Third Imperialist Economic Crisis: Congress Passes Cliff Deal

Third Imperialist Economic Crisis: Congress Passes Cliff Deal:

Congress Passes Cliff Deal
POLITICS Updated January 2, 2013, 6:14 a.m. ET.


Hard-Fought Bill Averts Broad Tax Hikes, Spending Cuts, but Puts Off Major Issues.

House Republicans balk at "fiscal cliff" deal

House Republicans balk at "fiscal cliff" deal
By Rachelle Younglai and Thomas Ferraro | Reuters – 23 mins ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Last-minute efforts to step back from the "fiscal cliff" ran into trouble on Tuesday as Republicans in the House of Representatives balked at a deal that would prevent Washington from pushing the world's biggest economy into a recession.

House Republicans complained that a bill passed by the Senate in a late-night show of unity to prevent a budget crisis contained tax hikes for the wealthiest Americans but no spending cuts. Some conservatives sought to change the bill to add cuts.

That would set up a high-stakes showdown between the two chambers and risk a stinging rebuke from financial markets that are due to open in Asia in a few hours.

The Senate would refuse to accept any changes to the bill, a Senate aide said, and it appeared increasingly possible that Congress could push the country over the fiscal cliff after all, despite months of effort.

Strictly speaking, the United States went over the cliff in the first minutes of the New Year because Congress failed to produce legislation to halt $600 billion of tax hikes and spending cuts that start kicking in on January 1.

But with financial markets and federal government offices closed for the New Year's Day holiday, lawmakers had a little more time to work out a compromise without real-world consequences.

The Senate bill drew overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats alike when it passed by a vote of 89 to 8.

But Republicans who control the House expressed wide dismay with the measure, which includes only $12 billion in spending cuts along with $620 billion in tax increases on top earners.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, told reporters after huddling with other Republicans that he does not support the Senate's bill.

"The lack of spending cuts in the Senate bill was a universal concern amongst members in today's meeting. Conversations with members will continue throughout the afternoon on the path forward," said Cantor spokesman Rory Cooper.

Republicans returned for a second meeting at 5:15 p.m. EST (2215 GMT).

Republicans could face a backlash if they scuttle the deal. Income tax rates rose back to 1990s levels for all Americans at midnight, and across-the-board spending cuts on defense and domestic programs would begin to kick in on Wednesday.

Economists say the combination of tax cuts and spending cuts could cause the economy to shrink, and public opinion polls show Republicans would shoulder the blame.

MARKET DISCIPLINE?

Lingering uncertainty over U.S. fiscal policy has unnerved investors and depressed business activity for months.

Financial markets have staved off a steep plunge on the assumption that Washington would ultimately avoid pushing the country off the fiscal cliff into a recession.

Several Republicans said the fight could spill over until Wednesday, at which point they could be pressured by financial markets to accept the Senate bill.

"Everyone knows once the markets open tomorrow our courage drops in direct proportion to the market fall," said one Republican lawmaker who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The bill passed by the Democratic-led Senate at around 2 a.m. would raise income taxes on families earning more than $450,000 per year and limit the amount of deductions they can take to lower their tax bill.

Low temporary rates that have been in place for less-affluent taxpayers for the past decade would be made permanent, along with a range of targeted tax breaks put in place to fight the 2009 economic downturn.

However, workers would see up to $2,000 more taken out of their paychecks annually as a temporary payroll tax cut was set to expire.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the Senate bill would increase budget deficits by nearly $4 trillion over the coming 10 years, compared to the budget savings that would occur if the extreme measures of the cliff were to kick in.

But the bill would actually save $650 billion during that time period when measured against the tax and spending policies that were in effect on Monday, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an independent group that has pushed for more aggressive deficit savings.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Beech)
 

What is the so-called Fiscal Cliff?

The federal budget is approaching what has been commonly called a “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year.  It is when a number of tax cuts and temporary assistance measures expire, deep spending cuts are triggered across government services and even deeper cuts are scheduled in Medicare doctor payments, all near the time when the nation will reach its debt limit.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and others have forecast that the economic effects of a net $503 billion increase in revenues and decrease in outlays in fiscal year (FY) 2013 could trigger another recession next year.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and two bipartisan fiscal commissions have warned to take pains not to disrupt economic growth in the short term while pursuing a necessary longer-term deficit reduction package.  Therefore, any successful proposal will need to create jobs in the short term while also addressing the need for deficit reduction in the long term.  President Obama laid out a plan in his American Jobs Act, which was released more than a year ago, but the House of Representatives failed to even schedule a vote on many of the components that would directly create jobs.  For instance, that package provides a payroll tax credit for employers who hire new workers, and includes billions of dollars for school modernization, infrastructure investment, and hiring and retaining teachers and first responders in our communities.  Enacting these types of job-creation proposals would strengthen the economy while we also pursue long-term deficit reduction.

Last week, CBO released a report estimating the budgetary and economic impacts associated with preventing different parts of the scheduled spending cuts and tax increases.   The following analysis from the House Budget Committee Democratic staff describes the looming budgetary changes, briefly summarizes their effects, and describes some of the alternatives proposed by Democrats and Republicans.

Terror Fight Shifts to Africa

Terror Fight Shifts to Africa

U.S. Considers Seeking Congressional Backing for Operations Against Extremists.

By JULIAN E. BARNES and EVAN PEREZ

WASHINGTON—Military counterterrorism officials are seeking more capability to pursue extremist groups in Africa and elsewhere that they believe threaten the U.S., and the Obama administration is considering asking Congress to approve expanded authority to do it.

The move, according to administration and congressional officials, would be aimed at allowing U.S. military operations in Mali, Nigeria, Libya and possibly other countries where militants have loose or nonexistent ties to al Qaeda's Pakistan headquarters. Depending on the request, congressional authorization could cover the use of armed drones and special operations teams across a region larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the officials said.

The idea comes as the U.S. prepares by 2014 to draw down its remaining forces in Afghanistan, which were authorized by Congress in response to the country serving as base for the al Qaeda plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That authorization has since been applied to pursuing al Qaeda-linked groups as far as Somalia and Yemen, but the threat posed by militants has widened to include other areas and other alliances.

