms limitation treaty with the issue of new sanctions on Iran.

Not surprisingly, on the eve of the Russia-Iran military exercise, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed the US’s toughening approach toward Iran, by stating categorically that the US was opposed to Iran’s possession of a “full enrichment” program, even though this is allowed under the articles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran is a signatory. Clinton’s statement on Sunday is in sharp contrast with Obama’s statement during his tour of Prague, when he hinted that the US was willing to accept Iran’s enrichment program as long as it was fully monitored by the United Nations’ atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A widening gap between Moscow and Washington over Iran is indisputable and will likely impact the Obama administration’s plans for tough new sanctions later this year. Tehran has already been slapped with several rounds of UN sanctions, as well as those imposed unilaterally by the US over its nuclear program.

United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates, visiting Israel this week, told his hosts that he would remain “hopeful” about the administration’s engagement with Iran for the next few months, hinting about an emerging deadline for the “engagement” that has unnerved Israel and some moderate Arab states as well.

Compared with the hypothetical US-Iran engagement, relations between Russia and Iran are progressing toward a honeymoon born of geostrategic considerations. The joint maneuver in the Caspian may prove a starting point for more comprehensive military collaboration between the Russian and Iranian navies, particularly if Moscow sets aside its previous refusal to allow new Iranian naval vessels to enter the Caspian through the Volga channel.

Russia’s Caspian neighbors – above all Azerbaijan – may not like it, given the dispute between Tehran and Baku over a Caspian oil field. Still, the imperative of closer Russia-Iran cooperation to fend off Western influence dictates the need to beef up Iran’s naval presence in the Caspian.

An important question deals with the possible ramifications of closer Russia-Iran military cooperation on the stalemate over the ownership of the Caspian Sea. Most of the Caspian is already portioned out by bilateral and trilateral agreements, involving Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Iran remains unhappy over Russia’s lack of cooperation on this matter. This has been somewhat compensated by both countries agreeing on the common use of Caspian surface water, going back to the 1921 Iran-Russia friendship agreement. The earlier pact is the legal foundation for today’s naval cooperation between the two countries.

Meanwhile, the predominant sentiment in Iran is that Moscow must make some concessions to Iran on the thorny issue of the Caspian’s legal authority in order to gain Tehran’s full confidence. Even Iranian officials in charge of Caspian affairs are unclear about what exactly Russia can do about a situation that is partially controlled by the other Caspian littoral states.

Blaming Russia for the stalemate over Caspian legal rights is a favorite pastime of some of Iran’s reformists, who despise Moscow’s early embrace of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad after the June 12 presidential elections. Such criticisms must be tempered by a cold calculation of Russia’s limits of influence on the other Caspian states which have carved up the inland sea among themselves.

Another question raised by the maneuvers pertains to the Persian Gulf, considered a de facto “American lake”, where France has entered the scene via a deal with the United Arab Emirates for a permanent military base. Iran’s weak response to France’s arrival, inexcusable by Iran’s foreign policy standards, may be balanced by similar Iran-Russia military exercise in the Persian Gulf.

As such, the Caspian joint maneuver may well turn out to be the harbinger of a broader agenda that includes the concept of a gas cartel.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, Pakistan Daily Press News Agency (www.Daily.pk)

Pervez Musharraf can be tried international court

July 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Member of the British House, Lord Nazir has said that a case can be lodged in the international court of justice against former president Pervez Musharraf.

Talking to media here on Wednesday, he said Pervez Musharraf can be tried in London. He said a Victim Support Group will be formed against him (Pervez Musharraf).

Lord Nazir said on his return he would the people in Britain that Pakistan’s courts are independent.

He said he has nationalities of both Pakistan and the UK and that no one should have any doubts about it. Pakistan Daily Press News Agency (www.Daily.pk)

Nuclear Iran: A headache or a heal?

July 30, 2009 1 comment

he foundation of Iran’s nuclear programme was laid in 1960 during the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi’s era under the patronage of the U.S. within the framework of a bilateral accord between the two countries. The late Shah had a plan to build a couple of nuclear power reactors.

The most interesting thing is that the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre (TNRC) was equipped with a U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor in 1967 and was run by the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI). Iran signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968.

Since Iran’s atomic agency was established and the NPT was signed, the Shah of Iran planned to construct 23 nuclear power stations across the country with the help of the U.S.. by the year 2000.

The Iranian nuclear programme faced setbacks twice and was brought to a standstill. When the Shah of Iran was deposed after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and during the Iran-Iraq war, two unfinished power reactors were bombed and ruined by the Iraqis in Bushehr on the coast of the Persian Gulf.

Although all the nuclear activities were suspended after the 1979 revolution, the work was resumed on a modest scale subsequently. Iran always claimed that it was trying to establish a complete nuclear fuel cycle to support a civilian energy programme, but U.S. and the European countries feared that the same fuel cycle would be applicable to a nuclear weapons’ programme.

