With recent tensions between Ukraine-Russia highlighting pivotal oil and gas supply, a similar issue can brew between Bangladesh and India

The India-Bangladesh Power Trap

A reliance on India for its electricity could be contrary to Bangladesh’s geo-strategic interests.

By Zahedul Amin
The Diplomat
April 27, 2014

Following the election of its Awami League (AL) government in 2009, Bangladesh’s diplomatic relations with India have enjoyed some renewed vigor. In the years since, the relationship has flourished, with a series of high-level meetings culminating in a visit from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011 to sign a joint communiqué. The communiqué focused on three key aspects: peacefully resolving a long-standing border dispute, ensuring a fair allocation of Teesta river water, and allowing transit to India through Bangladesh.

Although the Bangladesh government is already offering transit facilities on a selective basis (without charging a transit fee), India has yet to deliver on its promises. The border dispute remains unresolved in the face of stiff resistance from the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), while the Teesta water sharing agreement has stalled, thanks to the belligerence of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. A promised $1 billion credit line from India has been caught up in bureaucratic red tape. As a consolation, India has at least agreed to export 500 MW of power to Bangladesh at a competitive rate.

For its part, Bangladesh has now decided to provide a corridor for Indian power transmission, from Assam to Bihar. In return, India has promised to increase power exports to 1500 MW in the near future, which would partially assuage Bangladesh’s persistent power shortages. However, could an overt dependence on Indian electricity spell danger for Bangladesh’s strategic interests?

To answer that question, it is important to understand Bangladesh’s power sector. Power shortages remain a chronic problem for Bangladesh, mainly because of a lack of effective investment and dwindling reserves of natural gas. Currently, peak power demand for Bangladesh stands at 8,349 MW, against installed generation capacity of 10,289 MW, although only about 75 percent of that capacity is operational, leaving a substantial shortfall. In fact, the demand-supply gap was higher in 2008, which the government addressed by turning to “quick rental” power stations owned by the private sector. As of 2013, the government had arrangements with 20 of these stations, which combined generated power in excess of 1,000 MW. These stations, however, are run on diesel or heavy fuel oil, making them costlier compared to more traditional energy sources, meaning that end consumers need to be heavily subsidized by the government. Imports from India are much cheaper, at less than half the per-unit cost. Given these immediate cost advantages, the government of Bangladesh is keen to import more power from India.

However, while that might make economic sense, the question is whether Bangladesh can afford to increase its dependence on Indian power. Electricity is a key resource and the country’s manufacturing sector is entirely dependent on a seamless supply.

National elections are underway in India. A change in government looks likely, with BJP candidate Narendra Modi tipped to be the next prime minister. A new BJP government may well adopt a more hardline foreign policy stance.

A comparison can be made with the Russia-Ukraine crisis, in which Russia retains a powerful bargaining chip in the form of its shipments of natural gas. Since the falling out between the neighbors, Moscow has (through state-owned Gazprom) raised the gas price with more stringent payment terms. Russia has even threatened to cut off the natural gas supply entirely, something that would be catastrophic for the struggling Ukrainian economy.

A Bangladesh that is heavily dependent on Indian electricity could conceivably face a similar scenario in the future. In any disagreement, India could use its power card to keep Bangladesh in line. As a much smaller country, Bangladesh is already at a disadvantage in negotiating with India, a position that may be exacerbated with greater dependence on Indian power.

In the wake of these analyses, Bangladesh should think of alternative methods of generating electricity, reducing its dependence on both privately owned quick rental stations or Indian power. A long-term plan is needed to increase supply in step with rising demand. Bangladesh has adequate coal resources, which can be cheaply extracted. New power plants should be coal based, reducing pressure on natural gas reserves and expensive imported oil. Bangladesh should also construct an LNG terminal to facilitate natural gas imports.

Although India-Bangladesh relations are at an all-time high, Dhaka has mostly failed to extract anything tangible from the Indian side. India’s Border Security Force (BSF) is still regularly shooting Bangladeshi nationals, while Bangladeshi exports to India face a multitude of non-tariff barriers. With the shifting political landscape in India, the situation could be set to worsen, as the BJP has historically shown a more hardline stance towards its neighbors. In this context, Bangladesh should avoid an excessive reliance on its neighbor for electricity.

Zahedul Amin is the Co-founder and Director Finance & Strategy at LightCastle Partners, a business planning and intelligence firm specializing in emerging markets.

India's 'one month wives' sex tourism EXPOSED

[to clarify, this practice is FORBIDDEN in Islam and illegal in India]

Teenager exposes India's 'one month wives' sex tourism
A 17-year-old girl has exposed the scale of Islamic sex tourism in India where Muslim men from the Middle East and Africa are buying 'one month wives' for sex.

By Dean Nelson,
The Guardian
April 14, 2013

Inspector Vijay Kumar who is in charge of the 'one month' wives case Photo: DEAN NELSON

Campaigners for Muslim women's rights said while short term 'contract marriages' are illegal in India and forbidden in Islam, they are increasing in Hyderabad, in southern India, where wealthy foreigners, local agents and 'Qazis' – government-appointed Muslim priests – are exploiting poverty among the city's Muslim families.

The victim, Nausheen Tobassum, revealed the scale of the problem when she escaped from her home last month after her parents pressurised her to consummate a forced marriage to a middle aged Sudanese man who had paid around £1,200 for her to be his 'wife' for four weeks.
She told police she had been taken by her aunt to a hotel where she and three other teenager girls were introduced to a Sudanese oil company executive. The 'groom', Usama Ibrahim Mohammed, 44 and married with two children in Khartoum, later arrived at her home where a Qazi performed a wedding ceremony.

