போர்க்குற்ற விசாரணையில், ராஜபக்சவுக்கு ஒபாமா ராஜீக தண்டனை விலக்கு!

US Justice Dept suggests immunity for President Rajapaksa in Torture Victim Protection legal action

14 January 2012, 9:25 pm
Excerpts of court documents filed by US Justice Dept. on Jan 13, 2012, in response to US intentions sought by the District Court of District of Columbia, in the matter of Torture Victim Protection legal action, Kasippillai Manoharan, et al., v. Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa:

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned counsel, respectfully files this status report concerning the Court’s December 30, 2011 Order regarding a Statement of Interest:

1. Plaintiffs seek a judgment under the Torture Victim Protection Act against President Mahendra Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka for, inter alia, alleged command responsibility for extrajudicial killings of certain Sri Lankan nationals. See Kasippillai Manoharan, et al., v. Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa (Dkt. #1).

2. On December 16, 2011, Defendant filed a motion to solicit the views of the United States regarding the Defendant’s entitlement to head of state immunity, the justiciability of the claims under the political question doctrine, and the applicability of the Act of State doctrine. (Dkt. #9).

3. On December 30, 2011, and in response to Defendant’s motion, this Court requested that the United States indicate by January

13 whether it would file a Statement of Interest in this case and, if so, when it would be filed. (Dkt. #10).

4. The United States is filing separately on this date a Suggestion of Immunity in this case recognizing the immunity of President Mahendra Rajapaksa, the President and sitting head of state of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. As explained in that Suggestion of Immunity, the United States
believes that its determination regarding President Rajapaksa’s immunity is dispositive of this matter. Therefore, the United States will not address the political question doctrine or the Act of State doctrine at this time.
SUGGESTION OF IMMUNITY SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case 1:11-cv-00235-CKK Document 12 Filed 01/13/12
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517,1 the United States respectfully informs this Honorable Court of the interest of the United States in the pending lawsuit against His Excellency President Mahinda Rajapaksa (sued as “Percy Mahendra Rajapaksa”), the President and sitting head of state of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and hereby suggests to the Court the immunity of President Rajapaksa from this suit.2 In support of its interest and suggestion, the United States sets forth as follows

1. The United States has an interest in this action because the sole Defendant, President Rajapaksa, is the sitting head of state of a foreign state, thus raising the question of President Rajapaksa’s immunity from the Court’s jurisdiction while in office. The Constitution assigns to the U.S. President alone the responsibility to represent the Nation in its foreign relations. As an incident of that power, the Executive Branch has sole authority to determine the immunity from suit of sitting heads of state. The interest of the United States in
this matter arises from a determination by the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States, in consideration of the relevant principles of customary international law, and in the implementation of its foreign policy and in the conduct of its international relations, to recognize President Rajapaksa’s immunity from this suit while in office.3 As discussed below, this determination is controlling and is not subject to judicial review. No court has ever subjected a sitting head of state to suit once the Executive Branch has suggested the head
of state’s immunity.

2. The Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State has informed the Department of Justice that Sri Lanka has formally requested the Government of the United States to suggest the immunity of President Rajapaksa from this lawsuit. The Legal Adviser has further informed the Department of Justice that the “Department of State recognizes and allows the immunity of President Rajapaksa as a sitting head of state from the jurisdiction of the United States District Court in this suit.”

Letter from Harold Hongju Koh to Tony West

3. The immunity of foreign states and foreign officials from suit in our courts has different sources. For many years, such immunity was determined exclusively by the Executive Branch, and courts deferred completely to the Executive’s foreign sovereign immunity determinations. See, e.g., Republic of Mexico v. Hoffmann, 324 U.S. 30, 35 (1945) (“It is therefore not for the courts to deny an immunity which our government has
seen fit to allow, or to allow an immunity on new grounds which the government has not seen fit to recognize.”). In 1976, Congress codified the standards governing suit against foreign states in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, transferring to the courts the responsibility for determining whether a foreign
state is subject to suit. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq.; see id. § 1602 (“Claims of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles set forth in this chapter.”).

4. As the Supreme Court recently explained, however, Congress has not similarly codified standards governing the immunity of foreign officials from suit in our courts. Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278, 2292 (2010) (“Although Congress clearly intended to supersede the common-law regime for claims against foreign states, we find nothing in the statute’s origin or aims to indicate that Congress similarly wanted to codify the law of foreign official immunity.”).

Instead, when it codified the principles governing the immunity of foreign states, Congress left in place the practice of judicial deference to Executive Branch immunity determinations with respect to foreign officials. See id. at 2291 (“We have been given no reason to believe that Congress saw as a problem, or wanted to eliminate, the State Department’s role in determinations regarding individual official immunity.”). Thus,
the Executive Branch retains its historic authority to determine a foreign official’s immunity from suit, including
the immunity of foreign heads of state. See id. at 2284–85 & n.6 (noting the Executive Branch’s role in determining head of state immunity).

5. The doctrine of head of state immunity is well established in customary international law. See Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice 9 (Lord Gore-Booth ed., 5th ed. 1979). In the United States, head of state immunity decisions are made by the Department of State, incident to the Executive Branch’s authority in the field of foreign affairs. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of the United States are bound by
suggestions of immunity submitted by the Executive Branch. See Hoffman, 324 U.S. at 35–36; Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 588–89 (1943). In Ex parte Peru, in the context of foreign state immunity, the Supreme Court, without further review of the Executive Branch’s immunity determination, declared that the Executive Branch’s suggestion of immunity “must be accepted by the courts as a conclusive determination by the political arm of the Government.” 318 U.S. at 589. After a suggestion of immunity is filed, it is the “court’s duty” to surrender jurisdiction. Id. at 588. The courts’ deference to Executive Branch suggestions of foreign state immunity is compelled by the separation of powers. See, e.g., Spacil v. Crowe, 489 F.2d 614, 619 (5th Cir. 1974).