Iran appears to have spread its nuclear activities around a number of sites to reduce the risk of detection and attack. It is generally believed that Iran’s efforts were focused on uranium enrichment.

Interestingly, the issues on which the U.S., France, and the UK are making a hue and cry were once hatched and sponsored by them. How could one forget that it was the U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who had signed the National Security Decision Memorandum 292 titled, ‘U.S.-Iran Nuclear Cooperation’ in 1975, which very generously laid out the niceties of the sale of nuclear energy equipment to Iran to bring home more than $ 6 billion as revenue? This cooperation did not stop in the following year (1976) when U.S. President Gerald Ford signed a directive offering Tehran a chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel.

The deal was for a complete nuclear fuel cycle. Besides this, numerous other contracts were signed with various Western firms, including a German firm that began the construction of the Bushehr power plant. Work was halted after the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the German firm withdrew from the project.

Shortly afterwards, Iraq invaded Iran and the nuclear programme was stopped until the end of the war. In 1990, Iran began to look towards partners for its nuclear programme. Due to a radically different political climate and punitive U.S. economic sanctions, few candidates existed at that time. In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia to resume work on the incomplete Bushehr plant. It was not until 2002 that the U.S. began to question Iran’s nuclear intentions after Masud Rajavi’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organisation of Iran revealed the existence of the Natanz and Arak facilities.

The Iranian nuclear programme has become the talk of these days. It appears that the Western world has come together to oppose Iran’s right to enrich uranium for vested interests best known to Europe and the U.S. It is an open secret now that Iran’s nuclear programme was founded during the Shah of Iran’s rule. After seeing the lows and highs of the time, it has reached a stage where it is not acceptable to the Western world.

Things were sailing smoothly when on one fine morning of February 9, 2003 the then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami disclosed publicly the existence of Natanz and some other nuclear facilities on Iranian television and invited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit them. He revealed the details about the Iranian programme for enriching uranium at Natanz and other locations. On the Iranian president’s invitation, Dr Muhammad El-Baradei, the head of the IAEA, accompanied by a team of inspectors visited Iran somewhere in late February 2003. Since then the IAEA’s experts and inspectors have visited Iran many times.

On the basis of the observations made during these visits, the IAEA released a prelude in July the same year with a follow-up report on August 26, 2003. These reports were sufficient for the IAEA authorities to be convinced about Iran’s nuclear activities. Thus on September 12, 2003, a formal ultimatum was handed over to Iran by the IAEA to reveal all details on the proceedings in the field with a deadline of October 31, 2003. The Bush administration objected to Iran’s nuclear programme asking why a country that has vast oil and natural gas reserves is striving for nuclear energy.

The most interesting thing is that the logic given now did not strike the American minds back in the 60s when the TNRC was equipped with a first ever U.S.-supplied 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor in 1967. It was before 9/11. The history of the Iranian nuclear programme has to be understood besides finding reasons about what has actually started bothering the West, especially the U.S. Pakistan Daily Press News Agency (www.Daily.pk)

The “Jewish” Conspiracy is British Imperialism

July 30, 2009 Leave a comment

Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was “nationalized” in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.

England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the “Crown” which refers to the “City of London” not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. The Vatican of the financial world, the City is not subject to British law.

On the contrary, the Bank of England dictates to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, “six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all.” Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. (”Economic Tribulation” (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)

The British Empire was an extension of bankers’ financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were “Crown Colonies.” They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business.

According to the “American Almanac,” the bankers are part of a network called the “Club of the Isles” which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally “cull the human herd” in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, “England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of …the City of London…

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium….

The City of London dominates the world’s speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion’s share of the world market, and exerts virtual “choke point” control over world industry.”

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: “The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class.” (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs always marry Jews.) Louis Monbatten, grandson of Queen Victoria and uncle of Prince Philip married the daughter of banker Alfred Cassel.

If they aren’t Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendents of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendents of the Tribe of Benjamin.

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the “British Israel” Movement that believes the Anglo Saxon races are the lost tribes of Israel and Jesus was king of England.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.

According to Barry Chamish, “there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine…Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews.”

CONCLUSION

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God’s image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is defined by physical rather than spiritual appetites. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. We are fed an endless diet of trivia and debauchery.

Certain elite Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their leaders.

True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It’s time to reaffirm our belief in God.  Pakistan Daily Press News Agency (www.Daily.pk)

Trail of tears and abject failure: Indian missiles

July 29, 2009 1 comment

Indian missile systems: A tale of tears and failure

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | May 26th, 2008 | Moin Ansari | Talk to any Indian and he or she will go on for ever about the IT successes–a small $41 Billion industry that is now getting clobbered by China that is overtaking the Indian industry because of the robust Chinese manufacturing.