According to Inspector Vijay Kumar he had paid 100,000 Rupees (around USD $1,840.00 ) to the girl's aunt Mumtaz Begum, who in turn paid 70,000 Rupees to her parents, 5,000 Rupees to the Qazi, 5,000 Rupees to an Urdu translator and kept 20,000 Rupees herself. The wedding certificate came with a 'Talaknama' which fixed the terms of the divorce at the end of the groom's holiday.

"The next day he came to the house of the victim girl and asked her to participate in sex but she refused. She is a young girl and the groom is older than her father," Inspector Kumar told The Telegraph.

Her parents reassured him they would persuade their daughter and told her she would be punished if she did not. Instead she ran out of their tiny one room home in Hyderabad's Moghulpuri neighbourhood and was rescued by a police patrol. The police arrested the groom, the victim's aunt and the Qazi, and issued a warrant for her parents' arrest – Nausheen is a minor under Indian law and cannot marry until she reaches 18. Her parents are now in hiding but will be charged with arranging a child marriage, 'outraging the modesty' of a woman, and criminal conspiracy.

Inspector Kumar said there are dozens of illegal short term contract marriages in the city, and that the Sudanese man they arrested had come to Hyderabad after a friend in Khartoum told him he had taken a '40 day wife' during an earlier visit.

"If a Sudanese wants to have sex, he has to pay three times more [in Sudan] because there are far fewer girls there, or he takes a second wife. In India the girls are coming for a cheaper rate and they are beautiful. Even if they are only staying for a few days they are doing this kind of illegal marriages for sex," he said.

He said the visitors want to marry because they believe prostitution is forbidden under Islam. Poor families agree to contract marriages because they have many daughters and cannot afford to pay for all their weddings.

Instead, they have a series of one-month contract 'marriages' to fund their own genuine wedding.

Shiraz Amina Khan of Hyderabad's Women and Child Welfare Society, said there were up to 15 'contract marriages' in the city every month and that the number is rising because.

"They come to Hyderabad because it has maximum downtrodden families. Thirty to forty per cent of families are going for the option of contract marriages to relieve their poverty. It has to be stopped," she said.

Nausheen Tobassum, who is now living in a government home for girls said in an interview before she was placed in care, that she had filed a complaint to stop the same thing happening to other girls.

"I didn't know what was happening and I agreed in ignorance. They forced me. They changed my date of birth certificate and made a fake one, where I was shown as 24 years old. They exploit girls and that's why I went to police. I had to show courage to go to police against my parents. I don't want to go back to my home, I am scared," she said.

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2013

The Unfair Biased Treatment of the DPRK (North Korea)

Putting the Squeeze on North Korea

By Gregory Elich

Global Research,
February 04, 2013

Tensions are escalating since North Korea’s launch of a satellite into orbit on December 12, 2012. Overwrought news reports termed the launch a “threat” and a “provocation,” while U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor called it “irresponsible behavior.” Punishment for North Korea was swift in coming.

North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong-3 was just one of 75 satellites that a variety of nations sent into space last year, but Pyongyang’s launch, and a failed launch earlier in the year on April 12, were the only ones singled out for condemnation. [1] In Western eyes, there was something uniquely threatening about the Kwangmyongsong-3 earth observation satellite, unlike the apparently more benign five military and three spy satellites the United States launched last year.

We are told that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, the official name for North Korea) used the satellite launch to test ballistic missile technology. But the North Koreans could hardly have sent their satellite into orbit by slingshot. The Kwangmyongsong-3 was equipped with a camera intended to help assess the nation’s natural resources and forest distribution and to collect crop estimates. The Western press was quick to scoff at the satellite as having no rational economic purpose. Although the satellite failed to become operable, a common enough experience for nations putting their first satellite into space, the intent was to support much-needed ecological recovery in North Korea and to aid agricultural planning.

Specialists argue that the DPRK’s Unha-3 missile, used for the launch, is not a suitable candidate for delivering a nuclear warhead. According to analyst Markus Schiller of Schmucker Technologie in Germany, for North Korea to “become a player in the ICBM game, they would have to develop a different kind of missile, with higher performance. And if they do that seriously, we would have to see flight tests every other month, over several years.” [2] The North Korean missile “was developed as a satellite launcher and not as a weapon,” Schiller says. “The technology was suited only for satellite launch.” Brian Weedan, a space expert at the Secure World Foundation, agrees, and points out that the missile took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines. “That is definitely something more associated with a space launch than with a ballistic missile launch. It’s not what you would expect to see with a missile test.” [3]

The Unha-3 is simply too small for the job of delivering a nuclear warhead, even assuming that the DPRK had miniaturized a nuclear bomb, an endeavor requiring significant time and effort. The North Koreans would also need to develop a long-range guidance system and a reentry vehicle capable of withstanding the heat of returning through the atmosphere. Experts consider the DPRK to be years away from achieving such steps. [4]

In regard to North Korea’s satellite launches, Lewis Franklin and Nick Hansen of Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation remark, “The oft-repeated phrase ‘readily convertible to an ICBM’ posed by non-technical policy experts is engineering-wise unsupportable.” They explain that while other nations have utilized ICBMs for sending satellites into space, conversion of a light missile like the Uhha-3 into an ICBM “requires considerable redesign and testing, and no country has taken this route.” [5]

The other aspect of the launch that the U.S found so provocative was its violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 of June 12, 2009, which enjoined the DPRK from conducting “any launch using ballistic missile technology.” That resolution was prompted by a North Korean nuclear test. Yet, when Israel, Pakistan and India – all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – not only performed testing, but proceeded to build substantial nuclear arsenals and missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads, no action was forthcoming. This double standard has not gone unnoticed in the DPRK, which understands that the distinction between the North Korean case and that of Israel, Pakistan and India hinges on the latter three nations being U.S. allies, while for decades it has been the target of Western sanctions, threats and pressure.

