Category: South Asia

  • Turkish Airlines shuns GSA route

    Turkish Airlines shuns GSA route

    Turkish Airlines shuns GSA route

    Mihir Mishra / New Delhi May 15, 2011, 0:11 IST

    In its global expansion plans, Turkish Airlines has decided to open its own office in India instead of operating through a general sales agency (GSA). InterGlobe Aviation is the GSA for the airline in India.

    “We are working out plan for expansion in India,” said Adnan Aykac, general manager of Turkish Airlines in India. Turkish Airlines is the national carrier of Turkey and operates in 139 international and 42 domestic cities of Europe, Asia, Africa and the US.

    Aykac said the airline will take delivery of 22 aircraft by the end of the current calendar year and would not need leased aircraft. The airline has taken four Boeing 777s on lease from Jet Airways and the lease period will expire this year. “We will take delivery of 12 Boeing 777s and 10 Airbus 330s this year and may not need to continue operating with leased aircraft,” said Aykac.

    Jet Airways, India’s largest carrier in terms of passenger carriage, said it has informed Turkish Airlines that the lease would not be extended. “Jet Airways will induct two Boeing 777 aircraft into its operations and has entered into an agreement with Thai Airways for the lease of the remaining two. The aircraft will be leased for two years with an option to extend for a year,” said an email reply from the airline.

    The lease period of the first aircraft expires on July 14, the second on August 12, the third on September 1 and the fourth on October 30.

    Turkish Airlines, which is a Star Alliance member and has code sharing with Air India, hopes to strengthen it further after the national carrier joins the alliance in July. “Once Air India joins the alliance, it will help us extend our operations. We expect to get passengers from Kathmandu without actually flying there,” said Aykac.

    He said the airline aims to strengthen its network in Europe to provide unmatchable link across Europe. “Our plans are to expand our network in the US after Europe,” he said.

    via Turkish Airlines shuns GSA route.

  • Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    Patrick Cockburn: Wasn’t Bin Laden the reason we went to war?

    The killing of the al-Qa’ida leader offers an opportunity to make long overdue progress on Afghanistan

    Does the death of Osama bin Laden open the door for the US and UK to escape from the trap into which they have fallen in Afghanistan? At first sight, the presumed weakening of al-Qa’ida ought to strength the case for an American and British withdrawal. When President Obama ordered the dispatch of an extra 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2009, he declared that the goal was “to deny safe-haven to al-Qa’ida and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government”.

    This justification for stationing 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan and for Washington spending $113bn (£69bn) a year always looked thin. By the US army’s own estimate there are about 100 members of al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan compared with an estimated 25,000 Taliban. Even on the Pakistan side of the border, al-Qa’ida probably only has a few hundred fighters.

    A problem for the US and Britain is how to dump this convenient but highly misleading explanation as to why it was essential for the safety of their own countries to fight a war in Afghanistan. This has required pretending that al-Qa’ida was in the country in significant force and that a vast US and UK military deployment was necessary to defend the streets of London or the little house on the prairie.

    The death of Bin Laden reduces this highly exaggerated perception of al-Qa’ida as a threat. People, not unreasonably, ask what we are doing in Afghanistan, and why soldiers are still being killed. One spurious argument has been to conflate al-Qa’ida and the Afghan Taliban, and say they are much the same thing. But it is difficult to think of a single Afghan involved in bomb attacks against targets in the US and Britain before and after 9/11. Al-Qa’ida’s leadership was mainly Egyptian and Saudi as were all the 9/11 bombers.

    The problem for Washington and London is that they have got so many people killed in Afghanistan and spent so much money that it is difficult for them to withdraw without something that can be dressed up as a victory. Could the death of Bin Laden be the sort of success that would allow Obama to claim that America’s main objective has been achieved? For the moment, at least, it will be more difficult for the Republicans to claim that a disengagement is a betrayal of US national security. Could not this be the moment for the US, with Britain tagging along behind, to cut a deal and get out?

    Unfortunately, it probably isn’t going to happen. It will not be Obama’s decision alone. In 2009, he was dubious about what a temporary surge in US troop numbers would achieve and keen not to be sucked into a quagmire in Afghanistan just as the US was getting out of one in Iraq. Endless discussions took place in the offices of the White House about whether or not to send reinforcements.

    But the outcome of these repeated meetings was predictable given the balance of power between different institutions in Washington. Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA and the next US Secretary for Defence, said that the decision to send more troops should have been made in a week, because the political reality is that “no Democratic president can go against military advice, especially if he has asked for it. So just do it. Do what they [the generals] said.”

