Prevention Resource Center Materials Loan Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

Let us first recall brief history of Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Program.A Brief History of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program“Pakistan's nuclear weapons program was established in 1972 by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who founded the program while he was Minister for Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, and later became President and Prime Minister. Shortly after the loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war with India, Bhutto initiated the program with a meeting of physicists and engineers at Multan in January 1972.India's 1974 testing of a nuclear "device" gave Pakistan's nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan's program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan's Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan's direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.”[1]Role of USA (and Western allies) in Pakistan’s Nuclear Program (Not Weapons)Pakistan began its nuclear efforts during the 1950s as an energy program. It was prompted in large part by the United States’ “Atoms for Peace” program, which sought to spread nuclear energy technology across the globe. In 1956, the Pakistani government created the Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) to lead the new program. The United States gave Pakistan its first reactor—the five megawatt Pakistan Atomic Research Reactor (PARR-1)—in 1962.Although Pakistan claimed that its nuclear program was only pursuing peaceful applications of atomic energy, there were signs that its leadership had other intentions. This fact was particularly evident in wake of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, which ended in a nominal victory for India. “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own,” proclaimed then-Minister of Foreign Affairs Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.The humiliation of 1971 was a turning point in Pakistan’s decision to build an atomic bomb. In 1972, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto—soon to be elected Prime Minister—called a meeting in which he instructed top Pakistani scientists to build the bomb. Physicist Munir Ahmad Khan was among the scientists invited to the meeting. Trained in the United States at the Illinois Institute of Technology, Khan had worked at Argonne National Laboratory and served as head of reactor engineering for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He was quickly named chairman of PAEC and would lead the new direction of Pakistan’s nuclear program.Around the same time, Pakistan began receiving considerable international support for its nuclear program. Canada, for example, provided a 137-megawatt heavy water nuclear reactor known as Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU). The reactor was installed at the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP) and was soon producing weapons grade plutonium. France likewise agreed to supply the Chashma plutonium separation plant.Nevertheless, the international community cracked down on the proliferation of nuclear materials after India’s first nuclear test in 1974. Canada withdrew its support for Pakistan in 1976, while France never completed the Chashma plant. A plutonium bomb suddenly seemed like a distant reality.In 1979, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had a significant impact for Pakistan. Under President Ronald Reagan, the United States gave military support to the Afghan Mujahideen to fight the Soviet Union. Pakistan—a neighbor of Afghanistan with crucial supply routes—proved to be an essential ally in this effort. As a result, the United States largely turned a blind eye to the Pakistani nuclear program. In 1982, for example, Zia made an official visit to the United States. “He’s a good man,” wrote Reagan in his diary. “Gave me his word they were not building an atomic or nuclear bomb. He’s dedicated to helping the Afghans & stopping the Soviets” (Reed and Stillman 249). (This is exactly what Trump said recently about Imran Khan since it wanted Pakistan’s support in talks with Taliban)In 1985, the U.S. Congress passed the Pressler Amendment, which established a protocol for sanctions against Pakistan if it crossed certain “red lines,” such as manufacturing highly enriched uranium and making a fissionable bomb core. The law was designed to allow the United States to maintain good relations with Pakistan, but it ultimately forced the American government to implement sanctions in the 1990s.[2]Enter China where USA LeftChinese government invited Pakistani scientists to Beijing. On May 26, 1990, China tested a Pakistani bomb (Pak-1) on Pakistan’s behalf at the Lop Nur test site. The so-called “Event No. 35” was most likely a uranium implosion bomb, a derivative of the Chinese CHIC-4 design. Pakistan also reached an agreement with North Korea for Nodong ballistic missiles in exchange for Pakistani uranium enrichment technology.On May 28, 1998—less than three weeks after India’s nuclear tests—Pakistan exploded its first devices at the Ras Koh test site. “Today, we have settled a score and have carried out five successful nuclear tests,” announced Sharif. With a total yield of 9 kilotons, however, there is some debate about how many bombs were actually tested (Reed and Stillman 257). Two days later, Pakistan conducted an additional test, Chagai-II.[3]Secrets of USA and Allies besides and China Fathering Pakistan’s Nuclear ProgramAug 12, 1966: Intelligence reports about recent visits to Beijing by Pakistani defense and science officials raised questions whether China was or would be providing nuclear aid to Pakistan. The latter was already developing close relations with China, a matter which was of great concern to U.S. policymakers, but INR analyst Thomas Thornton concluded that Pakistan was highly unlikely to seek a significant degree of Chinese nuclear assistance.[4]Nov 04, 1978: U.S. demarche and "non-paper" on Pakistan's attempts to complete the plutonium reprocessing plant and develop nuclear weapons. Sent to 12 countries to ensure that they "exercise vigilance and appropriate control to deter Pakistan from acquiring sensitive facilities."[5]Nov 14, 1978: U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan advises against informing the Indian government about U.S. concerns over Pakistan's nuclear program. It would have an "adverse impact" for the U.S. government to be seen colluding with India by Pakistan.[6]Nov 17, 1978: U.S. Ambassador to India reports that the Indian government is aware that the U.S. believes Pakistan seeks nuclear weapons capability. An Indian diplomat informed him that Pakistan was two to three years away from nuclear capability.