6. For the same reason, courts have also routinely deferred to the Executive Branch’s immunity determinations concerning sitting heads of state. See Ye v. Jiang Zemin, 383 F.3d 620, 626 (7th Cir. 2004) (“The obligation of the Judicial Branch is clear — a determination by the Executive Branch that a foreign
head of state is immune from suit is conclusive and a court must accept such a determination without reference to the underlying claims of a plaintiff.”); Saltany v. Reagan, 702 F. Supp. 319, 320 (D.D.C. 1988) (holding that the suggestion of Prime Minister Thatcher’s immunity was conclusive in dismissing a suit that alleged British complicity in U.S. air strikes against Libya), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 886 F.2d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

When the Executive Branch suggests the immunity of a sitting head of state, judicial deference to that suggestion is predicated on compelling considerations arising out of the Executive Branch’s authority to conduct foreign affairs under the Constitution.

See Ye, 383 F.3d at 626 (citing Spacil, 489 F.2d at 618). Judicial deference to the Executive Branch in these matters, the court of appeals noted, is “motivated by the caution we believe appropriate of the Judicial Branch when the conduct of foreign affairs is involved.” Id.

See also Spacil, 489 F.2d at 619 (“Separation-of-powers principles impel a reluctance in the judiciary to interfere with or embarrass the executive in its constitutional role as the nation’s primary organ of international policy.” (citing United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 209 (1882))); Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. at 588.4 As noted above, in no case has a court subjected a sitting head of state to suit after the Executive Branch has suggested the head of state’s immunity.5

7. Under the customary international law principles accepted by the Executive Branch, head of state immunity attaches to a head of state’s status as the current holder of the office. After a head of state leaves office, however, that individual generally retains residual immunity only for acts taken in an official
capacity while in that position. See 1 Oppenheim’s International Law 1043–44 (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds., 9th ed. 1996). In this case, because the Executive Branch has determined that President Rajapaksa, as the sitting head of a foreign state, enjoys head of state immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts in light of his current status, President Rajapaksa is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of this Court over this suit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully suggests the immunity of President Rajapaksa in this action.

Dated: January 13, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General

VINCENT M. GARVEY
Deputy Branch Director
/s/ Judson O. Littleton

JUDSON O. LITTLETON (TX Bar No. 24065635)
JOHN G. SETTER, JR. (VA Bar No. 82621)
Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001

Counsel for the United States of America

Source http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/7256

=================================================

மகிந்தவுக்கு கருணை காட்டியது ஒபாமா நிர்வாகம் – போர்க்குற்ற வழக்கில் இருந்து தப்புகிறார்

புதினப்பலகை [ ஞாயிற்றுக்கிழமை, 15 சனவரி 2012, 00:13 GMT ] [ கார்வண்ணன் ]

அமெரிக்காவின் கொலம்பியா மாவட்ட நீதிமன்றத்தில் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்ட போர்க்குற்ற வழக்கில், குற்றம்சாட்டப்பட்ட சிறிலங்கா அதிபர் மகிந்த ராஜபக்சவுக்கு இராஜதந்திர சிறப்புரிமை* உள்ளதாக ஒபாமா அமெரிக்க அரசாங்கம் நீதிமன்றத்துக்கு அறிவித்துள்ளது.

காசிப்பிள்ளை மனோகரன் மற்றும் இருவரால் மகிந்த ராஜபக்சவுக்கு எதிராக தொடுக்கப்பட்ட போர்க்குற்ற வழக்கிலேயே, சிறிலங்கா அதிபருக்கு இராஜதந்திர சிறப்புரிமை உள்ளதென ஒபாமா நிர்வாகம் கூறியுள்ளது.

அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் நீதித் திணைக்கள சட்ட ஆலோசகர் ஹரோல்ட் ஹோ இந்த போர்க்குற்ற வழக்கில் இருந்து விலக்குப் பெறுவதற்கு சிறிலங்கா அதிபருக்கு இராஜதந்திர சிறப்புரிமை உள்ளதாக கொலம்பியா மாவட்ட நீதிமன்றத்துக்குப் பரிந்துரைத்துள்ளார்.

இந்த வழக்கை விசாரித்து வரும் கொலம்பியா மாவட்ட நீதிபதி கொலீன் கொல்லர் கொட்டேலி, இந்த விவகாரத்தில் இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் பரிந்துரைகளை ஜனவரி 13ம் நாளுக்குள் தெரியப்படுத்துமாறு கேட்டிருந்தார்.

இந்தநிலையில் கடந்த வெள்ளியன்று அமெரிக்க நீதித்திணைக்களத்தின் உதவி சட்டமா அதிபர் ரொனி வெஸ்ட் மற்றும் பிரதி கிளை பணிப்பாளர் வின்ஸ் எம்.காலர்வே ஆகியோர் சிறிலங்கா அதிபருக்குள்ள இராஜதந்திர சிறப்புரிமை குறித்த பரிந்துரைகளை நீதிமன்றத்தில் சமர்ப்பித்தனர்.

இதையடுத்து நீதிபதி கொட்டேலி, இந்தப் பரிந்துரைகளை ஏற்றுக் கொண்டு சிறிலங்கா அதிபருக்கு எதிரான இந்த வழக்கை தள்ளுபடி செய்யலாம் என்று நீதிமன்ற வட்டாரங்கள் கூறியுள்ளன.

இதற்கிடையே, சிறிலங்கா அதிபரை போர்க்குற்ற வழக்கில் இருந்து காப்பாற்றும் வகையில் அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களம் நடந்து கொண்டுள்ளது குறித்த தமிழர் இனப்படுகொலைகளுக்கு எதிரான அமைப்பு ஏமாற்றம் வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.
============
*( Diplomatic Immunity: ராஜீக தண்டனை விலக்கு ENB)

சிரியாவில் இராணுவத் தலையீட்டுக்கு அழைப்புவிடும் Qatar

Qatar State Visit To the UK

In This Photo: Queen Elizabeth II, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, Prince Charles, Camilla Parker Bowles, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al-Missned, the Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin
Khalifa Al-Thani, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall review a Guard of Honour during their visit Windsor Castle as part of their State visit to the United Kingdom on October 26, 2010 in Windsor, England. The Sheikh is on a two day State visit to the UK, the first
since 1985, which is seen as important in strengthening already strongly established business links with one of the Gulf States most financially powerful nations.

