Osama Bin Laden Declared Dead

May 2, 2011

By Padmini Arhant

Better late than never that Osama Bin Laden is now declared dead.

The 9/11 victims and thousands around the world have waited patiently for the truth,

Not to mention the U.S and coalition forces’ sacrifices along with millions of Afghan lives lost in the more than a decade old war yet to be brought to conclusion.

There can be no more procrastination in troop withdrawal.  The withdrawal scheduled for 2014 obviously requires review and meaningful justification.

Perhaps it is time to bring troops home and divest the exorbitant defense expenditure to address domestic issues such as creating jobs, universal health care through single payer system, infrastructure and green technology.

Iraq war was waged on false premises.

It was vehemently claimed – the then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 attacks in addition to possessing weapons of mass destruction proved otherwise in the yet another warfare seeing no end in sight.

Furthermore the latest revelation on Iraq according to the report from the Associated Press on April 10, 2011 is suggestive of the fact to examine the truth behind every major declaration.

Pentagon’s second thoughts on Iraq withdrawal –

“The U.S. wants to keep perhaps several thousand troops in Iraq, not to engage in combat but to guard against an unraveling of a still-fragile peace.

This was made clear during Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ visit Thursday and Friday in which he and the top U.S. commander in Iraq talked up the prospect of an extended U.S. stay.

How big a military commitment might the U.S. be willing to make beyond 2011?

“It just depends on what the Iraqis want and what we’re able to provide and afford,” Gates said Thursday at a U.S. base in the northern city of Mosul where U.S. soldiers advise and mentor Iraqi forces.

He said the U.S. would consider a range of possibilities, from staying an extra couple of years to remaining in Iraq as permanent partners.”

Despite eliminating the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006 the troop deployment perpetually extended with contemplation for permanent base as revealed in the cited report.

Afghanistan is not any different in that scenario considering the possibility of any troop withdrawal scheduled not until 2014.

With Osama Bin Laden existence laid to rest realizing the resurrection to life only possible by the divine power as known to the global society in the return of Christ, a joyous celebration on Easter Sunday,

The protracted war strategy in Afghanistan deserves public disclosure and the means to provide for the prolonged commitment especially in light of opposition towards Medicare funding and several key issues related to improving average Americans’ lives.

Notwithstanding the lingering government shut down threats from budget disagreements based on disproportionate spending alongside generous tax cuts to the wealthy and specific tax evading corporations exporting American jobs overseas,

While their CEO retained as the White House Counsel Chair on Jobs Creativity and Competitiveness in the backdrop of sluggish economy, rising inflation and higher unemployment.

Transparency and accountability in governance would serve in national interest besides enhancing the respective political decisions credibility.

Evidently truth will continue to prevail regardless of the challenges in establishing peace and justice.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, National and Global Security | 2 Comments 

United States Senate Ratifies New START Treaty between U.S. and Russia

December 22, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The New START Treaty – The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that was signed by President Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev on April 8, 2010 was approved with 71-26 votes by the United States Senate.

New START Treaty between the two largest nuclear states – United States and Russia ratification replaces the original START Treaty signed in 1991 that expired on December 5, 2009.

The importance of containing the nuclear proliferation and strategic offensive arms is no longer an option but an immediate requirement in the highly volatile global environment increasingly posing greater risks without checks and balances in the critical nuclear and conventional arsenal stockpiles.

It was elaborated on this website when the related article titled – “U.S. and Russia Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty” was published on March 27, 2010 under National and Global Security in the Politics category.

Accordingly the measures adopted in the New START Treaty is a preliminary step to curtail the discretionary expansion of the strategic offensive arms comprising the ICBM ( Intercontinental Ballistic Missile), SLBM (Submarine launched Ballistic Missiles) and nuclear warheads constituting major threat to national and international security.

As per the official declaration of this important agreement:

“New START limits the number of strategic offensive arms of the US and Russia (within seven years of the Treaty’s entry into force) to:

• 1,550 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs, and
nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers.

• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, deployed and non-deployed
SLBM launchers, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

• 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers.”

The arms race that began during cold war through clandestine operations by the Superpowers – United States and the former Soviet Union then precipitated the translucent arms trade up until now.

New START Treaty facilitates nuclear arsenal verification on both sides particularly for the United States to perform inspection of the Russian site since the earlier START Treaty ended on December 5, 2009.

From the National Security standpoint – The Senate and White House claims on the New START Treaty are:

• Preserves a strong US nuclear arsenal as an effective strategic deterrent.

• Provides stability, predictability and transparency between the two largest
nuclear powers.

• Strengthens critical non-proliferation efforts around the world.

• Increases US ability to work with other countries to confront the nuclear
ambitions of countries like Iran and North Korea.

It also emphasized that New START Treaty ‘will not constrain U.S. missile defense capabilities’ – a position that was vigorously contested by some Republican members in the Senate.

Additionally, the treaty consists of the administration plan to invest $85 billion over ten year period in the U.S. nuclear facilities’ maintenance and upgrade.

The directors of the three nuclear laboratories viz. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory are stated to have appreciated the provision.

Any action to restrain nuclear and non-strategic armament is significant considering the prevalent loss of lives from the widespread violence emanating from inconspicuous arms trade and lack of oversight on uranium enrichment.

However, the peaceful existence of all relies on complete nuclear disarmament that was criticized during the contentious Senate debate from the conservative perspective.

What is not being realized in the denuclearization dismissal?

South Africa and the previous Soviet bloc nations like Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus have voluntarily surrendered their nuclear weapons and submitted to IAEA certification setting precedence for others to follow suit.