Interestingly enough, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapon-capable ballistic missiles at around the time of North Korea’s failed satellite launch on April 12, 2012. [6] The Indian and Pakistani missiles did not carry satellites; these were purely military tests, a fact which did not perturb the Obama Administration. Criticism was reserved for North Korea alone, while in regard to India’s test, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner merely noted that the U.S. has a “very strong strategic and security partnership with India.” [7] Following Pakistan’s launch, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s only comment was, “What’s most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians.” [8] These mild remarks contrasted with the vociferous abuse poured upon North Korea for its non-nuclear capable missiles carrying satellites.

Since the April ballistic missile launches, India and Pakistan have continued their tests, including India’s test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile fired from underwater, part of its program to develop submarine-based nuclear missiles. [9] India conducted its underwater ballistic missile test on January 27, only a few days after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea for putting a satellite into orbit.

When North Korea launched its satellite, India condemned the launch as “unwarranted,” and termed it an action adversely impacting peace and stability. [10] That same day, India test fired its nuclear-capable Agni-I ballistic missile, again without complaint by the U.S. [11] And just days after passage of the UN Security Council resolution against the DPRK, Japan put two spy satellites into space, both aimed at North Korea. [12] Not surprisingly, these missile launches evoked no complaint from U.S. officials.

South Korea successfully placed its own satellite into orbit on January 30, 2013, with the complete support of the U.S., which only added to North Korea’s growing sense of irritation over the blatant double standard. The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. The U.S. sits atop the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, possesses the largest military machine on earth, regularly invades or bombs other nations, threatens nations who refuse to bend to its will, turns a blind eye to tests of ballistic missiles by India, Pakistan and Israel, and it condemns the small nation of North Korea for engaging in “provocative” behavior by sending a peaceful satellite into space.

The DPRK bears the distinction of being the only nation to have a UN Security Council resolution in effect banning it from launching a satellite. Yet, the international outer space treaty affirms that outer space “shall be the province of all mankind,” and that “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.” [13] Note the language used here: “without discrimination of any kind.” This is absolutely unambiguous. The treaty does not say “except when the powerful choose to deny this right to a small nation.”

Western analysts argue that when a UN Security Council resolution contradicts international law, it is the resolution that takes precedence. That view makes a mockery of international law, which ceases to have any meaning when it can be discarded at will by imperial dictate.

The UN Charter tasks the Security Council to deal with matters relating to “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression.” The DPRK Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea explains that its satellite launches for peaceful purposes “bear no relationship with the issues of international peace and security.” Moreover, the Security Council has never seen fit to take issue with such nations as the United States and Japan “that are speeding up militarization by launching innumerable spy satellites.” [14]

Sensing that the DPRK’s impending satellite launch would present a welcome opportunity, the U.S. started lining up support for imposing further sanctions on the DPRK well before the launch took place. Already the most heavily sanctioned nation on earth, North Korea’s economy could only suffer more damage from new sanctions. That was precisely the Obama Administration’s aim.

In anticipation of North Korea’s missile launch, South Korea under the ever-hostile administration of Lee Myung-bak, worked with other nations to identify the few remaining international bank accounts held by North Korea which had not yet been closed due to U.S. pressure. The hope was that North Korea could be completely blocked from engaging in international trade. The Lee Administration, too, perceived the missile launch as an opportunity to inflict further economic damage on its neighbor to the north. [15]

The Chinese advocated resuming the six-party talks, which were last held in December 2008. “China really believes that we ought to re-engage with North Korea,” U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke remarked, but “we don’t believe that we should be rewarding their bad behavior by sitting down and talking with them.” U.S. diplomats adamantly ruled out talks. During negotiations in December 2012, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice bluntly told a Chinese diplomat that his nation’s resistance to additional sanctions was “ridiculous.” Rice demanded that North Korea face “consequences” for its satellite launch. [16]

U.S. officials are fond of saying that they will not reward the DPRK for its “bad behavior” by talking with its officials, but one cannot help but wonder: just whose behavior is bad? North Korean officials, whose nation exercised its right under international law and put a peaceful satellite into orbit, a right granted to all nations, and who want dialogue, or U.S. officials, who petulantly refuse to engage in negotiations, and who only know how to bully and intimidate?

The first task was to get China onboard with the concept of imposing new sanctions on its neighbor. High-ranking U.S. and South Korean diplomats met with their Chinese counterparts in Beijing on December 17, 2012. The Chinese opposed sanctions, preferring a prudent response. “The Chinese side repeated its stance that it wants to keep peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula,” a South Korean diplomatic source revealed. But the U.S. had “a strong willingness” to impose sanctions. “The U.S. is also sending a message to China that it will have no choice but to beef up its military readiness against North Korea’s threats unless a resolution is adopted at the U.N. Security Council.” [17]

The United States had already taken a number of steps to increasingly militarize its relations with South Korea in recent months, and it is probable that the threat to expand the U.S. military presence in the region finally persuaded the Chinese to back UN sanctions, despite their inevitable destabilizing effect. A U.S. military buildup in the region would serve a double purpose, aimed not only at North Korea but surely China as well. The Chinese were also keen to avoid straining relations with the U.S, an important trading partner.

Once the U.S. and South Korea won Chinese agreement for a UN Security Council resolution, the Obama Administration had a wish list of harsh measures that it wanted to implement via the resolution. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that the Obama Administration’s plan was “to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we’re looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we’re going to have to continue to further isolate this regime.” Responding to a reporter who commented that North Korea “has long wanted direct talks with the U.S.,” and asked if the U.S. would consider that or stick to the six-party format, Nuland dismissively replied, “We and our partners are not in the business of rewarding them.” [18] There would be no talks of any kind.