    The US military is not going to eat its optimistic words of late last year when they were claiming that it was finally making headway against the Taliban. Insurgent mid-level commanders were being assassinated in night raids by US Special Forces, and survivors were fleeing to Pakistan. If the Taliban were increasing their strength in northern Afghanistan, they were losing their grip on their old strongholds in Helmand and Kandahar.

    Such reports of progress appear to have been largely propaganda or wishful thinking. At the start of this year’s fighting season the Taliban have been able to launch as many attacks as last year and replace its casualties. In Kandahar last month, they were able to free 500 prisoners from the city jail by digging a tunnel 1,000 feet long over five months without anybody finding out about it. An organisation that can do this is scarcely on its last legs. The message of the last few months is that the “surge” in Afghanistan, of which so much was expected, has not worked.

    The Americans and British are meant to be training Afghan military and police units to take the place of foreign forces. It is never quite explained how Taliban fighters, without any formal military training, are able to battle the best-equipped armies in the world, while Afghan government troops require months of training before they can carry out the simplest military task.

    One escaped Taliban prisoner in Kandahar has said that their plan was helped by the fact in the evening the prison guards always fell into a drug-induced stupor.

    Official bromides about building up the strength of the Afghan government ignore an ominous trend: the governing class is detested by the rest of the population as a gang of thieves and racketeers. I was struck in a recent visit to Kabul by the venom with which well-educated professional people and businessmen, who are not doing badly, condemn Hamid Karzai’s government. This does not mean that they support the Taliban, but it does show that Karzai’s support, aside from cronies busily engaged in robbing the state, is very small.

    When negotiations do start they should be between the four main players: the US, the Afghan government, the Taliban, and Pakistan. For all the rude things being said about the Pakistan military after Bin Laden was discovered so close to their main military academy in Abbottabad, nothing is going to be decided without their say-so.

    Only the Pakistani army can deliver the Taliban whose great strategic advantage in the war is that under pressure they can always withdraw across the border into Pakistan. It is the highly permeable border, as long as the distance from London to Moscow, which prevented the Soviet Union from defeating Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Pakistan is not going to try to close this border and could not do so even if it wanted to.

    It would not be difficult for the Taliban to renounce al-Qa’ida and other jihadi groups. The killing of Bin Laden as the icon of evil should make this easier for the US to accept.

    Obviously there is going to be no military solution to the Afghan conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban will have to begin sooner or later, so why not now?

    www.independent.co.uk8 May 2011

    Showing 10 comments
    Sort by      Subscribe by email    Subscribe by RSS  anna 21 minutes ago afghanistan has untold mineral wealth and the Unicla pipeline goes through it – that’s why they are thereGetit? the Taliban can’t get hold of that, right?

  • Gul cargo train leaves for Istanbul

    Gul cargo train leaves for Istanbul

    ISLAMABAD, May 6 (APP): The first Gul cargo train left for Istanbul with 12 containers from the Lahore dry port on Friday. According to Railway officials, the Gul cargo train would arrive in the Turkish city of Istanbul via Iran on the 11-day journey, a news channel reported.

    The officials sources also said that more cargo trains would be run in the future. The Gul train has been named after the Turkish President Abdullah Gul as goodwill gesture.

    via Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan’s Premier NEWS Agency ) – Gul cargo train leaves for Istanbul.

  • Bad news for Arab dictators: Bin Laden the scapegoat is dead

    Bad news for Arab dictators: Bin Laden the scapegoat is dead

    Arab Dictators3Here is the big news! Osama bin Laden is captured, dead and buried in the sea “according to the Islamic traditions.”

    As a well-educated Muslim I never heard of such a tradition. For thousands of years Muslims are expected to be buried in 24 hours following their death, but after a special funeral prayer on land, not to the sea. One defense of the sea burial — the potential for a grave to become a symbolic attraction point for radicals — is also nonsense, since the Wahhabi school of Islam, of which bin Laden was a follower, strongly forbids grave markers and tomb visits. In Wahhabi terms, God is only the agency to pray for, and building tombs for regular prayer visits is interpreted as competing with the “oneness of God.” (more…)

  • David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    David Cameron’s Statement on the death of Usama bin Laden, and counter terrorism

    cameron2

    Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on the death of Usama bin Laden and counter-terrorism.

    Read the statement

    The death of Usama bin Laden will have important consequences for the security of our people at home and abroad and for our foreign policy, including our partnership with Pakistan, our military action in Afghanistan and the wider fight against terrorism across the world.

    Last night I chaired a meeting of COBR to begin to address some of these issues.

    The National Security Council has met this morning.

    And I wanted to come to the House this afternoon, to take the first opportunity to address these consequences directly and answer Hon Members’ questions.

    Mr Speaker, at 3am yesterday I received a call from President Obama. He informed me that US Special Forces had successfully mounted a targeted operation against a compound in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

    Usama bin Laden had been killed, along with four others: bin Laden’s son, two others linked to him, and a female member of his family entourage. There was a ferocious firefight, and a US helicopter had to be destroyed but there was no loss of American life.