[7]May 17, 1979: The Hungarian Embassy in Pakistan reports that according to the Soviet Ambassador in Pakistan, the Pakistani government was able, in 1979, to build a nuclear explosive device within one and a half years. In the view of the Soviet ambassador, because of the perceived inevitability of a Pakistani test, the socialist bloc must consider means of stopping the Pakistani nuclear program. [8]May 19, 1979: Letter from Begin (Israeli PM) forwarding a memorandum to Thatcher on activities of the Pakistani government to build a nuclear weapon.[9]Jun 06, 1979: U.S. State Department cable states that the Carter administration has “reached a dead end” in its efforts to curb the proliferation of nuclear technology in South Asia. The State Department is wary of taking too strong an approach to Pakistan’s nuclear endeavors, given the security ties between the two countries and concerns about Pakistan’s stability.[10]Jan 31, 1980: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 had an immediate impact on U.S. policy toward Pakistan and U.S. aid to the anti-Soviet resistance through Islamabad. With these considerations, the U.S. chose to “set [the nuclear issue] aside for the time being.”[11]Aug 20, 1981: In response to an IAEA report that Pakistan diverted plutonium from the Karachi nuclear power plant, a CIA analysis suggests that the Pakistanis “were not overly concerned” about these events. Of greater concern to regional security and stability was the discussions of the sale of F-16 fighter-bombers as part of a U.S. aid package to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the covert efforts against Soviet troops in Afghanistan.[12]Oct 25, 1982: In a follow-up message after his trip to Islamabad, Ambassador General Vernon Walters noted that at the end of the conversation with Zia the Pakistani President had given his “word of honor” that Pakistan “will not develop a nuclear device or a weapon.”[13]Dec 07, 1985: A State Department telegram discussing the possible Chinese-Pakistani nuclear assistance and reports that Pakistan had acquired a nuclear weapon in October of 1985.[14]Nov 21, 1987: Secretary Shultz had recommended that Washington “now certify” that Pakistan “does not possess a nuclear device” (as required by the Pressler amendment).[15]Dec 17, 1987: Reagan informed Congress that he had “concluded that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device.”[16]Jan 05, 1988: Recognizing the facts brought out by the Pervez conviction, in January 1988 the Reagan White House invoked and then waived the Solarz amendment.[17]Jul 21, 1988: Short report on a visit to Moscow by Indian President Venkataraman. He asked for more military support from the Soviet Union to counterbalance Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. There were disagreements about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[18]In a nutshell, USA has deliberately and in complete knowledge of Pakistan’s intentions helped it acquire Nuclear Weapons through China and saved it from any sanctions due to Non Proliferation Treaty for using it for fighting the soviets in Afghanistan. India lost out till 1999 Kargil War. Trump plans to repeat what Reagan did.Post Script: For those who wish to read more about US duplicity after 1998 Nuclear Weapons Tests by Pakistan here is a detailed account.“Post-1998American sanctions failed to prevent Pakistan from building its nuclear programme, the glaring proof of which was the successful execution of multiple nuclear tests by Pakistan in May 1998. The logical progression for American policy should have been a tougher sanctions regime on Pakistan. On the contrary, one month after military coup-related sanctions were imposed on Pakistan in 1999, initially banning the sale of US military equipment and economic aid, the US President exercised waiver authority by invoking the Brownback Amendment, permitting the US Department of Agriculture to continue sale of agricultural commodities to Pakistan.”[88]He also allowed US banks to continue to provide loans to Pakistan. Furthermore, under the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, financial assistance to Pakistan to fund basic education programmes was also permitted.[89]”[19]Read more evidence since 1947 about this duplicitous love of US for Pakistan at US sanctions on Pakistan and their failure as strategic deterrent | ORFFootnotes[1] https://fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/[2] Pakistani Nuclear Program[3] Pakistani Nuclear Program[4] Wilson Center Digital Archive[5] Wilson Center Digital Archive[6] Wilson Center Digital Archive[7] Wilson Center Digital Archive[8] Wilson Center Digital Archive[9] Wilson Center Digital Archive[10] Wilson Center Digital Archive[11] Wilson Center Digital Archive[12] Wilson Center Digital Archive[13] Wilson Center Digital Archive[14] Wilson Center Digital Archive[15] Wilson Center Digital Archive[16] Wilson Center Digital Archive[17] Wilson Center Digital Archive[18] Wilson Center Digital Archive[19] US sanctions on Pakistan and their failure as strategic deterrent | ORF

It’s my belief that the best Quora answer is a short answer. But this is an entire industry we’re talking about here, so there’s only so much I can leave out and still have the story be complete. I hope you’ll feel free to read as much or as little as your time allows.Musical Instrument products make their way from manufacturing to consumer retail outlets through two main channels.DistributorsLarge Distributors - Large distributors are like large wholesale warehouse brokers of newly manufactured music goods. They offer hundreds of product lines, most of them being low cost items such as strings, picks, straps, cases, harmonicas, capos, stage microphones, stands, and other accessories. They also offer budget minded student instruments at the lowest end of the price range. They don’t, however, offer highly recognized, big selling name brands such as Fender, Martin, Taylor, etc.For a retail music store or online outlet to qualify for buying in bulk at wholesale prices, they usually only need to provide a tax ID number, sales tax exemption form and a copy of their local retail business license.Sometimes large distributors have sales reps who visit retail shops in person to answer questions, describe products and take orders for goods. Most have print and online catalogs where the retailer just calls or orders online through a secure account.Small Distributors - Small distributors tend to provide a smaller variety of more mid to high price products from manufacturers whose sales volume is insufficient to support a sales rep working exclusively for the brand. We might typically see products such as specialized recording microphones, home studio electronics, a high-end guitar amp line and a hand-full of products that are new to the market, all under the same purchasing umbrella. It’s also possible to find small distributors touting some new and bizarre invention that’s aiming for a niche market.Exclusive Sales RepsNearly all of the highly recognized product brands such as Fender, Martin, Taylor, Marshall, Gibson, etc., have their own sales reps, who are hired to work exclusively for that particular brand.The exclusive sales rep has a geographical territory assigned by the manufacturer and is paid