U.S. negotiators insisted that the UN Security Council pass a resolution rather than a presidential statement, so that it would carry more force. Under pressure, the Chinese relented. The specific sanctions to be imposed were another matter. There the Chinese were more successful. The U.S. wanted to maximize the damage that would be inflicted on the North Korean people. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said, “The initial draft prepared by the UNSC contained a number of sanctions, but China believed that such measures would not be helpful in defusing the situation and would only cause harm to the North Korean economy and the lives of its people. As a result of more than a month of protracted negotiations, these provisions were removed from the final draft of the resolution.” [19]

UN Security Council resolution 2087 passed unanimously on January 22, 2013, ordering the DPRK to cease launching satellites, and that “any further such activities” would result in its “determination to take significant action.” A number of measures were imposed, including travel bans and asset freezes on specified individuals involved in the DPRK’s space program and banking officials assisting in its financial dealings. Asset freezes were also slapped on the North Korean Committee for Space Technology and North Korean banks and firms involved in the space program, essentially blocking those organizations from engaging in normal international financial transactions. [20]

The U.S. and South Korea immediately began planning further sanctions that they could impose on a bilateral basis. The U.S. had already stopped food aid to North Korea many months beforehand. Among the alternatives the U.S. and South Korea discussed were stepping up inspections of North Korean ships and ways to hamper North Korean ships from travelling near the Korean Peninsula. [21] The U.S. Treasury Department wasted little time in implementing its first set of bilateral sanctions, acting the day after passage of the UN Security Council resolution. It announced that all assets under U.S. control would be frozen held by two North Korean bankers and Hong Kong-based Leader International Trading Limited. [22]

South Korea had already revised its Public Order in Open Ports Act so that it required entry clearance for container ships having visited a North Korean port during the prior 180 days; an increase from the earlier 60 day limit. A South Korean official said that Seoul intended to target shipments into and out of the DPRK. “We are considering sanctions in marine transport. Now that we have already set the legal grounds, we will start talks with other countries over additional sanctions.” [23] The intention is to cut maritime supply routes to North Korea.

Pressure on North Korea is two-fold: economic sanctions and military presence. In the midst of UN Security Council deliberations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called for the reorientation of NATO, to “broaden the scope of our alliance security discussions beyond European and regional issues.” The U.S. has led the expansion of NATO military operations first in its bombing operations in the Balkans, then later in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The aim is for NATO to support aggressive U.S. military operations, across all continents that adjoin Europe and the Mediterranean. “In particular,” Panetta continued, “I strongly believe that Europe should join the United States in increasing and deepening defense engagement with the Asia-Pacific region…The bottom line is that Europe should not fear our rebalance to Asia; Europe should join it.” [24]

However, there is one thing one can say about the North Koreans. They are never cowed by imperial bullying.

Shortly before passage of the UN Security Council resolution, the DPRK sent a message to the United States, calling for negotiations to settle security concerns. That message apparently went unanswered. [25]

As soon as the UN resolution passed, the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued its response, stating that it “flatly rejects the unjust acts of the UNSC aimed at wantonly violating the sovereignty of the DPRK and depriving it of the right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes. The hostile forces are seriously mistaken if they think they can bring down the DPRK with sanctions and pressure.” The Foreign Ministry asserted that the “DPRK will continue to exercise its independent and legitimate right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes while abiding by the universally recognized international law on the use of space for peaceful purposes.” Furthermore, “the DPRK will continuously launch satellites for peaceful purposes.”

Noting that U.S. hostility remains unchanged, the DPRK Foreign Ministry concluded that “the prospect for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become gloomier,” and so “there may be talks for peace and stability…but no talks for the denuclearization of the peninsula.” North Korea, it said, “will take steps for physical counteraction to bolster the military capabilities for self-defense, including nuclear deterrence…to cope with the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to apply sanctions and apply pressure against the DPRK.” [26] First a peace settlement must be reached; only then can talks on denuclearization can proceed.

Events on the Korean Peninsula are heading in a potentially dangerous direction. New sanctions on the DPRK and the refusal of the Obama Administration to engage in dialogue have eliminated any exit strategy. North Korea, feeling threatened, may conduct another nuclear test to further develop the best defense it has against military aggression and to assert its independence. However, South Korea promises “very grave consequences” if it follows that path. [27] The U.S. has made similarly threatening statements.

According to South Korean presidential national security advisor Chun Yung-woo, consequences must be imposed on the DPRK that it finds intolerable. North Korea must choose between nuclear weapons or its survival, he declared. “No other options must be allowed.” [28]

Ratcheting up pressure on the DPRK, the U.S. and South Korea kicked off joint naval military exercises in the East Sea on February 4, 2013, including the nuclear submarine USS San Francisco. “Through this joint military exercise, we will be able to deliver a message to North Korea that if they engage in a defiant act, it won’t be tolerated,” warned Jung Seung-jo, chairman of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff. [29]

North Korea has always responded in kind. When approached diplomatically, it negotiates and when threatened, it resists. Neither the U.S. nor South Korea is open to dialogue at the present time. Both are bent on exacerbating tensions.

China is attempting to dissuade the DPRK from carrying out another nuclear test, aware of the dangers that U.S. and South Korean aggressive reaction could present. But even if North Korea refrains from conducting another nuclear test, it is clear that the U.S. is seeking a pretext – any pretext – to squeeze North Korea harder, and it may not take much to plunge the Korean Peninsula into a terrible crisis.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Liberators-Militarism-Mayhem-Pursuit/dp/1595265708 
Notes
[1] http://www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/index.php/2012

[2] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[3] Ken Dilanian, “Experts Debate North Korea’s Missile Goals and Capability,” Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2013.

[4] “Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets,” Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[5] Steven Haggard, “More on the Missile Test,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 19, 2012.