These nations are part of the same world and continue to exist with their non-nuclear status challenging the political dogma against nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear power is falsely embraced as the formidable deterrent even though the inevitable retaliation could result in mutual annihilation proving the fact –

Reference – the pioneer of peace Mahatma Gandhi.

“An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.”

Hence, accelerating the course for nuclear-free planet is the viable solution to real peace in the long run.

Civilian nuclear program is presently popular with a dangerous potential for further enhancements to nuclear warheads.

The U.S. default on the controversial Iranian nuclear program jeopardize the disarmament and non-proliferation objectives in the sensitive zone – the Middle East.
————————————————————————————————
As per New York Times article – published by DAVID E. SANGER on October 27,2010

Thank you.

Obama Set to Offer Stricter Nuclear Deal to Iran –

“The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing a new offer for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program, senior administration officials say…

Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s coordinator for countering unconventional weapons, told an audience at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington last week that if Iran acquired a weapon, it “would have an utterly catastrophic effect” in the region.

If successful, Iran could drive other states in the Persian Gulf to seek their own nuclear weapons. An attack by Israel on Iran’s facilities, he added, could set off a regional war. Mr. Samore described stopping Iran’s program as his “No. 1 job.”

Several European officials have discouraged that approach. But they also worry that negotiating about the fate of uranium that Iran has enriched in violation of Security Council commands could have the effect of convincing the Iranians they could retain some of their enrichment capability at the end of any negotiation.

Mr. Obama’s campaign in 2008 said that would be unacceptable; as president, he has not addressed the question clearly.”
———————————————————————————————
By Padmini Arhant

There is an urgent need for the nuclear and non-nuclear states regardless of NPT and CTBT membership to conform to rigid international rule imposing restrictions on advanced nuclear ambitions.

The double standards in nuclear technology deals create opportunity for violation and defeat the purpose behind treaty establishment.

Therefore the competition among developed nations on nuclear exchange for alternative energy in Asia and Middle East could inadvertently promote unwanted deviation from the intended engagement i.e. exclusive use for energy production.

Regrettably the nuclear energy is the dominant and highly desirable source in the bilateral trade and commerce with little or no attention towards safe natural elements such as wind, solar…for energy supply.

Only the paradigm shift in the nuclear concept could enable the effective containment eventually resulting in the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Again, the New START Treaty serving as the prototype for regional consensus could perhaps contribute to the ultimate goal.

Congratulations! To the honorable members in the United States Senate –

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Senator John Kerry and Senator Richard Lugar for the determination to succeed in this matter along with participation from the,

Chairwoman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein

And,

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Carl Levin,

The Republican Senators for bipartisan cooperation,

United States Defense Force High Command for the valuable input

And,

President Barack Obama and the White House officials for the commitment in the crucial New START treaty ratification.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | 1 Comment 

Veterans Day – Remembering the War Victims and the Armed Forces Sacrifice

November 11, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

On this important day we remember the brave hearts who volunteered to sacrifice their precious life for their nation and humanity at large.

The cherished freedom would not be possible without the selfless dedication of the young men and women in uniform who willfully offer their service for national and global security.

However, war should never be an option against peace and diplomacy. The simultaneous wars in different parts of the world today have claimed many innocent lives including casualties suffered by the duty bound armed forces in the battle grounds.

It has resulted in enormous pain, grief and agony for the victims’ families all around.

Besides, the economic liability from the relentless wars is exacerbating the national deficit for the U.S and the global economy.

Only if the funds were instead invested in social and economic development the terror recruitment would substantially decline allowing peace to dawn on the war torn regions.

Although many are reminiscent of the past victories and argue about the necessity to go to war for territorial conquest or eliminating authoritarian rule,

They also forget that independence, civil rights and many humanitarian goals were achieved through peace and non-violence by the venerable leaders.

The lesson from history is to pursue peaceful means i.e. constructive dialogue and meaningful strategies as preventive measures than adopting military options.

Violence begets violence and is not the ideal response to belligerence. The incredible loss of life during war cannot be resurrected and nothing can possibly compensate the human tragedies from the horrendous war crimes.

It’s important for the world leaders to pause and deviate from the decisions to engage in war. There are no winners in war considering the inevitable bloodshed, carnage and destruction shared by all warring factions.

There is an urgent requirement for denuclearization and strategic arms reduction to ensure global security. Universal policy is imperative for the nuclear disarmament and conventional stockpile containment.

In other areas of warfare, the veterans and their families are often neglected despite their patriotic duty to the country.

Not all human beings can pledge their life to serve the nation in a combat environment and those who come forward to do so are uniquely honorable. Every one of these individuals deserves national appreciation for their tremendous contribution towards security, freedom and humanitarian deeds.

It’s important to maintain the federal run VA health care and rehabilitation programs for all service members and their families.

Further, the government assistance to the veterans’ families with housing, education and other social services are equally essential to help them cope with the economic hardships while their family members are engaged in active duty or otherwise. It’s the least any nation can do for the armed personnel deployed in various parts of the world.

Since the contemporary wars are conducted for reasons beyond national defense, the exorbitant military spending has taken precedence over critical life dependent programs for the vulnerable population in the society.

Sadly, in the materialistic world life is easily dispensable. The present is dictated in monetary terms and,

Profit is regarded as the Prophet.

Nevertheless, the world is still intact as there are great many humanitarians, unsung activists in every corner tirelessly devoted to improve life on earth.

On this day when the parents, young widows, widowers and orphaned children experience sorrow and pride in loving memory of their dear ones,

The nation acknowledges the armed forces and national guards’ significant sacrifices for others.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

War and Geo-Political Status 21st Century – The Ultimate Resolution

October 8, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

In the twenty first century, the war is interestingly waged in Islamic nations around the world.