Qatar calls for intervention to end Syria violence

By Michael Peel in Abu Dhabi  January 14, 2012 5:40 pm

Arab troops should be sent to end the bloodshed in the uprising against Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, Qatar’s ruler has said, the first public call for military action as political efforts to halt the violence unravel.
Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani – who joined Nato’s military action in Libya – told the US broadcaster CBS that soldiers should go to Syria to “stop the killing”, as the mounting death toll made a mockery of a regional peace plan.

The Emir’s remarks, in an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday, raise the stakes hugely in a conflict in which even Mr Assad’s enemies abroad have shied away from suggesting military intervention. Western and Arab powers fear the potentially destructive regional impact of war in a country allied with Tehran and which lies at the geographical and political heart of the Middle East.

The intervention plan floated by Qatar – a small but very rich oil state which has taken its historically muscular foreign policy to another level during the Arab awakening – is a sign of how Middle Eastern and western officials are searching for new strategies on Syria amid a faltering three-week old monitoring mission sent there by the inter-governmental Arab League.

Killings in Syria – where 5,000 are estimated to have died during the ten month uprising – have continued despite the arrival of the mission to investigate whether the regime is implementing a peace plan under which it is supposed to pull the army off the streets, release political prisoners and start talks with the opposition.

Six Syrian civilians were killed Saturday, including a 13-year-old boy and a man shot dead in the rebellious central city of Homs, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed, according the Associated Press.

Nabil Elaraby, Arab League secretary-general, warned on Friday that Syria could slip into civil war. The conflict is becoming increasingly militarised, with army defectors now involved alongside the peaceful protesters whose first demonstrations almost a year ago triggered a brutal crackdown by regime forces.

Although there appears to be no appetite for western military intervention along the lines of the Nato mission in Libya that played a big part in ousting Col Muammer Gaddafi, there have been reports of an informal contact group forming to co-ordinate policy on Syria.

The group is said to include Gulf states, Turkey, the US and leading European powers, although NATO and several of its members hit back this week at Russian claims that they were “working under the Libyan scenario” with some Arab allies on a plan to topple Mr Assad militarily.

The allegations by Nikolai Patrushev, Russia’s security council chief, echo the view of Russia’s KGB-trained security elite, but also indicate that Russia is trying to pre-empt calls through the UN or elsewhere for intervention against its strongest Arab ally.

Moscow’s anxiety might have been heightened by meetings this week between Mrs Clinton, and her Saudi and Qatari counterparts.

A Russian-operated ship carrying ammunition docked in a Syrian-government controlled port earlier this week, alarming Assad regime opponents.

Syria’s opposition has condemned the Arab League monitoring mission as an ineffectual operation that is allowing the president more time to crush the uprising. observers have also been plagued by problems on the ground, including minor injuries to 11 monitors from a pro-Assad mob and a walkout by an Algerian team member who branded the operation a “farce”.

Analysts say the Syrian regime – which claims the uprising against it is an act of terrorism driven by foreign powers – has shown few signs of honouring pledges under the Arab League peace plan.

S&P Defends Ratings Cuts as France, Germany Stay the Course

WSJ EUROPE NEWS JANUARY 14, 2012, 6:01 P.M. ET

S&P Defends Ratings Cuts as France, Germany Stay the Course

By GEOFFREY T. SMITH, GABRIELE PARUSSINI and NADYA MASIDLOVER

Standard & Poor's analysts on Saturday defended their downgrades of more than half of the euro zone's 17 members, as the highest-profile victim of the mass ratings cut—France—looked to play down the impact.
In a conference call hours after the downgrades, S&P analysts said they stood by their moves as they believe the euro zone's policy response to the debt crisis has been largely misguided and is building up future risks.

"The proper diagnosis would have to give more weight to the ... rising imbalances in the euro zone," said Moritz Kramer, head of European sovereign ratings. He pointed to problems such as divergences in competitiveness from one country to another, which he said is reflected in huge imbalances in national
current accounts.

Mr. Kramer said the centerpiece of a December summit aimed at arresting the crisis, the adoption of tighter fiscal rules to avoid excessive deficits, "wouldn't have identified the risks" in advance as Germany had one of the largest budget deficits of all during the first 10 years of the euro's existence, whereas Spain, which is a problem area now, had a largely balanced budget.

German chancellor Angela Merkel on Saturday called for speedy implementation of euro-zone proposals to address the debt crisis.

(Video: Reuters/Photo: AP)

But Mr. Kramer stressed that S&P isn't calling for more fiscal stimulus from the countries with the biggest debt problems, saying that they have neither the room, nor enough credibility in the debt markets, to try to spend their way out of trouble.

"That certainly wouldn't be regarded as a credit positive, not by our metrics at least," Mr. Kramer said.
The call came a day after S&P downgraded more than half of the currency bloc's 17 sovereign nations. In doing so, it became the first credit-rating firm to strip France and Austria of their triple-A ratings, and cut Portugal and Cyprus to junk status.

Meanwhile, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon said Saturday that the government would press on with planned overhauls but wasn't considering fresh austerity measures.Mr. Fillon sought to play down the downgrade in front of anxious voters, who will cast their ballot to pick the next president in 99 days. "This decision is an alert which should not be dramatized, but should not be underestimated either," he said.

The downgrade, which is likely to impose higher borrowing costs on the euro zone's second-largest economy, landed a hard blow on President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had positioned himself as the defender of the country's financial standing during Europe's sovereign-debt crisis.

Countries react to the "Black Friday" announcement of nine credit rating downgrades in the euro zone by Standard & Poor's agency.

Mr. Sarkozy justified efforts to push through unpopular programs—a pension overhaul and deficit-cutting austerity measures—as necessary to defend France's triple-A rating, which it had held since 1975. Other overhauls, aimed at increasing the country's competitiveness and stemming the shift of industrial jobs abroad, are scheduled to be discussed and possibly adopted by the end of the month.