by way of a small salary and sliding scale commissions with incentives. As sales volume increases, commission percentage also increases. Job number one for the exclusive manufacturer sales rep is to sell as much product as is humanly possible. In the process he/she visits retails stores in person to be sure the re-seller knows and understands the product line, is aware of new products, has plenty of catalogs and promotional materials (known in the business as “literature”), and to help in resolving any service issues, customer complaints and other trouble spots.Nearly all big-name manufacturers require a contractual franchise agreement with the retail seller, so the sales rep is also visiting the store to be sure it’s stocking and selling enough product while representing the product in a respectable manner, as well as abiding by other terms of the franchise agreement.Manufacturer sales reps, I might add, can vary from the coolest, most knowledgable and likable professionals to the most ragged, alcohol soaked, sleaze-ball, swindler personality types you’d ever meet. The prestige and consumer perception of the product brand has no bearing on which this might be. The bottom line is, can they sell? If the answer is yes, then they’re in.Franchise AgreementsFranchise agreements entitle the retail stores to purchase in bulk at wholesale prices and have access to certain kinds sales support, product training, customer service support and other helpful resources. In return, the retail store agrees to a minimum sales and inventory volume as well as advertising, marketing and general exposure of the product and in most cases, a maximum allowable discount for the “street price” of the product.The purpose of the maximum allowable street price is to prevent multiple sellers of the same product in the same territory from competing on price to where they all drive one another out of business. It is, however, strongly encouraged that every franchised retail store compete tooth-and-nail against the others in marketing, promotions and sales technique.I might also add that franchise agreements often require retailers to purchase products they don’t want and can’t sell. However, a good sales rep is sometimes sympathetic to this and has the authority to relieve the retailer of a dead product by moving it to another dealer who is better able to liquidate the item. Sometimes the retailer is just stuck with a dead product item and has to sell it at a loss or even give it away in a bundle to a customer who makes a large purchase of profitable items.Service contracts work independently of retail franchises. Service contracts authorize a business to do certified and/or warranty repairs on products of the brand. A service center is not required to be a retail outlet and a retail outlet is not required to be a service center.As a side note, I might also mention Gypsy Brokers - These are folks who somehow manage to earn a living by traveling among hundreds of retail stores, buying up bundles of dead inventory items and reselling them to other retailers at a small profit. Small retail stores will often see a lot of Gypsy Brokers. Sounds like a hard life to me.PricingHere’s where things get interesting.Nearly all MI products (MI, being the industry acronym for Musical Instruments), are wholesale priced to the retailer by volume. Most highly recognized brand names have a “first column” wholesale price that begins at 50% of the retail price for six units. In other words, if a brand name guitar has a retail price of $1500, the retail outlet pays no more than $750 for the guitar.As purchase volume increases, usually in increments of six units, the wholesale price per unit goes down. There are usually six pricing columns such as 1-6 units, 7-10 units, and so forth until we get to “end column price” which requires a minimum purchase of 24 units. The 50% purchase price is called “cost,” with the progressive volume discounts being called “cost plus X.” Second column price for 7–10 units might be described as “cost plus ten.” This is one of those peculiar twists of sales language where a cost of 50% plus ten does not mean 60%. It means 50% plus an additional 10% off of the 50% -- which really means a 55% discount.Column prices then progress with descriptions such as “cost plus ten, plus five, plus three.” In this particular twist, the wholesale cost of a $1000 guitar would be $500, less 10% = $450; less 5% = $427.50, less 3% = $414.68 per unit. If this were calculated as a sum of the percentages, which it is not, the percentages would add up to 67% for a wholesale cost of $330 for the $1000 guitar. Store managers who are new to the job have to study this pricing structure carefully to know how much they are actually paying for their inventory.At this point you may be tempted to think, “Wow, I’m getting screwed and the retailers are making money hand over fist!!”No -- not really. Typical “street price” (average price paid by the customer), is usually around 25% below retail. The cost of operating a retail music store (staff, rent, customer support, taxes, etc.) is typically around 20%. So, the actual net profit weighs in at a mere 5%.From the manufacturing perspective, the fact that Martin can make a quality instrument that retails for $1000, sells at cost to the retailer for around $420, while Martin maintains numerous departments of specialized staff with high expertise while also covering property, taxes and equipment is nothing short of amazing.The big-name instruments are not the profit center for a MI retail outlet. Rather, they are the drawing card for selling the accessories. All those strings, picks, capos, harmonicas, straps, bags, cases, covers, stands, cables, pickups, drum sticks, keyboard stands, and so forth are the profit centers. A set of electric guitar strings that sell at retail for $6.00, will typically cost the seller around a buck fifty, wholesale, in bulk. One set of strings multiplies the sellers investment by four times. Pretty hefty.The wholesale pricing of accessories and strings mimics that of the column price described for instruments and many retail store managers roll their eyes at how the discounts are allocated; 50 + 25 + 20 + 12 + 10 + 5 + 2.5 with shipping cost incentives for the largest purchases. I’m not exaggerating. Have your calculator handy if you plan to work in MI purchasing.An Unstable BusinessDespite the glitz and glamor of the instruments, catalogs, promotions, events and web sites, the MI industry is one of the most unstable industries in the entire economy. It’s mostly boom and bust with extreme shifts in financial solvency. Manufacturers and retail businesses live and die by sudden changes in popular music styles and genre. A retail dealer who was riding high on the instruments used for 80’s Glam Rock might be stuck with warehouses full of worthless commodities when the genre suddenly dies and is replaced by Grunge and Punk.Nearly all the major name brands have histories of multiple bankruptcies where they’re subsequently swallowed up by a corporate conglomerate and