Aung San Suu Kyi, the jailed Burmese pro-democracy opposition leader, was recently granted visitation rights to meet with three aging leaders of her National League for Democracy. The meeting marked the highest-level contact she has had with her party in years, even as the Burmese junta prepares to clamp down on pro-democracy elements ahead of the first nationwide election since her victory —never realized by taking office— in 1990. Suu Kyi has instead spent most of the last two decades under house arrest.

The pro-democracy opposition leader has been permitted at least three meetings with members of the military government in recent weeks, and appears to be negotiating both for her freedom and for a more democratic environment for the 2010 election campaign. In November, after meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, Suu Kyi was permitted to speak to the media, a rare relaxation of the extreme conditions of her house arrest, and a sign that creative diplomacy from Washington may be playing a role.

According to the BBC:

In her letter Ms Suu Kyi also suggested a face-to-face meeting with Than Shwe and offered her co-operation on matters of national interest.

NLD spokesman Nyan Win was quoted by the AFP news agency as saying that Ms Suu Kyi “is also expecting the rest of her requests to be fulfilled. She’s optimistic about her letter. She believes the government will allow her requests”.

Suu Kyi wanted to meet with the party elders in part to move her party toward a new generation of leadership. She reportedly requested that the party elders allow her to “reorganize” the central committee, as the leadership are now very old. There is some hope that new leadership may be viewed with less suspicion by the regime, and the National League for Democracy might be reintegrated into the political fabric of a nation that has struggled under dictatorship for 20 years.

An appeal of Suu Kyi’s house arrest order is underway, though observers are skeptical she will win a supreme court case where her freedom is opposed by the ruling military junta. The appeal has been blocked numerous times by lower courts and by the supreme court itself, though the new appeal relates to the 18-month extension of her detention that resulted from her being charged with “harboring” an American man who mysteriously arrived exhausted at her lakeside home after swimming to get there.

The United States is pledging to “take the lead” on a global fund of $100 billion over ten years, designed to help developing nations transition to a zero-combustion energy economy and fend off the already mounting ravages of climate destabilization. The offer was announced yesterday by Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and was intended in part to put added pressure on China to agree to a binding climate deal with emissions reduction verification processes built in.

As reported by Congressional Quarterly:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States would help to raise $100 billion annually through 2020 for a fund to help poor countries adapt to climate change — but only if all countries submit to outside verification of their carbon emissions.

Clinton’s offer is intended to end a stalemate with China at the Copenhagen talks. China has refused to allow outside inspectors to monitor its emissions reductions. Its response to Clinton’s speech was muted, and it was unclear whether the offer of a massive fund would jump-start talks.

Prior to Clinton’s announcement the US had committed only to $1.2 billion for a global climate change mitigation fund, and up to $10 billion through 2012. The $100 billion pledge is a major new motivation for wavering nations to seize the opportunity and join a binding climate pact. The offer also firmly establishes the United States’ having fully committed to a binding global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate anthropogenic climate change.

Clinton explained that the fund is not a cash giveaway and is designed to be part of a comprehensive public-private partnership to green the global economy and create a vibrant new energy infrastructure, including investment capital. “We expect this funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance,” she remarked, adding that “This will include a significant focus on forestry and adaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorest and most vulnerable among us.”

Another important point about the fund is that the US has no intention of giving money to China to spur its emissions-reduction, green-energy or mitigation efforts, China already holding an unrivaled amount of American wealth and US government bonds. In fact, China would likely be urged, if not immediately then in the future, to contribute to a global climate change mitigation fund.

A week ago, Chinese officials had raised the issue of industrialized nations —a club to which it does not yet claim to belong— contributing funding for poor nations to deal with the effects of climate change, as their industry is responsible for creating the costs to those poor and developing nations.

But the US envoy to the Copenhagen climate conference, Todd Stern, said in light of the debate that developing nations could not be given “a free pass”, because “Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward … will be coming from developing countries”, with as much as 50% of that expansion in harmful emissions likely to come from China alone. Getting China to sign up not only to a treaty, but to a transparent, independent process of verification, is crucial to the legitimacy and efficacy of any emissions-related global policy.

It is unclear whether the $100 billion fund would be of great benefit to India, the world’s largest democracy and a rapidly developing nation with widespread poverty and significant vulnerability to emissions-linked glacial melt, sea-level rise, desertification and rain-band shifts. But India’s interest in securing a deal that includes such funding, for itself and/or its neighbors, like Bangladesh, will also help intensify pressure on China to agree to the principles of a binding emissions-cutting pact.

Iran’s government has temporarily banned foreign media from operating in the capital, Tehran, in anticipation of student rallies on Monday, marking Iran’s Student Day commemoration. The government has warned against any “illegal rallies”, suggesting it fears the student rallies could turn into a new round of protests against the alleged rigging of the June presidential vote and the subsequent violent crackdown against dissent.

According to Reuters:

Police and elite Revolutionary Guards have warned that any “illegal” rally will be fiercely confronted on Monday when the country marks Student Day, commemorating the killing of three students in 1953 under the former Shah.

“All permits issued for foreign media to cover news in Tehran have been revoked from December 7 to December 9,” the Culture Ministry’s foreign press department said on Saturday in an SMS text message sent to journalists, photographers and cameramen working for foreign media in Iran.

Throughout the weekend internet connections have been deliberately slowed or disabled and cellphone networks have been interrupted. It appears the authorities are testing a series of measures designed to interfere with person to person communications, to stop people from organizing and from reporting on abuses that may be committed by security forces.

Reuters also reports that “An official at Iran’s telecommunications ministry told Reuters that Internet access and cellphone lines would be disabled on Monday.” Police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moqaddam warns that any “illegal gathering” near the universities will be “strongly confronted”, raising fears of more bloodshed and political disappearances, like those that the government used to respond to the anti-government protests this summer.

The watchdog group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is warning that the situation for journalists in Iran is worsening. Over 100 reporters and bloggers were detained during the summer demonstrations; 23 are still being held. Many are treated like foreign spies, especially photographers, whom the government feels it has a fundamental right to control.

In the case of Maziar Bahari, a journalist working for Newsweek magazine, he was detained and held without charge, was interrogated and severely beaten. He was accused of espionage, was told that his magazine was in fact an intelligence agency, and was told that video of himself doing a comic sketch on Jon Stewart’s ‘The Daily Show’ in which a comedian pretends to be a CIA agent was proof he was a spy.

The situation in Iran is also getting more difficult for foreign journalists. There are increasing restrictions on what they are allowed to report, and when, and by what medium. Foreign journalists are now routinely barred from reporting on public gatherings or meeting with any member of the opposition. The media clampdown is a sign the hardline government continues to find itself under pressure from internal opposition.

It is also clear that there is a connection between the government’s treatment of journalists and its plans for a potentially violent crackdown. It wants to avoid images getting out like those that showed the bloody death of Neda Agha Soltan, an innocent bystander gunned down in cold blood, in the middle of a crowded street, allegedly by a member of the Basij militia.

The government has failed to provide any democratic channel by which the opposition could address its grievances regarding the vote of 12 June 2009, which most observers, even some conservative clerics inside Iran, believe was rigged to give Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the supreme leader’s preferred candidate, a second term as president.

It is expected that Monday will bring the beginning of a new series of protest rallies, initiated by students in observance of Student Day, but supported by the Green Path of Hope movement of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and possibly winning popular support from ordinary citizens still outraged over the violence used by government forces to end the summer’s post-election demonstrations. If such rallies do emerge, the government is expected to take action to interfere.

Lebanon has formed a new government of “national accord”, which will include majority leader and prime minister designate Saad Hariri and also representatives of Hezbollah, the militia group seen as a terrorist threat by Israel, and which was the target of an Israeli bombing campaign in 2006. The UN Security Council congratulated Lebanon on moving forward with national unity and wished the new government well.

UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, has since 2006 an expanded mandate, which includes monitoring the cessation of hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel. Hariri’s cabinet proposal divided key ministries among the majority coalition, the opposition Christian conservatives and Hezbollah. Pres. Suleiman accepted the cabinet line-up, allowing Hariri to move forward with his government after nearly 6 months of wrangling.

According to Voice of America:

Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, was given key positions in the new government, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The international community has welcomed the formation of the unity government. Statements of congratulations came in from the European Union, the United States, the United Nations, Syria, Iran and elsewhere.

Israel is uneasy about Hezbollah controlling the ministry of Foreign Affairs and worries it could permit the militant group to push Lebanon toward a more aggressive security posture. But for now, the cabinet assignments are being treated by both Isreal’s allies and enemies as a sign that Lebanon is moving toward political stability, which is good for the region.

But, the Guardian newspaper reports that:

Hezbollah is rapidly rearming in preparation for a new conflict with Israel, fearing that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government will attack Lebanon again prior to any assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Last week, Israeli commandos seized a ship in the Mediterranean loaded with almost 400 tonnes of rockets and small arms – which Israel claimed was being sent from Iran to its Hezbollah allies. In dramatic further evidence of growing tensions, the Observer has learned that Hezbollah fighters have been busy reinforcing fixed defence positions north of the Litani river.

Hezbollah denies the weapons shipment was destined for its arsenal, but admits to rearming, even saying it now has far more rockets than in 2006. The border is now controlled by UNIFIL troops, which keeps Hezbollah further back in the Lebanese interior, one of Israel’s goals in the 2006 bombing campaign. It is unclear whether Israeli security policy is to tolerate a strong Hezbollah deeper inside Lebanon, as a kind of defense force, while making sure the group cannot take an aggressive stance along the Israeli border.