S&P's decision to leave Germany's triple-A rating unchanged exposed a deepening gulf between Paris and Berlin, with France looking increasingly incapable of holding up to Germany and politically weaker in the tough negotiations to resolve the euro-zone crisis.

Mr. Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have held themselves up as the main driving force steering the EU through the debt crisis, presenting other EU countries with compromise solutions that Paris and Berlin had agreed upon ahead of key EU meetings.

France has often counted on the support of southern nations, including Italy, to counterbalance Germany's calls for fiscal orthodoxy, a stance backed by the Netherlands and Finland—both triple-A rated countries.

Mr. Fillon denied that the ratings downgrade would skew the negotiating balance in favor of Germany. "There's no reason our relationship should change," he said. "The destinies of France and Germany are completely linked."

For her part, Mrs. Merkel on Saturday told reporters the S&P ratings downgrades underscore that euro-zone nations must accelerate efforts to implement a closer fiscal union and to set up a permanent bailout facility, the European Stability Mechanism. The ESM, scheduled to start on July 1, should start "as soon as possible" because this is important for investors' confidence, the German leader said.

She said that the downgrades weren't a full surprise and dismissed concerns that they would harm the euro's temporary bailout facility, the European Financial Stability Facility, by making it more difficult for the fund to borrow. "This won't torpedo the work of the EFSF," she said.

While Germany retained its triple-A credit rating, Mrs. Merkel said, "I don't believe that the downgrade has any influence at all on Germany having to do more than others. Instead, we must broaden the basis of our rescue facilities, which we can only do with the ESM because all countries will provide cash" for the facility.

Mrs. Merkel also said she was open to ideas to change legislation that would allow financial players to be less dependent on rating firms' assessments, given insurers' obligation to purchase sovereign bonds with triple-A ratings.

"This is generating a self-reinforcing effect," she said. "That's why I believe it would be very useful to look into it and think about possible legal changes. I support this approach." She referred to a proposal made earlier Saturday by a lawmaker in her party. Michael Meister, a lawmaker with the Christian Democratic Union, said new legislation was needed that would require banks and insurers to provide their own ratings on
their investments instead of relying on rating firms.

Meanwhile, S&P's Mr. Kramer identified a number of near-term risks for the region, highlighting the apparent breakdown of talks between Greece and its private-sector creditors. He said that Greece's debt burden has to be cut, and warned that a disorderly default could shake market confidence, making it
harder for countries to keep rolling over maturing debt. Italy alone has to refinance more than €130 billion of debt between February and April, he said.

Mr. Kramer said S&P still believes that Greek bondholders could hope to recover between 30 and 50 cents on the euro, but said the likeliest outcome was toward the bottom of that range.Also in the call, Mr. Kramer was critical of the euro zone's bailout vehicles, saying that the European Stability Mechanism appeared set up to act as a preferred creditor, subordinating all current holders of euro-zone bonds in the event of a debt
restructuring.
—Andrea Thomas contributed to this article.

Source: Wall Street Journal

சமரன்: முதலாளித்துவ ஊழலை எதிர்த்து மக்கள் இயக்கத்தைக் கட்டியமைப்போம்!

நாட்டின் மீது ஆதிக்கம் செலுத்தும் முதலாளித்துவ ஊழலை எதிர்த்து மக்கள் இயக்கத்தைக் கட்டியமைப்போம்!

அன்னா அசாரே தலைமையிலான 'ஊழல் எதிர்ப்பு இந்தியா' என்ற அமைப்பு, ஊழலை ஒழிக்க ஒரு வலுவான "ஜன் லோக்பால்" சட்டத்தைக் கொண்டுவர வேண்டுமென்ற இயக்கத்தைத் தொடர்ந்து நடத்தி வருகிறது. இந்த இயக்கத்திற்கு நாடு முழுவதிலிமிருந்து நடுத்தர வர்க்க மக்களிடம் ஆதரவு பெருகி வருகிறது. கடந்த ஆகஸ்டு 16-ஆம் தேதி டெல்லியில் நடந்த உண்ணா விரதத்தின்போது பல லட்சம் பேர் ஊழலுக்கு எதிராக அணிதிரண்டது, சோனியா-மன்மோகன் கும்பலின் மத்திய ஆட்சிக்கு அச்சத்தை உருவாக்கியுள்ளது.

வரலாறு காணாத மாபெரும் ஊழல்கள்


சோனியா-மன்மோகன் கும்பலின் தலைமையிலான ஐ.மு.கூட்டணி ஆட்சி, வரலாறு காணாத மாபெரும் ஊழல்களில் சிக்கியுள்ளது. 2ஜி அலைக்கற்றை ஊழலில் ரூ.1,76,000 கோடி, காமன் வெல்த் விளையாட்டு ஏற்பாட்டில் ரூ.70,000 கோடி, ஐ.பி.எல் கிரிக்கெட் ஊழல், ஆதர்ஷ் வீட்டுமனையில் ரூ.60,000 கோடி ஊழல், பன்னாட்டு முதலாளிகளுக்கு விவசாயிகளிடமிருந்து மலிவான விலையில் நிலத்தைப் பிடுங்கி ரியல் எஸ்டேட் மற்றும் சிறப்புப் பொருளாதார மண்டலங்கள் அமைப்பது என்ற பேரில் பல லட்சம் கோடிகள் கொள்ளையடிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. மேலும் நிலக்கரி, இரும்பு போன்ற கனிம வளங்களை உள்நாட்டு, வெளிநாட்டு முதலாளிகளிடம் தாரை வார்த்ததிலும் பல லட்சம் கோடிகள் அரசின் கஜானாவிற்கு நட்டத்தை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளன. இவ்வாறு ஊழல், ஊழல் எங்கெங்கு காண்கிலும் ஊழல் என சோனியா-மன்மோகன் கும்பல் ஊழலில் திளைத்து வருகிறது.