The DRDO had difficulty marrying high concepts with sound engineering. Thus many major systems on the drawing board did not become potent weapons. Although it had a staff of 30,000, 51 laboratories and a US$2.5-billion budget, the organization operated under technical and critical-component constraints for the last 50 years. It has spent more than US$50 billion and produced very little.

The army has had many problems with the INSAS rifle developed by the organization, and nobody wants the main battle tank it developed. Its many tactical missiles have never met their defined parameters, and the Kaveri engine for light combat aircraft has been under development for three decades. WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE. Israel’s Military Supplies to India By Hari Sud Special to Salem-News.com

The colossal failures of Indian manufacturing are hardly ever discussed. For the past 60 years the Indian manufacturing sector has been producing junk. Tata is not a competitor of Toyota and will never be a competitor of Honda. Indian missiles are a huge failure. Indian missile system started back in the 50s on a five folder programme namely:

1) Agni 2) Pirthivi 3) Akash 4) Trishul and 5) Nag consisting of surface to surface surface to air and anti-tank systems.

Prithvi: To date the only reliable delivery system inducted is the Pirthvi missile with a range of 300 kilometres. The subsequent versions of this missile are still undergoing tests. The pride of India the Agni missile tested last time landed 200 kilometres off target.

Prithvi: Failure: To date the only reliable delivery system inducted is the Pirthvimissile with a range of 300 kilometres. The subsequent versions of this missile are still undergoing tests. The pride of India the Agni missile tested last time landed 200 kilometres off target.

Akash: After several years of testing has been shelved for reasons best known to the Indians.

Akash: Failure: After several years of testing has been shelved for reasons best known to the Indians. Akashwas meant as a substitute for Pechora. On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Bothmissiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

Trishul: Trishul is being replaced by Israeli and Russian systems.

Trishul: Failure: Trishul is being replaced by Israeli Barak and Russian systems.

The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers.

While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akashwas meant as a substitute for Pechora.

But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontline warships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict. The Navy is now inducting even more Barak systems due to Trishul’s continued failure.

Speaking of the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former naval chief Sushil Kumar said:“It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

Finally the project was scrapped when the navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the navy.”Indian missile system started back in the 50s on a five folder programme namely:

Nag: The Nag proved to be as deadily as the Holy Cow.

Nag: Failure: The Nag proved to be as deadily as the Holy Cow.

Agni: Failure: The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’sbrand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

The Indian missile met a disaster as it could not attain the altitude where the first stage is over or the second is even ignited.

He disputed the Indian claim, saying that with the range of 3,500 km, the missile had to go above about 800-900 km while the second stage had to be ignited at 28 to 30 km.

‘If the missile fell from the height of 12 km, it establishes that either it’s motor rocket, the basics of the missile proved failure or the guidance and control system was faulty. In both the probabilities, Indian technology has been exposed in clumsy manners.’

‘It is interesting to watch that Indian missile programme that was initiated by French and US assistance and later New Delhi also borrowed Russian technical support has been facing tragedies from the beginning,’ the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The Pakistani missile systems consist of the following:

Hatf 1, Abdali, Ghaznavi, Shaheen 1, Ghauri, Anza mk 1 and 2,T he Green Arrow and The Babur cruise missile

When Pakistan tested the first of the Hatf series the Indian military chiefs regarded it as a mere fire cracker. Over the years the firecracker has earned the reputation of being called the Safron Slayer and Bombay Blasters. Pakistan has not only successfully tested about a dozen different delivery systems but most astoundingly within a space of 20 years have operationally inducted half a dozen delivery systems the Hatf 1, Abdali, Ghaznavi, Shaheen 1, Ghauri, Anza mk 1 and 2,The Green Arrow and The Babur cruise missile.

They are all operational with the Pakistan strategic forces. Where as Ghauri 2 and Shaheen 2 are in advanced testing stages the biggest shock for the world the Taimur Delivery system is waiting in the pipelines.

The Green arrow is an anti tank missile amongst other countries it was sold to saudi arabia who wrecked havock on Iraqi tanks during the first gulf war.It was first inducted by the Pakistan army in 1988-89 also called baktar shikan newer and more deadly versions have since been introduced.

Taimur is a highly classified project lets say we are talking about launching satellites as far as the enemy isconcerned believe me the babur cruise missile is sufficient enough to take care the so called

Yeah Baktar Shikan we all know. Any how there is some work to be completed soon

1- Increase range of Babur

2-Developed a naval version of Babur.

3-SLV, indeed we need that desperately. SLVindeed Pakistan’s top most military and strategic need at this point of time not only that but whole Satellite system. I know we can have access to Chinese GPS if required.

Indian missile systems: A tale of tears and failure

A recent satement from the highest official in the Indian army about the failure of the Indian missle program and te advice to scrap the local Indian missiles has raised suspicions that the latest missle test was rigged. The Mail Today newspaper on Wednesday quoted the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as announcing that it would scrap its 25-year Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) by the end of this year. Plagued by cost overruns and repeated failures, the announcement is a virtual admission of failure,” the newspaper said.“In fact, some former chiefs of the different services said as much on hearing the news.”