The discussion about seeking new authority underscores the growing U.S. alarm over Islamic extremists in North Africa, where an al Qaeda offshoot has seized control of territory following a coup in Mali to provide the group and its offshoots a working base for operations. The U.S. administration has called the Mali situation a "powder keg" that could destabilize surrounding countries and imperil Western interests.

"The conditions today are vastly different than they were previously," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa command, said in an interview. "There are now non-al Qaeda-associated groups that present significant threats to the United States." He called the debate over new authorization a "worthy discussion."

Some U.S. officials argue that the existing authority is sufficient, especially if the administration works through African forces and regional governments—as it says it would prefer. But others say new authority is needed if officials decide they need to do more to pressure militant groups.

The debate is going on both within the administration and the Pentagon, where officials remain divided over whether more direct action against militant groups in Africa will be needed.
Obama administration officials emphasized that their approach is still being reviewed. "Everyone is committed to taking on violent extremism in Africa, there is a healthy debate in the administration about how best to counter the threat in the region," an official said.

The terrorist offshoot known as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, is the biggest single concern. Gen. Ham said that AQIM, which originated in Algeria, has a sophisticated recruiting effort in both sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, and ambitions to attack the West. Fighters from AQIM have been linked to the Sept. 11 assault this year on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, but the nature of the alleged involvement remains unclear.

"It is clear to me they aspire to conduct events more broadly across the region, and eventually to the United States," Gen. Ham said. "That is the ideology, that is the campaign plan, establish the caliphate and spread the ideology, attack Western interests, attack democratic forms of government,
and we are certainly seeing that." U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Sept. 11 assault.

U.S. officials have offered logistical help for West African countries forming plans for an intervention force in Mali. Such U.S. assistance would not likely require a broader authorization for the use of force. "It's not simply a question of U.S. direct action. There's a preference in many of these instances for regional action," another administration official said.

AQIM, originally known as the Salafist Group for Call and Combat, once resisted ties to al Qaeda. New leaders changed the name and embraced al Qaeda, but experts don't believe it takes its directions. There are also other groups in Mali, such as the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, which experts said have only indirect ties to the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.

The 2001 congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force gave the U.S. military far-reaching authority to go after members of groups that attacked the U.S. and those who harbored them.

Initially, that pursuit was centered in Afghanistan. However, the war soon led U.S. military forces and their drones from Afghanistan to the Horn of Africa, prompting American action in Yemen and Somalia.

The Central Intelligence Agency, meanwhile, has carried out a lengthy campaign of armed drone strikes in Pakistan outside of the 2001 congressional measure. Instead, the CIA's efforts are authorized by the president, who under law can order the CIA into action without congressional legislation.

Obama administration officials, concerned about the legal justifications behind counterterrorism operations, have preferred to rely on congressional authority for the use of force against al Qaeda, seeing such authority as more defensible and acceptable to allies.

Robert Chesney, a professor at the University of Texas law school, said some scholars believe it is sufficient for a regional militant group to announce it is joining al Qaeda to be covered under the 2001 congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force. Other experts believe groups must actively take orders from al Qaeda's central leadership to be covered.

"The uncertainties that have long surrounded the organizational boundaries of al Qaeda are growing more significant," said Mr. Chesney. "We don't have agreement regarding the litmus test showing when a given group has become sufficiently linked to al Qaeda so as to come within the scope of the
authorization for the use of military force."

Some experts believe that the current authorization of force against al Qaeda may lose legal force after the war in Afghanistan is declared over in 2014.

In a speech last week, the Pentagon's top lawyer, Jeh Johnson, also said there will come a "tipping point" at which al Qaeda is effectively destroyed, and the authorization may no longer be in force.
While some in the military welcome new legislation to clarify their powers and responsibilities in dealing with extremist groups, others are wary of the unpredictabilities of congressional action. Some Pentagon officials believe any new legislation considered by Congress would likely come with many
restrictions on the military and its ability to capture, detain or release terrorist suspects.

"It is nearly impossible to get a clean request without riders that cloud the base issue," said a military official.

With the U.S. recently ending the Iraq war and trying to exit Afghanistan, the prospect of new authorization for another conflict is a "monumental decision" and shouldn't be done lightly, said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"This is the kind of thing that Americans could end up regretting; we could end up in another decadelong war if this crazy idea isn't stopped," Mr. Anders said.

Some congressional aides said the role of the U.S. military in addressing growing threats in Africa is open to debate.

"You can make a plausible case that this threat is still in gestation and therefore we need to act now decisively to deal with it," said a Senate aide. "You can make an equally plausible case that a lot of these groups are much more locally focused and not particularly impressive."

—Adam Entous contributed to this article.

Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters Senator Mitch McConnell,
the Republican leader, departed early Tuesday after the vote.

Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise
Alex Brandon/Associated Press
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
Published: January 1, 2013

WASHINGTON – The Senate, in a pre-dawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.

The deal, worked out in furious negotiations between Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, passed 89-8, with just three Democrats and five Republicans voting no. Although it lost the support of some of the Senate’s most conservative members, the broad coalition that pushed the accord across the finish line could portend swift House passage as early as New Year’s Day.

Quick passage before the markets reopen Wednesday would likely negate any economic damage from Tuesday’s breach of the so-called “fiscal cliff” and largely spare the nation’s economy from the one-two punch of large tax increases and across-the-board military and domestic spending cuts in the
New Year.

“This shouldn’t be the model for how to do things around here,” Senator McConnell said just after 1:30 a.m. “But I think we can say we’ve done some good for the country.”

“You surely shouldn’t predict how the House is going to vote,” Mr. Biden said late New Year’s Eve after meeting with leery Senate Democrats to sell the accord. “But I feel very, very good.”

The eight senators who voted no included Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and a potential presidential candidate in 2016, two of the Senate’s most ardent small-government Republicans, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, and Senator Charles E. Grassley, who as a former Finance
Committee chairman helped secure passage of the Bush-era tax cuts, then opposed making almost all of them permanent on Tuesday. Two moderate Democrats, Tom Carper of Delaware and Michael Bennet of Colorado, also voted no, as did the liberal Democrat Tom Harkin, who said the White
House had given away too much in the compromise. Senator Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, also voted no.