அன்னா அசாரே ஊழல் எதிர்ப்பு இயக்கம் தொடங்குவதற்கு முன்பே, டிரான்ஸ்பரன்சி இன்டர்நேஷனல் (Transparency International) என்ற அமைப்பும், உலகளாவிய நிதி ஒழுங்கமைப்பு (Global Financial Integrity - GFI) என்ற தொண்டு நிறுவனமும், மன்மோகன் கும்பலின் ஆட்சி ஆசியாவிலேயே மிகவும் ஊழல் மலிந்த ஆட்சி என்று அறிவித்தன. இதில் இரண்டாவதாக கூறப்பட்ட GFI என்ற நிறுவனம் அமெரிக்காவின் போர்டு பௌண்டேஷன் நிறுவனத்தால் நடத்தப்படுவதாகும். அன்னா அசாரே இயக்கத்தின்

தலைமையிலுள்ள குழுவினரில் பலர் இந்த நிறுவனத்திடம் இருந்து நிதி உதவி பெற்றுதான் செயல்பட்டுவருகின்றனர்.

டிரான்ஸ்பரன்சி இன்டர்நேஷனல் என்ற அமைப்பு, 2010ஆம் ஆண்டு நடத்திய ‘ஊழல் பற்றிய உலகளாவிய மக்களின் கருத்து’ என்ற ஆய்வின்படி கடந்த மூன்று ஆண்டுகளில் ஊழல் கட்டுக்கடங்காமல் செழித்து வளர்கிறது என்று கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. சட்டவிரோதமான நிதி

பரிமாற்றங்கள், புதியகாலனிய அரசியல் பொருளாதாரக் கொள்கைகளின் கீழ், உலகமய தாராளமய தனியார்மயக் கொள்கைகளின்கீழ் பன்னாட்டுக் கம்பெனிகள், உள்நாட்டு கார்ப்பரேட்டுகள் மற்றும் வர்த்தக சூதாட்டக்காரர்கள் பெருமளவில் சட்டவிரோதமான நடவடிக்கைகள் மூலம் பல லட்சம் கோடிகள் ஊழலில் ஈடுபடுகின்றனர் என்றும் அது கூறுகிறது. ஆசிய, ஆப்பிரிக்க, லத்தீன் அமெரிக்க நாடுகளின் அனுபவங்கள் காட்டுவது: கார்ப்ரேட் நிறுவனங்கள், வணிக நிறுவனங்கள், வங்கிகள் - சர்வதேச சட்டங்களையும், தேசிய சட்டங்களையும் புறக்கணித்தும், இரகசிய வழிமுறைகளைக் கையாண்டும் சட்ட விரோதமான முறையில் ஆண்டொன்றுக்கு 1 டிரில்லியன் டாலர்கள் நாடு கடந்து கடத்தப்படுகிறது என்றும் அந்த அறிக்கை கூறுகிறது.

உலகளாவிய நிதி ஒழுங்கமைப்பு என்ற நிறுவனம் வரி ஏய்ப்பின் மூலமும், கிரிமினல் நடவடிக்கைகள் மூலமும், சுதந்திர வர்த்தகம் என்ற பேரில் தவறான விலை நிர்ணயித்ததன் மூலமாகவும், ஊழல் மூலமாகவும் இந்தியாவிலிருந்து 1948 முதல் 2008 வரையிலான காலத்தில் 21,300 கோடி அமெரிக்க டாலர்கள் பணம் (ரூ.9,58,500 கோடி) வெளி நாடுகளில் பதுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்று கூறுகிறது. இதில் 68 சதவீதம் அதாவது சுமார் 6,20,000 கோடி டாலர்கள் 1991-க்குப்பின் பொருளாதார சீர்திருத்தங்களுக்குப்பின் பதுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்றும் அது கூறுகிறது.

எனவே ஊழலின் அளவு பிரம்மாண்டமாக பெருகிவருவதும், வெளி நாடுகளில் பதுக்கப்படுவது அதிகரித்து வருவதும் உலகமயம், தாராளமயம், தனியார்மயம் போன்ற புதிய காலனியாதிக்கத்திற்கு சேவை செய்யும் கொள்கைகளால் அதிகரித்துள்ளது என்பது தெளிவாகிவிட்டது.

( மேலும் )

சமரன்: மக்கள் வயிற்றில் அடிக்கும் கொடுங்கோல் ஜெயா ஆட்சியை எதிர்த்து அணிதிரள்வோம்!

ஜெயா அரசே;

பேருந்து,பால்,மின்சாரக் கட்டண உயர்வுகளைத் திரும்பப் பெறு!


அன்பார்ந்த உழைக்கும் மக்களே!


விண்ணை முட்டும் விலைவாசி ஏற்றத்தால் ஏழை, எளிய, நடுத்தர மக்கள் விழிபிதுங்கி அல்லல் பட்டுக் கொண்டிருக்கும் நிலையில், ஜெயா அரசு பேருந்து, பால், மின்சாரக் கட்டணங்களை உயர்த்தி மக்கள் வயிற்றில் பேரிடியை இறக்கியுள்ளது. சாதாரண பேருந்துக் கட்டணத்தை கிலோ மீட்டருக்கு 28 பைசாவிலிருந்து 42 பைசாவாகவும், ஆவின் பால் விலையை லிட்டருக்கு ரூ 6.25 ஆகவும் உயர்த்தியுள்ளது. மின்சாரக் கட்டணத்தை இருமடங்காக உயர்த்தத் திட்டமிட்டுள்ளது. இதன் மூலம் ரூ 11000 கோடியளவில் மக்கள் மீது பெரும் சுமையை ஏற்றியுள்ளது. இதனால் ஒரு சராசரி நடுத்தரக் குடும்பம் மாதம் ஒன்றுக்கு ரூ 1000த்திலிருந்து 1500 வரை கூடுதலாக செலவழிக்கவேண்டிய கட்டாயத்திற்குத் தள்ளப்பட்டுள்ளது.

ஆட்சிக்கு வந்தால் விலைவாசியைக் குறைப்பேன், மின்வெட்டை நீக்குவேன் என்று வாக்குறுதியளித்து ஆட்சிப் பீடமேறிய ஜெயலலிதா, உள்ளாட்சித் தேர்தலிலும் மக்களின் வாக்குகளை அபகரித்தபின் இக்கட்டணக் கொள்ளையை அரங்கேற்றியிருப்பது வன்மையாகக் கண்டிக்கத்தக்கது. ஜெயா அரசின் இக்கட்டணக் கொள்ளையை எதிர்த்தும் கட்டண உயர்வுகளைத் திரும்பப் பெறவும் போராட அனைத்து மக்களும் அணிதிரள வேண்டும்.