1) Agni 2) Pirthivi 3) Akash 4) Trishul and 5) Nag 6) Agni consisting of surface to surface surface to air and anti-tank systems.

The Pakistani missile systems consist of the following:

Hatf 1,Abdali,Ghaznavi,Shaheen 1,Ghauri,Anza mk 1 and 2,The Green Arrow and The Babur cruise missile

When Pakistan tested the first of the Hatf series the Indian military chiefs regarded it as a mere fire cracker. Over the years the firecracker has earned the reputation of being called the Safron Slayer and Bombay Blasters. Pakistan has not only successfully tested about a dozen different delivery systems but most astoundingly within a space of 20 years have operationally inducted half a dozen delivery systems the Hatf 1,Abdali,Ghaznavi,Shaheen 1,Ghauri,Anza mk 1 and 2,The Green Arrow and The Babur cruise missile.

They are all operational with the Pakistan strategic forces. Where as Ghauri 2 and Shaheen 2 are in advanced testing stages the biggest shock for the world the Taimur Delivery system is waiting in the pipelines.

The Green arrow is an anti tank missile amongst other countries it was sold to saudi arabia who wrecked havock on Iraqi tanks during the first gulf war.It was first inducted by the Pakistan army in 1988-89 also called baktar shikan newer and more deadly versions have since been introduced.
Taimur is a highly classified project lets say we are talking about launching satellites as far as the enemy isconcerned believe me the babur cruise missile is sufficient enough to take care the so called

Yeah Baktar Shikan we all know. Any how there is some work to be completed soon
1- Increase range of Babur
2-Developed a naval version of Babur.
3-SLV, indeed we need that desperately. SLVindeed Pakistan’s top most military and strategic need at this point of time not only that but whole Satellite system. I know we can have access to Chinese GPS if required;

APPENDIX A

India exposed by missile failure By Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI – The failure in rapid succession this week of a satellite launcher and a new ballistic missile have shown up the technological and budgetary difficulties faced by India’s space establishment – civilian and military.

Hours after the US$50 million geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) witha communications satellite on board was ordered to self-destruct – as it veered off course soon after liftoff on Monday – authorities at the civilian Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) said one of its four strap-on rocket motors had failed.

Like the GSLV, a new intermediate-range ballistic missile “Agni III” that was launched by the secretive Defense Research Development Organization (DRDO) failed soon after liftoff on

Sunday and crashed into the Bay of Bengal, less than 1,000 kilometers away from the launch site.

The failure of the Agni III was in some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military capability which is truly independent of the US’s strategic calculations.

The surface-to-surface ballistic missile, designed to have a range of 3,500 kilometers, took off in a “fairly smooth” manner at the designated hour. But “a series of mishaps” occurred in its later flight path.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, the test was postponed owing to technological snags. After their rectification, said reports, the missile’s test flights were put off twice largely for “political reasons”, so as not to annoy the US.

Earlier this year, India decided to postpone the missile test out of fear that a test could hamper US Congressional ratification of the India-US nuclear cooperation deal. Publicly, the Indian defense minister cited “self-imposed restraint” to justify the postponement.

However, last month, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military, visited India and declared that “I do not see it [a test] as destabilizing” or upsetting the regional “military balance” since “other countries in this region” (read, Pakistan) have also tested missiles.

Following this “facilitation” or clearance, and after indications of favorable votes in US Congressional committees on the nuclear deal, India’s stand changed. A week later, the DRDO announced it was ready to launch Agni-III.

This is the ninth missile in the Agni series (named after the Sanskrit word for “fire”) to have been tested. The first was tested in May 1989. The last test (Agni-II) took place in August 2004.

Unlike major powers like the US, Russia or China, which test the same missile 10 to 20 times before announcing that it is fully developed, India considers only three or four test flights to be enough for both producing and inducting new missiles.

This is not the first time that the test of an Agni series missile has failed. In the past, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II (range 2,000 kilometers-plus) also proved unsuccessful.

But what makes the Agni-III’sfailure significant is that unlike its shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead.

The Agni-I (range 700 to 800 kilometers) and Agni-II were both products of India’s space program and connected to its Integrated Guided Missile Development Program (IGMDP), itself launched in 1983. Originally, their design used a satellite space-launching rocket (SLV-3) as the first stage, on top of which was mounted the very short-range (150 to 250 kilometers) liquid fuel-propelled Prithvi missile.

The Agni-III’sbrand new design, in which both stages use solid propellants, was to enable it to carry a payload weighing up to 1.5 tons and deliver it to targets as far away as Beijing and Shanghai. At present, India lacks an effective nuclear deterrent vis-a-vis China, based on a delivery vehicle carrying a nuclear warhead. Agni-III was meant to fill the void.