[6] Aleksandr Zakharovich Zhebin, “Pyongyang will Respond to the United Nations with a Nuclear Explosion: North Korea is Abandoning the Promises of Denuclearization,” Nezavismaya Gazeta, January 25, 2013.

[7] Heather Timmons and Jim Yardley, “Signs of an Asian Arms Buildup in India’s Missile Test,” New York Times, April 19, 2012.

[8] Sami Zubeiri, “Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile,” Agence France-Presse, April 25, 2012.

[9] “India Tests Underwater Ballistic Missile,” UPI, January 27, 2013.

[10] “India Terms North Korean Rocket Launch ‘Unwarranted,” Deccan Herald, December 12, 2012.

[11] “India Successfully Test-fires Agni-I Ballistic Missile,” Press Trust of India, December 12, 2012.

[12] Stephen Clark, “Japan Launches Spy Satellites into Orbit,” Space Flight Now, January 28, 2013.

[13] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

[14] Ri Hyon-to, “We Reject the UN Security Council ‘Resolution’ Fabricated Under US Initiative,” Rodong Sinmun, January 29, 2013.

[15] Kim Young-jin, “Seoul Seeks to Freeze NK Accounts,” Korea Times, December 5, 2012.

[16] “N. Korea Not Expected to See U.N. Penalties this Year for Rocket Launch,” Global Security Newswire, December 18, 2012.

“China Resists Moves to Sanction N. Korea: Diplomats,” Agence France-Presse, December 18, 2012.

[17] “U.S. Pressing China to Back U.N. Punishment for N. Korea: Source,” Yonhap, December 18, 2012.

[18] Victoria Nuland, Daily Press Briefing, U.S. Department of State, December 17, 2012.

[19] Park Min-hee, “What Made China Vote for UN Sanctions on North Korea?”, Hankoreh, January 24, 2013.

“China Says New UN Resolution on DPRK ‘Generally Balanced,’ Xinhua, January 23, 2013.

[20] UN Security Council SC/10891, “Security Council Condemns Use of Ballistic Missile Technology in Launch by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in Resolution 2087 (2013),” January 22, 2013.

[21] “S. Korea, U.S. Ponders ‘Additional Sanctions’ Against N. Korea,” Yonhap, January 23, 2013.

[22] Press Release, “Treasury Sanctions Company and Individuals Linked to North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Program,” U.S. Department of Treasury, January 24, 2013.

[23] Park Hyung-ki and Shin Hyon-hee, “S. Korea Analyzed Salvaged N. Korean Rocket Debris,” Korea Herald, December 14, 2012.

[24] Jorge Benitez, “Panetta: NATO Needs to Join U.S. Rebalance to Asia-Pacific,” Atlantic Council NATO Alliance News Blog, January 18, 2013.

[25] “N. Korea Sends ‘Ultimatum’ to U.S. on Nuke Issue: Newspaper,” Yonhap, January 21, 2013.

[26] “DPRK Refutes UNSC’s ‘Resolution’ Pulling Up DPRK over its Satellite Launch,” KCNA, January 23, 2013.

[27] “S. Korea Warns N. Korea Will Face ‘Grave Consequences’ in Case of Nuclear Test,” Yonhap, January 31, 2013.

[28 “S. Korea Calls for ‘Intolerable’ Sanctions Against N. Korea’s Nuke Ambition,” Yonhap, January 30, 2013.

[29] Jeong Yong-soo, “U.S. Sends Submarine to East Sea,” JoongAng Ilbo, February 2, 2013.

Park Byong-su, “Large South Korea-US Military Exercises to Involve Nuclear Submarine,” Hanyoreh, February 2, 2013.

Copyright © Gregory Elich, Global Research, 2013

India to launch Mars mission in 2013

France24 News
September 17, 2012

credit: NASA

AFP - India plans to launch a space probe that will orbit Mars in November 2013, a senior official from the country's space research establishment said on Monday.

"We are scheduling to launch the Mars mission November 27, 2013 when the red planet will be closer to the earth," K. Radhakrishnan, chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) told reporters in Bangalore.

"We plan to put a spacecraft in an elliptical orbit for studying its atmosphere and detect presence of life on its surface," he said in the southern Indian city, where ISRO is headquartered.

The project would mark another step in India's ambitious space programme, which placed a probe on the moon three years ago and envisages its first manned mission in 2016.

According to Radhakrishnan, the unmanned mission could cost nearly five billion rupees ($90 million).

India has a well-established space programme, which is a source of strong national pride, but it has also attracted criticism as the government struggles to tackle dire poverty and child malnutrition.

In September 2009, India's Chandrayaan-1 lunar probe discovered water on the moon, boosting the country's credibility among more experienced space-faring nations.

But the space programme suffered a setback in December 2010 when a satellite launch vehicle blew up and fell into the Bay of Bengal after veering from its intended flight path.

The United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and China have all sent missions to Mars.

The US robot Curiosity is currently on the surface of the "Red Planet" after landing on Mars more than a month ago.

It is a nuclear-powered vehicle that is designed for a two-year mission, though scientists hope it will last at least twice that long.

'Vaginal tightener and whitener' products in India a perverse campaign to discriminate and degrade woman not "empowerment!"

As modern as India may be from its fantasy Bollywood movies, the woman in the conservative society have voiced their opinion and displeasure concerning an Indian company`s new product called '18 Again'  - a vaginal tightening and rejuvenation cream designed to be make you 'feel like a virgin again' or to 'feel like the first time." Now this product comes on the heels of another vaginal product introduced in India - a vaginal whitener! This whitener is called the Clean & Dry feminine wash.

Media reports on the '18-Again' product say it is for "a tighter vagina is empowering because 'it's not just about sexual pleasure, but also about preventing infection, discharge, urinary incontinence, and making older women feel good'." But this statement has been called 'hilarious and maddening' by academics.