Beginning with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Palestinian Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem, Yemen, Chechnya, Somalia and Sudan with skirmishes in Central Asia as seen in the recent Kyrgyzstan with Uzbek Muslims largely massacred in ethnic violence –

Terrorism and insurgencies are the by-product of relentless warfare and foreign policies fostering political instability in turn exacerbating economic and social development.

The trend is prevalent to date.

Afghanistan – The former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney started the war in 2001 declaring the terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden will be captured “dead or alive.”

Even the message resonated in the 2008 Presidential campaign with Senator John McCain as the Republican Presidential candidate pledging –

“I will follow Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.”

The Democratic Presidential candidate, the then Senator Barack Obama essentially repeated his predecessor’s rhetoric –

“Bush had earlier vowed to catch bin Laden “Dead or Alive,” and … “My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. …”

We are in 2010 and the war is a decade old with tremendous loss of lives on all sides.

U.S and allies economy drained with the superfluous troops and financial investment, the troops’ low morale after continuous deployment and the public war fatigue at its peak,

Afghanistan today is still in the medieval age under the U.S. and NATO appointed Karzai administration that has been unanimously criticized for massive corruption and lack of direction in governance.

Meanwhile, Taliban leaders in Afghanistan are reportedly held hostage by the Pakistani military and ISI prohibiting them from initiating negotiations with the Afghan government to demonstrate Pakistani officials’ clout in the crisis.

Superseding these issues is the Al-Qaeda ring leader; Osama Bin Laden neither captured alive nor pronounced dead, a convenient situation to prolong the unsustainable war strategy.

If Osama Bin Laden is alive as it is claimed by the authorities, it raises the following questions:

Given the formidable U.S. and NATO forces in operation and the significant troops involvement since the war began in 2001, the severely incapacitated Osama Bin Laden remains at large according to the political and military high command.

Further, the White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel prior to his departure last week is quoted to have questioned the administration on this issue with a statement in sheer amazement.

“We are spending about $50 billion on intelligence and we still don’t know where Osama Bin Laden is?”

Despite CIA overt operation through para-military in Pakistan and the Pakistani intelligence provided with U.S. intelligence assistance, the mastermind Osama Bin Laden cannot be found in the all too familiar territories Afghanistan where the U.S. trained the Mujahedeen, prominently Osama Bin Laden who later created the terror network ‘Al-Qaeda,’ is;

Remarkably similar to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq that could never be found because it did not exist.

Any re-creation or resurrection accentuates the flaws due to the unauthentic replay leading to the fact that the scenario is ‘weapons of mass deception’ in the public eye.

Besides the former President George W. Bush family’s close ties with Osama Bin Laden’s immediate family is common knowledge and such relation enabled the Bin Laden family departure from the United States when all flights were grounded soon after 9/11.

Another compelling factor being Osama Bin Laden was not apprehended in Tora Bora even though the armed personnel requested for the former President George W. Bush, the Supreme Commander- in- Chief’s order for action.

These events were legitimized by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the terror experts, the media reports and cited by Senator John McCain during his Presidential bid.

The strange predicament being Osama Bin Laden is wanted “dead or alive,” and when there were opportunities to capture the terror leader, the executive order was not delivered to the armed forces to attain the goal.

Terror warnings are being issued claiming that Osama Bin Laden is preparing to wreak havoc in Europe like he did in Mumbai that took place on November 26, 2008, even though this particular terror activity was directly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and acknowledged by the assassin;

“Ajmal Kasab, the only attacker who was captured alive, disclosed that the attackers were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant organization. He said the attackers came from Pakistan, and their controllers were in Pakistan.”

Osama Bin Laden is continually used in the possible terror attacks and claimed as the primary target in the war on terror with no news regarding his whereabouts and sources except during the terror alerts surfacing upon Osama Bin Laden reference by the peace activists.

It’s crucial to resolve this issue once and for all considering the brave young men and women in uniform are deployed to supposedly eliminate Al-Qaeda and find Osama Bin Laden in the mission that began in 2001.

Many service men and women are serving for nearly a decade with some redeployed after having been in Iraq for four to five years. Most of these courageous frontline soldiers sacrificed in the on-going war are in the age group between 19 – 21 years old and have barely experienced life.

If a 29 year old private sergeant is killed in action after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan for twelve straight years and survived by his young pregnant spouse and a toddler and the war agenda is still a mystery then it becomes necessary to find out,

What exactly are we doing in these battle grounds?

As per the latest CIA report, along the Pakistan-Afghan border – Waziristan, there are fewer than one hundred Al-Qaeda members and negligible Taliban forces compared to U.S representation around 120,000 troops with NATO alliance.

Regardless the world’s most powerful by far the sophisticated U.S. and NATO contingency with all the imaginable resources at their disposal are experiencing difficulty over nine years in seizing the fractional terror members with inferior ammunition is astonishing for it defies logic.

Therefore, if the military commanders in the best interest of the troops, the nation and the international community could unequivocally clarify on the precise mission in Afghanistan and particularly, present the facts on Osama Bin Laden it would be enormously helpful in the decisions related to ongoing wars and defense spending during legislation and election.

Above all, the Afghan population deserves the truth for they are severely dispensed with their family generations wiped out in the ceaseless conflict.

If the Al-Qaeda leader is alive, it shouldn’t be harder to locate with the intelligence dragnet across the globe perhaps within twenty four to forty eight hours and brought to justice.

Alternatively, it would be honorable to declassify the classified public information and submit the verifiable facts on the Al-Qaeda leaders’ death.