(மேலும்)

புதிய ஈழத்தில் ஆணைக்குழு அறிக்கை பற்றிய பரிசீலனை

படிப்பினை மற்றும் பரஸ்பர இணக்கத்துக்கான ஆணைக்குழுவின் அறிக்கை பற்றிய ஒரு பரிசீலனை.


சிங்களத்தை நன்கறிந்த ஈழத்தமிழ் மக்களுக்கும், புரட்சிகர ஜனநாயகச் சக்திகளுக்கும், இந்தப் படிப்பினை மற்றும் பரஸ்பர இணக்கத்துக்கான ஆணைக்குழு (Lession Learnt and Reconciliation Commission- LLRC) வின் அறிக்கை ஒரு கண்துடைப்பு என்பதை கட்டுரை எழுதி விளக்க வேண்டிய அவசியம் இல்லை.

போர்க்குற்றம் இழைத்த சிங்களத்தை தண்டிக்க வேண்டுமென உலக மக்கள் கோரியபோது, ஐநா சபை சிங்களத்தையே அவ்வாறு ஒரு விசாரணையை நடத்துமாறு கோரியது. அமெரிக்காவும் அதையே கோரியது. ஐரோப்பிய ஏகாதிபத்தியவாதிகளும் அதையே கோரினர். ஆக ஐநா சபையின் அமெரிக்க ஐரோப்பிய ஏகாதிபத்தியவாதிகளின் வேண்டுகோளுக்கமைய சிங்களம் படிப்பினை மற்றும் பரஸ்பர இணக்கத்துக்கான ஆணைக்குழு (Lession Learnt and Reconciliation Commission- LLRC) வின் அறிக்கையை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.

இந்த அறிக்கை போர்க்குற்றம் தொடர்பில் இரு அடிப்படைக் கோட்பாடுகளில் ஆதாரப்பட்டு நிற்கிறது.

1. இந்த யுத்தம் பயங்கரவாதிகளின் பிடியில் இருந்து பொதுமக்களை விடுவிப்பதற்கான மனித நேய நடவடிக்கை.

2. மனித நேய நடவடிக்கையில் நாம் பயங்கரவாதிகளுடன் போரிட்டோம். பயங்கரவாதிகளான புலிகள் மனித உயிர்களுக்கு மதிப்பளிக்காத அரசு
சாராத அங்கத்தவர்களாவர். இதனால் அரசுகளுக்கு எதிராக நடக்கும் யுத்தங்களில் கடைப்பிடிக்க வகுக்கப்பட்ட சர்வதேச மனிதாபிமான சட்டவிதிகளை (International Humanitarion Laws) இத்தைகைய போர்களுக்கு பொருத்தக் கூடாது.

இந்தக் கோட்பாடுகளின் மூலகர்த்தாக்கள் சிங்களமோ அல்லது பக்ச பாசிஸ்டுக்களோ அல்ல. மாறாக பயங்கரவாதத்துக்கு எதிரான போரில் புஷ், சென்னி, ரம்ஸ்பீல்ட், பாசிஸ்ட்டுக்கள் வகுத்தளித்து கடைப்பிடித்த கோட்பாடுகள் தான் இவை. ஆப்கானிஸ்தானிலும். ஈராக்கிலும் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டவைதான் இவை. பயங்கரவாதிகளை சர்வதேச மனிதநேயச் சட்டவிதிகளுக்கு உட்பட்டு நடத்தக் கூடாது என்ற அடிப்படையில் தான் நாடுகடந்த வதை முகாம்கள் அமைக்கப்பட்டன. இவற்றில் ஒன்றுதான் 10 ஆண்டு நிறைவு கண்ட, கியூபா, குவாண்டனோமாவில் அமைக்கப்பட்ட டெல்டா 4 என்கிற வதை முகாமாகும். தேர்தலில் அளித்த வாக்குறுதியைக் கூடக் காற்றில் பறக்கவிட்டு ஒபாமா அந்த வதை முகாமைக் கூட மூடவில்லை.

LLRC அறிக்கைக்கு மேலாக எந்த நடவடிக்கையும் எடுக்க இயலாதென ஐ.நா கருதுவதாக இன்னசிற்றி பிரஷ் (Innercity Press),கருத்து வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.

முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் பிரளயம் ஆரம்பிப்பதற்கு முன்பே, பக்‌ச பாசிஸ்டுக்களுக்கு எதிரான போர்க்குற்ற இயக்கத்தை ஒபாமாவையும், ஐநாவையும் சார்ந்து நின்று நடத்தக் கூடாது, மாறாக உலகத் தொழிலாளர்களையும் ஒடுக்கப்பட்ட தேசங்களையும் சார்ந்து நின்று நடத்த வேண்டுமென நாம் தொடர்ந்து வற்புறுத்தி வருகின்றோம். இதற்கு மாறாக ஒபாமாவினதும் ஏகாதிபத்தியவாதிகளினதும் `கவனத்தை ஈர்க்க` ஐநாவுக்கு நீதிப்பயணம் நடத்தியவர்கள், நடத்துகிறவர்கள் இன்று மக்களை நடுத்தெருவில் விட்டுவிட்டார்கள். எந்த ஒபாமாவினதும் ஐநாவினதும் கோட்பாடுகளின் அடிப்படையில் போர்க்குற்றங்கள் இழைக்கப்பட்டதுவோ அவர்களிடம் நீதிகேட்கிற போலிப் போராட்டங்களின் போக்கிரித் தனமும் அப்பலமாகிவிட்டது. இவர்களை நம்பி இவர்களின் பின்னால் அணிதிரண்ட மக்களின் கதை மண்குதிரையை நம்பி கடற்பயணம் செய்த கதையாகிவிட்டது.

