RAWALPINDI: Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Wednesday left here for China on a five-day official visit.

According to ISPR, the Army chief will call on the political and military leadership of China during the visit.

Kayani is scheduled to meet with top officials of the Chinese defence ministry and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to discuss issues related to security and defence.

Part 1 – Many Barrels of a Gun

South Asia is often described as the most dangerous place on earth and the most promising emerging market – both in the same breath. The year 2011 illustrated in ample measure the implausible irony.

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was described as the biggest international news of the year 2011

The biggest international story of the year, according to The Associated Press’ annual poll of U.S. editors and news directors, was the killing of Osama Bin Laden in his hideout in Pakistan on May 2.

Coming close on the heels of a serious diplomatic row between the US and Pakistan over the issue of Raymond Davis, an alleged CIA operative, killing three men in the busy streets of Pakistan’s second biggest city Lahore in late January, Pakistan brought frequent – and hugely unwelcome – spotlight to the South Asian region during the year.

The year of turmoil, which was preceded by the country losing hosting rights of many sporting events including South Asia’s biggest sporting event, the ICC Cricket World Cup, ended with one of the most public spats in recent history between the democratically elected government and the omnipotent Pakistan military.

In a spat that could spell serious trouble for the fragile democracy of the nation, President Asif Ali Zardari is alleged to have sought US assistance to quell a possible military coup in the aftermath of Osama’s killing. Called the ‘Memogate Scandal’, for the unsigned memo – allegedly crafted by former ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani – that was used to convey the Pakistani request to the US administration, the matter has taken the scalp of Haqqani and dragged both Zardari and chiefs of military and Pakistan’s secret service agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to nation’s supreme court.

Conflicts like these have in the past acted as the precursor to military rule in the country, which the nuclear-armed nation has been under for more than half the period of its independence from British rule in 1947. Though the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, decisively denied on December 22 the possibility of any extra-constitutional measure against the democratic system, a cursory glance at the nation’s volatile history informs that the military usually manages to have its way.

Unfortunately, Pakistan was not the only South Asian nation where dead bodies talked the most during the year. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal grappled with the aftermath of armed conflicts of recent history, even as India played host to a fleeting visit by terror in 2011.

A tribunal, headed by Nizamul Haque Nasim and known as ‘International Crimes Tribunal’, was formed in March 2010 in Bangladesh to hold trial of those accused of their involvement in ‘crimes against humanity’, including genocide, murder and rape during the nine-month ‘Liberation War’ – the period between declaration of Bangladesh’s independence from Pakistan in March 1971 and attaining freedom with India’s military help against Pakistan in December 1971. Many unofficial accounts put the figure of dead people at three million and those of women raped at 200,000. Hundreds of thousands of other, the then, East Pakistanis ended up as refugees in India.

Following up on the formation of the tribunal, the nation took its first step towards addressing that dark chapter of its young history when the police arrested three top Jamaat-e-Islami leaders in June 2010, two of which were cabinet ministers in the 2001-06 Bangladesh National Party (BNP) administration of the present opposition leader and then prime minister of Bangladesh, Begum Khalida Zia.

Khaleda Zia, in a statement to press, said that the tribunal is “nothing but a servile, rubber-stamp organisation” out to victimise the government’s political opponents.

The tribunal began its first trial in October this year when it charged Delwar Hossain Sayedee, a top authority of Jamaat-e-Islami and allegedly one of the leaders of a pro-Pakistan mercenary group, with involvement in the killing of more than 50 people, torching villages and forcibly converting Hindus to Islam.

Sayedee, who denies the charges, could be given the death penalty if found guilty.

International observers have cautiously welcomed the trials. With neutral researchers noting that about 1800 people collaborated with the Pakistani army in committing the ‘war crimes’, many more arrests in the case are expected.

In another case involving war in the SAARC region, to the south-west of Bangladesh, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) of Sri Lanka submitted its final report to the government on November 20. Established by President Mahinda Rajapaksa in May 2010 to look into alleged war crimes committed during the final days of the 26-year-old civil war in Sri Lanka that ended with the defeat of the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) at the hands of the Sri Lankan army in May 2009, the LLRC – expectedly – exonerated the Sri Lankan government of any wrong doings between 21 February 2002 to 19 May 2009.

The commission is not recognised by most of the international rights groups because of its failure to satisfy the fairness and transparency criteria. But the Sri Lankan government, which has steadfastly resisted vociferous global support for external accountability mechanisms such as the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Expert, said that the LLRC report is impartial and objective, and would be presented verbatim at the next session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in March 2012.

Up north in the Himalayas, the erstwhile monarchy and the presently constitution-less fledgling democracy of Nepal struggled, for another year, to draft a new constitution and pave the way for a stable democracy.

On November 28, members of parliament extended the Nepalese parliament’s term for a fourth and final time to allow the drafting of a new constitution that adheres to a peace accord brokered between political parties and the Maoist rebels, after the civil war ended in 2006.

Formed in 2008 after Nepal relinquished its monarchy, the current 601-member parliament, or Constituent Assembly (CA), was given an initial two-year mandate to write a new constitution for the young republic.

But three years since, the CA has not been able to produce even a first, consolidated draft. The previous three extensions of the assembly – first for a year and then two of three months each – failed to resolve differences between the various political parties on issues like federalism, presidential or prime ministerial formats and election procedures.

But the nation made some progress in what it called the ‘regrouping process’, entailing the re-integration of the cadre of Nepal’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the mainstream Nepalese society. PLA was the military wing of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) when the party was at civil conflict with the Nepalese monarchy.

19,500 PLA combatants who were living in a total of seven cantonments in different parts of the country after the commencement of the peace process in 2006 began appearing before a committee on November 18 to register their choice of either joining the Nepal army or taking a voluntary retirement.

The process is seen is one of the only successes of Nepalese democracy since the abolition of constitutional monarchy in 2006.

India, the SAARC nation that has the biggest stake in the Nepalese peace process, meanwhile continued to answer its own geo-political needs – supporting the Maoists in Nepal, while going after the group in India and gunning down one of its biggest leaders, Kishenji.

Indian analysts, however, point out that there is no contradiction in the approach, as while the Nepali Maoist are now firmly in the Himalayan nation’s mainstream polity, the Indian rebels are still caught in the time warp of trying to overthrow the government to establish their own ideological republic – through the barrel of a gun.

The South Asian giant, however, faced none of the security-related anxiety of the other SAARC nations mentioned in this year-end wrap; barring a jolting bomb blast outside a court premises in New Delhi. But it was kept on the tenterhooks by another kind of challenge – that of popular anger.

End of Part 1

An image released by Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Nov. 30 shows smoke rising apparently after a cross-border NATO air strike on Pakistani border posts on a mountain in the Mohmand tribal district on Nov. 26, 2011.

Amid rising anger, Pakistan’s military has released a set of images which it says show the remote border posts attacked by NATO helicopters and fighter jets on Saturday in an incident that has soured relations between Pakistan and the United States.

Faisal Mahmood / Reuters

Young supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami, a religious and political party, yell anti-American slogans while protesting in Islamabad against a NATO cross-border attack along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Nov. 27. Pakistan buried 24 troops killed in a NATO cross-border air attack that has pushed a crisis in relations between the United States and an ally it needs to fight militancy towards rupture.

The word “shaheed,” or martyr is written on the caskets of soldiers killed in a cross-border attack along the Pakistan-Afghan border, as their bodies are being carried for funeral prayers in Peshawar, Nov. 27.

 

Khuram Parvez / Reuters

A roadsign shows the distance to cities in Afghanistan and trucks parked along the roadside after traffic was halted at the Pakistani border town Torkham, Nov. 27. Pakistan blocked vital supply routes for U.S.-led troops in Afghanistan and demanded Washington vacate a base used by American drones after coalition aircraft allegedly killed 24 Pakistani troops.

Athar Hussain / Reuters

A Shi’ite cleric speaks to protesters after clashes between two religious sects of Islam in Karachi Nov. 27. Two people were killed and two others wounded in an exchange of fire between militants from majority Sunni and minority Shi’ite communities in the southern city of Karachi. Angry mobs set fire to several cars and motorcycles.

Athar Hussain / Reuters

Drivers, some of whom were carrying fuel for NATO forces in Afghanistan, sleep on top of their trucks at a fuel terminal in Karachi Nov. 26.

Faisal Mahmood / Reuters

Pakistani Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani, left, speaks beside Chinese General Hou Shusen, the deputy chief of general staff of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), during a news conference after joint military exercises in Jhelum, in Pakistan’s Punjab province, Nov. 24.

B.k.bangash / AP

Pakistan’s former Information Minister Sherry Rehman talks to reporters in Islamabad, Nov. 23. Pakistan appointed democracy activist Sherry Rehman, who has faced militant death threats, as its new ambassador to the United States, moving quickly to replace the old envoy who resigned after upsetting the country’s powerful military in a scandal dubbed “memo-gate.”