As for all issues concerning the military operation, the President of the United States being the Supreme Commander-in-Chief bears complete responsibility.

The defense and the national security team are accountable to the President – responsible for the troop level authorization, withdrawal timeline and final approval on war strategies.

In the Afghan war, the information on the ultimate authority in the decision-making process is not clear.

While it is being maintained that there is disconnect and discord between the military and the civilian exchange on operational matter and that the President is not briefed on vital military positions such as the actual troop numbers by the top security adviser and military command,

It is suggested that any dissatisfaction in the Afghan war status quo should be attributed to the military command and not the civilian authority, the President of the United States who is also incidentally, the Commander-in-Chief.

This is contradictory to the latest occurrence that involved the military’s top ranking official
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, removed by the President of the United States for ‘off-the’ record comment about the administration,revealing the authority in control.

Now in the expansive military role especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan taking horrendous toll on human lives and economic costs, the ambiguity in management as to,

“Who is calling the shots,” is rather disturbing and,

Require clarification to the armed forces and their families including the taxpayers footing the expense for the extravagant and uncertain adventure.

In that context, the exclusive secret meetings held for the selective members belonging to nexus organization apparently to discuss global economic health and the general humanitarian issues with the press and public debarred from participation is unsettling based on the discussions being related to the world population and not any private individual matter.

In fact, the nature of such gathering by the privileged members – selective heads of the state, corporate leaders and military command, a majority representing democratic societies alienating the voice of democracy – the communication media and the public is undemocratic not to mention the forum failing to meet transparency and accountability.

These meetings where the Presidential candidates as the future leader of the ‘free world’ prior to being approved by the electorate are summoned inconspicuously defying the press and denying access to the democratic process in itself is a serious credibility factor and beckons legitimate reasons on the definitive purpose.

It’s imperative to highlight the security measures taken during these sessions reflecting the twentieth century pre-world war II characteristics in the twenty first century causing frustration among the members in the society from various discipline gravely concerned about the abnormal clandestine consortium.

The public opinion upon revelation on the political, economic, corporate media and military institutional assembly behind closed doors to map out global direction is;

If it is conducted to benefit humanity then it is commendable and praiseworthy.

But then, why not hold them in public view and elaborate on the objectives to the republics’ complete satisfaction eliminating any doubts on the validity of the futuristic aspirations.

In conclusion, the fulcrum power has two immediate priorities to stabilize the deteriorating global environment predominantly due to incessant warfare and undemocratic principles adopted in the universal policies targeting humanity.

Disclosure on Osama Bin Laden and dismantling secret organizations – the deafening silence thus far proved detrimental to human progress in every frontier.

Any reluctance to conform or evasion through false propaganda and negative attacks would categorically confirm the “Who is Who” and the intrinsic aspects of –

‘The New World Order’ inevitably setting itself for a disastrous end.

Humanity thrives with consolidated contributions benefiting all and not a ‘specific society’ in the globalization concept.

Peace and perseverance to make this world a better place for all inhabitants is the natural path to prosperity.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

War and Geo-Political Status 20th Century

October 7, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The global economy is still far from recovery and most nations are dealing with austerity, Europe in particular much against their population will.

Meanwhile, among them an overwhelming majority have disproportionate defense budget that is not targeted in the spending cuts. United States has an exceptionally higher defense expenditure that is invariably passed with bipartisan approval regardless of the political party in power.

Whereas, the other life threatening issues concerning jobs, health care, social security, housing…are usually subjective to filibuster and marginalization at the worst resulting in a meaningless final product.

The contemporary society is currently confronted with the so-called war on terror. Although terrorism took birth in the twentieth century predominantly through Middle East conflicts, it escalated in the twenty first century with 9/11 becoming the premise for relentless warfare fomenting terrorism seeing no end in sight.

After two world wars to contain imperialism, fascism and ‘Great Depression,’ the expectation among the international community was long lasting peaceful environment with the governments focused on alleviating poverty, hunger and disease contributing to a healthy habitat for all living beings.

Subsequently the United Nations Charter was created with the U.N. Security Council formation comprising the five nations – United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France maintaining the status quo until now, despite the titanic shift in the economic realm over the latter part of the twentieth century leading till date.

The authorities then in power with the responsibility to establish peace and harness diplomatic relations, instead steered in the opposite direction with communism rising in the former Soviet Union, Germany in the West and the entire Eastern Europe as well as China influencing South East Asia.

It’s noteworthy that the arms race proliferated rather than being terminated at the end of world wars with the United States and the then Soviet union followed by the remaining Security Council members successfully conducting their nuclear test that empowered them as the largest nuclear arsenal holders and continue to remain so.

Further, the U.N. Security Council members’ illegal invasions and occupations in the aftermath of the world wars proceeded throughout the twentieth and now into the twenty first century with certain occupied territories annexed as the regional state again at the prevailing horrendous humanitarian plight such as Tibet, Palestinian territories and the disputed regions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The cold war between the two major powers – the United States and the Soviet Union vying for ‘Super Power’ status caused the ‘United Nations’ to split with the two contenders choosing partners conciliatory to their respective political positions at that time.

In the sixties, it is also well known that the cold war brought the two major powers on the brink of nuclear confrontation with the Cuban Missile crisis.

Notwithstanding the Korean War notably the significant armed Cold War conflict with the reunification negotiations eventually evolved into a proxy war sponsored by the three U.N. Security Council members – the U.S., Soviet Union and China.

The infamous Vietnam War spreading to the neighboring Cambodia and Laos certainly aroused the anti-war sentiments in the United States and around the world at its peak but it did not necessarily deter the wars in Africa, Latin America, Central Asia and the Middle East with the United States and the other permanent U.N. Security Council members involved in almost all of them either directly or indirectly as the arms supplier including the combat forces viz. Afghanistan on the ground.

