Popular Posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Major William Alexander Brown,MBE,Sitara e Pakistan-British Scot Leader of Gilgit Rebellion


Major William Alexander Brown,MBE,Sitara e Pakistan-British Scot Leader of Gilgit Rebellion


Major William Alexander Brown-Obituary


Major Agha.H.Amin (Retired) , Armoured Corps



Major William Alexander Brown,MBE,Sitara e Pakistan-British Scot Leader of Gilgit Rebellion

 

Major William Alexander Brown-Obituary

 

Major Agha.H.Amin (Retired) , Armoured Corps



 

Major William Alexander Brown was born at Melrose,Scotland on 22 December 1922.

 

His father had served in the Gordon Highlanders in WW One and won an MC.His grandfather had been a liberal MP from 1886 to 1892.

 

After education at St Marys preparatory school and George watson College Edinburgh Brown joined Argyll snd Sutherland Highlanders as a plain soldier in April 1941.

 

In December 1941 he sailed for India and was selected for the Officer Training School Bangalore,receiving his commission as a second lieutenant in the 10/12 Frontier Force Regiment.

 

Soon after being commissioned he was transferred to the frontier scouts and served in South Waziristan  Scouts with which he fell in love.He here acquired proficiency in Pashto.In early 1943 Brown was posted as APA in Chilas where he built a polo ground.Here he acquired proficiency in the local language Shina as well as Burushaski.In 1946 he was posted to the Tochi Scouts in North Waziristan.In June 1947 he was posted to Chitral as Acting Commandant of Chitral Scouts.

 

On way to Chitral he was posted as Commandant of Gilgit Scouts in view of new developments as Lord Mountbatten had decided to transfer back lease of Gilgit to Kashmir state.He was promoted to rank of major and arrived in Gilgit on 29 July 1947.Gilgit was handed over to Jammu and Kashmir state on 1 August 1947 and the British flag lowered.He was now 25 years old.

 

In October 1947 the unofficial  Kashmir war began.The Maharaja of Kashmir decided to disband Gilgit Scouts as it was an All Muslim unit and feared a revolt.To pre-empt this the Gilgit Scouts planned a rebellion.They found an unexpected ally in major Brown who decided to lead them.On 31 October 1947 Major Brown led the Gilgit Rebellion as a result f which Northern Areas and Baltistan were captured by Gilgit Scouts and the area aceded to Pakistan.Major Brown planned all major attacks of the Gilgit Scouts.He returned to Pakistan from Gilgit in January 1948.

 

In July 1948 the British Government awarded him an MBE with a very vague citation.This proves that his actions were accepted as that of a hero in higher quarters of the British Empire.

 

He joined the ICI and stayed on in Pakistan till 1959.

 

In July 1957 he married Margaret Rosemary Cooksley who was serving in the British High Commission at Karachi from whom he had a son named William in 1958.

 

Brown died of a heart attack on 5 December 1984.

 

He was posthomously awarded Pakistans highest civilian award Sitara e Pakistan on 23 March 1994.

 

His diary titled Gilgit Rebellion was posthomously published by her widow in 1998.

 

Major Brown had a deep understanding of human nature in war.This was off course a result of his knowledge of frontier warfare.

 

He thus defined " Blood Lust" as the most powerful desire in human nature ! A desire he said was even more powerful than the sex lust !

 

He loved the Pashtun tribesmen and his tombtone contained the epitaph " DATTA KHEL" in fond memory of his service as a Wing Commander in North Waziristan.

 

Major Brown thus assessed the Baramula massacre of 1947 in the following words--

 

"The ghastly story of the sack of Baramula is too well known to be repeated.I would however like to say that an excess of blame for the dreadful atrocities must not be laid on the tribesmen.They committed atrocities no doubt,but they committed them while under the influence of bloodlust.Bloodlust is the most powerful  human desire,even more so than the sex lust.When a man is under its spell he cannot be held responisble for his actions.As those with experience of warfare between so called civilised nations will testify,the bloodlust is not merely confined to barbaric races such as the trans frontier Pathans.I am not attempting  to condone the massacre of Europeans at Baramula,or the dreadful things which happened to the nuns of St Josephs hosital;but they were not treated thus because they were Europeans,rather they were victims in the general welter of blind fury and unbridled passion which raged in the township".