( மேலும் )

ஒபாமாவின் சிறுநீருக்கான தமிழனுக்கு இக் காணொளி காணிக்கை!

LLRC பரிந்துரைகளுக்கு பக்சபாசிஸ்டுக்களின் பதில்!

LLRC recommendations

1. Responding to the Channel 4 programmes

2. Armed groups in operation

3. Heavy militarization in North – East

4. Land disputes and alienation

5. Devolution of powers.

''இலங்கைக்குள் புலிகளின் மீட்சிக்கான வாய்ப்பு, தேசிய பாதுகாப்புக்கு அச்சுறுதலாக இன்றும் நீடிக்கின்றது''.

கோதபாய ராஜபக்ச

''A group of university students in the south were trying to team up youth who were involved with the LTTE at that time to launch another armed struggle''.

Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake

"The re-grouping and re-organisation of Tiger separatists within Sri Lanka is still a threat to national security''.

Defence ministry secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa

Group of uni. students trying to launch armed struggle: SB

Wednesday, 11 January 2012 14:21

Higher Education Minister S.B. Dissanayake charged today that a group of university students in the south were trying to team up youth who were involved with the LTTE at that time to launch another armed struggle.

Addressing a function at the Jaffna University, the Minister said that these students have political dealings with the breakaway group of the JVP.

He said, “These students came to the Jaffna University in search of youth who were with the LTTE at that time. They are trying to go for an armed struggle. We cannot allow that to happen.”

Referring to the facilities at the Jaffna University, he said that Rs.573 million had been allocated to the university this time, and action would be taken to resolve the accommodation problem of students as soon as possible.

He said that Sinhala students had been sent to the Jaffna University based on their Z-score marks at the GCE Advanced Level Examination. “It is not an attempt to create forcible Sinhala colonies in the south,” he said.

Also, he said that the universities were not meant to function on ethnic and religious identities of students. (KB)

-------------

Sri Lanka warns of Tamil Tiger separatist revival

Jan 11, 2012 (LBO) - Sri Lanka is maintaining high defence spending and sizeable military to guard against any possible resumption of violence by Tamil Tiger separatists who are trying to regroup, a senior defence official said.

The island's intelligence services had picked up evidence of attempts to reactivate the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam separatist group which was defeated in May 2009 after a 30-year war, defence ministry secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa said.

Although the LTTE's military force had been destroyed in the island, its global network was still active, with considerable funds and influence, he told a public forum on future national security challenges.

"That's why we must maintain a sizeable defence force as well as defence spending, although there are some people who question why the defence establishment is so large and the amount of money allocated for defence," Rajapaksa said.

"The re-grouping and re-organisation of Tiger separatists within Sri Lanka is still a threat to national security.

"It is only logical that the government take every precaution to guard against it by maintaining a sizeable military."

The military was setting up camps in strategic locations around the island, especially jungle areas that were former Tiger bases, to prevent the regrouping of the Tigers, he said.

The overseas Tigers were still trying to revive the struggle for a separate state for minority Tamils in Sri Lanka's north and east.

"There is a possibility, even though it's remote, that terrorists will re-organise within Sri Lanka because of the LTTE's international campaign," Rajapaksa said.

"It is a possibility, however remote, we must not ignore as it could pave the way for a separatist terrorist campaign again."

Rajapaksa said Tamil separatists who escaped at the end of the war and are still at large and not undergone rehabilitation and may still support the separatist cause.

The island had already strengthened its intelligence services to guard against the re-emergence of the Tiger separatists, he said.

"We have evidence that LTTE cadres who left Sri Lanka before the war ended are trying to contact people in Sri Lanka and encourage them to regroup. Our intelligence services have found that they are trying to contact people in Sri Lanka to revive the LTTE effort."

At the time of their defeat the LTTE's global network had a lot of funds, Rajapaksa said.

Although control of the LTTE assets was now dispersed among different factions, they still generate funds through businesses and illegal activities like human smuggling and were committed to the same cause.

Universe is the work of physics, not God: Stephen Hawking

'Scientific superstar' Stephen Hawking turns 70 on 8 January 2012.

நமது காலத்தின் மாபெரும் பெளதீக விஞ்ஞானி Stephen Hawking இற்கு இனிய 70ம் ஆண்டு பிறந்தநாள் நல் வாழ்த்துக்கள்!

Stephen Hawking at 70: still the brightest star in the scientific universeAs the author of A Brief History of Time approaches 70, eminent former students celebrate an awe-inspiring intellect still pushing at the frontiers of physics
================
BERNARD CARR
Professor of mathematics and astronomy, Queen Mary, University of London. Stephen Hawking's PhD student 1972-75
================
Stephen's discovery in 1974 that black holes emit thermal radiation due to quantum effects was one of the most important results in 20th-century physics. This is because it unified three previously disparate areas of physics – quantum theory, general relativity and thermodynamics. Like all such unifying ideas, it is so beautiful that it almost has to be true, even though it has still not been experimentally confirmed. The renowned physicist John Wheeler once told me that just talking about it was like "rolling candy on the tongue".

At the time of the discovery, I was working with him as a PhD student in Cambridge and I count myself as very fortunate to have had a ringside seat during these developments. It also enabled me to be one of the first people to study the cosmological consequences of the effect and thereby make my own small contribution to the subject.

I was one of Stephen's first PhD students and people often ask me what it was like having him as a supervisor. He was not so famous in those days but his brilliance was already clear to his peers and I found it rather daunting when, on becoming his research student, I was informed by one of my tutors that he was the brightest person in the department. Students are probably always in awe of their supervisors but with Stephen the awe was even greater. Indeed, on matters of physics, I always regarded him as an oracle, just a few words from him yielding insights that would have taken weeks to work out on my own.




However, Stephen is only human and not all encounters led to illumination. Once, while sharing an office with him at Caltech [California Institute of Technology], I asked a question about something that was puzzling me. He thought about it silently for several minutes and I was quite impressed with myself for asking something that Stephen couldn't answer immediately. His eyes then closed and I was even more impressed with myself because he was clearly having to think about it very deeply. Only after some time did it become clear that he had fallen asleep! Nowadays I also sometimes fall asleep while talking to students, so I recall this incident with amusement.