Increased military aid to Indonesia in 1977 at the height of the East Timorese massacre produced more than one-third i.e. around 200,000 East Timor population deaths in war related starvation, disease and atrocities.

Likewise in 1978 the military aid to Central America against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and similar assistance to El Salvador compounded the regional turmoil with incredible loss of lives from brutal killings.

In 1979, the U.S. tax payers’ approximately $40 billion dollars investment to train Mujahedeen in Afghanistan generated Osama Bin Laden.

Arguably, the United States footprints in Latin America and Middle East are comparatively prominent with the other members concentrating in their region, Central Asia and Africa.

However, the genocide from the civil wars in Africa through the permanent U.N. Security Council members’ arms trade and distribution was entirely ignored since 1991 and up until now – such as the Democratic Republic of Congo referred to as ‘African World War,’ Burundi, Rwanda earlier on, and Darfur, Sudan.

It’s imperative to mention Haiti during the Democratic and Republican administrations’ at the White House going back to 1977 when agreements were made to decline Haitian refugees asylum claims and between 1990 and up until now – the Democratically elected popular leader Jean Bertrand Aristide indefinitely exiled in South Africa.

The combined powerful U.S.and NATO forces delayed intervention in Bosnia, Herzegovina or for that matter regrettable deliberation on Rwanda rescue operation could be regarded worthwhile, leaving other missions a territorial conquest and/or an economic interest.

It’s obvious that the military industrial complex war strategy is the same with the players alternated between the two major political parties in the United States and the trend replicated in other western democracies as the permanent U.N. Security council members.

Twentieth century wars fought in the regions desperately seeking economic and social development were categorically denied the opportunities to merge with the rest of the world converting those nations into a fertile ground for terror recruitment.

Therefore, the cyclical violence is a revenue source for the conventional and the nuclear weapons industry at the horrendous loss of lives and economic cost.

That raises many questions surrounding the wars and the global community priority in the tough economic times. They are evaded with no logical explanation often confirming the doubts in the public mind.

The war architects owe the domestic and international citizenry evidence based legitimate reason for the decade old conflicts severely affecting the weak and the vulnerable in the so-called war on terror.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

The 65th U.N. General Assembly on Multilateral Disarmament Treaty

September 29, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

On September 24, 2010, the United Nations held a “High-level Meeting on Revitalizing Disarmament Conference” attended by 65 nations’ dignitaries in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Conference objectives were to initiate discussions on the –

Biological and Chemical weapons,

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and,

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) including,

START – Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms,

PAROS – Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space and,

Last but not the least – Nuclear States threats against non-nuclear nations.

Although the statements from these organizations’ representatives and U.N. members defined the international community role and the urgency to begin nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament discourse, the session ended in an impasse.

The reason behind the unsuccessful outcome is attributed to the Multifaceted Treaty’s one aspect and that being,

The FMCT – Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty reportedly blocked by Nuclear Pakistan insisting on the Fissile Material Treaty fairness and effectiveness on the whole, an identical position shared with its Nuclear neighbor India.

The fissile material related to the plutonium and uranium enrichment for nuclear weapons capability is crucial in the disarmament dialogue to implement a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

In fact, Pakistan’s position in this regard is absolutely legitimate and worth examining.

Pakistan’s claim that FMT mandate be internationally incorporated and multilaterally verified to accommodate the majority nuclear and non-nuclear states’ national security concerns comparable to “equal security for all,” principles is in direct alignment with India’s request.

India has raised the legitimacy and credibility factor surrounding all treaties i.e.

Non-Proliferation, Nuclear disarmament focused on FMT, PAROS, START and negative security assurances for they are all at present severely lacking in accountability and transparency among the NPT-5,

The U.S and Russia in particular as the pioneers currently in possession of over 95 percent world’s nuclear arsenal.

Poignantly, the very first nuclear disarmament and permanent ban on nuclear testing was set forth by the First Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954 – the nuclear era with conspicuous disdain for nuclear ban proposals that is evidently prevalent until now into the twenty first century.

Subsequently, India remained persistent and called for an international convention in 1978 prohibiting the nuclear weapons use or threats against any nation followed by,

A daring initiative in 1982 submitting to the United Nations – a “Nuclear Freeze,” on fissile material production facilitating nuclear weapons and related delivery systems.

Further, in 1998 India put forward an Action Plan comprising phased elimination for all nuclear weapons and WMD within a specified timeframe setting the cornerstone in the nuclear doctrine.

None of the nuclear weapon states with far more nuclear potential responded to the cause then or for that matter now in the CD conference.

Pakistan and India share the sentiments in the non-cooperation and disingenuous display by the real players the NPT-5 with a burden of responsibility to exemplify their verbal commitments through actions that is being demonstrably evaded as the privileged Security Council members.

All the more reason for the imperativeness to expand the U.N. Security Council permanent membership with broad representation by nations such as Japan, Brazil, India, South Africa, Germany, Norway, Turkey and UAE besides the extensive diversification called for in the recent CD Summit only to be ignored denying global interest.

Had the powerful nuclear weapon states engaged in earnest participation with appropriate and definitive content mutually agreeable to third party verification in the nuclear treaty throughout the twentieth and twenty first century, the world would not be dealing with nuclear proliferation or terrorism.

Even the new START agreement between U.S and Russia signed in 2010 is subjective to ambivalence on both sides based on past experience specifically –

The exchanges with Kremlin during the former President Ronald Reagan START introduction referred to as SALT III at that time and evaluated by the American arms control advocates as;

“A deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners’ secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the U.S. can get on with the business of rearmament.”