product quality goes out the window. The corporate conglomerate has no idea how the MI industry works, so the enterprise fails once again at an enormous financial loss. Fortunately and because of brand name strength, a failed major brand is most often rescued by one exceedingly competent entrepreneur, who decides to take the leap.Sometimes the rescue takes a different path. Today, we have a long list of brand name music-related goods where the name of a long defunct company has been resurrected and placed on an instrument or device that has little or no resemblance to the original that bore the same name. But of course, not much is resurrected in this case. The business and it’s workers who devised the product in the first place are not rescued.The Ultimate IronyThe ultimate irony in the failure of many musical instrument companies is that the thing that drove them into bankruptcy was too much success. Imagine that!As manufacturing goes, guitars and amps are pretty easy to build on a small scale. Scaling up to mid-level production is a matter of ramping up the number of workers, machinery and floor space. But, making the transition to from mid-scale production to large scale production is extremely difficult and expensive.Just after The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show in Feb, 1964, the word in the retail music business was that anything even resembling a guitar, amp or drum set was marching out the door faster than you could write the orders for new inventory. In response, manufacturers, of course, ramped up their production. Then came quality control issues, administrative overloads, personnel and supply shortages and big, big problems fulfilling order requests from retail stores. Orders for new products were often called “vaporware,” because the thousands of guitars placed on order did not exist and could not be made in any accurately predicted amount of time. Manufacturer reps then became professional apologists, pleading with the dealers for patience while watching their commissions dwindle because product orders weren’t being fulfilled.As a hopeful remedy, companies continued to accept orders for vaporware and then leverage those orders as a future value and security against large loans. In so many cases, this was the kiss of death. Cash is potential, but it doesn’t build guitars and the sales teams couldn’t wait around indefinitely while the manufacturers figured out how to implement large scale production that actually worked. This was new territory for manufacturing as there were no precedents or models for building instruments at a high output level.The industry was in mass chaos and it would take several decades for it to catch up with market demand. But, catch up it did and it certainly enjoyed a huge wave of success for a few decades following the late 1970s.More recently, that has been changing.Dirty Little SecretsPrior to the late 1990s, small business music retailers, called “Mom & Pop Shops,” could be seen in nearly every town across the U.S. It’s no secret that the over the last 15 years, we’ve seen those small shops closing by the tens of thousands. The big stores have always been easier for the manufacturers and their sales reps to supply and service. High volume stores condense the retail distribution network into increasingly centralized locations, which is advantageous for shipping costs as well as decreasing travel time for sales reps. Wholesale price structuring always favored the big volume stores and large inventories are good for attracting more customers who enjoy finding a broader range of shopping options.For a while, this also meant that the customer was now bearing the cost of travel for shopping rather than the industry bearing the cost of distribution. The inception of the big catalog dealer and then the online retailer further reduced the costs of getting products into the hands of buyers. In all, it was an economic victory for the MI industry.Presently, musicians buy the greatest majority of our instruments and accessories online at Guitar Center (which is also Musician’s Friend), American Musical Supply, Zounds and Music 123.But, from the standpoint of manufacture and distribution, this is a case of be careful what you wish for. When all the commerce is condensed into a few giant retail outfits, the industry inevitably comes to a point where they are, once again, on shaky ground. Everything rests on the success of those few giant retailers. If one goes down, the entire MI economy can fail.How can this be, you might ask?In 2011, Moody’s Financial Reports listed Guitar Center (and Musician’s Friend) as unrecoverable.Here’s one report:Life Support: How Long Until They Pull the Plug on Guitar Center?And here’s another:TEXT-S&P revises Guitar Center Holdings outlook to negativeAs of 2011, Guitar Center was 1.6 BILLION DOLLARS in debt at 9.9% interest in a business whose total net worth is 1.9 billion dollars! It doesn’t take an economic analyst to see how precariously close to disaster that is.What has happened since 2011, is that the manufacturers are forced to take drastic measures for staving off the death of Guitar Center. If GC goes down, the accounts owed to the manufacturers are lost, plus whatever inventory GC holds that’s not paid for is lost in a sea of legal complexities. Given that GC’s commercial credit rating is shot, the major manufacturers keep extending more and more credit to GC by way of supplying products that may or may not ever be paid for. They are worried and under pressure.Meanwhile, we watch and wait. If the shakedown comes, it’s probably gonna be bad.If you’ve had the interest and patience to read this far, then surely I can assume you have a musical instrument, possibly a guitar, that you enjoy in some way or another. I’d like to conclude by guiding you on a little romantic interlude with your musical instrument, whatever it may be.The original designers and builders of your instrument were driven by a deep passion and love for beautiful things that make music. They lived, ate and slept guitar craft with enthusiasm and felt fortunate to be a part of something so meaningful and worthwhile. I know this to be true.At the end of the building chain, however, that instrument went into a shipping carton and, for a while, existed only as a digital number on an accounting records server. Chances are probable, that somewhere along the way, that instrument fell into the hands of one of the dark operations in the MI industry. There’s a segment of the supply pipeline that is fully and wholly a dog-eat-dog, back stabbing, crush the competitors, win at all costs cesspool of human sleaze. They don’t show this in the catalogs or online stores. But it’s there. Paradoxically, the supply and distribution chain is necessary to carry the “lovely flower that makes great music” from the loving builder, to the loving owner.Your instrument has very likely survived at least a short trek through some of the darkest recesses of greed, money lust and narcissistic disregard for the welfare of others and come full circle, back to the love and passion that prompted you to see it’s color, hear it’s sound, feel the magic of wire and wood, imagine the love that went into it’s inception and decide that it was to be yours. It now rests in your abiding care, where it was ordained to be by the one’s who first devoted themselves to the craft of making it possible.Long live the Musical Instrument industry.