The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear. Scientists at the DRDO, which designed and built the missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, “fault-tolerant” avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the propellant.

“The DRDO isn’t the world’s most reliable weapons R&D agency,” Admiral L Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told Inter Press Service. “The Indian armed services’ experience with DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they would somehow work in the battlefield.”

The agency has a budget of Rs30 billion (US$670 million), which is of the same order as the annual expenditure of the Department of Atomic Energy which is responsible for India’s civilian and military nuclear programs.

This figure is extremely high for a poor country like India, with a low rank of 127 among 175 countries of the world in the United Nations Human Development Index,” said Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace. “Yet the DRDO has delivered very little.”

None of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO has been completed on time or without huge cost-overruns. These include the development of a Main Battle Tank (MBT), a nuclear power plant for a submarine, and an advanced Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), all involving expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The MBT project was launched in 1974. But the tank has failed to meet service requirement tests. It is reportedly too heavy and undependable to be used in combat operations. The Indian Army prefers imported Russian tanks over the indigenous MBTs and says it will use the MBTs for training, not operations.

The nuclear submarine project, launched 31 years ago, is not yet finished despite the almost $1 billion spent on it. The LCA project, launched in 1983, is still in the doldrums: the DRDO has failed to develop the right engine for it. Even with an imported engine, the plane is unlikely to enter service anytime soon.

The primary reason for these shocking instances of underperformance and inability is lack of public accountability and oversight of the DRDO,” says M V Ramana, an independent technical expert attached to the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.

“The DRDO, like all of India’s defense and nuclear service establishments, is not subject to normal processes of audit. It has used ’security’ as a smokescreen or shield and refused to be held to account,” he adds.

The DRDO says it will try to rectify the faults in Agni-III. Whether or not and whenever that happens, India’s missile development program, withfuture plans to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 5,000 kilometers or more, has suffered a major setback. (Inter Press Service)

APPENDIX B

Agni Missile designers are incompetent: Pakistan scientist Daily India ^ | 7/9/06 Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 7:20:03 AM by maxypane

Islamabad, July 10 (IANS) The failure of Agni-III reflected ‘incompetence’ of the Indian missile designers and planners, said an eminent Pakistani scientist.

They would need to go back to the drawing board and take two to three years, unless ‘they borrow something from abroad,’ said Samar Mubarikmund, chairman of Pakistan’s National Engineering and Science Commission (Nescom).

Claiming that Israel was involved in developing India’s missile programme, Mubarikmund said Pakistan, which had an indigenous programme of its own, retained superiority over all others in the South Asian region.

Mubarikmund told The News Sunday that the circumstances narrated by the Indians for the failure of the missile test were ‘not acceptable.’

The Indian missile met a disaster as it could not attain the altitude where the first stage is over or the second is even ignited.

He disputed the Indian claim, saying that with the range of 3,500 km, the missile had to go above about 800-900 km while the second stage had to be ignited at 28 to 30 km.

‘If the missile fell from the height of 12 km, it establishes that either it’s motor rocket, the basics of the missile proved failure or the guidance and control system was faulty. In both the probabilities, Indian technology has been exposed in clumsy manners.’

‘It is interesting to watch that Indian missile programme that was initiated by French and US assistance and later New Delhi also borrowed Russian technical support has been facing tragedies from the beginning,’ the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The newspaper also quoted from official sources to take pot shots at Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

‘In fact he (Manmohan Singh) attained high moral ground for his country just to provide cover to constant failures of his country’s scientists engaged in developing long-range missiles and they were hesitating from testing the missile,’ the sources said.

Pakistan is still maintaining its superiority in missile technology in whole SouthAsia as it has successfully tested number of missiles with various ranges including Shaheen-II that has the range of the 2,500 km withall remarkably accurate parameters.

These parameters proved in the presence of international neutral empires when the missile hit the target to extent of centimetres accuracy in the Indian Ocean, the sources said.

APPENDIX C

Indian missiles far from being operational despite repeated tests IRNA – Islamic Republic News Agency

New Delhi, July 24,IRNA — The Trishul “quick-reaction” surface-to- air missile was again tested on Sunday, but just like its sister Akash missile it is still far from being inducted into the armed forces.

The frequent time, cost, technical and operational slippages in the nine-km-range Trishul and 25-km-range Akash surface-to-air missile programs have meant that the country’s air defence cover continues to have gaping holes.

Pakistan, in sharp contrast, has always accorded high priority to its air defence management, with its multi-tier surveillance cover, air defence fighters, quick-reaction, short-range missiles and an integrated control and reporting system.

The Indian Armed Forces, however, continues to make do with its obsolete air defence systems, said an Asian Age report here today.

The IAF, for instance, has aging Pechora, Igla-1M and OSA-AK missile systems, and that, too, in woefully inadequate numbers.

While Trishul was to replace its OSA-AK weapons system, Akashwas meant as a substitute for Pechora.