Similarly, the then Soviet Union had not disclosed the ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles) data accurately in the submission.

Such inconclusiveness in the international security matter since the nuclear age precipitated the nuclear and conventional arms race to an unprecedented and unsustainable level.

The repetitive failed attempt to invigorate meaningful disarmament talks is a cliché in the contentious yet easily resolvable issue.

Moreover, the notion that U.S, Russia, China… are responsible nuclear states while disqualifying others from the league is a misnomer considering the status quo and proved detrimental to the nuclear deterrent policy for it encouraged defiance against compliance.

The unanimous frustration and disappointment among the non-elite nuclear states and the vulnerable non-nuclear NPT nations leads to a concrete decision in enforcing;

The universal CTBT – Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ‘entry into force’ rule effective immediately beginning at the fissile material ban targeting both supply and production in the present and the future.

Pursuant to NPT article VI, CTBT entry by force would have a profound impact on the NPT obligations binding the NPT and non-NPT nuclear states along with non-nuclear NPT countries.

Forced entry CTBT statute would reveal the observance or the lack there of by the respective nuclear and non-nuclear States.

It would also determine the Treaty viability and the multilateral apparatus adherence to NPT apart from restricting the sophisticated nuclear weapon upgrade or new development by any or all.

A worldwide Monitoring System and a neutral committee dedicated to NPT and WMD elimination would concurrently phase out the nuclear weapon prospects and systematically retrieve the stockpiles from all parties commencing with the major stock holders i.e. United States, Russia, France, U.K. China and others.

The grievances expressed by the scapegoats earlier India and now Pakistan in the CD failure,

Arguably found in the consistent setbacks on all treaties pertaining to conventional, WMD and nuclear weapons suggesting the so-called summits frame work designed to weaken rather than strengthen the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation institutional policies aimed at the regional and international peace and security.

Given the facts on the ground with the relentless and widespread violence through warfare, the agenda do not match the false exhibits in the previous summits.

Therefore, the United Nations General Assembly members consolidated commitment to global peace and security could be made possible by –

Forging the U.N. Security Council permanent membership expansion and,

Implementing the CTBT to accomplish the non-violation and irreversible NPT complemented by strategic and general weapons substantive and complete disarmament.

The U.N. members at the general assembly could essentially review and restructure the umbrella organization policies to conform to the twenty first century in every respect.

Non-nuclear NPT and nuclear states have a unique opportunity to change the dynamics with a paradigm shift by being inclusive not exclusive in the nuclear negotiations eventually resulting in pervasive nuclear disarmament.

The ICBL (the International Campaign to Ban Landmines) treaty is also vital in the disarmament process with certain key powers not having ratified the protocol despite the staggering toll on the children and economically disadvantaged population across the globe.

Again, the collective pledge to safeguard life and the planet is guaranteed to produce the desirable result –

A peaceful, prosperous and unified world.

Good Luck and Best Wishes to the United Nations and nexus organizations for phenomenal success in the humanitarian goals.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

Secret War Ramifications – U.S. Military Espionage and Directive for Global Operation

May 30, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

With reference to the preceding article May 30, 2010 titled U.S. Military Espionage – Directive for Global Operation:

It’s clear from the reports that the signed directive promoting espionage through troops deployment around the world would be an invasion of sovereign nations apart from undermining the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the rest of the world.

The U.S. is officially engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen that has claimed millions of lives with the Afghan war surpassing Iraq in the U.S. troop casualty reaching 1000 mark.

Notwithstanding death toll of service members reportedly as part of “Operation Enduring Freedom,” in the Philippines, the Horn of Africa and the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
————————————————————————————————–

Per AP report on May 29, 2010, titled U.S. records 1000th death in Afghan war by Robert H. Reid

“More have died in past 10 months than in first 5 years, the death toll for this month alone being 32 in 29 days with more expected in the aggressive campaign this summer.

In the past 10 months, at least 313 U.S. service members have been killed in the war – more than the 295 who died in the first five years of the conflict.

More than 430 of the U.S. dead were killed since January 2009.

The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has now surpassed the total in Iraq – roughly, 94,000 in Afghanistan compared with 92,000 in Iraq.

In 2008, the U.S. force in Afghanistan numbered about 30,000.”
————————————————————————————————–

Secret War Ramifications Continued – By Padmini Arhant

That being the grim reality, the elaborate scheme to accentuate the military role throughout the world in the mission against “war on terror,”

Despite the ongoing conflict spanning nine years in Afghanistan and eight years in Iraq including the escalation in Pakistan via drone attacks, missile strikes from Navy ships in Yemen producing immense loss of lives and economic liability is tragic if not outrageously ambitious.

Sadly, the universal dissent for the invasion and occupation in Iraq and the prolonged war in Afghanistan is ignored with a false presumption of winning the wars that has contributed to political instability, scores of deaths, alarming national deficits and anti-Americanism.

Now with a new strategy involving troops regardless of size on clandestine military activity would be provocative creating opportunities for militancy to continue their resistance by plotting against innocent civilians in the United States and their domicile.

Such offensive plan with utter disregard for the individual national security measures maintained and coordinated by the majority in global terrorism is likely to generate more adversaries than allies.

Again, the recent terror plots have been thwarted by the courageous unarmed civilians on flights and ground level as witnessed in the Christmas bomber or The Times Square conspiracy.

The terror suspects and offenders invariably use the invasion and occupation as the reason for their participation in the violent attacks when they try to win the local population support.

Peace and diplomacy to resolve disputes is no longer an option in the aggressive military action setting the world stage for a dangerous outcome in the nuclear era.