The House Speaker, John A. Boehner, and the Republican House leadership said the House would “honor its commitment to consider the Senate agreement.” But, they added, “decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House
members – and the American people – have been able to review the legislation.”

Even with that cautious assessment, Republican House aides said a vote Tuesday is possible.
Under the agreement, tax rates would jump to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for individual incomes over $400,000 and couples over $450,000, while tax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000, a clear victory for President Obama, who ran for re-election
vowing to impose taxes on the wealthy.

Just after the vote, Mr. Obama called for quick House passage of the legislation.

“While neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted, this agreement is the right thing to do for our country and the House should pass it without delay,” he said.

 Democrats also secured a full year’s extension of unemployment insurance without strings attached and without offsetting spending cuts, a $30 billion cost. But the two-percentage point cut to the payroll tax that the president secured in late 2010 lapsed at midnight and will not be renewed.
In one final piece of the puzzle, negotiators agreed to put off $110 billion in across-the-board cuts to military and domestic programs for two months while broader deficit reduction talks continue. Those cuts begin to go into force on Wednesday, and that deadline, too, might be missed before
Congress approves the legislation.

To secure votes, Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, also told Democrats the legislation would cancel a pending congressional pay raise — putting opponents in the politically difficult position of supporting a raise — - and extend an expiring dairy policy that would have seen the price of milk double in some parts of the country.

The nature of the deal ensured that the running war between the White House and Congressional Republicans on spending and taxes would continue at least until the spring. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner formally notified Congress that the government reached its statutory borrowing limit on New Year’s Eve. Through some creative accounting tricks, the Treasury Department can put off action for perhaps two months, but Congress must act to keep the government from defaulting just when the “pause” on pending cuts is up. Then in late March, a law financing the government expires.
And the new deal does nothing to address the big issues that Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner hoped to deal with in their failed “grand bargain” talks two weeks ago: booming entitlement spending and a tax code so complex that few defend it anymore.

Though the tentative deal had a chance of success if put to a vote, it landed with a thud on Capitol Hill. Republicans accused the White House of “moving the goal posts” by demanding still more tax increases to help shut off across-the-board spending cuts beyond the two-month pause.

Democrats were incredulous that the president had ultimately agreed to around $600 billion in new tax revenue over 10 years when even Mr. Boehner had promised $800 billion. But the White House said it had also won concessions on unemployment insurance and the inheritance tax among other
wins.

Still, Democrats openly worried that if Mr. Obama could not drive a harder bargain when he holds most of the cards, he will give up still more Democratic priorities in the coming weeks, when hard deadlines will raise the prospects of a government default first, then a government shutdown. In
both instances, conservative Republicans are more willing to breach the deadlines than in this case, when conservatives cringed at the prospects of huge tax increases.

“I just don’t think Obama’s negotiated very well,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.
With the legislation now headed to the House, Republicans there signaled that enough of them, in combination with Democrats, could most likely pass the legislation, just weeks after Republicans shot down Mr. Boehner’s proposal to raise taxes only on incomes over $1 million.

“I don’t want to say where I am until I read the legislation, but it is certainly better than the alternative,” said Representative Charlie Dent, Republican of Pennsylvania.

With the threat of huge cuts agonizingly close, official Washington was prepared for the worst. The Defense Department prepared to notify all 800,000 of its civilian employees that some of them could be forced into unpaid leave without a deal on military cuts. The Internal Revenue Service
issued guidance to employers to increase withholding from paychecks beginning Tuesday to match new tax rates at every income level.

“No deal is the worse deal,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, rejecting the assertions of liberal colleagues that no deal would be better than what they would see as a bad deal.

Despite grumbling amongh Republicans and Democrats, it was clear that a deal hashed out through intense talks between Mr. Biden and Mr.McConnell had given both sides provisions to cheer and to jeer.

Under the deal, tax rates on dividends and capital gains would also rise, to 20 percent from 15 percent, on income over $400,000 for single people and $450,000 for couples. The deal would reinstate provisions to tax law, ended by the Bush tax cuts of 2001, that phase out personal exemptions and deductions for the affluent. Those phaseouts, under the agreement, would begin at $250,000 for single people and $300,000 for couples.

The estate tax would also rise, but considerably less than Democrats had wanted. The value of estates over $5 million would be taxed at 40 percent, up from 35 percent. Democrats had wanted a 45 percent rate on inheritances over $3.5 million.

Under the deal, the new rates on income, investment and inheritances would be permanent, as would a provision to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting middle-class families.

Jennifer Steinhauer and Robert Pear contributed reporting.

"Fiscal cliff," is within sight, but it is not done," Obama

U.S. President Barack Obama talks about the negotiations with Capitol Hill about the looming fiscal cliff while in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington, December 31, 2012.
REUTERS/Larry Downing

"Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's tax hike is within sight, but it is not done," Obama

WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:42pm GMT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Monday that a deal with Congress to avoid the U.S. "fiscal cliff," with its tax increases looming at midnight, was close, but he warned that it was not yet complete.

"Today it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year's tax hike is within sight, but it is not done," Obama said during remarks at the White House complex.

"There are still issues left to resolve, but we're hopeful that Congress can get it done, but it's not done."

The president made his remarks surrounded by cheering supporters identified as "middle class Americans."

Obama, who won re-election in November partially on a promise to raise tax rates for the top two percent of U.S. earners, said the deal would ensure that taxes do not go up for middle income families.

He stressed that it would include an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and extension of popular tax credits.

Obama said the agreement being worked out with Republican leaders in Congress would not include a long-term solution to the government's debt problem.

"My preference would have been to solve all these problems in the context of a larger agreement, a bigger deal, a grand bargain, whatever you want to call it that solves our deficit problems in a balanced and responsible way," he said.

"But with this Congress that was obviously a little too much to hope for at this time. Maybe we can do it in stages. We're going to solve this problem instead in several steps."

The outlines of a deal in the U.S. Senate include raising income tax rates for individuals making more than $400,000 (246,275.09 pounds) a year and households making more than $450,000 (277,059.48 pounds) a year, but a sticking point remains on how long to delay automatic spending cuts to defence and domestic programs, known as a "sequester."