Both products have garnered condemnation by general people in society as well as the academics. But everyone knows that these products will be sold to woman as a 'health issue' that every woman "should" do. This is how this modern society is, so gullible and quick to conform to the whims of a false illusion of reality and of this world. This society is becoming more and more perverse and will not stop unfortunately as we march towards the end days.
Our desire driven society has succumbed to a sex driven society, a sexed mad society, a society that promotes sex to be only a physical carnal pleasure of the flesh.

India it seems, as become the beacon of insult and discrimination against darker skin tones. These products are a "sad indictment of discrimination against darker skin within the social caste system."

Columnist Laskhmi Chaudry lambasted the product in her blog, writing: 'The campaign to eliminate the scourge of darkness has extended to every nook and cranny of a woman’s body.'

Read the articles (sources):

• Want to feel like a virgin again? Cream for 'vaginal tightening' sparks controversy...(DailyMail)
• After fairness cream, vaginal tightening cream is here to empower the Indian woman (Tehelka)
• Vagina 'Brightener': Indian Feminine Hygiene Product Promises To Make Genitals 'Many Shades Fairer' (Huffington Post)

View the '18-Again' ad: http://youtu.be/vPayFrCOiZM
Indian Vagina Fairness Cream Ad: http://youtu.be/8TquSyCnna0

Indian company introduces '18-Again,' a vaginal tightening and rejuvenating cream promising to make a woman "feel like a virgin" or "like the first time."

Want to feel like a virgin again? Cream for 'vaginal tightening' sparks controversy...and its excruciating advert will make you cringe

• Indian cream promises 'vaginal rejuvenation'
• Twitter users appalled
• Cream follows India's controversial 'vagina lightening' cream

By MARTHA DE LACEY
DAILYMAIL
PUBLISHED: 15 August 2012

18 Again promises to make a woman 'feel like a virgin' 

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEOS

The company claims their product 'empowers women', but plenty of women disagree.

The launch of a new 'vaginal tightening and rejuvenating cream' by an Indian pharmaceutical company  has sparked fury among the fairer sex.

Not only have women voiced the opinion on Twitter that 18 Again was created by Ultratech purely to cash in on female insecurities, but many are have criticised the accompanying TV advert.

The advert for 18 Again involves a woman dancing seductively around her husband, repeatedly singing the line 'Ooh, I feel like a virgin'

The awkward commercial, set in an extended family household, involves a woman dancing around the internal courtyard with her husband.

She repeatedly sings lines borrowed and from Madonna's Like A Virgin (but given a Bollywood makeover), including 'ooh, I feel like a virgin' and 'it feels like the first time'.

Her husband grabs her waist and warbles 'oh, yes it's true' while an elderly couple of parents look on, seemingly aghast.

The film ends with a shot of the product, then a clip of the intrigued elderly couple apparently using the internet to order some of the cream for themselves.

Rishi Bhatia, chairman and managing director of Ultratech India, said: '18 Again is a first-of-its-kind product for women in India.

'18 Again has the power and the potential to break the shackles and redefine the meaning of women empowerment altogether.'
[...]
Priti Nair, director of Curry-Nation, the creative agency behind the advert, said: 'This is a one-of-a-kind women-centric product, and the idea is to create a demand for such a product in the Indian market.
[...]
According to online Indian news magazine Tehelka.com, Curry-Nation's account manager Nagessh Pannaswami has said that a tighter vagina is empowering because 'it's not just about sexual pleasure, but also about preventing infection, discharge, urinary incontinence, and making older women feel good'.

But Professor Nivedita Menon of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, condemns the product, saying he finds the idea both 'hilarious and maddening'.

He says: 'The perversity of it all lies in the fact that the gel will be sold as a health issue, as something women "should" do to take better care of their bodies.'

The vaginal tightening cream furore follows an earlier one in April, which came about after the A feminine hygiene product launched in India which promises to 'brighten' skin around the vagina is causing widespread controversy.

A 25-second TV advert for Clean & Dry Intimate Wash, advertised on prime time television, showed a woman using the product to lighten her vagina to please her man.

The product also attracted condemnation on Twitter and blogging sites, with one (male) user branding it 'the ultimate insult', and others bemoaning the extent of discrimination against darker skin tones.

The advertising strapline for the product was: 'Life for women will now be fresher, cleaner and more importantly fairer and more intimate.'

The product was seen by many in India as a sad indictment of discrimination against darker skin within the social caste system.

Columnist Laskhmi Chaudry lambasted the product in her blog, writing: 'The campaign to eliminate the scourge of darkness has extended to every nook and cranny of a woman’s body.'





(videos are property of their respective owners)

Forget 370 million, second India blackout leaves 670 million without power!

Previous post: India's power grid crashes - 370 million without electricity...(7/30/12)

By Frank Jack Daniel
REUTERS
NEW DELHI | Tue Jul 31, 2012

(Reuters) - Hundreds of millions of people across India were left without power on Tuesday in one of the world's worst blackouts, trapping miners, stranding train travellers and plunging hospitals into darkness when grids collapsed for the second time in two days.

Stretching from Assam, near China, to the Himalayas and the northwestern deserts of Rajasthan, the outage covered states where half of India's 1.2 billion people live and embarrassed the government, which has failed to build up enough power capacity to meet soaring demand...

(click here to continue reading the full article)

India's power grid crashes - 370 million without electricity...

On Monday, Northern India suffered a massive blackout  affecting 370 million people, stopping all communications and running back up power where possible at the airport and hospitals. The worst blackout to hit India in a decade, believed to be caused by a surge in demand for electricity in the summer heat that the grid could not just keep up...