Unfortunately, the military command’s secret war across the globe appear to have little or no concern for the troops’ safety as shared by the military officials revealing the truth about the risks upon the brave service men and women being captured as spies and denied Geneva Convention protection,

Thus, allowing the rivals to justify their treatment of the captives similar to the detainees’ experience in Bagram Air base and the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In addition, the crisis is worsened by the private contractors’ apparent sportive shooting incidents of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan fomenting deep resentment against the hiring authorities for their failure to investigate these crimes.

Continuation of torture, prisoner abuse, denial of Habeas Corpus and federal trials as opposed to military tribunals are few of the many human rights violation attributed to the citizens’ protest in the nearly decade old battles.

The cyclical violence through suicide bombings and explosives used by the militants is counteracted with drones and improvised explosive devices by the military in the perpetual warfare, leaving the victims – the civilians, the troops and their families endure the indefinite combative environment.

Terrorism is being redefined by the frustrated population of the war zones and the potential targets as the one involving the insurgents and the other ‘state sponsored,’ displaying the sophisticated artillery in their possession, with neither willing to ceasefire.

Understanding the population plight due to the lack of freedom, political stability, economic prospects and social justice is not a priority for the warring factions.

If it were to be the case, the leadership in Afghanistan, Honduras, Haiti…would represent the electorates’ choice and not be the external political power nominees.

Usually, the U.S. legislative process is gruelling on pertinent issues viz. the economy, health care, energy and environment with the exception of overwhelming bipartisan support for war funding.

Poignantly, per the current report – the Senate passed the $58.8 billion war funding 67 – 28, a dozen Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted for the 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan against the jobless benefits before Memorial Day, suggesting that the Senate will not hold any more votes until senators return from their holiday break June 7.

The legislators in favor of deficit reduction have approved the Afghanistan troop surge funding while declining their votes for the average Americans’ interest forcing the House Democratic leaders to drop the following provisions in response to the deficit concerns:

$24 billion for states to help cover Medicaid costs.

$6.8 billion to provide health insurance subsidies to the jobless under the COBRA program.

$22 billion to provide a 19 month reprieve from a scheduled 21 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors.

Further it’s reported that “Spending cuts demanded by Democratic moderates unhappy about voting to increase the deficit will mean layoffs next year by state governments and no health insurance subsidies for people laid off after Memorial Day.”

Evidently, the spending cuts required for deficit contraction is directed at the population’s nerve center – jobs and health care over the insatiable appetite for redundant warfare resulting in the loss of precious lives sacrificed by the valiant troops and the vulnerable civilians.

The misplaced priority in the two conflicting options – lifesaver and fatalities is attention worthy.

Contemporary policy embracing war and aggression on all sides defies the conventional wisdom that violence begets violence leading the world to go blind in the revengeful act.

Non-violence means empowered with empathy for one another is far more powerful in attaining global peace and harmony.

On the Memorial Day weekend, our nation salutes the fallen heroes for their patriotism and commemorates those serving at present as well as the members in the past.

Fresh beginning awaits humanity celebrating life through peace.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

U.S. Military Espionage – Directive for Global Operation

May 30, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

According to the latest news reports obtained from the defense officials and military documents, an extensive clandestine military operation is ordered by the Middle East top U.S. commander to intercept militant groups or threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other African countries.

Courtesy – The New York Times report, May 25, 2010 – By Mark Mazzetti titled:

“U.S. Oks secret war on terror by military – Iran among likely targets of special operations order”

Washington -“The secret directive, signed in September by Gen.David Petraeus authorizes the sending of U.S. special operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces.

Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said.

Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” al-Qaida and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by U.S. or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries..

In broadening its secret activities, the U.S. military also has sought in recent years to break its dependence on the CIA and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant U.S. troop presence.

Petraeus’ order is meant for use of small teams of U.S. troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.

But some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks.

The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or incite the anger of hostile countries like Iran and Syria.

Many in the military also are concerned that as U.S. troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.

The precise operations that the directive authorizes are unclear, and what the military has done to follow through on the order is uncertain.

The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified.

Spokesmen for the White House and Pentagon declined to comment.

The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at U.S. Central Command, the military headquarters run by Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.

The Obama administration insists that, for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that, Obama authorized a strike.

“The Defense Department can’t be caught flat-footed,” said one Pentagon official with knowledge of Petraeus’ order.

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, also may have helped lay a foundation for the surge of U.S. military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

Special operations troops began working with Yemen’s military to try to dismantle al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s terror network based in Yemen.

The Pentagon has carried out missile strikes from Navy ships into suspected militant hideouts and plans to spend more than $155 million equipping Yemeni troops with armored vehicles, helicopters and small arms.

Officials said that many top commanders, Petraeus among them, have advocated an expansive interpretation of the military’s role around the world, arguing that troops need to operate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to better fight militant groups.”

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

Afghan War after Troops Increase

April 1, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

The latest on Afghan war after adding more troops to the nine-year-old battle, a contentious debate that was dominant last year.

Associated Press – Sunday, March 28, 2010.

By Sebastian Abbot – Thank you.

“Troop deaths rise in Afghanistan – Numbers soaring as U.S. adds soldiers

Kabul – The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban’s momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sight on the Taliban’s home base of Kandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

“We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. soldiers were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by the Associated Press.

At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties in the summer and fall, which undermined public support in the United States for the mission here.

Fighting typically tapers off in Afghanistan during the winter but peaks in the summer.”

————————————————————————————————–

War Strategy Assessment – By Padmini Arhant

The troops increase to Afghanistan was a national debate last year with mixed reaction from all sources.