 

Brown identified himself in the spirit of man with the Pashtuns who he loved.

 

He thus compared himself with the tribal Pashtuns in the following words-

 

"My views may be influenced by my Scottish Border blood.In the good old days of receiving and robbing in the "debatable land" it was a case of every man for himself and the survival of the fittest.We had a slogan which went: "Let him take who has the power" , " And let him hold who can". And this ,I thought was Pakistan should have done in Kashmir".

 

Major Brown a keen shot loved his Gilgit lunches of Chukor (Red Legged Partridge) washed down with good wines and liquors.

 

Major Brown noted that Pandit Kak the Kashmir state prime minister sacked on 11 August 1947 saw the future peace and prosperity of Kashmir in joining Pakistan.

 

 



My association with Northern Areas began in July 1979 when my father was posted as commander of a brigade group with headquarters at Jaglot Farm for being vocal in making fun of the tinpot Zia regime in July 1979.



This was a dark period in Pakistans chequered history when a shabby looking man with a most unofficer like appearance , through extreme sycophancy had become Pakistans army chief !


There is no doubt that we all hated him !






 

It was here at Jaglot where I read a much unknown book titled "The Liberation of Northern Areas" by one Major Sikandar Khan (later colonel).The book contained details of one Major Browns central role in this small but decisive campaign.This was October 1979.Much later I met Sikandars son who served with me in my fourth unit 15 Lancers in 1988-90.



 

In 2000 after I wrote my book Pakistan Army till 1965 I received a letter from one Mr Peter Inchbald who had served in Northern Areas with Major Brown.Inchbald also sent me Browns book " The Gilgit Brown" as directed  by Mrs Major Brown.

 

This obituary is part based on the above mentioned books.



Major Sikandar states in his book that Major Brown was on verge of escaping to Chitral on his horse when he was dissuaded by the Gilgit Scouts and requested that he lead their rebellion ! This Major Brown gladly did ! The reason for his going to Chitral was that he loathed and disliked the Dogras as he identified himself with the Muslims.

 

My account of the Gilgit Rebellion was more influenced by Major Sikandar Khans book rather than Major Browns book which I saw for the first time only in 2000.

 

After reading Major Browns account it appears that the Gilgit Rebellion was not as smooth as depicted in Sikandars book.

 

Both Brown and Mr Peter Inchbald with whom I actually communicated by e mail were at loggerheads with Captain Mirza Hassan.

 

Brown actually described Hassan at various places as ambitious, a liar and one who saw himself as a field marshal.

 

All these matters can be researched into by future historians but there is no doubt that Major Browns role in the Gilgit Rebellion was central and decsisive.As an officer who had held command of a wing he was far superior in planning abilities to the JCos of Gilgit Scouts.

 

Brown particularly admired Shah Khan who was to remain a central figure in Gilgit much later.

 

However there is no doubt that the rebellion was a joint effort of both the Ismailis , the Shias who Brown and Inchbald did not like and some Sunnis too.

 

It may be too late to understand the reality now as most key characters of that era are dead or senile in their old age.

 

 

 

 

















Father , self and Colonel Rathore , the hero of  Paksey Bridge
1890s while on term break from PMA in 1982 
 On the Khunjerab Top , January 1981.From left Saleem Khan the greatest hunter of Northern Areas from Raheemabad near Dih , myself , father ,jeep driver , Lieutenant Colonel Khokhar
 On the Khunjerab Top , January 1981.From left Saleem Khan the greatest hunter of Northern Areas from Raheemabad near Dih , myself , father ,jeep driver , Lieutenant Colonel Khokhar






He was shot in the shoulder and badly wounded I am told ! Khalil also went missing from the compass after 1987.


Khunjerab Pass,September 1982 while on end term of third term from PMA



Receiving the Military Commander of Chinese Singkiang Military Command and senior Chinese Intelligence officials , 24 July 1979 ,authors father in peak cap in centre,myself on extreme left

Tea served to the Chinese VIP guest with military simplicity




THE FAREWELL OF THE CHINESE MILITARY ENGINEERS AFTER THEY COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION OF SHISHKAT BRIDGE
Commander of Peoples Liberation Army Military Engineering Group in Northern Areas visits Jaglot Farm for farewell visit to meet Commander 491 Brigade Group (authors father)





Commander 491 Brigade Group makes the farewell speech after dinner at Passu










Click on picture to see complete picture

Bloody Fridays and Sundays—Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur.