But both the Trishul and Akash air defence missile systems, which are part of the original Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched as far back as 1983, have been dogged by development snags in their “command guidance and integrated Ramjet rocket propulsion” systems.

Trishul, for instance, has been tested over 80 times so far without coming anywhere near becoming operational. It was, in fact, virtually given up for dead in 2003 after around Rs 300 crore was spent on it, before being revived yet again.

Trishul’s repeated failure, in fact, forced the Navy to go in for nine Israeli Barak anti-missile defence systems for its frontlinewarships, along with 200 Barak missiles, at a cost of Rs 1,510 crore during the 1999 Kargil conflict. The Navy is now inducting even more Barak systems due to Trishul’s continued failure.

The Defence Research and Development Organization, for its part, contends the seven Trishul trials so far this year, including a flight test with enhanced range of 11.5km against a remotely piloted aircraft, have “met all mission objectives.”
Trishul can engage targets like aircraft and helicopter, flying between 300 meters and 500 meters, by using its radar command-to- line, of-sight guidance system, it says.

The report card for Akash, tested 16 times since January 2005, is even better since it has completed all its development trials.

“On January 28 this year, interception of two moving targets by two Akashmissiles with live warheads was successfully carried out,” said an official.

“Akash has multiple-target handling capacity with a digitally coded command guidance system. Its user trials are now in progress,” he said.

The missile’s `Rajendra’ radar, a multi-function phased array radar which carries out surveillance, target-tracking, missile acquisition and guidance, can simultaneously track several aircraft within a range of 40 to 60 kilometers. 2160/2321/1414 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/india/2006/india-060724-irna04.htm)

APPENDIX D

Pakistan missile project ahead of India’s’

NEW DELHI, Jan 9: India’s missile scientists have said that the country’s indigenous missile programme is flagging and needs foreign assistance to revive it.

The embarrassing admission came amid claims by Indian analysts that Pakistan’s missile programme had proved to be more robust and surefooted than India’s. The Mail Today newspaper on Wednesday quoted the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) as announcing that it would scrap its 25-year Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) by the end of this year.

Plagued by cost overruns and repeated failures, the announcement is a virtual admission of failure,” the newspaper said.“In fact, some former chiefs of the different services said as much on hearing the news.”

Speaking of the Trishul surface-to-air missile that has now been termed a technology demonstrator, former naval chief Sushil Kumar said:“It was a national embarrassment. DRDO made fake claims for 25 years. In the 1999 Kargil conflict, the navy was vulnerable to attacks from Pakistan’s Harpoon.

“Finally the project was scrapped when the navy went in for the Israeli Barak missiles. The Prithvi’s naval variant, Dhanush, is also flawed and ill-conceived, which is being inflicted on the navy.”On the Akash missile, which was the subject of the DRDO media conference here on Tuesday, former air chief S. P. Tyagi said:“Akash was to be ready at a certain time, but it wasn’t. I had to change everything to make up for the delay.” Bothmissiles were part of a programme to develop indigenous weapons, which began in July 1983, with plans for Agni, Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag missiles.

The IGMDP, which was aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in missile development and production, comprises five core missile programmes — the strategic Agni ballistic missile, the tactical Prithvi ballistic missile, the Akash and Trishul surface-to-air missiles and the Nag anti-tank guided missile.

The Mail Today quoted S. Prahlada, chief of the Control Research and Development, DRDO, as saying that development and production of most of the futuristic weapon systems would henceforth be undertaken with foreign collaboration.

With regard to the nuclear-capable Agni series, comprising I and II, the newspaper quoted army sources as saying while they had been tested five times each “a handful of tests are not enough to prove a missile’s worth”.

There were different problems with other systems too.

“Pakistan has always been one step ahead of India in its missile programme,” the newspaper said, adding that Islamabad has “a much more robust missile force than India, one capable of launching nuclear weapons to any part in this country.”

Unlike Indian missiles, which were declared “inducted” after a few tests, the Pakistani projectiles have always been thoroughly tested. http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/10/top16.htm

APPENDIX E

Agni Failure Bad News For India


India’s doomed Agni missile.

by Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst

Washington DC (UPI) Jul 17, 2006


The failure of two major India missile launches in two days Sunday and
Monday proved intensely embarrassing for the nation’s prestige and
threw major doubt on its military-industrial high-tech capabilities.An analysis from the Inter-Press Service that was published in the Asia
Times Tuesday argued that the problems are deep-rooted in the Indian
defense establishment.
Source: United Press International

On Monday, a $50 million geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle, or
GSLV, with a communications satellite on board was ordered to
self-destruct as it veered off course soon after liftoff on Monday.
Authorities at the civilian Indian Space Research Organization said one
of its four strap-on rocket motors had failed.