Obama stressed that a deal over those spending cuts had to include revenue.

"Any agreement we have to deal with these automatic spending cuts that are being threatened for next month, those also have to be balanced," he said.

"That means that revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester, in eliminating these automatic spending cuts, as well as spending cuts."

The same would be true for any future deficit-cutting agreement, he said.

As he often stresses, Obama said deficit reduction would have to follow the principle of not hurting senior citizens, students, or middle class families.

"If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction and debt reduction, then it's going to have to be a matter of shared sacrifice, at least as long as I'm president, and I'm going to be president for the next four years," he said.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Mark Felsenthal, Tabassum Zakaria, Roberta Rampton, David Morgan) 

  (Reuters)

Drone War Spurs Militants to Deadly Reprisals

Drone War Spurs Militants to Deadly Reprisals

By DECLAN WALSH Published: December 29, 2012

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — They are dead men talking, and they know it. Gulping nervously, the prisoners stare into the video camera, spilling tales of intrigue, betrayal and paid espionage on behalf of the United States. Some speak in trembling voices, a glint of fear in their eyes. Others look resigned. All plead for their lives.



The New York Times :Pakistan militants punish accused informers aiding drone attacks by taping their confessions and executions.

“I am a spy and I took part in four attacks,” said Sidinkay, a young tribesman who said he was paid $350 to help direct C.I.A. drones to their targets in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Sweat glistened on his forehead; he rocked nervously as he spoke. “Stay away from the Americans,” he said in an imploring voice. “Stay away from their dollars.”

Al Qaeda and the Taliban have few defenses against the American drones that endlessly prowl the skies over the bustling militant hubs of North and South Waziristan in northwestern Pakistan, along the Afghan border. C.I.A. missiles killed at least 246 people in 2012, most of them Islamist militants, according to watchdog groups that monitor the strikes. The dead included Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Qaeda ideologue and deputy leader.

Despite the technological superiority of their enemy, however, the militants do possess one powerful countermeasure.

For several years now, militant enforcers have scoured the tribal belt in search of informers who help the C.I.A. find and kill the spy agency’s jihadist quarry. The militants’ technique — often more witch hunt than investigation — follows a well-established pattern. Accused tribesmen are abducted from homes and workplaces at gunpoint and tortured. A sham religious court hears their case, usually declaring them guilty. Then they are forced to speak into a video camera.

The taped confessions, which are later distributed on CD, vary in style and content. But their endings are the same: execution by hanging, beheading or firing squad.

In Sidinkay’s last moments, the camera shows him standing in a dusty field with three other prisoners, all blindfolded, illuminated by car headlights. A volley of shots rings out, and the three others are mowed down. But Sidinkay, apparently untouched, is left standing. For a tragic instant, the accused spy shuffles about, confused. Then fresh shots ring out and he, too, crumples to the ground.
These macabre recordings offer a glimpse into a little-seen side of the drone war in Waziristan, a paranoid shadow conflict between militants and a faceless American enemy in which ordinary Pakistanis have often become unwitting victims.

Outside the tribal belt, the issue of civilian casualties has dominated the debate about American drones. At least 473 noncombatants have been killed by C.I.A.-directed strikes since 2004, according to monitoring groups — a toll frequently highlighted by critics of the drones like the Pakistani politician Imran Khan. Still, strike accuracy seems to be improving: just seven civilian deaths have been confirmed in 2012, down from 68 the previous year, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has been critical of the Obama administration’s drone campaign.

And civilian lives are threatened by militants, too. As the American campaign has cut deeply into the commands of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, drone-fearing militants have turned to the local community for reprisals, mounting a concerted campaign of fear and intimidation that has claimed dozens of lives and further stressed the already fragile order of tribal society.

The video messages from accused spies are intended to send a stark message, regardless of whether innocents are among those caught up in the deadly dragnet. The confessions are delivered at gunpoint, and usually follow extensive torture, including hanging from hooks for up to a month, human rights groups say.

“In every civilized society, the penalty for spying is death,” said a senior commander with the Pakistani Taliban, speaking on the condition of anonymity from Waziristan.

Although each of myriad militant factions in Waziristan operates its own death squads, by far the most formidable is the Ittehad-e-Mujahedeen Khorasan, a shadowy group that experts consider to be Al Qaeda’s local counterintelligence wing. Since it emerged in 2009, the group, which is led by Arab and Uzbek militants, has carefully cultivated a sinister image through video theatrics and the ruthless application of violence.

Black-clad Khorasan militants, their faces covered in balaclavas, roam across North Waziristan in jeeps with tinted windows. In one video clip from 2011, Khorasan fighters are seen searching traffic under a cluster of palm trees outside Mir Ali, a notorious militant hub. Then they move into the town center, distributing leaflets to shoppers, before executing three men outside a gas station.

“Spies, your days are numbered because we are carrying out raids,” chants the video soundtrack.
Thought to number dozens of militants, the Khorasan cooperates closely with the Afghan warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani, who is based in North Waziristan. A sister organization in Afghanistan has been responsible for 250 assassinations and executions, according to American military intelligence.
“Everyone’s frightened of them,” said Mustafa Qadri of Amnesty International, which recently published a report on human rights abuses by both the military and militants in the tribal belt. “No one really knows who is behind them. But they are very professional.”

The videotapes produced by Khorasan and other groups offer a stark, if one-dimensional, picture of their spy hunt. A review of 20 video confessions by The New York Times, as well as interviews with residents of the tribal belt, suggest the suspects are largely poor tribesmen — barbers, construction workers, Afghan migrants.

The jittery accounts of the accused men reveal dramatic stories of espionage: furtive meetings with handlers; disguising themselves as Taliban fighters, fruit sellers or even heroin addicts; payment of between $150 and $450 per drone strike; and placing American-supplied electronic tracking devices, often wrapped in cigarette foil, near the houses and cars of Qaeda fugitives.