 
"I know that I am prejudiced on this matter, but I would be ashamed of myself if I were not."
Mark Twain
 

"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself." - Joseph Pulitzer


COMMENT: Bloody Fridays and Sundays —Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur


Demographic changes sustained 'with a dagger at their throat' since 1542 brought about the partition of Ireland. The Pakistani state envisages the same solution for Balochistan by holding the Baloch nation hostage with 'a dagger at their throat'. However, the Baloch have not acquiesced and continue to resist at a great price of Baloch blood



"Should a robber break into my house, and, with a dagger at my throat, make me seal deeds to convey my estate to him, would this give him any title? Just such a title by his sword has an unjust conqueror who forces me into submission. The injury and the crime is equal, whether committed by the wearer of a crown or some petty villain" — John Locke.

The Baloch fears of the lethal impact of demographic changes being overtly and covertly engineered by the state are certainly not unfounded. There has been a consistent effort on part of Pakistan to undo the Baloch majority to undermine the support for those resisting Pakistan's attempts to exploit Balochistan's natural resources and its large land mass. The so-called development programmes like the Gwadar port or infrastructures like the Mirani Dam, highways, etc, are just a fig leaf for engineering demographic changes that are now supplemented by slow track genocide; the cantonments and naval bases being the 'sword to force them into submission'.

The colonisation of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand are too obvious. I take the example of Ireland and Northern Ireland to illustrate the effects that engineered demographic changes wreak on the indigenous people and how resistance leads to different outcomes. It is also an apt analogy for the Baloch resistance to Pakistani hegemony.

Northern Ireland today is one of the four countries of the UK, though it was Ireland before. The 2001 UK census showed its population was 1,685,000 and constituted about three percent of Britain but 30 percent of Ireland's total population. The colonists had chosen the best area for themselves, hence the population concentration.

Northern Ireland today consists of six of the nine counties of the Irish province of Ulster. It was created as a distinct division of the UK on May 3, 1921 under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Because of its unique history, the issue of symbolism, name, description, citizenship and identity of Northern Ireland is complex. In general, the Unionists, the planted Protestant population, consider themselves British and the nationalists, mostly Roman Catholics Irish, see themselves as Irish, though these identities are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Ireland has a long history of resistance to British colonialism. The region that is now Northern Ireland was the bedrock of the Irish war of resistance in the late 16th century. In 1542, though King Henry VIII declared it as Kingdom of Ireland, the Irish resistance made English control fragmentary. However, following Irish defeat at the Battle of Kinsale in 1607 the region was colonised by Protestant English (mainly Anglican) and Scottish (mainly Presbyterian) settlers. Between 1610 and 1717 as many as 100,000 Lowlanders came across from Scotland, and by 1717 there were some five Scots to every three Irishmen and one Englishman in Ulster. This engineered demographic imbalance gave birth to Northern Ireland.

The Irish continued to battle for freedom but following their defeat in 1691 the Anglican ruling class in Ireland passed a series of penal laws making it materially disadvantageous for the Catholic (read Irish) community. This institutional discrimination saw secret, militant societies develop in communities and act on sectarian tensions in violent attacks; with nationalism and religion overlapping each other.

The 1798 Belfast-based Society of the United Irishmen cross-community rebellion, inspired by the French Revolution, sought to break constitutional ties between Ireland and Britain and unite Irishmen. To stop the spread of French-style republicanism, Great Britain merged Ireland in 1801 forming the UK of Great Britain and Ireland, which was governed from London.

Due to relentless Irish struggle against injustices, the demand for Ireland's autonomy became a reality with Parliament Act 1911 in 1912 when the House of Commons, realising that the Irish could no longer be kept as subjects, vetoed the objections of the House of Lords who staunchly supported the Unionists. In 1914, the Home Rule opponents, unionist politicians and militants smuggled thousands of rifles and ammunition from Imperial Germany for the Ulster Volunteers a paramilitary organisation to oppose Home Rule violently. Here the state sponsors the Baloch Mussala Diffa Tanzeem and Tehreek Nifaz Aman Balochistan to eliminate its opponents in Balochistan.

