This article deals with financing of Islamist terror in Bangladesh, which on occasions becomes jihadi in nature, especially when it is directed towards India. The exercise undertaken studies developments in the area of terrorist finance in Bangladesh post-9/11, but does not claim to fully estimate the volume of terror financing in that country. The attempt has been made to throw some light on an area where little research has been done. The article argues that the Government of Bangladesh has shown a half-hearted approach towards checking the finance of terrorism.
For several decades, religion has been a visible and potent force in the domestic politics of Muslim countries. Within Asia, the issue has attracted considerable debate and a good case study of this is Malaysia. Issues of religious conversion, demolition of temples, apostasy, and Islamic state discourse have widened fault lines among different religious communities in Malaysia.
In recent years India, along with China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, has been following a policy of diplomatic engagement with Myanmar. India has also clarified its diplomatic stand that such a policy engagement will positively serve its national interests.
In order to construct an operational nuclear device, terrorists need to obtain the requisite fissile materials - Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) or plutonium. It has been proved that, generally, it is much simpler to devise a crude nuclear bomb with HEU than with plutonium. Hence, terrorists can have 'reasonable confidence' in the performance of weapons-grade HEU bombs. The magnitude of the threat of nuclear terrorism from Pakistan's HEU-based nuclear weapons programme is assuming alarming proportions. However, adequate preventive steps can be taken to minimize the danger.
Militaries the world over need to study and understand lessons from the ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, and the new knowledge needs to be placed in context. Neglected military history itself provides enduring lessons. This article attempts to capture the trends and debates in the understanding of current warfare and outlines how lessons of war are interpreted with a focus on future trends in war-fighting. The article concludes with some policy suggestions and areas for further inquiry.
Though global warming and climate change is a real concern and needs to be addressed, it is concerns over energy security that are driving the West's policy and debate on climate change. With the traditional oil and gas market changing in favour of the developing countries, the developed countries are concerned about retaining their preferential access to energy resources.
The rapid speed of globalization and increasing economic interdependence has had a direct impact on defence policies and countries are constantly seen fine-tuning their priorities. Walden Bello argues in his book Dilemmas of Domination that the declining US hegemony would prompt US allies in Asia to alter their defence planning and strategies vis-à-vis emerging powers like China.
In the aftermath of North Korea's second nuclear test and the launch of three short-range missiles on May 25, 2009, followed by the launch of seven ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan on July 4, there has been widespread speculation on Japan's principled position on non-proliferation and disarmament and whether it will abandon its nuclear abstinence and acquire nuclear capability. This possibility has been echoed recently by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The February 2009 Swat deal between the Taliban and the Pakistan Government, the current Pakistani Army offensive against Taliban strongholds in various areas of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), and the Talibani response to those operations through terror attacks in various Pakistani cities, sharply underline the clear and present threat to Pakistan.
Why are the two largest democracies – India and the United States – starkly different when it comes to tackling terrorism? The answer to this perplexing question could lie in the two countries' divergent approach to security and management of national security resources. Equally relevant is the variance in their political resoluteness in exercising suitable responses to emergent threats.
Climate change is hugely challenging. But there is an unmistakable straightforwardness to it – reduce emissions to reduce global warming. In many ways, this reflects the sum total of the paradoxes that define our reality and the contradictions and hypocrisy of coping and dealing with it. Climate change raises all the right concerns from effectively all the right quarters. But concerns require actions and that is where the debate starts, the positions get entrenched and more often than not words and gestures become hollow and empty.
After eight years of governance by a Republican Administration, the United States elected a Democrat as its president. The Democrat President, Barack Hussein Obama, assumed presidency and appointed several key officials to implement his agenda. Though some believe that democracy forces political parties to evolve a common agenda and towards consensus on several key issues, there are others who see differences between the Republican agenda and those of Democrats.
In his April 5 speech in Prague, President Barack Obama made a renewed pledge to push the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a practical and immediate step to ‘seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’. However, global efforts to attain Global Zero as spearheaded by Obama have been interrupted by the refusal of the United States and China to ratify the treaty. The CTBT is also contingent on the approval of the threshold nuclear weapons states – India, Pakistan, and Israel – who have refused to sign and ratify the treaty.
The Road to Copenhagen in December 2009 has two visible signposts. One that reads, ‘The time for climate change action is now’, the other that warns, ‘The road is bumpy’. The first signpost expresses the apocalyptic language that the earth's rising temperatures are poised to set off irreversible consequences if concrete steps are not taken quickly. It suggests that the climate is nearing tipping point. The second signpost forewarns that arriving at a bold, equitable, and binding treaty will not be easy and that the politics of climate change will undermine the science of climate change.