But the videos are also portraits of fear and confusion, infused with poignant, even darkly comic, moments. Curiously, some say they have been hired through Pakistani military intelligence officials who are identified by name, directly contradicting the Pakistan government’s official stance that it vehemently opposes the drone strikes. An official with Inter-Services Intelligence, speaking on the customary condition of anonymity, said any suggestion of Pakistani cooperation was “hogwash.”
Quite clearly, the video accounts are stage-managed. Behind the camera, an unseen militant prompts the prisoners to speak. Some say they have been told they will be freed if they tell the “truth.” Others are preparing for death. “Tell my parents that I owe 250 rupees to a guy from our village,” Hamidullah, a bearded Afghan migrant, said in a quavering voice. “After I die, please repay the money to him.”

Death is not inevitable, however. Suleman Wazir, a 20-year-old goat herder from South Waziristan, said militants abducted him in September on suspicion of being a spy. “They held me in a dungeon and flogged me hundreds of times. They told me I would die,” he said in a video interview recorded through an intermediary in Waziristan. But after some weeks, Mr. Wazir said, his relatives intervened through tribal elders and persuaded the Taliban of his innocence. Upon presentation of five goats to the militants, he was set free, he said.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have become obsessed with “patrai” — a local word for a small metallic device, now synonymous with the tiny electronic tagging devices that militants believe the C.I.A. uses to find them. In 2009 Mr. Libi, the Qaeda deputy, published an article illustrated with photographs of such devices, warning of their dangers. He was killed in a drone strike near Mir Ali in June.

This year, the Taliban released a video purporting to show one such device: an inchlong electronic circuit board, cased in transparent plastic, that, when connected to a nine-volt battery, pulsed with an infrared light. A spokesman for the C.I.A. declined to comment on details of the drone program. But a former American intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the agency does use such GPS devices, which are commercially available in the United States through stores that supply the military.

As a result, the Taliban are adapting. Wali ur-Rehman, a senior Taliban commander, said in an interview last spring that his fighters had started to scan all visiting vehicles with camcorders set to infrared mode in order to detect potential tracking devices.

Still, the Taliban may be overestimating the importance of such devices. A former Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the subject, said that satellites and aerial surveillance planes — whose powerful sensors sweep up mobile phone, Internet and radio intercepts from the tribal belt — provide much of the drone program’s electronic intelligence. Other experts said many American intelligence informers in Waziristan are recruited in Afghanistan, where a C.I.A. base in the border province of Khost was attacked by a suicide bomber three years ago.

On the ground, though, the spy war has further destabilized a tribal society already dangerously weakened by years of violence. Paranoia about the profusion of tracking chips has fueled rivalries between different clans who accused one another of planting the devices.

“People start to think that other tribes are throwing the chips. There is so much confusion and mistrust created within the tribal communities. Drone attacks have intensified existing mistrust,” one tribesman told researchers from Columbia Law School, as part of a study into the effects of the drone campaign, last May.

The Khorasan’s brutality has alienated even some of its putative allies. In September 2011, Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a leading warlord in North Waziristan, publicly withdrew his support for the group after coming under pressure from tribal supporters over the number of apparently innocent tribesmen who had been executed as spies. In a statement, the Khorasan responded that it would pursue its objectives “at all costs and not spare anyone.”

Amid the long knives and paranoia, some tribesmen believe there is no option but to flee. Some of those accused of espionage run to the gulf states; others make it to the sprawling slums of the port of Karachi. In an ethnic Pashtun neighborhood of that city, one elderly man described how he fled with his family after the execution of his son in 2009.

“I was afraid the militants would also kill me and my family,” said the man, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Still now, his life remained in danger, he added, because the Taliban believed he was spending what they said was his son’s ill-gotten money. But it was simply untrue, the old man insisted: “My son was innocent.”

Reporting was contributed by Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsud from Islamabad; Ismail Khan from Peshawar, Pakistan; Zia ur-Rehman from Karachi, Pakistan; and Scott Shane and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

யாழ். பல்கலைக்கழக மாணவர் போராட்டத்தை முறியடிக்க விசேட கூட்டம்.

யாழ். பல்கலைக்கழகம் தொடர்பில் 31ம் திகதி விசேட கூட்டம்.
வீரகேசரி 2012-12-29 11:19:06

யாழ்ப்பாணப் பல்கலைக்கழகம் தொடர்பில் எதிர்வரும் 31ம் திகதி விசேட கூட்டமொன்று நடைபெறவுள்ளதாகத் தெரிகின்றது.

யாழ்ப்பாணம் பல்கலைக்கழக விரிவுரைகளை மாணவர்கள் பகிஷ்கரித்து வருகின்ற நிலையில்பல்கலைக்கழகத்தின் கல்வி நடவடிக்கைகளை மீள ஆரம்பிப்பது குறித்து இந்தக் கூட்டத்தில் கவனம் செலுத்தப்பட உள்ளதாகத் தெரிவிக்கப்படுகின்றது.

மாணவர்களின் போராட்டம் தொடர்பில் கலந்துரையாடி தீர்மானமொன்றுக்கு வரும் வகையிலேயே எதிர்வரும் திங்கட்கிழமை கூட்டம் நடைபெறவுள்ளது.
==========

``விடுதலைப்புலிகளின் கொள்கைகளை இப்போதும் பின்பற்றும், மாணவர் கனவு  கலைக்கப்படும் வரையில் அவர்கள் விடுதலை செய்யப்படப் போவதில்லை’’.

யாழ் கட்டளைத் தளபதி

கைது செய்யப்பட்டு தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள மாணவர்களது விடுதலை தொடர்பில் யாழ் பல்கலைக்கழக சமூகத்திற்கும் யாழ் மாவட்ட கட்டளை தளபதிக்கும் இடையில் பலாலி படைத் தலமையத்தில் சந்திப்பொன்று இடம்பெற்றது அதன் போதே அவர் இதனைத் தெரிவித்தார்.

அவர் மேலும் தெரிவித்ததாவது,

கைது செய்யப்பட்ட மாணவர்கள் தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகளின் தலைவர் பிரபாகரன் உயிருடன் இருப்பதாகவும் அவரே எமது தலைவர் , அவரின் ஆட்சி விரைவில் அமையும் எனவும்  கூறிவருகின்றனர்

இதனாலே இவர்கள் தொடர்ந்தும் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர் எனவே பல்கலைக்கழக மாணவர்கள் விடுதலை செய்யும் வரை யாழ் பல்கலைக்கழக செயற்பாடுகளை ஆரம்பிக்கப்படாது என காத்திருப்பது கனவிலும் கூட நடக்காது எனவே விரைவாக கல்விச் செயற்பாடுகளை ஆரம்பிக்க வேண்டும்.