(click here to read the full details on AP)

Wife`s genitals 'drilled with holes and sealed with a padlock' whenever husband went to work

Mechanic 'drilled holes in wife's genitals so he could seal them with a PADLOCK when he went to work'

• Sitabai Chouhan had tried to kill herself with poison
• Medics discovered primitive chastity belt still in place
• Husband arrested and police found keys in sock
• Claimed he did it because women in family 'strayed'

By DAILY MAIL
July 18, 2012

She was brought into hospital after attempting to commit suicide with rat poison.

But when nurses examined Sitabai Chouhan, they make a horrific discovery that was medieval in its barbarity.

Four years ago, the housewife had been drugged by her husband Chouhan who then punctured holes with a needle on either side of her genitals.

He had carried out the agonising assault so he could seal her private parts with a padlock when he went to work to stop her having sex with anyone else.

Assault: Sitabai Chouhan lies on a makeshift bed in hospital where nurses discovered the makeshift chastity belt

When she was admitted to the Maharaja Yashwant Raoin Hospital in Indore, India, the crudely-fashioned chastity belt was still in place.

It was only removed when police tracked down her husband and retrieved the key. He had kept the keys in his socks.

Head constable Chhaganlal said: ‘The nurses confirmed the existence of a small lock. It was only after the husband’s arrest that the lock could be opened.’

Barbaric: Chouhan said he
had assaulted his wife because 

women in his family had strayed 

in the past

Chouhan said he had done this because several women in his family had 'strayed' in the past.

Mrs Chouhan is being treated in hospital and is expected to make a full recovery.

Her husband, meanwhile, has been charged with cruelty and voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Police described him as an alcoholic who was mentally disturbed.

Mrs Chouhan married her husband when she was 16. They have had five

She is said to have attempted suicide after her husband allegedly tried to rape their eldest daughter.

A chastity belt is usually a piece of clothing that can be locked to stop the wearer having sex. The first recorded examples of their use is in the 15th century.

But it is not a item completely alien to modern India. Human rights groups have reported their use in the conservative state of Rajasthan as recently as 2007.

Gender rights activists say Indian women face a barrage of threats in India.

Many of the crimes against women are a result of a deep-rooted mindset that women are inferior and must be restricted to being homemakers and childbearers.

In addition, age-old customs such as payment of hefty dowries at the time of marriage and widely held beliefs linking a female's sexual behaviour to family honour have allowed gender crimes to persist.

Earlier this month, a dentist was reportedly arrested in Karnataka after his wife accused him of forcing her to drink his urine because she refused to meet dowry demands.

Sanctions...what sanctions? Ukraine to invest $800mln in Iranian oil sector; India continues to buy Iranian oil

Ukraine to invest USD800mln in developing three Iranian oil fields
Press TV
Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:51PM GMT


-Updated Feb 23, 2012:
India charters new tanker to ship more Iranian crude
Tajikistan ready to buy Iranian crude oil: Tajik envoy

Iran has signed a contract with a consortium consisting of Iranian and Ukrainian companies for the development of Kouhmond, Boushkan and Kouhkaki oil fields.

Naft Gas Prom Pars consortium will invest about USD 800 million in
developing three Iranian oil fields., photo credit: PressTV

The contract, valued at about USD 800 million, was signed on Monday between the Petroleum Engineering and Development Company, an affiliate of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and Inter Naft Gas Prom Pars Co., which is a consortium of Iranian and Ukrainian entities.

NIOC managing director, Ahmad Qalebani, told reporters that the consortium would invest about USD 800 million in the development of the three Iranian oil fields.

Kouhmond heavy oil field is located 80 km to the east of Bushehr port in southern Iran. Though eight wells have been already drilled in the field, only two wells are meant for heavy oil production. The field's in-place heavy crude reserves have been estimated at about one billion barrels.

Kouhkaki oil field is located northeast of Kouhmond about 15 km south of the city of Khormoj where only one well was drilled in 1973. The field contains light crude with estimated in-place reserves of about 780 million barrels.

Boushkan oil field is located 100 km north of Bushehr and 30 km from Dalan gas field. The field’s in-place reserves have been estimated at about 340 million barrels with a single well drilled in 1963.

The fields will be developed in two phases to produce 11,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil after the completion of the first phase, which will hit 22,000 bpd when the second phase is finished.

A total of 18 heavy and extra heavy oilfields have so far been discovered in Iran, including Ferdowsi oil field in the Persian Gulf, which is one of the country's biggest heavy oil fields with proven reserves of more than 31 billion barrels.

Iran's total in-place oil reserves have been estimated at more than 560 billion barrels with about 140 billion barrels of extractable oil. Moreover, heavy and extra heavy varieties of crude oil account for roughly 70-100 billion barrels of the total reserves.

Iran holds the world's third largest proven oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas reserves.

SS/AZ/HGH

Additional Info:
US Gen. Dempsey: Iran rational actor, not after nukes
India importing Iran oil, slap in face for US: Ex-US Official
‘EU banned Iran oil to satisfy Israel’
Iran cutting oil to EU in line with international law: MP
South Korea exempted from non-oil trade ban on Iran

Using gold to buy crude oil?...you betcha

Numismaticassets

It seems India has purchased Iranian oil from Iran using gold, circumventing unilateral U.S. and EU sanctions placed on the Iranian oil industry and financial institutions. (The sanctions placed on Iran ban any bank involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European financial institutions.) And now, China, another top purchaser of Iranian oil may follow suit in future oil transactions. India and China, the two major buyers of Iranian oil together account for 40% of all exports of oil from Iran while the EU accounts for 20% of Iranian oil.