The Unionists, though a minority in Ireland, had a majority in six counties of Northern Province of Ulster, which led to the partition of Ireland and these six counties became Northern Ireland while overwhelmingly majority-nationalist 26 counties became the Republic of Ireland. Britain got the 'title' with the 'sword of unjust conqueror'.

Ireland was eventually partitioned between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland in 1921 under the terms of Lloyd Georg''s Government of Ireland Act 1920 agreed to during the war of independence between Ireland and Britain. At the conclusion of that war on December 6, 1922, Northern Ireland provisionally became an autonomous part of the newly independent Irish Free State.

However, as expected, the Northern Ireland parliament resolved to opt out of the Irish Free State. Shortly afterwards, a commission was established to demarcate territorial boundaries between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. Irish leaders in Dublin expected a substantial reduction in the territory of Northern Ireland but were blackmailed by promised waiver of Free State's financial obligations to UK's public debt.

Demographic changes sustained 'with a dagger at their throat' since 1542 brought about the partition of Ireland. The Pakistani state envisages the same solution for Balochistan by holding the Baloch nation hostage with 'a dagger at their throat'. However, the Baloch have not acquiesced and continue to resist at a great price of Baloch blood.

The Baloch resistance here continues unabated as had the resistance of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) for the entire Ireland till 1921 and Provisional IRA until the implementation of the 'Good Friday Agreement' in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the Unionists were supported by Royal Ulster Constabulary and here they are supported by the Frontier Corps. Here too there are quite a few Ian Paisleys who are more loyal to the king than the king himself.

The January 30, 1972, 'Bloody Sunday' in Derry in which 13 protestors, including seven teenagers, were killed had given impetus to the struggle in Northern Ireland. In Balochistan although every day is a 'Bloody Sunday', now it was the 'Bloody Friday' of July 15, 1960 (20th Muharram, 1380 AH) when seven Baloch freedom fighters of Nawab Nauroz Khan were hanged at Sukkur and Hyderabad jails that doomed this enforced federation.


The writer has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com
 

Sunday, February 26, 2012

: GTV 300 Vespa Scooters, VS 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham De Elegance

FROM K BAJWA SAHIB
 
In view of the terrifying economic days ahead, I have sold my super long 1987 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham De Elegance last month. It was king of Luxury and had only 90,000 mile in 25 long years. However, 8 miles to a gallon when gasoline is about to hit $6 a gallon, was turning it into a white elephant. Therefore:  
toymchne138's 1987 Cadillac Brougham
 
I am about to buy the good old Vespa + a Side Car + a Rain Poncho. It does about 65 to 70 mpg. Any Suggestions?
 
 
 

Afghan Intelligence Officer Killed U.S. Military Advisers: Reports




Afghan Intelligence Officer Killed U.S. Military Advisers: Reports


http://en.trend.az/regions/world/afghanistan/1996855.html

 Deutsche Presse-Agentur
 February 26, 2012

 Afghan intelligence officer killed US military advisers: reports

 A 25-year-old Afghan intelligence officer has been identified as "the main suspect" in the killing of two US military advisers inside the Interior Ministry building in Kabul, media reports said Sunday, dpa reported.

 Abdul Saboor joined the police forces two years ago and had one of the highest security clearances in the ministry. He is now believed to be on the run, local television Tolo quoted senior Afghan security officials as saying.

 Security forces have already raided his house in the north-eastern province of Parwan, just north of Kabul, and have detained several of his relatives, according to the reports.

 NATO-led international forces have recalled their personnel working at various Afghan ministries after the killing.

 Saboor had served in several Afghan ministries and had worked at the interior ministry for some time, officials said.