The day before, the Agni III intercontinental ballistic missile, the
pride of India’s strategic missile forces, failed shortly after take
off. The Agni III was designed to have a range of 2,100 miles to 2,400
miles — a capability that would have allowed it to deliver a nuclear
weapon payload as far as the Chinese cities of Beijing and Shanghai.
But on its first, and much delayed test launch, it crashed instead into
the Bay of Bengal after flying less than 600 miles.

Of the two unsuccessful launches, “the failure of the Agni III was in
some ways more serious because it exposed the political limitations of
India’s attempts, despite its ambitions, to pursue a military
capability which is truly independent of the U.S.’s strategic
calculations,” analyst Praful Bidwai wrote in the Asia Times.

The Agni-III was originally meant to be tested in 2003-04. However, its
first test was repeatedly postponed owing to technological problems.
More recently, as we have noted previously in these columns, the
Congress Party-led government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deferred
a scheduled test launch this year so as not to risk hostile reactions
in the United States while the U.S. Congress was considering
ratification of India’s nuclear cooperation agreement with the United
States.

However, committees of both the U.S. Senate and the House of
Representatives have given overwhelming approval to the nuclear
agreement that was finalized in March and its passage through both main
chambers of the U.S. legislature now appears assured. Also, Gen. Peter
Pace, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured Indian
officials in New Delhi in June that testing the Agni III would not be
viewed as a concern by the Bush administration.

Previously, some tests of the shorter range Agni-II with a range of
around 1,200 miles also proved unsuccessful, Bidwai noted. “But what
makes the Agni-III’s failure significant is that unlike its
shorter-range predecessors, it was a wholly new design, developed with
the specific purpose of delivering a nuclear warhead,” he wrote.

“The causes of the failure of the test flight are not clear,” Pridwai
wrote. “Scientists at the DRDO (India’s super-secret and prestigious
Defense Research Development Organization) which designed and built the
missile, have been quoted as saying that many new technologies were
tried in the Agni-III, including rocket motors, “fault-tolerant”
avionics and launch control and guidance systems. Some of these could
have failed. Other reports attribute the mishap to problems with the
propellant.”

“The DRDO isn’t the world’s most reliable weapons R&D agency,”
Admiral L. Ramdas, a former chief of staff of the Indian Navy, told
Inter Press Service. “The Indian armed services’ experience with
DRDO-made armaments has not been a happy one. Their reliability is
often extremely poor. We often used to joke that one had to pray they
would somehow work in the battlefield.”

Despite an annual budget of $670 million, comparable to that of India’s
massive Department of Atomic Energy, “The DRDO has delivered very
little,”

Anil Chowdhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace told Bidwai.

“None of the three major projects assigned to the DRDO has been
completed on time or without huge cost-overruns,” Bidwai noted. The
organization’s project to build India’s first home-produced main battle
tank began more than 30 years ago in 1974. Yet the tank has still
failed to meet service requirement tests and is reportedly too heavy
and undependable to be used in combat operations, he wrote.

The equally venerable DRDO project to build India’s first
home-manufactured nuclear submarine is still not completed, despite
expenditures on it of nearly $1 billion, Bidwai wrote. And a Light
Combat Aircraft, or LCA project, launched in 1983, is also mired
because the DRDO has failed to develop the right engine for it, he
wrote.

Even if the DRDO can manage a successful test launch of the Agni III
ICBM in the next few months, Bidwai’s analysis suggests that the
structural problems of India’s military-industrial sector are
widespread and deep-rooted and unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved
soon. That condition is likely to give an added impetus to India’s
efforts to develop ever-closer high tech ties with the United States.

Source: United Press International

Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com

APPENDIX F (the spin on the stopping the program)

Blast-off from a missile era

- Isolated self-reliance ends

New Delhi, Jan. 8: India has wound up its guided missile programme 24 years after it was launched, jettisoning the political philosophy of isolated self-reliance in military technology.

The burial of the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) founded by A.P.J. Abdul Kalam in July 1983 was couched in claims by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) that it has delivered all five missile systems that the plan envisaged.

The announcement comes a day before the DRDOcelebrates its golden jubilee. Begun with an initial allocation of about Rs 389 crore in 1983, the cost and time overruns have seen more than Rs 2,000 crore being used up in the programme to develop five missile systems. (See chart)

C.K. Prahlada, the chairman of the IGMDP board and chief controller (research and development) of DRDO, declared today that the Akashsurface-to-air missile system tested last monthwas ready for induction by the army and the air force. With this, the IGMDP has been formally wound up.

The winding up of the IGMDP does not mean that all work on the five missile projects is scrapped immediately. It means the government will not make any further investment in the research and development of these missiles over and above what has already been sanctioned.

For example, the Agni III strategic missile that successfully test-fired in April last year can still be fine-tuned and more tests of it are likely on the road to induction in the armed forces.

The government and the DRDO believe that the winding up of the IGMDP means the emphasis is now shifting from research and development to series production.

Prahlada said missile manufacturing capacities have to be expanded. Capacity at a missile facility in Hyderabad will be expanded in the short term to 100 missiles from 40 a year.

