-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain
From: Zoglul Husain
It is a very good exposure of, what Zainal Abedin rightly termed, Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest. It indeed is. But, there is nothing 'very strange and even difficult to believe' in Kissinger's moves. His covert and sometimes overt long association with the Neocons are well-known. His diplomacy has always been a ploy to cover his blood thirst. A self-made man, he started his career as an informer of the FBI and he has always been a hawk, a very active proponent of US imperialism. The Soviet Union also became an imperialist power and they militarily intervened in Afghanistan, which drew the other imperialist block in contest.
The people of Afghanistan will remain independent and it will not accept any shackles of, and mandate by, any consortium. The Afghan people have valiantly fought for nine years and they have defeated the whole imperialist block in direct fight. They are much better off without Kissinger's evil advice.
Please see the following (from Wikipedia with my highlights ) introduction of Christopher Hitchens' book (which I read many years ago):
The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001), is Christopher Hitchens' examination of the alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State for President Nixon and President Ford. Acting in the role of the prosecution, Hitchens presents evidence of Kissinger's complicity in a series of alleged war crimes in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.
The people of Afghanistan will remain independent and it will not accept any shackles of, and mandate by, any consortium. The Afghan people have valiantly fought for nine years and they have defeated the whole imperialist block in direct fight. They are much better off without Kissinger's evil advice.
Please see the following (from Wikipedia with my highlights ) introduction of Christopher Hitchens' book (which I read many years ago):
The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001), is Christopher Hitchens' examination of the alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State for President Nixon and President Ford. Acting in the role of the prosecution, Hitchens presents evidence of Kissinger's complicity in a series of alleged war crimes in Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus and East Timor.
Highlights from the book were serialized in Harper's Magazine in February and March 2001 (see The Case Against Henry Kissinger, Part 1 and Part 2).
This book inspired the creation of a 2002 documentary film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:02:33 +0600
Subject: Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
Subject: Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
Kissinger's controversial prescription for Indian interest
Mohammad Zainal Abedin
It is very strange and even difficult to believe that the former US Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger in order to safeguard the so-called interest of India in Afghanistan advocated to involve a consortium of countries to define, protect and guarantee a definition of statehood for Afghanistan. Such advocacy utterly denies and defies the very fundamental sovereign rights of self-rule and self-determination of the Afghan people. Kissinger made his controversial theory while presenting a keynote paper at a seminar on 'Global security, governance and the emerging distribution of power held in Geneva on September 10. It was sponsored by International Institute of Strategic Studies.
PTI that covered the event quoted Kissinger as saying, "In many respects India will be the most affected country if a jihadist Islamism gains impetus in Afghanistan." He said, a uni-lateral American role cannot be a long-term solution. A long-term solution must involve a combination, a consortium of countries in defining, protecting and guaranteeing a definition of statehood for Afghanistan. He suggested, neighbours of Afghanistan should join hands to chart out the future of war-torn country, rather than depend on unilateral US efforts.
India does not have common border with Afghanistan. It is difficult to calculate how the alleged Islamists will harm India. Will the so-called jihadis of Afghanistan swoop on India? Such apprehension is totally ridiculous. Why Kissinger, a hero of diplomacy, didn't elaborate how India will seriously be affected. India, if really faces so, should it mean that Afghanistan will not be given its sovereign status to determine its affairs. Should the sovereignty of Afghanistan be divided among it neighbouring countries only to save Indian interest? Is Indian interest is more precious or valuable than that of Afghanistan's sovereign entity? Why he defies the role of the Afghan people? Shouldn't the Afghan people have the right to decide their own fate to protect their own interest? Should Afghanistan sacrifice its sovereignty at the cost of Indian interest? How he could think that the neighours of Afghanistan should work out a definition determining the statehood of Afghanistan? What a wonderful theory it is! This theory is contrary to the universal concept of sovereign status of Afghanistan and international norms of non-interference on its internal and external affairs. It is the Afghan people who are the sole authority to decide how they will protect their motherland, what type of system they will adopt and follow. History says, no outside inference under any form will be tolerated by the Afghan people. External interference will only aggravate the situation further. Such move will not only prolong the misery and bloodshed in Afghanistan, but also inflame sanguinary war in the whole region. Kissinger should be smarter in dealing with the technicalities of Afghanistan.
India is not a party to Afghan conflict. India is the parasitic beneficiary of foreign invasion in Afghanistan. It was always with the invaders. For this reason when Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, India took the side of its Moscow mentors. During the whole cold war era India played such an ugly role, as if, it was a Soviet tentacle. India had to pack from Afghanistan when the Soviet soldiers were beaten out of Afghan soil. America, however, for mysterious reason, did not punish India for taking the side in favour of its arch rival Soviet Union.
After the extinction of Soviet Union, astonishing the whole world, India took shelter under American wing. Though India is not a party to US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), it sent its security personnel and RAW operatives and agents in Afghanistan under the cover of reconstructing and rehabilitating its infrastructures. Availing American invasion India made huge business in Afghanistan under the cover of reconstruction of infrastructure, providing medical and humanitarian services and a bit of English language training. India opened more diplomatic missions in Afghanistan than its real requirements, basically to recruit and infiltrate its agents in Afghan society and its surrounding countries. Afghan freedom fighters comprehending the vicious and dubious role of India repeatedly killed the Indians. After these operations and renewal of its relations with the Federation of Russia — the heir of Soviet Union, India has already closed down some of its services in Afghanistan.
It is alleged that India secretly spies for Russian intelligence agencies and plays duel roles in Afghanistan. Outwardly it works for America to squeeze Pakistan and reap maximum benefits from the war; inwardly it fuels the Talibans financially and militarily. India not only supplies arms and explosives to the Talibans, but also infiltrated its former or working soldiers and common nationals in Taliban groups in order to prolong the war. The more the war prolongs the more benefits India will derive and above all, the more Pakistan will remain at bay. It is alleged at the instigation of its mentors in Moscow, India might be involved in Moscow-orchestrated design to ruin America militarily and financially in order to retaliate the defeat of Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Knowledgeable sources allege, Kissinger sided with Indian interest, as India maintains close hobnob with Israel. They also opine Kissinger-like people instigated Bush administration to invade to Muslim countries — Iraq and Afghanistan that virtually ruined America's economy and degraded its image and creditability and acceptability. The latest theory of Kissinger to involve the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan is to ignite the fire of war in the whole region that will boom the arm business, which is a monopoly of the Jews — the community to which Kissinger belongs to. Other groups believe, as delivering lectures, has emerged as an income generating art, Kissinger might have got huge amount of cash, in exchange of presenting such a keynote paper at the Geneva seminar that entirely serves Indian interest. * (Mohammad Zainal Abedin is a Bangladeshi researcher & journalist Email: noa@agni.com).
__._,_.___