அத்துடன் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டுள்ள மாணவர்களை சந்திக்கப்போகும் போது பெற்றோர்கள் தங்கள் பிள்ளைகளிடம்  ``விடுதலைப்புலிகளுடன் தொடர்பில்லை , நாம் இனிமேல் இவ்வாறான செயற்பாடுகளை செய்ய மாட்டோம் எனக் கூறுங்கள்`` எனவும் ஆலோசனை கூறினார்!

அவ்வாறு அவர்கள் கூறுவார்களாயின் அவர்களது விடுதலை விரைவில் கைகூடும். இவ்வாறு அமையுமானால் அவர்களின் விடுதலை தொடர்பில் நானும் கலந்துரையாடி அவர்களை விரைவில் விடுவிக்க முடியும்.

நாம் சமய நிகழ்வுகளுக்கு  தடையில்லை ஆனாலும் பயங்கரவாத
செயற்பாடுகளுக்கு நாங்கள் இடமளிக்க மாட்டோம். அன்றைய தினம் பல்கலைக்கழக வளாகத்தில் 20ற்கு மேற்பட்ட பிரபாகரனின் சுவரொட்டிகள் ஒட்டப்பட்டதுடன் சில விரும்பத்தகாதாத செயற்பாடுகளும் நிகழ்கின்றன என்ற தகவல் கிடைக்கப்பெற்றதும் .அதனை நிறுத்துவதற்காக இராணுவமும் பொலிஸாரும் வளாகத்திற்குள் நுழைய வேண்டிய சூழல் ஏற்பட்டது.

சில அரசியல் வாதிகள் சுயலாபம் தேடும் நோக்குடன் மாணவர்களைத் தூண்டிவிட்டுள்ளனர். அத்துடன் 15 ஆயிரம் பாதுகாப்புப்படையினர் இருக்கின்ற இடத்தில் அவர்கள் ஒரு இலட்சத்திற்கு மேற்பட்டவர்கள் இருக்கின்றனர் என்று கூறிவருகின்றனர். இது தவறான கருத்து.

இலங்கையில் உள்ள  இதர பல்கலைக்கழகங்கள் போலவே யாழ். பல்கலைக்கழகமும். அதில் எந்த வேறுபாடும் இல்லை.மாணவர்கள் பல்கலைக்கழகத்திற்குள் இருக்கும் போது அவர்களுக்கு கல்விதான் முக்கியம். கல்வியை முடித்து வெளியில் வந்து அவர்கள் அரசியல் நடத்தலாம். அதற்கு எந்தத் தடையும் இல்லை.

தர்சானந் மற்றும் ஜெனமேஜெயன் ஆகியோரை எனக்கு 8 மாதங்களுக்கு முன்பே தெரியும். கல்வியில் மாத்திரம் கவனம் செலுத்துங்கள் என்று அவர்களுக்கு நான் கூறியிருந்தேன்.

தற்போது குறித்த நால்வரும் பயங்கரவாத தடைச்சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கைது செய்யப்படவில்லை. சாதாரணமான கைதாகவே அமைகின்றது. எனினும் இவர்களது உறுதிப்பாடு தளர்ந்து தாம் நிரபராதிகள் எனக் கூறும் வரைக்கும் இவர்கள் தடுத்து வைக்கப்படுவார்கள். இது தவிர்க்க முடியாத ஒன்றாகும்.

எனினும் அவர்களுடைய உறுதிப்பாட்டில் மாற்றம் ஏற்படுமாயின் அவர்களை விரைவாக விடுதலை செய்வதற்கு நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கமுடியும் என்றார்.

 மாறாக இனியும் விடுதலைப்புலிகளின் தலைவர் பிரபாகரன் வருவார் எனவும், அவரின் கொள்கைகள் பின்பற்றப்பட வேண்டும் எனவும், இவர்கள் கனவு காண்பார்கள்  ஆனால்,  அந்தக்கனவு கலைக்கப்படும் வரையில் அவர்கள் விடுதலை செய்யப்படப் போவதில்லை.

மேலும் புலம்பெயர் நாடுகளிலுள்ள நெடியவன், விநாயகம் போன்ற பயங்கரவாதிகளுடன் இவர்களுக்கு நேரடியான தொடர்புகள் இருப்பதை நாம் உறுதி செய்திருக்கின்றோம்.

இதிலும் பல்கலைக்கழக மாணவர் ஒன்றியத்தின் செயலாளரான தர்சானந்த் மற்றும் சொலமன் ஆகியோர் புலிகள் அமைப்பின் பிரிகேடியர் தரத்திலானவர்கள்.

ஜே.வி.பியின் போராட்டத்திற்கும், புலிகளின் போராட்டத்திற்கும் நிறையவே வித்தியாசமுள்ளது. புலிகள் தனிநாடு கோரி போராடினார்கள். அதற்கு நாம் ஒருபோதும் அனுமதிக்க மாட்டோம்.

உலகமே புலிகளை பயங்கரவாதிகள் என அடையாளப்படுத்தியிருக்கின்றது.
எனவே நாம் இதற்கு அனுமதிக்க மாட்டோம். எனக் கூறியதுடன், விரிவுரையாளர்களும்,பெற்றோரும் தமது பிள்ளைகள் தொடர்பில் பேச முற்பட்டபோது அவர்களை வாயை மூடுங்கள் என அடக்கியுள்ளார்.

இதனையடுத்து, கைதுசெய்யப்பட்ட மாணவர்களின் பெற்றோர் கண்ணீர் விட்டழுது தங்கள் பிள்ளைகளை விடுவியுங்கள் எனக் கேட்டபோது கிட்லர் பாணியில் சிரித்தபடியே எழுந்து சென்றுவிட்டார்

( தகவல் இலங்கை ஊடகங்கள்)

`எங்கிருந்தாலும் எம்மிடம் இருந்து தப்ப முடியாது` அசாத் அரசுக்கு ஐ.நா எச்சரிக்கைத் தூது சரணடைய ஆலோசனை!