The prevailing Western perspective to the situation in Iraq has simply painted a very simplified tale of what Iraq was, and the actualities of the situation there through out much of 20th Century. The Baath Party in Iraq, did not simply come to power one day in 1968 suddenly, as it was a long process which led up to this. Nor was the Baath Party disconnected from the broader events of the region. Much of what happened in Iraq was as a result of Western policies in the region, and the desire in large segments of the local population to try and to counter these policies, and gain control of their oil resources. The British Empire succeeded in making their goals more important than the goals of actual humanistic principle in their large realm of domination and exploitation. The people of Iraq and Iran did not get even a pittance of the oil revenue which the British were extracting. This began in Iraq after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The British began supporting Islamic Fundamentalist regimes such the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia to fracture the Ottoman Empire and gain control of the oil resources. Such regimes have always been easier for Western Powers to deal with, as they have no desire to modernise their nations, to create educational reform, nor encourage self-sufficiency. They will enter into deals which will inadequately share oil revenue, or even invest their oil revenue in foreign markets as Saudi Arabia does. This is never discussed and when it is much of it is sidelined as conspiratorial discussion. But it is not at all as such, for these are facts which if properly researched are there to be seen.What has resulted from these policies and the reactionary policies from now defunct regimes and political movements have been a profound collective tragedy for the region and for Asia at large. For it is because of the partition of the Indian Sub-Continent and the interference in the Middle East that today this entire region is far from what would have been achieved. This may sound far fetched to many, as the facts are not clearly presented in many parts of the world. The first Islamic Republic in the world was not in the Middle East, but created from from United India by the British, it was Pakistan. This development went against the tide which had swept the Middle East, as Nationalist regimes had come to power and in nearly every case distanced themselves from religion, the only other exception was Saudi Arabia. A brief look at the history of the region will show how these facts actually line up.Iraq would emerge as nation which had not the size of population to be safe from the gale winds of both Super Powers. It was in a strategic area but had no ability to truly protect it’s oil resources from outside powers. It lacked both oil exploratory know how, or a credible military to prevent the seizure of it’s assets. The path to change would come ever so slowly in Iraq. King Faisal would be Modern Iraq’s first Monarch and Leader. The British had invaded Iraq during World War I, and been defeated initially. In their second attempt they succeeded and in March of 1917, they marched victoriously into Baghdad. Many of these troops were Indian. What would occur over the next decade was would establish Iraq, as a member of the League of Nations, and as a participant in the Balfour Agreement which supported the creation of a Jewish State which we today know as Israel.King Faisal was unique among Monarchs as he had been elected by a plebiscite by 96% of those who voted in Iraq. His policies of Pan-Arabism which was promoted as a way to create an Iraqi Identity would in the long run be more harmful than anticipated. For in all of his inclusive visions of integrating, Shia, Sunni and religious minorities in Iraq, he failed to realize that the Kurd’s never thought of themselves as Arab nor were they ever going to do so. The seed of volatility had been laid down in 1932 for all that was to come. The British would leave Iraq nearly landlocked. This would be a source of continuous tension for the next 60 years.Ghazi Bin FaizalKing Faisal, would pass away in 1933, he was only 48. He was in Switzerland on a routine medical check up. There had been no indication of ill health. All indications are that he died as a consequence of Arsenic Poisoning. No Autopsy was performed even though his demise was suspect to the highest degree. His Son Ghazi Bin Faisal, was Crowned following his father’s death. Ghazi Bin Faisal was far less experienced in diplomacy than his father. His views were even more staunch Pan-Arabist, and he would begin the concept of Annexing Kuwait as a viable option for Iraq. The idea of Iraq being landlocked was viewed as a strategic hindrance. In fact he would even support the Arab World’s first military coup d’etat and replace the civilian government with a military backed junta. Ghazi Bin Faisal, would die in a mysterious car crash in 1939, this coincided with what could have been the readying of an Iraqi invasion into Kuwait.In 1941 a Pro-Nazi, Military Government would come to power in Iraq led by Rashid Ali. This would be overthrown by British intervention, and Iraq would be occupied once more. The Kurd’s assisted the British in this victory. In 1945, when the War ended, the Kurd’s rose in rebellion under Mustafa Barzani. At the same time as this rebellion, Iraq joined the U.N. as a member state. Ultimately, the newly formed Central Government would struggle to put down the rebellion and Barzani would temporarily flee to the U.S.S.R. A period of instability would follow and the Soviet Union supported Socialist Elements in Iraq which were strong enough to destabilize the nation. A very odd solution came about which was short lived, as Iraq, Jordan, and Kuwait began planning to create a counter balance to the merger of Egypt and Syria under the rule of President Nasser. The British however refused to grant Kuwait independence and thwarted this plan. General Qasim would overthrow the short lived, Hashimite Monarch of Iraq and establish himself as Military Dictator over Iraq in 1958.General QasimUnder General Qasim things did not improve much, instead the First Kurdish war was fought and the Central Government was loosing. In 1963, General Qasim was overthrown and lost his life, in the first Baathist supported Coup. Ahmad Hassan Al Bakr would lead this government as Prime Minister and Abdul Salaam Arif would be it’s President. As the Baathist Party tried to turn back the tables in the Kurdish war, President Arif ousted Al Bakr and the Baathist’s were removed from power in 1964. President Arif would himself perish in a helicopter crash in 1966, and be replaced