    I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating President Obama and praising the courage and skill of the American Special Forces who carried out this operation.

    It is a strike at the heart of international terrorism, and a great achievement for America and for all who have joined in the long struggle to defeat Al Qaeda.

    We should remember today in particular the brave British servicemen and women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism across the world.

    And we should pay tribute especially to those British forces who have played their part over the last decade in the hunt for bin Laden.

    He was the man who was responsible for 9/11 – which was not only an horrific killing of Americans, but remains to this day, the largest loss of British life in any terrorist attack.

    A man who inspired further atrocities including in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and of course, here in London on 7/7.

    …and, let us remember, a man who posed as a leader of Muslims but was actually a mass murderer of Muslims all over the world. Indeed he killed more Muslims than people of any other faith.

    Mr Speaker, nothing will bring back the loved ones who have been lost and of course no punishment at our disposal can remotely fit the many appalling crimes for which he was responsible.

    But I hope that at least for the victims’ families there is now a sense of justice being served, as a long dark chapter in their lives is finally closed.

    As the head of a family group for United Airlines Flight 93, put it – we are “raised, obviously, never to hope for someone’s death” but we are “willing to make an exception in this case … He was evil personified, and our world is a better place without him.”

    Mr Speaker, Britain was with America from the first day of the struggle to defeat Al Qaeda. Our resolve today is as strong as it was then. There can be no impunity and no safe-refuge for those who kill in the name of this poisonous ideology.

    Security

    Mr Speaker, our first focus must be our own security.

    While bin Laden is gone, the threat of Al Qaeda remains.

    Clearly there is a risk that Al Qaeda and its affiliates in places like Yemen and the Mahgreb will want to demonstrate they are able to operate effectively.

    And, of course, there is always the risk of a radicalised individual acting alone, a so-called lone-wolf attack.

    So we must be more vigilant than ever – and we must maintain that vigilance for some time to come.

    The terrorist threat level in the UK is already at Severe – which is as high as it can go without intelligence of a specific threat.

    We will keep that threat level under review – working closely with the intelligence agencies and the police.

    In terms of people travelling overseas, we have updated our advice and encourage British nationals to monitor the media carefully for local reactions, remain vigilant, exercise caution in public places and avoid demonstrations.

    And we have ordered our embassies across the world to review their security.

    Pakistan

    Mr Speaker, let me turn next to Pakistan.

    The fact that bin Laden was living in a large house in a populated area suggests that he must have had a support network in Pakistan.

    We don’t currently know the extent of that network, so it is right that we ask searching questions about it. And we will.

    But let’s start with what we do know.

    Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country in the world.

    As President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani said to me when I spoke to them yesterday, as many as 30,000 innocent civilians have been killed. And more Pakistani soldiers and security forces have died fighting extremism than international forces killed in Afghanistan.

    Usama Bin Laden was an enemy of Pakistan. He had declared war against the Pakistani people. And he had ordered attacks against them.

    President Obama said in his statement: “counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was hiding.”

    Continued co-operation will be just as important in the days ahead.

    I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to recognise that we share the same struggle against terrorism.

    That’s why we will continue to work with our Pakistani counterparts on intelligence gathering, tracing plots and taking action to stop them.

    It’s why we will continue to honour our aid promises – including our support for education as a critical way of helping the next generation of Pakistanis to turn their back on extremism and look forward to a brighter and more prosperous future.

    But above all, it’s why we were one of the founder members of the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because it is by working with the democrats in Pakistan that we can make sure the whole country shares the same determination to fight terror.

    Afghanistan

    Mr Speaker, I also spoke yesterday to President Karzai in Afghanistan.

    We both agreed that the death of bin Laden provides a new opportunity for Afghanistan and Pakistan to work together to achieve stability on both sides of the border.

    Our strategy towards Afghanistan is straightforward and has not changed.

    We want an Afghanistan capable of looking after its own security without the help of foreign forces.

    We should take this opportunity to send a clear message to the Taleban: now is the time for them to separate themselves from Al Qaeda and participate in a peaceful political process.

    Mr Speaker, the myth of Bin Laden was one of a freedom fighter, living in austerity and risking his life for the cause as he moved around in the hills and mountainous caverns of the tribal areas.

    The reality of Bin Laden was very different: a man who encouraged others to make the ultimate sacrifice while he himself hid in the comfort of a large, expensive villa in Pakistan, experiencing none of the hardship he expected his supporters to endure.

    Libya

    Mr Speaker, finally let me briefly update the House on Libya.

    In recent weeks we have stepped up our air campaign to protect the civilian population.