 The killing of the US advisers came on the fifth day of deadly protests over the accidental burning of the Koran by US soldiers at Bagram air base. Investigators have not yet formally linked the killing to the incident, but it follows Taliban calls for revenge.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/61839666/Indo-Pak-Wars-A-Pictorial-History


http://www.scribd.com/doc/21686885/TALIBAN-WAR-IN-PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN-A-WRITERS-PERCEPTIONS-FROM-2001-TO-2011


http://www.scribd.com/doc/22457862/Military-Decision-making-and-leadership


http://www.scribd.com/doc/22151765/History-of-Pakistan-Army-from-1757-to-1971-PRINTING-ENABLED-Do-acknowledge-to-the-author


http://www.scribd.com/doc/22455178/Letters-to-Command-and-Staff-College-Quetta-Citadel-Journal


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23150027/Pakistan-Army-through-eyes-of-Pakistani-Generals


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23701412/War-of-Independence-of-1857


http://www.scribd.com/doc/22107238/HISTORY


http://www.scribd.com/doc/21693873/Indo-Pak-Wars-1947-71-A-STRATEGIC-AND-OPERATIONAL-ANALYSIS-BY-A-H-AMIN-THIS-BOOK-CAN-BE-PRINTED-FROM-THIS-SITE

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Lloyds of London Suit: Saudi Gov't Sponsored 9/11

FROM AMBASSADOR GAJENDRA SINGH

What comments .

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Raman Subramanian <tsrsubramanian@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Gajendra,

Does this sound credible? Does the suit have a chance of success?

Best regards,

TSR Subramanian




 

Lloyds of London seeks $215 million in damages from Saudi Arabia, and outlines a long list of evidence to justify its lawsuit against the kingdom. It seems we are getting closer to the truth now.
 
Suit: Saudi Gov't Sponsored 9/11

Justice: A new 9/11 lawsuit portrays the Saudi government as having more control over al-Qaida charities before the attacks than it (or the U.S.) has admitted. Let's hear the truth.

Lloyds of London seeks $215 million in damages from the kingdom to recover claims it paid 9/11 victims and their families. The suit charges that the Saudi government funded al-Qaida through its banks and charities.

The complaint, filed in U.S. court, states that without official Saudi sponsorship, "al-Qaida would not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the Sept. 11 attacks." In other words, absent Saudi support, the Twin Towers would still be standing — along with nearly 3,000 Americans.

We're impressed by the documentation cited in the 156-page complaint by Cozen O'Conner, a major Washington law firm. It's much more detailed than the lawsuit brought on behalf of 9/11 families, which a federal judge dismissed for lack of evidence. This one might have a shot. It points to new intelligence, including recently leaked diplomatic cables.

Among the findings:

• Senior Saudi officials and Saudi royal family members — including Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif — either served as executives of suspect charities or sat on their boards while the charities were used to launder money to al-Qaida; and they knew of the activities.

• The Saudi charities themselves often provided not only money but employment cover, ID badges and logistical support to al-Qaida operatives.

• For example, the Saudi Joint Relief Committee for Kosovo and Chechnya (SJRC) allegedly was used as a cover by several al-Qaida operatives, including two men acting as directors of the charity.

• Between 1998 and 2000, SJRC allegedly diverted more than $74 million to al-Qaida members and loyalists affiliated with its bureaus.

• At the time the SJRC was under the control of Saudi Prince Naif, who after 9/11 denied that Saudis were among the hijackers and hinted that Jews carried out the attacks.

• Each of the dozen branches of the Saudi-based International Islamic Relief Organization, one of the charities Osama bin Laden used to finance his terror camps, is overseen by a Saudi royal; and a Philippines office was founded by bin Laden's brother-in-law.

• The Saudi royal family used its national bank to channel funds to bin Laden, and the family's longtime banker, Khalid bin Mahfouz, allegedly "is also a primary financier of al-Qaida."

• "Bin Mahfouz has acknowledged making a $270,000 contribution to bin Laden contemporaneous with the establishment of al-Qaida," the claim says. And it alleges that he and his "handpicked" bank partner, Yassin al-Kadi, now a wanted terrorist, "necessarily were aware of the terrorist activities."

As interior minister, Naif placed employees inside the Saudi embassy as well as consulates throughout the U.S. before 9/11. Some Los Angeles consulate officials and a San Diego-based Saudi intelligence agent have been linked to the hijackers and other terrorists.

In addition, computer hard drives seized in a post-9/11 raid of the offices of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a suspected al-Qaida front, included: materials for forging U.S. State Department ID badges; files on pesticides and crop-duster aircraft; photos of the bombed U.S. embassies in East Africa and the bombed USS Cole; and before and after photos of the World Trade Center.

Of course, Saudi officials have repeatedly denied any ties to 9/11 or al-Qaida. But the plaintiffs in this case have assembled in one place the most extensive record yet of Saudi government involvement.