Arshad Arbab / EPA

Local residents look at the debris of a girls school after it was bombed by alleged Taliban militants on the outskirts of Peshawar. Nov. 13. Hundreds of educational institutions including dozens of girls schools have been bombed by the Taliban militants in past months in country’s militancy-hit north-west region.

B.k.bangash / AP

Pakistani children takes ride during at a local park during the last day of the religious festival Eid-al- Adha in Islamabad, Nov. 9.

Months after South Sudan emerged as the world’s newest country, celebrations have died down and the government in Juba must address the numerous challenges that face the fledgling nation. Apart from addressing unresolved issues with the north and the many domestic challenges, the key to South Sudan’s progress will be maintaining good governance. Much of this will depend on President Salva Kiir and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement’s (SPLM) abilities to address the needs of the South Sudanese, but also to allow the people’s voices to be heard.

The management of South Sudan’s political dynamics will be a vital indicator in measuring the country’s democratic progress. The SPLM, once Sudan’s political opposition movement with a military branch known as the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), fought against the government in Khartoum for more than two decades. The SPLM is now the ruling party of South Sudan.

The SPLM enjoys broad support throughout the country. According to a September poll conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI), 91 percent of people who belong to a political party belong to the SPLM. Furthermore, 84 percent of respondents view the SPLM either “very favorably” or “favorably.” Such support is not surprising. South Sudanese view the SPLM/A as their liberators in the long struggle against the north, and according to some experts, it is considered treasonous to speak ill of the SPLM.

While the majority of respondents expressed favorability for the SPLM, their views regarding the necessity of political parties were less definitive. Thirty-eight percent of voters agreed with the statement that political parties create division and confusion and are unnecessary in South Sudan. This is compared to a small majority (53 percent) of respondents who believe political parties are needed to make sure the South Sudanese have a say in who governs them.

While the poll does not reveal the reasoning for this division, it’s clear that the South Sudanese majority is content with the SPLM and is divided on the necessity of political parties. Confident with broad public support, the SPLM-led government has made few efforts to encourage the organization of political parties. South Sudan’s administrative system of governance has remained unchanged since liberation, and the SPLM dominates cabinet positions and nongovernmental institutions across the country. The political parties that do exist are not well known, and some have failed to transition from a revolutionary platform to one that works within the democratic process. While South Sudan’s interim constitution includes political parties in the governing process, critics warn that the constitution is skewed to favor the SPLM and preserve its hold on power.

The United States, a lead mediator during the creation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, is a major investor in South Sudan’s government. Since 2005, the U.S. has spent $10 billion for humanitarian relief in support of the peace process and U.N. peacekeeping operations. In an interview with Voice of America, Susan Page, Washington’s first ambassador to South Sudan, emphasized the need for South Sudan to create “a democratic space to allow other political parties to openly express their views.” A major component of this will be enshrining the rights of political parties in the new constitution. The United States must urge South Sudan’s government to encourage a vibrant civil society via political activity. Having an engaged and active electorate puts pressure on the government to respond to the country’s needs. American NGOs such as IRI, which have had success in assisting political party growth in Africa (e.g. Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change), can facilitate this.

A crucial element of democracy is leaders’ acceptance of defeat when they have lost the confidence of the people. Too often in Africa, rebel groups have been successful in overthrowing autocracies, only to fall into the same pattern as their predecessors. Having amassed significant goodwill from the international community, South Sudan has the potential to be a success story. This opportunity must not be wasted.

Fukushima Reactor — March 2011, BBC

With the arrival of December, it’s time to check the rear-view mirror to see where we have been in order to have some clue as to where we are going. In the energy realm, 2011 was the Year of the Three Fs: Fukushima, Fracking and Finance.

Japan is used to earthquakes, and the odd tsunami leaves the people there down but never out. When these events caused the back-up generators at the Fukushima nuclear power plant to fail, the result was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl – and by some measures, it was worse.

The disaster has returned to the energy debate a very important fact: nuclear accidents are extremely rare, but they are also extremely costly when they do occur. Reuters has cited a Nikkei report putting the cost at around $257 billion. This is almost certainly not the right number as it is still quite early days, but the order of magnitude is probably on target. By way of comparison, it’s in the same ballpark as the amount in the European Financial Stabilization Facility, three times what China spends on the People’s Liberation Army every year, or the entire debt servicing costs of the US national debt for 2010.