India and China do not support and refuse to join the sanctions. Russia, already announced in a bilateral meeting they would implement bilateral trade using their domestic national  currencies instead of the dollar. Russia already uses their rouble for trade with China

Now this would severely hurt what the U.S. and EU sanctions and oil embargo are trying to do. Just this past Monday, the EU announced an oil embargo against Iran. Oil is priced in US dollars, and bypassing the greenback will pose challenges for both parties. This will certainly push the price of gold high, especially as large sums of gold are involved in such oil transactions, and that would hurt the value of the dollar especially at a time like this.

RT News (24 Jan 2012): India pays gold for Iranian Oil:

RT News: Priya Sridhar (24 Jan 2012)

Source: Sanctions dodge: India to pay gold for Iran oil, China may follow (RT News), 24 Jan 2012

India Beefing up its Military

What`s behind the sudden surge in India`s defense spending

India`s been making headlines recently as it openly signed deals and contracts to procure significant military hardware, namely for its navy and airforce. The deals announced between, now the primary arms supplier Russia and India are staggering and the pacts have been valued at more than $10 billion which on top of previous deals still on the books. The high profile deals were officially signed during Prime Minister Vladmir Putin`s visit to India on March 12, 2010. Military hardware aside, the recent pacts additionally call for more increased cooperation and partnership in areas of developing nuclear reactors, equipment for GPS systems and airplane and truck assembly plants.

Russia additionally wants to increase annual trade with India from the current level of about $8 billion to $20 billion by 2015. Russia now currently supplies 60-70% of India`s defense equipment. On the nuclear side, Russian deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia will build up to 16 nuclear reactors for power stations in India. Russia nuclear reactors have been cited as one of the best and safest in the world.

Over the next 12 years, India is set to spend a whopping $200 billion on defence acquisitions to replace its outdated inventory. In this regard, on February 15, 2010, a report of the Indian strategic defense magazine (India Strategic’s DefExpo) revealed that 70% of the inventory of the Indian armed forces is 20-plus years old, and needs to be replaced with modern technology. It explained that nearly half of this funding ($100b) will go to the Indian Air Force (IAF), which would need to replace more than half of its combat jet fleet as well as the entire transport aircraft and helicopter fleet. The army needs new guns, tanks, rocket launchers, multi-terrain vehicles, while the navy needs ships, aircraft carriers and new range of nuclear submarines.

During a recent visit of the US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to New Delhi, American Defence officials, however, have said that US weapons sales to India would not be a focus of the trip. Regardless of such denials, the key reason for the Gates’ visit can be found in the fact that India is planning to raise its military budget by 50% to almost $40 billion, making military expenditure 3% of the annual GDP. In contrast to India’s planned defence expenditures, Pakistan’s entire 2009-10 budget amounts to little over $30 billion!

The fact of the matter is, India wants to become a mini-superpower of the region and hence it uses the pretext of deterrence against Pakistan and China. In this context, New Delhi with the dual support of the US and Israel has presumed peace-loving Pakistan and China as their arch enemies, but it does not admit it officially.

Recent major military acquisitions:

-Signed $1.5 bln contract on 29 additional MiG-29K Fulcrum carrier based fighter jets (this is in addition to a contract for 12 single-seat MiG-29k and 4 double-seat MiG-29KUB to India navy)

-Deal to upgrade the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier at a cost of $2.3 bln. (The Gorshkov is a Kiev-class carrier, displaces 45,000 tons, 32 knots and endurance of 13,500 nautical mi. The carrier will be rechristened the Vikramaditya)

- Deal to deliver 42 Su-30MKI jet fighters to Indian airforce, at a cost of $3 bln (This is in addition to 69 jets previously ordered by India and set to be delivered in 2011. The new air-superiority fighters will come on top of the 230 already contracted from Russia in three deals worth a total of $8.5 billion.)

-Joint venture to produce GPS equipment, the Glonass, for the use of defense needs (Glonass- the Global Navigation Satellite System is the Russian equivalent to the US Global Positioning System or GPS.

India, Slowly Becoming a South-East Asian Superpower

The Hindustani nation of India slowly flexing it`s muscles in South-East asia

The nation of India is making headlines on the international front that slowly is making the hindustani nation become a superpower in the south-east asian region. This week, ahead of scheduled meetings between the heads of state, India and Russia signed deals on nuclear energy and arms sales.

Russia is already building two nuclear power units in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and agreed to install four more nuclear reactors there as part of an agreement signed during Medvedev's visit to India last year. The Russia's state-owned nuclear power firm - Rosatom could build up to 20 nuclear power units in India in all, including four to six in the state of West Bengal, the ITAR-TASS state news agency reported, citing the company's chief.

"These are not just billions, these are tens of billions of dollars" worth of contracts, Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said, quoted by ITAR-TASS. On the arms side, India is looking for better air-defense capabilities, bolstering it`s navy as well as their airforce. It has been known for some time, India has been looking into AWACS for their airforce and other electronic warfare equipment as well as upgrading their soviet-era air fleet. India also soon will have an additional member to it`s navy fleet, the retired soviet-era 44,570-ton aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov.

All this comes on the heels of a joint venture between India and Russia to develop multirole transport aircraft (MTA). The plan calls for the production of 21o MTA`s jointly, with Russia buying 100 and India buying the rest. The MTA is intended to replace the Indian Air Force's transport aircraft, most of which were bought from Russia. India has about 100 medium-lift An-32s and about 20 heavy-lift Il-76s. In 2008, India signed a contract for the purchase of six C-130 Hercules transport planes from the U.S.

With all this said, India slowly is becoming a major superpower in the region but nothing close to China`s level yet but, India does have a faster rate of growth. If you look at Indian state ideals for the past 50-60 years, they have overcome so much to be where they are all in spite of their bitter neighboring rival Pakistan over nuclear capabilities. Now, it seems India wants to have an upper hand in the region to counter any possible Pakistani aggression should the government be dissolved and left to the radical mullahs or any other potential action to destabilize the region.