    Every element of Qadhafi’s war machine has been degraded.

    Over the last few days alone, NATO aircraft have struck 35 targets including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, as well as bunkers and ammunition storage facilities.

    We have also made strikes against his command and control centres which direct his operations against civilians.

    Over the weekend there were reports that in one of those strikes Colonel Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab Qadhafi, was killed.

    All the targets chosen were clearly within the boundaries set by UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

    These Resolutions permit all necessary measures to protect civilian life – including attacks on command and control bases.

    Mr Speaker, this weekend also saw attacks on the British and Italian embassies.

    We utterly deplore this.

    The Qadhafi regime is in clear beach of the Vienna convention to protect diplomatic missions. We hold them fully to account. And we have already expelled the Libyan Ambassador from London.

    The British embassy was looted as well as destroyed.

    The World War Two Memorial was desecrated.

    And the UN have felt obliged to pull their people out for fear of attack.

    Qadhafi made much of his call for a ceasefire.

    But at the very moment Qadhafi claimed he wanted to talk, he had in fact been laying mines in Misurata harbour to stop humanitarian aid getting in and continuing his attacks on civilians, including attacks across the border in neighbouring Tunisia.

    Mr Speaker, we must continue to enforce the UN resolutions fully until such a time as they are completely complied with.

    And that means continuing the NATO mission until there is an end to all attacks on – and threats to – civilians.

    Conclusion

    Mr Speaker, bin Laden and Qadhafi were said to have hated each other. But there was a common thread running between them.

    They both feared the idea that democracy and civil rights could take hold in the Arab world.

    While we should continue to degrade, dismantle and defeat the terrorist networks a big part of the long term answer is the success of democracy in the Middle East and the conclusion of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    For twenty years, bin Laden claimed that the future of the Muslim world would be his.

    But what Libya has shown – as Egypt and Tunisia before it – is that people are rejecting everything that bin Laden stood for.

    Instead of replacing dictatorship with his extremist totalitarianism, they are choosing democracy.

    Ten years on from the terrible tragedy of 9/11, with the end of bin Laden and the democratic awakening across the Arab world, we must seize this unique opportunity to deliver a decisive break with the forces of Al Qaeda and its poisonous ideology which has caused so much suffering for so many years.

    And I commend this statement to the House.

    The Prime Ministers Office

    Number 10

  • India May Route Iran Crude Oil Payments Via Turkey

    India May Route Iran Crude Oil Payments Via Turkey

    By RAKESH SHARMA

    NEW DELHI—India is looking at using Turkish banks to pay Iran for crude oil, a senior Indian oil-ministry official said Wednesday, as a U.S. official said Turkey’s commercial banks should avoid transactions with Iranian banks the U.S. has identified as conduits for financing of Tehran’s nuclear program.

    The oil-ministry official’s remarks came as the U.S. Treasury proposed regulations that would require U.S. financial institutions to divulge information about foreign bank customers that do business with Iran.

    Asked about the Indian proposal, David S. Cohen, acting U.S. undersecretary of state for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in Istanbul, where he was meeting with senior government officials and banking executives, that Turkey’s cooperation with sanctions aimed at pressuring Tehran was “critical.”

    The question of crude-oil payments to Iran came into focus in December, when India’s central bank stopped payments to Tehran through the Asian Clearing Union, where participants settle payments for intraregional transactions among member central banks, helping economize the use of foreign exchange and transfer costs. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran, Myanmar, Bhutan, the Maldives and Sri Lanka are members. India then made some overdue payments to Iran through Germany’s Bundesbank.

    But, according to media reports, Germany stopped accepting money from India for Iranian oil payments following criticism from the U.S. and Israeli governments.

    The official said supplies from Iran haven’t been disrupted, but that India needs to find a payment mechanism quickly, as it meets four-fifths of its total crude-oil needs through imports.

    “Iran has been ungrudging in supply. They continue to supply as our credibility is very high in the international market,” he said, adding that “we are exploring various options” and that “we are trying through Turkey.”

    India imported 21.2 million tons of crude oil from Iran in the year ended March 31, 2010, about 13% of its total crude imports.

    Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd., which imports about 7.6 million tons of crude annually from Iran, said earlier this month that it is defaulting on payments for about two shipments every week from Iran.

    Another oil ministry official said Wednesday that it could take another two months for the wider payments issue to be resolved.

    “There is no threat to supplies, as Iran has assured supplies will continue. They know we are working on a solution, and are serious about it,” the official said.

    —Joseph Palazzolo in Washington, D.C., and Marc Champion in Istanbul contributed to this article.

    Write to Rakesh Sharma at rakesh.sharma@dowjones.com

    via India May Route Iran Crude Oil Payments Via Turkey – WSJ.com.