Some countries have decided to give up on nuclear power, notably Germany. Others have put their plans into mothballs until the political situation cools off, e.g., China. There is no getting away from nuclear power, though. There are over 400 operating plants in the world right now, and we are not about to turn them all off. A great many are coming to the end of their planned lifetime – America’s were built to last about 40 years. The Nuclear Energy Institute observes that America’s newest plant, Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, was built in 1996, and the oldest is in Oyster Creek, New Jersey, with an operating license dating from 1969. It takes years to build a new plant, and most countries that use nuclear power need to start planning new plants or replacement technologies – indeed for some, this work should have happened years ago.

New designs will make nuclear power safer. The new AP-1000 is one of a new generation of reactors with passive safety features that keep working even when the power goes out. Bill Gates and the Chinese state nuclear authority are cooperating on a “traveling wave reactor,” which could run for decades on depleted uranium and produce significantly smaller amounts of nuclear waste than conventional reactors.

But we have to remember that uranium-235 is not easy to clean up, has proliferation issues, and despite what an entire generation thought it knew, is not green. Plutonium reactors have the same problems to an ever greater degree. In the end, just how much risk are we willing to run? That’s a question that has yet to be answered.

And that brings us to the second F, fracking. Short for “hydraulic fracturing,” fracking is a method of unlocking natural gas trapped in rock formations. By pumping water and chemicals into the ground, engineers have discovered a way to breakup the rocks and release the molecules of gas trapped inside – much like you squeeze the water out of a sponge. Natural gas burns cleaner than oil or coal, America has more natgas than it knows what to do with, and it is cheaper than conventional alternatives.

Fracking, however, is suspected of causing damage to the local water supplies. A recent documentary by Josh Fox called Gasland investigated this, and while the industry claims it to be mere propaganda, the scene of a man lighting his tap water on fire does stick in the mind.

Fracking is also has been blamed for minor earthquakes. This has brought the development of natural gas in many countries to a slowdown if not a halt. Lancashire, England, is not noted for earthquakes, but Cuadrilla Resources admitted that its fracking activities have caused quakes – below 3.0 on the Richter scale. These aren’t enough to get a Californian out of bed, but they are noticeable and can effect building foundations even if fracking isn’t hurting the local water supply.

France became the first nation to ban fracking this summer (note that about 80% of its electricity is nuclear in origin), and Australia is in the midst of a debate on it. China is simply moving ahead with fracking. This issue is going to increase in prominence in 2012, and beyond. Again, the question is how muck risk are we willing to take.

The third and final F is finance, and what we have seen in the last while is the use of energy commodities as speculative vehicles, driving up the costs of all forms of energy and distorting the market. Simply put, investors have been buying oil and other energy sources and holding them as a speculative play the same way they traditionally bought stocks and bonds. Demand has been up as a result, and Goldman Sachs put out a research note in March that said for every million barrels of oil speculators (not users of oil like refiners or auto owners) there was an 8-10 cent increase in the price of a barrel. “Using Goldman’s 8- to 10-cent estimates and data on speculators’ positions from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Reuters calculated that as of last Tuesday [7 April 2011], the total speculative premium in U.S. crude oil was between $21.40 and $26.75 a barrel, or about a fifth of last Tuesday’s price.” In other words, since they didn’t like the stock market, and didn’t trust the bond market, speculators tacked a 20% tax onto oil.

Of course, this can be stopped by banning all speculation in oil and other energy products, but that is hardly plausible nor really desirable. Speculators do provide liquidity to markets under certain conditions and are useful to an extent because of that. The heightening of demand by speculators can make marginal sources of energy more economically viable, encouraging long-term alternatives. Nothing would bring solar power, wind, tidal and geothermal on line faster than West Texas Intermediate crude hitting $250 a barrel.

This is an issue that isn’t going away in 2012 – not with the eurozone’s issues still not resolved, not with America’s budget impasse in Washington, not with tens of millions of Chinese, Indians and others wanted to enter their countries’ middle class. Short-term price distortions are likely in a variety of energy subsectors as hedge fund money flows around the world.

In 2012, we are likely to see more of the same. The clash between energy needs and environmental protections will continue; the drive to development in the BRICs and other rising powers will increase demand for energy; the ability of petro-dictatorships to stifle freedom will likely track the price of oil; and the problem of proliferation will follow nuclear energy wherever it goes.

Yet, I don’t think it appropriate to end on a negative note. There is enough energy for all 7 billion of us to live well – if we are smart enough, careful enough, and visionary enough.