The IGMDP’s time actually ran out in December 2007 and were it not for the DRDO’s advertisement of the Akash as the pinnacle of its success, the programme’s burial would have been quiet. Work on the smallest of the missiles under the project — the anti-tank Nag — will be over this summer.

“You must understand the background of the IGMDP,” Prahlada explained. “It was started at a time when there was no help forthcoming from anywhere. That situation is not there now.”

To illustrate, he said there were organisations from as many as 14 countries that were now willing to collaborate with the DRDO in developing missiles. Among these were the US, Israel, Germany, France and Russia.

When the IGMDP was launched in July 1983, India was dependent almost wholly on Russian military technology. But even Soviet supplies and support for the strategic missile programme was niggardly.

Understanding that the US had imposed a technology-denial regime, India offered to devise its own missiles and put Kalam in charge.

The IGMDP was given time till 1995. On Kalam’s insistence, the P.V. Narasimha Rao government gave it a further lease of life for another 10 years.

In 2006, when the defence establishment had all but taken a decision to mothball the Trishul missile programme, the DRDO insisted again — when Kalam was President — and the government granted it another two years.

In these two years, the DRDO — and not only its missile programmes — came in for criticism from the users (the armed forces) and even its former scientists. But last year, the DRDO carried out probably the largest number of missile tests in the rush to meet the December 2007 deadline.

Asked if the IGMDP was going to be replaced by another programme, Prahlada said there would be a general move towards greater collaborative ventures but this would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

He said two possible models were the Brahmos supersonic cruise missile that is a joint venture between India and Russia run on commercial lines, and the Astra, a beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile for which the DRDOis tying up with institutions in at least four countries.

But this model, however, will not be adopted for strategic (read long-range nuclear-capable) missiles like the Surya (which is on the drawing board) and electronic warfare systems.

Appendix G

By Rajat Pandit, TNN, Monday, 2 February 2009.

NEW Delhi, India-With active help from China and North Korea, Pakistan has surged well ahead of India in the missile arena. The only nuclear-capable

ballistic missile in India’s arsenal which can be said to be 100% operational as of now is the short-range Prithvi missile.

Though the 700-km Agni-I and 2,000-km-plus Agni-II ballistic missiles are being “inducted” into the armed forces, it will take “some time” for them to become “fully-operational in the numbers required”.

Defence sources said the armed forces were still in the process of undertaking the “training trials” of Agni-I and Agni-II to give them the requisite capabilities to fire them on their own.

Of the two, the progress report of Agni-I, tested for the first time in January 2002 to plug the operational gap between Prithvi (150-350 km) and Agni-II missiles, is much better. The Army has already conducted two “user training trials”, one in October 2007 and other in March 2008, of the Pakistan-specific Agni-I missile.

The fourth test of 3,500-km Agni-III, which will give India the strategic capability to hit targets deep inside China, is also on the anvil now. But Agni-III, tested successfully only twice in April 2007 and May 2008, will not be ready for induction before 2012.

Then, of course, design work on India’s most ambitious strategic missile with near ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities, the 5,000-km range Agni-V, which incorporates a third composite stage in the two-stage Agni-III, is also in progress. “We should be ready to test Agni-V by 2010-2011,” said an official.

So, in effect, the missile report card is rather dismal at present. “Unlike Pakistan, our programme is indigenous. But a strategic missile needs to be tested 10 to 15 times, over a variety of flight envelopes and targets, before it can be said to be fully-operational. A missile cannot be dubbed ready just after three to four tests,” said an expert.

Keeping this benchmark in mind, only Prithvi can be dubbed to be fully ready. Defence PSUs like Bharat Dynamics Ltd, Bharat Earth Movers Ltd and Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd, in fact, are stepping up production of the different Prithvi variants.

Army, for instance, has orders worth Rs 1,500 crore for 75 Prithvi-I and 62 Prithvi-II missiles, while IAF has gone in for 63 Prithvi-II missiles for over Rs 900 crore.

Navy, in turn, has ordered Dhanush missiles, the naval version of Prithvi, with a 350 km strike range, for its “dual-tasked” warships, INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna.

India wants to gatecrash into the very exclusive club of `Big-Five’ countries like Russia, US and China, which have both ICBMs (missiles with strike ranges over 5,500-km) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), before 2015.

The SLBM quest is specifically crucial since it’s the most effective and secure leg of the “nuclear weapon triad”, with land-based missiles and aircraft capable of delivering nuclear bombs constituting the first two components.

The initial range of K-15 SLBM being developed by DRDO will, however, be limited to 750-km, far less than the over 5,000-km range SLBMs brandished by the `Big-5′ countries.

The plan is to go for higher strike ranges after the initial K-15 missiles are integrated into the indigenous nuclear-powered submarines being built under the secretive ATV (advanced technology vessel) programme.WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers