It's the job of the Indian govt to look after the interest of Indian citizens - be it in India or on foreign soil. I've heard the same arguments back during Gulf War I when some of my friends complained as to why GoI is sticking it's neck out to airlift thousands of Indians from Kuwait. It's no different than a Indian Consultate in DC coming to assistance of a NRI who could have landed in some trouble.
In terms of finding solution to the current problem with those 3 Indian hostage, I think GoI has to reach the 'other' side beyond the conventional means. It would definitely play well in certain quarters if GoI response was the same as 'you are with us or against us' and issue big statements.
For one, I don't think it is our battle and - offically was '<i>ninda</i>-ed even by the previous GoI last year. It's about time GoI start looking after it's own - rest can take care of themselves.
Gulf war was a different situation. Here, the GOI has issued several advisories, several... and yet private Indians flout these advisories. Why should the Indian taxpayer care?
US and UK both still have travel advisory on TSP, how do you think US govt will act if a US citizen was taken hostage?
People respect nations who take care of their own. There's a saying about how a Roman could travel anywhere around the world knowing fully well that the force of the Roman empire was behind him. Times have changed, but it would be huge psyc-ops victory if GoI brings back those hostage home safe. Besides there's no ransom here that Indian govt can officially 'give' like the Phillipenes (last week)
As far as cost to Indian taxpayer, there are dime a dozen GoI babus flying around the globe for no good reason - infact read somewhere (maybe India Abroad) that there's atleast one India neta-babu types landing in US every week!
It'll be a another drop in the bucket - but worthwhile since it'll saves some Indian lives.
In fact Indian tax payer should question the govt as to what it's effort are to get it's citizens out of harms way especially since it's not a war where India is a participant.
<!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> Someone's been spiking the <i>kulhar</i> at the ToI offices <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
BTW, this opinion (expresed at Indiatimes) gets an A+.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinions/785992.cms
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->INDIA MUST SEND A WARNING TO THESE ABDUCTORS SAYING THATââ¬Â¦. <<TILL DATE INDIA HAS RESPECTED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF IRAQ. HAVE NOT SEND ITS MILITARY, EVEN WHEN IT WAS UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE TO SEND. HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIP WITH IRAQ AND HAS HELPED IRAQ WHENEVER REQUESTED.... BUT IF ANY INDIAN IS HURT OR KILLED BY THESE MILITANTS, THEN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE LEFT WITH NO OTHER CHOICE BUT TO SUPPORT THE COALITION AND SEND ITS TROOPS TO IRAQ TO MAINTAIN ORDER AND SEEK REVENGE>> OUR GOVERNMENT MUST GIVE A BOLD STATEMENT MICHAEL DSA - KUWAIT<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can India mount rescue mission Israel style?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is difficult to trace these people. They may be holding them in some small house or shop. It is difficult task.
Sending forces to Iraq will be blunder for weak government at this moment. It will be end of this government after first casuality in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So said Keith Bloomfield, Head of the Counter Terrorism Policy Department at the British Foreign Office, while delivering a speech on the 'The Kidnapping Business' at the Foreign Policy Centre at London on April 10, 2001. After pointing out that since 1997, the British Foreign Office had dealt with 54 kidnap incidents involving over 100 British nationals in Nigeria, Yemen, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Georgia, Colombia, Somalia, Bangladesh and many others, he explained the British strategy in dealing with an overseas kidnap situation as following:
* Keep in constant and close touch with the families of the hostages and the media and keep explaining the evolving situation to them.
* "Joined-up" thinking and co-ordinated action by all the Government departments and agencies dealing with the situation.
* Have a nodal point in the Foreign Office to deal with all kidnap situations abroad and to ensure co-ordination.The Counter-Terrorism Policy Department (CTPD) of the Foreign Office plays this role.
* Effective liaison with foreign governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations, which might be able to play a helpful role.
* Have frequent rehearsals of kidnap management even if there are no kidnaps so that all dramatis personae in the Government are aware of their respective roles if there is a kidnap.
* Employ a professional hostage consultant. According to him, the Foreign Office had a former Metropolitan Police negotiator as its hostage consultant. He visited vulnerable countries which expressed an interest in improving their response to kidnaps and spread best practice.
* Provide regular travel advice to British citizens traveling abroad on business or on holiday.
He concluded: "I think it is worth repeating that the safety of the hostages is always paramount in a kidnap situation. This is the first message which we ask our Ambassador or High Commissioner on the spot to pass immediately to the government of any country in which a British national is kidnapped. We also ask him or her to make clear our policies of not making substantive concessions to hostage-takers and not paying ransoms. These are non-negotiable as far as the British government is concerned. Giving in once would reward a serious crime, make it much harder to resist a second time, and would turn many parts of the world into 'no-go' areas for British nationals."
His presentation has some valuable lessons for India
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Incidentally, last year, Mid-Day correspondent S Hussain Zaidi was also held captive by a top Iraqi don and eventually released only after he gave a written promise that he 'would fix up a meeting with Bollywood icon Amitabh Bachchan on their Mumbai trip'.
Meanwhile, Bachchan said he had no idea of his hypnotic sway in Iraq. "I was absolutely unaware of this popularity."
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush said no to plan to send Muslim peacekeepers to Iraq to help UN organize elections<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> !!!! <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Former Swedish UN Ambassador Calls On Stockholm to Vocally Oppose Iraq War
Stockholm Dagens Nyheter (Internet Version-WWW) in Swedish 03 Nov 04
[Guest commentary by former UN Ambassador Pierre Schori: "We Must Demand an End
to the Occupation of Iraq"]
[Excerpt] Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the
days of the Vietnam war, it is almost silent. But it is high time to demand an
end to a situation in Iraq that is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions. No matter how last night's US election turns
out, it is important that we clearly state where Sweden stands on the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador, Pierre Schori.
Former UN ambassador Schori criticizes the government's silence on the
conflict. Official Sweden speaks in a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days
of the Vietnam war, it is virtually silent. But it is high time to demand an end
to the situation in Iraq, which is increasingly seen as an occupation. The
so-called war against terrorism is being conducted in violation of international
law and humanitarian conventions: issues that are traditionally major concerns
for Sweden. Regardless of how last night's election in the United States turns
out, it is important that we clearly say where Sweden stands in the Iraq
conflict, writes former Swedish UN ambassador Schori.
Daniel Planalp, a 21-year-old from San Diego in California, said in an
interview in the New York Times: "This is Vietnam. I do not know why we fighting
a war there. We are now fighting to survive. The Iraqis do not want us there. If
they wanted us there, they would help us."
That was not something the Bush camp wanted to hear. But the genie is out of
the bottle. More and more people in the United States are comparing the war in
Iraq with the disaster in Vietnam. Just a few months ago, Vietnam was a taboo
word.
George W. Bush did what he could to make the voters believe that the Iraq
war and the UN-sanctioned campaign against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in
Afghanistan were the same "war against terrorism." But here too the Republicans
have been forced to listen to arguments they did not want to hear. This illegal
war has made Iraq into a magnet for international terrorism, John Kerry
repeatedly said. The war has created "a new Afghanistan in Iraq," summed up
critical observer Francis Fukuyama.
There is also growing concern on Wall Street. The official cost of the war
is said to be 120 billion dollars so far. But if you add the total affect of the
war on the US economy, the figure might be more that double that amount,
according to a recent joint study by experts from the Brookings Institution in
Washington and the Center for International Economics in Australia (New York
Times economy supplement 24 October). This study claims that the US economy has
lost 150 billion dollars due to the large and growing deficit (3.5 percent of
GNP), high oil prices, and general uncertainty affecting the financial markets,
investment climate, and consumers' will to spend. Taken together, these things
mean that the war has cost 270 billion dollars so far. That figure corresponds
to almost one percent of GNP since the beginning of the war a year and a half
ago.
In another study, respected Yale economist William Nordhaus predicted that a
prolonged war would cost up to 1900 billion dollars.
Many people are asking themselves what the Bush administration was actually
after in Iraq. Was it just a change in regime? But the coming change in regime
is certainly not the kind the neo-conservatives dreamed of, nor will it lead to
the consequences they imagined. The Iraq they planned for simply does not exist.
Instead, the dream turned into a nightmare for thousands of US families -- and
many more Iraqis.
Does Iraq concern us? Of course it does. We are all holding our breath and
wondering what will happen concerning the United States and Iraq after the
presidential election. How the war ends will affect us all.
Official Sweden talks with a low voice about Iraq. Compared to the days of
the Vietnam war, a war which by no means had the same regional and global
consequences as Iraq, it is almost silent.
You could say that events speak more loudly than words. Sweden wisely
resisted invitations to join the so-called coalition. And when we speak, we
invoke international law and the United Nations.
But it is high time to demand an end to a situation that is increasingly
seen as an occupation with a clearly American face and manner of conduct.
There are increasingly frequent attacks on civilian targets, including
mosques and popular restaurants, in densely populated areas that are "suspected"
of being "terrorist strongholds." Television pictures of the way US planes bomb
Baghdad's slums and those of the torture in Abu Gharayb prison have become
macabre metaphors for the Iraq fiasco and the fantasies of "liberating" Iraq.
This is a so-called war against terrorism that is being conducted in
violation of international law and international humanitarian conventions,
issues that Sweden is traditionally strongly concerned about.
All of this has taken place during an election campaign where the
Republicans ridiculed and criticized the United Nations, talked in crusade-like
terms about a war between good and evil, and where television advertisements for
the National Guard said that one reason for joining up was "to defend the
American way of life."
I do not believe the apocalypse will take place if the United States
withdraws. Could it be worse than today's Iraq? At the time, people claimed that
the United States could not leave Vietnam either. And France could not leave
Algeria.
Of course the rest of the world must assist the Iraqi people on their way to
freedom and independence. A democratic Iraq is also in our interest. The
Security Council's unanimous resolution 1546 on 8 June was an important step in
the right direction. The resolution demanded an end to the occupation without
affirming the illegal war and gave a clearer role to the United Nations, at the
same time as a road map to Iraqi sovereignty was established.
But I have doubts on one point. In my final report to the Foreign Ministry,
I asked how the United Nations could help bring reconciliation and stability
under the protection of a US-led military force, and at the same time retain its
credibility and integrity in the eyes of world opinion.
There is no military solution to the Iraq war. But a political solution will
not be achieved as long as the US-led occupation continues. It seems
increasingly obvious that it is precisely the presence of US troops that
provokes much of the will to resist and the anger than is manifested daily. US
forces have increasingly taken up the fight against various groups in the Iraqi
nation that enjoy a certain amount of popular support, and which are carrying
out what appears to be a successful guerilla war. That has drawn the United
States into internal power struggles. But these resistance groups must also be
part of a peaceful solution to the conflict.
[passage omitted quoting opinions by American experts cited from US press]
In order to achieve that, it is important that no matter what the outcome of
last night's election is, that the rest of the world and Sweden clearly say
where they stand in this conflict.
NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq, Nov 6 (AFP) - With US forces massing outside Fallujah, 35 marines swayed to Christian rock music and asked Jesus Christ to protect them in what could be the biggest battle since American troops invaded Iraq last year.
Men with buzzcuts and clad in their camouflage waved their hands in the air, M-16 assault rifles laying beside them, and chanted heavy metal-flavoured lyrics in praise of Christ late Friday in a yellow-brick chapel.
They counted among thousands of troops surrounding the city of Fallujah, seeking solace as they awaited Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's decision on whether or not to invade Fallujah.
"You are the sovereign. You're name is holy. You are the pure spotless lamb," a female voice cried out on the loudspeakers as the marines clapped their hands and closed their eyes, reflecting on what lay ahead for them.
The US military, with many soldiers coming from the conservative American south and midwest, has deep Christian roots.
In times that fighting looms, many soldiers draw on their evangelical or born-again heritage to help them face the battle.
"It's always comforting. Church attendance is always up before the big push," said First Sergeant Miles Thatford.
"Sometimes, all you've got is God."
Between the service's electric guitar religious tunes, marines stepped up on the chapel's small stage and recited a verse of scripture, meant to fortify them for war.
One spoke of their Old Testament hero, a shepherd who would become Israel's king, battling the Philistines some 3,000 years ago.
"Thus David prevailed over the Philistines," the marine said, reading from scripture, and the marines shouted back "Hoorah, King David," using their signature grunt of approval.
The marines drew parallels from the verse with their present situation, where they perceive themselves as warriors fighting barbaric men opposed to all that is good in the world.
"Victory belongs to the Lord," another young marine read.
Their chaplain, named Horne, told the worshippers they were stationed outside Fallujah to bring the Iraqis "freedom from oppression, rape, torture and murder ... We ask you God to bless us in that effort."
The marines then lined up and their chaplain blessed them with holy oil to protect them.
"God's people would be annointed with oil," the chaplain said, as he lightly dabbed oil on the marines' foreheads.
The crowd then followed him outside their small auditorium for a baptism of about a half-dozen marines who had just found Christ.
The young men lined up and at least three of them stripped down to their shorts.
The three laid down in a rubber dinghy filled with water and the chaplain's assistant, Navy corpsman Richard Vaughn, plunged their heads beneath the surface.
Smiling, Vaughn baptised them "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Dripping wet, Corporal Keith Arguelles beamed after his baptism.
"I just wanted to make sure I did this before I headed into the fight," he said on the military base not far from the city of Fallujah.
<b>Iraqis vote amid violence</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Polls have closed in Iraq's first free election in a half century, with officials reporting a higher than expected turnout of registered voters amid attacks and threats of violence.
Insurgents carried out more than a dozen attacks across the country on Sunday, killing at least 25 people and wounding 71 others.
At least eight suicide bombings took place during the voting. There are reports of a ninth, but CNN has not confirmed those reports.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>For democracy </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
The people of Iraq have displayed remarkable courage and resolution in turning up in large numbers to vote in the elections on Sunday ignoring threats to their lives. The seriousness of the latter was clearly underlined by the suicide bombings and mortar fire that killed over 44 persons, including nine attackers, while the polling continued.
Though poor in many Sunni-dominated areas, the turnout was remarkably high in the so-called "triangle of death", a Sunni-majority region south of Baghdad and the city of Falluja to its west. Even if the claim of a nearly 60 per cent voter turnout, with 90 per cent or more in the Shia areas, by Iraq's Election Commission is over-optimistic, there can be no doubt that the figure was impressively high, which clearly indicates that the overwhelming majority of the country's population wants not terrorism and violence but peace, democracy and restoration of normal conditions. Of course, they cannot be so naive as to expect that the elections would automatically lead to these overnight, but they are certainly not wrong if they believe that they have initiated a process that has a fair chance of doing so.
They certainly have given a strong mandate and credibility to the 275-member Transitional National Assembly (TNA) and the 18 provincial legislatures and the Kurdistan National Assembly, that are to be formed on the basis of the elections.
One now hopes that the new Government will promptly get down to the task of drafting a new constitution for Iraq, which is scheduled to be completed by August 15. The process will not be easy given the religious, ethnic and other claims that have to be harmonised within constitution's confines. Nevertheless, the very fact that a government could be cobbled together after the elections, and pressure now generated by the people's mandate for a democracy, holds out the hope that the TNA's labours will be fruitful, that elections to approve the new constitution will be held, as scheduled, on October 15, and that, approval received, Iraq will move towards new national elections on December 15, and the assumption of office by a fully constitutional Government on December 31.
For all this to actually happen, and to be meaningful in terms of peace, democracy and Iraq's reconstruction, it will be necessary to crush terrorism with a mailed fist. This in turn would require the presence of United States' troops in Iraq until the job is done.
Both Washington and the new Government that assumes office after Sunday's elections, should realise this. While there can be no doubt that American troops have to leave Iraq once the situation has stabilised, demands for their immediate withdrawal, whether made by a section of Democrats in the US or by members of the TNA, will be equally irresponsible. For quite some time at least, Iraq's Government will lack both the manpower and firepower needed to crush terrorism. A hasty American withdrawal will only help terrorists <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Saddam rejects Rumsfeld offer of release: Daily</b>
Web posted at: 5/2/2005 6:56:3
Source ::: Agencies
JERUSALEM: US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld paid a secret visit to former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and offered him freedom and possible return to public life if he made a televised request to armed groups for a ceasefire with allied forces, a media report said.
Saddam promptly rejected the offer, Ynetnews reported quoting a London based Al Quds Al Arabi daily. The visit came during Rumsfeldâs visit to Iraq about two weeks ago and was known only to a few Iraqi officials in Jordan, the Arab daily reported quoting sources.
Some two weeks ago the British Telegraph had reported that Iraqi gunmen were offered a âdealâ to halt all terror attacks in return for a reduced sentence for Saddam, likely to be sentenced to death. http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_n...00505026563.xml
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Baghdad mayor deposed in coup
Rediff News Bureau | August 11, 2005 00:43 IST
Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm Monday and deposed the city's mayor Alaa al-Tamimi, the New York Times reported today. They then installed Hussein al-Tahaan, a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia, the Badr Organization which is the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.
Howver, the group that evicted him from office insisted it was not a coup, and said it had the authority to assume control of Baghdad . The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in a Shia-dominated area, the report said, but was also said to be forcing orthodox Shia religious law, such as forcing women to wear veils.
The group also said that Tamimi was in no danger. 'If we wanted to do something bad to him, we would have done that,' said Mazen A. Makkia, the elected city council chief who led the ouster on Monday, according to the Times.
'We really want to establish the state of law for every citizen, and we did not threaten anyone," he said. 'This is not a coup.'
A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad said that he was aware of the developments but that he had no immediate comment, the Times reported
Makkia, a member of a Shiite political party that swept to victory during the across-the-board Shiite successes during January's elections, confirmed that he had entered the building with armed men but said that they were bodyguards for him and several other council members who accompanied him.
The deposed mayor, who was appointed by the central government and held ministerial rank, was originally put in place by L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in the country until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
