PIRACY : TERROR FUNDING

The silicon terrorism
How piracy is funding the global terrorism?

The Hurt Locker, a story on Iraq war and winner of six Academy Awards, may be just another movie in the line of terrorism, but it took war on piracy to an interesting turn. One of the scenes in the movie, where Christopher Sayegh (as Beckham) sells pirated DVDs and various electronic items outside the Jeremy Renner's military base, may not be the climax, but has a significant role in the theme of the film. The pirated DVDs, which are sold for about $1 each, are not only a major source of terror funding in the Middle-East, but are sources of minting money for global terror groups.

On May 2010, Voltage Pictures, the production company of The Hurt Locker, sued thousands of computer users who downloaded pirated copies of the film and filed complaints against 5,000 unidentified BitTorrent users with the US District Court (largest lawsuit of its kind). In addition, it demanded $1,500 from each defendant to release them from the suit. This case, however, may be one-of-its-kind, but it would surely go a long way in influencing production companies to take such steps to reduce piracy. According to a report, counterfeiting and piracy cost around $250 billion annually from the movie industry. Terrorists and organised criminal groups are exploiting this huge market in order to fund their evil plans — for instance, the highly active D-Company that spearheads the major syndicate involved with film piracy in India and sub-continent for the past 25 years. In 2004, an Interpol report revealed that intellectual property crimes (illegal CDs manufacturing) are a growing resource for terrorist groups from Northern Ireland to the Arab world, including Al-Qaida and Hezbollah. This mode of terror funding is not only present and practised in Asia and the UK, but also found in Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. According to a report by Rand Corporation, Hezbollah receives $20 million annually from proceeds of pirated films in the tri-border area. Moreover, restrictions on release of international movies in countries like China (allows only 20 foreign movies per year) have cost its industry a whopping $2.5 billion in 2005 (the last available data), due to influx of pirated DVDs. Studies say that developing a pirated DVD in South Asian countries costs less than 70 cents and these can be sold in developed countries for around $10 each. Not only is developing a pirated DVD relatively safer and cheaper, the transfer is equally easy. For example, in France, transacting counterfeit products, including pirated DVDs, is punishable by a fine up to $0.19 million and imprisonment up to two years (whereas selling drugs is punishable with 10 years imprisonment along with a fine up to $9.5 million). However, the pirating gets more lucrative not just because of the returns it offers, but also because of the low risk factor. The rate of conviction for piracy is lower compared to that of smuggling drugs. In 2002-03, merely 134 criminals were convicted of piracy while smuggling of drugs pushed around 1.5 million criminals behind the bars in the US alone.

It is just not about saving millions of dollars that finds its way into the terror industry, but actually about several innocent human lives that are eventually hit. While anti-piracy laws will take its own time to stop piracy, a move like Voltage Picture's will certainly deter internet users from downloading pirated movies.

US: TERROR POLITICS?

Why Osama will be...!
Alive! There are reasons to kill Osama, and there are reasons to keep him alive; Pakistan, and the US, look decisively tilted towards the latter

May 11, 2010: In context with the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan and said, “…Pak officials know where bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” A few days later, she reiterates her warning (albeit in a relatively softer tone) and said, “There is more that Pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy…” May 12, 2010: The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates bellows, “The relationship between the two anti-terror allies [aka, USA and Pakistan] has improved significantly over the last two years.”

In the two statements above, which are obviously contradictory, the usage of word “ally” does raise critical concerns. When one juxtaposes this with the latest leakage of thousands of secret US military records by a whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, which proves Pakistan’s deep complicity in terrorist activities, US pro-Pak political intentions suddenly become suspiciously dangerous, as the US and especially Barack Obama ostensibly are still not convinced enough to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state, amazingly turning a blind eye to what seems crystal clear to the rest of the world!

But wait! Barack’s bent clearly must be a put-on, in his efforts to get Pakistan’s assistance to catch Osama bin Laden, right? At least initially, it seemed so. But of late, Barack’s double entendres just can’t be ignored. While Barack announced that his administration would stick with pulling out US troops from Iraq (down from a peak 150,000 to 50,000 by the end of this month), he has concurrently increased the deployment of US soldiers in Afghanistan (up from 68,000 to 100,000). With a shrewd redeployment, it’s quite clear that the US is simply gaining avenues to increase its influence over Central Asia. Without the excuse of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Taliban, the US would surely have faced global admonition on troop deployment.