According to the Guardian report, both Hezbollah and Israel are preparing for a new conflict, with new strategies designed to avoid the mistakes of 2006. Hezbollah is thought to fear that failure to arm the Lebanese border may permit Israel to seize land, while Israel is determined to prevent Hezbollah rockets from landing inside Israel.

Due to the involvement of concerns over Iran’s nuclear research program in Israeli security strategy, there is concern that any effort to target an Iranian nuclear facility —if it is thought to be developing nuclear weapons— would first require a strike against Hezbollah, possibly more intense and widespread even than the 2006 bombing campaign. This has both sides bristling, and would put the UNIFIL forces in the middle.

The White House press secretary said the US looks forward to working with Lebanon’s new government, which it hopes will be a partner in negotiating peace in the region. VOA also reports:

Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, Tuesday quoted an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, as saying Tehran believes that a powerful Lebanese government that cooperates with regional countries could help Lebanon’s development.

And Syria’s official news agency, SANA, reported Tuesday that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad sent a congratulatory note to Lebanese President Suleiman.

Lebanon is entering a new era, politically and on the global stage. But the tense security situation along its border with Israel, and the problem of mutual battle planning, has many worried the period of unity could be short-lived if another conflict breaks out. Hamas is also urging the new government to extend broader civil and political rights to Palestinian refugees living on Lebanese soil.

Sen. James Webb (D-VA) has won the release of American John Yettaw, who was sentenced to 7 years, including hard labor, for swimming to Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s lakefront home, effectively breaching the terms of her house arrest. Suu Kyi’s house arrest was extended by 18 months after she was convicted for allowing Yettaw to rest and recuperate at her home; the sentence will exclude her from the planned 2010 elections process.

Webb’s mission to Yangon, the capital of Burma (renamed Myanmar by the military junta), is the first by a senior US official in more than a decade. Some pro-democracy activists criticized the visit as legitimizing the regime, but the Obama administration says it supports Webb’s efforts to free Yettaw and to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi and possibly negotiate a shortened sentence for her as well.

The regime’s history relating to Aung San Suu Kyi leaves little room for doubt they will not allow her to participate in next year’s election process or re-enter the political sphere. They crushed democratic rallies in brutal military operations in 1988 and barred Suu Kyi from taking office when her party won an overwhelming victory in 1990 elections.

As the Huffington Post reports:

Washington is Myanmar’s strongest critic, applying political and economic sanctions against the junta for its poor human rights record and failure to hand over power to a democratically elected government. And this week’s sentencing of democracy leader Suu Kyi and an American citizen at the same trial threatened to drag ties even lower.

Webb will also meet with Gen. Than Shwe, the leader of the military junta and effective head of state. He is the first senior US official to meet with the general. After winning Yettaw’s release, Webb will return home, bringing the freed American citizen with him.

He also had the opportunity to meet with jailed pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi herself, and the results of that meeting will be closely watched, both to gauge her personal wellbeing and the prospects for her eventual release from persistent confinement. There has been mounting pressure in recent years to find new ways to apply diplomatic pressure or to incentivize Gen. Than Shwe to relax the regime’s constraints on Suu Kyi’s personal freedoms and political activities.

In the first election since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, between government forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the Tamil Tiger rebels), ethnic Tamil voters appear to have signaled their desire to achieve self-rule. A pro-rebel party won the largest number of seats in local council elections in Vavuniya and the second most in Jaffna.

Pro-government parties were expected to do well, because Pres. Mahinda Rajapakse has made promises of good-will to the Tamil minority, pledging to bring vast development projects to the region and to empower the Tamil minority through democratic processes. The Tamil minority, battered by decades of war and a brutal onslaught estimated to have killed thousands of civilians earlier this year, appear to have opted to empower themselves through democratic processes.

The election outcome could challenge the government’s conciliatory posture, as Pres. Rajapakse has routinely used levers of state power and paramilitary gangs to harass the press and dissidents, even of Sinhalese extraction. Pres. Rajapakse could, however, take this election outcome as a promising sign and an opportunity to engage the Tamil population in a process of democratic dialogue.

Empowering the Tamil minority through democratic processes means a civil but adversarial relationship. Empowering the region through development projects means hoping they will vote for the Sinhalese nationalist parties out of gratitude. The two pledges are in clear tension, and the Tamil minority is being viewed as showing, through this election, their desire to continue to push for autonomy, despite the defeat of the LTTE.

Mian Ridge, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, reports:

Though the Tamil Tigers terrorized the mostly Tamil inhabitants of the north, their ostensible goal —a Tamil homeland— is supported by many Tamils who have suffered decades of discrimination by the Sinhalese majority. Most observers agree that some measure of Tamil autonomy is now necessary for stability in Sri Lanka.

Some observers have speculated the vote was held too soon after the crushing defeat suffered by the LTTE and the mass displacement of the region’s population. In Vavuniya, only 50% are reported to have voted, with only 20% voting in Jaffna. An estimated 300,000 civilians are being held —reportedly by force— in government-administered camps outside Vavuniya and Jaffna, and journalists were not allowed to enter the area or observe the election process.

Some election observers, however, reported there was no incidence of electoral violence or evidence of attempts to rig the vote: if indeed the government permitted a free and fair exercise of democratic voting rights among the population that was able to participate, the outcome could be a sign that resentment still runs high and the ethnic Tamil minority is prepared to assume more autonomous control of their local government.

There are conflicting reports as to why the government continues to hold so many displaced civilians in military camps, including speculation that it could be part of an effort to undermine the political power of the Tamil people in the north of the country in these early elections. Rights groups have been calling for better treatment of internally displaced Sri Lankans and for the timely return of encamped refugees to their homes.

Amid a flurry of damning reports about Bush-era counterterrorism tactics and government secrecy, CNN now reports “President Obama has ordered national security officials to look into allegations that the Bush administration resisted efforts to investigate a CIA-backed Afghan warlord over the killings of hundreds of Taliban prisoners in 2001.”

Obama told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, during an interview in Ghana, that the concerns that the killings had not been properly investigated had only “recently” come to his attention. He added that “what I’ve asked my national security team to do is to collect the facts for me that are known, and we’ll probably make a decision in terms of how to approach it once we have all of the facts gathered up”.

The allegations involve Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, a prominent and controversial Afghan warlord who fought against the US-backed mujahedeen in the Soviet era and sided with the US during the invasion to fight the Taliban. Dostum’s influence around the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif is so vast, he had not only a private army and flag, but also a currency and an airline.

The prisoners who died are said to have been in the custody of soldiers under Dostum’s control. (Dostum was later named interim defense minister when Hamid Karzai established an interim government after the Taliban’s defeat, in 2003 was named presidential security adviser and in 2005 was named chief of staff of the nation’s armed forces.)

The issue Obama wants investigated was first reported in 2002 by Newsweek, which according to CNN:

… cited a confidential U.N. memo saying the prisoners died in cramped container trucks while being transported from their Konduz stronghold in northern Afghanistan to Sheberghan prison, west of Dostum’s stronghold at Mazar-e Sharif.

A physicians group, Physicians for Human Rights, said it had located a mass grave and Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the Afghanistan invasion, supported an investigation. But on Friday, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration “repeatedly discouraged efforts to investigate the episode”. It is now being reported that the State Dept. had urged the Karzai government not to renew Dostum’s appointment as military chief of staff.

Dostum, who had been forced into exile in Turkey, in the past, has reportedly been living in exile again, until recently, due to allegations he kidnapped Akbar Bai, a former political ally who became a rival. Now, Obama seems to be using language that suggests the US cannot let such violations of the laws of war go unanswered.

Susannah Sirkin, who is deputy director of Physicians for Human Rights, expressed support for Pres. Obama “for ordering his national security team to collect all the facts in the Dasht-e-Leili massacre and apparent U.S. cover-up.” Sirkin has previously said “U.S. military and intelligence personnel were operating jointly and accepted the surrender of the prisoners jointly with General Dostum’s forces in northern Afghanistan”.

She has also said the Obama administration has a “legal obligation” to find out what involvement US officials may have had. Obama, for his part, told CNN “I think that, you know, there are responsibilities that all nations have, even in war. And if it appears that our conduct in some way supported violations of laws of war, then I think that, you know, we have to know about that”.

As part of its deal to transition major security operations in Iraq to the Iraqi military and civil authorities, the United States has released 5 Iranian officials it had been holding on charges of engaging in covert operations inside Iraq. The officials —whom Iran calls diplomats— were released into the custody of Iraqi authorities, were met personally by prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and were officially freed by Iraq.

The move comes amid mounting concerns over a “covert war” between the US and Iran on what CNN calls “battlefield Iraq”. With both the US accusing Iran of covert operations in Iraq and Iran accusing the US of covert operations against Iranian interests in both Iraq and Iran, concerns over the regional meaning of the Iraq conflict are shifting to the political climate in Tehran and the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Iranian authorities have accused the US of fomenting resistance to government authority in Iran, while the US accuses Iran of interfering in Iraq, seeking to destabilize the conflict-ridden multi-ethnic nation, in order to expand its sphere of influence. With no evidence against the 5 detained Iranians ever made public, the prolonged detentions were a source of severe diplomatic tension between the two rivals for regional influence.