by his brother. Immedately, Abdul Rahman Arif, halted the Kurdish War. The end result was a peace which the Kurd’s did not accept in full part, as they were fractured between two different camps. Thus, began the uneasy peace between what would become the formation of the government which the Baathist Party would successfully take over in a bloodless coup in 1968. This would lead to Saddam Hussein becoming Vice President, under Al Bakr who now returned to power.Events is the larger region since the middle of the 20th Century played a role in the path the Socialist Baath would take in official policy. In the middle of the 20th Century, India would finally break free from British Colonialism. England, was in debt after World War II, and without essentially free Indian Labor and Raw materials it could not remain solvent. For 190 years it had used clever accounting to keep India in debtor status and thus derived free labor via this method. Mahatma Gandhi had seen through this system and created “Non-Cooperation” which essentially made India, a non-profit generating business. For the first time since 1757 the British Empire could not extract Indian Capital. After Indian Independence and the slow rise of India, many nations in the Middle East took notice of the concept of a “Closed Economy”. Prime Minister Nehru during the 1950’s was the voice of former colonized nations on the world stage. The vision of India was one which was adopted in large part by many nations. And above all of this the concept of “Self-Sufficiency” became a rally call for developing nations. For in reality the Vision of Modern India, borrowed immensely from the Third Golden age of Indian History, and the secular rule of Emperor Akbar and his reforms based on the teachings of Baba Nanak and Sant Kabir, which emphasized Secular Humanism. In Iran, a return to the tolerance of Persian Empire was looked at as a model by many including the Shah of Iran. And in Iraq, the age of Houroun Al Rashid was still looked at as a vision of prosperity, learning and the height of Baghdad as a center point in intellectual reasoning.Prime Minister MosseddeghIn Iran, a populist leader would come to the office in the form of Prime Minister Dr. Mosseddegh in 1953. He would attempt to create policy which would advance the cause of the economically challenged classes in Iran. His vision to implement land reforms, provide health care and education to Iran’s citizens was not far apart from what Western Nations were doing after World War II. To do this he needed to pull out of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Deal, which provided no accounting of Iranian Oil Sales nor paid a fair share on the revenue that was reported. The nationalization of Iranian oil assets would interfere in England’s plans at continuing to be a global Empire though not in territory anymore. Even President Truman would side with Prime Minister Mosseddegh as he saw, the humanitarian cause and the basis of the concept of sovereignty supported the action.Prime Minster Nehru Center, President Nasser Left Extreme, and President Tito Right Extreme. (The Non-Aligned Movement emphasized the need for developing formerly colonized nations to not participate in the Cold War. India would be the largest nation to co-found this movement. Iraq, Egypt and most of the developing would become members.)In Egypt President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, and in India massive nationalizations of foreign companies occurred. England needed the continued oil revenue sources of their one-sided “Deals” in the Middle East as in essence they would be bankrupt without them. But they needed U.S. cooperation to create a Coup D’Etat in Iran. Eventually the chance would come when President Eisenhower along with Kermit Roosevelt became willing partners. It was at this point that the U.S. entered the role of thwarting populism in the Middle East. And engaging in the formation of a joint Anglo-American policy to Geo-Political affairs.President Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal, 1956.The resentment for the CIA sponsored Coup D’Etat which caused the overthrow of Prime Minister Mosseddegh, is still present. For this was Iran’s attempt to create a democratic system. But, Iran was not allowed to do this. For the it was clear that Middle Eastern Nations and those which did not take sides during the cold war would be prevented from indigenous efforts to progress. But, since this was during the Cold War, and many states simply began to Ally themselves with Soviet Union as a counter balance to their experiences with colonialism. The theme would play out from Indonesia all the way to African nations. Thus, would begin the struggle for control of raw materials and and oil resources. In this game of Geopolitics, the Soviet Union would play a very different role as it would concentrate on spreading Socialism, Scientific Knowledge and Weapon Systems. It would of course over step these goals in many nations. But on large level it did assist in development of large nations like India. The Soviet Union was far less egalitarian in the Middle East. For here it played an unpredictable role, and never had a clear goal other than trying to counter what the U.S. was doing, albeit in very late form.The West led by the U.S. would claim to stand for Human Rights but in most cases it supported dictatorships and military rule, it would stand for free commerce, but through the World Bank push through reforms in nation’s which thwarted their development. And in later times, the policies would come down to stopping the spread of Communism via routes which created a spread in fundamentalists. In reality the core of these policies could be read two ways. Western Europe and Japan were treated very fairly in this system, and the rest of the World was treated with varying degrees of diplomatic engagement for economic concessions and the maintenance of balance of power models in their receptive areas.Pakistani Dictator Ayub Khan, and President Kennedy.The rise of the Baathist Party to power in 1968, was has always been an event which in much of the world looked at a sudden event. But it in all reality it was not, continuous outside support to various factions in Iraq eventually opened a door for them to take power. All of the governments until this point could not manage to stay in power long enough to accomplish any real goals. Ahmed Hasan Al Bakr attempted to put down a reinvigorated Kurdish Rebellion in 1969. The Soviet Union would pressure the Central Iraqi Government, once more to make a peace accord with Barzani. Internal strife in the Government in Baghdad finally began to settle. And, finally a settlement was reached with Barzani. It would not last long, but it gave time for Iraq to sign a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union. This would be a turning point for Iraq, as the oil sector could now be nationalized. This along with rising oil prices would allow the Baathist Party to modernize Iraq. An entire system of Social Programs, health care and