It’s important to emphasize that there wasn’t an overwhelming public support to the additional troops deployment in Afghanistan.

There were many reasons for the lack luster response.

Among them, the most relevant ones being:

The U.S. and allies’ nomination of President Hamid Karzai as the head of the government for second term defied the Afghan people’s will.

Notwithstanding, the international outrage on the fraudulent general election that led to the opponent, DR. Abdullah Abdullah’s withdrawal from the election.

Another factor is the U.S. occupancy in Afghanistan approaching a decade and the constantly changing ‘purpose’ behind the mission remains intriguing until now.

After much deliberation, President Barack Obama decided to approve the request from the defense high command and argued, “It’s not an easy decision to do so.”

Indeed, pledging the troops’ lives to succeed in the targeted goals is never a simple action.

However, a prolonged war provides enough evidence to consider winding up the operation or at least minimize the troop level by supplementing with diplomacy and peaceful negotiations.

Peace and diplomacy could have prevailed with a democratically elected government. It was thwarted by the U.S. endorsement of an unpopular candidate.

Further, the explanation for more troops involved the U.S and NATO efforts to restore political stability in Afghanistan and terminate the Taliban/Al-Qaida activities.

The irony is, the Afghanistan political situation under the U.S. backed Karzai government shows no improvement in governance, despite the incumbent Afghan President being the U.S. foreign policy designates’ choice.

Similarly, the shift in the U.S. and Afghan government’s strategy towards Taliban insurgents appears to be a new approach to win the militants on their side with cash payments and abandoning the poppy fields eradication – the main source of income for the Taliban forces.

An action that is widely criticized by the human rights groups against narcotics in Afghanistan.

As predicted, the tension between the Karzai government and the U.S. administration has surfaced confirming the mistrust in the relationship.

While the political stalemate between the authorities in Kabul and Washington persists, the mounting U.S. casualties in the Afghan war cannot be ignored.

Troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is no longer a choice but an immediate requirement to end the procrastinated occupation in foreign lands.

Divestment from wars to social and economic development in these regions must begin to reflect the sincere commitment to bring hope and opportunity in a society deprived of normal existence for decades.

Substituting the combat troops with Peace Corps eliminates the tragic loss of lives on all sides.

In addition, the peaceful atmosphere would deter terror recruitment and foster an environment for the youth as well as others to build their nations towards a positive direction.

Now is the time for the U.S. authorities in the White House, Pentagon and the State department to relinquish failed policies that is proved a liability claiming precious lives and contributing to the rising deficit.

War leads to grief, revenge and destruction.

Whereas, peace is an eternal bliss.

I convey my condolences to the families of the fallen heroes and pray for the early recovery of the wounded brave hearts.

Your sacrifice makes freedom possible for all.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, National and Global Security | Leave a Comment 

Moscow Subway Bombing

March 30, 2010

By Padmini Arhant

On Monday, March 29, 2010, grief engulfed the commuters in the Russian capital, Moscow.

Terrorism against the metropolitan residents is the latest trend in the threat to global security.

According to the reports, two female suicide bombers strapped with explosives detonated the bombs killing 39 people and leaving many seriously injured.

The authorities in Kremlin have vowed to investigate the terrorist act and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Terror mastermind have not claimed responsibility but the officials have not ruled out the suspects’ connection to the separatist groups in the northern Caucasus region that includes the main rival Chechnya.

National security is a great concern for the governments dealing with terrorism related to autonomy, political freedom, and socio-economic issues in certain incidents, while others instigated by major organization for personal ideology.

Regardless, negotiating for freedom and equality through violence is a path to self-destruction as demonstrated by the suicide bombers.

Targeting innocent lives to bargain with the power is a cowardly act that only prolongs the situation behind the motive and benefits none.

Terrorism is a modern warfare adopted to deliver political messages without considering the ramifications from it.

Those who orchestrate terror against unarmed civilians are false representatives of justice. If they were to be true, they would value life and disavow violence against all.

Violence begets violence. It only leads to perpetual mourning and revenge.

Similarly, pursuing drastic measures in reaction to the terror activities affects the victims more than the assailants.

Tightening security to protect citizens is necessary.

However, implementing rules that would infringe upon civil liberties causing fear and frustration among the elected opposition leaders not excluding the local population is a victory to the terror networks in their realization of constricting the society movement, besides hurting the economy.

The permanent solution to terrorism is to address the problem by identifying the source.

In this instance, the contentious dispute between Kremlin and Chechnya / regional adversaries could be resolved through communication and dialogue.

A sincere attempt to end the political standoff and retaliation is the best approach to a peaceful resolution.

It comes from deep understanding for the suffering population, the real victims on both sides.

Aggression is not the remedy to the political crisis.

Often engagement with empathy along with self-recognition of wrong doings contributing to the turmoil yields success in the difficult political conditions.

I hope that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev will seek peaceful options with the separatist leaders in the northern region, particularly Chechnya and resume political discussions to arrive at a meaningful decision comprising democratic values for all citizens in Russia.

Meanwhile, the rebel groups will have nothing but failures if they persist with violence as the means to achieve their political goals.

Now is the time to renounce violence and harsh tactics by all.

It’s important for the sparring factions to commit towards peace and build a relationship based on trust and mutual respect, the pragmatic principles in dealing with the ceaseless conflict.

I convey my heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families and the Russian leaderships in the moment of sorrow brought upon by senseless violence.

I wish them courage to emerge from the tragic event and pray for the speedy recovery of the wounded.

Thank you.

Padmini Arhant

Written by Padmini Arhant · Filed Under Featured, National and Global Security, Politics | Leave a Comment 

« Previous Page — Next Page »