Pres. Obama had promised a new era of engagement with Tehran, and some see the linking of the diplomats’ release to the handover of security powers to Iraqi authorities as a way of keeping the detention itself and/or release from dominating discussions about difference in US and Iranian policy. Iran had released Iranian-American reporter Roxana Saberi, after a sustained global campaign of pressure for her release, and Many had compared the two cases as symptomatic of the rift and the suspicion between Washington and Tehran.

As the LA Times reported, “Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he had met with the Iranians and described them as ‘happy and safe.’” Zebari also said that no deal had been made in order to secure their release. All detainees in Iraq are to be turned over to Iraqi authorities by the end of the year. In Zebari’s words: “This has been there for some time that this would happen. It was part of the agreement for the Americans, part of withdrawing and handing over security responsibilities”.

The release has not, however, enabled a much friendlier atmosphere. Just a couple of days after the Iranian detainees were released by the US, there is news that Kian Tajbakhsh, an Iranian-American scholar, has been detained by Iranian authorities for the second time in two years. Tajbakhsh has been accused in the past of fomenting unrest in Iran. Authorities appear to have detained him as part of an effort to crack down on dissent across the nation.

In an ongoing quest to sideline or incarcerate opposition figures, the leadership of Iran’s government continues to defend the disputed official results of the 12 June election and is now blaming Hungarian-American financier and open society activist George Soros, Liz Cheney —the daughter of the former US vice president— and the secretive Bilderberg group of a conspiracy to overthrow the Iranian government by backing opposition protests.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i has now reportedly put his own son in charge of the paramilitary militia being used to attack, intimidate and round up, those who would participate in opposition rallies. Reports suggest that conservative clerics are increasingly concerned about what appears to be an escalating grab for power by Khamene’i and those close to him.

Mojtaba Khamene’i's role in the crackdown is said to be sowing concern and anger among even conservative clerics, who see the supreme leader’s behavior as deligitimizing clerical rule. Some Revolutionary Guard generals and conservative politicians have also begun to join the dissident clerics in questioning the legitimacy of the methods being used to decide the election and establish the next government.

An unnamed source told the Guardian newspaper that this growing alliance of clerics, conservative politicians and security officials, may not openly challenge the legal legitimacy of Khamene’i or Ahmedinejad, but may be working to formulate a cohesive strategy for making it difficult for either of the two men to exercise real authority through the government.

As the AP reports:

Khamenei’s political strategy since taking his position in 1989 has been to maintain a consensus among competing factions. But now to preserve power he may have to rely on a far narrower base of hard-line ayatollahs — and more than ever before on the security services, particularly the Revolutionary Guards, the elite protectors of the system.

A major question looking ahead will be whether discontented clerics will aggressively push their criticisms behind the scenes, and whether their followers who look to them for spiritual guidance will rally behind the reformist political opposition.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate with the most votes, and who claims he won the disputed election, has pledged to continue his resistance to the incoming Ahmedinejad government. He calls on supporters to stage peaceful protests and to use non-violence. And there are signs that top clerics are not willing to support either the supreme leader or Pres. Ahmedinejad, given the deep divisions across the nation.

The AP also reports that only one of nine Iranian clerics holding the highest possible rank —”marja’ taqlid,” meaning “model for imitation”— has congratulated Pres. Ahmedinejad for his return to power. Three of the nine have spoken out openly against the election results and the brutal security crackdown.

Grand Ayatollah Youssef Saanei, one of the nine marja’ taqlid, said on Friday that “due to the lack of public support, the government may face legal and civil problems and a lack of competency”. Other clerics have also begun directly questioning the legitimacy of the Khamene’i-Ahmedinejad power bloc: Ayatollah Hossein Mousavi Tabrizi, one of the leaders of the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom, said “The least we can say is that this government’s legitimacy is in doubt. A majority of the people don’t believe that Ahmadinejad was their vote”.

Pres. Ahmedinejad has said on national television that he plans to implement broad changes to the system of government and to the policy goals his administration will pursue. Ahmedinejad praised the election as the “cleanest” in Iran’s history and said he would establish an entirely new team for his second term, oriented toward addressing the concerns of young people, many of whom have been openly hostile to Ahmedinejad throughout the campaign.

• Iran Association of Researchers & Teachers of Qom Declares Vote-count Illegitimate
• Iran’s President Ahmedinejad Orders Probe into Shooting Death of Neda Soltan
• Mir Hossein Mousavi’s official message to Iranians abroad (transcript)
• Kalemeh, Mousavi’s Web Site, Shut Down by Iranian Authorities
• Iran Arrests 8 Employees of UK Embassy, Alleging Subversion
• Detained Reformists Reportedly Tortured to Induce Testimony About ‘Foreign Plot’
• What Happened at Baharestan Square?
• Iran Protesters Reportedly Attacked ‘Like Animals’ by Security Forces
• Iran’s Guardian Council Finds Ballots Cast Exceeded Number of Voters in 50 Cities
• Update on State Violence Against Demonstrators in Iran (video)
• Reports of Shots Fired at Iranian Demonstrators (video, links & updates)
• Khamene’i Demands End to Protests, Says Disputed Results Will Stand
• Open Letter from Iranian Academics to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon
• Massive Opposition Rally in Tehran Mourns Slain Demonstrators (video)
• Pro-Mousavi Demonstrations & Iranians’ Constitutional Rights (video)
• Iran Opposition Movement Forces Khamenei to Investigate
• Iran Crackdown: Is it Tacit Admission Vote was Rigged?
• Iran Declares Ahmedinejad Winner, Results Widely Questioned as Fraudulent
• Rivals Ahmedinejad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election

Dr. Arash Hejazi is one of the bystanders who attended to Neda Agha Soltan when she was shot and killed at a demonstration in Tehran. Hejazi lives and works in England, and he was in Iran visiting. He told the BBC, after returning to Britain, of how the shocking events of that day transpired, and says bystanders seized an armed Basij militiaman who admitted he had shot Soltan.

Dr. Hejazi said he and some friends at heard there were protests taking place and “decided to go and take a look”. He said that when they arrived, “Anti-riot police were coming by motorcycles towards the crowd.” He saw Neda Soltan “with an older man who he thought was her father but later on learned was her music teacher.”

Hejazi gave a harrowing account of what he witnessed as the police and militia stormed the crowd:

Suddenly everything turned crazy. The police threw teargas and the motorcycles started rushing towards the crowd. We ran to an intersection and people were just standing. They didn’t know what to do.

We heard a gunshot. Neda was standing one metre away from me. I turned back and I saw blood gushing out of Neda’s chest.

She was in a shocked situation, just looking at her chest. Then she lost her control.

We ran to her and lay her on the ground. I saw the bullet wound just below the neck with blood gushing out.

I have never seen such a thing because the bullet, it seemed to have blasted inside her chest, and later on, blood exiting from her mouth and nose.

The doctor’s on-the-scene observation that the bullet “seemed to have blasted” may indicate the use of bullets designed to cause maximum casualties, bullets banned even in some circumstances of open combat. According to Hejazi’s account, the armed man taken down from a motorcycle by onlookers who accused him of the shooting was carrying an ID card that showed him to be Basij militia and cried out that he did not intend to kill her, a virtual confession to the shooting.

UPDATE, 19:28 GMT (by J.E. Robertson): Paulo Coelho has posted excerpts from an e-mail exchange between himself and Dr. Hejazi, whom he knows. The correspondence relates to the video showing the death of Neda Soltan and includes numerous mentions of Coelho’s concern for Hejazi’s safety. He suggests releasing his name to the press in order to protect him, in case he is targeted by the regime. Hejazi writes to him on 23 June: “If I don’t arrive in London at 2 pm., something has happened to me.”

Coelho waits for news Hejazi has reached the UK safely, and the posted e-mails are redacted to block out the whereabouts and contact information for Hejazi’s family. A Brazilian journalist, Luis Antonio Ryff, who also recognized Hejazi in the video had contacted Coelho, who says he confirmed his identity, but asked Ryff not to publish the name until the 24th at the earliest, to give Hejazi time to reach safe harbor in the UK. For this, Coelho writes “I would like to thank him here, for his dignity”. On the 24th, Hejazi arrived safely in London.

• Language of Resistance Intensifies Amid New Reports of Demonstrators Attacked
• Full Obama Press Conference on Iran, Economic Recovery, Healthcare (video + transcript)
• What Happened at Baharestan Square?
• Iran Protesters Reportedly Attacked ‘Like Animals’ by Security Forces
• Pres. Obama’s Remarks on Iran (video + transcript, English + Farsi)
• Guardian Council Opposed to Throwing Out Election Results
• Iran Using Western Technology to Spy on its Citizens, Suppress Dissent
• Iran’s Guardian Council Finds Ballots Cast Exceeded Number of Voters in 50 Cities
• Pres. Obama’s Statement on Iran (transcript)
• Larijani Says Majority Suspect Election Fraud; Rafsanjani Relative Detained
• Iran Says ‘Terrorists’ Caused Saturday Clashes; New Evidence of State Violence (UPDATED)
• Update on State Violence Against Demonstrators in Iran (video)
• Reports of Shots Fired at Iranian Demonstrators (video, links & updates)
• Khamene’i Demands End to Protests, Says Disputed Results Will Stand
• Open Letter from Iranian Academics to UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon
• UN Rights Chief Warns Iran not to Use Violence
• Iranian Dissident Leader Detained in Hospital ICU, Jailed without Charge
• Massive Opposition Rally in Tehran Mourns Slain Demonstrators (video)
• Iran Government Targets Press as More Demonstrations Planned (video)
• Rafsanjani Calls for Emergency Meeting of Assembly of Experts
• Pro-Mousavi Demonstrations & Iranians’ Constitutional Rights (video)
• Iran Opposition Movement Forces Khamenei to Investigate
• Iran Crackdown: Is it Tacit Admission Vote was Rigged?
• Iran Declares Ahmedinejad Winner, Results Widely Questioned as Fraudulent
• Rivals Ahmedinejad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election
• Iranian Polls Kept Open Several Hours Longer than Planned
• Iran Votes, with Popular Reformist Challenging Hardline Ahmedinejad

As the UN and the Red Cross express dire concerns over the humanitarian crisis emerging among the estimated 2 million people who have fled their homes in the Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan says its military has recaptured the city of Mingora, in the Swat Valley. Taliban factions have claimed responsibility for major bomb attacks in Lahore, and have vowed to target Pakistan’s major cities.