The federal judge hearing the case should not be quick to dismiss it, no matter how many Saudi-bought lawyers and lobbyists argue otherwise.


















__._,_.___

__,_._,___




Syria: an interesting assessment from fmr. Australian ambassador.

FROM AMBASSADOR GAJENDRA SINGH

ABC Home  AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
The Drum Opinion 


Syria explained: a losing battle

Bob Bowker
There will be no winners emerging from the mess unfolding in Syria, only losers. But my best guess is that the Assad regime will survive for an extended period, albeit in a weakened state.
The insurgency has the capacity to continue, but not at a level of intensity or capability that would cause the regime to disintegrate. The militarisation of the revolt also works to the regime's advantage: it rallies the doubters, and leaves the Alawites no prospect of avoiding a sectarian bloodbath if the regime were to collapse.
The sceptic in me also feels that the revolt is going to be the victim of the US news cycle before long. There is a limit to the newsworthiness of continuing carnage (now mostly limited to Homs, it seems). If the regime can bring the level of violence down to some extent after crushing resistance in Homs I suspect the media focus will move elsewhere.
I also suspect Iran will lose less than most.
First, as the process continues, the Assad regime is being driven ever closer to Iran, economically and financially, and in terms of assistance in meeting its security needs. If the regime endures the Iranians will consolidate those gains. They were already building extensive links to the Alawite elite before 2011.
Second, if the regime falls, in the chaos that would follow Iran would have at least as many assets on the ground as any other external player. Any suggestion that a successor Sunni regime in Damascus would have the capacity simultaneously to impose order and to control Syria's borders is fanciful. Iran has the advantage of readily deployable operatives from Hezbollah and can use its own assets through Iraq. Those assets are experienced, capable and committed to a higher degree than any Arab counterpart apart from the jihadists, who for their part represent a tiger few sensible Arab governments would wish to ride. No-one can predict how the cards would eventually fall, but I would expect the Iranians to be more than capable of protecting their interests to a large extent under those circumstances.
I would regard the consolidation of Iranian influence in the Levant as a tragedy for the Arab world, which needs the widening of creative space and political freedoms. But however distasteful the Assad regime is, I am not convinced that its departure would serve that end.
The Saudis are no more popular, or respected, in Syria than the Iranians. Syrians are more secular than most Arabs in their social traditions and image of themselves as both Arab and modern. They fear the home-grown salafists and their Gulf backers, and for good reason.
Although they are rivals, the risk-averse Saudis have accommodated the Iranians before. The Saudi-sponsored Taif Agreement, followed by Saudi pressure for the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon after the Hariri assassination paved the way for Hezbollah's pre-eminence in Lebanon. As the chaos unfolds in Syria the Saudis may yet take a deep breath, and come to prefer a weakened, but basically intact Alawite regime that promised to distance itself from Tehran, as the price of keeping the Iranians from securing an even stronger position from Iraq to the Levant.
But any chance of maintaining Syria within the Arab fold comes back to a fundamental question. The issue is whether the Saudis (and other Gulf Arab rulers) can bring themselves to accept a Shia-dominated Iraq, or an Alawite-dominated Syria and a Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, all with close ties to Iran, as legitimate members of the Arab club which the Saudis and Egypt expect to dominate.
I am concerned that western countries may be indulging a Saudi and Qatari sense of self-importance under the guise of meeting an Iranian challenge. That rivalry might be better managed, at least in the Syrian context, by building greater dialogue between the Saudis and Iranians.
A sustainable regional security framework will have to be based on recognition by the Saudis that ties with Iran, natural for a host of social, geographic, economic and other reasons, are not necessarily prejudicial to the Arab identity of the region and Saudi Arabia's place in it.
The most important factor determining the outlook for security in the Gulf is not whether Iran is nuclear-capable, or militarily threatening to the Arab states and Israel. It is whether the Arab states, be their leaders Sunni or Shia, are politically strong, economically successful and militarily secure under US protection. The measures being taken and promoted by Qatar and the Saudis in regard to Syria, including the calls for arming the rebels, are not conducive to providing security for the region. Indeed, if anything, they are more likely to be counter-productive.
Bob Bowker was Australia's ambassador to Syria, accredited from Cairo, from 2005 to2008. He also served in Damascus from 1979 to 1981. View his full profile here.