On the other side of the coin, the presence of Osama and the controlled nurturing of Taliban and anti-India elements allows Pakistan to keep receiving spectacularly humungous aid from the US, most of the moneys going to the personal pockets of local bureaucrats and politicians in Pakistan, a handful of who – by some accounts – are now close to becoming billionaires. Pre-Osama, from 1991 till 2000, Pakistan received $434.2 million as economic and military assistance aid from the US. Post Osama (9/11), from 2001 till 2009, Pakistan has received a shocking $15 billion from the US; and Obama had deftly announced another hollering $7.5 billion in October 2009! 

Newsweek reported late last year that officials at the US embassy in Islamabad alleged that “Pakistan misspent some 70% of the US funds!” Pakistan is also accused of “running a double game with the money, keeping the Taliban at bay just enough to persuade American benefactors to keep their wallets open.” Not that this was a State secret; but the benign nature of Barack Obama’s response – or lack of it – is astounding! On August 2, 2010, Obama commented that Pakistan is beginning to “take the fight to violent extremists within its borders.” That sounds as far from the truth as possible.

Thomas Friedman writes in this week’s issue of The Sunday Indian, “The 9/11 attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” Fareed Zakaria confirms, “70 percent of the terror plots uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan,” a country which, Zakaria adds, is “the epicentre of Islamic terrorism!”

Is Barack Obama blind or are we plain nutty? The practice of keeping anti-social elements alive for political and economic benefits is not just a western phenomenon. In the Asian continent, the most famous case was of a forest brigand cum smuggler in Southern India, called Koose Muniswamy Veerappan, who – in spite of being charged of murdering 184 people, poaching around 200 elephants, smuggling ivory and sandalwood worth $24,600,000, kidnapping the who’s who of the political and entertainment world – never saw the local government ordering swift action against the criminal, mainly because a considerable amount of money flowed into the territory due to his staying alive and in action.

Similar is the case with bin Laden. His living means more to Pakistan than to any other entity. Barack’s refusal to call a spade what it is, will go down in history as perhaps the worst two-faced moves ever made. Friedman quotes, “If you are in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you!” Obama, ever wondered why Chelsea never invited you for her wedding?

FUNDING : TERROR SCHOOLS

Crime is what they teach

Call it SOA or WHINSEC, the US must close down this war factory soon

 

The history of hiring mercenaries to conduct war on a country's behalf is certainly not a new phenomenon. The Saika mercenary group of the Kii Province, Japan, played a significant role during the Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji in the 15th century. Although, the concept of mercenaries — also known as overseas security consultants — may have changed, but using these trained troops to do one’s evil work is still rampant. The mercenaries, who had been hired for international peacekeeping duties, are now being used for different purposes. Present day governments across the world (especially in developed countries) use them as convenient tool to meet their political ambitions.

Ironically, Fort Benning—a mercenary producing factory and popularly known as the Army School of the Americas (or SOA) in Georgia — widely known for recruiting best of instructors and students from Latin America's military forces. These instructors and students, however, undergo rigorous training for counter-insurgency, military intelligence, interrogation techniques, jungle operations – to name a few. But these students are not trained to protect their border or safeguard their country from foreign invasion, rather to wage a war against their own people! Congressman Josheph kennedy was once found quoting, “…US Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world." Apparently, if media reports are to be believed, in the past 60 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 mercenaries who have tortured and killed thousands of Latin Americans till date. Even Colonel Alberto Quijano (Colombian Army's special forces) was recently arrested for helping Diego León Montoya Sánchez — who is on FBI’s most-wanted list and is the leader of Norte del Valle Cartel. Besides, name like Atlacatl Battalion, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez and Juan Velasco Alvarado are some of the alumni of this war factory. Moreover, Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodriguez (responsible for the deaths of at least 149 people), Gen. Hector Gramajo (architect of genocidal policies from 1980-1991 in Guatemala) are other prominent names. Reports say, the SOA graduates conducts most horrendous crime across the world. In fact, over 10 high-ranking military officers (SOA graduates) are accused of human rights abuses. 

After huge public outrage and protest, the SOA changed its named to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). However, reports have confirmed that the training at SOA still prevails in the Latin American countries. In 2008, the Congress completely terminated $20 million annual funding bill for the SOA/WHINSEC. This has boosted the spirits of NGOs and social watch groups, who are still optimistic about the closure of the facility. With Obama closing down the Guantanamo Bay and advocating humans rights across the world, activists seem hopeful that the US President will close the "bloody" school. 

With series of WikiLeaks and surfacing of human rights abuses by the US, Obama may soon curb the funding of the institution, if not the closure. 

Pervez Musharraf - dictator in democracy

Give me my legal right this time - The Return of the Last Samuri...