The government has said the Taliban is deliberately killing civilians and forcing them into harm’s way, in an effort to undermine public morale and erode support for the military offensive against them. So far, public opinion appears to be strongly behind the government, as fears have spread around the country of “Talibanization”, which could lead to towns and cities coming under the brutal form of shari’a law the Taliban has imposed, even when they are not in power.

The government, as well as rights agencies, the military, foreign governments, and the UN, are actively spreading the word around Pakistan that the Taliban’s bombings, political killings and vigilantism, are a threat to Pakistan’s security and to the safety and freedom of its people. Reporters and aid workers operating inside Pakistan say the clashes between militants and government forces is verging on full-scale civil war.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

According to CNN International: 

Twenty-five militants and six soldiers were killed Saturday night in two separate clashes between security forces and insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal region, officials said.

Both clashes took place after militants ambushed security forces in South Waziristan, one of seven districts in Pakistan’s mostly ungoverned tribal region along the Afghan border, said military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas.

Some analysts warn that the tribal region has never truly been controlled by any modern state, and that insurgents could find fierce fighters to join them if they portray themselves as defenders of the regional autonomy. The government, for its part, wants to extend control into the tribal regions, to prevent movements like Al Qaeda and the Taliban from taking refuge or using the territory for recruiting, training or planning. With Pakistan’s political and geographical integrity at stake, the fighting may yet spread from Swat to the rest of the Northwest Frontier Province, South Waziristan and other western border regions.

The UN is warning that there may not be enough supplies or enough space in existing camps to deal with the huge migration of people from the Swat Valley. The estimated 2 million refugees are the largest single incident of displaced people in such a localized area in the last two decades. The Red Cross is warning of a humanitarian catastrophe, with serious risk of starvation, chronic dehydration and infectious disease, among the displaced.

A BBC video shows the town of Mingora in ruins after the major clashes that took place there between the Pakistan military and Taliban insurgents. Residents of the town of Charbagh have been warned by security forces to flee in advance of what could be the next major offensive against Taliban positions. The government says its Swat offensive may be over in a matter of days, but some observers question whether the Taliban militia have been destroyed and disabled, or just dispersed, to reassemble elsewhere or at a later date. Statements made a few weeks ago, in advance of the Swat offensive, by top military commanders suggest police actions in the region may last for many months and/or years.

The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have laid down their arms, in order to prevent further death among the Tamil people, according to news reports. The government says the ceasefire agreement is surrender and a comprehensive victory; the LTTE say they are entering a ceasefire in order to spare end the violence. It is not known whether, in the absence of its traditional leadership, the LTTE will be able to agree to an enforceable peace or whether the group could split.

Reports from the region suggest the government may have limited the LTTE’s militarily held territory to some 800 square meters. There are reports the Sri Lankan military may have killed the rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. Prabhakaran was the fierce and determined founder and supreme commander of the militant group, and is credited with “pioneering” modern terrorism techniques, including the use of suicide bombers.

The LTTE assassinated several top Sri Lankan officials in the 1980s and 1990s. Wikipedia reports:

Prabhakaran was wanted by Interpol for terrorism, murder, organized crime and terrorism conspiracy. He also had arrest warrants against him in Sri Lanka and India. On May 18, 2009, the Sri Lankan Government announced that Velupillai Prabhakaran had been killed, while trying to escape advancing troops, in an ambulance. However, UK-based Tamil Tiger spokesperson Selvarasa Pathmanathan claimed that Prabhakaran was “still alive”. On May 19, Sri Lanka’s Defence Ministry revealed that a body by the shore of Nandikadal lagoon had been identified as Prabhakaran. Sri Lanka media showed video of the body.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

In the weeks leading up to the government’s declaration of victory, the government of Sri Lanka came under heavy criticism from the international community for major bombing attacks against densely populated civilian areas, including strikes on hospitals, schools and even makeshift tent hospitals set up in a purported “safe zone” to treat the injuries and illnesses resulting from civilian displacement and the destruction of hospitals in the Tamil region.

Human rights groups accuse the government of targeting members of the press, activists, opposition politicians and local Tamil civilians, in its effort to use overwhelming force to crush the militant insurgency. The Tigers have long been accused of targeting civilians, and reports from the war zone hvae been confused by allegations that their leaders were seeking shelter or even cloaking huge militant factions among large numbers of civilians.

The government has declared its intention to protect the Tamil minority and celebrate the heritage of the Tamil language as part of an integrated Sri Lankan state. But there is little evidence so far that the militant movement has completely dissolved or that support for independence has been reduced by the recent brutal fighting. The LTTE has returned to bombing after past announcements they would “lay down arms” in the interests of protecting Tamil civilians, and some observers warn premature celebration by the government could be risky.

The ruling party of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh has expanded its presence in parliament. Singh is expected to be asked to serve a second 5-year term for the professorial PM. Singh is also credited with a unique reputation for clean dealing and a steady term of service presiding over 9% growth for the Indian economy.

The main opposition, Hindu nationalist BJP, was considered by some observers to be a potential threat to the stability of security negotiations between long-time rivals India and Pakistan. The right-wing party ran on a platform laying blame on Pakistan for the Mumbai attacks of last fall and accusing the Congress party government of weakness against the threat of Islamist terrorism.

Concerns a BJP win could further destabilize Pakistan or lead to a redeployment of the Pakistan military in an effort to face-off an Indian threat were vocal and widespread. A secular Pakistani democracy is preferable to all Indian factions to anything resembling a fundamentalist Taliban-style takeover.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

But much of the Congress party’s electoral appeal can be attributed to Singh and his performance as PM. As the AFP reports:

The boom has slowed due to the global financial crisis but growth is still targeted at around six percent this year, which would make India the world’s second fastest expanding economy after China.

The Congress party’s biggest win since 1991 now is seen as giving Singh, 76, a clear hand to press ahead decisively with steps to put India back on a higher growth trajectory to lift millions from extreme poverty.

The expansion of Singh’s electoral mandate will allow him to push forward with bolder reforms, necessary for keeping India’s economy expanding rapidly in a global economy crunched by an intercontinental downturn and grave environmental concerns.

Singh’s steady, pragmatic approach to diplomacy and security may also be key in the coming months. Long-time rival Pakistan is facing down a brutal insurgency led by Taliban militants who seek nothing less than the takeover of the world’s second most populous muslim nation, the establishment of a shari’a-based international power and the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Singh’s efforts to cool cross-border tensions will be welcome in this new age.

The Economic Times reports:

The 76-year old economist turned academic turned politician knows that, despite never having won a Lok Sabha seat, he enjoys considerable goodwill and the confidence that Congress president Sonia Gandhi reposes in him — and this will make his job easier.

With his background in economics and the unique situation of his political rise, Manmohan Singh may be poised to usher in a new era of centrist civics in government and complex economic strategy, designed to stabilize India’s volatile markets in a hotly contested global economy.

Pakistan’s prime minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, yesterday announced the military had been ordered to “eliminate” Taliban militants in the Buner district and the Swat Valley, after the Taliban violated a peace agreement with the Zardari government. The UN estimates over 1 million people have fled their homes to escape the fighting. Pakistan has warned civilians to leave the area, as the Taliban is accused of hiding in densely populated areas to avoid bombardment, and the military plans an all-out offensive.

The news came as Pres. Asif Ali Zardari was in Washington, DC, meeting with Pres. Obama and Afghanistan’s Pres. Hamid Karzai. Sec. of State Clinton also spoke with the leaders, and security, development and the need to scale up efforts to crush the Taliban insurgency were top items on the agenda. Zardari and Karzai seemed to be placing blame mutually for the failure of both states to control the Taliban militants.

The UN high commissioner for refugees has said it is estimated as many as 500,000 people have fled the conflict zone in just the last few days. Reports from both military officials and local residents say the militants are being hit by an air offensive including both fighter jets and helicopter gunships. Civilians have expressed terror at the state of peril in the region, which now appears to be in a state of full-scale war.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

According to ABC News:

Residents from the area say they have been held hostage by a Taliban that has spread and brought their brand of justice with them, whipping women in the streets and beheading security forces who oppose them. Some of the residents are fleeing as far as Karachi, the southern port city, but most cannot afford to go farther than Swabi and Mardan, two districts between Swat and Islamabad where there is no fighting.

Gilani called on the international community to help meet the needs of the internally displaced Pakistanis currently fleeing the conflict zone. The UN is trying to coordinate large-scale refugee camps, and a number of organizations are being mobilized to deliver aid to the region. Some locals have expressed concern that the government still seems to be changing its policy toward the Taliban too regularly, while others see the announcement and the fighting as a sign the government is finally taking decisive action to end the insurgency.