ஏகாதிபத்திய நவீனகாலனியாதிக்க உலகமறுபங்கீட்டு ஆட்சிக்கவிழ்ப்பு சதிப்புரட்சி முற்றுகையில் சிரிய அசாத் அரசு.அடிபணிய ஆணை பிறப்பிக்கும் ஐ.நா. ``He can stay in Damascus and cling to — even die for — his father’s aspirations, to impose a secular Syrian order and act as a pan-Arab leader on a regional and global stage``. அகன்ற அரேபியம் என்ற எண்ணக்கருக் கொண்ட எல்லா அரேபியத் தலைவர்களையும் வேட்டையாடுகின்றது ஏகாதிபத்தியம்.இந்தப் பின்னணியில் தான் `எங்கிருந்தாலும் எம்மிடம் இருந்து தப்ப முடியாது` என ஐ.நா செய்தி அனுப்பியுள்ளது.======================================================

No Easy Route if Assad Opts to Go, or to Stay, in Syria      By ANNE BARNARD and HWAIDA SAAD

Published: December 24, 2012

SANA, via European Pressphoto Agency

President Bashar al-Assad, right, on Monday with Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy.
Explosions bloom over the Damascus suburbs. His country is plunging deeper into chaos. The United Nations’ top envoy for the Syrian crisis, Lakhdar Brahimi, met with Mr. Assad in the palace on Monday in an urgent effort to resolve the nearly two-year-old conflict.

How Mr. Assad might respond to Mr. Brahimi’s entreaty depends on his psychology, shaped by a strong sense of mission inherited from his iron-fisted father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad; his closest advisers, whom supporters describe as a hard-line politburo of his father’s gray-haired security men; and Mr. Assad’s assessment, known only to himself, about what awaits him if he stays — victory, or death at the hands of his people.

From his hilltop, Mr. Assad can gaze toward several possible futures.
East of the palace lies the airport and a possible dash to exile, a route that some say Mr. Assad’s mother and wife may have already taken. But the way is blocked, not just by bands of rebels, but by a belief that supporters say Mr. Assad shares with his advisers that fleeing would betray both his country and his father’s legacy.

He can stay in Damascus and cling to — even die for — his father’s aspirations, to impose a secular Syrian order and act as a pan-Arab leader on a regional and global stage.

Or he can head north to the coastal mountain heartland of his minority Alawite sect, ceding the rest of the country to the uprising led by the Sunni Muslim majority. That would mean a dramatic comedown: reverting to the smaller stature of his grandfather, a tribal leader of a marginalized minority concerned mainly with its own survival.

Mr. Brahimi was closemouthed about the details of his meeting, but has warned in recent weeks that without a political solution, Syria faces the collapse of the state and years of civil war that could dwarf the destruction already caused by the conflict that has taken more than 40,000 lives.
A Damascus-based diplomat said Monday that Mr. Assad, despite official denials, is “totally aware” that he must leave and was “looking for a way out,” though the timetable is unclear.

“More importantly,” said the diplomat, who is currently outside of Syria but whose responsibilities include the country, “powerful people in the upper circle of the ruling elite in Damascus are feeling that an exit must be found.”

Yet others close to Mr. Assad and his circle say any retreat would clash with his deep-seated sense of himself, and with the wishes of increasingly empowered security officials, whom one friend of the president’s has come to see as “hotheads.”

Mr. Assad believes he is “defending his country, his people, and his regime and himself” against Islamic extremism and Western interference, said Joseph Abu Fadel, a Lebanese political analyst who supports Mr. Assad and met with government officials last week in Damascus.

Analysts in Russia, one of Syria’s staunchest allies, say that as rebels try to encircle Damascus and cut off escape routes through Hama province to the coast, the mood in the palace is one of panic, evinced by erratic use of weapons: Scud missiles better used against an army than an insurgency, naval mines dropped from the air instead of laid at sea.

But even if Mr. Assad wanted to flee, it is unclear if the top generals would let him out alive, Russian analysts say, since they believe that if they lay down arms they — and their disproportionately Alawite families — will die in vengeance killings, and need him to rally troops.

“If he can fly out of Damascus,” Semyon A. Bagdasarov, a Middle East expert in Moscow, said — at this, he laughed dryly — “there is also the understanding of responsibility before the people. A person who has betrayed several million of those closest to him.”

Many Syrians still share Mr. Assad’s belief that he is protecting the Syrian state, which helps explain how he has held on this long. At a lavish lunch hosted by a Lebanese politician outside Beirut in September, prominent Syrian backers of Mr. Assad — Alawites, Sunnis and Christians — spoke of the president, over copious glasses of Johnnie Walker scotch, as the bulwark of a multicultural, modern Syria.

But one friend of Mr. Assad, stepping out of earshot of the others to speak frankly, said the president’s advisers are “hotheads” who tell him, “ ‘You are weak, you must be strong,’ ” adding, “They are advising him to strike more, with the planes, any way that you can think of.”
“They speak of the rebels like dogs, terrorists, Islamists, Wahhabis,” the friend said, using a term for adherents to a puritanical form of Islam. “This is why he will keep going to the end.”
The friend added that even though Mr. Assad sometimes speaks of dialogue, he mainly wants to be a hero fending off a foreign attack. “He is thinking of victory — only victory.”

Such a crisis is the last thing that was expected for the young Bashar al-Assad. He was the stalky, shy second brother with the receding chin, dragged from a quiet life as a London ophthalmologist after the death in 1994 of his swaggering older brother, Basil al-Assad, who crashed his sports car while speeding toward the airport — along the very road that is now engulfed in fighting.

Mr. Assad’s father, Hafez, held power from 1970 to 2000, raising a second-tier clan from the oppressed Alawite minority to power and wealth. But critics say the Assads used four decades in power not to promote meaningful ethnic and religious integration, but to cement Alawite rule with a secular face.