The other human side of Stephen is that he does occasionally get annoyed. One of the myths put around is that he sometimes vents his frustration by running over the toes of students. This never happened to me – he didn't have a motorised wheelchair in those days – but I well recall one occasion when I made a remark in the maths common room at tea-time that showed that I had misunderstood what he'd been saying. Stephen screamed "No" so loudly that his wheelchair shot back halfway across the room under the recoil. I was most impressed that a single word from him could have such dramatic consequences.

My relationship with Stephen was not the usual type of supervisor-student relationship. In those days, before he had his entourage of nurses and assistants, students would necessarily have to help him in various ways on account of his disability. This was not an arduous task but it did mean that one's relationship with him became quite intimate. I shared an office with him, lived with his family for a year in California, and accompanied him as he travelled around the world, giving talks and collecting medals.

As an impressionable young student, it was a tremendous thrill to meet so many celebrities and renowned physicists. One of the great excitements of visiting Caltech, where Stephen was a Fairchild scholar in 1975, was meeting the brilliant physicist Richard Feynman, who was regarded almost like a god there. He used to visit our office quite often and, since Stephen's voice was already quite weak, I would act as interpreter.

I also travelled around China with him in 1985. During a long train journey, I recall reading the first draft of a popular book he was writing at the time. My initial impression that it would never sell proved inaccurate since it eventually turned into A Brief History of Time!

Shortly after his return from China he fell seriously ill with pneumonia and lost his voice. Ever since, he has had to communicate through his computer, which is painfully slow, so it's ironic that he has still managed to become one of the great science popularisers of our age. He has even written books for children with his daughter, Lucy, and it is sobering to reflect that a contribution I wrote for their most recent one has probably been read by more people than any of my scientific articles. His inspiration of public interest in some of the deepest questions of physics is certainly one reason why he has become such an iconic figure.
The Observer, Sunday 1 January 2012

புதிய இராணுவ யுத்ததந்திர நகர்வு! ஆசிய பசுபிக் பிராந்தியத்தில் அசுரக் கால் பதிக்கும் அமெரிக்கக் கழுகு!!

New York Times January 5, 2012


Obama Puts His Stamp on Strategy for a Leaner Military
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama has for the first time put his own stamp on an all-encompassing American military policy by turning from the grinding ground wars that he inherited from the Bush administration and refocusing on what he described as a smaller, more agile force across Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East.

In an unusual appearance at the Pentagon briefing room on Thursday, Mr. Obama outlined a new national defense strategy driven by three realities: the winding down of a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a fiscal crisis demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in Pentagon budget cuts and a rising threat from China and Iran.

A fourth reality, not mentioned in the briefing room, was Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign and the chorus of Republican presidential candidates who have sought to portray him as decimating the Pentagon budget and being weak in his response to Iran.

Mr. Obama, who spoke surrounded by a tableau of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in dress uniforms and
with chests full of medals, underscored the national security successes of his administration —
the ending of the Iraq war, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the ouster of Col. Muammar el-
Qaddafi of Libya — before declaring that the United States would downsize to a smaller ground
force, get rid of “outdated cold war-era systems” and step up investments in intelligence-gathering and cyberwarfare.

He also said, in what seemed aimed at the Republicans as well as the Defense Department officials in the room, that “our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority.”

Despite the pageantry, many elements of the new strategy had a “back to the future” quality and echoed the goals of a smaller but more technically proficient military advanced by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before the Sept. 11 attacks. Those plans were soon overtaken by the need to build up ground forces for the kind of conventional wars that the Pentagon had not envisioned a decade ago.
“Conventionally it makes perfect sense to avoid fighting worst-case wars,” said Anthony H.
Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But the
20th century, and even the 21st century, is a warning about how well anybody can do long-term
forecasting. I have listened for decades to, ‘This time we’re going to be more efficient, this
time we’re going to use technology.’ ”

Pentagon officials acknowledged the risks in a strategy that declares that American ground forces will no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has said the Army must shrink to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade, from 570,000 — and so said they were prepared to change course if required.

In a briefing after Mr. Obama’s remarks, Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the new strategy embraced “reversibility” that would allow the Pentagon to avoid “departmental hubris.” In other words, the Defense Department would begin a slow build-down of the Army that could be reversed and, in a national security emergency, it could order up a massive mobilization of the National Guard and Reserves.

Other analysts said the strategy appeared good but that without the details — specifically, what kind of budget cuts it would result in — it was hard to judge. The specific cuts are to be made public in coming weeks.

“It’s kind of an incomplete,” said Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “It’s like when you jump out of an aircraft with a parachute, the first five seconds are ‘so far, so good.’ But you’re still waiting for the chute to open.”

White House and Pentagon officials said that Mr. Obama spent a substantial amount of time with military officials on the new strategy, which they defined as six meetings he had on the strategy with military leaders and regional commanders between September and late December.

Although other presidents have been deeply immersed in military policy, for Mr. Obama the time commitment appears to signal an interest in a policy that turns the page from President George W. Bush’s wars.

“Certainly it indicates a level of interest on the president’s part, over and above what we’ve seen from him before,” Mr. Krepinevich said.

The new strategy document finally defines away the Defense Department’s historic requirement to have the ability to fight and win two wars at once — a measure that one official said “has been on life-support for years.”

The strategy released under Mr. Obama in 2010 said the military was responsible for “maintaining
the ability to prevail against two capable nation-state aggressors.”

In contrast, the strategy released Thursday said the military must be able to fight one war, but
is responsible only for “denying the objectives of — or imposing unacceptable costs on — an
opportunistic aggressor in a second region.” Senior Pentagon officials said that viewing military requirements through something as static as the two-war model had become outdated, and that the true measurement was whether the Pentagon could field a force capable of carrying out a wide range of military actions to protect the nation’s interests.

Pentagon officials made it clear that the department’s priorities in coming years would be financing for defense and offense in cyberspace, for Special Operations forces and for the broad area of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.