Pakistan’s military is stepping up its offensive against Taliban militia factions in the Northwest Frontier Province. The government has reported daily tallies of dozens of militants killed in fighting in the Buner district. Yesterday, it accused the Taliban of using over 2,000 civilians as “human shields” to prevent a military action against militants. Today, there were reports from the BBC about “helicopter gunships” being used in the assault against militia positions.

The current offensive against the Taliban has been slow and building. Initially, police and military worked together to unseat the Taliban forces taking positions in Buner. They have fallen back, but the government has accused them of holding an entire town hostage and threatening or even attacking civilians in an effort to terrorize the population into cooperation. Tens of thousands of civilians are said to be fleeing the combat zones in Buner and Swat.

The government of Pres. Zardari had made a peace deal with the Taliban, allowing them to establish —and enforce— shari’a law in the Swat Valley. But within weeks, the Taliban had begun moving militia forces into the Buner district, south of Swat and just 100 km from the capital Islamabad. The developments raised fears around the world, and in Pakistan, that the country could be destabilized or even overtaken by a Taliban insurgency.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The international community, with strong leadership from the US, has pressured Zardari to take action to curb the Taliban’s expansion, as fears rose of the potential for a Taliban-led coup and potential seizure of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Giving no specifics, Pres. Obama and top US military officials have said they are confident that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is secure and will not fall into Taliban hands, but as Zardari visits Washington, the US is asking for more specific information about any potential risk to the weapons’ security.

Taliban expansion inside Pakistan has been viewed across the region with alarm by neighboring governments who fear the destabilization of a region that includes India, Iran, and Afghanistan, all bordering Pakistan. It is also feared that the destabilization of Pakistan could result in multi-factional civil war in the troubled Kashmir region, parts of which are claimed by both India and Pakistan, and which has a potent pro-independence movement.

The intensifying clashes between the Pakistani military and Taliban insurgents suggests the potential for a protracted guerrilla-style conflict. Pakistan, the world’s second most populous muslim country, is also facing a severe economic crisis, with much of the population excluded from the economic boom of recent years across the subcontinent. There is real concern that descent into civil war could cause the mass displacement of people, and further economic degradation, or even reverse development.

By some estimates, at least 500,000 people are planning to flee their homes in the Swat Valley, the heart of the conflict zone. Such reports have emerged after an official warning by Pakistan’s military that it will be launching a major offensive to dislodge the Taliban from the region. The information minister for the Northwest Frontier Province urged residents to move out of harm’s way and said the government would establish refugee camps for up to half a million.

The UK’s Telegraph reports, however, that “Clashes between security forces and militants in the north-west of Pakistan’s have already created hundreds of thousands of refugees who have sought sanctuary in badly-supplied camps.” With hundreds of thousands of locals already in such desperate conditions, in need of food and shelter, the potential for a humanitarian crisis seems likely to grow.

US and Pakistani officials have warned against using the term “failed state”, saying that Pakistan is more than equipped to fend off even a Taliban insurgency well funded by the Afghan drug trade and by local corruption. But others are not so sure, and both the US State Dept. and Pres. Zardari himself have expressed concern that the Taliban could pose an existential threat to Pakistan’s existing system of laws and government.

The top US military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said just yesterday he is “gravely concerned” about gains made by the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Barack Obama’s national secrity adviser Gen. James Jones said Pakistan’s struggle against the Taliban is “one of the very most serious problems we face.” Obama will meet with Pres. Zardari in Washington this week, to discuss the escalating crisis.

Pakistan’s government, under pressure from the US and other governments, has stepped up its offensive against Taliban militants in the Buner district. When Taliban forces were said to have withdrawn last week, they also left behind newly recruited local cadres through whom they might seek to expand their reach. According to the AP: “The military said more than 50 Taliban fighters and one member of the security forces died in the offensive launched Tuesday amid U.S. pressure”.

Pakistanis are reported to be split over how to deal with the fundamentalist militia. On the one hand, the Taliban represent the opposite of Pakistan’s secular Islamic political system and a threat to many Pakistanis’ political freedoms and sense of national identity. On the other hand, there is also sympathy for the insurgents, who are determined to oust the US and other forces from Afghanistan. A lack of understanding of what Taliban rule might bring seems to fuel the ambivalence.

There is growing concern the Taliban are a threat to Pakistan’s political integrity and stability. As Nahal Toosi reports, “Even some pro-Taliban religious party leaders criticized recent statements by militants and their sympathizers that democracy and elections are un-Islamic.” Pakistan’s population has fiercely defended its right to democratic elections, last year forcing Gen. Musharraf to resign as president and permit a new round of elections after nearly 10 years of military rule.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated during a rally of tens of thousands of her supporters, not only backing her political campaign, but backing her call for a return to secular democracy. There is some hope among security experts that tribal leaders and even some militant clerics will take recent Taliban expansionism as a sign that Pakistan’s democratic system is under threat, and their interests would be better served by seeing the Taliban fade from the scene.

Indeed, some have speculated that warlordist clerics and some tribal leaders may have been engaged in a (perhaps naïve) attempt to use the Taliban to raise their own national profile, thinking the Taliban would not become a problem in their own right. It is now clear that the government will have to both fight the Taliban militarily and try to co-opt their tribal and clerical backing by making deals with local militia leaders, in hopes of avoiding destabilization or civil war.

A problem exacerbating the tensions is the American airstrikes in areas along the northwestern border with Afghanistan. The US is hunting accused al-Qaeda militants and Afghan Taliban leaders, but Pakistani nationals are dying. Whether they are militants or not, the ripple effect seems to be suspicion of American intentions. According to Toosi’s reporting:

the perception that Pakistanis are needlessly dying in a war for America is so widespread that many people would rather stay silent about the Taliban than appear to back the United States, said Mohammed Hanif, an author and commentator.

This could be a serious problem for Pres. Obama, who has made the stabilization of Afghanistan through aggressive counter-insurgency operations a military priority and a focal point of his foreign policy. Obama sowed controversy in the region when he said last year he would launch strikes inside Pakistan if the Pakistani government were “unable or unwilling” to do so, and since Obama has taken office, strikes by drone aircraft on targets inside Pakistan’s mountainous border region have increased. 

The Obama administration has been severely critical of Pakistan’s giving ground to the Taliban, warning them that the country will not be stabilized by making deals with such an enemy. And Taliban-linked clerics have been broadcasting radio messages across the northwest frontier region, blaming the US for hardships suffered by ordinary Pakistanis, while talking up the need to fix Pakistan’s problems by adopting strict shari’a law.

The expansionism of the Taliban and its supporters in Pakistan is not yet well understood in popular opinion, and the Buner events have begun what could be a national debate on the course Pakistan will take. The government’s capitulation to Taliban wishes in the Swat Valley has been widely seen as a sign of weakness and appeasement, and may have had the inadvertent effect of further destabilizing the government. Both the Taliban and the government’s democratic opposition will be seeking to capitalize on that reality.

With an Afghan-Pakistani hybrid Taliban taking hold of significant areas inside Pakistan, the nuclear-armed nation has become a grave security risk to the rest of the region and the world. After signing a deal with Pakistan’s government to take control of the Swat Valley and impose a brutal distortion of shari’a law, the Taliban almost immediately launched attacks deeper into Pakistan, taking control of parts of the Buner district. 

As the Huffington Post reports:

Police and officials appear to have fled as armed militants also broadcast radio sermons and spread fear in Buner district, just 60 miles from Islamabad, officials and witnesses said Wednesday.

Pakistan’s president signed off on the peace pact last week in hopes of calming Swat, where some two years of clashes between the Taliban and security forces have killed hundreds and displaced up to a third of the one-time tourist haven’s 1.5 million residents.

Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a Lahore University professor, has said the Taliban’s activity in Buner jeopardizes the ceasefire agreement for the Swat Valley, and could lead to wider clashes between government forces and the “non-local” militants. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said this week that Pakistan’s deteriorating security situation, exacerbated by its possession of nuclear weapons, “poses a mortal threat to the security and safety of our country and the world“. 

[ad#cafsen-intext]

According to the Reuters news service:

Under pressure from conservatives, Zardari earlier this month signed a regulation imposing Islamic law in Swat, a northwestern valley once one of Pakistan’s most popular tourist destinations.

Asked about the matter, Clinton bluntly replied: “I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists.”

Maulana Fazlullah, the fundamentalist cleric linked to the rise of the Taliban movement in the Swat Valley, and who broadcasts is messages of religious doctrine , advising the population on the strictures of shari’a and the extreme punishments that can ensue from disobedience, reportedly began broadcasting orders for militia to move into Buner and attack government officials and facilities. 

The AP has reported that significant numbers of militant fighters have taken up positions inside the Buner district and are setting up roadblocks. As local politicians and police flee the area, the government is increasingly unable to prevent a takeover, and will be pressured by the insurgents to again capitulate to Taliban rule, as it did in the Swat Valley. 

A spokesman for the Swat Taliban recently said their regime would give shelter to Osama Bin Laden or any other militants aiming to force the US out of Afghanistan. Pakistan’s government condemned the remarks, but has not announced any concrete measures planned to undermine the Taliban’s spreading influence or prevent such safe harbor from being offered. 