infrastructure development came about in the 1970’s. Nearly 77, Indian Companies were given large infrastructure projects. A Secular outlook was implemented. At the same time, political opposition was thwarted, often by imprisonment, exile and in many cases violent means. Even with this, the living standards rose dramatically. For the first time since the Anglo-Iraqi Oil Corporation had been formed by the British, the oil revenues were being used to for Social Programs for those who had until then never benefited from this resource. Women for the first time were being educated without hindrance. But the cost of these improvements was very heavy in terms of freedom and the rights of personal expression. A single party political system was implemented with a marginal opposition, this system would become even more oppressive after the rise of Saddam Hussein to the Presidency in 1979.At this time, it was possible to believe that ultimately the tight political control might ease and the economy would be opened in several decades. Iraq became one of the few Middle Eastern Nations which was self-sufficient in food production. Iraq even built factories to produce products. These facts about the 1970’s are rarely if ever even mentioned today. This period was short lived and ultimately the Iran-Iraq war and the rise of Saddam Hussein as President in 1979, would overshadow this period. It seems that Saddam Hussein was far better suited to his role as Vice President of Iraq, and Bakr, was a better over all leader. Under Bakr’s rule the inclination to make brash moves remained more checked. Even in the Second Kurdish War, which began in 1974 and ended in 1975, the concept was to end hostilities as quickly as possible, and to continue the economic progress.Iran-Iraq War 1980–88The Iran-Iraq war would follow the course of being the opposite of any military logic, Even with the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the complete chaos which followed in the Iranian Military, Iran was still more formidable than Iraq. Military planners knew very well they could not defeat Iran, nor carry out a war that lasted longer than 6 months without severe consequences. As at this point it would become a war of attrition and not achievable goals. The idea of Iraq being nearly landlocked played into the reasoning for attacking Iran once more, this idea is often supported by Western Historians. But the 1975 Algiers's treaty signed by the Shah of Iran and Vice President Saddam Hussein, had given Iraq a sustainable position via the Shatt Al Arab waterway. It may well have been that outside influence and the past support for the Kurd’s via Iran were actually greater influences. The economic strength and stable government in Iraq, was seen as positive the Iranians did not posses after the revolution. The strategy for the Iraqi invasion of Iran in 1980, has still not been fully understood. As the Iraqi Military only minimally invaded Iran and attempted to only to take Khuzestan Province, which was strategic to controlling the Shatt Al Arab Waterway, but nearly impossible to defend. The Iranians had taken back all captured territory by 1982, and there was no reason for the war to continue after this. The Iraqi side attempted to end the war after this, but Iran refused to accept these offers. The level of harm to both nations far exceeded any real chance of real victory. And ultimately the war was fought for foreign interests not for Iraqi or Iranian benefit.Iran Iraq War 1980–88The case most often made is the war was instigated by Western Powers and Saudi Arabia to thwart the Iranian Revolution from spreading. This stated goal is still just as weak as it was in 1980. The Iranian Revolution was not spreading, in fact had there been no invasion by Iraq in 1980, the Iranian Revolution would have most likely failed. It was the external threat which solidified it’s credibility as the only institution saving Iran from destruction. The circumstances of the ouster of the Shah of Iran, was also was a questionable event. As American involvement led to his removal from power. In this broader geo-political game, the only conclusion that makes sense is that the Iran-Iraq war was about destroying the infrastructure of Iran and reducing it from the preeminent power in the Middle East. The Iraqi invasion facilitated this goal and at the same time destroyed Iraq as an Arab Tiger Economy. This established Saudi Arabia as the strongest Arab nation.Since the idea was to preserve a “balance of power”, Iraq could not be allowed to loose the war or end up winning. It became very clear by 1982, that there was no way Iraq could win this war. Thus, Western help to produce Chemical Weapons was initiated. It never was direct, instead it was done in way which once more went unnoticed. U.N.E.S.C.O. would in 1982 give President Saddam Hussein a humanitarian award for raising the living standards of the Iraqi people. This was an image builder, and a way that Western policy could be justified in assisting a regime they had once completely been against and labeled as a sponsor of terrorism. Iraq in turn would evict the notorious Abu Nidal from Iraqi soil in 1983 at a U.S. request. This would be followed by the lifting of export bans on Iraq. A vast array of Computer equipment and dual use technology could now be exported from the U.S. and Western Europe. Indirectly, the U.S. would supply satellite images of Iranian troop movements. The Soviet Union would support Iraq and rearm it’s Air Force and military. Even so the Iranians continued to fight on, they were sanctioned by Western Powers even thought they had been attacked and not instigated this war. The transfer of Chemical Weapon technology was so extensive that Iraq achieved the ability to manufacture it’s own weapons in the mid 1980’s. And it’s strain of Anthrax was an American version.Donald Rumsfeld, and Saddam HusseinThe use of Chemical Weapons was not limited to Iraq, Iran also used them. It was just that Iran did not have the technical assistance that Iraq did, and they were severely limited in their war effort due to sanctions. So Chemical Weapons were not available to their troops the same way the Iraqi Military had. In 1987 it would come to light that the U.S. had also facilitated in the sale of Weapons to Iran. Thus, it had broken it’s own sanction regime and had double dealings. This would come known as the Iran-Contra Affair, all major players would receive Presidential Pardons or face minimal punishment. Finally, it became very clear that the war had to end. The Anfal Campaign, of 1987–88, launched by Iraq threw everything that the Iraqi Military had against Iran. Major Victories came, and finally it would be the threat of mass chemical warfare in early 1988 that would force Iran to sign a cease fire and accept U.N. resolution 598, which ended the Iran-Iraq war in August 1988.Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait immediately began asking for repayment of what they now termed as loans to Iraq. The fact that oil collapsed in 1986, also was an event which still largely remains an economic anomaly. It would have been reasonable to believe that the increased fighting in the Iran-Iraq war which began in later 1986 until the conclusion in 1988 would have actually increased oil pricing, and Iraqi and Iranian export terminals were severely damaged. But instead a glut of oil came on the market, as Saudi Arabia increased production. Much of this may have been done so to help Iraq fund it’s war as Saudi exports provided much needed cash. This occurrence would indeed have put Saudi Arabia under economic pressure after the war was over. Thus, another source of friction came into being in an already fractured Middle East.After the war, it became clear that the Soviet Union was collapsing. Though, it was not apparent how quickly it would end. Saddam Hussein's invasion into Kuwait was ill planned in the fact that the Soviet Union was in it’s final stage of decline, and the U.S. gave in essence a green light to invade Kuwait and then changed the message after the Iraqi Invasion. This theory was challenged by the West until recently, when actual transcripts of the meeting between President Saddam Hussein and April Glaspie were declassified and placed the Margret Thatcher Library. There really is not much in the transcript which leaves any doubt as to what occurred in Baghdad on July 25, 1990. April Glaspie, who was a trained expert in the field of Middle Eastern culture and History, stated specifically that Secretary of State, James Baker had informed her to convey the message that the U.S. would take no position on an Arab to Arab conflict. U.S. intelligence was well aware that more 30,000 Iraqi troops had massed at the Kuwaiti Border, and more were on the way. There was no doubt that Iraq was about open hostilities with Kuwait.The fact that Iraq in 1990 possessed a large complex to make chemical weapons indigenously became a source of concern to the West at this point and the control of now not only Iraqi Oil Fields but that of Kuwait was a rallying call for Iraqi expulsion from Kuwait. At this point the fact that these chemical weapons had been once been allowed to develop as a way for so that much less powerful Iraq, could counterbalance, Iran was now no longer necessitated as Iran had been decimated by the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam’s fear that the Iraqi military would rebel if not given some kind of victory, however was not unfounded. The pressure for sudden debt repayment created the inability to rebuild after the war. The continuous violations of O.P.E.C. policy by the U.A.E. and Kuwait would only fuel the event which led to invasion on August 2, 1990. Of course Iraq could have chosen not to invade Kuwait, and this would have been far more logical. In a decade the debts may have been paid, or the military would have revolted and a new government would have formed. This process would have been better than 13 years of sanctions which would follow the Gulf War and then result in another War and ultimate invasion.The Second Gulf War was waged under completely false pretexts and outright obsifications made by the U.S. and Britain. There never was evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in 2002, and it this was clear to U.N. Weapon Inspectors. Iraq had fully disarmed and the sanctions were about to be lifted. In March of 1991, the U.S. had left the Baathist regime in place in Iraq. It was obvious in 2003, that the United States and Britain had never expected the regime to last long enough for this point to come. Now, they needed prevent Iraq from potentially rearming and giving oil contracts out to non-western nations. It was clear that Iraq was not interested in dealing with either American or British oil companies. Even France was not a likely contender in 2003, as it was far more likely that BRIC nations would have been the beneficiary of the lifting of sanctions. Thus, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was for Western Business interests, not the actual threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction. These weapons had long ago been destroyed.The Geo-Political struggle which began in the 1920’s is still playing out. The simplistic viewpoint that Saddam Hussein was an “Evil Dictator who gassed his own people”, does not explain the real story of what led to the events which caused three wars. In the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons were used by both sides. The use of Chemical Weapons against Kurdish Civilians was not a humane act. It has been said that leaflets were dropped before these campaigns, but in a war situation how likely were these civilians to be able to leave their homes. For if they had this capability they would not live in the front line of the Iran-Iraq war. The use of chemical weapons in the late 20th century was not acceptable, but those nations which supplied this know how are also responsible. The Kurds were being supported by Iran and in many cases they were assisting Iran in the war effort. In such a situation the course of action becomes very difficult to navigate properly. At the same time Iran, was using chemical weapons against Iraq as well. The war itself had turned into an epic human tragedy with more than 1 million deaths, and no calculation of those who were wounded and critically injured.This pattern of trying to hold together Iraq as an entity has continued since the formation of Modern Iraq. Neither Turkey, nor Iran want to grant autonomy to their Kurdish populations. This theme has existed from the very time of the Islamic invasion of the Persian Empire in 634 A.D. and it has continued. For even the spread of Islam could not negate the Indo-European identity of the Persians nor the Kurds. Much like what happened in India, British rule relied on exacerbating and fueling religious divides and ethnic conflicts. Borders were redrawn for outside interests not to promote peace. Saddam Hussein and his behavior was a symptom of the underlying fault lines which were present in the region, and became increasingly worse because of polices implemented by Britain, The U.S., and the Soviet Union. Even today following the occupation of Iraq, and it’s transformation to a democracy, the unity of Iraq remains elusive. The Kurd’s remain an autonomous yet loosely connected region of Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The Shia-Sunni differences remain. The danger now present is that the new government is not dedicated to promoting Secular mandates as were present in the past. Truly the imaginary presence of Chemical Weapons were not the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Their presence in Iraq and ultimate eradication were merely events which were made as parts of Geo-Political strategy that Iraq never had full control over. This all began one day in 1927, when one the world’s largest and most accessible oil reserves were discovered near Kirkuk, Iraq, and the story continues today.Oil Discovered in Iraq, 1927A History of Iraq, Charles TripCIA’s final report: No WMD found in IraqThe Iraqi Baath party