Ex-President Pervez Musharraf’s desire to enter Pakistan’s politics, again, has some good and some bad with it. However, the good seems to surpass the bad at the moment

Few were ready to denote General Pervez Musharraf’s Presidential exit and his unannounced exile as his walk into the sunset; the general view was that he would return to fight another day. It seems that the time has come, as he seeks the company’s top post again, albeit via the democratic route this time. In his address on Feburary 16, 2010, to the Chatham House think-tank, he said, “I love my country and I would do anything for Pakistan. However, it is for the people of Pakistan who need to decide… I have to come through the political process, through the process of elections. But I think it’s very good, it’s very good because I think I will have that legitimacy, which I never had…” This remark of Musharraf shows that he still lives in the belief that this reign (rather eight year long dictatorial regime) was the most successful political period in the history of Pakistan. In addition, he expects the Pakistani people to now vote for him and bring him back to power. And as he admits himself, being a dictator wasn’t helping his cause either.

There is no denial to the fact that Pakistan, today, is in a process of utter disintegration. A brief recall of Pakistan’s past will make it clear that the ground for Pakistan’s disintegration was all set during Musharraf’s presidency. It was actually during Musharraf’s time that corruption found its new highs within the whole bureaucratic hierarchy. Today, Musharraf stays in one of London’s most expensive areas. Covertly and overtly supporting terrorist and extremist blocks and even manipulating their actions against India, Musharraf is an excellent example of how shrewd scheming and manipulation can be diplomatically window dressed in hyperbole words.

Musharraf has himself admitted boldly that the Kashmiri insurgency was fathered in Pakistan. But in the same voice, he also says that the Indian Muslim youth are increasingly feeling alienated. Strangely, one doesn’t hear him commenting on Pakistani Muslim youth that much. While stating his desire to return to power – and commenting that the Pakistani people need to decide on the issue – Musharraf forgets that it’s the same people who want him to be punished for the mammoth money laundering case that is still pending against him.

But then, Pakistan also saw something remarkable in Musharraf’s time. Between 1999 to 2007, Pakistan’s economy, revenue, per capita income, exports grew by 100% while foreign reserves, stock exchange, foreign direct investment grew by a jaw dropping 500%. The country also saw marked reductions in poverty and illiteracy levels. In 2006, Pakistan was the 3rd fastest growing economy of the world and a preferred destination for investment and also saw its ranking in almost all international lists improving. This dictator also gave licenses to almost 50 TV channels to operate.

But then, the current gloomy future of Pakistan is not safe for India’s internal security. Undoubtedly, if Pakistan disintegrates, the probability of the power and nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists will be quite high. In the given situation, would Musharraf be a good choice for India to support as the President? That’s a choice between the Devil and the Deep Sea, as India stands a loser whichever way the Pakistani cookie crumbles. Irrespective of any person in power in Pakistan, India would be seen as a legacy enemy and a violator of the rights of Kashmir. To that end, the American hold over Pakistan – however managed – is not only to India’s benefit, but to the whole region as well.

A joke in Pakistan goes like this. With 50% of Pakistani citizens illiterate, at any given moment only half of them make sensible statements. Musharraf qualifies on that statistic pretty well. He makes sense only half the time.

terrorism: world

Calling all the countries

Only a united world can fight global terrorism and usher in peace

The year 2008 has not been peaceful, especially for countries like India, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and a few others. There was no month in 2008 that newspapers went without citing any terror activities; the latest being the Pakistan terror attack and 26/11 Mumbai attack.

During her recent visit to India and Pakistan, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged both the countries to cooperate on terrorism issues. Terrorism affects not only the victim country; its effects are felt by many other countries that are not even on the terrorists' radar. Attacks on hotels (for instance, the Taj and Oberoi in Mumbai, Marriott in Islamabad and Jakarta, Serena in Kabul, Grand Hyatt and Radisson in Amman, Hilton in Taba) has recently increased. Such attacks not only kill the citizens of the target country but many foreign tourists as well. This in turn increases the inter-country tension and friction.

Modern day terrorist uses technology (among his armoury are Global Positioning System, satellite phones, international mobile SIM cards, fake passports and ID cards) that is tough for a single country to track. Take for instance, GPS and satellite phone that can be used from any part of the world, making it unfeasible for the victim country to track the devices. In such cases, almost all countries need to come together and share information about any susceptible movements. 

A report released on December 3, 2008, titled 'World at Risk' talks about possible WMDs attack on US soil in the next few years to come. The same report states that "were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan" and bluntly singles out Pakistan as a prime suspect.

Rice's recent visit was primarily aimed at decreasing the chances of next attack on the US soil. However, it also acts an opportunity for Pakistan to undo its age-old image of being a pro-terrorist country. But will Pakistan, with the help of Ms Rice and thus US, eliminate its domestic terror camps and further help the world fight against terrorism? Time can never tell, but the sooner it is, the better!