It is now increasingly widely believed that the Zardari government does not have adequate control of the military and intelligence services and that his government may fall. With the opposition, led by PPP arch-rival Nawaz Sharif, jockeying for the ouster of Zardari and the party of his deceased wife, Benazir Bhutto, even as the insurgency claims record numbers of civilian lives and inches toward the capital, the stability of the Pakistani state is considered to be in jeopardy. 

Pakistan has, since its independence from India, fashioned itself as a both a muslim nation and a government of secular laws and civil process. It has been prone to military takeovers, usually justified as an attempt to prevent the spread of extremism or to combat corruption (as was the case with Musharraf’s takeover ten years ago). Its lawyers have persistently and vocally defended the rule of law, even at peril to themselves, and the struggle for Pakistan’s soul (secular or fundamentalist, free or authoritarian) presently hangs in the balance. 

As the issue of Pakistan receives increasing attention from world diplomats, and with the US military openly stating “The activities in the Swat do concern us. We’re keeping an eye on it, and are working daily with the Pakistan military” (in the words of Maj. Gen. Michael Tucker), there must be serious intellectual effort devoted to strategic planning for the long-term isolation and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, for the safety of the Pakistani people and the region. 

This will, however, pose a serious political problem, in that relinquishing effective military control of its most powerful weapons will be seen, by nationalist secular politicians, Taliban insurgents and regional rivals alike, as a sign of the endemic weakness of the Pakistani state. Neither the ruling party, the security establishment nor Pakistan’s western allies can afford such a clear sign of collapse. 

Both Pakistan and the US will likely favor, in the short term, a series of targeted raids, to undermine the reach of the Swat Taliban, and police actions, aimed at criminalizing the insurgents under Pakistani law, thus reinforcing the legitimacy of the state itself. A new wave of combat in the Swat Valley could be in the offing.

After just over two weeks of sporadic fighting in the Buner district of Pakistan, between the Swat Valley —now under shari’a law and run by the Taliban— and the nation’s capital, Taliban fighters have reportedly forced the local government to flee. This leaves them within 100 km of the capital, Islamabad, where the insurgents may seek to claim control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

The government of Pres. Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto and interim head of her Pakistan People’s Party —until her son is old enough to assume control—, recently ceded the Swat Valley to Taliban-linked groups, who have imposed shari’a law, in an effort to prevent the further spread of the insurgency. But the insurgents immediately fanned out from Swat, moving into Buner, where they have reportedly seized control of the local government, looted hospitals, international charities and government offices, and from which they may seek to stage further attacks on government forces.

The Times of India reports:

The continued presence of the Taliban has forced the leaders of the Awami National Party, which rules the North West Frontier Province, to leave the region and the intervention of the tribal peace jirga to make them vacate the area has failed, The News daily reported on Tuesday.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The Taliban from Swat moved into Buner district about two weeks ago. They have occupied a three-storey bungalow owned by a businessman in Sultanwas village and are using it as their headquarters, the newspaper said.

Fateh Muhammad, a Taliban militia commander has been installed as regional political chief, and the Taliban have named Mufti Bashir to act as Qazi, or religious judge who takes the complaints of the people. Militants have reportedly murdered over 130 ANP activists in Swat, along with relatives of the party activists; as the ANP had governed in Buner, many officials have fled their homes, leaving a power vacuum. Some Buner ANP leaders have reportedly renounced their allegiance to the party, while others are calling for a crackdown on militants.

The problem is particularly striking due to the fact that the militia are made up of local and non-local elements, some from Afghanistan, and there is concern the local clerics who seek to overtake the Taliban movement may be naive in their own assumptions about the guerrilla movement. ANP figures have sought to use nationalist sentiment to turn the public against the rise of the Taliban militants, but local clerics have been instrumental in spreading the fundamentalist message.

Women in Swat and in Buner are now being forced to wear the full burqa, not a traditional part of their cultural life prior to the arrival of the Taliban. Caught up in the struggle for these Pakistani territories is the problem of national destabilization and the threat of nuclear proliferation. Pakistan is the only majority muslim country to have built nuclear weapons, and so it is the prize of prizes for the Taliban insurgency, which seeks to spread its radical fundamentalist brand of shari’a law to as many lands as possible.

Recent tensions between Washington and Tehran, specifically relating to the jailing of an American journalist by Iran and Pres. Ahmedinejad’s anti-Israeli tirade at the Geneva anti-racism conference this week, are making real cooperation between the two states less likely, but Iran had pledged its help to the US-led forces in Afghanistan in combatting the spread of the drug trade there. And Iran has a direct interest in Pakistan’s stability.

Nevertheless, there is the possibility that some low-level talks may occur between Washington and Tehran to negotiate an agreed policy for combatting the Taliban, to avoid any opposition from Iran if the US takes military action to combat the threat. Pakistan’s government has been increasingly willing to admit weakness in calling for recognition, both by the Pakistani people and the international community of the grave threat posed to the nation’s political integrity —and by extension the region’s stability— by this insurgency.

A new Personal Status Law designed to govern family relations in the Afghan Shi’a community is being widely assailed as subjecting married women to sexual slavery at the hands of their husbands. The law specifies that married men have a right to sexual activity with their wives at least once every four days and that women may not leave their homes on any occasion without the explicit permission of their husbands.

The AFP has reported:

A copy of the draft bill, seen by AFP, said: “It is the responsibility of the wife to prepare for sexual satisfaction of her husband and not leave the house without permission, unless there is the need or difficulty.”

Critics interpreted this as making it illegal for a woman to refuse her husband sex and only in an emergency leave the house without permission.

Hamid Karzai, who signed the law, says his government will review its provisions, and Canada has said it expects the law will be changed. Canadian government ministers have said they expect Afghanistan will not implement any of the provisions of the law that might permit martial rape or would violate international laws prohibiting the mistreatment of women.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Clearly a violation of international legal obligations to eliminate mistreatment of women and certainly to use the powers of the state to prevent rape, not to enable or condone it, the law has led to a global outcry against the government of embattled pres. Hamid Karzai. Karzai has been seen as being increasingly weak, both against the Taliban and in terms of his commitment to real democratization of the central Asian country.

The law’s apparently radical departure from anything resembling basic morality in the treatment of one’s spouse, with no clear foundation of any kind in religious scripture, doctrine or even modern radical preaching, appears to indicate an extreme weakness of the Karzai government in the face of an escalating insurgency. It could be part of a dubious strategy to reduce the attractions of insurgency by coddling potentially violent members of Afghan society.

Whether it is a calculation that such a law could have the effect of distracting troubled individuals or communities from the insurgency, or whether owing to a willingness to do the bidding of morally and intellectually bankrupt fundamentalists, the law has the potential to turn married women into sex slaves. Such an eventuality could further destabilize civil society and set back the goal of stable civic participation by generations.

Karzai himself has further damaged his legitimacy as head of state by defending the law. As the Washington Post reports:

Karzai defended the law at a news conference Saturday, saying he had seen nothing in it that justified international concerns and suggesting that Western critics had misinterpreted the contents. However, he said he would have his justice minister review the law “very carefully” to make sure it does not contradict the Afghan constitution.

“I have studied the law. . . . What I saw did not reflect what has been said in the Western media,” Karzai told reporters in his palace. Reading from one section, he said, “a woman may leave home for legitimate purposes . . . it does not say she is not allowed to go out.”

The clear meaning of the law is that women are only to go out with their husband’s approval. This is an absolute deprivation of their sovereignty as individual members of society, which is underscored in the law’s mandating that they “prepare for” the obligation to regularly satisfy their husbands’ sexual urges, at least once every four days.

Karzai says he will “review” the law to make sure it does not “contradict” the Afghan constitution, but the law has already established the extreme delegitimacy of his government, making it comparable in its treatment of women to the laws of the Taliban regime. Under Karzai’s weak leadership of a government pervaded by corruption at all levels, women have been forced back into burqas, off of the streets, out of schools and away from any public life.

One of the most fundamental problems in Afghanistan’s flirtation with democracy has been the persistence of the authoritarian structures —chronic warlordism, violent sectarianism and extreme violence against women by radical groups— that have relegated the nation to a state of chronic ungovernment. Karzai’s Personal Status Law officially institutes the right of men to exercise radical authoritarian power over their closest human companions, making the law a sweeping renunciation of everything democratic civil society is supposed to honor.

In a gesture of cooperation toward the United States, and in answer to a call for regional assistance, Iran has offered its help in combating the spreading drug trade in Afghanistan. The offer has not been formalized by a diplomatic meeting or by policy-specific talks, but may be a signal that some negotiations could be begun between the two states. The US government insists that Iran halt any activities that could be part of a weaponization program for nuclear materials.

Iran has been defiant about its “right” to pursue and to use nuclear technology, but also has consistently said its efforts are intended only to produce a civilian nuclear energy infrastructure. The two issues of proliferation and of Iran’s alleged support for groups the US government says are terrorist organizations or which are fighting for the destruction of the state of Israel, have been obstacles to any US government entering into dialogue with Tehran.

The Iranian government recently said they were hopeful but had seen no substantive change in policy, as Obama has not even proposed lifting the sanctions against Iran. Some skeptics have said they believe Iran may be seeking to soften American perceptions of the regime and of its nuclear program, in order to distract attention while it accelerates its development of nuclear weapons. But assistance in Afghanistan could mean serious security gains for the US, which would be a starting point for better relations.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

According to Reuters:

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh told an international meeting on Afghanistan in The Hague that Tehran was ready to help both in fighting the country’s huge opium trade and in reconstruction of the impoverished state.