After the uprising began as a peaceful protest movement in March 2011, Mr. Assad rejected calls for deep reform — from his people, from Turkish officials who spent years cultivating him, even from militant groups he had long sponsored, Hamas and Hezbollah, which, according to Hamas, offered to arrange talks with the rebels.

Instead, Mr. Assad took his father’s path. To put down an Islamist revolt in the 1980s, Hafez al-Assad bulldozed entire neighborhoods and killed at least 10,000 people. The son now presides over a crackdown-turned-civil war that has killed four times that many, and counting.

In a government that has become even more secretive, it is impossible to know exactly how Mr. Assad makes his decisions. Some people say he wanted to reform but his father’s generals and intelligence officials, along with his mother, convinced him that reforms would bring their downfall.
“There are two Bashar al-Assads,” said Jürgen Todenhöfer, a German journalist who interviewed him in July. One is a quiet man “who doesn’t like his job” and wants a way out, he said; the other wants to show his family and the world, “I’m not a softy.”

Others say that Mr. Assad’s reformist impulses were always meant only to bring access to the luxuries and approval of the West.

The Assads were raised by their father and their uncles — aggressive men — to believe “they were demigods and Syria was their playground,” said Rana Kabbani, the daughter of a prominent diplomat who knew them growing up.

Turkish officials say that in frequent talks during the revolt’s first months, Mr. Assad listened calmly to their criticisms, took personal responsibility for the government’s actions and promised to seek resolution.

“Either he is a professional liar or he can’t deliver on what he promises,” said a senior Turkish official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Now, Mr. Assad, 47, faces a set of unpalatable choices. Fleeing to become an Alawite militia leader is likely hard to imagine for the president, who grew up in Damascus, reached out to and married into the Sunni elite, and was even mocked in his ancestral village for his Damascus accent, said Joshua Landis, an Oklahoma University professor who studies Syria and Alawites.

Mr. Assad was long believed to take advice from his mother; his brother Maher, who heads the army’s feared Fourth Division; his brother-in-law Asef Shawkat; and his cousins, the Makhloufs.
But his mother is believed to have fled Syria in recent weeks. Mr. Shawkat, the deputy defense minister, was killed in a bombing in July. The Makhloufs are believed to be spiriting money out of the country. Maher has been reported to have lost a leg in the bombing, but still to be commanding troops.

Turkish, Russian, Syrian and Lebanese analysts agree: Mr. Assad’s main advisers are now his father’s hard-liners and the leaders of the shabiha militias that have carried out attacks on government opponents.

If there ever existed moderates in the government who might cajole Mr. Assad to hand power to a successor who could preserve the Syrian state, that option now appears increasingly remote.
“So much blood has been shed, and it’s impossible to do this,” Mr. Bagdasarov said.

An Alawite businessman in the coastal region who said he knew Mr. Assad’s circle said the one person who might persuade him to leave is his wife, Asma, but she has taken little role in the crisis. She and their children have either left, or been prevented from leaving by Maher, or have insisted on staying — depending on the latest rumor from an edgy Damascus.

Reporting was contributed by Kareem Fahim and David D. Kirkpatrick from Beirut, Ellen Barry from Moscow, Sebnem Arsu from Istanbul, Rick Gladstone from New York, and an employee of The New York Times from Tartus, Syria.

Russia signs $3bn arms deals with India

Russia signs $3bn arms deals with India
Published: 24 December, 2012, 17:36 Edited: 24 December, 2012, 21:00 RT

Russia will sell India military helicopters and military equipment worth about $3bn under a new agreement as bilateral trade might double to $20bn by 2015.

­Russian President Vladimir Putin and India’s PM Manmohan Singh signed a number of arms deals during Putin’s visit to Delhi, which include the supply of 71 military helicopters for $1.3bn and kits to assemble 42 Sukhoi jet fighters for a further $1.6bn.

India is currently the world's largest arms importer, and one of Russia's top clients for arms sales as Russian-made military equipment accounts for 70% of Indian weaponry.

Trade between Russia and India has been growing steadily and is expected to reach around $10bn dollars in 2012, up from $7.5bn in 2009, according to Indian official figures. Ahead of the visit, the Russia President called to increase bilateral trade to $20bn by 2015.

"Our trade turnover has overcome the consequences of the global crisis, and in 2012 we expect to reach record numbers, over $10 billion. Our next goal is to reach $20bn by 2015," Putin said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh ahead of a meeting at Singh's residence in New Delhi on December 24, 2012 (AFP Photo / Mustafa Quraishi)

The agreements are expected to overcome a recent slowdown in arms procurement as India has shown increased interest in western suppliers. Last month Dehli preferred Boeing over Russia's MiG for a major helicopter contract.

Trade relations with India were complicated by Russian efforts to improve relations with Pakistan. India has also been unhappy with a delay in delivery of the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov. It was originally due to be delivered in August 2008 but has been postponed to the end of 2013, while the price has more than doubled to $2.3 billion.

In addition to the agreements signed on Monday Russia Helicopters and India's Elcom Systems Private Ltd are to set up a joint venture to manufacture helicopters, according to Indian Foreign Ministry officials.

Despite some negative moments in the two countries’ trade relations, the bigger picture looks much better, according to Professor and Dean at the Jindal School of international affairs in New Delhi Dr. Sreeram Chaulia.

“Both countries have a list of sore points to put it so. Indians want the aircraft career to be delivered faster, and there have been issues about attempting to increase the civilian part of the trade. The civilian part of the trade has unfortunately remained limited to 10 billion dollars per annum and we would like to see it going much faster. India-China for example is over 70 billion dollars,” Dr. Chaulia told RT. “But as I said before, if you look at the big picture in any strong solid special relationship like ours you can find occasional creases here and there which can be ironed out and smoothed out at highest political level.”

President Putin and PM Singh have also discussed security in the region during the meeting in Delhi.
"India and Russia share the objective of a stable, united, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan, free from extremism," Singh said.

Putin has also met President Pranab Mukherjee, Sonia Gandhi, chairman of India’s ruling United Progressive Alliance, and Sushma Swaraj, leader of the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. The leaders meeting was relocated to Singh's residence due to security reasons as massive protests over widespread violence against women in the country took place in Delhi.
-----------------------