Clinton, in The Hague to seek broad support for a revamped strategy unveiled by President Barack Obama to tackle Islamist militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, welcomed the gesture by Tehran that will be closely watched for any follow-up.

The Afghan drug trade finances the chronic instability that has wrought the landlocked central Asian nation famed for being unconquerable and for baffling powerful empires like the British Empire and the Soviet Union. That chronic instability is the condition which makes it possible for warlords and tribal factions to control most of what could be called Afghan politics, especially outside the capital Kabul.

Warlordism is the chief reason for the rise of the Taliban, both in its initial seizure of power, in the years before the attacks of 11 September 2001, and again in the present environment, where the US is fighting to support a friendly government and uproot extremism. The Taliban insurgency has been spreading and increasing in ferocity, so much that the government of Pakistan is now openly worrying about its rise there, and the US has begun to express its support for Afghan pres. Karzai’s efforts to achieve “conciliation” with non-violent members of the Taliban.

For the moment, US secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made no indication of any plans for direct high-level talks on this or other issues, but seems to acknowledge that a more conciliatory tone could be the beginning of a change in direction. Pres. Obama himself has said there is no need to lift sanctions before negotiations, as well as that he does not believe in setting “preconditions” for talks, but he has also repeatedly said that action to abide by Security Council resolutions would be a sign that negotiations might be possible.

Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary, the former chief justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, who was dismissed by extraconstitutional means by then Pres. Pervez Musharraf, during the general’s desperate efforts to retain power in late 2007, will be reinstated by Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s current president.

A movement of lawyers protesting the authoritarian measures used by Musharraf and demanding Chaudhary’s reinstatement organized mass demonstrations in late 2007. Musharraf’s crackdown, which included the detention of many activists and lawyers, led to a wave of unrest across the country.

The new president’s decision was reportedly mae after a midnight meeting on Sunday night with the nation’s military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, and the prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani. Zardari is facing his own opposition uprising, as opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, formerly subject to house arrest, led massive demonstrations in Lahore, Pakistan’s second largest city.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Reports indicate there was “widespread violence” in Lahore, as anger over the prolonged wait in returning Chaudhary to his post inspired the opposition to mount a challenge to the legitimacy of the current government. When protesters planned a massive demonstration for Monday in Islamabad, the government was forced to act, and has reportedly come to this decision in order to maintain peace and security across Pakistan.

Rank and file soldiers in the Bangladeshi military has staged a nationwide insurrection. The mutineers seized control of 12 military bases across the nation, as officers and military commanders were unable to halt the mutiny. The nation’s new prime minister warned the mutineers they faced stiff punishment if they continued their violent insurrection and ordered heavy artillery and armored divisions to move against them.

The mutineers did lay down their arms, after 18 members of the government, including ministers of parliament, went to meet with the leaders of the uprising, putting their own lives at risk. The official death toll stands at 11, with reports of up to 50 civilians and military personnel believed dead. Corruption is thought to have been the cause that spurred the rebels to outrage sufficient for mutiny.

The mutineers were from the paramilitary border guard units knows as the Rifles. Corruption in Bangladesh is rampant, and the impoverished nation of 144 million is listed 147th out of 180 nations on the corruption index kept by Transparency International, a watchdog group. The Rifles have experienced problems with pay and equipment for years, reportedly due to corruption.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Among the Rifles mutineers’ demands was the right to participate in UN peacekeeping operations, which reportedly pay significantly more than regular operations. According to the LA Times:

The stand down and release of dozens of hostages followed a warning today by Prime Minister Sheik Hasina that the paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles must return to the barracks and surrender their weapons or face unspecified consequences.

“Do not force me to take tough actions or push my patience beyond tolerable limits,” she said in a national broadcast, in a bid to prevent her 2-month-old government from imploding.

Some had feared the mutiny could spread to the regular military or represent the beginnings of a politically motivated coup d’état, and that PM Hasina’s government could be in jeopardy if the rebellion was not swiftly put down. One member of the paramilitary guard told the press “We were tortured and deprived by the army officers”.

Resolving the fallout from the uprising will be one of PM Hasina’s toughest tasks in coming weeks. There will be angry calls for punishment of the insurgents, but there will likely also be angry calls for tough action to combat corruption, perceived to be pervasive in politics and public life. Balancing her own politics with the need to address these competing concerns, which could turn the mutineers into heros or enemies of the state, will be most urgent.

The New York Times has published an article detailing the intense discrimination still experienced by ‘buraku’, members of Japanese society who suffer discrimination due to feudal dictates that reduce them to inferior social status, due to ancestry. The most prominent ‘buraku’ is Hiromu Nonaka, who rose to the 2nd most powerful post in Japan’s government.

His advancement to candidate for PM was blocked, however, by his own party leader, the current PM Taro Aso, who is reported to have said in a 2001 party meeting: “Are we really going to let those people take over the leadership of Japan?”

The buraku, a service-class reduce to feudal slavery, were officially liberated in 1871, just a few years after the 13th Amendment to the Constitution officially granted slaves in the US their freedom. In 1969, again a few years after civil rights rulings and legislation in the US, new affirmative action laws were put into effect. But Aso’s comment reveals a still shameful degree of discrimination, and real obstacles, even to the most successful.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

The legacy of feudal discrimination in Japan is still a “taboo”, according to the Times reporting by Norimitsu Onishi. The country is said to cling to its past, and also to avoid wrestling openly with the shameful treatment of a significant minority of its citizens. The struggle to reach true modernity, in this sense, is integral to Japanese life, but the last, most significant hurdle, the entrenched historic custom, still remains, despite 4 decades of affirmative action.

Comparisons to the election of Barack Obama in the United States have been made. Many around the world longed for his election, not only because of who he is and what he stands for, not only because of his broad humanitarian appeal, but also because of what it would say about the possibilities for democracy, that America was “mature enough”, or “evolved enough” to commit to choosing more for character and substance than for skin-color and ethnicity.

Many hoped to see that one of the world’s great nations, in terms of historic significance and the reach of its political and cultural power across the globe, could demonstrate that deeper motivations than fear could drive its political choices. Many have said the mere fact would have a ripple effect across the world, and Japan has now had to face its own frustrating history, as its PM is revealed to be harboring an opposition to that kind of progress, that level of real democratic process.

Doctors without Borders (Medecins sans Frontieres/MSF) says the medical situation in Gaza is becoming dire. Some groups have been able to bring medical supplies into Gaza since the airstrikes began, but distribution has become nearly impossible since the ground invasion, and doctors worry that hospitals will be unable to meet the needs of wounded civilians or the normal population of patients.

MSF has also told the BBC that the wounded or ill are virtually unable to move through the streets to get to hospital, due to the ground action of Israeli forces and the fear that is gripping the population due to the high number of civilian casualties. Reuters is reporting that “Air raids had damaged hospitals, water supply systems, government buildings and mosques but it was difficult for ICRC staff to move around to assist”.

With over 530 Palestinians killed in the last 9 days of violence, some 25% or more of them civilians —and estimates of upward of 2,400 wounded—, the need for health or aid workers to deal with the dead, help the wounded and prevent the spread of disease or hunger and water-related health problems is increasingly severe.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Forced to rely on generators to keep operating,

Hospitals were inundated with Palestinian wounded, the ICRC said. Fresh supplies were urgently needed, including painkillers and anaesthetics but also body bags and sheets to wrap corpses.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) yesterday said it had been trying to get an emergency medical team into Gaza since Friday, but had been barred from entering. According to China’s Xinhua news agency:

According to the ICRC, its team consists of four medics and specialists led by an experienced ICRC war surgeon, who are seeking to enter Gaza to help the medical staff of Shifa Hospital there to conduct complex operations for people injured by the bombing.

“It is absolutely essential that this team get into Gaza now, as they are mostly needed now,” said Pierre Wettach, head of the ICRC delegation in Israel and the occupied territories.

At a meeting of UN regional officials in Amman, Jordan’s Queen Rania made a public appeal today for humanitarian action in Gaza, and for recognition by both sides for the need to implement a ceasefire that will allow innocents —men, women and especially children— to get the aid they need.

On 30 December 2008, Queen Rania donated blood to help Palestinians wounded by the aerial bombardment, saying “they don’t need to be felt sorry for, they need us to act and help, and I know that we can do more”. The Jordanian Queen, who is also a UNESCO activist, questioned whether children in Palestine were given the same rights as children elsewhere in the world.

Aid agencies, including the ICRC, say that food and water are in desperately short supply in Gaza. As much as 80% of the population of Gaza was dependent on food aid before the aerial bombardment began 9 days ago, and humanitarian supplies into the area have been hampered or halted, with distribution within the territory virtually nonexistent.

The majority of Gazans are also reported to have no access to drinking water, and 70% of Gaza’s electricity supply has been cut off. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humantarian Affairs, in Geneva, reports that:

“The water and sewage system in Gaza is collapsing, cutting people off from the water supply and causing sewage to flood the streets,” said Maher al-Najjar, deputy director of Gaza’s water utility (CMWU). He also said 48 of Gaza’s 130 wells were not working at all due to lack of electricity and damage to pipes. “At least 45 other wells are operating only partially and will shut down within days without additional supplies of fuel and electricity,” al-Najjar said.

With civilians cut off from water supplies, the potential for severe dehydration, potentially on a mass scale, or violence related to shortages, is concerning. Major risks include the consumption of unsafe water, which could lead to the outbreak of water-born pathogens, and civilians taking to the streets in search of water and/or food for their families, putting them at risk in the midst of the military conflict.

Pakistan’s defense minister, Ahmed Mukhtar, has said there will be no nuclear conflict with India, in the event that armed conflict breaks out over last month’s Mumbai terrorist seige. Indian authorities and other intelligence agencies have alleged that Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant group outlawed by Pakistan, had launched the attack from Pakistani soil, and pressure is on both governments to reach an agreement for peaceful political cooperation to eliminate the threat of another attack and find those responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 people in Mumbai.

While Sonia Gandhi, leader of India’s Congress party, has said India is capable of striking at terrorists operating out of neighboring countries, she has also said India actively seeks and would like to maintain peaceful relations with its neighbors:

We have always tried to maintain brotherly relationship with our neighbouring countries. The sad part is that our emotions have never been respected. I want to make one thing very clear that our wish or having peace and harmony should not be misunderstood as our weakness. People who are continuously encouraging terrorism from their soil, we want to tell them that we are competent of giving a befitting reply to them.

She has warned that India will not tolerate the abetting of terror groups intent on causing harm to Indian civilians, and that military action could follow if nothing is done to combat groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. In this light, the Pakistan defense minister’s remarks were comforting, but there was a note of antagonism in Mukhtar’s diplomatic phrasing: he also has said that India would not enter into armed conflict with Pakistan, due to fears that tensions could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

He has also said that Pakistan is ready to use all means at its disposal to defend itself, if India were to take military action. So while he has said there will be no nuclear conflict, to some degree, he appears to be putting the burden of avoiding it on India. A clear return to the principle of “mutually-assured destruction” is possible with India and Pakistan, whose latent new cold war has been made hot by the Mumbai seige and ensuing threats and innuendo.

It remains to be seen what Sonia Gandhi’s “fitting reply” will be, if one is seen to be necessary. At an election rally in Jammu-and-Kashmir, she reiterated her warning to Pakistan. Pakistani officials have downplayed the threats as an “election stunt” and say they are working to rein in Lashkar-e-Taiba and combat terrorism.

Indeed, Pakistan is virtually under siege itself from militant terrorist groups, seeking to overthrow the government or win independence for specific regions, in which they hope to set-up radical fundamentalist regimes. In September, one of Islamabad’s most renowned hotels was the scene of a massive truck bomb explosion that killed over 40 people. It is combatting rogue tribal leaders on the northwestern border, the spread of Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgency in Pashtun areas, now the threat of Indian action for Mumbai, and the need to take on Lashkar-e-Taiba in the south and what is thought to be its base of operations in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.

The lone surviving attacker from the Mumbai plot has allegedly claimed he was lured into Lashkar-e-Taiba with the promise of sex in Heaven should he die in Jihad. A letter given by Indian authorities to Pakistani authorities, reported to have been written by that lone surviving attacker, says his handlers were “from Pakistan”, and some reports allege there may have been rogue operatives in the Pakistani military involved, though there is no confirmation of this, and Pakistan denies any involvement.

According to India’s Economic Times:

Rejecting war as a response to the Mumbai mayhem, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday asked Pakistan to take “objective” steps to “dismantle the terror machine” and exhorted the international community to persuade Islamabad to comply with the UN resolutions against terrorism.

Singh artfully placed the burden of responsibility for Pakistan’s government in its ability to comply with UN resolutions requiring action to stamp out terrorist activity. Should Pakistan not comply, the “international community” would be called on to pressure Pakistan to take action. The United States’ top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen, is urging “more productive ties” between the rival nations, to enhance security and establish peace.

The United States is a key ally to both India and Pakistan, and has consistently worked to prevent conflict between the two nations. Added pressure from the US —which is now conducting more raids in the ungoverned tribal territories along Pakistan’s Afghan border— could help reduce the likelihood of armed conflict between the two nuclear-armed states. President-elect Barack Obama is expected to increase pressure on Pakistan to act to curb militant activity on Pakistani soil and cooperate with India’s prosecution of those responsible for the Mumbai siege.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court has stripped the sitting prime minister, Somchai Wongsawat, of his office, disbanded his party —along with two others—, and banned him from politics for 5 years, for election fraud. Masses of demonstrators for the conservative, anti-government group People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), who have seized control of the prime minister’s offices and two major airports, in an effort to depose him, were reported to be celebrating the verdict.

Chat Chalavorn, president of the Constitutional Court described the dissolution of the parties as an attempt “to set a political standard and an example”. The ruling found three of the 6 parties in the governing coalition —the People’s Power party of PM Somchai, Machima Thipatai party and Chart Thai— guilty of election fraud and admonished them, saying “Dishonest political parties undermine Thailand’s democratic system”.

Nattawut Sai-kau, spokesman for the governing coalition, said Somchai and the ruling 6-party coalition would relinquish power and “abide by the law.” Reports suggest that supporters of the prime minister cut power to the Court building as a protest against the ruling, and some now fear Thailand may enter a period of grave political instability, with no elected government in place and the risk that demonstrators may not accept Somchai’s remaining in power as interim PM, even after resigning.

[ad#cafsen-intext]

According to the Guardian:

The ruling sends Somchai and dozens of party executives into political exile, barring them from the country’s politics for five years.

But other members of the three parties that escaped the ban can join other parties, form a new coalition and choose a new prime minister. It is expected that Somchai will remain the caretaker prime minister until then.

The next phase in the evolving political drama in Thailand will be to orchestrate a peaceful transition to a new governing coalition. Demonstrators have said they will leave the airports, where the presence of thousands of anti-government PAD protesters has shut down air travel to and from the capital, by Wednesday, but it is not clear what actions PAD or other anti-government factions may take if Somchai tries to stall the transition to a new governing coalition.

For days, news reports heralded the end of the Mumbai siege, though it continued, with fierce gunbattles and intermittent explosions, amid a raging inferno, at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. There was death and destruction at no less than 9 separate locations in what some headlines termed “the battle for Mumbai”. Diplomatic tensions were high throughout, as foreign governments sought to ensure the safety of their citizens. The dead were of many distinct nationalities, including highly publicized French, American and Israeli victims.

Israel offered elite commando assistance to rescue hostages at a Jewish outreach center, where ultimately 5 Israelis were killed. Pakistan has been vocally and repeatedly accused by Indian authorities as somehow involved, with the suggestion being made overtly that the government of Pakistan tolerates militant groups known to be planning such massacres. Pakistan denies the charges, and says it will cooperate fully to stamp out violent radicalism and the US is reportedly contemplating sending a special envoy to tamp down tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

At least two top security officials —Home Minister Shivraj Patil and national security adviser MK Narayanan— have resigned, as a result of the attacks, amid criticism the government did not adequately respond to warnings about potential terrorist plots. CafeSentido reported earlier today that:

US intelligence officials warned Indian authorities that hotels in Mumbai and possibly Delhi could come under attack. Local security officials in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh also reportedly warned Indian officials that hotels in Mumbai could come under attack [with other reports suggesting] an intelligence warning was given to Indian authorities that they should be prepared sometime this fall for “an attack from the sea”…

[ad#cafsen-intext]

Indian tycoon Ratan Tata —chairman of the Tata Group and owner of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel— said on Fareed Zakaria’s Global Public Square (CNN) that he fully intends to restore or rebuild the Taj to its former glory, to show that “We will not be defeated”. The hotel was severely burned out, with images showing only charred remains of the lavish landmark. Yesterday, one witness told the BBC that the carnage was unbearable to observe, with dead bodies “totally roasted” by the inferno.

The attacks are a severe moment of reckoning for India, as it will now have to grapple, more than ever, with the question of how to build and stimulate civil society, in the world’s largest open democracy, while actively working to clamp down on militant groups and perhaps, as has been suggested in this case, highly-trained sleeper-cell organizations, preparing for future operations. The situation also poses a serious test to India’s political integrity: will it be able to get the cooperation it needs from Pakistan’s government and avoid an escalation in tensions with its old foe?

One disturbing analysis, by Richard Miller, suggests that fourth generation warfare (4GW) —the sporadic ongoing struggle against violent international “networks” of militants— may be reaching a phase of aiming for “soft targets”. This could pose a serious threat to the viability of Indian democracy, in that the nation of more than 1.1 billion inhabitants is rife with densely populated sites where the comprehensive “hardening” of locations, in security terminology, would be nearly impossible.

The Washington Post reports:

Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said his government was not involved. “If they have evidence, they should share it with us. Our hands are clean,” he said at a news conference in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. “We have nothing to be ashamed of.”

Pakistan warned that it would redeploy troops involved in the terrorism fight on its border with Afghanistan to its frontier with India in response to any Indian troop movements.

The most haunting speculation comes from analysts who intuit a link between radical Islamist groups, possibly based across the border in Pakistan, whose aim might be to provoke a bloody war between the two hugely populous nations, in order to destabilize one or both political systems. Pakistan is engaged in an increasingly intense struggle to suppress violent fundamentalism within its borders, and the two enemy states may now find themselves looking at the need to establish serious, viable, open and long-running cooperative institutions that will allow them to reduce this threat for their mutual benefit.

With estimates of the death toll running from 173 to 195, and some reports suggesting there are more victims yet to be located or identified, the security mess, including political fallout and an impassioned diplomatic back-and-forth, could also be an opportunity to bring to light many of the mechanisms by which the two rival states could establish a cooperative framework for peace and security.